The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-10-21 City Council (18)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 7 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: October 21, 1996 CMR:429:96 SUBJECT:2171 ..El Camino Real and 448-456 College Avenue: Application for a tentative subdivision map approval to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert eleven lots into three lots for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility (96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26). REQUEST Council is requested to review the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the tentative subdivision map to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert eleven lots into three lots for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map based on the attached findings (Attachment 1) and subject to the attached modified conditions (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The applicant requests approval of a tentative subdivision map to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert eleven lots into three lots, for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. The requested parcel reconfiguration is a condition of Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 and Architectural Review Board application 96-ARB-64, which have been approved for the construction of a new 6,120- square-foot building (2,994 square feet above ground and a 3,126-square-foot basement), relocation of existing classrooms and reconfiguration of the existing parking lot. The condition requires the applicant to remove or adjust existing lot lines that extend under existing buildings or proposed additions (Attachment 3 - Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63). CMR:429:96 Page 1 of 6 The proposed tentative map satisfies the condition by removing and adjusting existing lot lines to reconfigure eleven parcels into three parcels. Proposed parcel one would contain the existing parking lot. Parcel two would contain the existing church and relocated classroom building. Parcel three would contain a new classroom building as well as existing offices, gift shop and child care facilities. All structures would comply with the floor area and lot coverage limitations for the resulting lots. A variance has been approved by the Zoning Administrator for construction of a basement on lot one, which would extend approximately 14 feet beyond the northern edge of the proposed classroom building but would meet setback requirements; other excavated features that extend 4 feet into the south side setback; and an elevator shaft which extends into the side yard daylight plane (Attachment 4 - Variance 95- V-19). A more detailed description and project history is contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 5). On September 25, 1996, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0-1 (Beecham absent) to recommend that the Council approve the tentative subdivision map (Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Minutes). Their motion directed staff to review condition number 1 and eliminate it if not required. This direction resulted from a statement by the applicant’s representative that condition number 1 is excessive and unnecessary. He specifically objected to the requirement that the applicant submit improvement plans to the City prior to submittal of a final map. Staff has confirmed with the Public Works Department that condition number 1 could be modified to eliminate the requirement for the applicant to submit improvement plans prior to submittal of a final map application. Because of the nature of the required off-site improvements, it was determined that improvement plans could be submitted with the building permit application for the Church improvements. Staff has modified condition number 1 to require the applicant to obtain City approval of improvement plans prior to issuance of a building permit. Since the off-site improvements are required by the Conditional Use Permit and ARB approvals (Attachment 7 - ARB conditions of approval), the applicant will be required to complete construction of off-site improvements prior to final inspection of the church improvements. To avoid any confusion regarding the required off- site improvements, staff has further modified condition 1 to specifically identify the requirements to be addressed in the improvement plans. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the policies and programs contained in the current Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application: CMR:429:96 Page 2 of 6 Transpgrtation Element, Policy 2: "Increase transit ridership." Transportation Element, Policy 6 : "Discourage travel at peak hours." Transportation Element,. Program 22: "Promote the use of car pools, van pools, and bus pools." Transportation Element,..Program 38: "Encourage extensive educational programs for the use of bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles." ) Jrban Design Element. Policy 6a: "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Cambridge Avenue Business District." The proposed tentative subdivision map complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs listed above. As outlined in the Zoning Administrator’s decision on Conditional Use Permit Use 95-UP-63, the project complies with the Transportation Element policies and programs listed above. The church is located close to major bus lines on E1 Camino Real and the California Avenue Caltrain station. The use permit has been conditioned to require the church to develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program, to explain and encourage the use of alternative means of transportation to and fi’om the site. In addition, the project complies with Transportation Policy 6, because the majority of uses on the site occur at off-peak hours and during the weekend. The project also complies with the Urban Design Element, Policy 6a, because it includes the remodeling and reuse of an existing church located on College Avenue, which is a transitional area between the California-Cambridge commercial district and the Evergreen Park single-family residential district to the north. The existing and remodeled church facility contributes to the pedestrian-friendly frontage along College Avenue because the proposed improvements incorporate architectural character that will complement existing buildings and improvements on site and utilizes high quality materials. Additionally, new street trees are proposed to be planted along the College Avenue public sidewalk. DISCUSSION Underlying Lot Lines As described above, many of the existing lot lines extend under existing buildings or proposed additions. The City has an established policy, whereby projects resulting in additional square footage are required to remove any existing lot lines which underlie existing structures. In no case may additions or new buildings be constructed over lot lines. This is required by the Uniform Building Code which prohibits construction over property lines. The requested lot configuration results in existing underlying lot lines being removed or adjusted so that no lot line is crossed by a CMR:429:96 Page 3 of 6 structure. In addition, all existing and proposed improvements would comply with the applicable site development regulations for the proposed parcel configuration, except as allowed by Variance 95-V-19. Access Easements Because the parking lot and driveways within the site cross all three resulting lots, the subdivision will be conditioned to supply cross-access easements to ensure access to required parking spaces. These easements will be shown on the face of the final subdivision map, and will remain in effect as long as the site is used as a religious facility or for other commercial uses. Off-site, long-term parking agreements were also required by Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63, because the parking lot and driveways cross all three proposed lots. Transfer of Ownership Currently, the Ananda Church owns I 0 of the I 1 lots which comprise the subject site. The remaining lot is owned by Nancy Kendall, a private individual. The Subdivision Map Act does not allow for separate ownership of a portion of a lot; therefore, the ownership of resulting lot three must be clarified prior to recordation of the final map. The church and Ms. Kendall have submitted a letter (Attachment 8) stating that ownership of lot 11 is in the process of being transferred to the church. They also state that they are aware that the transfer must be completed before recordation of the final map. The tentative map approval has been conditioned to require that ownership be consistent with the proposed parcel lines upon recordation of the final map. Relationship to Residential Structure Demolition Moratorium The residential structure at 448 College Avenue was constructed in 1904. On September 24, 1996, the City Council considered exceptions to the urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on demolition of pre-1940 residential structures. One of the categories of exemption approved by the Council was projects that have received a discretionary planning approval prior to September 17, 1996, and which subsequently receive a City Council planning approval. The only situation that could meet this exception was 448 College Avenue. Prior to September 17, the project had received variance, use permit and ARB approval. City Council approval of the subdivision map will allow demolition of 448 College to proceed. ALTERNATIVES The City Council can consider the following alternatives: 1.Approve the tentative subdivision map with revised conditions, or CMR:429:96 Page 4 of 6 Deny the tentative subdivision map application, thereby essentially nullifying the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and ARB approvals since they cannot be. accomplished without lot line removal and adjustment. Findings are required to support whatever action is taken on the map. FISCAL IMPACT The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the Ci~’. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration 95-EIA-26 (Attachment 9), prepared for Use Permit 95-UP-63 Variance 95-V-19, and Architectural Review Board application 96-ARB-64, was adopted by the Zoning Administrator on February 26, 1996. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If Council approves the project, the applicant will be required to submit an application for approval of a final subdivision map. The final subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with the tentative subdivision map approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning Division and will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Attachment 2 - Attachment 3 - Attachment 4 - Attachment 5 - Attachment 6 - Attachment 7 - Attachment 8 - Attachment 9 - Attachment 10 Tentative Map Findings Modified Conditions Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 Variance 95-V- 19 Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments) Planning Commission Minutes ARB Conditions of Approval Letter from David Praver and Nancy Kendall Negative Declaration 95-EIA-26 - Location Map (Council Members only) CC:David Praver, 2171 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Nancy J. Kendall, 240 Monroe Drive #678, Mountain View, CA 94040 George Wasley, Geo Planning, 10936 Lovas Ct., Grass Valley, CA 95945 PREPARED BY: Joseph M. Colonna, Senior Planner CMR:429:96 Page 5 of 6 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: FLEMING City Manager CMR:429:96 Page 6 of 6 Attachment 1 - Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, in that the project complies with the Transportation Element Policies 2 and 6 and Programs 22 and 38. The church is located close to major bus lines on E1 Camino Real and the California Avenue Caltrain station. The project has been conditioned to require the church to develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program, to explain and encourage the parish to use alternative means of transportation to and from the site. In addition, the project complies with Transportation Policy 6, because the majority of uses on the site occur at off-peak hours and during the weekend. The project also complies with the Urban Design Element, Policy 6a, because it is a remodel and upgrade of an existing church facility located on College Avenue, which is a transitional area between the California- Cambridge commercial district and the Evergreen Park single-family residential district to the north. The church facility contributes to the pedestrian-friendly frontage along College Avenue because the proposed improvements incorporate architectural character that will compliment existing buildings and improvements on site and utilizes high quality materials. Additionally, new street trees are proposed to be planted along the College Avenue public sidewalk. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed lot configuration accomodates remodeling and upgrade of the existing church and other site modifications which meet the Architectural Review Board Standards for Review and is a required condition of approval for the use permit, variance and ARB permit. The design of the new lot pattern and building additions will not cause significant environmental impacts, in that with the implementation of the Transportation Demand Management Program and maximum congregation size as required by the conditional use permit, the new parking demand will not exceed the existing parking demand on the site, as documented in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. The design of the new lot pattern and the proposed development 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. The design of the new lot pattern will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that all three resulting lots have direct access to a public street, and the required cross-access easements will assure continued access to the parking lot and driveways for the life of the use. Findings: 2171 El Camino Real (96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26)Page 1 Attachment 2 Modified Conditions of Tentative Subdivision Map (Modifications in Italic) PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL MAP The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, 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 issuance ofa building permit. Improvement pIans shall include the following: a) 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 (per ARB condition 19). b) Street trees shall be required in 15-gallon boxes evenly-spaced at minimum 25-foot intervals along the project frontage. Species shall be determined by the City Arborist. All street trees along the property frontage shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner (per ARB condition 23). c) The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations which show that the @site and on-site water and sanitary sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak load. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer (per ARB condition 24). d) The applicant’s engineer shall submit a complete sewer system capacity study to determine that the on-site and off-site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate the sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer (per ARB condition 25). Conditions: 2171 El Carnino Real (96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26)Page 1 e) Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection (per ARB condition 26). f) A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project (per ARB condition 3!). g) All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards (Sec. 12.08.010) (per ARB condition 45). h) The unused driveway shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter (Sec. 12.08. 090) (pe)~ ARB condition 46). I) A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the corner of El Camino Real and College Avenue (per ARB condition 48). PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP The final map shall be filed with the Planning Division within four years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map. Thecurrent ownership pattem of the subject site is not consistent with the resulting parcel configuration. Accordingly, prior to approval of the final map the subdivider must demonstrate to the Planning Division and City Attorney that satisfactory arrangements have been made to transfer property ownership to be consistent with the new parcel configuration. Prior to application for a final map, the subdivider shall submit a declaration of easement, or other document acceptable to the City Attorney, which provides for mutual access to all parking facilities and driveways on the resulting parcels for the term of the proposed use. This document shall be recorded with the final map. This condition shall satisfy condition 4 of Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 and Variance 95-V-19. The required easement shall be shown on the face of the recorded final map. Conditions: 2171 El Camino Real (96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26)Page 2 ,Attachment 3 DepartT~t ofPIanning and Commzmi~/ En-oironment Application No. 95-UP-63:2171 El Camino Real, 448 and 456 College Avenue Pi~ning Division Use Permit 95-UP-63 is hereby issued for the location and construction of a new 6,120 square foot building, two additional parking spaces, relocation of an existing classroom and landscaping and parking lot reconfiguration, as per attached plans, for an existing Religious Facility and Private Educational Facility, at 2171 E1 Camino Real and 448 and 456 College Avenue, R-2 and C-N Zone Districts, Palo Alto, California. Project approval is subject to the conditions listed below. This Use Permit is associated with Variance application No. 95-V-19. CONDITIONS This Use Permit approval shall not be considered in effect until such time as the accompanying Architectural Review Board application is approved. 2.The maximum number of occupants on the site shall never exceed 480 persons. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Compliance to merge parcels 124-31-77 and 124-31-56 (2171 E1 Camino Real and 456 College Avenue, respectively). The three parcels which remain after the merger of the above two parcels shall not be sold or developed separately. There shall be a minimum of 25 vehicle parking spaces on the site associated with the use of the site. The applicant shall execute reciprocal parking and access a~eements such that the uses located at 448 College Avenue, 456 College Avenue, 2137 E1 Camino Real and 2171 E1 Camino Real shall be entitled to use all parking areas and driveways located on these parcels. The applicant shall develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM), which explains and encourages the use of alternative means of transportation to and from the site. The TDM Program may include: car pooling arrangements; information on bus routes and schedules; shuttle services, and incentives for traveling by bicycle. The TDM Program materials shall be readily available to all membership of the Church and a copy shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator prior to finalization of the building permit for the project. 95up63.1g ZS0 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box Palo Alto, CA 9’~q 415.329.2441 415.329.2240 Fax February26, 1996 Page 1 7.The primary uses on the site shall not be in operation simultaneously. o All improvements to the property shall be in compliance with the most current edition of the Uniform Building Code. °This Use Permit does not authorize the kitchen to be used for food programs or restaurant uses at which nonmembers of the Church would be fed. Such programs or services shall require an amendment to this Use Permit and a public hearing held by the Zoning Administrator. 10."Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" signs shall be installed at the exit on College Avenue. 11.Manufacturers specifications for the bicycle racks and lockers shall be reviewed by the Transportation Division. 12.Electric load calculations shall be submitted to the Utilities Engineering Division if electric service upgrades are needed. 13.Landscaping shall be irrigated from the landscape irrigation meter currently being installed as part of a separate minor Architectural Review Board .application. One water budget shall be applied to the total landscaped area on the church property. 14.The new facility at 448 College Avenue shall have an automatic sprinkler system throughout the facility. Plans and a permit shall be required for the underground fire service line and sprinkler installation as well. 15.All applicable requirements listed on the comment sheet completed by the Fire Department on December 14, 1995 and forwarded to the applicant shall be implemented. 16.The applicant shall submit a f’mal 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 pattern to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 17.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the proper13,. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 95up63.1g February26, 1996 Page 2 18. 19. 20. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the City. of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property, in which the City holds an interest. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck 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 truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 21. 22. 23.. 24. 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. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water-table and basement construction issues. 25. 26. 27. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspection at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The developer shall requires its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water 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 95up63.1g February26, 1996 Page 3 construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, ect.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. 28.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 29.Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 30.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the. building permit prior to its finalization. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to the Public Works Inspector’s sign-off. 31.A curb ramp for the disabled shall be required at the comer of E1 Camino Real and College Avenue. LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator February 26, 1996 This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Use Permit have not been complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use Permit. 95up63.1g February 26, 1996 Page 4 A Use Permit which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the expiration of the first year. David Praver and Linda Lock.hart, Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 2171 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Linda Poncini, Carrasco and Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 John Baca, P.O. Box 8527, Stanford, CA 94309-8527 95up63 .Ig February 26, 1996 Page 5 Piannmg DMsion Application No. 95-V-19:2171 E1 Camino Real, 448 and 456 College Avenue Variance 95-V-19 is hereby issued for the location and construction of a basement which extends approximately fourteen feet beyond the northern edge of the building footprint, excavated features which extend four feet into the south side setback and an elevator shaft which extends into the sideyard daylight plane, as per modified plans presented at the February 1, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing, at 2171 E1 Camino Real, 448 and 456 College Avenue, C-N and R-2 Zone Districts, Palo Alto, California. Project approval is subject to the conditions listed below. This Variance is associated with Use Permit No. 95-UP-63. CONDITIONS This Variance approval shall not be considered in effect until such time. as the accompanying Architectural Review Board application is approved. 2.The maximum number of occupants on the site shall never exceed 480 persons. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall apply for a Certificate of Compliance to merge parcels 124-31-77 and 124-31-56 (2171 E1 Camino Real and 456 College Avenue, respectively). The three parcels which remain after the merger of the above two parcels shall not be sold or developed separately. 95v19.1g There shall be a minimum of 25 vehicle parking spaces on the site associated with the use of the site. The applicant shall execute reciprocal parking and access agreements such that the uses located at 448 College Avenue, 456 College Avenue, 2137 E1 Camino Real and 2171 E1 Camino Real shall be entitled to use all parking areas and driveways located on these parcels. The applicant shall develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM), which explains and encourages the use of alternative means of transportation to and from the site. The TDM Program may include: car pooling arrangements; information on bus routes and schedules; shuttle services, and incentives for traveling by bicycle. The TDM Program materials shall be readily available to all membership of the Church and a copy shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator prior to finalization of the building permit for the project. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 415.3-99.2441 415.3-99.2240 Fax February 26, 1996 Page 1 7.The primary uses on the site shall not be in operation simultaneously. All improvements to the property shall be in compliance with the most current edition of the Uniform Building Code. This Variance does not authorize the kitchen to be used for food programs or restaurant uses at which nonmembers of the Church would be fed. Such programs or services shall require an amendment to this Use Permit and a public hearing held by the Zoning Administrator. 10."Exit Only" or "Do Not Enter" signs shall be installed at the exit on College Avenue. 11.Manufacturers specifications for the bicycle racks and lockers shall be reviewed by the Transportation Division. 12.Electric load calculations shall be submitted to the Utilities Engineering Division if electric service upgrades are needed. 13.Landscaping shall be irrigated from the landscape irrigation meter currently being installed as part of a separate minor Architectural Review Board application. One water budget shall be applied to the total landscaped area on the church property. 14.The new facility at 448 College Avenue shall have an automatic sprinkler system throughout the facility. Plans and a permit shall be required for the underground fire service line and sprinkler installation as well. 15.All applicable requirements listed on the comment sheet completed by the Fire Department on December 14, 1995 and forwarded to the applicant shall be implemented. 16.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 pattern to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 17.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 95v19.1g February 26, 1996 Page 2 18. 19. 20. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck 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 truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 21. 22. 23. 24. 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. A portion of the proposed work is within the State of California or County of Santa Clara right-of-way. A permit must be obtained from the applicable agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water-table and basement construction issues. 25. 26. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspection at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 95v19.1g February 26, 1996 Page 3 27. 28. 31. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water 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, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, ect.) Or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Any unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to its finalization. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to the Public Works Inspector’s sign-off. A curb ramp for the disabled shall be required at the comer of E1 Camino Real and College Avenue. LISA GROTE Zoning Administrator February 26, 1996 This Variance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Any Variance is transferable unless otherwise provided at the time of granting. 95v19.1g February 26, 1996 Page 4 In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Variance have not been complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such Variance at leastten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Variance. A Variance which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is fried with him before the expiration of the ftrst year.- David Praver and Linda Lockhart, Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 2171 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Linda Poncini, Carrasco and Associates, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 John Baca, P.O. Box 8527, Stanford, CA 94309-8527 95v19.1g February 26, 1996 Page 5 Attachment 5 PLANNING COMMISSION TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Joseph M. Colonna DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: September 25, 1996 SUBJECT:2171 El Camino Real. 448-456 College Avenue: Application for a tentative subdivision map approval to remove 8 existing lot lines and adjust 1 existing lot line to convert 11 lots into 3 lots for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. File Nos.: 96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the tentative subdivision map based on the attached findings [Attachment 1] and subject to the attached conditions [Attachment 2]. BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION The applicant requests approval of a tentative subdivision map to remove 8 existing lot lines and adjust 1 existing lot line to convert 11 lots into 3 lots, for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. The requested parcel reconfiguration is a condition of Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 and Architectural Review Board (ARB) application 96-ARB-64, which have been approved for the construction of a new 6,120-square-foot building (2,994 square feet above ground and a 3,126-square-foot basement), relocation of existing classrooms and reconfiguration of the existing parking lot. The condition requires the applicant to remove or adjust existing lot lines that extend under existing buildings or proposed additions. The proposed tentative map satisfies the condition by removing and adjusting existing lot lines to reconfigure 11 parcels into 3 parcels. Proposed parcel one would contain the existing parking lot. Parcel two would contain the existing church and relocated classroom building. Parcel three would contain a new classroom building as well as existing offices, gift shop and child care facilities. All structures would comply with the floor area and lot coverage limitations for the resulting lots. A variance has been approved by the Zoning Administrator for construction of a basement on lot one which would extend approximately 14 feet beyond the northern edge of the proposed classroom building but would meet setback requirements, other excavated features that extend 4 feet into the south side setback and an elevator shaft which extends into the side yard daylight plane. Site Description The site is comprised of 11 existing parcels in an urban area of Palo Alto, at the corner of E1 Camino Real and College Avenue. The project site currently contains a religious facility, parking lot and a single-family residence. The site is surrounded by commercial and retail uses to the west and east, a major arterial and commercial and retail uses to the south and multiple- and single-family residential uses to the north. Project. Information Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor parcel numbers, Comprehensive Plan designation, zone districts, existing land use, and parcel sizes is shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant:David Praver Ananda Church of Self-Realization 2171 E1 Camino Real Palo Alto CA 94306 Owners:David Praver Ananda Church of Self-Realization 2171 E1 Camino Real Palo Alto CA 94306 Nancy J. Kendall (lot 15) 240 Monroe Drive #678 Mountain View CA 94040 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:124-31-055,056, 058,077 & 078 Comprehensive Plan Designation:Single-family Residential & Neighborhood Commercial P?d~CSRk2171ECR.925 9-25-96 Page 2 Zone District: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Uses: Two-family Residence District (R-2) & Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Religious Institution, Parking and Residential North: Residential South: Major Arterial Road/Retail East: Retail West: Retail Proposed Parcel Size: Dates: Lot 1: Lot 2: Lot 3: 5,529 square feet 21,016 square feet 17,679 square feet Application received: 7/12/96 Application complete: 8/12/96 Mandatory action deadline: 1/12/97 Project History_ On December 4, 1995 the Ananda Church of Self-Realization submitted a conditional use permit application (95-UP-63) to allow the location and construction of a new 6,120- square-foot building (2,994 square feet above ground and a 3, i26-square-foot basement), two additional parking spaces, relocation of an existing classroom and landscaping and parking lot reconfiguration of an existing religious facility. The project required a variance (95-V-19) for the following exceptions: 1) a basement which extends approximately 14 feet beyond the northern edge of the building footprint where no extension beyond the footprint is ordinarily allowed, and 2) excavated features which extend more than two feet into the south side setback where a two-foot encroachment into a side setback is ordinarily the maximum allowed [Attachment 4]. On February 26, 1996, the Zoning Administrator approved the use permit and variance, subject to conditions. One of the conditions requires the applicant to reconfigure the existing lotting pattern and remove existing property lines, some of which extend under existing buildings and areas of addition. The parcel reconfiguration is required before issuance of building permits to construct additions. P:kPCSRk2 | 7 ! ECR. 925 9-25 -96 Page 3 On December 1, 1995, staff approved ARB application 95-ARB-199 for landscape modifications. On July 5, 1996, the ARB approved application 96-ARB-64 for the additions and site modifications approved by Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project must be determined to be consistent with the policies and programs contained in the current Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs apply to this application: 1. Transportation Element, Policy 2: "Increase transit ridership." 2. Transportation Elelment. Policy 6 : "Discourage travel at peak hours." 3.Transportation Element. Program 22: "Promote the use of car pools, van pools, and bus pools." 4.Transportation Element. Program 38: "Encourage extensive educational programs for the use of bicycles, mopeds, and motorcycles." 5.Urban Design Element. Policy 6a: "Maintain the.existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Cambridge Avenue Business District." The proposed tentative subdivision map complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies and programs listed above. As outlined in the Zoning Administrator’s decision on Conditional Use Permit Use 95-UP-63, the project complies with the Transportation Element policies and programs listed above. The church is located close to major bus lines on E1 Camino Real and the California Avenue Caltrain station. The use permit has been conditioned to require the church to develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, to explain and encourage the use of alternative means of transportation to and from the site. In addition, the project complies with Transportation Policy 6, because the majority of uses on the site occur at off-peak hours and during the weekend. P:WCSRk2171ECR.925 9-25-96 Page 4 The project also complies with the Urban Design Element, Policy 6a, because it includes the remodeling and re-use of an existing church located on College Avenue, which is a transitional area between the California-Cambridge commercial district and the Evergreen Park single-family residential district to the north. The existing and remodeled church facility contributes to the pedestrian-friendly frontage along College Avenue because the proposed improvements incorporate architectural character that will compliment existing buildings and improvements on site and utilizes high quality materials. Additionally, new street trees are proposed to be planted along the College Avenue public sidewalk. DISCUSSION Issues and Analysis Underlying Lot Lines As described above, many of the existing lot lines extend under existing buildings or proposed additions. The City has an established policy, whereby projects resulting in additional square footage are required to remove any existing lot lines which underlie existing structures. In no case may additions or new buildings be constructed over lot lines. This is required by the Uniform Building Code which prohibits construction over property lines. The requested lot configuration results in existing underlying lot lines being removed or adjusted so that no lot line is crossed by a structure. In addition, all existing and proposed improvements would comply with the applicable site development regulations for the proposed parcel configuration, except as allowed by Variance 95-V- 19. Access Easements Because the parking lot and driveways within the site cross all three resulting lots, the subdivision will be conditioned to supply cross-access easements to ensure access to required parking spaces. These easements will be shown on the face of the t-real subdivision map, and will remain in effect as long as the site is used as a religious facility or for other commercial uses. Off-site, long-term parking agreements were also required by Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 because the parking lot and driveways cross all three proposed lots. P:WCSRk2171ECR.925 9-25-96 Page 5 Transfer of Ownership Currently, the Ananda Church owns 10 of the 11 lots which comprise the subject site. The remaining lot is owned by Nancy Kendall, a private individual. The Subdivision Map Act does not allow for separate ownership of a portion of a lot, therefore the ownership of resulting lot three must be clarified prior to recordation of the final map. The church and Ms. Kendall have submitted a letter [Attachment 6] stating that ownership of lot 11 is in the process of being transferred to the church. They also state that they are aware that the transfer must be completed before recordation of the final map. The tentative map approval has been conditioned to require that ownership be consistent with the proposed parcel lines upon recordation of the final map. Public Participation Notification of this public hearing as well as the public hearings held by the Zoning Administrator and ARB was sent to property owners and utility users within 300 feet of the subject site. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission can recommend one of the following alternatives: 1. Approve the tentative subdivision map; 2.Deny the tentative subdivision map application, thereby essentially nullifying the Conditional Use Permit, Variance and ARB approvals since they cannot be accomplished without lot line removal and adjustment; or 3. Approve the map with attached conditions. Findings are required to support whatever action is taken on the map. FISCAL IMPACT The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. P:WCSRk2171ECR.92.5 9-25-96 Page 6 EN~rlRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration 95-EIA-26 [Attachment 5], prepared for Use Permit 95-UP-63 Variance 95-V-19, and ARB application 96-ARB-64, was adopted by the Zoning Administrator on February 26, 1996. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL The Planning Commission’s recommendation on the tentative map application will be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. If Council approves the project, the applicant will be required to submit an application for approval of a final subdivision map. The final subdivision map will be reviewed for compliance with the tentative subdivision map approval by the PuNic Works Department and the Planning Division and will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment 1 - Findings Attachmem 2 - Conditions Attachment 3 - Conditional Use Permit 95-UP-63 Attachment 4 - Variance 95-V-19 Attachment 5 - Negative Declaration 95-EIA-26 Attachment 6 - Letter from David Praver and Nancy Kendall Attachment 7 - Location Map Tentative Map [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES: David Praver, 2171 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306 Nancy J. Kendall, 240 Monroe Drive #678, Mountain View CA 94040 Prepared by:Joseph M. Colonna Division/Department Head Approval: Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:WCSRX2171ECR.925 9-25-96 Page 7 Attachment 6 Excerpt Minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission September 25, 1996 PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA ITEM 4 217I EL CAMINO REAL (ANANDA CHURCH): Application for a tentative subdivision map approval to remove eight existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert 11 lots into three lots for the purpose of constructing additions to an existing religious facility. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 96-SUB-2, 95-EIA-26. Chairp,erson Cassel: This item has already been heard by other groups. Joe Colonna will give us a summary, of where we are currently on this item. Mr. Colonna: The subdivision map that is before you tonight was submitted by the applicant in response to conditions of approval on a use permit application, a variance and an ARB application to construct a new building and some other additions and site modifications for an existing church. The zoning administrator approved the use permit and variance on February 26, 1996. The ARB approved the design of the proposed site improvements on July 5, 1996. The approved ARB plans, the site plan and the elevations of the new building are on the wall next to the map for content. In order to construct the new building, the applicant has proposed demolishing the existing single-family house located at 448 College Avenue. This is a pre-1940 house and would otherwise be subject to the provisions of the current moratorium, however, last night, the council did approve some exceptions to the moratorium. This house was included. Because it was a pipeline project, it did receive prior discretionary approvals from the zoning administrator and the ARB. It only requires an additional discretionary approval by the City Council, and it is exempt from the current moratorium. The staff recommendation on the project is for approval with conditions as listed in the staff report. The most notable condition is the requirement for the applicant to clarify the ownership of the resulting parcels prior to recordation of the final map: Also a condition requiring a recordation of cross-access easements to ensure access to the required parking spaces and driveways which cross all three resulting parcels. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any questions of staff?. Commissioner Ojakian: My first question is, in terms of required parking for this site, what would normally be required, and how many spaces exist there now? A:\PC3\21 71 ECR.Min Page 1 10-25-96 Mr. Colonna: Let me look that up in the environment assessment. Commissioner Ojakian: The existing spaces, I think, are 25. Mr. Colonna: Yes, the existing number is 25. It is stated in the negative declaration that the current parking requirement, based on the maximum occupant load for the sanctuary, would be 120 parking spaces. Commissioner Ojakian: So we are somewhere around 95 spaces short. Mr. Colonna: Yes, and as part of this project, the applicant is going to add two additional spaces. The zoning administrator, in approving the conditional use permit, will require the applicant to make sure that the use of this site does not exceed the parking requirement, and will also require TDM ty. pe measures in education for the parishioners to make sure that they use alternate modes of transportation, and not to exceed that. Commissioner Ojakian: My second question is, thinking about some prior issues that we had that involved churches and projects that they have planned, the conditional use permit is not in front of us tonight. Is that correct? Ms. Cauble: Yes, and I am glad that you asked that question. It is certainly appropriate for the commission to ask questions to try and understand the project. That is the reason why Joe posted the project plans with the map. Vic is absolutely correct. The use permit and variance were already approved by the zoning administrator, and the decision to approve them was not appealed. So what is before you is essentially an action to take 11 existing lots, consolidating them into three lots that are more consistent with the proposed activity on the site, and then to evaluate that according to the standards in the subdivision map act. Commissioner Ojakian: So we do not have a lot of latitude in terms of the types of conditions we could impose. Ms. Cauble: That is correct. What you would need to do would be to look at the proposed findings to get a sense of what kinds of conditions might be appropriate. If you look at Attachment # 1 of your staff report, those are the proposed findings that the planning staff has prepared. They address what is required in the map act to either approve or deny a map. Basically, a consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies physically suitable for the development, that the new lotting pattern will not cause severe environment impacts, the design will not result in any serious health problems, and it will not conflict with public easements, a, gain realizing that the project before you is not a church2 The church already exists. It is not even the new building or tearing down the house. It is a matter of reconfiguring the lots. Planning staff might want to add to that. A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 2 10-25-96 Chairperson Cassel: Does anyone from the church wish to speak? George Wasley, Jr. 10936 Lovis Court, Grass Valley: Good evening. I am a land use consultant in Grass Valley. I was retained basically to satisfy Condition #3 of the approved use permit which was to merge these lots with a Certificate of Compliance, the fact being, however, that the reason why you have a resubdivision before you this evening is that a Certificate of Compliance can only handle three parcels. It can only be done if there are only three parcels in question. What we have up here are 11 parcels that were created by the Evergreen Park Subdivision back in the early 1900s. Therefore, we came through with a resubdivision. After reviewing the staff report, we are certainly in agreement with three of the conditions that Joe Colonna and staff have recommended. However, I do feel that Condition #1 of Attachment #2 should be eliminated. It states: "The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, 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 final map." It has already been mentioned within the approved use permit under Condition #30. It is taken care of there, and is just a redundant condition, and should not be conditioned on this particular application. That completes my comments. Chairperson Cassel: My understanding is that we are only here to look at the subdivision map. Our attorney will make some comments on this. I do not believe we have that latitude. Mr. Wasley: I am asking that Condition #1 be eliminated. The reason for that is that in the original use permit application, this has been taken into consideration with Condition #30 of Attachment #2, "The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to its finalization. All off-site improvement shall be finished prior to the Public Works Inspector’s sign-off." Commissioner Schink: May I ask a question of staff?. While we have the public hearing open, what is staff’s opinion about this? On the face of it, his request seems reasonable to me. Does staff have a problem with this? Mr. Colonna: Condition #1 is a standard condition, basically just requiring the applicant to arrange a meeting with the various city departments to ensure that we are all coordinated. I would actually think it is a benefit to the applicant to do this. This is more of an advisory condition, and it is to the benefit of the applicant to meet with all of the city departments before applying for the final map. We can get them all coordinated. We can sit down at one table, and actually having a condition in writing when they call the various departments and try to get them together motivates people to do that in the other departments. I think it is a A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 3 10-25-96 little bit different from what you read in Condition #30, which is also a standard condition that there be sign-off of off-site improvements by the Public Works Department. That needs to be done regardless of whether there is such a condition in the use permit or not. Commissioner Schink: This requirement says, "...prior to submitting improvement plans." Are the improvement plans so significant that they necessitate a meeting? Mr. Colonna: I don’t think they are extensive improvement plans, but it always best to coordinate before they apply. Ms. Lytle: This coordination will apply for purposes of the final map. Improvements will not be the issue, but it will help them through the final map process. The standard condition language is redundant to Condition #30 where the improvements have already been discussed and need a meeting. This will help coordinate the staff with the applicant in terms of the final map process. Mr. Wasley: To continue, I fred that I am still in disagreement with staff’s comments here. There are other conditions within the use permit which, as we go through the complete list of conditions, spell out certain improvements that have to be done, such as widenings, sidewalks, several things that were a portion of the approved use permit. Condition #30 basically states that all of those items have to be completed prior to approval. Item #1 basically is stating and asking for those improvement plans to be done to meet a condition that is being asked for within the use permit by providing a map that merges the lots. All we are doing with this application is, in fact, merging the lots as asked for in the conditional use permit under Item #3. Chairperson Cassel: What you are saying is that you want these lots to be able to be combined, whether or not the Public Works inspector signs off on the building permit. In other words, you are saying that they are irrelevant items. Mr. Waslev: No, not at all. I am saying they are handled under the original use permit application, and they should not be subject to the final map. Chairperson Cassel: You could not negotiate these things ahead of time before tonight? Mr. Wasley: I am sorry, but I received the staff report in today’s mail. Chairperson Cassel: Could the city attorney please comment on thiS? Ms. Cauble: I believe I understand where the applicant’s representative is coming from, and yet, as I understand this condition, it is not an effort to impose additional improvement requirements. Under the map act, procedurally, before we go from Point A, being the A:\PC3\21 71 ECR.Min Page 4 10-25-96 tentative map which the council may approve with your recommendation, to Point B and a final map, there are statutory things that the city engineer (the Public Works Department), needs to do. They need to go through a checklist. Were there any public improvements required? They would say no. Is there anything else that is outstanding? Does the map look like a map is supposed to look? As Joe indicated, it facilitates that happening if there is a meeting of all hands. As Joe indicated, sometimes we have difficulty with getting five departments to come together at the table, one department in particular, which I shall not name. If there is a condition, an applicant and Joe can say, the applicant has to meet this condition to make sure the maps look right, the plans look right, let’s go. I don’t know if there is a way to modify, this. I understand why he is raising the question, but I do not see this as adding any additional improvement obligation. There is a requirement for everyone to sit down and check the boxes, and hopefully, staff will facilitate that as quickly as they can. Commissioner .Schink: After hearing that explanation, it seems to me that the reading of this is simply that you have to drive up from Grass Valley again and meet with all of these departments. Is that your objection? Mr. Wasley: No, that would be a pleasure. We have no problem with meeting with the folks on site. It is further down in that paragraph that gives us concern. "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." That is a financial hardship for this type of project. We are meeting a condition of the use permit. We have no problem with the first portion of this. We will meet with anyone they would like us to meet with. Providing improvement plans is what they are asking for within the use permit, saying that they will approve under Condition #30. Commissioner...Schink: This says "...reflecting the required off-site improvements..." If there are no off-site improvements, then I don’t see where you have to do a plan. Mr. Wasley: Under the use permit, they list several off-site improvements.. So that is my concern. Chairperson Casse!: Your concern is that the off-site improvements that you are required to do should not be required to be done before the final map is done? You are being required to make some off-site improvements in the use permit. Mr. Wasley: No, my concern is that the use permit application which was done earlier this year was conditioned with 30 some odd conditions to provide the owners of Ananda Church to do to get their use permit. One of those conditions was Item #3 under that use permit, which was to prepare and merge these lots. We are merging these lots at thig time with the resubdivision, and do not feel that this same condition should be on this condition which was already a condition of the use permit. It is already provided. The safety to the city is there. A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 5 10-25-96 We just feel that it is a financial hardship at this time with this ty. pe of project. Commissioner Schink: Can the applicant explain to me what are the off-site improvements that are required that we are trying to avoid here? We are just try, ing to avoid having you draw up civil plans at this time. I cannot find them. It says, "All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired or removed and replaced." Mr. Waslev: Those are all outside of the property lines. Those would be off-site improvements. It would also be any off-site improvements that the different departments that we would be meeting with might require at that time. Mr. Colonna: I think I can clarify, this a bit. The meeting with the other departments is not to decide what additional off-site improvements would be required. We would have to make them a condition of this map. It is not a brainstorming session on how much more can we get the applicant to devote to the city. It is actually to implement the conditions that are already placed by the ARB, the use permit, the variance, and now the map to tie them all together. So we will not be requiring the applicant to do any more than is already in the conditions, if that helps. Commissioner Schink: But I think he has raised a good point. Would you normally require civil drawings, which show elevations all around the site, sidewalks, etc. For true improvement plans, we are talking about lots of money here. Ms. L_vtle: Yes, for drainage in Palo Alto, you almost always have to do that. When you go to replace sidewalks and curbs and gutters, you do not drain if you do not have civil plans that indicate that you will. So the answer is yes, they do require it. Commissioner Schink: Is there some way we can provide relief?. It seems to me that they have sort of stumbled into them when they were just going to get a certificate of compliance to remove property lines. Ms. Lvtle: I don’t believe anything additional is being required of them. I think what the applicant is hoping is that by modifying Condition #1 of the map, they are going to get out of doing something, but they won’t. There is no difference between having that condition there and what they are going to have to do and not having it there. It is just for clarification, informing them that they need to get these departments together and show their improvement plans, move on to the final map stage, and hear how to do that so that they do not get lost and bandied about between different folks. Coordination is a challenge. We have our utilities here, as well, making it an additional challenge. Chairperson Cassel: It puts everything together in one package. A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 6 10-25-96 Ms. Lvtle: That is correct. Chairperson Cassel: They are not going to add anything in addition to what is alreadyin the conditions from the AR~ at this point. Ms. Lvtle: No. Ms. Cauble: The one thing I would say is that there cannot be any additional discretionary off-site improvement conditions. Tonight is the last night. This is the last discretionary action when this goes on to the City Council. The only thing I would caution, and I do not know the details of this particular one, but since we are not only a land use approval entity, but also a utility, sometimes in trying to provide service to a new building, you might need to upgrade a line to get in the electricity or the gas. You can understand that that is not a discretionary condition. Utilities have their standards, and you need to meet the standards. That may not have been worked out. Applicants have not always had those full discussions with Utilities at this point. So there could be changes in that, another good reason for a meeting so that you are not surprised. Commissioner Schink: Then does the map act require that full civil improvement plans be drawn before you can do the map? Ms. Cauble: That is difficult for me to answer. Certainly to the extent that off-site improvements are required, as a condition of a map you need to have your improvement plans prepared prior to going to council with the final map. I think this is an unusual situation, and actually, because we have the improvement conditions, the project was split off and you already have the improvement conditions in another document. My concern with untying the improvement plans to the map would be that until somebody goes out and does their survey, I don’t know. Sometimes, sidewalks end up in places where they are not supposed to be. So unlinking those would be a concern to me, but I cannot point you to a map act section that says you have to do it. The map act says, before you get your final map to the extent that the subdivision requires public improvements, you must have built them or bonded for them. You cannot do either of those without improvement plans. Chairperson Cassel: It sounds like this would be difficult to answer in detail tonight. If he is not ready to have us accept the conditions that are here, maybe he wants us to wait until another session to have a chance to negotiate that and clari~, it. It appears to involve a lot of details. Commissioner Schink: In approving this, could we recommend that staff investigate whether that is, in fact, needed so that by the time he gets to the City Council, you can say that we looked at it and there really are not any outside improvements, so he does not need to do any drawings? A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 7 10-25-96 Mr. Waslev: We would be happy with that. Chairperson Cassel: Are there any other questions? Commissioner Ojakian: Could I ask one quick question here? I know this will sound like a little bit of a tangent, but from some prior discussions that we have had and some of the CPAC recommendations that came out, would this particular project go to just the Planning Commission and end here if what we talked about earlier this year with a case were in place? Ms. Lytle: That is correct. Chairperson Cassel: Can we have a motion on this item? Jon, you wanted to allow these points of concern that the applicant has to be negotiated prior to the City Council hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Schink: I would move the staff recommendation, with the additional request that staff investigate the extent of the public improvements and whether those necessarily require full civil improvement drawings as indicated by Condition #1 prior to the City Council meeting. If no such drawings are required, staff has the option of making the recommendation to council that that condition be dropped. SECOND: By Commissioner Schmidt. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote of 6-0. with Commissioner Beecham absent. A:\PC3\2171 ECR.Min Page 8 10-25-96 Attachment 7 ARB Conditions of Approval 448 College Avenue Action time limit: (105 days after project deemed complete) Optional extension upon applicant’s request: (90 days after action date) 9/13/96 12/12196 CONDITIONS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT Utilities Electric The Permittee 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 @ (800) 642-2444, at legst 48 hours prior to beginning work. Public Works Operations All public trees shall be retained and protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shal! apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04-070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Arborist. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10- foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area undei" the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until fin!l inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #50~). No No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. Co The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Page 9 Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary" to ensure surviva!. Two new street trees, Platanus and species to match the existing along E1 Camino Real, 15-gallon size shall be planted along E1 Camino Real and shown on a revised landscape plan submitted to Planning staff. All new street trees are required to be 15-gallon size, irrigation installed to the tree, and planted according to the City’s standard tree specifications. A certified arborist shall be retained by the applicant to prepare and submit tree protection plans. The plans shal! identify the trees to be protected and include measures for their protection during 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 demolition, grading, or building permit issuance. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT Utilities Electric 4.Only one electric service lateral is. Regulation # 19-G(2). permitted per parcel.Utilities Rule & Planning/Zoning The applicant shall apply to the Planning Division for a subdivision map to merge all the parcels. The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. .. Final detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included on: 1) the City of Palo Alto Landscape ...Plan ..Checklist;-and 2) the Water- Conservation Guidelines. The plan shall include: ao All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. go Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. Irrigation schedule and plan. Fence locations. fo go Lighting plan with photometric data. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. An arborist statement shall be submitted to the Planning Division which provides tree protection measures foi the Deodar cedar if the tree can be saved. No Two additional Crepe myrtles, 24-inch box size, shall be planted to replace. the existing Monterey pine, adjacent to the northern property line. This tree can be removed and a 2:1 replacement value is required with two Crepe myrtles to match the other trees proposed for planting near the northern property line. All new trees are r.equired to be irrigated. o Details of an opaque screen trash enclosure are to be submitted to and approved by the ARB. The project shall include a recycling area or enclosure which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC).-Sec.16.48.120a (12), Sec. 16.48.120(c). Public Works Engineering °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. 10.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will !1. 12. take place in the month following the final approva! of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. Perrnittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. 13. 14. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which theCity holds an interest. PAMC, Sec. 12.12.010. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck 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 truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Transportation 15.Accessible parking is required to meet all ADA standards. 16.Bicycle parking shall be provided based on at least the number of on-site vehicle parking spaces provided (10%), or at least three bike spaces of which they must be either Class I or II spaces as per Section 18.83.080 of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. The bicycle parking location shall be shown on the site plan and type of parking facility noted and submitted to the Transportation Division and Planning Staff for review and approva!. Utilities Electric 17.AI! utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. A:~rb\448~oll.sr P~g~ 12 Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 18.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., iand sewer in G.P.D.). 19.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. 20.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT Planning/Zoning 21.The applicant shall apply for a subdivision with the Planning Division in order to combine all the parcels into one. 22.Color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be attached to the cover sheet, of the building permit drawing set by the Project Planner. Public Works Operations 23.Street trees shall be required in 15-gallon boxes spaced at minimum 25-foot intervals along project frontage. Species shall be determined by the City Arborist. Newly planted street trees shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner. (See Public Works Department’s Standard Specification ). Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 24.The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow Calculations which show that the off-site and on-site water and sanitary sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak load. Field testing may be required to determine A:karb\448coll.~r Page 13 25. 26. current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant’s engineer shall submit a complete sewer system capacity study to determine that the on-site and off-site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate the sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 27. 28. 29. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. The existing water meter is in conflict with the proposed driveway. The water meter must be relocated to either side of the driveway by installing new service and abandoning the existing service at the main. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 30.An approved Single Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply .with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17: Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. 31.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. DURING CONSTRUCTION AAarb\448coll.sr Page 14 Building Inspection 32.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces 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. Police 33.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. Public Works Engineering 34.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. I2.08.060. 35.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 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) 37.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. AAarb\448col[.sr Page 15 Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 38. 39. 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. 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. 40.The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities Engineering Department the manufacturer’s literature on the materials to be used. 4!.The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. -- 42.All customer piping shall be inspected and approved .by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed three working days after the building piping final inspection. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 to 45 days foliowing receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility constructiot~ performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION Planning/Zoning 44.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 45.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced 46. in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. The unused driveway shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. 12.08.090. Sec. A:L~rb\448coll.~r Page 16 47.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. 48.A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at the corner of E1 Camino Real and College Avenue. AFTER CONSTRUCTION Police 49.All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 50.The customer shall give the City written notice of an?, 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. ATTACHMENTS A.Use Permit (#96-UP-63) Conditions B.Variance (#96-V-19) Conditions C.Mitigated Negative Declaration Plans (ARB members only) COURTESY COPIES: Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates, Architect, 120 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 David Praver, 2171 E! Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 2171 E1 Camino Rea!, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared By: Manager Review: Lorraine Weiss, Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator A:~’b\448coll.~r Page 17 ~~A Attachment 8 ELF-REALIZATION 2171 E1 Camino Real ¯Palo Alto, CA 94306 ¯ (415) 462-8151 August 19, 1996 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 RECEIVED Department of F~.~ning an: Community Environmer:- Dear Joe, We are in the process of transferring ownership of the property located at 448 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 to the Ananda Church of Self-Realization of Palo Alto. We are aware that the transfer must be completed before the process of merging the lots can be finalized. Sincerely, David Praver Director, Ananda Church of of Palo Alto Owner, 448 College Attachment 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator (415) 329-2561 4. Project Location:2171 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94304 5. Application Number(s):95-UP-63; 95-V-19; 95-EIA-26 6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:David Praver or Linda Lockhart 2171 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94304 7. General Plan Designation:Neighborhood Commercial & Multiple Family Residential 8. Zoning:C-N and R-2 9. Description of the Project: Application for a Use permit to allow the location and construction of a new 6,1 20 square foot building, two additional parking spaces, relocation of an existing classroom and landscaping and parking lot reconfiguration on the existing sites. Classrooms will occupy 2,994 square feet on two floors above grade and a dining hall will occupy 3,126 P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 1 EO040!I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM square feet in a below-grade basement in the new building. Two Variance applications accompany the Use Permit application: 1) A basement which extends approximately fourteen feet beyond the northern edge of the building footprint where no extension beyond the footprint is ordinarily allowed, and 2) excavated features which extend more than two feet into the south side setback where a two foot intrusion into a side setback is ordinarily the maximum allowed. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by commercial and retail uses to the west and east, a major arterial and commercial and retail uses to the south and multiple-family and a some single-family residential units to the north. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). 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" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise X Aesthetics Cultural Resources R~creation Mandatory Findings of Significance None P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [515/95].-Page 2 Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). 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 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. g. the project falls outside a fault r#pture zone). A "No P:\EIA\EIA.MST [5/5/95]Page 3 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\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcas Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable envirorrmental 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)? 1,8 6 1 6 X X el Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 6 X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 6 X projections? b/ induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 6 X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable 6 X housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?3 X b) Seismic ground shaking?3 X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?3 X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?3 X e) Landslides or mudflows?3 X f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 3 X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g} Subsidence of the land?3 X h) Expansive soils?3 X I) Unique geologic o.r physical features?3 X P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ILess Than | NoSignificantI Impact Impact a)6 X b)10 X c)6 X d) e) f) WATER. Would the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 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? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body or wetland? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? Change inthe 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? 6 6 6 X X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?6 X h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of 6 X reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 6 X otherwise available for public water supplies? j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 2,5,X exiting or projected air quality violation?12 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2,5,X 12 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 2,5,X any change in climate?12 P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact ICreate objectionable odors?2,5, 12 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) d) e) f) g/ 7. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 11 6,11 7,13 4,6,8 6 6 6 X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in: 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? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 2 2 2 2 2 X X X X X X X X X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?2 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 6 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 2 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant pact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous 6,13 X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan 13 X or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health 5 X hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 2 X health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,2 X grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?5,8 X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?5,8 X 1 1. 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?13 X b) Police protection?7 X c) Schools?6 X d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 6 X storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?6 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) Power or natural gas?2 X b) Communications systems?2 X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 5 X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks?5 X e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?6 X P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact f) Solid waste disposal?5 X g) Local or regional water supplies?2 X 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a! Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?6 X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?6 X c! Create light or glare?5 X 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?2 X b) Disturb archaeological resources?2 X c) Affect historical resources?2 X d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which 2 X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 2 X potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 6 X or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?6 X X 6. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 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 P:\EIA\ANANI~A.EIA [5/5/95]Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant pact Impact 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 X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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 © (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 Ca!. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980-1985 2 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Summary Memorandum, August 1994 3 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, Augus~ 1994 4 Applicant’s letter of application 5 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions .- P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 6 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and project site 7 Palo Alto Police Department 8 Palo alto Municipal code, Title 18 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Report, August 1994 10 FEMA Flood insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348 O005D, Map Revised September 6, 1989 11 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, March 1990 12 ’Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 13 Palo Alto Fire Department 19.EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 6.d I TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (PARKING)I I The existing church site has 25 on-site vehicle parking spaces. The current parking requirement based on the maximum occupant load of the main sanctuary is 120 parking spaces. The existing church has operated for forty years with an on-site parking deficiency. The current proposal would add two parking spaces to the existing 25 spaces for a total of 27 vehicle parking spaces. The applicant has agreed to accept Conditional Use Permit conditions which would limil~ the maximum number of congregation members to the maximum occupant load of the existing sanctuary. The parking demand would therefore never exceed the existing parking demand on the site. Further, the applicant has agreed to accept Use Permit conditions that prohibit the major facilities on the site from being used simultaneously. There will, therefore never be more users on the site than that allowed by the maximum capacity of the main sanctuary. The applicant has also agreed to accept Use Permit conditions that prohibit the individual sale of any of the five parcels that create the overall church site to insure that the on-site pa~king will always be available for use by the church. With the implementation of these Use Permit conditions, the parking demand once the modifications are completed will not exceed the current parking demand on the site. No further mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: None Required P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 11 10.NOISE Construction activities related to the proposed addition, building relocation and parking area reconfiguration will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, t.he construction 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 construction activities to specific hours of operation. Mitigation Measures: None Required P:\EIA\ANANDA.EIA [5/5/95]Page 12 PF o Attachment 10 RM-50 PF Project: 2171 El Camino Real Tentative subdivision map approval to remove existing lot lines and adjust one existing lot line to convert 11 !ots into l~hree lots for the purpose of constructing addi- tions to an existing religious facility PF Stanford University LM CORNELL o Date: #: September 25, 1996 96-SUB-2; 95-EIA-26 ale: 1 inch = 400 FT North