Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-18 City Council (20)City of Palo Alto Manager’s Rep r TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment DATE:March 18, 1996 CMR:189:96 SUBJECT:321 Byron Street, 654-666 Everett Street, 308 and 318 Middlefield Road; 95-SUB-2; 95-EIA-27. City Council review of a Tentative Map application, to subdivide a .77-acre parcel (33,750 square feet) with 12 underlying lots into six single-family parcels ranging from 5000 to 6,250 square feet in size. Exceptions are required for proposed lot size and lot widths that do not meet the minimum 6,000-square-foot lot size and 60-foot lot width requirements for the R~I Zone. REQUEST Review of a Tentative Map application to subdivide a .77-acre parcel with 12 underlying lots into six single-family parcels ranging from 5,000 .to 6,250 square feet in size. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council approve the following: 1.The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 7); 2.The Tentative Map, based on the modified findings (Attachment 10); Exceptions for proposed lot size and lot widths that do not meet the minimum 6,000- square-foot lot size and 60-foot lot width requirements for the R- 1 Zone, based on the attached exception findings (Attachment 1). 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 CMR: 189:96 Page 1 of 5 contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated February 28, 1996 (see Attachment 3). The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs are pertinent to this application: HOUSING ELEMENT: Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas." Housing Element, Program 2." "Continue using minimum lot size standards for single- family neighborhoods to discourage splitting of larger lots" The subject property is located within the R-1 zone district; however, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single-family, duplex and multiple-family dwellings. Although four of the six proposed lots would be less than the minimum 6,000-square-foot lot size, the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the pattern of 5,000 to 6,000- square-foot lots that are found in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Furthermore,. the proposed subdivision would eliminate the greater development potential of the twelve underlying lots that are substandard in size. Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." The proposed subdivision will enhance the qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods desirable by establishing six single family lots that are compatible with the predominant pattern of the neighborhood, which is a mix of single family, duplex and multiple-family dwellings. The proposed lot sizes will provide sufficient building envelopes to construct single-family homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and that respect the character of the existing streetscape. 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)." To meet the City’s below-market-rate (BMR) requirements, the applicant has agreed to make an in-lieu payment equal to four percent of the actual sales value of each of the lots, including improvements. The in-lieu payment would be due and payable upon the first sale of each home. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied CMR: 189:96 Page 2 of 5 on a rental or lease basis will be due at the time of occupancy and shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit sold (see Attachment 5 - BMR agreement letter). URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT: ¯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." One of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. The subject property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood which presents a diversity of unit types and densities. The proposed project will enhance the neighborhood by establishing six single-family lots that are compatible with the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. This will allow the subject property to be developed with homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and respect the character of the existing streetscape. The Urban Design Element encourages the maintenance of existing trees and the planting of new trees. A number of mature trees currently exist on the site and along the property frontage of Byron Street, Everett Avenue, and Middlefield Road (street trees). A draft arborist report submitted as part of the ARB application indicates that all but four of the mature trees on the property can be retained, and outlines tree protection measures that should be taken during and after the construction phase of the project. In addition, the landscape plan submitted as part of the ARB application proposes several additional street trees along Byron Street, Everett Street and Middlefield Road. Furthermore, all new utility lines serving the proposed single-family parcels will be placed underground EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 28, 1996, the Planning Commission voted (6 ayes, 0 noes, absent: Carrasco) to recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the Tentative Map with exceptions for lot width and lot size. The Commission’s discussion focused on consistency between the lotting pattern of the existing neighborhood and the proposed development, parking and traffic in the area, location of the new garages and the potential for a positive addition to the existing neighborhood (see Planning Commission Minutes for 2/28/96 meeting - Attachment 8). Residents in the area commented on the impact of an additional unit, over and above what would ordinarily be allowed in an R-1 zone, and about the general increase in traffic in the downtown north area over the past few years (see Attachments 8 and 9). CMR: 189:96 Page 3 of 5 The Commission’s motion included a minor modification to the exception findings (Finding 2) to specifically address lot size as well as lot width (see Attachment 1 - Modified Findings). Modified wording is shown in italicized print. The Commission’s motion also included the following new conditions and modifications to the staff recommended conditions of approval: Modifications ¯Condition 36 - Clarification that construction activities end at 6 PM, not 8 PM, Monday through Saturday, and that there be no construction permitted on Sunday Additional Conditions °Homes constructed on Lots 2, 3 and 5 shall have detached garages placed at the rear of the property. °Homes constructed on Lots 1 and 4 shall have garages that face a different block face than the front of the house. The property line between Lots 5 and 6 shall be aligned with the property line between Lots 2 and 3, recognizing that this adjustment would reduce the size of Lot 6 to slightly less than the 6,000 square-foot minimum. The above modifications are reflected in italicized print in Attachment 2 -Modified Conditions. Staff would like to note that the condition recommended by the Planning Commission to realign the property line between Lots 5 and 6 would reduce the size of Lot 6 from 6,000 square feet to 5,625 square feet. Consequently, this would require that an exception for reduced lot size be granted for Lot 6, as well as for Lots 2, 3 and 5. Staff supports the condition recommended by the Planning Commission to realign the property line, based on the following: The adjustment to the property line would result in a 5,625-square-foot lot size for Lots 5 and 6, which is the size of most of the lots in the immediate vicinity. The resulting lot sizes are consistent with the existing, predominant lot pattern of the neighborhood. The proposed modification would realign the rear property line between Lots 5 and 6 to be consistent with the property lines of adjacent parcels, thereby continuing the existing lot pattern along the block. CMR: 189:96 Page 4 of 5 ¯The findings necessary to grant the exception for the reduced lot size for Lot 6, can be supported based on the Modified Findings contained in attachment 1. FISCAL IMPACT No significant fiscal impact will result from this project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An initial study recommending adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached (see Attachment 7 - Mitigated Negative Declaration). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment 1:Modified Findings 2:Modified Conditions 3:Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) 4:Location Map 5:Below Market Rate Agreement Letter 6:Applicant’s Request for Exceptions for Minimum Lot Size and Lot Width 7:Mitigated Negative Declaration 8:Planning Commission Minutes for 2/28/96 meeting. (See Councilpacket) 9:Letters from Neighbors 10:Tentative Parcel Map [Council Members only] PREPARED BY: Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: BERNARD M. STROJN~ (" Assistant City Manager Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto CA 94303 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Attn: Anthony Badger, 381 Hawthome, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Atm: Pat Sharp, Sect., 333 Waverley, Palo Alto CA 94301 CMR: 189:96 Page 5 of 5 Attachment 1 - Modified Findings 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 will enhance the qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods desirable by establishing six single family lots that are compatible with the predominant pattem of the neighborhood. The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, will allow the subject property to be developed with homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and that respect the character of the existing streetscape, while eliminating the greater development potential of the twelve underlying lots that are substandard in size. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed in that although three four of the six lots are proposed to be smaller than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size, in all cases the lots will provide a sufficient building envelope to construct a single-family home without the need for a variance. The design of the six-lot subdivision will not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the conditions of project approval, which will reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. 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. FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, in that the property is located in an area that was subdivided many years ago as a part of the University Park subdivision. As a result, the majority of the lots in the immediate vicinity do not meet the current R-1 site development regulations regarding lot area and width. Most of the lots in the immediate vicinity of the project site are 5,625 square feet in size, with a width of fifty (50) feet. The existing lots on the subject property are even smaller, consisting of approximately 2,800 square feet each. The proposed 6-lot subdivision, therefore, will create parcels which are consistent with the prevailing lot pattern and less substandard than the current plots. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.fnd 3-18-96 Page 1 The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the proposed subdivision will allow the subject property to be developed with homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and that respect the character of the existing streetscape. Most of the lots in the immediate vicinity of the project site are 5,625 square feet in size, with some neighboring lots as small as 4,200 and 5, 000 square feet, with widths offifty (50)feet. In addition, the existing dwellings on the subject property are each located on 50 X lOO foot lots (although they are not legalparcels). Consistent with the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto, the granting of the exception would permit the existing, predominant neighborhood lot pattern (50-foot lot widths and lot areas less than 6, 000 square feet) to be retained. 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 subdivision will allow the subject property to be developed with homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and that respect the character of the existing streetscape. As proposed, the subdivision will not cause significant environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the conditions of project approval, which will reduce all potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels, as documented in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that although four of the six lots are proposed to be smaller than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size, in all cases the lots will provide a sufficient building envelope to construct a single-family home without the need for a variance. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.fnd 3-18-96 Page 2 Attachment 2 - Modified Conditions CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE MAP PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP The applicant shall modify the map so that the property line between Lots 5 and 6is aligned with the property line between Lots 2 and 3, recognizing that this adjustment will reduce the size of Lot 6 to slightly less than the 6, 000 square-foot minimum. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of the tentative 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. Improvement plans reflecting the required off-site improvements and utilities shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. The improvement plans shall include detailed drawings for all public improvements including, but not limited tO the location of street signs, fare hydrants, street lights and curb cuts. The improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The subdivider shall submit a detailed grading and drainage plan to the Public Works Department. Prior to approval of the final map, the grading and drainage plans must be approved, by the Public Works Department. The subdivider shall install all electric utilities in accordance with Palo Alto Standards, including underground utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. Each residence shall have individual electrical service. A new padmount transformer is required to serve the subdivision. All electrical plans shall be approved by the Light and Power Division before the final map is approved. All work done within the City right-of-way will require a Street Work Permit from the Public Works Department. PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP 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: p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 1 a. The subdivider shall agree to pay an in-lieu fee of four percent of the actual sales value of each lot, including improvements, in fulfillment of Programs 9 and 13 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The in-lieu payment shall be due and payable upon the first sale of each home. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis shall be due at the time of occupancy and shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit sold. b. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of planter strips, sidewalks 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. c. The applicant shall demolish all existing site improvements. Demolition of these improvements shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of security approved by the City Attorney. The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative map. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 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. 10.For this subdivision, a certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans for all private and public trees to be retained. The plans shall identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during demolition and construction. The certified arbofist shall inspect the tree protection measures and shall certify that the PAMC Sec. 8-04-015 have been installed prior to demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. 11.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 2 PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT 12.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. Sec. 16.28.270. 13.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, track routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines mack routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 14.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 15.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 16.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary, water supply. 17.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. 18.The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 19.The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. 20.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 3 21.A new four-inch sewer lateral installation is required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Building Permits for the new residences to be constructed in this subdivision shall be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.48 unless the houses are singley developed by different owners. The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010.- The project sponsor shall submit an assessment of all mature trees on the project site and adjacent right-of-way. The assessment shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall indicate the existing health and condition of each tree and shall include recommendations regarding tree preservation and removal. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for the fire system including all Fire Department requirements. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. 28. 29. Plans submitted in conjunction with an ARB and/or building permit application for Lots 2, 3 and 5, shall reflect detached garages placed at the rear of the property. Plans submitted in conjunction with an ARB and/or building permit application for Lots 1 and 4 shall reflect that the front of the ga;’age faces a different direction than the front of the house. DURING CONSTRUCTION 30. 31. The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.060. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on thesidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. p:\cmflbyron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 4 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 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 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) All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Sec. 12.08.060. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for water, Gas & Wastewater. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. All non-rcaidcntial construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC,.....~ .~. ..........:__ .:__. t.^ ,:_:.^.~ _. c_,, ......Com~uction times shall be limited to the following hours." 8:00 AM to 8-v00 6.’00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to Be00 6.’00 PM Saturday 37. 38. 39. The contractor shall furnish to the Utilities Department a complete schedule of work and method of construction for the new__ water service connection to the existing water main. The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities Engineering Department the manufacturer’s literature on the materials to be used. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 5 40.The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off- site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will be performed only by authorized Utilities Department Personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW Utilities Inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 A.M. or after 4:30 P.M. on a regular work day, or on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 415/329-2156 five working days before start of construction. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department 415/496-6932 OR 415/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installatioh and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651-86. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW Engineering Division, inspected by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 47.All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gag meters will be installed within three working days after the building piping passes final inspection. 48.Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 45 days following receipt of fi~l payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction perfo, rmed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 49.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 p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 6 50. 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) The following dust control measures shall be implemented in order to minimize temporary air quality impacts associated with construction: No Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. c.Overfilling of trucks by the contractor shall be prohibited. do Trucks shall be covered during transporting of demolished materials and earth materials from the site. e°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. ONGOING 50.The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. Rules and Regulations 3D. 51.The applicant shall be required to plant street trees within the planting strips along the right- of-way bordering the property. The number, size, species and location of the street trees shall be reviewed in conjunction with the ARB applications and shall be approved by the City Arborist and the Planning Division. p:\cmr\byron\byronmod.coa 3/18/96 Page 7 Attachment 3 PLANNING COMMISSION TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Jayni Allsep, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: February 28, 1996 SUBJECT:Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on a Tentative Map to subdivide a .77-acre parcel (33,750 square feet) with 12 underlying lots into six single-family parcels ranging from 5000 to 6,250 square-feet in size. Exceptions are required for proposed lot size and lot widths that do not meet the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size and 60-foot lot width requirements for the R-1 Zone. ~COMMENDATION 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, based on the attached fmdings (Attachment 1) and subject to the recommended conditions (Attachment 2); and 3. exceptions for proposed lot size and lot widths that do not meet the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size and 60-foot lot width requirements for the R-1 Zone, based on the attached exception findings (Attachmem 1). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATIO~ The project site is located in the Downtown North neighborhood of Palo Alto in the R-1 zone district, which has a required minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (see Attachment 3 Location Map). The property is bordered by Byron Street, Everett Avenue, Middlefield Road and adjacent residential properties to the east. Most of the lots in the immediate vicinity are developed with single-family homes. Duplex and multiple-family uses exist within one block south and east of the site, in adjacent R-2 and RM-30 zone districts. There are 12 underlying, substandard lots approximately 2,800 square feet each in size (25’ X 112.5’) on the property. Three existing houses are on portions of 6 of the 12 underlying lots. These structures are proposed to be demolished. An application for Architectural-Review Board (ARB) approval has been submitted for 6 single-family homes, and is being processed concurrently with the subdivision application, but is not yet complete. Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Map to create six single-family lots on a .77-acre parcel (approximately 33,750 square feet) for the development of six single-family detached homes. Details of the proposal are as follows: ¯The proposed lots would range from approximately 5,000 square feet to 6,250 square feet in ~ize. The applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area for three of the six lots (Lots 2, 3 and 5) and an exception to the 60-foot minimum lot width requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (R-l) for four of the six parcels (Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6). All of the proposed lots comply with the requirements of the R-1 zone district with respect to minimum lot depth (100 feet). °Four of the lots are proposed to be accessed from Everett Avenue, one from Middlefield Road, and one from Byron Street. This subdivision application is being processed concurrently with an ARB application. As required by Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code, when two or more contiguous lots are developed simultaneously by the same owner or developer, the design of the homes is subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The applicant submitted an ARB application for the six proposed single family homes on December 21, 1995. As of this date, the application remains incomplete. However, assuming that the proposed subdivision is approved, it is expected that the design of the six homes would be considered by the ARB soon after approval of the tentative map. The architectural drawings submitted with the ARB application indicate that the homes are proposed to be two stories with 1,837 to 1,918 square feet of living area. Two different floor plans are proposed, offering 3-4 bedrooms and 2 I/2 baths. A craftsman-type design with wood siding and composition shingle roofs is proposed for the two coruer lots, while the four interior lots have a California bungalow plan, with stucco walls and composition shingle roofs. All homes include attached garages. P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 2 Site Information: provided below. Applicant: Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: Information regarding the applicant, owner, and parcel information is Scott Ward, Classic Communities, Inc. Tan I, LLC, a Limited Liability Company 120-02-068,069,070, 071 & 081 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Zone District: Single-Family Residential R-1 Existing Parcel Size:0.77 acres (approximately 33,750 square feet) POLICY IMPLICATIONS The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs are pertinent to this application: HOUSING ELEMENT: ¯Housing Element, Policy 1: "Maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas." °Housing Element, Program 2: "Continue using minimum lot size standards for single- family neighborhoods to discourage splitting of larger lots" The subject property is located within the R-1 zone district; however, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single-family, duplex and multiple-family dwellings. Although three of the six proposed lots would be less than the minimum 6,000- square-foot lot size, the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the pattern of 5,000 to 6,000-square-foot lots that are found in the surrounding residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision would eliminate the greater development potential of the twelve underlying lots that are substandard in size. o Housing Element, Policy 3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods especially desirable." P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 3 The proposed subdivision will enhance the qualities which make Palo Alto’s neighborhoods desirable by establishing six single family lots that are compatible with the predominant pattern of the neighborhood, which is a mix of single family, duplex and multiple-family dwellings. The proposed lot sizes will provide sufficient building envelopes to construct single-family homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and that respect the character of the existing streetscape. 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)." To meet the City’s below-market-rate (BMR) requirements, the applicant has agreed to make an in-lieu payment equal to four percent of the actual sales value of each of the lots, including improvements. The in-lieu payment would be due and payable upon the first sale of each home. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis will be due at the time of occupancy and shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit sold (see Attachment 4 - BMR agreement letter). URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT: ¯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." One of the main objectives of the Urban Design Element is to promote improvements that are of high aesthetic quality and variety, as well as being considerate of one another. The subject property is located in the Downtown North neighborhood which presents a diversity of unit types and densities. The proposed project will enhance the neighborhood by establishing six single-family lots that are compatible with the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. This will allow the subject property to be developed with homes that are in scale with the existing neighborhood and respect the character of the existing streetscape. P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 4 The Urban Design Element ourages the maintenance of existing .. ees and the planting of new trees. A number of mature trees currently exist on the site and along the property frontage of Byron Street, Everett Avenue, and Middlefield Road (street trees). A draft arborist report submitted as part of the ARB application indicates that all but four of the mature trees on the property can be retained, and outlines tree protection measures that should be taken during and after the construction phase of the project. In addition, the landscape plan submitted as part of the ARB application proposes several additional street trees along Byron Street, Everett Street and Middlefield Road. Furthermore, all new utilities lines serving the proposed single-family parcels will be placed underground. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Parcel Configuration: As stated previously, the applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum 6,000-square-foot lot area for three of the six lots (Lots 2, 3 and 5) and an exception to the 60-foot minimum lot width requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance 0~-1) for four of the six parcels (Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6). All of the proposed lots comply with the minimum requirements of the R-1 zone district with respect to minimum lot depth (100 feet). Table 1 below, lists the proposed lot data and the development potential of each lot. The allowable floor area of between 2,250 and 2,625 square feet meets zoning requirements and is consistent with the development potential of neighboring single-family properties. The majority of the neighboring properties are 5,500 to 6,000 square foot, 50-foot wide lots developed with single-family homes. 3 4 5 6 Table 1: Proposed Lot Data 6,252 5,002 5,002 6,251 5,248 6,000 62 50 50 62 50 50 2,625.6 2,250.6 2,250.6 2625.3 2324.4 2550.0 2188.2 1750.7 1750.7 2187.9 1836.8 2100.0 P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 5 Exception tO Minimum Lot Size: The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires a minimum site area of 6,000 square feet in the R-1 zone. The City Council may grant an exception to that requirement when approving a subdivision map, provided that additional exception findings are made (see Attachment 1 - Exception Findings). As indicated in Table 1 above, three of the proposed lots (Lots 2, 3 and 6) would have site areas less than the minimum 6,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum site area requirement and has provided rationale to support the granting of the exception (see Attachment 5 - Applicant’s Exception Request). Although three of the lots are proposed to be smaller than the 6,000 square-foot minimum lot size, in all cases the lots will provide a sufficient building envelope to construct a single-family home without the need for a variance. (The ARB application submitted for the six homes does not propose any variances). The proposed lot sizes are consistent with those found in the Downtown North neighborhood, and would not present constraints to development. The majority of the neighboring properties are 5,500 to 6,000 square feet in size. Based on the above, Staff can support the findings required to grant the exception for minimum lot size. It should also be noted that none of the lots would be substandard lots as defined in PAMC Section 18.12.055., i.e. less than 50-foot width!less than 4,980 square-foot lot area. Therefore, all of the standard R-1 site development regulations would apply. Exception to Minimum Lot Width The PAMC requires a minimum site width of 60 feet in the R-1 zone. The City Council may grant an exception to that requirement when approving a subdivision map, provided that additional exception f’mdings are made (see Attachment 1 - Exception Findings). As indicated in Table 1 above, four of the lots (Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6) are proposed to be 50-feet wide. The applicant is requesting an exception to the minimum 60-foot site width requirement and has provided rationale to support the reduced site width (see Attachment 5 - Applicant’s Exception Request). Although four of the proposed lots have only a 50-foot lot width, architectural plans submitted for homes on these lots, as part of the ARB application, do not propose any encroachments into the required side yards that would require a variance. In addition, the majority of the neighboring properties appear to have 50-foot wide lots developed with single-family homes. Based on the above, staff can support the findings required to grant the exception for minimum lot width. Trees: Currently the site contains 24 mature trees over 6 inches in diameter. A draft arborist report, prepared by Robert T. Yamane of Noonan’s Tree Care Inc., dated January 24, 1995, indicates that all but four of the mature trees on the property (outside the public right of way) can be retained, and outlines tree protection measures that should be taken during and after the construction phase of the project. Specific recommendations regarding tree preservation will be addressed by conditions of ARB approval. P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 6 Public Participation Notice of this project was provided by publication of a public hearing notice in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public hearing notice. ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives apply to this application: 1.Modify and approve the Tentative Map (reduce number of lots created and lot configuration to avoid the need for Exceptions to minimum lot size and lot width); 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). STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the project is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 18, 1996. If Council approves the project, the applicant wil~ be required to submit improvement plans for improvements within the punic right-of-way and submit an application for approval of a Final Map. The Final Map is subject to approval by the City Council and will also be subject to a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment 1 - Findings Attachment 2 - Conditions Attachment 3 - Location Map Attachment 4 - Below Market Rate Agreement Letter Attachment 5 - Applicant’s Request for Exceptions for Minimum Lot Size and Lot Width Attachment 6 - Mitigated Negative Declaration Tentative Parcel Map [Commission members only] P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 7 COURTESY COPIES: Scott Ward, Classic Communities, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto CA 94303 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Attn: Anthony Badger, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Attn: Pat Sharp, Sect., 333 Waverley, Palo Alto CA 94301 Prepared by:Jayni Al!sep, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: Nancy Maddox,,Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:\PCS\BYRON-ST.PC 2-28-96 Page 8 Attachment 4 " PF ;_%2_1 Byron 654 & 666 Everett Ave ~%08 & c~18 Middlefield . PC-2649 343 % Graphic Attachment to Staff Report February 28, 1996 Nos: 95-SUB-2, 95-EIA-27 linch=2OOFT North Cityof P !o Alto Departm~ ~t of P&zmingand Comm~i~! Environma~t Attachment 5 F~’bruary 8, 1996 Div~ions Inspection Services Planrmg Tralnsportation Classic Communities, Inc. ATTN: Scott Ward 1068 East MeadowCircle Palo Alto, CA 94303 Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Ageement for 321 Byron Street, Palo Alto Dear Mr. Ward: This letter summarizes the agreement reached betaveen you and Planning Division staff regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. The requirements for a BMR component are contained in Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Ci~’ of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This letter relates to the proposed 6-unit single-family housing project at the current addresses of 309 & 321 Byron Street, 308 Middlefield and 654 & 666 Everett Street ("the project"). This agreement is predicated on you, as the developer, subdividing the parcel, constructing the housing units on the six lots and selling the lots as developed parcels. If any other arrangement is utilized, such as selling the lots individually for development by others, a new BMR agreement will have to be approved by the City of Palo Alto prior to any sales. As discussed, you have agreed to provide a 4.0 percent in-lieu payment based on the actual sales value of each of the lots plus improvements (units) in the project. Payment will be made to the City. of Palo Alto upon the first sale of each unit in the project. Proof of sales prices must be submitted to the City of Palo Alto at the time of sale. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not Z~ Hamilton Avenue P.O. Fx~\ 10~O Palo Alt~, CA 9474B 415.32~. 24t~ 415.32’~. 240 Fax Mr. Scott Ward February 8, 1996 Page 2 sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease bases shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit sold. Payment shall be due at time of occupancy of the unit(s) not sold. The terms of this ageement shall be incorporated into the Subdivision Ageement at the time the subdivision is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in a form and instrument satisfactory to the City Attorney’s office. Thank you for your cooperation during the planning process on this project. Please siga~ this letter where shown below and return to me, indicating that we have reached ageement regarding your BMR contribution. Sincerely, KENrNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment I agee to provide a Below Market rate component to the project at 321 Byron Street as described in this letter dated Februa~" 8, 1996. Scott Ward Date Marlene Prendergast, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Debra Cauble, Assistant City Attorney Jim Gilliland, Manager Planning Projects Javni Allsep, Contract Planner Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official Subdivider’ s Statement ~ 5-- 5(~ Attachment 61"5. ~o Section 2!.12.050 of the Palo Alto ~Imicipal Code requires that "Subdivider’s Statement" shall appear upon, or accompany, tentaZive or preliminary Dar~.el maps, and shall contain the followin£ information: Address of Subject Properry:5o.S (If ~ny oi~he items below are not applica]Dle, so state.) (c) Improvements and public utilities proposed and expected date of completion: U-F7 t~l r~., ~=~--w14~5 ~_O_ 1~.P~VL~,Ov_/~Y ~!/f~-~ ~- (e)Public areas proposed: (-f) Tree planting proposed, including indication of trees to be renoved or left in place: (g)Proposed street and outdoor lighting: (h) Existing restrictiVe covenmnts, leases, rights-of-way, licenses and encumberances affecting use of land" Cattach copies) : ~ o~3 [~ (i) Requested ~xceptions to any requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. .~bsn exceptions relate to General Design .requirements (Chapter 21.21) and particularly to lot size, dimensions, !ocation or configuration. Applications for exceptions shal! state frilly the .=~rounds of .the application a~d the facts relied upon by the pelitioner. ~xceptions sh~ll be granted only upon making certain findings, including the four listed below.) ~xceptions requested: i.Exception to minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. 2.Exception to minimum.!ot width 60 feet. (i) There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, (Describe) The vast majority of the existing single-family home lots in the immediate vi¢init7of the subject proper=y are 5,625 sqgare foo~ lots, with 50 foot lot w±dths. In fact, on the four blo¢ks bounded by Midd!efield Road, Webster Street, lytton Avenue and Everett Avenue, 46 of the 58 existing lots are of this type. The lotting pattern for this neighborhood was established over i00 years ago; the property was originally subdivided in 1890 as a part of the University Park subdivision. Clearly, the lotting pattern of this neighborhood was established long before the City of Pale Al=o adopted its R-i zoning ordinance standards regarding lot size and width. In addition, it should be noted that there are 12 underlying lots on the subjec~ property; as a result, the proposed subdivision will, in fact, ~educe the number of legal lots on the property. (2)lhe exception is necessary, for the preservation and enjoyment of a ~ubstantiai property right of the pelitioner. ~_xplain) The exceptioD is necessary =o consolidate the 12 existing lots into 6 lots [hat will be consistent in lot area and width with the predominant lotting pa~tern in the neighborhood. (3)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) The exception will not be desrimen~al to ~he public welfare in the neighborhood in any way. In face, bringing the subject property in$o conformisy with the lotting pattern in the neighborhood will improve ~he public welfare. The granting of the exception ~ill not violate the requirements, goals, policies or spirit of the law, i’Explain) Approval of this exception is consistent with a number of City goals and policies, as outlined in "Single Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto", which calls for the retention of neighborhood patterns in the design of new homes and home additions. j.Requested variances from any ~£ the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (Variances £or-side yards ~nd setbacks for existing buildings may be requested in conjunction with subdivisions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Cotmcil.) Variances requested:o~/~_ib/~. ............................ Re~sons and Justification: j, ~nner in which compliance with applicable elements o5 the Comprehensive Plan, including housing policies, shal! be a~tained (if relevant): To the best of my knowledge, this application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as submitted or as indicated under (j) above, Signature of applicant Planning Department 10/12/79 Attachment 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IS T FORM 1. Project Title:Byron Street Homes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jayni AIIsep, Contract Planner (41 5) 389-6932 4. Project Location:321 Byron Street, 654 & 666 Everett Street 308 & 318 Middlefield Road (AP#s 120-02-068,069,070, 071 & 081 ) 5. Application Numbers: 95-SUB-2; 95-ARB-263; 95-EIA-27 6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Scott Ward Classic Communities, Inc. 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, CA 94303 (415) 496-4496 7. General Plan Designation: Single-Family Residential 8. Zoning:R-1 P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to create six single- family lots on a .77-acre parcel (approximately 33,750 sq.ft.) for the development of six single-family detached homes. The property is bounded by Byron Street, Everett Avenue, Middlefield Road and adjacent residential properties to the east. Three existing structures on the property, currently rental units, are proposed to be demolished. An application for Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval has been submitted for six single family homes, and is being processed concurrently with the subdivision application. Details of the proposal are as follows: The proposed lots would range from approximately 5,000 sq.ft, to 6,250 sq.ft in size. The applicant is requesting exceptions to the minimum 6,000 sq.ft, lot area and the 60-foot minimum lot width requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (R-l) for four of the six parcels. The homes are proposed to be two stories with 1,837 to 1,918 square feet of living area. Two different floor plans are proposed, offering 3-4 bedrooms and 21/2 baths. The architectural drawings submitted with the ARB application propose craftsman- type design with wood siding and composition shingle roofs for the two corner lots, while the four interior lots have a California bungalow plan, with stucco walls and composition shingle roofs. All homes include attached garages. Four of the lots are proposed to be accessed from Everett Avenue, one from Middlefield Road, and one from Byron Street. Front yards and areas around driveways are proposed to be landscaped as part of the development to establish a common design to accompany the homes. In addition, a wood wall with stucco columns and community identification logo is proposed at the corners of P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Everett/Byron and Everett/Middlefield. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The surrounding land use is predominantly single-family residential, with some duplex and multi-family uses in the vicinity. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 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 Unless Mitigation Incorportated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X X X Land Use and Planning X Population and Housing Geological Problems Water X Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Utilities and Service Systems P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 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. XI 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 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. Project Planner /7~"Date Director of Planning & Community Environment P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 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. g. 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, 3)"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. 4)"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). 5)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 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6)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. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Jnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Impac 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict With general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e)Disrupt.or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 7(B-1) 1,6 7(B-1) 1,6 7(B-1) 1,2,3 1,2,3 3,6 7(B-1) X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 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? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? I)Unique geologic or physical features? X X X 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 X X X X X X X X X X X X P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~zge 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources So(Jrces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially ]nificant ,tless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 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 and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)Change in the quantity of ground waters, either 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? h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Alteration of wetlands in any way? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 6,9 7(B-7) 8 6,9 & 10 6,9 & 10 6,9& 10 10 10 10 10 6,10 X X X 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? 7(B-5) 11- Fig.5 11- Fig.4 6,9 X X X X X X X X X X P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 7 Issues and Supporting Informa*=~n Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Jnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact d) Create objectionable odors?6,9 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b)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 uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies sLJpporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7(B-2) 12 9,13 6,9 6,9 6,9 6,14 6,14 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or inteference 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.)? t (B-12) 6,9 t7 (B-1 2) in: X X X X X X X X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?6,X 7 (B-12) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?6,X 7 (B-12) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?10 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 10 X inefficient manner? P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues ;Potentially nificant ,ess Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 10 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous b) c) d) e) substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 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(B- 8,9), 15 15 15 15 6,9 NOISE. Would the proposal result in: X X X X X a) Increase in existing noise levels? b~Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7(B-4) 16 7(B-4) 16 X X PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection?17 b) Police protection?17 c) Schools?17 d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 17 storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?17 X X X X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Po.’~er or natural gas?17 b) Co;qmunications systems?17 P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~z,~e ~O Issues and Supporting Informatinn Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially ~;ignificant Inless Mitigation Incorporated c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? 17 17 17 17 X X X X Xg) Local or regional water supplies?17 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?18 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?6,9 X c) Create light or glare?.6,9 X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?7 X (B-14) b) Disturb archaeological resources?7 X (B-14) c) Affect historical resources?7 X (B-13) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 7 X would affect unique ethnic cultural values?B- 13,14 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 7 X potential impact area?B- 13,14 15’. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 19 X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?7 X (B-11) 16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Pa,~e ]0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially ¯ -nificant ,ess =vdtigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 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? 2O 2O 2O 2O X X X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis ma~/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 © (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 earlier document 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; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~Z~, ]] Mitigation Incorporated 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Land Use Map; 1981-1992 2 Palo Alto Municipa~ Code - Title 18 (Zoning), Zoning Map. 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element; 1990 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Element; 1981 5 Single-Family Residential Guidelines for Palo Alto; 1991 6 Field Investigation of Subject Property and Surrounding Community to Survey Existing Conditions and Land Uses; January 5, 1996.. 7 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, Maps B-l, B-2, B-3, B- 4, ~B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, B-13 and B-14; 1994 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical Report; 1994 9 Byron Street Homes Project Plans (tentative map, site plan, landscape plan); 1995 10 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Environmental Resources Element 11 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Air Quality Technical Background Report; 1994 12 Memorandum from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, City of Palo Alto, December 19, 1995 13 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of Title 16 (Building Regulations) 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Transportation Element 15 Memorandum from Palo Alto Fire Department (Hazardous Materials), December 15, 1995 16 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report; 1994 17 Written comments submitted by City of Palo Alto departments on the proposed project 18 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Urban Design Element, page 48; 1981 19 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995, Schools and Parks Element, pp. 37-41 20 Answer is substantiated by the responses provided for items 1-15 P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 12 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES I (e) 2(c) LAND USE (Please see Item 2c, below) POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposal would result in the demolition of three existing residences that are currently rental units. It is anticipated that the six new homes to be constructed would be owner occupied. Although the project may result in the elimination of rental units, this loss would not represent a significant impact, provided that the project sponsor complies with the City’s affordable housing policies, as contained in Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, which requires the following: 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). For each BMR unit provided over and above the requirement, a developer shall be permitted to build one additional market-rate unit up to a maximum unit increase over the allowable zoning of 15%, and consistent with all other zoning requirements. Mitigation Measure: 2.1 The project sponsor shall satisfy the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate (BMR) Program, as contained in Program 13 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The terms proposed to satisfy the provisions of the BMR Program shall be incorporated in the Subdivision Agreement for the project, which must be completed prior to the City Council’s consideration of the final subdivision map. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~zge ]3 3 (a,b,c) 4 (a,d) GEOLOGY The subject property is fairly level with a less than 1% slope to the north. Three single family homes currently occupy a portion of the property. According to the City of Palo Alto resource maps (technical and background reports prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update), the property is characterized by the following: Seismic area of moderate risk subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Class 1 geotechnical constraints (range of 1-4 with 1 having the lowest level of potential constraints and 4 having the highest level). The City of Palo Alto construction regulations require compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. Provisions of the UBC require measures to minimize the risk of building failure and prevent loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Mitigation Measures: None Required. WATER As stated above, the subject property is fairly level with a less than 1% slope to the north. Three single family homes currently occupy a portion of the property. If approved, the proposed development of six single family homes would result in approximately 30%of the site being covered with impervious surfaces (new structures and pavement), resulting in a reduction of rainfall absorption and an increase in stormwater runoff. The amount and rate of runoff would not be substantial enough to result in a significant impact. Furthermore, the design of the project would not result in a change to drainage patterns; runoff would be collected by gutters and directed into the publicly managed stormwater drainage system that serves the site and surrounding areas. Mitigation Measures: None Required. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~zfle ]4 4(b) WATER A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shows that the project site is located within an area, Zone AO(I’), that is subject to flooding to a depth of 1-2 feet during a lO0-year flood event. Mitigation Measures: 4.1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall provide certification to the Public Works Department that the proposed construction meets all FEMA requirements for construction within a flood zone. (City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval IBP6) 4.2 The "as-built" elevation of the lowest floor not used solely for parking or storage shall be certified and accepted as meeting the Special Flood Hazard Area requirements and a FEMA elevation certificate shall be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department. (City of Palo Alto Standard-Conditions of Approval PF5) P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Pa,~e 15 5 AIR QUALITY The subject property is located in an area of residential development. According to the Air Quality Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1 994), there are no Carbon Monoxide "Hotspot" Intersections or "Major Criteria Pollutant Emitters" in the project vicinity. The development of six single family homes would not result in any new air quality impacts. The size of the project and the nature of the proposed use would not meet the threshold for review by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). However, the project would result in temporary dust emissions and associated odors during grading and other construction activities. These impacts would be primarily associated with the demolition of the three existing structures and the movement of dirt during site grading and construction preparation. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce these air quality impact~ to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures: 5.1 The following dust control measures shall be implemented in order to minimize temporary air quality impacts associated with construction: ao Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately. c.Overfilling of trucks by the contractor shall be prohibited. Trucks shall be covered during transporting of demolished materials and earth materials from the site. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S Page 6(a)TRANSPORTATION 6(b) The project site is locate= in the Downtown North neighborhood, an area of predominantly residential development. The property is bordered by Middlefield Road (designated an arterial street), Everett Avenue and Byron Street (local streets). Neighborhood streets and intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. According to the City’s Transportation Division (memorandum from Carl Stoffel dated December 19,. 1995), the net gain of three single family units is expected to generate an additional 30 trips per day, which is a minimal increase compared to existing traffic levels in the vicinity. Mitigation Measures: None Required. A Preliminary Landscape Plan submitted by the project sponsor proposes a "community identity wall" near the Everett/Byron and Everett/Middlefield intersections, 4.5 to 5.5 feet in height. The wall, as currently proposed, is within the sight distance triangle established for corner lots, as identified in the City’s fence standards contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.24. In order to avoid a potential traffic hazard, the following mitigation is proposed: Mitigation Measure: 6.1 The project ~ponsor shall modify the location and/or the height of those portions of the wall proposed within the sight distance triangle, to conform to the fence standards contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of Title 16 (Building Regulations). P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~zge ]? 7(b)BIOLOGICAL RESOUP~ES A tree survey submitted by the project sponsor identifies 24 trees on the subject property, including several oak trees, liquidambar, and a large Canary Island date palm. Specifically, the tree survey indicates the following: ¯Six trees, including three oak trees, are to be preserved and the large canary island date palm is to be relocated and preserved. ¯Two street trees (oaks) located along Everett Avenue interfere with the proposed driveways for two of the new homes. ¯Twelve other trees, including two oaks, are recommended to be removed due to their condition. As currently proposed, the project would require the removal of two healthy oak trees along Everett Avenue (tree #’s 3 and 4). The loss of street trees along Everett Avenue is of great concern and would be inconsistent with City policy for street tree preservation. Therefore, It is recommended that the driveway and curb cut alignments be adjusted to protect and preserve these trees. Mitigation Measures: 7.1 The project sponsor shall submit an assessment of all mature trees on the project site and adjacent right-of-way. The assessment shall be prepared by a certified arborist and shall indicate the existing health and condition of each tree and shall include recommendations regarding tree preservation and removal. 7.2 The site plan shall be modified to accommodate preservation and protection of existing street trees # 3 and 4, as identified on the landscape plan prepared by Gates & Associates, dated 12/21/95. Driveways shall be redesigned to be a minimum of ten (10) feet from any street, per Section 8.04.030 and 8.04.040 of the PAMC. 7.3 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structures, the project sponsor shall submit a tree protection plan (fencing during construction, etc.) for review and approval by the City Arborist. The tree protection plan shall conform to the City’s Standard Condition IDP2. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~z,~. ]8 lO(a) NOISE lO(b) The project proposes si~,ule-family residential development, a use that would be compatible with the existing residential uses in the surrounding area. The use and design of the project is not expected to generate any substantial noise impacts. However, temporary impacts would occur as a result of demolition and construction activities. Proper implementation and compliance with the City of 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 the day, would minimize disturbance to surrounding residents. Mitigation Measures: 10.1 Require implementation of and compliance with the City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval and, Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC, which sets limits for the amount of noise and restricts demolition and construction activities to specific hours of the day, would minimize disturbance to surrounding residents. NOISE The City’s noise policies suggest that noise levels in residential outdoor recreation areas not exceed an Ldn of 65 dB and that interior noise levels not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. According to the Noise Technical Background Report prepared for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update (August 1994), noise levels at the project site along Middlefield Road range.between 60 and 70 Ldn. Areas within 100 feet of the centerline of Middlefield Road may be subject to noise levels in excess of 65 Ldn. Shielding provided by the new homes and proposed wood fences would likely reduce noise exposure levels in the rear yards (recreation areas) to below 65 Ldn. Outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction necessary to meet interior noise standards can generally be achieved with standard construction methods. However, an acoustical study prepared by an acoustical engineer should be required prior to construction to ensure compliance with City noise policies. Miti,gatioo,,,, Measure: 10.2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project sponsor shall submit an acoustical study prepared by an acoustical engineer, which demonstrates that the applicable outdoor and indoor noise standards are met. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~z~’e 1 3(c) AESTHETICS Conformance to the Ciw’s Residential Design Guidelines a,,d standard conditions of approval regarding exterior lighting will ensure that any new exterior lighting that may be proposed (porch, entry, landscape lighting, etc.) will not result in a significant impact on adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures: None Required. P:\EIA\EIA9527.1S P~zge ~)3/ii.’96 i$:~6 ’~’415 493 9050 HOZ.&RT ~_002/002 tE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED EGATIVE DECLARATION DATED FEBRUARY 9, 1996, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED EDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 321 BYRON STREET, 654 & 666 EVERETT STREET ND 308-318 MIDDLEFIELD; APN 120-02-068, 069, 070, 071 & 081, PALO ALTO, ALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. Applican Signature Date P:\EIA\EIA9527,IS Page Attachment 8 NOTE: The Planning Commission minutes of February 28, 1996 will be distributed in the City Council packet of March 14, 1996. These minutes will also be available for review in the Palo Alto Planning Department, 5th floor, Civic Center, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. Attachment 9 ..-.,! Hawthorne St.. ~_to. CA 94301 Plarming Commission City of Palo Alto 220 Hemilton Ave. Palo Alto. CA 9430! Dear Commission: =, Fe[rugrv 1996 ~egarding the project at 3.21 Byron. 654 and 666 Everett. and 308 Middlefield. I feel that increasing the zoning density from an R-i designation sets a bad precedent for the Do~¢nto~,m North Neigki, orhood. ~llowing construction of six homes where the zoning allows only five clearly isfinancially ad~,~.ntageous for the developer. ~:+~. ...." this "- m --~._If ~:ou favor the d+..-:~l,_,~ ..... ’~,’~.----+~- why shouldn’t home o~,mers in an ~’.-I zonin,~ be allo~;ed to he.re :~.dditional kitchens ea]d living traits within their home-~:? We ¯ "~,",’-~",~ the shortaqe of housing.. " ...... ~ also r~enqnlz, the need t,-, be e:T.litab!e in what is allowed developers vs the home om~ers in our neig~,orhood. If you allow this deve!op~r an exoeption you must p~,~.~u to mJlnw ho~eo%.~iers [ree,:o~ to create ~ore separate !~,~.~ ~ ,’,~ f.--~.,., ,~l nr, separate cottage m~its on.u ....=. within their o~ homes cr ~ -" s~.~,s t.anda rd 1 o t. s. Zleceut!y we have .-=~een developers favored with increased density zoning ex,::eptions ~’it.hin our nei~:?~orh,-_,od and yet .+..he same be.uef~--_, ,.=, bg.:,.’e been denied to home o~.:ers in our area. _Tf you fevjr +]’,o ~J~r~.Jnu~.r i!! this r~.,~m.-=~ we exoect vnu tn allow homeo~,n~ers the same consideration in sit.uatiorlsuLl..! would appreciate your respo:~se to these -- ,-P’, -- =--’- -=- . / February 27, 1996 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator. Planning Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote. I am unable to attend the February" 28 meeting of the Planning Commission where the 321 Byron Street project vdll be discussed. Therefore. I am sending my concerns to you in this letter. Nix famitv and I have lived at 222 Byron Street for over 12 years. Our home is halfa block from the proposed development. We have been concerned for the past few years about the rapid rate of development downtown and how the zoning changes and added traffic have had a negative hnpact on our neighborhood. While relieved that the Byron St. Everett St.:Middlefield Rd. project will not be a high-rise office or apartment building. I am genuinely concerned about vet another zo~g change occurring in the Downtown North neighborhood. From looking through the file on this project and reading the Staff Report. it appears that you are willing to grant the developer an exception to the R-1 zoning requirement that requires that the lots be a minimum of 60 feet in length and have a minimum 6.000 square foot lot area. I~ is hard to tell what these houses will look like without seeing architectural plans but with the proliferation of massive homes built on tiny lots I fear that 6 monster houses max be comin~ soon to my neighborhood. If 5 houses were built instead of 6. and the lots were re-configured, no zoning exception would be necessary. The owner of the soon-to-be demolished houses has let them deteriorate to a state where no one will be sad to see them go (other than the displaced renters.) In a very short period of - time. houses were demolished and the area rezoned on Everett Street to make way for Lytton Gardens. the houses across the sweet from the new Ix-rton Gardens were allowed to deteriorate before they were demolished. More houses will be built there. I~ seems that our neighborhood is being asked to bear the brant of the new model of housing: as many homes as possible squished onto tiny lots. Why allow this neighborhood to change further for the developer’s benefit and the delriment of the people who live here? As to fl~e additional traffic generated bv all of this new development on Everett and Lx-tton. just how many cars do you think these streets can handle? When the Times Tribunmsite is occupied, no doubt the increase in traffic on Everett will be noticeable even to the people who don’t live here. We who live here have seen an appreciable increase in the last 3 .years. This neighborhood has had to absorb the increased traffic generated by Stars and more restrictive downtown parking, and we will in the fi~mre be expected to put up with increased traffic from the oilier Everett Street home development. Please consider the impact all of this development is having on the people who live in this neighborhood.. Please reconsider Scott Ward’s application for a zoning exception. Sincerely, Susan P. Meade 222 Byron Street Palo Alto. CA 94301 323-8353 Lisa Grote Zoning Administrator, Planning Department, .City of Palo Alto, Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 February 28, 1996 Dear Ms. Grote, I am welting to protest the proposed zoning change for the parcel of land on the corner .of Middlefield and Everett. The request for an extra house on this parcel should be denied. Any change in the existing zoning will only be seen as a precedent for developers to make further requests to up the density in our neighborhood. This is not the trend we’d like to see. Sincerely, Julia and Jeff Weber 169 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Libby Vincent 333 Byron Street, Palo Alto, California 94301 Phone: 415/326-6520 11 March 1996 Planning Division Attention: Lisa Grote Civic Center 5th Floor, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote: I live right next door to the proposed development of 321 Byron Street, 654 and 666 Everett Street, and 308 and 318 Middlefield Road. I have lived here since 1973. The property next to me has become so run down over the years that almost any development short of a high rise would be an improvement. However, the planned development is excessive. The Downtown North neighborhood had become increasingly crowded and congested over the years. More and more traffic flows through our streets; more and more parked cars clutter the area. What we don’t need is more and more big houses clogging our blocks creating more urban density and generating even more traffic and parking problems. Look at the plans and see illustrated the contrast between the existing homes--the one I rent at 333 Byron and the house at 328 Middlefield--and the proposed homes. This is an absolute David and Goliath situation--old-time Palo Alto modesty and 1996 Palo Alto overgrowth. I would like to see the property next to where I live developed in an appropriate fashion, but do not support the proposed exceptions to the minimum 6,000 square foot lot area for four of the six parcels. I see absolutely no benefit to anyone from approving the exceptions other than the developers who hope to walk away from the deal with lots of money in their pockets. I can’t think what the dty and the neighborhood get out of it except a headache. Hold the developer to current standards and permit homes to be built that lie within the present constraints of property size: slightly smaller--hopefully single-storyJ homes that are more appropriately tailored to the neighborhood. Let’s keep this community intact and resist the incursions of overdevelopment that are plaguing our city. Sincerely,