HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 178-08City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTz IENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:~ IARCH 24, 2008 CMR: 178:08
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP AND RECORD OF LAND USE
ACTION TO CREATE SIX RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON
A .57 ACRE LOT AT 433 W MEADOW DRIVE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Plalming and Transportation Colmnission (PTC) recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed Tentative Map to create six residential condominium units at 433 West
Meadow Drive, based upon findings and conditions contained within the draft Record of Land
Use Action (Attaclmaent A).
BACKGROUND
The application requested is a six-unit residential condominimn subdivision. The project site is a
.57 acre parcel with a single house and two accessory structures at the southerly intersection of
West Meadow Drive and Wilkie Way as shown on the location map (Attaclvnent B). The
project site is in the RM-15 zone and has a Multiple Family Residential land use desi~ation
allowing up to 8 units on the parcel. The property to the southwest is developed with a two-story,
two-unit residential structure and is zoned tKM-15. The property to the southeast is developed
with approximately eleven attached residential units contained within taro structures and is zoned
RM-15. The properties across West Meadow Drive and Wilkie Way from the project site are
zoned R-! and R-2.
The condominiums would be accessed from a private drive along the West Meadow Drive
frontage. The private drive bisects the property, with tl:n’ee units to the south and tt~ee to the
nol-th. The four units along the street frontages have their entrances oriented toward the street.
All garages are accessed via the private drive. The layout of the street network and adjacent
properties does not provide any opportunity for the street to com~ect tlvough to another street.
The driveway and common areas will be maintained through the Convenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs).
The footprint of the units defines the locations of the individual condominium units. The
remainder of the parcel will be commonly owned and maintained via CC&Rs and will contain
driveway area, private open space, landscaped public open space (primarily along the street
frontages) and a common use area at the entrance to the project. The project site contains 36
mature trees, including four protected oaks trees, which will be retained.
CMR: 178:08 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
Staff and City departments have determined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance
with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.
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 infomaation and notations required to be
shown on a Tentative Map (per P.~MC Sections 2!.12), and confoma to the desi~a
requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features
(PAMC 21.20).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 13, 2007, the Plamaing and Transportation Commission (PTC) conducted a public
hearing and reconmaended (7-0-0-0) that the City Council approve the Tentative Map to create
six residential condominium units at 433 West Meadow Drive, based upon the findings and
conditions contained within the draft Record of Land Use Action. At the hearing,
Commissioners had questions regarding zoning compliance, private road~vay placement, tree
protection, private yards, the Public Utilities Easement (PUE), and common area irrigation. No
members of the public spoke on this proposal. Staff explained the project’s compliaace with
zoning, advantage of street location for the street fiontage and protection of all oaks on site,
inclusion of private yards in condominiums, and the PUE’s location over the entire site (except
building envelopes). The applicant showed the location of a seventh water meter to be used for
irrigation of common areas. Draft minutes from the PTC hearing are included as Attaclmaent C.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The cost and!or revenue impacts to the City associated with the tentative map include parks,
library and community facilities fees, and traffic impact fees. Such fees are paid prior to issuance
of building permits at the rates in effect at that time. All development review costs have been
recovered tlv’ough permit fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the site is desi~aated for
multi-family residential. The Architectural Review Board (~M~t3) was presented with staff’s
analysis of zoning and policy conformance during their review of the ARB application.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Eaitial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and approved in
conjunction with the Architectural Review of the 0.57 acre site. The Initial Study~litigated
Negative Declaration included the condominium map within the project description and analysis.
No further enviro~maental review is required.
PREPARED BY:
JEN~CIFER CUTLEN
Associate Planner
CMR: !78:08 Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Plarming and Conmmnity Enviromnent
EMILY H~"7*~RI~- \,
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A.Draft Record of Land Use Action
B.Planning & Transportation Commission StaffReport, February 13, 2008
C.Excerpt of the Draft Plalming & Transportation Commission Minutes, February 13, 2008
D.Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted October 23, 2007
E.Tentative Map (Councilmembers only)
COURTESY COPIES
Forrest Mozart, West Meadow Oaks, L.P., Applicant/Owner
CMR: 178:08 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2008-03
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 433 W MEADOW: TENTATIVE MAP
07PLN-00346
(FORREST MOZART, APPLICANT)
At its meeting on March 17, 2008, the City Council of the
City of Pa!o Alto approved the Tentative Map to subdivide a parcel
(approx. 0.57 acres) into six condominium lots, which would be
developed into residentia! single-family homes,making the
following findings, determination and declarations:
S~CT±ON 7 Background The City Council of the City
of Pa!o Alto ( City Council") ,_!n@s, @e~erm_nes, and declares as
fol!ows :
A. Proposed by Forrest Mozart on behalf of West Meadow
Oaks, L.P., this project involves the subdivision of the 433 West
Meadow site (approx. 0.57 acre tota!) into six condominium lots
with a private road and shared omen smace.
B. The Tentative Map plan set includes information on
the existing parcel, onsite conditions, and the layout of the
proposed new !ors. These drawings are in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. These
plans contain all information and notations re_quired to be sho}~_ on
a Tentative Map (per P~IMC Sections 21.12), as wel! as the design
requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways,
and similar features (P~C 21.20) .
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Prior to Architectural
Review approval of the proposed six single-family detached housing
deve!opment, staff prepared an Initia! Study and Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which discussed the potentia!
impacts of both the new buildings and the six !or condominium
subdivision The @ocume__ts were made available for a 20 day Dub!ic
review period between September 14, 2007 and October 3, 2007. No
public comments were received during this review period. The CEQA
document found that the impacts produced by the project, including
the deve!opment of the single-family homes, would have less than
significant impacts on the environment with the incorporation of
mitigation measures. Since state law requires the adoption of a
CEQA determination prior taking action on a discretionary project,
these environmental documents were adopted on October 23, 2007 by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment, prior to action
on the Architectura! Review and Tentative Map applications for the
proposed development.
SECTION 3.Tentative Map Findings.
A legislative body of a city shal! deny approva! of a Preliminary
Parcel Map, if it makes any of the fol!owing findings (California
Government Code Section 66474):
!. That the proposed map is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section
65451:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. 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 Multiple Family
R~s!een~±a!, which allows a density of 8 to 40 units per acre. ±he
~_o~osee deve!opment of six single-family dwe!ling units on a 0 57
acre site is consistent with the land use and zoning designations
of the site.
2. That the design or improvement of The proposed
subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
map is consistent with the prescribed land use designation and the
following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i) Policy L-I - Limiting
future urban deve!opment to currently deve!oped lands within the
urban service area; and (2)Po!icy L-6 - Where possible, avoid
abrupt changes in scale and density between residentia! and non-
residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities. The new development is designed to fit in with the
neighborhood and provide a transition between existing higher and
!ower density housing.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type
of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
site can accommodate the proposed subdivision. The !ors are
condominium units and conform in density to the requirements of the
RM-!5 district. The proposed deve!opment was granted Architectura!
Review approval on October 25, 2007 after a recommendation of
approva! from the Architectura! Review Board on October 4, 2007.
4. That the site -’, s not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development:
The subdivision would be consistent with the allowable
density set forth in the site deve!opment regulations of the KM-!5
district, which allows up to 8 units on this site, and would not
affect the !ocation of the existing property lines at the perimeter
of the site.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
i.~mrovements is 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 one single-family home and two wooden structures.
However, the applicant is reqmired to implement mitigation measures
to reduce impacts to protected trees that will be retained during
demolition and construction as smecified in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and as reflected in the conditions of Section 6 of this
Record.
6. That the design of the subdi vi si on or tjmpe of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The
subdivision of the existing parce! into six condominium lots will
not cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the t]<De 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 a!tel<n_ate 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
esaabl~_shed by jud£ment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
au~nor~_ty is hereby granted to a legislative body to aezerm~_ne that
the public at large has ac_cNuired easements for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision.
The subdivision of the existing parce! will not
conflict with easements of any t?pe.
SECTION 4.Approval of Tentative HaD. Tentative Map
approval is granted by the City Council under Pa!o Alto Municipal
Code ("P~C") 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 AD~rova!. The Final Map submitted
for review a_.@ ammroval by the City Counci! of the City of Palo
Alto shal! be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map
prepared by Sandis titled "Tentative Map 433 West Meadow Drive",
consisting of one page, dated January 24, 2008, except as modified
to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6.
3
A copy of this Tentative Map is on file in the DeDa_~me._~
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 Fina! 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 P~!~C Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer
(P~MC Section 21.!6.010 [a]) .
SECTION 6.Conditions of Approva!.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
A Fina! Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Hap,
all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (P~C Section
21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shal! be
filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works
Engineering Division within two years of the Tentative Map
approval date (P~IJC 21.!3.020 [c]) .
Building permit applications shal! be submitted in conformance
with al! conditions of approva! required in the Architectura!
Review approval.
o Applicant shall 9iTe a tree remova! permit for the trees
mianned for removal.
Utilities Department - Water, Gas & Wastewater
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit:
nrior to @emo_ition, the applicant shal! schedule the WGW
utilities field inspector at 650/566-4503 to visit the site
and review the existing water/wastewater fixtures to determine
the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the
applicant does not schedule this inspection, they may not
receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
The applicant shal! subm_u a request to disconnect all utility
services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of
vacancy. Utilities wil! be disconnected or removed within !0
working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit
will be issued by the building inspection division after al!
utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and
removed.
Prior to Submittal for Building Permit:
The applicant shal! submit a completed water-gas-wastewater
service connection application - load sheet for City of Pa!o
Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide al! the information
requested for utility service demands (water in fixture
units/g.p.m, gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.
The applicant shal! submit revised improvement plans for
utility construction. The plans must show the size and
!ocation of al! underground utilities within the deve!opmen:
and the public right of way including meters, backf!o%
preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer
c!eanouts,sewer lift stations and any other required
uZilities.
Each lot/residence shall have its own gas ~ r....meue_ located on the
building per the WGW Utility standards. The gas meter sha!l
be shown on the plans.
sac=~ h lot/residence shall__ have its own water meter shown on the
plans in the street rl ~t-of-way Back{7ow prevention shal!
be downstream of the meter on private property.
i0.All onsiZe (not located in the public right-of-way) sanitary
sewer shall be private. The City’s responsibility will start
at the c!eanout in the public right-of-way. Show the c!eanout
on the City side of the property line where the sanitary sewer
enters the street R-O-W.
!!.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any
auxiliary water supply.
12.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and
upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as
necessary to handle anticipated peak !oads. This
responsibility includes all costs associated with the design
and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility
mains and/or services.
13.Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one
foot above 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 shal! be shown on the plans.
14.Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed
30 GPM. Higher {lushing rates shall be diverted to a
detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
15. Sewage ejector pumps shal! meet the following conditions:
a._The pump(s) be limited to a tota! !00 GPM capacity or
less.
b. The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity f!ow line at
least 20’ upstream of the City clean out.
c. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time
not exceed 20 seco__as each cycle
mrior Zo Issuance of Building Permit:
16._The applicant’s engineer sha!l submit f!ow calculations and
system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site
water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the
domestic, irrigation, fire f!ows, and wastewater capacity
needed to service the deve!opment and adjacent properties
during anticipated peak f!ow demands. Field testing may be
required to determined current f!ows and water pressures on
existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped
by a r~g!s~er~a civi! engineer. _The applicant may be required
to perform, at his/her expense, a f!ow monitoring study of the
existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The
report must include existing peak f!ows or depth of f!ow based
on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as
determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shal!
meet the requirements_ __~ and__ the am~rova!__ of the WGW engineering
section No @ownsz_eam over!oading of existing sewer main wil!
be permitted.
17.For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or
services, the applicant shal! submit to the WGW engineering
section of the Utilities Department four copies of ~_e
insta!lation of water and wastewater utilities off-site
improvement_ plans_ in acco_~ance~ wit~._ ~_.e utilities department
design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-
way shal! be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared,
signed and stamped by a registered civi! engineer. The
contractor shal! also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and the manufacture’s literature on the
materials to be used for approva! by the utilities engineering
section. The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to
begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals
have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater
engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to
sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-
builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains
and services per City of Pa!o Alto Utilities record drawing
procedures.
mx!~±ng wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC,
or PE) shal! be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
19 The applicant shal! pay the cap~c_~y fees and connection fees
associated with the installation o~ the new utility service/s
to be installed by the City of Pa!o Alto Utilities. The
approved re!ocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other
facilities wi!l be performed at the cost of the person/entity
~equ~s .... ~ ~._e re!ocation.
20.A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be
installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan for
community areas. Show the !ocation of the irrigation meter on
the plans. This meter shal! be designated as an irrigation
account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and ] ~__an@scape plans submitted with the
application for a grading or building permit shall conform to
z__e City or Oa]o Alto water efficiency sza__eards
2!.An approved double check assem~!y (detector if not on a
metered service) shal! be installed for any water connections
serving a fire sprinkler system or private hydrant to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17,
sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check assemblies
shal! be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the
property line. Show the !ocation of the double (detector)
check assembly on the plans, inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe
between the City connection and the assembly.
22.A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new
gas meter !ocations on the plans. The gas meter locations
must conform with utilities standard details.
23.The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for
City facilities installed in private property. The
applicant’s engineer shal! obtain, prepare, record with the
county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering
section with copies of the public utilities easement across
the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the deve!opment.
24.Where public gas mains are installed in private streets/PUEs
for condominium and zown home projects the CC&Rs and fina! map
s~a~ ..... include the statement: "Public Utility_ ~E~semen~s: if
the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements,
which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to
the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the
Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected
portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be
amended without the prior written consent of the City".
~l~ existing water and wastewater services that will not be
reused shal! be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties
procedures.
26.~l 1 utility installations shal! be in acco_eance wiz_,~ the City
¯
r’l ~ ~’~
~
iof Pa!o Alto utility s~a__aaras ,_-or water gas & wastewater.
Utilities Department - Electric
27.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility
services and/or meters including a sign affidavit of vacancy.
Utilities wil! be disconnected or removed within !0 working
days after receipt of request. The demolition permit wil! be
issued by the building inspection division after al! utility
services and/or meters have been disconnected.
28.The applicant shall submit a completed electric !oad sheet for
each lot for City of Pa!o Alto Utilities. The applicant must
provide al! the information requested for utility service.
29.The applicant shal! submit improvement plans for utility
construction. The plans must show ~h~__e size and !ocation of
al! underground utilities within the development and the
public right-of-way.
30.Any extension or relocation of existing distribution lines or
equipment shall be done at customer/deve!oper’s expense.
Customer /Deve!oper shall ensure that no structure is built
over the existing easements.
31.The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for
facilities installed in private property The app!ic~__~ s
engineer shal! obtain, prepare, record with the county of
Santa Clara, and provide the Utilities Engineering section
with copies of the public utilities easement across the
adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
32 Utility insta!!=u!ons shal! be in accordance with the Clty of
Pa!o Alto Utilities electrica! service requirements.
SECTION 7.Term of Approva!.
Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative
Map shal! be fulfilled prior to approva! of a Fina! Map (P~IMC
Section 2!.~6.0!0[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 approva!, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative
Map shall expire and al! proceedings shal! terminate. Thereafter,
no Fina! Map shall be filed without first processing a Tentative
Map (P~MC Section 2!.!6.0!0[d]) .
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PL~<\YS ~£gD DP~.WINGS REFERENCED:
Those plans prepared by Sandis titled, ~Tentative Map 433 West
Meadow Drive", consisting of one page, dated January 24, 2008.
PLANNING
ATTACHMENT B
& TRANSP OR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TtLANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM.
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jetmifer Cutler
Associate Plaimer
Februa~,13,2008
DEPARTMENT: Plamaing and
Community Enviromnent
433 West Meadow Drive [07PLN-00346]: A Tentative Map to create six
residential condominium units on a .57 acre parcel of land zoned R_M-15.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reconmaends that the Plamfing and Transportation Commission recommend that the City.
Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attaclvnent A) and proposed Tentative Map to
create six residential condominium units at 433 West Meadow Drive.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Background information related to the project’s details and histow has been included within the
Record of Land Use Action, which contains findings and conditions of approval. 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 imo the draft conditions of approval for this
application. The action required of the Plamfing and Transportation Cormnission (Commission
is a recommendation on the Tentative Map. On October 4th and 23~d, the site design and
architecture of the six detached, single-family homes were reviewed and recommended by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) and approved by the Director of Planning and Conmmnit),
Enviromnent (Director).
The scope of the Conmfission’s review for the purposes of this Tentative Map application is
limited to the "design" and "improvement" of the proposed subdivision. In this context, the
terms "design" and "improvement" are defined in the Subdivision Map Act as follows:
"Design" means: (1) street aligmnents, grades and widths; (2) drainage and
sanitary facilities and utilities, including aligmnents and grades thereof; (3)
City of Palo Alto Page
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) Fading; (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.
(Govermnent Code, section 66418)
(a) "In~provement" refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or aNeed
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) "hnprovement" 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.
(Govermnent Code, section 66419)
The desiN~ and improvement of the subdivision should be distinguished from the desi~
of the approved structures to be located within the subdivision. The approved A_RB plans
(Attaclvnent C) are provided to Commissioners for information only.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
The application requested is a six-unit residential condominium subdivision. The project site is a
.57 acre parcel with a single house and two accessory structures at the southerly intersection of
West Meadow Drive and Wilkie Way as shown on the !ocation map (Attachment B). The project
site is in the RM-15 zone and has a Multiple Family Residential land use designation allowing up
to 8 units on the parcel. The property to the southwest is developed with a two-sto~T, two-unit
residential structure and is zoned RM-15. The property to the southeast is developed with
approximately eleven attached residential units contained within two structures and is zoned R_M-
15. The properties across West Meadow Drive and Wilkie Way from the project site are zoned
R-1 and R-2.
The condominiums would be accessed from a private drive along the West Meadow Drive
fiontage. The private drive bisects the property, ~vith tt~ree units to the south and tt~ee to the
north. The four units along the street frontages have their entrances oriented toward the street. All
garages are accessed via the private drive. The layout of the street network and adjacent
properties does not provide any opportunity for the street to comaect through to another street.
The driveway and corm-non areas will be maintained tt~ough the CC&Rs.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The footprint of the units defines the locations of the individual condominium units. The
remainder of the parcel will be commonly owned and maintained via CC&Rs and contain
driveway area, private open space, landscaped public open space (primarily along the street
frontages) and a common use area at the entrance to the project. The project site contains 36
mature trees, including four protected oaks trees, which will be retained.
Staff and City departments have detem~ined that the Tentative Map application is in compliance
with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and ordinances.
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 infomaation and notations required to be
shown on a Tentative Map (per P~MMC Sections 21.12), as well as conform to the desi~a
requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features
(PAMC 21.20).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there area no
other substantive policy implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared and approved in conjunction
with the Architectural Review of the 0.57 acre site. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
included the condominiums maps within the project description and analysis. No further
enviromnental review is required.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Preliminary Architectural Review Board Meeting:
.aa’chitectural Review Board Meeting:
Architectural Review Approval:
Architectural Review Approval Effective:
Tentative Map Application Received:
Tentative Map Application Deemed Complete:
P&TC Meeting on Tentative Map:
Scheduled Action by Council on Tentative Map:
Date:
August 2, 2007
October 4, 2007
October 23, 2007
November 6, 2007
November 2, 2007
JanuaW 28, 2008
Febmaw 13, 2008
March 17, 2008
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Draft Record of Land Use Action
B.Location Map
C.ARB Plans for Information Only (Commissioners Only)
D.Tentative Map (Comanissioners Only)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
COURTESY COPIES:
Forrest Mozar[, California Communities
Prepared by:Jennifer Cutler, Associate Plam~er
Reviewed by: .4any French, Current Plam~ing Manager
Depar[ment/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
City of Palo Alto Page 4
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
DD
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
February 13, 2008
Verbatim Minutes
Attachment C
EXCERPT
433 West Meadow Drive*: A Request by Forrest Mozart on behalf of West Meadow Oaks, L.P.
for a Major Subdivision and Tentative Map for six condominium units. Enviromnental
Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared as part of the
Azchitectural Review of this project. Zone District: RM-15
Ms. Jem~ifer Cutler, Associate Pla~mer: Good evening Conmaissioners. The proposed project is
a Tentative Map to create six residential condominium units at 433 West Meadow. The site
desi~ and architecture of the project were both reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and
approved by the Director in October of 2007.
The site desi~ includes one shared private roadway that enters the site at the center of the West
Meadow frontage and provides access to all six garages and to the shmed guest parking. The
layout of the street network and adjacent properties does not provide any opportunity for the
private street to com~ect tt=ough to another public street. Each owner will have separate interest
in their unit and the private yard associated but all six owners will own the comanon areas
including the private roadway. All of this will be detailed in the CC&Rs for the Final Map.
The site desiNa allows the preservation of all four of the existing protected oak trees but the
remaining 32 trees will be removed. Staff and other City departments have determined that the
Tentative Map application is in compliance with zoning, subdivision, and other codes and
ordinances. Though the design of the buildings is not part of your review I have provided a
subset of the approved ARB plans for your information and to help you understand the Tentative
Map since this is a condominimn subdivision and based on the location, desi~a of the buildings,
and the private yards.
Staff received questions from Connnissioner Keller and I would like to go ttv-ough those now
and provide some answers if that is appropriate. The first question was asking for a chart
showing compliance with zoning issues which you will find at places, showing that it is
complying with setback, daylight plane, etc. The second question was asking for determination
on what the front of the property is. The way that we determine that is the shortest street
frontage and that is along West Meadow, which is the same location as the shared private
driveway. Then there was a question inquiring as to why the driveway was placed coming off of
West Meadow instead of Wilkie Way. That placement allows for the most efficient site desiN~
with one straight access to all of the houses rather than a hammerhead type shape that would
likely be required if it was offWilkie Way. It also allows for a consistent presence of the
buildings fronting on Wilkie Way. It allows those three buildings placed there all facing that
direction and also alloxvs the retention of the protected oaks existing on the site. The fourth
question was asking for information about the required setbacks shown on the map. You can see
on the map the location of the buildings and the chm-t provided for question one does note what
those setbacks are and they are complying with all required setbacks. Then there was a question
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
about the trees, which I did just mention. The four protected oaks, which are all the protected
trees on the site will be retained but the other smaller unprotected trees, 32 in number, will be
removed. The plans that were submitted to you that are fiom the ARB plans are just a subset so
there are some pages that are not included in there. It was a large packet originally and we just
wanted to give you a subset of those. The last question was about the private yards and whether
they are part of the public land or whether they are privately owned. The intention of the
applicant is to have both the building footprint and the private yards as part of what the
individual owners have control over. I believe the wording they provided me was that a separate
interest in the unit and private yard space. I believe those were the questions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, did you have a clarifying question?
Colnmissioner Keller: Yes I did. I think what I was referring to is the PL~ which I believe is a
Public Utility Easement and not necessarily private versus public. Note 1 says that the entire lot
will be considered a PUE. I think PUE is Public Utility Easement, is that correct? So I was
wond’ering since it referred to building envelopes I didn’t 1,mow whether those private yards were
part of the building envelope our not as part of the definition. So that is what I was referring to.
Ms. Cutler: You did read the map correctly. It does state that everything other than the building
envelope is part of the PULE.
Commissioner Keller: So those private yards are part of the Public Utility Easement, correct?
Ms. Cutler: Correct.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Hohnan: I might interject here that I neglected to open the Oral Communications for
anyone who is here to speak to an item that is not on the agenda. I had no cards so I overlooked
it and I will close Oral Communications as well.
No other clarifying questions from Commissioners? So we have one card only on this item and
it is from the applicant, Fonest Mozart, and you will have 15 minutes.
Mr. Forrest Mozart, Applicant: How is everyone doing? I am the developer of this project. I
just want to let you 1,moxv that I am here to answer any questions. Also my civil engineer, Steve
Yazlino, is here. I don’t think I need to give much of an introduction. We are here to answer
any questions.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Commissioner Lippert: I do have a couple of questions. On lot number six, plan one, Wilkie
Way in that whole area is really single family residential, why not move that unit closer to
Meadow Drive to reinforce the street frontage a little bit better and then have that landscape area
internal to the site where all the units feel a little more com~ection to it.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
2.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Mozart: There are two fairly large oak trees right there, those are the two that we are
preserving. So we are staying as far way from them as we can.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, good answer. I am in support of oaks.
Chair Hohnan: Other questions fiom Commissioners? Vice-Chair Garber.
Vice-Chair Garber: Also for the applicant, the landscaped area that is around the homes I take it
that will be irrigated using the water that is taken to a specific house as opposed to irrigated in a
conlnlon way.
Mr. Steve Yazalina. Civil En,~ineer: Good evening everyone. I don’t kmow the specifics of the
landscape layout and the landscape architect is not here today. As far as I understand it the
landscape irrigation is going to be part of the common area associated and defined tMough the
CC&Rs. That is all I know.
Vice-Chair Garber: My heads up then possibly to Public Utilities then is if it is common area
you are only shorting six water meters as opposed to six which would go to each of the milts and
then another one for the common area. I suspect that between Public Utilities and yourself you
can figure that out.
Mr. Mozart: There is a separate water meter for irrigation only,.
Vice-Chair Garber: Which one is that?
Mr. Mozart: It is just to the north of the big bal~ of meters.
Vice-Chair Garber: In the street.
Mr. Mozart: Right.
Vice-Chair Garber:
Mr. Mozart: Right.
Vice-Chair Garber:
I was assuming it wasn’t because it wasn’t adjacent to that.
So that is for all the common area.
Mr. Mozart: Yes.
Vice-Chair Garber: Okay, great.
Chair Holman: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none I have two
cards from members of the public on this item. Actually they are both supposed to be for item
nm-nber 3. So I have no cards from members of the public to speak to this item then. Seeing
none I will close the public hearing.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
36
37
Commissioners, comments or questions of Staff?, Commissioner Sandas.
MOTION
Commissioner Sandas: I am actually ready to make a motion that we can use to ask other
questions and spur more discussion. I move that the Plamaing and Transportation Commission
recommend that tile City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action and proposed
Tentative Map to create six residential condominium units at 433 West Meadow Drive.
SECOND
Comlnissioner Lippert: I will second that.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Sandas, would you care to speak to your
motion?
Commissioner Sandas: Well, as I was reviewing this and looking at the findings that we were
supposed to make or not make I couldn’t find anything that was not in compliance so I felt
comfortable in making the motion.
Chair Hohnan: Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes. Other than nly previous question I have no concerns about tile
project at all. I would like to see it advance forward to the City Council.
Chair Holman: :~ay other questions or comments from Conmaissioners? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I am satisfied and appreciate the answers to the questions I received and
thmfl( you for them. I am happy with the project as a result.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Holman: .~May other questions or conmaents on the item? Seeing none it appears we are
ready to vote. So we are quickly expediting this item. All those in favor of the motion to
recommend Staff recommendation say aye. (ayes) Opposed? None. So that passes on a sexen
to zero vote. Thank you Commissioners.
Page 4
ATTACHMENT D
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Request by California Communities for Major Architectural
Review of six new, detached condominium residential units with a combined total of 12,495 square feet
of floor area located at the southerly corner of West Meadow Drive and Wilkie Way in the RM-15 zone
district.
1.PROJECT TITLE
West Meadow Oaks
433 West Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, California
2.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3.CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Stephen O’Connell
Contract Planner City of Palo Alto
650-329-2552
4.PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS
California Cormnunities
1068 East Meadow Circle
Palo Alto, CA, 94303
5.APPLICATION NUMBER
07-PLN-00124
6.PROJECT LOCATION
433 West Meadow Drive
Palo Alto
Parcel Numbers: 132-44-106
The project site is located in the southwesterly section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of
Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and west of State Route 82 (El Camino Real), as shown
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
on Figure 1: Vicinity’ Map. It is bounded by West Meadow Drive to the north and Wilkie Drive to the
west as shown in Figure 2: Site Plan.
7.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation is Multiple Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, with six residential units on approximately 0.57 acres (10.5
units/acre), is consistent with this land use designation, which allows for a range of eight to forty units
per acre and a population density of eight to ninety persons per acre. The definition of Multiple Family
Residential land use includes the statement, "density should be on the lower end of the scale next to single
family residential areas." The project represents a proposed density of approximately 10 units per acre,
which is on the lower scale of the allowable density,..
The 433 West Meadow Drive site is in the R_M-15 Low-density multiple-family residence district,
regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.22. The RM-15 district is intended to
create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-family housing which is
compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family residence districts.
The RM-I 5 residential district also serves as a transition to moderate density..; multiple-family districts or
districts with nonresidential uses. Permitted densities in the RM-15 residence district range from six to
fifteen dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.22.060, the maximum allowable density, on
this 42,829 square foot parcel is 8.7 units, where six units are proposed.
The project is a permitted use in this zone district.
9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is for six new, detached, two-story, residential condominium units with a combined total of
12,495 square feet of floor area, located on a 0.57 acre property at the southerly comer of West Meadow
Drive and Wilkie Way. The project is accessed from a private drive along the West Meadow Drive
frontage. The private drive bisects the property, with three units to the south and three to the north. The
units range in size from 1,902 square feet of floor area to 2,130 square feet. The footprint of the units will
define the individual condominiums; the remainder of the parcel will contain private open space and
common open space (primarily along the street frontages and at the entrance to the project). The private
drive is not included in open space calculations. The project site contains several large native oak trees.
The location of the private drive and the placement of the units have been in part to preserve the oaks.
i{}.SURROUND]ING LAND USES AND SETTLING
The property to the southwest, 4104 Wilkie Way’, is developed with a two-stoW residential, two unit
structure and is zoned RM-15. The property to the southeast, 451-471 West Meadow Drive, is developed
with approximately eleven attached residential units contained within two structures and is zoned R_M-15.
The two properties across West Meadow Drive from the project site include #404 (on the southeast comer
of the intersection), zoned R-l, and next to #404 is #432 which is zoned R-2. On the north comer of the
intersection, 380 Wilkie Way is zoned R-1. At the opposite side of Wilkie Way, the comer of the property
at 4103 West Meadow Drive is zoned R-1.
The existing project site contains one residential unit, two outbuildings and a small orchard. The existing
structure is not historically significant.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
¯County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)
2)
3)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
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.
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 Sig-nificant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4)"(Mitigated) 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).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a)Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation 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 checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)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.
D~SCUSS~ON OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
a)
b)
c)
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Would the project:
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality, of the site and its
surroundings?
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
public view or view corridor?
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d)Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visual resources?
~)Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f)Substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
Sources
1,2,6
1,
Map L4
Map L4,
12
2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The project site contains 36 mature trees. Included in the total are 4 protected oaks trees which will be retained.
No other trees are proposed to be retained. The removal of the trees to accommodate the development will impact
the existing visual character of the site and will affect the public view of the property. The proposal includes the
planting of seventeen 24-inch box trees as well as numerous shrubs, vines and groundcovers. The most visible of
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
the new trees will be red oaks, planted along both street frontages on the project site. The retention of existing
oaks and the planting of the proposed trees will serve to mitigate the loss of existing vegetation and provide new
shade canopies along the street frontages of the project site.
hnplementation of the detailed arborist report, reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, to protect the health
of the oaks during and after construction, is required and will serve to lessen the visual impact of the proposal to a
less than significant level.
The proposed lighting onsite will produce an increase in glare over the lighting than exists. A photometric plan
has been submitted which evaluates footcandles in the immediate vicinity of the private drive at the center of the
development. There would appear to be minhnal impact of the proposed lighting for the area that is addressed in
the photometric study. The proposed lighting at the center of the property will be downward pointing and will
have a less than sigTfificant impact on neighboring properties. However, the plans do not indicate footcandle
values in areas other than the center of the project site. Lighting will likely be installed at the sides and the rears of
the residential units by property owners, areas that the lighting plan does not address. The plans do not indicate
landscape planting at the rear of the units that could serve to lessen the impact of the lighting. Additionally, the
lighting plan does not include footcandle values along the street frontages where proposed shade trees will serve
to lessen the impact of potential glare. Mitigation Measure A-1 requires the production of a revised lighting plan
to show that the proposed project will not create a substantial amount of light which would adversely impact the
adjacent properties.
There is a special setback along the arterial street (West Meadow Drive) that cannot be encroached upon by any
structure per PAMC Title 20 Chapter 20.08. This setback is proposed for a required guest parking space, which
presents a potentially significant visual impact.Mitigation Measure A-2 will reduce this potentia! impact to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure A-l: Prior to the issuance of building permit(s) the applicant shall provide a revised lighting
plan that includes footcandle measurements for the borders of the property with no footcandle value greater than
or equal to what is required per the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.23.
Mitigation Measure A-2: The revised site plan and landscape plan submitted on July 25th, 2007, which proposes
the location of a guest parking space within the arterial setback will be subject to the provision of landscape
screening.
Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant.
B.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance X
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
issues and Supporting Information Resources
b)
c)
Would the project:
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?
Sources
1,13
1,2-
MapL9,
14
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is regulated by the Williamson Act. There is an existing,
small grove of fruit trees that has not been maintained. The proposed project will have no impact on agricultural
resources.
Mitigation Measures:
None
a)
b)
C. AIR QUALITY
issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (t982 Bay’
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
i.Direct and!or indirect operational
emissions that exceed the Bay, Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and!or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM10);
ii.Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO)
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality., Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
Sources
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or t00 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c)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)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting can(er for the
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii.Ground-level concentrations of non-
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index geater than one (1) for the
MEI
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
g)Not implement all applicable construction
emission control measures recommended in the
Ba3, Area Air QualiO’ Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
S011Fces
1,2,6
1,2
1
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of
sig-nificance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The project would involve demolition, excavating, Fading, and paving activities which
could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PM10). Dust related impacts
are considered potentially significant but may be mitigated 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 sig-nificant, 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 NO.~ and ROC are anticipated to be
less than significant.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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.
The project would be subject to the following Cib,’s standard conditions of approval:
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
~All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
~All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
~ Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures:
None
a)
D.BI[OLOGI~CAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
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 offish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
communiW identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, including 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?
c)Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or minatory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
minatory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nurse~" sites?
1,2-
MapN1,
7,12
MapNl
],2-
MapN1
Potentially
Significant
]Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Conflict with any, local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree !I
433 West Meadow Drive PEN-00120 Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Less Than "No
Significant impact
Impact
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
e)
Would the project:
preservation policy or as defined by the City. of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10)?
Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved loca!,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is in an urban area. As seen in Map N 1 of the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan, there
are no candidate, sensitive, or special status species in or around the project site. The small size of the site and its
location in the middle of urban development results in no habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status
species.
The project site contains 36 mature trees. Included in the total are four protected oaks trees, which will be
retained. The other 32 trees will be removed. The trees to be removed are not regulated trees per the City’s tree
preservation policy as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section
8.10). The proposal also includes the planting of seventeen 24-inch box trees as well as numerous shrubs, vines
and groundcovers. The most visible of the new trees will be red oaks, planted along both street frontages on the
project site. Additional tree planting is expected by the future homeowners. It is the applicant’s intent to provide
adequate protection for all four protected oak trees. However, the initial plan set was based on an inaccurate
survey with respect to one of these four trees, necessitating a revision to the site plan. The plans were reviewed
and approved by the Planning Arborist with the conditions listed as Mitigation Measures D-1 and D-2, ensuring
that the trees will therefore be preserved and potential impacts to biological resources will be less than significant
after mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure D-l: Prior to building permit approval the applicant shall refine the project plans,
in association with the project arborist, to meet the following requirements:
a) The exterior porch on the first floor of Unit 6 shall be above gade porch construction avoiding
any excavation in the root zone of tree #3.
b) Planting shall be avoided within a 4 foot radius of the existing oak trees to remain.
c) The existing root zone of the protected oak trees shall define base ~ade and all improvements,
especially cut required for vehicular paving around trees #4 and #8, shall be completed above
base ~ade. This will result in pavers at a higher grade in the vicinity of the protected oak trees.
Mitigation Measure D-2: A security deposit shall be submitted prior to building permit and held for a
period of two years to offset tree mortality in the event protective measures were not successful.
Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
E.CULTURAL RESOURCES
issues and Supporting information Resources
a)
Would the project:
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City., Council
resolution?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Sources
!5
1.2-
MapL8
]
MapL8
1,2-
MapL8
Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
e)Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2 Xeligible for listing on the National and!or MapL7,California Register, or listed on the City’s 15Historic Inventory?
f)Eliminate important examples of major periods1 X
of California history., or prehistory?
DISCUSSI!ON:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of
the City mea 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.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and
produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery, Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of
construction.
A Historical Resource Analysis Report was prepared in July of 2007 by the finn of Urban Preservation and
Planning for 433 West Meadow. The report states that the property, was not documented or evaluated as part of
the City ofPalo Alto’s historic survey completed by Dames and Edwards in 1999. However, the property was one
of 2,700 properties classified as "Priority 2", which means the survey team stated their opinion that the property
had potential for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources, pending further review and
analysis. The analysis contained in the report by Urban Preservation and Planning has determined that the
property, in its current form, does not appear to be a significant example of domestic architecture, nor does it
appear to hold a significant and/or direct association with the historical development of Palo Alto. The property is
not desig-nated or recognized as a significant property by the City of Palo Alto. The report by Urban Preservation
and Planning has been reviewed by the City’s Historical Preservation Planner who has concurred with the report.
The proposed project will have no impact on historical resources.
Mitigation Measures:
None
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-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?
See
below
1,2,9
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
2-MapN-X
10, 9
iii) Seismic-related gound failure,
including liquefaction? 2-
MapN5,9
iv) Landslides?2-
MapN5,9 X
b)
1,9 X
c)1,9 I !X
d)
MapN5,9
MapN5,9
e)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Result in substantial siltation?
Be located 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?
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?
Expose people or property to major
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
f)
1,9
g)!,9
X
X
X
X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the project site
is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or in an area subject to
expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
A geotechnical investigation has been prepared by TRC Lowney and will be required in conjunction with the
Building Permit application for the project. This geotechnical investigation found that the site is blanketed by very
stiff to medium stiff., moderate plasticity’ clays to depths of 5 to 7 feet. Below the upper clay stratum, the borings
encountered interbedded medium dense to dense poorly graded sand with silt and gravel, clayey sand, and
medium stiff lean clay to maximum depth explored of 45 feet. The report found that, from a geotechnical
engineering viewpoint, the proposed development may be constructed as planned, provided design and
construction are performed to standards required for construction on moderately expansive near-surface soils, and
include demolition of the existing building and pavements prior to site development. This could result in the
potential for damage to the planned structures which are proposed to have post-tensioned mat foundations,
designed to accommodate the estimated expansion potential of the onsite clays. Mitigation Measure F-! addresses
this concern and reduces the potential impact to a less than significant level. All new construction will be required
to comply with to the provisions of the most current Building Code, portions of which are directed at minimizing
seismic risk and preventing loss of life and prope~ in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or
seismic impacts are expected.
Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Standard conditions of approval
require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for approval by the Public Works Department
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard gading, drainage, and erosion control
measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts.
The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Y~iitigation Measures:
Mitigation measure F-i: A Registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review construction
plans and observe earthwork and foundation construction.
Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project:Issues UnLess Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?6
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the Xenvironment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
c)
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e)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?
f 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
safer), hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g For a project within the vicinil), of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safeb,hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h)Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
i)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?
k) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and gound water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
6
1,2,6
1,2
1
MapN9
1,2
1,2
1 ~2-
MapN7
2-MapN7
1,6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous
materials. 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. The project is not expected to pose
airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or
evacuation. The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
None
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAL]iTY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)Violate any water quali~, standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b)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 wanted)?
c)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?
d)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 increage the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacib’ of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?.
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water qualib,?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Bounda~" or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
J)
k)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
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 or being located within a 100-year
flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Result in stream bank instabili~,?
11,2,16
2-MapN2
1,26
1,6
MapN6
2-MapN6
2-MapN6
N8
2-MapN6
N8
I1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Issues Unless
Less .Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
A Phase I/II Environmental Assessment was prepared by GeoTrans, Inc., dated October, 2006. The assessment
states that no release of hazardous materials was found during the site reconnaissance. Minor oils staining was
noted on isolated spots and a small area of minor oil staining was noted on the ground on the floor of an
equipment storage and a small area adjacent to an existing shed, where gasoline and motor oil containers (for
lawn mowers, etc.) were observed in a wooden crate. This minor oil stain will have no significant impact on
water quality.
The project site is not located in an area of ~oundwater recharge, and will not deplete goundwater supplies. The
project site is not located in a 100-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect flood flows. The
project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Mitigation Measures:
None
I.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project:Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
! 1,2 I x
b)
X
Physically divide an established community?
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 progam, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conser~,ation plan?
Substantially adversely change the type or
intensity" of existing or planned land use in the
area?
Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
Conflict with established residential,
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
1,2,3,6
c)
1v X
d)1,2,6 X
e)1,6 X
f)1.2 X
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,13 X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agicultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project complies with all applicable land use plans including the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010
Comprehensive Plan, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The designation for the project site is Multiple Family
Residential with a zoning designation of RM-15 (Low-density multiple-family residence district). The proposed
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
project of six residential units would be on a project site of .57 acres (10.5 units/acre). This is consistent with both
the land use designation, which allows for a range of eight to forts~ units per acre and a population density of eight
to nineb; persons per acre, and the zoning district which allows from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. The
RM-15 district is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas for a mixture of single-family and multiple-
family housing which is compatible with lower density and residential districts nearby, including single-family
residence districts. The property to the southwest, 4104 Wilkie Way, is developed with a two-stor), residential,
two unit structure and is zoned RM-15. The properb, to the southeast, 451-471 West Meadow Drive, is developed
with approximately eleven attached residential units contained within two structures and is zoned tLM-15. The
two properties across West Meadow Drive from the project site include #404 (on the southeast comer of the
intersection), is zoned R-l, and next to #404 is #432 which is zoned R-2. On the north comer of the intersection,
380 Wilkie Way is zoned R-1. At the opposite side of Wilkie Way, the comer of the property at 4103 West
Meadow Drive is zoned R-1.
The project will comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources as mitigated, and would not impact
farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics.
There is an increase in the intensity over the current density with a change from one dwelling unit to six on the
site, but this is not considered significant due to the small size of the project. The proposed project will have a less
than significant impact on land use. No mitigation is required.
With the introduction of a required guest parking space within the front setback, an exception from the
development regulations prohibiting the location of required parking spaces in the front yard will be required.
Mitigation Measure I-1 addresses this conflict and reduces the potential impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure i-!: The project shall be subject to an exception process since a required guest parking
space is proposed within the front yard to allow for the preservation of mature trees on the site. The Architectural
Review Board will review a Design Enhancement Exception as may be applicable and an5,’ screening which may
be required in association with said parking space.
Significance after 5~iitigation:
Less than significant.
MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
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?
Sources
1,2
1,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
Mines and Geolo~, (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone ! (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no
aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication
in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City’ of
Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measures:
None
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Sources
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 pound borne vibrations or gound
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?
For a project within the vicinity, of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
1,2, 5
1,6
1,6
1,5,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No Impact
X
1,2
g)1,5,6 X
h)1,5,6 X
i)1,5,6 X
j)1,5,6 X
433 West Meadow Drive PEN-00120 Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
~eater?
1) Generate construction noise exceeding the
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
Sources
1,5,6
1,5,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
impact
No impact
D][SCUSSION:
The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 65 Ldn. 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. Standard approva!
conditions would require the project to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which
restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activib’. Short-term construction that
complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
A report prepared by Charles M. Salter and Associates, finds that the site plan for the proposed project indicates
that back3,’ards fronting Wilkie Way and side yards facing West Meadow Drive, wil! have noise levels up to a
DNL of 62 dB along Wilkie Way, 64 dB along West Meadow Drive and 66 dB at the intersection of the two
streets. The City of Palo Alto Noise Element contains the goal of exterior noise levels of no more than a DNL of
60 dB in outdoor use areas. To reduce the DNL to 60 dB at homes 2, 3 and 6, the noise report recommends a five-
foot high barrier or privacy wall be erected at the property lines along adjacent roadways and a barrier around
home 1 six-feet high along West Meadow Drive.
The areas contained between the walls recommended by the Salter and Associates study and the units are
proposed to be both private open space and small common use (at the comer of the project private drive and West
Meadow Drive). The erection of the recommended walls would create an aesthetic impact by effectively walling
in the project site resulting in a visual barrier from the street frontages. In order to not negatively impact the
aesthetics of the project sight, staff has concluded that the proposed walls enclosing private open space should be
modified in a way that minimizes the visual impact of the walls while mitigating noise impacts. With the
following mitigation measure the potential impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure K-l: Prior to issuance of the building permit the applicant shall submit revised project plans
that include a 5-foot high barrier or privacy wall along the borders of any private open spaces that face on either
West Meadow Drive or Wilkie Way. The wall will only be required along sides that face the streets.
Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
a)
go
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Sources
Would the project:
Induce substantial population grox~<h in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Create a substantial imbalance between
employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local
population projections?
1,2,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
b)X
1
c) X
1
d)1,2 x
e)1,2 X
No Impact
DISCUSSION:
The project would add six new residential units to the site. This small number of units will not result in
sig-nificant population growth.
Mitigation Measures:
None
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
Would the project:
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?
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No Impact
X
X
X
];ssues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Sotlrces
!,2
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
D[SCUSSI[ON:
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. 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.
Based on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) student generation rates (Stanford Sand Hill Road
Corridor Projects EIR, page 4.12-26) of 0.276 elementary students per residential unit, 0.088 middle school
students, and 0.095 high school students, the project would generate 2 elementary students, 1 middle school
student, and 1 high school student. No significant demand for school services would result from the project, as it
is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. Currently, enrolhnent in
the PAUSD is approaching capaciD’. School overcrowding is not considered a significant effect however, under
CEQA [Goleta Union School District v. The regents of the UniversiW of California (35 Cal.App.4th 1121 (1995)].
Rather, the increase in students from a project is only significant if such an increase would create significant
environmental effects, such as impacts from the construction of a new school. Due to demand, the PAUSD is
examining options to increase capacitT, including re-opening currently closed schools. However, the project’s
cumulative impacts for the purposes of CEQA are considered to be less than significant, as the impact from the
project alone is not considerable. It should be noted that the PAUSD has implemented a school impact fee. 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 popu!ation..
Mitigation Measures:
None
N. RECREATION
issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
Would the project:
Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facilib; would occur or be accelerated?
Sources
1,2,3
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
b)
Would the project:
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?
SOUFCeS Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The small increase in the residences may add to the number of people using pak services. The project is subject
to Development Impacts fees for parks totaling approximately 34,866 which will provide for any additional
demand on local parks from the new housing units.
Mitigation Measures:
None
O.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a)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)?
b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county’ congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c)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?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
progams supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City. of Palo Alto) intersection
1,6,17
1,6,17
!,6
1,8
1,8
11,8
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No Impact
X
X
X
I X
[ X
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 21 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting information Resources
Would the project:
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F
or contribute traffic in excess of I% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a
comparative analysis between the design
queue len~h and the available queue storage
capacity.’? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spiltback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard?
SouFces
1,6,17
1,6,17
1,6,17
1,6,17
1,6,17
1,6,8
1,2,6
t,6
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DISCUSSION:
Through empirical research, data have been collected that correlate to common land uses their propensity for
producing traffic. Thus, for the most common land uses there are standard trip generation rates that can be applied
to help predict future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The magnitude of the traffic
generation by the proposed project was estimated by applying to the size of the development the applicable trip
generation rates. These calculations, in the table below, are calculated on the basis of the trip generation rates
published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual entitled Trip Generation, sixth edition, 1997.
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed project is a small residential development, there would be no significant traffic impacts on the
surrounding streets and intersections resulting from the project due to its smal! size.
Traffic Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ] Saturday Peak Hour
Land Use Rate~Daily Daily Peak-Hourly Peak-Hourly Peak-Hourly
Rate:Trips Hour Trips Hour Trips Hour Trips
Rate:Rate~-Rate2
Proposed Residential -6 5.86 36 0.44 4 0.54 4 0.47 3
Condominium
/Townhouse
~Size expressed in dwelling units.
2Trip rates based on Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Ge~Teratio~, sixth edition, 1997. Residential -
Condominium/Townhouse (230)
Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants prepared a Site Access and On-Site Circulation Analysis dated March
21, 2007 for the proposed project site. This study found that the proposed project does not have any on-site
circulation or onsite access issues. It was found that there is sufficient parking and pedestrian and bicycle facilities
included in the proposed study. The study did include some concerns about the alignment of the new driveway
and the sight distances for entering the roadway when leaving the property.. The Mitigation Measure O-1 will
reduce hazards resulting from the currently proposed driveway orientation to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure 0-1: Prior to building permit approval the applicant shall submit a revised site plan that
eliminates the driveway’s curvature so that the driveway entrance is perpendicular to West Meadow Drive.
Significance after Mitigation:
Less than significant.
P.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project:Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a)
X
1,2
b)
X
c)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
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
1,2
d)
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
X
issues and Supporting Information Resources
Would the project:
SouFees Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 inadequate
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?
Result in a substantial physical deterioration
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact
1,2 X
e)
X
1
X
1
X
h) 1
X
DIISCUSSI[ON:
The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit
calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer and fire systems are
capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. Trash and
recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and recycling streams that
would be generated by the expected uses within the project site.
I’ditigation Measures:
None
Qo
issues and Supporting Information Resources
a)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI[CANCE
] Sources Potentially
Would the project:
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?
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
1,2-Map
L4,6,12
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
b)
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
No impact
Issues and Supporting Information Resources
c)
Would the project:
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)?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Sources
1,2,6
1,5,6,8,17
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
X
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic
resources. The uses are appropriate for the site and with mitigation the development would not result in an
adverse visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once
mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts in the areas of noise and traffic.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1.Project Planner’s "knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 - Zoning Ordinance
4.The Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards
5.Environmental Noise Study by Charles M Salter Associates, Inc., March 13, 2007
6.Project Plans, the Dahlin Group, submitted on June 18, 2007.
7.Tree Inventory. and Review of the Proposed Six-Lot Subdivision at 433 West Meadow Drive, Arbor
Resources, March 8, 2007
8. Site Access and On-site Circulation Analysis for the West Meadow Oaks Residential Development in Palo
Alto, California, Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, March 21, 2007
9. Geotechnical Investigation for Residential Development at 433 West Meadow Drive, TRC Lowney, January
26, 2006
10. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
11. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
12. Dave Docktor, May, !7, 2007
13. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Progam, 2004.
14. Agricultural Preserves Map, California Depamnent of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
2001
15. Historic Resource Analysis Report, prepared by Urban Preservation and Planning, July 2007.
16. Phase I!II Environmental Assessment, prepared by GeoTrans, Inc, October 2006.
17. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, sixth edition, 1997. Residential-
Condominium/Townhouse (_~0)
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Stephen O’Connell, Contract Planner
Jennifer Cutler, Associate Planner
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I 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 ENWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, 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 EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Date
433 West Meadow Drive PLN-00120 Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration