HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-09 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
4
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 9, 2001 CMR:302:01
300 HOMER AVENUE: REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION BY
SUMMERHILL HOMES FOR A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE
A 43,700 SQUARE FOOT (1.00 ACRE) PARCEL INTO 10 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES,
00-SUB-08
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached tentative map based on the
attached findings (Attachment A) and conditions (Attachment B).
PROJECT DESCRIFFION
On February 1, 2001, the applicant submitted an application for a tentative map to subdivide
the existing 1.00-acre parcel at 300 Homer Avenue into 10 single family lots with detached
accessory units. The lots would be accessed from Waverley Street and the Mews on the
front, and from a shared driveway in the rear.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
At the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) meeting on May 9, 2001,
the Planning Commission considered the tentative map. All conditions of the Architectural
Review Board!Historic Resources Board approval of the project are still required of the
applicant, and are referred to in the attached conditions of approval (Attachment C). The
main concern expressed by Commissioners was the future use of the studio accessory units
as rental apartments. To this end, the Commission recommended that the City Council add
three conditions to the tentative map approval:
CMR:302:01 Page 1 of 3
That the full range of studio apartment fixtures and amenities (including kitchen,
bathroom, closets, and living/bedroom areas) be installed and maintained in each
accessory unit.
That separate utilities be provided to each dwelling unit on the site, including the
studios.
3.That a Homeowners Association be formed for the ten lots to maintain the common
areas on the site.
These recommendations have been included as conditions #39, 40 and 41 in Attachment B,
subject to Council approval.
The Commission voted 4-1-2 to approve the tentative map, subject to the findings and
conditions contained in the staff report as well as the three conditions listed above. See
attached Planning and Transportation Commission minutes (Attachment F) for more
detailed discussion of these issues.
On April 30, 2001, the City Council denied an appeal and upheld the Director’s approval of
the project proposed for this site. At that meeting, the Council approved exceptions to the
Detached Single Family Housing on Small Lots (DHS) standards to allow development of
the project including front and side setbacks, side daylight plane, and the size of below-
grade patios. Findings for approval of a minor exception for the below grade patios are
included with the findings for approval of the subdivision (Attachment A).
RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from this application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report 0~IR) was prepared
for the South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan, 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
Attachment A: Findings for Approval of Subdivision
Attachment B: Conditions for Approval of Subdivision
Attachment C: Revised Conditions for Project Approval
CMR:302:01 Page 2 of 3
Attachment D: Planning Commission staff report dated May 9, 2001 (without attachments)
Attachment E: Planning Commission Minutes of May 9, 2001
Plans (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:~
~CLHN LUSARDI
ent Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G.GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, 777 Califomia Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Dan Schaefer, BKF Engineers, 540 Price Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94063
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:302:01 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHM ENT A
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
300 HOMER AVENUE
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,
in that the project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.20) and that the proposed subdivision 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.;
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the
proposed 10 single family units and 10 accessory units are within the density range
allowed by existing zoning and compatible with the scale of neighboring multiple
family buildings;
The design of the single .family subdivision will not cause significant
environmental impacts in that an EIR was prepared for the project and 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;
The design of the single family subdivision 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 and accessory units would be
Page 1
consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood in that the project
completes the land use pattern established by South of Forest Area Coordinated
Area Plan (SOFA CAP) and the size and scale of the development is consistent
with the regulations established in the SOFA CAP; and
o The design of the single family subdivision 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 or cross easements that allow for vehicular access and
utility service to a public street.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A MINOR EXCEPTION FOR INTRUSION OF
EXPANDED BELOW-GRADE PATIOS INTO SIDE SETBACKS WITHOUT
AFFECTING THE DETERMINATION OF GRADE
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 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 size and style, and that the
increased private open space would contribute to family style households that the
structures are designed to serve; 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. The below grade
patios both enhance the design as well provide the required private open space
recommended by the ARB/HRB Board; and Policy DC-20: "Build on existing lot
patterns as the small lot pattern and lots with two or more detached units to create
variety and scale with new development...allow flexibility in the minimum and
maximum lot sizes to accommodate unusual lot configurations" in that the ten
houses were designed together as a single project on lots that are below the
maximum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft, the new lot patterns are similar to the existing lot
size and patterns for the area. Insofar as all ten units were required .to comply with
the DHS zone district, side setback and daylight plane requirements, the exception
to extend the private open space into the setback is acceptable. This extension of
below grade private open space is similar to what would otherwise be at grade
private open space, and therefore is addressed by this policy to allow flexibility in
lot configurations. The extension of the private open space was necessary to
achieve the ARB/HRB design direction for "zero-lot line" for greater private open
space per household. Policy DC-23: Promote new residential development that
should relate to and continue the historic character of the area including
Page 2
Professorville, which extends into the plan area in that the design of the houses are
characteristic of the existing architecture of the area, and generally follow the
formula for additional family space through the use of basements rather than large
additions. The addition to family space with basements and below grade patios is
consistent with rehabilitation to existing houses in the area. Policy DC-24: Prohibit
the use of the Planned Community permit process for the SOFA Plan Area (phase
one), substituting an exception process in the use of Attached Multi-Family
Development Standards with provisions for incentives for housing, open space and
other desirable "public benefits" in that the ten housing structures were designed
as a single project and reviewed by the ARB/HRB, and therefore the development
has been treated and reviewed as a multi-family development. Based on the
direction by the ARB/HRB to develop the houses with essentially a "zero-lot line"
design to create, greater private open space, Policy DC-24 is applicable in
encouraging the use of the exception process for DHS standards for setbacks to
create desirable open space. DHS Design Guidelines, 2.10 (d): Usable Open
Space. The creation of usable open space is strongly encouraged and should be
provided adjacent to each unit in that the exception is considered minor in scope
because it involves a small portion of the structure or lot (less than 25%), does not
involve major architectural features, and meets the design standards for DHS
houses as reviewed and recommended by the ARB/HRB Board.
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, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that intrusions into the
side yards are allowed by means of minor exceptions in the SOFA CAP (Chapter 4
Section A.2), and that below grade patios are acceptable site features that would
not affect the height, bulk, mass or appearance of the proposed structures from
public and private streets, that the private open space design exceeding 200 sq. ft.
is acceptable in order to include greater landscape elements, and the resulting
usable portions of the below-grade patios that intrude into the sideyard setbacks
comprise an acceptable amount of the total usable open space area on the site;~ the
increased below grade patio element would increase light, air, and privacy for each
individual family unit; the intrusion of the below-grade patios are not detrimental
to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the patios
would only face onto interior portions of the site, would not be 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 intrusions into side yards would enhance the
appearance and design of the entire project site by providing the side yards on all
Page 3
ten lots with more usable private open space in the form of below-grade patios.
Furthermore, although the extension of the below grade patio would exceed a total
of 200 sq. ft., the provision for landscaping and design layout would result in a
usable private open space equivalent to standard open space that is below grade.
The design and landscape elements would reduce the apparent size of the patio
areas so as not to affect the definition of grade for the purpose of calculating
building height, and each house would maintain the basement structure at grade,
(not higher than 3 feet) for a minimum of 85% of the exterior walls. Therefore the
definition of grade would not change. At its meeting on November 2, 2000, the
ARB/HRB specifically requested that the plans be revised to provide more usable
open space in the side and rear yards and the plans were revised to incorporate the
Board’s recommendation. At a study session on November 9, 2000, the ARB/HRB
reviewed and supported preliminary concepts for expanding the below-grade
patios through the application of access, maintenance and use easement to allow
the use of the below-grade patios by individual property owners. The applicant
provided detailed layouts of the below-grade patios on the revised plans dated
November 30, 2000. The ARB/HRB reviewed and recommended that those
detailed plans be approved as revised for the private open space, including the
below-grade patios, at its meeting of January 11, 2001. The provision of usable
open space is consistent with the policies and intent of the SOFA CAP. Because
the ten lots were planned in a cohesive manner and configured with a series of
sideyards that are completely internal to the site, the ARB/HRB was able to use its
design review discretion to expand the below-grade patios. The resultant patio
areas would be larger and more usable throughout the site and provide a more
inviting connection between interior and exterior living spaces. The visual effect
of the larger patios from public areas would be eliminated by their location below
grade and through the use of privacy walls and landscaping at the front of each
side yard. These conditions are unique in this district in that they allow the
expanded below grade patio into adjoining properties for each of the 10 houses,
the designs are uniform to the project, and the below grade patios are consistent
with the typical 200 sq. ft on each individual parcel with the expanded area being
created through the design of the ten units as a single project and reviewed as such
by the ARB/HRB.
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that
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 intrusions into side yards would enhance the
appearance and design of the entire project site by providing the side yards on all
ten lots with more usable private open space in the form of below-grade patios. At
its meeting on November 2, 2000, the ARB/HRB specifically requested that the
Page 4
plans be revised to provide more usable open space in the side and rear yards and
the plans were revised to incorporate the Board’s recommendation. The ARB/HRB
reviewed and recommended that the project be approved with those revised details,
including the below-grade patios, and that the design of the ten single family
houses including the provision of usable open space is consistent with the policies
and intent of the SOFA CAP. The proposal is consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan to achieve new housing, including the following: Policy H-2,
Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in
appropriate locations. Program H-3, Evaluate zoning incentives that encourage
the development of diverse housing type...including units suitable f or families with
children. Program H-5, Create a Planned Development zone that allows the
construction of smaller lot single family units and other innovative housing types
without the requirement for a public housing benefit finding. Program H-6, Amend
zoning regulations to permit residential lots of less than 6,000 square feet where
smaller lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Page 5
ATTACHMENT B
DRAFT CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
(including revisions recommended by Planning Commission on May 9, 2001)
300 HOMER AVENUE
CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP
Public Works Engineering
Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval
and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will
be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder.
The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities
Engineering, Planning, 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 parcel or final map.
The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and
coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a
Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering
staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer term communication with
appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design
and construction matters.
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.
Utilities
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 shall have underground utility, telephone and
cable service. The project shall be limited to single service laterals for each-lot for
sewer. Each dwelling unit shall have separate metered service for water, gas and
electricity. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department before the
Parcel map is recorded.
Page 1
The subdivider shall submit improvement plans and specifications for all utility
construction. The plans must show the proposed alignment of water, gas, and sewer
mains and services within the development and in the public right-of-way.
The subdivider shall submit flow calculations which will show the off-site and on--
site water and sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows and sewer
capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during
anticipated peak flows.
PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP
Planning
o The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the 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:
a)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 subdivision map.
c)The subdivider shall preserve all existing trees shown for preservation on
the site plan and shall include all trees in the final landscape plans.
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.
10.The final subdivision map shall be filed with the Planning Division within two years
of the approval of the tentative subdivision map.
11.The subdivider shall establish a Homeowner’s Assocation (HOA) and record CC&
Rs for the development. The CC&Rs shall provide that:
Page 2
a)No structure shall be constructed within the driveway and parking areas on-
site to ensure adequate automobile access, parking and turning movements.
b)All exterior building and landscape improvements shall be maintained as
shown on the approved plans unless approved for revision by the City’s
South of Forest Area Review Board.
c)The HOA shall maintain and ensure the cross-easement areas.
d)The full range of studio apartment fixtures and amenities (including
kitchen, bathroom, closets, and riving/bedroom areas) shall be installed and
maintained in each accessory unit.
e)The CC&Rs shall provide an adequate funding mechanism for maintenance
and ensurance of the cross-easement area.
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 applicant shall
include in the CC&Rs a requirement that no structure shall be constructed
within the driveway and parking areas to ensure adequate auto access,
parking and turning movements. The City shall approve the CC & Rs prior to
occupancy of the buildings.
12.The rear alley between the two rows of homes shall be reserved for automobile and
pedestrian circulation only and shall not be obstructed within a minimum 20 foot
wide driveway area required for ingress, egress and on-site turning movements.
No parking shall be allowed in this area.
13.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.
Public Works Engineering
14.An easement dedication as offered by the applicant as part of the ARB/HRB
approval of the property is required as follows: Subdivider shall dedicate cross
Page 3
15.
16.
17.
easements on the driveway portion of each lot to provide adequate automobile
access for all ten lots to Channing Avenue.
The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final subdivision map
to guarantee the completion of the work within the adjacent public fights-of-way
along Waverley Street and Channing Avenue and the cross-easement areas. The
amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning and Public Works
Departments.
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 take all steps necessary to ensure that the impact of rainwater
on the sunken patios of the proposed single family homes is minimized. These steps
may include, but are not limited to, features such as permeable pavers, extension of
the homes’ roofs, and depressed patio surface.
Utilities
18.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Standard
Specifications and the Utility department Standard Conditions.
19.The subdivider shall be responsible for installing and upgrading on-site and off-site
water and sewer utilities as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes the cost of all associated utility installations/upgrades.
20.The subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the required improvements to off-
site gas mains. All improvements to the gas system shall be installed by the City of
Palo Alto.
21.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.
22.All on-site and off-site improvements, including the relocation of any existing
utilities to accommodate the project shall be done at the subdivider’s expense. The
City will provide one electric service to the new merged parcel.
23.The subdivider shall submit a storm water pollution protection plan to be included in
the improvement plan submittal.
Page 4
24.The subdivider shall construct public curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements along
the entire frontage of Waverely Street and Channing Avenue. The improvements
shallmeet the City’s standard requirements and shall be to the City’s satisfaction.
25.The subdivider shall comply with all the conditions of approval for 00-ARB- 113
as finally approved by the City.
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT
Public Works Engineering
26.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is
required for the proposed project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a
phased project implementation plan will only authorize grading and .storm drain
improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference
only, and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the
building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a
subsequent Building Permit application.
27.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and
demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal
storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of
runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained.
28.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking,
truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform
with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and
the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan
is available from Public Works Engineering.
29.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, and other items proposed and required for this
project.
30. The applicant shall provide utility service to the proposed parcels as required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
Page 5
Public Works Engineering
31.The applicant shall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for
pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City
right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010.
32.The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito
Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets.
Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance
Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to
secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the
construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the
Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project.
Utilities
33.The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto
Standards, including underground utilities and street lights, to the satisfaction of the
Utilities Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A new
padmount transformer is required to serve the subdivision. All electrical plans shall
be approved by the Light and Power Division before the final map is approved.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
Public Works Engineering
34.All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter according
to Public Works Engineering standards.
35.The applicant shall slurry seal the full width of Channing Avenue, from Bryant to
Waverley, as part of this development.
36.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929
prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way.
37.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk
without prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
38.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices
(BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the
project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut
Page 6
slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.
(PAMC Chapter 16.09).
39.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.
ONGOING (Throughout Processing and Construction)
40.City staff required time for implementing and monitoring a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to
the project applicant.
41.All of the above conditions that are applicable shall be included in the CC & Rs
for the project. The City shall approve the CC & Rs prior to occupancy of the
building.
42.Separate utilities shall be provided to each dwelling unit on the site, including the
studios.
PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
43.
45.
All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or
removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards.
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. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments
BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-0ff.
A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the comer of Channing and
Waverley.
Page 7
General
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
(Revised by the City Council on February 5, 2001)
300 HOMER AVENUE
(PAMF BLOCK B - DHS) 00-ARB-113
Attachment C
The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated September 29,
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)
b)
c)
d)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 be recessed from the exterior wall sufficient tocreate a shadow fine (at
least two inches), muntin patterns should be achieved with true or simulated
divided fights 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
DeparUnent 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 fine. 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.
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.
3.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.
o 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:
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).
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.
UtiIities/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
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.
3
Planning/Zoning
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:
ao
bo
All existing, trees identified both to be retained and removed including private
and public street trees.
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.
f.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 Diagram
#504, shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball.
The Public Works Detail #504 shall be shown on Landscape Plans.
no 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
4
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.
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 and should 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 coarse grade)
*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 soil 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.
14.
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 fight-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.
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.
6
15
16.
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.
Type 1 Tree Protection. All existing trees to be retained shall be protected
with five-foot high chain link fences enclosing the entire canopy 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.
Co 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 additional 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 Si_g_~: 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.’
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:
ao
b°
All work on Protected Trees shall be done in 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.
7
17. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application.
18.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
provide PASCO with unrestricted access to recycling and trash areas. The applicant
shall consult 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.
19.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 development will result in a change inthe 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 mack routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks
and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which
outlines mack 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.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.
28. Deleted
29.Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corners of Channing and Bryant, Channing
and Waverley, Homer and Waverley, and Homer and 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
9
untrimmed growth height not exceeding 2.5 feet above the level of the driveway
(trees excepted). A statement tothis 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 shall meet all the standard conditions listed in the memo from Roland
Ekstrand dated August 11, 2000 (attached).
Building Inspection
40.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 units 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.
10
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.
45.Any existing trees on adjacent property, including the public right-of way, that
overhang the site shall be protected from impacts during construction, to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Arborist.
46.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.
47.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.
c.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to
ensure survival.
Police
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.
48.All construction activities shall be subject to the 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 6:00 PM Monday through Friday
9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Saturday
No construction on Sundays or public holidays
11
If Noise Ordinance requirements are amended, the construction activities shall abide by
the new requirements.
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.
50.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929prior
to any work performed in the public fight-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 management 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 fight-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.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
12
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.
56.The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that khe
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
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.
58a.The applicant shall take all steps necessary to ensure that the impact of rainwater on
the sunken patios is minimized. These steps may include, but are not limited to, features
such as permeable pavers, extension of the homes’ roofs, and depressed patio surfaces.
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
cormected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in
Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o).
(S APLANWLADIV~pamfsofa~summerhi\blockbs f.cn2)
13
Attachment D
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Chandler Lee
May 9, 2001
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on an
application by SummerHill Homes for a Tentative Map to
subdivide a 43,700 square foot (1.00 acre) parcel into 10 single
family lots with detached accessory units at 300 Homer Avenue,
00-SUB-08; Environmental Assessment: An Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the attached tentative map based on the attached findings (Attachment A) and conditions
(Attachment B).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has submitted an application for a tentative map to subdivide the existing 1.00-
acre parcel into 10 single family lots with detached accessory units. Each lot would include
a main single family home and a detached accessory unit above the garage in the rear. The
lots would be accessed from Waverley Street (for the five lots facing east) and the public
Mews (for the five lots facing west).
On February 1,2001, the current tentative map application was submitted by the applicant
for subdivision of the subject site into ten lots.
Site Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in Table 1.
Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page I
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:SummerHill Homes
Owner:SummerHill Channing LLC
Assessor’s Parcel Number:120-17-X1
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Single Family Residential
Zoning District:DHS (Detached Houses on Small Lots)
Surrounding Land Use: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.£ or 1.00 acres
Project History
The site was recently occupied by the parking lot for the former Lee Building that was left
vacant when 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 public 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
single family uses and detached accessory units (studios) up to the maximum limits allowed
under the DHS designation (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 accessory unit). Since Council’s
approval, the City has approved a certificate of compliance to reconfigure this block (Block
B) and SummerHill Homes has submitted applications for Parcel Maps and certificates of
compliance to reconfigure the other blocks formerly owned by P AMF. The applicant
received approval fi’om the Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board on January
11,2001 to allow construction of 10 detached single family homes and 10 accessory units,
surface parking and related site improvements. The approval included draft subdivision
findings and conditions, as well as conditions of project approval. The subdivision conditions
incorporates by reference all the conditions of the ARB/HRB’s project approval (see
Attachment B, condition #23). The current application for a tentative map is accompanied
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 2
by the final findings and conditions attached to this staff report subject to Planning
Commission review and approval.
On April 30, the City Council reviewed an appeal of the single family project on this site.
The Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Director’s approval of the ten lot
project including exceptions for intrusions of the main homes into the front setback,
intrusions of the below grade patios into the side setback and for intrusion of the accessory
units into the street side setback and side daylight plane. The Council also upheld the
Planning Director’s approval of an exception to allow below grade patios greater than 200
square extending into the sideyard setback without changing the definition of grade. The
intrusion of the main home dormers into the side daylight plane was eliminated by a design
modification approved by the City Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the South of
Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP).
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The major issues involved in this application are: 1) the provision of cross easements on the
driveway portion of each lot to provide adequate automobile access for all ten lots to
Channing Avenue, 2) the provision of reciprocal use easements to allow neighboring
property owners to locate and use portions of the below grade patios on the adjacent lot, and
3) the need for minor exceptions from the DHS zoning standards for front and side setbacks
and side daylight plane. The issues regarding exceptions (item #3) were resolved by the City
Council’s denial of the appeal on April 30, 2001. Items # 1 and 2 are addressed in this staff
report.
Cross easements
The development agreement for the property specifically provides for the use of cross
easement on the driveway portion of these lots as well as provision of an accessory unit over
a detached two-car garage (see Attachment D - Development Agreement Exhibit D-7). The
requirement for cross easements is included as a condition of project approval and shown on
the tentative map.
Use easements
The tentative map provides for use easements that allow for use of a portion of each sideyard
by neighboring owners. The patio on lot 5, for example, crosses the property line of lot 4 and,
in turn, the patio on lot 4 crosses the property line of lot 3. This configuration effectively
increases the amount of usable open space within the sideyards. The plans for the site
originally included much smaller patio areas in the side yard of each home. On November
2, 2000, the ARB/HRB discussed the rear and side yards, the relationship of the homes to the
Cir. of Pa!o Alto Page 3
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. The applicant
incorporated the ARB/HRB’s suggestions into the building and site plans on November 30,
2000. The ARB/HR_B endorsed the provision of use easements on the site 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 and an providing an improved
landscape plan. The use easements referenced on the Tentative Map provide for this sharing
of sideyard areas. On April 30, 2001, the City Council upheld the Planning Director’s
approval to allow the below grade patios to exceed the 200 square foot maximum, including
the use easements. The Council’s action provided for an exception to allow below grade
patios greater than 200 square extending into the sideyard setback without changing the
definition of grade.
The SOFA CAP provides for minor exceptions, in this case fi’ont and side setback intrusions
and daylight plane intrusions, provided that findings can be made. Staff prepared findings
for approval of these exceptions which were reviewed and approved by the ARBiHRB The
City Council upheld the Planning Director’s approva! of these exceptions on April 30, 2001.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing Detached Houses on Small Lots
(DHS) Residential District regulations established in the SOFA CAP.
Project Comparison With SOFA CAP Development Standards - DHS District
Dwelling Units
Density
Proposed
1.0 homes +
10 studios
20 units/acre
DHS Zoning
20 units
n/a
Floor Area (sq.ft.)2,840 s.f. per lot 2,840 s.f. per lot
Floor Area Ratio 0.65:1 0.65:1
Setbacks
- Waverley St. (front)
- Mews (front)
- Alley (rear)
- Interior Side:
- Street Side: Channing
Home (Studio)
15 feet 78-88 feet
5-12feet 75-80 feet
43 feet 6-19 feet
6 feet 1-12 feet
10 feet 4.5 feet
Home (Studio)
15 feet 50 feet
15 feet 50 feet
20 feet 3 feet
6 feet 0 feet
10feet 10feet
Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact repol~ (EIR) was prepared
Cir. of Palo Alto "Page 4
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 FiPth Floor of City Hall.
NEXT STEPS
Following Planning Commission review, the application will be heard by the City Council
for decision at a meeting to be scheduled in June, 2001. If Council approves the project, the
applicant may apply for a final subdivision map. Prior to subdividing the property, the
applicant will be required to submit improvement plans for the design of the adjacent
sidewalks, utilities and the Mews (the pedestrian walkway proposed along the eastern edge
of the site), a subdivision agreement and an application for approval of a Final Subdivision
Map. The Final Subdivision Map will be reviewed for compliance by the Public Works
Department and must be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A - Findings
Attachment B - Conditions
Attachment C - Location Map
Attachment D - Development Agreement Exhibit D-7
Attachment E .- Subdivider’s Statement
Tentative Map [Commission members only]
COURTESY COPIES:
Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes, 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Dan Schaefer, BKF Engineers, 540 Price Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94063
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Ci.ty of Palo A’lto Page 5
Attachment E
May 9, 2001
REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, Ist Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chairman Bialson: Now we go onto Agenda Item Number I with respect to 300 Homer
Avenue.
Commissioner Schink: For which I have a conflict and must step down. My conflict is that I do
not own property, I have an interest in a company that owns property fairly close to this subject
property.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Would Staff care to make a presentation, please?
Mr. Lee: Yes, thank you all for coming. This is an application for a tentative map to subdivide a
one-acre parcel into ten single-family lots with detached accessory units at 300 Homer Avenue.
The project is within the SOFA area and the project design was subject to the policies and
regulations of the SOFA Area Coordinated Plan. The design of the project itself was reviewed
and approved by the ARBAtRB Joint Board on January 11 of this year. The project design was
appealed to the City Council on April 30. The City Council upheld the approval of the project
and denied the appeal of the design. The tentative map would subdivide the existing one-acre
parcel into ten single-family lots. Staff is recommending approval of the tentative map subject to
the findings and conditions contained in the Staff Report. Thank you.
Chairman Bialson: Does Applicant care to speak to this issue?
Mr. Rick Wurzelbacher, SummerHill Homes: Good evening. I’m Rick Wurzelbacher with
SummerHill Homes. I’ll speak very briefly just to say that the tentative map before you is
essentially a mirror of the processes and documentation which have preceded it, namely the
SOFA CAP plan, the Development Agreement entered into between the City of Palo Alto and
SummerHill Homes of which there is a program statement attached for the division of these ten
lots. Finally the specific design approval by the ARB/HRB which was denied on appeal by City
Council. So, beyond that I won’t elaborate but make myself available for any questions you may
have. Thank you.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Does Commission have any questions of the Applicant or Staff,
or do you want me to go the public? Question for Applicant? Bonnie, what about you? For
Applicant?
Commissioner Packer: For whomever can answer.
Chairman Bialson: Fine.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the easements, not the easements for the
driveways but the easements that are shown in grey on the second page on the map. When the
subdivision map is approved and filed, those easements will be shown on there, is that correct?
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Madam Chair, that’s correct. They will be shown
on the map, yes.
Commissioner Packer: So, if we approve this tentative map, we are approving the easements.
So what I would like to know is if you could expand more about those easements. I didn’t have
the benefit of the minutes from the City Council meeting, and I just didn’t have enough
background on these easements and how they would be used and whether there’d be more
explanation of their use on the map so we can have an easement that’s understood legally by all
the parties involved.
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, I’d be glad to. The purpose of the easements is to facilitate the
private open space for each individual single-family house. This is a recommendation that really
came forth from the Combined ARB/HRB Board to try and increase the private open space. The
easements come from the basis that the project includes a below-grade patio for each unit on the
interior side yard, that is there are no below-grade patios .in the street side yards along the muse
or along the park side. They’re all interior and they’re all specific to those individual houses.
The easements are required because below grade patios will extend beyond and into the setback
across a property line, so it’s much like an access easement. It allows the one property owner to
enjoy their below-grade patio extending beyond the property lines. So, essentially whether it
allows for that private open space to be enjoyed by one property owner on another property
owner’s property. It allows us to provide those below-grade patios and that cross access into the
adjoining property, but they are interior side yard easements.
Commissioner Packer: I’m just having a hard time picturing this. Does that mean that the people
who will live in Lot 6 for example be able to go up to the wall of the house in Lot 7 and do
whatever they please, and the people in the house on Lot 7 will not be able to use that space for
anything because it’s exclusive to Lot 6?
Mr. Lusardi: That’s essentially correct. I wouldn’t frame it as they would do whatever they
please, it’s a private open space, it’s a below-grade patio, it is landscaped. It is much like a
below-grade patio in a typical single-family house. It is much like some subdivisions that have
been done in the City at grade where private open space crosses the property line. This is the
fact that this is just a.sunken patio. That’s what’s different about this particular easement.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do you happen to have a site plan that illustrates that? I suspect that
that was part of what was approved by the ARB. I think it would be more clear for us if we
could see the more illustrative thing.
Mr. Lusardi: If you give me a couple more minutes, I could certainly walk you through.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, thank you.
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant Ci_~ Attorney: It is true, incidentally, that we do have a number
of zero lot line essentially developed. They’re not zero lot line anymore, but what looks like zero
lot line projects. An example, of course, I realize you all live in big lots, but-I live in a little one
over on Everett. When you look at our houses, the property line does in fact run equidistant
between the two houses, but my yard which is only accessible from my house and which indeed
goes right up to my neighbor’s wall which only has glass block windows in it, no opening
windows, is in the form of an easement. There’s a six foot, it’s an easement that goes in and out
with the front yard, the private space, and then again in the back but it looks very much like this
on a map. It doesn’t look like this when you go see the properties.
Mr. Gawf: The concept, as John’s getting ready to illustrate, and Wyrme explained it very well
because she lives in that kind of development, but the concept is that you have smaller lots. You
have to small side yard setbacks instead of having two relatively inefficient side yard setbacks,
you combine them so that you increase the private open space for individuals.
Ms. Furth: And the reason that the property lines run down the middle, instead I think why don’t
you just put property line over by the house. The reason they run down the middle has to do
with the better marketability of free-standing detached houses as opposed to condominiums or
zero lot line developments. It turns out to be easier to have your garden on somebody else’s lot
than your house flush with somebody else’s property.
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, you asked for exhibits. Boy, do we have exhibits. I’ll forego the
three-hour PowerPoint presentation, but let me walk you through this. This essentially is the
entire development here. This is Channing Avenue, this is Waverley, this is the park side, and
this is the public muse that separates the single-family homes from the condominium project.
Here are the main houses, and these structures here are the detached garage with secondary units.
The below-grade patios are basically in these areas in the interior side yards between the houses
only, and again, I emphasize only on the interior side yards. They are not along the park side,
they are not along any of the street frontages along the muse. You would not see any these
below-grade patios from any public right-of-way including the motor court that the houses share
as far as access for automobiles. They would be landscaped and walled to the extent that you
would not see them. They are larger than normal below-grade patios. They range from 400 to
600 square feet where the Zoning Ordinance provides for a 200 square feet below-grade patio.
These again, the below-grade patios, when you add the landscaping and everything, the effective
use of those below-grade patios is probably 150 to 200 square feet as far as usable space with the
landscaping.
To give you an illustration of where those below grade patios really are with respect to the
individual units, again, these show the below-grade patios. This here, as Commissioner Packer
[has] asked, this basically below-grade patio serves this particular house, and yes, you can cross
what would be the property line to the next house to enjoy your private open space. These here
are below-grade patios that separate for these individual units. So, the need for the easement is
to allow this property owner to cross that property line and enjoy their private open space in that
below grade patio.
Commissioner Cassel: Cathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I just have a couple of functional questions. Are the below-grade patios
then accessible from grade? Are there stairways down or are they only accessible from the lower
level?
Mr. Lusardi: No, you can. Rick, correct me ifrm wrong, but you can certainly access the
below-grade patios from the basement through doors. But, you can also access them though
these steps here into the below-grade patios, and I think you can access them off of some of the
porches in there. This, for instance, is a stairway into the below-grade patio. So, you can access
them from the exterior and not just from the basement.
Commissioner Schmidt: And then the property line that runs between the two residences still,
the rest of it still is separated at the property line so one neighbor’s property goes around part of
that below-grade patio, is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct. Essentially what really was the driving force for this was when this
project when before the ARB/HRB, they were very strong on trying to increase the private open
space and what they had recommended the development to do was go to a zero lot line, that is
shift all of these houses to a zero lot line that would allow that private open space to remain on
the parcel; but the development standards for DHS doesn’t allow through setbacks and through
daylight plane issues wouldn’t allow us to do that zero lot line. So this, in the fact that we were
doing all ten houses at one time, allowed us to be creative in creating those easements and those
private open spaces through easements and through access, so that was really a creative approach
to try and solve what the ARB and HRB was directing to increase the private open space.
Commisgioner Schmidt: Last question. Then the side of the neighbor’s house then is
appropriately designed to allow some privacy for the below-grade patio?
Mr. Lusardi: I’m sorry.
Commissioner Schmidt: Some privacy or some separation that it’s not all glass on the neighbor’s
house, or it’s not all solid wall on the neighbor’s house, the wall of the neighbor that’s adjacent to
the below-grade patio.
Mr. Lusardi: If you give me a moment I can give you a good illustration of that. The side of the
house that’s not using the private open space, okay, there’s privacy elements built in. There’s
some small windows on the stairwells and everything, but it’s not large windows that are exposed
to the adjoining property owner’s private open space. That’s essentially it, yes.
¯Commissioner Schmidt: The last question. The secondary units that are above the garages then
would have there own either balcony space or access to exterior space on grade?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Chairman Bialson: Any other questions from Commissioners or can I have the public, yes
Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: I think it might be helpful if we clarify here is we’re doing a tentative
subdivision map, and we don’t have the views of the buildings themselves, a three-dimensional
perspective, we’re just doing the lot layout lines. We don’t have any control over the height of
the buildings or whether these have basements that are accessible to the outside and so forth.
Mr. Lee: That’s correct. The ARBiHRB is designated in the SOFA CAP to be that reviewing
body and the Planning Commission for the actual subdivisionof the property.
Commissioner Burt: I have a question for the developer. The secondary units were originally
conceived of as enlarging the housing supply, and it’s my understanding that the developer has
been marketing these as guest units. Can you provide any information that makes us feel more
comfortable that the principal objectives of these secondary units to add to the housing supply is
going to be met?
Mr.Wurzelbacher: Yes, I just looked through my materials and I realized the floor plans are over
in my bag so I will grab a floor plan and come back and answer your question.
Chairman Bialson: Does Staff want to say something?
Mr. Lee: I was just going to try and fill in the dead space. Each of the studios does have a full
kitchen and bathroom, and they’re laid out in a configuration that you’ll see in a second so that
they are much like a studio apartment that you’d see in San Francisco somewhere with all the
required living spaces; living room, sufficient room for a bed, dining room, those types of
features in addition to a balcony.
Commissioner Burt: Can you review the square footages of the units?
Mr. Lee: They average about 400 square feet. They are small, but they are usable as studios.
Again, using the San Francisco example is there [are] numerous studios in the City that are
roughly that size.
Mr. Gawf: Just following up on that, about 20 years ago I worked on making a zoning change, a
change to the Zoning Code in another community where we allowed three accessory dwelling
units not to exceed 400 square feet each to count as one dwelling unit. The idea was to increase
rental space for single, occupants or couples, and 400 square feet worked out very well,
especially as the people got better with the design of it, of laying it out very efficiently. They
were very successful, small, relatively inexpensive rental units. In that particular example it did
work.
Chairman Bialson: Is the Applicant ready now?
Mr. Wurzelbacher: Thanks, John. I have a couple of comments on the accessory units. I’ll start
with just a little bit of background. On page 17 of the CAP Plan under land use pattern
transition, which is really the principal land use element of that plan, it says that the plan allows
increased floor area ratios as incentives to construct second units as accessory cottages in the rear
of the property usually beside or above the garage or attached second units as found in many
older Palo Alto neighborhoods. That statement, and there are more specific guidelines governing
the configuration of these units, but that statement alone specifically contemplates that the
accessory units would be located above or beside garages. These are located above the garages.
They were contemplated to be located above the garages and noted as such in the Development
Program that is part of our Development Agreement. So, there’s nothing new inherently about
the size of these units in that two car garages are typically in the 400 to 450 foot range as are
these, and the units themselves occupy the footprint of that garage minus a few little nooks and.
crannies to give the elevations and the massing of the units some architectural interest.
With respect to the floor plan itself, it does provide a studio unit with direct access from the
exterior. There is a parking space, a third parking space that is required when these traits are
constructed. So, there is parking available and it’s directly accessible below the unit. The studio
unit has a full service kitchen. You can see left of center in the plan a refrigerator, sink, full-
sized range, a dining table for two, a rather Spartan but adequate furnishing layout with a sofa,
coffee table, I see room for another chair if need be, and bedding accommodations. There’s also
a standard three fixture bath with a tub with a shower over it and a closet involved in the unit as
well. So, while they’re not, I would say, they’re not intended for family use for individual use,
which I read the intent of an accessory unit to be primarily contemplating individual use, I find
that these studios would be a pleasant place to live for someone on a budget and at the discretion
of the primary homeowner. They may also choose to have relatives stay in the unit or students,
what have you, guests of the household. So, whether it’s specifically rented to the public in some
ways is secondary to the purpose of these units. In many cases a relative that may not be paying
rent would in fact need to find accommodation elsewhere in Palo Alto if these units were not
available.
So, I think there’s a large variety of ways that they could be used. As for our Website that noted
that these units were guest accommodations, I must apologize and assure you that was never my
intention and that when our floor plans went to our advertising agency, that was the
interpretation and the spin that they put on it. I apologize I did not review the wording of that
page of our site, and as soon as I found out about it I had it corrected. It may not be corrected at
this time, but I assure you that it will.
Commissioner Burt: Chandler, you said that it was over 400 square feet. As I’m looking at it,
there’s a dimension of 20.7 excluding the stairs and then another dimension of 20 feet, but it
looks like if you don’t have a stair landing in these other two comers, we’re looking at something
less than 400 square feet. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: They do range in size from roughly 360 to 411, but the average is pretty close to 400.
Mr. Wurzelbacher: This one is 371, as a result the stair landing is not coming out of it. That’s
part of a 24 foot 7 dimension string. The pieces that come out it essentially are a [wood] is a
storage closet you see on the upper right that’s under a very low slung roofline and an
inaccessible area under a low slung roof on the left comer.
Commissioner Burr: What is the garage footprint in this occasion? Is it this outer dimension that
we’re seeing here?
Mr. Wurzelbacher : Yes it is. Yes, the garage footprint I believe is 20 feet, 7 inches by 20 feet.
Commissioner Burt: And so are the stairwells coming up from within the garage or outside the
garage?
Mr. Wurzelbacher ¯ Outside. Part of the reason that the garages can’t be larger in configuring
the ten lots as shown in the Development Program for the site in equal widths, which they are,
we come up with about a 37 foot, 37 and change foot width on the lots. As such, when you
subtract a 20 or 21 foot garage element, a 10 foot secondary parking space, and a 4 foot stairway,
that leaves 3 feet for a very small amount of landscaping separating the secondary parking space
from the garage and on the other side of the garage from the neighbor’s property. So, there’s a
minimal amount of space available, and making larger garages really wasn’t an option for us.
Commissioner Burr : That’s the width. Is there some reason that there could not have been a
greater depth?
Mr. Wurzelbacher: The depths of the garages? The depths of the garages were limited by virtue
of the fact that they need to be 8 feet away from the primary house, and the yard space between
the house and the garage is somewhat minimal as it is. So, we didn’t see frankly a lot to be
gained by increasing the garage size and therefore the accessory unit over it and essentially
pushing the house forward or compressing the footprint of the main house.
Commissioner Burt: So, it would have been feasible to enlarge the secondary unit but it would
have come at the expense of the size of the main house. Is that correct?
Mr. Wurzelbacher: Well, it perhaps would have come at the expense of the main house and/or
the yard area. Remember we are required to subtract the garage area from our FAR calculation
as well so you can see from my perspective there’s not, I need to balance the size of the garage,
the house, the accessory unit, in such a way that makes sense to me and to the potential users of
the studios. If in fact I had been subjected to a minimum size on the studio units from the
beginning, then perhaps it would be a different story in that respect; but you can understand
without any direction in that regard that my purpose is to serve both the City, the goals of the
program to which I’m designing, and the needs of our marketplace. So, with out the direction to
require larger units, I didn’t see the need to do so.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Actually, I’d like to go to the public hearing. I have some comments
about size, but that falls into our discussion on how we feel about size.
Chairman Bialson: Any other questions before we get to the public hearing? Okay, first speaker
is Paul Kelleher. I’m sorry ifI mispronounced that, and you’ll have five minutes.
Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue: I might have been my penmanship, so it’s Paul Kelleher.
The DHS housing designation has given me heartburn from the first day I saw, and it’s only
going to get worse once these things are put down on paper. It should have been called "Monster
Home, Small Lot." What I object to on this stuffis that in their totality the exceptions, the
daylight plane violations, all of these things to me in their totality are not minor; and whatever
came out of this appeal to process. I was disappointed that the officials disagreed with that
assessment because clearly the DHS designation was overly generous in terms of FAR ratios and
some of the other criteria, and the idea of granting any additional exceptions beyond that to me in
inappropriate. More specifically on something you can do today, I think this whole detached
house-or secondary unit issue is worth exploring and trying to do something about. I don’t know
what you can do at this point, but I have rental units and I’ve been doing this for quite a while.
Somehow people figured out how to build accessory units bigger than 400 square feet in Palo
Alto for a long time, and so I don’t accept that there are design limitations or some problems in
making these things more livable.
Clearly, if you look at the type of buyer and you look at the type of accessory unit, there’s a
mismatch here between the main house and the accessory unit. That would suggest that these
things would be generally used for workout rooms and office space as opposed to living units.
What can be done to address that at this stage I don’t know. Maybe there’s something you can
do, but clearly these things are not achieving the goal. The goal of this was to create additional
housing to help with the imbalance here, and that goal will absolutely not be achieved. I can
assure you that no more than 20% of these units will ever be rented commercially, and I doubt
that a significant number will end up in a relative type live-in situation mainly because if it’s not
the teenagers living up there, I don’t think an elderly person’s going to traipse up and down those
stairs. It’s not the kind of thing that’s suitable for that use.
One of the questions I would have asked if I were Planning Commissioner, in that short
discussion there was why these units couldn’t have been extended to cantilever out over the third
parking space because clearly that, to me, would have seemed like a possibility for making these
things bigger along that back lot. If that means sacrificing some of the monster home space then
so be it. If we can go to these great lengths to dig out patios and things to create an enormous
ground floor living area, then clearly there might be some way to enlarge those back units by
doing something creative back there vertically up instead of down. Thanks.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Next speaker is Karen, and this is your penmanship, Holman, I
think. It’s a guess.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue: It’s a good guess. Thank you. Paul addressed something
that I was going to address as well which is one of the purposed of the appeals was to address the
disproportionate size of the main houses to the size of the cottages, the granny units. I, like he,
don’t know what you can do about that now, but at least there will be a public record of your
discussion. I’m not so sure that the language in the CAP anticipated these would be studio units
because I have a secondary unit, an accessory unit, whatever you want to call it, on my property.
It’s 900 square feet, and couples have lived there. A family of three even lived there with a small
child. Also, like Paul I do not think that the size of the secondary unit is restricted to the size of
the garage. I can certainly appreciate why the developer wouldn’t want to make an oversized
garage, but if you bring the studio unit or the cottage unit further forward and have a covered
patio, if you will, underneath part of the secondary unit, and in front of the garage or to the side
of the garage, whichever way the orientation is, I think that would be quite acceptable.
Pat and I were on the Working Group, the SOFA Working Group, and we did anticipate that
these would be larger living spaces. The intention was for the homes to be modestly sized homes
and for the secondary units to be fully rentable units so it was to increase the housing stock. Our
perspective, those of us who’ve been involved in the appeals, our perspective was that the larger
the house, the main house, and the smaller the secondary unit, the less likelihood that the cottage
was going to be rented. There’s less motivation on a person who pays an awful lot of money for
a house in Palo Alto to rent a secondary unit. As far as I think, what some of your actions are
supposed to be tonight, or make findings for the exceptions, if I understand this correctly.
It would seem to me that there would need to be findings also made for the below-grade patios.
In the below-grade patios we didn’t particular problems with the side yard use, but our
perspective was that at-grade patios were much more useable for the future property owners
because they allowed a lot more sunlight to enter the property. They would be looking at walls
at 30 feet instead of 36 feet. So, it seems like that would be a much more feasible use of the
space. Staff did point out that these below-grade patios are larger than [what] are usually
allowed. Actually, they’re against Code as we read it, and Staff had once pointed that out too.
Those are basically my perspectives. The largest, excuse me, the smallest secondary unit, my
understanding was that it was 357 square feet; but at any rate 357, 370; they’re pretty dam small
and they have been compared to the homeless units that are being proposed in Menlo Park and
[that by] somebody who has been very, very involved with that project. Whatever your
comments can do to alleviate some of the situation would be much appreciated, and also I don’t
know what you’re looking at in terms of plan. But, there were some exceptions that had to be
reduced as a result of Council action on four of the home. The daylight plane exceptions had to
be reduced, so I’m not sure what you’re looking at or if will affect the action that you take tonight
just so that it’s clear that that did happen. Thank you.
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, ifI can I would like to briefly describe the exceptions and the
results of those exceptions. The two exceptions that were highlighted in your report were
basically exceptions that were resulting in easements that were required to be placed on the map
for purposes of access. The first one was to allow access through the motor court by all the
property owners across that motor court. That’s a typical ingress/egress access. The second was
as we described the access across the property line for the below-grade patios. That’s a private
open space or a private space access. The other exceptions are not specific t° the tentative map,
they’re not required to be reflected on the tentative map. However, I think it’s important to
briefly describe those. The one exception was to allow the single-family houses, the main
structures along the muse, to be pulled forward into the front yard setback along the muse. And
again, that was an exception that was promoted by the ARB and the HRB in order to create more
private open space and a more articulated motor court.
They felt also that bringing the houses into that setback was not a bad idea but rather a good idea
because [it] promoted the interaction of those single-family structures with the muse and the
public access along the muse. That was number one. The other easement or exceptions that
were granted rather were for street side yard setback for the two accessory structures, and again
there was a increase in the setback allowing the structures to be large enough, number one, to put
a secondary unit over the garage, and number two, to provide for that third parking space that
would allow for that secondary structure to happen. The other exceptions was a series of
exceptions for each secondary structure because in the Development Standards there was this
little conflict. The conflict basically was that secondary structures or detached structures could
be placed on property lines without setbacks. However, then there was a statement in the
Development Statements that required all structures, and basically it said all structures, had to
meet a daylight plane. Well, if the secondary detached structures were to meet the daylight
plane, you would have effectively had to pull them further enough away from the setback, from
the property line, and remove that third parking space. Effectively, we would have lost all of the
secondary units. So, those exceptions were to allow us to keep the secondary units.
Under no circumstances were any of the exceptions that were granted granted to increase floor
area or square footage for any of the main structures or even for the secondary structures. In
fact, the main structures if you look at the main structures, and a lot of discussion has been with
respect to the size of the secondary structures, the main structures range in square footage from
1,900 square feet to 2,211 square feet. They are normal typical size single-family houses. The
fact they are on lots that they’re on and they are required, and are putting on secondary units.
That’s the reason they look or feel large in mass, but in total that main structure is a typical
single-family house that we’re seeing today.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Phyllis, you had some questions?
Commissioner Cassel: Well, I think I want to go back tO where our focus is and what our
decisions are. I would like to have you define what our scope of action is.
Mr. Lee: Good point, again. The action before you is approval of the tentative map. That action
merely involves subdividing the property into ten tots. All the issues with respect to the building
design, the siting of the two units on the lots, the sets, the daylight planes, and those issues were
settled by the City Council at their appeal hearing on April 30. So again, the action before you is
limited to whether or not to subdivide the property into ten parcels.
Commissioner Cassel: And that includes the easements subdivided in the ten lots and the
easements that will allow this, not a zero lot line?
Mr. Lee: And the reciprocal use.
Commissioner Cassel: And the reciprocal use. We’ve done that before on several occasions at
the Planning Commission. The difference this time is that they will not be at ground level and
below ground level. And that’s critical for us to approve? Is it that they’re going to be below
ground level?
Mr. Lee: That is part of the tentative map. That’s correct.
Chairman Bialson: .Phyllis, thank you for pointing that out. Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: A small question: John, you gave the square footages of the houses, the
average square footage. I’m assuming that does not include any basement area, but each house
has a basement obviously if it’s got [that].
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. That is the typical definition of any single-family house. It does
not include the basement square footage, yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: So that usable square footage is in fact [much larger] than that?
Mr. Lusardi: Basements are roughly another 1,000 square feet.
Ms. Furth: And one of the reasons for the Council exception, one of the consequences of the
Council exception of these larger patios is that instead of having relatively small, light access to
the below ground floor you have a much larger area of light permitting more, what, better lit
subterranean rooms.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Commissioners, any further comments or questions? Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: This is an offthe wall question so forgive me if it’s a little bizarre. In
thinking about how the accessory units would be used legally, whether they’d be rented or not,
did it ever occur to anyone to subdivide or condominimize the parts on top of the garages so that
they could be separate legal entities so there’d be more perhaps an incentive to treat them
differently by as really detached units. I don’t know if you follow what I mean.
Mr. Lusardi: I think the straight answer to your question is no. We didn’t take that approach.
namely because that individual unit wouldn’t meet the DHS standards. We’d be effectively
having to traverse it through another development standard, number one. Number two, the
condominimizing of that individual unit wouldn’t itself guarantee that it be another living unit or
a rental unit [if] that’s really your concern. So, that wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that in that
respect, either. I think one of the things that we do want to do that point to that and we are going
to add to the conditions is the fact that the secondary units that we require that the kitchen units
and all the utilities have to be installed and maintained and kept in the units.
Commissioner Schmidt: I’m concerned about seeing those units actually be used as residential
units, separate residential units. I’m concerned that we have findings that say that there are 20
residential units, but we don’t have any real requirements that there be more than 10. Is that
inconsistent with what we’re trying to do? Can we make a requirement that these be, is there any
way to make it be required or do we need to change the findings?
Mr. Lee: We do have conditions currently that require, well, there’s lots of conditions attached to
the project design including the a.ccessory units on each lot. So, we do have a condition that says
in effect, "Thou shalt build it as shown on the architectural plan," so that guarantees that the
accessory unit will be built. We can add a condition as John mentioned, and I think it probably
is a good idea, that we require that the kitchen, bath, and the full fixtures be installed and
maintained in that unit.
Chairman Bialson: John, do you have something further?
Mr. Lusardi: I just want to say it’s a difficult issue. They are designed as secondary units. That
was the intent of the plan. The Development Agreement expressly described them as 10 single-
family and 10 secondary units. The issue is how you require that and enforce that. [It’s] a
difficult one. The best thing we can do from planning is to design them that way and ensure that
the parking is available there, the utilities are available there, so that they actually function as
secondary units. That’s the best approach we could take. So, the only thing you could change in
the findings is to say 10 main units and potentially 10 accessory units. You could put the word
"potential" in there, but it doesn’t change the fact that we have 10 accessory units designed as
they are. They can function as separate living units, and that’s the intent of the plan.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate what we’re all trying to get to which is to add to the housing
stock in Palo Alto. I’m usually not in favor of anecdotal evidence, but I think that the, speaking
for myself and in light of my history, I lived in two secondary units, one on Webster Street and
one in Woodside. The one in Woodside I was living in a very small unit in a home that is
probably today worth fifteen to sixteen million dollars. So, we cannot assume that the value of
the house and the size of the main house determines whether or not the rental unit is going to be
used. I think all we can do is create the physical attributes of the secondary unit, and if they are
not used as such by the first homeowner or immediately, through the evolution of themselves and
the housing situation in Palo Alto, their children moving on, etc.; I think that we can look to
market conditions and just the necessities in their lives to have it become the secondary housing
unit that we designed it as. But, to try to mm some of these findings or exceptions, etc., so that
we create even more so than the physical, I’m beginning to think is something that we really can’t
twist this into. I agree with John that we need to have [a] requirement that the kitchen and other
things be built and maintained, but more than that I don’t think we can go. Does Staffl’iave a
feeling in regard to that?
Mr. Lee: Again, my understanding is that the Council’s action on April 30 pretty well finalized
both the findings and the conditions and the design requirements of the project, and your
[preview] is limited to the subdivision itself including the easements.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: I have one suggestion that might help it a little bit. On Page 12 which
has all these conditions prior to construction it says under, it’s Item 31, it says each residence
shall have individual electric service. If the electric service, if the water service, if the gas, the
garbage collection are all done separately, then there’s more of a sense on the part of whoever
ends up occupying each of the subdivided lots that it’s separate. There’s no requirement that the
owner of the main house rent it out, but they’ll still have two bills to deal with so they’ll perceive
it. I would recommend that the language in these conditions be made more clear that each
resident is meaning they’ll be two residences on each lot. I don’t think that sentence is that clear,
and so I would recommend that it be made more clear and that all those utility services be made
so that they’re separately billed.
Mr. Lee: The language before you is a standard City condition, but wecan certainly clarify that.
Ms. Furth: If we call them dwelling units instead of residences, then we’d understand that each
one of them needed a meter.
Chairman Bialson: Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: I have two quick comments in terms of size. Alma Plaza which we have
marketed as homes for single working people are approximately 250 square feet, and Lytton
One], the studios, are 400 square feet approximately in the range that we’re talking about here.
There’s a lot of them there. I’ve been in those units.
Mr. Lusardi: I think Staff appreciates that comment by Commissioner Packer. I think that’s a
very good comment. I think that’s something we will certainly implement is the individual
utilities and that kind of thing. I think that will strengthen that as being the separate units.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would ask, I imagine we cannot require, but I would ask that the
developer market these with the history saying that desire was to increase the quantity of housing
stock. This is an ideal location to have additional units. There’s such a demand for student
housing. Many students just rent rooms in houses. They would be quite delighted to have even a
small studio like this. So, I’m quite sure that if they were all available on the market, they would
be just snapped up by a range of people.
Mr. Lusardi: The Planning Department could probably fill most of those units really fast,
[though].
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I imagine that we can’t require that the developer market the
units with the intention, but we would ask that they do it.
Commissioner Packer: Maybe we can say that if you use this as part of the funds with which
they can pay their mortgage and use that as part of the sales approach. I’m sure they’d figure it
out. Pat, do you have something to say?
Commissioner Burt : When the Working Group met on this and we developed a concept that a
point to FAR bonus for these lots, it was a clear intention that the purpose of the additional point
to FAR was to go to the second dwelling units. Unfommately, that was not what was written
into the Ordinance, and I’ve conferred with a number of members of the Working Group. Four
people that I’ve spoken with have all been in concurrence that that was the intention of this. I
thought it was a very progressive concept on behalf of the neighborhood to encourage additional
dwelling units. Frankly, I don’t know other residential neighborhoods in the City who have
demonstrated such a willingness to help improve the housing stock in that way. Most
neighborhoods have fought secondary units. So, I think that there’s a lot of discouragement to
see that what we have are minimal units that Staff has done a very good job of trying to help
assure that given the minimal size of those units that the developer has proposed, we’ve gone as
far as we can in trying to encourage their use as true secondary dwelling units.
As I read the findings, that’s not what we’re really being asked. These findings, this slot
subdivision as Staff has proposed it, talks about them being 20 residential units, 20 separate
residential units with 10 secondary units on the these main properties. The smaller the unit, the
less likely that’s going to occur. Since we have an 800 square foot FAR bonus that was provided
but we ended up only with 370 square foot going to the purpose of that bonus, I’ve got a real
problem there. I thought the suggestion that were made by some of the speakers to consider
looking at enlarging the secondary unit to cantilever over the uncovered garage or carport was an
interesting concept. Is that a feasible one?
Mr. Lee: We did look at that, and believe me, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to
expand those units on the site. The problem is the narrow width of the properties, and if you can
envision the site plan the way it is now, if you were to in fact move that stairway deeper into the
lot and effectively cantilever it over the parking space, the beginning, the lower elevation of the
stair would effectively prevent the hood of the car from going all the way into the parking space
and it would not fit. So yes, we did look at that, and no, I do not believe it’s physically possible
given the narrow width of the lots.
Commissioner Butt : Chandler, could you explain that a little more clearly. If we have a two
car wide garage, is it to the side of it going to be the additional parking space. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: That’s correct.
Commissioner Burt : And so if the stairwell was on the exterior within the yard space of the
garage, I mean of the lot, is that where you’re envisioning it?
Mr. Lee: Most of the stairs are located between the garage and the accessory space.
Commissioner Burt : Well, I don’t mean where they’re located now. I’m talking about if we
were to redesign this to enlarge the secondary units and that the stairs were behind the garage
and sloping upward, or for that matter they wouldn’t even interfere with that. They’d be outside
of the garage space. I dofft quite follow what you’re saying.
Mr. Lee: If you were toflip them on the other side of the garage, then what you’re talking about
could be feasible. If you look at the site plan again, the problem you get is that the narrow width
between the garage and the rear of the main home, which again the ARB mentioned as the main
issue they would like to open up that space, that stair would just further intrude into that rear
yard and make it less usable. So, there’s a tradeoffwith all of those suggestions.
Commissioner Butt : But isn’t that space of the yard being driven by the size of the main home,
which was enlarged as a result of reducing the size of the secondary unit? So, we’re saying we
don’t have room for a secondary unit even three-quarters the size it was originally envisioned
because by reducing the secondary unit, we’ve expanded the main home, and with the expanded
main home there’s no room for the larger secondary unit. That’s circular in my book.
Mr. Lusardi: I think it’s more than that. I think it’s a design issue, and the ARB/HRB spent an
awful amount of time of this. I think if we were to take those units and cantilever them over than
open space, effectively what you’re going to get is two very long buildings because they’re going
to go from property line to property line. They’re not going to touch from one secondary unit to
the next secondary unit and instead of having 10 individual little secondary units with detached
structures with [garages], you’re effectively, whether they touch or not, you’re going to have two
very long buildings. You’re going to have an alley there, and I don’t think that design works,
quite frankly.
Commissioner Burt : So, that is a design that the ARB.
Commissioner Packer: Pat, can I have both of your attention. I think we’re getting off on a point
that’s not within the Charter of this Commission with regard to this Item. I think Pat’s points are
interesting, but we’re not here to redesign this project. I think the ARB has gone through this, I
think City Council has, I think our questions indicate the importance of secondary units to this
body and to the City. I don’t think anything further is to be gained by hammering on this point,
and I think that’s the point we’re getting to. Now, if you disagree with me I would like StafFs
comments, and then I’ll listen to the Commissioners.
Mr. Gawf: I happen to agree with you. All I would say is that the ARB/HRB spent at least three
or four meetings going over this, and this is a result. Exactly what part they did and didn’t do I
can’t tell you, but I know they spent a lot of time making sure that these come out as 10
individual units. I think John’s point, I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but I think that would
have been at least an important part of my consideration ifI were looking at it. The issue
tonight, again, is the tentative map and whether these 10 lots, which we’ve seen from the very
beginning of this plan as 4,300 square foot lots, are appropriate to be approved as the tentative
Chairman Bialson: Commission Members, any comments?
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question that relates to the below-ground patios. Are we setting
a precedent here or is this DH zone that we’re working with mean that anyone else wanting to do
this in town is going to have to come back to us and we can reconsider this issue in the new
Zoning Ordinance. There’s a question here of size, and this came up to City Council.
Mr. Gawf: Let me say I think we’re visiting that question already as you know as part of the R-1
discussion we’ve talked about how the existing requirements not to exceed 10 by 20, 200 square
feet I should say, doesn’t work in all cases and that everyone, almost all new houses, are going to
basements. I don’t know what percentage it is, but I asked Staff and it’s getting very close to
80% or more of all new houses have basements. So, that’s just happening, and what you end up
with with the narrower light areas are just that, very small, almost unusable light areas so this is a
question that we’re going to visit citywide for R1, maybe not at part of the R1 package, maybe as
part of the Zoning Update; but it was certainly raised as part of that process.
Commissioner Cassel: May I ask a follow up question? I guess the question we presumed when
we did basements that they would be below three feet above ground and thus would have very
limited use so we didn’t count them in the FAR. If we make this great big side patio and people
are now having several rooms in the basement, the original intent of allowing that square footage
is gone.
Mr. Gawf: It’s interesting because I had some similar thoughts since I looked at this issue, and
let me tell you the reaction, or the comments, that I got from Lisa Grote, actually, on this. One is
as I said almost everyone’s doing basements with new houses. The basements are very nicely
finished. I don’t care whether they have just a light well or something larger, they are usable,
very nice space, the ones I’ve seen at least. As you expand the sunken patio area, that basement
area becomes even more useful as a space and so the question is, that I had, was in this particular
case the sunken basements are really not visible from public areas, the motor court or the streets
or the park area. So, it’s only affecting visually the people there. What everyone else will see is
a two-story structure from the public areas, and that really was the point that Lisa made to me as
I argued about the basements is FAR was intended to address the visual aspect of a building,
what people see, the bulk of a building and not to make a statement of whether someone should
have a 2,000 square foot house or 3,000 square foot house. That’s a different kind of issue. It’s
really what’s the impact on the public view, and from that standpoint if the sunken area does not
increase the height of the building from the public viewpoint, then what difference does it make?
Again, this will be the issue that we’ll debate in visiting this question as part of the Zoning
Update, but I thought it was a very legitimate point.
Chairman Bialson: Any other questions by Commissioners? Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: It’s just a technical question. When we approve this tentative map, are
we approving these footprints? Are these footprints only on here so we could see the easements?
Mr. Lee: The footprints are labeled as typical, and for that purpose they’re basically illustrative.
It’s merely indicating the space in between which is the easement.
Ms. Furth: You’re not approving the footprints?
Commissioner Packer: That’s what I thought so that a lot of the discussion that we’re having
about the size of the houses is off the point.
Mr. Lee: Correct.
Ms. Furth: This is also probably a unique situation in that the Development Agreement approved
this exact ten lot configuration with the access [line] down the middle in the form of an easement
rather than a dedicated separate space. At the hearing on the Development Agreement, the
Council decided to add the requirement of mandatory inclusion of secondary units. So, the
design process has been more constrained for this. It went backwards in a sense, not backwards,
but it didn’t bubble up from a worked out notion of how the accessory and principal units would
work on these long, narrow lots with rear access. So, I don’t think that you need be very
concerned about setting precedents that you don’t wish to set, and in deed your scope is very
limited in these map reviews.
Chairman Bialson: Any other questions? Does anyone want to make a motion? Phyllis?
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll move the Staff Report.
Chairman Bialson: Any second?
Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, just very quickly as Wynne pointed out, there is a condition in here
that requires CCNRs. We need to expand that condition that [a] homeowner’s association also be
formed for the common areas for the common areas for the purposes of maintenance and [such],
so that will be included in the condition.
Commissioner Cassel: That will be included in my motion, then.
Chairman Bialson: Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: John, you mentioned that you would also add a requirement that the
kitchens and bathrooms be built and maintained?
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct. We would like to include the utility hookups into that also.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. So, would that be part of your motion then, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: Absolutely.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Chairman Bialson: In light of that, Kathy, would you like to make second to that motion?
SECOND
Commissioner Schmidt: I will make a second to it.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any comments? Do you want to speak to it?
Commissioner Cassel: I suppose I can speak to it. We really have very limited scope here. It
was my understanding way back when that these units, whether we liked it or not, were going to
be small accessory units. I did not have any vision that it would be otherwise. I had hoped that
it would have been R2 but it isn’t, and it wasn’t really discussed as such. But, I expected these
units to come in around 400 square feet, and I expected the units to be small. I’m somewhat
concerned about the sunken gardens, but I do want a chance to discuss that again and I’m assured
by Wyrme that this will not set a precedent. I don’t think [we have] here, I just am concerned
about the issue overall. Otherwise, I think this meets the requirements that [have] been put in
front of us, and we’ll develop a reasonable size articulated units on the space that we’re
subdividing.
Chairman Bialson: Anyone else? Pat?
Commissioner Burt : I think for me the issues are simply ones of whether the findings can be
met. I think the Council had addressed many of these other issues that have been discussed
tonight, and they weren’t really of much concern to me in review of the subdivision proposal.
Findings 1 and 2 really dwell on whether or not we’re providing ten primary units and ten
secondary units. Staffs done a good job to attempt to work within the developer’s proposals on
the size of them, but the sizes as proposed are so disproportionate from the original intent of the
units that I don’t find that an adequate meeting of the goal of truly providing the secondary units.
The likelihood that they will be used as secondary rental units, which was the original intention
of the SOFA Ordinance, does not look like it’s likely to be met. I think most objective observers
would say if we look at these in five years and we measure, monitor how many of them are rental
units, we’re likely to find out that very few if any will be. Consequently, it doesn’t pass the
quack test. They don’t look like they’re going to be rental units. They’re more likely going to be
offices or perhaps as marketed as guest units, and that was not the original purpose. For that
reason I can’t see where we’re meeting the conditions of Findings 1 and 2.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: I think given the limited scope of what we have before us, I will vote
"aye" on Phyllis’s motion, and to address Pat’s concern I believe the additional requirements that
will be put into the conditions regarding the requirement that the full kitchen and bath definitely
be built and that all the utilities be separate so they can be separately billed will at least help the
problem that Pat is concerned with. I wasn’t on the Commission at the time when, this was
before it, but since people were talking about accessory units on top of garages and garages are
typically 20 by 20 feet, I think it’s reasonable to have expected that they would be about this size.
With regard to the sunken gardens and the below-ground, New York City has lots of those. The
first floor of many brownstones are below grade and then there’s a little patio in front. It works.
It’s a way of life. Although that isn’t before us, I could see it as reasonable. So, those are my
comments and will support Phyllis’s motion.
Commissioner Schmidt: Well, as I’ve been saying here too, I’m concerned about the fact that
these second units will actually get used as second traits. I think we are doing as much as we can
to assure that would happen. I agree with comments that have been made that when generally
we had talked about this, they were above garages therefore suggesting a size approximating
what we have here now. As I said before, I think units of any size would be snapped up around
here. Even that size would be taken very quickly just because we have such a drastic housing
shortage around here, and certainly students then would be happy to live in those units. The
Findings 1 and 2 as Pat noted are somewhat problematic, but we are creating 20 dwelling units,
20 housing units. So, if Staff is comfortable with them, I can support this; but I certainly hope
that. we do see them as more units. That’s what our goal was here.
MOTION PASSES
Chairman Bialson: I’m going to support the motion because of the limited scope this
Commission is facing in terms of review of this tentative map. I appreciate that Pat as a member
of the Working Group has perhaps a different vision of the secondary units, but as was pointed
out by Kathy and Phyllis they were to be above the garage. Most garages are 20 by 20 or
approximately that size so I think we come up with, if we thought about it thoroughly, would
have been the size of the secondary unit. In addition, I don’t think that the neighbors or the
Working Group really want these to be traits for more than a single occupant. That would bring
a lot more vehicular traffic and parking issues to the forefront which would be a problem for the
neighbors. I think we have created the oppommity and I think the likelihood while others
disagree with me that at some point in time these units will be used for just what we hoped that
they will be used for. None of us have perfect vision, and we can only extrapolate from our own
experiences. Just like with the below-grade patio, it depends on where-you’ve lived before and
what experiences you’ve had. Whether it be New York City, San Francisco, or as a graduate
student in this area, I know what oppommities and markets exist for those types of housing units
that graduate students are drawn to.
So, I too will be supporting motion, and it sounds like we should now go on to a vote on the
motion if that’s okay with the rest of the Commissioners. All those in favor say "aye." (Ayes)
All those against, vote "nay."
Commissioner Burt: Nay.
Chairman Bialson: .The Secretary please note that we have had the motion pass with the vote of
Commissioner Burt against and Commissioners, excuse me while I make sure I get the correct
names, Jon Schink and Owen Byrd absent. I would like to add that I very much appreciate
Staffs work on this matter, and I appreciate that you too have worked hard to try to get these
secondary units and that it’s sometimes frustrating to deal with people asking and going back at
you with regard to just what you’ve been trying for months, years, to accomplish. We feel as if
we’ve given some input on our side. I think the suggestions and those Items incorporated into
the motion in addition to the Staff Report were valuable, but you folks have done a wonderful
job and you’re very much appreciated. Now we’ll try to shorten the meeting so that you get to go
home. Okay, that concludes Item Number 1.