Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMR- 461-01City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report wi~h TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 17, 2001 CMR:461:01 250-270 HOMER AVENUE/819 RAMONA STREET: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT'S APPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION BY PREMIER PROPERTIES TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 37,798-SQUARE-FOOT, MIXED-USE PROJECT AND THE REHABILITATION OF THE HISTORIC FRENCH LAUNDRY BUILDING TO PROVIDE FOR OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 0.58 ACRES AT 250 HOMER AVENUE AND THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION OF THE HISTORIC AME ZION CHURCH AND A NEW TWO-STORY ANNEX TO PROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 5,300 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 0.12 ACRES AT 819 RAMONA STREET. ZONE DISTRICT: MUO/AMF. FILE NUMBER 00-ARB-175 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment's approval of the proposed project, and; 2)Amend condition No. lc of the Conditions of Approval to specify a procedure for the possible release of excess parking spaces for the affordable housing project and condition No. 49 to require explicitly that the developer to provide public parking for weekday evenings and weekends for at least sixty parking spaces in the project's parking structure. CMR:461:01 Page 1 of 12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story, 45-foot maximum height (30- foot nonresidential height) mixed use building including two residential units (7,968 square feet), 28,000 square feet of office space with 2,000 square feet of amenities, preservation/rehabilitation of the historic French Laundry building, an underground parking garage providing 140 spaces and related site improvements at 250/270 Homer A~enue; and preservation/renovation of the historic AME Zion Church building, including a new two-story addition comprising 2,900 square feet of new office space and related site improvements at 819 Ramona Street. The project would be located on the northern half of Block C of the property formerly owned by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Including the French Laundry and AME Zion Church, the entire project would yield a total of 42,510 square feet of habitable floor area on a 30,935 square foot site. The project would result in a total FAR of 1.37:1, with an overall residential density of 2.8 units per acre (0.26 FAR) and an office Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.12, including new and existing floor area. The project described as 250/270 Homer Avenue would have an FAR of less than 1.5:1. The site consists of six existing parcels that will be merged into a single parcel on Block C of the former PAMF properties. The site is located on the northern half of the block bounded by Ramona and Bryant Streets, Homer and Channing Avenues (see Attachment A: Location Map). The proposed building footprint (19,472 square feet) results in 63 percent lot coverage. The proposed building setbacks on the three floors would range from zero to 64 feet (an average of 35 feet) along Homer Avenue, four to 40 feet along Ramona Street, 15 to 17 feet along Bryant Street, and 12 to 43 feet from the rear property line. The revised plans (dated October 22, 2001) provide 140 parking spaces (72 spaces on Level 2 and 68 spaces on Level 1). The Development Agreement requires that 20 of these spaces be reserved for the affordable housing site and at least 60 spaces of the parking garage be made available to the public for evening and weekend use. Four spaces would be reserved for the two residential units. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way entry ramp on Ramona Street that would service both the subject site and the City's proposed affordable housing site to the south. The shared ramp will be constructed by the developer and located on the affordable housing site. The developer has prepared a Transportation Management Program (TDM) plan that will be implemented with the development. The architecture is contemporary with building elements that are compatible with historic structures in the area and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The project does not require any exceptions to the Mixed-Use Overlay/Attached Multi-Family (MUO/AMF) Development Standards contained in the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP). The project, as approved, is C!vIR:461:01 Page 2 of 12 consistent with the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation that was approved by the Council on April 10, 2000. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project has been reviewed by the South of ~Forest Area (SOFA) Architectural Review Board/Historic Resources Board (ARB/HRB) at seven public hearings (July 12, August 3, September 7 and November 9, 2000, and March 8, March 22 and April 26, 2001) and a study session on February 22, 2001. On July 12, 2000, the applicant provided an overview and history of the project as well as the three SummerHill projects on Blocks A and B. The ARB/HRB conducted a preliminary review of the project on August 3, September 7 and November 9, 2000 and detailed review of the site planning, architecture and landscape components of the project on March 8, March 22 and April 26, 2001. During preliminary review of the project, the Board generally " supported the direction of the site planning, pedestrian amenities, public plaza, landscape components and design of the project. The Board supported the relocation/rehabilitation of the French Laundry, and the design of 270 Homer Avenue. However, while the ARB members endorsed the design of 250 Homer Avenue, the HRB members expressed concerns about its compatibility within the area. The ARB/HRB, at its study session held on February 22, 2001, addressed the issues of the proposed shared ramp for both the proposed project and the affordable housing project that will be developed on Block C. The main purpose of the study session was to allow the Board to fully explore the feasibility of the urban design for the entire block and specifically whether the furore affordable housing site would be better served by a dedicated ramp vs. a shared ramp. Four alternative ramp locations were presented addressing the viability of a shared ramp or a dedicated ramp for both projects. The ARB/HRB, in its subsequent project review hearings, supported the shared ramp at the proposed location. At the March 8, 2001 meeting, the Board discussed and provided direction to staff on three main issues relating to the proposed project: (1) the project's design quality, including considerations of style, articulation, materials, historic building rehabilitation and construction, and urban design for the SOFA area; (2) the project's compatibility and conformance to policies and standards of the SOFA CAP; and (3) the project's ability, through site improvements, to support and benefit the future affordable housing project. At the March 8 meeting, staff provided a staff report and presentation, that addressed the substantive issue of compatibility. Staff emphasized that the standards of review for new development should be based on compatibility which is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that existing in the neighborhood; as well as when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. Staff also presented to the Board the specific "Standards of Review" required for this project CMR:461:O1 Page 3 of 12 by the SOFA CAP, which included substantial conformance to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (A~hment C). The Board respcrded to the staff pres~- ~ion with comments and direction at that meeting, and id~~ ~ed two additional i~ .,rtant issues that staff was asked to address prior to final rec: ~endation by the Board. First, a peer review is needed of the finding made by Page & Turnbull that the 250/270 Homer Avenue proiect was c ~atible with tb.e French. Laundry and, therefore, in substantial conf.n~; ~ce with Secretary's i~;~dards ~or Rehabilitation. The City subsequently cc ~.d with the nistorical consulting firm of Carey & Co. to provide the Board with an inaependent review of the project for conformance with the Secretary's Standards. This is addressed in Section One of the staff report dated March 22, 2001. The peer review by Carey & Co. determined that the proposed development was in substantia!. conformance with the Secretary's Standards except for certain fenestration issues that were finally resolved to the Board's satisfaction. Second was the ::.tent to which the ARB/HRB's review and ecomme afion was constrained by the developer's entitlement under the Develop: ent Agr .::-nent to a maximum 30,970-gross-square-foot building. This issue is discus~:~:d in Section Two of the staff report dated March 22, 2001, which clarifies that the maximum allowable square footage would be permitted only if the resulting building conformed with the Secretary's Standards for compatibility with the French Laundry. The Board found that the proposed development was consistent with the Development Agreement, the SOFA CAP, the MUO/AMF development standards (including FAR), ,:~d the Secretary's Standards and therefore was not required to reduce its size. On March 22, 2001, the ARB/HRB recommended 6-0 that the Director of Planning and Community Envirc:~_ment approve the project at 250-270 Homer Avenue with the conditions contained in the March 22, 2001 staff report. On April 26, 2001, the ARB/HRB recommended 5-0 (with one absent) that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the project at 819 Ramona Street with the conditions contained in the March 22, 2001 staff report. The Board appointed a sub-commit': of one member each from the ARB and the HRB to work with staff, the applicant a e historic consultants to resolve design issues related to the size of six window ope~ ~ngs (fenestration) at 250 Homer Avenue as they related to conformance with the Secretary's Standards. Since April 2~i, the applicant has c)mbined the plans for both projects and incorporated the major design revisions required by the ARB/HRB. The applicant also has been working with the developer of the affordable housing site at 825-827 Ramona Street to fi~alize detai!s of the shared ramp and driveway serving the two projects. The final revisions to ::~ project are contained in the plans and submittal materials dated October 22, 2001. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project on CMR:461:01 Page 4 of 12 November 27, 2001 with the conditions recommended by the ARB/HRB, in addition to several conditions requ.ired by the Director relating to the_~s.hared ramp (condition 1 c) and parking spaces (conditi~on lc). Public testimony regarding the ipxoject @as also taken at each meeting. The concerns expressed by the public focused mainly,on the contemporary design of ~the building and its compatibility with existing buildings in the area. A detailed summary of the project as well as a discussion of compatibility issues is contained in the ARB/HRB staff reports dated March 8, March 22 and April 26, 2001 (Attachment D, E and F). Verbatim minutes from these meetings are also attached to this report (Attachments G, H and I). DISCUSSION _ :. On December 6, 20ffl, the Director's approval was appealed by a resident in the area (Attachment B). The appellant's areas of concern are summarized below, with staff. responses. The numbering of the concerns and responses corresponds to the organization of the appellant' s letter. .:: Appellant Concern: The SOFA CAP policy framework was disregarded in the ARB/HRB review of the project. The Development Agreement conflicted with the Council policy determinations and left the ARB/HRB to review only very minor compatibility issues such as details regarding building window size, placement, and decoration. Staff Response: The SOFA CAP policy framework was adopted by the City Council on September 27, 1997 to provide direction to staff in preparing the SOFA CAP document. It is not specific to project development. The SOFA CAP is consistent with the policy framework and the project conforms to the goals and policies of the SOFA CAP. The Development Agreement was in turn adopted by the Council to implement the SOFA CAP. The Development Agreement was approved by the Council to implement the SOFA CAP. The ARB/HRB review was essentially based on the SOFA CAP, MUO/AMF zoning requirements and the Secretary's Standards. There was extensive preliminary and major design review by the Board for this project. The ARB/HRB played a significant role in the design of the project with respect to major design elements, historic preservation and compatibility with Homer Avenue. The ARB/HRB provided the primary guidance to the applicant and staff for the many significant elements of the project, including the public plaza, massing and scale, setbacks, historic rehabilitation, and important details of fenestration, materials and landscaping. The ARB/HRB made findings that the project is consistent with the SOFA CAP, based on staff's findings of consistency as presented in the attached staff reports (Attachments D, E and F) and Conformance to Plans and Policies (Attachment C). CMR:461:01 Page 5 of 12 Furthermore, the project does not require any exceptions to the MUO/AMF Development Standards contained in the SOFA CAP. Appellant Concern: ¯ ~:e placement of the shared parking ramp on the adjacent affordable housing site decreases the opportunities.for affordable housing. This also constrains the number of housing units for the affordable housing project. Staff Response: This is not the case. The affordable housing project would require a parking ramp of similar size and configuration as that proposed for shared use by the two projects. The shared ramp is an efficient use of the entire city block as well as providing direct access to the 20 parking spaces on the mixed-use site which are to be dedicated to the affordable housing project. The number of units for the housing project is constrained by the required parking spaces and height limits, not by the small loss of surface area involved in the dual-use ramp. The project approved by the ARB/HRB for the affordable housing site locates a trash and recycling enclosure and laundry room adjacent to the shared ramp. The housing developer has also stated that a dedicated ramp would have been located in the same place as proposed for the shared ramp with the 250/270 Homer Avenue project. The City Council's direction to staff in April 2000 was to determine if it was feasible to combine the two ramps on Block C into one ramp located on Ramona Street south of the AME Zion Church. The ARB/HRB and staff determined that this could be achieved and that it would provide for improved urban design and planning for the entire block. All parking spaces for both projects could be adequately accessed by a single ramp, therby reducing curb cuts and total area devoted to cars. This design successfully achieved Council direction and provided good planning solutions for the two developments. The logistics and engineering for the shared ramp proved to be a challenge for the two projects. The most difficult issue involved is not the location of the ramp but the timing of the two projects. During the earlier stages of the 250/270 Homer design review, an affordable housing developer and a project design were not in place to respond to the shared ramp design. To address this, the Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the SOFA development permit for 250/270 Homer would not be issued until the ARB/HRB had completed its review and recommendation on the affordable housing project. This allowed the two projects to have concurrent conditions of approval that addressed the development and use of the shared ramp. Appellant Concern: The project should pay the City a reasonable, continuing fee for an easement for the shared ramp on the affordable housing site. CMR:461:01 Page 6 of 12 Staff Response: The mixed use project will pay for the easement over the affordable housing site in three ways: (1) by paying for construction of the ramp, (2) by making a cash payment making up any difference between the reasonable cost of the ramp and the fair market value of the easement, and (3) by maintaining the ramp. Staff believes that a single payment for the easement minimizes administrative costs compared with the system of annual payments Mr. Bubenik advocates. (The fair market value of the easement is the present value of a series of future payments for the easement.) These requirements are in contained in Condition 1 b. The developer of 250/270 Homer is also required to deliver a long- term access and maintenance agreement securing the right of the below market rate project to the twenty spaces and the City right to after-hours use of sixty spaces. Staff believes that this formula provides compensation to the City while providing credit to the developer of 250-270 Homer Avenue for actual construction costs that would otherwise be borne by the affordable housing project. Finally, under no circumstances will the City or the affordable housing developer subsidize or compensate the mixed-use developer for the ramp and easement. Appellant Concern: The project conditions provide an alternative to provision of the 20 parking spaces (for use by the affordable housing project) called for in the Development Agreement. The developer may vacate his obligation with the in-lieu fee of $35,000 per space for the 20 dedicated parking spaces. Staff Response: The Development Agreement requires the mixed-use development to provide twenty parking spaces for the benefit of the affordable housing project. To date, the housing developer has stated that all of the 20 spaces are needed. However, because the project involves shared parking, the affordable housing project can ask that its parking requirement be reduced by up to 20 percent (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.83.070.) If the Director grants that request, and the Council upholds the Director's decision in the event of an appeal, the project may not need all of the twenty spaces. In that event, the conditions of approval require the mixed-use project to make a payment to the City of $35,000 for each space released, up to a maximum of $700,000. Because the parking spaces were required to support affordable housing, these payments would be treated as commercial in-lieu housing fees. The decision to ask for reduced parking must be made prior to construction of the affordable housing project. Staff recommends that the text of condtion lc be revised as follows to make the circumstances under which parking may be released clearer: 1 c. The developer of the 250/270 Homer Project will provide 20 dedicated underground parking spaces in the parking garage on the site for the use of the affordable housing project. The 20 dedicated CMR:461:01 Page 7 of 12 spaces shall be located in the 250/270 Homer parking structure, generally along the Ramona/Homer street-side and accessible to the affordable housing residents, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Prior to the issuance c~f a building permit for the 250/270 Homer Project, there shall be recorded an Access and Parking Easement Agreement for the benefit of the affordable housing project in a form acceptable to the City. If, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.83.070 or the provisions of the SOFA Community Area Plan, the City determines, with the agreement of the developer of the affordable housing project, that one or more of the twenty spaces is not needed by that project, the developer of the 250/270 Homer Project will make a payment to the City of $35,000 for each space released. The decision to release spaces must be made prior to commencement of construction The payment shall be made prior to the granting of any certificate of occupancy for 250/270 Homer Avenue or 819 Ramona Avenue. Appellant Concern: The project conditions imply that the residential units need only be habitable while tacitly permitting their use as offices, contrary to the provisions in the Development Agreement. Instead, the condition should ensure that the residential units be maintained "in" rather than "for" residential use. Staff Response: Project condition 1.e provides for annual inspection of the residential units to ensure that they are maintained for residential use. The intent is to guarantee that the two units are built and occupied for residential uses for the life of the building. Staff believes the condition is clear in meeting that intent. Further, project condition 1.q requires that the applicant comply with all the conditions contained in the Development Agreement, particularly those specified in Exhibits D-1 and D-2 (Attachment K). The condition referred to by the appellant is condition I in Exhibit D-1 and is, therefore, a condition of the project approval dated November 27, 2001. The project would require a subdivision map for the residential units. The Council also has the authority to change the project conditions of approval to read "...in residential use ...". The annual condition monitoring would not change. Appellant Concern: A preliminary review of its plans indicates that the project, which is required to provide 140 parking spaces, 20 of which are dedicated to the neighboring affordable housing project, has fewer spaces than that. Staff Response: The development agreement calls for 140 spaces to be located on the 250-270 Homer site, including 20 spaces to be dedicated for use by the affordable housing project. The approved project and plans submitted on October CMR:461:01 Page 8 of 12 7. 22, 2001 provides 140 spaces on-site. The SOFA CAP requires that only 114 parking spaces would be required for the project. The Development Agreement requirement that the project provide 60 spaces for public use on weekday evenings and__weekends is addressed in condition of approval, No. 49. However, the condition does not explicitly call for 60 spaces. Staff recommends that the Council amend this condition to require the "applicant to execute an Easement and Maintenance Agreement with the City providing public access to at least sixty parking spaces in the underground parking garage between the hours of 6:00 PM and 10:00 PM on weekdays, and between 8:00 AM and 10:00 P~ on weeken .~: ~. Appellant Concern: The project does not provide pedestrian entrances at intervals of 25 to 50 feet as required by Section 4.2 of the SOFA CAP AMF Design Guidelines. Staff Response: Guideline 4.2 does n0~.apply to this district. It applies to the AMF (residential) district. The MUO/AMF has separate Desi__gn__ Guidelines contained in Section 3.3(g). The MUO/AMF guidelines state "Building mass or faqade composition on parcels greater than 100 feet in width should be articulated in modules and massing variations to reflect the historic development pattern of the area. Techniques for creating this massing or faqade module may include but are not limited to the following: roofline variations and projections or recessed wall surfaces." The Development Agreement (Exhibit D-l, condition E) requires that "the new buildings shall be treated architecturally as more than one building. They shall have at least three distinct architectural characters." The plans clearly show three distinct architectural styles: 270 Homer Avenue, a contemporary building with historic architectural elements; the French Laundry, an historic building rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards; and 250 Homer Avenue, a contemporary building designed to be compatible with typical building elements in the area such as modestly-scaled window operfings and multi-pane fenestration. The resulting project design provides a collection of buildings that are pedestrian-oriented with high quality materials, building articulation, varied setbacks and extensive landscaping. o Appellant Concern: The ARB/HRB Subcommittee lacked proper process. Near the end of its 250/270 project review, the joint SOFA ARB/HRB panel chair created a subgroup to resolve differing opinions on fenestration issues between architectural consultants hired by the 250/270 developer and the City. Staff Response: The ARB/HRB's recommendation for the project included a subcommittee with a board member each from the ARB and HRB. It is standard CMR:461:01 Page 9 of 12 practice for City boards and commissions to form subcommittees for the purpose of reviewing specific items as directed by their respective boards/commissions. This had been done consistently by the ARB and the HRB. Recent examples include the historic renovations for the Apple store (historic building) on University Avenue, and the Stanford West Senior Housing projects, which included issues of fenestration, detail and design compatibility. For the 250/270 Homer Avenue project, the subcommittee consisted of one member of the ARB with expertise in architectural design and one member of the HRB with expertise in historic resources. The charge of the ARB/HRB to the subcommittee was to review the size and pattern of six modified windows on the 250 Homer Avenue building for conformance with the Secretary's Standards and to make a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The size and placement of the windows was considered in relation to the pattern and size of other fenestration openings on Homer Avenue. Metal mullions and spandrels were added to the project windows to reduce their apparent size. The Board subcommittee determined that these modifications satisfied the Secretary's Standards. The ARB/HRB determined that these changes were not sufficiently significant to warrant a full Board review. Appellant Concern: An ARB representative participated in the ARB/HRB beyond the expiration of his term on the ARB Staff Response: Robert Peterson volunteered to serve on the ARB/HRB at its inception and agreed to continue serving on the ARB/HRB following his retirement from the ARB. Mr. Peterson was appointed by the Director of Planning and Community Environment as Chairman of the ARB/HRB prior to the meeting on July 12, 2000. The Director accepted Mr. Peterson's offer to continue his role on the ARB/HRB after September 2000 to ensure consistency through completion of the PAMF/SOFA projects. As with previous appeals for SummerHill, the City Attorney's Office has determined that this was consistent with the SOFA CAP review process. 10.Appellant Concern: The conditions of project approval do not include the full set of City Council conditions. Staff Response: Staff does not concur with the appellant's contention. The conditions of project approval (dated November 27, 2001) incorporate by reference all the conditions included by the City Council in the Development Agreement. Project condition 1.q requires that the applicant comply with all the conditions contained in the Development Agreement, particularly those specified in Exhibits D-1 and D-2 (Attachment K). Any regulations included in the SOFA CAP, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and other City ordinances apply, whether or not referenced. ClVIR:461:01 Page 10 of 12 11. The conditions contained in the Development Agreement continue to be in full force and effect. Staff as well as the ARB/HRB reviewed the project under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the standards and guidelines of the SOFA CAP, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and made extensive findings of consistency, as described in Attachment C. Additionally, when the Council adopted the SOFA CAP (Ordinance 4626), htrther conditions of approval were included for development (Attachment C). Appellant Concern: Does the Chief Building Official have valid signature authority for a Planning Division document? Staff Response: Yes, the Chief Building Official was given authority to act on behalf of the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for the SOFA CAP including the project. The EIR was reviewed and certified by the City Council on March 27, 2000. The project, as currently proposed, has been reviewed in comparison with the project that was evaluated in the EIR. Staff has determined that the current project is consistent with that evaluated in the EIR and, therefore, no subsequent environmental analysis is required. Copies of the EIR and the findings made by the City Council pursuant to CEQA (Resolution No. 7950) are available for public review in the Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Appellant's Letter of Appeal, dated December 6, 2001 C. Conformance with Plans and Policies (Comprehensive Plan, SOFA CAP, AMF/MUO, Secretary's Standards, Urban Design Guidelines, DA excerpts from April 26, 2001 ARB/HRB Staff Report), Standards for Review, Ordinance 4626. D. ARB/HRB Staff Report dated March 8, 2001 (including attachments) E ARB/HRB Staff Report dated March 22, 2001 (including attachments) F. ARB/HRB Staff Report dated April 26, 2001 (including attachments) G. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of March 8, 2001 (Council Members only) H. Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of March 22, 2001 (Council Members only) I.Excerpts of the ARB/HRB minutes of April 26, 2001 (Council Members only) J.Approval Letter and project conditions, dated November 27, 2001 K. Development Agreement Exhibits D-1 and D-2 L. Plans and Updated Final submittal dated October 22, 2001 (Council Members only) CMR:461:01 Page 11 of 12 PREPARED BY: Current Planning Manager/i~ DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ..... ~ Interim Director Planning_ and Commum~y Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL?~ARRISON Assistant City Manager cc:David M. Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, Paio Alto, CA 94301 Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Rick Holstrom, Menlo Equities, 490 California Avenue, 4th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tom Gilman, DES Architects, 399 Bradford Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Elaine Voulgares Breeze, SummerHill Homes, 777 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 CMR:461:01 Page 12 of 12