Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 222-07
TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MAY 7, 2007 CMR: 222:07 4249 EL CAMINO REAL [06PLN-00267]: REQUEST BY JUNIPER HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION FOR A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AND A REMAINDER LOT; AND APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. ZONE DISTRICT: R-l, RM-15. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Tentative Map to create two single family residential parcels and a remainder lot, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) and approve a Negative Declaration (Attachment B). COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION At the public hearing held on January 31, 2007, the PTC voted (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Holman absent) to accept staff’s recommendation. The PTC recommended that staff include in the Conditions of Approval a condition that would require a new public sidewalk in front of the adjacent parcel to the southeast. The Conditions of Approval are contained within Section 6 of the Summary of Land Use Action document (Attachment A). Prior to the PTC meeting, staff received no written comments from the public. In 2005, the applicant originally requested a Tentative Map to create a five lot subdivision along Wilkie Way on the Elk’s Lodge site. During the application review process, the property owner restricted the applicant to a three lot subdivision, due to a lease agreement between the Elk’s Lodge and The Early Learning Institute (ELI), which was operating in the southeast comer of the site, in the area of the proposed subdivision. ELI wanted to remain in operation at the Elk’s Lodge until a new school site was found. The applicant revised the application and requested a Parcel Map to create three single-family lots. The parcel map process is used for minor subdivisions that create four or fewer lots. The parcel map was approved in October 2006. The CMR: 222:07 Page 1 of 3 three-lot subdivision did not affect the school buildings, and has been designed to be in compliance with all codes and regulations governing minor subdivisions. The City has approved a Conditional Use Permit for ELI to relocate on a site on West Bayshore Road. The property owner has permitted the applicant to proceed with the remaining two lot subdivision, which would result in the five-lot configuration that was originally intended for the site. Although the applicant’s request is for only two lots, the Subdivision Map Act requires that any further division of the original parcel may only be accomplished through the Tentative Map and Final Map processes. The PTC discussed the issue of multiple map applications to subdivide the existing Elk’s Lodge site. The PTC was concerned that the project would not be required to comply with the Below Market Rate (BMR) program, due to the apparent phasing or piecemealing of the Elk’s Lodge site. Although the request for the proposed two-lot subdivision has followed a recently approved parcel map for a three lot subdivision, staff does not consider the projects to be piecemealed due to the unique site constraints related to the lease between ELI and the Elk’s Lodge. The two-lot subdivision would nit be subject to the BMR program, in that the BMR program applies to subdivisions of five or more lots. Staff and the project applicant have agreed that the previously approved three-lot subdivision would contribute to the City’s BMR program. Staff and the applicant have accepted a BMR agreement that includes a fifteen percent BMR requirement based upon the fair market value of the finished lots. Because the BMR requirements results in less than a full lot being required (3 times 15% equals 45%) the payment of in-lieu fees instead of a buildable parcel or lot is allowable. The BMR agreement is contained in Attachment E The PTC staff report and meeting minutes for this hearing have been provided as Attachments B and C. Prior to the PTC meeting, staff received a letter from Roger Kohler regarding the design of the homes to be constructed and the need for a sidewalk at the adjacent parcel to the southwest. RESOURCE IMPACT There is no direct impact on City resources associated with the action recommended in this staff report. POLICY IMPLICATIONS No changes in the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance are required for this project. The tentative map complies with the City’s policies set out in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance Municipal Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The Environmental Assessment found that the impacts produced by the project, including the development of the single-family homes, would have less than significant impacts on the environment. The Negative Declaration is contained in Attachment B. During the architectural review process for the construction of the two homes, standard conditions of CMR: 222:07 Page 2 of 3 approval would be applied to the project that would further minimize any impacts on the environment. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STEVEN TURNER Director of Planning and Comjx~,unity Environment EMILY ~~SON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS No B. C. D. E. F. Record of Land Use Action Negative Declaration Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 31, 2007 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Below Market Rate Agreement Letter with Attachments Tentative Map (Council Members Only) COURTESY COPIES Ric Denman, Juniper Homes Jim Baer, Premier Properties CMR: 222:07 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A APPROVAL NO. 2007- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 4249 EL CAMINO REAL:’ TENTATIVE MAP 06PLN-00267 (JUNIPER HOMES, APPLICANT) At its meeting on May 7, 2007, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide two parcels (approx. 7.59 acres total) and create two single-family lots, plus a remainder lot, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I.Backqround.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (~City Council" finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. Proposed by Juniper Homes on behalf of the Palo Alto Elk’s Lodge, this project involves the subdivision of the existing Elk’s Lodge site (approx. 7.59 acres total) creating two single- family lots with a reminder lot. Lot 1 would be 8,316 square feet and Lot 2 would be 8,338 square feet. The remainder lot would be approximately 7 acres. Each single-family lot would be developed in the future to contain one dwelling unit per lot. This density complies with the permitted density on the newly created lots that would be allowed in the R-I and RM-15 districts. B. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). C. In 2005, the applicant originally requested a Tentative Map to create a five lot subdivision along Wilkie Way on the Elk’s Lodge site. During the application review process, the property owner restricted the applicant to a three lot subdivision with a remainder lot, due to a lease agreement for an existing use in the vicinity of the subdivision. The applicant revised the application and requested a Parcel Map to create three single- family lots with a fourth remainder lot. The subdivision did not affect the existing use, and was designed to be in compliance with all codes and regulations governing minor subdivisions. The Parcel Map process is used for minor subdivisions that create four or fewer lots. The Parcel Map was approved in October 2006. D. The property owner has permitted the applicant to proceed with the remaining two lot subdivision, which would result in the five-lot configuration that was originally intended for the site. Although the applicant’s request is for only two single- family lots and a remainder lot, the Subdivision Map Act requires that any further division of the original parcel may only be accomplished through the Tentative Map and Final Map processes. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.The .California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. The project is not exempt from CEQA because the subdivision would create two lots on a site that was previously subdiv±ded, and thus a Tentative Map and Final Map are required. Tentative Map projects are not exempt from CEQA. An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The assessment was available for a 20-day review period between January ii, 2007 and January 30, 2006. SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residential. The proposed development of single-family parcels would be consistent with Single Family land use area. Only a small portion of the lots are designated as Multiple-Family. The larger remainder parcel is designated Multiple-Family and is expected to be developed with multiple-family homes in the future. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Policy L-I - Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2)Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities; (3) Policy L-12 - Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures; (4) Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that favor pedestrians. The lots to be created would support the development of slngle-family residential structures, which is consistent with the neighborhood development pattern. The subdivision would incorporate many the healthy public and private trees, and provide continuous sidewalks along Wilkie Way. The single-family structures would act as a buffer between the existing residential neighborhood and the future redevelopment of the Elk’s Lodge site. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The site can accommodate the proposed subdivislon of single-family lots. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of the R-I and RM-15 districts. The design of the single-family units would be reviewed via the Architectural Review process. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of the R-I and RM-15 districts and would not affect the location of the existing property lines at he perimeter of the site. The location of the property lines.between the single-family lots and the larger remainder lot were designed to accommodate and protect significant groves of regulated trees. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently developed with accessory uses and facilities of the permitted fraternal organization on the site. The subdivision would be developed to promote the protection of the existing trees on the site. The residences that would be developed on the site would not cause substantial environmental damage to an existing waterway or wildlife habitat area, in that the subdivision is located approximately 250 feet from Adobe Creek. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: 3 The subdivision of the existing parcel will not cause serious public health problems, as it does not substantially affect the existing conditions and overall function of the property as a site for single-family housing. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with the emergency vehicle access easement along the northern property line and any utility easements that would be required to serve the subdivision and the larger reminder lot. SECTION 4.Approval of Tentative Map. Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code (~PAMC") Sections 21.13 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record. SECTION 5.Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Sandis Civil Engineers titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one page, dated and received January 25, 2007 except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) . 4 SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Envirornnent Planning Division i. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Preliminary Parcel Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAMC 21.13.020[c]) . 2. The applicant shall continue and construct a public sidewalk adjacent to the subdivision along Wilkie Way to the southeast. The new sidewalk shall meet all Public Works standard construction specifications. Public Works Department 3. Since this project will create i0,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, it will be subject to updated storm water regulations (C.3) . The regulations require inclusion of storm water treatment controls sized in accordance with numeric standards, source control measures that prevent pollutants from contacting storm water runoff, and site design measures that reduce storm runoff and isolate contaminated runoff in order to minimize the need for storm water treatment. In addition, the regulations require a signed agreement with the City for the long-term maintenance of installed storm water treatment measures, subject to verification by the City. The applicant shall meet with Public Works Engineering staff to discuss the implications of the regulations on the project along with other grading and drainage issues. 4. The applicant will be required to construct public improvements as part of this development. The nature and scope of the required public improvements will be determined through a meeting with City departments prior to improvement plan submittal. Resurfacing the width of the project frontage streets and new curb, gutter, and sidewalk are typical standard requirements. 5. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. 6. No grading or building permits shall be issued until the Final Map is recorded with the County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder. 7. 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. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. 8. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department.~ Sec. 12.08.060 9. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the Non" and "off" site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Department of Utilities- Water, Gas, Wastewater i0. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection. Neither public nor private water, gas, and sewer lines can not cross the new property lines to provide service across one lot for the other. ii. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 12. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 14. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located below the next upstream sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans. 15. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 16. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 17. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the off-site sanitary sewer mains will provide the wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow. The applicant may be required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer mains to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. Thereafter, no Final Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[d]) . PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Sandis Civil Engineers, Inc titled ~Tentative Map", consisting of one page, dated and received January 25, 2007 8 ATTACHMENT B ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto o 4. 5. 6. o Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor Name and Address: Property Owner: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Two-lot subdivision with a remainder lot City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Steven Turner, Senior Planner, (650) 329-2155 4249 El Camino Real 06PLN-00267 Juniper Homes, Ric Denman 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240, Redwood City, CA 94065 Palo Alto Elk’s Lodge Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential R-1 (Single Family Residential District), RM-15 (Multi Family Residential District) 10.Project Description: The project consists of a Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.6-acre parcel into two single- family parcels, plus a remainder parcel. The lots would be accessed Via Wilkie Way. Normally, a subdivision involving three parcel would not require a Tentative Map and would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that a project involving a subdivision of four or fewer is a Categorical Exemption under CEQA (Section 15315). However, as the existing parcel was involved in a land division in 2006 to create three single-family lots, the current project is not considered an exempt project and an initial study is required. Furthermore, the subsequent division of the parcel is.subject to the Tentative Map process. The applicant has submitted an application for architectural review of three single- family homes to be constructed on the three adjacent single family lots, created by athe Parcel Map in 2006. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Palo Alto Elk’s Lodge property is bordered by Wilkie Way and an existing single-family residential neighborhood to the east, single-family residential properties to the north, multi-family residential and a hotel to the south, and commercial uses along E1 Camino Real to the west. Other public agencies whose approval is required: No other public agency review is required. Date Prepared: January 11, 2007 14. Public Review Period: January 11 to January 30, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Aesthetics X Agriculture Resources Air Quality X X XXBiological Resources X Cultural Resources X X Geology/Soils X Hazards & Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation X Transp0rtation/Traffic X Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation, 1 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ! find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ElRor NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Pro~ ~ D,~e~tor q~Plan~n/g and Communit-y Environment Date Da{e ! X EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expo.se 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)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 5) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) b) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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 Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checldist 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. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9)The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance 3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Souvces Potentially Significant lssues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X X I1.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) b) c) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X Ill. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1,14 1,14 1,14 1,14 X X X X 4 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 14 X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)X b) c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-I) 1,2 (N-l) 1,2 (Nq) X X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) ¯ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1, 2 X an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-7) b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of 1, 2 X an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5?(L-8) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1, 2 resource or site or unique geologic feature?X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1,2 (L-8) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, includingliquefaction? 2 (N- 5), 15 2 (N-5, N-IO) 2 (N-5, N-8, N- 10) X X X iv) Landslides?2 (N-5) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ’X c) d) Belocated on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 1 2 (N-5) 6 2 (N- 5), 6 1,6 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? e) X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No ¯ Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) e) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Sonl’ces 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 (N-7) 1,2 (N-7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact a) b) c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2, 11 1, 2 (N-2) 1, 6,8 X X No Impact X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. Sources Potentially Significant Unless 1,6, 8 Potentially Significant Issues Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact X X f) Otherwise substantially degrade wate.r quality?1, 11 X g)1, 2 X 1,2 (N-6) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? h) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2 (N-6, N-S) 1,2 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X X No Impact X X X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1, 2 X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1, 2 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Issues and Supporting Information Sources B Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SOL1 Fees 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 Less Than Significant Impact X X X X NO Impact X X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would 1 X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 XInduce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 9 1 1,2 1,2 2 Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X No Impact XIV. RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 1,2 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) b) c) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1,2 (T- 7, T-8), 10 1,2, 10 1, 10 X X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e:g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Sources 1,3, 10 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially ¯ Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X e) Result in inadequate emergency access?2, 9 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2, 10 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1, 2, 10 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 2, 11 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, 2, 11 X e) ~) e) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 14 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 X X X X X 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of. the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have 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 past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X SOURCEREFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of project, review of project plans dated December 2006. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Arborist Report & Tree Inventory, prepared by Arbor Resources, September 2005 Soil and Foundation Investigation for 4249 El Camino Real, May 30, 2006 City of Paio Alto Planning Arborist’s comments. City of Palo Alto Public Works Department comments City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments City of Palo Alto Utility Department comments Paio Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List dated December, 1994 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ATTACHMENTS: A.Site Location Map 12 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics a) The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not identify the project site as a scenic resource and the site is not located within any maj or identified view shed. Therefore, the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista. b)There are no scenic resources or historic buildings located on the project site. The nearest scenic highway to the site is Interstate 280, which is approximately three miles to the west of the site. Although interstate 280 is a scenic highway in San Mateo County, there would be no impacts to this scenic resource. The project would not involve construction of any buildings. The site would be developed for single-family housing at some time in the future. These structures would be limited to a maximum height of 30-feet, which would not result in significant scenic impacts. c)The project consists of the removal of the existing private school and accessory buildings on the site. Vegetation, including shrubs .and trees and including non-protected or unhealthy oaks or redwoods, may be removed for construction of private improvements. Single-family residences would be constructed on each home site. Although these changes would change the appearance of the property as viewed from Wilkie Way, the changes are not expected to result in significant impacts.. As a condition of the architectural review for the single-family homes, the mature protected and designated trees on the project site would be protected and retained during construction of the single family homes.. The site would be developed for single-family housing. The applicant has submitted an application for approval of three single-family homes on the lots created by the Parcel Map in 2006. Architectural Review Board review would be required for each of the five homes to be constructed. This review process, which would include design review of massing, scale, and neighborhood context, would result in new structures that are compatible with the neighborhood. d)Although the site would be developed as single-family housing, which would result in new indirect lighting from the homes when occupied, the level of new lighting would be less than a significant impact. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required 11. Agriculture Resources For all issues." The project site is located in a developed residential area zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District and RM- 15 Multiple Family Residence District. The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide hnportance area and is not designated as a Williamson Act Property. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No impact None required 13 Ill. Air Quality a-c)The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The project would involve demolition, excavating, grading, and paving activities which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PMI0). Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but mitigable with the application of standard dust control measures. Construction equipment would also emit NO× and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NOx and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant. Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation/Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. d)Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by air quality problems. The proposed project will be located in a developed residential area. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the project, mitigation measures for the construction impacts would be included as conditions of the architectural review of each of the homes. The addition of this condition would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. e)The project consists of a five-lot single-family housing subdivision, which is not anticipated to create objectionable odors. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than significant with architectural review conditions of approval None IV. Biological Resources a-d) The project site is located in an established residential urban setting. The project site is located approximately 250 from Adobe Creek, which, in the project area, is a channelized, flowing creek. The project and construction of the single-family homes would not impact the creek, in that the project site is in an established residential area and on a site that currently contains a educational use with structures, hardscape and landscaping. Drainage from the project site would be designed to minimize runoff and maximize infiltration. There would be no changes to the creek banks or habitat along the creek. These factors would result in a less than significant impact to any possible riparian habitat at Adobe Creek. e)The project site contains species of trees regulated by local ordinance, referred to as ’protected trees’, including Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Coast Redwood (Sequoiasempervirens). The arborist report prepared in September 2005 by Arbor Resources has identified trees and shrubs of varying size and health within the area proposed for the five single family structures. The report has concluded that the preservation of the significant protected trees could be accomplished through the standard tree 14 protection practices. Up to seven coast redwoods have been identified for removal. These trees are either too small to be considered as protected trees based upon the definition of protected trees in the Tree Technical Manual or are considered unhealthy and should be removed. Other non protected trees have also been identified for removal, due to the proposed location of the single family dwellings. The tree preservation ordinance~ Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 contains regulations for properties containing protected trees. Construction of single-family dwellings on the three approved lots and the two proposed lots along Wilkie Way would be affected by the presence of protected trees that will be preserved. The project applicant has provided information that indicates where the single-family dwellings would be constructed on each lot in a manner that would comply with the requirements of Chapter 8.10. Each house that is to be constructed would be required to comply with the tree protection measures as outlined in PAMC 8.10 and the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. The Planning Division Arborist has recommended approval of the project with specific mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would ensure that future property owners in the subdivision are aware of the building constraints due to protected trees to be preserved. The Planning Arborist has identified trees other than the coast redwood and coast live oak that should be protected. The applicant has adjusted the development plans to accommodate these designated trees. The Planning Arborist has also conditioned the project to add "mitigation trees" for certain oaks and redwoods that are not protected trees, but should be replaced in that these trees are healthy and viable specimens. The conditions would ensure that the required replacement trees would be included in the improvement plans for the project sites. Based upon the project plans the Planning Arborist’s conditions of architectural review approval, the project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than significant with architectural review conditions of approval None V. Cultural Resources a-d)The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential, exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR included in its mitigations that areas of moderate sensitivity shall be "subject to surface survey and/or subsurface probing if (a) the area is unimproved land, (b) the project will entail excavation more than 5 feet below the existing grade on improved land, or (c) mass grading is anticipated for large commercial, transportation, or utility projects." The architectural review conditions of approval would include specific standard conditions that would require the developer to perform tests and evaluations for archeological materials prior to issuance of a building permit: If such materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional I5 testing and produce a Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction to define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. The applicant would also be required to inform project personnel about the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and be appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. These conditions of architectural review approval would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. Residual Impact: Less than significantwith architectural review conditions of approval Mitigation Measures: None Vl. Geology and Soils a, c-d) The entire state of Califoruia is in a seismically active area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as being in an area that is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, the proposed is not in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landsliding. Soils and/or geotechnical reports may be required in conjunction with the Building Permit application for the project. All new construction will be required to comply with to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or seismic impacts are expected. A soils and foundation investigation was conducted on this site by ENGEO Incorporated in May, 2006 Subsurface borings were taken at various points on the project site. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the site for existing soils conditions and the appropriateness of the site for single-family development. Potential for liquefaction was low due to the depth of the of potentially liquefiable soils and the thickness of non-liquefiable materials above those materials. The report also analyzed for the possibility of other seismic events such as ground rupture, ground shaking, lurching, densification, lateral spreading, expansive soils, load induced settlement, existing fills, fill thickness, and flooding. The report concluded that the site is suitable for the propose development provided the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the design considerations, project plans and specifications. Buildings constructed on the site shall be appropriately reinforced as recommended by a structural engineer in accordance with the most current UBC. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the report should be required as a condition of approval of the subdivision. b)Permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Grading activity associated with this project would be associated with the new single-family residential structures and installation of utility systems. A final grading and drainage plan for the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. e) The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.. 16 Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a-c)The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. d)The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. e-f)The project site is located approximately threemiles to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport. The additional public activity associated with the intensified use of the site is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. g) The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. h) The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No lmpact None VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a,c-f) Construction of the proposed building and related site improvements will result in a small decrease or a negligible increase in the amount of impervious surface area on the site, in that the site currently contains an educational use and a fraternal organization with structures, hardscape, and landscaping. Each single-family parcel would be allowed lot coverage of 35% for a two-story house. According the soils report analysis, the site is not expected to have adequate permeability to handle storm water infiltration. Standard conditions of architectural review approval would require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is also required to be submitted in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. Additional soils testing would be conducted to confirm the adequacy of the site to accommodate storm water runoff, and BMPs shall be in place for the grading plan that will be appropriate for the types of soils to accommodate as much storm water runoff as possible. b)The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater supplies. g-i)The project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. j) The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 17 Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None IX. Land Use and Planning a-c)The proposed two-lot subdivision will not cause a significant conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation or the R-1 Single-Family Residential or the RM-15 Multiple Family Residential district zoning on the site. The boundary between the five single-family lots lots would be approximately 70 feet from the Wilkie Way property line. Because the single-family lots would have split zoning, the Planning Division is allowing the use of a "blended" floor area ratio that would result in additional floor area for each residential structure than if the sites were only zoned R-1. This additional floor area would not result in a significant impact. The proposed density of five units per acre complies with the Single Family land use designation, which establishes a range of one to seven units per acre. Each parcel would meet the minimum requirements for lot area, width and length. Each lot contains protected and designated tree species. Coast Live Oaks and Coast Redwoods are protected species per Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 8.10 and special construction consideration is required when development is proposed in the vicinity of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The tree protection requirements will limit the development location of specific structures on those lots and would restrict future property owner’s ability to further develop the property. Specific tree protection measures and construction techniques will be required as conditions of approval. The building permits will show the required tree protection and indicate any special construction details to ensure tree protection during construction activities and after the construction project is complete. The proposed lot pattern would be consistent with other single family lot pattern along the west side of Wilkie Way and would not physically divide an established community. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required X. Mineral Resources a-b)The project Site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral resources are expected. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No Impact None required XI. Noise a-d)The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 60 Lan. This noise level is typical for single-family residential districts.. Construction activities will result in. temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. The project must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with 18 construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with theNoise Ordinance would result in impacts are expected to be less than significant. Long-term noise associated with the single-family residential use is expected to be less than significant. e-f)The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required XII. Population and Housing a-c).The project would result in the creation of two single-family residential lots. Combined with the existing three lot subdivision approved in 2006, the total number of single-family lots along Wilkie Way would be five lots. The five single-family units would bring approximately 14 new residents to the area (2.7 persons per unit x 5 units). Although the project would indirectly cause an increase of residents to the area (through the approval of the subdivision and construction units), the increase would not be substantial. The project would therefore not induce a substantial population growth in the area and would result in a less than significant impact to population and housing. The project would be subject to the policies and regulations of the Below Market Rate Housing program, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measure: Less than Significant None required XIII. Public Services a)Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. Parks No significant direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. Other Public Facilities I9 None Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required XIV. Recreation a,b) Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project could generate 14 additional persons, resulting in a demand of 0.03 acres 0fparkland. This increase in parkland is not a considerable amount and is a less than significant impact. The project would not be subject to the Parkland Dedication ordinance, in that the Tentative Map requested is for two lots plus a remainder lot. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance exempts projects that create less than five tots. The existing three single-family lots were approved in 2006 prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Les than Significant None required XV.Transportation/Traffic a,b) The proposed project would nor result in a significant traffic impact. A trip generation analysis by the Transportation Division estimates that the a total combined five lot project would produce approximately 50 trips per day. This is not sufficient to increase the level of traffic congestion at surrounding intersections or require a Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis. No traffic impacts are expected as a result of this project. c) The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d,e)The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. f) The subsequent construction of single-family residential units as a result of the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity for the area. Each single family home would be required to include two off-street parking spaces setback at least 20 feet from the front property line. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measure: Less than Significant None required XV1. Utilities and Service Systems c) The Utilities Department of the City of Palo Alto, including Electrical and Water Gas Wastewater Divisions has reviewed the project and has determined that standard conditions of approval would be required to improve utility system along Wilkie Way and upgrade services for each single-family 2O residence. Costs of these improvements would be paid by the developer of the sing-family homes. Property design and construction of the utility system will result in less than significant impacts. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required 21 Attachment C PLANNING AND TRANSPOR TA TION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Senior Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: January 31, 2007 4249 El Camino Real [06PLN-00267 Application by Juniper Homes for a Tentative Map to create a two-lot single-family subdivision with a remainder lot. Zone District: Single-Family Residential and Multiple-Family Residential (R-l, RM-15). Environmental Assessment: a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend approval of the proposed Tentative Map to create two single-family residential lots and a remainder lot, based upon the findings and conditions contained within the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background information related to the project’s details and history has been included within the Record of Land Use Action. The Tentative Map drawings are in general conformance with the requirements set forth in Chapter 18 (Zoning) and Chapter 21 (Subdivisions) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Various code requirements have also been incorporated into the draft conditions of approval for this application. The only action required of the Planning and Transportation Commission is a recommendation on the Tentative Map. The site design and architecture of the single-family homes will be subject to Architectural Review and decision by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: The application requested is a two-lot single-family subdivision with a remainder lot. Each lot would be approximately 8,300 square feet. The remainder lot, at approximately seven acres, will contain the lands associated with the Elk’s Lodge. In 2005, the applicant originally requested a Tentative Map to create a five lot subdivision along Wilkie Way on the Elk’s Lodge site. During the application review process, the property owner restricted the applicant to a three lot subdivision, due to a lease agreement between the Elk’s Lodge and a private school operating in the southeast comer of the site. The applicant revised the application and requested a Parcel Map City of Pale Alto Page 1 to create three single-family lots. The Parcel map process is used for minor subdivisions that create four or fewer lots. The Parcel Map was approvedin October 2006. The three-lot subdivision does not affect the school buildings, and has been designed to be in compliance with all codes and regulations governing minor subdivisions. The property owner has permitted the applicant to proceed with the remaining two lot subdivision, which would result in the five-lot configuration that was originally intended for the site. Although the applicant’s request is for only two lots, the Subdivision Map Act requires that any further division of the original parcel may only be accomplished through the Tentative Map and Final Map processes. Staff and City departments have determined that the two-lot Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances. The scope of the Commission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed siabdivision. In this context, the terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows: "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; (2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6) traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. (Government Code, section 66418) (a) "Improvement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed, by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways, ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers.to any other specific improvements or types of improvements, the installation of which, either by the subdivider, by public agencies, by private utilities, by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. (Government Code, section 66419) The design and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the design of the proposed structures to be located within the Subdivision, which will be reviewed pursuant to the City’s ARB process. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Tentative Map plan set includes information on the existing parcels and onsite conditions The drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). TIMELINE: Action: Revised Application Received: Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete: P&TC Meeting on Tentative Map: Action by Council on Tentative Map: Date: December 5, 2006 January 11, 2007 January 31, 2007 February 20, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. The project is not exempt from CEQA because the subdivision would create two lots on a site that was previously subdivided, and thus a Tentative Map and Final Map are required. Tentative Map projects are not exempt from CEQA. An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The assessment was available for a 20-day review period between January 11, 2007 and January 30, 2007. The E,nvironmental Assessment found that the impacts produced by the project, including the development of the single-family homes, would have less than significant impacts on the environment. These impacts are described in the assessment is contained in Attachment B. During the architectural review process, standard conditions of approval would be applied to the project that would minimize any impacts on the environment. ATTACHMENTS: A.Record of Land Use Action B.Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Negative Declaration C.Tentative Map Plan Set (Commission Members Only) Prepared by: Steven Turner, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Plarming Department/Division Head Approval: Curtis Williams, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto Page 3 ATTACHMENT D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission January 31, 2007 Verbatim Minutes EXCERPT 4249 El Camino Real* [Wilkie Wav Homes]: Application for a Tentative Map to create a two- lot single-family subdivision with a remainder lot. Zone District: Single-Family Residential and Multiple-Family Residential (R-l, RM-15). Environmental Assessment: a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for punic review and comment. City File: 06PLN-00267. Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Yes, thanks Vice-Chair Lippert. The project in front of you today is a Tentative Map for a two-lot subdivision plus a remainder lot. Typically two-lot subdivisions are not heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission in that they are typically considered a minor subdivision and would go through the Preliminary Parcel Map and Parcel Map process. However, this subdivision is coming to you today in that last year a three- lot subdivision went through a Parcel Map process was approved and the Subdivision Map Act states that any subsequent division of the land would require a Tentative Map process. So that is the process we have followed for this even though it is only for two lots and a remainder lot. The two lots that are being created are consistent with the site development regulations creating lots in the R-1 District in that it meets the minimum width and minimum depth and minimum area. Staff has also produced an Environmental Assessment and a Negative Declaration and we have found that essentially the project would have a less than significant effect on the environment. There are some typical standard conditions that would apply during the Design Review process for the homes and those would be included as typical conditions. Essentially Staff found that the project would have a less than significant effect on the environment. The applicant is here and can make a brief presentation but that concludes the Staff Report. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, before we go to the presentation do any Commissioners have any questions for Staff?. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Just one question. The remainder lot that is a lot that is just not being developed at this point? Is that what that means by a remainder lot? Mr. Turner: That is right. That is not considered as part of this subdivision. Commissioner Sandas: But by subdividing that remainder lot is still a developable lot at some point? Mr. Turner: Yet it is. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: I believe I submitted a question by email but had the wrong number on it because of the mix up between one and two. I am wondering if you want to respond to that or if you would like me to repeat the question. Mr. Turner: If you could please repeat the question. Commissioner Keller: Sure. I understand that the original subdivision of three lots and then two lots basically consists of about 42,000 square feet that have been removed from the lot, which according to my calculations is .96 of an acre. In the newspaper it was reported recently that the applicant is planning to subdivide the remainder lot further into four lots, four acres for that remainder for the Elk’s. So the question is I am going to ask a further question later about this but what I am wondering in this part is to what extent is this piecemeal division of the property something that we should be considering? To what extent does the requirements for for example parkland under the Quimby Act and requirements for BMR units, which are based in part on lot size, to what extent does this incremental division change the result of what the applicant would have to do with respect to that lot the four acre, approximately, piece of land that is being subdivided further because of this incremental division? Mr. Turner: Well, you will hear specifically from the applicant during their presentation the reasons why they had to proceed with the three-lot subdivision first and then follow up with the two-lot subdivision. So I will leave the details to the applicant in their presentation. Essentially we are looking at each subdivision individually and separately2 If we kind of go to the larger remainder lot that would be created that would be when it comes back in for a subdivision it will be looked at in conjunction and compared with our standard policies and programs and regulations that require BMR units or an in lieu housing fee or Quimby Act parkland dedication fee or actual parkland. So it will be looked at on its own with its own merits and compared against our regulations. All of those regulations would apply to that. We are also doing this for the three-lot subdivision and the two-lot subdivision as well. They are considered minor subdivisions. However, Staff is proceeding with this subdivision in front of us as a minor subdivision. There are impact fees and BMR in lieu payment fees that would be required for the three-lot subdivision and we are looking at it for the two-lot subdivision as well. So in summary, all of the regulations apply to each part of the subdivision that is going through. So it is not that we are ignoring rules or regulations for that. Commissioner Keller: Well, what I am concerned about is that without knowing the exact square footage of the four acre piece that doing this incremental subdivision may bring it below the threshold for 20 percent BMR as opposed to 15 percent BMR and therefore I am concerned about that. Vice-Chair Lippert: Why don’t we let the applicant address that in their presentation? Mr. Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Just one correction. It is not by acreage it is by unit. Both the Quimby Act fees and the BMR requirement are by unit not by acreage or developed square footage. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Just a follow up to Commissioner Keller’s question because it will put it in context for me while we are listening to the applicant’s presentation. As you have taken the two-lot subdivision tonight and sort of looked at in the context of the other three lots as one project, and that is the only reason we are looking at it tonight is because it is part of five lots, right? So therefore we would need to look at. Would you also do the same thing with the remainder lot when that gets developed, would we look at that in the context of the five that already been developed? Mr. Turner: No you really wouldn’t you would just look at it on its own merits. Vice-Chair Lippert: Any other questions? Mr. Curtis Williams, Assistant Director: IfI can just add, this isn’t a mystery. We know pretty much what is being planned for the rest of the parcel. It has been in the newspaper recently, etc., etc. So we are looking at a residential subdivision on sort of the central part of the property and the Elk’s Lodge rebuild at the front part of the property. That is the plan at least at this point. So we will have a big chunk there and we are working them on sizing parkland to meet the Quimby Act and BMR units to meet the BMR requirements. So all that is addressed it is just that these five lots being five single family lots somewhat different to be compatible with the Wilkie Way homes are being treated separately but they are all subject still to the same regulations at this time. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: If it is my understanding, and Mr. Larkin you can correct me, we don’t have much latitude or discretion here with the approval of a proposed Tentative Map. Basically it is our job tonight to approve the Tentative Map come hell or high water. Is that right? Mr. Larkin: For the most part that is correct. Actually Steven has done a really good job of outlining exactly what the scope of review is on page two of his Staff Report. It is review the design and improvements but when we talk about design and improvements as I have said before we are talking about not the structures themselves but the lines on the map and the improvements meaning the public improvements that would be made in conjunction with the division of the property. That is what the scope is limited to at this point. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, I am going to invite the applicant to make a 15-minute presentation. While they are getting ready to do that if there are any members of the public that wish to speak to this item please fill out a card and give it to the Secretary. If you wouldn’t mind stating your name for the record. Mr. Ric Denmon, Juniper Homes: Good evening. I appreciate the time tonight. For a little bit of background, I can understand some of the confusion about what is going on and how we got Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 to where we are. Going back almost a year or so the Elk’s at the time having their eight-acre parcel going from E1 Camino to Wilkie. Their focus was they were looking to try to A) maintain that buffer of single family to single family along Wilkie. That is how we got involved, we being Juniper Homes, and then the balance of the property the seven acres plus or minus at that time the Elk’s weren’t even sure what they were going to do with it and how they were going to do it. They had a consulting firm that was helping them with planning. When we got involved we mentioned to them that the only thing they could really sell on a near-term basis was a piece of the property, three of the five lots, that was unencumbered by either A) a lease, or B) a building. So those five lots that are.along Wilkie, the thing that we are focused on, and we are not involved by the way with the balance of the property. We are not the applicant for the four acres or whatever else the Elk’s are looking to do with their facility. Our only interest, our only focus is the five lots, beyond that I am a civilian, I know probably less than you do. So I just want to make the point that we are not the applicant for anything other than these two lots tonight and the three lots that we already went through the process and already closed. Getting back to how this thing got kind of fragmented the three lots were the only thing that the Elk’s could in a timely fashion sell because again it was not encumbered by either a building or a lease. That is what we focused on and went through the approval process. The remaining two lots that .we are here to talk about are in fact encumbered by the Early Learning Center buildings and lease and it became apparent that that was going to have to go through a different subdivision process than what we went through on the initial three lots, which is fine with us also. So again the point that I want to make is that we are only involved in five lots. The reason we got through this disjointed process was partially because of the needs of the Elks as far what they are looking to achieve and partially because of the encumbrances with the building and the lease for the ELI property would not have allowed the transaction of the remaining two lots to occur until after this final map process unfolds. I hope that gives you some clarity as to what we are doing and how we are doing it. I think as Steven and Curtis were saying whatever the rules are we are going to do. It wasn’t a function of trying to circumvent something as much as it was trying to come up with a process that would try to help the Elk’s with what they were trying to do with quite frankly what we were doing which is again five lots, single family to single family, and that is how we got to this process that we are talking about tonight. Beyond that in regards to all the conditions of approval that the Staff is recommending to you we are in complete agreement with. If you have any questions relative to the technical side of it the civil engineer is here. If you have any questions relative to the balance of the property particularly the four acres that Mr. Keller was talking about Jim Baer who is working with Summerhill might be able to address those kinds of questions. But again from our perspective, Juniper, we are only involved as it relates to tonight’s meeting on these two lots and we have nothing to do with the balance. I appreciate your time and as I said we are in complete agreement with all the recommendations that are in front of you tonight. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. I am sorry I didn’t take all my 15 minutes but you probably have other things you want to do. Vice-Chair Lippert: We appreciate the brevity of your presentation. Do any of the Commissioners have questions for the applicant or for Staff?. Commissioner Keller. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Could you clarify the issue for me about the BMR units? I am not exactly sure what the threshold is for 15 percent versus 20 percent. I tried to find it on the City website and I couldn’t figure out exactly what the rule is. Mr. Turner: For this project and how we applied it for the three-lot subdivision it was going through as a subdivision without improvements going through. There is a requirement for an in lieu fee that would be equal to 7.5 percent of the finished value of the land, that is the land that has been developed in terms of having its utilities and is ready for development. So essentially that is a requirement that would be applied for the three-lot subdivision and we would be looking at that as a guide for the two-lot subdivision. However, the rules I think are explained in the BMR portion of the Comprehensive Plan, I believe it is H-36 for that. So essentially it would be an in lieu fee payment. Commissioner Keller: So the idea here is that by subdividing these lots in this maimer what happens is the developer pays for the five lots incrementally, if you will, 7.5 percent of the finished value of the land, which I assume means not including the house on it, is that correct? When developing a larger residential property RM-30 or whatever they provide 15 or 20 percent of the units in BMR. So there are no BMR units for single-family residential units? I am not familiar with the details of BMR units and how single-family residences work so help me out here. Mr. Turner: There is a choice to provide either units on the site if that is feasible and if it is not feasible to provide units on the site then an in lieu fee payment can be provided and there are specific regulations on how that in lieu fee is to be calculated. So essentially with this project we are looking at a three-unit, tonight we are looking at a two-unit subdivision, we looked at a three- unit subdivision during the parcel map processes. Those are minor subdivisions those technically aren’t subject to the BMR requirement however we have come up with an agreement where the developer will pay the 7.5 percent of the finished value of the land as part of a in lieu payment. Whatever regulations are in place we want to follow those for the rest of the subdivision and those would also be in place for the larger subdivision. Vice-Chair Lippert: Are there other Commissioners that have questions? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: So let’s take the hypothetical situation that if it hadn’t been for this timing issue that the developer had asked for the subdivision of all five units at the same time what would the BMR requirement have been for that five unit plus a remainder lot subdivision? Mr. Turner: Most likely it would still be an in lieu fee rather than providing a unit but it would be an in lieu fee based upon the developed property with a house, with the development that is on there. Commissioner Keller: So I take it that by incrementally developing instead of providing basically 15 percent of five houses, which I guess is the value of three-quarters of the sale price of a house, the applicant is instead paying half of the value of an unfinished lot. Is that correct? Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: I think there a couple thresholds we deal with. One is that you don’t have to provide onsite units until you reach ten units. Then the other threshold you mentioned is 20 percent, which is over five acres. In this case if they developed the five-lot subdivision that came in I think they would just be paying the fee. Just like they paid it in three and then in two. In this instance if they came in as five it would five of them at that fee. Commissioner Keller: There are a couple of things that concern me so let me lay it out on the table. Mr. Williams: Okay, and I also want to mention and Don chime in here ifI am wrong, this is not part of the purview of the Tentative Map, the BMR provisions. Mr. Larkin: Actually I was going to chime in but Curtis beat me to it. I was going to say that one of our standard conditions on a Tentative Map and it would be the same on this Tentative Map is that the applicant reach an agreement with the City on how the applicant is going to satisfy the BMR requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. Typically that agreement isn’t reached before the requirement is imposed on the applicant. So we don’t have a BMR Agreement. It hasn’t been negotiated. So it is difficult to say with any certainty exactly how they are going to meet the BMR. Steven is aware of some discussions that have happened but there is no BMR Agreement. These things haven’t been negotiated and it really isn’t before the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Keller: Can we use the opportunity of this meeting to give input to that process or is that inappropriate? Mr. Larkin: Limited input. You are not the negotiators for the City on the BMR Program but if you have limited suggestions that would be appropriate. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: What I am going to do is open the public hearing at this time. We have two speaker cards here. The first will be Roger Kohler followed by Herb Borock and you will each have five minutes. Mr. Roger Kohler, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live almost directly across from these two lots that are being created. I just have several comments. They may not be relevant to the Tentative Map issue. These two lots are part of a five-lot subdivision, which you are aware of. Three of the houses are not before the ARB and being reviewed for their design content. The assumption by Staff is the other two will go back and be reviewed by the ARB. My point is that this is a five unit subdivision and five houses on Wilkie Way the size they are talking about is going to have a major impact on our street. I don’t understand how the ARB or our neighbors, my neighbors that live across the street, can really judge the total impact of all these houses when we only see three and then we come in and see two later. My suggestion is the ARB meeting be postponed and when all five lots get done they call come together and we can all see the impact of them as an entire project. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 If they don’t come back as five units then there are two lots, which means they should go through the Individual Review process and not to the ARB because you don’t have to go to ARB if you have less than three units. So they are either all one unit or there are three and then there are two. I don’t think you can do three now and then two later because they are actually different projects. They are different Tentative Maps. They are different situations. Secondly, in my letter I said it is kin~l of like approving a four-story building but you only approve the first two floors and then you come back later and see the top two floors. How do you do the project without seeing the entire project? There is something going on that is called blended zoning because this project backs up to RM-15 so part of the lot is R-1 and part is RM- 15. So they have done a blended floor area calculation, which I can’t find anything in the Zoning Ordinance about a blended - a percentage is R-1 and percentage is RM-15. Typically in an R-2 lot in Palo Alto if you build a single family home you are required to go through the Individual Review as one lot and comply with all the R-1 zoning district requirements not the R-2. In R-2 zone districts you don’t have to count the garage so there are differences in the two units. So why are these lots using a blended zoning requirement? I have never gotten a good answer about that. I would like to have that resolved. Finally, in the last handout the lot between these five units and the apartments is an unfinished strip of land that actually goes back and connects to Trader Vic’s on E1 Camino. Trader Vic’s awhile back installed a drainpipe, which I have shown on the picture over here on the right side. That drainpipe I don’t think was done with a permit so during the winter all the runoff from the entire Trader Vic’s and the motel over there comes down that pipe onto Wilkie Way. It creates a huge flood. Where those two cars are shown in this picture and during the wet winter is like a foot and a half of water. It actually comes out almost over the entire street. Somewhere along the line the City has never installed a sidewalk there and I think as part of this development someone needs to install a sidewalk either the City or the developers or somebody. It is an unsafe condition and it is a hazard the way the flooding is occurring. I don’t know quite what happened but it needs to be resolved it is a very bad situation. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much, Roger. Herb Borock. If there are any other speakers for this item please hand in a card to the Secretary. Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Vice-Chair Lippert. Good evening Commissioners. This application is piecemealing in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Keller did ask about piecemealing but Staff either didn’t hear that question or ignored it and talked about BMR fees and Quimby Act fees. You have various pieces of the Elk’s property coming before the City as individual pieces. You need to look at the entire project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, which is all of these pieces together at the same time to be able to understand the environmental effects of the entire single project to be able to make decisions, determine mitigations that are required for any significant effects, and setup a mitigation monitoring program. Staff indicated that the BMR agreement comes at some future date. That may be what has been happening the past few years and with term limits the Council may be ignorant of the fact that the BMR applications in the past have always been part of a complete application. In the absence of a BMR agreement you didn’t have an application deemed complete by the Planning Staff and brought before City legislative bodies. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 To the extent that these changes have now been institutionalized they have never been the change and the decision to make the change has never been brought before the City Council. The ability to behave this way is a consequence of the fact that it takes time, effort, and money to challenge these kinds of actions in court. So far over this period of a few years we finally have one being challenged at 195 Page Mill Road. It also may be a consequence of the kind of advice that you are getting. As part of budgetary problems all of the City Departments including the Council appointed officers have had to find ways to cut their budgets. It used to be that the City Attorney’s Office had only two titles within the table of organization under the City Attorney. City Attorney’s in the past have always said to get the education and experience of an attorney that Palo Alto needed you had to go to the top of those two job classifications. Apparently due to budget constraints the current City Attorney recommended and the City Council approved two lower job classifications in the City Attorney’s Office. People are willing to work for that lower pay if they have less education and experience than the people and job classification that you used to get giving advice to this Commission. I believe at some point the City Council or candidates for City Council need to address these kinds of issues. As far as the ARB hearings on the five lots that Roger Kohler spoke about I believe the ARB has the ability to condition approval so that it can get the design of all five lots before it at the same time. It doesn’t need to have the maps going through the process at the same time what it needs is the intent of the applicant to actually be designing homes on these five adjacent lots. The first excuse was that they didn’t own, there was some ownership problem with that lots, now there is some other story but they can certainly do all five. That doesn’t address the problem of the development of the remainder of the Elk’s property, which is also part of the same project under environmental law. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Borock. Do you have a question for Mr. Borock? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Mr. Borock, could you explain a little bit of what your understanding is of the prohibition against piecemealing? Mr. Borock: I believe I stated it that is the California Environmental Quality Act defines a project as the whole of an action. In this sense you are getting a piece of the action, which is two lots or three lots at a time, the Elk’s lodge itself and any other housing on the property. So those are each piecemealing because they are a piece of the entire project as the project is defined the public resources code. Mr. Larkin: I would caution the Commission to make sure that you are getting your legal advice from your legal advisor. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I was going to follow up with a question to you about your position on that. Mr. Borock: I would say that I think it is important for Brown Act violation when a person from the public appears that there should not be anything said or done even by expression to indicate that that person is not entitled to say what he is saying especially when he is asked a direct question by a Commissioner. Thank you. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you, Mr. Borock. Mr. Larkin: I do not want to give the impression that I don’t welcome Mr. Borock’s opinions but they are not legal advice. I would say that the City has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act. An initial study was prepared with regard to the entire project not just the three-unit subdivision and that is reflected in the Staff Report. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. We have another speaker Stephanie Munoz. If you would state your name and you have five minutes. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ms. Stephanie Munoz, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the Commission. Thank you for 13 allowing us to speak. I have come and I find it because the whole idea of putting a couple of 14 single family residences on E1 Camino seems to me bizarre whether or not the Environmental 15 Protection Act, the Brown Act, the City Attorney and his many minions, however many it is still 16 a stupid idea. I don’t want to be disrespectful but there are places all over town that are begging 17 you couldn’t we please have a single family? No, no. Here on E1 Camino, which is the main 18 business street of California. If you can’t put office buildings on E1 Camino where can you put 19 them? If you can’t count on E1 Camino Real as being an adequate bringer to and taker away of 20 traffic what street in town can you? It seems to me that what you should do is you should have 21 as some member of this Planning Commission said about a year ago speaking of Rickey’s, he 22 said, I honestly can’t see anything but retail on that comer. Right. I believe with all due respect 23 I believe what you should do is be like the rest of E1 Camino for the whole state and have 24 imposing, dense, money producing buildings, and make the developers give back an equal 25 amount of open space for the open space that they are taking up. That is whatever they would 26 have had to give as FAR, floor allowance ratio, as a single family residence if that is what it was 27 going to be zoned, they should give you in open space. In other words, if you are going to have a 28 six-story apartment building and I think that would be the way to go then they should give you a 29 soccer field. I believe that the people would be well served if you had retail on the bottom and 30 offices in the middle and some housing on the top, nice housing. It doesn’t have to be below 31 market rate but it could be affordable and you could have some penthouses on the top. All over 32 town there are really expensive apartments. If this wealthy person that is going to spend $1.0 33 million for something spent $1.0 million for a penthouse on the top of a nice building on E1 34 Camino it would be far more worthwhile it seems to me than a single family house stuck down 35 there is the whole of the traffic. You know when they made Rudolpho’s go to residences instead 36 of offices, made him, the people complained. The people that were putting that they complained 37 about the muffler shop and there were other things that they complained about. Down on 38 Middlefield Road they put housing in the middle, and that is just Middlefield Road, they put 39 housing in the middle of an essentially commercial area. The people complained, the residents 40 complained about the tennis ball sounds. They weren’t grateful that you had provided them with 41 this wonderful housing opportunity. By no means, they were annoyed about the noise. It just 42 seems to me to be very, very strange that you would try to put residential up on E1 Camino. I 43 think the property could be developed to everybody’s satisfaction without cheating the developer 44 of his earned profit and without cheating the citizens of Palo Alto of the development that would 45 be nice to have there. Thank you very much. 46 Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much, Ms. Munoz. Are there any other speakers to this item? Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Burt: I think that there is an understandable misunderstanding by the last speaker and I would like to make sure that the public or any other speakers understand the real context of this. Even though it is labeled as an E1 Camino address it is only because it has not been assigned an address on Wilkie Way yet that it is called an E1 Camino address but it is actually two blocks in from E1 Camino and in amongst a single family neighborhood. Is that correct? Mr. Turner: That is correct. Vice-Chair Lippert: So if there aren’t any other speakers on this item I am going to close the public heating and return to the Commission. Are there any Commissioners that have questions? Okay. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I wondered if Staff would comment on some of the issues raised by Mr. Kohler. There were three that he brought up. Go as you see fit. Mr. Turner: Items number one and two in his letter dated today essentially refer to the Design Review process. The Architectural Review Board will be reviewing all five homes as they come in, they are looking at three first and two later. So items one and two will really be addressed by the Architectural Review Board that is not necessarily the purview of the Planning Commission tonight. Item three is relevant and it deals with offsite improvements that could be associated with this project. Again, item number three is the lack of a sidewalk on the adjacent parcel. That is something the Commission could review and perhaps include as a condition of approval that a sidewalk be extended down the public right-of-way. Commissioner Burt: I don’t know if members of the Staff who were present recall the issues that occurred at the Trader Vic’s parcel and if I recall correctly that there was grading that was done without permit and has compounded this problem. I was trying to recall the particulars of that circumstancel Do you have any comment on that? Mr. Turner: No. I know there were some issues previously about potentially making that odd little strip into parking for the rest of the hotel but not have it be a cut-through between the hotel and Wilkie Way. I am not aware of the issues that relate to grading or drainage. Commissioner Burt: So I hesitate to state it because I am going off my recollection but my recollection is that there was grading done without a permit that has compounded the drainage issue there. I think if it is part of the issue that the drainage of these parcels combined with that situation then that very well may be something that would properly be within our purview this evening and important to know the factual basis of it. I wish we had more information. Mr. Turner: Certainly the Public Works Department would be consulted in terms of grading and drainage on this site and they would be consulted regarding the improvements in the public tight- of-way on this smaller parcel. If there are issues related to drainage and grading Public Works would be able to address those. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas. Mr. Larldn: I was just going to comment that the drainage problems in question are on private property but adjacent private property. So I don’t know that we would be able to do anything with that. I think the sidewalks are a different issue. In terms of the grading on the private property next door that is probably a code enforcement issue that we should deal with with that property owner. Commissioner Burt: So I just want to make sure I understand this. If we have a situation where drainage problems were compounded on the adjacent parcel and then that drainage is combined with whatever happens and, I don’t what the impact of the drainage is on these parcels, is the aggregate impact of drainage not something that we should be looking at? Mr. Larldn: We can probably look at that with Public Works and see if there is something that can done but we would also probably want to address that with the code enforcement side as well. Commissioner Burt: I hear you say that you want to address it with code enforcement. This has been there for three or four years, it was allowed without property oversight as I recall. There were two violations that Trader Vic’s did at that time, and nothing has happened since then. So I have very little faith that code enforcement is going to address this no matter what you have just said. Mr. Williams: IfI can add, I think and Don correct me if you think this is out of line, I can’t see why it would be a problem to add as one of the conditions of approval that Public Works Department review the drainage situation and assure that this property is not contributing to worsening that situation.. They probably already are looking at that but we can make it explicit as a condition. Usually they look at having no net increase in the runoff off the property and not exacerbating any existing drainage problems. That is a typical thing that they look at anyway so it seems reasonable that we can put that kind of language in here. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I was hoping that in reviewing Mr. Kohler’s statements that you would talk a little bit about blended zoning. I am not sure, I haven’t been on the Commission long enough to know what that it is. I haven’t stumbled across that yet so maybe you can describe it. Mr. Turner: Well, just very briefly again because it is not the purview of the Planning Commission tonight is that this will have an R-1 designation along the front but the last 30 feet or so of the lots will actually be zoned RM-15. It is just where the boundaries lay. They already are zoned RM- 15. Commissioner Sandas: That is similar to the zoning that already exists at the bowling alley property for example? Okay, so I got it. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just a clarification. I understand that it is the ARB’s purview to review all of the projects in any sequence or quantity or combination that they feel is most appropriate. IfI am understanding correctly, and ifI am not you will tell me so, the reason the applicant submitted for the first three and then the second two is that they did not have control by way of ownership or contract for the last two and just the first three so they submitted that first and then they gained control over the second two and then they submitted them at that point. Is that correct? 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mr. Turner: That is how Staff understands it, yes. 12 13 Commissioner Garber: So would it be appropriate legal or acceptable for someone to apply for a 14 permit or a parcel change if they did not have control over the property at the time that they were 15 making that submittal? 16 17 Mr. Turner: They would need to get authorization from the property owner to move forward 18 with the proposed development. From what we understand that authorization was not given 19 except for the first three lots. 20 21 Commissioner Garber: Thank you. 22 23 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. 24 25 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, could we have Steven explain that they are looking at all five? They 26 are going to be seeing all five lots. 27 28 Commissioner Garber: My question was not how they are going to be reviewed, which I 29 understand will be all five, I was just curious about the reason they were applied for in two 30 batches. 31 32 Mr. Williams: Okay. 33 34 Commissioner Garber: What I am now clear on is that in fact they didn’t have control over them 35 all at the time that they made the first application. 36 37 Mr. Williams: I just wanted to be sure you were all clear that the applicant has been instructed 38 that when they come back with these homes on the three lots to be showing the context and least 39 schematically what is happening on those two lots as well to see all five at one time. 40 41 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. If the applicant had submitted all five lots at the same time 44 then what would the BMR requirement have been? 45 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Turner: As we described previously there are two ways to satisfy the BMR requirements. You can provide units on the site or else you can pay an in lieu fee. Based upon the BMR requirements it would result in a fractional housing unit and therefore Staff typically requires that an in lieu fee be paid. So essentially that is what would be the BMR requirement, an in lieu fee to be paid. I couldn’t quote you the exact amount tonight but essentially it would be an in lieu fee. Commissioner Keller: So my understanding is that if all five units were developed concurrently that the in lieu fee would be. 15 or 15 percent of the entire five units, right? Mr. Larkin: It is a lot more complicated than that because in lieu fees are based partly on the number of units, partly on the cost of building a unit and then there are other components. Because that is not before you today I haven’t brought the matrix that would show what all of the various components are but it is not as simple as saying it is five units so it is 15 percent of the cost of five units. It is based on the cost of producing units comparable to what is being built. Commissioner Keller: Is it fair to say that the BMR requirement from bringing all five units together would be something on the order of 15 percent of something as opposed to 7.5 percent of something? Mr. Larkin: If it is of interest to you we will have Kathy Segal give you the matrix but because that is not before you tonight we hadn’t prepared for that. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, are there any other questions from Commissioners? What I will do is give the applicant five minutes to sum up and then we will have discussion and a motion. Mr. Denmon: Thank you. In regards to the ARB questions that Mr. Kohler was raising those issues will be explored and his concerns I suspect will be monitored and woven into the concems that the Staff will be coming forward with. I hear his concerns. I believe we are meeting the intent and the obligations as it relates to the ARB but that is an ARB question as far as I can understand. If you have any questions of me I would be happy to answer them. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Thank you very much. We will return to the Commission for discussion and a motion. Samir. I’m sorry, Commissioner Tuma. MOTION Commissioner Tuma: I am ready to make a motion. I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission adopt the recommendation of Staff for approval of the proposed Tentative Map to create two single family residences and a remainder lot at 4249 E1 Camino with the condition added that Public Works look at the drainage issue in the context of the existing drainage problems at the time it comes before them. Vice-Chair Lippert: Do I have a second? SECOND Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Vice-Chair Lippert: to your motion? Second. Okay, Commissioner Burt.Commissioner Tuma, would you like to speak Commissioner Tuma: I think there has been a lot of good interesting discussion here tonight but in the context of what our purview is and what we are supposed to be deciding tonight I felt that the application, the recommendation were appropriate. I do think that the issue with respect to drainage does need to be addressed and I am glad that idea was recommended. I think the four comers of what is before us tonight I think it is appropriate to approve the recommendation. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Commissioner Burt, do you wish to speak to your second? Commissioner Burt: I concur with the comments by Commissioner Tuma. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I would like to make a friendly amendment and just add to the conditions of approval the construction of a sidewalk where there is none. Vice-Chair Lippert: Do you accept that? Commissioner Tuma: Sure. Commissioner Burr: I do as well. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so we have a second and an amendment on that. Any other discussion or comments? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to suggest guidance in the process of negotiating the BMR that the calculations be as if it were ~1 five unit subdivision going all at once, that the BMR calculation should be doing that because I think that is what the applicants intent was originally but couldn’t do that because of various ownership and control issues. I do have concerns as to the incremental of this one and the other remainder property that is going to happen to the four acres. It seems to be 4.96 acres and therefore might just barely be under the 20 percent requirement. I just have concerns about incremental development and doing things in a piecemeal manner where we are not apprised of that all at once. Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Any other comments? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Commissioner Keller’s last comment just raised a question for me. The threshold for 20 percent is five acres, is that correct? Mr. Williams: Yes. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Burt’ And the remaining parcels are going to be 4.96 acres? Mr. Williams: There will also probably be some right-of-way dedications in there that will reduce that size further as well. So the final application of that requirement will be something less than whatever is left there right now. Commissioner Burr: So Staff doesn’t have any concern that this being made into parcels to get around a 20 percent BMR requirement? Mr. Williams: We are not concerned about that. I think we were more concerned about the issue of being sure the five were contributing their fair share and we are still discussing ways to do that in conjunction with the adjoining property too. So there are some other options on the table with that but the 20 percent hasn’t been of issue to us. Commissioner Burt: You consider it likely that there will be a dedication of right-of-way that would reduce the developable 4.96 acres. Mr. Williams: There has already been a partial one. I don’t know if that is reflected yet or not but is the half street from the Rickey’s site. Commissioner Burt: Okay, thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller, did you have a comment that you wish to make? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Just to clarify for Commissioner Burt, the five lots that are being divided two now and three before consist of a total of .96 acres. According to the papers that I have read the remaining property will be subdivided into four acres for residential and the front portion which is an additional three or so acres will be Elk’s property. Therefore I am. not sure what the calculation is but that four plus .96 comes to 4.96 and that is just below what I understand the threshold for 20 percent is which is five acres. Vice-Chair Lippert: Any other comments? Okay, we have a motion and a second. I think we should call the question. Before we do that I have one other procedural question. Has the Negative Declaration been included in the motion? Mr. Williams: Commissioner Tuma recommended Staff recommendation, which includes the Negative Declaration but thank you for clarifying that. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Chair Holman absent) Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, great. With that all Commissioners in favor of the motion please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? That passes six - zero - one, with Chair Holman absent. Thank you. Page 15 %W of Pale Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachment E Richard P. Denman Juniper Homes, LLC 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, CA 94065 March 29, 2007 Subject:Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for Three Lot Parcel Map on Wilkie Way, Palo Alto; Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map filed for record on November 9, 2006, Book of Maps 808, Pages 34, 35; 05 PLN-00000-00402 Dear Mr. Denman: This letter summarizes the agreement between Juniper Homes, L.L.C. (Developer) and the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Environment (Director) regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Program for the Parcel Map application for the three-lot single family residential subdivision (the "Project") described above. The BMR program requirements are contained in Program H-36 of the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4 - Housing). You and Planning Division staff have discussed and negotiated the terms of this agreement, and your signature as an officer of Juniper Homes, LLC on this letter confirms your agreement with its provisions. The 0.58 acre site for the three lots is part of an 8.1 acre property owned by The Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (Elks). The purpose of this parcel map was to create the three lots which were sold by the Elks to Juniper Homes for the construction of three single family homes. At a later date, two additional adjoining single family lots will be created through a separate tentative map, with the remainder of the Elks property planned for construction of a new Elks lodge and approximately 45 detached townhomes. These two additional adjoining single family lots will be sold to Developer and will not be subject to a BMR requirement, as determined by the City of Palo Alto. BMR Requirement: You have agreed that the Project (the three lot parcel map) will be subject to a fifteen (15%) percent BMR requirement based on the fair market 250 Hamilton Avenue RO. Box 10250 PaloAlto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 BMR Letter Agreement For Wilkie Way 3 -Lot Parcel Map March 29, 2007 Page 2 of 3 value of the finished lots. Because the BMR requirement results in less than a full lot being required (3 times 15% equals 0.45), the payment of in-lieu fees, instead of the dedication of a buildable parcel or lot, is allowable. The in-lieu fee rate for projects with a fifteen percent BMR requirement is 7.5 percent. BMR in-lieu fees are deposited by the City in the Residential Housing Fund and used for financial assistance for the development, acquisition or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, for the preservation of existing BMR ownership units and for BMR program administration. Determination of Fair Market Value of the Lots: The BMR in-lieu fee will be calculated on the fair market value of the three lots as determined by an appraisal acceptable to the City. The appraiser must value the lots as subdivided parcels that can be separately conveyed including the value of the planning entitlements for the construction of the three new homes that have been approved by the City’s Architectural Review Board. The values must also be based on the assumption that the land has been cleared and that all necessary utilities and other public improvements have been paid for or constructed. A value shall be determined for each lot as if it would be sold separately. In addition, a total value for all three lots, as if sold together, shall also be determined. The Developer shall select an MAI appraiser acceptable to the City and submit a draft of the appraisal to the City within 45 days of the date of this letter. The City will complete its review of the draft appraisal within 10 business days and then Developer shall submit a final corrected appraisal within 10 business days after receipt of the City’s comments. The Developer is responsible for the cost of the appraisal. If City and Developer cannot agree on the fair market value of the lots, then the City shall notify Developer that the City will contract for the preparation of a review appraisal by an appraiser of its own choosing. The City’s review appraisal shall be completed and a copy provided to Developer within 45 days of City’s notice to Developer. The Developer shall reimburse the City for the cost of the review appraisal. The conclusions by the review appraiser shall be final and shall be used to calculate the in-lieu fees. In its sole discretion; the City may extend the time deadlines stated in this letter agreement for good cause. Amount of In-Lieu Fee Payment: The total in-lieu payment shall be equal to 7.5% (seven and one-half percent) times the greater of: l) the sum of the appraised value of each of the three lots valued separately; or 2) the total value of the three lots as if sold together. H:\DOC\BMR Program\Wilkie Way 3 Lots Fees Agrmt Final 3-29.doc BMR Letter Agreement For Wilkie Way 3 -Lot Parcel Map March 29, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Due Date for Paymen~t of Total Fee: The in-lieu fee payment is due and payable to City in a lump sum payment in full within ninety (90) days of the date that the City accepts the results of appraisal value. The City will provide instructions for the payment of the fee. Please sign this letter, indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR program requirements for your Project and for the two adjoining single family lots yet to be created which will be owned by Developer. Thank you for your cooperation and your contribution to affordable housing in the City of Palo Alto. A. Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment Juniper Homes LLC agrees to pay BMR program in-lieu fees for the three lot parcel map project located at 4249 El Camino Real, Palo Alto [05-PLN-00000- 00402], as described in this Letter of Agreement dated March 29, 2007: By: Richard P. Denman, Managing Member Juniper Homes, LLC Date: Attachment A: Text of BMR Program H-36 Don Larkin; Assistant City Attorney Steven Turner, Senior Planner Julie Caporgno, Chief Planning and Transportation Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator, Planning Division Bill Fellman, Rea! Property Manager, Administrative Services Division H:\DOC\BMR Program\Willde Way 3 Lots Fees Agrmt Final 3-29.doc ATTACHMENT A The Palo Alto Below Market Rate ("BMR") Housing Program Program H-36 of the Housing Element of the City of Palo Alto [Page 23] Adopted December 2, 2002; Certified by the State on May 23, 2003 Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan Program H-36: Implement the City’s "Below Market Rate" (BMR) Program by requiring that at least 15percent of all housing units in projects of five units or more, be provided at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Projects on sites of five acres or larger must set aside 20 percent of all units as BMR units. The City of Palo Alto’s BMR program is intended to increase the supply of for-sale housing and rental housing for individuals and families whose incomes are insufficient to afford market rate housing, Since the program was initiated in 1974, 152 for-sale units and 101 rental units have been created. Continued affordability of the units is a major goal of the program. Deed restrictions control the resale price and limit rent increases. Occupancy for BMR units is determined according to City Council guidelines. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, under contract to the City, has administered the program since its inception. Since the current rates of production of affordable housing in Palo Alto are very low, the BMR program requirement is essential to meet the City’s need for affordable housing. Developers of projects with five or more housing units must comply with Palo Alto’s BMR requirements. The BMR program objective is to obtain actual housing units or buildable parcels within each development rather than off-site units or in-lieu payments. At least 15 percent of the housing units developed in a project involving fewer than five acres of land must be provided as BMR units. Projects involving the development of five or more acres must provide at least 20 percent of all units developed as BMR units. (Projects that cause the loss of existing rental housing may need to provide a 25 percent BMR component, see Program H-29.) The BMR units must be comparable to other units in the development. For an application to be determined complete, the developer must agree to one or a combination of the following requirements or equivalent alternatives that are acceptable to the City For-Sale Units: For projects with a 15 percent BMR component, the initial sales price for at least two- thirds of the BMR units must be affordable to a household making between 80 to 100 percent of the Santa Clara County median income, taking into consideration all housing expenses such as mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and association dues. The initial sales prices of the remaining BMR units may be set at higher levels affordable to households earning between 100 to 120 percent of the County’s median income. )or projects with a 20 percent BMR component, three-fourths of the BMR units must be affordable to households in the 80 to 100 percent of median income range, and one-fourth may be in the higher price range of between 100 to 120 percent of the County’s median City of Palo Alto Housing Element BMR Program H-36 Text Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A income. For projects with a 25 percent BMR component, four-fifths of the BMR units must be affordable to households in the 80 to 100 percent of median range, and one-fifth may be in the higher price range of between 100 and 120 percent of the County’s median income. In all cases, the sales price should be sufficient to cover the estimated cost to the developer of constructing the BMR unit, including financing, but excluding land, marketing, off-site improvements, and profit. If the City determines that on-site BMR units are not feasible, off-site units acceptable to the City, or vacant land determined to be suitable for affordable housing construction, may be provided instead. Off-site units should normally be new units, but the City may accept rehabilitated existing units when significant improvement in the City’s housing stock is demonstrated. In-Lieu Payments: If the City determines that no other alternative is feasible, a cash payment to the City’s Housing Development Fund, in lieu of providing BMR units or land, may be accepted. The in-lieu payment for projects subject to the basic 15 percent BMR requirement shall be 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each unit. For projects subject to the 20 percent requirement, the rate is 10 percent; for projects with a 25 percent requirement, (as described in Program H-29 regarding the loss of rental housing), the rate is 12.5 percent. Rental Units: Developers of rental housing must provide the required percentage of BMR units at affordable rents for occupancy by very low (below 50% of the HUD median income) and low-income households (below 80% of median income). Occupancy, rents, rent increases and other provisions of the BMR rental program are governed by standards approved by the City Council and by project-specific recorded regulatory agreements. Initial rents for new BMR units are established annually by theCity. After occupaficy, initial rents may be adjusted amaually by one-half of the Consumer Price Index Rent Residential or other comparable formula adopted by the City. In-Lieu Payments: If the City determines that provision of BMR rental units on site is infeasible, it may accept a payment in lieu of such units to the City’ s Housing Development Fund. The annual payment shall be the difference between the initial affordable rent and the market rate rent of each required BMR unit. If a one-time in-lieu payment is accepted in full satisfaction of the project’s BMR requirement, the payment shall be the appraised value of the housing project at market rate rents multiplied by the applicable fee rate. The fee rate is 7.5 percent for a project with a 15 percent BMR requirement, 10 percent for a project with a 20 percent BMR requirement and 12.5 percent for projects with a 25 percent BMR requirement. Proiects with a Condominium Map That Will Be Operated as Rental Housing: No residential condominium map shall be approved without provision for the future sale of BMR ownership units or an equivalent alternative acceptable to the City, even though the project will be initially operated as rental housing. Cily of Palo Alto Housing Element BMR Program H-36 Tex!Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT A Open Space (OS) District Projects: The Open Space district sets a minimum lot size of ten acres. Projects of any acreage with fewer than 10 units or lots must provide a 15 percent BMR component. Projects with more than 10 units or Jots must provide a 20 percent BMR component. Subdivision of Land to be Sold Without Development: Land that is subdivided into three or more lots and sold without construction of housing must transfer buildable parcel(s) equivalent to 15 percent (or other applicable BMR requirement percentage) of the development to the City or the City’s designee. The buildable parcel(s) is to be used for the purpose of developing affordable housing units. The City may sell the buildable parcel(s) with the proceeds placed in the City’s Housing Development Fund for future housing development. When the City determines that the transfer of land, or the construction of BMR units within the subdivision, is infeasible, a comparable in-lieu fee payment may be accepted by the City. Fractional Units: When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit (for example: 16 units x 15% -- 2.40 BMR units), an in-lieu payment to the City’s Housing Development Fund may be made for the fractional unit (the 0.4 unit) instead of providing an actual BMR unit. The in-lieu fee percentage rate shall be same as that otherwise required for the project (7.5 percent, 10 percent, or 12.5 percent). The fee on for-sale projects will be paid upon the sale of each market unit in the project. For rental projects, the fee shall be paid prior to approval by the City of occupancy of the project. Larger Proiects of 30 or More Units: Projects with 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger; an in-lieu fee may be paid, or equivalent alternatives provided, when the fractional unit is less than one-half.. Adjustments, Waivers, Appeals of the BMR Requirement: Within fifteen days of entering into a BMR agreement with the City for a project, the developer may request a determination that the BMR requirement, taken together with any inclusionary housing incentives, as applied the project, would legally constitute the taking of property without just compensation uHder the Constitution of the United States or of the State of California. The burden of proof shall be upon the developer, who shall provide such information as is reasonably requested by the City, and the initial determination shall be made by the Director of Planning and Community Enviromnent. The procedures for the determination shall generally be those described in Chapter 18.90 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including the right of appeal to the City Council under Chapter 18.93, or such other procedures as may be adopted in a future BMR ordinance. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publication but need not be sent to nearby property ovmers. If the City determines that the application of the BMR requirement as applied to the project would constitute a taking of property without just compensation, then the BMR agreement for the project shall be modified, reduced or waived to the extent necessary to prevent such a taking. City of Palo Alto Housing Element BMR Program H-}6 Text Page 3 of 3