HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 114-06NO CMR ISSUED
FOR THIS NUMBER
CMR: 114:06
6
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JANUARY 30, 2006 CMR: 115:06
SUBJECT:1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE & 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE [05-
PLN-00289]*: REQUEST BY TRUMARK COMPANIES ON BEHALF OF
BATTON ASSOCIATES, LLC AND HDP ASSOCIATES FOR A VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL INFILL
DEVELOPMENT TO MERGE TWO PARCELS (APPROX. 4.4 ACRES)
AND CREATE 75 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION PER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ZONE DISTRICT: LM.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend the City Council
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create
75 condominium units, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of
Land Use Action (Attachment A).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
At the public hearing held on Wednesday, November 9, 2005, the PTC voted to accept staff’s
recommendation (Commissioners Burt and Bialson abstained due to a conflict of interest). Eight
members of the public provided testimony; four persons were in support of the project and four
persons were opposed to the proposal. Comments from the public generally consisted of those
who supported the project due to the number of housing units, number of affordable units, and
design of the project. Those persons in opposition to the project were generally concerned about
the impact of this new development and others on existing schools, parks, libraries, the traffic
that would be generated, and the lack of project details and information distributed to the
community. The Commission and staff responded to questions asked by the public. No
modifications were made to the Recommended Conditions of Approval, contained within
Section 6 of the Record of Land Use Action document (Attachment A). Prior to the PTC
meeting, staff received questions emailed from Commissioners. Answers to the questions are
provided in the November 9, 2005 Supplemental PTC staff report (Attachment C).
CMR: 115:06 Page 1 of 3
The PTC staff reports and meeting minutes for this hearing have been provided as Attachments
B, C, and D.
DISCUSSION
The City Council must approve the Vesting Tentative Map as long as: the map, the design, and
the improvement are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the site is physically suitable for
the type and density of development; the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause environmental damage or serious public health problems; and the subdivision or
the proposed improvements ~vill not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large.
Because the applicant submitted a Vesting Tentative Map, should the map be approved, the
applicant will have a tentative map that is vested by right. This means that this map cannot be
changed or altered by changes in regulation.
The following items have been provided for the Council as background information:
o Environmental documentation: the Negative Declaration and Initial Study ~vith attachments
(Attachment E);
o Belo~v Market Rate Agreement Letter ~vith attachments (Attachment F);
¯Public correspondence (Attachment G);
,ARB architectural plans for informational purposes only (Attachment H) to aid in the review
of the Vesting Tentative Map plan set; and
~ Vesting Tentative Map plan set (Attachment I).
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
LORRAINE WEISS
Contract Plarmer.---~
and
ON
Assistant City Manager
Environment
ATTACHMENTS
A.Record of Land Use Action
B.Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report dated October 26, 2005
C.Planning and Transportation Commission Supplemental Staff Report dated November 9,
2005
D.Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt dated November 9,
2005
CMR: 115:06 Page 2 of 3
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Negative Declaration & Initial Study with attachments
Below Market Rate Agreement Letter with Attachments
Public Correspondence
Draft Guidelines from East Meadow Design Charette
ARB plans (Council Members Only)
Vesting Tentative Map (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, Project Applicant
Aaron Yakiglian, Trumark Companies, Project Leader
Thomas Morse, Project Engineer
Batton Associates, LLC, Property Owner
HDP Associates, LLC, Property Owner
JeffRensch, Palo Alto
Boris Foelsch, Palo Alto
Mark Sabin, Sunnyvale
Sally Probst, League of Women Votes of Palo Alto
Smita Joshi, Palo Alto
Pat Saffir, Palo Alto
Leah McGarriga, Palo Alto
Jiyon Hahn, Palo Alto
CMR: 115:06 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2006-?
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR i010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE AND
II01 EAST MEADOW DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
05-PLN-00289
(TRUMARK COMPANIES, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on January 30, 2006, the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge three
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION !. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves
merging the two existing parcels into one deve!opable site, the
demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of 75
condominium units. The density of this residential infill
development would be 17.2 dwelling units per acre, under the
maximum limitation set by the zone district (per Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.24, RM-30 regulations) of 30
dwelling units per acre. Of the total units proposed, eleven (ii)
shall be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Three (3)
separate floor plans are proposed within twelve (12) multi-unit
condominium buildings. Per each unit, the buildings house three
floors constructed above the garage. No building is proposed
taller than the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The unit sizes,
proposed from two to three bedrooms, range from the smallest at
1,213 s.f. to the largest at 1,625 s.f., plus parking garages of
approximately 450 to 600 square feet for each unit.
B. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes
information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet
3); the layout of new private streets and walkways, including the
various buildings with individual units, car wash structure, and
guest parking spaces (Sheets 4 and 5); utility information (Sheet
6); and cross-sections of new streets and walkways (Sheets 7, 8,
and 9). These drawings are in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain
all information and notations required to be shown on a Vesting
Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as
conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, wa!kways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set
also conforms to the approved ARB site plan, provided as reference
(see Attachment H) . Because the request is to create more than
!
four condominium units, this request cannot be processed
administratively through the Director and requires review by the
Commission and City Council approval (PAMC 21.08.010).
C. ARB approval, granted by the Director on July 25,
2005, addressed the project’s compliance with zoning and
architectural regulations. The Vesting Tentative Map application
has been reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with
zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances and received
Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review on
October 26, 2005. The Commission recommended approval on a 5-0-0-2
vote.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project prepared an Initial Study resulting in a
Negative Declaration and determined that the Project could not have
a significant effect on the environment.
In order to fully assess the project’s CEQA compliance,
staff requested and evaluated studies prepared by professional
consultants. The documents provided include: (I) trip generation
estimates-by Fehr & Peers dated March 30, 2005; (2) a noise
assessment-by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., dated May 24,
2005; (3) an air quality impact assessment--by Mindigo & Associates
dated May 14, 2005; and (4) a water quality and utility impacts
report-by BKF Engineers dated June 14, 2005. In addition, the
following were submitted and evaluated: an arborist report-by Arbor
Resources dated May 23, 2005; and a geotechnical feasibility
investigation-by Lowney Associates dated April 19, 2005. All
studies reviewed by staff are contained within the project file for
viewing upon request.
The studies provided pertained to traffic, noise, air and
water quality, and the applicability of constructing residences on
this location in terms of existing soils/geotechnical conditions
and assessment to determine the presence of environmental/hazardous
conditions. Staff has made the following conclusions in regard to
the project’s overall environmenta! review:
Less vehicle trips will occur in comparison to the existing uses
on site. In regard to the existing buildings, using Single-
Tenant Office rates calculates 916 daily trips, 127 AM, and 149
PM peak-hour trips. In comparison, the General Office rates
would be 1,203 daily trips, 168 AM, and 177 PM peak-hour trips.
For the new residential development, the rates would be 440
daily trips, 33 AM, and 39 PM peak-hour trips.
No noise generating features will be created on site (as air
conditioning units are optional and placement can be
controlled). In addition, less traffic noise would occur as
fewer trips would be generated;
Less air pollution would occur due to a decrease in the
generation of vehicle trips, and no other pollutant sources
would be generated on site;
No significant impacts to storm water or potable water quality
would occur, as only enhancements to each would occur in
redeveloping the site for residential use and the conversion
from commercial and light industrial use to residentia!
deve!opment would decrease in the amount of impervious surface
area on the site and reduce the peak storm water discharge. New
construction would involve the creation of more permeable
surface area; installation of surface treatment controls (such
as grass swales and bio-retention areas); utilization of various
best management practices; and the upgrade to existing potable
water and sewer lines;
No significant impact to groundwater would be made, as more
surface infiltration would be accomplished through the project’s
site design. In addition, no subsurface pumping is proposed;
No significant impacts would result to the site’s primary
natural resource-Protected, Regulated, and Street Trees--as only
those appropriately selected would be removed. Additional
trees, shrubs, and other plant materials would be installed per
the tree inventory/evaluation and preliminary landscape plan,
endorsed by the City’s Managing Arborist and in compliance with
the City’s Tree Technical Manual;
No significant impacts would result from the construction of
this project under the existing soils/geotechnical conditions of
the site. The submitted geotechnica! feasibility investigation
makes only suggestions related to construction techniques; and
Residential development would be compatible with onsite
environmental conditions, as no known conditions exist on the
site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmfu! or
hazardous.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans :
3
The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
related to the change in land use (housing element and policies L-
7, L-47, and H-3), below market rate units (BMR program, policy H-2
and programs H-I, H-3, and H-38), sustainable/green building design
(Goal H-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and program H-69), shared
recreational use (policy T-I), open space/amenities (policies N-15
and N-22), and relationship to adjacent properties (policies N-39,
N-40, and N-42) . In addition, this design furthers the intent of
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-47, which indicates that the East
Meadow Circle Area should be considered as a potential site for
higher density housing that provides a transition between existing
housing and nearby industrial development.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of developmen t :
The site is located within the Limited
Industrial/Research Park (LM) District, with existing development
on three individual parcels. This multiple-family residential-
infill project is a suitable use at this location and permissible
under the existing zone district and supported by land use policies
within the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated above in Finding No. 2.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
between different designated land uses in that it would now serve
as a transition between existing commercial uses and single-family
residences within the neighborhood.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development :
The purpose for the Vesting Tentative Map is to merge
the three existing parcels and create 75 condominium units. In
doing so, the site would remain within the permissible density
al!owed by the current LM zone district, which dictates compliance
with RM-30 site development regulations: A maximum site density of
132 total units or 30 dwelling units per acre. As proposed, this
map would enact 75 dwelling units, an amount under the maximum
permissible. Moreover, Comprehensive Plan policy L-47 indicates
the East Meadow Circle Area be considered as a potential site for
higher density housing.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat :
The merger of parcels and creation of condominium units
will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or
their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or
4
other sensitive species is present on site. As this project has
been determined to qualify as an In-fill development project under
CEQA section 15332 (detailed in Section 2 above), all new
development would occur within the areas of pre-existing
deve!opment, which currently consists of commercial and/or light
industria! buildings and surface parking areas.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
The merger of parcels and creation of condominium units will not
cause serious public health problems, as no increases in traffic or
noise or significant effects to air or water quality would result
in developing this site for residential use.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The new site design will not conflict with pre-existing
easements in that, it has been determined that i) the 10-foot box-
shaped Public Utilities Easement at the southeast corner of the
property shall remain and be maintained; 2) the !0-foot wide Public
Utilities Easement along the frontage of ii01 East Meadow Drive and
East Meadow Circle shall remain and be maintained; 3) that once the
two parcels are merged into one the existing 20-foot wide Public
Utilities Easement along the frontage of I010 East Meadow Circle
shall be removed and replaced with a !0-foot wide Public Utilities
Easement along the property frontage; 4) the existing sanitary
sewer easement at the northeast portion of I0i0 East Meadow Circle
parce! be removed; and 5) a new 20-foot wide Public Utilities
Easement on the interior.roadway though the property. These
easements have been determined acceptable by the Public Works
Department and Utilities Department and are referenced on Sheets 3
and 4 of the Vesting Tentative Map plan set.
SECTION 4.Vestinq Tentative Map Approval Granted.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5.Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF
Engineers, Surveyors,and Planners titled "Echelon Vesting
Tentative Map, consisting of 9 pages, dated and received August 15,
2005, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approva!
in Section 6.
A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any
part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in
Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) .
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map
approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]) .
2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)
shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal.
3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, attached to the staff
report. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the
identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for
their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded against
the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Prior to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
with the ARB and the Vesting Tentative Map approved plans and
conditions.
Department of Utilities
5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and
Planning and Community Environment, Public Utility Easements for
installat~on and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas
meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures
shal! be designated on the Final Map.
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary
and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the
Public Works Department.
7. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Transportation Departments after approval of the Vesting Tentative
Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting
shall determine the scope of all work required and related to
offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and
approved by the City prior to submittal of the Fina! Map.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
8. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter
into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is
required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB and
Vesting Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite
improvements. Improvement plans shall be submitted in relation to
this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued
until the Fina! Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara,
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
Designation on Improvement Plans
9. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site
shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works
standards. Additional public street improvements shall be made, as
determined by Public Works Engineering.
7
I0. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
ii. An ADA accessible/compliant curb ramp shall be required
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and East
Meadow Circle.
12. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained
for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above
grade, per City standards.
13. A Stop Control (i.e., stop sign, centerline tail, and a
Stop bar) at each of the two access driveways, one off of East
Meadow Drive and one off of East Meadow Circle be designated per
Caltrans Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) .
8
14. All crosswalks shal! have painted white edge lines per
MUTCD standards.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
15. This property is in a special flood hazard area and
notation of this shall appear on the recorded Final Map.
16. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording
of the Final Map to guarantee the completion.of the on and offsite
condition(s) of approva!. The amount of the bond shall be
determined by the Planning, Utilities, and Public Works
Departments.
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the
Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approva! of a
Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) .
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval
are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting
Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the
Vesting Tentative Map shal! expire and all proceedings shall
terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first
processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]) .
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DP~AWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners
titled "Vesting Tentative Map: East Meadow Drive", consisting of 9
pages, dated and received August 15, 2005.
i0
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Lorraine Weiss DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community
Environment
AGENDA DATE:October 26, 2005
SUBJECT:1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-
00289[:
Request by Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and
HDP Associates for a Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed residential
infill development. This map is requiredin order to merge two parcels
(approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units. Environmental
Assessment: Negative_Declaration per the California Environmental
Quality Act. Zone District: LM.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrequests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend approval
of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map, in order to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create
75 condominium units, to the City Council, based upon the findings and conditions contained within
the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Backgound information related to the project’s details and history has been included within the
Record of Land Use Action. The Vesting Tentative Map drawings, provided as Attachment H,
are in general conformance with the approved architectural review plans and conditions and
comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo A!to Municipal
Code (PAMC). Code requirements on this application from various City departments have also
been incorporated into the draft conditions of approval. The full set of approved architectural
review plans and project details/materials binder are available upon request. The only action
required of the Commission is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative Map. The site design
and architecture is subject only to Architectural Review Board’s (ARB)review.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
In order to carry out the proposed project, the applicant must obtain two discretionary permits, as
required by City ordinances: Major architectural review, which is within the purview of the
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) with recommendation from the
ARB; and a Tentative Map, which is within the purview of the City Council with
recommendation from the Commission. On July 2 I, 2005, the Director approved the ARB
component, with conditions including that specific details return to the ARB for review and
approval, since the project was found to comply with zoning and architectural regulations. The
Vesting Tentative Map application has been reviewed by staff and City departments for
compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.
The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Vesting Tentative Map
application should be limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In
this context, the terms ~design" and ~°improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as
follows:
"Design" means: (1) street ali~wnents, ~ades and widths; (2) drainage and
sanitary facilities and utilities, including aligrm~ents and ~ades thereof; (3)
location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads
and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) ~ading;
(8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other
specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire
subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation
of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to
Section 66473.5.
(Government Code, section 66418)
(a)
(b)
"Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or
a~eed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or
private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the
general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood
traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and
acceptance of the final map thereof.
"Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or tb~pes of
improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public
agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local
agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with,
or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan.
(Government Code, section 66419)
It should also be noted that, when processing a subdivision map for a condominium project, the
Subdivision Map Act does not require that the division of airspace be shown on the map.
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the
proposed structures to be located within the subdivision, which has already been reviewed
pursuant to the City’s ARB process.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite
conditions (Sheet 3); the layout of new private streets and walkways, including the various
buildings with individual units, car wash structure, and guest parking spaces (Sheets 4 and 5);
utility information (Sheet 6); and cross-sections of new streets and walkways (Sheets 7, 8 and 9).
These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance. These plans contain all information and no[ations required to be shown on a Vesting
Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design
requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC
21.20). The plan set also conforms to the approved ARB site plan, provided as reference (see
Attachment H). Because the request is to create more than four condominium units, this request
cannot be processed administratively through the Director and requires review by the
Commission and City Council approval (PANIC 21.08.010).
The project’s Below Market Rate A~eement Letter for 11 BMR units, in accordance with the
City’s BMR Program (Housing Element Program H-36), has been provided (Attachment C). For
information purposes only, the following have been included as attachments:
The applicant’s letter, ARB approval findings, and news article;
ARB approval conditions and findings, along with the staff report and minutes from the ARB
meeting at which approval was recommended; and
ARB architectural plans to aid in the Commission’s review of the Vesting Tentative Map
plan set.
TIMELINE:
Action:
ARB Application Received:
ARB Application Deemed Complete:
First Formal ARB Hearing:
Continuation of ARB Hearing of July:
Second ARB Hearing to fulfill conditions:
Director’s Approval of ARB Application:
Vest. Tentative Map Application Received:
Vest. Tent. Map Application Deemed Complete:
P&TC Meeting on Vesting Tent. Map:
Action by Council on Vesting Tent. Map:
Date:
August 15, 2005
September 15, 2005
July 21, 2005
August 18, 2005
October 20, 2005
July25, 2005
August 15, 2005
September 15, 2005
October 26, 2005
To Be Determined
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period from June
30, 2005 to July 19, 2005. A copy of the environmental document is provided in Attachment F.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Record of Land Use Action
B.Applicant’s Project Correspondence
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attachment A
APPROVAL NO. 2005-?
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR i010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE AND
1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
05-PLN-00289
(TRUMARK COMPANIES, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on , 2005, the City Council. of the City
of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge three
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves
merging the two existing parcels into one deve!opable site, the
demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of 75
condominium units. The density of this residentia! infill
development would be 17.2 dwelling units per acre, under the
maximum limitation set by the zone district (per Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.24, RM-30 regulations) of 30
dwelling units per acre. Of the tota! units proposed, eleven (ii)
shall be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Three (3)
separate floor plans are proposed within twelve (12) multi-unit
condominium buildings. Per each unit, the buildings house three
floors constructed above the garage. No building is proposed
taller than the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The unit sizes,
proposed from two to three bedrooms, range from the smallest at
1,213 s.f. to the largest at 1,625 s.f., plus parking garages of
approximately 450 to 600 square feet for each unit.
B. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes
information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet
3); the layout of new private streets and walkways, including the
various buildings with individual units, car wash structure, and
guest parking spaces (Sheets 4 and 5); utility information (Sheet
6); and cross-sections of new streets and walkways (Sheets 7, 8,
and 9). These drawings are in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain
all information and notations required to be shown on a Vesting
Tentative Map (per P~C Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as
conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). The plan set
also conforms to the approved ARB site plan, provided as reference
(see Attachment H) . Because the request is to create more than
Less air pollution would occur due to a decrease in the
generation of vehicle trips, and no other pollutant sources
would be generated on site;
No significant impacts to storm water or potable water quality
would occur, as only enhancements to each would occur in
redeveloping the site for residential use and the conversion
from commercial and light industrial use to residential
development would decrease in the amount of impervious surface
area on the site and reduce the peak storm water discharge. New
construction would involve the creation of more permeable
surface area; installation of surface treatment controls (such
as grass swales and bio-retention areas); utilization of various
best management practices; and the upgrade to existing potable
water and sewer lines;
No significant impact to groundwater would be made, as more
surface infiltration would be accomplished through the project’s
site design. In addition, no subsurface pumping is proposed;
No significant impacts would result to the site’s primary
natural resource-Protected, Regulated, and Street Trees--as only
those appropriately selected would be removed. Additional
trees, shrubs, and other plant materials would be installed per
the tree inventory/evaluation and preliminary landscape plan,
endorsed by the City’s Managing Arborist and in compliance with
the City’s Tree Technical Manual;
No significant impacts would result from the construction of
this project under the existing soils/geotechnical conditions of
the site. The submitted geotechnical feasibility investigation
makes only suggestions related to construction techniques; and
Residential development would be compatible with onsite
environmental conditions, as no known conditions exist on the
site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or
hazardous.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the desi gn or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans =
other sensitive species is present on site. As this project has
been determined to qualify as an In-fill development project under
CEQA section 15332 (detailed in Section 2 above), all new
development would occur within the areas of pre-existing
development, which currently consists of commercial and/or light
industrial buildings and surface parking areas.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
5
2005, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval
in Section 6.
A copy of this map is on file in the Department of Planning
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any
part thereof to be surveyed, and a Fina! Hap, as specified in
Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Vesting
Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) .
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Hap, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAHC
Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map
approval date (PAMC 21.!3.020[c]).
2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs
shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal.
3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, attached to the staff
report. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the
identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for
their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded against
the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Prior to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
with the ARB and the Vesting Tentative Map approved plans and
conditions.
Department of Utilities
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary
and shal! be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the
Publfc Works Department.
7. The applicant shal! arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Transportation Departments after approva! of the Vesting Tentative
Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting
shall determine the scope of al! work required and related to
offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and
approved by the City prior to submittal of the Final Map.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
8. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant sha!l enter
into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. This agreement is
required to secure compliance with the conditions of ARB and
Vesting Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite
improvements. Improvement pla~s shall be submitted in relation to
this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued
unti! the Fina! Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara,
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
Designation on Improvement Plans
9. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site
shal! be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works
standards. Additional public street improvements shal! be made, as
determined by Public Works Engineering.
i0. Any unused driveways shal! be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
ii. An ADA accessible/compliant curb ramp shall be required
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and East
Meadow Circle.
12. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained
for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above
grade, per City standards.
13. A Stop Control (i.e., stop sign, centerline tai!, and a
Stop bar) at each of the two access driveways, one off of East
Meadow Drive and one off of East Meadow Circle be.designated per
Caltrans Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners
titled \estlng Tentative Map: East Meadow Drive" consisting of 9
pages, dated and received August 15, 2005.
Ii
Attachment B
August 16, 2005
Palo Alto Plannin~ and Transportation Commission
Phyllis Cassel
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Patrick Burt
Michael Griffin
Karen Holman
Lee I. Lippert
1101 E. Meadow Drive & 1010 E. Meadow Circle
Residential Vesting Tentative Map Proposal
Dear Commissioners,
Trumark Companies is proud to present a 75-home in-fill development proposal for your review. The
proposed Echelon project would merge two parcels within the East Meadow Drive LM district to create a
4.35 acre residential community. The two parcels currently contain approximately 65,000 square feet of
commercial office space surrounded by parking lots. All of the existing structures are vacant.
We have held two formal neighborhood meetings to be sure the neighborhood has been informed of our
intentions and to identify potential issues and concerns. In addition, we have had numerous individual
meetings with neighbors to address their concerns regarding this project. A major outcome of the
neighborhood outreach is that we will provide, at the neighborhood’s request and at our cost, a lighted
crosswalk with a pedestrian refuge and corresponding signage for the nearby Fabian Way and East
Meadow intersection.
In July 2005, the Palo Alto Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the proposal based
on the recolr~nended approval from the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. In accordance with the
California Enviromnental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration was prepared and posted for 30 days by
Santa Clara County.
As listed in the ’Findings for Approval’ (attached) the proposed development is "consistent and compatible
with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the project meets numerous policies
related to the change in land use," including providing 15% of the homes at Below Market Rate pricing and
implementing sustainable/green building design. We are excited about this housing opportunity for Palo
Alto and we thank you for your consideration of this Vesting Tentative Map.
Sincerely,
TRUMARK COMPANIES
Aaron Yakligian
Project Leader
4i85 ELACKHAWK PLAZA CiFACLE o SUITE 200 ¯DANVILLE, CA 94506-4668 o (925) 648-8300 ¯FAX (925) 648-31~,0
Aaron Yakligian
Project Leader
Trurnark Companies
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506-4668
City of. Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Communit!/ En~h’onment
Attachment C
July 13, 2005
Plannkng DMsion Subject:Below Market Rate (BM~R)-Agreement for 75-Unit "Echelon"
Residential Project at 1010 East Meadow Circle.& 1101 East
Meadow Drive; [ARB 05 PEN-00200] ..... ’: .....
Dear Mr. Yaldigian:. --~:"
This letter summarizes the ~eemhnt betwe~n the. Trumark-Companies (Tru~. ... ark) and
the Director of the Department of!Planning~~d C0m~_~_Eny.ir.onm.ent_(Dizector_)_
re-g-aTd-i~g satisfaction-0f the’provisions of the City of Palo Alto’s Below M~ket Rdte
(BMR) Program for tt~e p~-gp~sed 75-unit residential cond~iminium, development (the
"Project") at 1010~East Meadd@Cir-cle & 1 ! 01 East Mead;~-Drive.
The BMR program requirements are contained in Program: H-_36 of the Comprehensive
Plan (Chapter 4~- Hous.~g).: You and Planning Divi.~i.~.nljstaff have discussed and
negotiated the ~erms of this agreement, and the si~affires-, of Trumark’s corporate
officers on ttii~, le~r ~onfirms that Trurnark agrees~i~!~!:::~ese provisions. The
Architectural R~;¢iew_Board._ (ARB) is scheduled to review ihe project on.July 21, 2005.
The BMR ag~eement will be incorporated into the CitY o~ Palo Alto’s conditions of
approval for ~the architectural review- application. ¥0h i::t~~e also submitted an
application for.a tentative subdivision map to allow, the )~gidential.. units to be sold
separately as c~ndominiums. The BM_R agreern~ri~’S:ii~r.d).isions will also be
incorporated into the furnfe subdivision agreement for.-thg..Pr0i
The 4.36-acre site is zoned LM and !s .composed ~5t:~o ]ji~;~ls2:-;:~ Projec~ involves
merging the two existing parceis into one .development si~ ;find the:construction of 75
condominium, townhouse style, 0wner-ship units There will .be 24, Plan 1 .two-bedroom _
units, 24 Plan 2 three bedroom units and 27 Plan 3 three-bedroom unitsi InteriOr living
space within each unit, ranging in size from about-1,213 to 1,625 squar.e feet, is located
on two levels over two :ar garages
BMR Requirement: A.fifleen (15%) Percent BMR requirement applies to this Project,
which equals 11.25 BMR units. Of the total 75 (seventy-five) for-sale units .that will be
250 H~mnilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.9292441
650.329.2154
BMR Letter A~eement For Echelon Trumark Project
July 13, 2005
Page 5 of 5
Please sign this letter; indicating that we have reached agreement regarding BMR
program contribution for your Echelon Project. Thank you for your cooperation and
yo~ contribution to affordable housing needs in the City of Palo Alto.
A [SLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Tmmark Companies agrees to provide the Below Market Rate units at the Echelon
project at I010 East Meadow Circle and 1101 East Meadow Drive, as described in this
Letter of A~eement dated July 12, 2005:
By:
Title:
Date:
Attachments:
A)
S)
C)
D)
E)
Description, Prices & Unit Numbers of BMR Units, Dated July 8, 2005
Site Plan with Locations of BMR Units
BMR Sales Price Calculations
Procedures and Instructions for the Sale of New BMR Units
Below Market Rate Ownership Deed Restrictions [Version dated 8/93]
Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Beth Bourne, Senior Planner
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division
Linda Mabry, BMR Administrator, Palo Alt0 Housing Corporation
H:kDOCkBMR Prograrn\Trumark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7-I2-05.doc
Attachment B
ATTACH?dENT B
Trumark
Companies
Attachment C
Persons In
Household
1
2
3
5
City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program
Prices for New BMRUnits
for Households at 80% to 100% of Median Income
Revised April 2005
80% of county
Area Median
Income
$59,100
$67,500
$75,950
$84,400
$91,150
100% of County
Area Median
Income
$731850
$84,400
....... $94,9.50
$105,500
$113,950
Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of
Median Income
...$149,000 $201,200 .......
$178~.~0Q..$238,500.
$208,600 $275,900
$238,500 $313,200
$262,400 -$343,100.
Assumed Household Size
for Unit Type
1
2
3
4
5.
Unit Type
Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
BMR Unit Price
(Assumes 90% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for
Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type)
$175,100
$208,600
$242,250
$275,850
$302,750
VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS:
Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05)
Annualized Rates:
interest Rates (As of 4/1/05)
Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05)
Property Taxes
Total Effective interest Rate
Number of Monthly Paymentsl
Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):
Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance
Costs,& Fire Insurance (Per Month)
Loan Terms:
Zero (0) Loan Points
30 Year; Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan
Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance,
property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance, fire insurance)
$105,500
6.00%
0.89%
1.25%
8.14%
360
95%
$425
H:\Sheet\BMR 4-2005 Prices at 80-100.xls
Attachment D:Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
Sales Procedures for New Below Market Rate (BM:R) Ownership Units
This document provides an overview of the City ~fPalo Alto’s policies and procedures
for the selection of buyers and the sales of newly constructed BMR ownersl’fip units
provided under the City’ s Below Market Rate 03MR) Program - H-36 of the Housing
Element as adopted on December 2, 2002. The information is intended primarily for "
housing developers and others interested in an overview of the buyer selection and sales
process. Further details of the process, both for new unit sales and resales of existing
BMR lmits, may be found in the BMR Program Policy and Procedures Manual prepared
bythe Palo Alto Housing. Corporation (PAHC): .
1) BMR Agreement Between City and Developer:
During the entitlement review process, a BMR agreement is prepared between.the City
and the Developer. Compliance with the BMR program agreement is included as one of
the project’s Conditions of Approval. Generally; a letter agreement is drafted, signed by
the Deve!oper and the Director of Planning and Community Environment and included in
the staff report packets sent to the Boards, Commission and Council decision makers, as
applicable. A final BMR Agreement, in a form that Will be recorded against, the land, is
prepared prior to. the final entitlement approval for the. project: This formal document
must be executed by the appropriate officers.of the Developer and by the legal owners of
the land (if different than the Developer). -A consent and subordination to the BMR
Agreement is also required fxom any lender with a secured interest in the land.
Most projects with for-sale housing units will involve a subdivision map .application. In
such situations, the formal BMR Agreement is prepared, executed and recorded prior to
City approval of the final subdivision map agreement. The formal BMR Agreement may
be a separate legal document or may be incorporated into the text of the subdivision
agreement. The BlvIR Agreement (both the initial letter agreement and the formal,
recorded agreement) will include complete descriptions of the BMR units and will .
reference theunits’ floor plans, features, sizes and. locations. The BMR units must also
be designated on the site plans that are part ofthe subdivision map.
2) Sale of BMR Units to a Qualified Purchaser Desi~mated by the City:
The BIVKR Agreement provides-the City with. a right to purchase the BMR units from. the
Developer for the specified below market price(s) at completion of the Project. The
standard practice is for the City to assign its right to purchase to a BMR buyer that has
been selected and qualified by our contract program administrator, the Palo Alto Housing
H:kDOCkBMR Policy & ProceduresL2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doe
Attachment D:BNiR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
4) Inspection & Acceptance ofBMR Unit(s)i
Representatives of the City and PAHC shall be allowed to inspect each BMR unit, and a
sample of the other units in the Project, immediately prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, or final approval of the building permit by the City’s Building Division in
order to determine that each BMR unit meets the standards of construction and finishing,
as required by the BMR Agreement. This inspection is independent of the City’s
inspections for Building Codes and other Planning Conditions. The City shal! specify in
writing any deficiencies in the BMR unit(s) and. such deficiencies shall be corrected by
the Developer to the satisfaction of the City within 2 weeks of receipt of such noticeor "
by such other deadline that is acceptable to the City. Prior to close of escrow on the sate
of each BMR unit, the City.Manager, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, shall execute a
"Certificate of Acceptance". This document, which is the City’s official approval .and
acceptance of each BMR unit, shall be recorded as an exhibit to the Grant Deed from the
Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer, as described below.
5) Recording of Documents:
Prior to close of escrow for each sale, the Developer must execute the GrantDeed that:
will transfer title of each BMR unit from the Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer.:
Also, prior to closing PAHC obtains the Designated BMR Buyer’s signature on the City
of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Deed Restriction (the "BMR Deed Restrictions") and
the City executes the "Certificate of Acceptance". After these documents are properly
executed, PAHC transmits them to the Escrow Agent. The Developer shall instruct the
Escrow Agent to attach both the Certificate of Acceptance and the BMR Deed
Restrictions as exhibits to the Grant Deed prior to its.recording. The Developer shall also
instruct the Escrow Agent t° reference these documents on the face of the Grant Deed in
the mamner specified by P_~-!C. !n general, the Developer shah cooperate fully with the
City, PAHC and the purchaser in the escrow process.
The City may develop new or revised legal documents (including revisions to the BMR
Deed Restrictions) in order to secure its BiVI~ deed restrictions and implement the
program’s goals and objectives. The Developer agreesm assist City as necessary in the
closing, and recording of the City’s BMR documents.
6) Provision of Proiect Information:.
The.DeveIoper, and its sales and marketing agents, sha!l cooperate fully with the City and
PAHC to accomplish th.e sale of each BMRtmit to a Designated BIvIR Buyer. The
Developer, or its sales agent, shall provide to PAHC, (for distribution tO interested BMR
¯ N:kDOCkBMR Policy & Procedures’,2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Pa~e 3 of 6
Attachment D:BM2q Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
Thus, the total time from initiation of the sales process by PAHC to close of escr0wcould
extend from four to five months~ Close co0perationbetweenthe Developer, the
Developer’s sales agent and PAHC is necessary in order for the process to proceed
smoothly.
10) Waiting List for BM~R Ownership Units:
PAHC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units.
The waiting lisds used for the sales of both new and resale.units. There are usually over
300 households on the list, which is updated annually. Past experience has shown a
strong demand f0r.B1VI~ units from qualified waiting list buyers~ especially for newly
constructedBMR units.. However, if a buyer cannot be found from the waiting list,
PAHC advertises the unit directly to the public in order to fred qualified buyers. For a
project with a larger number of new BMR units becoming available at the same time,
PAHC and the Developer may undertake a special advertising.and marketing effort while
the project is under construction to recruit a sufficient pool of qualified BMR buyers.
11) Sales Process:
The following steps describe in more detail the general process involved in selecting and
qualifying a buyer for each BMR unit.
a) The Developer provides PAHC with a schedule for completion of construction of-
the Project and an estimated date for completion and availability ofthe BMR units. The
Developer provides PAHC with contacts withits sales staff or real estate agent and with
its escrow company.
b) Often a preliminary meeting at the.Project site is held prior to completion between
PAHC, the City, the Developer, the genera! contractor andthe sales / marketing agent to .
discuss process and timing, to tour the project and inspect the BMR units andother units.
c) The Developer provides PAHC with all reports and documents required by law
including, the condominium reports and documents, preliminary title report(s) on the
BMR units, inspection reports and disclosure statements. Marketing brochures including
floor plans of the BMR units with square footages, lists and description Of standard and
optional.features with prices for optional features must also be provided. The amount of
the monthly homeowners association dues for each BMR unit is also needed.
d) PAHC prepares an information and application packet about each BMR unit and
mails it to all households (this may go to a large number.of households) on the waiting
list that appear eligible for that size and price of unit.
ATTACIt-M~NT E
Ci!y of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions
SUBJECT TO:
A.Ri~__ht ~ofFirst Refusal.
Grantee hereby grants and. gives to the City of Pal0 Alto (,City") a right to purchase the real property
conveyed hereby and any improvements thereon (the "Premises’.’) under conditions hereinafter set forth. City
may desigmate a governmental or nonprofit organization to exercise its right of first refusal. City or its
designee may assign this fight to an individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility qualifications.
After the exercise of said right by City, its designee or assignee .in the manner hereinafter, prescribed, City; its
designee or assignee may assign said fight to purchase to any substitute individual-private buyer who meets
the City’s eligibility requirements and is approved by the City, provided, however, that such subsequent
assignment shall not extend any time limits contained herein. Any attempt to transfer title or any.interest
therein in violation of these covenants shall be void.
B.Procedure on Sale.
Whenever the Owner ("Owner" refers to Grantee and all. successors in interest) of said Premises no
longer desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in writing to that effect. Such notice shall be
personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, Certified, ’addressed to
City Manager, Ci@ of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alt0, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, 725 Alma Street, Pal0 Alto, CA 94301-2403..City, its designee or assignee shall then
have the fight to exercise its right to purchase said Premises by delivery of written notice, by personal
delivery o.r certified mail, to the Owner thereof at. any time within- sixty (60) days from the receipt by City Of
such written notice from Owner of intent to sell or dispose of the Premises.
If the City, itsdesignee or assignee exercises: its right to-purchase said .Premises, .close of escrow of said
purchase shall be within ninety (90) days of the -opening of such escrow by either party. Said escrow shall be
opened upon delivery to Owner of written notice of the exercise of the option or as soon thereafter as
possible. In the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone
opening of escrow until Selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the
opening of the escrow sha!l not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the
City’s exercise of its right to.purchase.
Closing costs and title insurance sha11 be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City Of Palo
Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written
report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report
to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of.wood-destroying pests or organisms found and a!l work
to correct conditions that caused such infestation Or infection s!4all be done at the ex.pense of the Seller. Any
work to correct conditions usually deemed likelyto lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests
or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is
not the responsibility of the Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and then at the
(Rev. 8/93)1 Reg.
No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment unless
the Owner shall present to the City valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value
of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows:
(a)
(b)
The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less
than .Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance,
fixture or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straigtit-line depreciation applied to
the originalcost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated
original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment.
The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was
Thousand Dollars ($5i000) or more, shall be the appraised market value of the improvement,
appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addit4.~n or fixbxe to the premises (i.e., the
amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the market value of the
premises) atthe ~ime of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as the market value
of the premises in method 1 above.
(c)On Jahuary 1, 1982, and every two years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or.recordation
hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000)referred to in paragraphs .(a) and (b)
immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those para~aphsin the
following manner. On each adjustment date; the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for
the San Francisco-Oakland area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
StatiStics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, t980, shall be compared With the Index prevailing on the
date of recordation of this deed, The percentage"in~rease in the Index, if any, shall be. computed and
the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be increased in the same percentage. In no event
shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
(d)No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all
expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested.
Any sale price ~determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer
Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by
decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount
shall be determined as fo!lows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner’s intent to sell, City or its designee
shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. City or its designee shall have an oppommity to determine
whether all plumbing, electrical; and heating systems are in w0rking’order; whetherany violations of
applicable building, plumbing, electric, .Kre, or housing codes exist; whether all appliances which
were originally furnished to Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements thereof, are in
working order; Whether walls, .ceilings and floorsare clear and bee of holesor other defects (except
for holes typical of picture hangers)~ whether doors, windows, screens and similar appurtenances are ..
cracked, broken or torn;, and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally
famished to Owner as part of the premises, or any repladement thereof, are clean and free of holes,
tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City
CRev. 8/93)3 Reg.
Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do soin accordance with the procedures and price
set forth for the City in Paragraph B above.
D. Default.
Owner covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder ofthe County Of Santa
Clara a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or
mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924 (b) of the Civil Code Of
the Sate of California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City Manager,
City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil
Code Section 2924 (f) shall constitute a notice of intent to sell hereunder and City or its designee or assignee
may exercise its preemptive right prior t0 any trustee’s sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in
lieu of foreclosure, provided, however, notwithstanding any language contained in this instrument to the
contrary regarding the rights of the lien holder, the City, or its designee or assignee, must complete such
purchase no later than the end of the period established by California Civil Code Section 2924 ( c ) for
reinstatement of a monetary default under the deed of trust or mortgage.
In the event of default and foreclosure, the City, or its designee or assignee, shall have the same fight as
the Owner to cure defaults and redeem the Premises prior to foreclosure sale. Such redemption shall be
subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as would otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing
herein shall be construed to create any obligation-on the part of the City to cure anysuch default, nor shall
this fight .to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the
underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The City, .or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from
Owner all costs incurredin curing any such default.
In the event City elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner
may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of
surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would
have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its right
to purchase-the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to Owner on the date of the
foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the City for increasing the City’s low-income
and moderate-income housing stock.
E.Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds.
In the event that the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to-Owner instead of
being used to rebuild, or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, or in the
case of a condominium project, in the event of liquidation of the homeowners’ association and distribution of
the assets of the association to the members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed
remaining afterpayment of encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: Th~it portion 0f
the surplus up to but not to exceed the net amount that Owner would have received under the formula set
forth above had City exercised its right to purchase the property on the date of the destruction, condemnation
valuation date, or liquidation, shall be distributed to owner, and the balance of such surplus, if any, shall be
distributed to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation or its successors or assigns.
(Rex;. 8/93)5 "Reg.
July 25, 2005
City Palo Alto
Department of Planning ancl
Community Enviornment
Attachment D
planning Division
_Mr. Aaron Yaldigian
Trumark Companies
4185 Black_hawk Plaza circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Subject: 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05PLN-00200]
Dear Mr. Yatdi.gian:
On Thursday, July 21, 2005, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the application
(05PLN-00200) and recommended approval with conditions to the Director of Planning
and Community Environment. on Monday, July 25, 2005, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment condit!onally approved the application (05PLN=002...00), as
described below: ~ ~" ~ .... ~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION’
Request byTrumark Companies on behalf of Barton Associates, LLC and HDP
Associates, LLC, for Major Architectoral ¯Review approval to allow the demolition of two.
office buildings and the construction of an infill residential project consisting of 75 units
on approximately 4.4 acres. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement
Exception to allow 48 tandem parking spaces. The proPOsal, would involve a merger of
the two parcels. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and .a
Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with .the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone: Limited Industrial!Research
Park (LM).
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
The approval is based upon the project’s compliance with the Architectural Review
Board’s required findings, except findings Nos. 4 and 9 and the project’s compliance
,~,~*~, the Findings ~r D’~gn ~,,~,~,,,-~t ~=-~,~,-,r~,,, ~ ~,~, (~e~ A~acb~ments A o,,~
Approval of this project, shall be subject tO ~he conditions listed below, including
additional condition No. 90 (listed in bold type) derived from the Architectural
Review Board during the July 2i, 2005 public hearing.
250 Hamilton Aven~e
EO. Box 10250
Palo Alto,CA 94303
650.3292441
650_3292154
1101EastMeadow DNveand 1010 East Meadow Ckcle
JNy 25,2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 5 of 15
20.
21.
22.
24.
25.
27.
28.
29.
A separate site development/grading permit shall be required for all grading, site
work, landscaping .and private utility installations that are located outside of the
footprints of the buildings. A separate set of plans,, that includes the scope of this
work, shall be submitted with the permit applicationi
Due to the scale of the overaLl.project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd
party plan check agency to conduct thebuilding code plan review. A list of the
agencies approved by the City of Pal0 Alto is available at the Development Center.
.The City’s Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check
agency is utilized.
The desig-n of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for
¯ building permit and are to be ’deferred’ shall be limited to as few items as possible.
The list of deferred items sha!l be reviewed and approved prior to permit application.
Site development and building deswn sha11 comply-with the applicable disable
access requirements in .California Building Code Chapter 11A.
The location of.each building’s electrical services shall require prior approval by the
Building Inspection Division and shall be located at exterior locations.
K. any three-story residential-buildings are to be constructed, they shall be of at least
Type V-1 Sour Construction. Two exits shall be provided from the third story of any
three-story dwelling units where the floor area, measured within the boundaries of
the exterior walls, exceeds 500 square feet.
Wood burning fireplaces are not permitted except as provided in PAMC Section
9.06.
Parking !or and other common use.public areas on the project site Shall be designed
and constructed to. comply with the Division of the State Architect’s (DSA)
¯ accessibility standardscontained in the California Building Code.
An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s
recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in
CBC Appendix Chapter 12; Division KAI
The project site is located within a seismic hazard zone indicated on the State .
Geologist’s Mountain View Quadrangle Map and is thus subject to the requirements
of the California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). As such, the building
permit application shall include a geotechnical report that identifies any site specific
1101 East Meadow Drive a~d !010 East Meadow Circle
July 25, 2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 7 of 15
38.The proposed rack models and location for bike parking shall be submitted to the
TransPortation Division for review and approval prior to submittal of the building
permit. The zoning ordinance requires guest bicycle parking that is ~quivalent to
one (1) Class ]II (bike rack) for each 10 units. It is recommended .that the guest bike
racks be p~aced at key locations throughout the site to increase their visibili7 and
encourage their usage. .
39.The proposed dimensions, or other alternatives, for the pedestrian crossing locations
and traffic calming .devises be noted on the design plans (in terms of v~idth, angles,
comer radius, etc.) and shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review
and approval prior to submittal of the building permit.
40.The design of the garages shall be reviied to meet:the recommended clearance of 10
feet X 20 feet for each vehicle within parking garages. TNs is to allow0pening of
doors on both sides, and the maneuvering around the vehicle. To meet these
clearances, the applicant could rearrange items within the garages. For example, by
placing the bicycle parking on the same side of the wall on Plan A17 and bn Plan
A16 by making the internal garage door swing to the other side or replace it with, a
sliding door.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
41.Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’-6" vertical clearance.
Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius (40 ft. inside)
requirements of fire tmck..Road shall be all-weather, and shall reach to within 150
feet of any point on the. first floor exterior. (2001CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The roadway
as currently shown may meet this requirement.
42.The nearest street hydrant shall be upgraded to a Clow/Pdch Model 76..Additional
hydrants shal! be provided as necessary to. prevent any point on the access roadway
from being farther than 250 feet from the nearest hydrant. (PAMC15.04.140)
43.
44.
A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout each building which meets the
requirements as applicable for NFPA Standard No. 13 or 13R - 1999 Edition and
PAMC 15.04.170. Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to
the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be
approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
An .approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s)
and on-site hydrants, and shall meet the.requirements of N~A Standard No. 24 -
11.01 East Meadow Drive and t010 East Meadow Circle
July 25, 2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 9 of t5
51.A letter shall be submitted from the reNstered geotechnical engineer who prepared
the soils report for the project, or their associate, and who directlY observed
construction activities of the project. This stamped and ".wet"-signed letter shall
serve as certification that the project was constructed according to the
recommendations put forth in the soils report and shall be submitted prior to
building permit finalization. "
¸52.The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior tO
vesting tentative map approval to verify the basic design parameters affecting
grading; drainage, surface water infiltration, and updated C.3 re~lations. The
applicant is required to submit a conceptual sitegrading and drainage plan that
conveys Site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage System. In
order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan .shal! identify the
Best Management Practices (BIvIP’ s)to be incorporated into the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be .required for the project. The
SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to
protect storm water quality.. (Resources and handouts are available from Public
Works-Engineering. Specific r~ference is made to Palo Alto’s companion
document tO °’Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development-
Project"). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage
plan ghall be incorporated into the building permit plans.
Prior to Submir~aI of Plans for Grading/Building Permit(s)
53.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division
is required for the proposed project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with
a phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and storm drain
improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference
only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the
building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a
subsequent Buiiding Permit application..
54.The applicant shall submit a.final grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and
demonstrate the proper conyeyance of storm water to the nearest adequate
municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including
accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained..
55.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the
property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious
1 i01 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle
July 25, 2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 11 of !5
62.
City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010.
This proposeddevelopment will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant
must apply for. coverage under the State Water Resources .Control Board’s
(SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with
construction activity. A Notice ofIntent (NOI) must be filed for this project, with
the S~rRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit
requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the
draft SW-PPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to
issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, posi-
development project design features and temporary measures employed during
construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices
(B!viP’s) which apply to the work should be incorporated into the design.
During Construction
63.The contractor shall contact the CPAPublic Works Inspector at (650) 496~6929
prior to any work performed in tl~e public right-of-way.
64.No storage Of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk
without prior approval of Public Works EnNneering.
65.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices
(-BiVIP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the
project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (s0il, asphalt, sawcut
slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or stormdrains.
(PANIC Chapter 16.09).
66.For purposes of determining compliance with the City’s Flood Hazard Regulations,
per condition No. 8, .an .inspection of the as-built elevation of the lowest floor shall
be arranged prior to pouring the foundation of each- structure.
67.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under
City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Departments.
Prior ~o Finalization
68. The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East M~adow Circle
July 25, 2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 13 of 15
75.
76.
Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approva!
and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits
will be issued until the Final Map is recorded with County Recorder.
The applicant shall arrange a meeting with PuNic Works Engineering, Utilities
Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the
vesting tentative map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These
improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal
of a final map.
.Prior to Recordationof Final Map
77.
78.
This property is in a special flood hazard area and notatidn of this shall appear on
the recorded map.
The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel, or
subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s)
of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities
and Public Works Departments.
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Utilities- Wa~er, Gas, and Wastewarer
79.Onsite sanitary sewer mains and laterals are to be.pi-ivately owned and maintained
and shall be designated as such on the plans. The Cities responsibility for
wastewater will star~ where the onsite wastewater system connects to the public
wastewater main in the street.
80.
81.
82,
Onsite public water mains will be limited to one loop through the property in
private/public streets and will require a minimum 20’ wide public utility easement
with limited sn-eet parking in the private stzeets. All other onsite water lines shall
be private water lines and shall be. desi~ated as such on the plans.
Onsite public gas mains shall be in a minimum 10’ wide public utili .ty easement.
Gas meters shall be ganged at each separate building per the WGW Utility
Standards. ..
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed
within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be
1101 East Meadow Drive ~d 1010 East Meadow Circle
July 25, 2005
[05PLN-00200]
Page 15 of 15
89.
required utilities. Only plastic sewer laterals may be reused, older sewer laterals
shall be replaced (show sewer laterals to be replaced on the plans).
The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well; or
auxiliary water supply.
ARB July 21, 2005
90.Prior to the issuance of any Grading and/or Building Permit(s), the applicant
shall remru to the Architectural Review Board on the consent calendar in
order to address the following items:
a. Return to the ARB for a one-year review of the sustainability checklist.
b. Explore an alternative fence design that is less generic.
c. Provide details of the soffit ceiling plan.
d. Differentiate the paving of the alleys from the paving of other areas on site.
e. Provide a complete plan set, including site plan and landscape plan, with
all proposed details.
f. Provide details for the tot l~t structure.
This Director’s decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days folloWing-the date of
this letter, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.78. "
Should you have any questions regarding this major-ARB action, please me at (650) 617-
3196.
Sincerely,
Beth Young Bourne, AICP
Senior Pianner
Attachment:
A. ARB Findings
B. DEE Findings
(11)
(12)
.(13)
(14)
(15)
Natural features have been appropriately preserved and inte~ated with the project in that
the primary natural feature on site (i.e., existing ti:ees) has been preserved where possible
and that a comprehensive tree inventory hasbeen developed and endorsed by the City’ S
Managing Arborist in the Planning Division to integrate the development within the
existing tree network, as well as to propose additional trees where applicable;
The materials, textures, colors and detai]s of construction and plant material are an
appropriate expression tO the desig-n and function .and the same are compatible with the
adjacent and ndghboring structures, landscape elementS, and functions in that an
appropriate colors and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and
plant materials to add vibrancy to the site and to help its integration with the surrounding
properties;
The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationsKip of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and Colors creates a desirable and
functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with. the
various buildings on the site in that a variety of species types have been chosen to integrate
amongst the existing trees to be preserved and amongst the various structures;
The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capab]e of being properly
maintained on the site, and is Of a variety, wNch would tend to be droughtrresistant and to
reduce.consumpti0n of water in its installation and maintenance in that the combination of
California native plants with exotic and ornamental materials would have low maintenance
and water use requirements;. ..
The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements such as
the following: Title-24 value calculations exceeding standards by 15 percent; spectrally
sensitive low-E windows with appropriate Solar Heat Coefficient per proper solar
orientation; high energy efficient Cooling systems offered as an optional, feature; appliances
with high energy efficient ratings; high energy efficient horizontal axis washers and dryers;
low-flow plumbingfixtures and faucets; operable windows; a 4kw Photovoltaic system
installed above Car wash for Common area electrical needs: and low-flow irrigation
combined with drought resistant plant materials
standards 4 and9 are Tzot applicable to this project.
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle "Page 2
Attachment E
Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition
The Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition is comprised of a broad range of organizations and individuals who have,
as a common goal, the vision of affordable, well-constructed and appropriately located housing
September 22, 2005
Steve Emslie
Department of Planning & Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Emslie,
On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I would like to express our support for a
development proposal, called Echelon, by Trumark Companies on Meadow Drive.
By way of background, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and
individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is
affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC
include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt
Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several
chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment
Association, and the Affordable Housing Network.
In Silicon Valley, only 19.5% of median priced homes are available to families and individuals
earning the area median income. Similar high technology regions average 50% with the Raleigh-
Durham technology center closer to 70%. These numbers show very clearly that we need more
homes.
The site in question offers a wonderful opportunity to create a new residential community that
helps Palo Alto meet the continuing need for homes. We support the developer’s proposal to build
75 townhomes and are particularly supportive of the increased density in comparison to the
surrounding community. The density means that our valuable land will be used more efficiently
and it will allow a product type, (townhomes) that tends tobe more affordable to first-time
homebuyers.
The Trumark Echelon proposal is the type of development that is important to the health of our
community and economy. The Housing Action Coalition urges the City’s approval.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Lee Wieder
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
Access Land Development
Tim euwsma
Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair
Synergy Properties
224Airport Parkway, Suite 620, San Jose, CA 95]]0
Attachment F
SUBJECT: -._ l!o~.:,East:Mea@wiDri’ve and:~O!O .~as.t.-Meaflo~ C~!e~[O~PLN-i.
.... O0200J.:;:Request.:by. Tramark:C::~mpani.~S::on i~eh~of
infill residential project consi.st~g ~f 75:.U~.t.~. 0~.:.a.pp~0.~a..t¢~Y;4.4~ acres,~=
The project includes a request f0r a Design Enhancement Exception to
a!low 48 tandem parking spaces. The proposal would in~!$..e::g::merger.
Staff recommends :~av!th¢: Axchi~a9._~ N:Re¥iew:B Ogd::.(~) recommend:,thst ,the.Director-of...
Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project based upon the
Architectural Re~iew.-.fin.N~gs~in Attachmen~:.~!~.the.I)esig~.. g.nh:._~cemem;..E_ xception findings
The project site (site), consisting of two separate parcels for a total area of approximately 4.4
acres, is bounded to the north and west by commercial properties ’ (across East Meadow Circle),
The commercial buildings .to:the Sggth of..thasite.:}930it-!80-East:Meadow ~ri:ve)ar. e.,ptanned for
demolition, and replacemen~::by a new, ~6-.uni.~:residential..condominium devetopment.(see
Attachment H-- Aerial PhotographfExisting Ske).. ,.This residential infiI] development, also
proposed by Trumark Companies, recently received its finn discretionary permit approval (i.e.,
Vesting Tentative Map)..:pn-~!anua!Ty 24,:2005... The ARBrs .final.re’~iew/recommendation oLthe-
ARB application.occurred :on October ..7_, 2004. .-. - - . .-.--:-
To the site’s east and northeast, there i-sa separate parce] between its boundary-and the
channelized Adobe Creek, fo~ purposes of accessing.and maintaining the Ci~"S electrical
proposed plant list for new trees, shrubs, and other various types of groundcover and landscape
It i s anti cipat~d. ~hi:t the con-v~rsJon? of.the~site-~".ftom:65 ;000";~-:f.- of office::~e:to25~awelling
units", wend reSuliin::antapproximate reducti0ri:of-50.percehto£daily vehi.-dnlar,traffi~
buJlding:~:fichrd-qUes;+along:w~N.:bes[.:’m~:agement p~ti~es f0r~:erO~i:on-don~61~fifid gi6~’dsain -’ -
manage~:ieN?througla?i:~creagdd i~e~-meabl~-area:-~tl-enNrie~ri~g ~ain~g~:sysi~,--L~:stly.;>ati~lity~
21.08.010). In order for processing of the tentative m@~@)l~g~lti’on;~tl-i~e~ ~i))lie~t mi:~:t :o-b~aihl-":: "----
confirmation of planning entitlement for this project (i.e., ARB recommendation and Planning
Preliminary Revi_~w Hearing
At the April 19, 2005 ARB hearing, a conceptual project design was;~vi~g~l~::~s:~;P::~~
¯.:.:~nhanCe. the front 1o side elevation transitions.
advang~cl Planning staff: This B~ a.g:eeme~, .,a.s_ yequire.d .b_y...H..ous!ng ~l.e. ~eg:.. pr.gg: .a~_.. H-3~ ...
and Transpoftati0n .Co~ssion a~0i Ci~yCouncil’f~r the re-~ie~v:bt:the-Tania~i,~eMap..:
application. A"~mum of;l~:cen BM:R ~m_’t:s. .are.required to bi~i~n~t~d ~6ughoiii~ the ~ite.
101 East Meadow Ddve and 1010 East Meadow Circle Page 3
in height (measured to the midpoint of tie ~0f,Wi~ttid"maximum height of 39 feet at the highest
ridge), which comply with the height reciiii~’~e~i{~’:61)’35 feif;:°iisliited under the RM-30 site
A ]Negative D~laraioni which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California
document is provided in Attachment F.
ManaIer Review: Curtis Williams, AICP, Acing Manager of Current Planning: ..
101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle
Attachment G
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING
Draft Sense Minutes
Thursday, July 21,2005
Board Members:
Judith
Wassermann
(Chair)
Kenneth Kornberg
(Vice Chair)
Drew Maran
Susan Eschwefler
David Solnick
Staff Liaison:
Steven Turner
Chris Riordan, Planner
Staff:
Curtis Williams, Interim Mgr. of
Current Planning
Aficia Spotwood, Secretary
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05PLN-00200] : Request by
Tpamark Companies on behalf of Barton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates, LLC, for Major
Architectural Review approval to allow the demolition of two office buildings and the
construction of an infill residential project consisting of 75 units on approximately 4.4 acres.
The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception to allow 48 tandem
parking spaces. The proposal would involve a merger of the two parcels. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been
prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
Zone: LM
Staff Recommendation:
Staff requests that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) comment on the proposed project to
the applicant and staff. No formal action may be taken at a Preliminary Review meeting, as
comments made are not binding on the City or the applicant. This request is made in
conformance with the Architectural Review regulations (PAMC Section 18.76.020[c]). Staffhas
summarized key issues to provide a framework for comments.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approva! of the project, (4-0-0-1, Board member Solnick moved,
seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Eschweiler absent) and the Negative
Declaration with the following additional conditions to return to the Board for review on the
Consent Calendar: a) alternate design of the fence be explored, b) soffet ceiling plan be done, c)
different paving be used to separate the main road areas from the alley areas, d) applicant send a
sustainability report to the Board, and the correct plans and elevations be included in the packet.
City of Palo Alto Page I
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Amy French, Manager of
Current Planning
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: November 9, 2005
SUBJECT:1101 East Meadowy Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-
002891: Request by Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates,
LLC and HDP Associates for a Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed
residential infill development. This map is required in order to merge two
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units.
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California
Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: LM.
This item was continued from the Plarming and Transportation Commission meeting of October
26, 2005, prior to which staff reports and plan sets were distributed. Commissioners may contact
the Planning Division to obtain duplicate plans if needed. The purpose of this memorandum is to
provide responses to five questions e-mailed prior to October 26, 2005.
Question #1:
Regarding Finding #2: Does the Comp Plan address lot size? Could the staff provide a bullet
point or two on the pro and the con or other impact of allowing a lot to be created that is larger
than it’s neighbors?
Response to Question #1:
The LM Zoning District regulations require a minimum lot size of 1 acre, but do not impose a
maximum lot size. In the adjacent GM District, there is neither a minimum nor a maximum lot
size. The Comprehensive Plan does not address lot size, but it does address scale and zoning
transitions, as noted:
1101 East Meadow memo November 9 Page 1
Policy L-6 states, "Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district
boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible."
Program L-4 states, "Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual
transitions in the scale of development where residentia! districts abut more intense uses."
The two parcels to be merged with this Tentative Map wil! form a 4.4-acre parcel for
condominium purposes. The subject parcel would be the same size as the one approved via
Tentative Map for the other Trumark condominium housing project across the street (928, 940
and 1180 East Meadow Drive), involving the merger of three parcels. The attached vicinity map
indicates the Trumark parcels along with five non-residential parcels adjacent or across the street
or creek from the subject property. The sizes of these parcels range from .68 acre (a GM zoned
parcel) to 2.63 acres (an LM zoned parcel), as noted below.
GM District parcels located at 3750 W. Bayshore at 29,910 sf (.68 acre) and 3780-88 W.
Bayshore at 72,845 sf (1.67 acre) are separated from the subject property by Adobe
Creek, and the Adobe Creek Substation parcel, so lot size transition is not an issue.
935 E. Meadow at 46,505 sf(1.06 acre) is cater-cornered at the intersection, located
appropriately closer to the smaller commercial lots on the circle near the single-family
residential district, separated from the subject property by the wide intersection, which
helps the transition in lot size.
1015 E. Meadow at 92,528 sf (2.12 acres) is across East Meadow Circle - the frontage of
this parcel is greater than the frontage of the subject Trumark parcel, so the transition in
lot size will not be obvious and therefore not an issue.
1020 E. Meadow at 114,489 sf (2.63 acres) is located between the proposed 4.4-acre
parcel and the 3.13 acre parcel at 1036 E. Meadow Circle, and would have less frontage
than either of these flanking parcels. The residential use on the subject property will abut
a "more intense" commercial use on a parcel that is approximately 60% of the size of the
adjacent subject property and 85% of the size of the adjacent commercial property. Given
the uses of these parcels, this transition in lot sizes seems appropriate.
Question #2:
Vesting Tentative Map drawing #6: Has the ARB reviewed the 10 locations of the ganged water
meters?
Response to Question #2:
The DRC and ARB reviewed the civil drawings presented in the applicant’s packet. The gang
meters were included in the ARB packet materials. The ARB reviewed and approved the overall
design and did not raise any issues regarding the ganged meters at their July 21, 2005 meeting on
the project.
1101 East Meadow memo November 9 Page 2
Question #3:
Vesting Tentative Map drawing #7: There appears to be a storm drain located in the center of the
"Turf Mound" (refer to landscape plan 1). I assume that this must be an oversight (having an
area drain on the top of a mound)?
Response to Question #3:
While the ARB reviewed the overall general design of the project and the design included the
turf mound, the applicant has indicated that more than likely the area drain location will be
modified to shift either to the east or west for proper drainage. This detail will be coordinated
and resolved further through development of construction documents.
Question #4:
Vesting Tentative Map drawing #4&5: There is a small rectangle at the north-west comer of the
sight that is also shown as two concentric rectangles on drawing #6. What is this?
Response to Question #4:
The rectangles on the northwest comer of the site represent a transformer. Actual details of the
transformer will be presented as the design documents are further developed and eventually
provided through the construction documents and permits.
Question #5:
This project requires a very significant amount of earth to be brouodht to the site. Since there are
no excavations shown on the plan, I assume that the deve!oper expects to bring this earth to the
site. Although I doubt the City has much say on where this earth comes from, does the City
regulate this transfer in some way?
Response to Question #5:
Grading and excavation will be closely regulated by the Public Works Department in conjunction
with building permit review.
Prepared by:Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
..... Head Approval: b~,-"iDepartment!Division
Andy Co~, Interim Deputy Director
1101 East Meadow memo November 9 Page 3
Attachment D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
November 9, 2005
EXCERPT
1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-002891*: Request by
Trumark Companies on behalf of Barton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a
Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed residential infill development. This map is
required in order to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium
units. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California
Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: LM.
Mr. Emslie: Thank you, Chair Cassel. We have with us Lorraine Weiss, Contract
Planner who is here to answer any questions. We also have John Lusardi and Andy Coe
our Interim Deputy Director, John Lusarcli being the Special Projects Planning Manager.
Also Melissa Tronquet who is with the City Attorney’s Office substituting for Don who
as you know is on vacation.
We just have a very brief Staff Report and will be available to answer questions. This is
a situation similar to one the Planning Commission encountered recently with the Hyatt
Rickey’s Map. This is a situation where the Architectural Review Board process has
transpired and concluded. The Architectural Review Board has approved the project, the
statute has run on that and the appeal period has also run. A follow up to that is the
review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the Tentative Map.
This is the map that actually creates the lots, the legal mechanism to create the lots for
sale and it has been clearly identified that this is a for sale project. The map was
anticipated by the Architectural Review Board in granting their architectural review
approval. Under the Subdivision Map Act, Melissa will elaborate on that, the
Commission’s purview is limited to some very specific findings. I would like to now
turn it over to Melissa who would like to review those with you very briefly.
Ms. Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney: Thanks Steve. I just wanted to go over the
requirements for reviewing a Vesting Tentative Maps. Essentially the Commission must
approve the map tonight as long as the map, the design and the improvement are
consistent with the general and specific plans, as long as the site is physically suitable for
the type and density of development, as long as the subdivision and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or serious public health
problems and as long as the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public at large.
Commissioner Cassel: We are reviewing things such as the sewers and the fire truck
circles and the roads whether they are adequately wide and not the height of the
buildings, the number of units, the color and texture of the buildings themselves.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Tronquet: That is correct. Anything involving design or use would be outside the
Commission’s purview.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Is there any more Staff presentation?
Mr. Emslie: That concludes the report.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Do you have questions before we go to the public?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Didn’t we review a project on this site previously?
Mr. Emslie: This is a second project by the same developer.
Commissioner Lippert: So it is an adjacent site to this.
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: Then I would like to go to the presentation by the developer.
That would be Aaron Yakligian. And you have 15 minutes to make your presentation.
Mr. Aaron Yakligian. Trumark Companies: Thank you. Good evening members of the
Planning and Transportation Commission. Tonight I would like to take just a few
minutes to highlight the Vesting Tentative Map under your review. Trumark has been
developing high quality of life, attainably priced new home neighborhoods in the Bay
Area for nearly two decades. We are pleased to work with the City of Palo Alto again
towards another exemplary community.
Following your clear support and direction last year for Trumark’s neighborhood on East
Meadow Drive we are excited to present this completion of the East Meadow Circle area
gateway. This proposal for the Echelon community resonates with the Commission’s
comments during last year’s approval of East Meadow Drive Tentative Map.
Specifically this Commission commented that the proposed density was appropriate for
the site, that Trumark had raised the bar for green building in Palo Alto and that the City
would like to see like-quality neighborhoods in this area in the future. In January the
City Council unanimously agreed.
Our design for Echelon is based on this collective direction. The properties at 1101 East
Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle total approximately four and a half acres
and the site’s existing 1960’s office space has been vacant for quite some time. As with
many light industrial sites in Palo Alto the existing RM-30 zoning overlay allows for
residential development up to 30 dwell!ng units per acre. After the Commission’s clear
direction last year we have worked closely with the Staff to identify the most appropriate
use of this property. The outcome is the proposed 75 homes.
The Vesting Tentative Map under your review this evening represents many months of
close cooperation with the City Staff and the Architectural Review Board. The final
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
product is a community that demonstrates responsible planning, efficient land use and
quality design. I would like to briefly call your attention to some specific features of the
site plan. In addition to separating the pedestrian and the automobile the site offers a
perimeter trail system which will allow residents to walk between outdoor rooms with
public art, water features and children’s play areas. This trail also adds to the existing
neighborhood an additional half-mile of safe and attractive walking paths. You will also
notice that we are preserving existing setbacks along the street frontages. This not only
creates a wide buffer from the street but it also allows us to preserve most of the existing
perimeter trees around the site. The established trees along side the more 150 new trees
will expand existing canopy to create a very green, attractive and pedestrian friendly
environment. As we demonstrated with the previously approved East Meadow Drive
project Trumark Companies is committed to utilizing green building in our communities.
We will again utilize FSC certified lumber as available. In addition, Echelon wilt exceed
the new Title 24 standards by 15 percent and just as a means of comparison the new
standards for 2005 are 15 percent higher than the standards in 2004. So in effect Echelon
is 30 percent more efficient than what was required just a year ago. With tankless water
heaters and manifold plumbing systems standard on every home we hope to save an
estimated 15,000 gallons of water per home a year and over the whole site that is a total
savings of over a million gallons of water a year. Each home will also be pre-wired for
solar so the homeowners association can easily add photovoltaic systems in the future
should they decide to. Even the fence on the rear of the property is constructed of
certified redwood.
Another major benefit of the site plan is the inclusion of 11 below market rate homes on
the site. As approved by the Palo Alto Housing Coordinator these homes are evenly
disbursed and represent an even mix of the size and type of unit in terms of bedroom
count, etc. The sale price of these homes will average below $300,000.
We are also reducing the traffic generation from the site converting 65,000 square feet of
office to 75 homes will cut the daily traffic trip rate in half. Trumark is also investing in
the existing community with nearly $400,000 in park fees, $139,000 for libraries and
community center and almost $250,000 in school fees.
After our neighborhood outreach and numerous neighborhood meetings the community
has recognized a need for added pedestrian safety at the nearby intersection of Fabian
Way and East Meadow Drive. To respond to this need Trumark has voluntarily proposed
to construct a lighted crosswalk with a pedestrian refuge in the median. We have worked
closely with the City Transportation Division to design an additional road signage
program that will increase the pedestrian safety near this intersection even further.
The Vesting Tentative Map before you is the result of many previous accomplishments in
the planning process. In July the project was unanimously approved by the Architectural
Review Board and it was later approved by the Planning Director. A Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared and circulated in June. The Vesting
Tentative Map has been deemed complete and tonight we are asking that the Planning
and Transportation Commission recommend approval of this Map to the City Council. I
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
appreciate your time this evening and our team is here to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions at this time of the
developer? Thank you very much. I have six people who would like to speak. I will
give you five minutes. It will be nice if you don’t need to spend those five minutes you
don’t have to. The first person to speak is JeffRensch. Would you please give us your
name and the city you are from? The person to follow will be Boris Foelsch.
Mr. Jeff Rensch. Palo Alto: I work with the Palo Alto League of Women Voters and the
Silicon Valley Housing Action Coalition on housing issues. They both have endorsed the
project but I am speaking for myself tonight. I wish to speak in favor of the entire project
not just the Vesting Tentative Map although of course I am in favor of that as well. Part
of this might be that you may be constrained legally to approve the map but it is the way
you approve it that will send a message to Council that they might need to hear.
The things that excite me very much about this project are the 11 BMR units. They are
units they are not in lieu fees they are actual units. As John Lusardi pointed out earlier
tonight it is so much better to have the units then money that may not be spent for quite
awhile. The other units are attainable housing. They are expensive but for Palo Alto not
that expensive. It is well designed as a whole and I think that the Vesting Map and the
fact that they have worked with the neighboring properties shows that they are designing
as a whole and not just throwing units up. I think they dealt with the flood zone issues, as
I understand really well. The number of automobile trips would be lessened as compared
the office buildings that were built there, half as many trips. So that is nice. Of course it
is near the wonderful grocery store and new JCC and Center for Jewish Life.
So it seems to me like this project would be a slam dunk it is just that because of the
atmosphere that there been about housing in the press at least recently one feels
concerned even about a really wonderful project. Some of the members of the
community have seem to suggest that Palo Alto kind of has somehow already met or over
met its housing quota. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth because there
are lots of high-end units but the kind of units that are being shown in this project we are
in desperate need of. So I guess it seems to me that whether this is legally kosher or not
your enthusiastic support for this project would send a really great message to the new
Council. Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak will be Boris Foelsch to be
followed by Mark Sabin.
Mr. Boris Foelsch. Palo Alto: Hi I have been a homeowner in Palo Alto for 13 years in
South Palo Alto. I just want to state up front that I have a real appreciation and respect
for the planning process in Palo Alto. So having said that I think there are a number of
people who live in my neighborhood, on Louis Road, who feel the same way as I do that
there is this process going on that we don’t know a lot about. We are working to get
more informed so pardon me if I don’t have all the facts. We are trying to get up to speed
Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
on what is going on. We were informed some while ago that there were going to be
condominiums developed, there were going to be some number of condominiums. I
thought I understood that to be the property that is up for discussion tonight. Then people
found out that no it was actually across the street, those are the buildings that have
already been razed on the other side of East Meadow Circle. So then there is talk of even
more development. So there is a great deal of concern now in the community, people that
I am in touch with and a number of fairly involved citizens in the neighborhood who are
concerned about what is going on. It seems like the density of housing in the area is
being increased substantially and people don’t feel like they have the facts nor are they
being really involved in the process. Now there were some invitations to meetings and
other things but it was more like the charette, discussing the architectural design of it. It
was sort of a fait accompli that the development was going to happen. We weren’t
necessarily involved and we don’t feel like there was community input solicited on the
impacts that this is going to have on the neighborhood and in particular the traffic and the
schools. So really the largest issue to me is the fact that we feel somewhat
disenfranchised. We don’t know what is going on. Is that whole light industrial complex
going to be converted to condominiums? If so, that would have substantial impacts on
the character of the neighborhood because those people would be driving in and out of
the neighborhood, going to schools in the neighborhood and so forth. That may not be a
bad thing. It may be better than putting up big office buildings and having a lot of traffic
for that but it is not clear to me that that’s the case. I really don’t feel that the estimates
of traffic reduction are something people would agree with if you posed that to most
people in the neighborhood that they would buy that. I think that is based on some
assumptions that I don’t understand. Maybe I can get the background information from
the developer on how that study was done. Certainly vacant buildings aren’t a good thing
but we would like to see information given out to the community and for the Planning
Commission hopefully to solicit some involvement from residents along Louis Road ~vho
would be bearing a lot of the brunt of the traffic. If there is a way for the traffic to be not
routed through that neighborhood in particular from Charleston onto Louis to get there to
East Meadow Circle. If there is a way to make it so that it is more favorable for people to
use Fabian that would be a good thing. So those are things I would like to see. So if
there is some way for us to get more information on the overall scope of it, is this being
done piecemeal or is there an overarching plan for that whole area? If so, we certainly
don’t know about it. So some specific questions are also if we can find out what the non-
below market rates would be for that. Thanks.
Commissioner Casset: Thank you very much. I suspect you can get a hold of, Steve who
would I have him talk to later?
Mr. Emslie: You can talk to Lorraine Weiss or myself. We can follow up with them if
they want to leave us contact information. We can answer their questions.
Commissioner Cassel: I will put a star on this card. Mark Sabin to be followed by Sally
Probst.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
Mr. Mark Sabin, Sunnw, ale: Thank you. I am actually a resident from Sunnyvale but I
am also a member of the Housing Action Coalition and that is one of the reasons why I
am up here but I have also had a long-term interest in housing issues in this particular
community. Since I had to buy a house outside of Palo Alto that I could afford.
I think this particular development is valuable not only because of its BMR contribution
to the community but also its contribution in that the condominium development, the
housing, will be under the median price of a home in this town as well. So it is also
addressing a need that in terms of what I would call the attainable housing component as
well.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Just a few statistics. In the 2000 Census 76 percent of the working residents of Palo Alto
13 felt in the one category of management professional. That makes up about one-third of
14 the workforce nationwide. Because of that I wanted to get a better idea of who where
15 these people who work in this town. Who contributed to the community? So I went to
16 nine sectors, some were critical contributors like government healthcare, non-profit social
17 services, professional support, accounting, advertising, high-tech like aerospace, IT,
18 biotech and then revenue sources like retail, wholesale, people who work here and so
19 need housing here but don’t necessarily live here but make a critical contribution to the
20 community. With that in mind also since the median housing price is probably about
21 $t.0 million in this town now if you had 20 percent down what would the income have to
22 be to qualify and it comes to somewhere around $190,000 a year. Breaking that down,
23 breaking down those economic sectors just the job categories not the actual numbers or
24 anything like that in the retail/wholesale sector over 60 percent of the people of those job
25 categories made less than half of that $190,000 a year. So if you really want retail and
26 wholesale to add to the tax base 60 percent of the jobs don’t even make half the amount
27 to qualify for a median priced home. In biotech that same group is about 30 percent but
28 what is interesting the job titles that makeup up to two-thirds of $190,000 or less that
29 jumps clear up to 80 percent. So over 80 percent of the jobs in biotech make incomes
30 less than two-thirds of that $190,000. So basically we are talking about even the good
31 jobs, even the good economic sectors need dual incomes to just hopefully make that
32 median price. What is interesting about that is that a lot of these sectors are real
33 susceptible to booms and busts. They are great in the booms but in the busts they are
34 single earner households all over again. So it puts folks in a real big bind. When you
35 combine that with some realities in that there is no viable east-west commute alternative
36 to the automobile here. Cisco Systems is putting a billion dollars into a development in
37 India and at one point they going to be hiring more engineers in India than they are in the
3 8 United States. When you only have probably about 10 police and fire personnel who
39 actually live in this city you probably got a whole lot of folks even in those critical
40 position who in case of an earthquake or a levee break their family and they are going to
41 be on opposite sides of a levee. So I think these types of developments are truly critical
42 for this community. Thank you.
43
44
45
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you, Mark. The next person to speak is Sally Probst to be
followed by Smita Joshi. I would like to remind you that the discussion tonight is a
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Tentative Map on this proposal. So we won’t be having a full discussion on the need of
housing this evening. We must specifically discuss this item.
Ms. Sally Probst. Palo Alto: Good evening. This is our first opportunity to speak to the
Commission and while I realize it is a Tentative Map and we are not speaking about
easements or the Adobe Creek or the street layout we did want to let you know that the
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto is in strong support of this development. It meets
many of the requirements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It also meets many of
the League positions, which have been developed over a period of years on the basis of
our membership grassroots. I will just mention a couple of them. Improving the
diversity of the housing opportunities with emphasis on economic diversity. Lessening
the job/housing imbalance. Supporting compact growth principles. Local efforts to meet
needs for low and moderate-income housing. Growth in existing urbanized areas in order
to prevent urban sprawl, etc.
I should let you know that I am here speaking for the League of Women Voters of Palo
Alto since our President was not able to make this meeting tonight. We believe that this
is an excellent project. It is designed to attract beginning or entry level families and
empty nesters. I have already spoken to a gentleman who is planning to move in because
it is near the Campus for Jewish Life. It has a lot of amenities for the neighborhood and
for the people who will live there. We think that the density at 17 dwelling units per acre
is appropriate. I think that the questions that were asked about the Tentative Map have
been answered in the material that went out to you from Staff. We urge you to support
this tonight so that it can proceed. Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Smita Joshi to be followed by Pat Saffir.
Ms. Smita Joshi. Palo Alto: Hi, I am a 14 year resident of Palo Alto. I live on East
Meadow and I am sorry to say that I woke up to this project a little late. One of the
reasons being that just like Boris spoke before we weren’t really notified about this until
very recently when one of my neighbors got a notice of this meeting here. Once we
called in we were told that we are not required to be notified of any developments if they
are not within a 600-foot range of the development. I wish I could be more specifically
talking about the exact topic you are talking about but I have been given a little bit of
time and I thought I should bring out my concerns. They are similar to Boris’ so I am
going to be a little redundant. Redundancy is usually pretty bad communication but I
think this is my first civic stance and I think in civic life redundancy is not bad it shows
there is more concern out in the citizenry about what is going on. We are rather
concerned about this development but there is another larger development that is going to
happen across the street and the whole area that is going to be developed. My husband
and I also feel that we are being left out a little bit of consideration of what’s going on
over there.
About this particular project I would like to raise a couple of issues. ! heard somewhere
mention of a grocery store. Was there going to be a grocery store? I would like to know
because not having a grocery store in that complex would increase the traffic on my
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
street. I know going to Piazza’s for example. Also there is a concern in terms of
increased attendance in our schools and I think the schools are already crowded. Even
though the new development does pay per square foot for schooling it is a one-time fee
and that will not quite match the funding requirement for many years to come of the
people who will be living there. Our Mitchell Park Library is already extensively used.
In the afternoon if you go there there is almost no space to sit and quietly read because
the number of school children who are already crowding over there. The park across my
street is constantly used which is Ramos Park. It at one time was a very quiet park and
you can hardly walk there because there is always some kind of soccer game or ball game
going on. My mother walks around a little bit and I am constantly worried about the
number of children who are playing there. So I am not really sure the traffic is
necessarily going to be less because even though there were offices there and people
came straight from the highway, went to their office buildings and went back home. If
there are people living there they are going to be using the park and the schools and the
grocery stores and the library and running errands. I think the amount of traffic on my
street is definitely going to increase. It is probably too late to make any changes, it seems
like it is, but if Trumark can maybe come and make a presentation at a group meeting we
might have of our local residents then it might answer some of our question. That would
be great. IfI can know about what is planned for the larger development up to 950 units
on the whole of East Meadow Circle and if there is stil! time to make an impact or have
input or get information then I would really like to know a couple of names. I am trying
to form a neighborhood association around this particular issue so we can have an impact
on this project, the larger project, if possible. Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much and I will star your card so they can get in
contact with you later. Pat Saffir to be followed by Leah McGarriga.
Ms. Pat Saffir, Palo Alto: I live in South Palo Alto. Most of my specific comments
regarding the virtues of the project have already been addressed by previous speakers. So
I simply want to say that I support it also. I feel this is an ideal area for conversion from
commercial to residential uses. It is located adjacent to other housing that means that it
has all the services that we usually associate with housing needed being in the area. I
think it is an excellent project in the right place, Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Leah McGarriga to be followed by Jiyon Hahn.
Ms. Leah McGarri~a, Palo Alto: I am a resident of South Palo Alto, a parent of two
children in the Palo Alto public schools and a lawyer. I want to first give credit to Boris
who is a fellow Palo Verde parent. Nice to meet you tonight because you inspired me to
come. That is basically like Smita to be redundant and to reiterate the concerns that Boris
had.
Commissioner Cassel: Could you please speak to the mike because it is being recorded
and the Secretary needs to have the minutes? Thank you.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. McGarriga: To speak to whether or not we may be on point tonight for exactly the
same reasons that Smita and Boris have spoken. I don’t think it is realistic to expect that
we will have fewer trips with the number of units we have already apparently we will be
living with let alone those that may be in the works. Those of us who have children in
sports, in school, in music programs know how many trips we make around town whether
it is on bicycle, on foot or in a car depending on the time of year and our personal
lifestyles. I also with all due respect to the Commission want to say that we have waited
three hours to speak and the suggestion that we should take less than our five minutes I
think is not appreciated. So thank you very much for your time.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jiyon Hahn.
Ms. Ji¥on Hahn, Palo Alto: Hello, I very recently heard about this development and also
the one that has already been demolished. I only noticed after I started running by. I live
within a block but apparently not within the 600 feet radius of the first development that
has already been approved. I don’t know how that came about that 600 is the right
number but I know for a fact all of the construction and development is going to impact
all of us around that area quite a bit. So it seems quite disturbing to me that I didn’t hear
anything until just very recently.
The second point that I would like to make is that I have lived in Palo Alto for 22 years
and I worked at East Meadow Circle back in the heyday where all of the buildings were
occupied, fully occupied, and I can tell you the traffic is not going to be less than what I
experienced working there and also living nearby. So I don’t know if any of you have
worked in that area and lived in that area but I find that incredibly hard to believe given
the projection of the developments being upwards of over 900 units. I am not against
development. It happens. But at the concentration and the numbers that you are talking
about is just outrageous to me because I don’t know if any of you have been to any of the
local schools, visited during lunchtime, like at Palo Verde which is the nearest school to
those properties. The yard space is so small that the children are literally on top of each
other. I don’t know if you guys have ever driven by but it is absolutely outrageous. I
have seen parks with dog runs that have more space for the dogs than for the children. It
is outrageous. So the amount of money that you are talking about that is going to support
all these additional families unless they are all childless is ridiculous because number one
to open up an additional elementary school, open up a third high school is going to cost
tens of millions of dollars not a quarter of a million dollars. I realize that is only for that
particular project but !ook at the numbers it doesn’t add up. So I am very much
concerned about the financial impact to Palo Alto, to the parents and I don’t know if you
have children but I can tell you that I have two children in the school district and the
direct appeal over the past two years, the amount that they are asking for has gone up
over three times. As faithful contributors it is mind boggling to me because we don’t
have enough funds, they are going to all the parents to ask for monies and at what point
are we going to go back and try to raise taxes again? It is crazy to think that somehow
this is all wonderful for people because there are going to be a few low income
properties. The impact is way greater than just South Palo Alto it is all of Palo Alto. So
basically that is what I have to say. It would be really great if the notification was a little
Page 9
1 more broad given that over 40 acres in that area, if you do the radius of 600 feet it is not
2 going to touch really a lot of the residents who actually live near there because of the
3 freeway and because all of those parcels are so large. So I don’t know whether that
4 makes any difference to any of you up there but it makes a huge difference to all of us.
5 Thank you.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you for coming and thank you all for speaking. There is a
process going on to look at this particular area and I am sure they will get in touch with
you and bring you into the process and evaluation that is going on out there.
Commissioner Lippert: If the Chair might recognize me for a moment?
Commissioner Cassel: Certainly.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. I think there is a miscommunication
here. The number of units that we are looking at here is 75 units not 900 units. Is that
correct?
Ms. Lorraine Weiss, Contract Plarmer: That is correct.
Commissioner Cassel: I believe that they are referring to the total area. We have had a
design charette on this neighborhood in the past couple of weeks. There is a process
going on for that and I suspect that they are relating their comments to the whole process
that is going on and they just happen to come and speak this evening. They need to be
put into the process so they can hear what is happening. Are there any other questions of
the developer on the project tonight or of Staff?. Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I had one. There was a previous project that came forward for
review and also for Tentative Map and this is a second one. When you look at map of
this area and again what the trend is in this area there could be other developments that
could come forward for housing. Why would an EIR not be triggered here? Just because
the projects are coming forward independent of each other why would not the cumulative
impacts be considered and thus an EIR be required?
Mr. Emslie: There is always an element of discretion in an EIR and I think basically the
law requires that if there is an impact that cannot be mitigated and must be overridden
then you must do an Environmental Impact Report. In this case there have been no
impacts that have been identified that could not be reduced to less than significant levels.
I suspect that is w-hat the driving factor in reaching this decision was.
The law does also define what projects have to be considered that are on the foreseeable
horizon and those have to be taken into account for cumulative impacts. There are no
projects that meet those criteria. There are no pending projects that would by law be
required to be considered in any cumulative impact analysis as well.
Commissioner Cassel: Is there another question? One follow up.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Vice-Chair Holman: If I could follow up on that. The reference earlier I had also
understood the number of 900 units as a possibility in this area. So if this is a part of that
and the Comp Plan EIR, my understanding is that the Comp Plan EIR does not evaluate
the impacts of this area becoming housing. It just says that it may become housing. So
how can we not be considering what the impacts would be of the full build out
development of this? I am still puzzled I am afraid.
Mr. Emslie: Just to briefly summarize, the law provides that projects for which there is
an application pending must be considered as a cumulative impact otherwise a project is
speculative and the law does not require the cumulative impact analysis to be done for
projects that are speculative that may be considered in the future. There is quite a bit of
litigation on that particular aspect as to what needs to be taken into account for
cumulative impacts.
Vice-Chair Holman: Just a last piece of that I am not trying to beat a horse here. The
project that just recently came forward and then this one if combined did Staff look at
those as a combined potential impact?
Mr. Emslie: The Staff can respond more specifically but yes the second project would
have to take into account the impacts of the prior project. That is required to be taken
into account and Staff can elaborate on that but it is required that that happen.
Ms. Weiss: I could also mention that both projects together did not exceed any
thresholds that are considered in the Comprehensive Plan. So when the initial study was
prepared for this particular project we looked at redevelopment of an infill site and so did
the previous project and the two together did not exceed any existing thresholds.
Commissioner Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Just in looking at the original parcel maps that are there the two
32,000 square foot buildings if you look at the parking that is required for those the
number of cars there exceed the number of vehicles that would be on the new joined
parcel.
Ms. Weiss: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Lippert: So we are looking at less traffic not more traffic.
Ms. Weiss: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: Dan, you have a question?
Commissioner Garber: Yes, I have several. By way of explanation can you explain the
apparent discrepancy between the description that the project will actually generate less
trips from some benchmark? How is it that that statement is made?
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Weiss: The traffic study that was prepared for the project took into account the
number of vehicle trips per day used for household in the new residential development.
Apparently that was less than the development that previously existed on the site.
Commissioner Garber: So it is not actually the traffic that was actually generated by the
previous but what could have been based on the area of the property.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: I’m sorry?
Commissioner Cassel: Do you have a second question?
Commissioner Garber: We can come back if you want to.
Commissioner Cassel: Paula, do you have a question? Lee? Karen, do you have another
question?
Vice-Chair Holman: Not now.
Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead, Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Could you briefly inform me of your outreach to the community?
The meetings you may have had, the announcements that may have been made of this
project.
Ms. Weiss: For each public hearing that was required of this project, which included two
Architectural Review Board meetings, and then for this meeting tonight the outreach was
for the property owners and residents within 600 feet of the subject parcel.
Commissioner Garber: So two meetings.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: Where does the 600-foot radius come from?
Mr. Emstie: It is required by our own ordinance and it actually exceeds, in fact that
radius was expanded about a year and a half ago from 300 feet it was doubled to 600 feet
in our streamlining efforts.
Commissioner Cassel: The other point is that these are published in the paper. I know
people don’t always seem them but they are required by taw to be published in the paper
a certain number of times in a standard paper in the area.
Ms. Weiss: That is correct and it is also published on the City’s website.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: Were there other meetings that related to the general areas as
opposed to this project specifically that the City has sponsored?
Mr. Emslie: I just would say we always encourage the applicants to do outreach and
don’t conduct meetings with the neighborhood. They may be able to elaborate on what
outreach they did as well.
Commissioner Garber: Has the applicant undertaken outreach efforts into the community
beyond the 600 feet?
Mr. Yakligian: Trumark prides themselves on working with the neighbors and we have
had additional meetings. We have been to the Midtown Residents Association’s meeting,
which is actually far outside 600 feet. We have been to lunch and coffee with a couple of
neighbors on Louis who again are outside the 600-foot radius. So yes, we have worked
with areas beyond 600 feet.
Commissioner Garber: You don’t have any problem following up with the people that
are here?
Mr. Yakligian: Not at all. We would be very happy to.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Does anyone else have any other questions? Do you have a
question, Karen?
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes. My Negative Declaration seems to have gotten separated from
my Staff Report. Does Staff have another copy of that, please?
Commissioner Cassel: Does anyone else have a question? Dan, go ahead.
Commissioner Garber: Sorry don’t mean to monopolize here. Most of my technical
questions were answered in your memo, thank you. I did want to ask if the applicant, not
that I want to step on the ARB’s toes or anything, but relative to the ganged meters that
were located on the civil drawings as part of the application does the applicant have an
idea of what those actually look like and how they address the sidewalk, etc., what their
physical characteristics are?
Mr. Yakligian: I would like to ask our project civil engineer, Tom Morris, to answer that
question.
Mr. Tom Morris, BKF: This is very similar to the project that we are doing across the
street where we also have ganged meters. We are actually pursuing two options to deal
with those. One would be to have them ganged behind the sidewalk, which for liability
reasons is preferred. We are also looking at having them placed in the sidewalk which
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
the utilities department will allow us to but they don’t prefer them there either is my
understanding.
Commissioner Garber: So if they are not inside the sidewalk is there an architectural
treatment that, for lack of a better phrase, makes them pretty?
Mr. Morris: I would have to defer to our landscape architect but we can push them away
from the sidewalk and put green stuff around them, grass or other shrubs, but they do
have to be readily accessible because they have to be read an a monthly basis by the
utilities department.
Commissioner Garber: One other question related to that. In your outdoor rooms as they
were described I also note that you had storm drains centered in them which I recognize
as probably simply a coordination oversight. One because that part of the outdoor room
is raised and that way the water would collect but also more importantly relative to policy
you would want to get them out of there such that people could play Frisbee, have
picnics, etc. without having a storm drain in the center of that area.
Mr. Morris: Absolutely, we have quite an extensive construction documents process to
go through with the City and still do have quite a bit of coordination on detail items such
as that.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. According to our regulations the
BMR is supposed to be one unit for every 15. This is twice that number is that correct?
There are 11 units.
Mr. Emstie: Well, you round up so we always end up getting more units with the split.
Commissioner Lippert: We should only have five. So they doubled the number of BMR
units.
Ms. Weiss: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question.
Commissioner Lippert: Our regulations require that the BMR be one per 15. In this case
there are 75 units proposed.
Commissioner Cassel: No, it is 15 percent.
Mr. Emslie: I am sorry. It is 15 to 20 percent. Fifteen percent is required of small
projects and 20 percent is required of larger projects. If there is a rounding we would
round up and it would be over 15 percent.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Lippert:
Commissioner Cassel:
Commissioner Lippert:
Commissioner Cassel:
Commissioner Garber:
Okay, thank you.
That would have been nice.
I am just trying to get a handle on it.
That’s okay. Dan, do you have another question?
Just a clarification. This is a quasi-judicial topic here so we
really can only speak to issues of street grade, curbs, sewers, etc. Is that correct?
Mr. Emslie: Well, it is not because it is quasi-judicial act it is because it follows an
entitlement that the City has already granted by the Architectural Review Board. So the
scope is limited as pointed out by the attorney earlier.
Commissioner Cassel: Do we have any comments on the findings? Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: It is not a comment on the findings. All we are here to do is to
recommend or not approving the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. Am I correct?
Ms. Tronquet: That is correct.
Commissioner Sandas: What would happen, I ask this question all the time, if we didn’t
do that since we are so far along into this process?
Mr. Emslie: You would be very likely to be sued and you would be very likely to lose
that lawsuit.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes you can and when you will you mention that you believe we
will make these findings if you are making a positive motion?
What am I supposed to say about the findings?
That we can make the findings.
Commissioner Sandas:
Commissioner Cassel:
MOTION
Commissioner Sandas:Because we can make the findings I move that we recommend
approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map in order to merge two parcels,
approximately 4.4 acres, and create 75 condominium units to the City Council. Thank
you.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Cassel: Paula, would you like to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Sandas: I have already done that.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I really don’t want to be repetitive but I find this project to be
very similar to the last project we reviewed for Trumark. It is really an exemplary
project. I think they have bent over backwards to do a number of things that are quite
positive in this community. I just want to say for the residents that have had difficulty
looking at this project that this is a project that is allowed, it is permitted in the
underlying zoning, it does support the principles in the general and Comprehensive Plan.
This is the kind of development that we are looking for. I said this once before, that it
really is getting us in the direction of righting the jobs/housing imbalance in our
community. It really is taking away what we consider to be commercial space and
converting it over to residential space. That is something that we need in order to begin
to reduce the traffic in our community. So I am in support of this Map I think it is a great
project and I think that it is also in keeping with the spirit of the charette that just
happened a month ago. So congratulations.
Commissioner Cassel: Karen, would you like to make some comments?
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes I have a couple of concerns that actually are going to keep me
from being able to support the motion. That is because and mea cutpa on me because I
had thought that something had gotten separated from my Staff Report but we don’t have
a copy even of the environmental document to confirm. So I feel like we should be
seeing that to see that there aren’t environmental damages caused from this especially
having to do with trips.
The other is finding number six doesn’t have language that supports the finding in it.
Finding six is on page five.
Commissioner Cassel: I find that above item number seven on the next page.
Vice-Chair Holman: It is carried forward on a whole new page.
Commissioner Cassel: It is carried forward on the next page.
Vice-Chair Holman: So my remaining concern is that we haven’t seen the - this is a
whole blank page here and then that on the next page. My concern is not having the
review of the environmental document.
Commissioner Cassel: Are we supposed to have a review of the environmental document
for the Vesting Map? I don’t think so.
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Emslie: Again, it is one of the vagaries of this process that is a problem because the
environmental document has already been used to certify the project by the ARB. They
were the approving body in this. The statutes have run on that. We apologize for not
including that. We think it is very appropriate for the Planning Commission to review
that in your deliberations but again because of the limited scope and the fact that it has
already been certified for this project and this Map is consistent with that we don’t think
it is required in this case.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Go ahead, do have more?
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes. Could I ask a question about that? Steve, you have talked
about before how there are some vagaries to this. It does seem unusual and confusing
and not linear, let’s say, that the ARB is reviewing the environmental document and that
that all gets approved before it ever comes to the Planning Commission for review. I
have difficulty with that and I get frustrated by it.
Commissioner Cassel: I did find the environmental comments in this under Section 2,
page two. It isn’t the whole document but it is comments on the document.
Mr. Emslie: The findings are present in the approval documents.
Vice-Chair Holman: But not the document itself.
Mr. Emslie: That is correct but the findings are taken from that. We do have a lot of
process here and we do have many different bodies that review different aspects of
development. I think this is a process that probably should be modified unfortunately it is
not going to be modified in time for this. Actually what we are seeing is probably a
factor of the fact that the development is coming in consistent with zoning. That tends to
be a good thing because we do want the development to occur within the parameters we
have already setout for this. In the past it has been more common that you either need to
rezone it, you would have a request for rezoning or you would have a request for a
Planned Community Zone, which would come to you and you would look at all the
materials at the same time. Since these projects are consistent with the underlying zoning
they don’t require that extra discretionary review on the part of Planning Commission.
So should the review body that is approving it also approve the Map, I think so, but I
understand your frustration at this point.
Commissioner Cassel: But we do have the results of your environmental review in the
document.
Mr. Emslie: Yes you do. The findings are contained in there, which we feel give you the
authority to act on this.
Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Let me work down and come back. Did you have any
other comments to the motion? Thank you. Dan, do you have any more comments?
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Commissioner Garber: No.
Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make one other comment, which is that this is the
LM zone and recently that came before the City Council, the revised LM zone. In there
again this body recommended and reiterated how important housing was to be retained in
the LM zone and Council supported that. They were not as supportive of housing in the
GM zone. So again I think that this is a pretty important project and I don’t see any
reason to not support what is being requested of us here.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Burt and Bialson not participating due to
conflicts).
Commissioner Cassel: I want to comment that I reviewed the document, that I found the
Tentative Map consistent with the documents that I read and reviewed and will support
the motion. If there are no other comments then I will call the motion.
All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That is five ayes and no nays and two people
not present because of conflicts. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for
coming and I am sure the Staff will work with you. Be sure and call the Staff about what
is going on in the general area.
Mr. Emslie: If there are phone numbers on the cards we will get in contact with the
speakers.
Commissioner Cassel: The phone numbers are on the cards and I starred all those cards
for those neighbors.
Commissioner Garber: The applicant has also expressed interest in participating in that.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much everyone for coming.
Page 18
Attachment E
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
To:Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room t21
Sacramento, CA 95814
Office of the County Clerk
County of Santa Clara
Business Division, Room 104
191 North First Street
San Jose CA 95113
From:Beth Bourne, Senior Planner
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Planning Division
P.O. Box 10250
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94303
Subject:Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Project Title:Trumark Infill Residential Development (Echelon), 1010 E. Meadow Circle/1101 E. Meadow Drive
Beth Bourne, Senior Planner
Lead Agency
Contact Person
n]a
State Clearinghouse Number
(if submitted to Clearinghouse)
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, CA 94304
(650) 617-3196
Area Code/Telephone/Extension
(include County)
Project Location
Project Description:
The project is the merger of two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) for the development of 75 condominium
residential units, consisting of two and three-story townhouse units in twelve buildings, private streets, park utilities,
private open space and common landscape areas. Two vacant office buildings totaling 61,360 s.f. would be
demolished.
This is to advise that the City of Palo Alto’s Director of Planning and Community Environment
has approved the above described project on July 25, 2005 and has made the following determinations regarding the
above described project:
1.The project will not have significant effect on the environment.
2.A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3.Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4.Findings were made pursuant to Section 15091.
5.A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to
the general public at:
City of Palo Alto Plannin~ Division, 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 329-2441
Signature (Project Planner Title Date
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
Department of Fish and Game de Minimis Impact Finding
To:Office of the County Clerk
Business Division, Room 104
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
From:Department of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Project Title: Trumark Infill Residential Development (Echelon).
Project Applicant [Name & Address[:
Project Location:1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, CA 94304
Project Description:
The project is the merger of two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) for the development of 75 condominium
residential units, consisting of two and three-story, townhouse units in twelve buildings, private streets, park utilities,
private open space and common landscape areas. Two vacant office buildings totaling 61,360 s.f. would be
demolished.
Findings of Exemption:
An initial study has been conducted by this lead agency and a Environmental Impact Report was
prepared, which evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect--either individually or
cumulatively--on wildlife resources. For this purpose, wildlife is defined as "all wild animaIs, birds,
plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends for its continued viability." (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code)
When considering the Environmental Impact Report for the project and the record as a whole, there is
no evidence that the proposed project would have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the City of Palo Alto, as lead agency, has made the above findings and that based upon the
initial study, the Environmental Impact Report and the hearing record, the proposed project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the
Fish and Game Code.
Name
Title
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Tmmark Infill Residential Development (Echelon)
City of Palo Alto, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5~ Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
o
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Beth Bourne, Senior Planner
(650) 617-3196
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304
05PLN-00000-00200
°Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Trumark Companies - Aaron Yakligan
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
General Plan Designation:Research/Office Park (RO)
8.Zoning:Limited Industrial / Research Park Zoning District (LM)
°
10.
Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its
implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The project is the merger of two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) for the development of 75
condominium residential units, consisting of two and three-story townhouse units in twelve
buildings, private streets, park utilities, private open space and common landscape areas. Two
vacant office buildings totaling 61,360 s.f. would be demolished.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
The subject site (site) consists of two developed parcels totaling approximately 4.4 acres. At
present, the site consists on two vacant office buildings and surface parking areas. The site is
bordered by an office/R&D building (BD Biosciences Clontech) to the northwest, an electric!!
sub-substation to the northeast, Adobe Creek with office space beyond on the east, East Meadow
Drive to the south, and an office/R&D building (Alexza Molecular Delivery) across East Meadow
Circle to the west. A new 75-unit townhouse residential ~nfill project is proposed to replace the
three existing office buildings on the site across East Meadow Drive to the south.
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 1 of 21
11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
Approvals are required from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
Date Prepared: June 29, 2005
Public Review Period: June 30, 2005 - July 19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project,
but none are "Potential Significant Issues" and mitigation is incorporated as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
x
x
x
x
x
Aesthetics
Agricu.!.ture Resources
Air Quality
X Hydrology/Water Quality
X Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
BiologiCal Resources X Noise
Cultural Resources X Population/Housing
Geology/Soils X Public Services
Hazards & Hazardous X Recreation
Materials
X Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 2 of 21
X
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Di~ecto~ of Pl~f~ning and
Community Environment
Date
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
a)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from ."Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 3 of 21
s)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063 (C) (3) (D). in this case, a brief discussion should identify-the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for. review.
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document Pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,". describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if an)’, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sollrces
i~ AESTHETI~’S. Would the project:
~) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
.... b) Subs~antially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
3
3
3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
NO
Impact
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 4 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
¯project: ........
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to 1 Xthe Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson 1, 2 X
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in 1 X
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air1, 3, 13
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality 1, 3, 13
violation
c) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state 1, 3, 13
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant 1,3, 13
concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?3, 13
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 5 of 21
[ Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
a)
c)
d)
e)
Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or 1, 14
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,Ipolicies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not 1limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Interfere substantially With the ’
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or 1
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree 1, 9, 14
....preserv~t!on policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation 1Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical 1, 2
resource as defined in 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Ci.rcIe/t 101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 6 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
b)Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
Sources
1,3
1,3
1,3
project:
1,4
1,4
1,4
1,3
3, 15
1, 15
1, 12, 15
1, 12, 15
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 7 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through 3the routing transport, use, or
.... disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and 3accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste 1, 3
within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 1, 3
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project 1, 3
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people 1, 3
residing or working the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted 7, 10emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or 1, 3
death involving wildland fires,
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Would the
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
project?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i010 East Meadow Circle/1 t01 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 8 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the pr0"ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements? 7, 16
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,1, 8, 16
the production rate 0f pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a 1, 8, 16
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or 5, 16substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide 3, 5, 16
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality? 3, 16
g) Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or 3, 16
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/ll01 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 9 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Resources
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede 3, 5, 16
or redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including 1, 3, 16
flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?1, 3, 16
IXI LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established 3community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local 1, 2
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural 1
community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would 1be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local 1
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
XI. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan 1, 3, 18
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive ground borne vibration 3, 18
or ground borne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in 1, 3, 18ambient noise levels in the project
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 10 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
vicinity above levels existing without
the proj~ft?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels 3, 18
existing .~ithout the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted; would 1, 3, 18the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in 1, 3, 18
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly 1, 3
(for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing 1, 3
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing 1, 3
elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision-of new
or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause 3, 7, 10
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Pagellof21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use 1
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational 3
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
3, 6, 17
3, 6, 17
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
i~tersections).?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for "
_designated roads o~__
c)Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
..................safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 12 of 21
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Sources Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
e)Result in inadequate emergency
access?6, 7, 10
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?3, 6
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative 1,6transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control 8, 16
Board?
b)Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of 8, 16
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which 8, 16
could cause significant
environmental effects?
..... d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,8, 16
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity 8, 16
to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landt’dl with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid 12, 16
waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to 12, 16
solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential
Impact
X
X
X
X
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 13 of 21
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
SOURCE REFERENCES:
No
Impact
X
X
1.Polo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-
10, T-7, T-8
2.Polo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18- Zoning Ordinance
3.Planner’s knowledge of the site and project and design drawing by KTGY Group Architecture,
submitted June 7, 2005
4.Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
5.City of Polo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, written comments on project
6.City of Polo Alto Transportation Division, comments on project
7.City of Palo Alto Fire Department, comments on project
8.City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, comments on project
9.City of Palo Alto Public Work’s Arborist’s comments on the project
10.City of Palo Alto Police Department, comments on project
11.City of Polo Alto Building Division, comments on the project; Uniform Building Code
12.City of Polo Alto Public Works Environmental Compliance, comments on the project
13.Air Quality Impact Assessment, prepared by Mindigo & Associates, May 14, 2005
14.Arborist Report, prepared David Bobby, RCA, Arbor Resources, May 23, 2005
1010 East Meadow Circie/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 14 of 21
15.Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Lowney Associates, April 19, 2005.
16.Water Quality and Utility Impacts Report, Thomas Morse, BFK Engineers, June 14, 2005
17.Trip Generation Estimates, Fehr & Peers, March 30, 2005
18.Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., May 24, 2005
ATTACHMENTS
A. Air Quality Impact Assessment, Mindigo & Associates, May 14, 2005
B. Arborist Report, David Babby, RCA, Arbor Resources, May 23, 2005
C. Water Quality and Utility Impacts Report, Thomas Morse, BFK Engineers, June 14, 2005
D. Trip Generation Estimates, Fehr & Peers, March 30, 2005
E. Environmental Noise Assessment, Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., May 24, 2005
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: -- Explain choice of impact category.
I.Aesthetics
The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development. The project
proposes buildings at 2.5 to 3 stories, intending to comply with the LM (RM-30) zone district’s
maximum height allowance of 35 feet. The landscape plan for the project includes extensive
landscaping and common areas. The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review
Board, which will ensure a design that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its
surroundings.
The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated
from the additional lighting of the site and glazing on the building. With the City’s standard
conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of the project will not be significant. The
conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not extend
beyond the site, is directional, and that the source of light is not directly visible.
Mitigation Measures: None
II.Agricultural Resources
The site is not located in an area of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an
agricultural use, and it is not under a Williamson Act Contract.
Mitigation Measures:None
III. Air Quality
It is not anticipated that the project would affect any regional air quality plan or standards, or
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The extent of the
effects on air quality will be during the period of site preparation and construction.
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 15 of 21
The City of Palo Alto utilizes the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The proposed project will involve demolition, grading, paving, and
landscaping which has the potential to cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases
in airborne particulate matter. Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but can
be mitigated with the application of standard dust control measures.
Long Term/Operational Impacts: Long-term and operational project emissions would stem
primarily from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project is not expected
to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts
related to motor vehicle operation are expected to be less than significant.
The proposed project consists of residential use. This use does not typically create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of people. The proposed project is not expected to create
objectionable odors when it is complete. The project would be subject to the following City’s
standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize
dust related construction impacts:
All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two
feet of freeboard.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept and watered daily.
Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance
of a demolition permit.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:None
IV. Biological Resources
The site is developed with some mature landscaping that will be removed and replaced with new
landscaping. No endangered, threatened, or special status animal or plant species have been
identified at the project site.
Mitigation Measures: None
V.Cultural Resources
The project site is located in an area of moderate sensitivity, as indicated in the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. A one-story building is located on the site. If approved, the
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 16 of 21
project would contain conditions in the form of instructions in the case of the discovery of any
cultural resources during demolition or construction. The following standard conditions would
result in impacts that are less than significant.
If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s
office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native
American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease
immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American
Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. The Director of
Planning and Community Environment will decide the significance of an archaeological
discovery and necessary mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measures:None
VI. Geology and Soils
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong
seismic risk area, subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic
ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at
the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is verY unlikely,
but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most
current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk
and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake.
Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts.
Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage
plan subject to review by the Department of PuNic Works prior to issuance of any grading and
building permits.
Mitigation Measures:None
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not designated as a high fire hazard within the City and is not designated as
wildland. The new construction and site design shall be required to comply with the City’s
building permit approval standards and fire equipment and fire protection coverage standards as
conditions of project approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
No known conditions exist on the site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful
or hazardous. The site is not located near any known hazardous materials facilities.
Mitigation Measures:None
VKI. Hydrology andWater Quality
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 17 of 21
The site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (designated AES) in an area within the i00 year flood
zone as shown on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Flooding in the area is caused by a
combinatinon of high tide in San Francisco Bay and storm water runoff. The project proposes to
place fill on the site to raise the structures above the 100 year base flood elevation. Because the
base flood elevation is directly related to the tide elevation in the Bay, construction of this
project will not increase the elevation of flood water adjacent to the project. As part of this
process the project will apply for a Conditional Le~ler of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-
F) prior to start of construction of the project. Prior to occupancy, the project wil! apply to
FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F).
During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the
project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Non-point source pollution is a
serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted
streams or baylands. City development standards and specific conditions of project approval
reduce potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
As a conversion of commercial and light industrial uses to residential development, the project
would result in an decrease in the amount of impervious surface area on the site (from
approximately 85 percent of the site covered with impervious area to 59) and reduce the peak
storm water discharge. The implementation of Best Management practices to treat post
construction runoff will likely further reduce the peak storm water discharge from the site.
Construction of this project will not impede or redirect flood flows. Flood flows follow the
existing flow path to the City’s public storm drain system (one of the criteria used by FEMA in
their review of the CLOMP,-F and the LOMR-F.
Mitigation Measures:None
IX. Land Use and Planning
The site is designated for Research/Office Park (RO) use in the City of Pato Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. This land use provides for areas for the conduct of office,
research, and educational activities not requiring sales or display area generally associated with
retail use in deve!opments characterized by low building intensity, large site size, and landscaped
grounds. Residential uses that would benefit from the proximity to employment areas are
allowed. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations for this designation.
The project replaces two existing office buildings with 75 townhouse condominium units and
does not conflict with any land use plans for the site. The project complies will all massing,
height, setback and lot coverage standards for the LM zoning district and complies with the
Comprehensive Plan policies for Research!Office Park.
The project is subject to review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design
that is aesthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings.
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 18 of 21
X.Mineral Resources
The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures:None
XI. Noise
The primary source of noise on the site is from traffic on US Highway 10!. This results in a
small reduction in project-generated traffic noise. By incorporating sound rated windows into the
project in selected locations the interior noise levels would be reduced to the City and State
standards. By incorporating a solid barrier along portions of the site’s perimeter, exterior noise
levels could be reduced to a level that slightly exceeds the City’s exterior noise goal. Where the
City determines that providing an Ldn of 60dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level
in outdoor areas intended for recreational use shall be reduced to as close to the standard (60dB)
as feasible through required design changes. These design changes would be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board.. Common open space and play areas would be located on the site
that are meet the City’s noise goals for recreational areas.
The reduction in the number of daily trips generated by the project would decrease from
approximately 916 to approximately 450 from the number estimated if the existing offices were
in use.
Demolition and Construction Activities wilt result in {emporary increases in local ambient noise
levels. In addition there may be increases in ground-borne vibrations resulting from demolition
and construction. Therefore, standard conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved
demolition and construction management plan would be required to be secured before building
permit issuance.
The project site is not located within any public or private airport zone. Project related traffic
would not cause a noticeable increase in noise on any public streets. However, the construction
of the project would temporarily increase current noise levels in the vicinity of the site. All
development of the site shall comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC,
as amended, and shalI be required to follow standard construction techniques and best
management practices.
City development standards and the following standard conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance is required
(PAMC 9.10). In addition, construction hours shall be established as per the construction
management plan to minimize disturbance to surrounding residents, visitors, and businesses.
Mitigation Measures:None
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 19 of 21
XII. Population and Housing
Population in Palo Alto’s sphere of influence in 1996, according to Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan was 58,000 people. This is projected to increase to 62,880 by 2010. The project, by
adding to the housing stock by 75 units, would cumulatively contribute to population in the
area. The average household size in Palo Alto is 2.24 persons, which would mean the project
could generate an average of 168 people given the proposed 75 units.
The projects cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are also considered to be less than
significant, as the impact (an average of 75 persons) from the project alone is not "considerable",
and is di minimus, as environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the
project is implemented (as per CEQA Guidelines §15355 and §15064). This small increase in
population generated by the proposed project is not considered a significant impact. City
development standards, development fees and standard conditions of project approva! reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
XIII.Public Services
Fire
The project site is not located in a high fire or wildlands fire area. The project would be required
to meet Fire Department development standards prior to issuance of a building permit.
Police
The change in use from office to residential would not result in a significant increase in the need
for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities.
Schools
Using the Palo Alto Unified School District student generation rates of .276 elementary students
per residential unit, .088 middle school students, and .095 high school students, the project
would generate 35 additional students. Current enrollment in the School District is beyond
stated capacity, and so this project would increase overcrowdingl However, the California
appellate court has stated that overcrowding is not considered a significant effect under CEQA
[GoIeta Union School District v. The Regents of University of California, 35 Cal. App. 4th
1121(1995)]. Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such a school
would create significant environmental effects, such as impact from constructing a new school.
This increase would not create any environmental impacts: no school would need to be
constructed. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact. As a housing
development project, the project would be subject to schoot impact fees.
Parks and Public Facilities
The project would be subject to a community facilities fee payable in full prior to the issuance of
a building permit. This fee is adjusted annually and includes impact fees for parks, community
centers and libraries.
1010 East Meadow Circle/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Pa~e 20 of 21
City development standards, development fees and specific conditions of project approval reduce
potential negative impacts of the project to less than significant.
Mitigation .Measures:None
XIV. Recreation
There would not be a significant change to the demand of recreation services as a result of the
proposed project. The project includes common areas for recreation and children play activities.
Mitigation Measures:None
XV. Transportation!Traffic
This project site is located at the comer of East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle,
approximately 300 feet southwest of US Highway 101. The amount of traffic generated by the
proposed 75 residential condominium units is estimated at 440 daily, 33 AM and 39 PM peak-
hour trips. Using General Office rates, the amount of traffic generated by the existing buildings
(totaling 61,360 s.f.) is 916 daily, 127 AM and 148 PM peak-hour trips.
As a conversion in office space (61,360 s.f.) to residential uses (75 townhomes), the project
would result in a decrease in vehicle trips associated with the project. There would not be a
significant rise in the level of traffic congestion at surrounding intersections or require a
Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis. No traffic impacts are expected as a
result of this project.
Mitigation Measures:None
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and
service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. As standard conditions of
approval, the applicant shall be required to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to
show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are capable of serving the needs
of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and recycling
facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams
that would be generated by the expected uses within the building.
Mitigation Measures:None
1010 East Meadow Circle/l i01 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200
Page 21 of 2i
Attachment A
~mdi~o asoc~g~es
Environmental
Consultants
May 14, 2005
Aaron Yakligan
Trumark Companies
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506-4668
Dear Aarol~:
Reference: 1010-1101 East Meadow Drive Residential Project
The proposed project is the development of 75 townhomes on a site currently occupied by
61,360 square feet of office buildings. Based on trip generation estimates by Fehr & Peers,
the proposed project would generate net decreases of 449 daily, 92 a.m., and 89 p.m. peak-
hour trips based on the conservative single tenant office rates.
Air quality impacts are a function of vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans provides a
methodology for calculating mobile source emisslons ~’or rough estimates of project impacts.
For Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO), the
emissions can be calculated as follows.
E : T x [(L x R) + S]
Where:
E equals total emissions in grams per day;
T equals the number of trips;
L equals average trip length, in miles per trip;
R equals motor vehicle emission ’ rate,, or emission ~actor, fur each ~u~a,,~,"-’l ......b:i
analysis year;
S equals trip end emissions, comprised of start emissions for ROG, NOx and CO, and
"hot soak" emissions for ROG.
For the proposed project, the reduction in air quality emissions using 2005 emission values
would be:
ROG = 449 trips x [(6.9 miles x 0.36 grams/mile) + 1.36 grams/trip] =
2,783 grams/day + 454 grams/lb = -3.7 lbs/day
NO× = 449 trips x [(6.9 miles x 0.97 grams/mile) + 1.08 grams/trip] =
5,628 grams/day + 454 grams/lb = -7.7 lbs/day
449 trips x [(6.9 miles x 4.63 grams/mile) + 21.07 grams/trip] =
38,384 grams/day + 454 gramsilb = -52.5 lbs/day
Aaron 5?akligan
RE: 1010-t 101 East Meadow Drive Residential Project
May 14, 2005
Page two
The City of Palo Alto’s significance criteria for evaluating air quality impacts are:
An air quality impact is considered significant if the project will:
Violate an ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projecte.d air quality violati.oni or¯Result in substantial emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality [the
sim~ific~2nce, thresholds recommended b.v the Bay Area Air Qua!i~ Management
D~strict (BAAQMD) for criteria air ~pollutan}s are considered to represent
"substantial" emissions -- for mobile sources, these thresholds are 80 poundsper
day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides, reactive organic gases, and fine
particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter]; or¯Result in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions of 550 pounds per day or 100 tons or
more on an annual basis; or°Contribute to carbon monoxide concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air
Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20
ppm for one hour; or¯Create objectionable odors; oroExpose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of toxic air
contaminants.
The .project’s net reduction in trips and air quality emissions would not have a significant
impact based on the above criteria.
Should you have .any questions, please call.
Sin/~rely,
Mfn diao &.-Associates
Richard P. Mindi-~o
rpm
ARBOR RESOURCES
Professional Xrboricultural Conxutting & ~ree Care
Attachment B
AN INVENTORY AND EVALUATION OF TREES
LOCATED AT 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE
& 1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE (ECHELON)
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
Submitted to:
Trumark Companies
4185 Black_hawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Prepared by:
David L. Babby, RCA
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4OO1A
May 23, 2005
p.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 ¯ Ema
Phone: 650.654~3351 ¯ Fax: 650.654.3352 .
: arborresources@earthtink.net
Licensed Contractor #796763
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
1.0
1.1
1.2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
SUMMARY ...................................................................ii
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................1
Overview .................................................................1
Purpose and Use of the Report ........................................
RESULTS OF FINDINGS ..................................................2
Tree Count and Composition .........................................2
Genera! Tree Locations ................................................3
Suitability for Tree Preservation .....................................3
Trees Defined as ’Protected’ . ..........................................4
Trees Anticipated for Retention ~. ................: ...................4
Trees Anticipated for Removal ........................................4
Tree #203 ...................................................................4
Tree #211 with Regards to the E. Meadow Dr. Entrance .........5
TREE APPRAISAL VALUES ............................................5
TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ....................................5
Design Guidelines .......................................................5
Protection Measures Before and During Construction .............6
TABLES
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
LIST OF TABLES
HEADING PAGE
Tree Count and Composition .................................................2
General Tree Locations ........................................................3
Suitability for Preservation Ratings .........................................3
Suitability Ratings Count and Composition ................................4
APPENDIX
A
B
C
APPENDICES
TITLE
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
PHOTOGRAPHS
M_AP SHOWING TREE NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
SUMMARY
Trumark Companies is planning to develop a 75-unit infill residential project on a 4.3-acre
site comprised of two parcels at 1010 East Meadow Circle (parcel 2) and 1101 East
Meadow Drive (parcel 1), within the City limits of Palo Alto, CA. The site is named
"Echelon" and currently contains two commercial buildings, one on each parcel.
This report presents an inventory and evaluation of 103 trees regulated by the City of Palo
Alto. Ten of these are defined as "Street Trees" and another eleven are classified as being
"Protected Trees." Data compiled for each tree is presented in Appendix A.
The location and number of each tree can be viewed On the site map in Appendix C.
Tree #203 shows signs of having partially uprooted. Further examination is suggested to
determine whether it is suitable for retention.
Based on my review, I anticipated 52 trees will be retained. They include #201,202, 204,
205, 207, 209, 213, 216, 217, 222, 224, 235-241, 248, 251-254, 256-258, 261-277, 286,
288-290,292-295 and 302.
The remaining trees provide minor value and are relatively insignificant due to their
species, overall condition and!or location. I do not believe their removal would
significantly impact the site or surrounding neighborhood, and in many instances, will
improve the general site safety.
Of the !03 trees, 15 are assigned a high suitability for preservation, 55 a moderate
suitability and 33 a low suitability. The appraised value for trees with a high, moderate
and low suitability are $62,030, $38,530 and $7,570, respectively.
Recommendations are presented in this report for minimizing damage to trees that will be
retained.
ii
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist .......Ma)~ 23, 2005
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Trumark Companies is planning to develop a 75-unit infill residential project on a 4.3~acre
site comprised of two parcels at 1.010 East Meadow Circle (parcel 2) and 1101 East
Meadow Drive (parcel 1), within the City limits of Palo Alto, CA. The site is named
"Echelon" and currently contains two commercial buildings, one on each parcel.
This report provides an inventory of.trees located within and immediately adjacent to the
project boundary that have trunk diameters of four inches and greater at one-foot above
grade. Information obtained for each tree includes its trunk diameter,~ height, canopy
spread, condition, suitability for preservation and monetary value; this information is
presented in the Tree Inventory Table presented in Appendix A.
Recommendations for minimizing damage to trees are presented in Section 4 of this report.
Plans reviewed for this report include the following prepared by BKF Engineers: Ill
Preliminary Boundary Exhibit, dated 11/5/04; [2] Topographic Survey, dated ! 1/30/04;
and [3] Proposed Site Plan, dated 12/7/04.
Photographs of numerous trees with significant value are shown in Appendix B and were
obtained during the morning of December 2, 2004. Each tree’s location and number is
identified on a reduced copy of the Existing Conditions Plan (Sheet C2) in Appendix C.
For identification purposes, round, aluminum tags were attached to each accessible trunk
and contain engraved numbers corresponding to those presented in this report; the trees are
sequentially numbered from 201 thru 303.
My assignment is limited to those trees presented in Appendix A. All observations
presented in this report were derived from my site inspections during the month of
December 2004.
1.2 Purpose and Use of the Report
This report has been prepared to comply with the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 8.10.030. Each inventoried tree is classified as being regulated by the City of Palo
Alto and their sizes conform to Section 6.20 of the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical
Manual.2
~ The diameters of accessible tree trur~ks were measured at approximately 54 inches above grade or where
necessary to obtain an accurate representation of trunk size. The diameters of inaccessible tree trunks on
neighboring properties were estimated from the subject site and include #224, 228, 251-254, 256, 257, 261-
263,265,266, 268-272 and 275.
~ The Tree Technical Manual is referred to frequently in this report. Due to its size, however, it is not
included as an Appendix but can be viewed at http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/trees.
Echelon, I010 E. Meadow Circle & 1 I0I E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page l of 8
David L. ~abb;v, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
The purpose of this report is to inform Tmmark Companies, the City of Palo Alto, and
other decision makers of the type, size and condition of trees located on and immediately
adjacent to the subject property; and present recommendations for minimizing damage to
trees being retained.
To my understanding, this report will be used in the planning process of project
development, including architectural drawings and integration into various environmental
review documents.
2.0 RESULTS OF FINDINGS
2.1 Tree Count and Composition
A total of 103 trees of 14 species were inventoried for this report.
identifies the name, number and percentage of each.
Table 2-1. Tree Count and Composition
Table 2-1 below
American Sweetgum
Black Acacia
Chinese Elm
Coast Redwood
European White Birch
Evergreen Ash
Fruitless Mulberry
Glossy Privet
Holly Oak
London Plane Tree
Monterey Pine
Olive Tree
Red Gum Eucalyptus
Red Ironbark Eucalyptus
Liquidambar Styraciflua 3 3%
Acacia melanoxylon 6 6%
Ulmus parvifolia 4 4%
Sequoia sempervirens 13 13%
Betula pendula 2 2%
Fraxinus uhdei 7 7%
Morus alba 14 14%
Ligustrum lucidum 17 17%
Quercus ilex 5 5%
Platanus acerifofia 6 6%
Pinus radiata 5 5%
Olea europaea 1 1%
Eucalyptus camaludensis 2 2%
Eucalyptus sideroxylon 18 17%
Total 103 100%
Echelon, 1010 E. l~eadow Circle & ] ]01 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page 2 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
2.2 General Tree Locations
Of the 103 inventoried trees, twenty-eight (28) are Iocated on Parcel 1, thirty-seven (37)
are located on Parcel 2, ten (10) are defined as "Street Trees" and twenty-eight (28) are
located on neighboring properties. The table below summarizes this information.
Table 2-2. General Tree Locations
201-204,206,208,210,
212,214,215,218-221,
223,225-234,236-238
239,240,243-247,249,
250,255,259,260,264,
267,273,274,277-285,
287,291,293-301,303
205,207,209,211,213,
216,235,241,242, 302
217,222,224,248,251-254,
256-258,261,262,263,265,
266,268-272,275,276,286,
288-290,292
2.3 Suitability for Tree Preservation
Each tree has been assigned a ’high’, ’moderate’ or ’low’ suitability for preservation rating
based on its health, structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings are
defined as follows:
~: Trees characterized by significantly contributing to the site, appearing in
good health, and having seemingly stable structures.
Moderate: Trees contributing to the site, but not at significant levels, aiad/or appear
in fair health and/or structural condition. This rating also applies to most trees
located on adjacent properties, regardless of species or condition.
Low: Trees providing minor contribution to the property and/or are in relatively
poor condition. In many cases, they are predisposed to health problems and/or
structural defects, and their removal may improve the site’s safety and/or aesthetics.
Tables 2-3 and 2-4 illustrate the majority of trees have a moderate suitability for
preservation.
Table 2-3. Suitability for Preservation Ratings
202,204,236-241,290,292-296,
303
205,207,209,211,213,216,217,
222,224,228,235,242,243,245-
248,251-254,256-258,261-277,
280-284,286,288,289,297-302
201,203,206,208,210,212,214,
215,218-221,223,225-227,229-
234,244,249,250,255,259,260,
278,279,285,287,291
Echelon, l O Y O E. ]vIeadow Circle & l l O l E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page 3 of 8
David L. Babb/v, .Re,~istered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
Table 2-4. Suitability Ratings Count and Composition
High 15 15%
Moderate 55 53%
Low 33 32%
Total 103 100%
2.4 Trees Defined as ’Protected’
"There are 11 trees classified by the City of Palo Alto as ’Protected Trees’. These include
#202-204, 236-240 and 292-294, all of which are Coast Redwoods. With the exception of
tree #203 potentially requiring removal, all are anticipated to be retained.
2.5 Trees Anticipated for Retention
Based on my review of the Proposed Site Plan and consideration of tree #203’s condition, I
anticipated 52 trees will be retained. They include #201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 209, 213,
216, 217,222,224,235-241,248, 251-254,256-258,261-277,286, 288-290, 292-295 and
302.
2.6 Trees Anticipated for Removal
The remaining 51 trees are expected to be removed include #203,206, 208, 210-212, 214,
215, 218-221,223, 225-234, 242-247, 249, 250, 255, 259, 260, 278-285, 287, 291, 296-
301 and 303. Of these, thirty-two (32) are assigned a ’low’ suitability, sixteen (16) a
’moderate’ suitability and three (3) a ’high’ suitability.
2.7 Tree #203
This tree is a 20.5-inch diameter Coast Redwood that appears to have slightly uprooted as
evident by the following: the trunk’.s lower half leaning towards the south, a distinct
mound of soil having formed opposite the lean, and large scaffold roots protruding above
the mound. I suspect this uprooting occurred some time ago as the trurtk’s upper half
grows upright (if it occurred recently, the plane of the entire trunk would be leaning). The
potential for a tree with this condition is not likely to fail during the dry season, however,
its loss of anchorage does contribute towards the potential risk of failure to occur during
stormy conditions and soil saturation. -Please note that ivy covers most of the mound and
will require removal to fully assess and determine the amount of uprooting that occurred.
Presuming the tree is found to have uprooted enough to present a risk to public safety, I
will recommend its immediate removal.
Echelon, 10i 0 E. Meadow Circle & ] ] O] E. Meadow Drive, Polo Alto
Trumork Companies, LLC
Page 4 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting A rborist May 23, 2005
2.8 Tree #211 with regards to the East Meadow Drive Driveway Entrance
The proposed driveway entrance off East Meadow Drive will require the removal of tree
#2113 to match the entrance for the approved project across the street. This tree appears in
overall good health but contains structural defects. At an estimated 10 feet above grade,
five leaders originate from the same location along the main trunk. Each grows upright
with a close angle of attachment, thus creating a greater potential for one or more to fail.
There is also a one-foot tall by three-inch wide wound facing north along the main trunk at,
approximately 4-½ feet above grade. Decay was observed to have penetrated the wound
wall and wilI further compromise the tree’s structure over time.
3.0 TREE APPRAISAL VALUES
The appraised values of each tree are shown along the last column of the Tree Inventory
Table in Appendix A. They are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant
Appraisal, 9r~ Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
The appraised value of trees with a high suitability for preservation is $62,030, a moderate
suitability at $38,530 and a low suitability at $7,570.
4.0 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES
The below recommendations are presented for promoting the survival and longevity of
trees that may potentially remain, and should be used in conjunction with the Tree
Technical Manual. They are intended to aid in the planning process and function as a
blueprint for establishing more specific measures as the project progresses.
4.1 Design Guidelines
a. The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) should be regarded as the area beneath the entire
canopies of retained trees (canopy sizes are shown in Appendix A). Where buildings or
roadways are proposed within the TPZ, the Project Arborist (see 5:2 below) should
review the impacts and determine an appropriate TPZ.
b.The Project Arborist should review furore development plans once they become
available. This would include, but is not limited to, the following: site, demolition,
grading and drainage, utility, elevation, and landscaping (irrigation and planting).
c.The portion of the existing berm along the property’s frontage and beneath the tree’s
canopies should remain intact and not be excavated.
d.Trenches for sewer, water, utilities (water, gas, electrical, phone, cable, fiberoptic, etc.),
drainage, irrigation and lighting should be situated outside the TPZ of retained trees.
3 A 20-inch diameter Evergreen Ash situated between the sidewalk and road.
Echelon, ]OlO E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page 5 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
Any site or sound wall proposed beneath the trees’ canopies should consist of a post
and above-grade beam design, in which the beam(s) literally spans over and above
existing soil grade and soil between the posts is not disturbed (i.e. a no-dig design
except for the posts). The location of the posts should be identified on-site between the
Project Engineer and I; if necessary, their potential locations may require exploration to
ascertain the potential risk to roots.
The following landscaping guidelines should be incorporated into the design:
1. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be at least one-foot from the
trunks of retained trees and no closer than six inches from trunks of new trees.
2.Installing edging material or rototilling beneath canopies of retained trees should be
avoided.
3.Pathways or other landscape items proposed within a TPZ should be established on
mp of naturat grade and not require soil cuts (i.e. a no-dig design).
All forms of irrigation for new trees must be placed on the soil surface and not in a
sleeve.
5. Irrigation spray should not strike within five feet from an existing tree’s trunk or
two feet from the trunks of new trees.
6.Where hardscape is designed or being replaced within a TPZ, the use of a structural
soil mix should be considered (see page 2-16 of the Tree Technical Manual).
4.2 Protection Measures Before and During Construction
a. Tree protection fencing is recommended to enclose the TPZ of retained trees and be
established prior to the demolition and clearing phases. The fencing should consist of
six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter, eight-foot tall steel posts driven
two feet into the ground every 10 to 12 feet. Once established, the fence should remain
Undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process. Unless otherwise
approved by the City and/or Project Arborist, all development activities, including the
dumping and storage of equipment and materials, must be performed outside the
fenced areas. The fencing location should be delineated on a tree protection plan prior
to commencing deve!opment.
b.As shown on page 2-3 of the Tree Technical Manual, fencing that cannot feasibly
enclose a tree’s trunk adjacent to a building shall consist of "Type III" fencing, and
fencing enclosing street trees shall consist of"Type II" fencing.
c. Fence posts established on the asphalt surface should be placed in a concrete base. The
fencing could be opened to remove the asphalt parking lot and should be expanded and
installed into the ground before construction activities commence.
d. The fencing may need to be established in the following two phases: (1) before
demolition and (2) before construction, to include all grading, trenching, utility
installation, etc.
Echelon, lOlO E. Meadow Circle & llOl I5. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC ’
Page 6 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
eo
ha
k°
Signs of 8-V2 by 11 inches (minimum) must be prominently displayed on each fence
side facing construction activities. Per the Tree Technical Manual, the signs must read
as fol!ows:
"WARNING - TREE PROTECTIVE ZONE - This fence shall not be
removed, moved or relocated. Violators are subject to a penalty according
to PAMC Section 8.10.110.9."
Before commencing site demolition and clearing, a pre-construction meeting shall be
held on site with the Project Arborist, Project Manager, Project Superintendent and
other pertinent personnel involved with construction. The intent is to review trees
being removed, work procedures, protection fencing locations, limits of grading,
staging areas, routes of access and other items regarding tree impacts.
Prior to the City issuing a demolition permit, the Project Arborist must prepare a letter
verifying that tree fencing is appropriately established. The Project Arborist shall
monitor al! work performed within fenced areas.
The Project Arborist must regularly inspect the project site as outlined on page 2-14 of
the Tree Technical Manual (Section 2.30 Inspection Schedule). Inspections shall occur
once per month (minimum) and continue until final inspection occurs. A written
summary of pertinent observations and recommendations shall coincide with each
inspection and a copy faxed to the City of Pato Alto’s Planning Arborist. Pertinent
measures to promote the longevity and vigor of retained trees beyond the development
period should also be provided at the end of the project.
The removal of hardscape beneath canopies of retained trees, including outside fenced
areas, must be performed in the following manner: break hardscape into manageable
pieces using a jackhammer and hand load pieces onto a loader (a small rubber-tired
tractor is preferred). The loader must remain on undisturbed hardscape and off
exposed roots. Base rock covering exposed roots should remain and be used as the
new material. Within one hour, place six inches of coarse wood chips over the newly
exposed area and apply water to keep moist until the overlay surface is installed.
Where possible, the portion of existing, and unused underground pipes and utilities
beneath canopies of retained trees should be abandoned. If their removal is necessary,
the work should be manually performed under supervision of the Project Arborist.
Equipment or vehicles shall not operate or park on unpaved soil within a TPZ. If
equipment access within a TPZ is necessary and the ground is already paved, the
pavement should remain in place until access is not necessary. Where pavement is
removed within a TPZ and access is necessary, a root zone buffer will be required
throughout construction and should consist of a six-inch layer of ½- to 3/4-inch wood
chips layered by 3/4-inch quarry gravel to stabilize one-inch thick plywood. The
plywood could be securely fastened to create a sturdier traveling surface.
Echelon, lO!O E. Meadow Circle & l lOl E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page 7 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
Any trenching within a TPZ should be performed using pneumatic air excavation or by
manually digging using hand tools. All roots one-inch and greater in diameter should
be retained during the process. When roots of this size become exposed, they should
be immediately wrapped with moistened burlap that must remain wet until the trench is
backfilled the same day.
m. Prior to soil fill being placed for the raised grade near canopies of retained trees, a silt
fence should be established along the toe of slopes (until the retaining walls are
installed).
n.The removal of plants and groundcover beneath the trees’ canopies should be manually
removed. Diligent care should be taken to avoid excavating soil during the process.
o.Herbicides and pesticides should not be applied beneath the trees’ canopies. Where
used on site, they must be labeled for safe use near trees.
All mechanical or chemical injuries to the trunk, branches, or roots larger than two
inches in diameter must be reported within six hours to the Project Arborist, as well as
the job superintendent or City Arborist. This includes any soil compression
accidentally occurring from the operation of heavy equipment. Corrective measures
will be taken as deemed necessary and according to the Tree Technical Manual
(section 2.25, page 2d2).
Roots one-inch and greater in diameter that become damaged during the development
process, should be cut clean with a handsaw or loppers. As soon as severance occurs,
cover or wrap the root end with a plastic sandwich bag and secure with electrical tape
or a rubber band.
r.Supplemental water should be provided to each retained iree. The Project Arborist
shall determine the specific trees, amount of water and application procedures.
The pruning and removal of trees shall comply with the most recent standards
established by the ISA and be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified
Arborist. Tree pruning should occur prior to demolition and be limited to establishing
clearance for construction traffic and future structures; removing dead, broken or
hanging branches; and reducing heavy limb weight. Trees requiring removal should be
performed in a manner so the surrounding and nearby trees planned for retention are
not damaged. Stumps within 30 feet of retained trees should also be ground rather than
being pulled up with an excavator.
Prepared By: 9t./~V ~.Date: Ma,/23, 2005
David L. Bagby, RCA
Attachments: Tree Inventory Table
Site Map (Copy of the Proposed Site Plan)
Echelon, 10]0 E. Meadow Circle & 110] E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
Page 8 of 8
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
APPENDIX A:
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
Echelon, !010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, PaIo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TP, aE E NAME
I £[
European While Birch
2 I (Betulo pendula )5.5 20 25 75%50%Fair Low I $2401
[ 2 [CoaslRedwood
20 (Sequoia sempervirens )
{Coast Redwood
203 (Sequoia sempervirens )
(Sequoia sempervirens )I 22 55 30 100% 100% Good High X .....I 55400 I
Evergreen Ash
( Frcccinus uhdei )[ 17 45 35 I 75% " 25%Fi’ir Moderate]X $610
Fruitless Mulberry
206 (Mor~s alba )
Evergreen Ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )l 20 50 35 75% 50% Fair Moderate
I
Fruitless Mulberry
208 (Morus alba )
(_Fro_rinus uhdei ) ......75%50% .....Far ! Moderate I X $860~
I Fruitless Mulberry
210 (Morus alba )12
Evergreen Ash
211 (fZrc~rinus uhdei )1 20 45 35 75%25%Fair Moderate[X I 5840 I
]
Fruitless Mulberry
212 (Morus alba )
Evergreen Ash [ ............
(Fraxinusuhdei) ...........23.5 50 140.!75% 50% Fair .......ModerateI X $] 390~, ..
]
Fruitless Mulberry
214 (Morus a]ba )
[ ~ [
Fruitless Mulberry
21 (Morus alba )
0.5 2_0 35 50%
9 15 50%
25%Poor Low
25%Poor Low
Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, ZLC
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TP,_EI~
NO.
216 ]
T P,_E E NAME
>._o -g
Evergreen Ash
(Fraxinus uhclei )t 22.5 50 35 175% 25% Fair ModerateI 1X I I $1,060 ]
217
Evergreen Ash
(Fraxinus uhdei )14,9,5 25 25 100% 25%Fair ModerateI ....X $680 [
218 I
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )t 8 15 25 ]50%25%Poor Low [$1701
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )9 15 20 ] 50%25%Poor
220 I
Gloisy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
6, 5(3),
o o
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )4.5 I0 10 I 75%25%Fair
222 I
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )3.5,2.5 25 /15 100%25%Fair Moderate X [ $20
225 ]
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )] 8.5 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low [[ $190
226 I
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
227
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )
228 [
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
229 [
Fruitless Mulberry
(Morus alba )11 20 30 50%25%Poor Low $300
230
Fruitless Mulberry
(Monks alba )10 15 20 50% 25% Poor Low [ $250 [
Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 2 of 7 DRAFT
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
231
234
238
244
TREE NAME
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
=
=~
Fruitless Mnlberry
(Morus alba )11 20 25 50%25%Poor Low]$3001
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )I 5 I0 I0 50%75%Fair Low $40 ]
European White Birch
(.Setula pendula )1.5,8 ’ 30 35 75% 50% Fair Low ~430I
Holly Oak
(Ouercus ilex )5 10 15 ] 75%50%Fair Moderate X "$340
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )] 32 70 30 100% 75% Good High [ X I $8,300
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )23.5 65 35 75%75%Good High X I $4,040
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )26 80 30 100%75%Good High I X ’ I 55,600
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
Holly Oak
(Quercus ilex )
23 80 25 50%75%Fair High-X ] $3,t00 ]
I0 20 20 ] 75%75%Fair Moderate XI I 51,800 I
Holly Oak
(Quercus ilex )11.5 30 15 ] 25%50%Poor
Chinese Elm
( Ulmus parvifolia )] 17 25 ! ~5 I 75%50%Fair Moderate !I$4,020]
London Plane Tree
. (Platanus acerifolia )5 I0 I0 50%75%Fair Low [ $110
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )I 8 25 30 50%":15%Fair ModerateI ]I 5260 I
Project Name: Echelon (1~. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Polo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: Da~id L. Bobby, RCA 3 of 7 DRAFT
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
247
248
249
251
253
255
257
259
1 6ol
TREE NAME
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Olive Tree
(Oleo europaea )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melano.rylon )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melanox’ylon )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melano.wlon )
London Plane Tree
(Platanus acerifolia )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon )
Black Acacia
(Acacia melonoxylon )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
I 10 30 30 I 75% 100% Good .......Moderate $770
5 15 20 . 50%t00% Good Low $40
Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Polo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA 4 of 7 DRAFT
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
NO.
261
262
I 263
264
I 265
266
267
268
269
270
271
273
274
275
TREE NAME
Holly Oak
(Quercus ilex )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Monterey Pine
(Pinus rodiata )
Red lronbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon )
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiata )
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiatn )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon )
Glossy Privet
(Zigustrum lucidum )
Monterey Pine
(Pinus radiala )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Monterey Pine
(.Pinus radiata )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus siderorylon )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon )
Red Gum
(Eucalyptus camaludensis )
5 15 15 I 75%50%Fair Moderate $290
5 15 10 75%50%Fair Moderate x
8,7,5,4 20 25 I 75%50%Fair Moderate ]X $100
17 50 30 100%50%Good Moderate $640
16,5 50 35 I 75%50%Fair Moderate X $180
t 18 30 35 25%50%Poor Moderate x $o
!9.5 55 40 ]100%50%Good Moderate $840
4 20 15 75%25%Fair IModerateI X $10
22 30 25 75%25%!Fair Moderate X $270
I 4 15 10 ]50%50%Fai~Moderate X $20
I 4 15 10 I 50%50%Fair Moderate [X $20
24 "40 40 75%75%Good Moderate
22.5 55 35 100%75%Good Moderate
$480
I 17 50 35 100%75%Good Moderate ]$:730
[ 8,8I 45 20 75%25%Fair Moderate X $3401
Project Name: Echelon (’E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: David 1.. Babby, RCA 5 of 7 DRAFT
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TREE
278
280
281
282
283
285
286
287
288
TKEE NAME
Red Gum
(Eucalyptus camaludensis )3.5, 2.5 20 15 75%25%Fair Moderate x $60
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus siderorylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red lronbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus siderox’-ylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus siderox’ylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus siderox-ylon
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
16.5 60 40175%75% Good Moderatet $600
22.5 50 50 t 50%0%Poor Low $0
21 50 45 t 100%75%Good Moderate $1,100
16 45 40 I 100%75%Good Moderate $640
17 40 35 I 100%50%Good Moderate $640
21.5 55 40 100%75%Good Moderate $1,160
24 60 40 100%50%Good I Moderate $1,270
17.5 65 35 75%25%Fair Low $450
6.5 15 10 100%50%Good Moderate X $100
6.5 15 15 25%75%Poor Low $0 l
X $150 ]
9 35 30 100%75%] Good ]Moderate.X $2!0
14.5 45 25 100%75%Good High $2,080
Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 6 of 7 DRA FT
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
TP,_E E
NO.
291
292
293 I
294
295
296 [
297 ]
299 I
301
302
303
TREE NAME
Glossy Privet
(Ligustrum lucidum )
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempem,irens )
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
Coast Redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens )
Chinese Elm
(Ulmus parvifolia )
Red Ironbark
(Eucalyptus sidero:cylon )
Chinese Elm
( Ulmus parvifolia )
American Sweetgum
(Liquidambar sryraciflua )
American Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua )
American Sweetgum
(.Liquidambar styraciflua )
Holly Oak
(Quercus ilex )
Chinese Elm
( Ulmus parvifolia )
5.5 15 15 25%75%Poor Low $30
I 18 45 25 100%75%Good High I X X [ $3,180
23 90 30 ! 50°/ 75%Vair Moderate x $2,890
24 60 30 " 100%75%Good High X $5,600
17 55 20 75%75%Fair High $2,510
16.5 30 55 100%75%Good High I $5,400
45 40 100%50%Good Moderate $1,170
15 30 50 75%50%Fair Moderate $2,230
7.5 40 20 100%75%Good Moderate $630
10.5 35 20 100%75%Good Moderate $1,210
14 30 25 100%75%Good Moderate $2,130
7.5 15 10 25%75%Poor Low X [$600 ]
Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto
Prepared for: Trumark Companies, LLC
Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA 7 of 7 DRAFT
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005
APPENDIX B:
PHOTOGRAPHS
Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1.101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
o ~~- o
o or- o
¯ 0
~o
o ~_~z o
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ~vfay 23, 2005
APPENDIX C:
MAP SHOWING TREE NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS
Echelon, l Ol 0 E. Meadow Circle & 11 O1 E. .Lteadow Drive, Palo Alto
Trumark Companies, LLC
i
ENGINEERS
SURVEYORS
PLANNERS
June 14, 2005
BKF Job No. 20040199
Ms. Beth Bourne
City of Palo Alto
Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Attachment C
Subject: Echelon City of Polo Alto Environmental Checklist
Dear Ms: Bourne:
The following information is provided to address the water quality and utility impacts
of the 75 residential units proposed at 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East
Meadow Circle.
BKF reviewed Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality and Section XVI, Utilities
and Service Systems of the City of Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Form. Follows
are responses and comments on selected significance criteria.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality:
a.Violate any water quality standards.or waste discharge requirements.
255 Shoreline Drive
Suite 200
Redwood City
California 94065
phone 65o.482.@oo
/~ox 65o.482.6399
www.bkf.com
The project will conform to the City of Palo Alto storm water quality
regulations for both construction related activities and post construction
Best Management Practices and will conform to the requirements of City
of Palo Alto NPDES discharge permit.
The site is currently being used for commercial and light industrial uses
with approximately 91 percent of the site covered with building and
parking lot and other impervious surfaces that provide no storm water
treatment of the runoff. The proposed project wil! reduce impervious area
to approximately 67 percent and will provide construction and post
construction Best Management Practices to treat storm water runoff from
the site. Post construction Best Management Practices will include:
o Grass swale in appropriate areas along the project frontage and along
the southern project boundary
o Bio-retention areas and grass swales where appropriate.
o Discharge rain water leader to ~ade to allow overland flow prior to
collection in the storm drain system
o Mechanical, "CDS" style swirl separator to treat runoff from paved
areas that other wise would be untreated.
o Covered parking for permanent parking.
o Provisions for long term maintenance of post construction BMP’s
through the development CC&R’s and the Homeowners’ Association.
Ms. Beth Bourne
June 14, 2005
BKF Job No. 20040199
Page 2 of 5
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.
The project will not have negative impact on ground water resources. The
project does not propose ground water pumping. A majority of the existing
site is covered with impervious surface and the proposed project will provide a
net increase in landscape and pervious area, providing improved storm water
treatment and increasing the amount of storm water infiltration compared to
the existing condition.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
The existing site drains to the storm drain system in East Meadow Drive
and East Meadow Circle. The project will alter the on-site drainage
patterns to allow for the proposed land use. The on-site modifications will
continue tO connect to the existing storm drain systems in East Meadow
Drive and East Meadow Circle and will not alter the overall area drainage
pattern. The project will implement construction and post construction
Best Management Practices in conformance with City of Palo Alto
requirements that will minimize erosion from the site.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or rive~; or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site.
The existing site drains to the storm drain system in East Meadow Drive
and East Meadow Circle. The project will alter the on-site drainage
patterns to allow for the proposed land use. The on-site modifications will
continue to connect to the existing storm drain system in East Meadow
Drive and will not alter the overall area drainage pattern. The site is
currently being used for commercial and light industrial uses with
approximately 91 percent of the site covered with impervious area. The
proposed residential development will reduce the impervious area to
approximately 67 percent and reduce the peak storm water discharge from
the site. Implementation of Best Management Practices to treat post
construction runoff will likely further reduce the peak storm water
discharge from the site.
Ms. Beth Bourne
June ! 4, 2005
BKF Job No. 20040199
Page 3 of 5
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff
As stated above for items c. and d. because of the conversation from light
industrial and commercial to residential uses development of the site will
increase the amount of pervious area and will reduce peak discharge from
the site and will provide post construction Best Management Practices to
treat storm water from the site.
f Other~ise substantially degrade water quality.
Other than the previously discussed water quality impacts and mitigations
caused by storm water runoff from the site, development of the site for
residential uses would not substantially degrade ~vater quality.
)~lace housing within a l O0-year Jlood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map.
The existing site is within the 100 year }’lood zone as shown on the FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate Map. Flooding in the project area is caused by a
combination of high tide in San Francisco Bay and storm water runoff.
The project proposes to place fill on the site to raise the structures above
the 100 year base flood elevation. Because the base flood elevation is
directly related to the tide elevation in the Bay construction of this project
will not increase the elevation of flood water adjacent to the project.
As part of this process the project will apply to FEMA for a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) prior to start of
construction on the project. The CLOMR will detail that the project site is
being removed from the flood zone by placing fill and will provide
supporting documentation and calculations required by FEMA. Prior to
occupancy, the project will apply to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision
based on Fill (LOMR-F) which will document the as-built condition and
confirm that the construction detailed in the CLOMR-F was implemented.
Place within a l O0-year.flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect fIood flows.
The existing creek has adequate capacity to convey flood flows based on
the design tide elevations. Site flooding is caused by extreme tides in
combination with a major storm event and the flood elevation recedes with
the tide elevation. Construction of this project will not impede or redirect
flood flows. Flood flows follow the existing flow path to the City’s public
Ms. Beth Bourne
June 14, 2005
BKF Job No. 20040199
Page 4 of 5
storm drain system. This is also one of the criteria used by FEMA in their
review of the CLOMR-F and the LOMR-F.
Expose people or structures to a signijqcant risk of loss, injury or death
involved flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee 07"
dam.
The proposed project will remove the proposed structures from the 100-
year flood hazard area by placing fill. Therefore people and structures
would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
The proposed project will remove the proposed structures from the 100-
year flood hazard area by placing fill. Therefore people and structures
would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury or death.
XVI. Utilities and Service System Hydrology and Water Quality:
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industrial/R&D site
and generates approximately 7,785 gallons per day of wastewater. The
proposed project will generate approximately 15,000 gallons per day of
wastewater, a 7,215 gallon per day increase. It is our understanding that
the City of Palo Alto has adequate capacity to serve the project wastewater
demands with out exceeding the wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board. This should be confirmed with
the City of Palo Alto Utilities Division.
Require or result in the construction of new water 07" wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause signi~cant environmental effects.
This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industrial/R&D site
that requires approximately 8,650 gallons per day of water and generates
approximately 7,785 gallons per day of wastewater. The proposed project
will require approximately 16,667 gallons per day of water and will
generate approximately 15,000 gallons per day of water and wastewater.
It is our understanding that the City of Palo Alto has adequate capacity to
serve the project water and wastewater demands without the expansion of
existing facilities. This should be confirmed with the City of Palo Alto
Utilities Division.
Ms. Beth Bourne
Junel4,2005
BKFJob No. 20040199
Page 5 of 5
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects.
The site is currently 91 percent impervious. Development of the project
will reduce the impervious area to 67 percent of the site. This reduction in
impervious area will decrease the peak storm water discharge from the
site. The project will not require the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities outside of the proposed project site.
Have suffcient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new ore expanded entitlements needed.
This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industrial/R&D site
and requires approximately 8,650 ga!lons per day of water. The proposed
project will require approximately !6,667 gallons per day of water, a
8,017 gallon per day increase. It is our understanding that the City of Palo
Alto has adequate water supplies to serve the project from existing
entitlements. This should be confirmed with the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Division.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments.
This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industrial!R&D site
and generates approximately 7,785 gallons per day of wastewater. The
proposed project will generate approximately 15,000 gallons per day of
wastewater, a 7,215 gallon per day increase. It is our understanding that
the City of Palo Alto has adequate capacity to serve the project wastewater
demands. This should be confirmed with the City of Palo Alto Utilities
Division.
Should you have any question related to the project water quality impacts, please
give me call.
Very truly yours,
BKF ENGINEERS
Thomas R. Morse, P.E.
Project Manager
Echelon Project, Palo Alto
Sewer and Water Demand Summary
Sewer Demand~Water Demand
............(gpd)(gpd)
Existing Condition (Light Industrial/Commercial)7,785 8,650
Proposed Project (75 Condominium Units)15,000 16,667
Net Increase in Demand 7,215 8,017
Notes:
1. Sewer demands based on Table 1 and Table 2A.
2. Water demand equa! to sewer demands divided by 0.90 to account for irrigation demands.
BIG~ Engineers
June 14, 2005 K:~vlAIN’O.004\0199\06 Desig~kE Sanitary Sewer\05_0405 Sewer.xls
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jim Baer, Premier Properties
Robert Eckols "
Daniel Rubins
March 30, 2005
Trip Generation Estimates for Trumark Housing Development at 1010-
110t East Meadow
SJ05-766
The attached spreadsheet contains the trip generation estimates for the proposed Trumark
Housing project located at 1010-1101 East Meadow Drive in Palo Alto, California. The
proposed project includes 75 townhouse units. The site is currently occupied by two vacant
office buildings totaling 61,360 s.f. These buildings were occupied through September 2004;
therefore, the traffic generated b~/ these two buildings is captured in the Charleston Road
Study.
For the purpose of this analysis, the trips generated by the fully-occupied, existing office
buildings were estimated using rates published in the Seventh Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. Rates for both General Office and Single
Tenant Office land use categories are shown. Using Single Tenant Office rates, the existing
buildings would generate 889 daily, 125 AM and 128 PM peak-hour trips. Using General
Office rates, the ~xisting buildings would generate 916 daily, 127 AM and 148 PM peak-hour
trips.
The amount of traffic generated by the proposed townhomes was also estimated using ITE
rates. The proposed project would generate 440 daily, 33 AM and 39 PM peak-hour trips.
The trips associated with the existing office building were subtracted from the residential
traffic estimates to determine the number of net new trips that the proposed project would
generate. Using Single Tenant Office rates, the proposed project would generate a net
decrease of 449 daily, a net decrease of 92 AM (105 fewer inbound and 13 added outbound)
and a net decrease of 89 PM (7 added inbound and 96 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips.
Using General Office rates, the proposed project would generate a net decrease of 476 daily,
a net decrease of 94 AM (106 fewer inbound and 12 added outbound) and a net decre.ase of
109 PM (1 added inbound and 110 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips.
Attachment
255N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTAN’~S
Estimated Trip Generation for Trumark Housing Project
March 29, 2005
Use
Existing Uses
Single Tenanl Office
General Office
Rates (per 1,O30 sq tt c,~ per unit)
Size AM ~(ksf or unit) Daily In Out Tolal In Oul Total
Tnps
Daily In Out Total In Out Total
61.36 1449 181 0.22 203 031 1,78 209 889 111 14 125 19 109 128
61.36 1493 1.83 024 2 07 0 41 200 2 41 916 112 15 127 25 123 148
C<:~r’~ominiums 75 506 007 0.37 0.44 0.3.5 0.17 052 440 6 27 33 28 13 39
Net Trip Generation (using Single Tenant Office rates)
Net Trip Generation {using General Office rates)
Source: Inslilute of TransporiatJon Engineers, Tdp Generation, Sevenlh Edilion. 2003
,449 -105 13 -92
-,476 -106 12 -94
-96 -89
-110 -109
.................. = ...........................................................Attachment_E
1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE / 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
24 May 2005.
Prepared for:
TRUMARK COMPANIES
Aaron Yakligian
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Phone: (925) 648-8300
Emait: ayakligian@tmmark-co.com
Prepared by:
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Joshua M. Roper, Senior Consultant
2880 Zanker Road, Suite 203
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 432-7270
Email: josh,roper@cmsalter.com
CSA Project No. 05-0185
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes our enviromnental noise assessment for the residential project at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle in Palo Alto, California. The
purpose of this assessment is to quantify the noise environment at the project site,
compare the noise environment with applicable City standards, and propose mitigation
measures as necessary.
In summary, incorporating sound rated windows into the project in selected locations
would reduce interior noise levels to the City and State standards. While exterior noise at
outdoor use spaces may exceed the City’s exterior noise goal due to the proximity of the
project to U.S. Highway 101, noise levels could be reduced by incorporating a solid
barrier a!ong portions of the northeastern property lines. Appendix A summarizes
fundamental concepts of environmental noise.
DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at the corner of East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle,
approximately 300 feet southwest of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101). Two existing office
buildings are located on-site. The site is bordered by BD BiosciencesClontech to the
northwest, an electrical sub-station to the northeast, Adobe Creek with office space
beyond on the east, East Meadow Drive to the south, and Alexza Molecular Delivery
across East Meadow Circle to the west. We understand a 76-unit townhouse project will
replace three existing office buildings on the site across East Meadow Drive to the South.
The project consists of 75 two and three-story townhouse units in twelve buildings.
Several outdoor use spaces are located around the site and include a Neighborhood
Flower Garden, Zen Garden, Water Feature, Park Benches and Turf area.
ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Policy N-39 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages land uses in areas
with compatible with noise environments. For residential uses, a DNL of 60 dB or less is
"normally acceptable," while a DNL of 60 to 75 dB is considered "conditionally
acceptable." Conditionally acceptable means that the specified!and use may be
permitted only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed
noise insulation features included in the design.
To achieve compatible uses, Policy N-39 has adopted the following guidelines:
The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of
60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and
a goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, DNL 60 dB is a
guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the
constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily
applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family
C h a r I e s M S a | t e r A s s o c i a t e s ] rl C 25S0ZankerRoa0 Su;te203 San Jose Ca~ilornia £5134 T£1:~08432727,.q FSx:40~4327235
FEHR & P~ER.S
T~A~SPOR~ATIOR CO~S~LTA~S
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jim Baer, Premier Properties
Robert Eckols "
Daniel Rubins
March 30, 2005
Trip Generation Estimates for Trumark Housing Development at 1010-
1101 East Meadow
SJ05-766
The attached spreadsheet contains the trip generation estimates for the proposed Trumark
Housing project located at 1010-1101 East Meadow Drive in Palo Alto, California. The
proposed project includes 75 townhouse units. The site is currently occupied by two vacant
office buildings totaling 61,360 s.f. These buildings were occupied through September 2004;.
therefore, the traffic generated by these two buildings is captured in the Charleston Road
Study.
For the purpose of this analysis, the trips generated by the fully-occupied, existing office
buildings were estimated using rates published in the Seventh Edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation. Rates for both General Office and Single
Tenant Office land use categories are shown. Using Single Tenant Office rates, the existing
buildings would generate 889 daily, 125 AM and 128 PM peak-hour trips. Using General
Office rates, the existing buildings would generate 916 daily, 127 AM and 148 PM peak-hour
trips.
The amount of traffic generated by the proposed townhomes was also estimated using ITE
rates. The proposed project would generate 440 daily, 33 AM and 39 PM peak-hour trips.
The trips associated with the existing office building were subtracted from the residential
traffic estimates to determine the number of net new trips that the proposed project would
generate. Using Single Tenant Office rates, the proposed project would generate a net
decrease of 449 daily, a net decrease of 92 AM (105 fewer inbound and 13 added outbound)
and a net decrease of 89 PM (7 added inbound and 96 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips.
Using General Office rates, the proposed project would generate a net decrease of 476 daily,
a net decrease of 94 AM (106 fewer inbound and 12 added outbound) and a net decre,ase of
109 PM (1 added inbound and 110 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips.
Attachment
255N. Market Street, Suite200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.feBrand0eers.com
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSUL’~AN1S
Estimated Trip Generation for Trumark Housing Project
March 29, 2005
Ra[es (per 1,000 sq ft. o~ per uniQ Tdps
Use (ksf or unh)Daily In Out Tolal In Oul To~al Daily In Out Tolal In Ou~Tolal
Existing Uses
Single Tenanl Office 61.36 1449 1.81 022 203 031 1.78 2.09 889 111 14 125 lg 109 128
General Office 61 36 1493 1 83 0 24 207 0 41 2.{)3 2 41 918 112 15 127 25 123 148
Condominiums 75 586 0.07 0 37 0.44 035 0 17 0 52 440 6 27 33 26 13 39
Net Trip Generation (using Single Tenant Of Rce rates)
Net Trip Generalion (using General Office rates)
So,~ce: Instilule of Transportation Engineer~. Trip Generation, Sevenlh Edition. 2003
-449 -105 13 -92
,476 -106 12 -94
7 -96 -89
1 -110 -109
1101 EAST MEADOW DRWE / 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
24 May 2005
Prepared for:
TRUMARK COMPANIES
Aaron Yakligian
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506
Phone: (925) 648-8300
Email: ayakligian@tmmark-co.com
Prepared by:
CHARLES ]VI. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Joshua M. Roper, Senior Consultant
2880 Zanker Road, Suite 203
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: (408) 432-7270
Email: josh.roper@cmsalter.com
CSA Project No. 05-0185
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May.24, 2005
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes our environmental noise assessment for the residential project at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle in Palo Alto, California. The
purpose of this assessment is to quantify the noise environment at the project site,
compare the noise environment with applicable City standards, and propose mitigation
measures as necessary.
In summary, incorporating sound rated windows into the project in selected locations
would reduce interior noise levels to the City and State standards. While exterior noise at
outdoor use spaces may exceed the City’s exterior noise goal due to the proximity of the
project to U.S. Highway 101, noise levels could be reduced by incorporating a solid
barrier along portions of the northeastern property lines. Appendix A summarizes
fundamental concepts of environmental noise.
DESCRIPTION
The project site is located at the comer of East Meadow Drive and East Meadow Circle,
approximately 300 feet southwest of U.S. Highway 101 (US 10t). Two existing office
buildings are located on-site. The site is bordered by BD BiosciencesClontech to the
northwest, an electrical sub-station to the northeast, Adobe Creek with office space
beyond on ihe east, East Meadow Drive to the south, and Alexza Molecular Delivery.
across East Meadow Circle to the west. We understand a 76-unit townhouse project will
replace three existing office buildings on the site across East Meadow Drive to the South.
The project consists of 75 two and three-story town_house units in twelve bnildings.
Several outdoor use spaces are located around the site and include a Neighborhood
Flower Garden, Zen Garden, Water Feature, Park Benches and Turf area.
ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA
CiO, of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Policy N-39 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages land uses in areas
with compatible with noise environments. For residential uses, a DNL of 60 dB or less is
"normally acceptable," while a DNL of 60 to 75 dB is considered "conditionally
acceptable." Conditionally acceptable means that the specified.land use may be
permitted only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed
noise insulation features included in the desig-n.
To achieve compatible uses, Policy N-39 has adopted the following guidelines:
The guideline for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL of
60 dB. This level is a guideline for the design and location of future development and
a.goal for the reduction of noise in existing development. However, DNL 60 dB is a
guideline which cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the
constraints of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This guideline will be primarily
applied where outdoor use is a major consideration (e.g., backyards in single family
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Envirortrnental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 3
housing developments, and recreational areas in multiple family housing projects).
Where the City determines that providing an DNL of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not
feasible, the noise level in outdoor areas intended for recreational use should be
reduced to as close to the standard as feasible through project design.
The indoor noise level as required by the State of California Noise Insulation
Standards must not exceed a DNL of 45 dB in multilSle family dwellings. This indoor
criterion shallalso apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto.
Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residentialunits
exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum
instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms. Maximum instantaneous noise
levels in other rooms should not exceed 55 dB.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code addresses maximum allowable noise levels
at residential property and commercial property. For residential uses, no person shall
produce, suffer, or allow to be produced a noise level of more than 6 dB above the loca!
ambient at any point outside of the property plane. The local ambient is defined as the
lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a
precision sound level meter using the slow response and A-weighting. In no case, for the
purpose of this chapter, shall the ambient be considered less than 40 dBA.
Title 24: California Building Code (CBC)
The California Building Code, Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior
sound levels in habitable rooms of multi-family housing. In summary, the CBC requires
that interior noise levels are no greater than DNL 45 dB. Projects exposed to an exterior
DNL of 60 dB, or greater, require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed
design will limit interior levels to the prescribed allowable interior level. Additionally, if
windows must be in the closed position to meet the interior standard, "the design for the
structure must also specify ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable
interior environment."
NOISE ENVIRONMENT
Environmental noise" at the site is dominated by vehicles on US 10 I.th To quantify the
existing noise environment, we conducted measurements on the 18 and 19th of April
2005. Three long-term monitors continuously measured noise levels, and two short-term
"spot" measurements were taken and compared with corresponding time periods from
long-term monitors to determine how noise levels vary in different areas and elevations.
Table 1 summarizes existing and estimated future DNL at the site. Estimated future
noise levels are the basis of the noise mitigation recommendations in the Analysis and
Recommendations section, below.
Table 1 : Existing and Estimated Future Noise Environment
C h a r [ e 5 ~ S a I t e r A 5 5 o c i a t e s I n c ~880Zan~erRead Suile20a Sen Jose Ca!ifornia £51~4 Tel:aOS~327270 Fax:408~3272a5
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page
Location
Northern Section of
Approximate location of Turf Mound
(See site plan dat~.~/16{05) .........
Northeast Comer of Site
Approximate location of future residences
(lst floor/2nd floor and above)
East Meadow Circle
Approximate setback of future residences
Existing DNL
68 dB
66 / 70 dB
Estimated Future DNL
69 dB
67 dB
East Meadow Drive 64 dB 65 dBApproximate setback of future residences
67 / 71 dB
68 dB
The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) publishes yearly traffic volumes
on their website. The data indicates that while yearly traffic volumes may be slightly
higher or lower from year to year, the AADT adjacent to the site has increased by
20-percent over the past ten years. Assuming a 20-percent increase in peak-hour traffic
over the next ten year period, we have estimated a 1 dB increase in future DNL.
Maximum noise levels occur from cars and trucks on the adjacent roadways. During the
time of our measurements, the maximum noise levels repeating themselves on a regular
basis at the approximate building setbacks were 73 dB nearest US 101, 75 dB along East
Meadow Circle, and 77 dB along East Meadow Drive.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are analysis and recommendations for addressing each of the criteria listed
above, as wel! as a discussion of the calculated noise reduction from project-related
traffic and mechanical equipment.
City of Palo Alto General )~lan
To meet the interior noise criteria, it will be necessary for the windows and doors of some
units to be sound-rated. Recommendations for sound-rated construction (i.e., window
and door STC~ ratings) will depend on the size of rooms, windows and exterior facades,
and should be determined during the design phase.
To provide you with a preliminary estimate of the extent of mitigation that may be
necessary, we have assumed a typical room size of 12 feet by 14 feet, with the exterior
fagade consisting of approximately one-third window. Based on these assumptions,
windows and patio doors that achieve approximately STC 32 would be needed along the
northeast fagade nearest US 101, along the western fa9ade facingEast Meadow Circle,
and along the southern fagade facing East Meadow Drive. In other locations, windows
and doors with sound insulation rating of STC 26 to 28 would reduce interior noise levels
to comply with City and State standards. Construction grade dual pane windows and
sliding glass doors typically have sound insulation ratings in this range. If window areas
~ Sound Transmission Class (STC) -- A single number used to compare walls, floor/ceiling assemblies,
windows apd doors for their sound insulating properties with respect to speech and small household
appliance noise.
C h a r I e s M S ~t I t e ~" ~. S S 0 C i ;at e s I rl c 26802a.-,ker Road Suile203 San Jose Callf~rnia £5134 Te1: 408 432 7270 Fs×: 408 432 7235
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 5
are greater than 1/3 of the exterior wall surface, then their sound insulation ratings will
need to be higher. As noted above, final windows selections should be made during the
design phase of the project.
The exterior noise goal for recreational areas is DNL 60 dB, however the City
acknowledges that this may not be achievable within the constraints of economic or
aesthetic feasibility. The project site is exposed to DNL that exceeds 60 dB. While some
of the plarmed recreational areas will be at least partially shielded from Highway noise by
the proposed town_houses, the Zen Garden and Turf areas in the northeastern comers of
the site would have a noise exposure le’cel of approximately DNL 67 dB. To the extent
that it is compatible with economic and aesthetic considerations, consider incorporating
solid barriers, extending approximately 80 feet in either direction from the comers of the
site. Effective barriers could be approximately eight feet in height, with reference to the
recreational area ground level, and could be constructed from a variety of materials
including metal posts supporting pre-cast concrete panels. Resulting noise levels in the
Zen Garden and Turf areas would be between DNL 60 and 65 dB. Barrier details should
be determined during the design phase.
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code
The project will likely include split-system residential air-conditioning units. Our
measurements indicate that quietest ambient (background) noise levels at the site are 47
and 52 dB, during the night and daytime hours. Consequently, the City’s noise ordinance
requires that noise from mechanical equipment not exceed 53 dB at night and 58 dB
during the day at future residences across East Meadow Drive to the south. Condensing
.units should be selected to meet these criteria.
Rooftop mechanical equipment is located on the existing industrial buildings on-site. We
estimate that operational noiselevels from HVAC equipment, at elevated location of the
planned residences to the south of the project site, would be approximately 60 to 65 dB.
Therefore, future noise levels from mechanical equipment would be approximately 7 to
12 dB lower than the existing land use.
California Building Code
Theentire site is exposed to noise levels that exceed DNL 60 dB. Since windows must
be closed to achieve the interior noise criterion, the CBC requires that an alternate
method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation). This issue should be
discussed with the project mechanical engineer.
Project-Generated Traffic
A traffic report conducted for the project, by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants,
estimates that the number of daily trips generated by the project would decrease from
approximately 916 to approximately 450 from the number estimated if the existing office
space were in use. This results in a small reduction in project-generated traffic noise.
Noise at the site is dominated by other sources, such as traffic on Highway 101, so this
reduction in project-generated noise does not significantly impact the overall noise
environment.
C h a r ] e s M S a I t e r A s s o c i a t e s ] rl C 2880ZankerRoad Suite203 San Jose California 9513~ Tek,:OSZ327270 Fa×:~OB4227235
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 6
APPENDIX A
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
This appendix provides background information to aid in understanding the technical
aspects of this report.
Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric
pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB
corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing.
Three aspects of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response.
These are:
a)
b)
c)
The frequency spectrum of the sound;
The time-varying character of the sound; and
The intensity or level of the sound;
FREQUENCY SPECTRUM
The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per
second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz).
Most of the sounds we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but
of a broad band Of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level
content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is
typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range
(for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments.
Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite
different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response
nearly as.well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of
the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-
emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz.
This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low
frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range.
The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so
measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit
of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dBA." In practice, the sound level
is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electronic filter
corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard
sound level meters include such a filter.
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 7
VARIATION OF SOUND WITH TIME
Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a
conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background
noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in
trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As
natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may
vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a
succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby
activities such as single vehicle passbys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the
environmental noise level to vary from moment to moment.
To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise
descriptors were developed. "Lt0" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded
during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of
typical maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "Ls0" is the A-weighted
sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents
the median sound level. The "Lg0" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded
during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise.
As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical
descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "L~q" is now widely used.
The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which
contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period.
In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq iS the average A-weighted sound level
in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change
in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the
level of activity. Widening roads and!or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of
situation.
In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for
the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime,
exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most
household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become
noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise.
To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was
developed. The descriptor is called the DNL (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which
represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night.
The DNL computation divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.); and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The nighttime sound levels are
assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. For
highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume
is approximately equal to the DNL.
C h a r i e s M S a I t e r ~ s s 0 c i ;a t e s I i1 c 2aSOZankerRoad Su;te203 San Jose Csllfornia 95134 Te1:4054327270 Fsx: 408 432 7235
1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle
Draft Environmental Noise Assessment
May 24, 2005
Page 8
SOUND LEVELS
The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:
a)
b)
c)
Subjective effects of almoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction;
Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and
Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss.
The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the
first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable
measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of
annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in
individual thresholds of armoyance and habituation to noise over time.
Thus, an important factor in assessing a person’s subjective reaction is to compare the
new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new
noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged.
With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships wil! be
helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound
level cannot be perceived.
Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference.
A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in
community response would be expected.
A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and
would almost certainly cause an adverse community response.
Sound levels do not combine arithmetically. Instead, they sum logarithmically, in a
manner similar to the Richter scale, used for measuring the intensity of earthquakes.
The.following two examples may help illustrate this:
i) If the existing noise level at aparticular location is 60 dBA, and a new source of
sound with a similar spectrum is introduced that also measures 60 dBA, the result
is not 120 dBA, but 63 dBA.
ii)If the existing noise level at a particular location is 60 dBA, and a new sound
source with a similar spectrum is introduced that measures 50 dBA, the result is
not 110 dBA, but still 60 dBA. The new source is so much quieter than the
existing one that it does not contribute to the overall sound level.
Attachment F
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Aaron Yakligian
Project Leader
Trumark Companies
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506-4668
July 13, 2005
Planning Division Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 75-Unit "Echelon"
Residential Project at 1010 East Meadow Circle & 1101 East
Meadow Drive; [ARB 05 PLN-00200]
Dear Mr. Yakligian:
This letter summarizes the agre.ement between the Trumark Companies (Trumark) and
the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment (Director)
regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate
(BMR) Program for the proposed 75-unit residential condominium development (the
"Project") at 1010 East Meadow Circle & 1101 East Meadow Drive.
The BMR program requirements are contained in Program H-36 of the Comprehensive
Plan (Chapter 4 - Housing). You and Planning Division staff have discussed and
negotiated the terms of this. agreement, and the signatures of Trumark’s corporate
officers on this letter confirms that Trumark agrees to these provisions. The
Architectura! Review Board (ARB) is scheduled to review the Project on. July 2 !, 2005.
The BMR agreement will be incorporated into the City of Palo Alto’s conditions of
approval for the architectural review application. You have also submitted an
application for a tentative subdivision map to allow the residential units to be sold
separately as condominiums. The BMR agreement’s provisions will also be
incorporated into the future subdivision agreement for the Project.
The 4.36-acre site is zoned LM and is composed of two parcels. The Project involves
merging the two existing parcels into one development site and the construction of 75
condominium, townhouse style, ownership units. There will be 24, Plan 1 two-bedroom
units, 24 Plan 2 three bedroom units and 27 Plan 3 three-bedroom units. Interior living
space within each unit, ranging in size from about 1,213 to 1,625 square feet, is located
on two levels over two car garages.
BMR Requirement: A fifteen (15%) percent BMR requirement applies to this Project,
which equals 11.25 BMR units. Of the total 75 (seventy-five) for-sale units that will be
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
BMR Letter Agreement For Echelon Tmmark Project
July 13, 2005
Page 2 of 5
constructed within the Project; Trumark has agreed to sell eleven (11) of the units under
the provisions of this agreement and the rules and procedures of the BMR program. An
additional three bedroom Plan 2 unit is being provided by Trumark, instead of a third,
Plan 1, two-bedroom in order to satisfy the 0.25 portion of the BMR requirement and to
have in the total square footage in all eleven BMR units equal 15% of the total
residential square footage .in the Project.
Designation of BMR Units: Based on the unit mix, square footage, the three different
floor plans and other features of the 75 units as shown in the plans dated June 6, 2005,
we have agreed that Tmmark will provide the 1 ! units described in this agreement as
BMR units in full satisfaction of the 11.25 BMR unit requirement under Program H-36.
The 11 BMR units are described in more detail in Attachments A and B to this
agreement. The finalconstruction plans for the building permit(s) shall designate each
BMR unit. The Director, prior to issuance of the first building permit, shall approve the
final BMR unit designations, locations and floor plans for consistency with this
agreement. However, Trumark and the City may agree, prior to the initiation of project
marketing, to change the designation of particular Plan 2 and 3 units as Lower or Higher
Moderate Income units based on information then available concerning the relative
merits of the various locations within the Project with the objective of the higher priced
BMR units ha-ring better locations.
Trumark Echelon Project
Summar)~ of 11 BMR Units and Sales Prices
# Of Floor Unit
BMR Plan Bedrooms/Baths Numbers Sales Price Affordability Level
Units
2 P1 2 BRs / 2.5 Baths 40, 41 $242,250 Lower Moderate
1,213 sf
3 P2 3 BRs / 3 Baths 6, 34, 54 $275,850 Lower Moderate
1,386 sf
2 P2 3 BRs / 3 Baths 63, 67 $350,550 Higher Moderate
1,386 sf
2 P3 3 BRs / 2.5 Baths 18, 25 $275,850 Lower Moderate
1,625 sf
2 P3 3 BRs / 2.5 Baths 58, 72 $350,550 Higher Moderate
1,625 sf
11 BMR Units Total
H:~DOC~d3N{R Program\Trumark Echelon BMR Agrm~ 7-12-05 doc
BMR Letter Agreement For Echelon Trumark Project
July 13, 2005
Page 3 of 5
BMR Unit Sales Prices: Pricing for the BMR units has been set based on the
methodology, assumptions and other factors shown in Attachment C - BMR Sales Price
Calculations. In accordance with Program H-36 of the Housing Element as adopted on
December 2, 2002, there are two levels of affordability and pricing. Two-thirds or
seven (7) of the 11 BMR units are priced to be affordable to buyers at the lower range of
the moderate-income level (households with incomes between 80% and 100% of the
median income). The remaining four (4) BMR units are priced to be affordable to
buyers at the higher range ofthe moderate-income level (households with incomes
between 100% and 120% of the median income).
Possible Increase or Decrease in BMR Sales Prices: The BMR unit prices have been set
using the area median income (AMI) for Santa Clara County of $105,500 for a four-
person household in effect as of February 25, 2005. Estimated home mortgage interest
rates of 6.0% as of April 1, 2005 for a low down-payment loan were also used to derive
affordable BMR unit prices. Because the units will not be completed and available for
purchase for about two years, a provision for the readjustment of BMR prices to reflect
major changes in home mortgage interest rates and / or major changes in the AMI has
!been included in this agreement, as follows.
The City will recalculate the BMR sales prices just prior to the initiation of the BMR
unit sales and marketing process, provided that:
1) Interest rates on loans commonly available to BMR buyers have increased, or
decreased, by 0.5 percent or more; and / or
2) The then-current AMI for Santa Clara County has increased, or decreased,
significantly in an amount that would produce price changes that are equivalent to a 0.5
percent increase or decrease in interest rates.
The City will use then prevailing interest rates and!or the then-current AMI for the
recalculation of the BMR unit sales prices using the methodology, assumptions and
other factors in Attachment C - BMR Sales Price Calculations.
Construction, Finishing, Amenities: The BMR units shall be comparable in all aspects to
the market-rate housing units including, but not limited to, construction quality,
appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, appearance, flooring materials,
finish work, amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to all facilities.
Trumark may request permission from the Director to use different interior finishes,
appliances and fixtures in the BMR units than in the market-rate units. Such substitute
materials and equipment must still be of very good quality and durability. Any such
request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to issuance of the Project’s
H:~DOCKIMR Program\Trumark Echelon BMR A~o-mt 7-12-05.doc
BMR Letter Agree, ment For Echelon Trumark Project
July 13, 2005
Page 4 of 5
first Shell building .permit. The Director must approve substitute materials in writing.
Prior to the close of escrow for the sale of each BMR unit, the City shall inspect the
BMR unit to determine that it meets the construction and finishing standards stated in
this Agreement and the City Manager shall approve the acceptance of each BMR unit
into the program.
Sale of BMR Units. Buyer Selection and Qualification: Trumark shall offer the BMR
units for sale to the City at the approved BMR prices in accordance with procedures
generally described in Attachment D. Trumark shall cooperate with the City, the buyers
and the City’s program administrator as necessary in the first sale of each of the BMR
units. The City normally selects qualified buyers from the BMR ownership program
waiting list. At the appropriate time in the sale transaction for each BMR unit, the City
will assign its right to purchase to each qualified BMR buyer.
BMR A~reement to Be Recorded: The terms of this letter agreement will be
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative and Final Subdivision
Maps. In addition,-a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the
;locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded
against the property prior to, or concurrent with, the recording of the Subdivision
Agreement for. the Project. The recorded BMR Agreement will be a contractual
obligation of Trumark and its successors in interest and shall run with the land. The
Cits’ requires that lenders with secured interests in the Project subordinate to the
recorded BMR Agreement.
Term of Agreement: For BMR ownership units, the initial term of the City’s deed
restrictions, beginning with first sale to a BMR qualified buyer, shall be 59 years.
Future transfers or sales to subsequent BMR owners initiate a new 59-year term of
affordability. A copy of the City’s current Deed Restrictions is attached to this
agreement as Attachment E. The City may revise the current deed restrictions before
completion of construction of the Project and the sale of the BMR units, in which case
the City’s revised deed restrictions shall be used.
Program Administrator: The Department of Planning and Community Environment
administers the BMR program. The CiW’s current contract program administrator for
the BMR program is the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or
all of the administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions to
its program administrator or other designee.
H:LDOCLt3MR Program\Tmmark Echelon BMR Agrmt %12-05.doc
BMR Letter Agreement For Echelon Trumark Project
July 13, 2005
Page 5 of 5
Please sign this letter; indicating that we have reached agreement regarding BMR
program contribution for your Echelon Project. Thank you for your cooperation and
your contribution to affordable housing needs in the City of Palo Alto.
A
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Trumark Companies agrees to provide the Below Market Rate units at the Echeton
project at 1010 East Meadow Circle and 1101 East Meadow Drive, as described in this
Letter of Agreement dated July 12, 2005:
Title: I~’. V. ~0.
Date:
Attachments:
A)
B)
C)
D)
~)
Description, Prices & Unit Numbers of BMR Units, Dated July 8, 2005
Site Plan with Locations of BMR Units
BMR Sales Price Calculations
Procedures and Instructions for the Sale of New BMR Units
Below Market Rate Ownership Deed Restrictions [Version dated 8/93]
cc:Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Beth Bourne, Senior Planner
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division
Linda Mabry, BMR Administrator, Palo Alto Housing Corporation
H:tDOCkBMR Program\Tmmark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7-12-05.doe
Attachment A
0
Attachment B
0 Echelon BMR Homes Mix~ Plan~ Size, Bed/Bath, Price
(2) PI: 1,213 sf, 2bd/2.5ba, $242,250
(3) P2:1,386 sf, 3bd/3ba, $275,850
(2) P2:1,386 sf, 3bd/3ba, $350,550
(2) P3:1,625 sf, 3bd!2.Sba, $275,850
(2) P3:1,625 sf, 3bd/2.Sba, $350,550
1
EAST M~.&DOW DRIVE
ATTACHMENT B
Trumark
Companies
Attachment C
PLANNING DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:April 29, 2005
To:
From:
Planning Division Staff & Housing Developers, and Others
Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning & Community Environment
Subject:Updated Prices for New BMR Units - Effective April 1, 2005
Palo Alto has updated its prices for newly constructed housing units for the Below Market
Rate (BMR) home ownership program,~as shown below. The attached tables explain the
price calculations. The City updates the BMR prices annually. The new prices are effective
as of April 1, 2005 and apply to BMR units in projects receiving final planning entitlement
approvals during the following year.
Factors updated annually are: the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County, as
published by the State Department of Housing & Community Development, interest and
mortgage insurance rates for loans typically used by BMR buyers and other home
ownership costs (covered by allowances for repairs and maintenance, typical homeowner
association dues, and fire insurance).
The developer is required to sell new BMR units at the "BMR Unit Price". The required
BMR price is the midpoint price affordable by assumed households in the target income
range for that unit type. BMR units must also comply with the City’s "Standards for BMR
Units". As described in the BMR Program H-36 of the Housing Element, as adopted in
December 2002, there are two levels of affordability for BMR ownership units, as shown
below:
Studio Units
1-bedroom units
2-bedroom units
3-bedroom units
4-bedroom units
Lower Moderate Income
80% to 100% AMI Units
$175,100
$208,600
$242,250
$275,850
$302,750
Higher Moderate Income
100% to 120% AMI Units
$227,300
$268,450
$309,500
$350,550
$383,450
Attachments:
1) Price Calculations for Lower Moderate Income Units (80% to 100% of AMI)
2) Price Calculations for Higher Moderate Income Units (100% to 120% of AMI)
H:kDOCLBMR Pro~am~Att C BMR Price Cover Memo 4-05.doc
Attachment C
Persons In
Household
1
2
3
4
5
City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program
Prices for New BMR Units
for Households at 80% to 100% of Median Income
80% of County
Area Median
Income
$59,100
Revised April 2005
$67,500
$75,950
$84,400
s91,15,0
100% of County
Area Median
Income
...... $73,850
Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of
Median Income
......$149,000 , $201,200
$84,400
......... $94,9.50
$105,5.00
$113,950
$178,700..$238,500
$208,600 ........$27#.~900
..$2:38,500 $313,200
$262,400 $343,100
Assumed Household Size
for Unit Type Unit Type
BMR Unit Price
1 Studio $i75,100
2 1 Bedroom $208,600
3 2 Bedrooms $242,250
4 3 Bedrooms $275,850
5 4 Bedrooms $302,750
(Assumes 90% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for
Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type)
VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS:
Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05)
Annualized Rates:
Interest Rates (As of 4/1/05)
Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05)
Property Taxes
Total Effective Interest Rate
Number of Monthly Payments:
Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):
Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance
Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month)
Loan Terms:
Zero (0) Loan Points
30 Year, Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan
Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance,
property taxes, HQA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance, fire insurance)
$105,500
6.00%
0.89%
1.25%
8.14%
360
95%
$425
H:\Sheet\BMR 4-2005 Prices at 80-100,xls
Attachment C
City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program
Prices for New BMR Units
for Households at 100% to 120% of Median Income
Revised April 2005
Persons In
Household
1
2
3
4
5
100% of
County Area
Median Income
$73,850
$84,400
$94,950
$105,500
$113,950
120% of County Range of Affordable Prices at 100% to 120%
Area Median of Median IncomeIncome
$201,200 ........-$253,400
$238,500 -$298,400
$275,900 -$343,100
$313,200 -$387,900
$343,100 -$423,800
$88,600
$101,300
$113,950
$126,600
$136,750
’AssumedHousehold Size for
Unit Type
2
3
.4
5
Unit Type
Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
BMR Unit Price
(Assumes 110% of Area Median Income & Midpoint
Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type)
$227,300
$268,450
$309,500
$350,550
$383,450
VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS:
Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05)
Annualized Rates:
Interest Rates (As of 4/1/05)
Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05)
Property Taxes
Total Effective interest Rate
Number of Monthly Payments:
Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):
Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance
Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month)
Loan Terms:
Zero (0) Loan Points
30 Year, Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan
Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance,
property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance & fire insurance)
$105,500
6.00%
0.89%
1.25%
8.14%
360
95%
$425
H:\Sheet\BMR 4-2005 Prices at 100-120%.xls
Attachment D:BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
Sales Procedures for New Below Market Rate 0~MR) Ownership Units
This document provides an overview of the City ofPalo Alto’s policies and procedures
for the selection of buyers and the sales of newly c0nstmcted BMR ownership units
provided under the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program - H-36 of the Housing
Element as adopted on December 2, 2002. The information is intended primarily for
housing developers and others interested in an overview of the buyer selection and sales
process. Further details of the process, both for new unit sales and resales of existing
BMR units, may be found in the BMR Program Policy and Procedures Manual prepared
by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC).
1) BMR A_m-eement Between City and Developer:
During the entitlement review process, a BMR agreement is prepared between the City
and the Developer. Compliance with the BMR program agreement is included as one of
the project’s Conditions of Approval. Generally, a letter agreement is drafted, signed by
the Developer and the Director of Planning and Community Environment and included in
the staff report packets sent to the Boards, Commission and Council decision makers, as
applicable. A final BMR Agreement, in a form that will be recorded against the land, is
prepared prior to the final entitlement approval for the project. This formal document
must be executed by the appropriate officers of the Developer and by the legal owners of
the land (if different than the Developer). A consent and subordination to the BMR
Agreement is also required from any lender with a secured interest in the land.
Most projects with for-sale housing units will involve a subdivision map application. In
such situations, the formal BMR Agreement is prepared, executed and recorded prior to
City approval of the final subdivision map agreement. The formal BMR Agreement may
be a separate lega! document or may be incorporated into the text of the subdivision
agreement. The BMR Agreement (both the initial letter agreement and the formal,
recorded agreement) will include complete descriptions of the BMR units and will
reference.the units’ floor plans, features, sizes and locations. The BMR units must also
be designated on the site plans that are part of the subdivision map.
2) Sale of BMR Units to a Qualified Purchaser Designated by the City:
The B1V[R Agreement provides the City with a right to purchase the BMR units from the
Developer for the specified below market price(s) at completion of the Project. The
standard practice is for the City to assign its right to purchase to a BMR buyer that has
been selected and qualified by our contract program administrator, the Palo Alto Housing
H:kDOCkBMR Policy & ProceduresL2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 1 of 6
Attachment D:BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
4) Inspection & Acceptance of BMR Unit(s):
Representatives of the City and PAHC shall be allowed to inspect each BMR unit, and a
sample of the other units in the Project, immediately prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, or final approval of the building permit by the City’s Building Division in
order to determine that each BMR unit meets the standards of construction and finishing,
as required by the BMR Agreement. This inspection is independent of the City’s
inspections for Building Codes and other Planning Conditions. The City shall specify in
writing any deficiencies in the BMR unit(s) and such deficiencies shall be corrected by
the Developer to the satisfaction of the City within 2 weeks of receipt of such notice or
by such other deadline that is acceptable to the City. Prior to close of escrow on the sale
of each BMR unit, the City Manager, on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, shall execute a
"Certificate of Acceptance". This document, which is the City’s official approval and
acceptance of each BMR unit, shall be recorded as an exhibit to the Grant Deed from the
Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer, as described below.
5) Recording of Documents:
Prior to close of escrow for each sale, the Developer must execute the Grant Deed that
will transfer title of each BM:R unit from the Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer.
Also, prior to closing PAHC obtains the Designated BMR Buyer’s signature on the City
of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Deed Restriction (the "BMR Deed Restrictions") and
the City executes the "Certificate of Acceptance". After these documents are properly
executed, PAHC transmits them to the Escrow Agent. The DeVeloper shall instruct the
Escrow Agent to attach both the Certificate of Acceptance and the BMR Deed
Restrictions as exhibits to the Grant Deed prior to its recording. The Developer shall also
instruct the Escrow Agent to reference these documents on the face of the Grant Deed in
the manner specified by PAHC. In general, the Developer shall cooperate fully with the
City, PAHC and the purchaser in the escrow process.
The City may develop new or revised legal documents (including revisions to the BMR
Deed Restrictions) in order to secure its BMR deed restrictions and implement the
program’s goals and objectives. The Developer agrees to assist City as necessary in the
closing and recording of the City’s BMR documents.
6) Provision of Project Information:
The Developer, and its sales and marketing agents, shall cooperate fully with the City and
PAHC to accomplish the sale of each BMR unit to a Designated BMR Buyer. The
Developer, or its sales agent, shall provide to PAHC, (for distribution to interested BMR
H:kDOC~BMR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 3 of 6
Attachment D:BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
Thus, the total time from initiation of the sales process by PAHC to close of escrow could
extend from four to five months, Close cooperation between the Developer, the
Developer’s sales agent and PAHC is necessary in order for the process to proceed
smoothly.
10) Waiting List for BMR Ownership Units:
PAHC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units.
The waiting list is used for the sales of both new and resaleunits. There are usually over
300 households on the list, which is updated annually. Past experience has shown a
strong demand for BMR units from qualified waiting list buyers, especially for newly
constructed BMR units. However, if a buyer cannot be found from the waiting list,
PAHC advertises the unit directly to the public in order to find qualified buyers. For a
project with a larger number of new BMR units becoming available at the same time,
PAHC and the Developer may undertake a special advertising and marketing effort while
the project is under construction to recruit a sufficient pool of qualified BMR buyers.
11) Sales Process:
The following steps describe in more detail the general process involved in selecting and
qualifying a buyer for each BMR unit.
a) The Developer provides PAHC with a schedule for completion of construction of
the Project and an estimated date for completion and availability of the BMR units. The
Developer provides PAHC with contacts with its sales staff or real estate agent and with
its escrow company.
b) Often a preliminary meeting at theProject site is held prior to completion between
PAHC, the City, the Developer, the general contractor and the sales / marketing agent to
discuss process and timing, to tour the project and inspect the BMR units and other units.
c) The Developer provides PAHC with all reports and documents required by law
including, the condominium reports and documents, preliminary title report(s) on the
BMR units, inspection reports and disclosure statements. Marketing brochures including
floor plans of the BMR units with square footages, lists and description of standard and
optional features with prices for optional features must also be provided. The amount of
the monthly homeowners association dues for each BMR unit is also needed.
d) PAHC prepares an information and application packet about each BMR unit and
mails it to all households (this may go to a large number of households) on the waiting
list that appear eligible for that size and price of unit.
H:LDOCkI3MR Policy & Proceduresk2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENT E
City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions
SUBJECT TO:
A.Right of First Refusal.
Grantee hereby grants and gives to the City of Palo Alto ("City") a fight to purchase the real property
conveyed hereby and any improvements thereon (the "Premises’.’) under conditions hereinafter set forth. City
may designate a governmental or nonprofit organization to exercise its right of first refusal. City or its
designee may assign this right to an individual private buyer who meets the City’s eligibility qualifications.
After the exercise of said right by City, its designee or assignee in the manner hereinafter prescribed, City, its
designee or assignee may assign said right to purchase to any substitute individual private buyer who meets
the City’s eligibility requirements and is approved by the City; provided, however, that such subsequent
assignment shall not extend any time limits contained herein. Any attempt to transfer title or any ..interest
therein in violation of these covenants shall be void.
B.Procedure on Sale.
Whenever the Owner ("Owner" refers to Grantee and all successors in interest) of said Premises no
longer desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in writing to that effect. Such notice shall be
personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, certified, addressed to
City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, 725 Atma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403. City, its designee or assignee shall then
have the right to exercise its right to purchase said Premises by delivery of written notice, by personal
delivery or certified mail, to the Owner thereof at any time within sixty (60) days from the receipt by City of
such written notice from Owner of intent to sell or dispose of the Premises.
If the City, its designee or assignee exercises its right to purchase said Premises, close of escrow of said
purchase shall be within ninety (90) days of the opening of such escrow by either party. Said escrow shall be
opened upon delivery to Owner of written notice of the exercise of the option or as soon thereafter as
possible. In the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone
opening of escrow until selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the
opening of the escrow shall not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the
City’s exercise of its right to purchase.
Closing costs and title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City of Palo
Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written
report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report
to repair.damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work
to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the Seller. Any
work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests
or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is
not the responsibility of the Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and then at the
(Rev. 8/93)1 Reg.
ATTACHMENT E
No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment unless
the Owner shall present to the City valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value
of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows:
(a)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less
than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance,
fixture or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straight-line depreciation applied to
the original cost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated
original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment.
(b)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more, shall be the appraised market value of the improvement,
appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addition or fixture to the premises (i.e., the
amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the market value of the
premises) at the time of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as the market value
of the premises in method 1 above.
(c)On January 1, 1982, and every two years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or recordation
hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)
immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those paragraphs in the
following manner. On each adjustment date, the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for
the San Francisco-Oakland area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailing on the
date of recordation of this deed. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and
the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be increased in the same percentage. In no event
shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
(d)No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all
expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested.
Any sale price determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer
Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by
decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount
shall be determined as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner’s intent to sell, City or its designee
shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. City or its designee shall have an opportunity to determine
whether all plumbing, electrical, and heating systems are in working order; whether any violations of
applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes exist; whether all appliances which
were originally furnished to Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements thereof, are in
working order; whether walls, .ceilings and floors are clear and free of holes or other defects (except
for holes typical of picture hangers); whether doors, windows, screens and similar appurtenances are
cracked, broken or torn; and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally
furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or any replacement thereof, are clean and free of holes,
tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City
(Rev. 8/93)3 Reg.
ATTACHMENT E
Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do so in accordance with the procedures and price
set forth for the City in Paragraph B above.
D. Default.
Owner covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or
mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924 (b) of the Civil Code Of
the Sate of California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City Manager,
City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil
Code Section 2924 (f) shall constitute a notice of intent to sell hereunder and City or its designee or assignee
may exercise its preemptive right prior to any tmstee’s sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in
lieu of foreclosure, provided, however, notwithstanding any language contained in this instrument to the
contrary regarding the rights of the lien holder, the City, or its designee or assignee, must complete such
purchase no later than the end of the period established by Califomia Civil Code Section 2924 ( c ) for
reinstatement of a monetary default under the deed of trust or mortgage.
In the event of default and foreclosure, the City, or its designee or assignee,, shall have the same right as
the Owner to cure defaults and redeem the Premises prior to foreclosure sale. Such redemption shall be
subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as would otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing
herein shall be construed to create any obligation on the part of the City to cure any such default, nor shall
this right to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the
underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The City, or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from
Owner all costs incurred in curing any such default.
In the event City elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner
may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of
surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would
have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its fight
to purchase the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to Owner on the date of the
foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the City for increasing the City’s low-income
and moderate-income housing stock.
E.Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds.
In the event that the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of
being used to rebuild, or in the event of conderrmation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, or in the
case of a condominium project, in the event of liquidation of the homeowners’ association and distribution of
the assets of the association to the members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed
remaining afterpayment of encumbrances of said Premises shall be distributed as follows: That portion of
the surplus up to but not to exceed the net amount that Owner would have received under the formula set
forth above had City exercised its right to purchase the property on the date of the destruction, condemnation
valuation date, or liquidation, shall be distributed to Owner, and the balance of such surplus, if any, shall be
distributed to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation or its successors or assigns.
(Rev. 8/93)5 Reg.
ATTACHMENT E
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code Sec. 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
On , before me, ,
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Rev. 8193)7 Reg.
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
Attachment G
457 KINGSLEY AVENUE -PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 ¯415/327-9148
November 9, 2005
To: Planning and TranspoI~ation Commission
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto wishes to state its strong support of the Trumark
development at 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle on your agenda tonight.
These seventy-five single family attached homes, and especially the affordable component of
eleven below market rate units, will be a beneficial step toward provision of the housing units
needed in Palo Alto to carry out the requirements of our Housing Element, which was agreed to
with the State.
The League’s housing positions, developed by League members over a long period of time and
reaffirmed every year, call for "improving the diversity of housing opportunities with emphasis
on economic diversity" and "lessening the jobs-housing imbalance" in Palo Alto. The League
supports compact growth principles and local efforts to meet needs for very low to moderate
income housing. We support growth in existing urbanized areas in order to prevent urban sprawl.
We support multiple family units sited near transportation corridors and near services. We
support zoning and planning to insure that good standards of quality wil! prevail.
The development under consideration this evening has received Architectural Review Board
approval and the Planning Director’s approval, as required by city statutes, and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared. Approval of the tentative map before you is the next necessary
step in the process. We urge that approval.
This development of single family attached units is designed to attract entry-level young families
and singles as well as older empty-nester families. Some units will supply workforce housing that
is in short supply in our city. This location, near #!01 and San Antonio, and within about a half-
mile of the proposed Campus for Jewish Life, as well as within easy distance of the Charleston
Shopping Center and the nearby Mountain View CostCo Shopping Center, will make
transportation, shopping, and other services relatively accessible. The landscaping, garden
walkways, and outdoor seating areas will add amenities to the neighborhood.
The League supports appropriately located multiple family developments, and believes that the
medium density of 17 dwelling units per acre achieved here is appropriate.
We ask you to approve the tentative map so that this development can go forward.
Sincerely,
Veronica Tincher, President
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
ATTACHMENT H
DRAFT GUIDELINES FROM EAST MEADOW DESIGN CHARRETTE
These draft guidelines are scheduled to be submitted to the Council in the spring after
review by the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission.
BACKGROUND
On Friday, October 7th and Saturday, October, 8th, 2005 the City of Palo Alto, with support from
the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, held a design charette to
evaluate potential residential design options for the East Meadow Circle area. The charette
fulfilled a program requirement of the Comprehensive Plan calling for a community design
workshop for the East Meadow Circle area, which implements Policy L-47 that states the East
Meadow Circle area is to be considered a potential site for higher density housing providing a
transition between surrounding single family housing and nearby industrial development. The
East Meadow Circle area is approximately 30 acres and currently developed with older industrial
and office buildings. The area could yield from 525 to 975 units of housing. Although part of
the East Meadow Circle area, the two Trumark sites ~vere excluded from the charette because of
the status of their proposed developments.
The charette focused on developing future design guidelines for the area. The charette began on
Friday morning with approximately 100 people in attendance. A panel of experts and
stakeholders provided background information and their vision for the area. Upon conclusion of
the panel discussion, five teams, consisting of architects, residents, property owners and staff
~vere grouped at tables to develop a design scenario for the area. The charette participants had
received a briefing binder the week before the charette that provided considerable background
information regarding the area and the charette process. A professional architect was designated
as team leader at each table, and the teams worked to develop an individual development
scenario for the area that addressed the emerging shift in land use in the area. In addition to
addressing land use compatibility with both the single family neighborhoods and remaining
industrial uses, other issues addressed by each team during the charette included provision of
open space and parks, adequate circulation, pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and infrastructure
needs. On Saturday each team summarized its design concepts and guidelines that would
implement the team’s vision for the area. A detailed description of the charette including
information on the panel discussion and individual charette team scenarios is posted on the City’s
website www.ci~ofpaloalto.or~/planning-community/plan-charette.
DISCUSSION
Subsequent to the charette, the team leaders met with staff to develop the design parameters that
are listed below. These provide the basis for guiding future development in the area and
represent the general direction of the five teams. The overarching concept of all five teams for
future development in the East Meadow Circle area is to create a pedestrian-friendly
neighborhood with linkages to surrounding areas. Two other recommendations that were
consistent through all the teams were providing common open space and addressing the "edge"
between the single family and higher density neighborhoods. In December, the architects
Page ! of 3
completed renderings to illustrate several of the guideline parameters, which were submitted to
the City. Staff is now in the process of preparing actual guidelines that will expand upon the
following parameters as well as incorporate the architectural illustrations. These draft guidelines
are scheduled to be submitted to the Council in the spring after review by the ARB and the
Planning and Transportation Commission.
Land Use Guidelines
1.Establish a density/height section; Lower at the R-1 edge, higher towards the freeway.
2.Encourage a variety of housing types to reinforce the density.
Encourage provision of affordable and attainable housing.
3.Create bike and pedestrian connections within the site, to surrounding neighborhoods, to
commute corridors, and to schools.
4.Encourage community interaction with front stoops and landscaping elements.
5.Consider varying rooflines and facades within the chosen architectural vocabulary.
6.Consider the solar access of units within site and to adjacent sites.
7.Provide visibility into the site; don’t give a gated impression.
8.Respect existing industrial uses. Address the contexts through the CLIP process.
9.Preserve existing mature trees and increase the tree canopy where appropriate.
10.Encourage a cluster of common amenities: open space, community room, daycare, small
retail, farmers’ market, etc.
11.Provide public art as part of public amenities: benches, kiosks, fences, gateways, etc.
Emphasize the entrances into the housing with special landscaping, art, street furniture,
and lighting.
12.Provide special treatment of end units facing the street.
13.Select plant material that will not overgrow sidewalks.
14.Prohibit rolled curbs, and reduce individual curb cuts facing East Meadow Circle.
Prohibit garage doors at the front of units facing the street and encourage common
driveways as much as possible.
15.Apply flood control measures, including FEMA standards, to create interesting contours
across the site.
Streetseape Guidelines
1. Emphasize the corners of the street. Name them, and give each one an individual
character using street furniture, landscaping, lighting and art.
2.Provide a t 0-foot wide sidewalk, or at least 8 feet of clear space bet~veen trees, furniture,
landscaping, etc.
3.Develop a street tree program. Create occasional medians with trees to slow traffic.
4.Consider diagonal parking in some places to increase the slalom effect.
5.Create a sign pro~am with better signage at the intersection, with playful destinations.
6.Develop a lighting program that identifies uniform pedestrian-oriented street light fixtures
and appropriate locations for them.
In addition to the guidelines, the teams also identified the following policy changes that could
further encourage or enhance future development in the area. Some of these could be
implemented through the zoning ordinance.
Page 2 of 3
Policy
1.
o
3.
4.
5.
o
7,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Considerations
Consider incentives for open space: increased floor area ratio and density, reduced
parking, transfer of development rights, height increase.
Consider incentives for affordable and attainable housing.
Consider incentives for universal design (accessible housing).
Allow smaller fi-ont setbacks in exchange for more common open space behind.
Downzone the area to RM-15 density with an increased floor area ratio (RM-30 FAR).
Allow RM-30 at transit nodes only, with decreased parking.
Consider neighborhood-servicing retail/service as permitted uses with incentives for
parking, FAR, etc. Limit size of individual retail/service uses to approximately a
maximum of 1000 square feet.
Limit massing by daylight plane, number of stories and FAR, not absolute height limit.
Allow zero lot line development.
Explore hotels as a conditional use on limited sites.
Negotiate with the Water District to use the right of way for a bike pedestrian walkway.
Use public art for fencing.
Provide transit connections by city shuttle. Negotiate with VTA for bus service.
Adopt park dedication ordinance to enable parkland requirement.
Encourage parcel consolidation while planning for incremental change.
Conduct a study for the area that considers all impacts to City services, utilities and
infrastructure, schools, etc. from City development.
Provide year round connection and signage to Baylands over Hwy 101.
Page 3 of 3