HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 142-06C ty Ma ager
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
FEBRU_~Y 13, 2006 CMR: 142:06
928, 940, AND 1180 EAST MEADOW DRIVE [05PLN-00423]: REQUEST
BY WARMINGTON HOMES ON BEHALF OF WAiLMINGTON PALO
.~LTO ASSOC. LP FOR A FINAL MAP FOR A PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAP IS REQUIRED IN
ORDER TO MERGE THREE PARCELS (APPROXIMATELY 4.4
ACRES) AND CREATE 76 CONDOMINIUM ¯ UNITS.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT.
ZONE DISTRICT: RESEARCH OFFICE AND LIMITED
MANUFACTURING (ROLM).
RECOMMENDATION
Staffreconmaends that the City Council approve the proposed Final Map to merge three parcels
(approximately 4.4 acres) and create 76 condominium units because the map satisfies the
approval conditions for the Vesting Tentative Map. Staff further reconmaends that the City
Council approve the street names proposed by the Palo Alto Historical Association (Attaclmaent
A). Standards of review require that Council must approve the Final Map as long as it is
consistent with the approved Vesting Tentative Map.
BACKGROUND
At the public hearing held on Monday, January 24, 2005, the City Council voted to accept staff
and the Planning and Transportation Co~mnission’s recommendation to approve the Vesting
Tentative Map with the addition of the following condition of approval:
"A phase II environmental site assessment, including the results of sampling and
analysis of soils and ground water and the inclusion of any remediation measures
deemed necessary, shall be completed following demolition of all buildings on
site. The applicant shall submit a copy of this document for review by the
Plamaing Division."
CMR:142:06 Page 1 of 2
DISCUSSION
The new condition was added to Section 6 of the Summary of Land Use Action docmnent
(Attachment B), The Phase II Enviromnental Site Assessment was submitted by the applicant
and reviewed by Plam~ing Division staff. The assessment concluded that the soil and ~ound
water tests indicate that the levels of possible contaminants are within the typical range of
backgound concentrations for the San Francisco Bay Area and that no further testing is required.
Also attached is a street name map. In compliance with City ofPalo Alto’s policy a~d
procedures, the Palo Alto Historical Association has provided suggestions for names of the new
streets within the development. These names have been submitted for Council review and
approval.
PREPARED BY:
DEP:~RTMENT HEAD:
CITY M.~NAGER APPROVAL:
RUSS REICH
Director of Plam~ing and Conwnunity Enviromnent
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Street name map
B.Record of Land Use Action and cover letter January 24, 2005.
C.City Council Meeting Minutes from Jaauary 24, 2005
E.Final Map (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Greg Sampson, Warmington Homes, Project Applicant
CMR: 142:06 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
February 8, 2005
Garrett Hinds
Trumark Companies
4185 Black_hawk Plaza Circle. Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506-4668
Cityof Palo Alto
Department q~ Planning and
Communiflj Environment
Attachment B
SI_~3-ECT:928, 940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive--Multi-Family Residential Infffll
Development; 04-PM-01
Planning DMsion Dear :XS-. Hinds:
On Monday, January 24, 2005, the City Council conditionally approved the Vestin~ Tentative Mao
application 04-PM-01, pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 21.13 and 21.20
and the California Government Code Section 664.74. At this hearing, the Ciw Council included an
additional approval condition, which has been documented as condition No. 4 (in italics) in Section 6of the Record qf the Council qf the Cin", of Palo Aho Land L~e Action (SEE attached):
A Phase H environmental site assessmem, including the resuhs of sampling and
analysis qf soils and gro~md water and ~he inclusion of any remediation
measures deemed necessa~T, shall be completed_following demolition of al!
buildings on site. The applicam shall submiz a cop); of zhis document for rm.’iew
by zhe Planning Division.
There are now a total of eighteen (!8) approvat conditions related to this map, as all other
recommended project conditions remained unattered~ and only their numberm.~ has been adjusted
accordingly (SEE attached).
A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting Tentative Map, al! requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance (P~a2MC 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with
the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Di~dsion Within vxo years of the Vesting
Tentative Map approval date. Please refer to the FinalMap Approval and Term of Approval sections
within the attached document.
Should you have an?, questions regarding this City Council action, please contact me at (650)~
2189.
Sincerel?,
Planner
Anachmen[
cc:7"nomas Morse, ProjectEnNneer
James Baer, Premier Properties Mmnage~,ent
FILE (Chris Magnusson, Pr~ect Planner)250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.244i
650.329.2154 fax
APPROVAL NO. 2004-9
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 928, 940, & 1180 EAST MEADOW
DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 04-PM-01
(TRUMARK COMPANIES, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on January 24, 2005, the City Counci! of the
City of Pa!o Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge three
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 76 condomini~&m um_its, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Pa!o Alto ("City Council") finds, dete_~P~ines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves
merging the three existing parcels into one developable site, the
demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of 76
condominium units. The density of this residential ~-~7~
development would be 17.3 dwelling units per acre, under the
maximum limitation set by the zone district (per Pa!o Alto
Municipal Code (Pg!~C) Chapter 18.24, ~M-30 regulations) of 30
dwelling units per acre. Of the tota! us_its proposed, twelve (12)
shall be dedicated as Below Market Rate (B_WAR_) units. Seven (7)
separate f!oor plans are proposed within six (6) ti~p_es of multi-
unit cond0mini~m buildings. Per each ~nit, the buildings house two
floors constructed above the garage. No building is proposed
taller than the maximum height limit of 35 feet, and a!ong the
southern boundary, building height steps upward from approximately
23 feet. The unit sizes, proposed from two to three bedrooms,
range from the smallest at 1,227 s.f. to the largest at 1,580 s.f.,
not including garage space.
B The Vesting Tentative Map plan set ~nc=u@es
information on the ex{st~nm_ -.._ parcels and onsite cond{t{ons_ _ _ (Sheet
3); the layout of new private streets and wa!kways, including the
b~±~n~ with .__~@!VA@U~m ~n{ts, car wash structure, and
guest parking spaces (Sheets ~ -~ ¯_ =n@ 5), utility information (Sheet
6);and cross-sections of new streets and walkways (Sheets 7 and
8).These drawings are in com_m!iance with the applicable provisions
of the ’~ ’s ~-~C~y Subdivision Ordinance. These plans co__~=±n al!
information and notations required to be sho~_ on a Vesting
Tentative Map (per P~!~C Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as
conform to the desi_c~_ re_quirements concerning the creation of !ors,
streets, wa!k~ays, and similar features (Pg~C 21.20). The plan set
also confo_~ms to the approved ARB site m!~n, provided as reference.
Because the is to create more than four condomini~&m units,
this recrdest c~_.no~ be processed _ 4 ~ ,_=c~m±n!strativelv through the
Director and re.aires review by :~.e Commission and City Council
approval (P~C 21.08.010).
C. ~RB approval, granted by the Director of P!ar~_ing and
Community Enviroriment on October 12,2004, addressed the project’s
compliance with zoning and architectural regulations. The Vesting
Tentative Hap application has been reviewed by staff and City
departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other
codes and ordinances and received P!a_n_ning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) review on December 8, 2004. The Commission
recommended approva! on a 5-1-1-0 vote.
D. At the public hearing on January 24, 2005, the City
Council included an additional approval condition, which has been
documented as condition No. 4 (in italics) in Section 6 of this
doc~&ment. ~ ~ other reco~&mended con@_z!ons remained ~_a!tered, and
only their n~u-mbering has been adjusted accordingly.
SECTION 2.Enviro_~_mental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that it is categorically
exempt from the California Envirom_mental Quality Act (CEQA.) per
section 15332--T~-~{~ development projects, in order to _qualify
for this exemption, a project must meet al! of the stated criteria
under this section:
(a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and all applicable general plan policies as well
as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b)_,ne proposed deve!opment occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantia!ly
surrounded by urban uses;
(c)The project site has no value as habitat rot endangered, rare
or threatened species;
(d)Approva! of the project would not result in any simm_ificant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
crua!ity; and
(e)The site can be ade~uate!y served by all required utilities
and public services.
This residentia! infi!l-deve!opment project confo_~ms to the
criteria indicated above in the following ways:
(a) This project complies with all other applicable Comprehensive
Plan and zoning regulations, and no exceptions to any site
deve!opment regulations accompany this re_quest for a
recommendation;
(b)The site is 4.4 acres in size, wel! within the City limits in
a developed area, and is surrounded by both residential and
commercia! uses;
(c)No habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other
sensitive species is present on site, as the site is
2
currently developed with commercial/light industrial
buildings and surface parking areas;
(d) No increases in traffic or noise or significant effects to
air or water quality would result in developing this site for
residentia! use; and
(e)Existing infrastructure serves the three buildings on site,
and upgrades to various utilities will occur in constructing
the new residential units and installing the site
landscaping.
in order to fully assess the project’s CEQA compliance
and to particularly address the categories listed under criterion
(a-e) above, staff re_cfuested and evaluated studies prepared by
professional consultants. The doc~ments provided include: (!)
trip generation estimates--by Fehr & Peers dated August 13, 2004;
(2) a noise im_mact summary--by Charles M. Sutter Associates dated
March 18, 2004; (3) an air ~aaiity assessment-by Mindigo &
Associates dated March 18, 2004; and(4) a storm water quality
evaluation-by BKF Engineers dated March 19, 2004. in addition,
the following were submitted and evaluated: a tree inventory and
evaluation-by Arbor Resources dated March 17, 2004; and a
geotecb~ica! feasibility investigation report and a phase i
envirom_mental site assessment-by Lo~ney Associates dated March
24, 2004. All studies reviewed by staff are contained within the
project file for viewing upon request.
The studies provided pertained to traffic, noise, air and
watek quality, and the applicability of constructing residences on
this location in terms of existing soils/geotecb~icai conditions
and assessment to dete~m, ine the presence of envirom_menta!/hazardous
conditions. Staff has made the following conclusions in regard to
the project’s overall environmental review:
Less vehicle trips will occur in com_marison to the existing
uses on site Tn regard to the existing bu~_e~ngs using
Single-Tenant Office rates ~ " " ~ ~,_ca~_cu±a~es _ 099 daily :rips, ~68
_~i~, and 168 P}’., peak-hour trips, in com_marison, the Genera!
Office rates would be i 203 daily ~’ _ .......,~ps, 168 ~m, and 177 ~m
peak-hour trims For the .~ew ~r~7 r~=,~=Tr~n~=,~+- the
rates would be 451 daily trips, 34 .~i5, and 40 PH peak-hour
trips.
No noise generating features wil! be created on site (as air
conditioning units are optional and placement can be
controlled), in addition, less traffic noise would occur as
fewer trips would be generated;
Less air pollution would occur due to a decrease in the
generation of vehicle trips, and no other po!lutant sources
would be generated on site;
No impacts to storm water or potable water _quality
would occur, as only enhancements to each would occur in
redeve!oping the site for residential use. New construction
would involve the creation of more permeable surface area;
installation of surface treatment controls (such as grass
swa!es 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 se_ec~ed would be removed
Additiona! trees, shrubs, and other plant materials would be
installed per the tree inventory/evaluation and preliminary
landscape plan, endorsed by the C~ty’s Managing Arborist and
in compliance with the City’s Tree Tecb=~ica! Manua!;
No significant im_~acts would result from the construction of
this project under the existing soi!s/geotec~ica! conditions
of the site. The submitted geotecb-~ica! feasibility
investigation makes only suggestions related to construction
teci~i_cIues; and
Residential deve!opment would be compatible with the
onsite environmental conditions, as verifiable by the phase
environmenta! site assessment. This assessment indicates that
no hazardous materia! incidents have been reported in ~_e site
vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the site.
SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
~ao ~ it makes any- of the following findings(California
Goverm~ent Code Section 66474):
I That ~’~.~_.~..e proposed map is not consisten~ ~dth applicable
and smec",~c m!ans as smec~_,_~e~ ~m 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 -’ ~ ~__cons,_s~ena with applicable ~enera! and speci~;c
plans :
The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
related to the change in land use (housing element and policies L-
7, L-47, and H-3), below market rate units (BI~R program, policy H-2
and programs K-l, H-3, and H-38), sustainable/green building design
(Goa! H-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and progr&m H-69), shared
recreational use (policy T-I), open space!amenities (policies N-!5
and N-22), and relationship to adjacent properties (policies N-39,
N-40, and N-42). in addition, this design furthers the intent of
Com_mrehensive Plan Policy L-47, which indicates that the East
Meadow Circle Area should be considered as a for
density housing that provides a transition between existing
housing and nearby industrial development.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the tlvpe
of development :
The site is !ocated within the Limited
industria!/Research Park (LM) District, w~h existing development
on three individua! oarce!s This multiple-family resmee=.tia!
~{~77 project is a suitable use at this:octagon and oe_-~m~ =sib!e
under the existing zone district ~nd sumoo_:e@ by land use policies
within the Comprehensive Plan, as mne=ca~e@ above in Finding No. 2.
The design promotes ha_~monious transitions in scale and character
between different designated land uses in that it would now serve
as a transition between existing co,mercia! 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 76 condominium units, in
doing so, the site would remain within the permissible density
al!owed by the current LM zone district, which dictates com_m!iance
with ~-30 site deve!opment regulations: A maximum site ~ ’~@ens~y of
132 tota! units or 30 dwelling units per acre. As proposed, this
map wou!e enact 76 ewe!!~ng units, an amount under the maxim~&m
pe~issib!e. Moreover, Comprehensive Plan policy L-47 indicates
the East Meadow Circle .Area be considered as a po~en~=a= site for
higher density housing.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
i_~mrovements are likely to cause substamtial environmental
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat:
The merger ofp~ce±s-~ ~ &nd creation of condominium -~n~ts__
wi!l not cause envirop~menta± eamage or injure fish, wildlife, or
their habitat, as no habitat for~endangered, rare, threatened, or
other sensitive species is present on site. As this project has
been determined to qualify as an in-fill development project ~nder
CEQA section ±~332 ~ ~ ’~ ~, _.~~(~e~a~±e~ in Section 2 above) all ~=w
~eve~opmen: would occur w~thin the areas of pre-existing
development, which currently consists of co~merciai and/or light
industria! buildings and surface parking areas.
6. That
improvements is
the design of the subdivision or t~_~_ e of
to cause serious public health problems:
The merger of parcels ~nd creation of condomini’~m m~!ts
will not cause serious public health problems, as no increases in
traffic or noise or significant effects to air or water quality~_’’res!Qen~al usewould result in Qeve!om~ng this smte for ’ " =’.
7. T_hat the design of the subdivision or the of
improvements m-ill conflict with easements, ac~_uired by the public
at large, for access through or use of, pro_merty md 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, wi!l be provided, and that these will be
e_~uivalent 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 com_metent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at has ac_cruired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The new site design wil! not conflict with pre-existing
easements in that, it has been determined that the removal of the
existing 5-foot Public Utility Easement is acceptable per the
Utilities Department, and the existing !0-foot embankment easement
shal! be maintained. The 5-foot Public Utility Easement is
referenced on Sheet 3 of the Vesting Tentative Hap plan set, and
the !0-foot embankment easement is referenced on Sheets 3 and 4.
SECTION 4.Vesting Tentative Hap Approva! Granted.
Vesting Tentative ~Hap approval is granted by the City Counci! ~nder
Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code ("P.<MC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Goverm_.maent Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION. 5.Fina! Map Approva!..
The Fina! Hap s,~bmitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Balo Alto shall be in substantia!
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF
Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled ~Vesting Tentative Hap:
East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8 pages, dated and received
November 29,.2004, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
of approval in Section 6.
6
~__~!±e in the Department of Planning~_ copy of t~s mam is on
and Community Environment, Current Planning Division.
Within two years of the approval date of the Vesting
Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision er 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 Hap as conditionally approved, and in com_m!i&nce with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and P~!~C Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (P~!!C Section 2!.16.0!0[a]).
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approva!.
Department of Plar~ning and Community Environment
Planning Division
!. A. Fi_~na,l Hap, in conformance with the amproved_ Ves
Tentative Ham_, al! ,ecu_~men~s ~-_ ~=. ~ of the Subdivision Or~!n~nc
Section 2!.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 (P!-!~C 2!.!3.020[c]).
2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)
shal! be submitted for review at the time o{ Final Map submittal.
3. The applicant shall a~nere to the re~airements of the
Be!ow Market Rate (BI~) Letter Amreeme~t attached to the staff
report. In addition, a fo_rmal B_NiR Agreement, including the
identi~c=~.on-~ of the locations Of the B~ u~.~.its ~nd provisions for
their sale, shal! be prepared in a fo_rm satisfactory to the City
Attorney, executed by Tr~mmark and the City, and recorded against
the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the
Subdivision immrovement Agreement.
~. "~ mhase ~ enviroN_mental ~{te assessment, £nC.-UQ~-n~ the
results of samp!in~ and analysis of soils and ground water and the
~-~.~S~4~’~7~ 4~ Of ~ny- " ~eme~~ m~ -~ ..... measures aee~,,e~" ~ ~ necessary, shal~,_ ~=~
completed following demolition of all buildings on site. The
applicant shall submit a copy of this document for review by the
P!anminM Division.
Prier to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
5. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
Tenu=~mve Map approved plans andwith the ~_RB and the Vesting
conditions.
Department of Utilities
6. in consultation with the Departments of Utilities and
Planning and Community Envirom~nent, Public Utility Easements for
installation and maintenance of water meters, gas lines, gas
meters, and pad-mounted transformers with associated suf0structures
shall be designated on the Fina! Map.
Department Of Public Works
Engineering Division
7. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary
and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as desi_cazated by the
Public Works Department.
8. The applicant shall arr&nge 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 o9 all work required and related to
offsite improvements. The im_mrovement plans must be com_m!eted and
approved by the City prior to submitta! of the Final Hap.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
9. Prior to Fina! Map approva!, the applicant shall enter
into a Subdivision improvement Agreement.This agreement is
re~ired to secure Como!iance with the ~’ ~’_ conQ~_~ions of ~ and
Vesting Tentative Map approvals and the security of on and offsite
improvements Improvement plans shall be subm~_~e~ in relate_on ~o
:n=s agreement. No grading or building permits sna!! be assue~
until the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara,
Office of the County Clerk-Recorder.
Designation on Improvement Plans
!0. All sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering the site
shal! be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works
standards. Additional public street i_m_mrovements shal! be made, as
dete_~mined by Public Works Engineering.
~ ~nv ~nused driveways sh=±l be removed and res!aced with
curb and ~tter.
12. 9~n 9~A accessible/compliant curb r~mp_ shal! be re~dired
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drives.
13. Clear visibility at street co~ners shall be maintained
for an ade~aate distance at a minimum hei~m~ of 2.5 feet above
grade, per City s~anaa,~s.
14. A Stop Control (i.e., stop sign, center!ine tail, ~d a
Stop bar) at each of the two access ~r!vew=ys ozz of ~=s~ Meadow
Drive be designated per Ca!trans Manual on Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) .
15. Al! crosswalks shall have painted white edge lines per
!_~UTCD s~a,.~aras
16. A painted yellow centerline shall be desi~ated at the
turn between units nos. 36 and 26 per !~GTCD standards.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
17. This property is in a special flood hazard area and
notation of ~ ’s ammear _ .~nl shal!__on the recorded F=_.a~ ~ MaD
18. The s~3_bdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording
of the Fina! Hap to guarantee the completion of the on and offsite
condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shal! be
determined by the P!a~ning, Utilities, and Public Works
Departments.
SECTION 7.Term of Approval.
Vesting Tentative Map ~ln ~..... cond=~:ons of approva! of the
Vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a
Final MaD (P~C Section 2!.!6.0!0[c]).
Unless a Final Hap is filed, and al! 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 Hap shall expire and all proceedings shall
te_rminate. Thereafter, no Final Hap shall be filed without first
processing a Tentative Map (P~I~C Section 21.16.0!0[d]).
PASSED: 9-0.
AYES: All.
NOES: None.
.~SSENT: None.
_ABSTENTIONS: None.
ATTEST
Cit~i C!e_~k’
AP PR:0~ED : ~
~Direc~or o~P!anning and
Co.,n’~muni ty Envirorkment
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers<, Surveyors, and P!as~ners
~_~!ee "Vesting Tentative Hap: East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8
pages, dated and received November 29, 2004.
!0
ATTACHMENT C
Special Meeting
3anuary 24, 2005
1.Presentation from Foothills/DeAnza Community College District ...........408
2.Appointment of Candidates to the Library Advisory Commission ..........408
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................409
Resolution 8498 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management
Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 8082 and Amended by Resolution
Nos. 8244, 8253 and 8346, to Add the City Of Palo Alto’s PERS
Choice/PORAC Medical Incentive Plan Through June 30, 2007" ............409
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C05109546 Between the City of
Palo Alto and Economic and Social Opportunities, Inc. (ESO) for
$30,000 in Additional Funding to be Allocated During Fiscal Year
2004/05 Under the Community Development Block Grant Program ......410
Public Hearing: Considering a Request by Trumark Companies on
Behalf of 928 E. Meadow Partners, et. al. for a Vesting Tentative Map
for a Proposed Residential Infill Development Located at 928, 940, and
1180 East Meadow Drive. This Map is Required in Order to Merge
Three Parcels (Approx. 4.4 acres) and Create 76 Condominium Units.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act Per Section 15332--Infill Development
Projects. Zone District: LM. [04-PM-01. ...........................................410
Update to the Long Range Financial Plan from the Finance Committee
Meeting of December 14, 2004 .......................................................420
Finance Committee Recommendation regarding Criteria for
Prioritization of Services from Finance Committee Meeting of
December 14, 2004 .......................................................................427
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .......................430
01/24/05 98-406
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. C05109546 Between the City of
Palo Alto and Economic and Social Opportunities, Inc. (ESO) for
$30,000 in Additional Funding to be Allocated During Fiscal Year
2004/05 Under the Community Development Block Grant Program
MOTION PASSED 8-0, Morton absent.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
*5.Public Hearing: Considering a Request by Trumark Companies on
Behalf of 928 E. Meadow Partners, et. al. for a Vesting Tentative Map
for a Proposed Residential Infill Development Located at 928, 940, and
1180 East Meadow Drive. This Map is Required in Order to Merge
Three Parcels (Approx. 4.4 acres) and Create 76 Condominium Units.
Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act Per Section 15332--Infill Development
Projects. Zone District: LM. [04-PM-01]. (zten~ continued from 0I/I0/05)
*This item is quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s Disclosure Policy
Director of Planning and Community Environment Steve Emslie said the
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Policy L-47 addressed the East Meadow
Circle area, which specifically encouraged higher density housing to create a
better transition to the existing single-family neighborhoods. The project was
located in the LM Zone District, which referenced multi-family development
standards for RM-30, and complied in terms of density, coverage and height.
A preliminary application was submitted to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) in December 2003, reviewed in .lune 2004, and approved in October
2004. The item before the Council that evening required a review and
approval of the subdivision map findings in the staff report (CMR:140:05).
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provided a number of
processes for identifying and disclosing environmental impacts. The
categorical exemption used for the proposed project was recently added by
the State of California to encourage redevelopment of sites within developed
areas using existing infrastructure. In order to make the findings, several
studies were required: 1) traffic comparison of trips on a daily basis and
during the morning/afternoon peak hour; 2) noise impacts; 3) air quality;
and 4) hazardous materials. A soils report was conducted that determined
the site was buildable based on the current geotechnical conditions, which
were incorporated into the ARB’s approval. The proposed project was
included in the current nexus study, which would analyze the potential of
assessing a fee on the Charleston Corridor to fund improvements.
Planning and Transportation Commissioner Lee I. Lippert relayed to the
Council comments made at the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) meeting. He said the project created a transition that was discussed
01/24/05 98-410
in the Comp Plan between R1 and the light industrial, and the LM zone. He
also noted the project met several important overall Comp Plan goals.
Hayor Burch said the item was quasi-judicial and subject to Council’s
disclosure.
Council Member Morton said he had nothing to’disclose.
Council Member Cordell said she attended a meeting at the request of Robin
Yemens, who worked with the developer. She indicated she had learned
nothing new.
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing open at 7:18 p.m.
Ken Brownlee, 36:[7 Louis Road, requested the Council withhold the approval
of the merged three lots until the plan was significantly reduced in density.
While he welcomed the conversion of the light industrial buildings to
residential use, he felt that 76 three-story condominiums in his quiet
neighborhood of single family homes was excessive.
Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, said Trumark had developed high
quality, attainably priced neighborhoods in and around the Bay Area for
almost 20 years. The developer worked closely with the neighbors and
community leaders to create an appropriate housing opportunity. The
project was in close proximity to City parks, schools, public transportation,
freeway access, and shopping. The current LM zoning allowed for residential
use, as well as higher density housing. The site consisted of three existing
office buildings totaling approximately 87,000 square feet, of which 900
square feet was presently occupied. The site was 85 percent impervious due
to the massive rooftops and surface parking, and was on an existing bus
route that ran along East Meadow Drive. The site was surrounded by existing
tall mature trees, which would be preserved along East Meadow Drive in
keeping with the streetscape feeling, and along the south edge to work as a
natural buffer to maintain its setback and the privacy of the six adjacent
single-family neighbors. The project did not require any variances and was
within the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) guidelines. Each home would have a two-
car garage with extra storage, two to three bedrooms, and seven different
floor plans ranging from :[,227 square feet to 1,580 square feet. Fifteen
percent of the homes (:[2 in total) would be built and then priced at Below
Market Rate (BMR) prices per the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). The
BMR units would be equally dispersed and fairly represent the mix of each
floor plan offered. Aggressive "green building" guidelines had also been
established in the project, which would reduce housing expenses for owners,
including a photovoltaic system that would reduce homeowner association
costs for electricity. Other sustainable applications included recycling the
01/24/05 98-4:[
demolition and construction waste materials, exceeding Title 24 standards
by 15 percent, the use of certified lumber products, and meeting all C-3
State and City drainage standards.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, expressed support for the proposed
project and was pleased to see that the Comp Plan and the Housing Element
had a BMR requirement. She commended City staff, the ARB and the P&TC
for all their hard work.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, said he hoped the developer would contact
a number of neighbors whose properties were adjacent to the proposed
project. He believed it was a reasonable project; however, he had concerns
about traffic. He suggested applying the impact fees towards putting a traffic
light at East Meadow Drive and Fabian Way.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said he was pleased to hear that a soils
analysis would be conducted in Phase Two. He suggested a formal
requirement be made for a soils analysis and additional toxic study. He
expressed concern about the City ignoring CEQA and not conducting a traffic
study. He expressed support for the project, believed it was good use of the
site, and was glad to see that the BMR units were typical of the rest of the
units and would be dispersed throughout the development.
.]eft Rensch, 74! Chimalus Drive, expressed support for the proposed project
with its current density. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the
tentative map.
.Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, expressed concern that the project had not
undergone a thorough environmental checklist review even though
hazardous chemicals had previously been used on the site. She concurred
that a formal requirement be made for a soils analysis and toxic study.
Mr. Hinds said the Phase One Hazardous Materials Study recognized that
hazardous materials were stored at the property for a number of years.
Since then, those materials had been cleaned up. He was in agreement that
a written requirement for a Phase Two soils analysis study was appropriate
and would be conducted if it were deemed necessary.
Council Member Mossar said she understood the individual homeowners
would be given the option of having a photovoltaic system upon purchase.
She asked how that would be handled for the BMR units.
Mr. Hinds said he had not given it much thought.
Council Member Mossar said it would seem advantageous for someone who
was purchasing a BMR unit to have the benefit of a lower utility bill.
01/24/05 98-412
Mayor Burch declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:45 p.m.
City Manager Frank Benest said he believed it would be helpful if the City
Attorney outlined the decision the Council was required that evening.
City Attorney Gary Baum said the Tentative Map, not the whole project, was
the only item before the Council that evening. The Government Code and
the Subdivision Map Act statutorily limited under what conditions the Council
could deny such a project. Grounds for denial were limited to: 1) whether
the proposed map was consistent with the Comp Plan; 2) whether the site
was physically suitable for the type of development and density proposed; 3)
whether there was a substantial environmental impact that would injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat; 4) whether the subdivision was likely to cause
serious public health problems; and 5) where there was an issue with public
easements.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked if the Council were to approve the Tentative
Map, was it appropriate and timely to entertain certain requirements.
Mr. Baum said there were a number of restrictions on adding conditions;
however, if related to the subdivision map they could be added.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg asked whether the requirement of a soils analysis was
appropriate for that evening, or would it come up at a later time.
Mr. Baum said he believed requiring a Phase Two study and an appropriate
remediation was acceptable.
Mr, Emslie said that was correct,
Vice Mayor Kleinberg queried whether the timing was appropriate for that
evening.
Mr. Baum said yes.
Council Member Morton expressed concern about a traffic light at East
Meadow Drive and Fabian Way, and believed it to be a part of the safety and
general well being of the community. He asked whether that was going too
far.
Mr. Baum said the Council would need to find it was related to a serious
public health problem and not a technical issue concerning traffic.
Council Member Morton asked whether it could be approached indirectly if
the Council expressed concern or preferences when the item returned to
Council.
01/24/05 98-413
Mr. Emslie said the project would not return to the Council. Once the
Tentative Map was approved, the Council would receive the Final Nap for
review and approval; however, that would not be an appropriate time to add
conditions.
Council Nember Norton asked when Council would be able to express
concerns to the other review bodies concerns about traffic, height or density.
Mr. Emslie said even if the Council had the ability to condition the project,
traffic signals could not be required, There was not a connection between the
impacts of the project and the requirement for traffic signals. The project
would generate far less traffic than what would be allowed on the site, and
the law stated unless there was an impact created directly by the
development and was proportionate to the impact, the conditions could not
be required. However, there was a safety and improvement plan for moving
traffic through the Charleston Corridor. The proposed project was within the
study area of the nexus analysis, and could possibly pay a proportionate
share to fund the improvements for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor that
addressed safety concerns if staff could make the required findings to
recommend there was a link.
Council Member Morton clarified the Council could look to staff to help with
the nexus and the wording.
Council Member Freeman said Palo Alto recently added new housing at
University South. In addition, the .Jewish Community Center (_]CC) had new
housing in their plans, and new housing was planned in other areas of the
City. She asked whether staff had any quantification of the catch-phrase
"jobs/housing" imbalance.
Mr. Emslie said the City had a jobs/housing imbalance of more than two jobs
for every house. There were a number of projects on the horizon that could
provide a better equilibrium in meeting the City’s jobs/housing imbalance.
He offered to provide the Council with an informational report on the status
of upcoming projects, and how they would affect the imbalance.
Council Member Freeman said she did not anticipate a one-to-one ratio for
jobs/housing. She asked how the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
viewed the increase in the number of school-aged students.
Mr. Emslie said all school districts in the State of California were able to set
impact fees for growth. Impact fees would be collected for the proposed
project and used by the PAUSD to offset impacts to its schools.
01/24/05 98-4:[4
Council Member Freeman expressed concern that the PAUSD might not be
aware of the proposed project.
Hr. Emslie said he would verify with staff whether the PAUSD received
notice.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said she understood when the Council voted for or
against housing, they were not to take into account impacts on schools. She
asked if that was correct.
Mr. Baum said the Council could take into consideration the broad context;
however, they were limited to the findings. The item could only be denied on
the findings. The State statue referred to by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment capped the fees for schools at a certain level. The
PAUSD raised those fees to the maximum.
Council Member Freeman asked what each housing unit was priced at.
Mr. Hinds said in 2005 dollars they would cost approximately $700,000 to
$900,000. The BMR units would sell for half of the market rate prices.
Council Member Freeman said she noticed the Tentative Map had private
roads on it. She asked staff whether it was common to have private roads in
developments.
Mr. Emslie said yes. It occurred most often in developments where
Homeowner Association Fees (HOA) maintained the parking and
landscaping.
Council Member Freeman clarified the homeowners would have to take care
of the internal streets. She said page three of the Tentative Map indicated
the Public Utility Easement (PUE) would be abandoned; however, the
subsequent page showed new PUE’s. She asked who would pay for the new
PUE’s.
Mr. Emslie said the Tentative Map reflected a change in location of the PUE
and all the costs were borne by the developer. The City incurred no costs in
the relocation.
Council Member Freeman asked whether the old PUE’s would remain or be
removed.
IVlr. Emslie the old PUE’s would be disposed of in a way approved by the City
Utilities Department.
01124105 98-415
Council Member Freeman said when the time came to make a motion she
would like to see the approval conditional on the soil analysis in Phase Two
with any remediation reported back to staff.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to
approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
recommendation to approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map to merge
three parcels (approximately 4.4 acres) and create 76 condominium units,
based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land
Use Action (Attachment A of CMR:I40:05) with the addition of securing a
written soils analysis in Phase Two with the appropriate remediation.
Council Member Morton said he would also like to see an appropriate
contribution to the nexus study for a traffic light at Fabian Way and East
Meadow Drive. Although some might not consider it a major health hazard,
children who got hit at intersections didpose a health issue. The developer
enticed the City with the suggestion of some photovoltaic elements;
however, it should be required in all of the units, unless the homeowners
opted to "elect out" if they did not want it. He suggested adding to the
motion a requirement of the developer to include photovoltaic in all the
housing units.
Mr. Emslie said the only participation of the project in future improvements
on Charleston Road would not be related to a signal on Fabian Way, but
would be a proportionate share as determined by the nexus study with fees
retroactively applied. The concern about photovoltaic was covered in the
ARB’s approval, which contained the sustainability conditions and the
program outlined by the applicants. The applicant could volunteer to reverse
the provision for photovoltaic as suggested by Council Member Morton;
however, staff felt the issue had already been covered in the decision of the
ARB.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg expressed support for the motion. She noticed the
project was not built out to the density that it could have been based on the
zoning, and the developer showed restraint and sensitivity to the
neighborhood. The City had a requirement and commitment to build more
housing in Palo Alto and the proposed project would help in terms of the
City’s housing element, especially in an area that would be much improved
and on the outskirts of residential areas.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the soils analysis in Phase Two
was a part of the ARB’s approval.
Mr. Emslie said no. It was now a part of the motion presently on the table.
The Phase One analysis did not recommend going any further.
01/24/05 98-416
Council Member Kishimoto clarified the Council would just be approving the
Tentative Map, and would not see the project come before them because it
was within the zoning guidelines.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The entitlements for the major architectural
review had been granted and conferred upon the site.
Council Member Kishimoto said a member of the public raised a question
about notification to the public, and asked whether proper notification was
done.
Mr. Emslie said notification to the public was expanded to double the number
of residents. Staff would follow-up to make sure there were not any
technical issues that prevented notices from getting mailed.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether there were any relevant creek
setback guidelines for channelized creeks.
Hr. Emslie said the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) owned the
property including the creek on either side, which contained their access and
setbacks. Additional setbacks were not required because adequate room
existed within the existing right-of-way.
Council Member Kishimoto asked whether the reason a categorical
exemption had not been previously applied in Palo Alto was because it was a
fairly new exemption.
Mr. Emslie said yes. A categorical exemption had been instituted within the
last three to five years. The proposed project was the first of its kind that
met all the criteria.
Council Member Kishimoto expressed overall support for the project. She did
not believe, however, the traffic study looked at a hypothetical scenario of
what the streets would look like with a Comp Plan build out.
lVlr. Emslie said there was good information that related to the site in the
environmental documentation for the Charleston/Arastradero Plan, which
was conducted less than one-year ago. The proposed project was much less
than the assumptions made even with existing conditions. Staff adequately
concluded the trips generated on an ideal or peak hour basis involved a
fraction of the trips generated from the uses studied in the
Charleston/Arastradero Plan or under their full usage.
Council Member Kishimoto said the Comp Plan called for a gradual transition
from industrial to residential, especially at the proposed site. While the City
01/24/05 98-417
had a parks impact fee, there was not a process in place to allocate land to
ensure a neighborhood park. She asked for staff to look into the matter.
Mr. Emslie said staff would rely on the City’s land use and advanced planning
processes to determine those types of needs, which were generally done in
updates of the Comp Plan.
Council Member Kishimoto clarified it could possibly be done when the P&TC
did their annual review of the Comp Plan implementation, or perhaps it could
be referred by the Council.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct.
Council Member M.ossar said although the Council could not condition the
photovoltaic issue, she stated a strong preference to have it utilized
throughout the project, and thereby not disadvantaging the BMR housing
units. She appreciated the fact there was a bus route already in place;
however, it underscored the reason why the Council had taken public action
to ask for fairly geographically distributed funding from the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA). She said if more fundswere
available for the cities in the North County, perhaps the presently sagging
bus route could become more robust and ultimately more usable by the
residents of the project. She reminded her colleagues that purchases of land
with parks fees would not become commonplace; however, there were
things the City could do with the fees to make the City’s existing parks more
useful and modern.
Council Member Cordell said she hoped when the BMR units were put on the
market, the price would be set as low as possible. She believed none of the
conditions required to deny the Tentative Map existed. ]:t was: 1) consistent
with the Comp Plan; 2) physically a suitable site for the density; 3)
demonstrated no substantial environmental damage unless, or until, the
soils analysis proved otherwise; and 4) there was no issue regarding a public
easement problem. She said the project was well within the set guidelines
and she believed approval of the project was warranted.
Council Member Ojakian said there were quite a few vacancies in the
industrial park. He asked whether plans were in the works for the industrial
park.
Mr. Emslie said there were a number of industrial buildings in the Bay Area
that had reached the end of their usefulness. The present trend and turnover
made sure there was adequate infrastructure and services. Staff favored
development on the west side of the Bayshore Freeway because of its
01/24/05 98-418
proximity to City parks, schools, and other services, as opposed to other
industrial park areas within the City in more remote locations.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether there were other potential
applicants.
Mr. Emslie said staff knew of a number of properties on the market, but had
no applicants at this time.
Council Member Ojakian said the project designated an area of the
development as the "Reading Room." He asked what the Reading Room
would it be for.
Chris Magnussen, Project Manager, said the Reading Room was designed to
be an outdoor interpretive area for the residents to mingle with their
neighbors, and to enjoy the vegetation.
Council Member Ojakian said essentially it was a public meeting area, but
was restricted to the homeowners.
Mr. Magnussen said most likely the homeowners would use the area more
regularly; however, there was no restrictive access from persons walking
along the public right-of-way.
Council Member Ojakian asked about public art being included in the project.
Mr. Magnussen said the Council did not have the complete set of
architectural plans, nor the project materials binder. That information
included samples of various types of public art that would be proposed on
the site. The applicant retained an artist.
Council Member Ojakian asked whether the Public Art Commission (PAC)
would review the various types of public art.
Mr. Magnussen said the Planning staff would be involved with the applicant
in more detail upon the building permit review.
Council Member Ojakian expressed his support for the main motion and the
idea of the Phase Two soils study. He appreciated the fact the project
completed housing on the site all the way to the corner.
Council Member Beecham said there was a misconception that new residents
did not pay their fair share within the community. New residents paid the
highest amount of property taxes because of Proposition 13. ]:n fact, new
residents would pay more in property taxes in the next five years than he
01/24/05 98-419
had over the past 25 years. While the City wishes to be environmentally
correct and urge people to use photovoltaic, it was not necessarily the
correct approach. The Council recently approved contracts for wind power
and solid waste power. The City, however, did have a subsidized program
within the Utilities Department for the use of photovoltaic.
Mayor Burch said he did not believe the applicant should be required to place
photovoltaic on all the units because a number of them might not have the
right exposure to make it viable.
Council Member Morton said the motion also included the explicit insertion
that the developer would pay the appropriate share of the traffic impact
mitigations in the area.
Mr. Emslie said the inclusion to the motion was not needed because it would
be determined by the nexus study.
Council Member Morton said sometimes items not included in the motion did
not get done. He would like to have it included.
Vice Mayor Kleinberg said she did not believe it was necessary.
Mayor Burch said staff had assured the Council it would be covered if there
were an appropriate nexus.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
Update to the Long Range Financial Plan from the Finance Committee
Meeting of December 14, 2004
Council Member Mossar said the Finance Committee unanimously approved
the Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) at its meeting in December 2004.
Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said the national economy
appeared to be trending upwards with a 3 percent growth in the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) through 2005. Challenges included budget and
trade deficits, high oil prices, weakness of the dollar, and rising interest
rates, which had nearly doubled over the last seven quarters. On the State
economy, unemployment rates had dropped with a 2 percent annual job
growth rate through 2006. Challenges included growing State budget deficits
and a lack of infrastructure funding. In the time it took to prepare the staff
report (CMR:139:05), the State budget deficit had grown from $5 billion to
$.8.3 billion. On the County front, unemployment rates had declined, but job
creation was weak and fewer people were employed in 3une 2004 than in
01/24/05 98-420