HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 317-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AUGUST 7, 2006 CMR: 317:06
1101 EAST MEADOW DRIVE AND 1010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE
[06PLN-00135]: REQUEST BY STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES ON
BEHALF OF BATTON ASSOCIATES LLC FOR A FINAL MAP FOR A
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT. THIS MAP IS
REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MERGE TWO. PARCELS
(APPROXIMATELY 4.4 ACRES) AND CREATE 75 CONDOMINIUM
UNITS. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED PER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Final Map FOR 1101 East
Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle to merge two parcels (approximately 4.4 acres)
and create one multiple family lot containing 75 condominium units, based upon the findings and
conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
At the public hearing held on Monday, January 30, 2006, the City Council voted to accept staff
and the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation to approve the Vesting
Tentative Map with the staff recommended conditions of approval. Prior to the City Council
meeting, staffreceived no written comments from the public.
The City Council meeting minutes for this heating have been provided as Attachment B.
DISCUSSION
The Final Map and Subdivision Agreement have been provided for the Council’s review, and
the Record of Land Use Action on the Vesting Tentative Map and Below Market Rate
(BMR) Agreement are also attached. Planning, Public Works Engineering and the City
Attorney have reviewed the Final Map, Subdivision Agreement, BMR Agreement and
CC&R’s and have determined that all are consistent with the Tentative Map and Record of
CMR: 317:06 Page 1 of 2
Land Use Action. According to the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must
therefore approve the Final Map.
The project includes several private streets located throughout the site. A street name map has
not yet been developed for the Final Map submittal. Street names are not required for approval of
the Final Map. However, the applicant will comply with the City ofPalo Alto’s policies and
procedures and request that the Palo Alto Historical Association provide suggestions for street
names within the development. The street name map will return to the Council for review and
approval as a certificate of correction to the Final Map.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BETH YOUNG BOURNE
Senior Planner
STEVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
Record of Land Use Action of Tentative Map Approval
City Council Meeting Minutes from January 30, 2006
Subdivision Agreement
Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement
Final Map (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Scott Hoffman, Standard Pacific Homes, Project Applicant
CMR: 317:06 Page 2 of 2
APPROVAL NO. ~2006-?
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR i010 EAST MEADOW CIRCLE AND
ii01 EAST MEADOW DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
05-PLN-00289
(TRUMARK COMPANIES, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on January 30, 2006, the City Council of the
City of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge three
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves
merging the two existing parcels into one 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 (ii)
shall be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Three (3)
separate floor plans are proposed within twelve (12) multi-unit
condominium buildings. Per each unit, the buildings house three
floors constructed above the garage. No building is proposed
taller than the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The unit sizes,
proposed from two to three bedrooms, range from the smallest at
1,213 s.f. to the largest at 1,625 s.f., plus parking garages of
approximately 450 to 600 square feet for each unit.
B. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes
information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions (Sheet
3); the layout of new private streets and walkways, including the
various buildings with individual units, car wash structure, and
guest parking spaces (Sheets 4 and 5); utility information (Sheet
6); and cross-sections of new streets and walkways (Sheets 7, 8,
and 9). These drawings are in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain
all information and notations required to be shown on a Vesting
Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as
conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots,
streets, 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 effecton the environment.
In order to fully assess the project’s CEQA compliance,
staff requested and evaluated studies prepared by professional
consultants. The documents provided include: (i) trip generation
estimates--by Fehr & Peers dated March 30, 2005; (2) a noise
assessment--by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., dated May 24,
2005; (3) an air quality impact assessment--by Mindigo & Associates
dated May 14, 2005; and (4) a water quality and utility impacts
report--by BKF Engineers dated June 14, 2005. In addition, the
following were submitted and evaluated: an arborist report--by Arbor
Resources dated May 23, 2005; and a geotechnical feasibility
investigation--by Lowney Associates dated April 19, 2005. All
studies reviewed by staff are contained within the project file for
viewing upon request.
The studies provided pertained to traffic, noise, air and
water quality, and the applicability of constructing residences on
this location in terms of existing soils/geotechnical conditions
and assessment to determine the presence of environmental/hazardous
conditions. Staff has made the following conclusions in regard to
the project’s overall 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;
Less air pollution would occur due to a decrease in the
generation of vehicle trips, and no other pollutant sources
would be generated on site;
No significant impacts to storm water or potable water quality
would occur, as only enhancements to each would occur in
redeveloping the site for residential use and the conversion
from commercial and light industrial use to residential
development would decrease in the amount of impervious surface
area on the site and reduce the peak storm water discharge. New
construction would involve the creation of more permeable
surface area; installation of surface treatment controls (such
as grass swales and bio-retention areas); utilization of various
best management practices; and the upgrade to existing potable
water and sewer lines;
No significant impact to groundwater would be made, as more
surface infiltration would be accomplished through the project’s
site design. In addition, no subsurface pumping is proposed;
No significant impacts would result to the site’s primary
natural resource--Protected, Regulated, and Street Trees--as only
those appropriately selected would be removed. Additional
trees, shrubs, and other plant materials would be installed per
the tree inventory/evaluation and preliminary landscape plan,
endorsed by the City’s Managing Arborist and in compliance with
the City’s Tree Technical Manual;
No significant impacts would result from the construction of
this project under the existing soils/geotechnical conditions of
the site. The submitted geotechnical feasibility investigation
makes only suggestions related to construction techniques; and
Residential development would be compatible with onsite
environmental conditions, as no known conditions exist on the
site regarding existing materials that may be deemed harmful or
hazardous.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findinqs.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
.plans :
The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
related to the change in land use (housing element and policies L-
7, L-47, and H-3), below market rate units (BMR program, policy
and programs H-I, H-3, and H-38), sustainable/green building design
(Goal H-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and program H-69), shared
recreational use (policy T-I), open space/amenities (policies N-15
and N-22), and relationship to adjacent properties (policies N-39,
N-40, and N-42) . In addition, this design furthers the intent of
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-47, which indicates that the East
Meadow Circle Area should be considered as a potential site for
higher density housing that provides a transition between existing
housing and nearby industrial development.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of 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 tran’sitions 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
hab i ta t :
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
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
at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements
established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The new site design will not conflict with pre-existing
easements in that, it has been determined that i) the 10-foot box-
shaped Public Utilities Easement at the southeast corner of the
property shall remain and be maintained; 2) the 10-foot wide Public
Utilities Easement along the frontage of ii01 East Meadow Drive and
East Meadow Circle shall remain and be maintained; 3) that once the
two parcels are merged into one the ~existing 20-foot wide’Public
Utilities Easement along the frontage of i010 East Meadow Circle
shall be removed and replaced with a 10-foot wide Public Utilities
Easement along the property frontage; 4) the existing sanitary
sewer easement at the northeast portion of i010 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 (~PAMC") Sections 21o13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 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 Envirornnent
Planning Division
i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall
be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Vesting Tentative Map
approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]) .
2. A preliminary copy of restrictive covenants (CC&Rs)
shall be submitted for review at the time of Final Map submittal.
3. The applicant shall adhere to the requirements of the
Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter Agreement, attached to the staff
report. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the
identification of the locations of the BMR units and provisions for
their sale, shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded against
the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Prior to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
with the ARB and th6 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.
i0. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
ii. An ADA accessible/compliant curb ramp shall be required
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and East
Meadow Circle.
12. Clear visibility at street corners shall be maintained
for an adequate distance, at a minimum height of 2.5 feet above
grade, per City standards.
13. A Stop Control (i.e., stop sign, centerline tail, and a
Stop bar) at each of the two access driveways, one off of East
Meadow Drive and one off of East Meadow Circle be designated per
Caltrans Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) .
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:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners
titled "Vesting Tentative Map: East Meadow Drive", consisting of 9
pages, dated and received-August 15, 2005.
ORAL
3.
9a.
*6.
J
January 30, 2006
Joint Study Session with San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Regarding Potential Interim Improvements ..............................3
Public Officials for Environmental Reform (POWER) Award Presented by
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to the Palo Alto City Council5
COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................5
Resolution Expressing Appreciation to James Cobb Upon His
Retirement ...................................................................................5
Approval of a Resolution to Implement Section 414(h) of the Internal
Revenue Code to Designate the California Public Employee Retirement
System 9 % Retirement Contributions as Employee Contributions and
Deduct from the Salaries of Palo Alto Peace Officer Association
(PAPOA) Members .................................................................. .......5
(Old Item 4.) Request by Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc. and
McNellis Partners for Approval of City Council to Conduct a Preliminary
Review of a Mixed-Use Residential and Retail Development at 3401,
3415 and 3445 Alma Street (Alma Plaza) [05-PLN-00416] ..................6
Public Hearing: 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 ........................................................8
Public Hearing: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18.65 of Title 18 for the Purpose of Allowing the Auto
01/30/2006 1
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether it was possible for the item to go
to the P&TC in February and to the Council on March 13, 2006.
Mr. Emslie said staff would maintain the current schedule. The P&TC might
consider a special meeting.
Council Member Morton supported the original motion because there would
be feedback between the Council to the P&TC if policy questions were
involved. The study session should be done as a joint presentation.
Council Member Klein said the issue had been before the Council in a variety
of ways for several years, and it was part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp
Plan).
Council Member Beecham said the purpose of the preliminary review was for
the Council to give input to the applicant. The role of the P&TC was to advise
the Council.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Klein, Morton "no."
Council Member Drekmeier asked whether the P&TC would address the item
prior to the Council meeting on March 13, 2006.
Assistant City Manager Emily Harrison said the sense of the Council was to
keep the project moving. Staff would stay with the date originally planned.
Mr. Emslie would work with the P&TC to schedule a special meeting if
necessary.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
*6.Public Hearing: 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.
City Attorney Gary Baum said for quasi judicial matters, under the Council’s
policies and protocols, as well as under State Law, the Council was the judge
for the matter. In the interest of Open government and, primarily so that the
public received the same information as the Council, Council Members were
asked to disclose whether or not they had communications outside the
Chambers where they received information from the developers or
01/30/2006 8
opponents in addition to information in the staff reports. Council Members
were encouraged to disclose contacts they had with the developer.
Mayor Kleinberg clarified Council Members were to make their decision
based only on the material in the record currently before the Council.
Mr. Baum said that was correct. The Council may not deny or condition
approval of the vesting tentative map if the map was consistent with the
General and Specific Plan, if the designs and improvements were consistent
with the General and Specific Plan, if the site were physically suited for the
development, if the site were suited for the density of development, if design
and subdivision were not likely to cause environmental damage or serious
public health problems, and would not conflict with public improvements or
easements.
Council Member Barton said he had a conversation with Jim Baer but
received no additional information beyond what was provided in the packet.
The Public Hearing opened at 8"20 p.m.
Aaron Yakligian, Trumark Companies (Applicant), 4185 Blackhawk Plaza
Circle, Danville, said Trumark had developed high quality of life, attainably
priced, new home neighborhoods around the Bay Area for nearly two
decades. Following the Council’s clear lead the prior year for Trumark’s East
Meadow Drive project, Trumark was excited to present the completion to the
gateway to the East Meadow Circle area. The proposal for the Echelon
community resonated with the comments Trumark received from the Council
and from the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) in 2004. For
that approval, the Council unanimously supported the P&TC’s
recommendation that the proposed density was appropriate for the site, that
Trumark raised the bar for green building in Palo Alto, and that the City
desired to see future projects of similar quality in the neighborhood. The
design for Echelon was based on the collective direction. The properties at
1101 East Meadow Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle totaled
approximately 4.5 acres, and the site’s existing 1960’s office space had been
vacant for some time. As with many light industrial sites in Palo Alto, there
was an existing RM 30 zoning overlay that allowed for a residential
development with up to 30 dwelling units per acre. Trumark met with staff
to determine the best use of the property. The outcome was the proposed
75 homes. The Vesting Tentative Map represented approximately one year
of close cooperation with City staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB),
and the P&TC. The final product demonstrated responsible planning, efficient
land use, and quality design. In addition to separating pedestrians and
automobiles, the site offered a perimeter trail system, which allowed
residents to walk between outdoor rooms with public art, water features,
01/30/2006 9
and children’s play areas. The trail added an additional one-half mile of safe
and attractive walking paths. The existing setbacks along street frontages
were preserved, which created a wide buffer from the street and allowed
saving most of the existing perimeter trees on the site. The established
trees, along with more than 150 new trees to be provided, helped to expand
the existing canopy to create a lush, green, attractive pedestrian-friendly
environment. Trumark was committed to using green building elements.
Echelon would exceed the new Title 24 standards by 15 percent. Eleven
below market rate (BMR) homes were included. The homes were evenly
distributed throughout the site and were identical to the market rate homes.
The sale price of the homes averaged below $300,000. Traffic generation
from the site was reduced. Trumark invested nearly $400,000 in park fees,
$139,000 for libraries and the Community Center, and nearly $.25 million for
schools in the neighborhood. Through neighborhood outreach and meetings,
the community recognized the need for added pedestrian safety at the
nearby intersection of Fabian and East Meadow. Trumark voluntarily
proposed to construct a lighted crosswalk in the median. Trumark worked
closely with the City Transportation Division to design a road signage
program that would further increase the pedestrian safety near the
intersection. The Vesting Tentative Map was the result of many previous
accomplishments throughout the process. In July 2005, the project was
unanimously approved by the ARB and received the Planning Director’s
approval. A Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated in July, and
the Vesting Tentative Map was deemed complete. In November 2005, the
PT&C unanimously recommended approval. Trumark asked the Council to
approve the Vesting Tentative Map.
Ken Brownlee, 3617 Louis Road, spoke in opposition to the Trumark
development of high density housing and requested the Council deny the
map amendment until a lower density proposal was submitted.
Mark Sabin, 533 Alberta Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke about the attainable
nature of the housing, and urged the Council to support the project.
Earl Caustin, 3671 Louis Road, Palo Verde Residents Association Board
Member, spoke about traffic and educational impacts that had no
requirement for environmental impact review, and urged the Council to
study all the projects in a comprehensive fashion.
Sheri Furman, 3094 Greer Road, requested the Council ask the Planning
Division to initiate a comprehensive look at the area that included park
lands.
Smita Joshi, 851 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Verde Residents Association
President, spoke about the lack of notification to the neighbors and the
01/30/2006 10
stress on City facilities and asked for a comprehensive consideration of the
development.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, League of Women Voters, spoke in
support of the Trumark Development which responded to many of the goals
in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and urged the Council to approve the
Tentative Map.
Jeff Rensch, 741 Chimalus Drive, spoke in support of the Trumark project
because of the below market units, less traffic, and target population.
Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke about the piecemealing of the project
and lack of environmental impact report.
Vivian BIomenkamp, 1023 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of the project,
noting the City needed the proposed type of housing.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, spoke in support of the Council approving
the Vesting Tentative Map because the project was well suited for the area.
Bena Chang, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, 224 Airport Pkwy #620, San
Jose, spoke in support of the Echelon Project, which helped Palo Alto meet
its continued need for homes.
Arthur Keller, 3881 Corina Way, Adobe Meadow Neighborhood Association,
suggested the Council create a moratorium on further development of East
Meadow Circle until the City had the opportunity to assimilate the results of
the East Meadow Design charette and do appropriate zoning and regulations.
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, spoke in support of the project, noting there
would not be impacts on immediate neighbors.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, supported Mr. Moss’ suggestion that
there be an examination of the soil and environment of housing prior to
housing being built and felt open space parkland should be on the site.
The Public Hearing closed at 9:00 p.m.
MOTIOI~I: Council Member Barton moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve
the staff and Planning and Community Environment’s recommendation to
approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map to merge two parcels
(Approximately 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium units, based upon the
findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action.
01/30/2006 11
Council Member Barton said the Vesting Tentative Map was consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked how high the site would be raised for the flood
basin.
Mr. Yakligian responded the average was four feet across the site and had
already been approved by FEMA.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether there had been examination of
hazardous waste.
Mr. Yakligian said extensive environmental studies were conducted, including
looking at what uses were in the past. The studies indicated there was not
an issue on the site.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto asked whether a set of guidelines would go back to the
Council or whether proposals for rezoning for open space would go back.
Mr. Emslie said the primary focus of the work at the current time was the
development of guidelines to be used for future development. The area
zoning was recently amended so that housing was no longer permitted by
right but would be a conditionally permitted use.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said there was no section in the initial study for either
the checklist or the text on cumulative impacts.
Mr. Emslie said a cumulative impact analysis was not pursued because the
project fell within the gross projections of the Comp Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and because impacts associated with vehicle trips were
less than the current land use.
Vice Mayor Kishimoto said she noted the cumulative traffic had decreased
but there were other potential impacts such as, greater use of wastewater
and water. Trumark Development did a good job following City directions
and bringing in the sustainability project. The proposed increase of 35
students was an impact on the school district. The cumulative impacts must
be reviewed.
Council Member Morton clarified the 75 units proposed $400,000 to be
included in the City’s park fund.
Mr. Emslie said that was correct. The $400,000 was the estimate of the park
fee the project paid to the City.
01/30/2006 12
Council Member Morton said he was concerned impact fees were unrealistic.
Staff was asked whether the vesting expired if the project were not
completed.
Mr. Baum said an approval was both an entitlement as well as an obligation.
Fees were locked in at the date of completion of approval.
Council Member Morton asked whether staff was comfortable with the
response the developer made with regard to a toxic study requirement.
Mr. Emslie said the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
maintained the authority to enforce the identification and clean up of
hazardous materials. After Phase 1, if there were any evidence of toxic
release on the site, Phase 2 was involved. Soils reports were required for the
project. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) conditions required the site
be monitored by a licensed soils engineer, who must provide written
verification that the project proceeds as called for in the plans.
Mr. Baum said the Department of Toxic Substance Control would be involved
in the event of hazardous materials.
Council Member Morton said he supported the motion but was concerned at
the rate at which the community was being built out and the public’s desire
for an overall plan for South Palo Alto.
Council Member Klein said he supported the motion because the developer
did a good job following the City’s rules. Neighborhood associations were
encouraged to stay involved.
Council Member Drekmeier said the project was attractive and had good
environmental features. The idea of taking a coordinated East Meadow Circle
and working in mixed uses was favored.
Council Member Cordell said a question was raised about the intersection at
Fabian Way and East Meadow Drive and she asked whether any mitigation
was planned.
Aaron Yakligian said the proposal included a lit crosswalk at Fabian Way and
East Meadow Drive, with an additional road signage program.
Council Member Cordell said she hoped the Council would get feedback from
the developer regarding his experience in dealing with the Planning
Department.
01/30/2006 13
Mayor Kleinberg said there would be a tremendous amount of recreational
amenities built into the Campus for Jewish Life area. Safety at the crossings
was a concern. The developer was encouraged to work with staff to ensure
pedestrian safety. Comprehensive oversight was needed.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Public Hearing: Recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission that the City Council Adopt an Ordinance Amending
Chapter 18.65 of Title 18 for the Purpose of Allowing the Auto
p Overlay Zone (Combining District) in Two Limited
~nufacturing (LM) Districts Located on the East and West Side
to Highway 101 at the San Antonio Interchange
Council
recommer
Transportation
Barton clarified there were differences between the staff
in the staff report (CMR:134:06) and the Planning and
;) recommendations.
Planning and
were differences. The
west of Highway 101 that
Further, the map
from the map the P&TC
Council’s consideration had been
the ordinance.
Environment Director Steve Emslie agreed there
recommendation was to exclude a land parcel
e P&TC had included in their recommendation.
g boundaries of the ordinance was different
the map that was prepared for the City
~nged to correctly reflect the language of
Planning and Transportation
discussion the P&TC had of the
The first supported the staff’s
ordinance but confined the boundary to the
Highway 101 between Embarcadero Road
P&TC’s goal to keep the Auto Dealership (AD) ovel
low density residential allowed a single land
Highway 101 to be included in the proposed
Daniel Garber reported the
resulted in two motions.
boundaries of the proposed
immediately adjacent to
e San Antonio exits. The
from being adjacent to
on the west side of
second motion was
made to include the area of Embarcadero Road east ghway 101 in the
AD overlay. The discussion of the display of cars on lbarcadero Road
caused the motion to fail because the proposed ordinance ~tes an implied
acceptance of the display of cars along Embarcadero Road would be at
odds with the function of Embarcadero Road’s Gateway to the lands.
Mr. Emslie explained the staff’s initial recommendation to the for
the proposed boundary of the AD overlay to include the areas on side
of Highway 101 and the Embarcadero Road area east of Highway 101 he
P&TC’s subsequent recommendation was to limit the boundary to the a~s
just discussed.Staff forwarded the P&TC’s recommendation to the y
01/30/2006 14
This document is recorded for the
benefit of the City of Palo Alto
and is entitled to be recorded
free of charge in accordance with
Section 6103 of the Government Code
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBDIVIDER AND
CITY OF PALO ALTO
UNDER PROVISIONS OF TITLE 21 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
i010 East Meadow Circle and ii01 East Meadow Drive,
Palo Alto, California
APN 127-10-102: i010 East Meadow Circle
APN 127-10-092: II01 East Meadow Drive
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this day of
, 2006, by and between the CITY OF PAL0 ALTO,
a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "City", and STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES, a Delaware
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider";
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, Subdivider is the owner of that certain tract of
land situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State
of California, generally known and described as i010 East Meadow
Ci~rcle and ii01 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, California (the
"Property"); and
WHEREAS, Subdivider has presented to City for approval a
final subdivision map prepared by BKF Engineers, hereinafter
referred to as the "Map" and incorporated herein by this reference;
and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2006, City approved Subdivider’s
application for a tentative subdivision map to subdivide two (2)
existing parcel into one (I) lot ("the Project"), subject to certain
conditions including those hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, such conditions include the demolition and,
construction of certain private and public improvements, and the
060726 syn 0120114
payment to City of a below-market-rate ("BMR") program in-lieu fee
to comply with City’s BMR program requirement for subdivisions, as
set forth in Program 20 of the Housing Element of City’s
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Subdivider .has requested approval of the Map
prior to the demolition, construction and completion of the required
improvements and the payment of the BMR fee; and
WHEREAS, City desires to assure that said proposed
improvements will be done in a good and workmanlike manner and in
accordance with the laws now in force and effect in the City of Palo
Alto, California, particularly, but not exclusively, Titles 16, 18,
and 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the approval
of the Map and the acceptance of the dedications offered therein,
and in order to insure satisfactory performance by Subdivider of
~Subdivider’s obligations under the Subdivision Map Act and the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree
as follows:
i. Performance of Work. Subdivider shall, at its own
cost and expense, do and perform, or cause to be done or performed,
in a good and workmanlike manner, all of the work and improvements,
within and/or without the subdivision, which are shown on the Map,
or on plans, profiles and specifications which have been submitted
to the City Engineer or may hereafter be so submitted, as finally
approved, or which improvements are required as conditions of
approval of the subdivision by the City, or are required to be done
by any provision of law as a condition of said subdivision. Said
public and private improvements include, but are not limited to
construction of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street improvements,
storm drain system, and other utility infrastructure improvements as
detailed in the plan set entitled "Offsite Improvement Plans for
Echelon of Palo Alto", produced by BKF Engineers.
2. Standards. Work to be performed hereunder shall be
done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All improvements
have been shown in detail upon the plans, profiles and
specifications which have been prepared by engineers acting for
Subdivider. No work on the improvements shall be commenced until
said plans, profiles and specifications have been submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer, and all improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with said plans, profiles and
specifications. Subdivider shall do, or cause to be done, all work
and furnish all materials necessary, in the City Engineer’s opinion
and on his or her order, to complete the improvements in accordance
with said plans, profiles and specifications, or with any changes
required or ordered by the City Engineer, which in his or her.
opinion are necessary or required to complete the work° The cost of
060726 syn 0120114
2
checking the plans, profiles and specifications, and of all
inspections of the work, have been or shall be paid by Subdivider.
Improvements and methods of installation shall, at a minimum, meet
the standards set forth in the "Standard Specifications of the City
of Palo Alto," dated December 1992, ("Standard Specifications") as
from time to time amended, which document is incorporated herein by
this reference, and provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
relating to construction.
3. Soils and Geologic Tests. Subdivider shall cause to
be made, at Subdivider’s cost and expense, soils and geologic tests
by a qualified civil engineer and shall file, or cause to be filed
with the City a report or reports satisfactory to the City Engineer
indicating gradation, bearing and resistance value of soils within
the subdivision and setting forth recommendations for or con-
straints on the nature of required improvements and for development
of the Property. All clearing and earthwork shall be accomplished
in accordance with the plans and required recommendations of the
soils report under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. Sub-
divider shall also cause to be made, at Subdivider’s cost and
expense, all compaction tests necessary to determine that the
utility trenches have been satisfactorily compacted. Subdivider
shall provide a soils engineer’s certified letter of compliance,
verifying that the earthwork has been completed in accordance with
the plans and recommendations of the soils report.
4. Time of Completion. The demolition of the existing
structures, as required under paragraph l(a) hereof, shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within
twenty-four (24) months of approval of the Map by the City Council
of City. All other improvements and site grading under this
agreement shall be completed prior to the issuance of any occupancy
permit for occupancy of the Project. The time for completion may be
extended only for good cause upon approval by the City Manager and
pursuant to the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
agreement.
Time of Essence.Time is of the essence of this
6. Payment of Costs. Without limitation, Subdivider
shall pay, or cause to be paid, all costs and expenses related to or
arising from the performance of any work hereunder, including, but
not limited to, payment for any materials, provisions, and other
supplies used in, upon, for or about said work, and for work or
labor thereon of any kind, and for amounts due under the
Unemployment Insurance Act of the State of California, with respect
to such work or labor.
060726 syn 0120114
7.Acceptance of Work. The City Engineer shall have
the right to reject any and all work to be performed under this
agreement if such work does not conform, in his sole judgment, with
the plans, profiles and specifications mentioned herein and with the
ordinances and standards of City.
8. Warranty of Plans. Notwithstanding the fact that
Subdivider’s plans, profiles and specifications, completion of work,
and other acts to be performed hereunder are subject to approval by
City, it is understood and agreed that any approval by City shall in
no way relieve Subdivider of satisfactorily performing said work or
its obligations hereunder. Subdivider warrants that the plans,
profiles and specifications submitted shall conform at a minimum to
the Standard Specifications and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and
that they are adequate to accomplish the work in a good and
workmanlike manner, and in accordance with sound construction
practices.
9. Repairs and Replacement. Subdivider shall replace,
or have replaced, or repair, or have repaired, all improvements and
monuments shown on the Map which have been destroyed or damaged
prior to final acceptance of the completed work by the City
Engineer, and Subdivider shall repair, or have repaired, replace, or
have replaced, or pay to the owner, the entire cost of replacement
or repairs, of any and all property damaged or destroyed, by reason
of any work done hereunder, prior to final acceptance of the
completed work by the City Engineer, whether such property be owned
by the United States or any agency or political subdivision thereof,
or by the City or by any public or private corporation, or by any
person whomsoever, or by any combination of such owners. Any such
repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction, and subject to
the approval, of the City Engineer.
Subdivider shall repair, or cause to be repaired, any
damage to the improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement
which may occur after installation to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and prior to release of the certificate of deposit posted
by Subdivider and/or final acceptance of the completed work.
i0. Warranty. Without limiting the foregoing, Subdivider
expressly warrants and guarantees all work performed hereunder and
all materials used therein for a period of three (3) years after
completion and final acceptance thereof by the City Engineer. If
within said three (3) year period any structure or part of any
structure furnished and/or installed or constructed, or caused to be
installed or constructed by Subdivider, or any. of the work done
under this agreement, fails to fulfill any of the requirements of
this agreement, or the specifications referred to herein as a result
of the inadequate workmanship or materials, Subdivider shall,
060726 syn 0120114
without delay and without any cost to City, repair and replace or
reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts
of the work or structure. Should Subdivider fail to act promptly or
in accordance with this requirement, or should the exigencies of the
situation require repairs or replacements to be made before
Subdivider can be notified, City may, at its option, make the
necessary repairs and replacements or perform the necessary work,
and Subdivider shall pay to the City the actual cost of such repairs
and replacement.
ii. Breach of Agreement; Performance by City. If
Subdivider shall refuse or fail to satisfactorily complete any of
the work and improvements provided for herein within the time
specified above, or any extension or extensions thereof, or if delay
in the construction of any portion of the improvements shall, in the
opinion of the City Engineer, endanger property outside the
boundaries of said tract, or if Subdivider should be adjudged a
bankrupt, or shall make a general assignment for the benefit of
Subdivider’s creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed in the
event of Subdivider’s insolvency, or if Subdivider, or any of
Subdivider’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees,
should violate any of the provisions of this agreement, the City
Engineer or City Council or its designated representative may serve
written notice upon Subdivider for breach of this agreement, or any
portion hereof.
In the event of any such notice, City may, without
relieving Subdivider of any of its obligations hereunder, take over
any or all of the work and prosecute the same to completion, by
contract or by any other method City may deem advisable, for the
account,, and at the expense of Subdivider, and the full cost and
expense of said work done by City shall be recovered by City from
Subdivider.
12. Estimate of Improvement Costs; Security. The
estimated cost for the demolition of the structures and improvements
to be constructed under this agreement is Two Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($250,000). Said estimate includes applicable amounts for
the expense of checking plans and for inspection of work hereunder.
A full and detailed accounting of said estimate is set forth in
Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Contemporaneous with the execution of this agreement,
Subdivider shall file with City a certificate(s) of deposit with the
City of Palo Alto named as beneficiary and in the total sum of the
estimated cost set forth above, to guarantee faithful performance of
all of the provisions of this agreement and compliance with all of
the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including Titles 16,
18, and 21, and to secure payment to the contractor, his or her
subcontractor and to persons renting equipment or furnishing labor
060726 syn 0120114
5
or materials to them for the improvements required under this
agreement.
13. Permits; Compliance with Law. Subdivider shall, at
Subdivider’s expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for
the work and improvements hereunder, give all necessary notices and
pay all fees and taxes required by law. In the performance of this
agreement, Subdivider shall comply with all laws, ordinances,
regulations and rules of all governmental agencies having
jurisdiction therefor, including but not limited to, the provisions
of the Labor Code of the State of California.
14. Inspection by City. Subdivider shall at all times
maintain proper facilities and provide safe access for inspection by
City to all parts of the work.
15. Subdivider Not Agent of City. Neither Subdivider nor
Subdivider’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, officers, or
employees are agents or employees of City, and Subdivider’s
relationship to City, if any, arising herefrom is strictly that of
an independent contractor.
16. Liability. Neither City nor any of its officers,
agents, ~or employees shall be liable to Subdivider, its contractors,
subcontractors, officers, agents, or employees, for any error or
omission, or any obligation whatsoever, arising out of or in
connection with any work to be performed under this agreement.
City, its officers, agents, and employees shall not be liable to the
Subdivider or to any person, firm or corporation whatsoever, for any
error or omission, or any obligation or liability whatsoever,
arising out of or in connection with any work to be performed under
this agreement. City, its officers, agents, and employees shall not
be liable to Subdivider or to any person, firm, or corporation
whatsoever for any injury or damage that may result to any person or
property or any obligation whatsoever from any cause arising in, on,
or about the land of Subdivider or from performance or failure to
perform any provision of this agreement. Subdivider hereby releases
and waives any claim it may possess or come to possess against City,
its officers, agents, and employees.
17. Hold Harmless. Subdivider hereby agrees to and shall
protect, indemnify and hold City, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any and all liabilities, obligations,
damages, costs, injuries, or claims thereof, including but not
limited to, claims for damage or personal injury, including death,
and claims for property damage, arising in any manner from the
performance or failure to perform the provisions of this agreement.
Subdivider agrees to, and shall, defend City, its officers, agents,
and employees, from any suits or actions at law or in equity for
damages, liabilities, or obligations caused by or arising from, or
060726 syn 0120114
alleged to be caused by or arising from, the performance of this
agreement.
18. Use of Improvements. Subdivider agrees that the use
of any and all of the public improvements hereinabove specified for
any purpose and by any person shall be at the sole and exclusive
risk of Subdivider at all times prior to final acceptance by City.
This shall in no way eliminate, discharge or lessen any of
Subdivider’s obligations and undertakings contained in this
agreement. The issuance of any Occupancy permits by City for
dwellings located within the subdivision shall not be construed in
any manner to constitute acceptance or approval of any or all of the
improvements to be constructed hereunder.
19. Insurance. Prior to the Commencement of any work,
Subdivider shall furnish to City, on City’s standard form
certificate of insurance, satisfactory evidence of a policy of
liability insurance which shall be maintained at all times during
the performance of this agreement, in form and by a responsible
company satisfactory to City, insuring City, its officers, agents,
and employees against loss or liability arising out of the condition
of the premises or any of the work to be performed under this
agreement, including all costs of defending any claim arising as a
result thereof. Both bodily injury and property damage insurance
shall be on an occurrence basis, and said policy or policies shall
provide that the coverage afforded thereby shall be primary coverage
to the full limit of liability stated in the declarations, and that
if any of City insureds have other insurance against the loss
covered by said policy or policies, the other insurance shall be
excess only. Said policy or policies shall provide for minimum
limits in the amount of One Million Dollars ($i,000,000) for bodily
injury or death, each person, and One Million Dollars ($i,000,000)
for bodily injury or death, each occurrence, and One Million Dollars
($i,000,000) for property damage, each occurrence. Each policy
shall contain an endorsement that said policy shall not be canceled
or coverage reduced except upon thirty (30) days advance written
notice thereof to City. Subdivider will be required to obtain a
"Permit for Construction in a Public Street" ("Permit") prior to
constructing any of the improvements set forth in paragraph. 1 or
Exhibit "A" hereof. City will consider a request by Subdivider that
the insurance posted for the Permit also be used to satisfy the
insurance obligation of this paragraph 19.
20. Title to Public Improvements. Title to and ownership
of all public improvements constructed hereunder shall vest
absolutely in City, upon completion and acceptance thereof by City.
21. Final Drawings. Upon completion of all improvements,
subsequent to acceptance thereof by City, Subdivider shall supply
City with one (I) permanent (mylar--3 mil) reproducible set of "as~
built" drawings. These drawings shall be certified as being "as-
060726 syn 0120114
7
builts" and shall reflect the job as actually constructed, with all
changes incorporated therein. The requirements of this paragraph 21
shall not apply to the private improvements to be performed
hereunder, specified as Items 9-12 of Exhibit A hereof. However,
Subdivider shall comply with all requirements of Titles 16 and 18 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code concerning all public and private
improvements required to be performed hereunder.
22. Notice of Completion. Subdivider shall file, or
cause to be filed, a Notice of Completion of the improvements herein
specified.
23. Final Inspection, Acceptance and Certification. All
of the improvements must be completed~prior to the final inspection.
Notice in writing, requesting final inspection shall be submitted
to the City Engineer at least five (5 days prior to the anticipated
date. Upon the satisfactory completion of the improvements by
Subdivider, the City Engineer shall certify that the work of said
improvements has been satisfactorily completed. Such certification
shall be made in writing in accordance with standard City
procedures.
24. Below-Market-Rate Program In-Lieu Fee Payment. In
conformance with City’s BMR housing program requirements, City and
Subdivider have executed a separate agreement.
25. Trees.
26. Grade Differential. The Project that is the subject
of this agreement shal! return to the City Council for further
approval if there is a change in the grade differential of one (I)
foot or greater in height from neighboring sites.
27. ARB Compliance. The Project shall be constructed in
compliance with all conditions established by the ARB, including
28. Assignment of Contract. Neither this agreement, nor
any part hereof, shall be assignable by Subdivider without the
written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without first
obtaining such consent shall be void and of no effect.
29. Binding on Successors. The terms, covenants and
conditions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall apply
to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, assigns, contractors, and subcontractors of the
parties.
30. Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing party in
any action brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or arising
out of this agreement may recover from the other party its~
060726 syn 0120114
reasonable costs, and attorneys’ fees expended in connection with
such an action.
31. Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in
writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as
follows:
To City:
To Subdivider:
Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Standard Pacific Homes, Inc.
Attn: Scott Hoffman,
Project Manager
900 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 200
Campbell, CA 95008
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed in duplicate the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO STANDARD PACIFIC CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation
Assistant City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sr. Deputy City Attorney
Name:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Director of Public Works
Name:-
Title:
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
060727 syn 0120114
9
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
060726 syn 0120114
10
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me,, anotary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
060726 syn 0120114
11
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged
to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
060726 syn 0120114
12
EXHIBIT A
ECHELON OF PALO ALTO
Estimated Offsite Construction Cost,~
Demolition
Traffic Control
Remove/stockpile AC pavement
PCC removal
AC removal
Remove trees
Remove curb and gutter
Remove/stockpile AC pavement & concrete
Remove/stockpile sidewalk
Remove underground utilities
Water System
8" PVC pipe
Connection to main
Clow/Rich No. 76 fire hydrant
Blow off valve
8" valve
Sanitary Sewer
8" PVC pipe
Manholes
Storm Drain
18" RCP
Connect to storm drain main
Joint Trench
Street Improvements
4" AC/8" AB pavement section
Grinding
Driveway
Curb and gutter
4" CL A/4" CL II sidewalk
Wheelchair access ramps
Monument
Relocation of electrical boxes
Signing and Striping
Signing, Striping, and Marking
Landscaping
Preparation
Planting
Subtotal =
Contingency =
Total =
BONDING AMOUNT =,$250 000
$10,000
$9,232
$2,092
$1,300
$1,200
$2,583
$95
$11,598
$2,280
$3,3O0
$2,400
$5,000
$1,560
$1,300
$1,750
$6,200
$3,910
$700
$13,200
$6,924
$27,608
$2,370
$14,760
$14,147
$2,750
$550
$1,000
$5,000
$9,135
$13,365
$177,309
$72,691
$250,000
This document.is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Palo Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
~in accordance with Section 6103
of the Government Code.
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
STANDARD PACIFIC’CORP.,
A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
AND CITY OF PALO ALTO REQUIRING PROVISION
OF BELOW-MARKET-RATE DWELLINGS AT
APN 127-10-102:i010 East Meadow Circle
APN 127-10-092:ii01 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, California
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed this day
of , 2006 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a
municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter
referred to as "City", and STANDARD PACIFIC CORP., a Delaware
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner";
RECITALS:
io Owner owns and intends to develop that certain property in the
City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California,
generally known and described as i010 East Meadow Circle and
ii01 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, California (the "Property")
and more particularly described in Exhibit A (property
description) attached to this Agreement and a part of it.
The 4.36-acre site is zoned LM and is composed of two parcels.
The Project involves merging the two existing parcels into one
development site and the construction of 75 condominium,
townhouse style, ownership units. There will be 24 Plan 1
two-bedroom units, 24 Plan 2 three-bedroom units and 27 Plan 3
three-bedroom units. Interior living space within each unit,
ranging in size from about 1,213 to 1,625 square feet, is
located on two levels over two car garages.
This project is subject to the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)-
requirements as contained in Program H-36 of the Comprehensive
Plan (Chapter 4 - Housing)that new housing development include
below-market-rate (~BMR~) dwelling units.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree
as follows:
Below-Market-Rate Program Obligations. Owner agrees to provide
at its sole cost and expense, eleven (Ii) BMR units on the
Property as follows:
a o BMR Requirement. A total of eleven (ii) BMR units shall
be provided to fulfill the following requirement:
b° .
C o
City BMR Requirement. The project is subject to a
fifteen (15%) percent BMR requirement. A total of 75
(seventy-five) for-sale u~its will be constr~ucted within
the Project; Owner has agreed to sell eleven (ii) of the
75-units under the provisions of this agreement and the
rules and procedures of the BMR~program. An additional
three bedroom Plan 2 unit is being provided by Owner,
instead of a third, Plan i, two-bedroom in order to
satisfy the 0.25 portion of the BMR requirement and to
have the total square footage in all eleven BMR units
equal 15% of the total residential square footage in the
Project.
Desiqnation of BMR Units. Based on the unit mix, square~
footage, the three different floor plans and other
features of the 75 units as shown in the plans dated June
6, 2005, we have agreed that Owner wil~ provide the ii
units described in this agreement as BMR units in full
satisfaction of the 11.25 BMR unit requirement under
Program H-36. The ii BMR units are described in more
detail inExhibits B and C 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 designations, locations and floor plans for
consistency with this agreement. However, Owner and the
City may agree, prior to the initiation of project
marketing, to change the designation of particular Plan 2
and 3 units as Lower or Higher Moderate Income units
based on information then available concerning the
relative merits of the various locations within the
Project with the objective of the higher priced BMR units
having better locations.
B~{R Unit Sales Prices. Pricing for the BMR units has been
set based on the methodology, assumptions and other
factors shown in Exhibit D - BMR Sales Price Calculations
and Methodology. In accordance with Program H-36 of the
Housing Element as adopted on December 2, 2002, there are
two levels of affordability and pricing. Seven (7) of the
ii BM~ units are priced to be affordable to buyers at the
do
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% of
the median income).
Possible Increase or Decrease in BMR Sales Prices: The
BMR unit prices have been set using the area median
income (AMI) for Santa Clara County of $105,500 for a
four-person household in effect as of February 25, 2005.
Estimated home mortgage interest rates of 6.00% as of
April i, 2005 for a low down-payment loan were also used
to derive affordable BMR unit prices. Due to the length
of time before the units will be completed and available
for purchase, 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:
(i)Interest rates on loans commonly available to
BMR buyers have increased, or decreased, by 0.5
percent or more; and/or
(2) Changes in the AMI for Santa Clara County
have occurred that would produce price changes that
are equivalent to a 0.5 percent increase or
decrease in interest rates.
The City will use then prevailing interest rates and/or
the then-current AMI for the recalculation of the BMR
unit sales prices using the methodology, assumptions and
other factors in" Exhibit D -BMR Sales Price
Calculations.
f o
Term of Deed Restrictions. The initial term of the deed
restrictions applicable to the BMR units beginning with
the first sale to a BMR qualified buyer shall be 59
years. Future sales or transfers to new owners shall
initiate a new term of affordability.
Construction, Finishing and Amenities. The BMR units
shall be comparable in all aspects to the marketkrate
housing units including, but not limited to, construction
quality, appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom
fixtures, appearance, flooring materials, finish work,
amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to
all facilities. Owner may request permission from the
Director to use different interior finishes, appliances
3
and fixtures in the BMR units than in the market-rate
units. Such substitute materials and equipment must
still be of very good quality and durability. Any such
request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days
prior to issuance of the Project’s first 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, if so, the City
Manager shall approve the acceptance of each BMR unit
into the program.
g o Sale of BMR Units. Owner expressly grants City a right
to purchase the eleven (ii) BMR units at the prices
described herein following completion of construction of
the project and issuance of occupancy permits for the
units by City. In accordance with the sales procedures
for new BMR ownership units described in the BMR Program
Procedures Manual and as provided to Owner, City shall
select qualified buyers, usually from the BMR ownership
program waiting list, and at the appropriate time in each
sale’s transaction, ~ the City will assign its right to
purchase to the selected buyer. Owner shall cooperate
¯ with City, the BMR unit buyers and the City’s program
administrator as necessary in the sale of the BMR units.
At close of escrow for each BMR unit, Owner shall execute
a grant deed, with the BMR Deed Restrictions attached, to
each buyer identified by the City. A copy of the current
BMR Deed Restrictions is attached as Exhibit E. The City
may revise the Deed Restrictions before the initial sale
of the BMR units, in which case the revised Deed
Restrictions as provided by the City, shall be recorded
with the grant deed.
ho City’s Program Administrator: The Department of Planning
and Community Environment administers the BMR program.
The City’s current contract program aclministrator for the
BMR program is the PAHC Housing Services, LLC. The City
may assign any or all of the administrative duties
including review, approval and monitoring functions to
its program administrator or other designee.
Project CC&Rs. The.declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions~ for the condominium project at the
Property (the "Declaration") shall provide the same
membership, voting and other rights for owners of the BMR
units as for owners of all other residential units at the
Property. To the maximum extent permitted by the
California Department of Real Estate ("DRE"), the
Declaration will provide that all regular and special
assessments will be allocated among unit owners on the
4
o
o
o
o
basis of the respective interior living floor area of the¯
units (i.e., interior floor square footage, excluding the
square footage of patios, balconies, and garage spaces),
as calculated by the project architect; provided,
however, that the Declaration may provide for an equal
allocation of assessments among market rate units, or any
other allocation of assessments among market rate units
permitted by the DRE, provided that the proportionate
assessment allocated to any BMR unit is not greater than
the percentage that would have been allocated to that
unit if the allocation among all units had been made on
the basis of the respective interior living floor area
areas of all units.
Reduction of Units. The terms of this agreement shall not be
altered, even if the number of units, size of units, or any
other aspect of the project is altered.
Binding on Successors. The terms, covenants and conditions of
this agreement shall run with the land and shall apply to, and
shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators,
assigns, contractors, and subcontractors of the parties.
Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. The prevailing party in any action
brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or arising out
of this agreement may recover from the other party its
reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees expended in connection
with such an action.
Notices. All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and
mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as
follows:
To City:Office of the City Clerk
CITY OF PALO ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To Owner:Standard Pacific Homes, Inc.
South Bay Division
Attn: Peter Dunne, VP Project Management
900 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 200
Campbell, CA 95008
o Lender Consent and Subordination. Each and every beneficiary
under a deed of trust encumbering.the Property shall execute a
lender consent and subordination agreement which shall be
attached to and recorded with this agreement and~a part of it.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
agreement to be executed in duplicate the day and year first
above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Assistant City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
STANDARD PACIFIC CORP.,
a Delaware Corporation
Name:
Title:
Name:
Title:
Sen~or Deputy City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF )
On , before me, ,
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on theinstrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF )
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed £he same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
7
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Property Description
Description of BMR Units with Tentative Sales
Prices
Site Plan with BMR Unit Locations
BMR Sales Price Calculations and methodology
Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions
ii
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
i010 East Meadow Circle
APN: 127-10-102
Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara,
described as follows:
Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed in the
office of the. Recorder of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California on April 22 1974 in Book 338 of
Maps, page 41.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ii01 East Meadow Circle
APN: 127-10-092
Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara,
described as follows:
Parcel 1 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed in the
office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara,
State of California on April 22, 1974 in Book 338 of
Maps, page 41.
2
o
EXHIBIT B
Exhibit C-Site Plan
with BMR Unit Locations
¯
~ F F ~_..I
i~, ~-~i
1
Below Market Rate Unit
Unit Number Within Complex .. _:.:~ .....
EXHIBIT D-1
PLANNING DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:April 29, 2005
To."Planning Division Staff & Housing Developers, and Others
From:
Subject:
Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning & Community Environment
Updated Prices for New BMR Units - Effective April 1, 2005
Palo Alto has updated its prices for newly constructed housing units for the Below Market
Rate (BMR) home ownership program, as shown below. The attached tables explain the
price calculations. The City updates the BMR prices annually. The new prices are effective
as of April 1, 2005 and apply to BMR units in projects receiving final planning entitlement
approvals during the following year.
Factors updated annually are: the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County, as
published by the State Department of Housing .& Community Development, interest and
mortgage insurance rates for loans typically used by BMR buyers and other home
ownership costs (covered by allowances for repairs and maintenance, typical homeowner
association dues, and fire insurance).
The developer is required to sell new BMR units at the "BMR Unit Price". The required
BMR price is the midpoint price affordable by assumed households in the target income
range for that unit type. BMR units must also comply with the City’s "Standards for BMR
Units". As described in the BMR Program H-36 of the Housing Element, as adopted in
December 2002, there are two levels of affordability for BMR ownership units, as shown
below:
Studio Units
1-bedroom units
2-bedroom units
3-bedrooin units
4-bedroom units
Lower Moderate Income
80%to 100%AMI Units
$175,100
$208,60O
$242~250
$275,850
$302,750
Higher Moderate Income
100%to 120%AMI Units
$227,300
$268,450
$309,500
$350,550
$383,450
Attachments:
1) Price Calculations for Lower Moderate Income Units (80% to 100% of AMI)
2) Price Calculations for Higher Moderate Income Units (100% to 120% of AMI)
H:LDOCLBMR ProgramkBMR Price Art - Exh D Cover Memo 4-05.doc
EXHIBIT D-2
City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program
Prices for New BMR Units
for Households at 80% to 100% of Median Income
Revised April 2005
Persons In
Household
1
2
3
4
5
80% of County
Area Median
Income
100% of County
Area Median
Income
Range of Affordable Prices at 80% to 100% of
Median Income
$59,100
$67,500
$75,950
$84,400
$91,150
$73,850
$84,4OO
$94,950
$105,500
$113,950
$149,000 -$201,200
$178,700 -$238,500
$208,600 -$275,900
$238,500 $313,200
$262,400 $343,100
Assumed Household Size
for Unit Type Unit Type
BMR Unit Price
(Assumes 90% 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:
Interest Rates (As of 4/1/05)6.00%
Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05)0.89%
Property Taxes 1.25%
Total Effective Interest Rate 8.14%
Number of Monthly Payments:360
Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):95%
Allowance for:. HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance $425
Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month)
Loan Terms:
Zero (0) Loan Points
30 Year, Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan
Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance, " ’
property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance, fire insurance)
$105,500
H:\Sheet\BMR ATT D 4-2005 Prices at 80-100
, ,
EXHIBIT D-3
City of Palo Alto BMR Ownership Program
Prices for New BMR Units
for Households at 100% to 120% of Median Income
Revised April 2005
Persons In
Household
100% of
County Area
Median Income
120% of County
Area Median
Income
Range of Affordable Prices at 100% to 120%
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
Unit Type
1
2
3
4
5
Unit Type
Studio
1 Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
BMR Unit Price
(Assumes 110% of Area Median Income & Midpoint
Price for Assumed Household Size for the Unit Type)
$227,300
$268,450
$309,500
$350,550
$383,450
VARIABLES AND ASSUMPTIONS:
Area Median Income: 4-person household (As of 2/25/05)
Annualized Rates:
Interest Rates (As of 4/1/05)
Mortgage Insurance (As of 4/1/05)
Property Taxes
Total Effective Interest Rate
Number of Monthly Payments:
Loan-To-Value (5% downpayment):
Allowance for: HOA Association Dues; Repairs & Maintenance
Costs, & Fire Insurance (Per Month)
Loan Terms:
Zero (0) Loan Points
30 Year, Fixed Rate, Fully Amortized Loan
Maximum of 30% of Gross Income for All Housing Costs (mortgage, private mortgage insurance,
property taxes, HOA dues, repairs & maintenance allowance & fire insurance)
$105,500
6,00%
0.89%
1.25%
8.14%
360
95%
$425
H:\Sheet\BMR ATT D 4-2005 Prices at 100-120%
EXHIBIT E
City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions (August 1993)
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
assignment shall not extend any time limits contained herein. Any attempt to transfer title or any interest
therein in violation of these covenants shall be void.
B.Procedure on Sale.
Whenever the Owner ("Owner" refers to Grantee and all successors in interest) of said Premises no
longer desires to own said Premises, owner shall notify City in writing to that effect. Such notice shall be
personally delivered or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first class, certified, addressed to
City Manager, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, with a copy to the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation, 725 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 or certified mail,, to the Owner thereof at any time within sixty (60) days from the receipt by City of
such written notice from Owner of intent to sell or dispose of the Premises.
If the City, its designee or assignee exercises its right to purchase said Premises, close of escrow of said
purchase shall be within ninety (90) days of the opening of such escrow by either party. Said escrow shall be
opened upon delivery to Owner of written notice of the exercise of the option or. as soon thereafter as
possible. In the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone
opening of escrow until selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the
opening of the escrow shall not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the
City’s exercise of its right to purchase.
Closing costs and title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City of Palo
Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written
report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report
to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work
to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the Seller. Any
work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests
or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is
not the responsibility of the Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and then at the
8/93)Page 1 of 7 r, cg.
EXHIBIT E
expense of the Buyer. The Buyer shall be responsible for payment of any prepayment fees imposed by any
lender by reason of the sale of the premises. The purchase price shall be paid in cash at the close of escrow
or as may be otherwise provided by mutual agreement of Buyer and Seller. The purchase price of the
Premises shall be fixed at the lower amount arrived at via the following two methods:
City or its designee shall have an appraisal made by an appraiser of its choice to establish the market
value. The owner may also have an appraisal made by an appraiser of Owner’s choice to establish the
market value. If agreement cannot be reached, the average of the two appraisals shall be termed the
market price.
Dollars ($) XXXXXXXXXXXX
plus the amount of any prepayment fees paid by the selling Owner at the time said Owner purchased the
Premises (base price), plus an amount, if any, to compensate for any increase in the cost of living as
measured by one-third (1/3) of the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for the San Francisco-
Oakland-San Jose area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
(hereinafter "the Index"). For that purpose, the Index prevailing on the date of the purchase by the
selling Owner of said Premises shall be compared with the latest Index available on the date of receipt
by City of notice of intent to sell. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and
the base price shall be increased by one-third (1/3) of that percentage; provided, however, that the price
shall in no event be lower than the purchase price paid by the selling Owner when he purchased the
Premises. This adjusted price shall be increased by the value of any substantial structural or permanent
fixed improvements which cannot be removed without substantial damage to the Premises or
substantial or total loss of value of said improvements and by the value of any appliances, fixtures, or
equipment purchased to replace appliances, fixtures, or equipment which were originally acquired as
part of the Premises by Owner; provided that such price adjustment for replacement appliances,
fixtures, or equipment shall be allowed only when the expenditure is necessitated by the non-operative
or other deteriorated condition of the original appliance, fixture, or equipment. If at the time of
replacement the original appliance, fixture, or equipment had in excess of twenty percent (20%) of its
original estimated useful life remaining, Owner shall document to the City’s satisfaction the condition
of the appliance, fixture, or equipment which necessitated its replacement. No such price adjustment
shall be made significantly in excess of the reasonable cost to replace the original appliance, fixture, or
equipment with a new appliance, fixture, or equipment of comparable quality as hereinafter provided.
No such adjustment shall be made except for improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment made or
installed by the selling Owner. No improvements, appliance, fixture, or equipment shall be deemed
substantial unless the actual initial cost thereof to the Owner exceeds one percent (1.0%) of the
purchase price paid by the Owner for the Premises; provided that this minimum limitation shall not
apply in either of the following situations:
(a)Where the expenditure was made pursuant to a mandatory assessment levied by the Homeowners’
association for the development in which the Premises is located, whether levied for
improvements or maintenance to the Premises, the common area, or related purposes.
(b)Where the expenditure was made for the replacement of appliances, fixtures, or equipment which
were originally acquired as part of the Premises by Owner.
(Rev. 8/93)Page 2 of 7 Reg.
EXHIBIT E
No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment unless
the Owner shall present to the City valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value
of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows:
(a)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less
than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance,
fixture or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straight-line depreciation applied to
the original cost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated
original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment.
(b)The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more, shall be the appraised market value of the improvement,.
appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addition or fixture to the premises (i.e., the
amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the market value of the
premises) at the time of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as the market value
of the premises in method 1 above.
(c)On January 1, 1982, and every two years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or recordation
hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)
immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those paragraphs in the.
following manner. On each adjustment date, the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for
the San Francisco-Oakland area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailing on the
date of recordation of this deed. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and
the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be increased, in the same percentage. In no event
shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
(d)No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all
expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested.
Any sale price determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer
Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by
decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance co;ts, which amount
shall be determined as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner’s intent to sell, City or its designee
shall be entitled to inspect the Premises. City or its designee shall have an opportunity to determine
whether all plumbing, electrical, and heating systems are in working order; whether any violations of
applicable building, plumbing, electric, fire, or housing codes exist; whether all appliances which
were originally furnished to Owner as part of the Premises, or any replacements thereof, are in
working order; whether walls, ceilings and floors are clear and free of holes or other defects (except
for holes typical of picture hangers); whether doors, windows, screens and similar appurtenances are
cracked, broken or torn; and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally
furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or any replacement thereof, are clean and free of holes,
tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator ofCity
(Rev. 8/93)Page 3 of 7 ~eg.
EXHIBIT E
shall obtain estimates to cure the observed deficiencies. The Owner Shall cure the deficiencies in a
reasonable manner acceptable to City or designee within sixty (60) days of being notified of the
results of the inspection, but in no event later than close of escrow. Should owner fail to cure such
deficiencies prior to the scheduled date of close of escrow, at the option of City, its designee or
assignee, escrow may be closed, title passed and money paid to the selling Owner subject to the
condition that such funds as are necessary to pay for curing Such deficiencies (based upon written
estimates obtained by City) shall be withheld from the money due the selling Owner and held by the
escrow holder for the purpose of curing such deficiencies. City, its designee or assignee shall cause
such deficiencies to be cured and upon certification of completion of work by City, escrow holder
shall utilize such funds to pay for said work. Any remaining funds shall be paid to the selling Owner.
No other payment shall be due said Owner.
In no event shall City become in any way liable to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer of the
Premises in connection with any sale or other conveyance of the Premises. Nor shall City become obligated
in any manner to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer by reason of the assignment of City’s right to
purchase. Nor shall City be in.any way obligated or liable to Owner or any potential or actual Buyer for any
failure of City’s assignee to consummate a purchase of the Premises or to comply with the terms of any
purchase and sale agreement.
Until such time as the City’s right to purchase is exercised, waived, or expired, the Premises ’and any
interest in title thereto shall not be sold, conveyed, leased, rented, assigned, encumbered or otherwise
transferred to any person or entity except with the prior express written consent of City or its designee, which
consent shall be consistent with City’s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing in
Palo Alto for persons of low and moderate income. Any encumbering of title of the Premises in connection
with securing any financing or loan may only be accomplished with City’s prior express written consent;
however, in the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed in lieu of foreclosure, the provisions of Section D of
this instrument shall govern.
The following transfers of title or any interest therein are not subject to the right of first refusal
provisions of this deed: transfer by gift, devise, or inheritance to grantee’s spouse or issue; taking of title by
surviving joint tenant; transfer of title to spouse as part of divorce or dissolution proceedings; acquisition of
title or interest therein in conjunction with marriage; provided, however, that these covenants shall continue
to run with the title to said Premises following said transfers.
C.Termination of Right of First Refusal.
The provisions set forth in this deed relating to City’s right to purchase shall terminate and become void
automatically fifty-nine (59) years following the date of recordation of this deed.
Upon the expiration of said fifty-nine (59) year period, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a non-profit
charitable organization or its successor organization, shall have the right to purchase the Premises, and if
Owner no longer desires to own the premises, Owner shall notify the PaloAlto Housing Corporation in
accordance with the procedures for notifying the City in Paragraph B above. If the Palo Alto Housing
(Rev.8/93)¯¯ Page 4 Of 7 Reg.
EXHIBIT E
Corporation elects to exercise its right to purchase, it shall do so in accordance with the procedures and price
set forth for the City in Paragraph B above.
D. Default.
Owner covenants to cause to be filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara a request for a copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale under any deed of trust or
mortgage with power of sale encumbering said Premises pursuant to Section 2924 (b) of the Civil Code of
the Sate of California. Such request shall specify that any such notice shall be mailed to the City Manager,
City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Any notice of sale given pursuant to Civil
Code Section 2924 (f) shall constitute a notice of intent to sell hereunder and City or its designee or assignee
may :exercise its preemptive right prior to any trustee’s sale, judicial foreclosure sale, or transfer by deed in
lieu of foreclosure, provided, however, notwithstanding any language contained in this instrument to the
contrary regarding the rights of the lien holder, the City, or its designee or assignee, must complete such
purchase no later than the end of the period established by California Civil Code Section 2924 ( c ) for
reinstatement of a monetary default under the deed of trust or mortgage.
In the event of default and foreclosure, the City, or its designee or assignee, shall have the same right as
the Owner to cure defaults and redeem the Premises prior to foreclosure sale. Such redemption shall be
subject to the same fees, charges and penalties as would otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing
herein shall be construed to create any obligation on the part of the City to cure any such default, nor shall
this right to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the
underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The City, or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from
Owner all costs incurred in curing any such default.
In the event City elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner
may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of
surplus (after payment of encumbrances)s if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would
have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its right
to purchase the property on the date of the foreclosure sale, shall be paid to Owner on the date of the
foreclosure sale; the balance of surplus, if any, shall be paid to the City for increasing the City’s low-income
and moderate-income housing stock.
E.Distribution of Insurance and Condemnation Proceeds.
In the event that the Premises are destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of
being used to rebuild, or in the event of condemnation, if proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, or in the
case of a condominium project, in the event of liquidation of the homeowners’ association and distribution of
the assets of the association to the members thereof, including Owner, any surplus of proceeds so distributed
remaining 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.
Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT E
All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses:
CITY:City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION:
OWNER:
725 Alma Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301-2403
By acceptance of this deed, Grantee/Owner accepts and agrees to be bound by the covenants contained
herein, and further acknowledges receipt of and agrees to be bound by the provisions of these deed
restrictions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Grantee has caused this instrument to be executed this
day of ,20___.
Signature of Grantee Signature of Grantee
Print Name Print Name
Signature of Grantee Signature of Grantee
Print Name Print Name
(Rev. 8/93)Page 6 of 7 ,Reg.
EXHIBIT E
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code Sec. 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
On ., before me,,
a notary public in and for said County, personally appeared ~,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.