HomeMy WebLinkAbout0513.091November 21, 1391
HONORABLE CIry COUNCIL
Palo Alto 1 California
Members of the Council:
]'J:PORT IN BHI,F
On October 31), 1991, the Plannil'1g Comrn~ssion recc'llmenQ.ed ~ppro\'al of a vest~ng
tentative map t~ merge four e~isting parcels into one parcel and to
resubdi¥ide the property i~to one corldominiu~ parcel with 19 airspace units.
Pl~NIHNG _t;9MMISSION ~CTiON
The PTanni:'19 Commission voted 4-] (Huber and ~lazier absent) to recommen<l
approval of t.he vesting tentative map, 'With minor amendments to three
conditions of approval. The Commission amended condition 4 to remove the
phrase "i~ the .icinity of" to c1arify that the tree protection requirement
only applies to those trees on the project site. They also amended condition
7 to require the applicant to use reclaimed ~ater for dust ~o~trcl. cor.sistent
with Public works Department pol icy. Condition 8 was amended to require the
installation of the right-turn-only sign and stop sign before the commencement
of construction activity.
Planning (ommis~ion recommends that the City Council approve the vesting
tEntativ~ map subject to the following findings a~d revised conditions
(rev;s'ons are in jtallc).
Subdivision findings
!. That the project, as proposed, wnl n('lt have a s"ignifical1t impact on the
en",lroom~f'lt. in that Hie project has been desigf\l;d to decrocil:se the
visual impact. minimize energy con$~mption. retJin a majority of
existing mature trees, and reduce parking and automobile impacts. as
shown in the Negative Declaration adopted by the City Council on
D~cember 10, ]990.
2. That the design of the project is consjstent with tha (ity's
Comprehensive Plan objectives and conlpatible with the immediate
CMR:513:91
3.
Q
ellvironment. in thJt t~e prcpos~d project ~ornplies ~ith Program 9 and
former Program 12: (now Prn~rarr. 13) of the Housing Element by prollidiflg a
net gain {Jf 13 housing units including three BMR units, '!nd is de .... elo,ped
at a scale which is c~mp2tib'e ~;th surrounding uses.
In accordance with Palo Alt~ Municipal Code. Section 21.12.090~ the
prop~sed subdjvision, as conditioned, together ~ith the prov:~ion for
its design and improvement, compl'es a~d is consistent ~~th the
provisions of State law and t~e Palo Alto Municipal Code, including
Sectio~s 66473.5 and 66474 of the GOllernment Cod~, in that the site is
physically suitable, is zoned for the type cf density of the proposed
development, and there are no conflicts ~\th existins or proposed public
easemerlts.
Subdivision Ccnditions
1. Prior to the recordation of the final map, t~e subdivider shall !nt~r
into a subdi~ision agreement ~ith th~ City of Palo Alto that addresses
the fol1owin9 issues.
a. Tne subrlivider s~all provide three BM~ units a~ follows: two 852-
square-foot units at $90,500 pach, and one 1.21J-square-foat unit
at SI03,500, 1n the locitions specified by the approved ARB plans
and in accordance with the negotlated agreement.
b. The s!lbdi'l'1der shall replace all curb, gutter. sidewa1k. and street
trees along the El Camino Way frontage ~r. compliance .... itts all City
standards. The subdivider shall exte-nd the El Camino Way island
in a m?nner acceptllb1e to the Transportation Division staff. that
will discourage vehicles from making U-turr.s from £1 Camino Way
into the project. These impro~ements shall be guaranteed by bond
or other form of security acceptable to t~e City Attorney.
c. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing all storm
drai~age impro~ements~ water and sewer mains. and services,
including any ~equired off·site upgrades, to the satisfaction of
th~ Utilities and PubliC Werks Department staff. These
improvements shal1 be guararJteed by bond or other form of security
acceptable to the City Attorney in ~ form approv~d by the City
Attorney.
d. The subdiwider shall design and install all electrical utilities
in accordance with the City of Palo Alto standardS, including
providing under'ground utilities, to the satisfaction of the light
and Power Oi~ision staff.
2. Prior to filing the fi!1al map 1j/it~. the c.ity, the subdivider shall submit
an apprQved improvement pl an, inchldi n9 p'Jbl i c impro~ements and a final
drainage plan, to the satisfaction cf the Public \IIorks Department staff.
CMR:513:91
p: \l;mr'410J ","cb.)C
1l/ZI/91
Page 2
•
3.
;.;..:..._ .... ',"""--""---,,-_.,-... --"-
PriJr to submitting the final map with the City, t~e subdivider shall
work with the Utiliti~s D~p~rtment st~ff to determl~e all ~tility des,gn
and cap3citj requirements including water~ se\rler~ gas, electric. phone,
and cab1e facilities. The project shall be lim~ted to single-service
laterah for sewer, \r\Iater~ and gas. ,1),11 utllity phi1s shall be approved
by the UtilHies., Water, Ga:; and Sewer DO:O,:lartment staff befo':'"e the final
map is reco~ded.
4. All existing trees (;n the site shall remain, as defined by the approved
landscape plan. and shall be protected in accordance with the measures
established in the ARB co~ditions of approval for the project.
5. The project shall be constructed in compliance with all plans and
conditions e-stablished in the ARB appl"oval.
5. All construction activities s~all comply with the provisions of the
Noise Ordinance. Chapter 9,10 of the Palo Alto MuniCipal Code.
7. To reduce dust levels during construction, the subdiYlder shall ensure
that eKposed earth sUI-faces are watered frequently during the late
morning and the erd of the d<lY. 'With frequency of watering increasing on
windy days. Rec1air/~€d water, in accordance "it,~ Public Works Department
policies, shan be us~d for thrs PiJrpose. All streets and haul routes
shall be cleaned daily. The subdivider shall enSUfe that spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or 2cro)s any public or private
property shall be re:!1o.'ed i;:;ii102diately and paid for by the contractor.
The subdivider shall also ensure that dust nuisances originatin9 from
the contractor's operations, either inside or outSide the rignt-of-way.
shall be controlled at the contractor's expense.
8. A 24 ~ 24-inch standard stop sign and a rignt-turn-on1y sign shall be
installed on the right-hand side of the driveway at the back of the
sidewalk, to the sati~faction of the Transportation Division staff.
prior to start af constn,ction activfties.
9. The applicant s~al1 grant a 6-foGt-~ide pedestrian easement 310ng the
rear (ncrtheln) property line, .. dthin the e:.dsting Santa Clara Valley
Water District access easement, for t~e use of ~e.destrii:r.ns and emergency
~ehic1es ass~c;ated w4th any mixed U5e or residential development w~ich
may be appro'.red at 3981 El Cami r.o Rea1. 'Thi s easement shal1 be
dedicated through an agreeme~t bet~een the subdivider and thE owner of
the property at 3981 E1 Camino Real. which shall be reviewed and
appro .... ed by thE City Attorney. and which shall be recorded with the
final map at the County of Sa~ta Clara.
10. Prior to filing the final ma~, t~e applica~t shall obtain Santa Cl~ra
Valley Water District appro~'al to grant a six-foot-\l/ide pedestrian and
emergency ~ehicle easement, ~hi(h is coincident to an existing flood
control easement along the rear (northern) property line.
CMR:51l:91
~: \.:mr \42 C.J.a;:c-bo. j<:
---._-'-"
11/21/91
r.ge 3
,j
'j
I
'1 I
!
..
1], Prior tQ filing the final m~p,
YelTey Water District approval
control channel.
t~e applicant shall obtain Santa Clara
for drainage into the adjacent flood
Respectfully submitted,
lrt-()l.~
iJOSEPH M. COLONNA .
~S$OCiate Plannes
t:J,;/~d' ;[ .//"( ;u:~?
\\£ . ~ING~'7r l. Assistant City ~er
KENNETH R. SCHP,rIB£R
Director of Planning an~
Community Environment
Attachments: Planning Commission staff report, dated October 25, 1991
Vesting Tentative Hap (Counc~l Members only)
cc; Architectural Revle~ Board
Barron Park Association
Mr. George Remsberg, Lightner Property froup
Deny Petrosian, 443 Venture ~,venue 1'2, Palo A1to, (A 94306
lois VanderbeeK, 736 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Bob Moss, 4010 Drme Street. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jane DeKoven, 421 Jacobs Court, P~lo Alto, CA 94306
Gary Breitbard, 740 San Jude A,,'en.u.:o, Pi~O Alta, CA 94306
Herb Scrod., 2731 Byron Stre.et, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Geor'iJe Smith, 390 Maciane Street, Palo .6.Ho, ell. 94306
Brian DDnovan. 4054 Wilkie ~'Y, Palo Alto. CA 94306
CMR:5l3:g1
p: \~r-\4:2\lJac(l!J, jc
!l/21!9l
Page 4
•
",:'
,
I~< . -... , ~. "--" -"'-.~'-"''''''''' "" .... · .. '°_ ...... 1.'_ ...
/
. .
-")
-"City of Yalo }lito
~ 0 ~OK lO~50
TO: PALO ALTO PlANHlNG COMMISSION
PREPARED BY: Jo,eph~. Colonna
DATE: October 25, 1991
RfPORT IN BRIEf: 420·461 Jacobs Court: Application for approv.l of. ve,ti'9
tentative map to ~erge four existing parcels into Dne parcel and to resubdivide
the property into one condominium parcel witM i9 airspace units,
.En..virQnmental Assess".nt: A Negative Declaration (90·EIA-26) was approved by the
City Co"nci1 on December 10, 1990 (mjnutes attached).
File Nos.: 91-SUB-2, 90-EIA-26
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Appiicant:
Type of Application;
SITE INFORMATION
!llmir:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers:
Comprehensive P.lan Designation:
Existing Land Use:
EXjsting Zoning~
Parcel Size:
Peninsula Tcwnhomes Associates
254 Santa Paula A¥enue
San Francisco 1 CA 94127
Vesting Tent.tive SubdiviSion Map
Application received 8-22-91
Application complete ]0-7·91
Mandatory action deadline 11-10-91
Jacobs (ourt Associates
355 Santa Rita A'JE:nUt!
PalQ A1 tQ, CA 94301
132-43-140, 150, 151
Mult iple-familY resident; a1
Six s;n~le·family homes
RH-I5
54.479 square ffet
Page 1
10/25/91
•
"'
, ,
pROJECT INFORMATION
Pro1ect History: 0., April 24, 1990 an application was submitted proj:losing i
Comprehensi'Je Pian Amendmer.t For U,is site to I:-e changed from Sing1e-family
R€sidential to Multiple-Family Residential, and for the site to be rezoned from
R-2 to RM-1S. On July ~5, 1990, the Plannir.g Commission unanimously recorrmenr1ed
den1o::1 of the appl ication. On December 10, 19£:0, the appl ication was heard by
the City Counti1 and appro~ed by i vote of 6-3.
On May 17, 1990, the Architectural Revie", B~ard (ARB) re~ie\Jied a preliminary
proposal for 19 condominium units on the site. A final AR8 appl ication was
submitted em February 1,1991. lne pr~jp.ct was approved, witt1. conditicms, by the
ARB on March 21, 1991, and forwarded to the City Council on MQy 20 t 1991~ At
tnat hearing, t~e Council continued the item and referred it b2Ck to the ARB for
approval of numerous details. The City Council also relieved the applicant from
a prell i ous1 y ; mposed condi t i on t hat they ,-,oul d be required to prall; de an
addit ional below·market-rate (BMR) unit, if the project '!Jrfere approved after
August 1, 1991, in order not to penalize the applicant for the delay in project
approval caused by the return to the ARB. At the July 18, 1991 ARB meeting, the
ARB r~vie'Wed and approved (3-1, Maser ab$entJ the arr.hitectural detai 1 sand
1andscape plan. On August 19. 1991, the ARB application was retl~rMd to the Cit),
Council and approved {6-1, Andersen and Kniss absent) with conditions.
Project Descripticn: This project is i request for approval of a vesting:
tentative map to merge four eX"istir,g parcels and resubd1.\jjde the property into
one condominium parcel ",ith 19 airspace unitL The approved ARB application
includes demolition of six existing single·family ~omes ... hich ire currently
vacant. The applicant propoo;es to develop tne site with three, two-story
buildings divided into 19 units with access from £1 Cart)i.no Way. The project
includes tnre~ BMR units. Tw~ BMR units are provided at the front of the site.
T~ey share a single detached 9arage~ The t~ird BMR and remaind~r of the market
rate units have attached garages that face the central access driveway.
ANAL VSISIISSUES
During the publ ic hearings en the Zone: Cht:.ngejComprehei1s;ve Plan Amendment and
ARB app1icatiCrns for this project the fonowing issues of concern w~re raised:
i. Traffic 1mpacts on £1 (amino Real and El Camino way;
b. Vehicular access to the site;
c. Pedestr~an access to the site; and
d. Loss of existing housing.
Specific conditions were incorporated into the project approval to respond to
these concerns. The same conditions have been incorporated into the conditions
of approval for this subdivision application.
P '\JC\42OJ~ab.jc Page 2
10/25/91
,
r ,
j
I
1
I
I
... L , ,-~-,.>.,..---~--........ ~-~ .. '-
Traffj c Impacts
~v~t comments regarding the hazards of the intersectlon between [) Camino Real
and E1 Camino Wi)' centered on illegal and dangerous driving practices. Residents
of the Barron Park. area not€c that vehicles rurming r€d li9htS and drhing on the
left side of the El Camino Way island cause trafflc hazards. HiS project is ~ot
expected to signifir:antly increase the nUlr.ber of illegal driliing practices in the
area. Th~ project has been designed so that the two-way driveway lS centared on
the frontage of the site to deter illegal left-hand-turns on the wrong side of
the island. This project is conditione~ to requir~ the applicant to e,ect a
right-turn-only siljn at the site's exit.
Similarly, there was concern t~at residents and visitors of the project will
im:rease the number of tllegal u-turns around t~e fl Camino Way island~ which
save motorists time at He expense of increased risk. of accident. The City
Council conditioned the approval of the ARB application on the exte~sfon of the
isiand, subject t<l Transportation Div"jsion lpproYal. in i manner that wou1d deter
people from making u-turns. The Tra~sportation DiVision finds the extension of
the island feasibie and the ili1piementation of that improllement is li:ited as a
condition of the subdivis1cn.
Vehicu' ar Access
The site has frontage on both E.1 Camino Way arid Wilkie iliay. The project has been
developed wlth all vehicu1ar acc~ss from f1 Camino Way as it is for the current
development. The Transportation Division analysis projects only a 0.3 percent
increase in traffic at the c:l Camino Rea""ijLos Robles intersection. This
additional traffic would not be a perceptible ~n.crease ever current levels.
Exclusive access to the site from lrIiHie Way would result in a 16 percent
increase in average daily t~i;s en residential streets. This alternative was
rejected in favor of neighborhood concerns over increased traffic and parking
on those reSidential streets.
Pedestrian Actess
The project will have pedestrian access from both El Camino ~ay and Wllki@ Way.
Tn! ~ilkie Wa)' access "111111 provide a connection -.with the adjacent resid"ent1a1
neighborhood'. Traditionally this site sBriled as a short CLlt for walk.ing into ttle.
ne;gt~borhood from El Camino Real and has even been used by people eTuding the
politi!. The pruposed pedestrian circulation will dlscourase nonresidents from
usir.g the site as a short cut but still provide a connection for residents to the
adjacel1t neighborhood and school facilities. This "IIIi11 be accomplished through
a perimeter fence and gated entry frolll Wnkie Way.
The City Council conditioned the approval of the ARB application t<l include a 6-
fcot easerr,ent along the rear property line for the purpose of pro¥iding access
fer pedestrians and emergency vehicles to the proposed mixed use deveTopment at
p:UCI42llJm::'<'jl: Page 3
10(25/9J
!
r ,
,
l_;--·
3981 [1 Camino Real. H2' easement will run coincident to an existing Sanh Clar;J.
Va'ley Water District (SC'WD) e.se~."t. Tn. ap~'1cant for the project at 3981
[1 Camf~o Real will be responsible for securlng the r~ght of access over the
SCVWD easement and the adjacent property when the subdf~i5ion map is filed for
that project.
loss of Existing HQusing
This project '!fill rem01ie 6 detached c.:lttage unit'S but provide 19 unHs. Ir.
compl1ance with Program 9 and form~r Program 11 (no ... Prosram 13J of the P.a10 Alto
Housing Clement, this project is requirt!d to provide twa BMR units. The
appl'car.t has opted to also provide one add1tional BM~ unit [for a total of t~ree
BMR ~n1t5), making the BMR dedication IS percent of the total units provided.
The applfcal'lt will pr\)\{ide two 852-square-foot units at $90,500 each, arid one
It211-square-foot unit at S103,500. The applicant's agreement to pra.ide the
three BMR un~ts is recorded in the attao:hed Jan;jary 17. 1991 Tetter. which will
be incorporated into i Subdivision Agreement should the te-ntative map be
approved. Under these conditions, the 19-unit projett is. in compliante-wit~ t~e
Mu1tiple-Family Comprehensive Plan designation.
COf'IPREHENS lYE PLAlLill~1!:PJ.L!!1 A"'N"-CfL-____________ _
Tne project is in compliance with the r!quirements of the Palo AHo Comprehensive
Plan, in that the proposal results in a net ;ain in housing units and three BMR
units, consistent with PrD~rarn 9 and former Program 12 (now Proyra~ 13) of the
Housing Element. Furthermore, the project tonforms to the El C~~ino Real Design
Guidel ines. established by the ARB. and improves the standards and quality of
development in its district. consistent .. itn C.ompre-hensive Plan Urban Design
Pol icy 6.
RECOfottfNPATlOU
Staff re,ommends that the Planning Commission recommend that th! City Council
approve-the 'proposed ... esting tentati\le map, it, aCc:Jrdance with the following
findings and conditions of approval.
SU8DIVlilQUJN"'"'-!.lwNG"'S _____________________ _
]. That the project, as proposed, will nat have a signif;;:.ant impaa on the
environment, in that th~ project has been designed to decrease the vi5~al
impact) min~m;ze energy consumption, retain a majority of existing mature
trees, and reduce park.ing and al!tomobile impa.cts. as shown in t~e Negative
DecTaration adopted by the C,ty Council on December 10, 1990.
Page 4
10/25/91
-I
I
!
2.
,
That t~e design of the project is cJnsistent wittl the City'S Compre~ensiye
Plan objectives and ccm.oatible with the immediate environment, in that the
proposed prClject complies with Program 9 and former Program 12 ,noll'
Program 13) of the Houslng [lement by providing a net gain of 13 housing
units including thr!E!e BMR unit5~ and i!. {.1eveloped at a scaTe ..... hich is
compatible with surrounding uses.
rn l.ccordance 'With Palo AHo Munitipa1 Code, Section 21.12.090, the
proposed subdivision, as conditioned, together wHn ttle provision f\lr its
des~9n and imp':'o .... ement. complies and is consistent wit"-the pro~isions of
Stlte hw and the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including Sections 66473.5 and
66474 of the Government Code. in t~at the site is physically suitable, ;s
zoned for the type of density of the proposed developme~t. and ther~ are
no conflicts with existing or proposed public easements.
SUBDl~ISlON CONDIT)ONS
1. Prior to the recordation of th~ final map, the subdi~ider shall enter into
a subdiviSion agreement 'With the City of Palo Alto tnit addresses the
following ~ssues.
a. The subdivider shall provide three Br~R u~its as follows: two 852-
square-foot units at S90.500 each, ~nd one l,211,sQuare-foot unit at
Sl03,500) in the lo,:.ations specifi'E!d by the approved ARB plans and
in accordance with the negotiated agreement.
b. The subdi~ider shall replace all curb, gutter~ s'idewalk. and stretlt
trees along the [1 Camino Way frontage in compliance with all City
standards. The subdi~1der shal' extend the [1 Camin~ Way island in
a manner acceptable to the Transportation D;~ision staff~ that will
discourage vehicles from making u-turns from £1 Camino Way ir.to the
pr~ject. These improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other
form of security acceptable to the City Attorney in a form approved
by the City Attorney.
c. The subdivider shall be responsible for installing all storm
drainage i~pro~ements. water and sewer mai~s, and services,
including any required off-site upgrades, to the satisfactior1 of the
Utilities and Public Works Department staff. These impro'l'ements
shall be guaranteed by bOr1d or other form of security acceptable to
the City Attorney in a form appro~ed by the City Attorney.
d. The subdi¥ider shall design and install all electrical utilities in
accordance )Wi ttl the City of Palo Alto standards, including provi-ding
underground utilities, to the satisfaction of the light and Power
Division staff.
p'\JC\42rJbc:obj: Page 5
)0/25/9)
-
.: ...
o
2. ;.or-jor to filing t~,=, fit1al map liPith tn~ City, the subdiVider shall submit
3n approved improvement plan, including public improvements and a final
drainage plan, to tne satisfaction of the Public Works Department staff.
3. Pr'ior to submitting the final map with the City. the su~div;der shall work.
with the Uti1iti~s Qepartment staff to d~termirie &n utilit,!f d~sign and
capacUy requiraments including water, sewer~ gas, e1ectric, phone, and
callTe facilities. The project shall be limited' to single-service laterals
far se ..... er, water, and gas. All utility plans s~all be appro ..... ed by the
Utiltties~ ~ater~ Gas and Sewer Department st~ff before the f1nal MAP is
recorded.
4. All existing trees in the ~icinity of the site shall remain, as defined by
th~ approved landscape plan, and shall be protected in accordance with the
measures established in thf ARa conditions of approval fot the project.
5. The project shall be constructed in compliance with all plans ind
condit ions establ fshed in the A.RB approval.
6. All construction activlties shall comp1y 'With the pr~visicns of the Noise
Ordinan~e, Cnapt2r 9.10 of the Palo A1to Municipal (ode+
7. To reduce dust levels during construct,on, the subdivider shall ensure
that exposed earth surfaces are watered freQuentl, during the late morning
and the e~d ~f the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy
days. All streets and haul routs shall be cleaned daily. The subdivider
sha11 ensure that s~nlage resulting from hauHog operations iloTlg or
across any publ it \lr private property shall be removed irrrnediately and
paid for" b,)-' the contractor. The subdivider shall also ensure tnat dust
nuisances originating from the contractor's operations. either inSid! or
o'Jtside tk~ right-af-way, sl'.all be control1ed at the (c>ntrac.tor's expens.e.
S. A 24 x 24· inch standard stop sign .no a r;ght-turn-on1y sign shall be
installed on the right-hand-side of the driveway at the back of the
sideva1~. to the satisfaction of the Transport6tion Di~isian staff, prior
to any occupancy of the project.
9. The applicant shall grant a 5-foot+wide pedestrian easemef'lt along the rear
(northern) property l·ine, within. the existing Santa Clara Valley Water
Dhtrjct access easement, for the use Cif pede~trians and emergency
vehicles associated with any mixed use or residential development which
may be approved at 3981 El Camino Real. This. easement shall b2 dedicated
tnrough an agreement between the subdivider and the owner ~f the property
at 3981 El Camino Real, which shall be reviewed and appr~ved by the City
Attorney, and which shall be record(;d with the final map at the County of
Santa Clara.
Page 6
10/2S/91
/ -'.' __ .. u""""' _______ . _. -.--. ------...... ~--iIIfI) ••
10. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant sha1l obtain Santa Clara
Val1e1 water District ii.ppr<Jval to grant a six·fcot·.ide pe~estr;an and
emergency vehicle 2'as.ement, wnich is cOincident to an existing flood
control easemer.t along the rear (northern} property line.
11. Prior to flling the final map, the ii.pp1icant shall obtain Santa Clara
Yalley Water ~istrict approval fer dril!inage-into the adjacent flood
control thannel.
A IT A( HMENTS
Lecatian Map
Envi rt:lnrrrental Imvict Assessment
Subd1~iderls Statement
January 17, 1991 Below·Market-Rate letter
City Council Minut~s of Oece~ber 10, ]990 and August ]9, 1991
~estin9 Tentative Map (Commission and Council members only)
Plans (Commission and Council members only)
COPIES SENT TO
Architectural Review Board
Sarron Park Ass~ciatjon
Mr. George Remsberg, Lightner Property Group
Den,)' Petrasian, 443 Ver.tura Avenue ~2, Palo Alto, CA 94306
lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, Pala Alto, CA 94306
Bob Moss, 4QIQ Onne Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jane DeKoven, 421 Jacobs Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Gary Breitb.rd, 740 San Jude Ave"ue, Palo Alto, (A 94306
Herb Sarock, 2731 Byron Street. Palo Alto, CA 9430~
George Smith, 390 Haelane Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Brian Donovan, 4054 WilKie Waf, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Page 7
10/25/91 t11~~ I .. ,
1~1.: . ---.... ' ..
. ~~ ,
"
, . , r-i
RM-l5
aJ--
• • ~ ,
L
"",,-~ -:,
.",;{
PF
VENTURA
SCHOO.L
.:' .
GRAPH! C A IT ACHMENT ~~,=-~:.!.i~;w,....&.~:;";';":'~':;;';;"'~;';:';--"1
TO STAfF REPORT ...
PROJECT .....--
NORTi-l
•
" ..
~~ .
,.~<
•
"Emlixoruuental Dccu:ments -City of Palo .Alto C n r<-~
... oJ ... _l.,
ASSE_?S~~NT ~3 0
_F_r_o~ ect Descr iption/T i tle_, ___ ~_._ee attached ...i~·~~'~i~\i~~-~' ~'"~~~c~ .. ~. IST:.~:~~:1t~<'«-~:==
Location/~ddress: 420-461 Jacobs CO'.lrt
Palo Alto, CA __ 9430")----_._---
Sponsori~g Agency/Applicant:
Address and Telepho~e of ~pplicant: 355 Santa Paula Avenue
(41.5) 665-4"O-'O,,5'--____ ~-_ ~Francisco, c:A_~9,,--4'-··='=2_" ___ _
Application for: zone Change, compreher.sive ?~~~~endment, Archite~tural
Review~
Zoning at Project Location: R-2 Fee Receipt No.:---------
Base~ upon review of the project files. the undersiqned merrber of the Plan
ning Department has concluded:
\~! Negative Declaration: The project has no Significant environmental im
pact. No Environmental !~pact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Declara,'e-ion are: incluo.ed ~ the attached initial study. _/J:.;
I'~cort:L.g:f project action is ava~lable for review3_t the Palo Alto mP1an
~g Departnlenh loc~ted on _ the 5th floor o~ __ City Ha1l, 2~Hamilton
Avenue, Palo_ Alto, CA.
i_I The project may have a significa!".t £lnvironmental impact.
mental Impact Report ~ill be prepared~
A....,.,. Environ-
• ,,; ---C" [" , Planning Department Official: __ ~/!.,,> .. --~Ji'~--" __ ~_________ _ _________ _
Planning Director, ~425&~...:; I Date' ?/l;/fo
The proj"-ct has b.enE~ Date; .i"2/-U/YIl
The project has been denied.
Revised S-1-79
:'-;" " .... > .. -:.
... ': •. :::.--·~-;.::.3-·:f..::;;
Date: -----
File no.:
90-EIA-<26
1
o
"
"
•
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO EIA-2a.
I. Project Title/Address: 420-461 Jacobs Court. Palo Alto. CA ________ __
II. Project
III.
IV. EnviroT'.n'..ental Impact Checklist (Explanation cf all 1'}'es 11 an5"'e~5 are
in~Section V)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES
EIAFMCK
SC
a. tT!";stable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displace~ents. compaction
or ove-reevering of the soil? X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features? X
d. The destruction, covering or modifica
tion of a:-,y unique geologic or physical
fe~tures? X
e. Any increase in vind or water erosion
of soils, either on or o~f the ~ite? ~
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes~
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards? X
g. Changes in siltation, depo~ition, or
erasion 'Which lnay modify the channel
of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet? ~
90-EIA-2.6
2
'Adapted from Appendix I.
CEQA, D&ce~er ~4, 1976.
2vpdated MaYr 1982; J~ne, 19S3
EIAFl!CK
SC
-"'-,.
90-tIA-26
3
•
". '-"-----
.. ~
i' rl
,
j
!
2. Air.
••
b.
c.
• Will the propos~l result in:
substantial air emissio~s or deteriora
tion of ambi~nt air ~jality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture
temperature, or any change in climate,
eith~r locally or regional?
3. w~te~. Will the, proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, d~~inage X
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface ~ater runoff1
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood 'Waters?
c. Discharge: il"'.to surface ",'aters, or in ~ny
alteration of surface ... ·c.ter quality,
ir.cluding-but not limited to tempel"atul:'e,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction of rate of
tlo~ of ground waters:
e. Exposure of people or property to water
related bazards such as flooding or
tidal 'Waves?
f. Change in the quantity of grcund ~aters,
either through direct additions or with
drawals, or through interceptions of an
aq'.Jifer by cuts or excavations?
4. Plant Life~ Will the proposal result in:
a. Ch~nge in the diversity of species, or X
number of any species of plar~cs (inclUd-
ing trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro
flora and ~quatic plants)?
,
\ ...
x
x
b. Reduction of the numbers of ~ny unique, ~
rare or endangered species of plants?
EIAFMCK
5C
c. Introduction of new species of plants ~
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
c. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural X
crop?
90-EIA-26
4
, ...-. ............
~.
s.
, .
,:'
Animal Life~ will the proposal result in:
a. Cl'\anqe in the diversity of sp~cies, O~
of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic orqanisms~ insects or
microfauna)?
b.
c.
d.
Reduction of the numbers of any uni~~eJ
rare or endangered sp2cies of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals
into an araa', or re&ult in a barrier to
the migration or movel1lent of animal s?
Daterioration in existing fish or ~ild
life habitat?
6. Noi~~. will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in eXisting noise levels?
b. Expos'.lre of people to severe noise
levels?
YES
x
~. Light and ~lare. Will the proposal produce ~
new light glare?
B. Land Use. will the proposal result in a ~
substantial alteration of the prese~t or
plannea land usa of an area?
9. EnerqyjNatural Fesourcas. Will the proposal
r@sult in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
er.ergy?
h. Substantial incr@as@ in demand upon
existing sour~es cf snergy, or re~~ire
the development of new sources or
energy?
c. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
d. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew
able natural resource?
10. Risk of. Upset. Does the pY'opo5al involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset?
EIAFMCK
sc
x
x
x
90-EIA-26
5
Q
11. ~ulationiHOUsi:"lg.
a. Will the proposal alter the location, ~
distribution, de~sity, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
b. Will the proposal effect existing ___ ~
housing, or create a demand for addi-
tional housing?
12. l'raD._sportation)Circul_~ti()..!!. will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
venicuia~ movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people andl
or goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to ~otor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
~3. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon., or result in a need for new or
altered gover~~ental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Mainte~ance of public facilities l
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
EIAFHCK
SC
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
A. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
_x_
x
__ x_
x
90-EIA-2C
6
c. Water?
d. Se .... er or septic tank?
e. storm .. ate_r drainage'?
f. Solid waste and disposal:
15~ guruan Health. Will tne proposal result in:
a. Creatio~ of any health hazard or
potential healtn ha~ard (excluding
menta,l health) '?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
16~ Aesthetics. will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any sce~ic vista or vie~
open to the public, or ~ill the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public vie'J?
17. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality .or quantitj' of exist
ing recreatio~al opportunities?
18. CUltural Resources.
EIJ>.FMCI<
sc
a. Will the proposal result in the altera
tion of/or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure;, C~ object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential
to causes a physical change which ~ould
affect unique cultural values:
d~ will th~ proposal r9strict existing
religious or sacred uses vithin the
potential impact area?
YES ~~ HQ
..£
_L
..£
x
x
x
90-EIA.-26
7
19.
,
"And"tory nQ'1'l'I of S.is:n,ific~",,_~" ..
~L ooe$ t.ht! p:roj~ct. h.i!.Ve the pot~ntial to
deqraQg th~ ~~ality ot t~e enYiron~entl
l!iut).'stantial1y' redu::;e t:.he h~bitat. or It
tiSh O~ vildlife ~p~c:i~$.~ ~au~e a ;.n_~n.
or Yild~if~ population to dro~ b~l¢~
self-sustaining l~vels, threaten t¢
elilllir..a.te a plant or animal C:Q~'.H11tYI
~~duce the n~er of restrict the ranqG
of a ra:t"e or endangereo plant. or AhiMal or
_liminate i~portant exaEples or the ~ajor
periods of C~lifornia history or prehisto~?
b~ Does th~ p~oj~ct hav~ ~he potential to
achi~ve shC)l"t. ... t~rm., to thE< disact\tant~g~
of long~te~f ehvi~onm~rytal ~oals. C~
~hort-t~~ ~~paGt on th~ envlronment in
Q~e vhi~~ oc~ur~ in ~ ~~latively b~i~t~
a~fihitiv~ p~ri~d of ti~e ~htle Ipng~t~~
i:mpaets llI'ill enQ.Ut~ vel!. inti.':! the tutut"-e,}
c, I)oes th~ project:. havta i~,pl5ct:; ",,-hich ~.r~
individu..a:Jly limited. but. cUlb:llatively
cOhsiderable? (A preject may impact en
two or ~o~a $eparate reSOurCe$ vhere the
impact on each rasou~ce is relatively
small~ but where th~ effect of the total
of t.bose impClGts 'On the enviro.hn'\ent is
signl.fiqant. )
a. Do~s th~ project hav~ env~conment~l
etfects ~hich ~ill ca~~e substant!al
ad~e~se ette~t~ on h~~an ~eing$. ~ithe~
dit'ectly ~.r indirE?;c:t:ly7
V. Explanation cf ffy~~~ ~n$~~r~ ih environmental ch~ckli~t_
See: 3t:.t-acht!Q ..
tl"'"MCK
sc
1
!
I
I
1
1 (b,c,f) Earth. constr\Jct~or" of the project, .... ·ill cisrupt,sit:e,scils and
result l.n 1!unor changes to s~te topography. 5l.nee all parkln'~ \Hll be at
yrade a minil!liJlII amount of g!'ading ... ·ill :be required~ ). detailed grading and
drai:1~ge plan shall be required f,=,r revie· ... and approval of the City
Engineer prior to issuance of ~ny qrading and or b~ilding permits.
The site is located ,dth5.n a seislJIic area of moderate ri~k. and ",'ould be
subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an eart:=.quake:. All
constr~ction on the site shall be subject to the provisions of the most
current Uni fonJ!. Building code (UBC). portions of , ... hich are directed at
:minimizing. seismic risk and preventing loss of 1 i fe ar:d property in thl9
event of an earthquake.
~~) Air. Demolition of the exist-~i:ng structu:!'es ar.:l co:'.strnction of the
new bu~ld~ngs 'Will temporarily result in an increase in dust ernissio~s o'.'er
existing a~bicnt air conditions.
To reduce dus-t levels durir.q demolition and construction it shall be
required that exposed earth surfaces be ~ate=ed frequently during the late
morning and the end of the day. 'With frequency of ... ·~tering increasing on
windy days, All streets and haul routes shall be cleaned daily~ Spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across a~y public or private
properT,Y shall be retlo'ted i"rnnediately and paid for by the contractor. D'..lst
nuisances originating from the contractcr r s operatim~s either inside or
CJutside t.be right-of-way shall be cont-rolled ant t?';.€. contractor I 5 expense +
3 {a) water. The developmer.t of the site will result in minor alterations
to existing drai~age patterns. A detailed drainage p!an shall be required
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
~_~plant Life~ There are approximately 25 trees on the site. These
included o"'k, walnut, madrone, California pepper, conife:::-s, palms and fruit
trees. More intensive development of the site ~ill inevitably result in a
loss of some of the existing trees. The project being proposed for the site
is d~siq~ed to retain 15 of the existing trees, including np.arly all of the
largeI' trees. It is recommended that as many ne'",' additional trees as can b~
reasonably accomodat.ed on the site. {10 1tI.inimu~} shc·J.ld be plar,ted to
replace the trees which are being lost. The ~ew trees should be located to
shade paving and to reduce the need for air conditioning+ The final
la:1dscape plan shall be required to be rev ie·..red and approved by the
~rch5tectural Review Beard prior to issuance oi any building permits.
6 (a) Noise. Construction activities will result in te~porary inc~eases in
local al'tlhilint noise levels. All constr:.1ction activi ti es shall be subj ect
to tt',e provisions of the Cityts Noise Ordil".ance, Chapter :3.10 FAMe.
7. Liqht and Glare. The project ~ill result in a slight ircrease in light
and glars. qenerated from the 5it~. It is reco~mended that all exterior
lighting be shielded and directional in order to minimize light and glare
impacts on adjacent residential uses. A final light:i~g plan shall re':;p.1ire
review and approval of the ARE as part of the final landscape plan prior to
1ssuance of a building permit.
EIAFMCK
SC
90-EIA-26
3
... '
S. Land Use. The prOP~d RM-lS multiple family ~ing for this site is.
mor-e consistent with city land lIse patterns thai1 the current R-2 tt.'o fc:1mlly
to~inq. RM-15 zoning is typically used throughout the city as a buffer
between single family residential and higher density multi-.family and
comnercial zones, as would be tbe case in this instance. Residential
zoning along El Camino Real is almost exclusively ~ultiple faD!ily, with
single fa~ily and two family residence zoning occuring in only a few
locations. This site is surrounded by a mix o~ zone districts including CS,
CN, RM-30, RM-1S and R-l. The proposed RM-15 zoning ~il1 provide a logicol
tr3nsition between these other zone districts.
11. (al Pop"..!lation and Housing_ The proposed zone chang€: ..,ill result in an
increase in the maximum number of units which could be b'.lilt on the site,
from a maximum of 12 units' allowed under R-2 to a maximum of 19 units
allowed under F.M-l5 ,.,ith a net increase of seven units. The demolition of
the 6 el<':isting housing units and construction of 19 l'"leY housing units 'Will
result in a negligible increase in area pop'..llation and a slight beneficial
impact on the city's housing and jobs imbalance.
BeC3Use the project ~ill result in the removal of rental housing stock, the
project shall be subject to the provisions o~ Program 9 and 12 of the PalCl
Alto Comprehensive Plan's Housing Element Below Market Rate (EMR) program.
compliance with Program 9 ana 12 will re~ire 10 pEr cent of the units 'in
the project to be BMR units.
12 (b , d) Transportation/Circulatton_:..
SITE ACCESS
There is SUfficient frontage for future projects to access this site from
either El Camino way or Wilkie Way, or from both streets~ However, the
proposed project provides for access only from E1 Camino w~y 'With no
vehicular acc~ss onto Wilkie Way. The transportation Divisi~n has
determinea that access from either street can be accomplished safely and
with no Significant environmental impact on nearby streets ana
inters€ctions.
The driveway access to the site from El camino Way should be located
approximately in the center of the site frontage, as is the case in the
proposed project. This location ~ill provided adequate queuing for right
turns onto El Camino Real and will reduce the possibility of illegal
manuevers to e.nter and leava the site. Access to the site via El camino
""ay is right-turn-in/o'.Jt due to the. location of a median island on £1
Camino Way directly in tront of the site. Some drivers approaching the site
from the north could try to enter the site by making u-turns just south of
the median island. Drivers exiting the site may be tempted to turn left
and drive on the wrong side of the median to reach southbound El Camino
Way. Both these manuevers ~ill be discouraged by locating the driveway
approximately in the center of the site ~rontage. The small number of
u-turns that might occur is not judged to create an unacceptable safety
problem.
Acc~ss in and out of the site on Wilkie Way has excellent sight distances
except for left turns into tbe site. For left turns, sight distance is
partially impeded by a ~mall tree on private property. but is considered to
be minimally aCCEptable. Project traffic accessing the site via Wilkie way
EIAFHCK
SC
90-EIA-26
10
! f·
I
I ,
~(t':·,·
.,
"
•
;-,"
" woul"-enter the nearest' -.,!'ollector street, West Mea~_ .,.' r;rive l at a four-way
stop intersection.
IMP~CTS OF INCREASED TRAFFIC VOLlTXE
'l'he 'l'ransportatiQn Division has dE!tern.ine-d that no lnatter "'~ere access to
the site \ltl'ere to be :made, and even if all project t.:::-ips ... ·ere to pass
exclusively through anyone af the three nearest intersections, the
increase in traffic generated by the proposed higher dl?'nsi ty -.. ould net
result in a significant environmental impact at any locaticn (i.e., LOS E
~ould not be produced.)
Using sta.n.dard City ot Palo Alto trip generation rates, current trip
'.generation f"rom the existihq six sir.gle .... family 'J.nits is estimated to be
approximately 60 ADT with 6 trips (10 percent) during the PM peak hour. The
proposed 19 units ~ould generate 130 ADT with 12 trips (9 percent) during
the PH peak hour.. The net increase in vehicle tips would be 70 A01 and 6
PM peak hour tr~Fs. CUrrent traffic gen€rated by this site is via EL
camino way only, whereas future projects could access via El Camino Way
and/or Wilkie Way ..
1990 PM peak hour levels of service at nearby intersections are as follows:
Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Real/El Camino Way
West Meadow Drive/El Ca~ino Way
West Meadow Drive~'i1kie Way (estimate)
IIJS D'
UlS B
LOSE
The increase in total entering volume during the. PM. peak hour at both West
Meadow Orive intersections ... ·ould be a maximum of about one percent. At El
camino Real/Los Robles~ the increase ~ould be about 0.3 percent.
Current average daily traffic (ADr) en Wilkie Way north of West M~adow has
not been measured but it is estimated to be in the range of 800 ~o 1100
ADT. based on ADTs observed on other similar residential streets. If
project access were taken exclusively from Wilkie Way, the addition of 130
ADT due to the project would represent a maximum increase of about 16
percent in Wilkie Way AOT. According to the TIRE index, a me~hod of
representing a resident's perception of the effect of traffic an
residential activities, this increase ",ould be expected to be just less.
than perceptible.
P~~ED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements are planned for the E1 Camino Real/El camino Way/Los Robles
intersection and are scheduled to be implemented in 1990-9l. These
improvements will facilitate the safe movement of vehicl~sf pedestrians and
bicycles and will help mitigate tbe impact of i~creased traffic at the
intersection.. The improvements include. new right turn lanes onto El Camino
Real, the addition of Dike lanes in both directions on El Camino way,
widening of the two eastbound lanes on Los Robles and improved traffic
signals.
EIAFMCK
SC
90-EIA-26
11
•
Subdivider's Sta"tement ."-...".
Section 21.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ""Jdres that a
"Subdivider's Sta.temen.t" shall appear lJtX'TIJ or accompany. tentative 0-:
pr~liminary oaT1:el maps .. and shall contain the following information:
Address of Subject Property: 1f20 'rtiRelI4J1 1t I .//;:1,'81' ('Ailee
(If any of'the items bel"", are not applicable, so state.)
Ca) Existlng use(s): -"IX ~O TT A.f!;:;K VAc!MI
Zone district (s): _tJ?4-'l'i'J.1).L .... -t../...z5 __________ _
•
(b) Proposed use (5): (q f?p1f/DEliT/lI1. IQU'NHO(),cPS (&itlUOf!l'~ILW-!!
(c) Improvements and public utilities proposed and expected date of
eanpletion: ______________________ _
(d) Provis ions far sewerage and sewage di.!'P9ffl'f'ri;4i!#~rn~3J.i~~-
Cel Public areas proposed:
DE'WOEH! 0' PLANNING
LD ALT~
ef) Tree p1antlng proposed, lnc1uding lndication of trees to be reooved
or left In place: (lee f0fud!PflIjYIUr; 4,4liOW.A£E PJ..ftN
--'
--
/
o •
(3) The granting of tl>.e exception will not be detrimental to tr •• public
welfare or injurious to ather property in t..~ territory in which the
property is 5i tuated. (Explain)
;11/19
(4) The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements.
goals. policies or spirit of the 1..... (Explain)
¥Il
j.. Requested variances fran any af the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
(Va:riances fOT-side yards and setbacks for existing build.:ir..gs may be
requested in conjunc:t:ion with subdivisions to be reviewed by the
Planning CamUssion and City COuncil.)
Variances requested: IjI.A
Reasons and Justification: ______________________________________ __
---'~""""----~ ....
!
" !
i
!
(g) Proposed
''"'\
\J O'~
street and outdoor light ing: .1.1 ~e!:.KR--4Jj"'IlI.IU;;'D~SC!:..l&P.~/I:::;'-.1P~Lb,c,,-,l'-ll~ __
{h) Existing Tes~rictive covenants~ leases, rights~of·way. licenses and
encumbera.'1ces ai:ccting use of land'(attac.I,. copies):J:::m fC lSepoe:t
(i) Requested excep1:ions to any requirements of the Subdivision Ordinanc.e.
(lobst exceptions relate to General Design re<r.rir"""nts (Olapter 21.21) and
particularly to lot site, dimensions, location or configuration~ Applications
for exceptions shall state fully the grcundsof the application and the facts
relied upon by the petitioner. Exceptions shall be grar.ted only upon making
certain findings. including the four listed !><ol"",.)
Exceptions requested: __ ~h<41 b~4=<-_______________ _
I
,"
(1) There are special
(Describe)
clra.mstances or conditions affectlilg the property.
(2) The exception is nE'Cessary for the presel"V3tion ai'ld enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the petitioner. (Explain)
IJ/A
'.
• •
j. Mannor in which complia.'\ce with applicable elements of t110 ~rehensive
Plan, including housing policies, slulll be attained (if relevant): . !Uvea ,
•
~~/F:/~A~( ~f('p11:iI f~N~I,,!',"l'} -3. ",q~ ""J.t-~/3 I':' DFl'Hc ~tnlrPk6'!elXlllJi'
H) The best 0 my 1cnowleage, ~ application lS "i.1'l C otmanee 'w'J. th the P-AJ.
Cottqorehensive Pla'l as sumutted or as indicated under (j) above.
Si&natuTe of applicant lAJ=:::-@
Planning Department lO/lZ!79
.10.llfr .. 1;0""
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
c-..
City of Falo Alto
William Lightner., Jr., Lightner Property Group
AUgust 20, 1991
Subdivider's statement; (Subsection 21.12_. __ 05.0 <9_1l
(Subsection 21.12.050 -c.) Improvements and public utili
ties proposed and expected date of completion: The develop
er intends to extend ~nd complete the looping of the exist
ing 6'" water main from El Camil".c way-through to Wilkie and
Maclane streets. This will recruire the relocation and
resetting of existing drive 'Wifh a wider (approximately 24')
drive opening to the private dr~ ,·eway court area. Adjacent
sidewalk areas will also be replaced to the city's stand
ards. The inner drive'W~y court area will have sufficient
turning radius for fire apparatuses as has been determined
with that agency. Sanitary sewer main will be installed
along the court area with laterals to the individual dwell
ing units and said mair. extension from Wilkie a~d Maclane
street will be provided with a public utility easement;
pertinent manholes and clean-outs to be provided to the
satisfaction of the ~ity engineer4 Storm waters will be
collected by a combinaticn of surface and closed systems
that vill discharge to the adjacent Santa Clara Drainage
Facility. Additional utilities to be provided to eac~ unit
vill include power, gas, telephone, cable ~l, fire sprinkler
systems an~ a common irrigation system for landscaping
maintenance. Specific details of these utility extensions
will be provided during the preparation of final improvement
plans and to the satisfaction of the city engineer.
Tentative construction schedule for the above improvements:
completion is expected to occur on or before June 30, 1992.
Cd.) Se.wage disposal via closed PVC laterals to an exten
sion of system's main fro~ Wilkie and Mac1ane str~ets. An
alternate routing to El camino Way may be re~lired.
(e. ) No public areas are proposed by this proj ect but
dedication of public utility easements over those portions
of the of driveway court areas and common land as required
to satisfy agency and utility services are anticipated.
(e.) Removal of existing trees and proposed replanting are
as delineated by proposed landscaping plans included here
with.
Deoartment of Planning and
Community Environment
(415) 329·<354
January 17. 1991
Mr. ~111iam tiQht~er, Jr.
Lightner Property Group
254 Santa Paula Avenue
Post Office Box 27508
San Francisco, CA 94127
Dear Mr. Lightner:
250 Kami 1 ton Avenue
Post Office Box ]025C
Palo I,]to, c.~ 94303·086,
Subj€ct: Jacobs Court -Bela"", K<irket Rate Units-.l]11Bl
This letter summarizes th€ agreement reached between YOLI and Plan.ning Olv;sicn
staff regarding the provision of Below Market Rate (BMR) condominium units for
your proposed Jacobs Court Tow~nouse project at 420-461 Jacobs Court.
As discussed, you hava agreec to prQvide three BMR units as follows:
1. The units (numbered !, S, and 19) shall be located as shown on the
attached preliminary site plan"
t. The unit noor plans \!lin be as shown on the attached dr;;;wings
lab.led Flan A (Alt. J) a', Pl.n D.
3. The ~umber of units, the si2e of the units, the number of bedrooms
in the units and the initial sales pr5ce of each typ~ of unit
shall be as fo~
e,'?2. cc..-.
T\\Ic~square-foot two-bedroom i.!r"l1ts ~t 5913,500
eacn unit ~
\-;..11 \.'~
On~-square-foot three-bedroom unit at Sl03,5DO
The actui!l price may '.;ary sli9htly as new uni.t prices are
established annually in April. The unit price "'1"11 be that in
effect at the time of subdivision map approval.
4. The e~terior finishes of the BMRs will be indistinguishable from
those of the market rate units, as 'Will the majority of 1~terior
finishes. Substitution of less expensive appliances and interior
custom finishes may be acceptable subject to prior approval by the
Planning Department.
-'.
o
'William lightner, Jr.
January 17, 1991
Page 2
•
5. The terms of this letter of agreeme"lt shall be incorporated into
the Subdivision Agreement u~on appro~al of the Subdivision by the
Pl.nning Commission and City Council.
1hank you for your cooperation during the planning process or. this project.
I wou1d appreciate your signiog this letter indicating that we ha~e reached
agreement regarding your BMR cor.tribution.
Sincerely.
KENNET" R. SCHREIBER
Director.of P'annin~ and
Community £nviro~ment
] agree to prcv~de three 6MR units as described i~ th€ 1etter of
January 17, 1991.
D,~ t-e
Attachments: letter dated 1/9/91 from ~111iam Lightner~ Jr.
Pre1 iminary Site Plan
Floor Plans Plan A aod Pl.n D
cc: George Remsberg, Lightner Property Group
Sylvia Seman. Palo Alto Housing Corporatio~
Sue Case, City Attorney's Office
Jim Gilliland, Hanger Planning Projects
JG/1991/A/SMR420JA
. ,
!
i
~ .
.,
r,
" , ,
• ::=
-, .~
....
:-.. ':
~:. 0'1.1'/ G." Ii 0 u ~
: " :. "." "U' ~ "'!" uf
.: .. , . -: . -, ~ ' .. '
. . . . . , .
.J
January 9, 1991
Ken Schreiber
Director of Planning end community Enviror'.ITlent
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Jacobs Co~~t, Ao~lication 90-ARB-74
Dear Ken:
In accordance 'With the :zo71ing approval granted by the'! City
Council for the referenced prot'osal , I am · .. 'riti::"lg to confinn
that 'We ~ ... i 11 be contributing t~ree belo'",'-market-rate u:1.i ts
("BHRs") rather than tr,e tva required by law'. It is my
understanding that at the time \\Ie make our suomi ttal to the
Architectu~al Revie ..... Boaru for final appro .... al, w'e "I<:ust have
obtairled a letter fro;!: yot! confirming your acceptance. of the
basic elements oE our p:-oposed BMRs.
Par the e::-lclosed, red'...'::::ed site and floor
proposing that u~its 1, 5 and 19 will be
scribed b€low: ~ 1lS'<-' F)
plans, .... ·e .are
the SHEs, as oe-
Unit .1:
Unit 19:
2-bedroom t ..t~ sq'..lare fe~ parki.'lg sp02.ces
[1 covered~,-~'7-z.-~
2-bedroorn, ~ square fe~ pa=king spa:::es
Unit 5:
(.1 covered) I.J-.-~ t1v-H ~
J-bearocm, ~ square reet t 2 covered ~a=king
spaces
The exterior finishes of th~ BMRs will be indi5tin~ishable
from those of the market rate "I.lni ts. For the most ~ part,
i:1terier finished will alse be equivalerr:.. Ho'Weve!", 'We may
substitute less expensive appliances and less expensive
custom finishes in the EMRs.
I understand that the current prices paid for EMRs are
$90,500 for 2-becro~ro units and $103,500 fer 3-becroom
units, and that ne~ prices will be set in April c! this
year. I a.1so underst.ar.d that the prices for a particular
project's BMRs are established at the time of subdivision
map approval~ As I do not believe the projectts li:iap will
appr!=>ved prior to April, I assume that prices for the Jacobs
Court BMRs ~ill be the pest-April-199.1 a~oun~s .
If you hav2 any qu~stions prior to confirming your accept
ance of this prvposal, please cor-tact George Remsberg at
949-44 05.
Sincerely,
Peninsula Townhem ---. ssoc~ates, Q calif~ Ltd. Partnership
~1. \'-' k' I'-..J---J"v ,----.
I ~lliarn Lig. tn~ __
I
o
-_.
l~j'~~
r, --,... __ -/ !
I I > ~ a >
-;.
y
i--'\ ~"" ~-----,/ ~'----------:---'--"
'--:-----------
!
J
!
J
J,~
.;::--c-~
2~-
.:~~ ..
• -'1':
-----
-' .....
.-
o •
. -
. '
" :".
CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES
DECEMBER 10, 1990
420-<61 JACOBS COURT
11. PUBLIC HEARINC: Plannl.nq Commissior. Recc-mmendation re denial
of an application for a zone change fro!!l. R-2 to RM-15 and
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map change from single-Family
Residential to Multiple-Family Residential for property
located at 420-461 Jacobs Court (continued from 8/13/90) POO)
(CMR:602:0)
Planning Commissioner Jo~ Hirsch said the Planning Commission was
concerned about the loss of affordable rental housing to ccndomini
UlII units at a market value of approximately $375,000 and the
displacement of the currant occupants.
Council Member Renzel queried if the existing lot pattern on the
pro~rty consisted of three lots of different sizes and what the
procedure wO'.lld be if a re-subdivision was required under the
current zon inq.
Zoninq Administrator Nancy Lytle said any re-subdivisicn to the
maximum potential of the property ~oulQ be a major subdivision of
five lots and would require Planning Commission and Council
approval.
council Me~er Renzel queried if the property was included in the
current status of the R-2 zone referral to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Lytle said the property would be subject to the interim R-2
regulations.
vice Mayor Woolley queried other possible results if the Council
did not re~one the property.
senior Planner Virgini~ Warheit said the R-2 and R-2 Interim
Regulations 'Were based. on a hypothetical prototJ;pe of five lots
which mig~t go on the site ~jth no exceptions being required.
Vice Mayor woolley queried if there would. be five lots under either
the R-l or R-2 z~ning, unless variances were granted.
65-168
12/10/90
-"
o
Ms. Warbeit said yes.
the floor area. ratio
under the R-2 zoning.
The lots would be developed the same. but
(FAR) per lot could be put into two uni ta.
Vice Ma~?or woolley queried if the access would be f.l'om E1 Camino
Way for two units.
Ms. Warheit said y~s. The developer sketched out several scenarios
for dividing the property into five or six R-2 lots 1oI'hich all re
quired some kind of exception to lot size or street access. The
prototypes, however, were based upoo what could be done without
asking for any exceptions to the subdivision. process, and other
schemes would require exceptions.
Mayor Cobb queried if two pie-shaped R-l lots could be created to
front onto wilk.ie way to creatE'. a completely R-l situation off
Wilkie Way where the backyard ~ould front onto El Camin~ Real ~nd
could provi~e for multiple-family units facinq onto El Camino Way
and R-l' completely on the part which fronted -onto Wilkie way,
cO'l'l'Pletinq an R-l neighborhood rather than having a 'Dlultiple-family
intrusion.
Ms. Lytle bel ieved a map could be created with one R-l lot o:ff
Wilkie Way at the rear~ however, two lots leading onto Wilkie Way
would create a situation calling for exceptions fvr width.
Player Cobb queried if the potential area had been looked at as
having R-l. lots on Wilkie Way 'With the rest being m'..llti-family ..
Ms. Lytle said no.
Council Member Kniss queried if only one below-marKet-rate {SMR}
unit would be required with the density of the ten units versus the
nineteen units.
Ms. Lytle said the 'SHR requirement 'Would be 10 percent of th4!
number of units; under the R-1 zoning, if each of the five lots had
a duplex of two units, one BMR unit ~oL:.ld :be required. Under the
RM-15 zoning, tw~ BMR units ~ould :be required.
Mayor Cobb dec)ared the Public Hearing open.
Jane Oekoven, 421 Jacops court, spoke as an individual and as a
representativa of several residents of 421 Jacobs Court, ~ho lived
and ~orked in Palo Alto and would be displaced if the propo"ied:
project 'Was approved. She disagreed with the need for another
condominium project. There were several vacancies in the Palo Alto
Commons and the Hamlet according to a real estate agent from
Cornish' Carey. The environment of Jacobs Court had not changed
substantially. Rather than make Palo Alto look like Sunnyvale, it
seemed more challenging to maintain what made Palo Alto unique. In
terms of Hr. Remsburg'S argument that the zoning of adjacent
properties had changed allowing similar or higher density residen-
65-169
n/le/90
•
tial uses, .she believed the statE"mf?nt refuted one of the proposal's
major points, i.e.; that opportunities for balancing the jobs and
housing imbalance were rare. To o~e ~alking along El Camino Way,
it appeared many opportunities ",ere prevalent 0 She urged maintair.
ing the residential char~cter of the area as part of the Wilkie Way
neighborhood. In terms of the jQbs and
housing imbalance, Palo Alto could not solve all of its tax :base
and housing imbalance problellls in a three, square-block area of El
Caminc Way. The traffic and pop~lation density problems were not
being addressed for the projects currently unde~ay. She opposed
the project.
Bob Moss, 4010 Qrme street, referred to the deteriorated nature of
the buildings and pointed out that no money had been put into
maintenance for the past few years ~ There ~ere ongoing safety
issu.es and paying for .a IINo u-t,urnW sign -would net me.co:n anything.
There currently existed a -No Right Turn-sign on El Camino Real
just before El Camino Way which was regularly violated. The
accident historr did not go back far enough. rn terms of energy
efficiency, .. ben one increased the number of units and made the~
twice as efficient, it actually serve,j to increase energy usage
more than 50 percent. He di~puted the affordability of the units
and their actual impact on the jobs and housing imbalance. The
proposal would trade relatively affordable rental housing fC'r
relatively unaffordable owner housing, and it ~ould increase
traffic in an already oangerous area. He urged rejection of the
proposal.
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, lived in a similar ~oning situation
and was concerned about the bad precedent. In Augustl 1990, he
provide.d documents from 1983 re.latiTlg' to the subject property,
which were given to tbe applicant, 'Which clearly reflected the
Santa Clara Valley Water District easement as the area on the
Wilkie Way side of the property. On the present plans the easement
was between the property line and the chair.. link fence. He
believed the ARB application was incomplete because it included
flood area property and easements in the site area calculations in
violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMe) Section 1B.88.070 and
construction in the utility easement areas ~ithout an €ncroac~ent
permit in violation ot FAMe Section 18.88.060. The site area shown
was more than 5,000 square feet larger than in 19B3, but the
property share of the abandoned wilkie Way extension 'Was much less
than 5,000 square feet. Wilkie Way vas only 60 feet 'Wide and the
extension was only 50 feet wide. The proposed property's share of
the extension was only 20 feet wi~e, and of that, six feet ~as the
f1000 control easement so that the additional area in that
abandoned extension was less than 2,500 square feet. The April 13,
1983, Plannil".g COllUDission Minutes clearly indicated the residential
redevelop~ent guidelines ~ould have required a zone of R-1, RM-l or
RM-2 if the land use had bee!"l changed to mu:'ti-tamily in 1983.
Those zones were replaced by the RM-15 zone. It ~a5 misleading to
compare the density of the current RM-15 zone proposal with the
density of a fictitious RM-5 proposal from 1983. counci 1 needed to
65-170
12:/10/90
\ ,
•
• ,.
31"
1 •
J ..
compare the development proposal before it with the new zone versus
vhat could be developed unaer the current zone. If the applicant
~as succes~fu! in o~taininq a zone change, he could always 9ubmit
an entirely different project afte~ the new council ~a6 on board.
The cumulative effect of development on adjacent properties should
calJ~;.e less--not more--dev.alopment on the parcel. council had the
absolute right under the Subdivision Ordinance, Title 21, to
p~ohibit access f~om Wilkie Way if it ~as the street abutting the
rear property line. The application for a zor,i"..,g change 'Was
independent of the building plans. Regarding the deterioration of
the properties, even in ~he strictest rant control cities, property
owners could pass on maintenance c~sts to tenants. He urged rejec
tion of the zone change applicetion and that the applican~ meet
with the Water District to survey the property and to find out how
much property the Water District owned and how large the easement
was.
council Memb-e:r Andersen qt',eried whether Mr. Borock's position was
still, as stated in the July 25, 1990, City Council Min~tes, that
it council decided on RM-15 zoning on the property, any kind of
access either for vehicles or pedestl."ians should be onto Wilkie
Way.
Mr. BorocJc said it was his secondary position. His primary
p"si ticn was that the R-2 zoning sho\lld remain. He referred to
Planning commissioner Christensen' s comments in t.he July 25, 1990,
Minutes that there ~ere significant vacancies ~ith the eKisting
development on El Camino Way and there ~ere significant parking and
traffic problems on E1 Camino Way. If there was access on Wilkie
Way which perm~tted people to either drive through or park and walk
through, people with business or needs to ~e on properties on El
Camino Way wouid be motivated to park on Wilkie Way ~nd use that
access~
Ms. Lytle sai~ the Water District easement ~as carefully $ybtracted
from the net area of the site at the time of ARB sUbmittal. Four
parcels were contained in the legal description for the property.
George Smith, 390 Maclane Avenue, lived for 38 years behind Yus~
Jaccps I property. Since. M:cs~ Jacob$. died, the property had
deteriorated to a point where someone had to apply for a zone
change in order to improve it. The prcposed housing would not
even be affordable to Palo Alto employees. The city should buy the
property and build some truly affordable housinq.
Tim Gadus, 4080 Wilkie Way, said there were too many high density
projects being put in the little area of El Camino Way. The
streets suffered from tremendous overflow traffic and parkin9, and
children had a difficult time maneuvering the bike path to get to
school. HE!-opposed access ont.o Wilkie Way where they already
received overflow traffic fro~ west Meadow Drive and El Camino Way.
He opposed the project.
65-171
12/10/90
.-, .. .,.,..~,~~ .... ~.
Bobbie Redstrom, 251 Churchill Avenue, \lI3S appa\led to learn t.hat
the Jacobs Court project ~as again before the Council, especially
"When the Planninq commission unanimously recoJIUr.ended against
rezoning. There was little affordable housinq in Palo Alto and
council vas elected to honestly represent the peoplE's interest in
the community. The proposed project was not affordable housing.
She urged rejection of the project.
Denny Petros ian, 443 ventura Avenue, represented herself and "Willie
Branch, Mrs. Ja~es Peterson and Elsie Cosby. She referr~d to the
three letters in t.i"le packet .hich appeared to be endorsements of
the project. MI". Chan and Mr. DUrham "Were concerned about any
development regardless of the number of units, the adequacy of
setbacks, no access to Wilkie Way, and the improved appearance of
the property.. When council re.zoned the Subject property for .12
units in 1978, the intent ~as to maintain the affordable rep-tal
housing opportunities for as long as possible I to discouraqe
s.peculative redevelopment yet. maintain for the owner reasonable
redevelopment rights to double the number of units on his land if
he so chose. The zoning was never intended to create a maXi!!lUm
number of units. The RM-15 zone was specifically rejected at that
time. In the contest between maximizing the number of new units
and preserving existing rental units, rental units almost always
lost. If Council votea to change the Comprehensive Plan, it would
also change the original intent, "Would become a responsible party
to the premature demolition of affordable housing in direct
violation of the Comprehensive Plan, and set a terrible precedent
fer the demolition of other affordable rental units throughout the
City~ Since conditions could not ~e imposed on a rezoning, the~e
was no substantial public benefit to be gained whether the property
'Was developed at 12, 10 or 19 units. rt would be a more becoming
posture for Coun.cil to let the original zone with the original
intent of integrity and fairness to work in its own way. She urged
Council to make the same findings as the Planning Commission and to
reject the application. She urged Council to focus its attention
on securing affordable housing on the 15 acres of the Maximart
property and the other large parcels available. It waG ridiculous
to take housing away from people to qet $375,000 condominium units.
George Remsberg, 200 Osage Avenue, Los Altos, represented the
Liqhtner property Group. They believed their proposal was a good
one iI.nd would benefit the City by providing moderately priced
housing while more t.han tripling the housing stock on the site. On
halance the benefits of approving the application outweighed the
concerns expre~sed, and they had suggestions for possibly mitigat
ing the displacement issues. A professional civil engineer was
e1!lployed to exa-mine the title report and perform. the required
survey work. They were prepared to stand with the figures provided
in terms of the area of the property. They never intended any
vehicular access onto wiLkie Way. and if that "Was made as a
condition, it could be accepted. They _anted pedestrian access
because it did not make sense to turn their backs on the rest of
the neighborhood.
65-172
12/10/90
t
"-.~
-
o
Mayor cobb queried whethe.r consideration was given to the idea of
an R-l situa~ion ~nich fronted onto Wilkie Way to complete the R-l
nature ot t.hat neighborhood with multi-family fronting onto El
camino Way.
Mr. Remsberg said yes. ~ytime there was a change between singlE
family and higher densit)·# the!"e 'Was a line. On one side wa.s
single-family and on the other side was the medium density. The
most immediate impact in terms of height, setbacks, daylight plane,
etc.; ~ould occur to the Chans 'Whose home 'Was to the right and the
rear. If the existinq parcel remained R-l and ""as developed as
such, it would result i~ a greater n9gative i~pact on the property,
i.e., a six-foot setback in contrast with the 20 feet prcposed, and
a daylight plane ~hich began at 10 feet above grade at property
line and proceeded upwards to 45 degrees ira contrast with the
proposal which was 5 feet up at a 45 degree angle. While it was
considered, they did not believe it vas necessarily a benefit, and
it further restricted the balance of the property.
city Attorney Ariel Calonne cautioned Council that while the model
was attractive, it was irrelevant to the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and zoning issues before it. It was inappropriate to
consider tre model as a factor in the decisicn-maklnq process.
Vice Mayor Woolley queried what type of development would occur if
council did not appro\"e the zone change.
Mr. Remsberg said the final decision would be market driven, but he
believed the likely development would be single family. Whether it
would be five or six single family homes, be diO n~t know. If the
lots were changed in size from 7,500 square feet, they were fairly
comfortable. that with the 6,000 square foot lots, they could
achieve six homes. If market conditions improved and returned to
where they were, the homes could easily sell in the $600,000 to
$800,000 range.
Council 'Member I'i-ccown queried whether t.he applicant consider~d
pursuinq the project through a planned community (PC) zone process
which would provide the community some certainty in terms of the
project.
Mr. Remsberg said it was considered, and while there were advantag
es to a PC zone in terms of the City being able to ensure that what
was proposed was built, there were some difficult findings to be
made particularly with respect to the public benefit. The P~-15
zone had certain safeguards built in and within the approval
process, and t.he model and plan maximized the floor a.cea ratio,
d~nsity, lot coverage, and came close to maximizing the height~
While tile architectural style could change, in terms of the
envelope, there could not be more.
65-171
12/!O/90
i
I
[
! •
[
f ~y I
F ,
!
f'
" !
~ ,
I
I ,
council Member McCown asked about the applicant's thoughts on miti
gating the impacts of redeveloping the site on the current residel".ts.
Mr. Remsberg said developers always cor.sidered that the mitigation
requirements to qain approval could be s~fficient to sink the ship.
Tney had always been aware that the real concern was th2 loss ~f
th~ rental units. Their original application ~as submitted under
guidelines which indicated the requirement for 10 percent BMR units
or 1.9 or 2 units ou~ of 19. Subsequent Council action changed
that guideline s~ch ~~at when rental housinq stock was displace~,
the project \"ould: have to meet two or three other objectives, one
of which would resul t in a eMR count of 20 percent or in tbe
suhject instance of 3.8 units. Another change -.ras the underlyirig
R-2 zoning changed from no limit on floor area ratio and kind of a
safety valve if the property had to be developed under R-2 require
ments. CIlrrent.ly, R-2 \Was in an interim z.oning classification
which parall.eled R-l. Small cha.nges could l:le absorbed if market
conditions remained relatively stable; major changes could not. A
change from 2 BMR units to 3.8 or 4 B..'1R units was a substantial
change in the project~ However, they .... ere prapared to provide
three BMR units rather than the technically required two BMR units
if such a change could be codified.
Mr. Calonne said while staff had strongly discouraged Council from
conditioning zone chanqes or COl'll.prehensive Pl~r. amendments, Council
could condition one or both o.f the entitlements. to make the
representation made a mandatory feature of the entitlement. The
practice was not favored in planning circles because of administra
tive problems in tracking the individu~l, unique conditions Which
applied to each piece. of property ar-ound the town. While he
believed the process ~as better not st~rted, it could be done.
Mayor Cobb clarified the idea of prohibiting access to Wilkie way
would fall ~ithin the same description.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
Council Me~er Kniss queried if Mr. Remsberg ~as offering three BMR
units of the nineteen to be built and if he had thought of any
other typ-e of mitigation w'hich might be acceptable.
Mr. Remsberg had considered others which ~ere difficult to come to
grips ~ith but ~hich were open for discussion and consideration.
One l which might answer the human problem, would be some sort of
Rental Housing Assistance Program relocation assistance: however,
determining how to do it would be difficult and would depend upon
different circumstances, needs, and income levels among the resi
dents; and if an additional BMR unit ~as provided, it ~ould be more
difficult to ~eaningfully address the relocation assistance.
Council Member Kniss queried if Mr. Calonne would cOIDl'Dent on
relocation assistance.
65-174
12/10/90
•
-
o
Mr. Calonne said rent relocation assistance necessitateu ad hoc
administrative programs on a particular ~one change. Ee advised
the Council against becoming involved in a relocation program
because it became extremely difficult to administer and define. As
the process progressed to extremes, the Council could become
involved in legal questions. As a pr~ctical ~atter, he ~ould be
very cautious in the types of conditions the council should become
involved in.
Mayor Cob~ declared the PUblic Hearing closeQ~
MOTION: council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to
approve the Planninq Commission recommend4tion to deny an applica
tion for a zone change from R-2 to RM-15 and Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map chanqe from Single-Family Residential to Multiple
Family Residential for property located at 420-461 Jacobs court
with the ~ppropriate findings as follows:
1.. The proposed Zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment \jiill
reduce the affordable rental housing, and the resulting in
crease in total housing units is not substantial enough to
mitigate this loss of rental units;
2. The proposed zone chanq~ and Comprehensive Plan amendment is
not consis~ent with land use patterns in the City, in that R-2
zoning commonly serves as a more appropriate buffer betweer
sinqle-family residential areas and more intensive land usesr
and
3 ~ The propo5ed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment 'Will
result in an increase in traffic at an intersection with awk
ward traffic patterns.
Council Member Renzel believed many good zeasons had been given for
approving the Pla:ming COlIllllission recommenda.tion. Jacobs Court had
existing rental housing, the current zoning allowed hiice the
existing denSity, and the neighborhood had been heavily i~pacted by
high-density projects. The proposal .~s for a zone chanqe and a
Comprehensive Plan a~endment, but the effort could have been put
into a planned community (PC) zone ~ith 12 units if the developer's
desire ~as to utilize eXisting zoning ~ore amenably~ Findings had
been made on PC zones for years with fewer public amenities than
Jacobs Court 'Would offer '",ith 12 units. 'l'bere was no reason to
double or triple the density. Even with three BMR units, the
project would not mitigate people ....,ho lost housing. The location
with six existing housing units was awk~ard. and the opportunity
for six more existed under existing zoning. She urged Council to
deny the application and uphold the Planning COllunission recommenda
tion~ If sQmething more creative came in, she would be willing to
consider it, but she did not believe adding 50 percent more density
was the ans'Wer.
65-175
12/10/90
~ -. .
, .
, i
I
-
Vice Mayor Woolley opposed the motion.. If Counc:"l allowed the
eXisting zoning to remain, there vas no guarantee the rentals would
~emain. The real choice was ~hether to have R-2 zoning which could
result in either six-singloe-family houses or ten duplexes or
vhether to have 19 townhouses. If the existin~ zoning remained,
the property owner could go ahead ~ith the R-2 or R-l buildings.
She referred to an editorial in last week's San Jose M~rcury New~
about a meeting in San Jose between environmental ists " . .'1d housing
advocates, which indicated the agreement was to keep the hills in
ope.n space and cQncentrate housing along maj or arterials and
transportation corridors. El Camino Real 'Was a major t.ransporta
tion corridor and had the only good ten-minute headway bus service
in Palo Alto. She prefe::-red rezoning to RM-15 to al10 .. 19
townhouses, at the lower price end of what could be p~rchased in
Palo ~lto, rather than obtaining six single-family houses in the
$800,000 category. While traffic and safety problems 'Were an
issue, she believed there were secondarj. The basic ;.s~ue was how
many housing units should be provided. staff said no accidents had
occurred and. significant improvements would be made in the near
future, perhaps even before t..""e project .... as completed. The
proposed units were townhouses, which were considered the next best
thing to a single-family home and more desirable than condos. The
neighbors most heavily impacted ~ould receive larger setbacks and
more restrictive daylight planes. PM-1S 2'oning ~ould be better for
the Wilkie Way residents than R-l zoning.
Council Member Renzel said if the property .... as developed as single
family, there ~ould be fe.er units ~nd minimal impact on the neigh
borhood. In terms of in-fill, there was ample existing, ready-to
be-developed zoning in Palo Alto. The Ma~imart site and several
other large sites were already zon~d multi-family. There was no
way tpe City would catch up with the jobs and housing imbalance,
but the problem should also be tackled on the jobs end. She
disagreed that $365,000 tovnhouses ~ere entry-level. The fact that
townhouses were more popular than condos suggested higher ~ather
Lhan low~r prices on the market rate units.
Council Me~er McCown opposed the motion~ Commissioner Chandler
referred to a comnent by Mr. Borock that it .. as unlikely the
property ~ould stay status quo. She said the same thing in 199J,
and raised the same concern ~hen she was on the Pla,ming Commis
sion. Sbe believed the community ~ould regret, as a long-term land
use matter, the development of the site for $600,000 to $700,000
houses. The site could handle some additional units, and the
project attempt~d to do so ~hile being sensitive to the Wilkie way
access issues. In terms of the ~one change, she was concerned that
while the plan might be sensitive to the neighbcrhood, the action
requested did not gua~antee the plan would be the one presented for
a building permit. Council had created other opportunities for
adcH tional housing, and the Maximart property ..,a.s one exaD',ple.
Ho'Weve~, the City's action was completely oppc,sed by the property
owners, and no .one had siJbmitted a proposal consistent with the
City's goals for the site. The Jacobs Court situation was an
65-176
12/10/90
.IW
I
!
l
-'---.'-... sm 71&
i ,
'"
-
economically-d~iven interest of a private owner as~ing the City to
lOOK at the possibility of creating additional housing. .s~e
believed such situations in the future would be the ones the
council should carefully consider. The long-term planning view for
the site an~ the opportunity the proposal presented for additional
h",usi~g arqued in its fa ..... or.
Council Member Levy agreed 'With Council Mz:mber McCo ... n. The
property was on a main, highly-traveled street, in a relatively
noisy area, surrounded by commercial and hiqher-density., residen
tial uses, and it vas appropriate ~o have the transitional multi
family use which RM-1S represented~ Palo Alto was more a sinqle
family community, and whenever there ~as a development, there was
always a desire to have less rather than more density: but the
question was, if Palo Alto was qoinq to have highe~ density, where
it should be concentrated, and the appropriate place was on a major
street surrounded by higher density uses. While council could not
be assured the proposed development would come forward, it was
likely, and there would be design and revie~ through the ARB and
the desiqn and appeal process, so the City would ha~e a chance to
look intensely at the partic'..llar development and ~ake. sure it
remained highly sensitive to the single family homes on Wilkie Way
which joir..ed a portion of the property. If the Council had. a
motion for an RM-15 rezoning, he agreed the third BMR unit should
be part of it and, with the increased computerization of planning
activities, the Council ~ould be able to track the special elements
more specifically. He believed there should be no vehicle access
to Wilkie Way and the cOmlr,ent "Jt'lade by the applicant to extend the
median on El Ca~ino Way in order to reduce further the possibility
of U-turns, if ~he City's Transportation Division agreed to it, was
proper and should be part of the RM-15 zoninq application.
Council Kember Kniss said it 'Was a difficult decision, and she
wished she could vote 'With the residents. The issue was not
whether the City was going to keep rental housing on the sitei it
~as about a zoning change and not even & pc. She ~as persuaded the
location was close to a main thoroughfare and was vithin walking
distance to shopping. She oppose.d the motion.
COlJ.ncil Member Suto:cius referred to the Planning comnission actions
of 1983 and said he had been in the minority because he stron91y
believed a zoning revie'W -was appropriate. He now had a better
understanding of the neighborhood, tried to accom-:nodate for the
benefit of the community, and recognized the sensitivity of the
total subject. He was pleased Council had the opportunity to do
somethinq specific to protect Wilkie Way and provide access to
protect the mature landscaping. He opposed the motion, supporte~
the comments of Vice Mayor Woolley and Council Members McCown and
Levy, and would support a positive motion.
Council Member Fa~2ino supported the ~otion and the recommendation
of the Planning Commission. He was sywpathetic to Mr. Remsberg's
points and might accept, in the final analysis, a significantly
65-177
12/10/90
t .*
•
.~.
:~:;:'
-
larger number of units in return for more BMR urdts~ He believed
changing the Comprehensive Plan and the z.oning for a specific
project 'Was a troublesome precedent.~ The Council talked about ..... hat
it might get in return but pulled back upon the advice of the City
Attorney. He ~ould have preferred a PC application in which the
Council could have made legitimate, specific planned trade-offs.
He recognized Jacobs court ..... ould not r~main the ~ay it vas much
longer, and council had to deal ..... ith the fact the rental housing
st~k would not remain. He believed a PC application would have
been a more appropriate 'Way to address the issue. He also believed
the city had placed significant amounts of density in the neiqhb~r
hood over the past few years ar.d that the vest side of E1 Camino
Way represented the buffer bet'Ween commercial and residential. The
Council action would indicate there wo".]ld be no buffer between the
commercial/higher-density area and a single-family residential area
and 'Was important to recoqnize in context of dis-=ussions ~ith
respect to other neighborhoods throughout the City~
Council Member Andersen opposed the motion. He was concerned if
the zoning of the property remained, the owner might decide to ~~it
for another COl.!ncil if the vote happened to be close~ He was
pleased by the offer of the third BMR unit and encouraged Mr.
Remsberg to work with the Palo Al to Housing Corporation (PAHe)
concerning tbe relocation issues. He "",·~s concerned about the
prospect of monster houses being built and bel ieved that would
occur if the zoning ..... as not changed.
Mayor Cobb associated with most of the comments of Council Member
Fazzino and believed the economics ~ould not allow the status quo
to be preserved. He preferred a lower-density solution and
believed the ideal soluti~r. 'Was to complete the R-l. on Wilkie Way
and have multi-family fronting on El Camino Way which would give
appropriate density levels. He did not believe the market would
support $700,000 t.o $800,000 single-family homes on a. property
which fronted on El Camino Way. A PC would be the best way to get
appropriate controls and creative solutions such as the mixed R-2
and multi-fa.mily. If the Council 'Went forward with the applicant's
request, there would be no chance to see such a creative solution.
He believed findjngs could be made of public benefit and preserving
the character of the neighborhood which a PC application ~ould make
possible~ He supported the motion~
MOTION PAIL&D 6-3, Cobb, Fazzino, Renzel -aye.-
MOTIO.: Vice Kayor Woolley moved. seconded by Kniss, to direct the
staff to return to Council with a resolution and ordinance, and a
contract with the applicant that implements the staff recommenda
tion as amended, with findings generally as follo~s:
1. Approval of the proposed zone change from R-2 'l'Wo-Family Resi
dence zone to RM-15 Multiple-Family Residence zone, with the
65-178
12/10/90
As Corrected
01/22/91
o
condition that three BMR units will be provided by the appli
cant and that no vehicle access will be p~rmitted from Wilkie
Way;
2. Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment for
chanqe of land use de$iqnation from Single-Family Residential
to Multiple-Family Residential~
3. Adoption of L~e negative declaration of no slqnificant
environmental impact: and
4~ Direction to the Director of Planning and Co~~ur.ity Environ
ment and the Architectural Review Board that vehicular access
to the site should be exclusively from El Camino Way, since
such access can be ~ccomplished safely and ~ould result in
les~ impact on the adjacent neiqhborhood than auto no vehicle
access from wilkie Way.
l~ The proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment will
reduce the affordable rent~.l housin9~ and the resulting in
crease in total housing units is not substantial enouqh to
~itigate this loss of r~ntal units:
2. The proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan amendment is
not consistent with land use patterns in the City, in that R-2
z~ning commonly serves as a ~¢re appropriate buffer bet~een
single-family residential areas and more intensive land uses,
and
3. The proposed zone change and Comprehensive Plan aDlendment will
result in an increase in traffic at an intersection with awk
ward traffic patterns.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the addition of the BMR units ~ould apply
to the proposed project only: any subsequent project ~ould come
under the new regulations ~hich would require J.8 BMR units. She
did no~ !:Ielieve access needed to be a condition because the
developers and the neighbors did not ~ant access from Wilkie Way.
council Member Levy said the staff recommendation called for no
access from Wilkie Way.
Hr. Calonne referred to the BMR units and the pre ..... ious council
action which read the final design approval needed to be obtained
by August 1$ 1991: if it was not obtained by then$ the project or
any other would need to provide four SMR units. The ordinance
drafted during the summer ~as not suited to the Council's present
action. 6e recommended the motion be modified to direct staff to
return to Council 'With three documents; an ordinance 'With
appropriate conditions on the zoning, a resolution amending the
65-179
12/10/90
·
I
"1
I
I
!
I
I
-
Co~prehensive Plan, and an additional agreament binding the
applicant to th<e tert!'ls of the contract z.oning.
Mayor Cobb queried if the motion ,""ouId prot'oibi t vehicular access to
Wilkie way.
Mr. Calonne said the recommendation was a direction to the _~8 and
fell short of a mandatory condition.
Council Meuher McCown queried ~h~t the mechanics of taking action
would be if the Council believed the process should be achi2ved
through a PC zone process rather th-an a zoning change and .... ·hat
would be the process ~hich the applicant would need to go through
from scratch or how much could be incorporated into the PC process.
HS4 Lytle said if the Council denied the application and provided
direction to reapply for a PC zone change, the applicant could use
whatever preliminary plans to make the application and start a new
process which would incluee a Planni~q Co~ission and ARB review
and City council action~
council Member Renzel believed the Council should recognize that if
it approved the motion, it would be accelerating the lass of rental
housing units and would not be encouraging replacement with rental
units, whereas the existing zoning did have the option, and it
"~ould not have total control over 'What a developer would do with
the land~ If the .zoning was there, there 'Was a good chance it
would be properly used and would provide an equivalent number of
ren'cal units. There 'Was no specific project: the models and pieces
of paper with designs were not before the Council, but what was
before the Council 'Was a zone change which told people if they saw
a zone with small houses on it or under-utilized rental units, it
would be worth a qamble to get a 50 percent increase in the allo~ed
density by giving up one, two, or three units of the six additional
units :for BMR units; and the cOUlicil was still giving a very
substantial profit to the developer, would be responsible for not
getting the kind of affordable housing needed in the community, and
allowed a major site to be used tor the Senior Care project which
was only 50 percent full and had a major impact upon the Jacobs
Court neighbOrhood. She believed the council would be sending out
a signal that it paid to speculate in Palo Alto.
Council Me~er Y~iss queried if staff could elaborate more upon the
PC process.
MS4 Lytle said the PC process went to the Pl~nning COnL~ission at a
concept level for its recommendation on 'Whether or not the pt·blic
ben~fit was adequate and ~hether the project should proceed. If
the application received a positive recommendation, it ~ent forward
to the ARB for its re~ommendations on the design aspects of the
project and assistance in further development: it came back to the
Planning commission with a more finalized plan and a specific
development sched.ule I-~quired by the PC ordinance~ Th.e Planning
65-180
12/10/90
·" ., .. ~ ~:.: .. ,,~
~"'~"''"';;;'''.' .. -;;-
c~~;
'-'~·.'~:;'~~";:ii.;~f~'i~i~r~?I-:·~~.·":'·"··"::.'.: IIilIJ.;II!J!lki!l!ll!O"!!.Ii.!II, lIlIIiI'I'1'7",.$$.41"", _~~ '~'.$-"'$'~ ,_ /.~ ... ~.!~ .... _~ ~'i~-"'!'.-:-:'i~~~~""-<'.~
-
o
Cc.-mmission ,.ould take action on the specific proposal 'Which lII·ould
lock in the plan; and the application ~ould be forwarded to the
council for final action.
Council Member Kniss queried how lcng the process ~ould take.
Ms~ Lytle said the precess ~sually took six months~
Council M.ember Kniss supported the 1notion. The proposal -would have
about 19 units, of which thre~ would be BMR units available to the
City. wbile they were not rentals, the Council could not pass a
la'W whien r-equirod rental houses in the are.a i however,. it did face
only a zoning change. She would have preferred to have the process
come as a PC zoning -::hange and 'Was concerned about having five
large houses in a neighborhood which would not be compatible. She
believed the area was a good one for multi-family housing; it .as
~lose to bus lir.es and shopping and not too far from child care and
schools, and the loss of rental housing units was partially
mi tigated by requirements that the new development comply with
Proqrams 9 and 1.2 and added one more BMR unit. She 'Wished the
Council could. protect people .... ho were misplaced by the loss of
rental units; however, the motion was only for a zoning chanqe.
Council Member Levy 'Was unsure whether RM-15 or a PC change 'Was the
best way to tackle the problem. He agreed the PC might have been
the best way but was willil19 to accept RM-15. 'I'he odds were
overwhelming that the project would be similar to ~hat the
developer had alroeady projected. from the comments made by neighbors
and the Council, and the developer would be taking a great risk if
he rede&igne~ the project and had to get questionable approvals of
the Plann.i.nq Commission and the ARB. He believed the project 'Would
be v~ry much like the project presented. He was willing to accept
RK-15, unless so!teone came up \lith cogent reasons he had not
thought of for the PC ~oute. The December 5, 1990, l~tter from t~e
developer mentioned a willingness to fund some roadway improvements
which would discourage u-turns in front of an access from El camino
Way, and be was concerned that drivers would come in from El Camino
Feal and make a U-tu~ in a very dangerous area. He queried if the
Council should speak to the situation now or rely upon the Planning
Department and the Transportation Division to make sure the traffic
patterns would be considerate of the turning movements in the area.
Ms. Lytle said the area had some capital improvement projects
underway for improvement of the intersection which had been
negotiated 'With Caltrans for the past several years, and there was
potential to ~ove forward with making furthe~ adjustments to the
intersection which could be initiated through the ARB process.
Transportation had looked at the area extensively and was comfort
able 'tiith the safety but did not object to further improvemer:ts
which could be incorporated into the final design.
Council Member Levy believed a close look at the turning movements
in the final project would be necessary.
65-181
12/10/90
t
F
t~·':'.-;'
I .' ,
,
•
Council Member sutoriU5 said council Member Levy's observations
about the PC ver~us the zcne change was understandable and shared
by a number of Council ~embers ~ho had wrestled with the pro~lem.
Through the appeal prOC9ss, the Lytton/Tasso proposal had been
before the Council. The Council continued the item 'While the
project 'Went back t.-c the ARB and ultimately returned to t~e Council
for final review aDO action, which 'Was acceptable to the applicant
and bn unusual departure from the normal situaticn. It worked well
'With the resulting-project being one which the Council approved,
and the applicant was happy.
Al(E.HPX1UI'r: COl.lncil Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Fazzino,
that the project, after review and approval/action by the ARB,
return to the City Council for final review.
Mr. Calonne said the zone change. and C011'lprehensive Plan change
would have occurred by that point in time, and he was not sure what
recourse the council would have it if "'as dissatisfied with the
action taken by the ARB. He suggested having an agreement signed
and ready for council approval, along with the Comprehensive Plan
amendment zone change, 50 there 'olTould be no further actions left to
be taken by the applicant 'With respect to conditions before the
legi5lati~e action approving the zone change. He would not want
the legislative action taken and left dangling, pending some
contingency; a cOIldition such as suggested for an ARB review by the.
Council added a contingency after the legislative action.
council Member Sutorius ~anted to incorporate the amendment to be
companion to the zone and Comprehensive Plan change to add
certainty that the loop h3Q been closed~ The applicant should be
motivated to act promptly because the BY~ requirement would chanqe
to four units as of August, 1991, and the applicant ~o~ld know the
process had to go through the ARB which had wrestled with public
comments.
Mr. Calonne 'Was concerned about the Council taJc:i:lg action to
approve a zone change and Comprehensive Plan a:nendment having
continqencies in the tCrlIl of a condition ",.-hen it returned at a
later time and about what remedy would be available to the Council~
Legislative action could he ta>:.en to undo the previous zoning
action, but 'When talking about conditions of approval, he did not
think in terms of having to go back and undo something ~ut in terms
of the action never being fully effective if conditions were not
fully performed. The problem \o'ith looking to another design/revie ....
process was that there .. as no way to :keep the zone change and
Comprehensive Plan actions open-endeo for a long period of time.
council Member McCown anticipated the project wo~ld be presented at
the ARB and 'Was a'wro'are there was no guarantee.. The developer could
sell the property to someone ~ho ~ould come in ~ith a different
project. The zoning would be in place and th~ project would go
through the process. Council Member Sutor ius ~as suggesting there
be something different than the appeal process, ~hich was the only
65-182
12/10/90
! ,.
i
!
!
f
r ,
•
"',
o
way the Council saw an ARB item. It was a situ3tion .. here the
zoninq was in place and a design ~~eded ARB approval, and the only
City council involvement was when there 'fI,-as an appeal to the ARB
decision. She understood Council Member Sutorius's intent was to
require that any ARB process for Jacobs Court 'Would return to the
council for review. The Council could then deny the project even
if the ARB approved the desi9n.
Mr~ Calonne understood the ~mendment to be a condition of the
zoning. If it was a separate directio~ for a referral to come back
to the Council and not a part ot the zone change, he would concur.
Council Member SutoriU5 believed the ~mendment logically belongEd
with condition 4 which 'Would cause the item to come back to
Council. A step ~ould be inserted which the Council ordinarily did
not take, but it had been us~d in the most recent case on an appeal
sItuation and was the design step which 'Was built into a PC
process.
Mr. Calonne said existing language in Condition 4 incorporated the
di r-ect i on.
Council Member SutoriU6 said the amendlf,ent 'Would assure the project
.. ould come ba.ck to the Council after the ARB revieW'.
Council Member McCown said the intent of the amendment was not to
be a condl tlon of the comprehensive Plan or zone change but a
separate provision with respect to the Jacobs Court site. once the
zoninq and Comprehensive Plan changes were in place, any develop
ment propoeal tor the site would come after ARB review to the
Council for final decision on the design issue.
Mr. Calonne believed the language was appropriate.
Mayor Cobb believed the non-access to Wilkie Way should be
mandatory rather than sllgqestive.
LANGUAGB REGARDING VESICULAR NON-ACCESS TO WILKIB WAY AND THAT THE
FINAL ARB APPLICATION FOR DBVELOPMENT ON THE BITE BE REPERREO TO
TIlE CITY COt1llClL lU"nR ARB RECOMKllNDATIO!l II1CORPOR. .. -nO INTO 1'Ii&
lIAIN KOTION BY TIlE XAl<ER AlII) SECONDER
Planning Commissioner Hirsch opined the Jacobs Court proposal
violated at least five of the first six policies in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Members of the cOm!fl.unity looked
t.o the City Council for guidance in terms of the meaning of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Calonne suggested since they ~ere op~rating ufider the premise
of an agreement and some additional items were included beyond the
BMR units that applicant consent be indicated on the record.
Mayor cobb confirmed the applicant indicated approval.
65-183
12/10/90
...
i
I
r
'j
j
J
I
I
, ,
'J
.!
CITY COUNCIL EXCERPT MINUTES
AU~UST U. 1991
420-451 JACOBS COURT
RECESS: 9:3{) P,M. TO 9:45 PM.
REPOB,TS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
9. Architectural Revie~ Board recommendation to the City Council
approving the design for a 19-u:"!it residential project for
property located at 420-461 Jacobs Court (300) (CMR: 397:91)
razzino/Hecovn Approve staff recommendation with the
addition of Condition Nos. 9 and 10 as shown below:
Finding
1. The materials I textures, colors and details are appropri
ate expressions to the design and function and are
compatible with the adjacent and nei9hboring structures
and landscape, in that the articulat~on of the building
facad~sl the use of wood and stucco wall finishes and
:metal porch roofs, and preservation of several large
trees on the site help to retain the semi-rural feeling
of the site and the informal residential character of the
neighborhood .
-8-8j19jH
•
,.
o
REPORTS OF CQM1>lITIEES ANn CCMMISSIO!iS. (continued)
1. Prior to issuanc2 of a building
planting and irrig3.tion plan s!lall
Utilities Department.
permit, the final
be approved by the
2. Prior to issuance of a building ~ermit and prior to any
demolition on the site, the app11cant shall provide the
Pla~ninq Department with evidence of a contract with a
certified Arborist who will be responsible for supervis
ing implementation of the following tree protection
measures.
a. PriQr to any demolition or construction .on the
site, all trees designated to be preserved shall be
protected with a 6-foot-high chain link fence
Mounted on 2-inch-diameter galVanized iron posts
driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2
feet at no more than IO-foot spacing. The fence
shall enclose the entire area under the dripli~e,
O~ a distance from the tree of 1 foot per each inch
of tr'..lnk diameter, whichever is greater. This area
shall be shown on the layout and plantinq plans.
Spray paint the top of the fence with bright oran~e
pair.-t before unrolling the fabric to ensure ViSl
bility of the barrier. In no case shall any vehi
cles or equipment or any type of materials, 1nclud
inq soil, be per.nitted to be stored within tr.is
enclosed areB. The fence shall be erected before
demolition or construction begins and shall remain
in place until final plantinq operations are com
pleted.
b. Any trenching within the enclosure shall be done by
hand ~ Any tree roots encountered smaller than 2
inches shall be cut clean with approved t~ee prun
ing tools and sealed with an approved fungicidal
tree sealant. Tree roots 2 inches or large~ shall
not be cut~ Pipes should be routed into an alter
nate location to avoid cO!Jflict.
c~ Any grade change within the fenced zone shall be
limited to 6 inches cf cut or fill from the origi
nal grade and shall be ~ccomplished by hand. Under
all Qu ercu sand Sequc i a trees there sh a 11 be no
grade change under at least the inner 50 percent or
the tree canopy4
d. No soil sterilants shall be applied under paV2ment
near existinq t~ees.
e. Above gro'lJnd surface runoff shall not be directed
into the tree canopy area from. adj acent areas.
EnsurE that sidewalks or other construction do not
trap ~ater near the tree.
-9-8/19/91
•
I
I
l
j
I ,
I
---.... ---.'",--
REpoRTS OF COMMITTEES ASp COMMISSIONS (continued)
3.
5.
f. Supl?lement~l irrigation and fertiI ilation before,
durl.nq and after construction for' all trees to be
retained, lmd correctional pruning and cabl ing of
spe~ified trees shall be provided as directed by a
certified arborist.
standard noise level control shall be implemented
throughout the project not to exce6d 40 dB inter-lor
level f to protect from both street noise and noise
generated on the project site~
A 24 x 24-inch standard stop sign shall be installed on
the right hand side of the driveway at the back of the
sid~walk, to the satisfaction cf the Transportation
Division prior to occupancy.
In compliance yith conditions of City Council ap~rovdl of
the zone change from R-2 to RM-15, three BMR un1ts shall
be ~rovided. This requirement shall be fulfilled to the
sat~sfac::ticn of the City Attorney and the Director of
Planning and community Environment, in conjunction with
the subdivision process.
6. The applicant shall grant a 6-foo~-wide ~edestrian
easement along the rear (northern) property l~ne within
the existing Sa:1.ta Clara Valley Water District access
easement for use by the 3981 £1 Cami~o Real project, in
conjunction ~ith the subdivision map process.
7. An irrigation stub, soil amendment and 24-incn box trees
and a paved patiO shall be installed in the b~ck yards of
all units prior tc occupancy.
8. It the proposed fireplace shroud ana treat;l1&nt or chimney
do not meet Building Division approval, revised chimney
and shroud design shall return ror staff approval prior
to issuance or the building permit.
~ A right-tu~n-onlY sign shall be installed.
10. Di:ect staff to revie}l an ex~_en5ion of the island further
~ El camino lI.~ay and. if fe_.:s_sible. to include that as
a condition if possible~
XOTIOK PASSED 6-1, Renzel -no,-k~dersen, ~niss absent
END EXCERPT
-10-8/19/91
.' .