HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-02 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER_DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 2, 2001 CMR:185:01
300 HOMER AVENUE: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIc REVIEW BOARD, OF AN
APPLICATION BY SUMMERHILL HOMES TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF 10 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND
10 ACCESSORY UNITS, SURFACE PARKING AND RELATED SITE
IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: DHS. FILE NUMBER 00-ARB-
113.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning
and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct 10 detached single family homes and 10 accessory
units, surface parking .and related site improvements. The project would result in 20 housing
units yielding an overall density of 20 units per acre. The project would be located on the
southeastern comer of Block B of the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (PAMF).
The site consists of one parcel totaling 43,700 square feet or 1.00 acre on the block bounded
by Channing and Homer Avenues and Bryant and Waverley Streets (see Attachment A -
Location Map). All ten lots are 4,370 square feet in area. The proposed building footprint
of all 20 units would be 14,970 square feet at grade, resulting in a coverage of 34 percent.
The proposed buildings would be set back 15 feet from Waverley Street, five to 12 feet from
CMR:185:01 Page 1 of 14
the ~MeWs, six feet along the proposed public park to the north, and 10 feet from Channing
Avenue, except for. the two garages.adjacent to Channing Avenue which require exceptions.
Parking would be located to the rear of each home, with two covered spaces in each garage
and a third uncovered space adjacent to each garage. All parking spaces would be accessed
from a single, two-way private driveway that would be perpendicular to Channing Avenue.
Pedestrian access to the main homes would be provided from the primary entries at the front
of each home, with secondary access from the garages. The studio units would have a single
entry at the rear of the unenclosed parking space. Transit access would be provided from
existing bus stops on Channing and Homer Avenues .and Ramona Street. Bicycle access
would be provided by an existing bike boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The architecture of, the buildings would be traditional, with amodem, eclectic interpretation
of the Tudor Revival Style and some features of the English cottage style and some details
of the Craftsman style. The home designs are intended to complement the design character
of the adjacent single family neighborhoods. Building materials and features would vary and
would include stucco and wood shingle exteriors in a variety of colors, sloping composition
shingle roofs, front porches, detached garages, divided light windows, and stone veneer
foundations.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs, plans and a materials board will be presented at the meeting.
BOARD/COMMISSION REvIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed project has been reviewed by the South of Forest Area (SOFA)Architectural
Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB) at five meetings (July 12, 2000,
August 24, 2000, November 2, 2000, November 9, 2000 and January 11., 2001). On July 12,
2000, the applicant provided an overview and history of all three projects on Blocks A and
B. The ARB/HRB conducted a preliminary review of this project on August 24, 2000. At
that meeting, the ARB/HRB.requested additional details on the perimeter landscaping, front
yard privacy walls, and driveway landscaping, as well as a sun/shadow analysis. The
landscape plans subsequently were revised to address these issues and a sun/shadow analysis
was prepared. At its meeting of November 2, 2000, the ARB/HRB discussed massing,
building heights, rear and side yards, relationship .of the homes to the accessory units and
landscaping and asked the applicant to consider revising the project to incorporate more
usable open space areas in the rear and side yards. At a study session on November 9, 2000,
the applicant presented preliminary concepts for .use easements to provide larger garden areas
within the side yards. The applicant incorporated these concepts and the ARB/HRB’s
suggestions into the revised plans dated November 30, 2000. The revised plans provide use
easements that allow for use of side yards by neighboring owners and that effectively
increase the amount of usable open space within the side yards. The revised plans also
pushed the homes closer to the Mews thereby increasing the amount of usable open space
CMR: 185:01 Page 2 of 14
in the rear yards but decreasing the front setbacks along the Mews from 15 to a range of 5
to 12 feet. The ARB/HRB reviewed the revised plans for the project on January 11, 2001.
At that meeting, the ARB/HRB endorsed the revisions, noting that the changes produced a
major improvement over the previous plans by opening up the side and rear yards.and
providing more usable open space areas, as well as providing an improved landscape plan.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the ARB/HRB recommended 4-0-2 (with two absent) that
the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the project subject to the
conditions contained in the staff report dated January. 11, 2001. The Director of Planning and
Community Environment approved the project on January 25, 2001 with the conditions
recommended by the ARB/HRB.
Public testimony regarding the project was also taken at each meeting. The concerns
expressed by the public focused mainly on the scale and massing of.the homes and accessory
units as well as compatibility with existing homes in the neighborhood. A detailed summary
of the project is contained in the ARB/HRB staff report dated January 11, 2001 (Attachment
A). Verbatim minutes from these meetings are also attached to this report (Attachments B,
C, D and E).
DISCUSSION
On February 7, 2001, an appeal of the project approval was filed by Steve Reyna and Aysen
Kutlu (Attachment B). The appellants’ areas of concern are summarized below and
responded to individually by staff. The numbering of the concerns and responses
corresponds to the organization of the appellant’s letter. Direct citations from the appellant’s
letter are shown in quotation marks.
ARB/HRB Review Process
1. Appellant Concern: The ARB/HRB "operated under conflicting directions
between satisfying the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) and perceived guarantee
from the Development Agreement. An example of this is how staff and the applicant
stated that Floor Area Ratio was guaranteed."
Staff Response: At several of the ARB/HRB meetings, staff explained that
each of the non-single family projects proposed within the SOFA area issubject to the
policies and standards in the SOFA CAP as well as the provisions in the Development
Agreement. Staff further explained that the Development Agreement and the SOFA
CAP were both approved by the City Council and found to be consistent. Each
project must comply with both documents.
2. Appellant Concern: "Significant elements of the standards for review of the
ARB (PAMC 16.48.120) were not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review
standards." Omitted review findings include consistency with the Comprehensive
CMR:185:01 Page 3 of 14
Plan, and site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage,
setbacks, building and height.
Staff Response: The process for review of projects by the ARB/HRB was
developed by the City Attorney and Planning staff to specifically address the intent
and procedures established in the SOFA CAP. ARB findings (PAMC 16.48.120)were
not included because the ARB/H review process is unique to the SOFA area and
differs from typical ARB project review. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
policies as well as review of site development characteristics such as lot size, building
coverage, setbacks, building and height are included in the ARB/HRB staff report
(Attachment D).
3. Appellant Concern: Members of the ARB/HRB "stated objections about
constraints placed on their ability to have a full and proper design review, including
references to having their hands tied. The members went on record describing the
project as incompatible while not having the freedom to vote on the design, only
details."
StaffResponse:’At-the beginning of the process that was established for review
of the PAMF/SOFA projects, some ARB/HRB members expressed frustration at their
role in reviewing projects vis ~ vis the Development Agreement. Their concerns
involved the ARB/HRB process and how it differed from the typical ARB process,
and the conditions of the Development Agreement. Atter several meetings,
ARB/HRB members became more comfortable with the process, provided valuable
comments and suggested revisions to all aspects of the project including overall
building design, site planning, height, mass, articulation, fenestration, materials,
colors, and landscaping, as well as building details such as porches, roof eaves,
dormers, chimneys etc. Revisions included in the final set of architectural plans
reflected, to a significant extent, the design recommendations made by the ARB/HRB
members.
Initial concems by ARB members were over the "historic interpretation" of the styles
in order to be compatible, whereby they supported the density and size of the
structures. Initial concerns by HRB members were about the size of the structures,
whereby they strongly supported the style and design. The focus of the Board’s
review was addressing the articulation of the style and improying the siting to create
more open space, the Board did not raise issues of compatibility with the SOFA CAP
and development standards.
4. Appellant Concern: "An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000
making him ineligible to participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any
subsequent votes invalid."
CMR:185:01 Page 4 of 14
Staff Response: Robert Peterson volunteered to serve on the ARB/HRB at its
inception and agreed to continue serving on the ARB/HRB following his retirement
from the ARB. Mr. Peterson was appointed by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment asChairman of the ARB/HRB prior to the meeting on July
12~ 2000. The Director accepted Mr. Peterson’s offer to continue his role on the
ARB/HRB after September 2000 to ensure consistency through completion of the
PAMF/SOFA projects.
5. Appellant Concern: "Project approvals are supposed to be acted on by the
Director within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval. The ARB/HRB voted to
approve the Block B DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots) project on January 11,
2000. The Director signed the approval on January 25, 2001."
Staff Response: ARB projects typically are approved by the Director within
three working days from the date of recommendation by the ARB. The SOFA CAP
does not specify a time frame within which the Director must make a decision
(Chapter IV, Section AI.II "All other uses" on page 84 of the SOFA CAP). The intent
of the SOFA CAP is to provide a review process that is unique to the SOFA area by
having all non-single family projects reviewed by a joint review board consisting of
representatives form the ARB and HRB. Because of community sensitivity to projects
in the SOFA area, staff retained a third party architectural consultant to review the
plans for the condominium projects proposed on Block A and Block B after
ARB/HRB review was complete. The architect determined that the overall
architecture is cohesive throughout the development and that individual houses have
balanced and interesting massing that maintains a clarity of composition (See
Attachment G - Letter from Origins Design Network dated September 18, 2000). The
architect had several minor suggestions for improving detailed components of the
buildings (such as windows, eaves porches, wall caps and color palette). As a result,
the conditions of project approval require the final plans to include these minor
modifications. This condition is intended to ensure that the building permit plans are
compatible with the architectural style envisioned by the ARB/HRB. The Director’s
approval was issued ten days after the date of the ARB/HRB hearing.
Project Deficiencies
6. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA
policy framework adopted by the City Council on September 22, 1997. ’Promote high
quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing character of
the area, including the scale of the development, the high degree of visual interest,
and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern.’ "
CMR:185:01 Page 5 of 14
Staff Response: At the Council’s March 27, 2000 meeting to address the final
elements of the SOFA CAP, the Council directed staff to amend the land use plan
removing the AMF designation and addressing the DHS zoning for this site
(CMR:192:00). The ARB/HRB staff report dated January 11, 2001 (page 10) is
quoted in the appellants’ letter as follows: "The FAR and mass of the homes and
accessory buildings exceed that of most single family homes in the vicinity." The
appellants’ letter omits the following sentence in the staff report which reads:
"However, they are within that allowed by the SOFA CAP and are specifically
provided for in the Development Agreement approved by the City Council for this
site." The staff report elaborates by noting that all four facades of each home would
be provided with ample building articulation. Visual interest would be provided by
numerous donners, windows, roof overhangs, chimneys, and porches. The Waverley
Street and Mews frontages would be varied with some open front yards, some low
wall entries and some low picket fences. Also, front porches have been added to lots
3, 5, 8 and 10 to better integrate the private and public spaces along the perimeter of
the site. The combination of street trees, low walls or open fences, landscaping and
porches would provide visual interest and pedestrian activity in keeping with the
design and scale of the existing streetscape. All building frontages would provide
pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, varied materials, and building articulation
on both floors. The building design emphasizes pedestrian activity by locating
individual entries on both frontages (Waverley Street and the Mews). On this basis,
staff concluded that the project, as revised, was consistent with the Council policy
framework (9/97), the policies and standards contained in the SOFA CAP and
recommended approval based on the findings and conditions contained in the staff
report. ’
7. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. ’Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration,
incorporated in all parts of the Plan...’ The larger scale, smaller front setbacks and
homogenous massing of the DHS homes do not promote compatibility and
preservation of neighborhood character, as Policy L-12 requires.’."
Staff Response." The ARB/HRB staff report dated January 11,2001 evaluates
the consistency of the project with relevant Comprehensive Plan policies (pages 2 and
3) as well as consistency with SOFA CAP policies (pages 3 and 4) and concludes that
the project is consistent with both policy documents, and therefore it is also consistent
with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12.
8. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP
policies. ’Policy H-6: Housing types in the plan area should include a range of
densities and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and
incomes.’ As all 10 main family units are essentially the same size, and all 10 carriage
CMR:185:01 ’Page 6 of 14 "
units are of a minimal size; the houses will likely be inhabited by families of similar
incomes and lifestyles."
Staff Response: The intent of Policy H-6 is to provide for a range of housing
types within the SOFA area, not necessarily within each project. The provision of 10
single family homes and ten studio accessory units contributes to-the mix of housing
types in the area, which is predominately single family residential south of Homer
Avenue, and predominately multiple family residential north of Homer Avenue
9. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP DHS
Design guidelines." The project provides housing units of effectively the same size
thus failing to satisfy Guideline 2.1 (e) which call for a variety of unit sizes to support
different family sizes, age groups, income levels, etc. There is no lot size variation as
is called for in Guidelines 2.7(a) to encourage diversity in residence size, bulk and
mass distribution."
Staff Response: DHS Design Guideline 2.1 (e) states "The use of a variety of
unit sizes and floor plans is strongly recommended." DHS Design Guideline 2.7(a)
states "Variations in lot size are recommended..." All projects designated DHS were
evaluated by staff for compatibility with this guideline and all other relevant design
guidelines in the SOFA CAP. The project is generally consistent with these
guidelines. The homes offer a variety of floor plans but provide only a limited
variation in home size. All ten lots are 4,370 square feet in area.
10. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP DHS
Development Standards. There are multiple side daylight plane encroachments on
every lot. All five homes facing onto the Mews have front setback violations. For the
two lots. facing Channing, there are side setback violations on both the houses and the
garages."
Staff Response: The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions, in this case
front and side setback intrusions and daylight plane intrusions, provided that
findings can be made. The minor exceptions for setback and daylight plane
intrusions resulted from specific direction from the ARB/HRB to create better siting
of the houses and more private open space. Staff prepared f’mdings for approval of
these exception which were reviewed and approved by the ARB/HRB (see
Attachment C of the ARB/HRB staff report). "
Front yard setbacks: The homes facing the Mews originally were
designed with 15 foot front yard setbacks. At the request of the
ARB/HRB, the applicant revised the plans to shift the homes forward
towards the Mews to .create additional open space in the rear 3~ards.
CMR: 185:01 Page 7 of 14
The homes are now provide a variety of setbacks ranging from five
to 12 feet from the Mews. Staff believes that the intrusion into-the
front yard setback for these five units is justified for several reasons.
Unlike a typical street frontage, these homes would face onto the
Mews which provides a 40-foot-wide landscaped pedestrian area. The
design and layout of the Mews provides a pedestrian-oriented area of
walkways, trees, lawn and landscaping that can better absorb the
narrow front yard. setback of the adjacent homes compared with a
typical ten foot sidewalk/landscaped strip on a public street. The visual
effect of the smaller setbacks would be reduced by the wider area and
more extensive landscaping provided by the Mews. The smaller
setbacks would be only partially visible from the nearest public street,
as the homes are oriented perpendicular to Channing Avenue. Finally,
the smaller front yard setbacks would not affect the light, air or privacy
of any existing residential use and would enhance the usable open space
areas to the rear of the proposed homes.
Side yard setbacks: The two garages adjacent to Channing Avenue
intrude approximately 5.5 feet into the ten-foot side yard setback.
Correspondingly, the parking stalls within these two garages intrude
about two feet into the ten foot setback. The intrusions are necessary to
provide sufficient parking stall width and pedestrian access for the three
parking spaces required by the SOFA CAP on each lot. Moving the
garage/studio wall 5.5 feet further into the site would intrude into the
required width of the parking spaces inside the garage. Furthermore, the
applicant has revised the site plan to preserve the. large magnolia tree
at the west end of the driveway curb cut at the request of staff. The
current design and location of these two garage/accessory units is
required in order to protect the magnolia tree. For these reasons, staff
believes that the intrusion into the side yard setback for these two units
is justified.
Daylight Planes: The SOFA CAP establishes side and rear daylight
plane regulations. The side daylight planes are defined by a point 12
feet in height along each side lot line, extending upward at a 60 degree
angle into the site. Because the Waverley Street frontage is narrower
than the Channing frontage, the Zoning Ordinance defines the front of
the project as Waverley Street and the sides of the project as facing
Channing Avenue and the public park. The rear daylight plane is
defined by a point 12 feet in height at the rear setback line (in this case
ten feet into the site from the property line bisecting the rear alley),
extending upward at a 60 degree angle into the site. These daylight
CMR:185:01 Page 8 of 14
planes are shown on the plans. The project meets the SOFA
requirements for the rear daylight plane because of the 13-foot rear
setback provided by the alley. Dormers on four of the main homes (lots
2, 4, 7 and 9) and portions 0fall of the second floor studios above the
garages extend into the side daylight plane. Intrusions for dormers and
similar architectural features are alloWed under the SOFA regulations
provided that the horizontal length of all such features does not exceed
a total of 15 feet on each side. The main home intrusions are limited to
approximately 20 feet, or five feet greater than that allowed in the
SOFA CAP. Removal of attic donners on these homes would reduce
the intrusion by about four feet but the second floor dormers would still
not meet the 15 foot standard. The studio intrusions range from about
ten to 22 feet because of.the narrow interior side setback (six feet)
required on each side. Because the dormers serve to break up the
building mass of the main homes and provide architectural interest,
staff believes they should be retained and that the intent of the SOFA
regulations has been met for the main home intrusions. The City
Council specifically requested that studio units be included on this site,
as called for in the Development Agreement. The lots are narrow (38
feet) and within the lot size range allowed by the SOFA CAP (2,800 to
5,000 square feet), and the accessory units are desired by the City on
these lots. The intrusions do not affect the light or privacy of any
existing homes, so staff believes that the intent of the SOFA regulations
has been met for the studio unit intrusions.
11. Appellant Concern: "The project is not consistent with the Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement declares that ’the City desires to obtain the
binding agreement of PAMF for the development of the property in accordance with
the provision of this agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various approvals and
conditions related thereto.’ As described above, the project is not consistent with the
SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the Development Agreement."
Staff Response: Please see the staff responses to appellant con-cem #1
regarding the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement (above). The project is
consistent with the Council’s review and direction for the Development Agreement
and SOFA CAP, March/April 2000 (CMR: 192:00 and CMR:218:00).
12. Appellant Concern: "The exceptions approved were based on inadequate
findings."
Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8is a SOFA
Phase II policy, b) Policy H-1: The carriage units are so small that the
CMR:185:01 Page 9 of 14
project is likely to provide 10 rather than 20 single family units, c)
Policy H-6 states that housing types in the plan area should include a
¯ range of densities and should be suitable for various ages, household
sizes, lifestyles and incomes. As.all of the homes are essentially the
same size, they will likely be inhabited by families of similar incomes
and lifestyles. Policy T-7refers to mixed use and multifamily use
parking. DHS is neither mixed use nor multiple family and thus the
policy does not apply.
Finding 2: The setback and daylight plane intrusions should be a
negative finding.
Finding 3: An enhancement would not be achieved by the exception
that would.not otherwise be achieved through reducing the mass of the
building.
Finding 4: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. a).Policy L-9
does not apply, b) Policy B-21 does not apply.
12. Staff Response." Staff prepared f’mdings for approval of this exception which
were reviewed and approved by the ARB/HRB (see Attachment C of the ARB/HRB
staff report).
a) Finding 1: Consistency with the SOFA CAP: a) Policy L-8 is.
included in the SOFA CAP Phase I document, but .is subject to
modification and implementation in Phase II. Phase 1 of the SOFA
CAP calls for a mix of uses and includes a mixed use overlay on a
portion of Block C adjacent to the project site; consistent with this
policy, b) Policy H-l: The project does, in fact, provide a total of 20
housing units. The City cannot require that the owners of the main
homes rent the accessory units to another household. The accessory
units are relatively small (357 to 411 square feet) but provide a usable
living area, kitchen and bathroom as well as a parking space and are
consistent in size relative to each lot size of 4,370 square feet. The
SOFA CAP intends that accessory units be located above the garage.
Garages are typically 400 to 500 feet in size and, with stepback
requirements for second floor units, the floor area of these units is as
large as possible given the footprint of the garage structure; and c)
Please see the staff response to appellant concern #8 regarding Policy
H-6 (above). Policy T-7 does, in fact, refer to mixed use and
multifamily use parking. However, the general principle of locating
CMR:185:01 Page 10 of 14
p~king so as to minimize visibility from the street still applies to this
site and is fulfilled by this project.
b) Finding 2: Staff believes that the Setback and daylight plane
intrusions on the site are, infact, minor and are consistent with the
intent of the SOFA CAP provisions .for minor exceptions. The SOFA
CAP (page 87) indicates that an exception can be considered minor in
scope when it: 1) involves only a small portion of the structure, 2) does
not involve major architectural features and 3) meets other
requirements that may be established by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment. That portion of the homes that intrudes into
the front yard setback is confined to only a small portion of the main
structure (ranging from about four percent to 15 percent), although it
does affect a major architectural feature (the front facade of the home).
That portion of the garage/accessory building that intrudes into the side
yard setback facing Channing Avenue is confined to only a small
portion of the structure (about 20 percent), although it does affect a
major architectural feature (the side facade of the garage/accessory
unit). The two porches that intrude into the Channing Avenue side yard
setback are justified because they face Channing Avenue and fulfill the
intent of AMF Design Guideline 4.2 (d). Dormers on four of the main
homes (lots 2, 4, 7 and 9) and portions of all of the second floor studios
above the garages extend into the side daylight plane. Intrusions of
dormers and similar architectural features are allowed under the SOFA
CAP. Please see the staff responses to appellantconcern #10 regarding
daylight planes. The SOFA CAP provides that the Director of Planning
and Community Environment shall make the determination of what
constitutes a minor exception and he has determined that the intrusions
described above are minor exceptions. The Director did not establish
other requirements for the project other than the conditions of project
approval.
Staff believes that findings for these exceptions can be made, regardless
of whether the exceptions are minor or major as defined in the SOFA
CAP. Should the City Council determine that these are major
exceptions, staff has prepared alternative findings for a major exception
for front and side yard setbacks and side daylight plane (see Attachment
c) Finding 3: Reduction of the building mass could, in fact, eliminate
the need for the setback and daylight plane exceptions. Such a
reduction would require modifications to the exterior design, interior
CMR:185:01 Page 11 of 14
layout of the homes and accessory units and the amount of usable open
space in the rear yard as currently proposed. Reverting the plans to that
previously proposed (prior to the ARB/HRB suggested revisions)
would eliminate the need for the front setback exception, but not the
side setback or daylight plane exceptions. Shifting a portion of the main
home floor area to the accessory unit potentially could eliminate the
need for a daylight exception on the main home but would exacerbate
the daylight plane intrusion of the accessory unit.
d) Finding 4: a) Staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy
L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the
planning and zoning process to create.opportunities for new mixed use
development." The project proposes a single family residential use
(with accessory unit) that contributes to the mix of existing residential,
office and commercial uses in the area and the project contributes to a
desirable neighborhood character by including street trees and
pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground
level; b) Staff believes that the project is consistent with Policy B-21
"Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement
the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of
automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby
neighborhoods. " The project provides 20 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
Appellants’ Supplemental Issues -- Block B DHS -- 300 Homer Avenue, March 26,2001
12: Appellant Concern: We have a number of supplementary issues to adds to our
appeal of the 300 Homer (Block B DHS) application. These issues can be
summarized as follows:
-All of the sunken patios exceed the 200 square foot maximum
-All of the sunken patios extend into required side .setbacks.
-A new grade is established by the sunken patios exceeding these limits.
-A new grade is also established on the main houses by the extent of the
perimeter excavation.
-As a result of the new, lower grade, the main houses exceed the allowable FAR
and the maximum allowable height.
Staff Response: The appellants have raised an issue regarding the below grade patios
in their communication entitled "Supplemental Issues Block B DHS Appeal" (March
26, 2001). The appellants contend that the below grade patios exceed the maximum
allowable area (200 square feet) and intrude into the side setback by more than that
allowed (2 feet) under the PAMC. The plans, as proposed, do exceed these standards
CMR:185:01 Page 12 of 14
and will need to be revised prior to submittal of building, permits. The applicant will
make the necessary revisions to the building permit plans to comply with the
applicable code requirements. The revisions could entail eliminating the below grade
patios and replacing them with light wells and at-grade side yards. This solution
would affect light and outdoor access to the basements but would not otherwise alter
the floor area or architectural design of the homes. Such a solution would eliminate
the appellants’ issues with respect to measurement of grade, allowable FAR and
building height. The project would still be consistent with the ARB/HRB design
recommendations. The project is required to meet code. These issues will be
addressed through the standard plan check process for single family homes and
building permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and therefore, no subsequent
environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Appellant’s Letter and Supporting Materials, dated February 7, and March 26, 2001
C. Letters from SummerHill, dated March 28, 2001, and Berliner Cohen, dated March 27,
2001
D. ARB~
E. ARB~
F. ARB/HRB
G. ARB~
H. ARB/HRB
Staff Report.dated January 11,2001 (including attachments)
minutes of July 12, 2000 (Council Members only)
minutes of August 24, 2000 (Council Members only)
minutes of November 2, 2000 (Council Members only)
minutes of November 9, 2000 (Council Members only)
I.ARB/HRB minutes of January 11,2001 (Council Members only)
J.Letter from Origins Design Network dated September 18, 2000
K.Findings for major exceptions for front and side yard setbacks and side daylight plane
L.Plans (Council Members only)
CMR:185:01 Page 13 of 14
PREPARED BY: J~
~’~OHN LUSARD1~ .
Current Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF ~’~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL
EMILY
Assistant City Manager
CMR:185:01 Page 14 of 14
g
i
I
|
D
g
|
i
i
|
|
i
|
O
g
|
|
B
i
I
i
g~
Wavedey St
B~/ant St
|
n
o
0
l
l
iPhase 1 e ................. i’[
Emerson St
High St
Alma St
Noah
Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
~ D:\Gk~da D\Sofa\Wb032700CmrA~achSo~aKeyMap.ai
SOFA Key
March 27,2000
Attachment B
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK’S OFFICECITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk "A~EAL ~0~ T~E D~C,S,O~ O~ D,~CTO~ O~ p~,~B -~ P~ 5:A.D COMMU.m’ E.VIRO.ME.T (A.c.rrECTU.AL REVIEW APPL, CA’rio.s)
To be filed in duplicate
Application No. g)O- d~-~ -/’(~>" /f~/~-/-’~ReceiptNo. (_.)/’- 00°2..
Name of Appellant ,."~’"fO.~,’?_
Address ~L/.~
Street_.,,) ,~;: City " ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No.
Street Address ~ tO"~:~’ "~}’t(~l~, /~-,
Name "of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ~-1..) ~t H. ~ ~ 1(
Prop.erty Owner’s Address. ~ ~ ~ G(-.(~,..~,’9,~J,Pr ~"U’~",
’ Stree’t" "
Zone District
City ZIP
The (Jecislon of the Director o! Planning and Community Environment dated 3~!~dO (-~/ .,’q, _~ ) ,
t"~’~ whereby the application o~ ~,J ,,-v.t ~{Jn II
(original applicant)
for architectural review was dl!o/of’ov’~__d , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated
(aldPioved/denied)
in the attached letter (in duplicate).
Date t~ig. 7/ ~ ’/ Signature of Appellant ~~~ (-- }~--~f--"
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved De.Ned
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
3.Appeal Application Forms ~By:
4.Letter ’~J By:
5.Fee "~By: ~/~v
¯ " 12/89
NOTICE OF APPROVAL BY THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR TEN SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES WITH TEN DETACHED
ACCESSORY UNITS AT 300 HOMER
AVENUE
On January 11,2001 the ARB/HRB reviewed and recommended approval of an
application for construction of ten single family homes with t.en detached accessory
units on Block ’.’B" of the property formerly occupied by the Pale Alto Medical
Foundation. Staffhas determined that the project is consistent with the policies,
programs and intent of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA
CAP) provided that minor exceptions for front and side setbacks and an
encroachment into the side daylight plane are allowed.
The Director of Planning and Community Environment has reviewed the project,
the ARB/HRB recommendation and has approved the project subject to the
findings and conditions.
The approval of this project is granted in accordance Chapter IV Section A
"Review Procedures" of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA
CAP). The approval is for a "coordinated development permit" as specified in
Section 19.10.060 of the Pale Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become
effective eight working days following the mailing of this notice, unless an appeal
is filed as provided by as Chapter 16.48 of the Pale Alto Municipal Code.
The project is located at 300 Homer Avenue. Below is a brief description of the
application for the project. Plans, findings and conditions are on file at.City Hall
and may be r~viewed weekdays, between 8 AM and 4 PM, at the Development
Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue. For further information, please call Bhavna Mistry
at (650) 329-244 l.
300 Homer Avenue (File #00-ARB-II3): Application for a Coordinated
Development Permit and minor exceptions for front and side setbacks and an
encroachment into the side daylight plane for [0 detached single family homes and
10 detached accessory units, surface parking and related site improvements at 300
Homer Avenue. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report has
been prepared subject to the California. Environmental Quality Act. Zone District
(DHS).
You may appeal this decision by submilting n written request to the City Clerk. This request must I~ received by
the City Clerk by 5:30 PM on February. 7, 2001. If no appeal is filed with the Clerk by that time, the Director’s
decision will be final.
If you wish to appeal this item,’you may contact the Planning Depan=nenl (329-244.1) for assistance. If you challenge
Ihis land use decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at an appeal
hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Cily of Pa[o Alto, at or pdor to file appeal hearing.
Appeal of 300 Homer (Block B DHS)Application 00-ARB-113
Dear Council Members,
We agree with the intention and goals of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA
CAP) including the housing density. However, the implementation does not conform with the
policies, programs or intent of the SOFA CAP.
Failures in the process prevented project deficiencies from being corrected.
As a consequence, we are appealing the Director of Planning’s decision to approve the Coordinated
Development Permit for the application by SummerHill Homes for construction of 10 detached
family homes and 10 detached accessory units, surface parking and related site improvements at
300 Homer Avenue and related minor exceptions for front and side setbacks and encroachments
into the side daylight plane.
Our goal with this appeal is to:
1.Vacate a decision based on a flawed process,
2.Have a full and proper ARB/HRB review which will bring the project into
conformance with the policies, p~:ograms or intent of the SOFA CAP.
We believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is compatible with the existing
environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
Our appeal is based on, but not limited to, the following reasons:
ARB/HRB Review Process Issues
Conflict in direction
¯ The SOFA CAP clearly states that "Compliance with both (Development) Standards
and (Design) Guidelines is required for approval of a development project within the
SOFA Plan Area", the review board operated under Conflicting directions between
satisfying the SOFA CAP and perceived guarantee from the Development Agreement.
An example of this is how staff and the applicant stated that FAR was guaranteed.
When conflictingmles exist, the most stringent applies. An applicant is not allowed to
pick and choose which conditions they wish to satisfy. For example, FAR (with or
without a development agreement) is not allowed to override compliance with other
development standards.
Truncated ARB/HRB Review Guidelines
Significant elements of the Standards for review of the ARB (PAMC 16.48.120) were
not included in the ARB/HRB consistency review standards.
One of the justifications given for omitting 16.48.120 findings is "the finding has been
committed by the development agreement". (Aug 23, 2000 ARB/HRB Memorandum,
Attach. A, the very document which is titled "All Approvals shall be consistent with
the CAP")
Omitted review findings include: consistency and compatibility with the Comp Plan;
February 7, 2001 1
Appeal of 300 Homer (Block B DHS)Application 00-ARB-i 13
site development characteristics such as lot size, building coverage, setbacks, building
height; the ability to make recommendations more restrictive than Title 16 and/or Title
18 (PAMC 16.48.120 (c))
o ARB/HRB members express dissatisfaction with process
Members of the review board stated objections about constraints placed on their ability
to have a full and proper design review, including references to having their "hands
tied". As a consequence of this constrained process, the members went on record
describing the projects as incompatible .while not having the freedom to vote on the
design, only details.
The ARB/HRB votes of record reflect only a vote on these details,and do not
reflect a vote of approval on the projects.
Review Process Violations
o Board member ineligibility
¯An ARB member’s term expired in September 2000 making him ineligible to
participate in the ARB/HRB joint board, thus rendering any subsequent votes invalid.
Late Approval
¯ Project approvals are.supposed to be acted on by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment within 3 working days of the ARB/HRB approval. The
ARB/HRB voted to approve the DHS project on January 11, 2001. The Director
signed the approval on January 25, 2001.
Project Deficiencies
6.The project is not consistent with the PAMF/SOFA CAP Policy Framework adopted
by the City Council on September 22, 1997.
"Promote high quality design and construction that preserves and continues the existing
character of the area, including the scale of development, the high degree of visual interest,
and the variety of compatible land uses within a historic pattern."
The DHS project does not continue.the character, scale or front setback pattern of
existing residences. "the FAR and the mass of the homes and the accessory buildings
exceed most single family homes in the vicinity." (staff report of January 11, 2001,
page 10)
The project is not consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010.
"Maintaining the physical qualities of the City is an overarching consideration, incorporated
in all parts of the Plan .... "(Comp Plan, page I-3)
The larger scale, smaller front setbacks, and homogenous massing of the DHS homes
do not promote compatibility and preservation of neighborhood character, as Policy L-
12 requires.
February 7, 2001 2
Appeal of 300 Homer (B lock B DHS)Application 00 -ARB- 1 13
The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP Policies.
¯ Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes"
As all 10 main family units are essentially the same size, and all 10 carriage units are
of a minimal size, the .houses will likely be inhabited by families of similar incomes
and lifestyles. "
The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP DHS Design Guidelines.
¯ The project provides housing units of effectively the same size thus failing to satisfy
Guideline 2.1 (e) which calls for a variety of unit sizes to support different family
sizes, age groups, income level, etc.
¯There is no lot size variation as is called for in Guideline 2.7 (a) to encourage diversity
in residence size, bulk and mass distribution.
10. The project is not consistent with the SOFA CAP DHS Development Standards..
¯There are multiple side daylight plane encroachments on every lot.
¯All five houses facing onto the Public Mews have front setback violations.
¯For the two lots along Channing, there are side setback violations on both the houses
and the garages.
11. The project is not consistent with the Development Agreement
¯ The Development Agreement declares that "City desires to obtain the binding
agreement of PAMF for the development of the Property in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement, the SOFA CAP, and the various other approvals and
conditions related thereto." (Recital G) >>As described above, the project is not
consistent with the SOFA CAP, and is therefore not consistent with the Development
Agreement.
12. The
¯
exceptions approved were based on inadequate findings.
Note: The application is for a minor exception. However, the violations of the DHS
Development Standard listed in item 10 above are major in character and should be
treated as such.The SOFA CAP lists four findings, all of which must be me.t before a
minor exception can be granted. The staff findings in all of the four categories are
inadequate as shown below.
Finding Requirement 1: Consistency with the policies of the SOFA CAP
Policy L-8 is a SOFA Phase II policy and as such cannot be used as findings for a
SOFA Phase I project.
Policy H-l: "Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan
area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF site". The
Finding claims consistency because 20 new units are being added. >>Consistency is
arguable since the carriage units are so small that the project is more likely to provide
10 rather than 20 single family units.
Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes" >>As all
of the houses are essentially the same size, will likely be inhabited by families of
¯ February 7, 2001
Appeal of 300 Homer (Block B DHS)Application 00-ARB-i 13
similar incomes and lifestyles.
Policy T-7 refers to mixed use and multifamily use parking.>>DHS is neither
mixed use nor multiple family and thus the policy does not apply.
Finding Requirement 2: The exception relates to a minor feature and would not
be detrimental to property or improvements in the vicinity nor detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.
It is a misrepresentation to state that daylight plane violations would not affect the
light, hir and privacy of any existing residential use since violations will affect
currently planned units. It is also a misrepresentation to characterize front setback
violations as minor claiming they would not be visible from any public street when
these intrusions are into the’ Public Mews.
Finding Requirement 3: An enhancement is achieved by the exception in a
manner that would not otherwise be achieved through a strict application of the
standard
Staff asserts the necessity of exceptions in order to accomplish the design goals of the
SOFA CAP. The goals of the exception can be achieved, if, for example, building
mass is reduced or shifted to the rear unit. This would achieve
"The purpose of the Detached Houses on Small Lot (DHS) land use
category is to provide for residential development similar to historic
patterns and densities within existing surrounding residential
neighborhoods. These include modestly sized detached single family
homes on smaller lots, often with a small attached second unit or
cottage in the rear of the home." (SOFA CAP, page 93)
Finding Requirement 4: The project is consistent with the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan
The Finding claims consistency with the Comp Plan by citing the.following Policies
Policy L-9 encourages the enhancement of mixed use areas. >>The DHS site is
primarily a residential neighborhood. It is generally understood that the area closer to
Alma is the mixed use portion of SOFA. This policy does not apply.
Policy B-21 states: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that
complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of
automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods"
>> Business use policies do not apply to residential developments.
As previously stated, we believe a proper ARB/HRB review can result in a project that is
compatible with the existing environment and that we can all be proud to put our names on.
We greatly appreciate Council’s attention to the community concerns outlined in this letter.
Respectfully~);x~ ~..___
Steve Reyna
February 7, 2001 4
Overview of Block A & B Appeals
Appeals have been filed~ on the two condominium projects and the single family home development on the former
PAMF Clinic site.
The bases for the appeals are: .
I) The constrained and conflicted reviewprocess
2) The resulting projects inconsistencies with South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP),
SOFA Development Agreement, SOFA policy framework, and Comp Plan.
3) The projects incompatibility with the existing neighborhood
4) The multiple exceptions to zoning Standards without adequate findings
Our goal is to have the approvals overturned, the process flaws ~:leared up, and the projects sent back to the ARB/HRB
review board for a full and proper review.
NOTE: If required condit.ions within a CAP or development agreement appear to.be in conflict,
. the most restrictive apply. For example, FAR allowance cannot override daylight plane considerations.
Examples from the appeal !etters
Daylight plane standards have been set aside to allow maximum floor area ratio (FAR). For instance, the condominium
project at 325 Channing, which abuts the new public park, is designed to the maximum FAR (1.5) and height (45 feet).
Its impact onthe park is exacerbated by daylight plane violations being allowed.
Public land is being given away for private gain. An easement for emergency vehicles is bei.ng proposed on the
Williams House driveway for the condominium project at 777 Bryant. As a result, the condominium project is not
providing access on its own property and the size of the. building grow~ proportionately, without proper compensation.
The joint Architectural and Historic Review Board was given conflicting directions as.to what parts of the design they
were allowed to review. An example of this is that the Board was given direction that the .size and basic design of the
projects were fixed: the Board could only review details "
even though compatibility with the neighborhood is a requirement of the SOFA CAP. They felt the projects were
incompatible. This led to the gt:eat frustration of Board members about their constrained ability to have a proper design
review. One Board’member even discussed resigning from the Board because of feeling "handcuffed" (Story in the
Daily October 27, 2000).
An incompatibility example: 777 Bryant condominium project is 48 feet tall (3 feet taller than its zoning all0ws). Its
neighbor, the Williams House, is approximatdy 24 feet tall.
Date:
To:
Memorandum
September 18, 2000
John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Department of Planning and Community Environment
FAX 650.329.2154
From:
Subject:
ORIGINS DESIGN NETWORK
Alexandra Martynetz and Arnold Mammarella, Principals
TEL 510.743.4332, FAX 510.444.0434
Architectural Analysis of Sum[nerHill Homes
BLOCK B Proposal (351 Channing Ave.)
Application: 00-ARB-113
ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
At the request of Chandler Lee, AICP, we have reviewed SummerHill Homes proposed single.family
project titled "Block B". The analysis focused.on the quality and coherence of the architectural design of
the structures. It is understood that while no specific architectural style was required, the design should
fit into the historic neighborhood context through the use of building forms, materials, and detailing
inspired by a histoi-ic architectural tradition and befitting Palo Alto’s historic neighborhoods.
In reviewing the plans, our impression is that the composition of forms andelevations, ’andthe use of
materials mostly reflect an eclectic Tudor Revival intention, with English Cottage style features and
some Craftsman details. While a few elements, such as a Palladian window are thrown in--probably for
the sake of variety--the,overall architecture is cohesive throughout the development without being
overly repetitive. The individual houses have balanced and interesting massing that maintain
compositional clarity and avoid a cluttered look often seen with gratuitous use of traditional architectural
forms. Given the lot size and intensity of deveI6pment, the designers have done as well as could be
expected in their architectural response. In addition, the streetscape elements.such as fences, arbors, and
landscaping embellish the look of the houses. The only real shortcoming of the design is the lack of a
reasonably serviceable exterior court or yard. "
While the overall design presents well, there is some concern whether the materials and detailing will be
sufficient to implement the architectural imagery. Clarification on the window system and window
details, the stucco finish, key details such as eaves, porches, and wall caps, and the color palette are
suggested prior to final approval or as donditions of approval..The window system and detailing is of
particular concern. Windows .should be recessed from the exterior wall sufficient to create a shadow line
(i.e. at least 2 inches) and muntin patterns should be achieved with true or simulated divided lites. Also
wood or aluminum clad wood windows are strongly preferred to vinyl or aluminum windows, and the
use of light colors such as white or beige should be carefully review. A concern exists with the extent of
light colors and their effect on perceived bulk--the drawings seem to indicate a fair amount of white and
light grey colors. White trim and windows stand out more than darker or more muted colors. Against
stained wood shingles, the white windows may look authentic and have enough contrast, but less so
against stucco, particularly light colored stucco. A color and material board is recommended for review,
but the general suggestion is to encourage more moderate or darker tones with strong contrasts than
whites, light grays, beiges, or sirntlar colors. --"
cc: Chandler W. Lee, AICP, FAX 415.282.9816
RECEIVED
Supplemental Issues:-Block B DHS Appeal
M/~R 2 6 ZOO1
Department of Planning and
Gornmunlty Environment
Appeal of application 00-ARB- 113
300 Homer (Block B DHS)March 26th, 2001
Dear Council Members,
We have a number of supplementary issuesto add to our appeal of the 300 Homer (Block B DHS)
application. These issues can be summarized as follows:
-All of the s.unken patios exceed the 200 sq. ft. maximum
-All of the sunken patios extend into requi~ed side setbacks
-A new grade is established by the sunken patios exceeding these limits-A new grade is also established on the main houses by the extent of the perimeter
excavation
-As a result of the new, lower grade, the main houses exceed the allowable FAR and the
maximum allowable height. ’.
Sunken Patios
Sunken patios are not contained in PAMC section 18.04, "Det’mitions,’. Where they are defined is
in the R-1 single-family residence zbning: Since there areno other definitions of sunken patios,
and since DHS is also a single-family land use designation, the underlying R-1 def’mition, with its
assoe:iated restrictions, also applies to sunken patios on DHS lots.
Therefore, all of the sunken patios of the DHS homes on Block B violate:
PAMC 18.12.050 (o)(1) B: "Features shall riot exceed .91 meters (three feet) in width"
All patios are at least 5 feet wide. Some as much as 13 feet wide;
PAMC 18.12.050 (o)(1) D: "... shall not extend more than 0.6 meters (two feet) into arequired side yard ... "
All patios or exeavatedfeatures go to (and past) the property line,
extending fully into the entire required 6 foot interior side setback.
PANIC 18.12.050 (0)(2) B: ’~l’he excavated area shall not exceed a total of two hundredsquare feet, a substantial portion of which shall be terraced and landscaped"
The smallest measured excavated area is 235 sq. ft.
Other excavated areas have been measured as high as 360 sq. ft.
Lots are excavated on both sides of the main houses. A.representative
total patio excavation on one lot has been measured at 595 sq. ft.
PAMC 18.12.050 (0)(2) C: ’The excavated area including the portion which is landscaped
and/or terraced shall not extend more than 0.6 meters (two feet) into a
required side yard ...’.’
All patios or excavated features go.to (and past) the property line,
extending fully into theentire required 6 foot interior side setback.
Grade
The grade, as defined in PANIC 18.04, "Definitions", "means the lowest point of adjacent ground
elevation of the finished surface of the ground paving.., within the area between the building and
the property line."
Measurements: Approximately 57.9% of the main house ~erimeter on lot 2 (as identified on the
RECEIVED
Supplemental Issues:Block B DHS Appeal Department of Planning and
Community Environment
SummerHill plans) is at the sunken patio grade. Approximately 53.6% of the main house
.pezimeter on lot 9 is also at the sunken patio grade.
PAMC 18.12.050 (o) states that "Excavated features shall not affect the measurement of grade for
the purposes of determining basement gross floor area, so long as such features meet the following
provisions:" (i.e. subsections (1) & (2)).
As shown in the previous section, these provisions are violated, therefore the measurement of
grade is also affected by the excavated features on all lots.
By both of the points brought up, a new grade is established for all houses at the sunken patio
level.
Allowable FAR and Height Exceeded
With 18.12.050 (o) violated and a new grade established, what was considered a basement is
aetimlly the first floor. Therefore, the ’basement’ FAR is counted and the total FAR on all houses
is exceeded, and the maximum height of the building must be measured from the sunken patio
level, therefore the maximum building height isexceeded by six feet on all houses.
Remedies
Comply with the code.
The developer may reduce the building height and FARto fitwithin the code; redo the proposed
excavation to comply with the maximum patio size and setback restrictions as well as maintain
existing grade; and/or some other means of properly satisfyingthe code.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely, .
Steve Reyna Aysen Kutlu
Attachment C
SummerHill Homes
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: 650 857 0122
Fax: 650 857 1077
March 28, 2001
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
City of Palo Alto
P.O: Box 10250
Palo alto, California 94303
RE: ARBiHRB Design Approvals
Dear Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers,
I am writing at this time to ask for.your support to uphold, the Planning Directors approval of our
designs for three residential projects included in.the Sofa Plan. SummerHill has been diligent in
its effort to deliver an ambitious program of development and community benefits. The City will
no doubt benefit greatly through the dedication of parkland, affordable housing and historic
resource, not to mention the significant development of much needed market housing within a
very wide range of product types. Council understood, last year, that public/private cooperation
was necessary to make the program work at many levels, and that not everyone would get all
they may want. The objections heard in the appeals before you are the very same issues that were
addressed and concluded a year ago. I have included a letter written by the same attorney who
negotiated the legal terms of the Development Agreement on SummerHill’s behalf. His letter
specifically addresses the legal basis of three appeals before you.
At issue is whether SummerHill faithfully executed and articulated the agreed upon development
programs in a manner consistent with the plan. We believe this has been achieved. The process
of evaluation and public review has been exhaustive. SummerHill presented its designs at no
fewer than ten publicly noticed hearings before the prescribed ARB/I-IRB Committee.
Throughout this design review process, we have remained committed to improving, o, ur ideas,
pushing the quality of design to the highest possible levels, and being sensitive to surrounding
context and issues of scale without sacrificing agreed upon programmatic objectives. There were
numerous significant improvements made to our designs over the course of the past year.
SummerHill has been actively engaged in a very involved process of architectural design and
approvals for its various projects within the Sofa I Area. The CAP Zoning and Development
Agreement which were unanimously approved by Council last March, have provided
SummerHill and City staff with very thorough guidance from which to work. In developing and
articulating the designs for the three projects currently under appeal, SummerHill has not
SummerHill Homes
deviated from the specific program statements outlined in the Agreement. The proposed designs,
which have been approved by the Director of Planning, are very consistent with the plans
illustrated before you in December of 1999. The site plan, architecture, building massing and
density all match.
It is tempting to tamper with designs and question the validity of numerous physical trade-offs
that become inevitable. The CAP Guidelines wisely included latitude for design discretion and
minor variation from standards that prove too rigid to support the very best solutions. A panel of
lay experts, both historic and architectural, debated at length our proposals. They made
suggestions relating both to style and massing. With the full support of staff, SummerHill
negotiated an involved and educated debate throt~gh the course of these public hearings.
The following is a synopsis of the Minor Variations form the Sofa Development Standards that
were approved with our designs:
¯Block A Condominium
The building design includes a three foot increase to the maximum height of 45’. The
increase in height was proposed to Council more than a year ago and themotion for
approval specifically included an allowance for four stories on this project. Four stories
within absolute height to the building ridge of 45’ would not result in an attractive design
with a first floor elevated between two and three feet to allow for a limestone building
base and an enhanced sense of privacy along the street. Likewise an eave height of 35’ is
not possible with four floors of units and the selected architectural expression.
¯Block B Condominium
The side building setback along the park side of the 36 Unit park facing condominium is
10 feet pursuant to specific provision of the CAP Development Standards. The Standards.
did not specifically make provision for a modified Daylight Plane in this location. The
attic dormers and gable ends on this side of the building intrude into the daylight plane to
a minorextent. The presence of these dormers and attic bedroom elements was discussed
with council last year and resulted from a compromise not permitting fourth story units
on this site. The height limits have not been broken, and the proposed building section
matches a diagram shown to Council last February when we spoke of our intention to
include fourth floor dormer element. These elements were referenced in Mr. Beecham’s
approval motion.
¯Block B Single family Homes
Suggestions made by the ARB/HRB resulted in minor variations from the standards, such
is the case with variation of the front yard setback for single family homes fronting the
pedestrian muse. Their direction was debated in detail and it was agreed that frontage on
a pedestrian way is different than street frontage. The thought being that a more intimate
distance from the public way would be desirable. Variation also resulted from the need to
resolve apparent conflict between standards. This is the case with variation to side
setback and daylight plane affecting the accessory units and two of the garages on the
SummerHi11 Homes
single family site. Without some flexibility in the standard, two of the ten accessory units
would be lost. These units are a required element of the design program.
SummerHill has been faithful to its vision and sacrificed considerable time and energy to a
lengthy public process. We believe that our projects along with the host of community benefits
that have been leveraged will be an enduring complement to this historic setting. We anxiously
look forward to the commencement of our construction as well as the park improvements and the
development of affordable housing. To further delay these approvals puts not only the spirit of
our agreement at risk, but also potentially undermines the financial commitments SummerHill
depends upon to enable construction of much needed housing this year. We have endured a long
standing, minority of unfettered opposition based on the same issues that were heard and
defeated a year ago. Much has been done to ensure that this project will benefit the community at
large. We are confident that our projects will be of a quality that not only endures but will
become woven into the neighborhood fabric over time. Hopefully the architecture and housing
which it represents will be treasured for the residential revitalization of an area previously
subject to institutional intrusion.
Your support and swift action on this important matter will be greatly.appreciated and warranted.
Very truly yours
Richard T. Wurzelbacher
Vice President
BERLINER COHEN
SANFORD A. BERLINER*
ANDREW L FABER
WILLIAM J. GOINES*
ROBERT W, HUMPHREYS
RALPH J, SWANSON
PEGGY L SPRINGGAY
JOSEPH E. DWORAKSAMUEL L FARB
ALAN J. PINNER
RETIRED
SAMUEL J. COHEN
FRANK R. UBHAUS
LINDA A. CALLON
’JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J. JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
ROBERT L, CHORTEK
JONATHAN D. WOLF
KATHLEEN K. SIPLEKEVIN F. KELLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
March 27, 2001
WILLIAM F_ ADAMS
MARK MAKIEWICZ
THOMAS P. MURPHY
THOMAS M. GROSSNADIA V. HOLOBER
MARK V. ISOLA
BRIAN L SHETLER
JOLIE HOUSTON
JAMIE LEE BRANDS
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
HARRY A. LOPEZ
JOHN F. DOMINGUE
SETH J. COHENPATRICK LIN
JENNIFER J. CUNNINGHAM
KRISTIN GENC
DAVID D. WADE
TIFFINY C. EVANS
DENNIS J. LOPUT
BRIAN K. KEELEY
OF COUNSEL
HUGH L. ISOLA°
STEVEN L HALLGRIMSON
ERIC WONG
NANCY L. BRANDT
CHARLES W. VOLPE
Mayor Ealdns and City Councilmembers
City 6fPalo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo. Alto, CA 94303
Appeals from ARB/HRB Hearings
File Nos. 00-ARB-111, -112-113
April 2, 2001 Agenda
SummerHill Project
Dear Mayor Eakins and Councilmembers:
This letter is in response to the appeals filed by Steve.Reyna and Aysen Kutlu on the
above-referenced approvals by the combined Architectural Review Board/Historical Review
Board. On behalf of SummerHill, we would urge that these appeals be denied and the
applications be approved as they were approved by the ARB/HRB.
In essence, the appeals attempt to re-argue policy direction that was established in the
SOFA CAP and in the Development Agreement between the City of Palo. Alto and PAMF.
These policy issues were decided, however, after extensive public input and many hearings last
year at the time the SOFA CAP. and the Development Agreement were approved.. The SOFA
CAP. has. established the policy direction for the City, and the Development Agreement gave
vested rights to the developer to build the project to the maximum density and intensity of uses
specified in the Development Agreement and the SOFA CAP. These issues cannot be re-opened
at this time without violating the Development Agreement.
The following is a response to specific numbered paragraphs in the various appeals. We
note that almost all the numbered paragraphs are identical from appeal to. appeal, so they will be
discussed jointly.
~ALIq511595.1
02-032709427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
.March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 1: Conflict in Direction
The appellants argue that there are conflicts between the SOFA CAP and the
Development Agreement. This issue was put to rest when the entitlements were approved. In
fact, the City Council specifically found in the Development Agreement that the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement are compatible. Thus, paragraph 9(b)(i) in part reads as follows:
(i) Entitlement to Develop. As of the Effective Date,
PAMF has acquired and been granted the vested right to develop
the Project to the extent and in the manner provided in this
Agreement, subject to the Conditions of Approval and Project
Approvals, and in accordance with the.Applicable Rules and
Subsequent Applicable Rules when required by this Agreement,
and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the SOFA CAP, and the Zoning Ordinance.
To the extent that there may be any elements of the Program
Development Statements set forth in Extfibits "D- 1" through "D-
10" that have inadvertently not been included within the SOFA
CAP, the Parties intend that such components be deemed
consistent with and a part of the SOFA CAP so that they may be
approved in the exercise of the reasonable discretion of the
Director of Plamfi.ng and Community Environment.
Furthermore, the compatibility of the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement was
stressed throughout the negotiation of the Development Agreement, and was certainly the City
Attorney’s position. In other words, the City Council was to make the original neighborhood
compatibility decision in their adoption of the SOFA CAP and in their adoption of the
entitlements and the Development Agreement for the project. Once those maximum intensities
of usage were agreed to; then the specific design of each element would still require City
approval, but the intensity of development could not be cut back through the design process.
Thus, the first full paragraph on page 25 of the Development Agreement and the two following
paragraphs cover this issue in great detail. They read as follows:
Any subsequent Discretionary Actions by City or any
conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for such
¯ Discretionary Actions by City, shall not, without PAMF’s consent,
prevent development of the Property for the uses and to the
maximum density or intensity of development and other site
development standards set forth in this Agreement, unless City
determines it is necessary to protect against conditions which
create a substantial and demonstrable risk to the physical health or
safety of residents or users of the Project or the affected
surrounding region. [Emphasis added.]
(ii) Consistency with Applicable Rules. City finds, based
upon all information made available to City prior to or
concurrently With the execution of this Agreement, that there are
no Applicable Rules that would prohibit or prevent the full
~AL1=~511595.2
03-032809427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
completion and occupancy of the Project in accordance with uses,
densities, designs, heights and sizes incorporated and agreed to
herein. The Project Approvals anticipate the need for. further
Discretionary Approvals by City, and such approvals shall be
reasonably conditioned and reasonably granted when consistent
with this Agreement.
(iii) Subsequent Discretionary Actions. With respect to
any Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval that is
required subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, City
agrees that it will not unreasonably withhold fi:om PAMF or
unreasonably condition or delay any such Discretionary Action or
Discretionary Approval which must be issued by City in order for
the Project to proceed to construction and occupancy. In addition,
no. condition shall, without PAMF’s consent, preclude or otherwise
limit PAMF’s ability to develop the Project in accordance with the
density and intensity of use and site development specifications set
forth in this Agreement nor otherwise conflict with any provision
of this Agreement, Unless City determines it is necessary to protect
against conditions which create a substantial and demonstrable risk.
to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the Project
or the affected surrounding region.
It is significant that these provisions allow development at the maximum intensity
contemplated by The Dbvelopment Agreement and by the SOFA CAP. as well as by the other
entitlements.. Furthermore, the ability of the City to cut back on that density would only be as a ¯
direct result of a."physieal" risk.. This is different than the normal standard employed for design
review, which is the more general "public. health, safety and welfare.". My recollection is that "
this issue was specifically disenssed in this context, and the agreement reached was that the .
development at the maximum density permitted by the entitlements could not be restricted
simply on a general welfare standard.. In other, words, it could not be restricted simply because
of concerns about aesthetics or "neighborhood compatibility."
Appeal Item No. 2: Truncated ARB/HR.B Review Guidelines
The ARB/HRB approvals properly note that certain findings have been made by the
adoption of the Development Agreement, and are not open for additional review at this time.
Appeal Item No. 3: ARB/HRB Members Expressed Dissatisfaction with
the Process
This is an opinion of the appellants and is not relevant to any issue in front of the
City. Council.
Appeal Item No. 4: Board Member Ineligibility
Appeal Item No. 5: Late Approval
We assume that the City Attorney will respond to these issues of alleged
deficiencies of City process.
~AL.1~11595.1
02-032709427013
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
Appeal Item No. 6: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP Policy Framework
The faci that the FAR, mass and height of the proposed project may exceed most
buildings in the vicinity was accepted by the City Cotmeil when it approved the SOFA CAP and
the Development Agreement. With respect to the DHS houses, the appellants’ claim that they do
not "continue the character, scale, or front setback pattern of existing residences..." is a mattel~ of
opinion. The ARB/HRB, after numerous public hearings, came to the opposite conclusion.
Appeal Item No. 7: Inconsistency with Comprehensive Plan
Appeal Item No. 8: Inconsistency with SOFA/CAP Policies
These again are matters of opinion. The appellants site Policy H-6 of the SOFA CAP,
arguing that each housing type should have a range of densities, etc.. However, there are and will
be a range of densities in the SOFA area, including within the various elements of this project
itself.
Appeal Item No. 9: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP. AME Design Guidelines/SOFA CAP
DHS Design Guidelines.
This is the same argument as the previous paragraph, that the units in each of these
separate portions of the project must contain a larger variety of unit sizes.. This is not required:by
the SOFA CAP, and contradicts the vested right of the developer under the Development
Agreement to develop, at the maximum FAR (see response to Appeal Item No.-1):
Appeal Item No. 10: Inconsistency with SOFA CAP AMF/DHS Development Standards
These paragraphs quibble over minor variations and exceptions in design standards which
were approved by the ARB/HRB after extensive public hearings, and in an attempt to approve
the best possible project given the dictates of the SOFA CAP. and the density of use allowed
under the Development Agreement.. In some eases, small exceptions to. standards have been
required.. This again is recognized under the Development Agreement, as paragraph 9(b)(i)
quoted earlier in this letter explicitly recognizes in providing for exceptions to be made in the
exercise of"the reasonable discretion", of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Appeal Item No. 11: Inconsistency with Development Agreement
This is a circular argument that should be ignored.. These projects as approved are fully
consistent with the SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement.
Appeal Item No. 12:. Inadequacy of Findings
In this paragraph, the appellants attempt to re-argue the policies, of the SOFA CAP by
putting a different spin on them, and alleging that findings of consistency should not be made.
This is no different than the earlier paragraphs alleging that these projects were inconsistent with
the SOFA CAP, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Development Agreement.. This paragraph
~AI_F~11595.1
02-032709427013
4
Mayor Eakins and City Councilmembers
March 27, 2001
adds nothing new to the appeal. In fact, appropriate findings were made, and there is substantial
evidence in the record of the hearings to support them.
In summary, we urge the Council to reject this attempt to revisit the policies of the SOFA
CAP and revisit the agreements made by the City in the adoption of the Development Agreement
and other entitlements. These appeals should be denied.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN
ANDREW L. FABER
E-Marl: alf@bediner.eom
ALF:cem
cc: Rick Wurzelbacher
Frank Benest
Ed Gawf
Ariel Calonne, Esq.
V~LFL511595.1
02-032709427013
5
Attachment D
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date:
To:
January 11,2001
Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
From:
Subject:
Chandler Lee, Planner Department: Planning
300 Homer Avenue, 00-ARB-113 - Application by SummerHill Homes
for major Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
(ARB/HRB) review and recommendation to the Director of Planning
and Community Environment to allow construction of 10 detached
¯ single family homes and 10 accessory units, surface parking and
related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: An
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
recommend to the Director of Planning and Community.. Environment approval of
construction of 10 detached single family homes and 10 accessory units, surface parking and
related site improven~ents, subject to the findings in Attachments B and C and the conditions
in Attachment D.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct 10 detached single family homes and 10 accessory
units, surface parking and related site improvements. The project would result in 20 housing
units yielding an overall density of 20 units per acre. The project would be located on the
southeastern comer of Block B of the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (PAMF).
The site consists of one parcel totaling 43,700 square feet or 1.00 acre on the block bounded
by Channing and Homer Avenues, Bryant and Waverley Streets. (.see Attachment A -
S :\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\sttmmerhi\bloekbmt’.arb Page 1
Location Map). The proposed building footprint of all 20 units would be 14,970 square feet
at grade resu.lting in a coverage of 34 percent. The proposed buildings would be setback 15
feet from Waverley Street and the Mews, six feet along the proposed public park to the north,
and 10 feet from Channing Avenue, except for the two garages adjacent to Channing Avenue
which require exceptions.
Parking would be located to the rear of each home with two covered spaces in each garage
and a third uncovered space adjacent to each garage. All parking spaces would be accessed
from a single, two-way private driveway that would be perpendicular to Channing Avenue.
Pedestrian access to the main homes would be provided from the primm-y entries at the front
¯ of each home with secondary access from the garages. The studio units would have a single
entry at the rear of the unenclosed parking spade. Transit access would. be provided from
existing bus stops on Channing and Homer Avenues and Ramona Street. Bicycle access
would be provided by an existing bike boulevard located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem, eclectic interpretation of the
Tudor Revival Style with some features of the English cottage style and some details of the
Craftsman style. The home designs are intended to complement the design character of the
adjacent single family neighborhoods. Building materials and features would vary and would
include: stucco and wood shingle exteriors in a variety of colors, sloping composition shingle
roofs, front porches, detached garages, divided light windows, and stone veneer foundations.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description (Attachment E) and plans for further details
regarding the project. Photographs, plans and a materials board will be presented at the
meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP).
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The project is consistent with the following policies:
Policy L-9: "E~hance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and
zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development."
Consistency Review: The project proposes a single family residential use which contributes
to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The project
S:\pl~n\pladiv\pamt’so~’a\summe rhi\blockbmL ~rb Page 2
contributes to a desirable neighborhood character by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk, front porches and landscaping) at ground level.
Policy H-2: "Consider a v~triety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriatelocations."
Consistency Review: The project includes 20 residential units that will increase opportunities
for scarce housing in the area.
Policy B-21: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the
Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses,
and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods."
Consistency Review: The project p~ovides 20 housing units close to Downtown services,
transit, and local serving retail uses.
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
The project is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP)
area. Staff review of the project with the SOFA CAP policies is as follows:
Policy L-2:"_Provide adequate open space through development of a new. neighborhood
park within the area currently occupied by PAMF facilities to serve the
neighborhood and downtown."
Consistency Review: The project is part of the former PAMF properties which collectively
contributed to the dedication of the two acre park to the City.
Policy L-8:"Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use development pattern of the
South of Forbst Area including residential uses, This mixed use development
shall include mutually compatible uses that provide both vitality and
convenience for residents, businesses and visitors."
Consistency Review: The project proposes a single family residential use which co~tributes
to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area. The project
contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian amenities
(improved sidewalk, front porches and landscaping) at ground level.
S:\plan\plad iv\pamt’sol’aksummerhi\blockbmt’, arb Page 3
Policy H-l:"Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area,
with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAM~ sites."
Consistency Review: The project provides 20 new housing units including ten single family
.homes and ten studio units.
Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
shouM be suitable for various ages, househoM sizes, lifestyles and incomes."
Consistency Review: The project provides ten single family homes and ten studio units of
varying sizes. The project, together with the remainder ofthe PAMF properties, have
contributed to the provision of affordable housing by contributing towards the City’s
acquisition of an affordable housing site in accordance with Program H:2 of the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Policy T-7:"Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level
parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and multiple family
residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from
adjacent roadways."
Consistency Review: The project proposes 30 parking spaces all of which would be served
from a private driveway and not visible from public streets.
PolicyDC-3: "Any new development ... shall consi’der the replacement of any "missing"
street trees at an interval of appro.ximately 20 to 25feet on center."
Consistency Re;dew: The project proposes ten new street trees which will be added to
existing street trees to provide a row of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
DISCUSSION
Project History
The site is currently occupied by the. parking lot for the former Lee Building that is now
vacant after PAMF relocated to its new facility on E1 Camino Real. The site comprises
approximately 22 percent of the entire block that was designated for detached houses on
small lots (DHS), attached multiple family (AMF) and punic facilities (PF) in the SOFA
CAP. The City Council approved these zoning designations for this site as well as for the
remainder of phase I of the SOFA area in March 2000. The City Council also approved a
development agreement with SummerHill Homes for this site that allows construction of
S :\plaa\pladiv\pam fsol’a\sumrnerhl\blockbm f.arb Page 4
single family uses and detached accessory units (studios) up to the maximum limits allowed
under the DHS d.esignation (0.65 FAR, 30 foot height at the peak of the roof of the main
home and 25 foot height at the peak of the roof of the accessoryunit). Since Council’s
approval, SummerHill Homes has submitted applications for Parcel Maps and certificates of
compliance to reeonfigure this block (Block B) as well as the other blocks formerly owned
by PA_M~.
The Architectural Review Board/Historic Kesources Board conducted a preliminary review
of the project on August 24, 2000. (See Attachment F: Minutes from ARB/HRB meeting of
August 24, 2000). The ARB/HRB generally supported the site planning; architecture, and
lan.dscape components of the project and were generally in favor of the project contingent
on several design revisions (discussed under Significant Issues, below) most of which the
applicant has.since incorporated into the revised plans dated September.29, 2000.
Site Description
The site is a rectangular shape and consists of a single parcel ’of land totaling 1.00 acres
(43,700 square, feet) with a 230 foot frontage along Channing Avenue and a 190 foot ~ontage
onWaverley Street. The site was recently occupied by a portion of the parking lot for the Lee
Building. The existing site slopes from the rear of the parcel to the two street frontages. The
site is surrounded by existing single family homes and a portion of Scott Park (across
Channing Avenue), single family residential (across Waverley Street), a portion of the former
PAMF parking lot that is proposed for a public park.(to the north) and the proposed .Mews
and 36 unit condominium project (to the west). The site is about 1,600 feet from the
University Avenue Business District.
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s, parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land.use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:SummerHill Homes
Owner:SummerHill Channing LLC
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
120-17-X1
Single Family Kesidential
S :\plan\pladiv\p amho~raksummerlfi\blorkbm f. arb Page 5
Zoning District:
Surrounding Land Use:
DHS .(Detached Houses on Small Lots)
North: Parking Lot/Proposed.Public Park
South: Existing Single Family Residential
East: Existing Single Family Residential
West: Proposed Mews and Multiple Family
Residential
Parcel Size:43,700 s.f. or 1.00 acres
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, architectural design, landscaping,
subdivision and SOFA CAP zoning compliance.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the homes and accessory units to be surrounded with
landscaped setbacks on all sides and served by entryways on Waverley Street (lots 1 through
5) and the Mews (lots 6 through 10). Both public frontages (~. averley Street and the Mews)
provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, porches and landscaping on the ground
floor and dormers, varied roof lines and chimneys on the upper floors that provide building
articulation. The proposed homes provide setbacks along both Waverley Street and the Mews
that provide a pedestrian-friendly experience along the punic right-of-way. All four
perimeter areas would be landscaped to protect adjacent uses arid.provide visual interest from
the street frontages and public areas.
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem, eclectic
interpretation of the Tudor Revival style with some features of the English Cottage style and
some details of the Craftsman style. The home designs are intended to complement the
design character of the adjacent single family neighborhoods. Building materials and features
would vary and would include: stucco and wood shingle exteriors, in a variety of colors,
sloping composition shingle roofs, front porches, detached garages, divided light windows,
and stone veneer foundations.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes perimeter landscape screening on all four sides
of the project as well as front yards with porches, lawns and landscaping along the two
frontages, Both the Waverley Street and Mews frontages feature at least one accent tree (plus
four canopy trees and two redwoods within the setback facing the Mews) and a variety of
plants, ground cover and a ~mall lawn within the 15 foot landscaped setback. The row of five
existing Zelkova and Magnolia street trees would be preserved along Channing Avenue
S:\plan\pladiv\panffso h\summerhi\blockbrnf.arb Page 6
within the public right-of-way. The Waverley Street frontage would feature three new
Shumard t~ed Oak street trees (Quercus Shumardii) to replace the three Liqidambar trees to
be removed. The interior setbacks between each home would be planted with a variety of
shrubs and ground cover and would provide pedestrian access from the front to the rear of
each lot. The rear setback of each home would be dedicated mostly to parking, stairways and
circulation interspersed with landscaping. A Landscape Concept Statement is included in the
attached Program Development Statement (Attachment E)
There are 13 existing trees on-site all of which would need to be removed. The applicant has
agreed to save the large Magnolia street tree in the sidewalk at the west edge of the driveway
that was previously .planned for removal by modifying the design and location of the
driveway entrance and the eastern garage adjacent to Charming Avenue. A total of 28 new
twenty four inch boxed trees are proposed on-site as replacements for those removed in
addition to the ten new street trees. An arborists’ report has been submitted as part of the
application and reviewed by the City’s arborists. Overall, the City’s arborists have determined
that the tree removal plan is acceptable and the new landscape and street tree theme would
be a positive replacement.
Subdivision: The project requires a subdivision map to divide the property into ten separate
parcels. Draft findings for approval of a subdivision are included as Attachment B.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing Detached Houses on Small Lots
(DHS) R.esidential District regulations established in the SOFA CAP.
S:\plzu\pladiv\pam fsol’a’~ummerhRblockbm f.arb Page 7
Project Comparison With SOFA CAP Development Standards - DHS District
Dwelling Units
Floor Area (sq.fr.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Daylight Plane
-sides
-rear
Setbacks
- Waverley St. (front)
- Alley (rear) "
- Interior Side:
- Street Side: Channing
Automobile Parking
Parking Location
- Front yard setback
- Side yard setback
home/garage separation
Proposed
10 homes +
10 studios
2,840 sfper lot
0.65:1
29’ 2" (Home)
23’ 10" (Studio)
-intrusions > 15’
-OK
Home (Studio)
15 feet 82 feet
43 feet 13 feet
6 feet 11 fedt
10 feet .3 feet
3 spaces
82 feet
3 feet
8 to 12 feet
DHS Zoning
20 units
2,840 sfper lot
0.65:1
30 feet (Home)
25 feet (Studio)
60 degrees @ 12’
-frOm property
line
-from setback line
Home (Studio)
15 feet 50 feet
20 feet 3 feet
6 feet 0 feet
.10 feet 10 feet
3 spaces
15 feet
6 feet
8 feet minimum
Comments
* minor intrusions into daylight planes allowed for chimneys, dormers, eaves, etc. not to exceed 15 lineal
feet of building length
The proposal meets all the development regulations of the DHS zoning district except for
side daylight planes for the main homes and accessory buildings (a!l lots) as well as
sideyard setbacks for parking spaces and garages/accessory units (lots one and Six). The
project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance.
S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsora\summerh~blockbmf.arb Page 8
Daylight Planes: The SOFA CAP establishes side and rear daylight plane regulations..The
side daylight planes are defined by a point 12 feet in height along each side lot line,
extending upward at a 60 degree angle into the site. Because the Waverley Street frontage
is narrower than the Channing frontage, the Zoning Ordinance defines the fi:ont of the project
as Waverley Street and the sides of the project as facing Channing Avenue and the public
park. The rear daylight plane is defined by a point 12 feet in height at the rear setback line
(in this case ten feet into the site from the property line bisecting th~ rear alley), extending
upward at a 60 degree angle into the site. These daylight planes are shown on the plans. The
project meets the SOFA requirements for the rear daylight plane because of the 13 foot rear
setback provided by the alley. Dormers on four of the main homes (lots 2, 4, 7 and 9) and
portions of all oft he second floor studios above the garages extend intothe side daylight
plane. Intrusions for dormers and similar architectural features are allowed under the SOFA
regulations provided that the horizontal length of all such features does not exceed a total of
15 feet on each side. The main home intrusions are limited to approximately 20 feet or five
feet greater than that allowed in the SOFA CAP. Removal of attic dormers on these homes
would reduce the intrusion by about four feet but w~uld still not meet the 15 foot standard.
The studio intrusions range from about ten to 22 feet because of the narrow interior side
setback (six feet) required on each side. Because the dormers .~erve to break up the building
mass of the main .homes and provide architectural interest, staff believes they should be
retained and that the intent of the SOFA regulations has been met for the main home
intrusions. The City Council specifically requested that studio units be included on this site,
as called for in the development agreement. Because the lots are narrow (38 feet) and within
the lot size range allowed by the SOFA CAP (2,.800 to 5,000 square feet), the accessory units
are desired by the City on these lots, and the intrusions do not affect the .light or privacy of
any existing homes, staff believes that the intent of the SOFA regulations has been mef for
the studio unit intrusions. The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions, in this case side
daylight plane intrusions, provided that fmdings can be made. Staff has prepared draft
findings for approval of this exception (see Attachment C).
Side yard setbacks: The two.garages adjacent to Channing Avenue intrude seven feet into the
ten foot side yard setback. Correspondingly, the parking stalls ivithin these two garages
intrude 3 feet into the ten foot setback. The intrusions are necessary to provide sufficient
parking stall width and pedestrian access for the tfiree parking spaces required by .the SOFA
CAP. Flattening out the garage/studio wall to move the structures further into the site would
compromise the appearance of the accessory units which are designed to reflect the
architectural design and building articulation of the main homes. Furthermore, the applicant
has revised the site plan to preserve the large Magnolia tree at the west end of the drive.way
curb cut at the request of staff. For thesereasons, staffbelieves that the intrusion into the side
S:\pl~n\pladiv\pamfso fa\sunm~crhi\bloe kbmr.arb Page 9
yard setback for these two units is justified. The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions,
in this case side setback intrusions, provided that findings can be made. Staffhas prepared
draft findings for approval of this exception (see Attachment C).
Below Market Rate Units
Mixed use projects are typically required to provide either: 1) I0 percent’ of total units as
Below Market Rate (BIvlR), or 2) pay an in-lieu housing fee for the commercial and
industrial floor area, whichever value is greater. The Development. Agreement that was
approved by the City Council in conjunction with the project stipulates that the dedication
by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing satisfies the project’s
BMR obligations.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES .-
Significant issues for this project relate to site planning, landscaping, and architectural
design.
Site Planning: The site plan calls for the two-story main homes to be located at the front of
each lot (facing Waverley Street and the Mews) and the garages/studio accessory buildings
at the rear of each lot. The proposed buildings would be setback 15 feet from Waverley
Street and the Mews, six feet along the proposed public park to the north, and 10 feet from
Charming Avenue, except for the two garages adjacent to Channing Avenue which require
exceptions. Pedestrian access to the main homes would be provided from the primary entries
at the front of each home with secondary access from the garages. The studio units would
have a single entry at the rear of the unenclosed parking space. Because of the provision of
the studio unit and the third required parking space, the front and rear yards are smaller than
most single family homes in the area. To address this issue, the applicant has revised the
plans to emphasize the front porches, Shift the building mass to the rear of the site and
redesign the privacy walls. The net effect of these revisions is to enhance visual interest at
the front of each lot and provide a more pedestrian scale along each frontage. ¯
Building Density, Mass and Height: Overall project density is about 20 units per acre which
translates to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.65 for each lot and for the entire project.The
building height ranges from 23’ 10" for the accessory buildings to 29’ 2" for the main homes.
All four facades are provided with ample building articulation. Visual interest is provided by
numerous dormers, windows, roof overhangs, chimneys, and porches. The FAR and mass
of the homes and accessory buildings exceed that of most single family homes in the vicinity.
However, they are within that allowed by the SOFA CAP and are specifically provided for
in the Development Agreement approved by the City Council for this. site.
$:\plan\pladiv\p~rai’so ra~summe rhi\blockbrn r. arb Page 10
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a
small landscaped front yard on each lot. At the meeting held on August 24, 2000, the
ARB/HRB requested additional details on the perimeter landscaping and the front yard
privacy wails, driveway landscaping, as well as a sun/shadow analysis. The landscape plans
have been revised.to address these issues as follows:
Perimeter Landscaping: The applicant has revised the plans to save the large Magnolia
street tree that was previously shown for removal. The Magnolia is located at the eastern
edge ot~ lot six in the public right-of-way. In order the save this tree, the applicant realigned
the driveway entrance to provide a rninimurn five foot buffer between the tree and the edge
of the driveway. This i change in the site plan will provide additional screening along the
Charmin.’ g Avenue frontage and will shift the location of the garage on lot one about four feet
to the east. This shift will maintain the minimum eight foot separation required by the SOFA
CAP between the main home and the garage.
The applicant has provided additional detail regarding the front yard landscaping,. Each front
yard will include individual gardens and textured paving, several of the yards will feature
arbors with vines and low walls or fences. The previous plans showed a continuous six foot
wall along the park and three foot walls along the street frontage and the Mews. The plans
have been revised to change the north wall (facing the park) to a four foot picket fence along
the driveway and provide a wall of alternating height and materials (masonry and greenery)
along the private yards. The Waverley Street and Mews frontages would be varied with some
open fi:ont yards, some low wall entries and some low picket fences. Also, front porches have
’ been added to lots 3, 5, 8 and 10 to better integrate theprivate and public spaces along the
perimeter of the site. The combination of street trees, low walls or open fences, landscaping
and porches will provide visual interest and pedestrian activity in keeping with the design
and scale of the existing streetscape. These revisions are explained in detail in the Landscape
Design Concept (Attachment E),
Driveway Landscaping: One of the concerns expressed at the ARB/H meeting was the
starkness of the driveway. In response, the applicant has revised the plans to provide cobbled
pavers over a sand base in the driveway. This would provide improved texture on the surface
and promote root growth 5or the trees located behind each garage. Vines have been added
to the arbors over the gm~ages to provide a greater sense of vegetation and not merely a
driveway. Landscaping in the rear yards has been enhanced to provide a layering of tree
canopies behind the garages. Fin~l.ly, tree guards would be provided to protect the trees in
the rear alley.
$:\pla~\pladiv\paml’so fa\summe rhi\blo~kbmt’.arb Page 11
Sun/Shadow Analysis: The applicant distributed a sun/shadow analysis at the meeting of
September-20, 200 for both the single family and multiple family buildings proposed on
Block B. The analysis illustrates the shadows cast by the buildings on the park, the Mews and
adjacent streets .in March, lune and December at various times of day. Photographs will be
available at the meeting.
overall, these revisions have improved the landscaping in and around the ten lots. However,
the density of the buildings (main home and a.ccessory units) on the site that is allowed by
the DHS zoning limits the amount of open space area on each lot. The size of the front yards
’ and the separation between eachhome are generally less than those found in existing homes
in the area. Given the site and regulatory .constraints, staff believes that the landscaping
provides an acceptable transition between existing single family parcels in the neighborhood
and the higher density condominium projects proposed nearby.
A final landscape plan and irrigation plan will be required as a condition of project approval.
Architectural Design: The building architecture would be traditional, with a modem, eclectic
interpretation of the Tudor Revival style with some features of the English cottage style and
some details of the Craftsman style. The home designs are intended to complement the
design character of the adjacent single family neighborhoods. Building materials and features
would vary and would include: stucco and wood shingle exteriors in a variety of colors,
sloping composition shingle roofs, front porches, detached garages, divided light windows,
and stone veneer foundations.
At the meeting held on August 24, 2000, the ARB/I-I1LB requested additional details on
sustainability/solar features, variety of home designs, and streetscape and sections that show
the interface between the homes and the public park, the Mews, and adjacent buildings. The
building plans have been revised to address these issues as follows:
Sustainability/Solar Features: The applicant has revised the plans to reorient the basement
courts for improved sun exposure. The plans also have addedfront porches on lots 8 and 10
that would provide sun shading on facades subject to the greatest sun exposure (the Mews).
Cobbled pavers over a sand base in the driveway would promote root growth and suatain the
life of the trees, located behind each garage. The applicant intends to incorporate additional
sustainability building materials and features in the home and site design and will submit
these "best practices" details with the building permit application. ¯
Page 12
S :\plaa\pladiv\p~ral’so fa~umme rhi\bloekbm f.arb
Variety of Home Designs: The applicant has added a fourth home/site plan Wpe to add
diversity to the range of home designs provided by the three plan types previously proposed.
The fourth home plan would be built on lots 3, 5, g-and 10 and would emphasize the front
porches and shift the building masd to the rear of the site. In addition, the applicant has
redesigned the privacy wall, as described above, to provide greater variety in height,
materials, and transparency along the home fi-ontages. The net effect of these revisions would
be create greater massing diversity and open up the visual access of the front yards to.
pedestrians walking along Waverley Street and the Mews.
Staff.has retained an architectural consultant (Origins Design Network) to critique the single
family home designs. The consultant concluded that the design of the main homes and
accessory units reflects an eclectic Tudor Revival style that is cohesivethroughout .the
project without being overly repetitive. The individual homes have balanced and interesting
massing that maintain clarity of composition and avoid a cluttered look. The streetscape
elements such as fences, arbors and landscaping enhance the look of the homes. In order to
ensure the architectural integrity of the buildings, the consultant recommends that additional
¯ detail be provided prior to building pen-nit approval on several building details and materials
including: window systems and details, the stucco finish, eaves, porches and wall caps, and
the color palette. The consultant recommends that windows should be recessed from the
exterior wall sufficient to create a shadow line (at least two inches), muntin patterns should.
be achieved with true or simulated divided lightes and wood or aluminum clad wood should
be used for window materials. Finally, the consultant recommends .more moderate or darker
color tones for the building exteriors to provide a stronger contrast with the proposed white,
light gray, and beige tones. These recommendations have been included as conditions of
project approval.
Street Interface: The applicant willprovide streetscape and section drawings at the meeting
that show the interface between the homes and the public park, the Mews, and adjacent
buildings.
Overall, these revisions have improved the architectural desig~ of the project. However, the
scale, mass and height of the proposed buildings .are greater than many of the older, existing
buildings in the area. The perceived mass and height have been softened in several ways by
.the design and layout of the individual homes, as described above. Each lot is 4,37.0 square
feet and buildings cover from 1,432 to 1,550 square feet of the lot (excluding porches and
stairs) resulting in a building coverage of 33 to 35 percent. Most of the site at ground level
along the two pedestrian streets (Waverley Street and Channing Avenue) and the Mews is
dedicated to private open space (porches and ~ont yards along the street), landscaping (a!ong
S:\plan\pladiv\pam fso fa\summ: rhi\bloekb mf.~rb Page 13
the perimeter of the site and the building edges), and walk-ways (through the front yard and
up. the stairs to the porches).
All building frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, porches;
landscaping and entryways on the ground floor and varied materials, window openings and
building articulation on the upper floors. The building design emphasizes pedestrian activity
by locating individual entries on both frontages (Waverley Street and the Mews.).
Based on the building plans and the proposed revisions, staff is recommending approval of
the project subject to the conditions in Attachment D.
An Architectural Concept Statement and a Landscape Design Concept Statement are
included in Attachment E.
CONDITIONS
Draft subdivision findings (Attachment B), exception findings
conditions of project approval (Attachment D) are attached.
(Attachment C’) and
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Notice of this ARB review of project requirements was provided by publication of the
agenda ina local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility
customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
NEXT STEPS
Following ARB/HRB review, the project is will be scheduled for Planning Commission and
City Council review of the subdivision map to divide the parcel into ten individual lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared
for the.SOFA CAP including the project. The ErR was reviewed and certified by the City
Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as-cu~ently proposed, has been reviewed in
comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the
current project is consistent with that evaluated in the ErR and therefore, no subsequent
environmental analysis is required. Copies of the ErR and the findings made by the City
Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the
Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval of Subdivision
Attachment C: Draft Findings for Approval of Exception to Side Daylight Plane (for all lots)
and side setbacks (for lots one and six)
Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Project Approval
Attachment E: Program Development Statement
Attachment F: Minutes from ARB/HRB meeting of August 24, 2000
Attachment G: Letter from Steve Reyna & Aysen Kutlu dated August 22, 2000
Revised Plans, dated September 29, 2000 (ARB/HRB Board members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Henry Chaikin, BAR Architects, i660 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109 "
Shari Yan Dorn, Melvin Lee Associates, 1650 Pacific Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94109
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alt.o, CA 94301
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
John.Lusardi, Current Planning Managk.
(S:\plan\pladiv\pamfsofaksummerhi\bloekbsf.arb)
S :\plan\pladiv\pam fsot’a~aammerh~bl~kbrrff, arb
Page 15
|
l
a
I
l
i
I
I
I
l Waverley St
ATTACHIvEENT A
I
High St
Alma St
I Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
March 2"/, 2000
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION FOR
SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE (ALL LOTS), SIDE SETBACK (LOTS 1 AND 6) AND
FRONT SETBACK (LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10)
300 HOMER AVENUE
Note: Revisions to dratt findings dated October 5, 2000 reflect revisions to the plans recommended
by the ARB/HRB on November 9, 2000.
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan and
that the objectives and goals of the Plan are substantially achieved; the project would be
consistent with the following SOFA CAP policies: Policy L-2: "Provide adequate open
space through development of a new neighborhood park within the area currently occupied
by PAMF facilities to serve the neighborhood and downtown" in that the project is part of
the former PAMF properties which collectively contributed to the dedication of the two acre
park to the City; Policy L-8: "Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use development
pattern of the South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed use development
shall include mutually compatible uses that provide both vitality and convenience for
residents, businesses and visitors" in that the p~oject proposes a single family residential use
which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area.
The project contributes to neighborhood vitality by including street trees and pedestrian
amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-l" "Provide up to
300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area, with residential use as the
predominant land use for the former PAMF site" in that the project provides 20 new housing
units; Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and
should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes" in that the
project provides 20 single family units of varying sizes. The project, together with the
remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the provision of affordable housing
by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of an affordable housing site in accordance
with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Policy T-7:
"Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking garages
by encouraging parking for mixed use and multiple family residential parking to be either
underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent roadways", in that the project proposes
30 parking spaces all of which would be at the rear of the site and not visible from public
streets; Policy DC-3: "Any new development.., shall Consider the replacement of any missing
street trees at an interval of approximately 20 to 25 feet on center" in that the project
proposes three new street trees which will be added to existing street trees to provide a row
of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet.
The exception is related to a minor feature that will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
o
safety, general welfare, or convenience in that. donners on the main homes are a minor
architectural feature that are specifically allowed to intrude into daylight planes in the SOFA
CAP (DHS development standards section 1.3(j) (2), and those portions of the accessory
units that intrude into the daylight plane comprise a small percentage of the total mass of the
building; the intrusion of the donners and portions of the accessory units are not detrimental
to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the donners and accessory
units generally would face into the site, would be only partially visible from public streets
and would not affect the light, air or privacy of any existing residential use; and that
intrusions into the front and side yards are specifically allowed by means of minor exceptions
in the SOFA CAP (section 4A.2), and those portions of the homes and accessory that intrude
into the front and sideyard setbacks comprise a small percentage of the total mass of the
building; the intrusion of the buildings are not detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare, or convenience in that the homes would face onto the Mews, would be only
partially visible from public streets and would not affect the light, air or privacy of any
existing residential use.
The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve
the neighborhood character of the project and preserve the existing or proposed architectural
style, in a manner that would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict application
of the development standards and/or design guidelines in that the design of the dormers and
the accessory units would enhance the appearance and design of the project by providing
building articulation and visual interest consistent with the goals and objectives of the SOFA
CAP and would preserve the architectural style of the building which would be traditional,
with a modem interpretation of the Tudor Revival style that is intended to complement the
design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood and that the intrusions into front
yards would enhance the.appearance and design of the project by providing larger rear yards
with more usable open space and visual interest consistent with the goals and objectives of
the SOFA CAP and would preserve the architectural style of the building which would be
traditional, with a modem interpretation of the Tudor Revival style that is intended to
complement the design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood..
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; the project would
be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-9: "Enhance
desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create
opportunities for new mixed use development" in that the project proposes a single family
residential use which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial
uses in the area and the project contributes to-a desirable neighborhood character by
including street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at
ground level; Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations" in that the project includes 20 residential units that will
increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-21: "Maintain uses in the
South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, allow for the
continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby
neighborhoods" in that the project provides 20 housing units close to Downtown services,
transit, and local serving retail uses.
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
300 HOMER AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approva!
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20),
in that the proposed subdivision is compatible with neighbori,,ng properties and consistent
with the SOFA CAP; the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan policies: Policy L-9: ’Enhance desirable characteristicsin mixed use areas. Use
the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use
development" in that the project proposes a single family residential use which
contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and commercial uses in the area
and the project contributes to a desirable neighborhood character by including street
trees and pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level;
PolicY H-2: ’Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity
in appropriate locations "in that the project includes 20 residential units that will
increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-21: ’TVIaintain uses in
the South of Forest Area (SOFA) "that complement the Downtown business district,
allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of
nearby neighborhoods" in that the. project provides 20 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit, and local serving retail uses.
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 20
residential units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible with
the scale of neighboring residential buildings;
.4.
The design of the condominium complex will not cause significant environmental impacts
in that potential environmental impacts have been mitigated by the measures contained in
the EIR prepared for the SOFA CAP and the project;
The design of the project will not result in serious public health problems, would not be
detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of
single-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings in the
neighborhood in that the project meets the development regulations and guidelines of the
SOFA CAP; and
o The design of the project will not conflict with public easements for access through the use
of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street and a private
alley for vehicular access .and utility service.
CONDITIONS FOR. SUBDIVISION
PRIOR TO SUBNIITTAL OF FINAL MAP
I.The subdividershall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,
Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map
and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed
and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map:
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s
jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and
Utility Department.
The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to determine all utility design
and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable facilities.
All new construction shallhave underground utility, telephone and cable service. The project
shall be limited to single service’laterals for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall
have separate electrical service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department
before the final map is recorded.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF TIIE FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with th~ City of Palo Alto. The
agreement shall be recorded with.the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site improvements,
including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public Works, and Planning
Departments. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of
guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney.
b)’ The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City for the
location and maintenance of required utilities. The required easements shall be shown
on the face of the final map.
The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on the site plan
and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans.
o .
In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Development Agreement that was approved by the City Council in conjunction with
the project stipulates that the dedication by PAMF of an option on .60 acres of land
for affordable housing satisfies the project’s BMR obligations.
¯ 6. The final parcel map shall be filed with the PlanriJng Division within four years of the approval
o
¸.
10.
of the tentative map.
The subdivider shall submit to Public Works Engineering one (1) permanent mylar with
reproducible set of"as built" drawings, for the work in the City right-of’way.
The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in the
improvement plan subm!ttal.
The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along the
project frontage of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street. The improvements shall meet the
City’s standard requirements and shall be to the City’s satisfaction.
(S :\plart\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\bloekbs f. fnd)
ATTACHMENT D
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
300 HOMER AVENUE (PAMF.BLOCK B .- DHS) 00-ARB-113
Note: Revisions to draft conditions dated October 5, 2000 are shown in bold face type and reflect
revisions to the plans recommended by the ARB/HRB on November 9, 2000.
General
The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated September 2.9~. 2000, except
as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be
printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the building permit application. The
revised plans shall reflect the following conditions:
a) The Magnolia tree (tree #86), located at the eastern edge of lot six in the public right-of-way, shall
be preserved by realigning the driveway entrance to provide a minimum five foot buffer between
the tree and the edge of the driveway.
b) The revised plans shall reflect a change in the north wall (facing the park) to a four foot picket
fence along the driveway and provide a wall of alternating height and materials (masonry and
greenery) along the private yards. Front porches shall be added to lots 3, 5, 8 and 10. The revised
plans shall provide cobbled pavers over a sand base in the driveway to promote root growth for the
trees located behind each garage. Vines shall be added to the arbors over the garages. Tree guards
shall be provided to protect the trees in the rear alley. The pedestrian gate at the north end of the
driveway shall be eliminated.
c) The row of five existing Zelkova and Magnolia trees shall be preserved along Channing Avenue
within the public right-of-way. The Waverley Street frontage shall feature three new Shumard Red
Oak street trees (Quercus Shumardii) to replace the three Liqidambar trees to be removed.
d) The revised plans shall include a fourth home plan that would be built on lots 3, 5, 8 and 10 and
would emphasize the front porches and shift the building mass to the rear of the site.
e) The specific mechanical units and their acoustical rating shall be selected to minimize the
protrusion of these units and to meet the City’s noise standards for residential areas.
f) The revised plans shall include additional detail prior to building permit approval on several
building details and materials including: window systems and details, the stucco finish, eaves,
porches and wall caps, and the color palette. Windows shall berecessed from the exterior wall
sufficient to create a shadow line (at least two inches), muntin patterns should be achieved with true
or simulated divided lights and wood or aluminum clad wood shall be used for window materials.
More moderate or darker color tones for the building exteriors shall be used to provide a stronger
contrast with the proposed white, light gray, and beige tones. These details shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Department prior to submittal of a building permit application.
g) The roof of each accessory unit shall be redesigned so as not to extend over the adjacent property
line. The location of one hour walls, exterior stairwells and protection of openings shall be approved
by the Building Division.
h) Total floor area on each lot shall not exceed an FAR of 0.65.
I) The rear alley between the two rows of homes shall be used reserved for automobile and
pedestrian circulation and shall not be obstructed within a minimum 20 foot wide driveway area
required for ingress, egress and on-site turning movements.
j) The applicant shall provide use easements that allow for use of sideyards by neighboring
owners and that effectively increase the amount of usable open space within the sideyards.
The applicant shall include in these easements provisions for maintenance of shared areas and
any retaining walls or other structures that cross property lines.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
Utilities Electric
2. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and
private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall
contact Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
o"The new electrical service for the project shall be underground.
The applicant shall provide electrical load sheet, a full. set of plans showing main and meter
location, switch board drawings and load breakdown for review and approval by the Utilities
Engineering Electrical Division. Depending on the load, a new padmount transformer may be
required and, if so, the¯ applicant shall dedicate a location and easements to accommodate the
transformer.
Public Works Operations
5. PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained.
All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan, shall be
protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the
City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications
to these-requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning
Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that
the tree fencing is in place before demolition and construction permit issuance unless otherwise
approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained:
ao All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences
are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to
a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the
entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the
entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The
fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection
of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be
done under the trees to be. protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard
Specification. detail #505).
b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival. ¯
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will
be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition
permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
Prior to Submittal of a Building Permit
Fire Department
8. The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that
include the following: a) Section 902 of the CFC requires 20 foot wide access roads to reach
within 150 feet of the building. The proposed EVA on the adjacent Mews shall be permanently
established by an easement; b) Additional contamination discovered during the closure of the
PAMF facilities shall be fully mitigated prior to covering with new construction; c) The homes
that face Waverley Street should have Waverley Street addresses. The homes that face the
Mews should have addresses that reflect the layout of the neighborhood (e.g., name the Mews
"Scott Place."); d) no portions of buildings, eaves, trellises or other structural features shall be
allowed to cross property lines,
Planning/Zoning
9.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings
for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
10.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the
curb must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division and Utility Marketing
Services Division..A Landscape Water Use statement, water use Calculations, a grading plan,
and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and
irrigation plans shall include:
a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public
street trees.
b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations.
c.Irrigation schedule and plan.
d.Fence locations.
Lighting plan with photometric data. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent
visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the
development. The lighting plan, photometric and specification sheets should be revised to
meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
go 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 Dia.gram #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 1-inch.
Trees Automatic irrigation shall beprovided 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. 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.
jo Trees Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow preventer is adequately obscured by
planting the appropriate size and type shrubbery, fitted with green wire cage, or painted
dark green to minimize visibility.
The Landscape Plan shall also address the following comments and changes:
a. The Alley way hardscape surface shall specify for Structural Soil for use as the base course
material to reduce long term maintenance repairs and promote healthy tree growth.
b. The accent trees in the Alley should be of an upright spreading nature due to the tight spatial
restraints. The planters for these trees are not uniform andshould be 4’ X 4’ minimum inside
dimension, with concrete border and a ring of color shrubs or Japanese Boxwood.
c. A detail of the surrounding wall and pickets should be provided.
d. The landscape strip in the right-of-way shall be planted and irrigated per direction by Public
Works Operations.
e. The following street trees shall be removed and replaced with 24 inch box trees planted according
to Public Works Detail #503.
Liquidambar B78 with Shumard Oak
Liquidambar B80 with Shumard Oak
Liquidambar B81 With Shumard Oak
f. The plant palette lists Sophora and Albizia genus. Both of these are extremely messy and should
be avoided for the constraints of this project.
g. The size of all trees.planted on site must be a 24 inch box minimum. Special feature areas, such
as the open areas may warrant larger specimens to enhance the landscape.
h. Approved Planting Soil Mix. The planting soil in the planter areas shall show a uniform soil mix
to a 24-inch depth. Prior to.planting, the contractor shall provide soils lab report to the City Arborist
verifying that the following soil mix has been delivered to the site,
1. Palo Alto Soil Mix by volume (pre-mix off site)
*65% sandy loam (mostly medium to coarsegrade)
*15% clay
*10% 1/4-inch fir bark
*10% volcanic rock
Fertilizer. Combine Osmocote 18-6-12 or equivalent at label rates per yard in the 12-inch area
surrounding each root ball:
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan. A Tree Protection and Preservation Plan for trees to be
retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and submitted for review and approval by
the Planning Arborist. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be retained in which no soft
disturbance is permitted shall be established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans,
including grading, utility and irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees. The plan
shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist inspections, pruning, protective fencing, grading
limitations and any other measures necessary to insure survival of the trees. Key elements of this
plan shall be printed on the Tree Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist contact
number.
11.A separate TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS sheet shall
accompany the plans submitted for building permit and referenced on all Civil drawings
(Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting
and Irrigation Plans. The Tree Protection and Preservation sheet shall contain the following
notes: Conditions of Approval listed below and a Tree Protection Report to be prepared by
Walt Bemus, Project Arborist. This sheet shall clearly show the tree protection zone,
indicating where the fencing will be placed and denote all trees to be retained and those to
be removed.
12.
13.
All utilities, both public and private, requiring trenching or boring shall be shown on the
landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities
and any landscape or trees to be retained. This shall include publicly owned trees within the
right-of-way.
Arborist Progress Report. The project arborist shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree
condition on a minimum of.four-week intervals. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt
of the progress report during the first week of each month until completion at fax # (650)
329-2154.
14.
15
Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the Building
Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place before demolition or
grading or building permit will be issued, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist.
Protective Tree Fencing: All street trees and on site trees to be retained, as shown on the
approved plans shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply.
Co
Type 1 Tree Protection. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with
five-foot high chain link fences enclosing the entire eanopy.dripline under the
trees. Each fence shall be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be
erected before construction begins and shall remain in place until final inspection,
except during work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the
¯ trees to be protected.
Type II Tree Protection. For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the
planting strip shall be enclosed with the required chain link protective fencing in
order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use.
Type III Tree Protection. Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter
pit, shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the
first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additionaI orange
plastic fencing (which shall not be allowed to dig into the bark). During installation
of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any branches. Major
scaffold limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the City Planning
Arborist.
do Signs: A ’Warning’ sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection
fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and shall state:
’PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING -This fence shall not be removed without
approval. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject to fine pursuant Section
8.10.110 of the PAMC.’
16.Prior to the installation of the required protective fencing, any necessary pruning work on
trees to remain shall be performed in accordance with the following:
All work on Protected Trees shall be donein a manner that preserves the tree structure
and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture (WC-ISA) Guidelines; Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations
outlined in the ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
Any work on trees within the right-of-way must first be approved by Public Works at
(650) 496-6974.
17. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
18.
19.
The project shall provide for trash and recycling to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto
Recycling Division and Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The
applicant shall submit and implement a solid waste management and recycling plan, waste
management report for contractors and adherence to permit conditions, as stipulated in City
guidelines. The applicant shall r~-,-ovide PASCO with unrestricted access to recycling and trash
areas. The applicant shall cons:.,;t with PASCO on service requirements for the underground
location. The trash/recycling enclosure should open full width from the center of the enclosure
so that bins can be easily serviced. The applicant shall recycle construction materials to the
maximum extent feasible per City of Palo Alto guidelines. The project assumes individual
garbage service, therefore recycling would qualify as single family recycling with four crates
to be placed at the curb. If garbage service is shared, enclosures for trash and recycling would
be required per City standards.
In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project
has been determined to meet the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement by dedicating
an option on .60 acres of land for affordable housing per the Development Agreement for the
project.
Public Works Engineering
20.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works. Engineering,
including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate
that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
21.The proposed deveiopment will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The
applicant shall provide calculations Showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the
final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
22.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division
if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
23.The applicant shall submit a construction logistics-plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan
shall address, at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the
provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck rotites
shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48,
and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo
Alto.
24. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works
Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
25.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction.
26.A detailed site specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table
and basement construction issues.
27.
28.
In addition to the standard preliminary grading, drainage, and storm water pollution plan
(SWPPP) condition, the applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering and Operations
to discuss the use of materials such as permeable pavers, special sidewalk and street treatments,
oil/water separators, and other items proposed and required for this project.
Deleted
29.Handicap ramps shall be installed at the comers of Channing and Bryant, Channing and
Waverley, Homer and Waverley,.and Homer imd Bryant, and shall conform to Public Works
Engineering standards.
30.All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter according to Public
Works Engineering standards.
31. The applicant shall slurry seal Channing Avenue as part of this development.
32. Deleted
33.The developer/applicant is required to apply for and receive approval of a Tentative Map for
subdivision into 10 individual parcels prior to submittal of a building permit.
34.The applicant shall submit improvement plans and construct the two landscape bulbouts on
Channing Avenue adjacent to the Mews. The applicant shall consult with the Public Works
Department to identify an appropriate arrangement for maintaining the bulbouts within the
public right-of-way.
Transportation
35.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080,
applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. All
landscaping at the driveway exist behind the sidewalk or in the planting strip must be planted
with groundcover or shrubs with a maximum untrimmed growth height not exceeding 2.5 feet
above the level of the driveway (trees excepted). A statement to this effect must be included on
the plans and landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these
height requirements. No berming or signs will be permitted in this area. The applicant is
responsible for constructing the mid-block crosswalk, including signage, and associated
landscaping in the bulbout.
36.Bicycle parking facilities (make and model) must be specified on the plans and be chosen from
the City’s list of acceptable facilities.
Utilities Electric
37.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall
be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur
between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects
the building design and setback requirements~
38. The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Michael Blodgett
dated August 7, 2000 (attached).
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
39.The applicant shal! meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland Ekstrand
dated August 11, 2000 (attached).
Building Inspection
The applicant shall submit to the Building Inspection Division:. 1) calculations showing
allowable floor area, type of construction and occupancy pursuant to the UBC, 2) detailed
design of the residential traits pursuant to the UBC, and 3) fireplaces shall not be wood burning.
During Construction
Utilities Electric
41.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
42. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
43.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public
Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
Planning/Zoning
44.All street trees shall receive monthly watering, a written log of each application shall be kept
updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist
before final sign off is approved.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PAMFSOFA\SUMMERHI\BLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 10 of 12
45.
46.
47.
Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public fight-of way, that overhang the
site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Arborist.
The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned trees
that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code.
The following tree preservation measures apply to all existing trees that are to be retained:
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree
enclosure area.
b.The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
Co
d°
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival:
All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering during all phases of
construction. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The
City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is
requested.
Police
48.All non-residential construction acti’~ities shall be subject to ttib requirements of the City’s Noise
Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and
that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Frid~iy
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
Public Works Engineering
49.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary.
Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall
be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’s expense.
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PAMFSOFA\SUMMERHILBLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 11 of 12
50.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any
work performed in the public right-of-way.
51 No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior
approval of Public Works Engineering.
52.The developer shall require its contractor to.incorporate best manag’ement practices (BMP’s) for
storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa
Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution.Control Program. The Inspection Services Division
shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property;
and.the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s
construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm
drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo
near all drainage inlets.
53.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
54.The applicant shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland Ekstrand
dated August 11, 2000 (attached).
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
55.
56.
The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for
inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the
approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been
tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy.
The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect
has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning
as specified in the approved plans.
Public Works Engineering
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PAMFSOFA\SUMMERHI\BLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 12 of 12
57.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in
compliance with Public Works approved standards.
58.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this
permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
After Construction
Public Works Water Quality Control
59.No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water,
air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning washwater) shall be discharged to the storm drain
system, the street or gutter.
Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater
60.The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or
extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before
making any such change.
61.Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall
specify an in line loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third
of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other
shrubbery and grotmd cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City
of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
Planning/Zoning
62.Maintenance. The applicant shall include in the CC & Rs for the project that, for the life of
the project, each property owner shall ensure that all landscaping be well-maintained,
watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American national Standards for
Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance- Standard Practices (ANSI A300-1995).
Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the
current property owner within 30 days of discovery. The City shall approve the CC & Rs
prior to occupancy of the buildings.
(S :\PLAN\PLADIV\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbsf.cn2, )
S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PAMFSOFA\SUMMERHI\BLOCKBMF.CND.doc Page 13 of 12
Project Narrative
Block B
DHS- Single Family
TOTAL UNITS:. 10
( 10 Three bedroom single family homes;
10 Accessory units over detached garages)
z/3 /oo
The site design fronts five of the homes have front onto
Wavefley.Street and five on. the mews between the DHS. development
and the adjacent AMF parcel. Garage access is provided via a shared
drive perpendicular to Channing Avenue. The lots are approximately 38’
w£de by 115’ deep. Home frontages are unobstructed by driveway cuts
or unsightly garage doors.
There are three basic plantypes, with additional variations of
exterior massing and detailing. The houses are vernacuJar in style with
various traditional exterior material treatments.. The architecture is
intended to be .highly compatible with, but not similar to the adjacent
Block B AMF proposal. The variation in material ranges from stucco to
wood shingle, recall the design, character of the ."Professorville’"
neighborhood. Sloping roofs, front porches, detached garages, and
divided light windows help define this style. The foundations and .water
tables will be stone, veneered, giving the homes a solid, t#aditional
grounding. The colors of the exteriors vary in order to create visual
diversity and promote the eclectic character of the setting.
The homes are typically three-bedroom, including a master
suite, formal living and dining rooms, and a family room. The carriage
house consist~ of a studio over a two-car garage. The plans include
finished, basements which gather light and yard access through small
sunken garden areas to the side or rear of the house. The organization of
the gardens, house and garage form a highly integrated design package
that will be fully landscaped with stone pavers, walls and other hardscape
treatments intended to functionally knit between elements..
~_ The SOFA Coordinated Area Plan approved by City Council
in March, 2000 set forth development standards and design guidel!nes
governing this project. This project iS designed to cqmply with the
standards established.in this document. The lots qualify for a maximum
FAR of .65:1 based on the inclusion of an accessory unit in the program for
each home. City Council specifically required inolusion of the accessory
units in this project as well. Set backs are a minimum of 15’ to the front, six
feet along each side, 20.’ in the rear to the main house. The garage
setbacks are also in conformance. Parking requirements of three spaces
per lot have been met. Building heightis in conformance with the CAP
development standards with 30’ maximum allowed.
The DHS design guidelines strongly encourage
architectural styles to be similar and compatible with the historical
heritage of the .SOFA area. The surrounding architecture is very
eclectic, with a multitude of styles reflecting periods spanning from the
mid 1800’s through the 1940’s. The Arts and Crafts. period was highly
expressive and well established in Professorville. The vernacular expression
of these designs picks up on some craftsman detailing as subtle link t6 the
other projects in the PAMF collection. The ]tyling is not overt or cliche, in its
appearanc.e. The variety of materials, colors and soft roof forms combine
easily with more classical arches, window shapes and trim details. The
result is a Consis.tently traditional .expression, which is non-specific in its
historical reference.
Other fec~.ures of the design which respond to the guidelines are as
follows:
Porches or stoops are recommended facing the front.
Freestanding detached garages should be located to the rear
of the primary residence.
Maintain existing front setback patterns.
Encourage’ shared dri~,eways.
Fences and walls .should be compatible with the primary
residence..
All window within a building should be related in operating type,
proportions and trim.
Roof forms should complement building mass and style using
pitched roofs, dormers, chimneys and traditional residential
forms.
SOFA I ARB/HRB Meeting
Minutes
Thursday, August 24, 2000
2:00 PM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ARB/HRB Board Members:
Joseph Bellomo
Roger Kohler
Michael Maldnen
Drew Maran
Carol Murden
Robert Peterson, Chair
Staff:
Ed Gawf, Director
John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official
Chandler Lee, Planner
Bhavna Mistry, Planning Technician
Diana Tamale, Office Specialist
The meeting consisted of a presentation from SummerHill Homes and Premier Properties
for the South of Forest Area Phase I area.
¯Why is podium 2 feet above grade, because 18 inch slope down from center.of site to
Channing Avenue and Bryant Street.
¯Balcony projections are 6-7 feet..
¯Courtyard landscape- needs larger planter area with trellis.
¯Need to protect and enhance Oak tree.
DHS Homes are sympathetic-to but, not same as Block B condominiums.
Bellomo: Relation of AMF and DHS to park; landscaping within DHS driveway cobble
paver and vines on arbors over garages and canopy trees behind garage hammerheads for
turnaround at end of DHS driveway.
B ellotno: Basis for derivative architecture = rej coted Spanish
Maran: Height difference of condominiums (30-45 feet) vs. single-family (25-30 feet) -
shading studies (minimal shading. Next time bring material boards for AMF and DHS
and Detailed elevation for DHS.
iMakinen: Garage - turnaround radius.~ backup meets code.
Bellomo: Fences along park (open); low wails around homes (3 feet) - balconies - some
are recessed and will recess more, but need to meet SOFA open space requirements.
Murden: 5 color groups - only 2 are same, 6 are stucco plus 4 are wood "--) mixed
chimney are rubble stone or wood/stucco siding for DHS; shingle and brick for AMF
raised single-family entries (+/- 3 feet) create sense of privacy.
Peterson: Exposure to sun from park. Need elevation comparison for AMF and DHS to
existing single-family. Why not wood shingle roofs?
Maran: What steps to have sustainable design, e.g. solar orientation (HVAC), materials
(recycled), new materials from sustainable sources.
Public Comment
Steve Reyna: Pressure existing character of neighborhood- 2-story garages are not
therefore put studio unit on ground floor (357-411 square foot studios). 3 foot fences on
Channing and garages within 3 feet of Channing are safety hazard.
Pria Graves (2130 Yale): Garage entry on Bryant conflicts with Bike Boulevard..Wood
chimneys are unsafe and non-conforming. Massive appearance, no individual building .
like Birge-Clarke on Kamona. Studious are monsters.
DavidBubenik (420 Homer): Granny units not currently in neighborhood. Wants
reproductions of existing style.
Rubenstein (501 Kingsley): Buildings overwhelm park therefore need screening. How
will park uses be located near AMF patios without impact? Therefore need buffer or
hedge. -
Elaine Meyer (601 Kingsley): Park frontage on Homer is ur~usual (wants more like
~Iolmson Park) need to separate with buffer and double parking.
Lynne Ciapella: AMF and DHS are too dense; too tight fortress in DHS driveway.
Comments
¯Status of park ¯
¯DHS are discretionary review and are SOFA Neighborhood Compatibility
Guidelines.
Bellomo: Buildings don’t respond to sun (turnaround plans) e.g. Need rooflines that
protect from sun on the west edge landscaping iskey. Minimize granny unit -
neighborhood. Acoustical and shade analysis. How to transition from public to private
spaces.
Maran: Need overview and purpose of project at beginning of each meeting to illustrate
holistic approach and visitor of park. Disagree with SOFA Plan --> don’t.have to have
granny units. ]~nvironmental issues: Kesources, sustainability, should be included earlier
on.
Makinen: Higher density than existing. Heed to dimirkish reliance on cars and parking.
Murden: Variety of single faraily homes. Need more so doesn’t like subdivision. Granny
units can be one or two story. 2-story is okay on Block B but not on D, E, .and F.
Peterson:Need streetscape and sections of existing and proposed of buildings and variety
of new buildings. Orientation of living unit are key and need to be addressed. Materials
need to be use in an authentic manner (don’t tack wood onto chimneys). Historic roots of
neighborhood (opposed to derivative styles). Need to solve structures, use orientation.
Then materials and style emerge (downtown Philadelphia- IM Pei).
August 22, 2000
Dear Board Members,
The Policy Frmnework adopted by the City Council on Septernbei" 22, 1997 states in its first
paragTaph that the objective of the SOFA CAP is to "promote high quality desi~ and
construction that preserves and continues the existing character of the area, including the scale
of development .... "
Looking at the designs the developer is proposing for DHS designated lots, it i’s not hard to
see that this Policy Framework is not being followed. Two-story garage/gr~umy unit
combinations are not con’lpatible with the existing character and are new to tl’tis neighborhood.
There is an allowance for detached gramty traits next to the garages in DHS, and such
structures would fit the neighborhood much better.
DHS was intended to provi~le more housing, not bigger housing. With the zoning standard as
its written, there is an incentive to add a granny unit simply to grow. the main house. The
proposed plans seern to contain grmmy units only to take advantage of the 0.65 FAR to build
oversized homes instead of a reasonable size home wifla a reasonable sized granny urtit.
The DHS stmadard seerns to be incomplete in a few ways:
It does not specify what percentage of the FAR. is to be used by the granny
unit and what percentage by the main structure. This leads to designs of
’monster homes’ with tiny grmmy units as mentioned above.
DHS does not take into account transition issues between low density and high
density zoning. With DHS allowing a.greater maximum height, no interior
setback, and a much more liberal. Daylight Plane Envelope for ancilh’u’y
buih:lings ( 12 ft. high at the property line with a 60° slope to a 25 ft. maximum
versus 8 ft. high at the property line with a I It. rise per 3 ft. horizontal travel
to a 12 ft. maximum in R.I zoning), the two-story ’garages’ would tower over
adjacent one-story homes, blocking their light, and intruding on their privacy
(e.g. Lot E)..
The resulting implementation o1:" DHS is neither han’noniotm nor is it enhancing the living
conditions or the visual environment of the neighborhood. It does not continue the existing
character of the area, quite the opposite. This board is the very entity tl’mt should be con’ect~ng
the architectural anomalies resultidg i:rom oversight in flow the DHS was written: We urge
you to do what is needed here and correct these anomalies.
Sincerely,
Steve Reyna Aysen Kutlu ~
840 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, 94301
October 13, 2000
Joint Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board
City of Palo Alto
250 W. Hamilton Avenue.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Board Members,
As you all pointed out in the preliminary review, there are a number of issues with
the projects otherwise known as Block A & B AMF, and the Block B DHS, in
terms of neighborhoodcompatability, originality of desig’n, and sustainability
features.
Section D of the Development Agreement discusses various features contained in
the SOFA CAP. Subsection-D-12 identifies some of them as: ,’All necessary
parcel, architectural review, historic and other approvals need to implement the
SOFA CAP." The developer is deafly bound to meet the conditions as specified by
the SOFA CAP. The City Council has entered into a Development A~eement
which specifies a variety of things about the SOFA I program. It does not,
however, require that the City Staff or its Commissions accept plans that don’t meet
the zoning standards or satisfy neighborhood comparability requirements, both of
which are contained in the CAP.
Since the applications are nearing a vote, it is important that these issues be
considered and hopefully addressed when it comes time to vote these projects up or
down in their current form.
We’d like to bring some of our concerns to your attention:
Block A AMF
~t~, ,~,~,i,,et d,’awin~,s show an Emergency Vehicle Access easement being proposed for.a
"~’~;,~n ~f the driveway o~f the’historic Williams House next door. W. hy is th!s here?
~;’l~’~’~i~er’~’~ry bad preceden(is being established. If this easement is reqmred for the
AMF development to satisfy a fire safety code, why isn’t this being taken care of on the lot
actually being developed? Why is the safety requirement being placed on someone else’s
property?. The consequence of this is not only to allow a lot to be overdeveloped but, in this
case, it is also using public land for private gain.
There is nothing in the Development Agreement that forces a 1.5 FAR in violation of any city
code. "
The AMF building is, of course, oversized for the neighborhood. It’s a possible 1.5 FAR
structure in a neighborhood with at most 1.0 FAR buildings present, and most of the
neighborhood much smaller than that. But to allow a building to ~ow oversized by allowing
its fire safety responsibilities to be placed on to another property is not fight.
An additional issue is the preservation of the historic hedge forming the border between the
Williams House and the AMF development. The driveway access to the underground AMF
parking comes within 5 feet of the hedge. The roots are potentially threatened. Also, if the
Emergency Vehicle easement is actually created, there will come the day when a firetruek willneed to use the Williams House driveway. When that day comes, the historic hed_ge will be..:-
between the firemen and the fire.
This conflict between safety and historic preservation should never be allowed to exist,
especially when it’s a questionable easement in the first place.
2. Block B AMF
Like the Bl~ek A AMF, this building is also too big for the neighborhood. Standing as it is,
right on the border of the public park land, this mass will additionally dominate over whatever
open space might be available for park visitors.
For this structure, then, to be allowed Violations of the daylight plane on the park side just
makes a bad situation worse. What will be in shadow is the public park land. The building is.
apparently in violation of the daylight plane because it is being built right up to the 10’ side
setback (plus porch intrusions to within four feet of the park itself). But, aren’t all the zoning
regulations supposed to be met, not just some of them? The 10’ side setback is not supposed
to overrule the daylight plane requirement. It would be a simple thing to shrink the building ¯
down a bit and have a clean set of plans. Even if the City Council asked for more housing,
they didn’t require it to be provided with 2300 square foot condominiums.
There is supposed to be a park on this block some day. It should be a park, not the common
grounds of a condo complex.
3. BlockB DHS
As it is pointed out several times in the staff reports, the scale, mass, and height of these
houses are greater than what is present in the nei~borhood. -In addition to that, all granny
units and four of the main homes intrude into the side daylight plane. The side setbacks are
also violated by the two structures on the Channing side. ~
There have been some modifications to the driveway exit onto Channing. The question
remains, though, has it achieved its purpose? Or, are big and small pedestrians still at
substantial risk? Considering that there is still a 23 foot tall garage within 3 feet of the sidewalk
on the one side, and a 6’6" high wall within 3 feet on the other side, the answer is still yes.
Things have moved, but the objective has not yet been ae.hieved.
There is a simple solution to these issues that can be achieved.by staying within the guidelines
and zoning standards of the SOFA CAP: Reduce the size of the main houses.
The 0.65 FAR is the maximum allowed, not the FAR required. With the basements included,
all of the main houses in the proposed development are about 3000 sq.ft. Why can’t there be a
variety of sizes ranging between 1500-2500 sq. ft.? These are desirable home sizes, too.
The reduction in size would eliminate issuing exceptions and achieve the following:
(a) The size and massing of the homes will be more compatible with the existing homes in
. the neighborhood.
(b)There will be more yard, and more open space for each home which will make them
more desirable to the homeowner, more visually pleasing to the pedestrian, and more
compatible with the neighborhood.
(c)The daylight plane intrusions can be mostly dealt with without issuing exceptions to the
DHS zoning.
(d) The setback violations can be dealt with without issuing exceptions to DHS zoning.
(e)If the sizes of the homes are different, a better variety will be achieved than just by style
differences.
If the application does not meet the necessary requirements, and it’s obvious that th.e.se proposals
have numerous serious issues with them, then you have the fight to refuse them until the applicant
presents a satisfactory set of plans. It is the applicant’s responsibility to present an acceptable set
of, plans.
With that in mind, we urge you to hold the applicant accountable to providing a full and complete
proposal that meets all the necessary architectural and compatibility requirements. We hope you
will insure that when a project does get approval, that it be one that enhances and adds to the
community and not be one that stretches the limits of the rules for the advantage of those who don’t
and won’t be living there.
Thank you for your consideration.
With our regards,
Steve Reyna
840 Kipling Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Aysen Kutlu
Attachment. J
Memorandum
Date:
To:
September 18, 2000
John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Department of Planning and Community Environment
FAX 650.329.2154
From:
Subject:
ORIGINS DESIGN NETWORK
Alexandra Martynetz and Arnold Mammarella, Principals
TEL 510.743.4332, FAX 510.444.0434
Architectural Analysis of SumlnerHili Homes
BLOCK B Proposal (35l Channing Ave.)
Application: 00-ARB-113
ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
At the request of Chandler Lee, AICP, we have reviewed SummerHill Homes proposed single:family
project titled "Block B". The analysis focused on the quality and coherence of the architectural design of
the structures. It is understood that while no specific architectural style was required, the design should
fit into the historic neighborhood context through the use of building forms, materials, and detailing
inspired by a histoi-ic architectural tradition and befitting Palo Alto’s historic neighborhoods.
In reviewing the plans, our impression is that the composition of.f0rms and elevations, ’and the use of
materials mostly reflect an eclectic Tudor Revival intention, with English Cottage style features and
some Craftsman details. While a few elements, such as a Palladiah window are thrown in--probably for
the sake of variety--the overall architecture is cohesive throughout the development without being
overly repetitive. The individual houses have balanced and interesting massing that maintain
compositional Clarity and avoid a cluttered look often seen with gratuitous use of traditional architectural
forms. Given the lot size and intensity of development, the designers have done as well as could be
expected in their architectural response. In addition, the streetscape elements such as fences, arbors, and
landscaping embellish the look of the houses. The only real shortcoming of the design is the lack of a
reasonably serviceable exterior court or yard.
While the overall design presents well, there is some concern whether the materials and detailing will be
sufficient to .implement the architectural imagery. Clarification on the window system-and window
details, the stucco finish, key details such as eaves, porches, and wall cap.s, and the color palette are
suggested prior to final approval or as donditions of approval. ~The window system and detailing is of
particular concern. Windows.should be recessed from the exterior wall sufficient to create a shadow line
(i.e. at least 2 inches) and muntin patterns should be achieved with true or simulated divided lites. Also
wood or aluminum clad wood windows are strongly preferred to vinyl or aluminum windows, and the
use of light colors such as white or beige should be carefully review. A concern exists with the extent of
light colors and their effect on perceived bulk--the drawings seem to indicate, a fair amount of white and
light grey colors. White trim and windows stand out more than darker or more miated colors. Against
stained wood shingles, the white windows may look authentic and have enough contrast, but less so
against stucco, particularly light colored stucco. A color and material board is recommended for review,
but the general suggestion is to encourage more moderate or darker tones with strong contrasts than
whites, light grays, beiges, or similar colors. -"
cc:Chandler W. Lee, AICP, FAX 415.282.9816
.Attachment K
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A MAJOR EXCEPTION FOR
SIDE DAYLIGHT PLANE (ALL LOTS), SIDE SETBACK (LOTS 1 AND 6) AND
FRONT SETBACK (LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10)
300 HOMER AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
and that the objectives and goals of the Plan are substantially achieved; the project would be
consistent with the following SOFA CAP policies: Policy L-2: "Provide adequate open
space throughdevelopment of a new neighborhood park within the area currently occupied
by PAMFfacilities to serve the neighborhood and downtown" in that the project is part of
the former PAMF properties which collectively contributed to the dedication of the two
acre park to the City; Policy L-8: "Preserve and enhance the historically mixed use
development pattern of the South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed use
development shall include mutually compatible .uses that provide both vitality and
convenience for residents, businesses and visitors" in that the project proposes a single
family residential use which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office and
commercial uses in the area. The project contributes to neighborhood vitality by including
street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and landscaping) at ground level;
Policy H-l: "Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area,
with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF site" in that the
project provides 20 new housing units; Policy H-6: "Housing types in theplan area should
include a range of densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizesl
lifestyles and incomes’ in that the project provides 20 single family-units of varying sizes.
The project, together with the remainder of the PAMF properties, have contributed to the
provision of affordable housing by contributing towards the City’s acquisition of an
affordable housing site in accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan; Policy T-7: "Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking
and street level parking garages by encouraging parkingfor mixed use and multiple family
residential parking to be either underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent
roadways" in that the project proposes 30 parking spaces all of which would be at the rear
of the site and not visible from public streets; Policy DC-3: "Any new development ... shall
consider the replacement of any missing street trees at an interval of approximately 20 to
25feet on center" in that the project proposes three new street trees which will be added to
existing street trees to provide a row of street trees at intervals of approximately 25 feet; and
Policy DC-19: "Promote quality design as defined by style, detail massing, materials, etc. "’
in that the project proposes a traditional design that is compatible with surrounding
buildings,, rich in details, articulated in massing, and high quality in building materials.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to th~
property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district in that the
lots are laid out perpendicular to Channing Avenue thereby creating a lotting pattern that
creates five lots fi:onting on a privately owned and maintained public access easement (the
Mews). This lotting pattern is established in the development agreement for the propertyl
Unlike typical homes facing a public street, these homes would face onto. the Mews which
provides a 40 foot wide landscaped pedestrian area. The design and layout of the Mews
provides a pedestrian-oriented area of walkways, trees, lawn and landscaping that can better
absorb the narrow front yard setback of the adjacent homes compared with a typical ten foot
sidewalk/landscaped strip on a public street. The visual effect of the smaller setbacks would
be reduced by the wider area and more extensive landscaping provided by the Mews. The
smaller setbacks would be only partially visible from the nearest public street as the homes
are oriented perpendicular to Channing Avenue. These conditions are exceptional in this
district.
The granting of the exception will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the. public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience in that:
a. Daylight plane: Dormers on the main homes.are a minor architectural feature that are specifically
allowed to intrude into daylight planes in the SOFA CAP (DHS development standards section
1.3(j) (2)~ and those portions of the accessory units that intrude into the daylight plane comprise a
small percentage of the total mass of the building; the intrusion of the dormers and portions of the
accessory units are not detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in
that the dormers and accessory units generally would face into the site, would be only partially
visible from public streets and would not affect thelight, air or privacy of any existing residential
use;
b. Side yard setbacks: Intrusions intothe side yards are necessary to provide sufficient parking stall
width and pedestrian access for the three parking spaces required by the SOFA CAP on each lot.
Moving the garage/studio wall 5.5 feet further into the site would intrude into the width of the
parking spaces inside the garage. The .current location of these two garage/accessory units is
required in order to protect the Magnolia tree at the west end of the driveway curb cut. Those
portions of the accessory units that intrude into the front and sideyard setbacks comprise a small
percentage of the total mass of the building. The two porches that intrude into the Channing
Avenue side yard setback are desirabl6 urban design features because they face Channing Avenue
and fulfill the intent of AMF Design Guideline 4.2 (d). The intrusion of the buildings are not
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the intrusion of
accessory units and porches would not affect the light, air or privacy of any existing residential use
and would provide all required parking to be on-site and not on a public street; and
c. Front yard setbacks: The intrusion of the homes into the front yard setback is not detrimental to
the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the homes would face onto the
Mews (as described in finding 2), would be only partially visible from public streets, would not
affect the light, air or privacy of any existing residential use and would enhance the usable open
space areas to the rear of the proposed homes.
The granting of the exception will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or
improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve the existing or proposed
architectural style, in a manner that would not Otherwise be accomplished through the strict
application of the development standards and/or design guidelines in that the design of the
dormers and the accessory units would enhance the appearance and design of the project by
providing building articulation and visual interest consistent with the goals and objectives of
the SOFA CAP and would preserve the architectural style of the building which would be
traditional, with a modem interpretation of the Tudor Revival style that is intended to
complement the design character of the adjacent Professorville neighborhood and that the
intrusions into front yards would enhance the appearance and design of the project by
¯ providing larger rear yards with more usable open space and visual interest consistent with
the goals and objectives of the SOFA CAP and would preserve the architectural style of the
building which would be traditional, with a modem interpretation of the. Tudor Revival
style that is intended to complement the design character of the adjacent Professorville
neighborhood..
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; the project
would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-9:
"Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning
process to create opportunities for new mixed use development" in that the project proposes
a single family residential use which contributes to the mix of existing residential, office
and commercial uses in the area and the project contributes to a desirable neighborhood
character by including street trees and pedestrian amenities (improved sidewalk and
landscaping) at ground level; Policy H-2: "Consider a variety of strategies to increase
housing density and diversity in appropriate locations" in that the project includes 20
residential units that will increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area; Policy B-21:
"Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown
business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve
the needs of nearby neighborhoods" in that the project provides 20 housing units close to
Downtown services, transit,, and local serving retail uses.
(S :plan\pladiv\pamfsofa\summerhi\blockbsf. fn4)