Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-14 City Council (26)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 14, 1998 CMR:459:98 579 VISTA AVENUE/4114 GOEBEL LANE (FILE NOS: 98-SUB-I; 98-EIA-1): APPLICATION OF JEFF LEVIN FOR APPROVAL OF A FINAL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 41,253-SQUARE-FOOT PARCEL INTO 12 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS (TRACT NO. 9128) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the fmal subdivision map for the property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane, including acceptance of the new street name and acceptance of all offers of dedication. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant has submitted an application for a final map to merge three underlying lots and subdivide the resultant 41,253-square-foot parcel into 12 condominiums. Eleven of the condominium buildings are single dwelling units with the twelfth consisting of two residential units. BACKGROUND On October 5, 1998, the City Council approved the temative map for this subdivision. The tentative map was approved with ten conditions (see Attachment), including a requirement that any new name proposed for the private street be reviewed per Palo Alto’s Policy and Procedures Manual and that provisions be made to comply with the Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) program. DISCUSSION The applicant has requested that the existing street (Goebel Lane) be renamed Wisteria Lane. Both the Palo Alto Historical Society and the Palo Alto Communications Division have reviewed the proposed name change in accordance with the Palo Alto street naming procedures, and found it to be acceptable. CMR:459:98 Page 1 of 3 As a part of the project, the applicant is required to provide 2.6 BMR units which will be satisfied by providing two units and paying an in-lieu fee for the remainder. The applicant proposes to have one BMR unit on-site and provide a second unit off-site. At the time of the tentative map approval, the proposed off-site unit was not accepted and, therefore, a condition (number 7, Attachment) was added that required the subdivider to designate a second on-site unit that would be held until an off-site unit was accepted. The applicant has designated one of the units for this purpose and this agreement has been incorporated into the subdivision agreement for the fmal map.. All conditions of tentative map approval have therefore been met, including execution of the subdivision improvement agreement between the City and the applicant. The fmal map has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been found to be in conformance with the approved tentative map, the State of California Subdivision Map Act, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Action on this final map will have no impact on current City policy. The project was reviewed for compliance with City policies and programs as part of the tentative map approval process. TIMELINE Following City Council approval, the map will be recorded at the offices of the Santa Clara County Clerk. After rec6rdation, the applicant may proceed with securing a building permit for construction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration was prepared and approved prior to the approval of the tentative map and therefore no further environmental assessment is necessary. Approval of the Final Map is a ministerial action under the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires no environmental review. ATTACHMENTS Excerpt of City Council minutes from October 5, 1998 meeting (including tentative map. conditions of approval) Subdivision Agreement and Final Map (Council Members only) PREPARED BY:Philip Dascombe, Associate Planner CMR:459:98 Page 2 of 3 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD GA-WF ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~ HARRISON " Assistant City Manager CC:Bud chor, Sandis Humber Jones, 605 Castro Street, PO Box 640, Mountain View, CA 94042. CMR:459:98 Page 3 of 3 Regular Meeting October 5, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, ~Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ~CIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY i. ~roclamations Recognizing City of Palo Alto Businesses Ident~ied Among Joint Venture Silicon Valley’s Fastest Growing Bus ine s~s Proclamatio~qRecognizing Brio Technology, Inc. of Palo Alto as One of the S ilic~Valley’s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses P~amation RecOgnizing E* Trade Group, Inc. of PaloAlto as one of the Silicon Val~y’s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses Proclamation Recog.nizih~ Incyte Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Palo Alto oneof the Silicon ~Va~ey’s 50 Fastest Growing Businesses ......P~on Recognizing Om~ceii Te~hnoiogies, inc, of Palo Alto as one. of the Silicon Valley’~0 Fastest Growing Businesses Mayor Rosenbaum presented the pro~ations. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ~ M~dged that the Nati~al Pollution Prevention m~ Alto Regional _W_ate~Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) ~_t water pollutio~the nation’s -Most Valuable Pollution Prevention Pr gram.o -~ oAlto was tstanding Organics Management. cted ey Department. ~ UNFINISHED BUSINESS II. PUBLIC HEARING: The Council will consider an application by Jeff Levin for a Tentative Subdivision Map approval to create 12 residential condominium units on a 41,253 square-foot parcel for property located at 579 Vista Avenue/4114 Goebel Lane (continued from 9/22/98) Senior Planner George White said the staff and Planning Commission recommendation was that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration with the finding that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve a tentative subdivision based on revised findings and conditions. The applicant requested Tentative Subdivision Map approval to reconfigure 3 existing lots into 12 condominiums for the purpose of constructing a new 13-unit residential development. The proposed parcel reconfiguration was consistent with the Architectural Review Board (ARB)-approved residential development project on the site. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on July 8 and July 29, 1998, and voted to recommend City Council approval of the Tentative Map. Subsequent to the Planning Commission review, the City Attorney recommended that language be .added to the required findings of approval which reflected specifications of the Subdivision Map Act. The City Attorney also suggested additional conditions be added to the draft conditions of approval that related to security for required housing in-lieu fees. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said ~a number of" Council Members commented on_the .notation in the staff report (CMR:376:98) about the Palo Alto Housing Corporation’s .action of September 9, 1998. He spoke with Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director for the Housing Corporation, and both the City and the Housing Corporation concurred with the off-site Be!ow Market Rate (BMR unit). There were a number of rehabilitation steps that needed to occur on the property. The action under consideration by the Council would not .commit the City to accepting the property but would commit the City to go through the rehabilitation process if the property were found to be unacceptable. Neither the City nor the Housing Corporation were being asked to accept the off-site BMR at the current time. Council Member Kniss felt the Council was in an awkward situation since the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) had been passed but the zoning changes not yet discussed. On page 6 of the July 29, 1998, Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner Byrd stated, There is no zoning to accompany it yet, and no land is designated with it, but for our own education, if such a land use designation and a zoning category existed, is it possible to say whether you would have pursue that route. She was pursuing that route. Mr. Calonne said the Planning Commission was caught off guard by the application because the applicant pursued a development which was permitted as a right under the zoning. The Planned Community (PC) zone and the accompanying detailed design elevations had been previously approved by the ARB prior to Planning Commission review of the Tentative Map. When implementing zoning, an effort would be made to integrate more closely the ARB and Planning Conunission functions so that the apparent disconnect between the packages of information going to each board did not occur. Council Member Wheeler said in prior years when projects came in under the zoning, the Planning Commission was mystified about what it was supposed to do with a Tentative Subdivision Map. The role of the Planning Commission was misunderstood. Regarding the BMR contribution, sh@ asked what the City Attorney viewed as options if the rehabilitation plan did not come to fruition; for example, what were the alternatives that the Housing Corporation and the City might pursue in lieu of acceptance of the house. Mr. Calonne said the option was another off-site unit or a unit within the project. Council Member Wheeler clarified the decision would need to be made prior to the time of building occupancy. Mr. Calonne said that was correct and added that the Housing Corporation’s concern was that monitoring the rehabilitation would take a significant amount of effort and depended on careful execution for its success. Council Member Wheeler said the Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion about the tradeoff between the green space at the end of the new lane versus the two.guest parking spaces which was the decision that .came to the Planning Commission from the ARB. In order to have had the green space, she understood that the ARB would have had to approve a design enhancement exception, which they chose not to do. Mr. White said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler clarified the Planning Commission had no option to recommend differently. Mr. White said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said the ARB’s action was complete and beyond any appeal period. The Council’s current action was limited to approving or disapproving the Subdivision Map and conditions. Vice Mayor Schneider asked at what point the ARB came back into the picture. Mr. White said the ARB made its determination and forwarded its recommendation to the Planning Director who approved the project. Vice Mayor Schneider~ clarified the City Council had the recommendations from the Planning Commission and staff_and .not from ........ the ARB. Mr. White said that was correct. The ARB did not have purview over the Tentative Map application. The renderings and plans that were displayed at the meeting were the ARB approved plans for the site. Mr. Calonne said the project could be constructed as viewed on the wall renderings with no action by the City Council. The applicant would not be able to sell any of the units but could retain them as an entire project. The project was approved for development in a multifamily zone. Approval of the subdivision would allow the applicant to sell the units. Mayor Rosenbaum opened the public hearing. Jeff Levin, applicant, said the project was designed as a 1930-1940 cottage-style Bungalow on a cobblestone, private street to resemble a small, single-family community designed with large front porches and community interaction. The park at the end of the lane was denied, which was unfortunate. The Planning Commission and staff favored the park idea, but the existing zoning required two parking spaces. His original understanding was that the ARB requirement for the two spaces was a recommendation to the Council. The materials proposed for the project were Of the highest quality. All the houses were designed and painted to create an illusion that each house was completely unique. Bay Area Stream Water Management would be utilized in the storm drain, which was experimental and unusual for a project in Paio Alto. Outdoor street lamps would enhance the old character of the neighborhood. council Member Eakins asked whether it was possible to rescue the park. Mr. Levin said the parking spaces would be cobblestone rather than asphalt, but he would look at the possibility of retaining the park. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether Mr. Levin had an idea as to what the selling price would be on the units. Mr. Levin said the suggested selling price was in the high $600,000 to low $800,000 range. The $600,000 unit would be 1500 square feet, and the low $800,000 unit would be 1700 square feet. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Planning Commission and staff recommendation that the City Council: !. Approve the Negative Declaration, with a finding that the project wil! not result in any significant environmental impacts; and 2. Approve a tentative subdivision map based on the revised findings and subject to the revised conditions. REVISED DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP Recommended Findings for Approval I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs including those policies governing land use, residential density and housing. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accommodates construction of 13 new residential units in twelve new buildings and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and which fully comply with all existing zoning regulations. 3. The design of the new lot pattern and building locations will not cause any environmental impacts as the site improvementhas undergone environmental review and mitigating conditions of approval have been attached to the Architectural Review Board approval. 4. The design of~.the Dew ~!ot ............. and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities, are available and will be provided. In addition, no fish or wildlife or 5abitat thereof are impacted by this subdivision. 5. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the property in that there were no such easements. An ungated private street provides access to eleven of the new units and the remaining two units have direct access to a public street. REVISED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION GENERAL i. All Conditions required under Architectural Review Board application 97-ARB-152 shall apply to this project and are incorporated as a part of this approval. 2. The developer shall repair, restore or replace, at the developers expense, any City property damaged while performing work within the City right-of-way. ’PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP 3. The Applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement plans necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering, Planning, Fire and Transportation Departments. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 4. All construction within the~ City right-of-way, easements or other property under the City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 5. The applicant shall submit a current Preliminary Title Report and Grant Deed for the subject properties. 6. If the applicant desires to name the new private street, a submittal shall be made to the Palo Alto Historical Society for this purpose which is consistent with the street naming policy contained in the Palo Alto Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 1-16. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP 7. Security for the payment in lieu of providing additional housing, pursuant to the Below Market Rate Letter of Agreement, herein incorporated by reference, shall be submitted in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. This shall include a provision that a second on-site below market rate.unit shall be designated and held by the subdivider until such time as the City accepts an off-site unit. 8. The final map submitted shall show all the widths of streets in the vicinity as well as all easements affecting the property. 9. The final map shall include a five foot wide public utility easement along the western property line for the exiting overhead wires. I0. If necessary, the subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the fina! parcel map to guarantee completion of the items approved under improvement plan. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning Division and Public Works Department. MOTION PASSED 9"0.