HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-19 City CouncilTO:
City of Polo Alto
City Manager’s Report
4
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER
February 18, 1997
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:144:97
SUBJECT:4277 Miranda Avenue: Application for a Tentative Map to
subdivide a 1.5-acre parcel into five single-family parcels, with
exceptions for minimum lot width and size and for the width of the
proposed cul-de-sac street
REOUEST
Review of a Tentative Map application to subdivide a 1.5-acre parcel into five single-family
parcels, with exceptions for minimum lot width and size and for the width of the proposed
cul-de-sac, at 4277 Miranda Avenue.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the following:
1) the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (attachment 8); 2) the tentative map with
exceptions, based on the attached fmdings (attachment 1); 3) an exception to allow a 40-foot-
wide right-of-way where 50 feet is normally required, and a 37.5-foot radius for the
turnaround, where 40 ’feet is normally required, based on the attached exception findings
(attachment 1); and 4) the new street name of"Arroyo Court". These approvals would be
subject to the attached modified conditions (attachment 2 - Modified Conditions).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs listed below. A detailed project description and analysis of the pertinent issues are
contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated January 29, 1997 (see
attachment 3).
Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing
single-family areas."
CMR:144:97 Page 1 of 5
o
o
°
o
Housing Element, Policy 3" "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo
Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable."
Housing Element, Program 13: "In housing developments of three or more units, not.
less than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below-market rates to low- and
moderate-income families (for projects of three to nine units a proportionate in-lieu
payment will be accepted)."
UrbanDesign Element, Program 12: "Continue the program of placing utility lines
underground."
Urban Design Element, Program 14: "Encourage the use of street trees and planting
in the space between street and sidewalk rather than unrelieved concrete paving."
Open Space Element~ Goal 6: "Protect and conserve open spaces which are vital as
wildlife habitat, and areas of major or unique ecological significance."
Open Space Element, Policy 10: "Utilize natural riparian lands along streams, ponds,
creeks and lakes wherever possible for paths and trails, and as links in the City-wide
and subregional open space systems."
Open Space Element, Policy 3: "Preserve lands as open space to minimize hazards to
man due to seismic activity such as quaking, slope collapse and liquefaction, or due
to fire, earth-sliding, flooding, erosion and siltation, soil compression, lateral
spreading, and subsidence."
The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs
listed above. The single-family parcels maintain the low-density character of the adjacent
residential neighborhood, and comply with the City’s action in 1978 to rezone the site for
single-family use. The proposed five-lot subdivision will be consistent with ttie
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-1(929) zoning of the site. The proposed
density of approximately five units per acre complies with the Single-Family Land Use
Designation, which established a range of one to seven units per acre. Each lot has been
designed to provide ample area to construct a single-family home in compliance with the R-
1(929) site development regulations. The proposed frontage would also provide ample
access for vehicles and required utilities.
The proposed project will enhance the neighborhood by upgrading the existing 18-foot-wide
private driveway to a 24-foot-wide public street with planting strips and valley gutters on
each side (Housing Element, Policy 3). The streetscape will be further enhanced by the
planting of street trees along both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac (Urban Design Element,
CMR: 144:97 Page 2 of 5
Program 14). All new utilities lines serving the proposed single-family parcels will be placed
underground (Urban Design Element, Program 12).
In compliance with the City’s below-market-rate (BMR) requirements for new subdivisions,
the applicant has agreed to make an in-lieu payment equal to 3.75 percent of the value of the
vacant or developed lots (Housing Element, Program 13). The in-lieu payment would be due
and payable at the first sale of each of the vacant lots or first sale of any developed lots (see
attachment 6 - BMR agreement letter).
The proposed subdivision will result in an increased setback for structures fi’om the creek
from the previous commercial buildings, and an overall decrease in the amount of on-site
paving and other impervious surfaces as compared to the previous commercial use. These
physical changes, in combination with a substantial reduction in intensity caused by
replacing a commercial use with five single-family homes and the required bank stabilization
plan, should result in a healthier riparian habitat over time (Open Space Element, Goal 6).
In addition to the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement and required 20-foot rear yard
setback along Adobe Creek, a condition has been added to this project to prohibit
construction of accessory buildings within the rear yards of lots 4 and 5. This condition is
required to protect structures from possible bank instability and to preserve the natural
riparian setting of the creek (Open Space Element, Policy 3).
Although Policy 10 of the Open Space Element states that riparian areas should be utilized
for a public path system, this project does not violate that policy’s intent. The intent was to
create, wherever possible, a system of trails and paths along riparian areas. A path on the
subject property would provide access only toa small portion of the creek and would not link
with existing paths or any paths that would be created in the foreseeable future. The creek
is privatized along this segment in both Palo Alto and Los Altos with minimal opportunity
for public access in the future.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 29, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 4-0-0-2 (Beecham and Ojakian absent)
to recommend that the City Council approve the mitigated negative declaration, Tentative
Map with exceptions to lot width and size and cul-de-sac design, and the name "Arroyo
Court" for the new cul-de-sac (see attachment 4 - Excerpt Minutes). The Commission’s
motion included three additional conditions of approval (seeattachment 2 - Modified
Conditions). The additional conditions would require the following: 1) Architectural
Review Board (ARB) review of the future homes; 2) replacement of five 6- to 8-inch
Zylosma trees with five 60-inch box trees planted in the cul-de-sac planting strip; and 3)*as
part of the subdivision improvement plans, submittal and approval by the Planning Division
of a landscape plan for the areas on either side of the intersection of the proposed cul-de-sac
with Miranda Avenue.
CMR: 144:97 Page 3 of 5
The Commission’s discussion focused on the design of the future homes and landscaping
within the proposed right-of-way. In order to assure that the size and scale of the five future
homes would be consistent with the neighborhood, the Commission determined that ARB
review should be required for the homes, even if singly-developed by separate owners. They
.were most concerned with the design and placement of garages and second-stories, and their
impact on the neighborhood and cul-de-sac.
The Commission also determined that the removal of five 4- to 7-inch Zylosma trees, which
are located in the area of the proposed street but were not revealed on the tentative map at
the time of the Planning Commission hearing, should be mitigated by planting five 60-inch
box trees in the cul-de-sac planting strip. The size and location of the trees are intended to
screen an existing house, at 4285 Miranda Avenue, from the new cul-de-sac. The
Commission also determined that the applicant should submit a landscape plan, after
consulting the adjacent property owner, for the areas on either side of the entry to the cul-de-
sac as part of the subdivision improvement plans. The landscaping would be installed by the
applicant and should be low-maintenance and consistent with the rural character of the.
neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives apply to this application:
Modify and approve the Tentative Map (including alternate street design, and lot
configuration); or
2. Deny the Tentative Map application.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact will result from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An initial study recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached (see
attachment 8 - Mitigated Negative Declaration).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
If the City Council approves the project, this map would supersede the previously-approved
tentative parcel map. Prior to subdividing any lots, the applicant will be required to submit
improvement plans for the design of the cul-de-sac and submit an application for approval
of a Final Parcel Map. The Final Parcel Map will be reviewed for compliance by the Public
Works Department and must be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
CMR: 144:97 Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS,
Attachment 1 - Findings
Attachment 2 - Modified Conditions
Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
Attachment 4 - Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of January 29, 1997
Attachment 5 - Location Map
Attachment 6 - Below Market Rate Agreement Letter
Attachment 7 - Subdivider’s Statement
Attachment 8 - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 9 - Letter from Don Nielson
Attachment 10 - Letter from Santa Clara Valley Water District
Tentative Map [Council Members only]
CC:Mark Migdal
Jim Baer
Don Nielson
PREPARED BY: Joseph M. Colonna, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 144:97 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT 1
FINDINGS
4277 Miranda Avenue
File Nos. 96-SUB-3, 96-EIA-26
FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs, in that it will maintain the low-density character of an existing single-family
area, and it enhances the qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods desirable by
replacing a vacant parcel formerly containing a commercial facility with five single-
family parcels (Housing Element, Policy 1). The proposed density of approximately. 5
units per acre complies with the Single-Family Land Use Designation, which established
a range of one to seven units per acre. Each lot has been designed to provide ample area
to construct a single-family home in compliance with the R-1(929) site development
regulations. Additionally, the subdivision complies with the policies and programs in the
Urban Design Element, with regard to the proposed design of the cul-de’sac street and
utilities, in that all new utilities lines serving the proposed single-family parcels will be
placed underground (Urban Design Element, Program 12) and the streetscape will be
further enhanced by the planting of street trees along bo~ sides of the proposed cul-de-
sac (Urban Design Element, Program 14).
2.-The site is physically suitable for the type of density of development proposed in that the
five-lot subdivision complies with the maximum density requirement in the Single-
Family Residential land use designation, which allows up to 7 units per acre. The density
of this subdivision is approximately 5 units per acre. Additionally, each of the resulting
lots is large enough and configured in such a way that each could be developed in
conformance with the site development regulations set forth in the R- 1 (929) single-family
zone district, without variances.
°The design of the five-lot subdivision will not cause significant environmental impacts
or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat in that it provides
a flood control easement along Adobe Creek which provides access to the Santa Clara
Valley Water District to maintain and repair the creek bank, and the project will result in
¯ reduced impervious surface coverage form the former use, albeit increased impervious
surface from the current vacant status of the site, increased setbacks from the creek bank,
and a decrease in the number of daily vehicle trips from the previous commercial use, as
S:IPLANIPLADIVICMR!42771hd.CMR Page 1
02-18-97
documented in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Additionally, the design of
the proposed five-lot subdivision does not increase the number of lots having direct
frontage on the creek bank nor the length of the frontage, as compared to a four-lot
subdivision scenario.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious
public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities and
access to a public street, are available and will be provided at the subdivider’s expense.
Additionally, the project has been conditioned to supply a public utility easement for a
storm sewer connection from an adjacent parcel to an existing outfall within Adobe
Creek.
The design of subdivision will not conflict with public easements for access through the
use of the property within the subdivision, in that the dedicated cul-de-sac street will
provide direct access from Miranda Avenue to the proposed subdivision and two existing
single-family flag lots.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS
There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, because the site is
adjacent to Adobe Creek and the creek requires that 11 percent of the gross lot area be
dedicated from the subdividable property. Approximately 7,150 square feet, or 11
percent, of the existing site extends beyond the top of the creek bank, as determined by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s calculation for top of bank.
The exception for minimum lot size and width is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the applicant has
applied for the exception in order to create lots which are consistent with the
neighborhood pattern and yield single-family homes that are consistent with the size and
scale-of existing single-family homes in the neighborhood. A conforming, four-lot
subdivision would result in net lot sizes of approximately 11,700 square feet each, with
allowable floor area of 4,260 square feet per lot, which.is 570 square feet more than the
largest house, and 750 square feet more than the smallest homes allowed in the proposed
five-lot subdivision. Such homes would be out of scale with existing homes in the
neighborhood.
The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that the design of the
five-lot subdivision affords equal creek protection to a conforming four-lot subdivision,
because only two lots front on the creek. Through condition 7, no buildings will be
S :IPLANIPLADIVICMRI4277 fnd.CMR Page 2
02-18-97
permitted within 20 feet of the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, as shown on
the tentative map. This condition will further protect the Adobe Creek riparian habitat
and structures from possible bank instability. Additionally, the proposed lots would be
similar in size, shape and development potential to existing single-family, cul-de-sac lots
in the neighborhood which are adjacent to Adobe Creek and which have net lot sizes of
less than 10,000 square feet. Additionally, the proposed street frontage for each lot
would supply adequate access for vehicles and utilities to the future single-family homes.
The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit
of the law, in that the proposed subdivision would comply with the density requirement
set forth in the Single-Family land use designation, and would provide lots of ample size
and shape to construct five homes consistent with the existing neighborhood development
pattern. Additionally, with the addition of a condition prohibiting construction of
accessory buildings within the rear yard setback of lots 4 and 5, the project will provide
better creek protection than a previously approved four-lot subdivision.
FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION TO RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND DESIGN
There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, in that the property
is located in a lower-density rural residential area of Palo Alto, which is bordered on the
east by Adobe Creek, and on the north and west by the .remnant of an orchard field
currently maintained on the property of Alta Mesa Cemetery. The project site is currently
accessed from Miranda Avenue via a narrow private driveway. Miranda Avenue, which
serves the project site and surrounding single-family neighborhood, at its widest point has
a right-of-way width of 40 feet, where a 60-foot-wide right-of-way is required for a local
street. Additionally, Miranda Avenue does not have sidewalks to provide a formal
pedestrian path to the proposed cul-de-sac street.
The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the petitioner, in that the wider street right-of-way and sidewalks would not be
consistent with the rural residential character of the area and would exceed the width of
the local street providing the only vehicular access to the cul-de-sac. Thus, a wider right-
of-way on the site would unnecessarily diminish the open space and buildable area of the
site, while not providing any improvements for vehicular transportation.
The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that the proposed
cul-de-sac will provide adequate access to the seven single-family parcels for residents,
guests and emergency vehicles and provide landscape strips in which to plant required
street trees. Additionally, the proposed turnaround at the end of the cul-de-sac would
supply the standard 30-foot radius paved roadway, which is adequate to accommodate
S :IPLANIPLADIVICMRI4277 fnd.ClVlR Page 3
02-18-97
turning maneuvers of emergency vehicles.
The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit
of the law, in that the right-of-way will provide adequate vehicular access, landscape
strips, on-street parking and drainage in compliance with the established "Barron Park"
standard for street improvements.
S:IPLANIPLADIVICMRI4277fnd.CIVlR Page 4
02-18-97
ATTACHMENT 2
MODIFIED CONDITIONS
4277 Miranda Avenue
File Nos. 96-SUB-3, 96-EIA-26
(Modifications in Italic)
CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP
The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering,
Planning, Planning Arborist, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this
map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. The purpose of the meeting is to
review all conditions of approval and to discuss the standards for design of all off-site
improvements including the street and all required utilities. Improvement plans reflecting
the required off-site improvements and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City
prior to submittal of a parcel map.
The applicant shall submit an addendum to the project soils report to address the stability
of the Adobe Creek bank and make specific recommendations for proper setbacks and
construction methods for future buildings. The addendum shall include a creek bank
stabilization and riparian zone planting plan prepared by a habitat restoration specialist and
professional experienced with biotechnical bank stabilization techniques. Such plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Division and Public Works Department for review and approval.
The plan shall identify the measures to be taken to stabilize and repair the creek bank and
riparian zone setback area after demolition activities. Biotechnical measures and riparian
species shall be used. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to final of the
building permit to construct the required off-site improvements. This plan and
implementation shall meet the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Planning
Division and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all public improvements to
conform to the "Barron Park" standard for street design. Improvement plans shall include
a 24-foot-wide street, the location of street trees and automatic irrigation system, street
signs, fire hydrants, street lights, 36-inch-wide valley gutter, and "No Parking" signs on the
east side of the street from the intersection with Miranda Avenue to the north property line
of lot 1. The improvement plan shall also identify the locations of the proposed driveways,
which shall not exceed 10 feet in width at the front property line. The improvement plans
shall include landscaping for the areas on either side of the intersection of the new cul-de-
sac with Miranda Avenue. The applicant shall consult the adjacent property owner on the
design of the landscape areas, prior to submittal of the in~rovement plans to the City. The
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I CMR [ 4277Con.CMR Page 1
02-18-97
landscaping shall be low-maintenance and consistent with the rural nature of the
neighborhood. Installation shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee
acceptable to the City Attorney. The improvement plans shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning Division.
The subdivider shall install 18 street trees within the planting strips on either side of the
proposed public right-of-way and include the tree locations and irrigation in the subdivision
improvement plans. Five of the trees shall be 60-inch box or larger and shall be planted
within the cul-de-sac planting strip adjacent to the street side property line of 4285 Miranda
Avenue. The size, species and location of the street trees and the design of the required
automatic irrigation system shall be approved by the City Arborist, Planning Arborist and
the Planning Division.
The subdivider shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan to the Public Works
Department. Prior to approval of the parcel map, the grading and drainage plans must be
approved by the Public Works Department. A 10-foot-wide public utility easement shall be
dedicated near the rear of lot 5 for the purpose of providing an adequate storm drain
connection from an adjacent parcel to the proposed outfall to Adobe Creek. The exact
location of the easement will be determined upon approval of the project’s drainage plan,
and shall be shown on the face of the final map.
PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall dedicate a 40-foot-way public right-of-way, as shown on the approved
tentative parcel map, and all necessary public utility and storm drain easements to the City
of Palo Alto. This dedication shall be shown on the face of the f’mal map.
Construction of buildings of any kind, including accessory buildings, is prohibited within
the 20-foot rear yard setback of lots 4 and 5. The required setback shall be shown on the
face of the map along with a notation stating that construction of buildings within the
required rear yard. setback is prohibited.
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The
agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara
County Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
a. The subdivider shall agree to pay an in-lieu fee in fulfillment of Program 13 of the
Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan based on the following alternatives:
(i) For any lot sold as vacant land for development by others, the in-lieu fee for the
subdivision will be 3.75 percent of the cost of both the vacant lot and an estimated value
for future residence to be constructed thereon. The value or the vacant land is to be based
on an estimated minimum value of a vacant lot of $350,000 or the actual sales price of a
vacant lot, whichever is greater, times the required 3.75 % factor for a subdivision of five
S: I PLAN I PLAD1V I CMRI4277Con.CMR Page 2
02-18-97
lots. The in-lieu fee would be due at the first sale of each of the vacant lots. The in-lieu
fee for the future structure is to be based on the latest International Conference of Building
Officials Building Standards "Building Valuation Data" (August 1996) for the single-
family home built on the site times the required 3.75 % factor for a subdivision of five lots.
The in-lieu fee on the value of the structure is due and payable prior to occupancy of the
structure; or
(ii) For any lot initially sold as a developed parcel with single-family house in place, the
fee will be due and payable at the time of first sale of the house and lot and would be
based on 3.75% time the actual sales price. For any house constructed but placed as
rental, the fee would be based on-the highest priced house sold, and would be due and
payable in full, three years from the date of City Council approval of the subdivision map.
b. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the cul-de-sac, gutter
and planter strip, street trees and all other public improvements required by this approval.
These improvements shall be installed by the subdivider, at the subdivider’s expense and
shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City~ Attorney. All
public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor.and shall conform to the
City’s standard specifications for cul-de-sac streets, with the exception of right-of-way width
and provision of sidewalks (see City Standard Drawing 201).
c. If, at the time of filing the final map, subdivider has not acquired sufficient title or
interest in the required public right-of-way in order to allow construction of the
improvements and conveyance of same to the City for use by the public, the subdivider shall
agree to the following:
(i) Subdivider shall complete the improvements at such time as the City acquires an
interest in the land which will permit the improvements to be made, and
(ii) Subdivider shall pay all costs and expenses of the City related to acquisition of the off-
site real property interests required in connection with this subdivision. Such costs and
expenses shall include, but not be limited to, court costs, appraisal expenses, payment to
parties having interests which must be acquired, and legal fees (whether rendered .by City
employees or outside counsel). City may require, as part of the agreement, a deposit
and/or posting of other security to guarantee payment by subdivider of all costs and
expenses.
d. The subdivider shall plant four new trees outside of the building envelopes of the
proposed parcels. The location and species of the trees shall be shown on the improvement
plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Arborist. Installation of the trees
shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of security approved by the City Attorney.
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I CMR 14277Con.CMR Page 3
02-18-97
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
10.
The final parcel map shall befiled with the Planning Division within four years of the
approval of the preliminary parcel map.
The subdivider shall submit to the Public Works Department a copy of an approved Santa
Clara Valley Water District permit for construction of the cul-de-sac and storm drainage
system.
11.The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee
shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to
beginning work.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS
12.
12a.
!3.
14.
For this subdivision, a certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and
submit tree protection plans for all privateand public trees to be retained. The plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Arborist and shall identify the trees to be
protected and include measures for their protection during demolition and construction. The
certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC
Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to grading or building permit issuance.
Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed inthis subdivision, whether
developed singly or in common, shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review
Board in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.48, including but not limited
to the standards for review set forth in Section 16.48.120.
Prior to issuance of building permits for lots 4 or 5, temporary barrier fencing shall be
erected along the "building setback line established by SCVWD", as shown on the tentative
map. No vehicles, equipment or materials shall be stored within the fenced area. All work
within the riparian corridor, such as installation of a new outfall, shall be approved by the
Planning Division and SCVWD prior to commencement of construction. The design of the
barrier fence shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior to installation. The fencing
shall be removed after construction is complete.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division a demolition and construction logistics
plan that identifies measures that will be taken to maintain acceptable vehicular access to the
private driveway serving the existing flag lots to the east of the subject site. Access for
private vehicles and emergency vehicles shall be maintained at all times. Residents of the
flag lots will be given prior notice of any period when direct access would be blocked. In
the case where direct access is blocked and cannot be restored within a reasonable amount
of time, the applicant shall make arrangements for alternate access to the private driveway.
S: I PLAN I PLADIV ] CMR 14277Con.CMR Page 4
02-18-97
15.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, a limited auger test for determining the
presence of cultural resources on the site must be conducted on the entire site. The auger
testing should be conducted with a compact, trailer-mounted motorized auger (General 550
or similar) capable of being operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs
and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered will be
recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A report of f’mdings shall be prepared
and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of completion of the work. The
testing program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior
Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61.) The work shall be
overseen by an independent archaeologist hired by the City at the applicant’s expense.
The auger testing should be conducted with a compact, trailer-mounted motorized auger
(General 550 or similar) capable of being operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate
borehole logs and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered
will be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole.
If, based upon the auger testing, additional data recovery (manual excavation) is warranted,
an Archeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to
construction. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will
be conducted and protocol to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered
during. construction.. In addition, the Plan shall include the following: 1) a Research
Design, describing the types of questions to be addressed and methodology to be used during
data recovery; 2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis and curation; and 3) Native
American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are
encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of
Interior Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61.) Construction
monitoring shall be conducted any time ground-disturbing activities (greater than 12" in
depth) are taking place anywhere on the subject site. This includes building foundation
demolition and construction. The archeological monitoring program shall be implemented
by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards in
Archeology (36 CFR 61.); individual construction monitors shall be qualified in the
recognition of cultural resources of both the historic and prehistoric periods. In accordance
with the applicable State and federal historic preservation regulations, should previously
unidentified significant cultural resources be discovered during construction, the project
sponsor is required to cease work in the immediate area until such time that a qualified
archeologist can access the f’md and make mitigation recommendations, if warranted. In the
event of discovery of human remains, the Planning Division, County Coroner’s Office and
Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified of any discovery within 24 hours.
The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is
responsible to contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The
Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any
Native American remains, in addition to identification of a Native American Most Likely
Descendant, who may be responsible to make recommendations as to the handling and
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I CMRI4277Con.CMR Page 5
02o18-97
reburial or disposition of any human remains. To achieve this goal, it is recommended the
construction personnel on the. project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of
cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds,
and the consequences of failure thereof.
PRIOR TO FINAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
16.The approved bank stabilization plan, as identified in condition 2, shall be implemented
prior to f’mal of a building permit to construct the off-site improvements. The subdivider
shall contact the Planning Division to inspect and verify that the stabilization measures have
been implemented in accordance with the approved ’plan.
17.The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards,
including underground utilities and street lights, to the satisfaction of the Utilities
Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A new padmount~
transformer is required to serve the subdivision. All electrical plans shall be approved by
the Light and Power Division before the f’mal map is approved.
18.All work done within the City right-of-way will require a Street Work Permit from the
Public Works. Department.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
To reduce dust levels exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. Spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be
removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the
contractor’ s expense.
20.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday.
For construction on residential property, the ending time shall be 6:00 p.m. Monday -
.Saturday.
21.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s)
for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services
Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on
S: I PLAN [ PLADIV! CMRI4277Con.CMR Page 6
02-18-97
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the
developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste
materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act)
ONGOING
22.Driveways serving each parcel shall be limited in width to 10 feet at the front property line
to provide adequate area for the planting and maintenance of required street trees.
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I CMR 14277Con.CMR Page 7
02-18-97
TO:
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Joseph M. Colonna, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
January 29, 1997
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on a
Tentative Map to subdivide a 1.5-acre parcel into five, single-
family parcels, with exceptions for minimum lot width and size,
and the width of the proposed cul-de-sac street, at 4277 Miranda
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the following: 1) the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (attachment 6); 2) the
tentative map with exceptions, based on the attached findings (attachment 1); 3) an
exception to allow a 40-foot-wide right-of-way where 50 feet is normally required, and
a 37.5-foot radius for the turnaround, where 40 feet is normally required, based on the
attached exception findings (attachment 1); and 4) the new street name of "Arroyo Court".
These approvals would be subject to the attached conditions (attachment 2 - Conditions).
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
The project site is located adjacent to the southern boundary of Palo Aim in the R-1(929)
zone district, which has a required minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (see attachment
3 - Location Map). The property is bordered by the Alta Mesa Cemetery to the north,
Adobe Creek and single-family residential (City of Los Altos) to the east, single-family
residences to the south and AltaMesa Cemetery and Foothill Expressway to the west.. The
previous use of the Site was a gero-psychiatric facility which was comprised of two
buildings, one of which extended tothe bank of Adobe Creek, a parking lot, exercise areas
and landscaping. The applicant has demolished all of the site improvements and removed
the parking lot paving. The site is currently accessed by a private driveway which also
serves two, existing single-family flag lots located to the east of the subject site.
Project Description
The applicant has submitted an application for a tentative map to subdivide a 1.5-acre
parcel into five, single-family parcels. The lots would be accessed by an approximately
240-foot-long cul-de-sac street that the applicant is offering for public dedication.
Exceptions are required to allow net lot sizes between 9,200 and 9,800 square feet, where
10,000 square feet is otherwise required. Lot width exceptions are also required for
proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 which range from 40 to 43 feet wide, at the front setback, where
60 feet is normally required. Additional exceptions are required for the design of the
proposed cul-de-sac to allow a 40-foot-wide public right-of-way, where 50 feet is normally
required, and a 37.5-foot radius for the turnaround, where 40 feet is normally required.
The cul-de-sac would be comprised of a 24-foot-wide road surface, and valley gutters and
landscape strips on either side of the road.
At this time the applicant has not submitted an application for approval of single-family
homes to be constructed on the proposed lots. If any two or more contiguous lots are
developed simultaneously by the same owner or developer, the design of the homes will
be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board.
Site Information: Information regarding the applicant, owner, and parcel information is
provided below.
Applicant:
Owner:
¯ Mark Migdal
Mark Migdal~
Assessor’s Parcel Number:167-49-021
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zone District:
Single-Family Residential "
R-1(929)
Surrounding Land Uses:North: Cemetery
South: Single-family Residential
East: Adobe Creek with Single-
family Residential beyond
West: Cemetery
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 2
01-29-97
Existing Parcel Size:1.5 acres
Site History.: In 1978 the City Council rezoned the subject site from RE to R-1(929) as
part of a Citywide rezoning process. Because of that action, the former gero-psychiatric
facility became a nonconforming use~ The facility was allowed to remain in operation for
15 years, at which time the City required all commercial operations to cease. Several
attempts were made by the operators of the commercial facility to remain in operation.
In 1980 an application was submitted to rezone the property from R-1(929) to RE to
remove the nonconforming status of the facility. In 1982 a termination exception
application was made to attempt to eliminate the required termination of the facility and
allow it to remain as a grandfathered use. In 1993 the last request to rezone the property
from R-1(929) to RE was submitted. All of these applications to maintain the commercial
facility were eventually denied by the City Council. In 1994 all commercial activity
ceased and the facility was left vacant. In 1996 the applicant demolished the commercial
buildings and removed the parking lot paving.
On November 20, 1995, the City Council approved a tentative parcel map to subdivide the
subject site into four single-family parcels. The proposed parcels complied with the width
and size requirements of the R-1(929) zone district. That subdivision was approved with
a new 40-foot-wide cul-de-sac street, similar to the one proposed by the current
application. The approved cul-de-sac design included a 24-foot-wide road, and 36-inch-
wide valley gutters and landscape strips on either side of the road. Sidewalks were not
required due to the small number of homes and the rural nature of the neighborhood, The
Council approved "Arroyo Court" as the name of the new cul-de-sac street. That tentative
parcel map approval is still valid. No final map has been fried.
On August 8, 1996, the current tentative map application was submitted by Mr. Migdal
for subdivision of the subject site into five single-family lots.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application:
Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing
single-family areas."
Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo
Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable."
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 3
01-2%97
o Housing Element, Program 13: "In housing developments of three or more units,
not less than 10 percent of the units should be provided at below-market rates to
low-.and moderate-income families (for projects of three to nine units a
proportionate in-lieu payment will be accepted)."
Urban Design Element, Program 12: "Continue the program of placing utility lines
underground."
Urban Design Element, Program 14: "Encourage the use of street trees and planting
in the space between street and sidewalk rather than unrelieved concrete paving."
t
Open Space Element, Goal 6: "Protect and conserve open spaces which are vital as
wildlife habitat, and areas of major or unique ecological significance."
Open Space Element, Policy 10: "Utilize natural riparian lands along streams,
ponds, creeks and lakes wherever possible for paths and trails, and as links in the
City-wide and subregional open space systems."
o Open Space Element, Policy 3: "Preserve lands as open space to minimize hazards
to man due to seismic activity such as quaking, slope collapse and liquefaction, or
due to fire, earth-sliding, flooding, erosion and siltation, soil compression, lateral
sPreading, and subsidence."
The proposed subdivision complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs
listed above. The single-family parcels maintain the low-density character of the adjacent
residential neighborhood, and comply with the City’s action in 1978 to rezone the site for
single-family use. The proposed five-lot subdivision will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-1(929) zoning of the site. The
proposed density of approximately 5 units per acre complies with the Single-Family Land
Use Designation, which established a range of one to seven units per acre. Each lot has
been designed to provide ample area to construct a single-family home in compliance with
the R-1(929) site development regulations. The proposed frontage would also provide
ample access for vehicles and required utilities.
The proposed project will enhance the neighborhood by upgrading the existing 18-foot-
wide private driveway to a 24-foot-wide public street with planting strips and valley gutters
on each side (Housing Element, Policy 3). The streetscape will be further enhanced by
the planting of street trees along both sides of the proposed cul-de-sac (Urban Design
Element, Program 14). All new utilities lines serving the proposed single-family parcels
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 4
01-29-97
will be placed underground (Urban Design Element, Program 12).
In compliance with the City’s below-market-rate (BMR) requirements for new
subdivisions, the applicant has agreed to make an in-lieu payment equal to 3.75 percent of
the value of the vacant or developed lots (Housing Element, Program 13). The in-lieu
payment would be due and payable at the first sale of each of the vacant lots or first sale
of any developed lots (see attachment 4 - BMR agreement letter).
The proposed subdivision will result in an increased setback for structures from the creek
from the previous commercial buildings, and an overall decrease in the amount of on-site
paving and other impervious surfaces as compared to the previous commercial use. These
physical changes in combination with a substantial reduction in intensity, caused by
replacing a commercial use with five single-family homes, and the required bank
stabilization plan, should result in a healthier riparian habitat over time (Open Space
Element, Goal 6). In addition the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement and required
20-foot rear yard setback along Adobe Creek, a condition has been added to this project
to prohibit construction of accessory buildings within the rear yards of lots 4 and 5. This
condition is required to protect structures from possible bank instability and to preserve
the natural riparian setting of the creek (Open Space Element~ Policy 3).
Although the project does not expressly comply with Open Space Element, Policy 10,
which states that riparian areas should be utilized for a public path system, it does not
violate the policy’s intent. The intent was to create, wherever possible, a system of trails
and paths along riparian areas. A path on the subject property would only provide access
to a small portion of the creek and would not link with existing paths or any paths that
would be created in the foreseeable future. The creek is privatized along this segment in
both Palo Alto and Los Altos with minimal opportunity for public access in the future.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
a e _ " : The applicant is requesting approval of lot width and size exceptions
for the five proposed lots. The minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet, minimum depth
is 100 feet and minimum width is 60 feet, as measured at the. 20-foot front yard setback.
Table 1 below, shows the proposed parcel data and the development potential of each lot.
Exceptions are required to allow net lot sizes between 9,200 and 9,800 square feet, where
10,000 square feet is otherwise required. Lot width exceptions are also required for
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I PCSRI4277Mi ra. sr Page 5
01-29-97
proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 which range from 40 to 43 feet wide, at the front setback, where
60 feet is normally required:
Table 1: Proposed Parcel Data
Parcel Width at Front Gross Lot Net Lot Allowable Floor Allowable Lot
Number Setback (ft)Area (sf)Area (sf)*Area (sf)Coverage (sf)
1 73 9,300 9,300 3,540 3,255
2 43 9,200 9,200 3,510 3,220
3 40 9,800 9,800 3,690 3,430
4 45 16,000 9,600 3,630 3,360
5 84 9,950 9,200 3,510 3,220
* Net lot area equals gross lot area minus the portion of a lot extending beyond the
"top-qf-bank" line.
Although the proposed subdivision requires exceptions, the proposed lot pattern is
consistent with the design of existing cul-de-sac lots in the neighborhood. Several existing
lots frontingon Miranda Green, Moana Court and Miranda Court do not comply with the
minimum width and size requirements of the R-1(929) zone.district. ¯For example, an
existing lot on Miranda Green has a width of 47 feet, at the front setback, and has a net
lot size of 9,028 square feet. As with the proposed subdivision, the majority of the
neighborhood lots abut the creek, and have square footage deducted for the purpose of
calculating net lot size. Approximately 7,150 square feet of the project site extends into
Adobe Creek: 6,400 square feet of lot 4 and 750 square feet of lot 5. The project site,
with a deduction of approximately 6,000 square feet for the proposed cul-de-sac, would
supply gross lot area in the amount of 54,250 square feet, or 10,850 per lot, if subdivided.
into five equal parcels.
Floor area and lot coverage calculations are also based on net lot size. The allowable floor
area of between 3,510 and 3,690 square feet would be consistent with the development
potential of neighboring single-family properties. Properties with a net lot size of 10,000
square feet would yield 3,750 square feet-of floor area and 3,500 square feet of lot
coverage. The shapes of the proposed lots are typical for a cul-de-sac subdivision, and
would not present constraints to development. The frontage would be adequate to provide
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 6
01-29-97
utility service and vehicular access. The lots will provide a sufficient building envelope
to construct a single-family home without a variance.
The attached letter from Don Nielson, who is representing the Greater Miranda
Community Association, supports the five-lot subdivision because he believes that it is
consistent with the neighborhood pattern (Attachment 7). He states that the neighborhood
would support the project if conditioned so that each house would be architecturally
distinct, softened by landscaping and constructed within a "reasonable time." If the
applicant intends to sell the lots separately, review of the architecture and landscaping is
not required, however each house Would likely be unique if built by separate property
owners. If the applicant, or any other future property owner, constructs two or more
contiguous homes, the building design and landscaping would be subject to Architectural
Review Board (ARB) approval. At this time the applicant has not applied for ARB review.
2F.Le~: Currently the site contains 15 mature trees over 6 inches in diameter. An arborist
report, prepared by the S.P. McClenahan Company, recommends 13 of the 15 trees be
retained. None of the existing trees is a heritage tree. Two pine trees will be removed due
their location within the proposed street. The majority of the trees are in fair condition
with a life expectancy of 10 to 15 additional years. The trees to be saved as recommended
by the arborist shall be maintained in the manner presented in the arborist report, and tree
protection measures shall be implemented during demolition and construction activities.
As replacement for the two trees to be removed, the applicant will be required to plant 4
new trees in an area outside of the building envelopes on the proposed lots, in locations
approved by the Planning Arborist. In addition, the applicant is required to plant 13 street
trees within the planting strips on either side of the new street. Because of the reduced
widths of the lots at the front property line, a condition has been added limiting driveway
width to 10 feet at the .property line in order to preserve ample area for street trees to be
planted. The project’s improvement plans will identify the locations of driveways and
street trees, and shall be approved by the Planning Arborist and Public Works Department."
~: A portion of the subject property extends-into a natural section of Adobe
Creek. Two of the five proposed parcels would have direct access to the creek. The
previous commercial building was located 6 feet from the "top-of-bank" line, which has
been established by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and is proposed as
indicated on the tentative map. The "top-of-bank" line was established by using a slope
of 1:2 (1 foot vertical for every 2 feet horizontal) from the toe of the bank, and the area
needed to preserve the stability of the creek bank.
S:IPLAN PLADIV PCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 7
01-29-97
The development of five lots versus four lots, will theoret.ically lead to a greater amount
of impervious surface, and the need for additional protection of the creek bank from
increased runoff and erosion. With the condition prohibiting construction of accessory
buildings within the rear yard setback, any structure constructed on lots 4 or 5 would be
at least 20 feet from the established "top-of-bank" line. The result is an increased setback
for accessory structures of 20 feet from the "top-of-bank" line versus the normal zoning
provisions allowing a zero setback for accessory buildings. The increased setback, and
reduction in intensity caused by replacing a former commercial use with five single-family
homes, combined with an overall decrease in the amount of on-site paving and other
impervious surfaces from the former use, should result in a healthier segment of riparian
habitat over time. In addition, this application is conditioned to require repair of any
damage to the creek bank caused during demolition and tostabilize the bank using
biotechnical measures.
After reviewing the proposed subdivision, SCVWD has determined that the applicant must
dedicate an easement for flood control purposes because the creation of five lots will result
in new impervious surface, additional runoff, and the need to protect the adjacent creek
from erosion and instability, as well as the future homes on the lots from the affects of
natural creek changes. This easement is required to provide SCVWD with adequate area
to access and maintain the creek bank. The easement would include the portion of the site
within the "top-of-bank" line established by SCVWD. This line is shown on the tentative
map. Staff has included a condition requiring the applicant to dedicate a flood control
easement to SCVWD, prior to approval of the Final Parcel Map.
Street Desiga: The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires a 50-foot right-of-way for a public
cul-de-sac street. The City Council may grant an exception to that requirement in
approving a parcel map, prov!ded that additional exception findings are made (see
attachment 1 - Exception Findings). The applicant is requesting an exception to the
standard right-of-way’width and has supplied rationale to support the granting of a
reduced right-of-way width (see attachment 5- Subdivider’s Statement).
The applicant proposes to serve the proposed parcels, and two existing flag lots to the east,
with a 40-foot-wide right-of-way, which includes a 24-foot-wide street and a-36-inch-wide
valley gutter and landscape strip on either side of the road. The proposed 37.5-foot radius
right-of-way for the cu!~de-sac turnaround does not comply with the standard radius of 40
feet. But because the road would not contain a sidewalk, the turnaround would supply the
standard 30-foot radius paved roadway, Which is adequate to accommodate turning
maneuvers of emergency vehicles.
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSR14277Mira.sr Page B
01-29-97
Since only seven lots are to be served by the proposed street and because of the area’s
rural residential character, staff concurs with the applicant’s assessment that the proposed
40-foot right-of-way will provide adequate access. All City departments including Public
Works, Fire, Transportation and Utilities have reviewed the proposed right-of-way and
determined it to be adequate. In order to accommodate fire and paramedic
vehicles/equipment, there shall be no on-street parking on the east side of the cul-de-sac,
from the Miranda Avenue intersection to the northern property line of lot 5.
~: Staff recommends use of the street name "Arroyo Court", which was
approved by City Council and’supported by the neighborhood during the previous
subdivision action on the project site.
Public Participation
The applicant reports receiving positive responses from the adjacent neighbors regarding
the proposed 5-lot subdivision. Notification of this public hearing was mailed to all
owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the subject property.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives apply to this application:
Modify and approve the tentative parcel map (including alternate street design, and
lot configuration); or
2. Deny the tentative map application.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact will result from this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
An initial study recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached
(see attachment 6 - Mitigated Negative Declaration).
T P F APPR
If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the project will be heard by the City
S:IPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 9
01-29-97
Council on February 17, 1997. If Council approves the project, this map would supersede
the previously-approved tentative parcel map. Prior to subdividing any lots, the applicant
will be required to submit improvement plans for the design of the cul-de-sac and submit
an application for approval of a Final Parcel Map. The Final Parcel Map will be reviewed
for compliance by the Public Works Department and must be approved by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment 1"- Findings
Attachment 2 - Conditions
Attachment 3 - Location Map
Attachment 4 - Below Market Rate Agreement Letter
Attachment 5 - Subdivider’s Statement
Attachment 6 - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Attachment 7 - Letter from Don Nielson
Attachment 8 - Letter from Santa Clara Valley Water District
Tentative Map [Commission members only]
Mark Migdal
Jim Baer
Don Nielson
Prepared by:
Project Planner:Joseph Colonna
Division/Department Head
Joseph Colonna, Senior Planner
Maddox.Lytle, Chief Planning Official
S:lPLANIPLADIVIPCSRI4277Mira.sr Page 10
01-29-97
EXCERPT Planning amission Minutes ATTACHMENT 4
January 29, 1997 :~
Item 2.4277 MIRANDA AVENUE: Application for a tentative subdivision map to
subdivide a 1.5-acre parcel into five single-family parcels. The lots would be
accessed by an approximately 240-foot long cul-de-sac street that the applicant is
offering for public dedication. Exceptions are required to allow net lot sizes
between 9,200 and 9,800 square feet where 10,000 square feet is otherwise
required. Lot width exceptions are also required for proposed Lots 2, 3 and 4,
which range from 40 to 43 feet wide at the front setback, where 60 feet is
normally required. Additional exceptions are required for the design of the
proposed cul-de-sac to allow a 40-foot-wide public right-of-way where 50 feet is
normally required and a 37.5-foot radius for the turnaround where 40 feet is
normally required. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration
has been prepared. File Nos. 96-SUB-3, 96-EIA-26.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any staff comments?
Mr. Colonna: On the map that is projected, as a result ofa pre-commission question about where
the top of the creek bank is and where the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement is located,
I have indicated four lines on the map. The green line is the physical top of bank, the blue line is
the 100-year flood zone, the purple line is the Santa Clara Valley Water District easement line,
and the red lines are the 20-foot rear yard setbacks for Lots 4 and 5. That is 20 feet from the
district easement line.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions of staff?. I have one question. Is the physical top of
bank different from the top of bank that is the two-to-one line?
Mr. Colonna: That is correct. The physical top of bank is a line that is pretty well defined in this
case because there is some rip rap currently there, placed by the water district. The two-to-one
projection is that the purple line is, at its closest point, 20 feet, I believe. As we go north on
proposed Lot 4, it widens out considerably.
Chairperson Cassel: Sothe easement is also the two-to-one top of bank line?
Mr. Colonna: That is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: For clarification, the dashed lines within each proposed piece of
property indicate the building setback lines. Is that correct?
Mr. Colonna: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: And the side setbacks on these pieces of property are eight feet?
Mr. Colonna: Yes, that is correct, becausethey are R1 (929).
A:IPCMINS4[PC0129.min Page 36
01-29-97
Commissioner Schmidt:. Versus six feet which is in much of the R-1 zone, so the actual building
envelope width on a couple of those lots is very narrow at the front, approximately 24 feet.
Mr. Colonna: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Schink: I have a couple of question for staff. First, in reviewing the map, I
noticed that a number of trees are indicated. However, on the neck of the road as it comes off of
Miranda, I have noticed in my site visits that there is a number of trees that would be removed.
Away from Miranda Avenue, there is a number of trees that would be wiped out by the valley
gutter that are not shown on the plans. Do you know any of the specifics on the size of those
trees?
Mr. Colonna: No, they are not shown on the map, and they were also going to be removed
through the previous subdivision in building the cul-.de-sac. They are currently in the fight-of-
way. The city owns that right-of-way over that portion, and it is dedicated for a road. The
mitigation basically would be that the applicant is planting a number of street trees in the proper
position. They would not be in a position where they could be maintained. They would not fall
in the landscape strip.
Commissioner Schink: My next question pertains to some of the same things. It looks like we
are going to create this funny piece of land. Who owns it?
Mr. Colonna: You are pointing to a section that is north of the bend of the proposed cul-de-sac.
Actually, that property is currently in the fight-of-way easement to the city, so we are not
creating anything by this action.
Commissioner Schink: But what is going to happen to it?
Mr. Colonna: It would be unimproved like the sides of Miranda are now. We are not proposing
any additional improvements, other than the road surface itself, the valley gutter, and then the
landscape strips for the trees. That would just be unimproved.
Commissioner Schink: When we reviewed this previously, I misunderstood a bit because there
was a lot of discussion about an attempt to do a quiet title action to clear up some pieces of
property. I had the impression that the road was in a slightly different place. Can you fill me in
on the quiet title action for that?
Mr. Colonna: I can clarify that. The road is actually in pretty much the same location as the
previous one, especially in that area that we are talking about, how it connects to Miranda. The
quiet title action needed to occur on the section of the road that is the 20-foot strip at the bottom
of the cul-de-sac to the south side of it. There is a section of the proposed cul-de-sac here that
actually was not controlled by the applicant in the previous application. What they needed to do
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 37
01-29-97
was to do a quiet title action and go to court. Our attomey can explain more fully.
Ms. Cauble: If he was putting the subdivider in a position where they could ensure that the
public had the right to use that, they essentially quieted out any interest that the heirs of Mirandh
might have in that strip. That was resolved and we did receive that information from the court.
The idea was to eliminate any claims that private parties might have which would prevent a full
dedication to the public of that area for a public street.
Mr. Colonna: And the other side of the cul-de-sac, including the area you referred to before, was
already in an easement for a public right-of-way, so they needed to clarify that the other side
could be dedicated to the city.
Commissioner Schink: I am going over a lot of little points here, but I think they are important
in the long run of how this subdivision is going to look. I know that in doing similar types of
subdivisions in other cities, we have been in a position where a part of the process was to
actually get rid of a piece of land like that little piece that is created here that is not attached to
anything. You just try to give it to the neighboring property so that they then own it and
hopefully will maintain it. tn that way, you do not have this little unmaintained piece. Is that
appropriate here?
Ms. Cauble: That is not part of this application, and I do not know whether or not that portion of
the right-of-way is an easement right-of-way or a fee right-of-way. We have rights-of-way that
fall into both categories where we, as a city, have right-of-way in the form of an easement.. Then
if we no longer need it for public street purposes, there is a proceeding, sometimes initiated by
the city, sometimes initiated by a neighboring property owner, to abandon the right-of-way. If it
is simply an easement, then once that easement goes away, it belongs to the underlying fee
owner. If we own it in fee, then there needs to be a process whereby we deed it to the adjoining
property owner.
These issues are coming up, as you might recall in conjunction with the medical foundation
project where we are abandoning streets. Some of them are easements; some of them are in fee,
and part of the project application is to deed them back to the landowner when it is owned in fee
by the city, in exchange for which we are getting new streets. So there is the potential, if the city
were to determine that there is no chance that we will ever need this right-of-way, that we would
look at the possibility of abandonment. We would have to research who might be entitled to get
that land or whether we would have to sell it to someone or deed it to them.
Commissioner Schink: Under the exceptions to findings section, I am a little perplexed. In the
second exception, there is a sentence which read.s, "...single-family homes that are consistent
with the size and scale of existing single-family homes in the neighborhood." And then we go
down farther to a sentence that says, "...in that the design of the five-lot subdivision affords equal
creek protection to a conforming four-lot subdivision, because only two lots front on the creek."
A:IPCMINS4[PC0129.min Page 38
01-29-97
It seems to me that both of those exceptions presuppose a design that we already know about for
the houses without our saying that the ARB is going to look at these to see that it conforms to
this or that we have a house design in front of us that specifically fulfills these criteria. How can
we make these exceptions?
Mr. Colonna: The way the project is conditioned, the design should not have an impact on the
creek because we are restricting any development within the 20-foot rear yard setback, whereas if
you were just to build without the ARB, which could be the case if these are sold individually,
you normally could put an accessory building right up to the rear property line on a single-family
lot. That will not be the case here, if you accept that condition and the council approves that
condition. Then we are also comparing it to a four-lot subdivision which was approved earlier
where three of the four lots had direct frontage on the creek. In this case, if you assume that
fewer people having access to the creek is equal or better creek protection, that is what the
finding is stating.
Commissioner Schink: I understand that, but maybe you could give me a better understanding as
to how I would know that this new subdivision is going to do a better job of creating homes that
are consistent with the size and scale of the neighborhood.
Mr. Colonna: Because of the size of a lot of the homes that are on the ends of the cul-de-sac and
also are also affected by the creek. Many of those homes have similar deductions in their lot size
for easements or for the two-to-one projection for the projected top of bank. These lots would be
more consistent with those lot sizes because the FAR and coverage are tied to the net lot size.
The homes would therefore be closer in size to those homes. A four-lot subdivision would afford
larger properties, even with the easement deducted and larger homes. They would be out of scale
with the rest of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Byrd: A portion of Attachment 5 to our report, the subdivider’s statement,
includes five or six different possible configurations of this subdivision. There is a hand written
note on Option A that says these were all reviewed by staff and that some combination of A and
B would work. I am particularly interested in knowing why staff found Options C and G less
desirable, since they create lots that are either more rectangular .or square, less pie shaped, and
therefore allow for fewer challenges in the building footprint.
Mr. Colonna: The Option C actually reduced the net lot sizes quite a bit. It also introduced a
very rigid pattern where the side lot lines were perpendicular tothe street, unlike the rural nature
of the lots that are out there. We did not feel, designwise, that it really met with the
neighborhood pattern.
Ms. Lytle: This option also does not address the creek at all. It just divides up the rear yard of
many different lots along the creek. You could have several more ownerships.
A:IPCMINS4tPC0129.min Page 39
01-29-97
Commissioner Byrd: And with Option G?
Mr. Colonna: That is only a sketch, so you could only review what you have been furnished, but
as you increase the size of the cul-de-sac, you are further reducing the net lot size of the
properties. To get them as close as we could, we tried to have the applicant keep the cul-de-sac
to a minimum so that the lot sizes would be substantially more deficient from the 10,000-square-
foot requirement, and there would be real problems with developing Lots 2 and 3 in terms of the
overall width and building envelope for those lots.
Chairperson Cassel: If there" are no further questions, I will open the public hearing. Jim Baer is
here to speak for the applicant.
Jim Baer. 532 Channing Avenue, #203, Palo Alto: Thank you. Roger Kohler, who is Mark
Migdal’s architect, will speak tonight also. My purpose is to speak to the process with respect to
this project which began in June, with great cooperation from the planning department, the public
works department and from the Miranda Green neighborhood. We met with the planning staff in
late June, and from that sourced three neighborhood meetings, the purpose of which was to
discuss what the process would be for the subdivision for this project and to listen to neighbors
over those three evenings about their chief concerns. From that evolved this five-lot subdivision.
By that, I do not mean that we interacted with neighbors on where the lot lines were drawn, but
we listened to their primary concerns.
Those primary concerns were that the rural character of the neighborhood be preserved, that the
homes be of a scale more consistent with the remainder of the Miranda Green neighborhood, and
as Mr. Colonna pointed out, four lots of a larger size would allow homes up to 4,000 or
4,500 square feet, and that that would be out of scale with the remainder of the neighborhood,
which is largely ranch style, one-story and some two-story homes. So architectural character was
a real concern.
A second concern for adjacent neighbors was that they be protected from high profile buildings.
It is a heavily treed neighborhood, valley gutters, no sidewalks except in two of the cul-de-sacs
much like in Barron Park, and it is a neighborhood where many of residents have lived for over
25 years. This map was in response to those concerns. In addition, there are general concerns
about creek protection. With respect to this map as opposed to some others, and I want to
respond to Commissioner Byrd’s questions, for Option C, planning staff’s answer is consistent
with the applicant’s concern. For Option G, there is a 20-foot setback that is not a side yard
setback. It is a setback from the creek. So in looking at Option G, if you were to move 20 feet in
from the creek, whether it is side yard or back yard, you wind up having those two creek-adjacent
parcels having much, much smaller areas for development. You have taken out much more of
the parcel for roadway, and now you have further reduced those two for the creek. So it is really
tough to fit homes in there.
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 40
01-29-97
I appreciate the opportunities to speak with commissioners in the last three days. The concerns I
heard foremost among commissioners I want to address. Those were, how does this map
compare with respect to .impact on the creek as compared to the previous map? I have a bad
copy of the map. What this will show is that three of the parcels of the former map stretched to
the creek, which meant there was the opportunity to have three structures within 28 feet of the
100-year flood plane. The city’s map showed very clearly that you have the top of the bank, the
100-year flood plane and an 8-foot easement at its narrowest, but it is greater than that on some
portions, and then the city has a 20-foot building setback from the easement. So there would
have been an opportunity for more structures to encroach. Roger Kohler will show some sample
layouts for homes and how they will lay out with only two homes having any structures that
would come near the creek.
We understand from planning staff that today, there were some questions asked about the fierce
storms we have had in December and January, and has the creek experienced any erosion. The
answer is no, and I will ask Mr. Kohler to confirm that, based on his conversations with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District today. Another question was, how high is the water? Is this 100-
year plane reflective of true experience? The .water in the creek is about two or three feetdeep,
and about seven or eight feet below top of bank, even in this stormy period. So the creek is a
concem. It is a creek that this map impacts less severely than the four-lot subdivision.
The other concern expressed was that these five lots create some narrow mouths along the cul-
de-sac, and how can a home be designed. That was what Commissioner Schmidt asked staff. Is
the protection provided under a standard condition for ARB review adequate? Would there be
some desire to impose a greater standard of review so that any single home developed had to be
reviewed, whether by the Architectural Review Board or Planning Commission, in order to
ensure that the neighbors are not faced with two-car garages and two-story homes all behind
those. That is one where the applicant is very welcoming of Planning Commission and staff
recommendations about how to ensure the concerns of Planning Commissioners and of the
neighbors that these be high quality homes well planned for the site.
Another question raised tonight by Commissioner Schink was about the loss of trees along the
portion that is outside of the property owned by the applicant, and that there will be some trees
that are currently in the public right-of-way. Those will be replaced by street trees, and the
applicant would invite those street trees to .be of more than a standard box size. So if there is
some request to make it as a mitigation to put in trees that are of a larger size. Now I will turn
this over to Roger Kohler who will show some site layout possibilities.
Roger Kohler. 721 Colorado Avenue, Pal0 Alto: The purpose of my presentation tonight is to
give you a real quick idea of the types of homes that could go on these five lots. I have sat down
and just roughed out living room, dining room, kitchen, family room ,-etc., and blocked it out on
each property. As you can see, all of the lots, except for Lot #1, would be farther back than the
20-foot setback. This is due partly to the narrowness of the lot. At the moment, two of the lots
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 41
01-29-97
would have detached garages in the rear in keeping with the compatibility standards that have
been developed by Palo Alto. The other two lots, #1 and #5 at the moment, appear that the
garage up front might work fine because they are behind trees and set back. Lot #3 is probably
the most difficult because it is the narrowest. Part of a mitigation, as we proceed, might be that
the garage, if it is up front, would be recessed under a porch or decorative roof line so that as you
drove in, you would not immediately notice the garage doors.
The mass of the homes represents homes slightly smaller than the allowed floor area ratio. I
have not done anything specifically yet, but in general, they conform to homes I have done in the
past in other subdivisions here in Palo Alto and in other cities. Generally, with the homes that
we .have done in the past, the first floor is larger than the second floor, and affords roof lines
around the house and does not cover up quite as much property on the first floor. In general, I
thought that when we got into the design of the homes, we would do a walking survey of the
existing neighborhood, look at the homes that are there, talk to the neighbors, and come up with
a blend of homes that would fit in with the neighborhood as best we could. I have had the
fortunate experience of doing a couple of homes here in Palo Alto from which I would draw
experience. They have had porches in the front. That is a very nice feature in homes, and we
would try to incorporate that into some of these. That pretty much covers it.
Mr. Baer: I hope that the Planning Commission will not dwell on specific issues related to this
quick sketch. As we have indicated, the applicant is willing to submit to extraordinary review
standards because of the shape of the homes and because of the commitment made to the
.neighbors that these homes fit in with the character of the neighborhood and not be intrusive into
the immediately adjacent neighbors. So we are willing to do extraordinary tree mitigation for
those lost on the existing right-of-way. We welcome your questions and guidance for this five-
lot subdivision.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions for Mr. Baer?
Commissioner Schmidt: It is my understanding that with this subdivision, lots could be sold
separately without a structure design. The lot could be sold, and the buyer could design a home
to go on the lot. Is that correct?
Mr. Baer: Yes, under standard ARB policy, that is my understanding, although I would defer to
planning staff. What this applicant is willing to do is that if a condition of approval of this map
is required, that even a single home would proceed to the ARB for review. That is an acceptable
condition to the applicant.
Commissioner Schmidt: I drove around the neighborhood again today since we last saw this
item. The predominant character out there is, indeed, one-story ranch homes. There are certainly
some two-story ranch homes, and I suspect these would all be two-story homes..I am wondering
if the applicant feels that a group of five two’story homes would indeed be in character with the
A:IPCM1NS41PC0129.min Page 42
01-29-97
more rural one-story feeling of the entire neighborhood?
Mr. Kohler: I feel that designed properly, and designed together as a group in that setting, two-
story homes could fit in very well. In general, I would say that the second-story portion of these
homes would be to the rear, with the front portion of the house being one story. So the front part
of the house would camouflage the two-story house, generally. I have a feeling, based on my
professional experience in that neighborhood (and I have had several interviews there) that I am
not convinced that that neighborhood will remain one story. At the moment, it is, but a lot of
people have expressed interest in adding second floors. We would do our best to blend in. On
possibly one or two of these lots, a one-story house might work, but my experience with one-
story homes is that they wind up with quite a lot of hallways, with square footage going into
hallways. They end up being fairly inefficient, and in many ways, more expensive to build, thus
more expensive to purchase.
Chairperson Cassel: Wouldn’t they also cover more of the lot and you would have more
impervious surface?
Mr. Kohler: Oh definitely. If you built to the maximum lot coverage, for some of these I believe
it was 3,200 square feet, whereas for a two-story house, the first floormight be 1,600 or 1,700
and the second floor, 900 to 1,100 square feet, plus the garage. You would be at about a
1,000 square feet under the lot coverage with a two-story house.
Commissioner Byrd: Without making a legally binding commitment, is it the applicant’s current
intent to build the homes before selling them? Or is it his intent to sell vacant lots?
Mr. Baer: The applicant intends to build all five of the homes. He has expressed in writing to
the neighborhood that that is his intention.
Commissioner Schink: Since the applicant has volunteered to be controlled by the Architectural
Review Board ordinance, how do we tie that in? Do we need to have them make some further
public statements to that effect?
Ms. Cauble: As you know, land use approvals, like maps, run with the land. So if Mr. Migdal
decides to sell the property tomorrow, what we would need would be a record that shows that the
review is a condition. I think the commission has already been discussing tonight the rationale of
why such a condition would be appropriate. It is certainly very helpful to know that the applicant
is not opposed to that requirement, but there would need to be a condition to that effect and some
rationale offered as to why that is necessary to help make the findings that are involved with this
particular map.
Commissioner Schink: As I made reference earlier, there are a couple of little pieces of land that
are getting left out in this whole process. I am somewhat concerned that there is no one to
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 43
01-29-97
maintain them in the future. You all know from going out there that that whole portion of the
one comer looks a little shabby, because there is no one really in charge of it. The cemetery does
not pay attention to it way down there at the end. I am concerned that there does not appear to be
any proposal to landscape the area by the wall at the end along that side of the road. I am
wondering if you would be willing to go along with some kind of plan to put in a permanent,
non-maintenance type of landscaping !n those areas.
Mr. Baer: I would need some help from staffto respond to that. Since this has not been asked of
Mr. Migdal before, I am not equipped to answer that. My question would be, how does that kind
of condition work for land not owned by the applicant regarding ongoing maintenance?
Commissioner Schink: I am not asking that he maintain it on an ongoing basis. All I am asking
is that he plant it now with something that would look good for awhile.
Mr. Baer: Is that consistent that if you replace street trees in public land, why not ask the
applicant to plant durable shrubs in that area? I guess there is a willingness to do so.
Mark Migdal. 201 Columbia Street, Palo Alto: I am the applicant tonight. Regarding your
concern, I understand you are asking about this triangle here, which will be kind of controlled by
the city. It will be very difficult for me to initiate anything, because this land is controlled by the
city completely. What I would be glad to do in combination with the entire neighborhood is to
put this together with the landscape plan of the lots under our control. It will be very expensive
putting in the trees, which I presume will be a condition of approval, so the condition could
extend beyond the boundaries of this particular parcel and include some additional landscaping.
Debbie may not agree with me on that. I would be very in favor of that.
I understand you are talking about this triangle as well. At this moment, it is also under the city’s
control but nobody maintains it. Maybe the city would consider allowing me to widen this
intersection, .making this gutter straight to this comer, which will blend with Miranda. It would
be a wider street that will narrow down into the cul-de-sac. The gutter will be straight, and this
will simply become a regular road and sidewalk in front of the two new homes going in there.
Chairperson Cassel: So you would be willing to work with the city on this?
Mr. Migdal: Absolutely. It is city-owned land, and the city has to initiate that.
Chairperson Cassel: But you would be willing to work with the city to come to some reasonable
entryway to your area.
Yes. It is a touchy area over there. It is the entrance to this subdivision.
Don Nielson, 850 Miranda Green, Palo Alto~ Thanks for allowing the public to speak. Some of
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 44
01-29-97
you may remember that this property has been under turmoil, if that is the right word, for a long
time. The neighbors have had an extended participation in trying to bring that property into
some kind of consistency with the neighborhood. The rest home is gone, and I think Mr. Migdal
has come along with a reasonable proposition. Rather than repeat the letter which is included in
your packet, let me also mention a few things. We appreciate very much the openness with
which he has dealt with us. From the beginning of his appearance in the neighborhood, he has
been attentive to our needs. Through him and his associates, at the meetings which Jim Baer has
outlined, not only did they open their plans to the neighborhood, but they responded to us. As
you may or may not know, these plans are not exactly the way it began. There was
accommodation made. I have met with them several times since, working towards something
that I believe the neighborhood is going to approve of. The conditions which the neighborhood
wanted to reflect are in my letter. As far as we can see, Mr. Migdal and his team are complying
with those. I have an independent letter from him which bears out what Jim Baer said, that they
are willing to take this to the Architectural Review Board. We would like you to approve or find
some way that that can be done, whether it rums out that he develops all of them or not. We
would like to have that audience, that chance to comment individually. I have great confidence
that we will see designs that are consistent with the neighborhood, things like the fact that the
profiles seen from the neighborhood should be considered equally to those that you view from
the cul-de-sac. Other questions such as shared driveways to leave more grass, rather than more
concrete, etc. For whatever things are being considered, we would like to have an opportunity to
discuss them at some future point. As the letter said, I feel very confident that if the openness
continues, the neighborhood has met and would very much like to indicate support for this as a
good fulfillment of a long, 20-year history surrounding this.
With respect to the things that came up regarding the no-man’s land, it is a problem. If
Mr. Migdal is willing to take a little more straightforward approach to the street rather than those
diagrams there, for some of that roadway that is now filled with either rocks or mud, depending
upon the time of year, that would be a good adjunct to completing this. We did go through our
time with the city and the landscaping along the wall. The city did pay for that and installed it.
It was an agreement amounting to $6,000 one year to do something. It was not exactly the way
we wanted it, but there was a lot of compliance there. I don’t know if the city could choose to
participate in this landscaping, either around the point of the wall, which is clearly a point that
could be fixed up. The bigger triangle there is probably the more owners. That completes my
comments. If you have questions~ I would like to take them now, as this is my 40th wedding
anniversary, and i would like to go home!
Chaim_ erson Cassel: He would like to go home. Congratulations on your 40th wedding
anniversary from the Planning Commission.
Herb Borock. 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto: A iot of us would like to go home, and for those of
us who are here for later, agenda items, we would hope we would have those covered before we
go home, which is why I was reluctant about submitting a card on this item. However, I
A:[PCMINS4tPC0129.min Page 45
01-29-97
wouldn’t be true to myself unless I did raise an issue that occurred to me when Mr. Kohler
reminded me of his address. This is Mr. Schink’s building where Mr. Kohler rents. I know that
if Mr. Migdal was renting there, it would probably be a conflict. I don’t know the answer to the
question, and I certainly do not want to create a situation where there there are only three
commissioners, because Mr. Baer’s other project would not be heard, and the issue that I came
for would not be heard. Since I don’t know the answer, I cannot say that it is a conflict situation,
but for the future, if that is a consideration, it should be kept in mind.
Commissioner Schink: Let me state for the record that Roger Kohier does not rent any space
from me.
Chairperson Cassel: That completes the speakers from the public. I will return this item to the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Byrd: For the record, I want to state that I met with Mr. Baer prior to tonight’s
hearing.
Commissioner Schmidt: I did also.
Chairperson Cassel: As did I.
Commissioner Schink: I talked to him on the telephone.
Chairperson Cassel: Are there any more questions for staff at this time?
Commissioner Schmidt: There is a condition regarding the identification of the proposed
driveways, not to exceed ten feet in width. I was wondering how that would work. It sounds like
driveways were intended to be located before the residences would be designed. Is that how that
works?
Ms. Lytle: Once they get their tentative map approval, this could happen simultaneously. The
point is to plan the improvements and the right-of-way, knowing where the driveway locations
will be so that you can fix the placement of trees. If you do not do that, you end up taking out
part of the improvements you installed as a part of the subdivision as you design the new houses.
So they would need to come up with that determination, whether they sell the lots independently
later, and they would have to work with that curb cut fixed so that we can plan the street
improvements. In this case, it sounds like it is going to be done simultaneously, so I don’t think
it is going to be an issue. We have done this in the past for other subdivisions, and it works.
People work with that curb cut as laid out on the map.
Commissioner Schmidt: It does sound like it would be good to have the locations of the houses
and garages before the curb cut locations are identified.
A:IPCM1NS4IPC0129.min Page 46
01-29-97
I believe there is a padmount transformer that would be required with this subdivision. Would
that be located on one individual’s property? Where is it likely to be located?
Mr. Colonna: Yes, it usually is on someone’s property, and that is undetermined until they do
the actual utility design, approved by the utilities department. We certainly will work with them,
as we do with all of the other departments for street improvements, and we will try to put it in a
good location and get some landscaping around it.
Commissioner Schmidt: Regarding Condition #15 in regard to any archaeological resources,
etc., it makes the statement that there must be auger testing to see if there are any cultural
resources there. It sounds like if something is found, everything else is monitored. Is the auger
testing also something that the city monitors in some way, or is the applicant solely responsible
for doing that?
Ms. Lytle: We will be reviewing through our independent archaeologist the auger testing results,
and then make the determination that we either need to trigger these additional measures or fall
back upon the less intensive mitigation which is to go ahead with construction but halt if you run
into anything, but that we don’t think anything is there, now that we have the auger testing
completed.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is the auger test done by the applicant or a construction worker?
Ms. Lytle: No, theywill probably use a specialist, and we will have their report reviewed by Our
own archaeologist.
Commissioner Schmidt: So there is a specialist who does that particular test versus a standard
construction worker who does not necessarily know about the cultural resources they might be
running through.
Mr. Colonna: Part of that condition reads, "The testing program shall be implemented by an
individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in
Archaeology."
Commissioner Schmidt: Right, and it was not clear to me whether that applied to the auger
testing or to just the later reports if something was found.
Mr. Colonna: It should be both.the testing and the reporting.
Commissioner Schmidt: Then perhaps that needs a little clarification. It did not seem quite
clear.
Commissioner Schink: I am wondering if staff can help me. I am hoping we can include a
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 47
01-29-97
condition in this approval for the requirement of some kind of a landscape plan that develops a
more permanent, low maintenance concept for the areas adjacent to the neck that comes out of
the property. I am wondering.if you feel comfortable with that type of condition and whether
that is consistent with the subdivision.
Ms. L~le: If it is a rural type of landscaping suitable for this area, a type of landscaping that
would not require irrigation in this instance, I think that is a standard requirement that would be
acceptable. The improvement plans would reflect the street tree planting and landscaping.
Commissioner Schink: It appears that there is a house right there, and however that plan is
developed, they would need to take into account the concerns of the people who live in that
house. Is there a way we can include that in the condition that they meet with those people and
get their input?
Ms. Lvtle: Yes, we could ask that they consult with that adjacent property owner prior to
developing the plans and before submitting them to the city so that we can have that information
prior to their final submittal to us.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: If there are no further questions, would anyone care to make a motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I will gladly move approval of this project and the staff
recommendation. I would like to add the condition that all homes built on these lots go through
the Architectural Review Board process, and I would like to include the condition that with
submittal of the final map, the applicant is to include a landscape plan developed after meeting
with the adjacent property owner for the land on the neck of the cul-de-sac on both sides. I also
think it is appropriate that we include a condition that the applicant supply five 60-inch box trees
to replace the five trees which are being removed in front of the adjacent property. Those trees
should be selected after consultation with the adjoining property owner.
SECOND: By Commissioner Sehmidt.
Commissioner Schink: I would like to make some comments on the findings. We had
considerable discussion here on the second finding about the single-family homes and their size
and scale as they relate to the neighborhood. Apoint was made a number of times that the scale
of a single-family house might be less in a five-lot subdivision with narrower lots than it would
be in a four-lot subdivision. In fact, I believe that the scale of these homes will be significantly
greater than if it would have been a four-lot subdivision. What happens in a four-lot subdivision
is that the lots are bigger and there is more of an inclination to go with one-story houses or
houses that are more squared out. Scale relates to the width of the lot and the height of the
house. The scale of these houses will appear more massive than the seale of the houses would
have appeared in a four-lot subdivision. We will end up with a subdivision here that is more of a
wall of houses as you pass around. People will remark upon the scale of these homes. The only
A:IPCMINS4[PC0129.min Page 48
01-29-97
way to deal with that scale issue is with good design. The applicant obviously understands that
and is willing to go through the Architectural Review Board process, and he seems to have a
good understanding of that, because he has hired an .excellent architect to present the points to us.
So since he seems to understand it, the only thing we need to do is to make sure that if he sells
one or all of these lots to somebody else, that they have the same understanding. The best way to
get to that is through design review. So it is clear in my reading of these findings that the only
way to make the findings is with the assurances of Architectural Review Board control. With
that, I would close by commending the. developer. He has obviously been very gracious in this
by meeting with the neighbors and going the extra distance to start out right on this project. I
look forward to seeing the end product.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think the design of these units is also a big issue for me. Looking at
the site out there today, I could certainly Picture five two-car garages facing the cul-de-sac and
being something that is not in support of what we are trying to accomplish in our new
Comprehensive Plan. So I think that design and maintaining appropriate scale for this
neighborhood are very critical, and therefore, it is very important to have architectural review,
whether it is done in a group subdivision of two or more units. Even if these are done by five
individuals, I think architectural review is required to maintain some appropriate scale here. It is
very nice to see an example of what can be done to put some of the garages toward the back of
the lot and to provide a more inviting look to the neighborhood and the cul-de-sac there. I again
would say that it is extremely important that each and every one of these be reviewed to ensure
that good design quali~y is maintained here.
I, too, want to comment that it seems to me that five houses will have more impact than the four
would. Five houses, whether they back directly up to the creek, will have more impact than four
will. There will be the potential for more impervious surface, as any person there could put more
pavement on his piece of property.
This project is a very reasonable thing to do, and the neighbors are in favor or this project. We
do not see objections from the neighbors. In a previous life, this site had a lot of objections from
the neighbors, and this will be something reasonable for the neighborhood.
Chairperson Cassel: My only comment is that I am really concerned about the creek setback. It
is not that I am concerned particularly about this one, but all along the creeks, each time we have
an opportunity to keep ourselves back from the creeks, we will be in better condition. As we
know from previous storms, creeks do not always do what we anticipate them to do. Giving
them a little room to do that will help everyone. I will support the motion.
~: Staff would like to ask for a little clarification on the motion having to do with the
size of the tree replacement for those trees that are taken from the Arroyo Court right-of-way.
We are at a bit of disadvantage, because the trees to be removed are not shown on the plans, and
I am uncertain as to what is being removed out there. We will try and work with the applicant to
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 49
01-29-97
get that clarified in time for the council so we will know exactly what these improvements are
going to be impacting. SixtyAnch box trees are what I thought I heard Commissioner Schink
say, and that is a very large tree, much larger than our typical requirement for tree replacement. I
need to understand why such a large box tree is being recommended by the maker of the motion.
Commissioner Schink: Having been out looking at trees lately, I have seen a lot of 60-inch box
trees. In my mind, they were smaller than what is actually being removed in that location. My
recollection is that there are five trees that I discovered late today that are leaving in front of that
property, so I thought it was reasonable to replace those. Sixty-inch box trees are readily
available at Tree Land two miles from here, and that is not outside the realm of what is
reasonable. So that is why I said sixty inch.
Chairperson Cassel: And you are saying an equal number of replacements rather than twice as
many, but making them larger?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, Ithink it is just better to do the larger trees. It will be pretty
startling when the existing vegetation is removed. Hopefully, by consulting with the adjoining
property owners and putting in a really good sized tree, they will not feel that they came and took
out all of the trees in front of my house, and now I am exposed to the road.
Commissioner Schmidt: Upon rereading Condition #15, it is very clear about the archaeological
testing. I missed the first statement about the requirements for the auger testing. It is indeed
there and is quite clear.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion made by
Commissioner Schink and seconded by Commissioner Schmidt to approve the staff
recommendation plus conditions? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes
unanimously on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian absent.
A:IPCMINS4[PC0129.min Page 50
01-29-97
4277 Miranda Avenue
November 15, 1996
ATTACHMENT 6
DMsions
Inspection Serx,ices
Planning
Transportation
Mark Migdal
1475 Stanford Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
SUBJECT:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 4277 Miranda Avenue
Subdivision
Dear Mr. lvligdal:
This letter contains a revised agreement regarding satisfaction of Program 13 of the
Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which requires a Below
Market Rate (BMR) component for your proposed five lot subdivision at 4277 Miranda
Avenue. For your subdivision, you proposed an in-lieu fee payment rather than providing
land or a unit. Since you met with Jim Gilliland, City staff has reviewed the BMR
requirements for subdivisions where the developer is proposing to sell the lots as
undeveloped land. This revised letter is a result of those meetings and supersedes any
previous letters.
The City’s BMR program has historically been based on the value of the lot and
improvements including all structures. Only recently has the City had to deal with
proposed developments where the lots are to be sold as vacant land for development by
others. In these cases, the City needs to recapture the value of the structure, as well as the
vacant land, in order for the BMR program to be consistent for all developments.
The City is proposing the following two alternatives for collection of the in-lieu fee:
1. For any lot sold as vacant land for development by others, the in-lieu fee
on the vacant land is to be based on an estimated minimum value of a vacant lot
of $350,000 or the actual sales price of a vacant lot, whichever is greater, times
the required 3.75% factor for a subdivision of five lots. The in-lieu fee would be
due at first sale of each of the vacant lots. The in-lieu fee on the structure is to be
based on the latest International Conference of Building Officials Building
Standards "Building Valuation Data" (August 1996 copy attached) for the single
family home built on the site times the required 3.75% factor for a subdivision of
five lots. The in-lieu fee on the value of the structure is due and payable prior to
occupancy of the structure.
~ Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10~
Palo Alto, CA 943)3
415..329.24~4
413.329. ~-k~ F,~\
Mark Migdal
November 15, 1996
Page 2
2. For any lot initially sold as a developed parcel with single family house in
place, the fee will be due and payable at time of first sale of the house and lot and
would be based on 3.75% times the actual sales price. For any house constructed
but placed as a rental, the fee ~vould be based on the highest priced house sold,
and would be due and payable in full, three years from the date of City Council
approval of the subdivision map.
Any other proposal for subdivision or development of the lots will require a new
agreement with the City.
The terms of this letter of agreement shall be incorporated into the Subdivision
Agreement, which must be completed and signed prior to the final map being considered
by the City Council.
Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. If you agree
with this revised proposal, I would appreciate your signing thisletter indicating that we
have reached agreement regarding your BMR component for your project.
Sincerely,
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment: Building Valuation Data, August 1996.
I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at 4277 Miranda Road
as described in this letter dated November 14, 1996.
Migdal
/I
Date
JG [ A:\ 1996\LTBMRMIG.3RD
Mark Migdal
November 15, 1996
Page 3
~im Baer, Premier Properties
Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation
Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney
Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official
JG I A:\I996\LTBMRMIG.3RD
BUILDING VALUATION DATA
At the request of numerous building officials. Building Standards offers the foilowlng building valuation data representing average cosls for most bui~ding~
Because residential buildings are Ihe most common for many cilies, two generM cl0sses are considered for these, one for "~vcro~e" construction and Iho o~h~r
"g~d." Adju~tmems should be made for special architeclural or struciural features and the location of the prelect. Hi;her or lower unit costs may effort ras,lL
The unit costs are imonded to comply ~vilh Ihe d~finition of =valualion" in Section ~23 of Ihe 1994 Uni(orm BuiM~ng CcdeTM and thus include architectural,
rural, electrical, plumbin~ and mechanical work, excep( as speci~cally lis~ecl belo~v. The unit oasis also include the contractor’s profit, which should not b~
The determination of plan check ~es for projects reviewed by Ihe International Conference o~ BuildinB Officials ~,ill be b~sed on valuation computed item th~s~
fi ures, which were established in April
Coil per Se~uarcoccupancy and Type Foul, A~er,~g¢
I, APARTMENT HOUSES:Type I or II ER." ...............$77.20
(Good) $94.80Type V--Masonry
(or Type ill) ................63.20
(Good) $77.30
Type V--Wood Frame .....5S.S0
(Good) $71.30
Type I--Basemenl Garage 32.50
3. AUDITORIUMS:
Type I or II F.R ....... ..........91.40
Type I1--1-Hour ..............66.00
Type II~N .......................62.60
Type II1~1-Hour .............69,60Type Ilion ......................66.00
Type V--1-Hour ..............66,50
Type V--N ......................62.00
3. BANKS:
Type I or II F.R." ...............129,00Type I1~1 -Hour ..............95.00Type il~N .......................92.00
Type IIl~1-Hour .............104.80Type III--N ......................101.20
Type V~I .Hour ..............95.00
Type V.--N ......................91.00
4. BOWLING ALLEYS:
Type I1~1-Hour ..............44.40
Type II--N .......................4.i .50
Type Ill--l-Hour .............48.30
Type Ilion ......................45.20
32,60Type V~I-Hour ..............
S. CHURCHES:Type I or II F.R .................86.50Type I1~1-Hour ..............64.80
Type II~N. ......................61,60
Type ill~l ,Hour .............70.60
Type III--N ......................67.50
Type V--1 .Hour ..............66.00
Type V--N ..........~ ............62,00
6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS:
Type I or II F.R.° ...............121.20Type I1~I .Hour ..............84.00
Type I~1--1-Hour .............86.20
Type V~I-Hour ..............8130
"Add 0.5 pen:cot I0 Iotal cost for each star
Colt per SquareOccupancy and T~’pe Fool. Average
7. DWELLINGS:
T~pe V--Masonry ............$66.00(Good) $84.40Type V--Wood Frame .....5~.70
(Good) $80.60
Easements--
Semi-Finished .............17.50
(Good) $20.20
Unfinished ..................12.60
(Goo~) $15.40
8. FIRE STATIONS:Type I or II F.R .................99.80Type I1~1 .Hour ..............65.40Type II~N .......................61,60Type Ill~l -Hour .............7130Type Ilion ......................68.80~.~pe V--1-Hour ..............67.30
pe V--N ......................64.00
9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY:Type for II F.R .................90.50Type I1--1 .Hour ..........~ ....73.50Type II~N .......................7020Type Ill~l-Hour .............76.40Type Ilion ......................73.30~,~pe V~1-Hour ..............74.00pe V~N ......................7 ! ,20
10. HOSPITALS:
Type I or II F.R.° ...............142.30
Type II1~1 -Hour .............117.80
.Type V~I -Hour ..............112.30
11. HOTELS AND MOTELS:~yype I or il F.R." ...............88.00pe Ill--l-Hour .............76.20Type III--N ......................72.70Type V~I-Hour ..............68,20Type V~N ......................65.00
12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS:
Type I or II F.R .................49.60Type I~1-Hour ..............34.50Type II~N .......................31.60Type Ill--l-Hour .............38.00Type Ilion ......................35.80Till-up .............................26,00Type V--1 -Hour ..............35.70= Type V~N ......................32.80
13. IAILS:Type I or II F.R ................$138.60Type Ill--1 -Hour .............126.60
Type V~1-Hour ..............95.00
14, LIBRARIES:
Type I or II F.R .................101.40Type II~I-Hour ..............74.20
Type II~N .......................70.60Type III~I-Hour .............78.30Type lli~N ......................74.40
Type V~I -Hour ..............73.70
Type V~N .. .....................70.60
15. MEDICAL OFFICES:Type I or II F,R.° ...............104.00Type I1--1-Hour ..............80.30Type II~N .......................76.40Type I11~1-Hour .............84.50
Type III--N ......................8i.00
Type V~I-Hour ..............78.60
Type V~N ......................75.80
16. OFFICES":
Type I or II F.R.° ...............93.00
Type I1~1-Hour ..............62.20
Type II~N .......................59.40
Type II1~1-Hour .............67.40Type I)I~N ......................64.20Type V~I-Hour ........; .....63.00Type V~N ......................59.40
17. PRIVATE GARAGES:~Vood Frame ...................21.30Masonry ..........................23.80Open Carports .................14.40
18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:
Type I or II F.R." ...............107.50
Type I1~1-Hour ..............87.00Type il--N .......................83.30
Type Ill--l-Hour .............90.40
Type Ilion ......................87.30Type V~I-Hour ..............82.80Type V~N ......................79.80
19. PUBLIC GARAGES:Type I or II F.R.* ............... 42.40
’ Type I or II Open Parking" 32.00
Type II--N .......................25.00Type Ill--l-Hour .............32.20Type III-N ........................2830Type V--l-Hour ............,. 29.30
Occupan~ and T~,pe
20. RESTAURANTS:Type 111--I-Hour .............S 84.9~3Type Ilion ......................82.C0Type V~I-Hour ..............
Type V~N ......................74.70
21. SCHOOLS:
Type I or II F.R .................~7.00Type II~l-Hour ..............~100~pe II1~1-Hour .............70.8~pe Ilion ......................6730~pe V~I .Hour ..............66.20’pc V~N "63.20
22. SERVICE STATIONS:Type II~N .......................58.60Type II1~1-Hour .............61.00Type V~l-Hour ..............
Canopies .........................24.40
23, STORES=Type I or II F.R.* ...............71.80
Type II~l-Hour ..............44.00Type II~N .......................42.80Type II1~1-Hour .............53.40
Type III~N ......................50.20
Type V~I .Hour ..............45.~0
Type V--N ....................... 41 .SO
24. THEATERS:~pe I or II F.R .................95.70
pe IIl~1-Hour .............69,70
Ty~ Ilion .................; ....66.30Type V~I-Hour ..............65.60
Type V~N ............~ .........~2.00
25. WAREHOUSES*’*=
Type I or II F.R .................43.00~pe II or V~l-Hour .......2530
pe I1 or V~N ...............24,00
Type Ill--l-Hour .............29.00
Type Ilion ......................27.70
EQUIPMENT
AI~ CONDITIONING:
Commercial ................3.60
Residential .................3.00’ SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ......1
, over Ihree.¯ "Deduct 20 percent fo~; shell-only buildiqgs.""’D~uct 11 percent for mini-warehouses.
REGIONAL MODIFIERS
The following modifiers are r~ommended for use in conjunction wilh Ihe building valuation data. In addition, certain local conditions may require further modifications. To
use these modifiers, merely multiply the listed cost per square loot by the appropriale regional modifier. For example, to adjust the cost of a Type Ill One-hour hotel building ofaverage construction for the Iowa area, select Regional M, odifier 0.80 and unit cost from valuation data, $76.20:
0.80 x 76.20 = $61.00 (adjusted cost per square foot)
Eastern U.S.Modifier
Connecticut .....................0.95
Delaware.........................0.84
District of Columbia ........0.87
Florida .............................0.74
Georgia ............................0.68
blaine ..............................0.8!,~,taryland .........................0.79
Massachusetts ..................0.94
New Hampshire ..............0.83
New )ersey .......................0.91
New YorkNew York City ............i. 16Other ..........................0.87
~onh Carolina .................0,70
Eastern U.S. (cont.)ModifierPennsylvania
Philadelphia ................0.96Other ..........................0.83Rhode Island ....................0.94
South Carolina .................0.70Vermont...........................0.80Virginia .., .........................0.73West Virginia ...................0.82
Central U.S.
Alabama ..........................0.72Arkansas .......................... 0.70
Illinois ..............................0.87Indiana ............................
Io;va ................................0.80Kansas .............................0.74
Central U.S. (cont.)ModifierKentucky ..........................0.77
Louisiana .........................0.78Michigan .................:....:..0.84
Minnesota ........................0.86Mississippi .......................0.71
Missouri ...........................0,78
Nebraska .........................0.75
North Dakota ...................0.80
Ohio ................................0.80
Oklahoma ........................0.71
South Dakota ...................0.78Tennessee ........................0.72Texas ................................0.74Wisconsin ........................0.85
Western U.S,Modifier
Alaska ..............................1.30
Arizona............................0.82
CaliforniaLos Angeles .................1.00
San Francisco ..............1.13
OIher ..........................0 94
Colorado ..........................0.81
Hawaii .............................1.14
Idaho ...............................0.80
M.ontana ...........................0.79
Nevada ............................0.89
New Mexico ....................0.76
Ore,pen ............................0.83
Utah ................................0.7~
Washington ......................0.B~
W’roming .........................0.80
Subdivider’s Statement
ATTACHMENT7
Section 21.12.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that a
"Subdivider’s Statement" shall appear upon, or accompany, tentative or
preliminary parcel maps, and shall contain the following information:
Address of Subject Property: 4277 Miranda, Palo Alto, CA
(If any of the items below are not applicable, so state.)
(a)Existing use(s):. Use Permit Expired (Convalescent Hospital)
Present Zoning -- R-1(929)
Zone District(s): R-1 92~9.~
Proposed use(s):Residential
Single Family
(c)Improvements and public utilities proposed and expected date of
completion: Within one year of the tentative map approval.
(d)Provisions for sewerage and sewage disposal: As per City of Palo
Alto standards.
(e)
(g)
Public areas proposed:
Ci.ty of Palo Alto.
Cud-de-sac will be dedicated to the
Tree planting proposed, including indication of trees to be removed
or left in place: 10-15 new trees will be provided.
Proposed street and outdoor lighting:. " As per Ci.ty of Palo Alto
standards.
(h)
(i)
Existing restrictive covenants, leases, rights-of’way, licenses and
encumbrances affecting use of land (attach copies):, None
Requested exceptions to any requirements of .the Subdivision
Ordinance.
(Most exceptions relate to General Design requirements (Chapter 21.21)
and particularly to lot size, dimensions, location or configuration.
Applications for exceptions shall state fully.the grounds of the Application
and the facts relied upon by the Petitioner. Exceptions shall be granted
only upon making certain findings, including the four listed below.)
Exceptions requested: First, the lots do not satisfy the 10,000 s.f.
minimum for the R-1(~29) Zone. The net lot sizes by square foota eg~a~.
as follows: 9,300, 9,200, 9,800, 9,600, 9,200, with two lots havinggross
lot areas of 16,000 and 9,950, respectively. Second, three of the five lots
do not satisfy the minimum 60 foot street frontage. Frontages are as
follows: 93, 38, 36, 33 and 81. "
(1)There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property. (Describe)
The Applicant seeks conditional exceptions pursuant to Chapter
21.32 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. There are five lots proposed
averaging 9,420 square feet. This is consistent with the Miranda
neighborhood, where about one-third of the lots are less than
current 1%-1(929) Zoning. Three of the five lots do not have 60’
frontage on the new cul-de-sac. There are six special circumstances
affecting this Application: (1) The 65,000 square foot parcel would
normally allow a subdivision of six parcels, with a minimum lot
size of 10,000 square feet, consistent with the R-1(929) Zone; (2) the
subject parcel subdivided into five lots results in lots that are less
than 10,000 square feet due to the need for the parcel to provide a
cul-de-sac suffident to satisfy City standards and to dedicate this
street area to the City, further reducing the lot sizes; (3) the parcel is
of an odd shape due to its configuration adjacent to the Alta Mesa
Cemetery; (4)the sizes of lots are greatly affected by the large street
frontages along the cul-de-sac preserved for each of the five lots; (5)
there are extensive impacts and setbacks from Adobe Creek to
accommodate the 100 year flood plain and 8’ maintenance easement
required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD); and (6)
in order to create desirable, well-shaped lots, all of over 9,200
square feet, three of the lots cannot satisfy the 60’ frontage along the
new cul-de-sac. These six factors together result in the special
circumstances unique to this property.
The Applicant has considered seven options in addition to the Map
submitted for action by the City. Copies of these seven previous
studies are included so that the proposed Map can be evaluated in
context of the other options.
At our request the project’s civil engineer, Alan Huntzinger,
provided SCVWD with five cross-sections of Adobe Creek and its
adjacent bank. As a result of the preparation of these cross-
sections, SCVWD was able to review their own engineering data
and SCVWD has subsequently reduced the boundaries of its
maintenance easement with respect to Adobe Creek, which has
resulted in an increase of approximately 8,500 square feet
additional, usable area for the project under review.
The Applicant has made available to SCVWD the option of
receiving a full grant of fee title to that portion of the property
normally reserved as a maintenance easement by SCVWD.
2
SCVWD has chosen not to take the grant of a fee title interest but,
instead, will continue to impose the 8’ maintenance easement in the
configuration now set forth on the proposed Map.
Large areas in the back of several of the proposed parcels are
allocated to SCVWD maintenance easements. However, in all
practical w~ ays, this land will be enjoyed by the future residences as
sizable additions to their back yards. However, for the purposes of
the lots and house design, this land is excluded from the considered
square footage for the parcels. This excluded area consists of
approximately 15,000 square feet.
The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right of the petitioner. (Explain)
The property has previously been used by a convalescent home
which is a fully-amortized, non-conforming use. The convalescent
home has remained abandoned for several years. To convert the
use to one consistent with the R-1(929) Zoning is the substantial
property right sought to be protected by the Applicant, with 5 lots
from a 65,000 square foot parcel, necessary to protect this property
right. The necessity for five lots is to absorb the impacts of parcel
size reductions due to the required City street and Adobe Creek
setbacks. The cost of the City street and Adobe Creek mitigations
are not economically feasible with the development of four rather
than five parcels.
The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory
in which the property is situated. (Explain)
First, the abandoned convalescent home structure will be
demolished immediately after recording of the Final Subdivision
Map, which is a neighborhood benefit. Second, this important
parcel will be converted back to a residential use. Third, the Creek
will be preserved in accordance with the conditions imposed by the
City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Water District.
Fourth, the lots sizes and homes to be built are consistent with the
established pattern of the Miranda neighborhood. Fifth, many of
the existing lots in the territory are less than 10,000 square feet.
These factors, together, result in no injury to the surrounding
neighborhood. In fact, this project substantially enhances the
character and value of the Miranda neighborhood by demolishing
the abandoned convalescent hospital which is unprotected and.
subject to vandalism. Miranda neighbors are eager for the
abandoned convalescent home nuisance to be replaced with quality
homes.
3
(k)
(4)The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements,
goals, policies or spirit of the law. (Explain)
Seeking a conditional exception allows one additional parcel (five
rather than four) from a parcel of 66,000 square feet. This is
consistent with good planning policy and the R-1(929) Zone.
Requested variances from any of the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(Variances for side yards and setbacks for existing buildings may be
requested in conjunction with subdivisions to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council).
Variances Requested: None
Manner in which compliance with applicable elements of the
Comprehensive Plan, including housing policies, shall be attained
(if relevant): BMR Contributions as required by the Corn-.
prehensive Plan will be provided.
To the best of my knowledge, this Application is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan as submitted or as indicated under (k) above.
Signature of Applicant:
i
..I
/
/
,,4
.~o 7
I/
I
//
~ ~ ATTACHMENT 8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Application Number(s):
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
7. General Plan Designation:
8. Zoning:
Five-Lot Subdivision
City Of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Joe Colonna, Senior Planner
(415)329-2541
4277 Miranda Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
96-SUB-3, 96-EIA-26
Mark Migdal
1475 Stanford Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Single-Family Residential
R-1 (929)
9. Description of the Project:
The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a 1.5-
acre parcel into five, single-family parcels. The lots would be accessed by an
approximately 240-foot-long cul-deosac street that the applicant is offering for public
dedication. Exceptions are required to allow net lot sizes between 9,200 and 9,800
square feet, where 10,000 square feet is otherwiserequired. Lot width exceptions are
also required for proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 which range from 40 to 43 feet wide, at the
front setback, where 60 feet is normally required. Additional exceptions are required for
the design of the proposed cul-de-sac to allow a 40-foot-wide public right-of-way, where
50 feet is normally required, and a 37.5-foot radius for the turnaround, where 40 feet
is normally required.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 1
At this time the applicant has not submitted an application for approval of single-family
homes to be const" _~ted on the proposed lots. Arch’; ~tural Review Board approval
would be required.Jr any two or more homes that d~e current or future owners
constructed simultaneously on the proposed lots.
10. Surrounding Land uses and Setting:
The property is bordered by the Alta Mesa Cemetery to the north, Adobe Creek and
single-family residential (City of Los Altos) to the east, single-family residences to the
south and Alta Mesa Cemetery and Foothill Expressway to the west. The site is
currently developed with a vacant gero-psychiatric facility which is comprised of two
buildings, one of which extends to the bank of Adobe Creek, a parking lot, exercise
areas and landscaping.
1 1. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Santa Clara Valley Water District permits will be required for construction of buildings
within 50 feet of Adobe Creek and construction of additional outfalls to the creek for site
drainage.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
X
Land Use and Planning
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
X Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared,
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project.
X
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
¯ 1 ) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information .sources show that the impact simply, does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. go the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 3
3)
4)
5)
6)
"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Then
Significent
Impect
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would the proposal:
1
1,6
7
7
a|
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
Displace existing=housing, especially affordable
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
7
7
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
X
X
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion., changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
3
3
3
3
3
18
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 5
g) Subsidence of the land?18
h) Expansive soils?3,18 X
i) Unique geologic or physical features?7,18
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
t
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
.incorporated
Significant INr~pact
Impact
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 7,17
¯ rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 3,4
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 6,7
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other
typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and.
debris from construction, hydrocarbons andmetals from
vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape
maintenance?
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 7
body or wetland?
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 7
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 7
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception .of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?7
h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of 5
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
i)S~bstantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 7
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?7
X
X
X
X
X
X
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
2,5,8
2,5,8
2,5,8
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SourcEs Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
d) Create objectionable odors?2,5,7,
8
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a)9,19
b)7,9
I I
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 7,10,
uses?11
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?12
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?9
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 1,9
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?7
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or inteference in:
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?2
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?2
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?2
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 7
¯ inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 2
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2,13 X
2,13 X
2,13 X
X
x
x
X
X
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c)
d)
e)
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass .of trees?
7,14
.7,14
7
7 X
X
X
X
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
2,51
15
X
X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or resu!t in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)
e)
10
11
2
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
Other governmental services?
2 X
UTILITIES AND SERVICE. SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
X
X
X
X
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications. systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septi’c tanks?
16
16
16
16
X
X
X
X
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?6,16,
17
16
16
7
7
5.
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
X
X
X
X
7
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect histori.cal resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
20 X
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soul’ces Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant ac
Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
20 X
2O X
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlierdocument and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrorn v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources
Significant Significant Significant act
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated "
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, August 1994
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348 O005D, Map Revised September 6,
1989
City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
Letter from Santa Clara Valley Water District, dated December 3, 1996
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and project site
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994
Palo Alto Transportation Division
Palo Alto Fire Department
Palo Alto Police Department
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18
Arborist Report prepared by S.P. McClenahan Co., Inc., dated August 11, 1994 (Prepared for a previous
project)
Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Division
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Report, August 1994
Palo Alto Utilities Department
Palo Alto Public Works Department
Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Foundation Technologies, Inc., dated September 1994 (Prepared
for a previ.ous project)
Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, March 1990
Answers obtained from items 1-19 above.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 11
19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES
1 (a)
3
(a,b,c)
LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed five-lot subdivision will not cause a significant conflict with the Comprehensive Plan land
use designation nor the R-1(929) zoning of the site. The proposed density of approximately 5 units per .
acre complies with the Single-Family Land Use Designation, which established a range of one to seven
units per acre. Each lot has been designed to provide ample area to construct a single-family home in
compliance with the R-1(929) site development regulations. Each lot has frontage on the proposed public
cul-de-sac which would provide ample access for vehicles and required utilities.
The applicant is requsting approval of lot width and size exceptions for the proposed lots. E×ceptions
are required to allow net lot sizes between 9,200 and 9,800 square feet, where 10,000 square feet is
otherwise required. Lot width exceptions are also required for proposed lots 2, 3 and 4 which range
from40 to 43 feet wide, at the front setback, where 60 feet is normally required. Although the
proposed subdivision requires exceptions, the proposed lot pattern is consistent with the the design of
existing cul-de-sac lots in the neighborhood. Several existing lots fronting on Miranda Green, Moana
Court and Miranda Court do not comply with the minimum width and size requirements of the R-1(929)
zone district. One lot on Miranda Green has a width of 47 feet, at thefront setback, and has a net lot
size of 9,028 square feet. As with the proposed subdivision, the majority of the neighborhood lots abut
the creek, and have square footage deducted for the purpose of calculating net lot size.
The proposed lot pattern will be consistent with the existing patern of the neighborhood and will not have
a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
GEOLOGY
The Pale Alto Comprehensive Plan indicates that this site is in the moderate risk zone, and would be
subject to very strong ground shaking and ground failure, in the event of a major earthquake. Provisions
in the most current Uniform Building Code are designed to minimize the risk of building failure and prevent
loss of life and property in the event of ah earthquake.
A geotechnical investigation was conducted on this site by Foundation Technologies, Inc. In August
1994. Subsurface borings were taken within the proposed building areas and cul-de-sac. The purpose of
the report was to determine the developability of the site, evaluate soil stability, and establish
recommendations for construction. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed
improvements provided that the developer follow the recommendations for grading and foundation
construction. Foundation Technologies, Inc. recommends the use of a pier and grade beam foundations
for any homes built on the proposed lots, based on the composition of Soils found in the area of
construction. The information contained in the "Geotechnical Investigation" dated September 19, 1994 i.’
incorporated into this environmental assessment by reference. A copy of the report is available for reviev
at the Pale Alto Planning Division. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the report should
be required as a condition of approval of the subdivision.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 12
4
(a,c)
5 (a)
WATER
Currently, over 60 percent of the site is covered by impervious surfaces, including buildings, walkways,
parking lots and other paved surfaces. If approved, the subdivision would result in approximately 40
percent impervious surface coverage. This figure includes construction of the proposed road and the
maximum site coverage for each of the proposed parcels. Reducing impervious surfaces by approximately
20 percent will result in improved site drainage and less runoff from the site. The standard conditions of
approval require submittal of a grading and drainage plan prior to approval of a final subdivision map.
Because the property is adjacent to Adobe Creek, the Santa Clara Valley Water District will review
proposed drainage plans prior to approval. There shall be no overbank drainage to the creek from the site.
Storm water runoff from the site shall be collected into a storm drain system and either be distributed to
an existing storm drain system or outfall to the creek. If a creek outfall is used, the outfall shall be
designed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District standards, sheets 8-12.
During demolition and excavation activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the site could
flow into the creek or into storm water catchbasins, and directly into Adobe Creek and San Francisco Bay
without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife dependent on the
waterways and for people who live near polluted streams, or baylands. Construction debris (soil,
concrete, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) are also a source of this pollution. Standard
conditions will require the contractor to incorporate best management practices for storm water pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
AIR QUALITY
The site is currently located approximately 1,600 feet from the Foothill Expressway-Arastradero Road
intersection, which has been identified as a carbon monoxide "hotspot". The project will not result in a
significant impact on general air quality or increase the hazards associated with the "hotspot". The five
single-family lots would generate fewer vehicle trips than the former geriatric facility. The standard
conditions of approval will require the following dust control measures to be employed during demolition
and construction: 1) Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequeqtly, during the late morning and at
the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from
hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; 3)
Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during transportation
of demolished materials from the site.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 13
6
(a,c)
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The proposed five-lot subdivision would not result in a significant traffic impact. A trip generation
analysis prepared for this application indicates that the proposed use would produce a substantially lower
number of daily trips as compared to the previous geriatric facility. The previous use generated
approximately 130 trips per day. Five single-family homes are expected to produce approximately 50
trips per day, or slightly more than 38 percent of the previous daily trips.
The design of the proposed cul-de-sac road, including the 40-foot-wide right-of-way, where 50 feet is
normally required, has been reviewed by the Transportation Division and determined to be adequate to
serve the single-family properties. Although the cul-de-sac turnaround has radius of 37.5 feet, where 40
feet is normally required, it would supply a 30-foot radius roadway which complies with the required
dimension to provide an adequate turning radius for emergency vehicles. Additionally, construction of a
narrower road results in less impervious surface and fewer drainage and water quality impacts on Adobe
Creek.
As well as serving the four proposed lots, the cul-de-sac would serve two existing single-family homes on
flag lots, which are currently served by a private driveway extending along the southern boundary of the
subject site. This application will not have a permenent impact on access to the existing flag lots.
However, during construction of the proposed roadway, vehicles and equipment may impede access to
the private driveway, creating an inconvenience for the residents of the flag lots. The mitigation
measures identified below are intended to minimize any interference with access to the existing flag lots
and reduce impacts resulting from construction of the cul-de-sac to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measures; The applicant shall submit a demolition and construction logistics plan that
identifies measures that Will be taken to maintain acceptable vehicular access to the private driveway
serving the existing flag lots to the east of the subject site. Access for private vehicles and emergency
vehicles shall be maintained at all times. Residents of the flag lots will be given prior notice of any period
when direct access would be blocked, in the case where direct access is blocked and cannot be restored
within a reasonable amount of time, the applicant shall make arrangements for alternate access to the
private driveway.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 14
7
9 (d)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The proposed subdivision and subsequent.construction of five new single-family homes will not have a
significant negative impact on the adjacent riparian habitat. A portion of the subject property extends
into a natural section of Adobe Creek. Two of the five proposed parcels would have direct access to the
creek. This would be the same with a conforming map, which proposes a four-lot subdivision. An
existing commercial building is currently located 6 feet from the top of the creek bank, which has been
established by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and is indicated on the tentative parcel
map. The top of bank was calculated by using a slope of 1 ;2 (1 foot vertical for every 2 feet horizontal)
from the toe of the bank, and is area needed to preserve the stability of the creek bank. Single-family
homes constructed on the proposed parcels would be required to comply with a 20-foot rear yard setback
measured from the established top of bank. The increased distance from the top of the bank and the
reduction inintensity caused by replacing a commercial use with five single-family homes, combined with
an overall decrease in the amount of on-site paving and other impervious surfaces, will result in a
healthier riparian habitat over time.
Demolition and construction activities may have a temporary impact on the riparian corridor. To ensure
that the riparian corridor is not damaged, the applicant will be required to comply with the following
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measures: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit or building permits for lots 4 and 5,
temporary barrier fencing shall be erected along the "building setback line established by SCVWD", as
shown on the tentative map. No vehicles, equipment or materials shall be stored within the fenced area.
All work within the riparian corridor, such as installation of a new outfall, shall be approved by the
Planning Division and SCVWD prior to commencement of construction. The design of the barrier fence
shall be approved by the Planning Division, .prior to installation. The fencing shall be removed after
construction is complete.
HAZARDS
The existing structures on the site are believed to contain asbestos-containing materials. The removal,
handling, transport and disposal of asbestos is heavily regulated at the federal, state and local levels.
These regulations are designed to minimize any.exposure of on-site employees or the general public to
asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates demolition activities,
including those involving asbestos-containing material. To prevent emissions from asbestos-containing
material, demolition activities or removal of any building elements containing any amount of asbestos
must use the procedures specified in BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Section 303.1 through 303.11.
The purpose of this rule is to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere and provide appropriate
waste disposal procedures. In part, the rule requires BAAQMD notification of any demolition activity and
submittal of pertinent information, including the results of a thorough survey of the demolition site and
structures for the presence of asbestos-containing material.
Prior to issuance of permits for demolition or other construction activities, the applicant must verify that
the BAAQMD has been properly notified and that the proposed demolition has been issued a required
BAAQMD job number. Compliance with established federal, state and local regulations regarding
demolition, removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials will reduce project impacts to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 15
10
11 (d)
12 (e)
NOISE
Demolition and construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels.
With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise impacts are not expected to
be significant. The applicant will be required to comply with the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10
PAMC, which sets limits for the amount of noise and restricts demolition and construction activities to
specific hours of operation.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
PUBLIC SERVICES
Construction of a new, 240-fo0t-long cul-de-sac street will not have a significant impact on the City’s
ability to maintain public facilities including streets and drainage facilities. The proposed public street
would be constructed by the applicant in accordance with the Public Works Department’s Standard
Drawings and Specifications. All construction within the proposed right-of-way must be performed by a
licensed contractor and inspected by the Public Works Department prior to acceptance. Through a
subdivision agreement with the City, the applicant will warranty all work done within the right-of-way for
a period of three years.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Santa Clara Valley Water District has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that there
shall be no overbank drainage of water into the creek. The District will require storm water runoff to be
collected in a storm water drain system and either be distributed to an existing storm drain system or to
an outfall in Adobe Creek. If an outfall is utilized, it shall be designed in accordance with the District’s
guide sheets 8-12. Since the proposed project would result in a reduction in total amount of impervious
surface coverage on site, impacts from storm water drainage would remain at a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure: None Required
AESTHETICS
New light sources for the proposed street, porches and second-story living spaces will not have a
significant impact on the environment. These light sources are residential in nature and will be compatible
with existing lighting On adjacent single-family properties.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 16
14
(a,b,
d)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The site is located in an area of extreme archaeological sensitivity. Areas adjacent to Adobe Creek are
known to contain widely dispersed prehistoric sites which contain a variety of archaeological artifacts.
The mitigation below is required to reduce the risk of destroying or displacing existing artifacts or human
remains that may be present on the site.
Due to this sensitivity the project will be conditioned with the following: Prior to issuance of a building
permit, a limited auger test on the proposed site must be conducted. The auger testing should be
conducted with a compact, trailer-mounted motorized auger (General 550 or similar) capable of being
operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall be
prepared so that any artifacts recovered will be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A
report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of completion of
the work. The testing program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior
Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61.) The work shall be overseen by an
independent archaeologist hired by the City at the applicant’s expense.
If, based upon the auger testing, additional data recovery (manual excavation) is warranted, an
Archeological Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction. The
AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be
followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. In addition, the Plan shall
include the following: 1) a Research Design, describing the types of questions to be addressed and
methodology to be used during data recovery; 2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis and curation;
and 3) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are
encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior
Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61.) Construction monitoring shall be
conducted any time ground-disturbing activities (greater than 12" in depth) are taking place anywhere on
the subject site. This includes building foundation demolition and construction. The archeological
monitoring program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional
Qualification Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61 .); individual construction monitors shall be qualified in
the recognition of cultural resources of both the historic and prehistoric periods. In accordance with the
applicable State and federal historic preservation regulations, should previously unidentified significant
cultural resources be discovered during construction, the project sponsor is required to cease work in the
immediate area until such time that a qualified archeologist can access the find and make mitigation
recommendations, if warranted.
The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact
the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and
duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, in addition to identification
of a Native American Most Likely’ Descendant, who ma~/be responsible to make recommendations as to
the handling and reburial or disposition of any human remains. To achieve this goal, it is recommended
the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or
human, remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of
failure thereof.
Mitigation Measure:
1)
2)
3)
Auger testing on the site shall be conducted prior to issuance of building permit.
Written report of results within 30 days of completion of work.
Work shall be conducted by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional
Qualifications Standards in Archaeology.
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 17
14
(a,b,
d)
Cont.
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
The work shall be overseen by an independent archaeologist hired by the City at the applicant’s
expense.
The auger testing should be conducted with a compact, trailer-mounted motorized auger (General
550 or similar) capable of being operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and
associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered will be recorded and
replaced in their respective auger hole.
If based upon the auger re.sting, additional data recovery is warrranted, an Archaeological
Monitoring and Data Recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction. The The
AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol
to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. In addition,
the Plan shall include the following: a) a Research Design, describing the types of questions.to be
addressed and methodology to be used during data recovery; b) provisions for artifact cataloging,
analysis and curation; and c) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric
skeletal remains are encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the
Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 61.)
Construction monitoring shall be conducted any time ground-disturbing activities (greater than 12"
in depth) are taking place anywhere on the subject site. This includes building foundation
demolition and construction. The archeological monitoring program shall be implemented by an
individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards in Archeology (36
CFR 61 .); individual construction monitors shall be qualified in therecognition of cultural resources
of both the historic and prehistoric periods.
In accordance with the applicable State and federal historic preservation regulations, should
previously unidentified significant cultural resources be discovered during construction, the project
sponsor is required to cease work in the immediate area until such time that a qualified archeologist
can access the find and make mitigation recommendations, if warranted.
The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to
contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various
powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, in
addition to identification of a Native American Most Likely Descendant, who may be responsible to
make recommendations as to the handling and reburial or disposition of any human remains. To
achieve this goal, it is recommended the construction personnel on the project be instructed as to
the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely
reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DATED /~/! L~ / ~’7 ,PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF
AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applic, Signature /~~//~ Date
A:EIA9626.NEG Page 18
THE GRE~
January 16, 1997
Planning Commissio:
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
De~ Commissioners:
Beginning in June of
development of the pt
the neighborhood of t
mec~g times were it,
audience...not just the
the project team was ~
meetings have been h,
began the actions ne~
six letters to the neigE
willingness to work tc
Over the course of the
result. The proposed
consistent with the ne
ance, given that the ty
neighborhood has m~
reasonable conditions
distinct, the height of
view toward adjacent
a reasonable time.
We will be interested
before the Architectm
date suggests that we
the application.
Rest~mtfully,
Don Nielson
President
Mark Migdal
Jim Baer
ATTACHMENT 9
~TER MIRANDA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
JAN 1 1997
Department ot Planning and
community Environment
ast year, Mr. Mark Migdal and his associates involved in the
operty at 4277 Miranda Ave. initiated a series of meetings to inform
z¢ir intentions. Neighborhood-wide announcements and flexible
dicative of their desire to solicit reaction from the broadest possible
se adjacent homeowners. In a three-evening open session in July
,cry forthcoming in tlmix design approach. Since then more specific
;ld between Mr. Migdal, his associate Jim Baer, and myself as they
led to acquire the property. Overall, they have sent approximately
bors or myself describing their intentions and declaring their
gether.
se discussions, they have listened and modified their approach as a
5-bouse development, conveyed in their letter of December 27, is
ighborhood in which it is being built both in lot size and appear-
pe of drawings their architect has presented are to be typical. The
:and decided to support his application consistent with a set o£
among which are: that each house would be architecturally
~he houses would be profiled (including landscaping) to soften, the
proporties, and that they would agree to complete the project within
n studying their sp~ific architectural proposals as they appear
d P,.eview Board, but their professional aztd consistent conduct to
rill see plans we can certainly support. We ~k your approval of
.TTACHMENT 10
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY
SAN JOSE,CA 95118-3686
TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600
FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
December 3, 1996
Mr. Joe Colonna
Planning Department
City of Pale Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Pale Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Colonna:
Subject: Lands of Youmans, APN 167-49-021
The map submitted with this application adequately shows the required Santa Clara Valley Water District
right of way. All comments made in our previous letters still apply.
Two sets of development plans should be sent for our review and issuance of a permit prior to the start
of construction.
Sincerely,
Sue A. Tippets
Supervising Engineer
Community Projects Review Unit