HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-24 City Council (9)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 of Planning and
Community Environment on October 12, 2004, 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 December 8, 2004. The Commission
recommended approval on a 5-1-1-0 vote.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Proj ect has determined that it is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
section 15332-In-fill development projects. In order to qualify
for this exemption, a project must meet all of the stated criteria
under this section:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and all applicable general plan policies as well
as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare
or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities
and public services.
This residential infill-development project conforms to the
criteria indicated above in the following ways:
(a) This project complies with all other applicable Comprehensive
Plan and zoning regulations, and no exceptions to any site
development regulations accompany this request for a
recommendation;
(b) The site is 4.4 acres in size, well within the City limits in
a developed area, and is surrounded by both residential and
commercial uses;
(c)No habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other
sensitive species is present on site, as the site is
currently developed with commercial/light industrial
buildings and surface parking areas;
(d)No increases in traffic or noise or significant effects to
air or water quality would result in developing this site for
residential use; and
(e) Existing infrastructure serves the three buildings on site,
2
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 the known
onsite environmental conditions, as verifiable bi the phase I
environmental site assessment. This assessment indicates that
no hazardous material incidents have been reported in the site
vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the site.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section 66474): .
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
The site does not lie within a specific plan area and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. That the design or improvement of the. proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
The map is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
related to the change in land use (housing element and policies L-
7, L-47, and H-3), below market rate units (BMR program, policy H-2
and programs H-1, 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-1), open space/amenities (policies N-15
and N-22), and relationship to adjacent properties (policies N-39,
N-40, and N-42). In addition, this design furthers the intent of
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-47, which indicates that the East
Meadow Circle Area should be considered as a potential site for
4
, .. :[~~.. /' ,:::"(,:".,,,.;" .
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 the removal of the
existing 5-foot Public Utility Easement is acceptable per the
Utilities Department, and the existing 10-foot embankment easement
shall be maintained. The 5-foot Public Utility Easement is
referenced on Sheet 3 of the Vesting Tentative Map plan set, and
the 10-foot embankment easement is referenced on Sheets 3 and 4.
SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5. Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF
Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled "Vesting Tentative Map:
East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8 pages, dated and received
November 29, 2004, except as modified to incorporate the conditio0s
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
6
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.
10. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
11. An ADA accessible/compliant curb ramp shall be required
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drives.
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 off of East Meadow
Drive be designated per Caltrans Manual on Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) .
8
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners
titled "Vesting Tentative Map: East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8
pages, dated and received November 29, 2004.
10
DetailslMaterials Binder are available upon request. The only action required of the
Planning and Transportation Commission is a recommendation on the Vesting Tentative
Map. The site design and architecture is subject to ARB review.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
In order to carry out the proposed project, the must applicant must obtain two discretionary
permits,as required by City ordinances: Major architectural review, which is within the
purview of the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) with
recommendation from the Architectural Review Board; and a Tentative Map, which is within
the purvieW of the City Council with recommendation from the Commission. On October
12,2004, the Director approved the ARB component, since the project was found to comply
with zoning and architectural regulations. The Vesting Tentative Map application has been
reviewed by staff and City departments for compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other
codes and ordinances.
The scope of the Commission's review for the purposes of this Vesting Tentative Map
application should be limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed
subdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the
Subdivision Map Act as follows:
"Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and
sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3)
location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads
and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading;
(8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other
specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire
subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or
implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as
required pursuant to Section 66473.5.
(Government Code, section 66418)
(a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or
agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or
private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the
general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood
traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and
acceptance of the final map thereof.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
(b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types
of improvements, the instailation of which, either by the subdivider, by
public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the
local agency, or by a'combination thereof, is necessary to ensure
consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable
specific plan.
(Government Code, section 66419)
It should also be noted that, when processing a subdivision map for a
condominium project, the Subdivision Map Act does not require that the division
of airspace be shown on the map.
The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the
design of the proposed structures to be located within the subdivision, which has
already been reviewed pursuant to the City's ARB process.
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 and
8). 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 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).
The project's Below Market Rate Agreement Letter for 12 BMR units, in accordance with
the City's BMR Program (Housing Element Program H-36), has been provided (Attachment
C). For information purposes only, the following have been included as attachments:
• The applicant's submittal of a project letter, ARB approval findings, and news article
(Attachment B);
• ARB approval conditions and findings, along with the staff report and minutes from the
final Architectural Review board meeting (Attachments D, E, and F); and
• ARB architectural plans to aid in the Commission's review of the Vesting Tentative Map
plan set (Attachment H).
City of Palo Alto Page 3
TIMELINE:
Action:
Preliminary ARB Meeting:
Vest. Tentative Map Application Received:
ARB Application Received:
ARB Application Deemed Complete:
First Formal ARB Hearing:
Final ARB Hearing:
Director's Approval of ARB Application:
Vest. Tent. Map Application Deemed Complete:
P&TC Meeting on Vesting Tent. Map:
Action by Council on Vesting Tent. Map:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Date:
December 18, 2003
January 30,2004
March 2, 2004
June 2, 2004
June 3, 2004
October 7,2004
October 12, 2004
November 29,2004
December 8,2004
TBD
The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that it is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15332-In-fill
development projects. In order to qualify for this exemption, a project must meet all of the
stated criteria under this section:
(a)The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable
general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b )The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
(c )The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d)Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
noise, air quality, or water quality; and
(e)The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Staff has determined, as outlined within Section 2 of the Record of Land Use Action, that
the application meets these criteria.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Record of Land Use Action
B. Applicant's Project Correspondence
C. Below Market Rate Agreement Letter
D. ARB Approval Letter and Findings
E. ARB Staff Report, dated October 7, 2004
F. . ARB Final Hearing Minutes (Commission Members Only)
G. Vesting Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only)
H. ARB plans (Commission Members Only)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
COURTESY COPIES:
Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, Project Applicant
Thomas Morse, Proj ect Engineer
Roman De Sota, Project Landscape Architect
James Baer, Premier Properties Management
. Rick Stoltz, Property Owner
PGSP, Inc., Property Owner
California Pacific Commercial Corporation, Property Owner
1. Marty Brill, Property Owner
Alice Smith, Resident
Steve Yanofsky, Resident
Prepared by: Chris Magnusson, Planner ~
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning q
Department/Division Head APproval:_--",7f?t6-=--· ---f---,~~",,-'-----==-=;"=_~"--.------=:»L"_&-'-""-"~ __ ----
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
APPROVAL NO. 2004-9
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 928, 940, & 1180 EAST MEADOW
DRIVE: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 04-PM-Ol
(TRUMARK COMPANIES, APPLICANT)
Attachment A
At its meeting on , 2005, the City Council of the City
of Palo Alto approved the Vesting Tentative Map to merge three
parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 76 condominium units, making
the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo. Al to ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
fol·lows:
A. Proposed by Trumark Companies, this project involves
merging the three existing parcels into one developable site, the
demolition of the existing buildings, and the construction of 76
condominium units. The density of this residential infill
development would be 17.3 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, twelve (12)
shall be dedicated as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. Seven (7).
separate floor plans are proposed within six (6) types of.multi-
unit condominium buildings. Per each unit, the buildings house two
floors constructed above the garage. No building is proposed
taller than the maximum height limit of 35 feet, and along the
southern boundary, building height steps upward from approximately
23 feet. The unit sizes, proposed from two to three bedrooms,
range from the smallest at 1,227 s.f. to the largest at 1,580 s.f.,
not including garage space.
B. The Vesting Tentative Map plan set includes
information on the existing parcels a~d onsite conditions (Sheet
3) i 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) i utility information (Sheet
6) i and cross-sections of new streets arid walkways (Sheets 7 and
8). 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
~our 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 October 12,
2004, 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 ordinance's and received
Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) review on
December 8, 2004. The Commission recommended on a
vote.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that it is categorically
exempt ,from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per
section 15332-In-fill development projects. In order to qualify
for this exemption, a project must meet all of the stated criteria
under this section:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and all applicable general plan policies as well
as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a
project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare
or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant
effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities
,and public services.
This residential infill-development project conforms to the
criteria indicated above in the following ways:
(a) This project complies with all other applicable Comprehensive
Plan and zoning regulations, and no exceptions to any site
development regulations accompany this request for a
recommendation;
(b) The site is 4.4 acres in size, well within the City limits in
a developed area, and is surrounded by both residential and
commercial uses;
(c)No habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or other
sensitive species is present on site, as the site is
currently developed with commercial/light industrial
buildings and surface parking areas;
(d)No increases in traffic or noise or significant effects to
air Or water quality would result in developing this site for
residential use; and
(e) Existing infrastructure serves the ~hree bu{ldings on site,
2
and upgrades to various utilities will ·occur in constructing
the new residential units and installing the site
landscaping.
In order to fully assess the project's CEQA compliance
and to particularly address the categories listed under criterion
(a-e) above, staff requested and evaluated studies prepared by
professional consultants. The documents provided include: (1)
trip generation estimates-by Fehr & Peers dated August 13, 2004;
(2) a noise impact summary-by CharlesM. Sutter Associates dated
March 18, 2004; (3) an air quality assessment-by Mindigo &
Associates dated March 18, 2004; and (4) a storm water quality
evaluation-by BKF Engineers dated March 19, 2004. In addition,
the following were submitted and evaluated: a tree inventory and
evaluation-:by Arbor Resources dated March 17, 2004; . and a
geotechnical feasibility investigation report and a phase I
environmental site assessment-by Lowney Associates dated March
24, 2004. All studies reviewed by staff are contained within the
project file for viewing upon request.
The studies provided pertained to traffic, noise, air and
water quality, and the applicability of constructing residences on
this location in terms of existing soils/geotechni~al 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 1,099 daily trips, 168
AM, and 168 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 451 daily trips, 34 AM, and 40 PM peak-hour
trips.
• Nb noise generating features will be created on site {as air
conditioning units are optional and placement can be
controlled). In addition, less traffic noise worild occur as
fewer trips would be generated;
• Less air poilution 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. New construc.tion
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
3
water and sewer linesi
• 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
proposedi
• 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 Manuali
• 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
techniquesiand
• Residential development wo:uld be compatible with the known
onsite environmental conditions, as verifiable by the phase I
environmental site assessment. This assessment indicates that
no hazardous material incidents have been reported in the site
vicinity that would be likely to significantly impact the site.
SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative
Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California
Government Code Section. 66474) :
1. That the proposed map is not consistent wi th 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 B-3), below market rate units (BMR program, policy H-2
and programs H-1, 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-1), open space/amenities (policies N-15
and N~22), and relationship to adjacent properties (policies N-39,
N-40, and N-42). In addition, chis 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
4
higher density housing that provides a transition between existing
housing and nearby industrial development.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
The site is located within the Limited
Industrial/Research Park (LM) District,with existing development
on three individual parcels. This multiple-family residential-
infill project is a suitable use at this location and permissible
under the existing zone district and supported by land use policies
within the Comprehensive Plan, as indicated above in Finding No.2.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
between different designated land uses in that it would now serve
as a transition between existing commercial uses and single-family
residences within the neighborhood.
4. That the si te is not physically sui table for the
proposed density of development:
The purpose for the Vesting Tentative Map is to merge
the three existing parcels and create 76 condominium units. In
doing so, the site would remain within the permissible density
. 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 76 dwe~ling units, an amount under the maximum
permissible. Moreover, Comprehensive Plan policy L-47 indicates
the East Meadow Circle Area be considered as a potential site for
higher density housing.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habi tat:
The merger of parcels and creation of condominium units
will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or
their habitat, as no habitat for endangered, rare, threatened, or
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
industYial buildings and surface parking areas.
6. That the design of .the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
5
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 wi thin the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may
approve a map if'it finds that alternate easements, for access or
for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equi valent 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 the removal of the
existing 5-foot Public Utili ty Easement is acceptable per the
Utilities Department, and the existing 10-foot embankment easement
shall be maintained. The 5-foot Public Utility Easement is
referenced on Sheet 3 of the Vesting Tentative Map plan set, and
the 10-foot embankment easement is referenced on Sheets 3 and 4.
SECTION 4. Vesting Tentative Map Approval Granted.
Vesting Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under
Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the
California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions
of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5. Final Map Approval.
The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City
Council of the City of Palo Alto shall, be in substantial
conformance with the Vesting Tentative Map prepared by BKF
Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners titled "Vesting Tentative Map:
East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8 pages, dated and received
November 29, 2004, except as modified to incorporate the conditions
of approval in Section 6.
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 wi th the Vesting
6
Tentative Map as conditionally approved I and in compliance with the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and
submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]).
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. A Final Map I in conformance with the approved Vesting
Tentative Map I all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.16) I and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer I 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 I attached to the staff
report. In addi tionl a formal BMR Agreement, including the
identification of the locations of 'the BMR units and provisions for
their salel shall be prepared in a form satisfactory to the City
AttorneYI executed by Trumark and the CitYI and recorded against
the property prior to or concurrent with the recording of the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
Prior to Submittal of Final Map
Planning Division
4. The Final Map shall be crosschecked for compliance
with the ARB and the Vesting Tentative Map approved plans and
conditions.
Department of Utilities
5. In consultation with the Departments of Utilities and
Planning and Community Environment I Public Utility Easements for
installation and maintenance of water meters I gas lines I gas
meters l and pad-mounted tranpformers with associated substructures
shall be designated on the Final Map.
7
Department of Public Works
Engineering Division
6. Other easements and/or modifications may be necessary
and shall be reflected on the Final Map, as designated by the
Public Works Department.
7. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works
Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and
Transportation Departments after approval of the Vesting Tentative
Map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. This meeting
shall determine the scope of all work required and related to
offsite improvements. The improvement plans must be completed and
approved by. the City prior to submittal of the Final Map.
Prior to Approval of Final Map
8. Prior to 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.
10. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with
curb and gutter.
11. An ADA accessible/compliant curb ramp shall be required
at the corner of the intersection of East Meadow Drives.
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 off of East Meadow
Drive be designated per Cal trans Manual on Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) .
8
14. All crosswalks shall have painted white edge lines per
MUTCD standards.
15 .. A painted yellow centerline shall be designated at .the
turn between units nos. 36 and 26 per MUTCD standards.
Prior to Recordation of Final Map
16. This property is in a special flood hazard area and
notation of this shall appear on the recorded Final Map.
17. 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, Utili ties, and Public Works
Departments.
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.
Vesting Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the
vesting Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a
Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]).
Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval
are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Vesting
Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the
Vesting Tentative Map shall expire and· all proceedings shall
terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first
processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
9
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers, Surveyors, and Planners
titled "Vesting Tentative Map: East Meadow Drive", consisting of 8
pages, dated and received November 29, 2004.
10
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Residential fufill Development
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive / File No. 04-ARB-19
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and
purposes of the ARB Ordinance, as it complies with the required Findings listed under P AMC
Section 18.76.020(d):
(1) . The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan in that the project meets numerous policies related to the change in
land use (housing element and policies L-7, L-47, and H-3), below market rate units (BMR
program, policy H-2 and programs H-l, B-3, and H-38) sustainable/green building design
(Goal B-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and program H-69), shared recreational use
(policy T-l), open space/amenities (policies N-15 and N-22), and relationship to adjacent
properties (policies N-39, N-40, and N-42).
(2) The design is compatible with the neighboring properties, fl.-om lowered building heights
along the residential edge to extend the residential quality and character, to a transition of
compatible buildings height toward the perimeter street sides. Both 20 and 24-foot
setbacks, in addition to the street widths, provide adequate buffers adjacent to the LM-
zoned commercial/industrial uses located across both streets. This design further 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) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that it expresses residential
characteristics through the building design, site layout, and landscaping;
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses in that the site would now serve as a transition between
existing commercial uses and single-family residences within the neighborhood;
(6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site as this
project is a residential infill development and would enhance, maintain, and/or improve
existing infrastructure;
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal
sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community in that the proposed layout adds to the readability of the site and provides
private and public spaces for interaction by residents and visitors;
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of
the structures in that pockets of open space have been integrated with buildings and streets
to function either passively or actively for residents;
Page 1 of3
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and
the same are compatible with the project's design concept in that the required covered
carwash structure shall be designed to compliment the buildings colors and materials and
be functional for users of the site;
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon is safe and convenient for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicles in that an internal pedestrian network has been developed in addition
to continuous street circulation for vehicle and bicycle traffic, each of which link to the
existing street and public sidewalk network;
(11) Natural features have been appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that
the primary natural feature on site (i.e., existing trees) has been preserved where possible
and that a comprehensive tree inventory has been developed and endorsed by the City's
Managing Arborist in the Planning Division to integrate the development within the
existing tree network, as well as to propose additional trees, shrubs, and groundcover where
applicable;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an
appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that an earth tone
colors and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and plant materials
to add vibrancy to the site and to help its integration with the surrounding properties;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant fonns and foliage textures and colors creates a desirable and
functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the
various buildings on the site in that a variety of species types have been chosen to integrate
amongst the existing trees to be preserved and amongst the various buildings;
(14) The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the combination of
California native plants with exotic and ornamental materials would have low maintenance
and water use requirements;
(15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates a renewable energy source in providing a
permanent 4kw Photovoltaic system on the roof of the carwash structure for reduction of
the HOA's electrical costs, as well as wiring and inverter space accounted for within each
unit should the an individual owner choose to install a system prior to occupancy.
Moreover, the following features have been achieved: Title-24 value calculations shall
exceed standards by 15 percent; gas air and water heating throughout buildings; spectrally
sensitive low-E windows with appropriate Solar Heat Coefficient per proper solar
orientation; only high energy efficient cooling systems shall be offered as an optional
feature; appliances with high energy efficient ratings; high energy efficient horizontal axis
washers and dryers; low-flow plumbing fixtures and faucets; operable windows; low-flow
irrigation combined with drought resistant plant materials; certified lumber and wood
Page 2 of3
products will be specified where feasible not to exceed 10% of standard lumber and wood
products costs.
This project would be subject to the City's construction and demolition ordinance (P AMC
Chapter 5.24) for recycling of applicable existing materials on site.
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review in that the
site will be enhanced in telIDS of desirability for onsite as well as neighboring residents,
and an a new environment of high aesthetic quality and variety will be achieved.
ARB Finding No.4 is not applicable to this project.
Page 3 of3
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30,2004
Page 2 of5
submitted an application for a vesting tentative sub,division map to allow the
residential units to be sold separately as condominiums.
BMR Requirement: The project is subject to a fifteen (15%) percent BMR
requirement. A total of 76 (seventy-six) for-sale units will be constructed within
the Project; Trumark has agreed to sell twelve (12) of the 76-units under the
provisions of this agreement and theirules and procedures of the BMR-program.-
The 12 BMR units eqmil 15.8% of the 76 total units being developed in the Project.
Designation of BMR Units: Based on the unit mix, square footage, the seven
different floor plan~ and other features of the 76 units as shown in the plans
submitted to the City on November 3, 2004, we have agreed that Trumark will
provide the following units as the BMR units in full satisfaction ofthe City's BMR
Program H-3.6. The 12 BMR units are described in more detail Attachments A and
B:
Summary of 12 BMR Units and Sales Prices
BMR Floor Bedrooms/ Unit Sales Price Affordability
Units Plan Baths Number Level
2 PI 2 BRs/2.5 65, 74 $277,350 Lower
Baths --Moderate
4 PIA 3 BRs / 3 Baths 22,34,43, $325,800 Lower
48 Moderate
1 PIE 3 BRs / 3 Baths 29 $325,800 Lower
, Moderate
2 P2 3 BRs / 2.5 28,58 $405,100 _ Higher
Baths Moderate
1 P3 2 BRs / 2 Baths 9-$346,650 Higher
Moderate
1 P4 3 BRs/2.5 1 $405,100 -Higher
Baths Moderate
1 P5 3 BRs/2.5 17 $405,100 Higher
Baths Moderate
The fm,il construction plans for the building permit(s) shall designate each BMR-
unit and those final designations, locations and floor plans shall be approved by the
H:\DOCIBMR Program\Trumark BMR Agrmt 11-30-D4.doc
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30, 2004
Page 3 of5
Director prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project for consistency
with this agreement. '
BMR Unit Sales Prices: Pricing for the' BMR units has been set based the
methodology, assumptions and other factors shown in Attachment C -BMRSales
Price Calculations -for Trumark East Meadow' Project. In accordance with Program
H-36 ofihe Housing Element as adopted on December 2,2002, there are two levels
of affordabilityand pricing. Seven (7) of the 12 BMR units are priced to be
affordable to buyers at the lower range of the moderate-income levei (households
with incomes between 80% and 100.% of the median income} The remaining five
. (5) 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 Coun,ty of $105,500 for' a
four-person household in effect as of March 2004. Estimated home mortgage
interest rates of 5.75% for a low down-payment loan were also used to derive
affordable BMR unit prices. Because the units will not be completed and available
for purchase for about two years, a provision for the readjustment of BMR prices to
reflect major changes in home mortgage interest rates and / or major changes in the
AMI has been included'in this agreement, as follows. .
The City will recalculate the BMR sales prices just prior to the initiation of the BMR
unit sales and marketing process, provided that:
1) Interest rates on loans commonly available to BMR buyers have increased,
or decreased, by 0.5 percent or more; and / or
2) 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 andlor the then-current AMI for the
recalculation of the BMR unit sales prices using the methodology, assumptions and
other factors in Attachment C -BMR Sales Price Calculations -for Trumark East
Meadow Project.
Construction, Finishing, Amenities: The BMR units shall be comparable in all
aspects to the market-rate housing units including, but not limited to, construction
quality, appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, appearance, flooring
materials, finish work, amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to all .
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark BMR Agrmt 11-30-04,doc
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30, 2004
Page 4of5
facilities. Trumark may request penpission from the Director to use different interior
fmishes, appliances and fixtures in the BMR units than in the market-rate units.
Such substitute materials and equipment must still be of very good quality and
durability. Any such request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days prior to
issuance of the Project's building permit. The Director must approve substitute
materials in writing. Pribr to the close of escrow for the sale of each BMR unit, the
City shall inspect the BMR unit to determine that it meets the construction and
finishing standards stated in this Agreement and the City Manager shall approve the
acceptance of each BMR unit into the program.
Sale ofBMR Units, Buyer Selection and Qualification: Trumark shall offer the BMR
units for sale to the City at the approved BMR prices in accordance with procedures
generally described in Attachment D. Trumark shall cooperate with the City, the
buyers and the City'S program administrator as necessary in the first sale of each of
.the BMR units. The City normally selects qualified buyers from the BMR
ownership program waiting list. At the appropriate time in the. sale transaction for
each BMR unit, the City will assign its right to purchase to each qualified BMR
buyer. .
BMR Agreement to Be Recorded: The terms of this letter agreement will be
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative and Final Subdivision
Maps. . In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the
locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded
. against the property prior to, or concurrent with, the recording of the Subdivision
Agreement for the Project. The recorded BMR Agreement will be a contractual
obligation of Trumark and its successors in interest and shall run with the land. The
City requires that lenders with secured interests in the Project subordinate to the
recorded BMR Agreement.
Term of Agreement: For BMR ownership units, the initial term of the City's deed
restrictions, beginning with first sale to a BMR qualified buyer, shall be 59 years.
Future transfers ·or sales to subsequent BMR owners initiate a new 59-year term of
affordability. A copy of the City's current Deed Restrictions is attached to this
agreement as Attachment F. The City may revise the .current deed restrictions before
completion of construction of the Project and the sale of the BMR units, in which
case the City's revised deed restrictions shall be used.
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark BMR Agrmt 11-30-04.doc
-.
· "
928, 940, and 1180 East MeatlowDrive~Miilti-FaIri.ily"Residentia1 Infill DevdloPIIle.nt .
October 12, 2004
04-ARB-19
Page 3 cf8
,project'manager,'-in",'Order'to 'facilitate "timely, review arid'approvaT of design and
, ,construction matters.' '; ! ",', ,",'
9 . Tins ~ptoJedtshaJl meetthe State Regional Water QuhlityControl BOard" s (SR WQCB)
revised provision 'C3.The applicant is -requite a ,to ,satisfyhllcUireilt storm water
dischru.:ge regwations and ,provide chlctil ati oris and dOcl.P)J.erit~;to verify compliance.
10.' : If during' 'gtafungand'constrUction ~ctivities'; 'anyarchaeologicru ofhuinan remains
','ate,eno0uiiteted;(constrUction shill"cease'and'a qualified archaeologist'sh~ visit the
site,to,address:the find: 'The'Santa :Clafa;lCounty'Medica1~x?ihliief!s-office shall be
, 'not1:fieclto proVide'proper t'lirecticri1 'on?how to ;proCeed.;qJ any'Natlve'A:n1erican
". '.tesources keiehcotu1~etetltlUrlng cbristru.~tiort;;cori~trU¢ti6hsh'a1J>c::eas'e:im,mediatelY
unt~,a Native American descendent, appointed bY,the Natlve ,A.riierican Heritage
'Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site, make ,further
, i,rr ," "",~:~omm;enda~oiis':aU(fbe@Illh~ol~~tneiit'~'~~IT:~~~y;~;a~~,:;',,\1 ',':, , . :;':
':" 11. Trash;artd :retyclaole'inateiiars {cOllection ~:f~r i~ilivldtlaI;tiriits:shm meet all
"applicable City regulations and arrangements shallbemade "»,ith the appropriate
:" :-':",:departnientor,:a.~ei.icy. :", ",,' ~ . .i ,:' " "",;:·:'·:;':t;, ,;";:,,
')',. ", ~~~j:~1.~":·\i.;:~</: ,. :.,i·~:··'/,:\~. ;:}';'" : -·r.', -':' .. ,:. '. I
Prior, to Su~bn:u:ai,;rjf::fti~~tof,trr~i.U1i~~(,~~tl!iJt Buillz.~n~!~er~~(s.::."', ;:';:'~.\ ~,'." '
The following requirements shall be met at the time of submittal forgradllJ,g andl-or
'building<pel111it~s~associiated.With:ibis''Pr0ject:'\':: ',',,'i ii;,,' ,",", "<,' .':
~. ~'::"" ;,,:. '":.':'. ~.~ i,:', : L~':":';""': ' .. '.... """"'"1:_'\';:::_:' ~'! "l,:;,_ ':~. ;~.\
12. A Construction/Site Development Phasing"plan ;shhllbe created iitii:t sdbmitted in
reference to the obtaining Certificates of Occupancy for all buildings on site.
;":'~;::. ,' •.•. \.,; "(,, · ..... 1 •• ,;I~.~<.: :;··'~'·;·':~:'''··:·~ .. ··.:;,';r'~:~.\.,,:·
" 13; "!Comp1iance:with"aIl ([])epartmertt'bfPublic"W oiksrEligineerllig !IJiVislon regulations
and policies applicable to this proj'ect';shall'be met,,'aswell'as-pnotto'permit(s)
issnance",duringconstrllctlori, 'prior to {irla1iz~~jon; and prior to , sublnittal and '
recordation of the Final Map. . .,' '
'-... '. ~ .... :! ~ :.' ....... .
, "
14. All details, plan sheets, public art images and other informationhlifems included in
the approved Project Deta.ilslMaterial~Binder;shanbecopiedont(narge-scale plan
sheets included'cin the 'plan 'sets :subrriitted Jorbriiiding pepillt(s r ,'. ,-'
15. The structure provided to meet the required covered car wash area requirement
(p AMC 16.09.1'06[f])'8hal1be designed to complement, in colors and materials, the
proposed architecture of-the bui1dings~'The'location, draiii,above-grade plumbing
· ~
928, 940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive~Multi-Family Residential Infill Development
October 12, 2004
04-ARB-19
Page 8 of 8
This Director's decision shall become final fourteen calendar (14) days following the date of
this letter, unless an appeal is filed pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18 . .78.
Should you have any questions regarding this major-ARB action, please contact the Project
Planner, Chris Magnusson, at (650) 329-2189.
S~J1Y~
,is::!f{!Jlie
Director of Planning and Community Erivironment
Attachment
cc: Thomas Morse, Project Engineer
Romap. De Sota, Project Landscape Architect
James Baer, Premier Properties Management
J. Marty Brill, Jr., One for All Partners
Alice Smith, Resident
Steve Yanofsky, Resident
three bedrooms, range from the smallest at 1,227 s.f. to the largest at 1,580 sJ., not
including garage space.
Additional'project data, such as the acreage of paving versus building footprint or open
space is quantified and illustrated on the Open Space Exhibit provided in Attachment D.
, Additional plans, details, and written information, such as the Preliminary Landscape
Plan and Exhibits, Lighting, Fence"and Site Amenities, the Roadway & Parking Exhibit,
Preliminary Grading Plan, and Streets cape Perspective renderings have also been
provided in Attachment D. Background information on the existing site and the
application, as well as project compliance with the site development regulations of the
zone district, have been provided as Attachments Fand G.
Previous Architectural Review Board Hearing
At the June 3, 2004 ARB hearing, this project was reviewed as a formal application. The
recommendation at that time was for a continuance (by a vote of 4-0-0-1), in order for
various issues to be addTessed and revisions to the submittal package made for re-review.
The following items capture the majority of the comments/concerns expressed by the four
board members present at the hearing:
• Architectural style, massing, and clustering of units within the various buildings on
site;
• Height of proposed buildings, given the extensive grading involved to'relieve the site
from flood hazard regulations;
• Gaining additional units on site, as encouraged by City policy documents;
• Details provided for features such as eaves, roofs, siding, and garage doors;
• Consistency of window types;
• Lack of a renewable energy source and increasing energy efficiency by at least 15%
above Title 24 energy standards;
• ,Further review of the southeITl property edge adjacent to the existing single-family
residences: reducing the overall building height; activating the edge versus a dead
space between properties; and . ..
• More detailed landscape drawings and specifications' on the covered carwash.
Response to ARB Review Comments from Previous Hearing
In addition to providing a letter, which indicates various project modifications since the June
'3rd hearing (Attachment C), the following modifications have been made:
• Two additional BMR units have been provided on site, bringing the total to twelve;
• The request to FEMAfor a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
(CLOMR-F) has been eliminated, and the amount of site grading has been reduced;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
, :1 '>.I
, ,.
• Additional uncovered parking spaces have been created, and the surfaces are proposed
as perrrieable pavers. Perineable pavers are also proposed at driveway entrances to the
site, at two interior streets intersections, and as paths across interior streets to
delineate pedestrian crossing; and
• As active open space uses, community flower gardens have been provided for onsite
residents.
TIMELINE:·
Action:
Preliminary ARB Meeting:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Previous ARB Hearing:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Date:
December 18,2003
March 2, 2004
June 2,2004
June 3, 2004
The project is considered categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per section 15332-In-fill development projects. Additional inforIhation
pertaining to this determination is contained within the previouS staff report, which is
Attachment H .
. ATTACHMENTS:
A. ARB Findings
B. Draft Conditions of Approval
C. Applicant's Project Revisions Letter
D. Project DetailslMaterials Binder (ARB Members Only)
E. Project Plan Set (ARB Members Only)
F. Zoning Table
G. Background
H. Previous Staff Report, dated June 3,2004
COURTESY COPIES:
Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, Project Appiieant
Thomas Morse, Project Engineer
James Baer, Premier Properties Management
Alice Smith, Resident
Steve Yanofsky, Resident
Prepared by: Chris .Magnusson, Planner ~
Manager Review: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning ~
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
Residential Infill Development
! -
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive / File No. 04-ARB-19
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and
purpos.es of the ARB Ordinance, as it complies with the required Findings listed under P AMC
Section 18.76.020(d):
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City's
Comprehensive Plan in that the project meets numerous policies related to the change in
land use (housing element and policies L-7 and H-3), below market rate units (BMR
program, policy H-2 and programs H-1, H-3, and H-38) sustainable/green building design
(Goal B-5, policies H-25, N-47, and N-48 and program H-69), shared recreational use
(policy T-l), open space/amenities (policies N-15 and N-22), and relationship to adjacent
properties (policies N-39, N-40, and N-42);
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that provides an
extension of the residential quality and character of the area;
. (3) The des~gn is appropriate to the function of the project in that it expresses residential
characteristics through the building design, site layout, and landscaping;
(5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses in thatthe site would now serve asa transition between
existing commercial uses and single-family residences within the neighborhood;
(6) The designis'compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site as this
project is a residential infill development and would enhance, maintain, and/or improve
existing infrastructure; . 1
(7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create-an internal
sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general
community in that the proposed layout adds to the readability of the site and provides
private and public spaces for interaction by residents and visitors; .
(8) The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of
the structures in that pockets 'of open space have been integrated with buildings and streets
. to function either passively or actively for residents; .
(9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and
the same are compatible with the project's design concept in that the required covered
carwash structure shall be designed to compliment the buildings colors and materials and
be functional for users of the site;
• 1
" .
(10) Access to the property and circulation thereon is safe and convenient for pedestrians;
cyclists and vehicles in that an internal pedestrian network has been developed in' addition
to continuous street circulation for vehicle and bicycle traffic, each of which link to the
existing street and public sidewalk network;
(11) Natural features have been appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that
the primary natural feature on site (i.e., existing trees) has been preserved where possible
and that a comprehensive tree inventory has been developed and endorsed by the City's
. Managing Arborist in the Planning Division to integrate the development within the
existing tree network, as well as to propose additional trees, shrubs, and groundcover where
applicable;
(12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are an
appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the
adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements, and functions in that an earth tone
colors and materials palette has been chosen, as well as a variety of tree and plant materials
to add vibrancy to the site and. to help its integration with the sUlTounding properties;
(13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors creates a desirable and
functional eilVironmentand the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the
various buildings on the site in that a variety of species types have been chosen to integrate
amongst the existing trees to be preserved and amongst the various buildings;
(14) The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
. mairitained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the combination of
California native plants with exotic and ornamental materials would have low maintenance
and water use requirements; ,
(15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates a renewable energy source in providing a
permanent 4kw Photo voltaic system pn the roof of the carwash structure for reduction of
the HOA's electrical costs, as well as wiring and inverter space accounted for within each
. unit should the an individual owner choose to install a system· prior to occupancy.
Moreover, the following features have been achieved: Title-24 value calculations shall
exceed standards by 15 percent; gas air and water heating throughout buildings; spectrally
sensitive low-E windows with appropriate Solar Heat Coefficient per proper solar
orientation; only high energy efficient cooling systems shall be offered as an optional
feature; appliances with high energy efficient ratings; high energy efficient horizontal axis
washers and dryers; low-flow plumbing fixtures and faucets; operable windows; low-flow
irrigation combined with drought resistant plant materials; certified lumber and wood
products will be specified where feasible not to e:x;ceed 10% of standard lumber and wood
products.costs.
This project would be subject to the City's construction and demolition ordinance (p AMC
Chapter 5.24) for recycling of applicable existing materials on site.
, /"
(16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review in that the
site will be enhanced in terms of desirability for onsite as well as neighboring residents,
and an a new environment of high aesthetic quality and variety will be achieved.
ARB Finding No.4 is not applicable to this project.
.;
. "
..
ATTACHMENT B
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Residential Infill Development
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive / File No. 04-ARB-19
Conditions of Approval as recommended by the Architectural Review Board on October 7, 2004.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspections Division shall
be in substantial c'onformance with the plans and the project details/materials binder
received on September 29,2004, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to
. obtain any permit through the Building Inspections Diyision.
3. The City's Managing Arborist has approved the Inventory'and Evaluation of Trees that was
prepared on March 17, 2004 by David Babby of Arbor Resources. This report, which was
submitted and received on March 25, 2004, shall be kept on file with the City of Palo Alto
Planning Division and all of its provisions shall be adhered to during the lifetime of this
project.
4. An approved Tentative Map, and subsequent Final Map, must be obtained in order to
merge the three existing parcels for development and land conversion to residential
condominiums.
5. A written Below M,arket Rate agreement, in compliance with Housing Element Program H-
36 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, must be obtained prior to City Council approval
of the required Tentative Map application. _
6. Development impact fees (totaling $542,412.00) and transportation impact fees (totaling
$91,720.00 [but subject to change]) shall be required and payment made; prior to issuance
of any building permit associated with this project.
7. The placement of the new building addresses shall be performed in consultation with the
Fire Department and meet any applicable standards concerning visibility for emergency
vehicles.
8. The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving final map and
coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project
Manager to coordinate with . City, Public Works and Utility engineering staff. Public
Works will conduct daily and longer-term coinmunication with appointed project manager,
in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction matters.
9. This project shall meet the State Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SRWQCB)
revised provision C.3. The applicant is required to satisfy all current storm water discharge
regulations and provide calculations and documents to verify compliance.
10. If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to
address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to
provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are
encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State
of California, is able to evaluate the site, make further recommendations, and begin
involvement in mitigation planning.
11. Trash and recyclable materials collection for individual units shall meet all applicable City
regulations and ' arrangements shall be made with the appropriate department or agency.
Prior to Submittal of Plans for Grading and/or Building Permit( s)
The following requirements shall be met at the time of submittal for grading andlorbuilding
permit(s) associated with this project: '
12. A Construction/Site Development Phasing plan shall be created and submitted in reference
to the obtaining Certificates of Occupancy for all bUildjngs on site. '
13. Compliance with all Department of Public Works Engineering Division regulations and
policies applicable to this project shall be met, as well as prior to permit(s) issuance, during
construction, prior to finalization, and prior to submittal and recordation of the Final Map.
'14. All details, plan sheets, public art images an,d other informational items included in the
approved Project Details/Materials Binder shall be copied onto large-scale plan sheets
included in the plan sets submitted for building permit(s).
15. The structure provided to meet the required covered car wash area requirement (PAMe
16.09.106[f]) shall be designed to complement, in colors and materials, the proposed
architecture of the buildings. The location, drain, above-grade plumbing fixture(s), and
other details shall be provided to indicate the functionality of this designated area.
16. All plans showing the proposed walls on site shall include a note that the existing fencing
around the pump station (along the 'property line) is being replaced to the same height by a ,
pre-cast concrete wall.
17. The maximum light pole height ,shall be fifteen (15) feet, as measured from grade to top of
fixture. If sodium lighting is used, then color-corrected, high-pressure sodium is required.
Low-pressure sodium shall not be used. 'In addition, a photometric site plan shall be
submitted for review to confirm foot-candle coverage from all exterior light sources, as
well as confirm no spillover lighting occurs across property lines.
· .
..
18. All proposed rooftop mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by parapet walls to the
height of the tallest equipment. This standard shall also apply to the installation of
Photovoltaic systems on the rooftops of any buildings.
19. The approved arborist report . (i.e. , Inventory and Evaluation of Trees, prepared on March
17, 2004 by David Babby of Arbor Resources) shall be revised to denote the following:
tree nos. 2 and 23 and street tree nos. 92-98 be designated as a high category rating. This
document shall be copied onto the plan set.
20. A Tree Protection Planes) shall be submitted delineating all tree protection fencing as
required by the approved arborist report and in compliance with all provisions of the City's
Tree Technical Manual.
21. Landscape irrigation plans shall be submitted in general conformance to the landscape plan
attached to the project plan set. This plan, including its details, shall include the following
at a minimum:
• All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees.
• Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
• Irrigation schedule and plan.
• Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
• Planting Specifications: All new trees planted within the public right-of-way, as shown
on the approved plans, shall be installed per Public Works Standard Tree Well Diagram
#504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. The Public
Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans. Landscape plan shall include
planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches
deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark
mulch on top of the root ball.keeping clear of the trunk by I-inch.·
• Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees.' For trees, details on the irrigation
plans shall show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of
the root ball for each tree that is 15 gallon in size or larger. Bubblers shall not be
mounted inside the aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a
separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape
Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit
per CPA Public Works standards.
• Landscape Plan shall ensure that the backflow preventer is adequately obscured either
by planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery or obscuring the pipes with a green
wire cage and/or painting the plunibing dark green to minimize visibility. Location·
shall.be at leastl0~feet behind a publicly owned sidewalk.
• Consistency between the landscape and irrigation plans shall be made and the updating
of the landscape plan as necessary to ensure this result.
I
22. The landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate the 'design features:
• Sloped landscaped areas, created from sides of buildings to sidewalk edge; at driveway
entrances to the site.
• Integration of electrical transformers into the overall landscape design.
• All designated Canopy trees and Gingko Biloba trees shall be upgraded in size from 15
gallon to 24-inch box. . .
• All designated Coast Live Oak trees shall be modified to Southern Live Oak trees
(Quercus Virginiaria).
• Drainage swales with appropriate grasses, ground cover, trees, and shrubbery where
feasible and appropriate along site perimeter and/or parking areas.
• Elimination of curbing and the designation of wheel stops or a broken curb design
along the edge ofparking areas.
23. All buildings proposed along thesouthem boundary of the site facing the adjacent
residential properties shall contain the following features: obscured glazing for all window
surfaces and high, solid,walls a~ any patio.
24. Provide site utility plan. pertaining to the site's storm drain design. In addition, the
applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering p1;ior to tentative map approval, in
order. to verify the basic design parameters involving grading and drainage and the storin
water pollution prevention plan, as well as the required BMPs and their implementation.
25. Measures cont~rted within sections 5.1 to 5.6 of the Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation
and within sections 5.3 to 5.7 of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by
Lowney Associates and received on March 25, 2004, shall be implemented prior to andlor
during the demolition of the existing buildings, prior to completion of final construction
plans,· and throughout the remaining life of the project.· Evidence of adherence to these
measures shall be provided to the Project Planner.
. .
Conditions of Grading and/or Building Permit Issuance
26. Prior to issuance of any building permit associated with this project, (1) approval of the
Tentative Map and (2) subsequent approval and r~cordation of the Final Map, effectively
merging the three existing parcels for develop merit and land conversion to residential
condominiums, is required.
2:7. Compliance with all requirements of the Building Inspecti6ns Division, Fire Department,
Utilities Departments-Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electrical, and Marketing, Recycling,
PASCO, Transportation, and the Managing Arborists in the Planning DivisionlPublic
Works Department shall be met.
28. The applicant shall videotape for documentation purposes all offsite and City-owned
infrastructure adjacent to the project site, which would include streets, curb, gutter,
sidewalk, pump station, and all other infrastructure. This tape shall be submitted to Public
Works Engineering prior to building perniit issuance. Any damage to offsite infrastructure
shall be repaired and/or' removed and replaced according to City standards and prior to
building permit finalization.
29. A letter shall be submitted from the registered geotechnical engineer who prepared the soils
report, dated March 24, 2004, or their associate, and w.ho directly observed construction
..
activities ofthe project. This stamped and "wet"-signed letter shall serve as certification
that the project was constructed according to the recommendations put forth in the soils
report and shall be submitted prior to building permit finalization.
ATTACHMENT C
September 16, 2004
Chris Magnusson
Planner-Planning Division
City of Palo Alto -Department of Planning and Community Development
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-329-2189
Re: 930,940,1180 East Meadow Drive Residential Development
Revised Architectural Review Board Submittal
Chris,
Trumark Companies proudly submits a revised design package for Architectural Review
Board (ARB) review. The following describes the revisions since the June 3, 2004 ARB
hearing. .
SITE
The site will no longer be raised 4+ feet out of AE.,.8 Flood Zone. The homes will be
built near existing grade. The garages will be within.the 100-year flood level, but the
living areas of the homes will be elevated above-the 100-year flood level.
Per ARB comments, the overall project density has increased from 14.5 homes per acre
to 17.3 homes per acre. The density transitions from a lower density along the South
property line (adjacent the R-1 edge) to a higher density towards the NOlth property line.
-A covered car wash has been added in the Southeast comer of the 'neighborhood.
LANDSCAPE
The common area landscape concept has been revised to encourage pedestrian
connectivity and circulation throughout the neighborhood. Residents and guest will
enjoy a perimeter path system linking each interior greenbelt to each front door. Outdoor
rooms wiil provide various attractions along the path system -providing interest and
identity to each sub-area of the neighborhood. The outdoor rooms will provide
sculptures, fountains, benches and various planting themes with a continuity of
compatible materials and scale.
The previously submitted duet ~md triplex building types have been revised to multi-unit
condominium buildings which provide more landscape areas for visual relief throughout
the plan. The previous plan with 64 homes had 1.39 acres of common open space. The
current proposal has 76 homes and 1.53 acres of common open space.
" ,
..
ARCHITECTURE
Per ARB comments, the architectural style of the neighborhood has been revised to a
more contemporary feel to take advantage of the 3 sides of the project facing commercial
. land uses.
Interior streetscapes have been added to the design drawing set, as well as garage door
specifications.
SOUTH R-l EDGE
Per ARB concerns, the homes proposed adjacent the exiting R-1 single family
neighborhood have been lowered in height.. The previous proposal had 3-story homes 39'
above existing grade and setback 20' from the property line. The revised proposal has 2-
story homes 27' above existing grade and setback 20' from the property line. As before
windows facing the existing neighbors will be fitted with obscure glass to allow light into
the new homes while maintaining privacy to existing adjacent rear yards.
ENVIRONMENT
The previous plan had many environmental accomplishments, but lacked a renewable
energy element as required. A 4-kw photovoltaic system will be installed above the car
wash. This system is intended to reduce the Home Owners Association energy costs by
25% for common area lighting and irrigation controls. Furthermore, each initial home
buyer will be offered, as an option, a 4-kw photovoltaic system dedicated to reduce their
home energy costs. Due to Home Owner's Association liability and maintenance issues,
these systems can only be installed by the original builder, before the Home Ownet:'s
Association assumes .control of the neighbo,rhood .
. Per Architectural Review Board Guidelines, the homes will exceed Title-24 standards by
15%. .
Framing materials will be FSC certified lumber, not to exceed 10% of standard lumber
costs ..
We appreciate your continued enthusiasm toward this residential opportunity and look
forward to your comments and concerns to help make this an appropriate, attainable, and
high quality-of-life neighborhood.
Sincerely,
TRUMARK COMPANIES
Garrett Hinds, AICP
Development Executive
. "
.' ATTACHMENTF
rO.Jec s on ormance WI onmg o e egula Ions P . t' C £ 'th Z . CdR I l'
Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.24 (RM-30 DISTRICT)
Regulation Required Proposed Conformance
Minimum Site Area ' 8,500 s.f. 4.42 ac or 192,535 s.f. Conforms
Min. Site Width 70 feet > 360 feet Conforms
Min. Site Depth 100 feet > 360 feet Conforms
Front Setback 20 feet 20 feet Conforms
'Interior Side Yard 17 feet '17 feet Conforms
Street Side Setback 24-foot Special 24 feet Conforms
Setback
Rear Setback 20 feet 20 feet Conforms
Floor Area Ratio 144,401 s.f. 144,092 s.f. Conforms
Lot Coverage 77,014 s.f. 77,014 s.f. Conforms
Building Height 35 feet varies, up ,to 35 feet Conforms
Common Open Space 57,761 s.f. 66,647 s.f. Conforms
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.83 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
. Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance
Multi-Family 152 spaces 152 garage spaces Conforms
Guest 9 spaces 28 spaces ' Conforms
Accessible 1 space 1 space Conforms
Bicycles 76 spaces -Class I 76 spaces, available in Conforms
garage
f "
ATTACHMENT G .
BACKGROUND
Residential Infjll Development
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive / File No. 04-ARB-19
Site Information
The subjedt site (site), consisting of three separate parcels for a total area of 4.4 acres, is bounded
by commercial properties (across East Meadow Drive) to the north and west, the channelized
Adobe Creek to·the east, and single-family residential properties to the south. The Adobe Creek
Pump Station, located on a separate adjacent parcel to the site's northeast comer, is excluded
from the site boundary, as it is not integrated into this residential development. At present, the
site consists of two separate commercial office buildings and one office/warehouse building,
each with their own surface parking areas. The perimeter of the surface parking lots, as well as· .
certain areas within the properties, are landscaped with a variety of trees and other vegetation. A
number of mature Redwoods are visible on site from both sides of East Meadow Drive, and
mature street trees exist along the front portion of the site. See the Aerial Photo in Attachment
D, which shows existing site conditions.
Zoning district boundary lines separate the site, in the Limited IndustriallResearch Park Zoning
District (LM), from the residences to the south, in the Single-Family Residence District (R-
1[743]) and the channelized Adobe Creek and the pump station to the east and northeast, in the
. General Manufacturing District (OM). Two Special Setbacks exist along East Meadow Drive: a
24-foot setback along the west site boundary and a 15-foot setback along the north site boundary.
Some of the various cultural resources and community services available within a one-to-two-
mile radius of the site include: Don Jesus Ramos and Henry Seale Parks; Mitchell Park Library
and Community Center and outdoor recreation space; the Cubberley Community Center; Palo
Verde, Hoover, and Fairmeadow Elementar·y Schools; Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School; the
Baylands Nature Preserve; and Shoreline Park and Mountain View Municipal Golf Course in the
City of Mountain View. Within the vicinity of the site are the Charleston Road and East
Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridors for vehicle access to the rest of the City or
the 101 Freeway. '
Preliminary Review Hearing
At the December 18, 2003 ARB hearing, this project concept was reviewed as a Preliminary
Review application. Comments from the general public (Le., one speaker) were made to the
effect thatthe proposal for additional trees to collect water was purposeful, taller height for
buildings toward the site's center was acceptable, and that green building concepts should be
incorporafed into the demolition/construction plans.
The following items capture the majority of the shared comments/concerns expressed by the four
board members present at the hearing:
• Preservation of trees important;
• Alternative paving surfaces for permeability on site;
• Replacement of the fence between the site and the adjacent residential properties;
• Noise insulation from the freeway;
• Two-story buildings near the adjacent residential properties edge;
• Pitfalls to multi-story Eichler-style building design;
• Exploration of other construction alternatives to raising the grade on site;
.• Consideration of mixed use option on site; and
• Implementation of sustainable methods, such as .higher energy efficiency units, and green
building concepts.
Additional Project Component
A Vesting Tentative Map application has been submitted, in response to the requirements of (a)
combining the three existing parcels and (b) legalizing the development of more than five
condominium units (PAMC 21.04.03[b][18]; 21.08.010). In order for processing of this
application to continue, the applicant must first obtain planning entitlement for this project,
which is the ARB approval.
~ ....
(
Zoning district boundary lines :separate the site, in the Limited Industrial!Research Park
Zoning District (LM), from the residences to the south, in the Single-Family Residence
District (R-I[743]) and the channelized Adobe Creek and the pump station to the east and
northe~st, in the Heneral Manufacturing Distri~t (GM) .. Two Special Setbacks exist along
East Meadow Drive: a 24-footsetback along the west site boundary and a IS-Ioot setback
along the north site boundary. Some of the various cultural resources and community
services available within a.one-to-two.,.mile radius of the sit~ iriclude:.Don Jesus Ramos
and Henry Sea~e Parks; Mitchell Park Library and Community Center and outdoor
recreation space; ·.theCubberley GommunityCenter; Palo Verde,Hoover, and
Fairmeadow Elementary Schools; Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle Bchool; the Baylands
Nature Preserve; and Shoreline Park and Mountain View Municipal Golf Course in the
City of Mountain View.;Withirilhevicinit)i:ofthe ;site .. aietheCharl~sion Road and East
Bayshore ancISan Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridors for vehicle access to the rest of the
City or thelO IFreeway.·· ... ' '
.. '.' '.' .: ....
PrelirriinaryRevie~ Hearing ,. . ' . . .
At the December 18" '20Q3 A;RBheapng, thisprqject concept' was reviewed as a
Preliminary Review application. Comments from the general public' (i.e., one speaker)
. were made to the ·effectthat the proposal for additional trees to collect water was.
·purposeful, taller height for buildings toward the. site's cente:r was acceptable, and that
green building concepts should be incorporated into the demolition/constrllction pl~rs.
The following itel11s captu~ethe,majorityof tlle,shared co~ents/coJ,1cerns'expressedCby
the four board memb,erspre~E?~~ at thy he ruing:' ., ".',', " " , .
• Preservation of trees important;
• Alternative paving surfaces for permeability on site; . .."
• Replacement of the fence between the site and the adjacent residential properties;
• Noise insulation from the freeway; . ' .
• Two-storybllildings,near the adjacent'residentia1.properties·edge;
• Pitfalls to multi-story Eichler,..sty,le building design;
• Exploration' of ,other construction alternatives to raising the' grade:on :site;
• Consideration of m1xed,use'optiononsiie; 'and
• Implementaiionof sustainable methods; 'such as higher· energy efficiency units, and
gr~en building concepts. .
Proiect Description
This project involves merging the three existing parcels into one developable site, in order'
to construct 64condoIninium units; This 'density of this residential infill'development
would be 14.5 dwelling units per acre·(du/ac). Five separate floorpla1?-s are proposed
within the 2.5 to 3-story buildings, of 32 or 34 feet in height. The unit sizes, proposed
from two to three bedrooms, range from the smallest at,1,816 s.f. to the largest at 2,382
. 928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive Page 2
. yard. The proposed density at 14.5du/ac is well under the ,maximum allowed by theRM-30
. zoning district regulations of 30du/ac... This project '.complies with ,all other applicable
zoning regulations, includingtheienceordinance.(PAMC 16.24),and·no exceptions to any
site development regulations accompany this request for ;project recommendation. The
existing fencing surrounding the pump station (along the 'property line) will be replaced,at
the same height, by a pre-cast concrete wall.
· In regard to thevariouscomprehensive;plan .policies concerning multi-family development .
applicable to:this project, Attachments ;C· has 'been provided for.reference.
· Grading and Height
Because the site lies within a Special Flood Hazard Area, designated AE8with an 8-foot
Base Flood Elevation above sealevel (BFE), the site's finished grade would be~ais,e9:t() tile'
stated BFE. This on-site grade change wop:ldalterthE6exisJ41g.elevati.on(i.e~,naturalgra4~)
from a 4-foot BFE to ~an 8..;footlBFE, or.an elevatioll'difference,offour feet. As 'a resultand
following demolition .of all ,existing structures; grading,,an,theeritire.site would.beperformed,
and new retaining ,walls (i.e., ,equiv~lent.tothe,·amountof.fill.,!0nly)areproposed ;at the
propertY line a1ongtheeast:sitebdundary,adjacen(to the:pump,station'andAdobe'Creek alid
adj acent to the driveway ,entrances'1(seeGrading :Plan, Attaqhment E).,· In ,addition, ·'new
· sloping. ',contours (4:<1· :maximuin) to. ,the ,'public streets.Ja1J.Cil,tothe"agjacent residential .
properties ';(2:1' maximum9:are.::prop6sed(se~;.Grading,·J?1ai1,' Attachinent :.E) ... ,iBotha
Conditional Letter of,Map~Revision 'Basedion'F'ill i.(CIJOMR -"F)iand ultimately :aLetter:of
Map Revision Based on Fill :(LOMR-F) would bereqriired;frcn11 FEMA, in ,order ,to legalize
the ~grade.:adjustment.· " :. c' J •••• ~ ': r'~:' T ••
. . ,'"
In relation to 'the height of the proposed buildings,the total height measurement of any
building woulclbe .taken fromfirushed'.gtade and. notnatura1 (existing) grade; .,Therefore, rthe
height ·ofany'builclingonsitewou:1d' ,be ·measured ·five feet ,out from,the ~building,at the
elevation of the, new finished grade (PAMCt8;04.J030[a][64]); The applic.antproposes 3-
story buildings :of32 or .34 Jeet inheight,:w.hich;comply'withthe,heightrequireJI).ent (Le.,
maximum height limit ;of.35 feet), 'as 'listed under theRM,,3o..site~development regulations.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not repre,sent al1Y'GhaI1:geto,.existi:ng'City:poliCie~ ..
' .. :.. ~ .
ENVIRONMENTAL 'REVIEW
The prbject.is considered categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA)per.section 15332-In-filldeve10pment projects. In·arder,to qualify-Jor this
exemption, a projectmust meet aU of the· stated criteria under this ,section:
(a) The project is .consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all
applicable general plan policies: as well as with applicable zoning designation 'and
regulations;
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive Page 4
.. ' .
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits 'on a project site of no 'more than
fiveactes substantially surrounded by 'urban uses;
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for 'endangered, rare or threatened species;
(d) Approval of the project would notresult in ,anTsignificanteffects relating to traffic, .' .', .
noise, air 'quality, or water quality; and '
(e) The site can be adequately served by all requiredutilitiesan,d publicser:vices:
This residential infill~development project ,conforms to thecriteriai!ldic,ated .. ~bovein the
following ways:
(a) This project,complies,with all other applicable Comprebensive Pl~andzoning·
regl,lUltions" ,and no ,exceptions to ,any site development regulatio:p.sac?ompanythis,
request for a recommendation;, '.
(b) The ,site is 4.4 acres ,in size, well ,within the City limits in;a,developeq,areq.,and,is,
surrounded ,by .bothres.identialanp. commercial,uses; . . ..' .'
(c) No habitatfor.endap.gered"rare;threatened;orpther .sensitive sp~cies is present on,
site, as the sitejs,cuITent~ydev~l()Pe.~'with,comm~rciCll/ligptindu.~tri:ll bui.lc4ngs an~
surfa~e parking areas; .....
(d) No increases inJrafficor, noise or, significant effects .~o,ait:,()r wa~erquali!Y;~~:)Ulq
r~~}.lJt~in·,;dey.elopi~g t~,~. sit~ for ,t~sid,ential .. u~e; ap.~ ,,:: .. ',:'. ~~.{;_:.'
( e) Existing infrastructure serves . the'~lu"~e buildi:o,gs 0:0.. site~. ,and:llpgra4es to yariol).s '. .
utilities will occur in cOJ}stnIctin,g jtben,e~T~:sidential unitsa~din~talliIlg;the sit,e', ' landscaping.,." . '.", "',' .' " ". ."'.' , .~:'
, "
In order to fully assess the project's CEQA compliance and to particularly address the
categories listed under criterion (d) above, staff requested and evaluated studies:pr,~pared.
by professiqnal consultants. The documents'provided include: (l}tpp,g~11:~rafloIi' "., ".
estimates; (2) a noise impactsummary; (3) an air-quality assessriient; ,ang(4!),a stonn '
water quality evaluation. In addition".atr.~~inyentory :andevaluation"a ',geotechnic'al .
feasibility invesdgation report" .,anda :phase Ienvi:romiien!alsit~: as ses sment were . ,
submitted and evaluated. All studies re'(:iewed,~ysFaff::8recoritai~ed'witl1in,theproje~t
file for viewing upon request. Attachment A contains, as specific conditions, mitigation
measures that were applicable from some of these studies; " ...... ~;
, "
Staff is 'satisfied that all environmental concerns have ,been adeguately,addressedthJ;ough
the various studie.s received, particularly thos e pertaining to traffic, noi~e,air and water
quality, and the applicability of constructing residences ,on this location in terms of , . , , -, . .
existing soils/geotechnical and environmentallhazardous conditions. Btaffhas made ,the
following conclusions in regard to the project's overall environmental review:
• Less vehicle trips will occur in compru;isop to the existing uses()n site;
• No noise generating features will be created on site (as air conditioning units are
optional and placement can be controlled). Noise mitigation through proposed
building design techniques will be implemented. In addition, less traffic noise would
928,940, and 1180 East Meadow Drive . Page 5
"
ATTACHMENT C
928~ 940, AND 1180 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
MAJOR ARB AP.PLICATION (04-ARB-19)·
KEY CONSIDERA TIONSIPOLICY IMPLICATIONS MATRIX
lillY CONSIDERATIONS
Change in Land Use
Project concept would reduce jobs but
increase housing.
BMR Units
15% requirement for parcels under 5 acres
{City's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing
program--Housing Element Program H-36
of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan).
POLICIES
• Housing Element identifies a jobs/housing imbalance and supports conversion of job uses
to housing.
• Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional
needs, overall City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods. . .
• Housing Element Policy H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of sititable vacant or
underutilized lands for housing or mixed uses containing housing.
• Housing Element Policy H-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density
and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize ·and encourage the development of
affordable and attainable housing.
• BMR Program: Sets percent BMR units required based on project size.
• Housing· Element Program H-l: Increase housing density immediately surrounding
commercial areas by ... inc;reasing allowed densities .
•. Housing Element Program H-3:· Encourage the conversion of notl-residential lands to
residential use to both increase the supply of housing, particularly affordable housing, and
decrease the potential for the· creation of new jobs that exacerbate the need for new
housing.
• .Housing Elem.ent Prograln H-38: El'u;:ourage the use offlexible development standards and
creative architectural solutions in the design of projects with a substantial BMR
component. The intent of this program is to allow individual projects to develop individual
solutions to create an attractive living environment both for the project and adjacent
developrnent and to address specific project needs, such asprovisiPrL of open space.
Sustainable/Green Building D~sign
Provide site and building design that is
energy efficient and provides quality of life
amenities.
Shared Recreational Use
All occupants and users of the overall site
should have equal acce~s to recr~ational
facilities on site.
. Open .~p~ce/ Amenities
,'.' .. , ". .;. ,,~ ..
Provide adequate open space? landscaped
. b]lff~@ ~ndptbf(r ~j.t!1. mnenities.
• Housing Element Goal H-5: Reduced housing expenses for energy.
• Housing Element Policy H-25: Reduce the cost of housing by continuing to pronwte
energy efficiency, resource management, and conservation for new and existing housing ..
• Housing Element Program' H-69: Encourage developers and bL!iZders to construct
sustainable residential buildings that increase energy efficiency by at least 15% above the
energy standards of Title 24.·
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and
existing residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto.
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-48: Encourage' the appropriate use of alternative. energy
technologies.
• Comprehensive Plan Policy T-1:·Make land use decisions that encourage walking,
bicycling, and public transit use.
: ~
• Comjirehensivep{dn Policy N-i5: R~quir~ ~ew commen:faJI mu(tic-ul1if, .al1d single family
h~Lisi~i'p~ojict/t~pr6vid{/sire.e~ 'trees and relar~d trrig(lt.io!1~ systems. .
• Compreheniive . pt~~ . Policy . ·N~22.; Linitt, th.:~ ,-ctJn9~nt . of irnpellJioLls surfaqe in new
4e~ei9.pi!!e~.rQ/'p1:l~iic.·' l;;;jJ1:~~'e';l~nt 'prQj~(;tsio reduce urpay! runoff into stann drains,
creekS, rind San Frcmcfsco Bay.' . . . .
• Tree Technical Manual: Establishes guidelines for appropriate landscaping requirements.
• Development Review Process: Ensures that site and building design reflects appropriate
policies.
2
"
Adia~entPEoperties ? ; .' . ~ :
provide adequate precautions and buffers
p~tw~~ij <?'RffiI,I1~rGiaJ and residential uses.
.: ....
• Coi;£pn~h~ftsiv~ Plan Policy N .. 39; EncqW(lge the lo.catio17 {)i la1J;d uses in areas with ~Q~ipgrik!i.',:~Qls(/~Hyron~~Y;is:,' thi. th~ ·g~lid~lin~~. t'; the tab~e "Lan4 Use Corrzpatibility
for Con'lP'lu~ity Noi~~ Environment" to 4~termJn.e c;ompqftbility. .
• Coiiqi'rehensivePlanPollcy'N .. 40:'eV(l:luqte . the Po.(t;!.l1tia,l for nqise pollution and ways to
red"Llce"'hofse""i;J,zpacts:'wliert' reviewi~g . deveZop(yz~~t . mid aCtivities in Pal~ Alto' and
surrounding communities.
• Comprehensive Plan N .. 42: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of
development on adjacent properties through appropriate means (list on page N .. 27).
"'. ..
"t. ,"
"
~ '.
3
! ..
'. "
1
2
3
4
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
Draft Verbatim Minutes '
October 7, 2004
Attachment, F
, Board Members: Staff Liaison/Staff: Applicant: Public:
5
Drew Maran (Chair)
Judith Wasserman (Vice
Chair)
Susan Eschweiler [absent]
Kenneth Kornberg [absent]
David Solnick
Liaison:
,Chris Riordan, Planner
Staff:
Amy French, Manager of
Current Plar:1ning
Alicia Spotwood, Staff
Secretary
Chris Magnusson, Planner
Trumark:
Garret Hines
KTGY (Architects)
David Send en
Vandertool
Landscape):
Roman DeS6ta
,Steve lanovskY
6 928,,940,1180 East Meadow Drive [04-ARB-19J: Requ'estby Trumark Companies on
7 " behalf of 928 E. Meadow Partners, et ai, for major ARB review ,of a proposed residential
8 'infill development. This proposal would involve a merger of thre~ parcels (approx. 4.4 '
9 acres) for the development of approximately 77 condominium units.
,. ,
10 Board Member Drew Maran, A presentation' by 'staff?
11 Mr. Chrfs Magnusson, Planner: Thank you and good morning. 'This project is returning
12 to you siricethe previous ARB hearing held on' June 3 of this year.Sincethat'time the
13 applicant has significantly revised the ,application submittal, inc,ludingthesife's ,i1iterior
14 street layout, landscaped ateas, pedestrian path' network,as' well·as the location of
15 building footprints, architectural style, and interior floor plans. These and other detail
16 modifications were made in response to the comments' and issues raised by the Board
17 during the previous hearing. Amo~g the major project revisions are the following:
18 .:. Eliminatio'nof the padding-up concept to bring the entire site above the basal at
19 elevation. ' '
20 .:. I ncrease in site density with the additionof12 new dwelling units.
21 .!. Decreas~ in ,overall height of buildings ,along the south property line or abutting
22 residential edge by approximately '12 feetfrom existing grade, as well as the
23 activation of the area between buildings"and the property', line, to the inclusion of
24 a walking path with destinations of visual interest. '
25 .:. ,Increase in:sitepermeability in landscaped area, including functional garden
26 areas for use by on-site residents.
27 .:. I ncreasing energy efficiency by at least 15% above, Titie 24 energy standards.
28 .:. Incorpprating the use of certified lumber and wood products., '
29 .:. Creation of two additional BMR units, raising the total number from 10 to 12.
30 As you are aware, the staff report in the project binder provided to you have outlined
31 these and other modifications in further detail. In terms of public 'comments received
32 'since the notification of this hearing, one written correspondence was submitted to staff
City of Palo Alto . Page 1
1 and forwarded to you for your review prior to this hearing. This;letter has also been
2 shared with the applicant.
3 With that said, and in evaluating all project revisions, staff requests that the Architectural,:
4' Review Board recommend the Director ofPlannihg and Community Environment
5 approve the proposed project with the findings and conditions attached to the staff
6 report.
7 The applicant is here to give 'a brief presentation on the modifications to the project
,8 since the Board's previous review ,and to answer any questions you may have
9 concerning the contents of the submittal. Thank you.
10 Board Member Maran: Thank you, Chris. Just to clarify one point. This is our second
11 hearing of this as a major item?
12 Chris Magnusson: That's correct. This isthe second formal review.
13 Board Member Maran: ,IUs the' second formal review and the third time we!ve seen 'it.
14 The first time was a preliminary, is thatcorrect?
" '
15' Chris Magnusson: That's .correct., "
16 Board<Member, Maran: Thanks. Wbuld the applicant like to do a ten-minute
,17 preserntation?,
18 Mr. Garret Hines, Trumark:GarretHines with TrumarkGompanies. ;1 wanted to take a
19 minuts;;just before we ~tart the presentation to introduce the architects -David Senden '
20 whmwlll come speak about the architecture from KTGYGroup, and Roman DeSota
21 from Vandertooland willspeak'briefly,aboutthe landscape changes. And quicklY', Ijust
22 wanted to say that Idotrulyappreciatetheprocess thatwe've'beentakingfor this
23 project, meeting face-to-face with staff, Planning, Pubiic'Works, Engineering,agencies
24 such as PASCO, meeting with you in formal and informal settings, as well as our four
25 neighborhood meetings. I th'ink we've come together with a fantastic project, and 'I look
26 forward to moving,forward here in trying to get this to Planning Commission. :In bur last
27 'meeting on June 3, we ciearly'hearqyou asked 'usio provide asJightly higher density, to
28 be more sensitive to the,neighbors'privacy, provide maybe;atransitional density from
29 the south residential edge as we move north into the light industrial business park,
30, create more 'of a contemporary architecture thatblendsthe threesides'of ,industrial land
31 use with the residential land use, and finally come back with a better green building
32 ,program and a renewable energy source. I thinkwe've accomplished all these things
33 and I now turn it over to David Senden from KTGY Group.
34 Mr. David Senden, KTGY Architect: Thank you, B6~rd 'members. I'm very h.appy to be
35 here and I'm very happy to be working in Palo Alto. My name's David Senden, I'm with
36 KTGY Group. We're the architects on the project, and I appreciate your listening to us
37 and also getting your feedback. We weren't involved in the previous submittal, there
38 was a different architect involved. So we come at this with a little bit fresher view than
39 everybody else sitting behind me.
City a/Palo Alto Page 2
.'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
'36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
But in talking with Garret and with the other members of the team we understood there
were five basic concerns that the Board had earlier. So I'm going to touch on those five
and then afterward we can answer questions if you have any. Those five, I think. they've
been iterated now a couple of times-the higher density -and we've moved from a
density thatwas around 14.5 units to the acre to around 17.3 now. And atthe same
time qoing that; we now have'a lower density along the southern property line down in
this zone, to a higher density up here.' So we've increased the overall density but
lowered it along that property line. So there's a transitional density that runs from the
single family 'detached On the south to the more commercial propertiesuponthe'north
and the west. " .
. To touch on those, the sensitivity of the neighbors is the first issue that we looked at. In
doing so, along that edge -for context there's a site plan down inthecorner -but what
we did is a few things, one being the end of the buildings now face the property ,line.
There's no ,fronts, no main access points along that edge to try to maintain some
privacy. Also, we redUced the bU,ilding massing at that edge. ' Previously it Was atthree
stories along that property line and we've reduced it to two right along the edge and
then stepping up to 2-112 on the remainder of that bUilding.
, ,
, , We've done mininial openings on that wall. The glass there is high for the most part.
And where it's 'low it will be obscure. So we've got high windows here that are actually,
in ~)bathrooms, so we've 'tried tamove the living room functionstb face iritothe passeo
areathat,happens between'those'buildings. At the top you can seethe view along that
property line, 'and I'll pOint out thatyoLi'd n~ver get a chancet6 see that WhoJeedge
because the dashed 'lines that represent the indiVidual properties that happen, you'd
never get back far eriough. You can see from the overhead where the houses are in
relationship to those buildings.
The othe'rthing, this view points out herelhat there's a large row of existing-trees along
that property line that we're going to maintain-and I'm going to let Roman talk a little' bit
more about landscaping as we continue -but the holes h~re would also be fillE;ldwith
new trees. So this diagram Shows ,a person standing at the back of one of those
residences, and 'the view 'that he would hewe standing there, we think we've done a
pretty good job. It won't completely hide'it, but I think we've done a' good job of
'mitigating the impactthat it would have,in the back yard there.
I think the next issue was this' idea of transitional 'densities. You can see the street
scene. This is the view looking on the edge elevation if you're viewing it from East'
Meadow Drive. And you can see this is' the existing single family property and how it
moves to a greater density on this edge, so you can see 2-1/2 stories here and then
transitioning up to .a full twostoriesand'thEm up to three stories for, the remainder of the
site. That idea of being transitional is an important one because ,it matters in the
architecture, too. This site sits in an interesting location because it's a threshold
between the single family detached, and the office park, and those two things are pretty
tough to marry. So with the contemporary architecture.we've tried to use the forms, the
massing, in an elevationalstyle thatrelatesto the office park. But the materials,the
. way they're put together and the scale of the elements lends itself more to a residential'
,City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 feel. I don't think there's going to be any doubt in anyone's mind that this is a residential
2 project. But it's important to I,lS thatwe're a good neighbor to both sides. So 'We're
3 trying to do that in materi~ls, in the color of the buildings, in the' way that the elements'
, 4 are put together so that we relate to both the single family, neighborhood and to the'
5 office park. And it's not an easy thing to do, but I think we've done a pretty good job of it
6 'here. .
7 As far as the materia,ls go, we've brought some sample boards -and afterwards down ,
8 here, you might need to get up and take a look more closely -but we're' proposing a '
9 mixture of materials, from stucco which starts to relate to the office park, and the
1 0 smoo~h finished stucco, to some siding materials, it'd be a Hardy material, cementitious
11 board resembling siding; and use that in both the horizontal; traditional siding way, and
12 also board and batten siding that would ·give a contrast. '
, , .
13 Board Member Maran: Excuse me. Would you be willing to bring those up closer so we
14 can look at those,while you're talking.' ' "
15 Mr. Senden: And you can also see that we'veused,some flat roof elements, almost
16 entirely flat roof, and cano'pies and things like that that-start to relate more to the office
17 park. . .
. .' .
18 It's a'lillie light in here, SO I'll have to referyou to your,packageto look aUhe elevations
19 ' more ;'closely .. As I pointed out earBer" we've taken.away that building uP. oUhe.pad to
20 get out of the flood e'levationand we've actually raised the ·Iivinglevels up and only.
21 garage. parking uhderneath. And then we've used landscape and terraces -and
22 Roman can talk alittle bit m6re about that -to transition you from the gradeupto.your
23 front door.
24 Here's some interior street scenes, the top one being along that main entry street·
25 . looking south, and then the other one looking east inside t~eproject.
26 There arena enhanced 'elevations. All the elevations are of the same quality on all
27 sides so whether you're exterior to the project or interior, the .Ievel of finish, the level of
28 detail -all ~f that IS going to remain consistent throughoutthe,project. .
29 Also, I'll touch on this a little bit. I'm, not going to belabor·this checklist, but! include it
30 here to point out the fact that we're committed to green architecture ..
31 Board Member Maran: Why don't you extend 'it and then weill have some questions.
32 Mr. Senden:Okay. I want to give some time'to ou'rlandscape architect, too. l'II'just
33 quickly point out that we're going·throughthis checklist. VI/e'vebeeninvolved in several
34 projects in the past dealing with green architecture, and we've been involved with a
35 group called Global Green, which is part of the Gre.en Cross program, and they.actually
36' developed this checklist and we've borroWed it fromth~m on several projects. It's by no
37 means exhaustive, but it's a good way for us to check ourselves as we move through
38 the process .. I include it here just to show you that we're working on that. Some of them
39 we are through and committed to.' Others, as it gets into the construction process,'
City o/Palo Alto Page 4
: .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 .
41 '
42
there'll be some decisions made. But I'll point out that one thing that we will do is
exceed Title 24 by more than 15%. Also, we are committed to solar energy and will be
adding photovoltaic cells to the carwash that's included as part of the projeyt, and that
will reduce the homeowner's electric bill by 25%. Also, as an option, we're going to
offer photovoltaic for every unit as an option. So the buyer will have the opportunity to
purchase that. ' If you have more questions about the green stuff, we can get back to 'it
later, but I want to turn it over to Roman DeSota and he'll talk a little bit about the
landscape and then we can answer questions. '
Mr.I,Roman DeSota, Vandertool La'ndscape Architect: Good morning, Roman DeSota
with Vandertool and Associates, the ,landscape architect. I'm going to 'briefly talk about
the overail landscape plan and then a more detailed section and enlargement plan.
Both the architect and the landscape architect have jOintly planned a neighborhood that
takes advantage of the lifestyle of prospective residents. The common landscaped
areas have been designed to promote pedestrian activity and connectivity. I nstead of
being confined to a small P9cketpark, we've managed to design a trail system that
continues along the back'sidesouthern property line, connects all the way around the
entire site, and then back to a gathering point; a smaller pocket park. '
We created three ,outdoor rooms - a reading rOom with teakWo'od benches and .stone
sculptures; a contemplation room which would have wood benches,asundiai; and then
. an outdoor garden room which would be landscaped with plants and trees that would
attract hunimingbirdsand .butterflies, etc. Each room helps identify sub areas within the
neighborhood. ,As you continuealong.th'is encharited path there are'benches,Httle key
nodes where one 'could stop, pausEl, and contemplate; continue along the front portion; ,
and then eventually reaching this area over here. This is more of ,a gathering point or a
small pocket park where there would.be some put)licart dispJayed. '
There would be a perennial 'garden here that 'would have both sun-loving and shade-
tolerant plant material. This perennial garden here could be used by the residents to .
come and cut fresh flowers to take back home. Therewould be a bermed area here
where kids could roll down little hills and express themselves. There wo'uld be this
existing large grove'oftrees here that would add shade inthe hot summer months, and
then filtered sunlight in the cooler winter months. There would be bike ra,cks, teakwood
benches, and a consistent trail which goes up and through the project, would basically
cross the' street at this point, and then go to the southern' edge. '
We've shown here some of the waste receptacles, bike racks; some ofthe teakwood
benches, and the bollards which would be illuminated at night along the south edge and
along the eastern edge to prombtecon'nectivity and safety. '
The building edges are softened with a mix of evergreen and deciduous plant material,
and a proactive approach to future maintenance has been planned. Evergreen shrubs
which would most likely be ,hedged at future times would be planted up against the
building where the building connects to the ground. In the foreground softer, smaller
perennials would be terraced towards the pedestrian or the vehicular areas. And
deciduous canopy trees would be placed throughout this internal drive while more
City o/PaloAlto PageS
-.'.
. .
1 . vertical trees would soften some of the architecture in these more narrow landscaped
2 areas .. The perimeter of the project still retains the overall look with ,the existing trees
3 and the turf areas as well. Thank you. '
4 Board Member Maran: Thank you. We're going to bring it to the Board for questions.
5 How about if we start with David.
6 Board Member David Solnick: The colors is' the thing in the lower right, is that correct?
7 think it wasn't labeled. Okay; I got that right. ,
8 On the accent lighting in L-4, I didnlt find any. It's shown there, but it wasn't clear to me
9 where you're putting them.
10 Mr. DeSota: You're speaking about the landscape 'accent lighting, correct? On the site
11 plan 'here, our intentions were to light up maybe a heritage tree at this location. So what
12 . we're looking for is some uplighting at this'location andat the entry points to the'
13 projects,soit'sbasically lighting up some 6fthose larger trees to provide some sort of
14 gateway into the project and theniriternally, at some of the corners where we'd have
15 some softer light so that you ,could see where 'those trans'itionsare from the corners of ,
16 the street and the pedestrian walkways,' etc. And then of tourse"the illuminated '
17 boJlar-ds would be all albrig.this side here and be a low light bollard with a shield that
18 would only prOVide minimal light but wou!dbe spaced, accordingly. '
19 Board Member Solriick:' The pathway along the creek behind the units -what was the
20 thinking behind that partofthe pathway as far as its use and as far as its relationship to
21 the rearoftheunits? '
" '
22 Mr: DeSata: I think it's twofold:"" one for the front door. The front doors are out along
23 this side ,here. But I think from a landscape standpoint, certainly it is to ,connect this what
24 we call a trail system, but-it's basically a connectivity for pedestrians to take a walk and
25 evening strolls, morning walks, etc. And part of that would be to access this portion'
26 'here along the creek to connect both the southern edge and the northern edge.
27 Board Member Solnick: And the thinking is that people would access their units'from
28 that side? '
29 Mr. DeSota: That is correct.
30 Board Member Solnick: You mean if they're walking I guess.
31 Mr. DeSota: If they're walking, Gorrect. But they are theJrontdoors.
32 Board Member Solnick: The walls -you transition from a concrete wall to a. redwood
33 fence and then back to a concrete wall. Could you cor:nment something about that?
34 Mr. DeSota: Sure. The precast concrete waH, which is really just with a pier system, we
35 realize there are existing trees along this side here. Instead of doing a masonry wall
36 with a large footing, we would do more of a precast type wall that would just have 'piers.
City a/Palo Alto Page 6
1 Therefore, you avoid the root system of those'existihg trees along this side here. That·
2 wall -which would be most likely stucco in nature and be of earth tones, something.to
3 blend in with the architecture -primarily would be hidden for the most part along this
4 side, not only for these people with the landscape on this 20..,foot wide landscape area,
5 but up from the other side in the low branching of some those existing 'trees. The .
6 precast walk is in this location as well to both screen out that pump and provide some
7 minimal sound attenuation. The redwood fence along this side is added as really a
8 softer screen with the "front doors facing onto this landscaped area. That redwood fence
9 would have vines and then a terraced effect with plant material so that some taller stuff
10 would be towards the fence,and then it would gradually descend into some smaller
11 things right along the walkway.
12 Board Member Solnick: Do we have anything on paving materials or colors?
13 Mr. DeSota: We don't have anything physically to look at in your binder. What we've
14 illustrated ar~ essentially a sample of these impervious paving materials which would be
15. somewhat o(a concrete type block so that"we could recharge' the groundwater, some of
16 the runoff. But essentially, we're looking at possiblyinterlockirig concrete pavers,
17 something to that effect. We can certainly get you a '~ampleof what that may look like if
18 that would help. But we have a pictLJreand som~ 'specifications in the binder. .
19 Board Member Soihiick:Can you tbmmenton how the architectural design -not so
20 much the choice of plans and not so much theconceptofthe siteplanas'far as the
21 waH<ways and so on ...:.. but the form of the landscaping, particularly the heartscape and
22 how that relates to the forms of the buildings ..
23 ·Mr.DeSota:·1 certainly think we w8'ntedto'look at this fron, a proactive approach ina
24 couple of Ways -one as I mentioned earlier -the buyer, who mfghUhatbe?Well, that's
25 probably going to be a person like myself. What we feel IS important, or what I feel is
26 important"~s well;;is really a walkway system. I may have a dog, and I'd like to'walk my
27 dog over great length rather than be'subject to a small pocketpark where I'mfotced to
28 kind of walk in circles. .. .
29 Board Member Sohlick:1 wasn't askingaboutthe choice of putting in walkways. "1 was
30 asking aboutWhy the walkways look specifically the way they do and the nodes look
31 specifically the way they do -the form, the .shapes, those things.
32 Mr. DeSota: I'm sorry; I was getting to that. BaSically, we're·trying to be cognizant of not
33 only the style of the architecture in trying to bringing that to a ground plane horizontally,
.34. so some of the areps along here, this would be.a decomposed granite path with a
35 stabilizer to promote that kind of soft state. And these areas here would be concrete.
36 This little circular space here, these little outdoor rooms, the bollards are shaped along
37 and represent and match the architectural style. The benches Tepresent or have some·
38 of the same materials as the ,architecture may have. Shapes -the trees, are all
39 something to do with either helping to soften the architecture or blending, marrying
40 those two together. So they've been selected not on'ly for climatic considerations,but
41 from an architectural standpoint in how they relate to them as well. Even the .public art
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 is consistent, I think, with a project of this look or this style.. It mightbea stone
2 monument, it might be a combinatioriof organic and inorganic material.
3 Board Member Solnick: This is more of an architectural question. We have a window
4 here, were there any windowed wall details, door wall details? D.id I miss them?
5 Mr.' Senden: No, I don't think we included those in your packet We haven't done those.
6 yet. I think what we've included in the packet as fa~ as details go are whatwe thought
7 of as the more important qetails ~ parapet details, canopy, awning details, railing
8 details, those things -and honestly, we're just not to that point of the project yet of
9 detailing the whole building. I'm sorry -We did put a' window detail in your package, on
10 the fifth detail sheet in Section 3 of your binOer. '
11 Board Member Solnick: What is the trim, I guess that's the main question.
12 Mr. Send en: .Thesewindows are recessed, and this isa condition where the window is
13 recessed. Our hope is that the opening is not very much bigger than the actual window
14 itself so that the window starts to feel like it fills that whole opening. Then there's a .
15· small piece of trim: ~tthe head thatwouldbe a Hardy 'material, both inside the recess
16. and on the exterior of the recess .. 1 think you can see thatfrom the detail. And then at
17 the sill of the window it's metal. VVe've got to be able to flash that and make it water-
18 . tig'h( It's 'gota metalsilf that runs out from the window andwrapsover the front, over
19 this condition where \/Ve've shown a :piece ,of Hardy material as the sill trim:withthe'
20 metal wrapping ,over the front .of it. .
21 Board Member Solnick: So there's trim on three ~ides a~d then metal on the bottom.
22 . Your elevations look like the windows are picture framed, so thesame,on all four sides;
23 That wasn't.a criticism,it wasjusta question. .
24 Mr. 'Senden: It's a little bit hard to see from the elevation because the width of that.
25 material is the same all the 'way around, but it changes in its material a little bit at the
26 bottom, just for waterproofi~g purposes. . .
27 Board Member Solnick:l$ it just for waterproofing. purposes, or the metal will be a
28 different color, or'are you trying to makeit all appear.the same .on 'all four sides, or
·29 actually enhance the difference?
30 Mr. Senden: No. We're not going to enhance. The sill will be the same color as the rest
31 of the recess so that it feels like a punched piece into a larger mass. That's the idea. '
32 Board Member Solnick: For' all the windows?
33 Mr. Senden: We have various window conditions. Some are recessed, some aren't
34 recessed as far, some are in stucco planes which would be treated differently than the
35 ones that are in planes that have siding around them for instance, and the detail that
36 you're looking at is the detail that's a 'stucco wall. Each of those conditions has to be
37 treated individually between the stucco, the board and batten, and the horizontal siding.
38 They all are a.little different condition and will be detailed a little bit differently.
Cityo! Palo Alto Page 8
· :
· -
.. .
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
·20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
·29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
'37
38
Board Member Solnick: Is your thinking thatthey'll all have wood trim or thatsomemay
have wood trim and some may not? .
Mr. Senden: Some may have wood trim and some may not.
Board Member Solnick: And more likely that's the stucco, not? Is that what you're
thinking?
Mr. Senden: Yes.
Board Member Solnick: The doors -that's a beautiful door, and then it says "or equaL" .
The fine print made me a little nervous. Whatwill the door really be? .
Mr. Senden:lt'sgot to be a really nice door .. It's going to be a solid core wood door,
stainless steel hardware, .and then a window:in that door that makes sense with the rest
of the architecture. And that's what you're .seeing a picture of there in the plan.
Board Member Solnick: This is a general question .. Can you say something about what
I would call the grain of this project.ltseems·likeit's very fine grained, very small
elements. I picture it having. been designed by somebody who's. pretty active.
Mr; Senden: Thatwasa deliberate .attempt to make adfstinction between.our residential
project and an office project that mayhappen'across the' street; or the.;medicaL building
that's across the creekside, that's a big,' monolithic building. And quite ;honestlY,aswe
were going throlJgh this process, the Trumark marketing people said, "Looks like a
hospital." Well, 'that's 'not what we were afteratalL So tharled us in a direction further
,to.,define the grain,define,theunitsalittle'bit'more, bring the scale down to a·more
pedestrian scale. And that showsupin that fine grain and that was absolutely a
deliberate ·effortto·try to· break the scale of that project down.
Board Member Solnick: And with the color, your direction to the color consultant
presumably was along those line:s, too.'
Mr. Senden:.1 got to say that Trumark has had a tough time swallowing the
contemporary architecture, mostly from a marketing standpoint. So that's 'Ied us to .
certain 'colors, trying to soften if you will, the architecture. ·1 think it could have been
done viJith the forms, but the :forms are the mosfimportant thing that relate itto the
bigger context of the office building. So we were really intent on keeping those
contemporary forms. Our thinking is that 'if you use the literal translation for
contemporary, it's of its time. And we think qll architecture should be o(its time. That
doesn't mean that it's modern or sleek or sterile in any way, but it means that it speaks
to how we live to-day. So whaiVlfe were hoping to do with this, was speak to the way
people live today, speak to·the neighborhood thatit's in, and be a 'good neighborto both
the office buildings and to the single family residents. .
Board Member Solnick: One last smalliatidscape qiJestionactually. Those walls-
would they be stepping down as they hit the street? You're showing them as being
seven feet going right to both stre:ets.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
·28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Mr. DeSota: You're speaking of the precast wall along the perimeter? They would be
seven feet along the southern edge here, and then the same thing on this side up there.
Board Member Solnick: What happens when they meet the street?
Mr. DeSota:Essentially, as you can see in.this, there would be anend pilaster, so
there's actually a point at which it has some substance at the .comer.
Board Member Solnick: -Sut there's no change in height, that's my thinking.
Mr. DeSota: No. The only thing that it may do is if there is actually a grade change
either along this side or along. here, these hidden pilasters actas a transition. So ifit
. varies six inches or a foot, wherever that may 'step down; it would do that at that
location. You would not have a .breakin this wall·here, you would have a break right at
this :pilaster so that the next top of wall may start here. But you're not going to have this
stepping effect all theway'downto the street. It would remain seven feet high
consistently.
Board Member Solnick: That's all my questions, thank you.
Board Member Judith Wasserman: Thank you. I should disclose that I met with the
app1icantat the',caf$lastweek, my office being discombobulated for the month. I have
a numberof'questions, going. through the'binder:in ,some sort of sequence. Most'of
thesequesti.ons are .prettysmall 'and I'll d.othose:first· .
, .".", -
I am ,confused about thelightfixtures. There seems t.o be.different lightfi~ures shown
inBection 2 and Section 4. In Section 2 you.showtwodifferentwall-mounted fixtures
and each .of those different has 'an accompanying bollard;> But then in Section 4 that.
doesn't seem t.o be.the bolla'rd that you're using. You're using something else. Could
yo.u explain what's going on with'the light fixtures, please ..
Mr. ·Senden:The fixture that we mean to indicate is the one that's circled in red. Those
two sheets in Sectibn 2 are for the wall-mounted fixture. And the one that's in Section 4
is the one for the·landscape.bollard.
Board Member Wasserman: What made you decid~,having already set up two different
light fixtures, to go to yet another one? Seems to be a collection of different.:.
. .' . ;
Mr. Senden: First of all, the first picture we thought the bollard was too busy. It was too
much. We thought that was an appropriate response on the side,ofthe building. It
gave some. visual interest. But down low, it was too much going on. And the second
one we just didn't like the look of it: So Roman picked out what we think isa.pretty
.compatible bollard and .it's of a style that's in keeping with the architecture butgoes
away. We didn't want to make a big statement with an empty wall.
Board Member Wasserman: Will the colors be related?
Mr. Senden: Yes.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
.-
, .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.38
39
Mr. DeSota: I'll add to that also. There was a thought process behind that. It wasn't just
arbitrary. We also realize that the fixture that you see later on in the section is alittle'bit
more vandal-proof, so it's' a little bit more stable.· The color is a powder-coated color, so
we can match the architecture, whatever that may be. Whether it's a trim color, whether
it's more of a field color, we can certainly match that.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you. I have some questions from Section 3 about
the details. You have three different kinds of parapet treatments. The third one has to
do with the stucco wall, and I can't find it at the moment, but the two that you show at
the beginning of Section 3 are approximately the same height in the fascia. And then in
the stucco detail it gets a lot shorter. Could you explain what your thinking was about
the way you treated the parapets?
Mr. Senden: It goes back to the same thing that I was addressing when I addressed Mr.
Solni.ck's comments in the grain. qf the archi~ecture in trying to break the scale of the
buildings down. We thoug.ht-that it was ,important, rather than running a consist~lit
parapet detail around the whole building, that that parapet detail re-Iates to the material
that happens, below itand the, condition. So if we've got a stucco condition, the parapet
happens a certain way. If we've got a horizontal siding condition, it happens a different
way. And yet again, if it happens aboard and batten detail, that parapet happens .
different. . And they vary in size and profile. It all goes back to that trying to break the
;grain of the project down. . .
Board Member Wasserman: In considering the large' metal fascias and windowsills,
have you thought about the oil planing problem? .
"Mr. Send en: Well it's. definitely going to have to be ofa gage that's thick el)ol.Jgh that
that doesn't happen. And we're calling out 20-gage aluminum on there and it may need
to be something more than that. But yes, we ,have thought about that.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you. We .don't have any information on the' balcony
railings. There's a detail that says "balcony edge," and it doesn't seemto include the
railing. There's a steel channel, there's a wood trellis, there's a waterproof membrane.
Mr. Senden: Here's the railing detail up on the screen. I'm not finding it in our package.
It's basically a metal railing, horizontal..
Board Member Wasserman: Have you seen the news articles about the kids that climb
over.the railings and fall down (she says as a question)?
Mr. Senden: There is some concern about that. In our minds the worry of kids climbing
over balconies wasn't the·first in our mind: When we think of public safety issues
involved in a project like this, that wasli't the first one that came up. And that may be
something we should talk about. Because we could easily use the same detail and
orient them vertically instead of horizontally.
Board Member Wasserman: What a good idea that would be. How are the primary
vertical members, how ate they connected to the deck? What is that?
City a/Palo Alto Page 11
. ,-
1 Mr. Senden: This metal would go through and be connected to the deck. There would
2 be a channel on the front to give this the appearance of metal at the front of the deck,
3 so there's a ~pacer in here so that water can drain thisway.and run off so we don'thave
4 a water problem.
5 Board Member Wasserman: So the railing isn't all one material and all one color?
6 Mr. Senden: It is, yes.
7 Board Member Wasserman: And it's metaL How is it finished, powder coating or what?
8 Mr. Sendeti: niost likely it would be painted, And'whether that's a powder coating
9 process or just a painting process, I'm not really sure at this point" Power coatingisa
10 lot more expensive but a lot. more durable.
11 . Board Member Wasserman: There's a detail here fora steel channel, and I didn't quite
12 understand where it went. I understand where it goes'onthe balcony, that makes alot
13 of sense. And then there's that windowdetail that youdescribed for us and a roofing
14 detail. Andscimewhere -it's the next to the last, it' s just before thewindow jamb where
15 yoW have .a~teel edge connection afthe plaster waiL 'Where does that occur in the
16 elevations? I really appr~ciate~his setofdetalls. Irs beenhelpfuliritrying to
1 7· understand: . .
18 'Mr. Seriden: This is a 'complicated building and there are lots of details. And to be
19 honest with you, this isa schematic design set.~o· there"'s still a 'lot of stuff we ;haven't
20 gotten to .yet. It's hard to see from that elevation.' .
21 Board Member Wasserman: So. it's kind of a datum pOint inthe fagade somewhere ..
22 Mr. Senden: At the head of the windows -and I'm not sur:ethat our-detail· is exactly
23 showing that condition ..... sometimes that continues from the plaster wall and becomes
. 24 the canopy. So if you look at the canopy detail with that sea channel, ·that could be on
26 the stucco and continue forward and turn into the canopy, trying to tie the canopy;
26 instead of it just being a little tacked-on piece, that it starts to tiEr it into the archite.cture a
27 little bit more. . . .
. . .
. 28 Board Member Wasserman: I' have a brief question about some of the energy stuff,and
-29 then I want to come back to my big question. ki Section 7, I think it's wonderful that
30 you're going to be using photovoltaics. I think that's really an excellent departure in the
31 right direction. I had a question about whether you considered~ since you have the
32 . awnings, which are .part of your architecture, actually using PV panels as your awnings.
33 Mr. Senden: We didn't, only I.think because ofthe cost ofPV panels,the'initial cost. I
34 think it's sort of an untried method and I'm not sure' that we want to be experimenting
35 with that. We have all of this flat roof and to be able to offer it as an option is a lot
36 simpler way to go. I will pOint out about the canopies -and I'm not sure if this shows up
37 in our details or not -as far as passive solar goes, we're trying to use those' canopies in
38 a way that shields the sun on the west and the east and the south. And then were it
. City of Palo Alto Page.12
"
w •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
'38
, 39
40
would pe on a northerly condition, it would be a perforated panel so that the sun, as
much light as we can get in.' From the elevation look, it remains' consistent but the infill
panel that goes in that sea channel could be different, could be solid if it's on the south
or east or west and could' be perforated on the north. So we're trying to think about that
stuff.
Board Member Wasserman: That makes a lot of sense. On ,your checklist, item L-4,
you had a choice of linoleum or vinyl. What is going to make you decide one way or the
other? In terms of green builaing, that's about as far apart as you can get.
Mr. Senden: When it comes down to it, it's goingto be a matter of cost and availability.
I think that's what it's going to come down to. And we put it in the checklist so that we '
can make a Gonsciousdecisionabout it later. Vinyl is definiteJynot as eco-friendlyas
linoleum would be. And in between there are things .like Pergo or someother.flooring
material, so it would be even better. I bring this list justtosay we're working on it. .I
think we can't make all those decisions now. I think some of them come later, as we get
interior designers involved, come.as we get costs back from contractors, things like that
-decidewhaHhe flooring material ;is' goingto be for the whole ,unit.' Part of me says
you could run the same.flooring material through:this whole unit and maybe it's a Pergo
floor, which is not the most environmentally friendly thing, but it's not the"\Norst thing
either, and you could run that through the· entire unit. So·1 think there's some decisions
thatstilLhaveto be made. We putthem in the checklist to spurusalong ·as we gO
through the process. ' ' '
Board' Member Wasserman: The purpose of my line ofquestioliing is to flag those items
that were of interest to me so that when you get to it you realize that there are these
other considerations. ' , ," '" ' .
Mr. Senden: ,If we decide to run the·same flooring material through the whole unit, or we '
decidethat there's a bathroom that is avery small flooring area, we can start to make
choices about -,okay, it's justa small little piece of vinyl·orcontrary, it's just a small little
piece of Iinoleum,soies ,not that much money. We just ·have, to work through all those
issues I think. '
Board 'Member'Wasserman: I'd just like to say, in item M-4 where you talk about
offering water filtration. You can get a water quality analysis from the Palo Alto utilities
department. They publish one every year that shows how squeaky clean our water is.
So maybe you can get your linoleum in instead of water filtration, which might not be
needed. "
Mr. Senden: That's one of those things, as we go through this list, there's going to be
some that we do and some that we don't dO,and we're going to have to make decisions
on where the biggest'bang for our buck is.
Board Member Wasserman: I want to get to my big question which has to do' with the
siding materials and the board and batten details and the overall concept that you have
on'how you decided which surfaces were going to get which materials. It seems to me
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1, that as you explained, you used probably every piece of ammunition in your repertoire
2 to break down the scale of these buildings and to make them appear smaller and
3 smaller and smaller. I wanted to see if you had some kind of broad concept, something
4 that when you looked at these different planes, you said -These are going to be
5 ,somethingand those are going to be something. Talk to me about that. '
6 Mr. Senden: It's a bigquestioh and I don't have a big answer, I have a small answer. I
7 think our goal was, like' you stated, to break the grain of the project down. I don't know
8 that we used every bullet in our arsenal to do that, but we used thre'e of them. Our goal
9 was simply -,there's a lot of planes there. The use of the stucco -:-we're going to have a
10 ,stucco base to the building. The landscape walls are going to be stu'cco, they'll be " ,
11 concrete' with stucco. We thought that to bring the stucco up into the 'building started to
12 help to tie the building to the ground a little bit so that it wasn't this sided building sittil)g
13 ona pedestal. It wasimportantt6 us to try to' ground it in some way. But that said, then
14 we've got other planes moving Tn and out and to take siding and put it on all of the rest
15' of it and just have stucco and horizontal siding seemed like not quite enough to us.
16' So we iritroduced,thenextonewhich is the board and ,batten, and tried to make each of
17 those three'as different as we could, because asyoukriow, there's ;50 'different widths' ,
18 Of horizontal siding and we could have just switched'widths and we could 'have run '
19 vertical siding and wecoLild have done a lot bfotherthings. But we thoughtthatthe
20, most impact wouldbe:todo aboard arid batten where we could get a bolder statement I
21 think:
, '
22 The horizontal siding I think, it's apretty standard residential detail andties well into the
23 existing neighborhood. Butthe contemporary nature of the architecture~led ,us toward
24 the board and balien. And the board and batten is done in not necessarily the most
'25 traditional way either where you Just have vertical battens. We've also done ho.rizontal
26 battens, trying to echo some of the massing of the architecture.Sbinterms of where
27 it's ,placed, :basicallythe 'ideawas thatwe could wrap planes over the top of each 'other
28 to try'to create some interlocking between those elements. It's a little tough to see here,
29 but we've got an L-shaped piece that overlaps on top of another piece. And what we're
30 trying to do with the materials is to -although we're breaking the grain of things down -
31 trying to tie those pieces together so that we didnit get this row-house kind of effect. In
32 'some .places it's a really good solution but wedidn'tthirikthat wasthe case here.
. . . .
33 I don't know if that answers your question or goes around your question: I feel like I'm
34 at the debates here. '
35 Board Member Wasserman: It's in the direction. It just seemed to me -I'm trying not to
36 get into comments and staying in the question mode that we're supposed to be in here
37 ...: that you have the different planes, you have the different materials, you have an
38 e'normous color palette. Every material gets six different colors. ,Did it ever hit you that
39 maybe you had gone too far, that things were so different that they didli't hold together
40 anymore?
City of Palo Alto Page 14
. .
...
1
2'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
. Mr. Senden': I think that individually, there's color schemes .. So each of those color
. schemes relates to a particular building. So rione of the buildings will get all of those
colors of the spectrum. And Within that, there is some logic to how the colors and
materials are applied to the buildings. I think this L-shaped 'Piece is detailed in' a certain
way.' The material is consistent-whether it's on this building or another building or
happens in the middle of the building~ that material on that kind of a pie'ce -is
consistent. And the same goes with the window pattern and the canopy. Those things
are consistent to that piece. And then there's .another piece that happens, and it
repeats itself on buildings and over the site, and that is consistently the same material.
The buildings are built out of a kit of parts. Those parts are the same whether they
happen at the end of the building, in the middle of the building, or on another building.
The color may not be the same and that's something we can. talk about. If we start to
talk about colors, I feel like I'm home' free'. But we can certainly discuss colors. And I '.
would.make the point that every project that we do, we wailt to doa color mockup out
on the site to make sure of our colors. The samples that you see here are.prettygood
indicators of the color. But the color palette that you've got in your 'package, it's pretty
tough to know what those colors are going to look like when you get them on ·siding or .
. you get them on stucco or you get them in the particular light of Palo Alto. They're
going to have a different -than us picking them in our studio under fluorescent lights; .
Or maybe wewalkoutinto theJront yard arid lookatthem. So we're going to do a
mockup. on site in a year or two years when this is built. I would hope 'qndinvite you to .
be,ipart of that process of co'ming out and looking at the colors and re-evaluating them a
little bit, too.
Board Member Wasserman: I'm gratified to hear that there was logic in your thinking
about the materials. Could you talk about the board and batten details. My concern is
that the module of the board and batten beTelatedto·the architecture,tothe locations of
the windows. .
Mr. Send en: That's a very .good comment Honestly, we're not there yet. We're
shoWingthatboa'rd and 'batten at a ceriain grid size .. I'm not sure thafit'sthe right thing
actually. We need to go back and study.that further. It'll bepart'ofourDD process.
And how those battens hit the windows, where. they hit the windows, whetherthey hit at
the top or.theyhit in the middle, it's a'very important thing. It's also important that the
battens relate . to the spacing of the studs' in 'the wall because we don't want to have to
put blocking in the whole building to be able to' accommodate a batten. So it's likely that
we're 18" on center with our studs, it's likely that the battens are going to wantto be 18'
on center also. I think that's a level of detail that's in our minds, but we just haven't
addressed it yet.
Board Member Wasserman: If it turns out that the: str~ctural system andthe battens'
. don't actually work, will you give up on the battens? Will you change something?
Mr. Senden: No. There's a way we'can make itwork. We can adjust the structural
system .and we can adjust the battens. So we'll make it work. It's not saying that we
won't put some blocking in if there's a transition spot that needs it. But I think by and
large, if you have a big wall and it's a stud walland they're 18" on center, we need to
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1 make the battens work with that grid. But as you get to a corner or thereis something
2 odd going on with the structural system in the wall -and a lot of it's going to be sheer.
3 wall, so it won't matter where we put a batten -but we have to get in with the structural
4 engineer and make sure that that all gets coordinated.
5 Board Member Wasserman: And that batten, that's the size of the batten that you're
6· using, the one that's actually there? .
7 Mr. Senden: Yes. That's whatwe're showing. We're also showing a 24" grid on our·
8 building. So if we go to like I'm suggesting, 18", then I think the size of the batten needs
9 to come down a little bit because it's a . little bit fat for that. .
10 Board Member Wasserman: That'sthe ·end of my questions.
11 Board Member Maran: Thanks, Judith. I want to disclose that I met with the applicants
12 in my office. Do you want to disclose that, too.?
13 .Board MemberSolnick: Yes, I'll disclose that as well.
14 Board Member Maran: We were togetheratthe time. Justa quick question before I ..
15 jump in. When you said 18", did you mean 180r 16"? I'm just wondering if there's any
16 module ·in construction.
17 Mr. Sanden: It could be 18",· it could be 16", I'm not sure yet. .
18 Board Member Maran: The reason J'm asking is just that ifit changes the 8-foot module
19 to a . .differentmodule,4 and 8-foot, whi9h isthebasis of so me 16, I'd like to know about
20 it because it could be extending our use of lumber.
21 Mr. Senden: That's another consideration in the green checklist.
22 Board Member Maran: . Let's . .start with some broader questions,and I think we covered
23 some of these issues before.. As a -land use siting issue-and anybody on the team _ is
24 welcome to attack these questions -we're looking at converting commercial,industrial
25 property, or three of them, into residential .. This may also. be directed at staff. How
26 does this fit with the City's comp plan. And I know that we've touched on it, so I just
27 wanted to briefly summarize it since it's been awhile.
28 Mr. Magnusson: Previously I'had prepared, as an attachment, which i"sactually now
29 attachment C to the prior staff report -it's a matrix basically of the various policies that
30 relate ·to the proposed project in this area. Specifically, in regard to a number of
31 housing element programs, there is support for conversion of specifically suitable
32 vacant land for-conversion from commercial to housing. And in addition to the various
3:3 programs that support below market rate units, increased housing de·nsities surroUllding
34 commercial areas, conversion of nonresidential.lands to residential use to increase the
35 supply of housing and to decrease potential for new jobs creations that exacerbate the
36 rieed for housing. Among those, and one I did leave out,is a comp plan policy that is
37 specific in regard to the East Meadow Circle area for higher density housing as a
City of Palo Alto Page 16 _
· ;
", .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 ,
39
40
transition between existing residential and industrial development. So it specifically
related to the conversion ofthe site to for-sale housing units. All of these cbmp plan
policies speak to that and support that, and I think the, proposal is consistent with that
among the other various key considerations. '
Board Member Maran: Thanks. ' I think'l'd direct this to Garret from Trumark. We have
a letter from a local or neighboring I;:>usinessand building owner -your approach to
extending the residential neighporhood into the' commercial'and how do you see this
new neighborhood that you're building relating to thecommerciallindustrialneighbors.
Mr. Hines: I think we ,have a unique site thatis in a corner situation that'sflanked by the
canal on one side, a street" on two sides, and residential to the south. 'I tho~ght it was a'
natural extension of the residential use and would still have a buffer and break to other'
portions of the business park. Andthenl think following your guidance on the
architecture that trie~ to relate to both neighborhoods,1 thinkisa wise thing to do. At
least one of the buildings, the largest one, has been vacant for quite awhile and it
seems like' an appropriate use to think about.
Board Member Maran: Thanks. I think I'd direct this to the architects. In your
presentation I was a little unclear as to the solidity ofthesedetails that we're being,
presented with', both in terms ofthe design details and also the green building program,
which I'll ask you some questions about later. How would you describe the state of
these details and draWings in terms of static, in transition.
Mr. Send en: I think they're as static as we can'be atthis poiritinthe process. I won't
say that they won't change becau$e I think that's unrealistic to try to, draw,details of a
building that hasn't had a structuralengineer involved, hasn't had a mechanical '
engineer involved, hasn't had aTitle 24 consultant involved. It's tough to design a,
building without the Test of the members of the team. So we took'our'b,est-shot guess.
There should be no reason why parapet details should change and I think those are
pretty solid. Now when you start getting more into the window details, we showed you a
window here and how that particular manufacturer suggestsfJashingit and a:1I those
kinds of things have to be taken into 'account with those details. The~e are some hand-
drawn details, we're going to pufafiner point on it as we move through. But I think what
we show here is our design ,intent. It's the direction we're going.
And the same is true with the green building checklist. Those things that we've marked
off as "done"-yes, we're committed to and there would have to be some really-strange
factor that came out that would make us ,divert :from that.
I guess that's the best answer I can give. It's our design direction and'we're going to
try.
Board Member Maran: That's really heipful to me. It clarifies a lot, that there's no '
structural engineer involved. So for example, what that immediately brings up forme is
the question as windows are shown on the elevations in terms of sizes and locations, do
you expect those to change slightly? Engineers are often asked for more [incoherent).
City of Pal a Alto Page 17,
," ;
1 Mr. Senden: It depends on your definition of "slightly." I think we've done a .lot of
2 projects like this. We have a good idea of rule Of thumbs of what iUakes to get sheer .
. 3 wall and where we don't have enough room for sheer wall, how much steel would be
4 involved. And I don't think that it's possible to build ~hese buildings without some steel
5 in them. So just given the size of the windows and the location of the windows and
6 things like that -it's a trade-off because no client wants to putstee'l in abuilding, but·
7 there's some give a'ndtCilke from an architectural standpoint. But I think we've done
8 enough projects and have enough experience in that to say that things aren't going to
9 change very much in that respect.
10 Board Member Maran: Thanks. That's helpful. . So specifically, on the elevations, I'm
11 looking at pages A-i' through A-4, which I believe are. the same. items that are elevated
12 up above onthe.board. A-3, which is the street scene along Main Street looking east,'
13 there are a number of walls that have relatively small square windows stuck in them
14 almosilike portholes from this elevation. Obviously these are very small-scale
15 drawings.
16 Mr. Send en: Bathrooms.
17· Board Member Maran: T.hoseare bathrooms. Do you expect there to be ample natural
18 lighting throughout the buildings on all different sides? ·Has that been a;consideration in
19 placing windows? .
20 Mr. Senden: Oh, yes, absolutely. And I think the big windows that you see in those
21 elevations relate to large living spaces; The elevation onA-3 in particular is ends 'of
·22 buildings where the units actually orient themselves perpendicularto the elevation that
.' 23 you're looking at. We've got windows that turn the comer. Those windows happen in
24 living rcoms,in tTl~ste(bedrooms. And then those small· square windows that you see
25 . are typicalJy in bathrooms where you have to walk that tightrope between privacy and
26 natural light. So we try to do sortie small square window up high so that you don't have
27 a privacy issue but you get some nat~ral.light.
28 Board Member Maran: And you mentioned earlierabouttoning the colors down to make
29 it more compatible, or afleastto create a little less anxiety on the developer's part. I
30 understand that in elevations and renderings there's a large degree of inaccuracy in
31 terms of color reproduction. Would you expect the color to I:>-e more truly represented by
32 the palette boards that you've given us? .
33 Mr. Senden: Absolutely. We went out to' Sherman Williams and bought a quart of paint
34 , and painted those in our studio, so that's pretty. accurate.
35 Board Member Maran:.And were any other colors considered and if so, how much
36 anxiety did they create?
37 . Mr. Send en: We went through a broad spectrum on this project,and we went through a
38 broad spectrum of colors and materials, both. We started this project as a compJetely
. 39 stucco project. We got the comment from our client, from some market research, that it .
40 was too "Santa Monica." I don't know what that means; thai means something to
City oj f ala Alto Page 18
" .
l' ,
1
2
,3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
whoever said it. And then we talked about Frank Lloyd Wright, and then we talked
about Rob Quigley and I was in the middle 'during that. What we ended up on was
trying to use some materials -and it goes back over what I've said before -trying to use
some materials that were compatible with what people's ideas of residential architecture
are. And the colors -we've been from bright yellow and fire engine red to dark brown,
really earthy tones. And then we Came back into the middle seCtion somewhere I think.
It's notdeep; earthy, but it's'also not screaming. It's sort of muted colors., I think that's
how we got there.
Board MemberMaran: What happens in terms oUhe CC&Rs forthe'homeowners',
association in terms of possible changes that o,ccur over the Y€:lars in terms of painting
and stuff like that. This may be a question for G'arret. ' Do you have some way to assure
that these colors remain the same? To staff'-do these have to come back to us. I'm
just questioning ifforsbme unknown reason our tastes should happen to change, or
somebody's taste should happen to change -would thes'ecolors be able to be
changed?
Chris Magnusson: If I could speak to that. In terms of staff's review process, any'time
there is a prior Architectural Review Board approval for colors on a building, they need
to remain the same unti,1 an applicant or a property owner applies for modifications'to
those colors. So that would insure that there would be consistency throughout the life of
the building from the City's perspective.
Ms. 'Amy French,' Current Planning Mgl'.: I'd liketo add to that. Typically, whem we see
a color change, if it's iii substantial conformance with slight modifications to the existing
color, staff typically processes that C\t a staff level' and does not refer that to the Board.
. ....
Mr. Senden: That'd be a good thing, to be able to change them inthe future or else we'd
have a world full cif turquoise railings. ' , ,
Board Member'Maran: Don't forget the aqua. Is the stucc() going to be an 'integral color
or a painted?
Mr. Senden: I don't know that we've made that decision yet. I would prefer'painting,
only bec8useoftheconsistencyofthe color. And also, 'people don't like to see cracks
in stucco. 'It's the' nature ofthe material,it cracks. But if we can paint usingelastomeriC' '
paints we could patch a stucco and repaint. If you-do integral color then you patch 'your
painting anyway. ' '
Board MemberMaran: And then in terms of durability and long term and what this
project's going to look like in 10 or 20 'years which is obviously a concern ofthisboard,
you've got Hardy board which is a cement board,and stucco which is also a cement
product, and aluminum windows, all products that hold up well in terms of the details of
i:nstallation and how those materials transition to one another. Those are often the
weak points of durability issues. How doyou see these buildings holding up over time?
Mr. Senden: Well a lot of that's out of my hands. It'll be'determined by the contractor.
But we can detail everything to the nth degree, but if it's not executed in the field, that's
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1 a problem.' I don't see there to be any inherent problems with the durabifity of these
2 buildings. I think the material choices -and we have as much concern about the
3 durability and waterproofing. and joints between things .' as our insurance Ti3tes.climb up
4 . we pay more and more attention to where water cQuldget in.
5 Mr. Hines: Let me add also that the Palo Alto building department would be the one
6 approving the details and the building inspector would be out there making sure they're
7 constructed right. . .
8 Board Member Maran: Let mega on record as noting once again, an architecture .
9 passing it off to the builder. In seriousness, what I meant -I understand that there are
10 codes.and there are well-installed products and hot so well installed:products. Board.
11 and batten in particular, over the ye~rs,. has been tricky because the battens tend to lift
12 off the boards or they may, get beaten up ifthey're bumped up againstand stuff like that.
13 So there are just some things like that. .
14 Mr. Senden: I think that's true. It's probably true more with wood battens than it would
15 be with this cementitious product because wood tends to warp and want to .lift up. I
16 . think you have more luck with ·the. cementitious product.notdoing that,not.having
17 climactic changes' to it. .
18 . Board Membe~ Maran: And I would also note that throwing it back.at the architects, .'
19 there are specs such as screws to be used, not nails, stuff like that, that encourage
20 long·term durability; I'll get to that"incomments.
21 Let me ask a couple of questions of the landscape architect aDd then I'm going to go .
22 from there to the green building program. The. public garden -you mentioned that it
23 would be used perhaps for flowers.and for residents to take cuttings and' stuff like that.
'24 Garret, you may want to jump in on this, too. Here!s whatl'm wondering about. There
25 doesn't seem to be nearby a local community garden as there are'scattered around
26 .differentplaces in Palo Alto where residents actually have their own plots where they
27 grow edible gardens as well as flowers. Has there been any consideration to shifting·
28 this. more towards edibles as opposed to decoratives?
29 Mr. DeSota: First and foremost, I think we wanted to look 'at something that was not only
30 from a safety standpoint. But with,anedible garden I think we look into otherthings to
3~' make that last. If we had strawberries out there, they'd only come up at a certain time.
32 of the year and animals may get to that even before the people get to that. There's
33 other considerations in there in different types of pesticides, insecticides, etc. We .
34 thought it would be an easier way to provide something forthe residents, and that being
35 a' cut flower garden as a way to solve that dilemma. It'had been thought about, but:1
36 think it ~ould have been too· difficult to actually get that to come to fruition.
37 Board Member Maran: And would that be something that will be maintained by the
38' landscape maintenance people, not the residents?
39 Mr. Hines: Yes. My vision was it would be an HOA-maintained cut flower garden, so
40 seasonally you'd have. a whole new, fresh planting and people could stroll and clip as
City of Palo Alto .page 20
· -,
'. r
'i •
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
,12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
they go. There's nothing to ~ay that the HOA asa body couldn't -we've got two areas
of this cut flower garden flank, arid maybe one half could be used in the spring and
summer for vegetable gardens, if some of the HOA could think about. '
Board Member Maran: I realize it gets into some complexity that maybe the lawyers
need to jump in on, but sonie HOAs have built into their CC&Rs restrictions on pesticide
use and/orwater use, etC., things that affect both the immediate neighbors and,
re'sidents and also the broader community. Has Trumark had any experience with any
such -I guess it would fall under "environmentally';friendly" CC&Rsregulatinghow the
property is maintained, specifically in the areas of pesticide use and water use. '
, ' ,
Mr. Hines: Definitely: It's something we~ve done before. And I got to say that this board
has pushed me in a green building, renewable energy area', and I'm grateful that I've '
been able t6 get in there and study it and learn a lot about it. It's great.
Board Member Maran: We won't be surprised jf you show up at the next meeting
wearing Berkenstocks. Not that there's a~ything wrong with Berkenstocks. I think the
next questions I have are directed specifically atthe green 'building program.
Let me understand how the preparation forthe'photovoltaicson each unit is going to be
, done. As I understand it, it's a set of conduits or Wiring brough.t to the roof as stub-outs
and if people choose that as an option'when they buy their units, they get a photbvoltaic
, array on the roof. ' "
Mr. Hines: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Does it h8'veto be a four kilowatt,orcanit'be smaller? '
, Mr. Senden: Maybe you can talk to that. We're going to have to get an expert involved
in photovoltaics. I'don't'have experience with this particular system of photovoltaic.
We're using a consultant on a project that we're doing inPdherodown in northern
Monterey County right now and it may help bring them in to help us decide all that stuff.
Mr. Hines: Honestly, lsaid four kilowatt because I knew that ,8 Toof area could handle
that load. I think we could get up to as much as seven kilowatt., ' , , '
Board Member'Maran: One reason "I'm asking -ifit's smaller,figure roughly $7,000 cost
to the owner perkilbwatt. If it's smaller they may be more inclined. Would you offer it
smaller rather than larger?
Mr. Hines: Yes, sure.
Mr. Senden: There might be a structured program as the option is from two to seven
and you can pick something, an array of choices.
Board Member Maran: While we're on that subject, the.pV,at the carwash, on the
, elevations, they're showing it ":S all sloped as they do in the textbooks, but in fact they'd
City of Palo Alto Page 21
·1 also generate shade for one another. Is that a fixed item or is that to be decided by a
2 consultant.
. 3 Mr. Senden: To be decided.
4 Board Member Maran: Just as a comment, some people have found that there's more
5 value in just placing them flat.· .
6 Mr. Senden: And that's what we've thought about on our roofs,especially in the ones
7 that we offer as an option. Both from a practical standpoint they m~y work just as well
8 being flat but from an aesthetic standpoint you won't see them. at all if you lay them flat.
9 Board Member Maran: Yes, they could actually help providep·rotection for the roofing or
10 the waterproofing.· ..
11 . Mr. Senden: Exactly.
12 . Board Member Maran: The construction demolition waste issue -there will b.e in place
13 by the time you start demolishing these buildings an ordinance. Are you awa·re of that
14. ordinarice, have you incorporated' it into the plan?
15.· Mr.Hines: Yes. Chris gave me that and I was able to read it, yes.
16 Board Member Maran: Great. Just to quote, It says "recyclable materials will be
17 directed per Palo Alto .construction demolition ordinance." And the air conditioning
18 system is an option to be offered on each unit? What would you guess people are
1 9 . going to do -what does your focus group say about that?
20 MI'. Hines: I would guess 25% .
. . 21 Board Member Maran: 25% will take them? And the other 75% will end uPc;lt those
22 houses watching TV? .
23 I Mr. Senden: That'swhere the party will be, yes.
24 Board Member Maran: There is no community center or building or anything like that ·in
25 this, right? Getting into the materials, the certified lumber, you've said "where feasible,
26 not to exceed 10% Of standard lumber. and wood p·roduct costs~" .Let me understand
27 that better. What are you saying there?
28 Mr.· Senden:What we're saying there is the contractor, when he bids the project, if the
29 certified lumber is not more than 10% of other lumber, we would use the certified .
30 lumber. .
31 Board Member Maran: What if you found out it was 20% more? Would he·then be
32 directed to spend money on FSC lumber up to the point of 10% more than .
33 conventional?
City of p. ala Alto Page 22
f -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
~-1 vi
32
33
34
35
Mr. Hines: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Great. That's what I'm trying to understand. It's not an either/or,
it's an "up to."
Mr. Hines: That was intended "up to."
Board Member Maran: Great. I'd be surprised if you ended up spending the 10%. The
Hardy board, just to clarify, how is that an environmentally friendly material?
Mr. Senden: It's not wood. It's cementitious material. On some of these checklist items
it's a matter of opinion what's more green than others. It depends how farb!3ck in the
manufacturing process you go. In a lot of ways, sometimes wood is better'than other
products because of the manufacturing process that it takes to generate it. But from '
Global Green, our green building consultant, who hasn't been involved in this job, but'
we've worked with before, it's their choice. "
Board Member Maran: What is your expectation in terms of an outside consultant such
as Global Green or anybody else to advise on this program?
Mr. Senden:'Garret.and I talked a little bit about this, and we don't necessarily think.that
it's necessary for this project. In a peripheral way we're involved with them all th~ time,
so we're gleaning knowledge that way that we're applying to all ofou(projects. And if
rve got specific questions they're a phone call away. But in terms of signing them up to
do anYthing.particular to this job, I don't think we think it's necessary.
Board Member Maran: As an example, would you then rely on the mechanical
engineers to make sure that the ,project exceeds Title 24 requirements?
Mr. Senden: We'll have a Title 24 consultant.
Board Member Mar~n: So that'consultant would be responsible for meeting that
requirement? '
Mr. Senden: Absolutely. So some of the items in the green building checklist such as
cellulose insulation and :low-E glass and those things,' we'll let the'Title 24 consultant
and the mechanical engineer help us deGide which of those are most appropriate, most
efficient, and help us to get to that 15% goal.
Board Member Maran: Again,l'm left a'little bit unclear. In your columns on this green
building checklist, in the "yes" column and you have an X, is that to say it's definitely
going to be there when 'vA.;e come back and look at this two years, three years from now?
That will be a definite? ' '
Mr. Senden: Yes.
Board Member Maran: Just want to be clear on that. Those are all the questions I have.
Does anybody else have questions?
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1 Board Member Solnick: I have one. I think it's a great idea about doing the optional for
2 the photovoltaic system. I looked into doing that for houses as an option and found that·
3 the surprising thing that there was a code that the conduit had to be exterior because
4 When the fire department comes to hack through your building when it's burning· and
5 there's live wire inside because we can't turn off tlie sun,· they don't like that apparentiy,
6 so that's why that conduit, I was told, has to be on the exterior. So you may run into a
7 problem when you make that as an option. . . '.'
8 Mr. Senden: We haven't run into that yet.
".
9 Board Member Solnick: I hope you don't because it's a great idea. Do you have
10 experience in this seismic zone I ,presume, in a comparable seismic zone?
11 Mr. Senden: Yes.
12 Board Member Solnick: Who does the next step in.thisproject? Is the intention that this
13 goes to the structural engineering with yo~ as the client, or is this. something that
14 happens down the road? . What was your thinking about that? .
15 Mr.Senden: It's the next step of the processto try to move the project into CDs, and
16 thatmeansusto·takea couple of weeks togetbasestogetherand.thentheygo ...
17 Board MemberSolnick: But Trumark's'going to gettheper;"it,that;sthe int'ention, to get
18 thebuilding,permit?· .
19 Mr. Senden: [presumably "yes."] .
20 . Board Member Solnick: Okay. Thank you.
21 Board Member Maran: Judith, any more questions?
22 Board Member Wasserman: I actually had a question of staff, Very briefly, the applicant
23 mentioned going to the Planning Commission.' Does this go to the Planning
24 Commission?
25 Chris Magnusson: No, there's an additional part to the application, which is for a
26' tentative map in order to Greate the condominium units thatultimately go on to Planning
27 Commission an~ City Council.
28 Board Member Wasserman: Okay, so it's just for the lot by an erasure thing.
29 Chris Maqnusson: It's the merger of the three parcels and then the creation of the air
30 space.
31 Board MemberWasserman: Okay, thank you.
32 Mr. Hines: Drew, ·ifl may just shortly. To answer further a question you asked me
33 earlier. I just wanted to clarify that the existing zone for this property is LM-30 " and.
City of Palo Alto Page 24 _
·' ...
• <'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
clearly stipulated in that zone is a conversion to a residential use where you then follow
the RM-30 guidelines. So we're not asking for a general plan amendment or anything
major like that. We are complying with the existing zon"ing. And we're not the first to do
this in this region of Palo Alto. San Antonio Road, a number of industrial business,
commercial properties, with the same situation converting to residential." I just wanted to
let you know. " ""
Board Member Maran: Thanks for clarifying that. Any more questions from the Board?
" We'll open it up to the public. We have one "person who's submitted "8 card. If anybody
else would like to speak to this issue, please see Alicia arid gat a card and "fill out a
form. The first speaker-is Steve lanovsky, You have three minutes to address this.
Mr.Stevelanovsky: I'd like to start first of a II by thanking Garret and Trumark for -
working with the residents to try tacome up with something that works "for everybody.
The initial plan, we were quite happy about the height, three stories, right adjacent to all
of our houses that are all single-family one'-storybuildings. And certainlY,the two-story
is a'comproniise that we're much happier about. ,Qurprimaryconcernreally, as"
residents, is our privacy and the viewthatwe have to dealwithi with the change from
what is really a one-story commercial building into a development. AndWhatlwantto"
say about that is that we're much happier with the current plan of two stories. Our
" preference of course would beane story at the interface so that there's nothing different
to lookup at, but two stories certainlyls a reasonable compromise. My concern,since
all the discussianheretoday, sayslhat these are just sort oHdeas, butthingscan
change, is tha.t the height doesn1t changeibetWeej,:the timeii'gets apprmied :and when
it's ~ctually built. And they're talking about 22 feet now with no elevation grade. And if
later onthisside, ,if they got to bring the "elevation'grade Llpfivefeet, are we going to
end up looking up 29 feet or 27 feet, whatever, directly behind us. "SO Jdbhave a
concertl that this doesn't.change if we "agree that it's going to be two stories. My
preference also would b"efor iftobe morethan "20Jeet, as 20 feet, thisisbetweenme
and you up there; it .. s not very far, and I jusfwanted to ·express those points. ] think that
talking to my neighbors, two stories-" is certainly acceptable,three stories, we were not
too happy about. And I wanted to make that clear as well. ""That's really alii wanted to
say." I know also, one mare point, that today's discussion didnTinclude anything about
catching the water from the site. I know in the original planthere Was some kind of a
catch around the pe.rimeiter. "I guess that's :still there if it hasn't been "discussed because
we were jusf discussing changes. "But we "don't want to end up"with drain-off coming
onto our properties as well.
Board Member Maran: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the public who wants to
speak to this item? Seeing none, we'll return "it to the Board for comments and a
motion. David.
Board MemberSohiick: I would like to compliment the presentation. I really respect
your honesty. "You have a very straightforward style "and I think the drawings are very
straightforward and clear. "That's a real positive. There's a lot ofthingsthat aren't
included in here, and you've been honest about what's not in here, "and it's very clear
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1 that it's not because of laziness. There's an awful.lot of work in this set. I also want ·to
2 commend the staff report. I think it's very nicely written:
3 The major comments are that you've done a gre'at job of transitioning the density from
4 one side of the property to the other. I think that's very successful. Obviously, trying to
5 differentiate yourself from the more monolithic su~roundings has been a big part of the
6 design~ I think that would benefit from also transltioning for a couple of reasons, It's a
7 very active building, almost hyperactive, . And thatdoe~n't bother me so much ofthe fact
8· that it's uniformly hyperactive. I think ·it would actually .make more sense for it to bea
9 little bit calmer on the perimeter where it's interfacing with more monolithic buildings.
. .."..
10 Now do I think it should be monolithic like its surroundings?' Absolutely not; it's
11 residential and it should be a finer grain than what's surrounding it, absolutely. But I
12 think it would benefit everyone if there were a transition because thisbuildihg, itdoesn't
13 have arts and crafts anymore, so it's not going .to$tand out in that regard. But it's going
14 to stand out I think even more becauseitisso much a finer grain than its surroundings.
15· Ahd I think on the interior, that's going to be very exciting and I think very exciting for the
16 residents. And I think from a marketingpoint of View I think this,is going to be an
17 exciting place to live.
. .
18 But 'on the exterior, it couldbe a'little calmer, justto be a little· more deferential to its
19 surroundings. So. I would sort of transition it from inside to out in 111 at regard. And
20 probably when I sayinside to out, particularly towards the two streets,l1ot so much
21 towards the r.esidential because residential by nature is a finergrainand when you see
22 the aerial of this, the only thing that looks.at allfinegrainis the. existing residential. So
23 that edge is' not an issue with hyperactivity I don't think. I thinkjt'sthe edgesthaUace
24. the calmer ·surroundings.
25 On the landscape' architecture,.1 don't feel that the landscape . has kept .pace. I think the .
26 architecture is much .moreinteresting and sophisticated than the landscape architecture.
27 To me, th.e pathways and the little circular nodes .are more.sort of 70sgreenbelt I
28 didn't find one of thcise nodes where I thought -you know, t would just love to stop and
29 sit on that bench, that looks .like a wonderful. place to be. '1 didn'tfeel that from most of
30 the nodes. 'A couple of the.isolated.benches didn't look like places where" would stop;
31 And I see this all the time. You walk around and you see a bench and you wonder -.
32 what"s a be.nch doing there? Nobody sits there. I thinkthi~ SUffers from thatproblem,
33 A specific thing, on the bicycle racks up in the front, up on East Meadow Circle," That's
34 certainly not where I would put a bicycle rack. I ride my bike a lot, and .the great .
35 . advantage of a bike is that you .get to get close to where you're going, unlike a car
36 where you have to park it at some distance sometimes and walk. I would never bother
37 parking my bike up there. I would always park it closer to where I was going.
38 So the locations on the landscape architecture didn't seem that inviting, but also they
39 didn't seem to bespeaking to the architecture at all. I didn't find much communication
40 betWeen the two. And by communication, I don't mean copying, but they jList looked like
41 they were done from very different points of view. They just don't seem compatible. I'm
CitY of Palo Alto Page 26
.. ,
','/
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
not talking so much about the plants but really the forms of the walkways and the nodes
and the circles and so on. ' " '
Anoth'er detail on there. I think you do need to step down the fences. ,I don't think a
seven-foot concrete wall coming up to each street is going to be very attractive. And
actually, I think by, code -,at least inR-1 ,I don't know if it applies here -fences have to '
step down to four feet when they go into a front setback. I don't know whether it applies
, here or not, but I think it probably should.
I think you've done a very nice job also by the way -fjt wasn't mentioned here that was
important to me -of end units, of not making the ends look like middles with windows
stuck on them. You've done a ve'ry nice job'oftreating all the, ends so that they don't
feel that way. And the mixture of units, sizes, and end types, I r~ally,appreciate.
One thing, on the hyperactivity, I'm not quite sure whatthe level of change would be,or
what extent the change. The easy one, you said -again" I love your 'honesty ~ "If we're
talking about-colors, I know I'm home free."-And I know that feeling. And I'm not saying
that that'sthe,only thing we're talking abouthere. But Ithink,seven color schemes is
just way too many. You've got so much going on .. Not everything needs to vary. '
You've got so many different siding materials and so many different masses, and then
you multiply that, it's exponential of course when you have seven colors on each -'one of
those-things, the hiJmberof permutations is gargantuan and I don'Uhilik, you need it.
There's, a' lot a 'love about it. My main ,concerns are the landscape and that the fineness '
of the:grair:1 is so uniform across the site.
Bo~rclMember Maran: Judith.
Board Member Wasserman: Thank you. I also appreciate the level af the application.
found having a lot of material, although it took a long time togo through it, it was very
fruitful. I would first off just like to reassure the neighbors that the City code requires
,that nobody's water drain onto anybody else's property. So regardiess of what's
actually shown, yau'regoing to be dry; ,it's going tope okay. '
I tend to agree with most of everything that David 'said, espeCially the issue of calming
things down a little bit. ,There are a number of ways of differentiating between planes
and buildings and masses: In' spite of the fact that you .said you 'didn't use all of them, .
you've got'different parqpet details,'yOLi've got'differentmaterials -it goes on and on. I
think a little bit less variety would serve you well. .'
I also agree that there are many color palettes, but I also think that they're a lot similar
in a strange sort cif way. They're so subdued, some of them are muddy. I think you're
right, that you're going to need to mock it up on the site, in the light, and things will be
adjusted then. I know Garret and I talked aboutthe unavailability of good purples,' but'
we don't have 'to talk about that. .
City of Palo Alto Page 27·
1 I would also IikeJo compliment you'on the use ofthe:R~1guidelines, even though as
2 you said, it wasn't required. The City always appreciates when people pay attention to
3 what's important here, and that's what those guidelines layout. .
4 I do differ from my colleague on the question ofthe landscapihg . .I thinkthe landscaping
5 is okay. ·1 think that those individual.nodes really haven't been 1 00% developed and
6 that if you get good at the details, that there will be reasons to sitdown. 1 disagree that
7· it's a 70s concept. I think it's daring to have this perimeter walk 'rather than a central
8 park concept. You'll find out whether it's successful or not, but I think from a personal
9 point of view, having a continuous walkway ratherthari little bits and pieces is a much
10 more satisfying idea.' You don't have to have a dog to want to walk around the thing
11 that connects you to that perimeter in all kinds of directions .. I don't know if you're going
12 to want to walk along a big concrete waU all the time, 'and if something cali be done to
13 relieve the 'monotony of the concrete wall, that might be a good thing. Maybe talk·to
14 your public artist and' have him think about that as well as theiridividual pieces that he's
15 doing. . . . .
16 I did alreadY'say it was a good idea to'havethe photovoltaics, I think that's jus(great
. 17 that you're'even considering it as' an offer. Ahd then putting itonthe calWash I thhikis
18 really excellent.
'19 The two'specific details thatworry me are the ra'ilings that we talked about. Kids have
20 falleri off these things and the county is actually looking at some of these issues of
21 building safety for taller residential buildings that are over two stories 'bec~useit's
22 becoming more preval,ent in the county and these accidents have start~d to happen that
23 didn't use to happen before. And the other concern that I have that I made clear before
24 is the board and batten, the way that works. Of all of your siding materials, that's the
25 one that worries me.' Everything else, there's a way to do it and that's the wa,Y you're
26 'doing it. This is aninventionandithasto really work.
27 So I think that I would move that we approve this with conditions. The conditions that I
28 'would .like to'see -and] would leave the motion' open for conditions by my colleagues -
29 I'd like to see the board and batten come back·to subcommittee when you know how it's'
'30' going to work withyour structural system, when you know how it's going to.Work with,
'31 the windoWs and really see that studied. You said that it only' occurs in certainplaces .
32 so that havinglhat come back, you shouldn't have to have it come, back in 40 different'
. 33 variations, it Should corrie back as onething. I would like to see the,color palettes come
34 back after theY'vebeeli studied and the concept of calming at the perimeter,.;how you
35 intend to deal with that. I think if you Just do the railings vertically it doesn't have to
36 come back. 'I think those were the things that worried me the most '1 would also .like to
37 see your sustainability checklist come back when you've gone through DDs and you
38 know what the 'answers are. We'd like to s'ee what you've finally come up with. Other
39 conditions? David? You want to see development ofthose landscape nodes?
40 Board Member Solnick: I think the idea of coming back to a subcommittee, I think that
41 idea is fine. The tough part is going to be exactly to defining what comes back
42 obviously. I think there may be, on the graininess of it, maybe we're suggesting there's
City of Palo Alto Page 28
i '~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.7
18,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 '
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
,39
40
41
42
. something more than just colors, that there may be some minor massing changes on
the streets that might help calm that.down. And then I suppose it would also be
conditioned on just more details coming back, some of the details that aren't here. I
would like to see a 'railing detailifit's coming back. To tell you the truth about the
railing, I'd like to actually see some data if it's possible, I'm not surewho would provide
that. I don't know what the data is, but let's say there's been a few accidents of children
climbing up horizontal railings and falling off. EssenticHly that would be suggesting that
nobody should ever do horizontal railings on third floor or above. And that's a perfectly
reasonable thing to do if this is just to suggest that it's sufficiently common. If it's not, I
think it's a mistake because there are enough constraints on architecture for safety to
not include those that aren't major or at least sufficient. People trip over curbs all the
time and we still have curbs. Obviously there's a threshold,and I don't think it should
be decided anecdotally, I, think it should be decided based on 'real data. . '
I'm in favor Of the structure of the 'motion, just we're going to have to wrestle;a little oit
with the wording of what's included in the conditions.
Board Member Maran: We have a motion, and you've got some conditions in that
motion. I still havecomments'to make, but I would niakethose when this motion is
seconded or not. , -
Board Member Solnick:; I'll second it.
Board Member Maran: So we have aniotion.f.llmakemy comments now in the context
of this seconded motion. I'm also in support of the project. I'd like to second the
commending of all the members of the team, both deve.loper, architect, the.'staff. I'd
also like to commend the neighbors of the projeCt -riot because they·didn't showup,
but 'because there hasn't been, arieastin, front of us, a: lot of demand Jar something that
we've seen 'in other-projects, which is 'compatibility. And in some ways, what stands out
about this project'isWhatdoesn't showup. Clearly, there's been some constructive
outreach done by the project team to the neighbors and ·on the neighbors' :part there's
also been some accommodating of a -shift and change intheneighborhood and the use
and the conversion of commercial land to residential, and also to -atleastinsofaras
we're not hearing it -to apcepting someforward':looking architecture. So in that light, I
would say I support this project becaUse I believe it to :have'forward-Iookingarchitecture
as a whole. I think it's also important to note, and I wanttogoon record ,a~noting that
this project has gone from a very different design, a very different style, and that style
was one that thE} Board was generally opposed to in that it Was whafl would call an
imitative or retrospective style that didn't provoke or create new images of design in
architecture, and I'min favor of new images and new concepts where appropriate,andl
think that this isa really appropriate place tO'do ,it.' '
Previously, in other reviews,I've made Some comments and brought up the questions
of enclosed or gated or a turned inwardcomrnunity, and I still believe that in some ways
this is a neighborhood that's going to be Inwardfa:c,ingand somewhat enclosed. It
seems to be a fact of life for any'kind of high-density development outside of the
downtown that that seems to occur. I think the accommodations that the design team
City of Palo Alto . Page 29
1 has made to try to mitigate that inward focus have be'en very good. Arid as I look at the
2 elevations, both from the street and also from inside the project, what I. see are
3 generally really good images. What we talked about in previous reviews was how do.
4 we avoid the perception of this project as a bunch of garage doors that are surrounded
5 by houses. And this project seems tQdo that very well. Obviously there have to be
6 rows of garage doors and obviously, there are going to be a lot of people -most of the.
7. use of this project is going to be people driving in, getting out oftheir cars, and using
8 their garage doors as their front door. I think that this project goes 'along way,
9 especially given its previous renditions, in encou'raging the use of front doors, both· in
10' terms of elevating the front doors and also in the architecture itself. They look like
11 inviting and usable front doors'. And I think that's' really important to encouraging an
12· integrated neighborhood rather than just an inWardly-turned or self-indulged
13 neighborhood if I could use that term. . .
14 . Some other things that I think are really good about this project -what hasn't been
15 talked about here 'is the public art. I don't believe that to be a requirement, and I believe
16 it's a really good precedent and step for this project to take to incorporate public art.
17 I think the layout of the landscaping and the contemplative areas versuslhe reading
18 areas and all that, I think that remains to be seen, but I think they indicate an intent to
'19 get people outside, to get the people who live in this development out of their houses
20 . and possibly even mingling with one another. So I think theintentagain,slmiiar toth'e
2·1 layout of the buildings, is.a good one. My view is on this board, that's the best thing we
22 . can ·doislookfor the intent and then support it when we agree with it. Andl· .. agree· with
. 23 the intent .in this case.
24 Going back to the' architecture; again, talking about. intent, I think that the intent of this
25 architecture is very· good. It's creative, it's notlooking backwards ortryi.ng to imitate -at·
26 leastasl·can see·it, I don't see it imitating-anything that wasdone.previouslY or
27 certainly 50 years ago in Palo Alto or anywhere else. I'm sure it created some . .
28 discussion on the Trumark board, and that'-sgood:' That's what we like to see. We want
29 'to create sOme discussion and :some anxiety .andsame sweating when Jicomes to
30 developers who have often in.otherprojects looked forthe,lowest common denomiqator
31' in terms of style· and design. And we'.retrying to encourage innovative style and design.
32 Andifwe can push itinto the mainstream through companies like Trumark, we would be
33 really doing a good thing. Sol support that a lot. .
34 The same is true, of course, on the green building program. I watched Garret's'
35 eyebrows raise a lot and watched him really take on the role of the supporter and ..
36 promoter of green building practices. I also support the architects having done that
37 befO"re, and that KTGY was so quick and capable in coming up with a green building
38 .' checklist is really commendable. I think the green building checklist on this projeCt is }a .
39 model, and we on the Board I hope will see .thischecklist come. back to us after the
40 project is complete. And again, I've already used this checklist for example with a
41 couple of other architects who wanted to know what ·it was like to develop a green
42 building checklist for residential development, and I've,passedit along to them .. This is
43 a really good example of reaching into what's attainable in terms of setting lim!ts such
City of Palo Alto Page 30
. -,
') .
," '\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
as the 10% cost limit on FSC lumber, and also about looking at the broader picture and
trying to find focus points for ways, in which we can improve the construction industry's
involvement in the environment, otherwise' known as doing less damage to 'the
environment. I think this program has really reached; and we will be watching really
carefully to learn,from it and also to make sure that we can help wherever possible to
implement it.
In that selise also, I think this project is also a model in that sense. I 'talked about the
cooperation between the project team and the neighborhood that seems to have been
s'uccessfuL At least again, it's successful in what we're not hearing, is opposition from
the neighborhood other than the oneletterthat we've seen from a commercial owner '
nearby. ' " ,
I think this project can take'that same spirit of cooperation forward with this Board and
with the City, and in that' sense I would also request, or add, a condition thatthe project
does hire a green consultant or a green "guru" for the, project. My sense is that cou'ld be
done with less than $10,000 in consulting fees just to have essentially an independent
, or third party who could just oversee the,green building program,not so much as a
tech'nical expert but just as an oversight. 'In commercial projectsin thi~ city; the utilities
department actually donates that service, and I understand that that isn't available for
this rS'Sidentialprojecf ahd Ithinktha:t's wrong. Thisis,exaGtly the type ,of project that
the City shOUld be contributing that service, and I wOuld offer to ,go 'with you to the
utilities', department and try to get them to make an exception to that rule so that this
kind of green consulting can be donated. It's something that's .going to PaY for itself
quickly .. As an ,example of that, beating the Title 24' regulations' by 15% is, an immediat~
payback, bothfortheresidents and also for the City. ' Thelessenergyweuse,the
better. ' Even 'though we as a city make money from selling utilities, w~ stilI'have a
utiliti~s:department that promotes energy GonservatiO["i. 'So I'm.proposing as a condition
that the project has a single green building consultant. ' '
I'm at the point of conditions now that I would add as a friendly amendment to thE3 '
seconded moti6n. The other condition would be that this projeCt come backto'us a year
after certificate of occupancy is'issued with a brief summary. It doesn't haveto be in a
'formal hearing, we've asked otherprojectsto dothis.What it would doispresent us
with a chance to sum up the successes' and/or failures of the projectin terms ants '
processing through the review process. ,In other words, what we're trying to ,do,is learn
how to review projects to make them better, and I think this has been su~ha model of
cooperation that it would be a really gooq example ,that we could possibly learn from.
The value of coming back a year afterwards is everybody's bad a chance to ,move in
and Trumark has had 'a chance to 'lickits'wounds'or take its vacations, count its money.
And then also, there could be some summation of the economics of the green building
program or any other features of this project, which is clearly not being designed to be "
the simplest project to build, both in terms of its architecture and its commendable green
building program. So that would be my condition, would be. that it come back, even as .
in submitted report or something like that, a year after completion.
City o/Palo Alto, Page 31
1 Those are ,my two .friendly amendments. Are they acceptable to the maker andthe
2 seconder of the motion? ' '
3 Council Members Wasserman and Solnick: Ves.
4 Board Member Maran: And are there others?
5 Board Member Wasserman: I do have a list. I wanted to add another compliment 'to
6 this, which was deciding not to raise the plinths ,I. think was a really good thing, and that
7 also has,its sustainable aspects, and the ,use of permeable paving and increasing the
8 permeability of the site I'thought was also very commendable. And,inEnvironmenta/
9 Building News this month had an article on permeable paving which you can have, just
10 showing you that you're doing the rightthing.
11 My listhere, this is the list of conditions that I've got so far:
, ,
12 +:. Looking at ways, of calming the perimeter
13 +:+ Re-examining the colorpalette
14 +:+ The board and batten details, ones they've been organized
1 5 +:. The railing details , '
16' .:. The landscqpe nodes once they've been develoPEld -with the public art and the '
'17 actual p,lanting and the actual. way thatlooks. They're sort of placeholders at the'
18 moment. '-"
19 +:. The,greencheckli~t corisultclnt, including Drew's volunteering to take you to the '
20 ,utilities,people and 'plead yourca$e: , '
21 ·:·To comeback in a yearafteroccupancyfor a little post-occupancy evaluation ,on
22 how the process worked out ultimately in the'end -finanCially; how the green
23 " building checklistvvorks out., ,-" , ,
24 .:. 'And I volunteer to look into the data on the accidents on the railings to hot have a
25 "personal connection to somebody who,oughtto know. I'll do that. ' ,
26 Were there' any other eond,itions that we want to put on? This 'is to come back to the'
27 subcomniittee.' ,,', '
28 Board Member M'aran: Did you include'my one-year-sumrhary?
29 Board Member Wasserman: Yes. ,Orieyear post-occupancy evaluation of green
30 ,buildings and process. Amy?
31 'Amy French: Can'laskforclarification that by the perimeters you mean the street-facing
32 sides, for calming those down verslls-theresidential. Thars what I'd heard duringY,our
33 discussion :1 think. " ,
34 Board Member Wasserman: Yes.
35, Amy French: And then the second point of clarification would be that these' are returning
36 to subcommittee.
City of Palo Alto ' Page 32
· .'
'. 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Boa'rd Member Wasserman: Yes. '
Amy French: Okay, these items.
Board Member Wasserman: Right. Back to subcommittee. And the subcommittee
needs to be two of the people'who are,sitting here today as opposed to whoever
happens to be officially on the subcommittee,
Board Member Solnick: Ithink Drew's comment about the structural engineering and
the Title 24, that.makes me a little nervous. I agree with it, and that's why it makes me
a little nervous. Is it possible to have as a condition that it comes back only after "
structural and Title 24 have looked at it and prepared something preliminary. It doesn't
necessarily need to be'finalized, but something preliminary that would indicate that this
works, even close to what we see now.
, "
Board ,Me'mber Maran: Are you saying that it would come back to the sLibcommittee with
these conditions for review after Title 24 and structural engineering?
Board Member S6lnick: Right.
Board Member Maran: I would'support that.
Board Member Solnick: Not that we necessarily need to review the 'structural ,
calculations of course, but that when we see it, it's'already been see'nby a structurEli
engineer and a title 24 consultant'.
Board Member Maran: So 'thesubcomrnittee can hdldthe'new rendering 'up to the old
rendering, orUie 'new elevations up to the old elevations. I think that's doable. That's
months away.
Board Member Wasserman: In the vein of not being,really surprised by the, ultimate
outcomes, lthink that's a really good idea;
Board Member Solnick: Arid I would include bring back materials-maybe you said this
~ we're seeing all the materials, and that would ,include the landscape paving materials I
presume. lthi'nkwe shoLildsee that. "
,I did have one comment I wanted ,to make abbutthe fences if I ca'n. I think there's a
couple of nasty transitions between the concrete and the wood fence, one in particular
in the northeast corner is going to be very" visible. It's coming to an outside corner
, where the concrete meets thewood, and it's not going to be pretty. J would suggest that
, maybe one way to mingle those two -and I love the way you think about weaving
things, this is in that vein -of maybe the pilasters continue all the way around and that
in the side where'you have the wood fence, th~t it'sactually instead of being infilled with
concrete panels, maybe they're infilled with wood so that you get the continuity of the
fence types rather than going from concrete to wood to concrete but you also get the
wood fences at the front yards which you're trying to do', but in any case, to do
something with that transition near the street between the two materials.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1 Can we get something read back as t6 what the heck we've come up with.
2 Board Member Wasserman: I question whether that corner is visible because.l think it's
3 behind the pumping station and that there's a screen wall in existence. I could be
4 wrong.
5 Board Member Solnick: I think you'd see it because of the creek. It's right ,at the edge of
6 the creek and you'd look up the creek arid see that corner.
7 Board'Member'Wasserman: Could be; okay. I'd like to leave it up to the. designers to .
8 come up with a solution to that rather than suggest one;
9 Board Member Solnick: That's fine. I don't mean to design it, but just that it's kind of a
10 difficult transition.
11 Board Member Wasserman: Yes, a concern.
12 Chris Magnusson: Yes~ We have a motion by B.oard Member Wasserman,seconded
13 by Board Member Solnick, to approve the project with the following conditions:
. .
14 .:. That the project return to the ARB subcommittee,·thecommittee.being made of
15 the members who are. present this morning with the following:
. 16 BoardMember Solnick: Two of th~ members.
17 ... At least two members, thank you, that are here today;
18 '. .:. That the board and batten .details be further thought out;. .
19 .:. The cplor palette come . back,especially with the calming at the. perimeter of the 20 building; .. .. . .
21 .:. The fc;liling design .is vertical should be thought out, but some kind of information
22 . provided on childhood accidents of children .climbingover the railingsanqfalling.
23 . That should be provided I believe, Board Member .Wasserman has agreed. to .
24 look into that; ....
25 .:. Sustainabilitychecklist 'come·backwhen some more of the details have been
26 thought out than'were-presentedthismorning;
27 .:. Also return to the subcommittee be minor massing changes on the' street to calm
28 down the building; .' .
29 .:. This will'not'come back to :the subcommittee' but :be part of the:project -The
30 project have a green' building consultant as a third party overseer to look atthe
31 green bUilding techniques'and the green building program;
32 .:. 'Theproject comebacktotheBoard after a,useandoccupancy permit has been
33 granted to' present and sum up successes and failuresofthis review process and·
.34 summationofthegreenbuilding program.
35 I believe that would be it.
36 Board Member Wasserman: There were two other items: .
City o/Palo Alto Page 34
,,'. !\
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18.
19
+:+ The landscape nodes and the landscape paving materials to come back.
+!+ . And we want that railing· detail regardless of how it ends up.
Was that thing about the perimeter calming clear?
Board Member Solnick: Yes, although I might put it together. You had one related to
colors and then another one related to massing. I think they should both be in the same
line, the same bullet.
Chris Magnusson: Excellent. And just to clarify, the items for subcommittee would
come back to you prior to building permit issuance? ..
Board Member Solnick: There's no point in coming back after the building permit
issuance, 1s there? . . .
Chris Magnusson: I just wanted to make that clear and also for the audience's
information as well.
Board Member Maran: Okay, we have a motion and it's been seconded, and there are
conditions on that motion that have been accepted by the maker and the seconder .
We'll put this motion to a vote. All those in favor say aye.
[all say aye]
. Board Member Maran: All those opposed?
[none opposing]
Board Member Maran: That motion for approval passes 3-0-0-2. Thank you.
City afPalo Alto Page 35
Attachment C
DRAFT EXCERPT
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 2004
3. 928,940 and 1180 East Meadow Drive [04-PM-Oll*: Request by Trumark Companies
on behalf of 928 E. Meadow Partners, et al. for a Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed
residential infill development. This map is required in order to merge three parcels
(approx. 4.4 acres) and create 76 condominium units. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section
15332-In-Fill development projects. Zone District: LM
SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagendalpublishlplatll1ing-transpOliation-
meetings/3174.pdf
The next item on the agenda is 928, 940 and 1180 East Meadow Drive. It is a request by
Trumark Companies on behalf of 928 E. Meadow Partners, et al. for a Vesting Tentative Map for
a proposed residential infill development. This evening we will be doing the findings in order to
be able to make the Tentative Map. Staff would you like to make a presentation? Sorry,
Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I am going to have to remove myself from this item I have a conflict. I
am one of the long time owners of928 East Meadow. I have no economic interest in this but
other than the fact that I am selling it to Trumark.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Okay, Staff would you like to make a presentation?
Mr. Chris Magnusson, Planner: Good evening members ofthe Commission. On January 30 of
this year an application was submitted for a Vesting Tentative Map related to the proposed
architectural review application for this site. As required by City ordinance this application
automatically remained incomplete until the major architectural review or ARB companion
application received its discretionary approval. Before you this evening is the project's Vesting
Tentative Map, which is associated with the creation of the proposed for sale housing units and
the merger of three parcels into one developable site. As required by City ordinance the creation
of five or more condominium units requires the approval of a Tentative Map.
The scope of review for this map is essential a comparison for consistency with the approved
ARB site plan in reference to features such as street layout and walkways in addition to the
review of the recommended findings and conditions contained within the record of land use
action. The design of the site plan, landscaping and buildings architecture as well as designation
of various features such as public art has already been reviewed and approved through the ARB
process.
As for overall background information on this project it again involves the merger ofthree
existing parcels into one developable site, a demolition of the existing buildings and the
construction of76 condominium units. The density would be 173 dwelling units per acre well
under the maximum limitation of30 dwelling units per acre set by the zoning district. Of the
1
11, " ..
'. "\
total units proposed 12 are dedicated as below market rate units which is one over the required
number. Seven separate floor plans are proposed within six types of multi unit condominium
buildings. Per each unit the buildings house two floors constructed above the garage. No
building is proposed taller than the maximum height of 35 feet and along the southern boundary
building height steps upward from approximately 23 feet. The unit sizes proposed from two to
three bedrooms range from the smallest at approximately 1,200 square feet to the largest at
approximately 1,600 square feet not including garage space.
During the applicant's initial consultation with Staff they were encouraged to design within the
parameters permissible by the existing zone district with guidance from the applicable policies
and programs ofthe City's Comprehensive Plan. As a result this project incorporates the
following major accomplishments. Proposed multi family residential development as a
permitted use under the existing LM or Limited Industrial Research Park Zone District. Full
compliance with RM-30 site development regulations as dictated by the existing zone district
and without the request for variance or other design exception. Proposal and conformance with
related Comprehensive Plan policies from the elements of housing, transportation and natural
environment including precise conformance with Land Use Policy L-47 which indicates to
consider the East Meadow Circle area as a potential site for high density housing that provides a
transition between existing housing and nearby industrial development and qualification as an
infill development project as defined by CEQA given the proposal's enhancement of vacant land,
upgrade of the site's infrastructure and the result of no significant impacts to the immediate
environment.
In closing I would to comment that since the public notification cards were mailed on this item
Staff has not received public comments. Finally, Staff requests based upon the findings and
conditions contained within the record ofland use action that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend approval of the proposed Vesting Map to the City Council for the
merger of three parcels of approximately 4.4 acres and the creation of76 condominium units.
The applicant is here to give a brief presentation and answer any questions you may have. Thank
you.
Chair Cassel: Before we go to the public hearing does anyone have questions of Staff? Does the
applicant wish to speak? When you get a chance will you fill out a card so that the Secretary has
it? Please give us your name and your address. You have 15 minutes for your total presentation
for you and any of your staff.
Mr. Garrett Hinds, Trumark Companies, 4185 Blackhawk, Danville: Good evening. I am the .
Director of Architecture. Our office is in Danville. Trumark has been developing high quality of
life, attainably priced new home neighborhoods around the Bay Area for almost two decades.
We pride ourselves on working closely with neighbors and community leaders to come up with
appropriate housing opportunities.
We believe this is an appropriate opportunity for residential based on its proximity to parks,
schools, shopping, freeway access, public transportation as well as it being a natural ,extension of
the existing residential neighborhood. Here is the site right here and here is East Meadow right
here. The current LM zoning allows the site to be converted to a medium density residential use.
2
The Housing Element asks that we identify ajobs/housing imbalance in the City. It asks that we
continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized lands for housing. The
Comprehensive Plan talks about can we evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional
needs such as housing. Make land use decisions and encourage walking, bicycling and public
transit and limit the amount of impervious surface of new development.
As Chris pointed out the site is a merger of three existing light industrial properties that were
developed in the 1960s aerospace engineering was the primary use at that time. Only 900 square
feet of the existing 87,000 square feet are currently occupied. That is about a 95% vacancy rate.
Currently the site is roughly 85% impervious due to the massive rooftops and perimeter parking
which is typical to a light industrial use and the site is currently on a bus route along East
Meadow Drive. .
We are fortunate that the best trees on the site are on the perimeter. The existing mature trees
along East Meadow give us an opportunity to maintain the existing streetscape and street
character. The existing trees along the south edge will act as a buffer to the existing six single-
family homes.
Since December of 2003 we have been working closely with Staff and the Architectural Review
Board to gain their support, which we ultimately did receive in October. The major site factors
identified by ARB included providing a transitional building height that worked from the south
edge against the single-family homes to the north. The original plan proposed around 14 homes
per acre but at the direction of the ARB and Staff we have increased it to this plan with about 17
homes per acre. We believe this density appropriately balances the exiting height limitations and
FAR guidelines and balances that against the desired home size and bedroom counts that people
are looking for these days.
Separating the pedestrian from the automobile provides a safe, friendly and walkable
neighborhood. Internal walkways and perimeter walking system connects people from their
front door to the public sidewalk system out on East Meadow as well as the bike routes and
public .transportation. Along the way pedestrians will find outdoor rooms that would include
amenities such as sculptures, fountains, benches, arbors, a cut flower garden and bike racks. The
site plan takes advantage of the best mature trees along out in front on East Meadow and creates
a little pocket park out there that will also add to the East Meadow Drive experience. Front
doors and front patios face East Meadow Drive creating a friendly neighborhood feeling.
The biggest concern of our neighbors, ARB and Staffhas always been the privacy to our six
adjacent neighbors. We have had four neighborhood meetings beginning back in Augustof2003
and we have had numerous individual meetings in order to create what we believe is an
appropriate relationship. We have reduced the number of buildings in different iterations to six
to match our six neighbors and we have created a special architecture with a two-story edge just
along that edge. This elevation shows an existing home, a two-story edge with a buffered
setback and then it graduates up to a three-story element. We have also minimized and finessed
windows and placements along this edge. We have tried to allow light to come into the units on
that edge. We have also used obscure glass and other things to hinder views into the yards of
each home. We have also fixed a current runoff condition. Currently all six of these units their
3
yards drain across the property line into the site we are now collecting and treating that water
before it reenters into the City stonn system. After 16 months of cooperation we believe we are
bringing you a plan that is supported by our neighbors, Staff, the ARB and the Director of
Community Environment.
As Chris pointed out 15% of the homes are below market rate, will have below market rate
pricing. These homes are equally disbursed thr01:lghout the neighborhood and fairly represent the
mix of each plan offered. The red dots indicate the plans for the BMR units. Green building
guidelines have been established to be overseen by a green building consultant. The green theme
is to reduce housing expenses for energy including a photovoltaic system to reduce homeowner's
association electricity costs and we will offer optional individual photovoltaic systems to each
individual home at the time of initial purchase. A condition of approval is to report back to the
ARB so that we can evaluate and continue to perfect the green building goals and objectives of
.Palo Alto. This new easement of our neighborhood provides Palo Alto with many benefits such
as improving the jobslhousing imbalance, 12 below market rate homes, sustainable residential
buildings that increase energy efficiency by at least 15% above California Title 24 standards.
We are reducing the net traffic trip generation on this site by nearly 59%, providing over
$400,000 in City park fees, over $140,000 to the City library and community center in fees and
over $238,000 in school fees.
The major accomplishments thus far Architectural Review Board approval, Director's approval
and the Vesting Tentative. Map has been incomplete. Tonight we hope you are compelled to
recommend City Council approve this Vesting Tentative Map. Myself, my civil engineer as well
as other Trumark officers are here to answer any questions.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: You alluded to a watertreatment from the runoff of the adjacent properties.
Could you explain a little bit of what sort oftreatment you are referring to?
Mr. Hinds: Let me have my civil engineer answer that.
Mr. Tom Morris, BKF Engineers, 540 Price Avenue: We will follow the C-3 requirement from
the City of Palo Alto and Regional Water Quality Control Board. We are going to take water
where we can from the adjacenfproperties where it runs off into our site and also from paved
areas put it in grass swales where we can, treat it and put it into the stonn drain system. Where
we can't do that we will use some sort of filter like a CDS type hydrodynamic separator to treat
the stonn water runoff.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions at this time? You will get three minutes after the
end of the public hearing to respond to any comments or make a statement if you wish. I have
only two cards. If there is anyone else who wishes to speak then please fill out a card and give it
to the Secretary. The first person to speak is Robert Moss to be followed by Joy Ogawa. You
have five minutes to speak. Thank you.
4
Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Cassel and
Commissioners. I would just like to make a couple of requests in regard to this proposal. The
first one is that you have at least the Staff take a look at traffic issues because the figures that are
given of over 1,000 hips per day for the site are inaccurate. 928 East Meadow has been vacant
for two and a half years so there is essentially no traffic there. The school next door has also
been essentially vacant for more than a year. So the traffic counts from any development would
be significantly more than the current traffic counts. As I say it has been vacant for more than
two years so you can't estimate from normal uses.
One of the reasons this is important is because you are not supposed to be piecemealing
developments and, as we all know we have the Charleston Avenue Traffic Study and this is
about a quarter of a mile from 901 San Antonio, which is in the process of being developed very
intensively. So there can be traffic impacts and spillover traffic impacts from the two sites.
As for the bus route the VT A bus route is a joke. It comes by in midday about every two hours
and there is one bus during rush hour in the morning and the evening that actually picks people
up. I am very familiar with that because I worked in that building for almost ten years. I would
see the buses and the traffic as it came by.
The second issue is the possible existence of toxic chemicals in the soil from uses in 928. Part of
that building was not office space it was used as a lab, the materials lab was there. They used
chemicals for etching. We used petroleum products in the diffusion of vacuum pumps and we
also used chemicals for things like etching materials. Some of those may have spilled and may
have gotten into the ground. So at the very least that area should be examined to be sure that
thee aren't any toxins still there. If there are then they should be removed appropriately.
Excavation and disposal is probably adequate but you certainly should not be ignoring the
potential presence of toxics in that area. If you like I can tell you exactly where in. the building
they were. If you go down to the building and you are on the side that faces the homes there is
an entry about two-thirds of the way down just to the left of that is where the lab was and that is
the area which is most likely impacted by toxics. So I don't think you can just ignore CEQA. I
think you have to impose the usual CEQA requirements because there are some potential traffic,
health and safety factors that we have to attend to. Thank you ..
Chair Cassel: Thank you, Bob. Joy Ogawa and I have no other cards.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: I am horrified that a project this large would undergo any CEQA
review. Instead, Staff has deemed that this project is categorically exempt because it is so-called
infill dev~lopment. If this precedent is allowed to stand I can anticipate that nearly all future
projects under five acres that are not located in the Baylands or in the Foothills will no longer
undergo any CEQA review. This is not a precedent that I am willing to silently sit by and
accept. Just because this project is 4.4 acres instead of five acres does not mean that it is not
required to undergo CEQA review. This project site is larger than the 4.21 acre AlmaPlaza site.
Using Staff's rationale for calling this exempt Alma Plaza could be deemed infill development
and not undergo any CEQA review. This project absolutely has potential significant impact and
must undergo some level of CEQ A review. For instance there are potential significant traffic
impacts. This project is located in an area where a number of other very large projects are being
5
proposed including 901 San Antonio Road and the former Mayfield Mall site yet this project was
not included in the Charleston! Arastradero Corridor Study and the cumulative impacts of this
project on traffic have not yet been analyzed. Furthennore when the traffic data was collected
for the Charleston!Arastradero Corridor Study the buildings, at least some of the buildings, on
the project site were vacant. I understand we have already heard from Bob Moss about the
vacancies for over two years. In order to be consistent with the conditions at the time of the
corridor study the baseline conditions for the traffic impact of this project should reflect a
baseline that existed at the time the data was collected for that study, which was the vacant
buildings, were vacant. Bob Moss also has pointed out the possibility of hazardous chemicals,
which Ihaven't seen that being addr€:)ssed in the Staff Report. That is another potentially
significant impact that needs to be looked at and would have been looked at if they had
performed CEQA review as really this project should have undergone. Now maybe Staff will
not voluntarily change their position here and go ahead and perform a CEQA review but if I
were the applicant I would request that Staff complete an initial study to do that review because
by skipping any kind of CEQA analysis they create a much greater risk of legal challenges to this
project on the basis of adequate CEQA review. In this case lack of any CEQA review. So just
do the initial study, you know? If an acceptable CEQ A review had been done for this project I
probably would have voiced any objections to it, however, the precedent that is created by
avoiding any CEQA review is something that I am compelled to vigorously oppose. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. I have no other cards. Would the applicant like to make a closing
three-minute comment?
Mr. Hinds: Yes please. I would just like to quickly point out back to the first speaker. The City
infrastructure including all the City infrastructure, utilities, including levels of service regarding
traffic has always been based on a maximum trip generation. Those buildings could be occupied
any day but they are not. I just wanted to put that on the table.
As far as CEQA in my opinion extensive CEQA review has been conducted to the same level
. required, and Chris can maybe talk a little bit further about this, but to the same level required for
an initial study and CEQA review. The results of traffic studies, air quality, noise, hazardous
materials, all of those results have been determined to be less than a significant level of impact
therefore the CEQA exemption was sought and was deemed allowable. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Let me bring it back and I will close the public hearing at this time.
Would the Staff like to respond to anything that was said in the public hearing?
Ms. French: Yes. It should be mentioned that this question of the baseline has been brought up
before Council on several occasions as recently as a memo from the City Attorney, which Dan
can elaborate on if desired. Basically the Council has confirmed Staffs approach ofbasing the
baseline on the existing building as if it were having its maximum use because it is true that at
any time somebody could come in and occupy the building. I can't really speak to what the
speaker, Ms. Ogawa, was talking about with the Charleston! Arastradero Corridor Study. I am
not the person to address that. As far as the comments with regard to the Environmental Study
and this method of doing it we haven't been seeing this method used however, it is a legal
method. It is meets the CEQA guidelines. There was thorough study done by the Planner as
noted on page three of your Draft Land Use Action document. It lists all of the studies that were
done and submitted to Staff for review. Those were all reviewed by the appropriate City Staff
and the findings were able to be made whiGh are listed in bullets in the Land Use Action
document. So Staff supports the action that was taken by the Planner and Chris may want to
elaborate.
Mr. Magnusson: As far as the categorical exemption I just wanted to make one comment. That
is as Commissioners are aware CEQA really sets up a three step process and the first step is you
have to look and determine whether CEQA applies to the project in the first place. As you know
there are various categorical exemptions and statutory exemptions set forth in CEQA. SO that is
the first step. Only after that step is complete and the determination is made that is not exempt
and that it applies to CEQA do you go on to do an initial study. From there you determine
whether or not you have to go further to do an EIR is the third step. So what you see before you
tonight is the result of Staff going through that process· and looking at that first step. I do believe
that all the criteria in that categorical exemption have been met and are based on those studies
referenced on page three of the StaffRepot as Amy pointed out. So I do think it is an
appropriate use of the exemption.
Mr. Hinds: One other item I wanted to mention for the benefit of the audience. In regard to the
potential for any hazardous or toxic conditions that exist now on the three different parcels Staff
requested a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a document was provided by Louny
Associates. A review was done to assess whether or not there were any significant toxics or any
other concerns in terms of developing residential housing onsite. So I just wanted to point out
that all three parcels have been assessed and the conclusion of the survey does conclude that
there are no environmental concerns as related to developing housing onsite and that there are no
toxic conditions identified. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Question, Bonnie?
Vice Chair Packer: So Dan what I am understanding has happened when we say or when Staff
says that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA means that certain state mandated
procedures don't have to be followed but that doesn't mean that an environmental analysis was
not done. It sounds like environmental studies have been made to address the various issues it is
just that they are not necessarily presented to us in a state mandated format. Is that another way
of stating it?
Mr. Sodergren: Correct. The studies have been done in order to determine whether the five
criteria in the categorical exemption were met. One of which is that the approval of the project
would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
That is one of the factors and that is primarily why those studies where completed.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get a clarification please? I watched the Council meeting that
Ms. French referenced and I was thinking that while the Council did agree that they would use
capacity conditions for properties they would also use the traffic conditions at the time of
7
f •
capacity so they wouldn't be looking at an LOS at an intersection at a time when the building
were empty but then using the capacity of the building. So there wasn't a disconnect between
the LOS level and the capacity of the building and the occupancy of the building. Does this
make sense? So in other words, you wouldn't be using an LOS level and I amjust going to
make up a scenario here. You wouldn't be looking at an LOS level of A when a building was
empty but you would marry those up so you wouldn't have an LOS level of A if an occupied
building created an LOS level of C. So you would marry those two together. The reason I am
bringing this up is because if these buildings are in fact empty but their capacity was not
included in the Charleston study would that not be a disconnect counter to what the Council
discussed and decided recently in regards to another project and as a policy?
Ms. French: Well, for one thing that did occur after I believe the ARB approval on this project.
So that is kind of more recent discussion that hasn't really filtered down to the next project. The
next project that is approved at the ARB level and has not been appealed. So I don't know.
Chair Cassel: But the thing we are looking at here is we are not looking at the LOS tonight,
right? We are looking at street alignments, grades, widths, drainage, sanitary facilities, utilities
including alignments and grades thereof, location and size of all required easements and right-of-
ways, fire roads and fire breaks, lot size and configuration, traffic access and would includ~ that,
grading and the findings in terms of whether it meets the map.
Let me see if I can rephrase what you are trying to say. What you are trying to say is when you
compare the traffic input and output from the site we are comparing it from an occupied building
currently if it was occupied. If you look at the LOS at the intersections you would be looking at
the LOS at the intersections if it was occupied and not the LOS if it was empty. You would then
be comparing the LOS sections what the impact would be if it were occupied to what it would be
if it now had a new use. But this site has also been evaluated under the Comp Plan EIR. Weare
not putting into this site anything in addition to what is already allowed in the zoning. This
meets the zoning at this time.
Commissioner Holman: That does not excuse it from CEQA study though. Just satisfying
zoning doesn't necessarily preclude it from CEQA study. We are not looking at an LOS here but
we are looking at the finding do require for the CEQA exemption that there aren't traffic impacts
and that is why I am going back to this. Because if it was considered during the traffic study for
Arastradero the existing condition and not the capacity condition then we are not really looking
at what the true impact is.
Chair Cassel: I think I need a Staff clarification here because I believe we have to look at the
comparison onsite to onsite and not looking at what decision was made someplace else without
that information in front of us. I am a little lost from where you are going in other words.
Would you clarify what it is we are supposed to be evaluating? I don't think we are evaluating
whether or not the CEQA was adequately determined or are we?
Ms. French: The CEQA document or the CEQA analysis that was done was done for the
creation of the Architectural Review entitlement that has been processed and has made it through
the process. What you are looking at is a condo map. The study that was done by Fehr & Peers
8
would have analyzed the change of trips from a fully occupied office building or whatever
exactly was in there, office and education center, and the proposed new use which represents less
trips which is high density residential. The significance there is that as always with traffic
reports that are looking at peak hour use and such things to see if that triggers trips that would
then make it significant. In this case it is less than significant. It is less trips and less peak hour
trips. Chris may know thoroughly the document or the applicant may want to address this
further.
Chair Cassel: My question is the decision on CEQA has been made, is it in our purview to
discuss and work on the CEQA tonight and whether the CEQA was adequate? I don't think that
is.
Mr. Sodergren: To the extent ~hat one of your jobs is to determine whether a categorical
exemption is appropriate and on that basis Staffhas determined as part of the infill exemption
section that there are no significant impacts relating to traffic and that is based on the F ehr &
Peers study. My guess is that the methodology used in the Fehr & Peers study was the same but
I don't have the study in front of me.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Vice Chair Packer: The Staff Report is asking us to recommend approval of a Vesting Tentative
Map. It does not seem to be asking us for our opinion as to whether the Director's decision
about the status of CEQ A was appropriate. I understood from the Staff Report that the ARB
decision, the Director's decision has already been made and we are not here to question that. If
someone else wants to question there is some other appeal process but that is not what is before
us tonight. I believe the only thing that is before us tonight, as I understand from the Staff
Report is to review this map and the document of land use and not to question the decisions that
have already been made. Is that correct?
Ms. French: That is correct. This does not include an appeal of the Architectural Review
decision that has been made.
Chair Cassel: Thankyou, Bonnie. Michael.
Mr. Sodergren: Just to make clear we are applying a categorical exemption to this Vesting
Tentative Map. So to that extentthe categorical exemption is before the Commission. We are
saying that not only is the ARB review categorically exempt we are also saying that this Vesting
Map is categorically exempt. So to that extent it is before the Commission.
Chair Cassel: To that extent it is before us and we can discuss it. Thank you. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Well I have a grading question then. From looking at the plans my
understanding is that the project will have podium parking, is that right? On the ground level
with dwellings above. Am I saying that correctly?
9
r •
· .
Mr. Magnusson: Yes, the actually living units are constructed above garages, which are
constructed at grade.
Commissioner Griffin: So we are going to have a slab on grade. There is no excavation that
would take place that would lower those slabs into the original grade?
Mr. Magnusson: I don't believe from the grades that are shown that there is a lowering. The site
is within a flood hazard area as defined by FEMA so therefore there is a particular baseline
elevation that the living unit's first floor has to be at. A garage floor level can be below that base
elevation to my knowledge. So in terms of looking at the grading plan that is attached to the plan
set you may see a variety of grade changes. Essentially the garage finished floors are set at
approximately five feet above sea level and that is slightly different p·erhaps a foot higher than
what is existing onsite now. Somewhere within that range of a foot t~ a foot and a half.
Commissioner Griffin: I guess where I am going with this we have had some discussion tonight
of potential amounts of hazardous substance having been used on the property in the past and I
am just trying to get a feel for whether or not the native grade is going to be disturbed to any
significant extent prior to pouring a concrete slab on it.
Mr. Magnusson: I think probably the applicant's civil engineer could corroborate but to my
knowledge there won't be significant excavation occurring.
Commissioner Griffin: Perhaps the applicant's civil engineer could tell us what is the degree.
Mr. Morris: Sure. We will have to remove some amount of dirt from the site. We are going to
have to pull up all the pavement that is there in the aggregate base. If we can grind that and
reuse it onsite we might. If not it will have to be taken away. For the most part the garage floor
grades are going to be like we said a foot to two feet above existing grade and will be very
minimal disturbance of the grade below that. As part of the earthwork we will have to scarify
the entire site to a depth of six to 12 inches and re-compact that to make a solid foundation for
the rest of the site.
Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up on that. With regard to it being in the flood zone are
the garage floors actually above the base floor elevation or are they going to be constructed out
of water resistant materials so that they can withstand flooding?
Mr. Morris: The will be constructed out of water resistant materials. The first floor of the
building, the first living inhabited floor of the building, will be above the floor zone. So it will
entirely be above the flood zone so the floor joists don't have to be flood proofed but the area
below that in the garage will be flood proofed.
Commissioner Lippert: So the plan is that it is going to be constructed on the first floor out of
concrete and then the second floor would be wood frame above that?
10
Mr. Morris: Correct, yes. There will be a stem wall up to the flood elevation that would be
concrete and then it could be stick £i·amed above that.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Anyone else have a question of the applicant while I am doing this?
Okay, thank you. Pat, did you have a question?
Commissioner Burt: I am afraid I still need to get clarification on the purview of the
Commission tonight because I think I heard different things from assertions from Commissioners
and what I thought I understood Dan to be saying. So is it within the purview of the Commission
to review the category exemption from CEQA?
Mr. Sodergren: Yes.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
Mr. Sodergren: Of the map. The categorical exemption for the ARB has already been approved
by the Director at Staff level so this is just for the map.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so then can you clarify a little bit more? When you say ofthe map
what scope does that encompass?
Mr. Sodergren: The scope of that review is determining whether the map as a project conforms
with the requirements listed on page two, those five criteria. Staffhas determined that the
project complies with all those criteria and on that basis is categorically exempt.
Commissioner Burt: Page two of?
Mr. Sodergren: I am sorry. Page two of Exhibit A, the Record of Land Use Action that lists the
five criteria in the infill exemption.
Chair Cassel: Just a minute I need to find that Attachment A.
Commissioner Burt: You are referring to page two in Attachment A.
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
Chair Cassel: Does everyone have it?
Mr. Sodergren: Section two of page two of Attachment A.
Chair Cassel: What you want us to determine is is the project consistent with the applicable
general plan designation, right?
Mr. Sodergren: Right.
11
· .
Chair Cassel: And all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning
designation and regulations. Does the proposed development occur within City limits on a
project site of no more than five acres, substantially surrounded by urban uses? Does the project
site then have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species? Approval of the
project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water
quality and the site can be adequately serv~d by all required utilities and public services.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so I am still wanting to make sure I am clear on this, bear with me.
So within that section two environmental review when it refers to all applicable general plan
policies is that any general plan, Comp Plan, policy that this project affects period?
Mr. Sodergren: It is a general consistency finding similar to the other general plan consistency
findings that are tied to other types of permits so generally consistent with the general plan,
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Burt: And then back under the requirements to be categorically exempt where it
says a project must meet all of the stated criteria it has similar findings and it says the project is
consistent with applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as
opposed to generally consistent it has to meet all applicable general plan policies. So is that part
of what we are to be determining tonight whether it does meet all applicable general plan
policies?
Mr. Sodergren: That is a criterion before you tonight, right.
Commissioner Burt: And if it doesn't then it would be part of our purview to determine whether
it therefore is categorically exempt?
Mr. Sodergren: If the Commission doesn't feel as if those criteria can be met then the direction
should be back to Staff to complete an initial study for the project.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So without commenting on whether it does or it doesn't I think we
have had a clarification that the purview is more broad then some of the Commissioners were
asserting. I think we just need to start with that.
Chair Cassel: Right. I thought that was when he clarified that earlier that was what he was
saymg.
Mr. Sodergren: If I could just point out one thing in regard to the applicable Comprehensive
Plan policies for the site, on page four of the Record of Land Use Action, section three is called
out the Tentative Map findings. Finding number two is specific in saying that the design or
improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general or specific
plans. And so what I have done as a Staff person is laid out the policies that the site is consistent
with to provide you guidance so that you would be aware of the exact policies.
Chair Cassel: We did one of these a couple of weeks ago in which we had to look at these
tentative map findings and they are all worded in the negative and we had to deal with the
12
negative aspect of the way they were worded. We tried this once before. It is easier when it
works the other way around but that is the way they are worded.
Commissioner Burt: So the question before us is not so much which general plan policies it is
consistent with but are there any that it might not be consistent with. .
Mr. Sodergren: That is the way the actual finding is worded in the government code. It is a
negative finding that you would ~ave to make, in other words if you disagreed that this project
did not meet Comprehensive Plan policies.
Commissioner Burt: Right. Whereas this report is in the positive, the affirmative, which general
plan policies Staff believes it is consistent with.
Mr. Sodergren: That is how it is worded under CEQA regulations.
Chair Cassel: We are hung up on some details here. I think it would be helpful if we could go
on unless you have some other questions of Staff and make some comments about how we feel
on this one. Bonnie.
Vice Chair Packer: Well I just want to remind Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan has
within it policies that may not be consistent with one another. So if we do this analysis lets try
and focus on the applicable and relevant Comprehensive Plan policies.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I had a question about noise. On page three, and we didn't have the full
set of plans so this might have been taken care of and I am just not aware of it but I don't have
anything that shows me it did. On page three of Attachment, A the second bullet says no noise
generating features will be created onsite as air conditioning units are optional and placement can
be controlled. On the next page section three, number two the last paragraph there talks about it
gives as consistency with Comp Plan Policy N-42 and I read N-42 arid I don't see anything on
the plans that we have that indicate that there is a sound wall or setback of noise producing
equipment or anything ofthat nature that would meet with compliance ofN-42. So is there
something that exists that isn't in the plans that we have?
Chair Cassel: Can I ask the applicant how they would handle air conditioning equipment. on
these sites?, I
Commissioner Holman: Not just air conditioning I am talking about all noise producing
equipment.
Chair Cassel: This is a condominium complex so there is going to be a limit of how they
produce noise equipment onsite. Can the applicant tell me what kind of noise generating
equipment is going to be onsite and how you would control the noise?
13
· .
Mr. Hinds: The air conditioning units if it were selected, as an option from each homebuyer
would be placed on the roof ofthe project. So the noise would tend to go up not out. Also the
nature of the flat roofs of this project there is a parapet wall that is about four feet high all the
way around the perimeter so it will act as a noise buffer to the horizontal and down direction.
Then the entire south edge ofthe property line adjacent are single family homes is a new seven
foot solid wall that would reduce noise issues ifthere were any.
Chair Cassel: And you have a seven-foot sound protection wall from the business over into the
residential area?
Mr. Hinds: No.
Chair Cassel: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Holman: Can I ask a clarification on that, please? Commissioner Lippert might
be helpful with this too. Ambient noise, noise tends to go I think at this angle and I looked at
Commissioner Lippert for guidance on this. So is a four-foot parapet going to really keep the
noise from just bouncing into the neighbor's properties? I look to Staff and to Commissioner
Lippert since he is former ARB.
Commissioner Lippert: I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I think that the applicant
probably should answer the question since it is their building.
Commissioner Holman: Doe Staff want to answer?
Chair Cassel: You want to answer that question? These buildings are also setback from the
neighbor's property some number of feet, I don't remember off the top of my head.
Mr. Hinds: The closest unit would be 20 feet to the single-family homes to the south of us and
that is their property line. Those homes are then setback at least another 20 feet. I can't imagine
any noise issues from these air conditioning units and these days with the high efficiency models
they are relatively quiet in my opinion.
Chair Cassel: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Lee?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I have a question for the architect again. With regard to drainage
the City has certain policies with regard to perVious surfaces. What is your surface material and
how are you handling you surface so that it is pervious?
Mr. Morris: Garret may have to help me a moment with this but for the paved areas and the
roadways for the most part it is going to be asphalt pavement. There will be some areas in the
parking areas and in some of the key central areas at intersections where we are going to use a
pervious paver detail to try to get a little bit more infiltration. There is a sidewalk and DG paths.
14
Mr. Hinds: I guess the bottom line to look at it is the existing site is 85% 'impervious at the end
of the day our site will be 57% I believe impervious so war increasing the pervious nature by in
the 30% range.
Commissioner Lippert: Chris, is that consistent with the City standards for requiring permeable
surfaces?
Mr. Magnusson: Specifically the reduction is quite significant. Per the existing zoning district
standards there isn't an actual specific percentage that is required to be reached however given
that the new landscaped areas in addition to permeable pavers are added onsite significantly
. reduces the amount of permeable area. Again, this is what Staff was working with the applicant
to try to achieve to increase water infiltration into the site as good design practices in addition to
accounting for required BNPs.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I want to ask some questions about the park and recreational purposes, item
eight under Design Criteria. What was called the pocket park by the applicant is that public or
private parkland designation? Is the access open to the public, is it part of the condition that it be
open to the public or is that private land?
Mr. Magnusson: What is provided onsite as far as what you would see in the approved ARB site
plan are designations of flower garden areas and there is also a pedestrian walkway that has a
number of different what are called various rooms that provide seating areas, publi<;; art piece
viewing and ability to view various landscaped areas. At this point in time the flower gardens
would be proposed to be maintained by the homeowners association and usable by the residents
of the development not necessarily open to the public.
Commissioner Burt: The applicant referred to the front landscaped area there as a pocket park
and that is what I am referring to and asking is that pocket park as we refer to pocket parks in the
Comp Plan and promoting the creation of pocket parks in new development is that pocket park
designated as a public access base or is it for the use of the tenants?
Mr. Magnusson: The project complies with the private open space requirements as required by
the zoning district. So the open space area that you see in the site plan along where the two East
Meadow Drive streets intersect is essentially private for the use of the residents. Given the size
of the site it was not necessarily achievable to integrate a public park into the proposed design.
Chair Cassel: Let me ask a question. This is a site' that is zoned to have this use. Would we
have any power at all to ask for a public park out of this site?
Mr. Magnusson: Again, I think going back to the requirements for approval for the Tentative
Map the review essentially is to designate whether or not the street layout and walkways, etc. are
15
consistent with the approved ARB documents. Open space design has more or less been set by
the ARB.
Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: On the original site plan there is a ten-foot embankment easement that
runs along East Meadow Drive but it has beeri taken off. What is a ten-foot embankment
easement?
Mr. Magnusson: It is actually not being removed. It is to remain. It is a previous easement that
was designated at one point in time. I am not too certain of the origin. It may have been
designated at one point in time if there had been consideration for a street widening but that is
just an assumption on my part.
Commissioner Lippert: Would that be a ten-foot easement that people can walk on? Is it saying
that ten feet of that property could be used for public use?
Mr. Magnusson: As designed into the site at this time there would be the maintenance ofthe
public sidewalk around both street sides of the site. In addition to that there would be a
landscaped area within that embankment easement. Again, it would remain under the City's
control because I believe it is designated as a City easement.
Commissioner Lippert: So would the public be able to use that?
Mr. Magnusson: They would be able to access the public sidewalk.
Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Chris, I am confused off of one of the statements that you just made in
terms of once again the scope and purview of the Commission tonight. Under the page two of
the Staff Report the second paragraph down says the scope of the Commissi'on's review is
limited to the design and improvement and under design, item eight, it says land be dedicated for
park and recreational purposes. I had just understood you to limit us in a way that not put that
under our purview.
Mr. Magnusson: What I was maybe not expressing clearly is that through the ARB review
process a park was not designated into the site design and so therefore at this time you don't see
a consistency of a park carried over into the Tentative Map document. What you see in terms of
allotted open space is open space designated around the perimeter of the streets as well as
internally throughout the site but not specifically a park.
Commissioner Burt: So then I would like to revi,sit, you had made a statement that there wasn't
adequate space on the site for public park. I can't recall the details of our ordinance we have the
in lieu fees for public parkland and maybe Amy can review for me. If I recall there are certain
thresholds at which we have a first desire to create that park space on a major development and
16
then if it were not feasible then it would be in lieu fees if! am remembering con-ectly. Can you
review those guidelines if anyone has that or in a moment review them?
Ms. French: With a little help from the code.
Commissioner Burt: Then I will wait and hear from you in a bit.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Karen, did you have another question?
Commissioner Holman: A clarifying question, please, going back to the noise for just a moment.
The applicant responded how they would treat air conditioning. It is not a condition of approval
but is that the ways the plans are drawn? That treatment that was described by the applicant?
Mr. Magnusson: Yes, one ofthe conditions for ARB approval was for specific screening as it
relates to the installation of any rooftop mechanical equipment. In addition to that there is
always in effect the City's Noise Ordinance. So at any point at which a resident, commercial
property owner, multi family tenant would install a mechanical unit they would have to adhere to
the City's noise standards. That would be the controlling measure at any point in time.
Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions while they are trying to look that up? Then why
don't we just pause for a moment?
Commissioner Griffin: Then I will ask a question, Phyllis. Putting the project in context it
seems to me that there was something in the report that I recall reading about a potential project
pending across the street. Can you elaborate, Chris, on that at all? Do we have any idea what is
in the offing?
Mr. Magnusson: If you are referring to a potential project within the East Meadow Circle area
the existing commercial area, just to clarify.
Commissioner Griffin: It seems to me that it was directly across the street was the reference.
But I may be mistaken there so I'll let you answer that however you wish.
Mr. Magnusson: I am not too familiar with any proposal. I have yet to as being the District
Planner for this area typically part of my function here at the City is to be assigned projects as
they come into this portion of Palo Alto or at least be informed. At this point in time I am not
aware of any proposed development directly across from this location.
Commissioner Griffin: Nothing in the rumor stage. All right I will let you off the hook.
Mr. Magnusson: No, at least to my knowledge the closest would be roughly the 901 San
Antonio Road site.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
17
Commissioner Holman: Going back to Commissioner Lippert's question about the ten-foot
easement. I think it was Commissioner Lippert. I had on my notes to inquire for clarity about
creek setbacks. Now, this is not creek as we think of it often times but is there any requirement
that there be any kind of creek setback and at some point in the future it might become the thing
to do to naturalize this creek so that is why I am posing this question.
Mr. Magnusson: Essentially, we didn't receive comments from Santa Clara Valley Water
District specifically in regard to a setback, as it would apply to this development. There is in
terms of geographic reference an adequate area in between the actual creek, which I believe the
Santa Clara Valley Water District uses probably for maintenance between the property line of
this site and the actual creek edge. So perhaps the reason why we did not receive comment is
that they feel that there is at least adequate room to access for maintenance and other things.
What Staff would do is to follow up at the time of building permit submittal essentially or could
possibly follow up upon submittal of the Final Map with Santa Clara Valley Water District just
to confirm if they had any sort of requirements they wish to impose.
Commissioner Holman: But they were notified of this and informed of this application.
Mr. Magnusson: Yes, and again we did not receive comments back.
Chair Cassel: They normally have a certain amount oftime. You notify them in a very formal
application and you tell them what is going on and they are supposed to respond in a certain
amount of time if they have any concerns.
Mr. Magnusson: In a similar manner as we would route plans to departments within the City if
we need to contact various agencies they also receive plans. For instance this Tentative Map
application was forwarded to the school district and as well we did not receive comments.
Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question for the applicant. We have had a discussion on the
Commission of desirability of certain of the landscape areas in multi family residential units to
potentially function as common gardens, some minority of that area and I think we have the Oak
Court Apartments that are just coming in where that was designated and it is a very advantageous
component to multi family developments that we have been trying to encourage. Is that
something that you have considered or would consider?
Mr. Hinds: Our original approach to this was to have maybe a central park theme even though
we do look at this as a medium density, 17 units to the acre, everybody does have a 12 by 16 foot
patio that is ample room for a barbeque and table and chair set. When we really focused on the
central park theme we tried to think about how the users would act in these spaces. After dinner
with my wife I would rather go for a stroll and experience different areas on a stroll and come
across and meet my neighbors in a linear walking fashion rather than go to a central park and
make ten laps to get the same distance. That was the approach.
18
Commissioner Burt: My notion that is not so much whether you would have that central park
theme versus this perimeter walkway which looks like it has some positive components to it it is
whether any of the passive landscaping zones instead of being lawn or juniper beds or whatever
sort of traditional passive landscaping whether any small segment of that could be designated as
a common community garden for vegetable growing and those kinds of things.
Mr. Hinds: Could you go to the next slide? -Absolutely. We did look at, here is the front area
along East Meadow where with the nice really large existing trees we saw that as a focal point
for the residents but also it would give the public domain a nice edge. This is all open area there
are not fences or walls here. Right in this area we saw a terminus for we thought a cut flower
garden would be something a homeowner association could maintain easier but the homeowner
association could absolutely vote to make that a vegetable garden. Then all along this center
area through here we envisioned a rose garden. So you have a rose area through here and other
cut flower areas here and then as you make your perimeter trek you have this little outdoor
rooms with different themes and opportunities for different elements.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Did you have an answer to that question?
Ms. French: Basically in Title 16 in the Building Code it sets forth what the development impact
fees basically are which includes parks, community facilities, libraries and we do have just fot
your information on as one of the conditions of the ARB entitlement listed those development
impact fees. We don't have kind of a Quimby Act type rule here where we require park
dedication. If it was a PC, a Planned Community, there may be some public benefit explored in
that way but since this is a straight zoning project where our zoning requires them to have private
open space, a certain amount of common open space for the users of the development and a
certain amount of private as Garrett said in the patio areas and those have been met in the
project. So Dan did you want to add on to that at all?
Mr. Sodergren: No, that is basically it. As you know under the Subdivision Map Act cities can
come up with park dedication requirements and in lieu fees. Palo Alto currently does not have
those in its subdivision ordinance. So as far as parks go the only requirements the City has is the
actual Citywide park fee.
Chair Cassel: Let me bring it back to us for discussion then. Is there anyone who would like to
start? Bonnie, would you start the discussion?
Vice Chair Packer: I am very excited about this project. I think ofthe Commissioners I am
probably the person who lives closest, although far enough away to create no conflict, to this
project. It took me ten minutes to walk there today so I am far enough away. Right now there is
an R-1 area all around there which abuts without any transition to this LM zone. You walk down
Louis and there are all these nice Eichler style houses and all of a sudden you are in an industrial
area. What this project will do is take that comer on East Meadow Drive where it turns and
create a transition which is talked a lot about in the Comprehensive Plan between R-1 and Light
Industrial, the LM zone that is around East Meadow Circle and going up West Bayshore. It is a
19
• >
· .
very exciting project to see that there and just envisioning homes and gardens, etc. instead of all
those parking lots and ugly buildings I am looking forward to that. However, that is not exactly
what we are supposed to do tonight.
I think the Architectural Review Board has done its work in looking at how to make this project
work from a layout and design and all the things that the Architectural Review Board does. It
certainly is within the zoning requirements. This is not a PC so we don't have the authority to
really tweak it and really ask the developer to do more things. So I am hoping that in our
discussion the Commissioners will also agree with me and be able to support a motion, which I
will make eventually after we have a little discussion in support of the Staff recommendation to
recommend approval of this Vesting Tentative Map. I feel comfortable making all the findings
that have to be made in the Record of Land Use. I think we have to think of this as small units,
this is small housing these are not monster houses, this hopefully will be a little bit more
affordable than some of the other houses that are being built in Palo Alto. So it is a great
opportunity. I hope we can embrace it.
Chair Cassel: Lee.
\
Commissioner Lippert: I am in agreement with Commissioner Packer's comments. I too
support this. I think it is a great opportunity here. I think that one of the things that was pointed
out in the applicant's presentation with regard to helping us correct the jobs/housing imbalance
that it does take away a certain amount of commercial square footage and puts it directly into
housing thereby tipping the scales back in the correct direction. So I think that this is an
opportunity to be let's just say a leader in this area of beginning to turn that jobs/housing
imbalance around.
Chair Cassel: Anyone else want to make any comments or any discussion?
Commissioner Burt: Well, I will just concur with the primary point that Lee just made that we
have right now in our present economic climate one of the few opportunities where we can have
developers who have economic incentives to take underutilized commercial space and convert it
to residential. Five years ago it would have been world war three. to encourage them to do so and
now we have them coming forward at their own initiative. That window won't last forever and I
think on the whole this project meets the criteria that we have set forth. As we convert
commercial to residential we have that struggle about making sure that community services are
able to stay up with the Increasing population. As much as we have ~ad concern voiced about
whether we are stifling development by having our various developer fees in reality it is .
probably not adequate to meet all the needs of the increasing populous so I remain in the long
term concerned that we look for innovative ways such as trying to find public pocket park
opportunities and things like that that will meet the community need and not just the private
need. But having said that I think that this particular project met the criteria set forth and that it
meets several important overall Comprehensive Plan goals.
Chair Cassel: Karen.
20
Commissioner Holman: I would concur with many of the comments that have been made I do
still have this dilemma about the noise question that I had has been answered, the creek question
that I had has been answered although I don't think that is the most forward looking way to deal
with these channelized creeks. There isn't anything we can do about that at this point. I still
have a little bit of a dilemma about the traffic generation especially the way it is written in the
Staff Report because I am not sure I concur with the fewer trips since this is vacant property and
that being consistent with the Council direction recently. That is my dilemma. I think overall
the project is a good one. I think it accomplishes a lot. It is transitional and seems to satisfy the
other findings. So therein lies my dilemma but generally speaking I am in support of the project,
in support of the Land Use and the Map.
Commissioner Griffin: I too will support the project. I think it is such a dramatic improvement
over the existing development that it is rather staggering to contemplate what else could have
been done with that property down there. I think we are fortunate to have the kind of project that
we see here before us this evening. I would like to see more of these and I think as
Commissioners have said we have a window of opportunity here where commercial development
is not particularly attractive to the real estate community at the moment and housing is attractive.
It would be nice to be able to strike while the iron is hot and this is a great opportunity to do just
exactly that.
Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
MOTION
Vice Chair Packer: I guess I can make the motion now. It seems like the Commissioners don't
have more to say about it. The motion I would like to make is that we recommend approval of
the proposed Vesting Tentative Map to merge the three parcels that are described and to create
the 76 condominium units based upon the findings and the conditions with the Record of Land
Use Action. I don't know if! need to go through all those findings in my motion. I want to just
point out that one of the important conditions is the BMR agreement. That is one of the
conditions that is part ofthe Record of Land Use. That also means that my motion incorporates
the approval of the finding that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA because of its
infill status.
SECOND
Commissioner LiIJpert: I will second that.
Chair Cassel: The motion was made by Bonnie and seconded by Lee. Did you want to make
any comments to that, Bonnie? .
Vice Chair Packer: I don't think it is necessary. I have already said why I support the project.
Chair Cassel: Lee?
21
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a comment and this is a general comment it does not
specific have to do with the Tentative Map. I see so many other Planning Commissions
approving development along Bayshore freeway and looking at those developments they are just
absolutely God-awful and I can't imagine why people would want to live there. I look at this
and I say this is a very reasonable approach and I think that the architect and the developer in this
case should be complimented .
. Chair Cassel: My comments are that I am delighted to see a moderate size development with
some smaller sized units. I think this is a nice transition and I would like to see more of this in
town. I think we would find some of our housing imbalance filled in a lot easier if we could fill
it in with some of this size sites. So I am delighted to see that there. I think it is very unfortunate
that there are no fish in that stream but there are no fish in that stream and there won't be.
Vice Chair Packer: There are plenty of fish in that stream. I walk by there all the time.
Chair Cassel: Really?
Vice Chair Packer: Oh yes, you just walk under
Chair Cassel: I'm sorry that gets us off the subject. I was looking farther up where it doesn't
have anything in it. So pardon me. So there is, I'm glad. That is a pretty place. Sorry.
Anyway, I think I can make these findings. We will discuss this later Bonnie. Is there anyone
else that wants to make comments? I can make all the findings.
If no one else wants to make any comments let me call the vote. All those in favor please say
aye. (ayes) Abstentions? Nos?
Commissioner Holman: It is a no based on my discomfort with the language I mentioned earlier
having to do with CEQA traffic and pollution related to traffic.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-1-0 Commissioner Holman voted no and Commissioner Bialson
absent due to a conflict)
Chair Cassel: Okay. The motion passed five to one with one person not present due to a conflict
and that would be Annette. The no is Karen Holman and the rest of us voted in favor of it. That
will close that item. Thank you very much for coming we appreciate it. This goes on to City
Council when? Do you have date?
Mr. Magnusson: We don't have an exact date designated atthis point. Staff had originally
requested a date for January 10 and that still needs to be confirmed at this time.
Chair Cassel: Thank you.
22
Planning Division
Garrett Hinds, AICP
Development Executive
Trumark Companies
4185 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200
Danville, CA 94506-4668
Ci~ of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
November 30,2004
Attachment D
Subject: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 76-Unit Residential
Project at 930, 940 and 1180 East Meadow Drive
[04-ARB-19; 04-PM-Ol] .
Dear Mr. Hinds:
This letter summarizes the agreement between the Trumark Company (Trumark)
and the Director of the ,Department ofPlamiing and ,Community ,Environment
(Director) regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto's Below
Market Rate (BMR)?rogram for the proposed 76~unit residential condomimun
development (the "Project',) at 928, 940 and 1180 ,East Meadow Drive. The current
owners of the properties that make up·theProject site have consented to Trumark's "
submittal of the subdivision map application.
The BMR program requirements are contained inPrognim H-36 of the
Comprehensive 'plan (Chapter 4 -Housing). You and Planning Division staff have
discussed and negotiated 'the terms of this agreement,'and the signatures of
Trumark's corporate officers on this letter confirms that Truinark agrees to these
provisions. This agreement will be incorporated into the, City of Palo Alto's
conditions of approval for the parcel map. Its provision~wiU also be incorporated
into the subdivision agreement for the Project.
The 4.4-acre site is zoned LM and is composed of three parcels. The Project
involves merging the three existing parcels into one deyelopmerit site and the
construction of 76 condominium, townhouse style, ow.nership ·units.There will be '
18 two-bedroom units . and 58 three-bedroom units. Interior living space within
each unit, ranging in size from about 1,250 to 1,568 square feet, is located on two
levels over two car garages.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) approved the Project with conditions on
October 7, 2004 and the Director issued a conditional approval letter dated October
12, 2004 with the BMR agreement listed as condition number 5. You have
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
. .
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30, 2004
Page 2 of5
submitted an application for a vesting tentative subdivision map to allow the
residential units to be sold separately as condominiums.
BMR Requirement: The project is subject to a fifteen (15%) percent BMR
requirement. A total of 76 (seventy-six) for-sale units will be constructed within
the Project; Trumark has agreed to sell twelve (12) of the 76-units under the
provisions of this agreement and the rules and procedures of the BMR program.
The 12 BMR units equal 15.8% of the 76 total units being developed in,the Project.
Designation of BMR Units: Based on the unit mix, square footage, the seven
different floor plans and other features of the 76 units as shown in the plans
subniitted to the City on November 3, 2004, we have agreed that Trumark will
provide. the following units as the BMR units in full satisfaction of the City's BMR
Program H-36. The 12 BMR units are described in more detail Attachments A and
B.
Summary Of 12BMR Units and Sales Prices -
BMR Floor Bedrooms/ Unit Sales Price Affordability
Units Plan Baths Number Level
2 PI 2 BRs/2.5 65, 74 $277,350 Lower
Baths Moderate
4 PIA 3 BRs / 3 Baths 22,34,43, $325,800 Lower
48 Moderate
1 PIE 3 BRs / 3 Baths 29. $325,800 Lower
Moderate
2 P2 3-BRs / 2.5 28,58 $405,100 Higher
Baths Moderate
1 P3 2 BRs / 2 Baths 9 $346,650 Higher
Moderate
1 P4 3 BRs / 2.5 1 , $405,100 Higher ~
Baths Moderate
1 P5 3 BRs / 2.5 17 $405,100 Higher
Baths Moderate
The final construction plans for the building permit(s) shall designate each BMR
unit and those final designations, locations and floor plans shall be approved by the
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark BMR Agrint 11-30-04.doc
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30, 2004
Page 3 of5 .
Director prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project for consistency
with this agreement.
· BMR Unit Sales Prices: Pricing for the BMR uillts has been set based the
. methodology, assumptions and other factors shown in Attachment C -BMR Sales
Price Calculations -for Trumark East Meadow Project. 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 12 BMR units are priced to
be affordable to buyers at the lower range of the moderate-income level
(households with incomes between 80% and 100% of the median incoine). The·
remaining five (5) 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 March 2004. Estimated home mortgage
interest rates of 5.75% for a low down-payment loan were also used to derive
affordable BMR unit prices. Because the units will not be completed and available.
for purchase for about two years, a provision for theTeadjustment ofBMR prices to
reflect major changes in home mortgage interest rates and / or major changes in the
AMI has been included in this agreement, as follows.
The City will recalculate the BMR sales prices just prior to the initiation of the
BMR unit sales and marketing process, provided that:
1) Interest rates on loans commonly available to BMR buyers have
increased" or decreased, by 0.5 percent or more; and / or
2) 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 Attachment C -BMR Sales Price Calculations -for Trumark East
Meadow Project.
Construction, Finishing, Amenities: The BMR units shall be comparable in all
aspects to the market-rate housing units including, but not limited to, construction
quality,' appliances, cabinets, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, appearance, flooring
materials, finish work, amenities, storage units, parking spaces, and access to all
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark BMR Agrmt 11-30-04.doc .
. .
..
" 1
BMR Letter Agreement For Trumark Project
November 30,2004
Page 4 of5
facilities. . Ttumark may request permission from the Director to use different
interior fmishes, appliances and fixtures in the BMR units than in the market-rate
units. Such substitute materials and equipment must still be of very good quality
and durability. Any such request should be submitted to the City at least 60 days
prior to issuance of the Project's building permit. The Director. must approve
substitute materials in writing. Prior to the close of escrow for the sale of each
BMR unit, the City shall inspect the BMR unit to determine that it meets the
construction and finishing standards stated in this Agreement and the City Manager
shall approve the acceptance of each BMR unit into the program.
Sale of BMR Units, Buyer Selection and Qualification: Trurnark shall offer the
BMR units for sale to the City at the approved BMR prices in accordance With
procedures generally described in Attachment D. Trumark shall cooperate with the
City, the buyers and the City's program administrator as necessary in the first sale
of each of the BMR units. The City normally selects qualified buyers from the
BMR ownership program waiting list. At the appropriate time in the sale
transaction for each BMR unit,. the City will assign its right to purchase to each
qualified BMR buyer ..
BMR Agreement to Be Recorded: The terms of this letter agreement 'will be
incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Tentative and Final Subdivision
Maps. In addition, a formal BMR Agreement, including the identification of the
locations of the BMR units and provisions for their sale, shall be prepared in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, executed by Trumark and the City, and recorded
against the property prior to, or concurrent with, the recording of the Subdivision
Agreement for the Project. The' recorded BMR Agreement will be a contractual
obligation of Trurnark and its successors in interest and shall run with the land.
. The City requires that lenders with secured interests in the Proj ect subordinate to
the recorded BMR Agreement.
Term of Agreement: For BMR ownership units, the initial term of the City's deed
restrictions, beginning with first sale to a BMR qualified buyer, shall be 59 years.
Future transfers or sales to subsequent BMR owners .initiate a new 59-year term of
affordability.A copy of the City's current Deed Restrictions is attached to this
agreement as Attachment F. The City may revise the current deed restrictions
before completion of construction of the Project and the sale of the BMR units, in
which case the.City's revised deed restrictions shall be used.
H:\DOC\BMR Pro~ram\Trumark BMR Agrmt 11-30-04.doc
• 1
Floor Number of
Plan Total Units
Type (& Percent of
Total Units)
Plan 1 12
(15.8%)
Plan lA 26
(34.2%)
Plan IE 6
(7.9%)
Plan 2 14
(18.4%)
Plan 3 6
(7.9%)
Plan 4 6
(7.90/0)
Plan 5 6
(7.9%)
76
Notes:
Description ofBMR Units with Tentative Sales Prices
for 76-Unit Condominium Project on East Meadow Drive
[04-ARB-19; 04-PM-Ol]
Number ofBMR Bedrooms/ Square Footage Unit Tentative
Units Baths of Living Areal Numbers2 Sales Price3
(& Percent of
Total BMR Units
2 2BRs/ 1,227 65, 74 $277,350
(16.7%) 2.5 Baths
4 3 BRs/ 1,330 22,34,43, $325,800
(33.3%) 3 Baths 48
1 3 BRs/ 1,450 29 $325,800
(8.3%) 3 Baths
2 3 BRsl 1,568 28,58 $405,100
(16.7%) . 2.5 Baths
1 2BRs/ 1,251 9 $346,650
(8.3%) 2 Baths
1 3 BRs/ 1,556 1 $405,100
(8.3%) 2.5 Baths
1 3 BRs/ 1,580 17 $405,100
(8.3%) 2.5 Baths
12
Affordability
LevelofBMR
Unit Prices .
7-BMR Units at
Lower-
Moderate
Income Prices:
80 to 100%of
Median Income
Range
5 -BMR Units
at Higher-
Moderate
Income Prices:
100 to 120 % of
Median Income
Range
I
1-The square footage of living area excludes the garages; the numbers are from conceptual floor plans provided by Trumark,
dated 9-15-04. There may be minor changes in the fmal building pennit plans, subject to approval by the Director of Planning.
2-Unit numbers & locations are as shown on the Tentative Map site plan received from Trumark on November 15, 2004.
3-Final BMR units sales prices will be adjusted ifthere are major changes in the Area Median Income and I home mortgage
interest rate.
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark BMR. Unit Description Att A I-OS.doc
~ ~ (]
~ ~ 1-3
>
Number of BMR
Units (7 Units)
2
5
---------------------...
Number ofBMR
Units (5 Units)
1
4
BMR Sales Price Calculations and Methodology
for 76-Unit Condominium Project on East Meadow Drive
[04-ARB-19; 04-PM-Ol]
Unit Type & Number Minimum Hypothetical BMR Buyers
on Site Plan Household Size Income Range for Typical
Household Sizes
Two Bedrooms 2-persons $67,500 -$105,500
65 and 74
Three Bedrooms 3-persons $75,950 -$122,400
22,29, 34,43 & 48
Unit T)'pe & Number Minimum Hypothetical BMR Buyers
on Site Plan Household Size Income Range for Typical
Household Sizes
Two Bedrooms 2-persons $84,400 -$126,600
9
Three Bedrooms 3~persons $94,950 -$146,850
1,17,28&58 -----....... ----
Assumptions & Factors in Effect As of December 2004:
BMR Sales Price
(At 95% of AMI)
$277,350
$325,800
BMR Sales Price
(At 115% of AMI)
$346,650
$405,100 ,
---.-
• HUD Area Median Income for Santa Clara County (100%) for a 4-Person household as of March 2004 is: $105,500
• Typical Interest Rate for a 30-year, fixed rate loan available to BMR buyers is 5.75%
• Annualized Rate for Mortgage Insurance is 0.89% and for real property taxes is 1.25%
• Total Effective Interest Rate is 7.89%
i
• Loan Terms: Zero (0) loan points; 30-year term, fixed interest rate, fully amortizing first mortgage ~
• Loan-to-Value Ratio: 95%, assumes a 5% downpayment from buyer ~
• Estimated total monthly costs for homeowner association dues, repair allowance & insurance is $350 n
• Percent of Monthly Gross Income for Housing Costs: 30% (includes mortgage payment, taxes, HOA dues, insurance & ~
allowance for repairs, as listed above) ~
H:\DOC\BMR Program\Trumark Price Cales & Meth Att C I-OS.doc
-,
Z ~ n
· \' ATTACHMENT D
Sales Procedures for New Below Market Rate (BMR) Ownership Units
This document provides an overview of the City of Palo Alto's policies and procedures
for the selection of buyers and the sales of newly constructed BMR ownership units
provided under the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Program -H-36 of the Housing
Element as adopted on December 2, 2002. The information is intended primarily for
housing developers and others interested in an overview of the buyer selection and sales
process. Further details of the process, both for new unit sales and resales of existing
BMR units, may be found in the BMR Program Policy and Procedures Manual prepared
byPAHC.
1) BMR Agreement Between City and Developer:
During the entitlement review process, a BMR agreement is prepared between the City
and the Developer. Compliance with the BMR program agreement is included as one of
the project's Conditions of Approval. Generally, a letter agreement is drafted, signed by
the Developer and the Director of Planning and Community Environment and included in
the staff report packets sent to the Boards, Comrillssion and Council decision makers, as
applicable. A fmal BMR Agreement, in a form that will be recorded against the land, is
prepared prior to the final entitlement approval for the project. This formal document
must be executed by the appropriate officers of the Developer and by the legal owners of
the land (if different than the Developer). A consent and subordination to the BMR
Agreement is also required from any lender with a secured interest in the land.
Most projects with for-sale housing units will involve a subdivision map application. In
such situations, the formal BMR Agreement is prepared, executed and recorded prior to
City approval of the final subdivision map agreement. the formal BMR Agreement may
be a separate legal document or may be incorporated into the text of the subdivision
agreement. The BMR Agreement (both the initial letter agreement and the formal,
recorded agreement) will include complete descriptions of the BMR units and will
reference the units' floor .plans, features, sizes and locations. The BMR units must also
be designated on the site plans that are part of the subdivision map.
2) Sale ofBMR Units to a Qualified Purchaser Designated by the City:
The BMR Agreement provides the City with a right to purchase the BMR units from the
Developer for the specified below market price(s) at completion of the Project. The
standard practice is for the City to assign its-right to pu~chase to a BMR buyer that has
been selected and qualified by our contract program administrator, the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (P AHC). The Developer does not have the right, or the responsibility, to
select and qualify buyers for the BMR units. ' It is a violation ofthe BMR Agreement for
the Developer to sell a BMR unit directly to a buyer of its own choosing (even if that
BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
buyer meets the program's qualifications) without the prior express written consent of the
City, which would need to include the City's assignment of its legal right to purchase.
After the BMR units' initial sale, as provided in these procedures, the Developer has met
its responsibilities regarding the BMR program. The provisions of the BMR Deed
Restrictions, which are enforced by P ABC and the City, control resales of the BMR
units.
The sales process begins with the Developer notifying the City and P ABC of its intention
to begin the marketing and sales of units in the Project. The Developer should inform
PAHC as early as possible of the amount of the final monthly homeowners association
dues because this is a critical piece of information for the buyer information packets and
the qualifying process. P ARC must also be informed when the BMR unites) are legally
available for binding purchase contracts to be signed. P ABC selects the buyer for each
BMR unit (the "Designated BMR Buyer") according to program preferences (preference
for applicants that live or work in Palo Alto), income, asset and household requirements
and order on the waiting list.
The Developer must then execute a standard California Real Estate Purchase Agreement
with the Designated BMR Buyer for each BMR unit within two (2) weeks of notice from
PARC of the buyer's selection. Should the first DesignatedBMR Buyer not be able to
obtain financing or close escrow for whatever reason, P ARC shall provide a substitute
buyer, or buyers, as necessary. The Developer shall execute a purchase agreement with
any number of substitute buyers designated by PARC as necessary in order to sell each
BMR unit to a qualified buyer.
3) Comparability ofBMR Unit, Features and Upgrades:
Except as provided in the BMR Agreement and related official correspondence from the
City, the design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures,
landscaping, irrigation, appliances, and like features of each BMR unit shall be
comparable to all other units in the Project. The owner of each BMR unit shall have
access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as will be available, or provided, to
owners of other units in the Project. Each Designated BMR Buyer shall be offered the
opportunity to sele'ct colors, finishing materials, add-ons, upgrades or other features on
the same terms and pricing as buyers of market rate units. However, the cost upgrades,
contracted for by a Designated BMR Buyer, must be shown separately in the purchase
contract and escrow statement and not added to the purchase price of the BMR unit
because the of the limitation on the BMR unit's price in the BMR Agreement.
4) Inspection & Acceptance ofBMR Unites):
H:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\Sales Process of New BMR Units. doc Page 2 of6
" .
BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
• Copies of sales brochures including unit plans with square footages,
descriptions of standard and optional features & price lists for optional
features;
• Information and documentation, as required by State law, regarding the
condominium association, the association dues or fees, association by-laws
and an estimate of real property taxes including any special assessments or
bond costs;
• All warranties, guarantees and insurance as are provided for the market units
in the Project;
• Completion of "punch list" work and performance of repairs on the BMR
units, as provided for the market units in the Project;
• Cooperation with P ARC in scheduling and holding an open house(s)
specifically for interested BMR purchasers to view and inspect the BMR
unites).
7) Representation:
Neither the Developer, nor its sales organization or real estate agent, shall charge any
commission or fees to the BMR buyers, or the CitY, in connection with the sales
transaction for the BMR units. Typically, the BMR buyers are not represented by a real
estate agent. However, if a buyer chooses to be represented by an agent or attorney, the
buyer is responsible for the cost of those services. P ARC is not a licensed real estate
agent or broker and does not receive any commission on the sales ofBMR units. P ABC
administers certain aspects of the BMR program on behalf of the City of Palo Alto and is
compensated under an annual contract with the City for those services. P ARC staff shall
be the primary contact for the Developer and Escrow Agent in the sales process for each
BMR unit.
8) Seller's Closing Costs:
The Developer is responsible for the payment of the escrow and closing costs typically
paid by the seller of residential real property in Palo Alto.
9) Timing:
The BMR buyer selection and qualification process (from the mailing of information
packets to the execution of a purchase contract) takes approximately 5 weeks. The time
period from opening of escrow to closing of the purchase generally takes 45 to 90 days.
Thus, the total time from initiation of the sales process by P ARC to close of escrow could
extend from four to five months. Close cooperation between the Developer, the
H:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\Sales Process of New BMR Units. doc Page 4 of6
BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
Developer's sales agent and P ARC is necessary in order for the process to proceed
smoothly.
10) Waiting List for BMR Ownership Units:
P ARC maintains a waiting list of persons interested in purchasing BMR ownership units.
The waiting list is used for the sales of both new and resale units. There are usually over
300 households on the list, which is updated annually. Past experience has shown a
strong demand for BMR units from qualified waiting list buyers, especially for newly
constructed BMR units. However, if a buyer cannot be found from the waiting list,
P ARC advertises the unit directly to the public in order to fmd qualified buyers. For a
project with a larger number of new BMR units becoming available at the same time,
P ARC and the Developer may undertake a special advertising and marketing effort while
the project is under construction torecruit a sufficient pool of qualified BMR buyers.'
1 \1) Sales Process:
The following steps describe in more detail the general process involved in selecting and
qualifying a buyer for each BMR unit.
a) The Developer provides' PAR C with a schedule for completion of construction of
the Project and an estimated date for completion and availability' of the BMR units. The
Developer provides P ARC with contacts with its sales staff or real estate agent and with
its escrow company.
b) Often a preliminary meeting at the Project site is held prior to completion between
P ARC, the City, the Developer, the general contractor and the sales / marketing agent to
discuss process and timing, to tour the project and inspect the BMR units and other units.
c) The Developer provides P ARC with all reports and documents required by law
including, the condominium reports and documents, preliminary title report(s) on the
BMR units, inspection reports and disclosure statements. Marketing brochures including
floor plans of the BMR units with square footages, lists and description of standard and
optional features with prices for optional features must also be provided. The amount of
the monthly homeowners association dues for each BMR unit is also needed.
d) P ARC prepares an information and application packet about each BMR unit and
mails it to all hou$eholds (this may go to a large number of households) on the waiting
list that appear eligible for that size and price of unit.
H:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 5 of6
BMR Program Policies and Procedures
2003:01
Date: May 6, 2003
Rev: Jan. 7, 2005
e) An open house exclusively for prospective BMR buyers is held and the
Developer's sales agent cooperates with PARC to schedule the date and time for this
open house. The Developer's sales agent conducts the open house. For a very large
project, or one completed in phases, more than one open house may be necessary.
f) Interested buyers must comply with several deadlines including submitting a
complete application, attending the open house, formally indicating an intention to buy,
proving their qualifications for the program (verifying income, assets, household 'size,
and Palo Alto preferences) and verifying that they have the downpayment funds and can
obtain financing to buy the unit. The selected household (Designated BMR Buyer) for
each BMR unit is the household with the highest position on the waiting list, who is
qualified by income and household size limitations and other criteria and who completes
the application process within the specified time deadlines.
g) A number of local mortgage lenders are familiar with the BMR program and offer
advantageous financing terms to our buyers. The Designated BMR Buyer usually
fmalizes their loan application and secures loan approval after being selected by PARe,
although many buyers will have already been pre-qualified for a loan. The typical BMR
buyer needs a low down payment loan, but some buyers make substantial down
payments.
h) Once P ARC has qualified and designated a buyer, the Designated BMR Buyer
and the Developer, or its Agent, meet to negotiate the purchase contract. The purchase
price must not exceed the price specified in the BMR agreement with the City. The cost
of any additional features or upgrades purchased by the BMR buyer must be paid for
separately and is not included in the purchase price. The purchase contract terms should
be typical for home purchases in the area such as standard times for obtaining approval of
a mortgage and closing escrow, amount of the "good faith" deposit, inspection of the
completed unit, division of closing costs, etc. P ARC staff reviews the purchase contract
before and after signing to verify that the contract meets the above terms and guidelines.
i) PARC coordinates the closing process and the execution of the necessary
documents,as described above, with the Escrow Agent. Often the BMR units are among
the first completed sales in a Project.
H:\DOC\BMR Policy & Procedures\Sales Process of New BMR Units.doc Page 6 of6
., y
ATTACHMENT F
City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program Deed Restrictions
SUBJECT TO:
A. Right of First Refusal.
Grantee hereby grants and gives to the City of Palo Alto ("City") a right to purchase the real property
conveyed hereby and any improvements thereon (the "Premises") under conditions hereinafter set forth. City
may designate a governmental or nonprofit organization to exercise its right of first refusal. City or its
designee may assign this right to an individual private buyer who meets the City's eligibilitY qualifications.
After the exercise of said right by City, its designee or assignee in the manner hereinafter prescribed, City, its
designee or assignee may assign said right to purchase to any substitute individual private buyer who meets
the City's 'eligibility requirements and is approved by the City; provided, however, that such subsequent
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 de shes 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 optionor as soon thereafter as
possible. rn: the event City decides to assign the right to purchase provided herein, City may postpone
. opening of escrow until selection of such assignee, or as soon thereafter as possible, provided that the
opening of the escrow shall not be postponed longer that ninety (90) days after the Owner is notified of the
City's exercise of its right to purchase.
Closing costs and'title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the City of Palo
Alto at the time of the opening of such escrow. Seller shall bear the expense of providing a current written
report of an inspection by a licensed Structural Pest Control Operator. All work recommended in said report
to repair damage caused by infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests or organisms found and all work
to correct conditions that caused such infestation or infection shall be done at the expense of the Seller. Any
work to correct conditions usually deemed likely to lead to infestation or infection of wood-destroying pests
or organisms, but where no evidence of infestation or infection is found with respect to such conditions, is
not the responsibility of the Seller, and such work shall be done only if requested by the Buyer and then at the
(Rev. 8/93) 1 Reg.
ATTACHMENT F
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:
1. 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.
2. 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) 2 Reg.
i 'I
ATTACHMENT F
No adjustment shall be made for the value of any improvements, appliances, fixtures, or equipment unless
the Owner shall present to the City valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements. The value
of such improvements by which the sale price shall be adjusted shall be determined as follows:
(a). The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was less
than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), shall be the depreciated value of the improvement, appliance,
fixture or equipment calculated in accordance with principles of straight-line depreciation applied to
the original cost of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment based upon the estimated
original useful life of the improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment.
(b) The value of any improvement, appliance, fixture, or equipment, the original cost of which was Five
Thousand Dollars ($5,000) or more, shall be the appraised market value of the improvement,
appliance, fixture or equipment when considered as an addition or fixture to the premises (i.e., the
amount by which said improvement, appliance, fixture or equipment enhances the market value of the
premises) at the time of sale. Said value shall be determined in the same manner as· the market value
of the premises in method 1 above.
( c) On January 1, 1982, and every two years thereafter, regardless of the date of execution or recordation
hereof, the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b)
immediately above shall be automatically adjusted for the purpose of those paragraphs in the
following manner. On each adjustment date, the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, for
the San Francisco-Oakland area published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index") prevailing on January 1, 1980, shall be compared with the Index prevailing on the
date of recordation of this deed. The percentage increase in the Index, if any, shall be computed and
the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) shall be increased in the same percentage. In no event
shall the sum be reduced below Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000).
(d) No price adjustment will be made except upon presentation to City of written documentation of all
expenditures made by Owner for which an adjustment is requested.
Any sale price determined through the use of this method number 2 (base price adjusted by Consumer
Price Index and value of improvements, appliances, fixtures or equipment added) shall be adjusted by
decreasing said price by an amount to compensate for deferred maintenance costs, which amount
shall be determined as follows: Upon receipt of notice of Owner's ii1.tent 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 tom; and whether carpets, drapes and similar features which were originally
furnished to Owner as part of the premises, or any replacement thereof, are clean and free of holes,
tears or other defects. In the event deficiencies are noted, the Real Property Administrator of City
(Rev. 8/93) 3 Reg.
ATTACHMENT F
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
sha~l 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 Palo Alto Housing Corporation in
accordance with the procedures for notifying the City in Paragraph B above. If the Palo Alto Housing
(Rev. 8/93) 4 Reg.
) 'J
ATTACHMENT F
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 wotild otherwise be assessed against the Owner. Nothing
herein shall be construed to create any obligation on the part of the City to cure any such default, nor shall
this right to cure and redeem operate to extend any time limitations in the default provisions of the
underlying deed of trust or mortgage. The City, or its designee or assignee, shall be entitled to recover from
Owner all costs incurred in curing any such default.
In the event City elects not to exercise its right to purchase upon default, any surplus to which Owner
may be entitled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 727 shall be paid as follows: That portion of
surplus (after payment of encumbrances), if any, up to but not exceeding the net amount that Owner would
have received after payment of encumbrances under the formula set forth above had City exercised its 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 proj ect, 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.
(Rev. 8/93) 5 Reg.
ATTACHMENT F 1)1
All notices required herein shall be sent to the following addresses:
CITY:
PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION:
OWNER:
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
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) 6 Reg.
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code Sec. 1189)
STATE OF ___________ -')
COUNTYOF ______________________ ~)
ATTACHMENT F
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 tothe within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the
same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Rev. 8/93) 7 Reg.