The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 115-06" ~' City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report c_--~·-----------6 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: DATE: CITY MANAGER JANUARY 30, 2006 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 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 staffs 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 of3 The PTC staff reports and meeting minutes for this hearing have been provided as Attachments B, C, andD. 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 will 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: • Environmental documentation: the Negative Declaration and Initial Study with attachments (Attachment E); • Below Market Rate Agreement Letter with 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 1). PREPARED BY: U4~U0to~ LORRAINE WEISS DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager 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 of3 " ' " , ~ ~. E. Negative Declaration & Initial Study with attachments F. Below Market Rate Agreement Letter with Attachments G. Public Correspondence H. Draft Guidelines from East Meadow Design Charette I. ARB plans (Council Members Only) J. Vesting Tentative Map (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES: Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, Project Applicant Aaron Yakiglian, Trumark Companies, Project Leader Thomas Morse, Proj ect Engineer Batton Associates, LLC, Property Owner HDP Associates, LLC, Property Owner Jeff Rensch, 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 of3 -;. · .. ',. ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2006-? RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE AND 1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP OS-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 1. 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 developable 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 (11) 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, 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 1 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: (1) 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 environmental 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; 2 • Less air pollution would occur due generation of vehicle trips, and no would be generated on site; to a decrease other pollutant in the sources • 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) : 1. 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 . Tha t the design or improvemen t 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 B-3), below market rate units (BMR program, policy H-2 and programs B-1, H-3, and H-38), sustainable/green building design (Goal B-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and program B-69), shared recreational use (policy T-1), 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 development: 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 allowed 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 habitat: 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 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: 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 a t large, for access through or use of, property wi thin 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 1) the la-foot box- shaped Public Utilities Easement at the southeast corner of the property shall remain and be maintained; 2) the la-foot wide Public Utilities Easement along the frontage of 1101 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 1010 East Meadow Circle shall be removed and replaced with a la-foot wide Public Utilities Easement along the property frontage; 4) the existing sanitary sewer easement at the northeast portion of 1010 East Meadow Circle parcel 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. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted. Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMe") 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. 5 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 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 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 1. 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 wi th the recording of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Prior to Submittal of Final Map 6 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 installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated substructures shall 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 Final 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 Final 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 10. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 11. 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 Cal trans Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 8 14. All crosswalks shall 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 approval. 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 approval 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 shall 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: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 9 APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment 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. 10 TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Attachment B PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Lorraine Weiss October 26, 2005 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 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 required· in order to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units. Enviromnental Assessment: Negativ~Declaration per the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: LM. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrequests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend approval ofthe 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: Background information related to the project's details and history has been included within the Record of Land Use Action. The Vesting Tel1tative 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 Alto Municipal Code (P AMC). 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 21,2005, 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 alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades 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) grading; (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) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed 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. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types 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 eompliance with the applicable provisions ofthe City's Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Vesting Tentative Map (perPAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (P AMC 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 (P AMC 21.08.01 0). The project's Below Market Rate Agreement 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: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Date: August 15,2005 September 15, 2005 July 21,2005 August 18, 2005 October 20, 2005 July 25, 2005 August 15,2005 September 15, 2005 October 26, 2005 To Be Determined 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 ofthe 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 1010 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 1. Palo Alto ("City follows: Background. The City Council of the City of Council" ) finds, determines, and. declares as A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves merging the two existing parcels into one developable 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 (11) 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. I 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 wi th 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, 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 1 • Less air pollution would occur generation of vehicle trips, and would be generated on site; due to a decrease no other pollutant in the sources • 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 cornrnerclal 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 bib-retention areas); utilization of various best management practices; and the upgrade to existing potable water and sewe~ 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. Addi tional 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): 1. 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 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, whi~h 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. Wi thin 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 conf'ormance 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 Engipeer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the sati~faction 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 submitt~d 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 wi th 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 7 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 Final Map. Prior to Approval of Final Map 8. Prior to ~inal 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 plan? shall be submitted in relation to this agreement. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final 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. 10. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 11. 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 Cal trans Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTeD). 9 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. 11 August 16, 2005 Trumark Companies Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Phyllis Cassel Bonnie Packer Annette Bialson Patrick Burt Michael Griffin Karen Holman Lee I. Lippert RE: 1101 E. Meadow Drive & 1010 E. Meadow Circle Residential Vesting Tentative Map Proposal Dear Commissioners, Attachment B 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 fonnal neighborhood meetings to be sure the neighborhood has been infonned 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 recommended approval from the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. In accordance with the California Environmental 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')10 ofthe 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 A·r-~ Aaron Yakligian Project Leader 4185 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIRCLE· SUITE 200 • DANVILLE, CA 94506-4668 0 (925) 648-8300 • FAX (925) 648-3130 7 Planrung Divjsion . Aaron Yakli gi an Project Leader Trumark Companies 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506~4668 , Ci~ of Palo'Alto Depar.tment of Planning 'and Community En'vironment Attachment C July 13,2005 Subject: Below Market Rate (BMR)· Agreement for 75-Unit "Ech~lon" Residential Project at 1010 East Meadow Ci:rcIe.,.& 1101 .East Meadow Drive; [ARB Q5P~N.:'O(1200r": ',·.iz •.. >, .... ::, .. ">" . Dear Mr, Y akJigian:f;:>5.:~:~. ';:; ;' 'r' .,' .' ,.~(,>, This letter summarizes tl1ft~gre.em~nt beitWdm the. TruIti.?rkTompanies (rTlp1l.ark) and ''.'., .~::"" . the Director. of the D~lgartment of"':P},apIDng ···an(r::CQmji!JJuiiY_.Epy.II:onii1ent~(Director};--,,--.···: ~.~::'';'''- regaroiilgSatisfacti01;t/Cif'the':provisions,o{the' Citio'f Palo:,Alto's"Belo\V M~k~t Rate .... "·r,;. './ (BMR) Program fOJ' ,1lieprPPRsed. 75':'tiru~,residential CO~~'9p1inium development .(the" .' '\ .. ,'''' "Project") at 10 lO:;E~st J.vleado\,(C,ircle §z. 1101 East Mead6jTDrive. . ", .. ::'. -'. . ',: :'.::" The B1v1R prog~k;:i~e~:~~fu.enH(are6ontained iIi Prog;am':~h:.~§ of the Comp~ehensive . Plan (Chapter :;t .. ,:~ H(HI.~ing).,; You and Planning Di:vis18i:i~rstaff have discl:lssed and negotiated the::t~Ims.,o{,·tliis::,' agreement, and the. sigh~Nf~~s.i~:;.()f Trumark's corporate. officers on tIlls,' litter' . confirms that Trumark agreesS}io:~·~'these provisions. The Architectural R~yi~~J3qWd'(ARi3) is scheduled' to revi~~tt4~'~roject on· July 21,2005: The B1v1R agf,~:ement"wilf be in'corporated into the' ¢.~ty.q(:p,@.o Alto's conditions of approval for :;<t4e architectural review application.' ~.'<.Y 9i:I.)haY~i also . submitted an application for;,a tentative subdivision map to allow; th~:.;r~~id~ritial units to be sold separately as': .condomb~iwn~. . The BMR agreen{;~nt'§'ir~:p~dy.i$ipns· will also be incorp'oratedintp the futhi~ sub,division agreement for..:tii~,·:pr.dJ~~(HJt·:, . . The 4.36~acre s;~~:,'~~zone~ LM :d)S'COmposed :~i~~;':'~;~~:~i2~::~~. Project invqIV~~ . merging the two existing parcels mto on~ .development sit,e'Ail1d the:'tonstruction of75 . condominium, towrihouse styl~,' oWnership Units. There wil~ ,~e 24, Plan l, two-bedroom· .,. units, 24 Plan 2 three bedroom units"and '27 Plan 3 three-bedroorn units:' Int~rior living: space within each unit, ranging in size from aboutl,213 to i,625.square feet, is located on two levels over two· car 'garages: ..' . , .' . .' "/"'. ,'; . ~ .. :r' BMR Requirement: A.fifteen (15%) percent BMR requhement appiies'to. this Project, which equals 11.25 BMR units. Of the total 75 (seventy-five) for~sale uru.ts.th!l(will be' '.', .... ::" 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O, Box 10250 . Palo Alto, CA 94303 650,3292441 l"~n"''II·\n .... .,r-'' /11<'13 . M/~ ,\ ';,' ,~~ ,',: BMR Letter Agreement For Echelon Trumark Project July 13,2005 Page 5 of5 Please sign this letter; indicating that we have reached agreement regarding B:MR program contribution for your Echelon Project. Th~ you for your cooperation and your contribution to affordable housing needs in the City of P~lo Alto. (. Director of Planning and COmn1tuV.ty Environmen~_ Trumark Companies agr~es to proyide the B~lowMarket Rate units at the Echelon project at 10 10 East Meadow Circle and 11 0 1 East Meadow Drive, as described in this _ Letter of Agreement dated July 12,2005: - By:-/J~ .. - --.:;;;;:; BY~ Title: ~.Y.:£. Date: ~\~4~ Title: fl)p... d1 A-roW I-.~~ Date:--7/')-1-/05"' I I -Attachments: A) Description, Prices & Unit Numbers ofBMR Units, Dated July 8,2005 B) Site Plan with Locations ofHMR Units C) BMR Sales Price-Calculations -D) -Procedures and Instructions for the Sale of New BMR Units E) -Below Market Rate Ownership Deed Re~trictions [Version dated 8/93] cc: -Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Beth Bourne, Senior Planner Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordmator, Plannmg Division LindaMabry, BMR Administrator, Palo Alto Housing CorPoration H:\DOC\BMR Program \ Trumark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7-12-05 _doc o Echelon BMR Homes \. , '. ., •• J' ..' " .~ " "i:.', . '. "'-. ",,"""-(./~ .... ' ;--' f / ... ::~:.:~ "\~<~!~ -', \ \ .A. \~ "f' .1'''' ..... ~, \ ..... ~ \" . \. ... ~;~ " '\~ \.:~\~~~~:;::~ .. 7 \ I \ If \ ~I 58 -, )i~~,11 ~ I i,.LL. i J, » ()] + ~ j:' C· cD 1f <!) ~ €) " fi'1 , !'-"j')al l ,~ .... ); ~ t. r '-----.". ~ 'I' II p-~ ,-'; -9 ; I 1 1 I I I ., ! ~jlm. I ~ .. ~ ~ j 1'1f i 11 ' J'~_I' :IJV ,~ 111 7.;) . ;fi{ \ \'~:~~!~~~.' ~~,:~) Attachment B .// r __ , " ~ i) ~_ AT! ACHJ\1ENT B EAST MDiDOW DRIVE TrUInark Companies , ! . Attachment C City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program Prices for New BMR'Units for Households at 80% to 1000/0 of Median Income Revised April 2005 'Persons In 80% of County 100% of County Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of Area Median Area Median Household Income Income Median Income . 1 $59,100 $73;850 . $149,000 -'$201,200 2 $67,500 $84,400 $178,700 -.$238,500. 3 $75,950 $94,950 . $208,600 -. $275,900 4 $84,400 $105,500 $238,500 -$313,200 5· $91,150 $113,950 I $262,400 -$343,100 . . Assumed Household Size . BMR Unit Price for ~nit Type . Unit Type (Assumes 900/0 of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for : Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type) 1 Studio $175,"100 2 1 Bedroom . $208,600 3 2 Bedrooms $242,250 4 3 Bedrooms $275,850 5· 4 Bedrooms $302,750 VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS: Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05) Annualized Rates: $105,500 Interest Rates (As of4/1/05) Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05) Property Taxes Total Effective Interest Rate Number of Monthly Payments: Loan-To-Value (5% down payment): Allowance for: HOA Associa~ion 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) 6.00% 0.89% 1.25% 8.14% 360 95% $425 ! I I H:\Sheet\BMR 4-2005 Prices at BO-100.xls Attachment D:' BlVIR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 Sales Procedures for New Below Market Rate (BMR) Ownership Units . . . .' Thls document proVides an overview'ofllie City,ofPilJo Alto's policies and procedures for the selection of buyers and'the sales of newly constructed B:MR ownership units provided under the City's,Below Market Rate (B:MR) Program -I:J-36 of the Honsing Element as adopted on December 2, 2002 . .The infonnation ~s int~nded primarily for ' housing developers and others interested in an overview of the buyer selection and sales process. Further details ofthe process, both for new unit sales and resales ,of existing HMR units, may be found in the BMR Program Policy and Procedures Manual prepared by'the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (P ABC); , 1) BMR Afu.eeme~t Betwe~n. City 'and Developer: Dmfug the entitlement review process, a BMR agreement is'prepared be~eenthe City and the Developer. Compliance with the BMR program agreement is included l:i..S one of the project's'Conditions of Approvat "Generally; a letter agreement is drafted, signed by the Developer and the Director of Planning and Community Environment and included in the sta:tfreport,packet~, sept to the, Boards; Commission and Council. decision makers" as applicable. A fin~l BMR Agreement, in a fOrIJl that will,be recorded against the land, 'is prepared prior to the fll1al.entitrement approval for the proj ect' This, fonnal documt?nt must be executed by the, appropriate officers . of the Developer and by the legal owners of the land (if different thl:lD. the Developer). A cQnsent and subordination to the BMR Agreement is also required from any lender wi1:h a secmed interest in the land. Most pr~jects with for-sale housing units Will hIvolVe a subdivision map application. In such situations, the fonnal BMR Agreement is prepared, executed and recorded prior to City approval of the final subdivision map agreement. The formal HMR Agreement may be a separate legal document or may be incorporated into'the text of the subdivision agreement. The BMR Agreement (bo~h the initial letter agreement and the formal, recorded agreement)will include complete descriptions of the BMR units and will '" referencethe'units' floor planS, 'features, sizes andJocations. The BlV1R units must also, be designated on the 'site 'plans that are part ofthe' subdivision map. ' , "2) ~ale of BMR Units to a' Quaiified Purchas~r Designated by the City: The BMR Agreenient provides'the City with, a right to purchaSe ,the B:MR 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 admIDistrator, the Palo Alto Housing H~\n()r\.l::t.MR "PnH,...".Ilr Pt"n .... .,.AI1.,. ... ro\')f\(\'] (\1 C" .. t __ TL-______ .l" .... T_ ......... ---o. Attachment D: BlVIR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 4) mspection & Acceptance ofBMR Unites): Representatives ofthe City and PARC shall be allowed to inspect each BMR unit, and a " sample" ofthe 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 "" ordet to detennine that each B:tv1R unit meets the standards of construction and finishing, as required by the BMR: Agreement. This inspection is independent ofthe City's" inspections for Building Codes and other Planning Conditions: The City shall specify in writing any deficiencies in, the BMR unites) and" such deficiencies shallbe corrected by the Developer to the satisfaction of the City within 2 weeks of receipt of $uch 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 M"anager, on behalf of the City of Pal 0 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 Gr~t Deed from the Developer to the Desi~ated B1v1R Buyer, as described below. 5) Recording of Documents: Prior to close of escrow for each sale, the Developer must execute the Grant Deed thaf: "will transfer title of each BMR unit from the Developer to the" DeSIgnated EMR Buyer.: Also, prior to closing P ARC obtains the Designated BMR ;Buyer; s" signature" on th~ 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, P ARC transmits them to the Escrow Agent. The Developer shall instruct the "Escrow Agent to attach both the Certificate of Acceptance and the HMR 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 Giailt Deed in the marmer specified by P .ABC. In general, the Developer shall cooperate fully with the City, P ARC and the purchaser in the escrow process. " The CitY may deveiop new or t:evised legal documents (including revisions to the BMR. Deed Restrictions) in order to secure its BMR deed restrictions and nnplement the program's goals and objectives. "The" Developer agrees "to assist City as necessary intbe closing" and recording of the City's"BMR docUments. 6) Provision of Project fufonnation:: " . The .. Developer, and its sales and inarketing agents, shall cooperate fully with the City and PARC to accomplish the sale of each Bivlltunit to a Designated BMR Buyer. The Developer, or its sales agent, shall provide to P ARC, (for distribution to interested BMR " " ~-.-~ ~ -.-~ ---_. 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 P ABC to close of escrqw could extend from fbur 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: ,;. PARC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units. The waiting listls u'sed 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 for,BM:R units from qualified waiting list buyers; especi'aIly for n~wly constructed'BMR units., However, if a buyer CaTInot be foUnd from the waiting list, P ARC advertises the umt 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, P ARc and the Developer may'undertake a special advertising, and marketing effort while the project is under construction to recruit a sufficient pool of qualified I1MR buyers. 11) Sales Process: ' , The following steps describe in more d~tail the 'general process involved in selecting and qualifying a buyer for each BMR unit. ' " ' , a)' , The Developer provides P AHC with a schedule for completIon of constrUction of the Project and an esthnated date for completion and availability ofthe :B1ffi. units. The Developer provides PARC with contacts with its sales staff or real estate agent and with its escrow company. b) "Often a prelirnin:3iy meeting at the ,Project' site is held prior to completion bet',veen P ARC, the City, the Developer, the general contractor aild,the sales / marketing' agent to discuss process and timing, to tour the proj ect and inspec~ the HMR units ,and 'other units. c) The Developer provides P AHC with all reports and documents 'required by law including, the condo:m:inium reports ~d documents, preliminary title report(s) on the '" BMR units, inspection reports and disclosure statements. Marketing' brochures including floor plans of the HMR units with square footages, lists and description of standard and' optional.features with prices for optional features inust also be provided. The amount of the monthly homeowners association dues for each B1ffi. unit is also needed. d) P ARC prePares an information and application packet about each BMR unit and mails it to all households (tbis may go to a large number,cifhouseholds) on the waiting list that appear eligible for that size and price of unit. ..,,.\ ....... __ , ........ ..,.... PO. I' ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Below Market Rat~ (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions . . . SUBJECT TO: A. Right ·ofFirst Refusal. Grantee hereby grants and gives to the City of Palo Alto ('.'City") a right 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 whQ 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 Prem.jses no longer desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in writing to that effect· Such notice shall be· person~lly delivered ·or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, certified,.iddressed to City Manager, CitY of Palo Alto, 25·0 Hamilton Aveliue, ·Palo Altq, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma 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 Qr certified ·niail, 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· s~ll or dispose of the Premises. .. . If the City, its··designee· or assignee exer~ises:its right to· purchase said Prercises, dose of escr~w of said .. purch:ase shall h.e within ninety (90) days of the :opening of such escrow by either party .. Sai4 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, Cjty may· postpone opening of e~crow until" selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possibie, provided that the opening of the· escrow shall not be postponed longer that niriety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the City's eJ(ercise ?fits right to·purchase. : . .... . Closmg costs· aildtitle 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 crirrent written report of an inspection by a licensed Structur;:t,l Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report to repair damage caus·ed by infestation or irifection of.wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work to correct ·conditions that caused such iIifest"ation or infection sh·all be done at the e~pen~e of the Seller. Any work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infeCtion afwood-destroying pests or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or irifection is found with respect to such con.ditions, is not the responsibility ofthe Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and tlien 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 detennined 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 bywhich said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the .market value of the . premises). aUhe time o{sale. Said value shall be determined ill 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 ill paragraphs (a) and (b) 'innnediately above shall be automatically adjus"ted for the purpose' of those paragr,aphs' in . the following manner: On each' adjustment date~ the'· Consumer Price Index, All Urban Co~sumers, for the· San FranCisco-Oakland' area published by-the' U.S. Department of Labor, BuTe~u of Labor Statistics ("mdex") prevailing on january 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailmg on the date of recordation of this. deed .. : The per~entage"in'crease ill the Index, if" any, shall be· computed and the·s1J.Ih of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shalt be increased in the same percentage.' hI no event shaJl the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000). . . (d) No price. adjustment will be made except'upo~ presentation to City'ofwritten docUmentation of all . expenditures made by Owner for· which an adjustment is requested. . ". Ariy sale price ,determined tbrougb. the use ofthis method' number 2 (base price adjusted byConsimier Price Index and value of improvements,' appliances,' fixtures: orequjpment added) shall be adjusted by decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for ~eferred maintenance costs, which amount shall be determin~d as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner's intent to sell, CitY or its designee shall be erititled to inspect the Premises. City or its designe~ shall have an opportunity to determine whether all plumbing, electrical; and heating systems are in working 'order; whether . any violations of applicable building, plumbirig, elt:ictric, .:fire, or'liousing codes exist; whether aif appliances which were originally furnished to" Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements th~reof, are in wot:king order; whether walls, ~eilings and floors' are cleat 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 tom;. and whether carpets, dni.pes and siinllar features' which' were' originally· . furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or ally replac'ement thereof, are clean aJ?d free' of holes, tears or other defects.' In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City (Rev. 8/93) 'J D __ ATTACHMENT E Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do so·in accordance with the procedures and price set forth fo·r 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 tht,=: Civil Code of the Sate of Califonua. Suc~ 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 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 ()r 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 sarrie 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 I¥ortgage. The City, .or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from Owner aU costs incUIT.ed·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 exceediJ1.g the net amount that Owner would have received ~fter 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-mcome housing ~tock. . . . E. Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds. In the event that the Premises are destroyed and msurance 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 o·f a condominium project, in the event of liquidation ofthe homeowners' association and distribution of the assets of the association to the. members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed remaining after·payment 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 01 assigns.· (Rev. 8/93) 5· Reg. Planning DiviSion July 25,2005 Mr. Aaron Yakligian Trum£lfk Companies 4185 Blackhawk Plaza CirCle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Ci~ ot' Palo Alto Department of Planning ana Community Enviornment Attachment D Subject: 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [OSPLN·00200] Dear Mr. Yakli,gian: " On Thursday, July 21, 2005, the Architectural Review Board revIewed the application (05PLN-00200) and reco1l1h1ended approval with conditions to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. On Monday, July 25, 2005, 'the Director of Planning and , Community Environment con:ditionally approyed the application (65PLN:::.qO~OO), a§ described' below: ." ',' , ' ' ", " " '\" ':;.:-., :: ',', " .. , .. , .,.:- PROJECT DESCRIPTION ',' Request by Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP , Associates, LLC, foi Major ArchitectUral ,Review approval to allow the demolition of two, office buildings and the construdio.n 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 alloW48 tandem parking spaces. The propbsal,wC?'Qld involve a merger of the two parcels. ,Environmental Assessment: An Initial S1l1d)'-has been completed and ,a Draft Negative Declaration has'been prepared in accord~nce with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zone: Limited IndustrialfResearch Park (LM). ' FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1. 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 "'ith the Finrli"gs fnr Design H'ruh"nf'PIDPnt, H'vCpptl'on 'RPrlnect (cee Attllch''''''''e'n' ts A llnd ""1",,,.1..1..1 .J.J. ... ...,. ...... J..LV .L .L.L~.L .IUi .. __ .&. _... ~.J" ...... .L ......... """"1 ..... "-''" u "'_..i...i..J...l....... """ ... B).' 2. Approval of this project, shall be subject tq the 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 p.o, Box 10250 PaloAlto,CA 94303 650.329.2441 . 650,329.2154 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle July 25, 2005 [05PLN-00200] PageS oilS 20. A separate site development/grading pennit shall be required for all grading, site work, landscaping and private utility installations that are located olits~de of the footprints of the bUildings. A separate set of plans, that includes the scope of this work, shall be submitted with the permit application: " . " 21. Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicantshall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan ch~ck agency to conduct the "building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is avrulable at the Development Center . .The City's Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agepcy.is utilized. " 22. The design 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 shall be reviewed alld approved prior to permit application. 23. Site developIbentand building design sha1l comply"with the applicable disable " access requirements in "California Building Code Chapter l1A. 24. The location of .~ach building's efectrical services shall require prior approval by the Building Inspection" Division and shaiI be locateq at exterior locations. " 25. "H any three-story residential" buildings are to be constructed, they s"hall be of at least TyPe V-I Hour 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. 26. Wood burning fIreplaces are not permitted except as provided in P AMC Section 9".06. 27. Parking lot and other common use "public areas on the project site shall be designed and constructed to. co.mply with the Division of the State Architect's (DSA) "accessibility standards" contained in the California BuildingCode. 28. "An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to comply with tl;1e sound transmissions requirements in " CBC Appendix Chapter 12; Division ITA. 29. 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 Mappin"g Act (SH,MA). As such, the building permit application shall include a geotechnical report that identifies any site specific 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 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 Transportati.on Division for review and approval prior to submittal of the building permit.· The zoning· ordinance requires guest bkycle parki~g that is equivalent to one. (1) Class ill (bike rack) for each 10 units. It is recommended that the guest bike racks be pl.aced ~t key locations thr·oughout the site to increase their visibilitY and encourage their usage. 39. The proposed dimensions, or other alteml;ltives, for the pedestrian crossing locations and traffic calming devises be noted on the design plans (in terms Of width, angles, corner radius, etc.) and shall be submitted to the Transportation Division for review and approva.l prior to submittal of the buildingpeITnit. . 40. The design of the garages ·shall be revised to meet'the recommended clearance of 10 feet X 20 ·feet for each vehicle within parking garages.· This is to allow· opening 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 on Plan A16 by making the internal garage door swing to the other side or replace it with a .~~~ . FIRE DEPARTMENT 41. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13'-6" v~rtical clearance. Road to meet weight bearing (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius ·(40 ft. inside) requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all-w~ather, and shall ·reach to within 150 feet of any point on the· first floor exterior. (2001 CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The roadway as currently shown may meet this requirement. . 42. The nearest ·street hydrant shall be upgraded to a ClowlRich Model 76 .. Additional hydrants shall be provided as necess·ary to prevent any point on the access roadway from beiJ.1g farther than 250 feet from the·nearest hydrant. ("P AMCI5.04.140) 43. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided throughout each building which meets the requirements as applicable for NFP A Standard No. 13 or 13R -1999 Edition and P AMC 15.04.170. Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Preventi.on Bureau. (p AMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. 44. An .approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system(s) and on-site hydrants, and shall meet the. requirements of NFPA St·andard No. 24 - n01East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle July 25. 2005 . [05PLN-00200] Page 9 of 15 51. A letter shall be submitted from the registered geotechnical engineer who prepared the soils report for the project, or their associate, and wh.o directly observed construc'tion activiti~s 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 pennit 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 w~ter infiltration, and updated C.3 regulations. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site' grading and drainage plan that Gonveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm c1.i.-ainage System. In · order to addJ;ess potential stopn' water quality inipacts, the plan .shall identify the B est Management Practices (HMP' s)" to be incorporated into the Stonn Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be ~equired for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP's to be incorporated into the project to protect stonn water quality.· (Resources and handouts are available 'from Public: Works·-Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's companiort document fo "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development· . Project"). The 'elementsof the PWE-.approved conceptual grading and drainage. plan shall be incorpontteq into the building permit plans. Prior to Submittal of Plans for GradinglBuilding P ennit( s) 53. A Grading ~d Excavation Perinitissued by the CPA BujJding Inspection Divi~ion is required for the proposed project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only ~uthorize grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading phin for reference only, and should be S0 noted.". No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the · building footprint. fustallation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application.·. . 54 .. The applicant shall submit aJinal grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance 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 . . . 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle July 25, 2005" . [05PLN-00200] : Page 11 of 15 . City right-·of-way. Sec. 12.08.010. 62. This proposed' development will disturb m~re than one' acre of land. The applicant must apply Jor coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with const;ruction activity. A Notice o{Intent (NOl) must be filed for this project. with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The·General Petmit .. . requires the applicant to prepare and implement a StOlID Water Pollution Prevention' Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the dfaft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and, approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post- . development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction :to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP's) whlch apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. . During Construction '63. The contractor shall contact the <;PAPublic Works Inspector at (650) 496;..6929' prior to any work peifonned in the public right-of-way. 64. No storage of construction materials is pennitted in the street or on the sidewalk;:- without pripr approval of Public Works Engineering. 65. . The develop~r shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practic~s (EMF's) for stormwater pollution prevention in allconstruction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Polh.ition Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It iSl:lillawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry; paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm' drains. (PAMe Chapter 16.09). 66. For purposes ofdetennining 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 po}lring 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 to Finalization . 68. The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for p'arking or storage 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle )uly 25, 2005 [05PLN -00200] Page 13 of 15 75. Subdivisio~ Agreement is required to secure cOD).pliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building peIinits will be issued until the Final Map is recorded with County Recorder. 76. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, ~d 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 Recordation'of Final Map 77. This property is in a special flood haiard area and notation of this shall appear on the recorded·map. . 78. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivisionmap to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off' site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determin~d by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. - . UTILITIES DEPARTMENT' Utilities -Water, Gas, and Wastewater 79. Onsite sanitary sewer mains and laterals are to bepnvately owned and maint~ned an~ shall be designated as such on the plans. The Cities responsibility fot· wastewater will start where the onsite wastewater system con:i1ects to the public wastewater main in the street. . 80. Onsit~ 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 street parking in the private streets. All other onsite water lines shall . be private water lines and shall be. designated as such on the plans. 81. Onsite public gas mains shall be in a minimum 10' wide public utility easement. . Gas meters shall be ganged at each separate building per the WGW Utility Standards. 8i. The applicant shaH submit a request to discon~ect all utility services ~dtor 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 and 1010 East Meadow Circle July 25, 2005 [05PLN-00200] Page 15 of 15 requi!ed utilities. Only plastic sewer laterals ~ay be reused, older sewer laterals. shall be replaced (show sewerlaterals to be replaced on the plans). . . 89. 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 Per~t(s), the applicant shall return .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 c~iling plan. d. Differentiate· the paviri·g of the alleys from the paving of other areas on site. e. Provide a complete plan set, includb:ig site plan and landscape plan, with all proposed details. _ . f. ProVide details for the tot lot structure~ This Director; s decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days foll~wing-the dat~ of this letter, unless an appeai is filed pursuant to P AMC 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 Planner Attachment: A. ARB Findings B. DEE Findings , , (11.) Natural features have been appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the primary natural feature on site (i.e., existing trees) has been preserved where possible and that a comprehensive tree inventory has 'been developed and endorsed by the City's Managing ATborist in the Planning Division to integrate the development within the ' existing tree network, as well as. to propose additional trees where applicable; . (12) The materials, textUres, 'colors and details of construction and plant material are an appropriate expression to the design and function arid the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring 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; , . . (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, ' open space, scale, plant fOnTIS and foliage textures and colors creates a de'sirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various building's 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; (14) The plant material is suitable 'and adaptable to the site, capable of b~irig properly 'maintaineq on the site, and is' of a vaPety which would tend to be drought-:resistant 'and to , , reduce. consumption of water in'its installation and maintenance in that ¢e combination of California native plants with exotic and Qrnamental materials would have low maintenance and water use requirem~nts; , (15) The design is energy effickrit 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 plumbing 'fixtures 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 ' , ARB standards 4 and -9 are 'not applicable to this project. 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle ' Page 2 Attachment E ;ft.rtr,.\&1 Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition ""eA. 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, RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2005 DEPARTMENT OF PLAI~N\NG AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 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 a,nd individuals earning the area median income. Similar high teclmology regions average 50% with the Raleigh- Durham teclmology 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 to·be 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, L?J~ Lee Wieder Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Access Land Development Tim ~ieuwsma Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Synergy Properties 224 Airport Parkway, Suite 620, San Jose, CA 95110 / .... f ~. ( Attachment F .,:. :/." /'::' r!:~:r·(~:· .• .' :~;~.;:~ .:~>f·~.:.~r·~~:,':.> . ;;: .: ,~:i:.:·,~ ..(;;:"::;, .. i ,; <' Ol i~ t ;,,:: .~: .»'d, " . :··:: .. ht,,~, ;'r:' :;'l,t 'I,:';;;:';: :~;:'«:'tJ;;;/'}I; .l:;.' :H:,.r/~~:!;" Staff 'Report' . :.:. ~ .~/ ',' ",' ~._,~ "t: ..... :~::'i .. 1 /~·i~J::t\.:~'~~·:·;; ;~/~, '.~.!:~ .. ;:. · .. ~!:,:..~::·{i~.~:,:": t £r.!(1,"';)."'!: .. :,. rfj,: )-~;lfit\ •. :"!' ", ~':'::':'':' :.\: A d~~A,k~T~~ ':~;'.~::i ~~y.;;~~':i~gQ5 I:::: :',i,':::'; .(; ';:;;;:::;::~~';,1 ·:::;;~.~;~\;f::·!~:'~~:::·:i:r:~;·::~:" ~~~:: ,~;,;'-;~:~~~~:~:;:~:~ .:,:;;:,:;~: ~;:i::,~'::;:~~, .. (. "'~:: ;~ :~, .. ! ~:' :.:~. .:.~~I ,.:.;:( [·x ;,~ 1f.~~:~: ·{l;:.';;f~{i~·.~: ; .~.. ,;;,.~ \ : .. ~ ~ '. ,:: .~~! {,.: f"; ~:~.;, :-1>;'. ~C. ,( r~t·>i-.:;: :v~.~ ," 1 ~~: ~~'. :';; :: .. :' ~~/,flf ,r'}.,~r~r~:~,:t .~~, ~:£.. .:.:;~ ~~, :~~' ~'. :"~.i ,,~ .. , .. . ;;'. ~=!;:~=~;"::.~,;. ·;.;1: .. ;:;~;:;;~~~;~:~·:~~;:~·'~1:'~.~~:;!.:~.':;~0~:;~;~;::~\.~ FROM;: ':','o!, s~~~ infill r~sidential project cons~~t1P.$:'~f 7.5./J:!pil~ 9;W~pp~q~.j_m~~~lY:'4A.,acre.s~fi.; The project includes a 'r~quest -fpr a Design Enhancement Exception· to aUow 48 tandem parking spaces. The proposal would iny.~i.¥~:!ik-~ :~2 : , " , ' R~;,: ~ ',~, ' ! ' ;", "'; : ", REcoMwf~A~i;Q~~~;~::':~: ~l~! ·:t"~,;:,';;~Y.::,: ,,:;'2 .:':~'; ~~/~~:::'-~:';;;;::~'::~:'~':~;~!::;·/::'::~:~l~''::~;·~:; ~:;:~ ~:i;:~;<~·\i~~'~,;.,;:£.~..":,;., ,i. . ~j't i:;":,:;:~l. Staf;f.recori:u:p.ep4s.: .that:t):1e.'Arqbi~~g!:W"{llj(~:~y.i~w:J?Q~(:l;(~).'ireG.ommen.dJ:haltheDirector'of i:; . Planning a~d Co~iinity Environment approve the' proposed project baaed upo~ the" . Archit~.c,wral,Rf(.¥i~wflI],~Qg&iin·:A.rtacIu.P.ep~:A~,cd~,tlle;Pe$ign;,p'p:i}~¢~JII,eiJ.kExceptionJipdings:} ~~it~~f:S:~~:f~f,°f:,!~1~s:~::,5J~f~SE;~~:~?j~::i::,",;i;,:~,~f'; The project site (si~e), consisting of two separate parcels Jor ~ total area of approXimately 4::4\:'~;' ... acres, is bounded to the north and west by commercial properties' (across East Meadow CirCle).' The co~ercia:t)~uildj..:pgs . .t9.Jh~ s.Q¥$' of !th~·~s~t~,:(930~:iH,gQ ,East:¥eadow. Driye.).B!e:,;planned: for': demolition:all.4 r~pJace,.weI!ltjIDy·~·p,ew ~,6-m.ri:t<.;~~Sidenti,.allGondominiumdevelopment:(see, !: ~: ": ;:' Attacm.nent H-Aerial \Pl1,otogr~phlEx.isti?g Slte).. ,·.Thi~ r.esidential infill development, also .,:. . .... '.: proposed by Trumark Comparues, recently t~ceived its final discretionary permit approval (i.e., .. Vesting Tentatiye,}{.1ap}gp ,,~.amlar:y. 24, ;20~~;The ARa~ s .final.iey,iew/r~commen~tionof.the·: ' .. ARB application.Qcc1J1red.!pn October )_, 2004. . ' ," .". . , :,' !.:./-.. ... ~.' "';',t-::":' '.'.: ,,:' '.;' " ~',; -:\ ,~, ,~'" : ': t." 'l To the site's east and northeast, there is' a separate parcel between its boundary-and the channelized Adobe Cre~k, for purposes of accessing. and maintaining the City's electrical )'l rL " (~ " .r-~-. f .l, ~." . proposed plant list for new trees, shrubs, and other various types of groundcover and landscape features (see A tta~hInent Ii). ::t:§~l;·;;t\;i?;::~;,:.jJ~;;;./~lllii::~:;;.;:.+I;1;,;;;~{.~j~:0 i~).:;;~~;:~~~,. :«>: }!.:.::~.!;v.:&~:4J:};;ri5i,~;:;';:;:.:' .:.J~·~:~;:.~~~;il.-C\;.~ Jt~': i-~ !~§::s~;:;~; ;-; .. ~~.;.'.~'.: (~.~.:;.: .. ::: ~~:~.f~,:: .. ~··~~~~~.~·.~·:~lb -ltU~~;.~t:~,:~· :::/(} ':';!:if~ .. ;;:~.6:~fV~f· '~{:'~;"~~' .:'·Yi.r:' ::· .. :~r·: .- It is anticip~t~d,:that the·c0ti~ersi6h~'Of.they:site· .. "''ftorii':65;OOO'~sJ; of .offic~:;sp:ac6,to:q5~,d:wellin;g;,;,:,::· i.mits~wou1d .r6sult·in·:,ari;approXiniate ';reducii'oii:' df'5U'ijero¢'ot 'orGailyvi~hi¢ulai'thlffit ·mjlstaiid.;:·i the~'added\ oeriefit,6f: inipr6vi:,.ig ndh;eiand~;aii:'qhanty; 'The:;desighr~0uld a1s(31eniploy~C@~en:. . ,~~: :'(j:,::~' . building: 'techniqries/a1ong~:Wiih ;besieril'an;ag~m'ei1t pdcuces fC>l;ieroSi6.h&:riici'bli,tii'd stO'bh' dr:;iln f:; '.~ : manage1tieiift.hfotIgh~dncreas'ed p'etmeable'··area::,.ili1d.:engiriee:ii'ng ariiinage'syslem~:.··La:st1Yi,.·utilityf.·.·· syste~!~,:,~~~~;:'~i:\,~~;d~~e~;~~1'~e~~:ed;":!';i'i~:':,.~:\:·:~;/i·i~~~;~;fk~~::~·~':~:"·;":~~j'i.;"\i:::~; ... ~;~;i;:~~~}:~!:;:~;';~,~~·~.,~;;:~,t;~':. ~;:::::~::~~:!~n;~::l~~;t~~=:;:!;::::~:t:~~~!~~ 21.08.010). In order for processing of the tentative m:~p~;appJ16ati'cin~"the;'~~plicatit nitist'6bthlhi:-~;':;:':':" . confrrmation of planning entitlement for this project (Le., ARB re~ommendation and Plapnl~g . Director;appro v~)r: r~ :f··,r~" [1 1"':'. N' ,:.i,::;,f-t:1' :}:~:~:i;:;' :,;~"'::~;; i, .::~,~. \:~:~;':;'~,:;:::::'~~;::~,~j,;':, ?:~,i;~.~;~::~:? ~~:;.~~ y' :'::. (:~:~~~:~::;~ ~',,~~;;. i: PreUnlinary Review Hearin:g . ... At the April 19;' 2005 'AR,B bearing,. a conceptual project design w:asi.fev:i~·wet:l"'ifsi'!'a;;pre]lthin'ary~'~,·l..~ mprove the usability of the ·p~nvat~Ya~cks'·~Jaiid)': j'~·'T; i" :;:~!"':i . .. "..., • '::~Enhante. the front to sic;le elevationtIallsitions. .t~~~f~·~:~~~ f: . h.1:.J.f:i ~ft·~~tf;!-~,(.::.~:·r ;;;i~~~~i~~r~~~~i~{~:~~.'~i~~J~:,";:;~:;:;:::,g'~:~~i~~~:!~ .... '. :.~> ~ :;. :':, .,:,' . .'- . . .: .. ';, ......... :.~. '·.'~~7.f.'~· .~.-: ... -.;.~ .. ;.'.. .. ~.: .... -... .,.~;., .>::. '·~.i:~:-.'.:.':J .~.. ~. ,.{:',,: ... :,:.~ :~" ~~\.:,·\·t-:~, .. _~a-.~.-:, .... :.~. :",.'.:"~. :_t:···· The 'applicant has been in negotiations to "fihruize' a Below Market Rate'(BMR} agreement with". · Adv~~~dPl~ng.staf.:f:" .. !~s :S~':t::lt~,gr~.Y~7~~' ~;~.,!~9~i,rep.}J.i~:tI,C!p.sipg ~l~!p'~p:! ~!i9~~ ... ~~~,§ .... · of the' Palo Alto Comprehensive PJfu1;'\vilib.e·fmaHz'ed :prior tb"futUfe'lie?rln '-~;witJ1'the)l~riing" . , ;._ .• ':. .' d·;··,. '·1 ~~''-: ... ~ .. ' ..... : . ~ ..... ':i :: .. ::~ --','; ... , .......... g t·.,· ... -:,. : '. _.' ..... '~ .... \.-· and Transportation ,Comnn~slOn and/ot CIty Council fot the rev~ew of the Tfmtative]vIap . . application.' A'infuiinuDl of eleven BMR umts' ~e required to be' d'k~i~ate'd thtougbout the ·site. " '. . . -.:::, •. ; <.:: •. ~:;''' .-,i. -.• :,. _; .-. ~,. .-.. •... .:. '.,:'.; t .. t ",~' - 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle .(' .. 'P~ge3 " ' " { " -..... (-/' I ''. in height (measured to the midpoint of tbet66f::WJt1:fthe:m8Ximum height of 39 feet at the highest ridge); which comply with the heigbt"reqiiii~fuerit':;Qf'35fea~:~;isHsted under the,RM-30 site' :==~:::::;~1~;~~:~;~~~:~:":F'7;:;~'i~··::~·::::':f'=~' ~:) f , ... ANeg~tive Declaration; which reviewed the enviroiunental issues ,as required by the California ", EINii:6Imien,t8! Qiiallt)i Act:·(~QA),'!wa'~i':;c.itC.1,1l~t6'(r~6r.' a20;:daypubli'c ~~~vie.~:pepda ;-beg1~ng" on Juiie 30;20U5:'Fthe:revi~wcpeno·(ttddncldd~s!oniJu)'fT9;'·;~Qq5~ ~20PY:\9fJ!t~'~env~tl1mie.rthlf:····· document is provided in Attachment F.'. . ,'. : !\~:':'" (..; %'J.'.: ~ ~:! ,~;,~ ;J t~~Pt.'N.r."',,: '. 'rn'i~</i\,"~: ATT~C~~:S'.~ :.,~.": ,~::~:;~:",~i:~,;'::':i __ ::~:: :::~(·~;~f:::::;.~:.~~:::~ .:.::~r~~':".~·~<::'~~:'.:f,~~~~'~/:~.·;:;:'.~~~,·!;': .. ~:i':)~~,;:.{;j:~:~::t:~~:'_:':~~:~l::~:;:':~lt:rl.' AttacfunenfA' . '''Afchltecttidi1.-ReviewFiridings .... '-" ;,c<' .... , ~ ,., .. ' .••. ' "" •. ,' ,.,.'.,,', .. ;', ..... ".' . ~~ilf,,!I~li1.t~t~~~~~jj:"~;::~~,ij.i}'{;~j,~,;) Attachnient F: ,Applicant's Letter of Request for the DEE .... ." ", .' ;. , Attac~~Rt ,!;i:"'i' ~1;i~ ~~d,~~~v.l,X:~·R~fJ,ffi-~~&~(:;"ig:~;;:w'\i'Ki~,~ti ~h1!.'! -,,,tl'! i.§J,;f:U1Y' :.\,~ ; j~~' i F~j;j., ;.~.dT ... 1~:~::~~~: '. ~~~1:~~.~~~:«m~f!l~1~~ ,,9mkitH$qffi~J~~~~.~. ~, .. di· '1:(~ i~:'~':'~n'Jrx'; ::'c.r:~~§~;)~'o.~~~~:~~~::~:.\~:,~~~~'~;:;;· ~:::t:::::t,~~:::;: ·~:,:.::;,~~::~;~:.:~;~)r::~~!.:1,;:.::·k,~i;:~;:.;:;·'~~ ~,:: . ,,::' i~:,':·I/ \"~ ::.:';,. ,:::,.,"\::,. 'AaJ;:gi(Yakligian, Tfllmark Companies, Project Applicant" "'. .' . . :t;~~!~~~:t~~;!~=~:;:;~~::f!~~~;';;:~;:~},;, ;:,,::'>~~~;, !~· .. i·(' :.~ .. ~~ .;;'~';~ [~~ .~; .. ::, .. " ·~At; .(}: :t1~ \ q.~ h;;-E"~::~:~:~.t~f~;.·/,> \~: i ~~:i;\;; .. ~~~ ·· .. :~~lt§:?~··t.2. ·l)r.l~ :.~ .... ;:.~.~.::.f.i~ f.~,~!=:';t:!~;~.~~r~. !\7~)·: ::. ,ii.:::,~J~:~; J:' '.: Prepar~d.;~y:;.;" ::' ~;~;,~,w:~~!:~;::;;;;~=;~~;;::,~1~;;i~I:~!.: r:i!;~:::,!., .. (', ~ ~'{: i· .' I.~... . .. ' · .... i· Manager Review: Curtis Williams, AICP, ~cting Manager of Current Planning; .~:. ',/ik! ,j'" .. ,'.; .. t·. ~ .. :~:r;::: .. \.:'/,: :E'} !;~~..i::;~~~.,.:!~,:~~ .~~·nl~· ~~(f'l~~~~,~:)n~/~ ·-;~1:·U';t{~:..,·. :,\~'f! 'tc!: ~~~.~;.\i.tk~~ b.!E!t '~£.=~\:~':~\:: ... ~~:~~. :~:;: .. ~" ~:d; j)/:'J.~:. ;~ t·l'~;':i:~l·(~~! ":: .. ~.~:.} '~~'.~.~ .::fr:.~<iD~~>~:·,~~·::\f~'i:.;:£ .~:~J..(.{l'r:.t~~~i~~, ~ :~h;.:X!/~·::'f;~ ·;,.~.'fi>~ "~~'~'~:I;I; ~~.I.': ::ll·~;.n;.3? .<~:l •. : r' .. !:~· .. ~ .. ·j~f;'; ~~:::'1 :f: ·:·t·~~t?:!--fb;!:~~'rti ">~~j f)i ~~b,~~\/· j;fJ(i~~.V:~ ,:."'t ~"?iYqf.i1:t} \;,,,):.:-};.{.li·i! .::':~ v:~~·'~/,~.:';,:.i..X~.; ~";{~'~::::'f f' " ';'; !';:~" ~:·rt'·~··.~·;~·.,'f~\~·; ~ .~ (:~ !'.~:;") t"1.:~;~~ .. ~~··::i}l!.j, ~ .. :·,·~j:fH~~~ ·':::.:;i'.~:~;r:.·· ;~~r! ' .. ~.,>!.~'.r j ~l' .. ~. '-!": • .' ,:: ~~.' ! ~'~~·~·:.i',·':: ;'1:~;; .~.:.; ,: .":; ;.i i:~~:~~,. ,.::":i::~:~;~::.~~~.·;;;;:~~~~:~~!:l·:i;L:~~~, ! .:;: . ~;, :""-'~:~"~:;f: ~i.~,': ".: .,.: :.,::. ,:·jt~·~, .'. ;f r·'.' :( ~~.~.,.': '~., ~/L:·:·:· .~.: "~~\.: .\~~ .. ! i~":~'.;.IJ,.') ':!~.:!(.,.>:.~. :~~r~l~:~fr:[·~r~Ar~ .~:;. ",~f ... ,\!:, ::(:n~.:'~~,:. '~:::~t ... , :.: .... ,", ;~~ '. 'l.~~:: \:' .. \ :'1, ;~,i .I.:,~.~\~·tt .,-:/ ~,:·.\·b~,~~.I~:,·\~ ~:·lt,\~:. ':'~' 'M' ~~ ~ '-.":::' ~ ,;n ':'. ;'.j:.:-j,~) ... ~:"J~~,:.: ... !~~ ..... ;':~.}~(.~ :"'.!':: .. : ···:'.:~t.l~: ~~: .. H .!'::,. ;;,::~,.~ .• ::: .. ',~. ,'I' .:'. -'~:~~~'L :.,' ,;-·.t',', '~ '.1.' .~.f}t{. :.' ::/c ,~.tl;· ~;-f.f-~(~~·~:::i·· : .~ . . '.,., '~ ;~. /'~' .. rr ;{~h !'~1: J.-"i1 r~~~} :~" !,~\.J~. '~',:.'" "'. ·r, .,;'. . ~( , '.' . ~::. , .:', 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle Page 5 .~ , . .', , , 1 2 3 4 5 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES BOARD HEARING Draft Sense Minutes Board Members: Judith Wassermann (Chair) Kenneth Kornberg (Vice Chair) Drew Maran Susan Eschweiler David Solnick Thursday, July 21,2005 Staff Liaison: Steven Turner Chris Riordan, Planner Staff: Curtis Williams, Interim Mgr. of Current Planning Alicia Spotwood, Secretary Attachment G 6 1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle [05PLN-00200]: Request by 7 Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates, LLC, for Major 8 Architectural Review approval to allow the demolition of two office buildings and the 9 construction of an infill residential project consisting of 75 units on approximately 4.4 acres. 10 The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception to allow 48 tandem 11 parking spaces. The proposal would involve a merger of the two·parcels. Environmental 12 Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative Declaration has been 13 prepared in accordance with California Enviwnmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 14 Zone: LM 15 16 Staff Recommendation: 17 Staff requests that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) comment on the proposed project to 18 the applicant and staff. No formal action may be taken at a Preliminary Review meeting, as 19 comments made are not binding onthe City or the applicant. This request is made in 20 conformance with the Architectural Review regulations (PAMC Section 18.76.020[c]). Staff has 21 summarized key issues to provide a framework for comments. 22 23 Architectural Review Board Action: 24 The Board recommended approval of the proj ect, (4-0-0-1, Board member Solnick moved, 25 seconded by Board member Wasserman, Board member Eschweiler absent) and the Negative 26 . Declaration with the following additional conditions to .return to the Board for review on the 27 Consent Calendar: a) alternate design ofthe fence be explored, b) soffet ceiling plan be done, c) 28 different paving be used to separate the main road areas from the alley areas, d) applicant send a 29 sustainability report to the Board, and the correct plans and elevations be included in the packet. 30 31 .32 City of Palo Alto Page 1 TO: FROM: ATTACHMENT C PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: November 9, 2005 SUBJECT: 1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN- 00289J: 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 Planning 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 OM 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 residential districts abut more intense uses." The two parcels to be merged with this Tentative Map will 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% ofthe 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 proj ect. 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 II 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 ofthe 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 corner 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 brought to the site. Since there are no excavations shown on the plan, I assume that the developer 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 CUITe:nt Planning Department/Division Head Approval: .... A~d; edt Inte~im -Deputy Director 1101 East Meadow memo November 9 Page 3 J" Attachment D t. 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 November 9, 2005 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 8 1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-00289J*: Request by 9 Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a 10 Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed residential infill development. This map is 11 required in order to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium 12 units. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California 13 Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: LM. 14 15 Mr. Emslie: Thank you, Chair Cassel. We have with us Lorraine Weiss, Contract 16 Planner who is here to answer any questions. We also have John Lusardi and Andy Coe 17 our Interim Deputy Director, John Lusardi being the Special Projects Planning Manager. 18 Also Melissa Tronquet who is with the City Attorney's Office substituting for Don who 19 as you know is on vacation. 20 21 We just have a very brief Staff Report and will be available to answer questions. This is 22 a situation similar to one the Planning Commission encountered recently with the Hyatt 23 Rickey's Map. This is a situation where the Architectural Review Board process has 24 transpired and concluded. The Architectural Review Board has approved the project, the 25 statute has run on that and the appeal period has also run. A follow up to that is the 26 review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the Tentative Map. 27 This is the map that actually creates the lots, the legal mechanism to create the lots for 28 sale and it has been clearly identified that this is a for sale project. The map was 29 anticipated by the Architectural Review Board in granting their architectural review 30 approval. Under the Subdivision Map Act, Melissa will elaborate on that, the 31 Commission's purview is limited to some very specific findings. I would like to now 32 tum it over to Melissa who would like to review those with you very briefly. 33 34 Ms. Melissa Tronguet, Deputy City Attorney: Thanks Steve. I just wanted to go over the 35 requirements for reviewing a Vesting Tentative Maps. Essentially the Commission must 36 approve the map tonight as long as the map, the design and the improvement are 37 consistent with the general and specific plans, as long as the site is physically suitable for 38 the type and density of development, as long as the subdivision and the proposed 39 improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or serious public health 40 problems and as long as the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict 41 with easements acquired by the public at large. 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: We are reviewing things such as the sewers and the fire truck 44 circles and the roads whether they are adequately wide and not the height of the 45 buildings, the number of units, the color and texture of the buildings themselves. 46 Page 1 1 Ms. Tronguet: That is correct. Anything involving design or use would be outside the 2 Commission's purview. 3 4 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Is there any more Staff presentation? 5 6 Mr. Emslie: That concludes the report. 7 8 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Do you have questions before we go to the public? 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Didn't we review a project on this site previously? 11 12 Mr. Emslie: This is a second project by the same developer. 13 14 Commissioner Lippert: So it is an adjacent site to this. 15 16 Mr. Emslie: Yes. 17 18 Commissioner Cassel: Then I would like to go to the presentation by the developer. 19 That would be Aaron Yakligian. And you have 15 minutes to make your presentation. 20 21 Mr. Aaron Yakligian, Trumark Companies: Thank you. Good evening members of the 22 Planning and Transportation Commission. Tonight I would like to take just a few 23 minutes to highlight the Vesting Tentative Map under your review. Trumark has been 24 developing high quality of life, attainably priced new home neighborhoods in the Bay 25 Area for nearly two decades. We are pleased to work with the City of Palo Alto again 26 towards another exemplary community. 27 28 Following your clear support and direction last year for Trumark's neighborhood on East 29 Meadow Drive we are excited to present this completion ofthe East Meadow Circle area 30 gateway. This proposal for the Echelon community resonates with the Commission's 31 comments during last year's approval of East Meadow Drive Tentative Map. 32 Specifically this Commission commented that the proposed density was appropriate for 33 the site, that Trumark had raised the bar for green building in Palo Alto and that the City 34 would like to see like~quality neighborhoods in this area in the future. In January the 35 City Council unanimously agreed. 36 37 Our design for Echelon is based on this collective direction. The properties at 1101 East 38 Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle total approximately four and a half acres 39 and the site's existing 1960's office space has been vacant for quite some time. As with 40 many light industrial sites in Palo Alto the existing RM~30 zoning overlay allows for 41 residential development up to 30 dwelling units per acre. After the Commission's clear 42 direction last year we have worked closely with the Staff to identify the most appropriate 43 use of this property. The outcome is the proposed 75 homes. 44 45 The Vesting Tentative Map under your review this evening represents many months of 46 close cooperation with the City Staff and the Architectural Review Board. The final Page 2 1 product is a community that demonstrates responsible planning, efficient land use and 2 quality design. I would like to briefly call your attention to some specific features of the 3 site plan. In addition to separating the pedestrian and the automobile the site offers a 4 perimeter trail system which will allow residents to walk between outdoor rooms with 5 public art, water features and children's play areas. This trail also adds to the existing 6 neighborhood an additional half-mile of safe and attractive walking paths. You will also 7 notice that we are preserving existing setbacks along the street frontages. This not only 8 creates a wide buffer from the street but it also allows us to preserve most of the existing 9 perimeter trees around the site. The established trees along side the more 150 new trees 10 will expand existing canopy to create a very green, attractive and pedestrian friendly 11 environment. As we demonstrated with the previously approved East Meadow Drive 12 project Trumark Companies is committed to utilizing green building in our communities. 13 We will again utilize FSC certified lumber as available. In addition, Echelon will exceed 14 the new Title 24 standards by 15 percent and just as a means of comparison the new 15 standards for 2005 are 15 percent higher than the standards in 2004. So in effect Echelon 16 is 30 percent more efficient than what was required just a year ago. With tankless water 17 heaters and manifold plumbing systems standard on every home we hope to save an 18 estimated 15,000 gallons of water per home a year and over the whole site that is a total 19 savings of over a million gallons of water a year. Each home will also be pre-wired for 20 solar so the homeowners association can easily add photovoltaic systems in the future 21 should they decide to. Even the fence on the rear of the property is constructed of 22 certified redwood. 23 24 Another major benefit of the site plan is the inclusion of 11 below market rate homes on 25 the site. As approved by the Palo Alto Housing Coordinator these homes are evenly 26 disbursed and represent an even mix of the size and type of unit in terms of bedroom 27 count, etc. The sale price of these homes will average below $300,000. 28 29 We are also reducing the traffic generation from the site converting 65,000 square feet of 30 office to 75 homes will cut the daily traffic trip rate in half. Trumark is also investing in 31 the existing community with nearly $400,000 in park fees, $139,000 for libraries and 32 community center and almost $250,000 in school fees. 33 34 After our neighborhood outreach and numerous neighborhood meetings the community 35 has recognized a need for added pedestrian safety at the nearby intersection of Fabian 36 Way and East Meadow Drive. To respond to this need Trumark has voluntarily proposed 37 to construct a lighted crosswalk with a pedestrian refuge in the median. We have worked 38 closely with the City Transportation Division to design an additional road signage 39 program that will increase the pedestrian safety near this intersection even further. 40 41 The Vesting Tentative Map before you is the result of many previous accomplishments in 42 the planning process. In July the project was unanimously approved by the Architectural 43 Review Board and it was later approved by the Planning Director. A Negative 44 Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared and circulated in June. The Vesting 45 Tentative Map has been deemed complete and tonight we are asking that the Planning 46 and Transportation Commission recommend approval ofthis Map to the City Council. I Page 3 1 appreciate your time this evening and our team is here to answer any questions you may 2 have. Thank you. 3 4 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions at this time of the 5 developer? Thank you very much. I have six people who would like to speak. I will 6 give you five minutes; It will be nice if you don't need to spend those five minutes you 7 don't have to. The first person to speak is Jeff Rensch. Would you please give us your 8 name and the city you are from? The person to follow will be Boris Foelsch. 9 10 Mr. Jeff Rensch, Palo Alto: I work with the Palo Alto League of Women Voters and the 11 Silicon Valley Housing Action Coalition on housing issues. They both have endorsed the 12 project but I am speaking for myselftonight. I wish to speak in favor of the entire project 13 not just the Vesting Tentative Map although of course I am in favor of that as well. Part 14 of this might be that you may be constrained legally to approve the map but it is the way 15 you approve it that will send a message to Council that they might need to hear. 16 17 The things that excite me very much about this project are the 11 BMR units. They are 18 units they are not in lieu fees they are actual units. As John Lusardi pointed out earlier 19 tonight it is so much better to have the units then money that may not be spent for quite 20 awhile. The other units are attainable housing. They are expensive but for Palo Alto not 21 that expensive. It is well designed as a whole and I think that the Vesting Map and the 22 fact that they have worked with the neighboring properties shows that they are designing 23 as a whole and not just throwing units up. I think they dealt with the flood zone issues, as 24 I understand really well. The number of automobile trips would be lessened as compared 25 the office buildings that were built there, half as many trips. So that is nice. Of course it 26 is near the wonderful grocery store and new JCC and Center for Jewish Life. 27 28 So it seems to me like this project would be a slam dunk it is just that because of the 29 atmosphere that there been about housing in the press at least recently one feels 30 concerned even about a really wonderful project. Some of the members of the 31 community have seem to suggest that Palo Alto kind of has somehow already met or over 32 met its housing quota. Of course nothing could be farther from the truth because there 33 are lots of high-end units but the kind of units that are being shown in this project we are 34 in desperate need of. So I guess it seems to me that whether this is legally kosher or not 35 your enthusiastic support for this project would send a really great message to the new 36 Council. Thank you. 37 38 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak will be Boris Foelsch to be 39 followed by Mark Sabin. 40 41 Mr. Boris Foelsch, Palo Alto: Hi I have been a homeowner in Palo Alto for 13 years in 42 South Palo Alto. I just want to state up front that I have a real appreciation and respect 43 for the planning process in Palo Alto. So having said that I think there are a number of 44 people who live in my neighborhood, on Louis Road, who feel the same way as I do that 45 there is this process going on that we don't know a lot about. We are working to get 46 more informed so pardon me ifl don't have all the facts. We are trying to get up to speed Page 4 1 on what is going on. We were informed some while ago that there were going to be 2 condominiums developed, there were going to be some number of condominiums. I 3 thought I understood that to be the property that is up for discussion tonight. Then people 4 found out that no it was actually across the street, those are the buildings that have 5 already been razed on the other side of East Meadow Circle. So then there is talk of even 6 more development. So there is a great deal of concern now in the community, people that 7 I am in touch with anda number of fairly involved citizens in the neighborhood who are 8 concerned about what is going on. It seems like the density of housing in thearea is 9 being increased substantially and people don't feel like they have the facts nor are they 10 being really involved in the process. Now there were some invitations to meetings and 11 other things but it was more like the charette, discussing the architectural design of it. It 12 was sort ofa fait accompli that the development was going to happen. We weren't 13 necessarily involved and we don't feel like there was community input solicited on the 14 impacts that this is going to have on the neighborhood and in particular the traffic and the 15 schools. So really the largest issue to me is the fact that we feel somewhat 16 disenfranchised. We don't know what is going on. Is that whole light industrial complex 17 going to be converted to condominiums? If so, that would have substantial impacts on 18 the character of the neighborhood because those people would be driving in and out of 19 the neighborhood, going to schools in the neighborhood and so forth. That may not be a 20 bad thing. It may be better than putting up big office buildings and having a lot of traffic 21 for that but it is not clear to me that that's the case. I really don't feel that the estimates 22 of traffic reduction are something people would agree with if you posed that to most 23 people in the neighborhood that they would buy that. I think that is based on some 24 assumptions that I don't understand. Maybe I can get the background information from 25 the developer on how that study was done. Certainly vacant buildings aren't a good thing 26 but we would like to see information given out to the community and for the Planning 27 Commission hopefully to solicit some involvement from residents along Louis Road who 28 would be bearing a lot of the brunt of the traffic. If there is a way for the traffic to be not 29 routed through that neighborhood in particular from Charleston onto Louis to get there to 30 East Meadow Circle. If there is a way to make it so that it is more favorable for people to 31 use Fabian that would be a good thing. So those are things I would like to see. So if 32 there is some way for us to get more information on the overall scope of it, is this being 33 done piecemeal or is there an overarching plan for that whole area? If so, we certainly 34 don't know about it. So some specific questions are also if we can find out what the non- 35 below market rates would be for that. Thanks. 36 37 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much. I suspect you can get a hold of, Steve who 38 would I have him talk to later? 39 40 Mr. Emslie: You can talk to Lorraine Weiss or myself. We can follow up with them if 41 they want to leave us contact information. We can answer their questions. 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: I will put a star on this card. Mark Sabin to be followed by Sally 44 Probst. 45 Page 5 1 Mr. Mark Sabin, Sunnyvale: Thank you. I am actually a resident from Sunnyvale but I 2 am also a member of the Housing Action Coalition and that is one of the reasons why I 3 am up here but I have also had a long-term interest in housing issues in this particular 4 community. Since I had to buy a house outside of Palo Alto that I could afford. 5 6 I think this particular development is valuable not only because of its BMR contribution 7 to the community but also its contribution in that the condominium development, the 8 housing, will be under the median price of a home in this town as well. So it is also 9 addressing a need that in terms of what I would call the attainable housing component as 10 well. 11 12 Just a few statistics. In the 2000 Census 76 percent ofthe working residents of Palo Alto 13 fell 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 $1.0 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 thejob 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 38 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 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you, Mark. The next person to speak is Sally Probst to be 45 followed by Smita Joshi. I would like to remind you that the discussion tonight is a Page 6 1 Tentative Map on this proposal. So we won't be having a full discussion on the need of 2 housing this evening. We must specifically discuss this item. 3 4 Ms. Sally Probst, Palo Alto: Good evening. This is our first opportunity to speak to the 5 Commission and while I realize it is a Tentative Map and we are not speaking about 6 easements or the Adobe Creek or the street layout we did want to let you know that the 7 League of Women Voters of Palo Alto is in strong support of this development. It meets 8 many of the requirements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. It also meets many of 9 the League positions, which have been developed over a period of years on the basis of 10 our membership grassroots. I will just mention a couple of them. Improving the 11 diversity of the housing opportunities with emphasis on economic diversity. Lessening 12 the job/housing imbalance. Supporting compact growth principles. Local efforts to meet 13 needs for low and moderate-income housing. Growth in existing urbanized areas in order 14 to prevent urban sprawl, etc. 15 16 I should let you know that I am here speaking for the League of Women Voters of Palo 17 Alto since ·our President was not able to make this meeting tonight. We believe that this 18 is an excellent project. It is designed to attract beginning or entry level families and 19 empty nesters. I have already spoken to a gentleman who is planning to move in because 20 it is near the Campus for Jewish Life. It has a lot of amenities for the neighborhood and 21 for the people who will live there. We think that the density at 17 dwelling units per acre 22 is appropriate. I think that the questions that were asked about the Tentative Map have 23 been answered in the material that went out to you from Staff. We urge you to support 24 this tonight so that it can proceed. Thank you. 25 26 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Smita Joshi to be followed by Pat Saffir. 27 28 Ms. Smita Joshi, Palo Alto: Hi, I am a 14 year resident of Palo Alto. I live on East 29 Meadow and I am sorry to say that I woke up to this project a little late. One of the 30 reasons being that just like Boris spoke before we weren't really notified about this until 31 very recently when one of my neighbors got a notice of this meeting here. Once we 32 called in we were told that we are not required to be notified of any developments if they 33 are not within a 600-foot range ofthe development. I wish I could be more specifically 34 talking about the exact topic you are talking about but I have been given a little bit of 35 time and I thought I should bring out my concerns. They are similar to Boris' so I am 36 going to be a little redundant. Redundancy is usually pretty bad communication but I 37 think this is my first civic stance and I think in civic life redundancy is not bad it shows 38 there is more concern out in the citizenry about what is going on. We are rather 39 concerned about this development but there is another larger development that is going to 40 happen across the street and the whole area that is going to be developed. My husband 41 and I also feel that we are being left out a little bit of consideration of what's going on 42 over there. 43 44 About this particular project I would like to raise a couple of issues. I heard somewhere 45 mention of a grocery store. Was there going to be a grocery store? I would like to know 46 because not having a grocery store in that complex would increase the traffic on my Page 7 1 street. I know going to Piazza's for example. Also there is a concern in terms of 2 increased attendance in our schools and I think the schools are already crowded. Even 3 though the new development does pay per square foot for schooling it is a one-time fee 4 and that will not quite match the funding requirement for many years to come of the 5 people who will be living there. Our Mitchell Park Library is already extensively used. 6 In the afternoon if you go there there is almost no space to sit and quietly read because 7 the number of school children who are already crowding over there. The park across my 8 street is constantly used which is Ramos Park. It at one time was a very quiet park and 9 you can hardly walk there because there is always some kind of soccer game or ball game 10 going on. My mother walks around a little bit and I am constantly worried about the 11 number of children who are playing there. So I am not really sure the traffic is 12 necessarily going to be less because even though there were offices there and people 13 came straight from the highway, went to their office buildings and went back home. If 14 there are people living there they are going to be using the park and the schools and the 15 grocery stores and the library and running errands. I think the amount of traffic on my 16 street is definitely going to increase. It is probably too late to make any changes, it seems 17 like it is, but if Trumark can maybe come and make a presentation at a group meeting we 18 might have of our local residents then it might answer some of our question. That would 19 be great. If I can know about what is, planned for the larger development up to 950 units 20 on the whole of East Meadow Circle and if there is still time to make an impact or have 21 input or get information then I would really like to know a couple of names. I am trying 22 to form a neighborhood association around this particular issue so we can have an impact 23 on this project, the larger project, if possible. Thank you. 24 25 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much and I will star your card so they can get in 26 contact with you later. Pat Saffir to be followed by Leah McGarriga. 27 28 Ms. Pat Saffir, Palo Alto: I live in South Palo Alto. Most of my specific comments 29 regarding the virtues of the project have already been addressed by previous speakers. So 30 I simply want to say that I support it also. I feel this is an ideal area for conversion from 31 commercial to residential uses. It is located adjacent to other housing that means that it 32 has all the services that we usually associate with housing needed being in the area. I 33 think it is an excellent project in the right place. Thank you. 34 35 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Leah McGarriga to be followed by Jiyon Hahn. 36 37 Ms. Leah McGarriga, Palo Alto: I am a resident of South Palo Alto, a parent of two 38 children in the Palo Alto public schools and a lawyer. I want to first give credit to Boris 39 who is a fellow Palo Verde parent. Nice to meet you tonight because you inspired me to 40 come. That is basically like Smita to be redundant and to reiterate the concerns that Boris 41 had. 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: Could you please speak to the mike because it is being recorded 44 and the Secretary needs to have the minutes? Thank you. 45 Page 8 1 Ms. McGarriga: To speak to whether or not we may be on point tonight for exactly the 2 same reasons that Smita and Boris have spoken. I don't think it is realistic to expect that 3 we will have fewer trips with the number of units we have already apparently we will be 4 living with let alone those that may be in the works. Those of us who have children in 5 sports, in school, in music programs know how many trips we make around town whether 6 it is on bicycle, on foot or in a car depending on the time of year and our personal 7 lifestyles. I also with all due respect to the Commission want to say that we have waited 8 three hours to speak and the suggestion that we should take less than our five minutes I 9 think is not appreciated. So thank you very much for your time. 10 11 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Jiyon Hahn. 12 13 Ms. Jiyon Hahn, Palo Alto: Hello, I very recently heard about this development and also 14 the one that has already been demolished. I only noticed after I started running by. I live 15 within a block but apparently not within the 600 feet radius of the first development that 16 has already been approved. I don't know how that came about that 600 is the right 17 number but I know for a fact all of the construction and development is going to impact 18 all of us around that area quite a bit. So it seems quite disturbing to me that I didn't hear 19 anything until just very recently. 20 21 The second point that I would like to make is that I have lived in Palo Alto for 22 years 22 and I worked at East Meadow Circle back in the heyday where all of the buildings were 23 occupied, fully occupied, and I can tell you the traffic is not going to be less than what I 24 experienced working there and also living nearby. So I don't know if any of you have 25 worked in that area and lived in that area but I find that incredibly hard to believe given 26 the projection of the developments being upwards of over 900 units. I am not against 27 development. It happens. But at the concentration and the numbers that you are talking 28 about is just outrageous to me because I don't know if any of you have been to any of the 29 local schools, visited during lunchtime, like at Palo Verde which is the nearest school to 30 those properties. The yard space is so small that the children are literally on top of each 31 other. I don't know if you guys have ever driven by but it is absolutely outrageous. I 32 have seen parks with dog runs that have more space for the dogs than for the children. It 33 is outrageous. So the amount of money that you are talking about that is going to support 34 all these additional families unless they are all childless is ridiculous because number one 35 to open up an additional elementary school, open up a third high school is going to cost 36 tens of millions of dollars not a quarter of a million dollars. I realize that is only for that 37 particular project but look at the numbers it doesn't add up. So I am very much 38 concerned about the financial impact to Palo Alto, to the parents and I don't know if you 39 have children but I can tell you that I have two children in the school district and the 40 direct appeal over the past two years, the amount that they are asking for has gone up 41 over three times. As faithful contributors it is mind boggling to me because we don't 42 have enough funds, they are going to all the parents to ask for monies and at what point 43 are we going to go back and try to raise taxes again? It is crazy to think that somehow 44 this is all wonderful for people because there are going to be a few low income 45 properties. The impact is way greater than just South Palo Alto it is all of Palo Alto. So 46 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. Sol 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 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you for coming and thank you all for speaking. There is a 8 process going on to look at this particular area and I am sure they will get in touch with 9 you and bring you into the process and evaluation that is going on out there. 10 11 Commissioner Lippert: If the Chair might recognize me for a moment? 12 13 Commissioner Cassel: Certainly. 14 15 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. I think there is a miscommunication 16 here. The number of units that we are looking at here is 75 units not 900 units. Is that 17 correct? 18 19 Ms. Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner: That is correct. 20 21 Commissioner Cassel: I believe that they are referring to the total area. We have had a 22 design charette on this neighborhood in the past couple of weeks. There is a process 23 going on for that and I suspect that they are relating their comments to the whole process 24 that is going on and they just happen to come and speak this evening. They need to be 25 put into the process so they can hear what is happening. Are there any other questions of 26 the developer on the project tonight or of Staff? Karen. 27 28 Vice-Chair Holman: I had one. There was a previous project that came forward for 29 review and also for Tentative Map and this is a second one. When you look at map of 30 this area and again what the trend is in this area there could be other developments that 31 could come forward for housing. Why would anEIR not be triggered here? Just because 32 the projects are coming forward independent of each other why would not the cumulative 33 impacts be considered and thus an EIR be required? 34 35 Mr. Emslie: There is always an element of discretion in an EIR and I think basically the 36 law requires that if there is an impact that cannot be mitigated and must be overridden 37 then you must do an Environmental Impact Report. In this case there have been no 38 impacts that have been identified that could not be reduced to less than significant levels. 39 I suspect that is what the driving factor in reaching this decision was. 40 41 The law does also define what projects have to be considered that are on the foreseeable 42 horizon and those have to be taken into account for cumulative impacts. There are no 43 projects that meet those criteria. There are no pending projects that would by law be 44 required to be considered in any cumulative impact analysis as well. 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: Is there another question? One follow up. Page 10 1 2 Vice-Chair Holman: If I could follow up on that. The reference earlier I had also 3 understood the number of 900 units as a possibility in this area. So if this is a part of that 4 and the Comp Plan EIR, my understanding is that the Comp Plan EIR does not evaluate 5 the impacts of this area becoming housing. It just says that it may become housing. So 6 how can we not be considering what the impacts would be of the full build out 7 development of this? I am still puzzled I am afraid. 8 9 Mr. Emslie: Just to briefly summarize, the law provides that projects for which there is 10 an application pending must be considered as a cumulative impact otherwise a project is 11 speculative and the law does not require the cumulative impact analysis to be done for 12 projects that are speculative that may be considered in the future. There is quite a bit of 13 litigation on that particular aspect as to what needs to be taken into account for 14 cumulative impacts. 15 16 Vice-Chair Holman: Just a last piece of that I am not trying to beat a horse here. The 17 project that just recently came forward and then this one if combined did Staff look at 18 those as a combined potential impact? 19 20 Mr. Emslie: The Staff can respond more specifically but yes the second project would 21 have to take into account the impacts of the prior project. That is required to be taken 22 into account and Staff can elaborate on that but it is required that that happen. 23 24 Ms. Weiss: I could also mention that both projects together did not exceed any 25 thresholds that are considered in the Comprehensive Plan. So when the initial study was 26 prepared for this particular project we looked at redevelopment of an infill site and so did 27 the previous project and the two together did not exceed any existing thresholds. 28 29 Commissioner Cassel: Lee. 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: Just in looking at the original parcel maps that are there the two 32 32,000 square foot buildings if you look at the parking that is required for those the 33 number of cars there exceed the number ofvehic1es that would be on the new joined 34 parcel. 35 36 Ms. Weiss: Yes, that is correct. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: So we are looking at less traffic not more traffic. 39 40 Ms. Weiss: Yes. 41 42 Commissioner Cassel: Dan, you have a question? 43 44 Commissioner Garber: Yes, I have several. By way of explanation can you explain the 45 apparent discrepancy between the description that the project will actually generate less 46 trips from some benchmark? How is it that that statement is made? Page 11 1 2 Ms. Weiss: The traffic study that was prepared for the project took into account the 3 number of vehicle trips per day used for household in the new residential development. 4 Apparently that was less than the development that previously existed on the site. 5 6 Commissioner Garber: So it is not actually the traffic that was actually generated by the 7 previous but what could have been based on the area of the property. 8 9 Ms. Weiss: That is correct. 10 11 Commissioner Garber: I'm sorry? 12 13 Commissioner Cassel: Do you have a second question? 14 15 Commissioner Garber: We can come back if you want to. 16 17 Commissioner Cassel: Paula, do you have a question? Lee? Karen, do you have another 18 question? 19 20 Vice-Chair Holman: Not now. 21 22 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead, Dan. 23 24 Commissioner Garber: Could you briefly inform me of your outreach to the community? 25 The meetings you may have had, the announcements that may have been made of this 26 project. 27 28 Ms. Weiss: For each public hearing that was required of this project, which included two 29 Architectural Review Board meetings, and then for this meeting tonight the outreach was 30 for the property owners and residents within 600 feet of the subject parcel. 31 32 Commissioner Garber: So two meetings. 33 34 Ms. Weiss: That is correct. 35 36 Commissioner Garber: Where does the 600-foot radius come from? 37 38 Mr. Emslie: It is required by our own ordinance and it actually exceeds, in fact that 39 radius was expanded about a year and a half ago from 300 feet it was doubled to 600 feet 40 in our streamlining efforts. 41 42 Commissioner Cassel: The other point is that these are published in the paper. I know 43 people don't always seem them but they are required by law to be published in the paper 44 a certain number of times in a standard paper in the area. 45 46 Ms. Weiss: That is correct and it is also published on the City'S website. Page 12 1 2 Commissioner Garber: Were there other meetings that related to the general areas as 3 opposed to this project specifically that the City has sponsored? 4 5 Mr. Emslie: I just would say we always encourage the applicants to do outreach and 6 don't conduct meetings with the neighborhood. They may be able to elaborate on what 7 outreach they did as well. 8 9 Commissioner Garber: Has the applicant undertaken outreach efforts into the community 10 beyond the 600 feet? 11 12 Mr. Yakligian: Trumark prides themselves on working with the neighbors and we have 13 had additional meetings. We have been to the Midtown Residents Association's meeting, 14 which is actually far outside 600 feet. We have been to lunch and coffee with a couple of 15 neighbors on Louis who again are outside the 600-foot radius. So yes, we have worked 16 with areas beyond 600 feet. 17 18 Commissioner Garber: You don't have any problem following up with the people that 19 are here? 20 21 Mr. Yakligian: Not at all. We would be very happy to. 22 23 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 24 25 Commissioner Cassel: Does anyone else have any other questions? Do you have a 26 question, Karen? 27 28 Vice-Chair Holman: Yes. My Negative Declaration seems to have gotten separated from 29 my Staff Report. Does Staff have another copy of that, please? 30 31 Commissioner Cassel: Does anyone else have a question? Dan, go ahead. 32 33 Commissioner Garber: Sorry don't mean to monopolize here. Most of my technical 34 questions were answered in your memo, thank you. I did want to ask if the applicant, not 35 that I want to step on the ARB's toes or anything, but relative to the ganged meters that 36 were located on the civil drawings as part ofthe application does the applicant have an 37 idea of what those actually look like and how they address the sidewalk, etc., what their 38 physical characteristics are? 39 40 Mr. Yakligian: I would like to ask our project civil engineer, Tom Morris, to answer that 41 question. 42 43 Mr. Tom Morris, BKF: This is very similar to the project that we are doing across the 44 street where we also have ganged meters. We are actually pursuing two options to deal 45 with those. One would be to have them ganged behind the sidewalk, which for liability 46 reasons is preferred. We are also looking at having them placed in the sidewalk which Page 13 I the utilities department will allow us to but they don't prefer them there either is my 2 understanding. 3 4 Commissioner Garber: So if they are not inside the sidewalk is there an architectural 5 treatment that, for lack of a better phrase, makes them pretty? 6 7 Mr. Morris: I would have to defer to our landscape architect but we can push them away 8 from the sidewalk and put green stuff around them, grass or other shrubs, but they do 9 have to be readily accessible because they have to be read an a monthly basis by the· 10 utilities department. 11 12 Commissioner Garber: One other question related to that. In your outdoor rooms as they 13 were described I also note that you had storm drains centered in them which I recognize 14 as probably simply a coordination oversight. One because that part of the outdoor room 15 is raised and that way the water would collect but also more importantly relative to policy 16 you would want to get them out of there such that people could play Frisbee, have 17 picnics, etc. without having a storm drain in the center of that area. 18 19 Mr. Morris: Absolutely, we have quite an extensive construction documents process to 20 go through with the City and still do have quite a bit of coordination on detail items such 21 as that. 22 23 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 24 25 Commissioner Cassel: Lee. 26 27 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. According to our regulations the 28 BMR is supposed to be one unit for every 15. This is twice that number is that correct? 29 There are 11 units. 30 31 Mr. Emslie: Well, you round up so we always end up getting more units with the split. 32 33 Commissioner Lippert: We should only have five. So they doubled the number of BMR 34 units. 35 36 Ms. Weiss: I'm sorry, can you repeat the question. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: Our regulations require that the BMR be one per 15. In this case 39 there are 75 units proposed. 40 41 Commissioner Cassel: No, it is 15 percent. 42 43 Mr. Emslie: I am sorry. It is 15 to 20 percent. Fifteen percent is required of small 44 projects and 20 percent is required oflarger projects. If there is a rounding we would 45 round up and it would be over 15 percent. 46 Page 14 1 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you. 2 3 Commissioner Cassel: That would have been nice. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: I am just trying to get a handle on it. 6 7 Commissioner Cassel: That's okay. Dan, do you have another question? 8 9 Commissioner Garber: Just a clarification. This is a quasi-judicial topic here so we 10 really can only speak to issues of street grade, curbs, sewers, etc. Is that correct? 11 12 Mr. Emslie: Well, it is not because it is quasi-judicial act it is because it follows an 13 entitlement that the City has already granted by the Architectural Review Board. So the 14 scope is limited as pointed out by the attorney earlier. 15 16 Commissioner Cassel: Do we have any comments on the findings? Paula. 17 18 Commissioner Sandas: It is not a comment on the findings. All we are here to do is to 19 recommend or not approving the proposed Vesting Tentative Map. Am I correct? 20 21 Ms. Tronquet: That is correct. 22 23 Commissioner Sandas: What would happen, I ask this question all the time, if we didn't 24 do that since we are so far along into this process? 25 26 Mr. Emslie: You would be very likely to be sued and you would be very likely to lose 27 that lawsuit. 28 29 Commissioner Cassel: Yes you can and when you will you mention that you believe we 30 will make these findings if you are making a positive motion? 31 32 Commissioner Sandas: What am I supposed to say about the findings? 33 34 Commissioner Cassel: That we can make the findings. 35 36 MOTION 37 38 Commissioner Sandas: Because we can make the findings I move that we recommend 39 approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map in order to merge two parcels, 40 approximately 4.4 acres, and create 75 condominium units to the City Council. Thank 41 you. 42 43 SECOND 44 45 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. 46 Page 15 1 Commissioner Cassel: Paula, would you like to speak to your motion? 2 3 Commissioner Sandas: I have already done that. "4 5 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Lee. 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: I really don't want to be repetitive but I find this project to be 8 very similar to the last project we reviewed for Trumark. It is really an exemplary 9 project. I think they have bent over backwards to do a number ofthings that are quite 10 positive in this community. I just want to say for the residents that have had difficulty 11 looking at this project that this is a project that is allowed, it is permitted in the 12 underlying zoning, it does support the principles in the general and Comprehensive Plan. 13 This is the kind of development that we are looking for. I said this once before, that it 14 reaJly is getting us in the direction of righting the jobs/housing imbalance in our 15 community. It really is taking away what we consider to be commercial space and 16 converting it over to residential space. That is something that we need in order to begin 17 to reduce the traffic in our community. So I am in support of this Map I think it is a great 18 project and I think that it is also in keeping with the spirit of the charette that just 19 happened a month ago. So congratulations. 20 21 Commissioner Cassel: Karen, would you like to make some comments? 22 23 Vice-Chair Holman: Yes I have a couple of concerns that actually are going to keep me 24 from being able to support the motion. That is because and mea culpa on me because I 25 had thought that something had gotten separated from my Staff Report but we don't have 26 a copy even of the environmental document to confirm. So I feel like we should be 27 seeing that to see that there aren't environmental damages caused from this especially 28 having to do with trips. 29 30 The other is finding number six doesn't have language that supports the finding in it. 31 Finding six is on page five. 32 33 Commissioner Cassel: I find that above item number seven on the next page. 34 35 Vice-Chair Holman: It is carried forward on a whole new page. 36 37 Commissioner Cassel: It is carried forward on the next page. 38 39 Vice-Chair Holman: So my remaining concern is that we haven't seen the -this is a 40 whole blank page here and then that on the next page. My concern is not having the 41 review of the environmental document. 42 43 Commissioner Cassel: Are we supposed to have a review of the environmental document 44 for the Vesting Map? I don't think so. 45 Page 16 1 Mr. Emslie: Again, it is one of the vagaries of this process that is a problem because the 2 environmental document has already been. used to certify the project by the ARB. They 3 were the approving body in this. The statutes have run on that. We apologize for not 4 including that. We think it is very appropriate for the Planning Commission to review 5 that in your deliberations but again because of the limited scope and the fact that it has 6 already been certified for this project and this Map is consistent with that we don't think 7 it is required in this case. 8 9 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Go ahead, do have more? 10 11 Vice-Chair Holman: Yes. Could I ask a question about that? Steve, you have talked 12 about before how there are some vagaries to this. It does seem unusual and confusing 13 and not linear, let's say, that the ARB is reviewing the environmental document and that 14 that all gets approved before it ever comes to the Planning Commission for review. I 15 have difficulty with that and I get frustrated by it. 16 17 Commissioner Cassel: I did find the environmental comments in this under Section 2, 18 page two. It isn't the whole document but it is comments on the document. 19 20 Mr. Emslie: The findings are present in the approval documents. 21 22 Vice-Chair Holman: But not the document itself. 23 24 Mr. Emslie: That is correct but the findings are taken from that. We do have a lot of 25 process here and we do have many different bodies that review different aspects of 26 development. I think this is a process that probably should be modified unfortunately it is 27 not going to be modified in time for this. Actually what we are seeing is probably a 28 factor ofthe fact that the development is coming in consistent with zoning. That tends to 29 be a good thing because we do want the development to occur within the parameters we 30 have already setout for this. In the past it has been more common that you either need to 31 rezone it, you would have a request for rezoning or you would have arequest for a 32 Planned Community Zone, which would come to you and you would look at all the 33 materials at the same time. Since these projects are consistent with the underlying zoning 34 they don't require that extra discretionary review on the part of Planning Commission. 35 So should the review body that is approving it also approve the Map, I think so, but I 36 understand your frustration at this point. 37 38 Commissioner Cassel: But we do have the results of your environmental review in the 39 document. 40 41 Mr. Emslie: Yes you do. The findings are contained in there, which we feel give you the 42 authority to act on this. 43 44 Commissioner Cassel: Okay. Let me work down and comeback. Did you have any 45 other comments to the motion? Thank you. Dan, do you have any more comments? 46 Page 17 1 Commissioner Garber: No. 2 3 Commissioner Cassel: Go ahead, Lee. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make one other comment, which is that this is the 6 LM zone and recently that came before the City Council, the revised LM zone. In there 7 again this body recommended and reiterated how important housing was to be retained in 8 the LM zone and Council supported that. They were not as supportive of housing in the 9 OM zone. So again I think that this is a pretty important project and I don't see any 10 reason to not support what is being requested of us here. 11 12 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Burt and Bialson not participating due to 13 conflicts). 14 15 Commissioner Cassel: I want to comment that I reviewed the document, that I found the 16 Tentative Map consistent with the documents that I read and reviewed and will support 17 the motion. If there are no other comments then I will call the motion. 18 19 All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That is five ayes and no nays and two people 20 not present because of conflicts. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for 21 coming and I am sure the Staff will work with you. Be sure and call the Staff about what 22 is going on in the general area. 23 24 Mr. Emslie: If there are phone numbers on the cards we will get in contact with the 25 speakers. 26 27 Commissioner Cassel: The phone numbers are on the cards and I starred all those cards 28 for those neighbors. 29 30 Commissioner Garber: The applicant has also expressed interest in participating in that. 31 32 Commissioner Cassel: Thank you very much everyone for coming. 33 Page 18 Attachment E NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: / Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 From: Beth Bourne, Senior Planner CITY OF P ALO ALTO Planning Division Office of the County Clerk County of Santa Clara Business Division, Room 104 191 North First Street San Jose CA 95113 P.O. Box 10250 250 Harilllton 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/ll,OI E. Meadow Drive n/a Beth Bourne, Senior Planner , (650) 617-3196 State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to Clearinghouse) Lead Agency Area CodelTelephonelExtension " Contact Person 1010 East Meadow Circle/l101 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, CA 94304 (include County) Project Description: Project Location 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 up its 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 deterrillnations 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 Planning Division, 250 Harilllton Ave., 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 329-2441 Signature (Project Planner) ~th ~~ ~~~ Title ~,'DR PLCcV\~~ Date ~ 'L~J 'If)~ 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 From: Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto San Jose, CA 95113 Project Title: Trumark Infill Residential Development (Echelon), P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Project Applicant [Name &. Address]: Av..P-?,.J YtA~f,~o.",.~~r\L ~6.>'\I~~, L(1~t; Mc..ck:.J-J<,wK. fk1 \JC.hVl\l~ leA. t:{l{SO(; .' ::u,ft: U:c /. Project Location: 1010 East Meadow Circ1e11101 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, P . . . . County of Santa Clara, CA 94304 roJect Descnptlon: The project fs··theD;erger of two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) for the development 0{75 condominium residential units, consisting of two and thn;e-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: 1. 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 animals, 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) 2. 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. ~ ~r e~~ Name ~:o( Plc~ V\ Y'Q/v Title J6 710 \ 2oot;; Date 1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Applicatio~ Number(s): ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Trumark Infill Residential Development (Echelon) City of Palo Alto, Planning Division 250 Hamilton A venue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Beth Bourne, Senior Planner (650) 617-3196 1010 East Meadow Circle/l101 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) Zoning: Limited Industrial I Research, Park Zoning District (LM) 9. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole ~ction involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its iniplementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) The project is the merger of two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) for the development of 75 condominium residential uhits, 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. 10. 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 electrical 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 'infill project is proposed to replace the three existing office buildings on the site across East Meadow Drive to the south. 1010 East Meadow Circ1ell101 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 13. Date Prepared: June 29,2005 14. 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 "Poten'tial Significant Issues" and mitigation is incorporated as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. . X Aesthetics X Hydrology/Water Quality X Transportationffraffic Agriculture Resources X Land UselPlanning X Utilities/Service Systems X Air Quality Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Si2nificance X Biological Resources X Noise' Cultural Resources X Population/Housing X Geology/Soils X Public Services X Hazards & Hazardous X Recreation Materials ------------- DETERMIN~TION: (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 aNEGA TIVE 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 NEGA TIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a-significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" i.nl~ct on the environment, but at least one 1010 East Meadow Circlell101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 2 of21 x i 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 I as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I fin<J 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 DECLARA TION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon tlie proposed project, nothing further is required. ---~ ---------------~---- ~~ -q--.-rJ-S --cc;- Date ~f/--J f ~ () )/" 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 hivolved (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. . . . 3) 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 tbe effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," maybe cross-referenced). 1010 East Meadow Circlel1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 3 of 21 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the t~ering, program EIR, or other CEQ A process, an effect has been adequately amilyzed 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. 6) 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. . 8) 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. . , 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: . a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to ~valuate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than' significance. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Resources Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the pro.iect: .. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on 3 a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and 3 historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual cb,aracter or quality of the site 3 and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely 3 affect day or nighttime views in the area? ~---- 1010 East Meadow Circlel1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Pa2"e 4 of21 Less Than No Significant Impac't Impact X X X X 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 X the 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 air 1,3,13 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 1,3,13 existing or projected air quality 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 3,13 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLQGICAL RESOURCES. Would ~h~_project: 1010 East Meadow Circlell101 East Meadow Drive. File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 5 of21 X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Resources Significant Issues a) 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? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any rip.arian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, 1 policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not 1 limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, fIlling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the mov~ment 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 nurser~ sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological 1,9,14 resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation 1 Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical 1,2 '-----resource as defined in 15064.5? 1010 East Meadow CircJelllOl East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Pave {i nf2l Potentially Less Than No I Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X X ----- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Resources Significant Issues b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,3 archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or 1,3 site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,3 formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 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 1,4 the area or based on other substantial evidence ora known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,4 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,4 including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 1,3 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or 3,15 the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that wC)uld become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-1,15 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), 1,12,15 creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or 1,12,15 alternative waste water disposal 1010 East Meadow CirclelllOl East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 7 of21 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X X X X X X ------- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Resources Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 3 the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 3 accident 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 existine 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 1,3 public use airport, would the project 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 7,10 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or 1,3 death involving ",ildland fires, - ----" -------_._---- 1010 East Meadow CircIe/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 8of21 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Resources Significant Significant Issues 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 pro'ect: a) Violate any water quality standards 7,16 or waste discharge requirements? 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 of 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 5,16 substantially 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 3,5,16 drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of 3!olluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade 3,16 water quality? 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? 1010 East Meadow Circle/lIOI East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 9 of21 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X- X X X X ---- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Resources Significant Issues 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, or 1,3,16 mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 3 community? 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, spedfic plan, local 1,2 cC)astal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of ~voiding 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 1 be 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 a2encies? 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 1,3,18 ambient noi§~Jf!vels in the project __ L- 1010 East Meadow Circ1el1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 10 of 21 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Resources Significant Issues vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in 3,18 the project vicinity above levels existinf,! without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted; would 1,3,18 the 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 1,3 homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housiJig, necessitating the 1,3 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1,3 construction of replacement housing 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 oth~r performance objectives for any of the public services: 1010 East Meadow CircIe/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 11 of21 t • Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact . Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X X X X X ------------~--- ,;' Issues.and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Resources Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) 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? b) 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. TRANSPORTATIONffRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial 3,6,17 increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively~ a level of service standard established by the county 3,6,17 congestion management agency for desi2nated roads or hi2hwavs? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change 6 in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) 6 or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? --~--- 1010 East Meadow Circ\e1l101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Pa~e!2 of21 Less Tha.n No Significant Impact Impact I I i I ! X X X X X X -- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Resources Significant Significant Issues Unless Mitigation Incorporated e) Result in inadequate emergency 6,7,10 access? f) Result in inadequate parking 3,6 capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative 1,6 transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 8,16 Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of 8,16 exisilng facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage \ facilities or expansion of existing 8,16 facilities, the construction of which 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 t.bat 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 landfIll with sufficient pennitted capacity to 12,16 accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) 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 tl:!e_p()tentlal n I I I 1010 East Meadow Circle/l101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 13 of21 . Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X I I X . Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popUlation to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does tl)e project have impacts that X are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of ~ project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of _p_robable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SOURCE REFERENCES: 1. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-1, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N- 10, T-7, T-8 2. Palo 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 Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, written comments on project 6. City of Palo 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 Palo Alto Building Division, comments on the project; Uniform Building Code 12. City of Palo 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 Babby, RCA, Arbor Resources, May 23, 2005 1010 East Meadow Circlell10l East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 14 of21 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 inc,rease 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 Circlell101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 15 of21 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 issuanc~ 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 landscapirig. No end?ngered, 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 iI!dicated 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 CircJe/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 16 of21 project would contain conditions in the fonn 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, s\Jbject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefa9tion 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 Unifonn 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 Public 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 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality 1010 East Meadow Circle/llOl East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 17 of21 The site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (designated AE8) in an area within the 100 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 Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR- F) prior to start of construction "Of the project. Prior to occupancy, the project will apply to FEMAfor 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 CLOMR-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 Palo 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 developments 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 js 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 arid 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 Circlel1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 18 of21 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 101. 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 will result in temporary 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 shall 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 Circlell10l East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 19 of21 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 approval 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 tq 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 overcrowding~ However, the California appellate court, has stated that overcrowding is not considered a significant effect under CEQA [Goleta 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 school impact fees. Parks and Public Facilities Tpe 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. 1010East Meadow Circlel1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 n.: __ ""/'I r:+.., 1 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 asa result of the proposed project. The project includes common areas for recreation and children play activities. Mitigation Measures: None XV. TransportationlTraffic 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 bui'ldings (totaling 61,360 sJ.) is 916 daily, 127 AM and 148 PM peak-hour trips. . As a conversion' in office space (61,360 sJ.) 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/1101 East Meadow Drive, File No. 05PLN-00200 Page 21 of21 II Miniligo & AsSOCIates Environmental Consultants May 14,2005 ,r-'U::'7 'F r\ ~~l'li',\ rV,I\l·j ~..... ~,_,L .... :l'l,. p,,' ~: .,~ 1:1. t{ )i..---SO' -'! . , I MN( 1 § Z005J I h~}j[~.'f';"';~;'~<~';;;;;';:C"'-";:~::::::'::"-"--"'.'- Aaron Yakligan Trumark Companies 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506-4668 Dear Aaron: Reference: 1010-1101 East Meadow Drive Residential Project Attachment A 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 emissIOns for 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 factor, for each pollutant, by 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 -7 454 grams/lb = -3.7lbs/day NOx = 449 trips x [(6.9 miles x 0.97 grams/mile) + L08 grams/trip] = 5,628 grams/day -7 454 grams/lb = -7.7lbs/day CO = 449 trips x [(6.9 miles x 4.63 grams/mile) + 21.07 grams/trip] = 38,384 grams/day -7 454 grams/Ib = -52.5 Ibs/day Aaron Yakligan RE: 1010-1101 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 projected air quality violation; or • Re$ult in substantial emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality [the gi~~i~cance· tbre1?holds re~oJU!11e~d~d. b.y the. Bay Area Air Quality Management DIstnct (BAAQMD) for cntena aIr pollutants are consIdered to represent "substantial" emissions -_. for mobile sources, these thresholds are 80 pounds per 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 obj ectionable odors; or . • Expose 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. tli'°ci~tes iChardP,&' rpm 'ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Con:wlting & Tree Care 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 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4001A May 23,2005 Attachment B P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654:3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 SECTION 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 TABLES 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE SUMMARy ................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 Overview ................................................................. 1 Purpose and Use ofthe Report ........................................ 1 RESULTS OF FINDINGS .................................................. 2 Tree Count and Composition ......................................... 2 General 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 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 APPENDICES APPENDIX TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE B PHOTOGRA2HS C MAP SHOWING TREE NUMBERS AND LOCA nONS 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 (parcell), 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. Teri 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 103 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 Jor minimizing damage to trees that will be retained. 11 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist MaJ!..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 ·1010 East Meadow Circle (parcel 2) and 1101 East Meadow Drive (parcell), 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, 1 height, canopy spread, c-ondition, 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: . [1] Preliminary Boundary Exhibit, dated 11/5/04; [2] Topographic Survey, dated 11/30/04; 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 Exis.ting 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 ofthe 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 I The diameters of accessible tree trunks 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. 2 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.citypalo ... alto.ca.usltrees. Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 11 01 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC Page 1018 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist MaJ!..23,2005 The purpose of this report is to infonn Trumark 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 "Qeing 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. Table 2-1 below identifies the name, number and percentage of each. Table 2-1. Tree Count and Composition AmericanSweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Black Acacia Acacia me/anoxylon Chinese Elm Ulmus parvifolia Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens European White Birch Betula pendula Evergreen Ash Fraxinus uhdei Fruitless Mulberry· Morus alba Glossy Privet Ligustrum lucidum Holly Oak Quercus ilex London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Monterey Pine Pinus radiata Olive Tree Olea europaea Red Gum Eucalyptus Eucalyptus camaludensis Red Ironbark Eucalyptus Eucalyptus sideroxylon Total Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive. Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC 3 6 4 13 2 7 14 17 5 6 5 1 2 18 103 3% 6% 4% 13% 2% 7% 14% 17% 5% 6% 5% 1% 2% 17% 100% Page 2 0/8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May" 23, 2005 2.2 General Tree Locations Of the 103 inventoried trees, twenty-eight (28) are located on Parcell, 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, 239,240,243-247,249·, 205,207,209,211,213, 217,222,224,248,251-254, 212,214,215,218-221, 250,255,259,260,264, 216,235,241,242,302 256-258,261,262,263,265, 223,225-234,236-238 267,273,274,277-285, 266,268-272,275,276,286, 287,291,293-301,303 288-290,292 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: High: 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, and/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, 205,207,209,211,213,216,217, 201,203,206,208,210,212,214, 303 222,224,228,235,242,243,245-215,218-221,223,225-227,229- 248,251-254,256-258,261-277, 234,244,249,250,255,259,260, 280-284,286,288,289,297-302 278,279,285,287,291 Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Page 3 0/8 Trumark Companies, LLC David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Table 2-4. Suitability Ratings Count and Composition High Moderate Low. Total 2.4 Trees Defined as 'Protected' 15 55 33 103 15% 53% 32% 100% Mgg23,2005 '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.S-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 trunk'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, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC Page 4 0/8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Mar 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 #211 3 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 abqve 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 4-1'2 feet above grade. Decay was observed to have penetrated the wound wall and will further compromise the tree's structure over time. , 3.0 TREE APPRAISAL VALVES 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, 9th 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 roadway~ 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 future development plans once they become available. This would include, but is not limited to, the following: site, demolition, " grading and drainage, utility, elevation, and lahdscaping (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, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC Page 5 0/8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arbor-ist Mal. 23, 2005 e. 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. f. 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 top of natural grade and not require soil cuts (i.e. a no-dig design). 4: All forms of irrigation for new trees must be placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 5. Irrigation spray should not $trike 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 development. 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 p~aced 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, 1010E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC Page 60/8 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist MaJ!..23.2005 e. Signs of 8-Y2 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 follows: "WARNING -TREE PROTECTIVE ZONE -This fence shall not be . removed, moved or relocated. Violators are subject to a penalty according to PAMe Section 8.10.110.9." f. 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. g. 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 all work performed within fenced areas . . h .. 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 (miniIpum) 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 Palo 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. 1. The removal of hardscape b~neath 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. J. 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. k. 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 remov.ed 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 Y2-to %-inch wood chips layered by %-inch quarry gravel to stabilize one-inch thick plywood. The plywood could be securely fastened to create a sturdier traveling surface. Echelon. 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive. Palo Alto Trumark Companies. LLC Page 70/8 . ~ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist M'!1!..23,2005 1. 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. p .. 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 2 ... ,12). q. 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 tree. The Project Arborist shall determine the specific trees, amount of water and application procedures. s. 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 perforriled in a manner so the surrounding and nearby trees planned for retention a.re not damaged. Stumps within 30 feet of retained trees should also be ground rather than being pulled up with an excavator. Prepared By: fA..?v ~ .. David L. B y, RCA Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of the Proposed Site Plan) Echelon, 10] 0 E. Meadow Circle & lID] E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC Date: May 23, 2005 Page 8 0/8 · David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist APPENDIX A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive. Palo Alto Trumark Companies. LLC May 23,2005 TREE NO. TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME European White Birch (Betula pendula) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Evergreen Ash (Fraxlnus uhdei) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Fruitless Mulberry . (Morus alba) .-.. ;;; g. @).g kJ ~-~ bll o 0 ~ 6 '-.D r:l '" ~~ f-< .S Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto Prepared/or: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepored by: David L. Babby. RCA .-.. S ~ £ .-.. S "0 '" ~ 0. U) .;:.-. g. fJ u -=-~ ~ c II o~ .~ 0 :.a ~ ... c <J> o ., u~ -S~ (dO .,0 tI:c.. 10f7 -;:;- </) l5 o~ ._ II l>o~ 2 0 c ~" ..... </) ~ ., ~~ o-;J:. Eg U)c, I'! .S! ~ C o U 1 o ~ .... '" tB ~ ~ o·g "8 ::.:i~::E {do?l ~ <J> bll ..... G.) ....... ~ .... ::r: U) p... '-' ::.:, ~ 2 c 2 ~ e:e E'-<o -", 0 <J> .-"'u "g.£ t8 ~ ., .... r:lf-< o o r':: ., .0 ~ ..... ij :6 ~ ~ o ."Cl 0 ., .... ..... 0 '" 0. o 0 o ..... >-1p... DRAFT o ~ Cd > Cd <J> '@ ! TREE NO. TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Evergreen Ash (Fraxinus uhdei ) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Glossy Privet (Liguslrum lucidum ) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) ,.-... ~~ @)~ 11 ~ '" '" ~ 1:; .~ .0 t=l '" tl ~ ~] Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto Prepared Jor: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L. Bobby, RCA ,.-... S ".fo 'v ::r: ,-., ct:: '-' "<:I 01 '" .... a. UJ ;>. g. ~ U ? ~ ~ ~ II o'*-".::; 0 :.oJ ~ '" o '" Uf £::R (;j0 ",0 ::r:c. 20/7 ? ~ o~ .~ II 6b~ EO ~ ~" -'" ~ '" ~f B~ 2° ~o UJ-'-' ~ o ~ ~ o U ~ ., ;> o ~ .... 'iii <2 ~ ~ o·~ -g ;:::o!::g :oi'::l3 ~ ~ b.O .-Q) ..... ;::I .... ::r: UJP-.,-, :0 8 E ~ u '" '" ~ ... .~ 8""8 !?-oo -01 0 ~i:J "<:I;>. "'.0 ¢i '" '" ~ Qf-< ., ~ Q) ~ ii5 i5 '" u '" ;0' <: ~ ~€ E '" '" 0. u 0 o .... o-lP-. DRAFT '. '" ..2 > (;j 1 _ r: TREE NO. TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) Fruitless Mulbeny . (Moms alba) Glossy Privet (Ligustnlm lucidum ) European White Birch (Betula pendula ) Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (SeqlJoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Seq.uoia sempervirens) Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) Holly Oak (Quercus iJex) Chinese Elm ( Ulmus parvifolia ) London Plane Tree . (Platanus acerifolia ) London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia ) ,.-... ~ .t=i V)C @.g E ~ <l> <Ll S :> OJ 0 6{l ~ ~ 2-5 E-< .S Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Allo Prepared/or: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ,-., 'S ~ . ., ::r: ,.-... S "0 OJ <l> l5. en 2 o § U c '" ... o ~ c II o;f( '.0 0 ;.a ......... c '" o <l> u~ ..<::::!( ~o ~o ::r::::: 30f7 c ~ o ;>,~ .<;:: II b'o~ B O 'C: ~ ~ '" _ <l> ~~ o'$.. 2 0 ~o en~ '--" ,g ;a c o U "§ <l> :> o ~ o ~ ... OJ <2 r:: ~, o·~ -g ;.::: OJ '>' .-:> ~ ~~-Eh ...... 4)'r-. ~ ... ::r: en p.. '--" 'd 8 2 c " '" <l> C '0;.0 ... ... E'<O -", 0 ~iJ "0 ;>, <l>.o tE 3 <Ll .... '0 E-< <l> <l> ~ .~ en 1i " '" ~ § "Cl ;>, 215 '" p. " 0 o ... ....1p.. DRAFT 1:l ~ «i '" '§ ~ TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO. TREE NAME London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia ) London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia ) Olive Tree (Olea europaea) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia ) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxy/on ) London Plane Tree (Platanus acerifolia ) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ) Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Glossy Privet (Li~strum lucidum ) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) r-... "<:t f'i V):.=... @).g ... ro E !ih 8 ~ ro 0 .~ ,D A ro ~ ~ ~] Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr. Cir.), Palo Alto Prepared/or: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA r-... ¢ '-' .]h ~ r-... S "0 ro ~ 0.. en ;:.-. ~ l) ;;:;- ~ ~ . § ~ :E 0 "0 -" I'l <J) o ., u~ o:S~ ]8 ::r::::::, 40/7 ;;:;- ~ o ;:.-.:S: .-::: II !ih~ EO I'l -" .... '" ~ ., ~~ u':f!. eO _0 en-'-' .§ ~ § l) -] ;> o ~ t::! ., ... tl c.8 ~ tl o·g '8 ;.::::ro::;s :.st::<:j ~ ~ on .... Q) .,.... ~ ... ::r: enp""" ] 8 t) @ II) I'l o~ ... ... E'-<o -ro 0 <J) .~ rol) "0 ;:.-. ~,D t;:: ., ., ~ AI-< ., t:. "0 ~ en 5 o ro .~ § ~€ E ., ro 0.. o 0 o .... ....:lP" DRAFT II) ..8 > 'iii <J) 'a §: <X: TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NO, TREE NAME Holly Oak (Quercus ilex) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum) Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) Red Iron bark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroiylon ) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum litcidum ) Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata ) Red lronbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red lronbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaludensis ) ,-.. .~~ @)~ .... '" B bb' S ~ '" 0 ,-.0 o '" ~ a1 ~~ Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr, Cir,), Palo Allo Preparedfor: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L Bobby, RCA ,-., q:l '-' ~ 'OJ ::r: ,-., 5 '"d '" ~ (J) >. IS lii u C' ~ .0 :s I=l II o~ ''':::: 0 :.a -...J" I=l VI o ., u~ -5;:;:: "@o .,0 ::r:~ 50f7 C' ~ o c:S ,_ II 6h~ ~o <=l ~. _ V) ~ ., ",t:Q S II t)~ 1:0 .~ 0 (/)0 p o ~ 'B § u ~ o '[ t:::! ~ .... '" t8 ~ 1i3 c.g-g ,-'" :::s ] ~:;:: ~ ~ b.O .-OJ· .... ~d::e; ;, ~ ~ I=l t) '" ., <=l o:c; .... .... E'-<O .", c V) .-"'u "1:1 >. ~.o t;:: ., ., e Of-< ., ~ f-< Q) ~ U5 5 t) '" :0' ~ § "1:1£ E ., '" 0. t) 0 o .... ....:It:>-. DRAFT ., .E! '" > "@ V) ';a i TREE NO. 276 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaludensis) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (EucalYElus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Red Ironbark (Eucal)lptus sic{eJ'oxylon ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) ,.-... -q-.S V) '-' @).g ~ C! ... bO Q) Q) S :> ro 0 i5~ ~ ~ :2 -B f-< .S 3.5,2.5 Project Name: Echelon {E. Meadow Dr. Cir.}, Palo Alto Prepared/or: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ,.-... tt: '-' 11 bO 'Q) :r: 20 ,.-... tt: '-' -0 ro Q) a C/.l >, g. @ o 15 o ~ ~ I'l II o~ '.0 0 ;.a ....... I'l '" o Q) Oifil rS~ ]8 :r:e. 75% 60f7 C' ~ o c~ ._ II 6b~ ~o I'l ...J' ...... '" ~ Q) gifil "0';J!. 2° ... 0 C/.le. 25% .~ ] o o ~ ... ~ o ~ ... ~ <2 I'l 1;) e·g -g ;:::ro:2; :E~::a !S ~ bJ) .-G.>''''' a~tS, Fair I Moderate :0 ~ ~ I'l u ro Q) .::l o;a ... ... .e-0 -ro C <I) .-roO -0.>, ~~ Q) ... Of-< Q) ~ t) 1l C/.l ... § ~ ~ .::l ~£ ~ Q) ro p. u 0 o ... >-10.. x DRAFT , . g ~ ~ '@ 1: $60 TREE NO. 291 TREE INVENTORY TABLE TREE NAME Glossy Privet (Ligustrum lucidum ) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Chinese Elm {Ulmus parvifolia) Red Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon ) Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia) American Sweetg)lm (Liquidambar styraciflua ) American SweetgJlm (Liquidambar styraciflua ) American SweetgJlm (Liquidambar styraciflua ) Holly Oak. (Quercus ilex) Chinese Elm (Ulmus parvifolia ) ,....., ~: <=i v)v @)~ E ~ ., ., E ;> «I 0 .~ .D o «I "E ~ ~ ~. 5.5 Project Name: Echelon (E. Meadow Dr.·Cir.), Palo Allo Prepared/or: Trumark Companies, LLC Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA ,....., ~ '-' ~ '0:; ::r: 15 ,....., S "0 «I ~ 0. C/) >. g. til u 15 ~ '" t5 ~ ~ II o '*' ',c 0 :.a ........ ~ '" o Q) u'j? :E~ ~g :r:~ 25% 70f7 ? U] ... o c~ .~ II 6'0~ Q)O "E .....,"" ~.~ S II t)'2f. 2 0 ~O U)~ 75% <: o -:.a <: o U "§ ., b Poor ~ o ~ ... ';;:j c.8 ~ t· c·g -g ~~::E ~.,:c: ~ '" bO '-4) .-::l ... ::r: C/) A.. '-' Low " Q) "2 0 u ~ Q) ~ e~ !?-<o "", C '" 'M "'U '0 >-Q).n ,§ 3 ., " 0[-< Q) ., ~ Q) ., .... ill 1l (J '" ~ § '0£ 2 ., '" 0, <) 0 o ... o-lA.. DRAFT ., ::l ~ ~ OJ.> .[ .0. <:t: $30 l David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC May 23, 2005 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Photo 1. This photograph faces west and shows Coast Redwood #202. Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC May 23,2005 Photo 2. This photograph also faces west and shows Coast Redwoods #203 and 204. Page B-1 David L. Babby, Registered Con!$ulting Arborist Photo 3. This photograph faces west and shows the row of Evergreen Ash (#205, 207, 209, 211 and 213) along East Meadow Drive. Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive. Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC May 23, 2005 Photo 4. This photograph also faces west and shows Coast Redwoods #236 thru 240~ Page B-2 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist Photo 5. This photograph faces northeast and shows Coast Redwoods #93 thru 95. Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Trumark Companies, LLC May 23, 2005 Photo 6. This photograph faces north and shows Coast RedwODds #290 and 292. Page B-3 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 23, 2005 APPENDIX C: MAP SHOWING TREE NUMBERS AND LOCATIONS Echelon, 1010 E. Meadow Circle & 1101 E. Meadow Drive, Palo A Ito Trumark Companies, LLC g § ~ ;! ~~~ t:~ ,0 ;~! .lDg .Flo ,,~ -~ . ~ 0 ~ ~ _1~,lItr __ _ ~--:~nO~'~L'='~~~'/~O~,=r;]========-;,=:~--~--~----------------------~:=~~~~----------------------~----------------------------~~ is,,,, ,",,,,' ECHELON ~ ~ :3 j ~".. "" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD I~ B k f l.'Z'::''';~Ni:l: .... , ! ,,:::... ::: EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN ::. :~~::l:g:'i (""" . Jab No 200401'iJi PALO ALTO lIit~~ ::.:. Bkf ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 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 Subject: Echelon City of Palo Alto Environmental Checklist Dear Ms: Bourne: Attachment C 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. 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 will 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 grade 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 ... __ .. -...... _--_ ... _.... _ ...... _.--...... _-_. __ ... _........ .. __ .... _------_ .. __ ._._-_ .............. --.... . 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 . . 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 limdscape and pervious . area, providing improved storm water treatment and increasing the amount of storm water infiltration compared to the existing condition. c. Substantially alter the existing drqinage 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 parte:r:p.s to allow for the proposed land use. The on-site modifications will continue t6 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. 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 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~sitedrainage patterns to allow for the proposed land use. The on-site modifications will continue to connect to the existing stoim 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 14, 2005 BKF Job No. 20040199 Page 3 of5 e. 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 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Other than the previously discussed water quality impacts and mitigations caus"ed by stonn water runoff from the site, development of the site for residential uses would not substantially degrade water quality. g. "Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard deli'neation map. " The existing site is within the 100 year flood 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. h. Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood 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 -._ .,. ___ ... -_. _. _._ -.M. M.... __ M" ....... __ .. , __ . __ .. _ .... _ ._ " ._._ .. _.,. ____ ... _. __ ._,. ______ --._._ • __ 0.' -_ .. .,...--_ ... __ ._ . • ••••• - -_ •••••• _. _ •• - -",. •• -._ ••• _ .M ." • . Ms. Beth Bourne June 14, 2005 BKF Job No. 20040199 Page 4 of 5 stonn drain system. This is also one of the criteria used by FEMA in their review of the CLOMR-F and the LOMR-F. i. Expose people or. structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involved jlooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or 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. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudjlow. 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 ofloss, injury or death. XVI. Utilities and Service System Hydrology and Water Quality: a. Exceed wastewater treatme11:t 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. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industriallR&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 win 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 June 14, 2005 BKF Job No. 20040199 Page 5 of5 .'.·._n.· .. · .-., ...... -.: .----.-.-_ .. _ '.'-.-;_-.".-.':;-.. -_-:-.-. . .. :;'-:,:::"";"'.'.~-::-:'-:'-- c. 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. . d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new ore expanded enti#ements needed. This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industriallR&D site and requires approximately 8,650. gallons per day of water. The proposed project will require approximately 16,667 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. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capadty to serve the project's projected demand iiz addition to the provider's existing commitments. This project is the redevelopment of an existing light industriallR&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 /ft4H#OtJ? ~ Thomas R. Morse, P .E. Project Manager ._. :::' :_~-::._-;~ :';. ':_ . __ 7.' . __ • __ ': ~.. . -._._.'-.--.:: ~-. .~.:_--.:-:"'.'.:--:-::::-,-: :: ..•.• --.---:' ..• -,-.--:.:-.-::: -:_-_.-_-:-_~. '.': .-". -.-:. ----0----~_-::'-.-:-:_ ~.:-_::-: ___ -.-_-.-'-----•• -------~.~:_: :: :~-:-'.: :.: :-:: Echelon Project, Palo Alto Sewer and Water Demand Summary . I Sewer Demand (gpd) Existing Condition (Light Industrial/Commercial) 7,785 Proposed Project (75 Condominium Units) 15,000 , Net Increase in Demand 7,215 ~--- Notes: 1. Sewer demands based on Table 1 and Table 2A. Water Demand2 (gpd) 8,650 16,667 8,017 2. Water demand equal to sewer demands divided by 0.90 to account for irrigation demands. BKF Engineers June 14,2005 K:\MAIN\2004\0 199\06 Design\E Sanitary Sewer\05 _0405 Sewer.xls -, -'-'-----",~" ~'--'~''''.'"~'''' -7.·,-.".,·~.,.~,·"o,c,·,,,·:_,,=,,,,,_''-,"",·,_,._,'-'--:,-::-:-0;-----" "-,~~::' :';:-~',----::,'---"---' c .c-_-,_'_ --c.-C::.Att-acbmc'iit'D' fP F 'E H R & PEE RS TR'ANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TO: . Jim 8aer, Premier Properties FROM: Robert Eckols ' DC!niel Rubins DATE: March 30, 2005 SUBJECT: 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 Offic~ 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 buildirigs 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 pr9ject 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?se of 109 PM (1 added inbound and 110 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips. Attachment 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com :-.~: .. -:,... .-.--:'= -.".---.---... -.-:;-;:::;--:-:-::-.--;:'---:-::.---:-:-:-::::.::--~_._.--::--; ------;---:: --:--------.::-:::-.-:"-:::.:--. ':'"".-.-'~.-:-_---:.:"'_---"-.::_-.7:=_:':;::-::-_-"-:'-:::-= ':':= .. ::::-.. :.~_-:_:::::'7=.:.:--_::-_-::'::-__ =--7.-·::.-:.-: -.:-=.-·:::7.:-:.-::::=::::~: Estimated.Trip Generation lor Trumarl< Housing Project March 29, 2005 Rates (per 1,000 59. ft. Of per unit) Size AM EM Use (ksl or unit) Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Uses Single Temini Office 61.36 14A9 1.81 0.22 2.03 0.31 1.78 2.09 General Office 61.36 14.93 1.83 0.24 2.07 OAl 2.00 2Al Tnimart< Condominiums 75 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 Net Trip Generation (ustng Stngle Tenant omce rates) Net Trip Generation (using General Ollice rates) Sm ... ce: Institute 01 Tran.sportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Sevenlh Edilion, 2003. 2 Daily In 889 111 916 112 440 6 -449 -105 -476 -106 .f.pi .. · .... :.,' ': : : ) " F EHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSUtTA'NTS Tlips AM EM Out Total In Out Total 14 125 19 109 128 15 127 25 123 148 27 33 26 13 39 13 -92 '7 -96 -89 12 -94 -110 -109 . --'-'-"-"'--"-....... ,...-..... :.,.0..,:.= ...... -----_.-." ~.---"'--,--" •• _ .......... _--.. -.. ---••• -::.::.:::.::,::.:..=....:...:..:..:::..:.::...:....-...::..::.:.---.--.-------•••• -- DRAFT 1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE /1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TRUMARK COMPANIES Aaron Yakligian 24 May 2005. 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Phone: (925) 648-8300 Email: ayakligian@trumark-co.com Prepared by: CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Joshua M. Roper, Senior Consultant 2880 Zanker Road, Suit~ 203 . San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: (408) 432-7270 Email: josh.roper@cmsalter.com CSA Project No. 05-0185 -_Attachment __ E_ . ''''-~''=-'''~''_''''';'''::',",''''J'="""''<:"''"''''''"'~~''I''''''''~'''''''''-~''''''''''''''---'-••. -... -... -~. INTRODUCTION ........... , .............. ~"'; ............ -= .... -..,.:-."' .. ,:=-=.::-.... -==-.===::"..::.~.:;;-:--:..."":"-=:-=.::"~..:===::::..--==:-==:-;:-..::-=::=-:.=-:=:=:....-:::.:==--==..:.::.:.:-...:.==.::-...:-:=::=:-.=.==:::::-.:.:-..::...:-.::::.:.-.: .... .: . ..::::::.-..::: 1100 East Meadow Drive / 101"0 East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May 24,2005 Page 2 This report surrunarizes 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 101). Two existing office buildings are located on-site. The site is bordered by BD Biosciences 'Clontech 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 of75 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 c.onsidered "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 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 ~ideline 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 I t erA 5 soc i ate 5 Inc 2680 Zanker Road Suae 203 Son Jose C,lilomia 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 F .• X: 406 4327235 '.'-"'-"-""-'---'.".---'.'-'"'.~''' .-' ~"""-"-~--~.--"-7' ., .... ".=:~-----_ .. -.-~.--.-.-.---------'-0-.-=-_:. :-.-:'--:.-~'-" .--:.: ::::c.C. C:,':,',:'=-=C::--:::-Att-achirieiifD . tp FEHR & PEERS TR'ANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS TO: Jim Baer, Premier Properties FROM: Robert Eckols' DClniel Rubins DATE: March 30, 2005 SUBJECT: 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 Offic~ 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 decre9se of 109 PM (1 added inbound and 110 fewer outbound) peak-hour trips. Attachment 255 N. Market Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers com --:-".-:-'~ --:--:::--::--:-:--:-: 7.;': -;;"' ":. ':", :-:;".-:-. -.--:'~ --:-:::,.-.::-:: .::=;:-::-': .-:".:::-:. :';";; -.: ".-: -:"';".-:'. -:-;--:-:-:. -.~ -; :-.: -; ;--:.-:. -::-.':" -:-::.~ .-, -:-.-' -:; ::.':-.-.:::-".-:::' -::.-:-":"-:::::-::::.-::-_":: -..::-::-: =--.:.: -=.::-.:':-;':-.7.' ::-.: -=--:-':::-"::-.=:-:':: :"-:=--.:::-:.'-= :-:·.::·-:-::'-:7:-:-.::-_~::-:: :::::::::::::: Estimated.Trip Generation lor Trumari< Housing Project March 29, 2005 Rates (per 1,00059. ft. or eer unil) Size AM EM Use (kslorunit) Daily In Out Tolal In Oul Total Exis/ing Uses Single Tenani Office 61.36 14.49 1.81 0.22 2.03 0.31 1.78 2.09 General Office 61.36 14.93 1.83 0.24 2.07 0.41 2.00 2.41 Fnimark Condominiums 75 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 Net Trip Generation (using Single Tenant OffIce rates) Net Trip Generation (using General OHice rates) Smxce: Institute ofTransportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003. 2 Daily In 889 111 916 112 440 6 -449 -105 -476 -106 ~ ::I:::t': F EHR & PEERS TRANSPORIATION CONSULJA-N1S Trips AM EM Out Total In Out Total 14 125 19 109 128 15 127 25 123 148 27 33 26 13 39 13 -92 ·7 -96 -89 12 -94 -110 -109 . -Attach·ment-=E .-----~ -_. -~ --=-=:..:....=...:=..: .. ::.:::.-:.-=::...:...:....::---==-=---=--=--.----:.:=~-=--.:===-:..:::.:.:.-...:..=-===-===--.. ------==--.. DRAlFT 1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE /1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ASSESSMENT PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: TRUMARK COMPANIES Aaron Yakligian 24 May 2005 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506 Phone: (925) 648-8300 Email: ayakligian@trumark-co.com Prepared by: CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. Joshua M. Roper, Senior Consultant 2880 Zanker Road, Suit~ 203 San Jose, CA 95134 Phone: (408) 432-7270 Email: josh.roper@cmsalter.com CSA Project No. 05-0185 ........ ~"' ........... ,~="' ... ".«"...,.w-= .. w, ............... _ .. ~~ ... ~' . .-____ ... _ .• _ .. _.__ ---"~.-"""'-"""""''''''''''''''''':''''''''='~'~=''''=;'==-=====:~~:=-'::::''-''':;::;-:=;:::~:''':=-===:-::::''-:-::-:-==:7.-:-:;::-::::-::::-;:::'=':''~-==--==-===:''~:-_-:::''-:'=.:-:-===-'::'':'-:.:::::-::_::'.-=-....::=.-:.:~. INTRODUCTION 1100 East Meadow Drive / 10 lO East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May.24, 2005 Page 2 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. D'ESCRJPTION 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 Biosciences;Clontech tothe 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 of75 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 CRJTERJA 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 c.onsidered "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 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 ~ideline 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 I t erA S soc ate sin C 2680 Zonkor Rood Suil.203 Son Jose Colilornla 95134 Tol: 408 432 7270 F:"x: 4084327235 .---------.-...... -.--,--.-.~., .. -.".---.==~~,.~== .• -''''~~-~~-====~.~======--=---===--==-=.-===--::::--===.=-=:::::-=-=== II 00 East Meadow Drive / I 0 I 0 East Meadow Circle Dnift Environmental 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 multiple family dwellings. This indoor criterion shall' also apply to new single family homes in Palo Alto. • Interior noise levels in new single family and multiple family residential. units 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 local 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 101. To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted measurements on the 18th 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 atthe site: Estimated future noise levels are the basis of the noise mitigation recommendations in the Analysis and Recommendations section, below .. Table I: Existing and Estimated Future Noise Environment C h a r I e s M 5 a I t erA s soc i ate sin C 2080 Zonker Rood Suit. 203 Son Jose Colilo",ia 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 Fax: 408432 7235 .. ________ .. _____ . __ ._. __ ...... ~ .. _. __ "~."~."_~~_~. __ ~_._=~~ ... "~.~.-_~.~.'" .. =.= .• ~-.,,= __ ="'_~~-_===_"'=_"'=_~-:_-::-_-=---=-c-~=-_ _:'.="" _ __:_-=_-::;O:::=-7..:.-.::.:::=._:;=:..==:=___===.:::~:::_.:~~:=::_===.::--=--= Location Northern Section of Site Approximate location of Turf Mound (See site plan dated 2/16/05) Northeast Comer of Site .Approximate location of future residences (I st floor12nd floor and above) East Meadow Circle Approximate setback of future residences' East Meadow Drive Approximate setback of future residences ]] 00 East Meadow Drive / ] 0] 0 East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May 24,2005 Page 4 Existing DNL Estimated Future DNL 68 dB 69 dB 66/70 dB 67/71 dB 67 dB 68 dB 64 dB 65 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 t~n 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 well as a discussion of the calculated noise reduction from project-related traffic and mechanical equipment. City of Palo Alto General Plan To meet the interior noise criteria, itwill 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 fa9ade 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 fa9ade nearest US 101, along the western fa9ade facing'East Meadow Circle, and along the southern fa9ade facing East Meadow Drive. In other locations, windows and doors with sound insuhltion 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 I Sound Transmission Class (STC) - A single number used to compare walls, floor/ceiling assemblies, windows aljld doors for their sound insulating properties with respect to speech and small household appliance noise. C h a r I e s M S a I t erA 5 soc i a. t e 5 Inc 2080 Zonker Rood Suile 203 Son Jose Calilornl. SS1J4 Tel: 408 432 7270 FoX: 408 ~32 7235 ~ .... ~~ ..... ,.-",-"",.~= ... ..,,...,.,,,.-..,.:,::,.-::~ .. ,, ....... =~.,......=. ............... ",,,,,---""""""'~--"-'.---•. _._ ..... _ ...... _.~~ ......... -....."-..... ~ ............ r=.="<=»="-"'-====:::.~':~....::;-..::;.=;:;-==.=-=---=.-=--;;---;'""~~-===--==-.=-====:-..=::::::=:=~--::.=== 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 surfac.e, 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 planned recreational areas will be at least partially shielded from Highway noise by the proposed townhouses, the Zen Garden and Turf areas in the northeastern comers of the site would have a noise exposure level 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 noise levels from HV AC equipment, at elevated location ofthe plaimed residences to the south ofthe project site, would be approximately 60 to 6~ dB. Therefore, future noise levels from mechanical equipment would be approximately 7 to 12 dB lower than the existing land use. California Building Code The·entire 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 I e 5 M S a I t e r . Ass 0 cia t e 5 Inc 2080 Zanker Road Suile 203 San Jose Calilornia 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 FoX: 408 4327235 ,-.. ,.",,...,, ~J\lO:-""~"'-"""''''''''''''"''''"''''''''''''''''''.~----'-'-'.'-~'~.---.. ~,.-' .. -.. --....... _ .... _ ........................ "" ..... _ ......... , .. , .......... ..n"-'C.~..,..._ ..... -... -_:: • .:._-_-.= ..... _-'-__ ':-':':-_-:-::'=::--=-":"-==_-';:'=~':::....-=:,-=':"-:::-_=--=-=:-=-:-:'~':'7.,,:::; .... =::.::.:.::..:::-=..:-=-= ]] 00 East Meadow Drive / ] 0] 0 East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May 24, 2005 Page 6 APPENDIX A FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE This appendix provides background infonnation 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 deterrniningsubjective response. These are: a) The frequency spectrum of the sound; b). The time-varying character of the sound; and c) 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 bf frequencies, differing in leve1. 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 tenns 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 pennit 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. . C h a r I e s M S a I t erA S soc i ate sin C 2680 Zanker Road Suile 203 San Jose Caliiornia 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 FoX: 408 432 7235 . __ . __ ._ .=:._.:'=~:: =:=-_'=_~":'-=-:-":.:::..:::.:=:=::=-.-::.::::;-_::::::::-=-;:-.-:-::-=::::'.:::: =. '.::::.:::':.;;:;=:.=.=-=..:= .=-_-.:;.:::::-... -.:-.:-'::: .';"_-_~ .. ==-:::::,--=-_":,,:=.~_.=:o-~~-=-=.== ... -,,,,"-=-_-_'~--'_""-'-"'-"" __ .. _ .. -.... ,_ ....... ~ ..• -".--...... ~"' ..................... VARIATION OF SOUND WITH TIME IIOO East Meadow Drive / I 0 I 0 East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May 24, 2005 Page 7 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 sourc~. 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 envirollIhental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "LIO" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 1 0 percent of a stated time period. The Llo is considered a good measure of typical maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "Lso" 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 "L90" 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 liLeq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called ffiuivalent 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 i~ 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 ~re 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 Ie· s M S a I t erA s soc i ate sine 2080 Zanker Road Suite 203 San Jose Coli!o",la 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 Fox: 4084327235 =-:~::::.-: ._.:-:.:: _:.-:~ -:.:.w=::,.:-=_=::::::=--:::-==-=---:"'::~-_':',-,:;',,::-:= :::-:":'-:':':::':'=; .=.-.=:-.-:"-'::'_'-=' • .::=-.=:-:.:=---=-_ ...... _-=.--'-.... = __ ="""""'n.=...aJ ................ ~,"-.--'.--. .... --_ ..... _ ............... __ . ----.====~-=-.=-::-:=-=-=~:-:-:-==.-=.:.~:.-=- SOUND LEVELS 1100 East Meadow Drive / 1010 East Meadow Circle Draft Environmental Noise Assessment May 24, 2005 . Page 8 The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories:· a) Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; b) Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and c) 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 correspondin:g reactions of annoyance and dissatisfact~on. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance 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 will be . helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: a) Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only I dB in sound level cannot be perceived. b) . Outside ofthe laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. c.) A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. d) A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. e) Sound.Ievels do not combine arithmetically. Instead, they sum logarithmically, in a manner similar to the Richter sc·ale, used for measuring the intensity of earthquakes. Thefollowing two examples may help illustrate this: i) If the existing noise level at a particular 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 me~sures 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. * * * C h a r I e s M S a I t erA S SOC ate 5 Inc 2&80 Zonker Road SU;I.203 ·Son Jose Conlornla 95134 Tel: 408 432 7270 Fax: 408 432 7235 Planning Division Aaron Yakligian Project Leader Trumark Companies . 4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville, CA 94506-4668 Attachment F Cio/ of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment July 13, 2005 Subject: Below Market Rate (BMR)· Agreement for 75-Unit "Echelon" Residential Project at 1010 East Meadow Circle & 1101 East Meadow Drive; [ARB 05 Pl,N-00200l. Dear Mr. Yakligian: This letter summarizes the agre~m~nt between the Trurpark Companies (Trumark) and the Director of the Department of Planning. and . Conmmnity Environment (Director) regarding satisfactiol1 of theprovision~ of the CitY of Palo Alto's Below Market Rate (BMR) Program for the proposed 75-unitresidential condominium development (the· "Project") at 1010 East Meadow Circle & 1101 East Meadow Drive. . The BMR programrequiniments are contained in ProgramH-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 Architectural Review Board (ARB) is scheduled to review the Project on July 21,2005. 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 allowthe . 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 on~ 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 250 Hamilton Avenue p.o. Box 10250 PaIoAIto,CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 M15 /Z1)~- BMR ,Letter Agreement For Echelon Trumark Project July 13,2005 Page 2 of 5 constructed within the Project; Trumark has agreed to sell eleven (1 I) of the unit~ 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, ins'tead 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 :fill 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 pl~s dated Ju:p.e 6, 2005, we have agreed that Trumark will provide the 11 units described in this agreement as BMR units in full satisfaction of the I 1.25 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 final 'construction 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 designatiol)s, locations and floor plans for consistency with this agreement. However, Trumark and the City may agree, prior to the initi'ation 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 10catioU:s within the Project with the objective of the higher priced BMR units having better locations. Truniark Echelon Project Summary of 11 BMR Units and Sales Prices . # Of Floor Unit BMR Plan Bedroomsl Baths Numbers Sales Price Affordability Level Units 2 PI 2 BRs 1 2.5 Baths 40,41 $242,250 Lower Moderate 1,213 sf 3 P2 3 BRs 1 3 Baths 6,34,54 $275,850 Lower Moderate 1,386 sf 2 P2 3 BRs 1 3 Baths 63,67 $350,550 Higher Moderate 1,386 sf '2 P3 3 BRs 12.5 Baths 18,25 $275,850 Lower Moderate 1,625 sf 2 P3 3 BRs 12.5 Baths 58, 72 $350,550 Higher Moderate 1,625 sf 11 BMR Units Total -----_. -------------------_._--- H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7-12-0S,doc BMR Letter Agreement For Echelon Trumark Project July 13, 2005 Page 3 of5 . . 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 of' the moderate-income level (households with incomes between 100% and 120% ofthe mediap. 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 ofPebruary 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 andlorthe 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 hot 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 I 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:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark Echelon BMR Agnnt 7-J2-0S.doc BMR Letter Agre~ment For Echelon Trumark Project July 13, 2005 Page 4 of5 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 Agreement 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 ;Iocations 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 City. 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, begiIming 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 sh~ll be used. Program Administrator: The Department of Planning and Conununity Environment administers the BMR program. The City's current contract program admiriistrator 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:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7-12-0S.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. (. Director of Planning and Community Environment Trumark Companies agrees to provide the Below Market Rate units at the Echelon project at 1010 East Meadow Circle and 1101 East Meadow Drive, as described in this Letter of Agreement dated July 12,2005: By: /J~ ____ BY6~ Title: ~.~. Date: ~~ Title: ~. e£ Ardd. t~~ Date:· 7/')-1-/CJ&S" 17 Attachments: A) Description, Prices & Unit Numbers ofBMR Units, Dated July 8, 2005 B) Site Plan with Locations ofBMR Units C) BMR Sales Price Calculations D) Procedures and Instructions for the Sale of New BMR Units E) 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:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark Echelon BMR Agrmt 7·12·0S.doc Type & Total # of . Floor Units (& Plan Percent out of7S Units) Plan 1 24 units 32.0% Plan 2 24 units 32.0% Plan 3 27 units 36.0% TOTALS 75 100% Description, Prices & Unit Numbers ofBMR·Units -Final: Dated July 8, 2005 Trumark Echelon Project; 75 Condo Townhouses 1010 East Meadow Circle; 1101 East Meadow Drive; ARB.OS PLN-00200· Exact No. ofBMR Units by Distribution Actual Squa,re Description Affordability Level ofBMR BMR Units Footage of & Address Qr Lower· Higher Units Based & Percent Living Unit Numbers Moderate . Moderate on Market of Total . Space Income Income Units BMR Units (90% of AMI) (110% of AMI) -- 3.60 2 1,213 2 BRs / 2.5 Baths 2 (18.2%) 40,41 ----.. -- 3.60 5 1,386 3 BRs 13 Baths 3 (45.5%) 6,34,54,63,67 -- 2 4.05 4 1,625 3 BRs /2.5 Baths 2 (36.4%) 18,25,58,72 2 11.25 11 15,856 ---7 4 (100%) (Total all 11 BMRs) 1) Required Number of BMR Units is 11.250 Units (75 total units x 15% = 11.250 units) BMRSales Price $242,250 $309,500 $275,850 $350,550 $275,850 $350,550 $3,265,950 2) The total living space in the 11 BMR units equals 15,856 square feet. Total living square feet in all 75 units equals 106,251 square feet. The BMR square footage equals 14.9% of the 106,251 total square footage; so this selection of 11 units satisfies the 11.25 unit BMR requirement. . 3) Two-thirds (or at least 7) of the 11 BMR units· must be priced at the Luwer Moderate Income level; the remaining 4 units may be priced at the Higher Moderate Income level. . I I >-~ ~ () S g r-+ > o Echelon BMR Homes ~-, ,,"'-'. 0'" " ':-' ". ~r,~\ :~ ..• \,,;.:'.'~':/' '(;:' " , rh » $. ~ nn ):.> o ~ 'F o ::v n r:-tpl -.! -, ; , , ATTACHMENT B .. '. , ~",/ :;-;:--=--'--~;> J .~.r // : ! , .x ,~/ /"< ,0 Attachment B Mix. Plan. Size, BedlBath, Price (2) PI: 1,213 sf, 2bdl2.5ba, $242,250 (3) P2: 1,386 sf, 3bdl3ba, $275,850 (2) P2: 1,386 sf, 3bdl3ba, $350,550 (2) P3: 1,625 sf, 3bdl2.5ba, $275,850 (2) P3: 1,625 sf, 3bdl2.5ba, $350,550 '~"" ---'~-"------' EAST M[ADOW DRIVE TrUDlark Companies Date: To: From: Attachment C PLANNING DIVISION Memorandum April 29, 2005 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 buy~rs 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 ~evels of affordability for BMR ownership units, as' shown below: . Studio Units I-bedroom units 2-bedroom units 3-bedroom units 4-bedroom units Attachments: Lower Moderate Income 80% to 1000/0 AMI Units $175,100 $208,600 $242,250 $275,850 $302,750 Higher Moderate Income 1000/0 to 120% AMI Units $227,300 $268,450 $309,500 $350,550 $383,450 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:\DOC\BMR Program\Att C BMR Price Cover Memo 4-05.doc Attachment C City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program Prices for New BMRUnits for Households at 80% to 1000/0 of Median Income Revised April 2005 Persons In 80% of Cou nty 100% of County Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of • Area Median Area Median Household Incorrie Income Median Income 1 $59,100 $73,850 $149,000 -$201,200 2 $67,500 $84,400 $178,700 -.$238,500 3 $75,950 $94,950 $208,600 -$275,900 4 $84,400 $105,500 $238,500 -$313,200 5 $91,150 $113,950 $262,400 -$343,100 Assumed Household Size BMR Unit Price for Unit Type Unit Type (Assumes 90% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type) 1 Studio 2 1 Bedroom 3 2 Bedrooms 4 3 Bedrooms 5 4 Bedrooms VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS: Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05) Annualized Rates: Interest Rates (As of 4/1105) Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05) Property Taxes Total Effective Interest Rate Number of Monthly Payments: Loan-To-Value (5% down payment): 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 $175,100 $208,600 $242,250 $275,850 $302,750 $105,500 6.00% 0.89% 1.25% 8.14% 360 95% $425 Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & main~enance allowance, fire insurance) 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 1000/0 to 1200/0 of Median Income Revised April 2005 Persons In 100% of 120% of County Range of Affordable Prices at 100% to 120% County Area Area Median Household Median Income Income of Median Income . 1 $73,850 $88,600 $201,200 -$253,400 2 $84,400 $101,300 $238,500. -$298,400 3 $94,950 $113,950 $275,900 -$343,100 4 $105,500 $126,600 $313,200 -$387,900 5 $113,950 . $136,750 _'_~343, 100 -_ $423,800 Assumed Household Size for . BMR Unit Price Unit Type Unit Type (Assumes 110% of Area Median Income & Midpoint Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type) 1 Studio $227,300 2 1 Bedroom .$268,450 3 2 Bedrooms $309,500 A 3 Bedrooms $350,550 5 4 Bedrooms $383,450 ------------------ VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS: Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05) . Annualized Rates: $105,500 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 6.00% 0.89% 1.25% 8.14% 360 95% $425 . Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance, property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance & fire insurance) 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 (BMR) Ownership Units This document provides an overview of the City of Palo Alto's policies and procedures for the selection of buyers and the sales of newly constructed 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 ofthe 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 (P ARC). 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 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 fonn 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 ofthe 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 legal document or may be incorporated into the text ofthe 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 ofBMR Units to a Qualified Purchaser Designated by the City: The BMR 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:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 1 of6 Attachment D: BMR Program Policies and Procedures 2003:01 Date: May 6, 2003 Rev: Jan. 7, 2005 4) Inspection & Acceptance ofBMR Unites): Representatives of the City and P ARC 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 ea~h BMR unit meets the standards of construction and fmishing, as required by the BMR Agreement. This inspection is independent of the City's inspections for Building Codes and other Plaiming 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 ofthe 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 Gra,nt 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 BMR unit from the Developer to the Designated BMR Buyer. Also, prior to closing PARC obtains the Designated BMR Buyer's signature on th€:: 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, P ARC 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 P ARC. In general, the Developer shall cooperate fully with the City, P AHC 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 ofthe City'sBMR documents. 6) Provision of Project Information: The Developer, and its sales and marketing agents, shall cooperate fully with the City and P ARC to accomplish the sale of each BMR unit to a Designated BMR Buyer. The Developer, or its sales agent, shall provide to P ARC, (for distribution to interested BMR H:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 3 of6 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 P ABC to close of escrow could extend from fbur to five months. Close cooperation betWeen the Developer, the Developer's sales agent and P ARC is necessary in order for the process to proceed smoothly. 10) Waiting List for BMR Ownership Units: P ARC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units. The waiting list is 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 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, P ARC 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, P AHC 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 P ARC 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 PARC with contacts with its 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 P ARC, 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 P ABC 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) P AHC 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:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\2003-01 Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 5 of6 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 right 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 assignm,ent 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, 25·0 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 725 Alma 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 Qr 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 p·arty. 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 Structur~l 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 ofthe 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 ofthe date of execution or recordation hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) inunediately 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 s~m 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, ~eilings 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 tom; 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. ATTA.CHMENT 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 Califonua. 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 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. ill 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 pan 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 :qIortgage. ' The City, or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from Owner al1 costs incurred in curing any such default. ill 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 exceediI1g 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 offusurance and Condemnation Proceeds. ill 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 surpius of proceeds so distributed remaining after'payment 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, CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT . (Civil Code Sec. 1189) STATE OF ) COUNTY OF ) ATTACHMENT E 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 hislher/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. 8/93) 7 Reg. THE LEAGUE 'OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO Attachment G ~VtJX;t:tJ @) fTG ~ '/1/'1 JpS- 457 KINGSLEY AVENUE. PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 94301.415/327-9148 November 9,2005 To: Planning and Transportation Commission The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto wishes to state its strong support ofthe 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 oftime 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 will 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 #101 and San Antonio, and within about a half- mile of the proposed Campus for Jewish Life, as well as within easy distance ofthe 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. Sin~erelY, -/ _ ./ ~Pi-'i~~~ 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 i h 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 were 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 were 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. ill 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.cityofpaloalto.org/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 10f3 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-l 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 CUP 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. Streetscape Guidelines 1. Emphasize the comers of the street. Name them, and give each one an individual character using street furniture, landscaping, lighting and art. 2. Provide a 10-foot wide sidewalk, or at least 8 feet of clear space between 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 program 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 20f3 Policy Considerations 1. Consider incentives for open space: increased floor area ratio and density, reduced parking, transfer of development rights, height increase. 2. Consider incentives for affordable and attainable housing. 3. Consider incentives for universal design (accessible housing). 4. Allow smaller front setbacks in exchange for more common open space behind. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Limit massing by daylight plane, number of stories and FAR, not absolute height limit. 8. Allow zero lot line development. 9. Explore hotels as a conditional use on limited sites. 10. Negotiate with the Water District to use the right of way for a bike pedestrian walkway. 11. Use public art for fencing. 12. Provide transit connections by city shuttle. Negotiate with VTA for bus service. 13. Adopt park dedication ordinance to enable parkland requirement. 14. Encourage parcel consolidation while planning for incremental change. 15. Conduct a study for the area that considers all impacts to City services, utilities and infrastructure, schools, etc. from City development. 16. Provide year round connection and signage to Baylands over Hwy 101. Page 3 of3