HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8146
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8146)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/14/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Buena Vista Tentative Map
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3972, 3980 and 3990 El Camino Real
[17PLN-00197]: Request by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County for a
Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site That Includes the Buena Vista Mobile
Home Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and two Adjacent Commercial
Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for lot Reconfiguration and lot
Line Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access
and Utilities Easements. The Three new Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5
Acres, Zoned RM-15 for Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena Vista Mobil
Home Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for Neighborhood Commercial
Use (Existing Retail Building), (3) Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned CN (Existing Gas
Station Site) and RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More Than Eight
Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre Residential Portion
Would Be Leased to the Housing Authority for up to Three Years, Allowing
Tenants to Remain Until They can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. On July 12,
2017, the Planning & Transportation Commission Recommended Approval of
the Tentative Map
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that Council approve the
proposed Tentative Map based on findings and with conditions of approval as reflected in the
attached Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B).
Executive Summary
With support from the City and Santa Clara County, the Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara (HACSC, Applicant) is in the process of purchasing and preserving the Buena Vista
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Mobile Home Park and has applied for a tentative map to reconfigure and remove lot lines on
the 6.19-acre site, reducing the number of parcels from five to three, providing access and
utilities easements, and enabling their purchase of one of the parcels. The proposed map is
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and meets tentative map approval findings.
The HACSC anticipates closing escrow on September 1, 2017, and will purchase 4.5 acres
(proposed Parcel 1) from the current owner. The deal includes a three-year ‘lease-back’ of the
residentially-zoned 0.41-acre portion of proposed Parcel 3 to give the HACSC sufficient time to
relocate residents in that area to the 4.5 acre parcel. Easements across the proposed CN-zoned
Parcel 2 (the retail building parcel) will allow vehicular access and utility service to the Park.
Background
Closure of the existing Buena Vista Park (Park) was imminent in 2015, following the owner’s
2012 application for a park closure. To avoid the loss of affordable housing units, Council
committed to providing $14.5 million in affordable housing funds via approval of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June 2016. All MOU parties - the City of Palo Alto,
HACSC, and Santa Clara County - committed to preserving affordable housing at the Park by
contributing the same amount of funding to purchase and make improvements to the housing
units in the Park.
The PTC report provides relevant background information and graphics (Attachment C).
Located on the corner of El Camino Real and Los Robles Avenue, the site includes the Buena
Vista Mobile Home Park (3980 El Camino Real), which provides 117 housing unit structures and
is zoned RM-15 (multiple-family residential, 15-units per acre). The gas station and retail
building on the site (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real) are zoned CN. The gas station site is noted
as a Housing Inventory Site in the City’s Housing Element, as feasible for five housing units.
There are protected oaks on the property, and sidewalks along the El Camino Real frontage.
Council committed to providing funding in June 2016 to preserve the affordable housing at the
Park subject to an MOU (see http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53001;
item 18 on the agenda; video available here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-92). The PTC
excerpt minutes from July 12, 2017 are attached to this report (Attachment G).
Discussion and Key Issues
Zoning Lines v Parcel Lines
The new parcel line between Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 will not be coterminous with the existing
zoning district boundary between CN and RM-15 zones, but that is not a code or land use issue.
Adjustment of Housing Unit Locations
The HACSC will take ownership of Parcel 1 to preserve the property’s use as an affordable
modular home park community and will contract with an entity that will make repairs and
updates to the site to ensure compliance with building codes. The full scope of the required
City of Palo Alto Page 3
repairs and other improvements will be determined after the HACSC takes ownership and has
an opportunity to meet with residents. There are some vacancies currently, including empty
coaches and lots on the Park site and the applicant is in the process of making some
adjustments to the locations of two existing housing units to ensure they are not bisected by
the line separating proposed Parcels 1 and 3. A 0.41-acre area of Parcel 3 would be leased back
to HACSC to allow tenants in eight units to remain until they can be accommodated on Parcel 1.
Zoning Compliance1
The existing mobile homes and residential structures on proposed Parcels 1 and 3 are non-
conforming as to setbacks, existing and proposed, and the extent of nonconformance will not
materially change with approval of the tentative map. With no proposed development plans at
this time, existing non-conforming setbacks will not be adjusted. A 10-foot setback for the retail
building on Parcel 2 from the common property line with Parcel 1 (Park) will allow the proposed
access and utility easement and meet the minimum CN setback requirement. The proposed lot
line separating Parcels 1 and 3 bisect two existing mobile homes. One is vacant and will be
removed and the other will be adjusted through a building permit and/or HCD process.
No Changes in Zoning, Density or Land Use
The proposed Tentative Map is not associated with any rezoning, change in land use,
development, or building modifications (other than adjustments of a few housing unit
footprints to address new lot lines). The same land uses would remain following recordation of
the final map. There are no changes to the existing retail building and gas station and retail
building parking spaces tenants and customers will be unaffected by the proposed map.
Easements
The current owner (Mr. Jisser) will continue to own Parcel 2 (1 acre) and will allow continued
access and utilities serving the Park across Parcel 2 by way of two easements, as follows:
A 10-foot wide access easement across Parcel 2 from Los Robles Avenue, west of the
retail building, will double as an electrical utilities easement for service of electricity to
the housing units on Parcels 1 and 3, including a private easement for existing
equipment not owned by Palo Alto Utilities.
A 20-foot wide vehicular access easement from El Camino Real to the Park, north of the
retail building, will also serve as a public utilities easement and private utilities
easement.
A 4.8’ wide easement for public access will also be provided along the El Camino Real frontage,
as indicated on map sheets 3 and 5. These sheets were provided to the PTC in an at places
memo (Attachment D).
1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Finally, the existing 30-foot wide access easement on Parcel 2 for Standard Oil to serve the gas
station at 3972 El Camino Real will not be abandoned; the abandonment of that easement had
appeared on the tentative map presented to the PTC on July 12, 2017.
Awareness/Outreach
The recent PTC hearing was well-attended by Park residents in support of the proposed map.
One member of the public spoke, and provided a letter (Attachment E). Notice of the PTC
public hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice for the Council
hearing was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on July 28, 2017, which is 18 days in advance of
the Council meeting. Postcard mailing to property owners within 300 feet of the site occurred
on July 28, 2017, which is 18 days in advance of the meeting. The applicant had also notified
the tenants of the Park as to the map application and PTC hearing. Additional information has
been provided to residents since the PTC meeting and the HACSC will continue to work with
residents as they develop an operating budget for infrastructure investment.
Approval Findings and Agreements
Map applications are evaluated based on specific findings. As map findings are set up in Title
21, all findings must be made in the negative to approve the project. Due to the subject
property’s acreage, a Preliminary Parcel Map process is not available, and the Tentative Map
process is required. No subdivision improvement agreement is required at this time, since no
development nor right of way improvements are proposed. Any future development of the site
would include right of way improvements. The MOU Council approved in June 2016 provides
expectations and notes, “the parties recognize that the ongoing operation of the Park (or an
equivalent housing resource for the Park community) for a period of up to 50 years and the
continuing use of the property for affordable housing will benefit the residents of the County
and the City because it will create a long term affordable housing resource.”
Policy Implications
Housing Element Program H3.1.8 recognizes the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park as providing
low- and moderate income housing opportunities and precedes an objective about preserving
the mobile home units as a low and moderate income housing resource. The requested action
would advance this program by facilitating the Housing Authority’s purchase of the mobile
home park.
No redevelopment plans are proposed as part of the map and commercial portions of the site
would remain in their current form at least for the short term. The gas station site (Parcel 3) is
listed in the City’s Housing Element as a Housing Opportunity Site and zoned for mixed use. The
corner property (Parcel 2) is also zoned for mixed use and was not noted as a Housing
Opportunity Site.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The attached draft Record of Land Use Action contains findings for approval of the Subdivision,
in accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Resource Impact:
The City committed to providing $14.5 million in funding. MOU Section 5 notes,
“In the event HACSC acquires the Park, HACSC will own, operate and maintain the Park,
subject to reasonable County and City recorded restrictions on use of the land
(Affordability Restrictions), including, but not limited to, a restriction to operate the Park
for up to 50 years and to use the property continuously for affordable housing. The
Parties agree that they have a common interest in establishing the potential financial
viability of the Park as a housing resource. Prior to the final Acquisition, Determination
the Parties will confer in accordance with their common interest and define the
Affordability Restrictions to be recorded immediately after HACSC takes title to the Park.
To the maximum extent allowed by law, HACSC will give housing priority to the tenants
of the Park as of the date of the approval of this MOU, subject to compliance with
reasonable and necessary rental rules, and income eligibility under applicable affordable
housing financing.”
Based upon the City’s commitment, $6.8 million was set aside in the Residential Housing Fund
and $7.7 million was set aside in the Commercial Housing Fund for this purpose.
Timeline
City Council is scheduled to receive, with the August 21st Council packet (or soon thereafter), a
staff report and a final map for approval (on consent calendar). Recordation would quickly
follow final map approval as the Housing Authority hopes to close escrow on their purchase of
the 4.5 acre parcel September 1, 2017.
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project has been found exempt from
CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for Housing
Assistance Programs.
Attachments:
Attachment A: LOCATION MAP (DOCX)
Attachment B: JULY 12 ROLUA Tentative map BV (DOCX)
Attachment C: July 12, 2017 PTC Report (PDF)
Attachment D: At Places PTC Memo (DOC)
Attachment E: Herb Borock Letter (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Attachment F: Tentative Map on Building Eye (DOCX)
Attachment G: Excerpt PTC Minutes T Map July 12 2017 (DOC)
LOCATION MAP: 6.19-acre Site, 3972, 3980 and 3990 El Camino Real
File: 17PLN-00197, Tentative Map
APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
3972, 3980, 3990 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION [FILE NO.17PLN-
00197]
On August 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Tentative Map application for
reconfiguration of lot lines on a 6.19-acre site to three parcels, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 2, 2017, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County applied for a
Tentative Map application for the reconfiguration of five lots to three lots on a 6.19-acre site that
includes the Buena Vista Modular Home Park (zoned RM-15) and commercial land uses (zoned
CN);
B. The RM-15 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 8,500
square feet. The Parcel Map would result in a 4.5-acre parcel (Parcel 1) for the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park under RM-15 zoning, and a 0.41-acre (17,859.6 square foot) portion of Parcel
3 that would remain in RM-15 zoning. Multiple family housing use would continue on these RM-
15 zoned sites and compliance with RM-15 standards related to new lot lines would be assured
with implementation of approval conditions;
C. The CN zoning district will remain on (1) proposed Parcel 2, where no site or
building changes are proposed, and where the proposed easements will not adversely impact site
improvements and required parking spaces, and (2) the portion of Parcel 3 supporting the 0.29-
acre gas station site, where no site or building changes are proposed. Access and utility
easements across Parcel 2 to serve housing units on Parcels 1 and 3 are proposed and have been
reviewed and approved by relevant City staff; and
D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Tentative Map on July 12, 2017,
supporting a condition of approval requiring up to a three-year lease back of the 0.41-acre
housing site on Parcel 3 to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines
Sections CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for
Housing Assistance Programs.
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of
the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474):
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The proposed Tentative Map, as
conditioned, is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including
the Housing Element 2015-2023, the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.20), and the RM-15 zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.13)
development standards.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is physically suitable for the
existing uses, and the revised lot configuration is compatible with the pattern and scale of
existing and neighboring development, with implementation of approval conditions. There is no
specific plan designated for the area;
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site’s lot reconfiguration will
allow for continuation of existing land uses. No development is proposed at this time; repair and
unit footprint(s) adjustment are necessary prior to Final Map recordation. The site is adjacent to
commercial, single-family residential and multi-family residential uses, and is zoned to allow the
continuation of uses and densities.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. As conditioned, the subdivision would
be consistent with the site’s development regulations of the RM-15 zone district. The existing
densities are not proposed to be changed; in particular, the overall number of housing units will
not be increased with this map.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause
environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located in an
established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in the area. The final map will comply with conditions of approval for protected
tree preservation.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel
will not cause serious health problems. The map is designed to provide easements allowing
access for emergency services, and utility services, such as electricity, gas, sanitation and water,
and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that
alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The reconfiguration of existing parcels
will not conflict with existing public easements, and new public and private easements are
proposed for utilities and vehicular access.
Because none of the statutory findings authorizing denial can be met, the City Council hereby
approves the subject “Tentative Map”.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
Planning
1. The proposed lot line between Parcels 1 and 3 are shown bisecting an existing mobile
home and another structure. These structures will need to be demolished or otherwise
adjusted via a City of Palo Alto building permit and/or HCD mobile home alteration
process, prior to recordation of the Final Map.
2. The proposed lot line between Parcels 2 and 3 will be very near three existing mobile
homes but will not be touching them; these homes may be need to be adjusted via City
of Palo Alto building permit and/or HCD mobile home alteration process.
3. The final map shall reflect all necessary public utility easements to be granted to the
City for the location and maintenance of required utilities.
4. The sub-divider shall preserve all existing protected trees on the site.
5. The Final Map shall be filed with the Planning Division within two years of the
approval of the tentative subdivision map.
6. In accordance with an agreement with the Housing Authority, the property owner of
Proposed Parcel 3 shall lease back for a term of up to three years, the 0.41-Acre portion
of Proposed Parcel 3 on which eight or more housing units currently exist.
Public Works – Engineering
The following comments are required to be addressed during the final map submittal.
Comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the
Planning entitlement approval:
1. There are many existing encroachments into the storm drain easement. At the time any
development is proposed at this site, these structures would need to be relocated
outside of the easement.
2. The applicant will need to record the plat/legal document that re-draws the
boundary of proposed Parcel 2, prior to recordation of the Final Map.
Urban Forestry
1. Submit a site plan with the Final Map application reflecting a numbered tree inventory
and all data from the June 2, 2017 Tree Disclosure Statement (TDS), and provide a
tree protection report and tree disposition sheet.
SECTION 6. Term of Approval.
Tentative Map Approval. Within two years of the approval or conditional approval of
a tentative map the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and
a final map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the tentative map
as approved or conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and this title and submitted to the city engineer
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 8228)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/12/2017
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Buena Vista Mobile Home Park and Adjacent Commercial Lots
Tentative Map
Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3980 El Camino Real [17PLN-
00197]: Request by the Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County for a Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site that Includes
the Buena Vista Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and Two
Adjacent Commercial Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino
Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line Removals to Reduce
Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access and Utilities
Easements. The Three New Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5
Acres, Zoned RM-15 for Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena
Vista Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for
Neighborhood Commercial Use (Existing Retail Building), (3)
Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned CN (Existing Gas Station Site) and
RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More than Eight
Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre
Residential Portion Would Be Leased to the Housing Authority
for Up To Three Years, Allowing Tenants to Remain Until They
can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. For More Information
Contact Project Planner Amy French at
Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.com
From: Hillary Gitelman
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following
action(s):
1. Recommend approval of the tentative map application to the City Council based on
findings and subject to conditions of approval in the draft Record of Land Use Action
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
(Attachment B). An updated version of Attachment B, including approval conditions,
will be provided to the PTC members at places.
Report Summary
The PTC is requested to review the Tentative Map application submitted by the Housing
Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC, Applicant). The proposed map and subdivision
agreement would reconfigure and remove lot lines to reduce the number of parcels to three,
and provide access and utilities easements. The map is consistent with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and meets tentative map approval findings and, as conditioned, would
meet development standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff therefore recommends
City Council approval of the application.
Buena Vista Manufactured Home Park
Closure of the existing Buena Vista Park (Park) located on the subject property was imminent in
2015, following the owner’s submittal in 2012 of a park closure application. To avoid the loss of
these affordable housing units, City Council committed to providing $14.5 million in affordable
housing fees via approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June 2016. All MOU
parties - the City of Palo Alto via City Council, HACSC via Housing Authority Board, and Santa
Clara County via County Board of Supervisors - have committed to preserving the affordable
housing at the Park by contributing the same amount of funding. The funding will be used to
purchase and make improvements to the housing units in the Park.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Joseph Jisser
Architect: Civil Engineer
Representative: Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara
Property Information
Addresses and APNs: 3972, 3980, and 3990 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Barron Park vicinity (portion of Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito)
Lot Dimensions & Area: 6.19 acres (269,636.4 acres; approx. 815’ x 330’)
Housing Inventory Site: Yes (3972 El Camino Real: 5 units)
Located w/in a Plume: No
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes (Oaks)
Historic Resource(s): No (Retail 1958-modified 1999; BV 1925 residence; Station 1959)
Existing Improvement(s): 3972 El Camino Real: Two commercial buildings (service station);
3980 El Camino Real (Park): 117 structures (104 Mobile homes, 12
studios, 1 SFR); 3990 El Camino Real: 1 retail building
Existing Land Use(s): Multiple family residential use and commercial uses
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: Zoning (R-1, single-family and RM-15, multi-family residential)
West: Zoning (RM-30, multiple family residential at 630 Los Robles)
East: Zoning (CN, commercial, Keys School and motels)
South: Zoning (RM-30, multiple family residential (corner of Los
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Robles and El Camino), and multiple-family residential PC-2930)
across from the Park
Special Setbacks: El Camino Real: 25 feet
Aerial View of Property (left); Plan View of Existing Building Footprints and Neighborhood (right)
Source: Google Streetview Source: GIST (Palo Alto GIS System)
Right Image: Five Existing Parcels on Site Show:
(1) in blue at bottom - 17 buildings, (2) large green - 93 small buildings, (3) small blue - no
buildings (4) smaller green - 1 retail building, (5) white site - two buildings (service station)
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines
Zoning Designation: RM-15 and CN zone districts
Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential and Neighborhood Commercial
Context-Based Design: Applicable
Downtown Urban Design: NA
SOFA II CAP: NA
Baylands Master Plan: NA
ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Applicable
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes
Located w/in AIA
(Airport Influence Area): NA
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: Council committed to providing funding in June 2016 to preserve the
affordable housing at the Park. ID #7125 Staff report includes MOU:
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53001;
item 18 on the agenda; video available here:
http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-92/.
PTC: None.
HRB: None.
ARB: None.
Project Description
Existing Conditions
The Barron Park neighborhood was annexed into the City in 1975. While the site, standard buildings on
the site, and anchorage of mobile homes are within the review purview of the City of Palo Alto, the State
of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has purview over mobile
homes and alterations thereto. The 6.19-acre site owned by Joe Jisser, Family Trust Manager, currently
includes:
The Park at 3980 El Camino Real, zoned RM-15,
A gas service station at 3972 El Camino Real, zoned CN, and
A retail building at 3990 El Camino Real, zoned CN.
The Park is currently accessible via one driveway each from both Los Robles Avenue and El
Camino Real. Access to the Park from El Camino Real is provided across the retail building
parcel. There existing access easement from El Camino Real to reach the first set of homes is as
deep as the gas service station site; this easement is proposed to be abandoned.
Proposed Tentative Map
The addresses, zone districts and land uses would remain following recordation of the final map
that reduces the number of parcels from five to three and provides new utility and access
easements. Prior to recordation, several adjustments would need to be made within the Park,
to ensure the proposed new lot lines do not bisect the footprint of any existing mobile homes.
The attached location map (Attachment A) shows the site’s zoning; the zoning designations will
remain, though one of the new parcel lines will not be coterminous with a zoning district
boundary. Information is provided herein about existing and proposed conditions allowing for
Council approval of the map. The three new parcels, with proposed ownership and easements,
will be as follows:
Parcel 1 (4.5 acres):
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
The HACSC would take ownership of Parcel 1 to preserve the property’s use as an affordable
modular home park community. HACSC would contract with an entity that would make repairs
and updates to the site to ensure compliance with building codes. Some adjustments to the
locations of existing housing units will be necessary to ensure building and zoning code
development standards (setbacks) will be met. Access will continue to be from the Los Robles
Avenue driveway. Access will also be available across Parcel two from both Los Robles Avenue
and El Camino Real, as described below.
Parcel 2 (1.0 acre):
The current owner (Jisser) will continue to own this parcel, which is in neighborhood
commercial use. No change is proposed to the existing retail building or uses of the site, and
the existing parking spaces for the retail building tenants and customers will be unaffected by
the proposed map.
Easements on Parcel 2:
A 10-foot wide access easement across Parcel 2 from Los Robles Avenue to the Park will
be provided west of the retail building from Los Robles Avenue. The easement will
double as an electrical utilities easement to allow continued service of electricity to the
housing units on Parcels 1 and 3. The electric utilities easement will also bend in a ‘dog
leg’ to the east, to incorporate the transformer and switch gear on Parcel 2 that feed
electricity to Parcels 1 and 3. The switch gear easement would be a private easement for
this equipment that is not owned by Palo Alto Utilities.
A 20-foot wide vehicular access easement from El Camino Real to the Park will be
provided to the north of the retail building. This easement will also serve as a public
utilities easement and private utilities easement.
Parcel 3 (0.7 acre):
No changes are proposed to the existing gas station site (which has a three year lease), nor to
the multiple family residential use on the RM-15 zoned, 0.41-acre rear portion of proposed
Parcel 3. There are approximately eight housing units on this 0.41-acre area, which the owner
(Jisser) would lease back to the Housing Authority for up to three years, allowing tenants to
remain until they can be accommodated on Parcel 1.
Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview:
The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview:
Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC
Chapter 21. If recommended for approval, the map requires review and action by the
City Council. Map applications are evaluated to specific findings. As map findings are set
up in Title 21, all findings must be made in the negative to approve the project. The
findings to approve the application are provided in the attached Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment B). Due to the subject property’s acreage (6.19 acres), a Preliminary
Parcel Map process is not available; the map must be reviewed by the PTC and City
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Council in public hearings. Beyond the requested tentative map approval, no other
activity is proposed at this time and no subdivision improvement agreement is required,
since no right of way improvements are proposed.
Analysis1
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The 6.19 acre site is in the Barron Park neighborhood that was annexed to Palo Alto in 1975.
The site has over 300 feet of frontage on El Camino Real. The current El Camino fronting parcels
are developed with one-story buildings (two service station buildings and one retail building).
The corner retail building, originally built in 1958 as a grocery store, was converted and updated
in 1999. The 1959 gas station buildings have also been modified. There are eight single family
residences on R-1 zoned sites along the northerly boundary of the Park. The buildings and
mobile units in the Park are one-story, and house approximately 400 people, including many
families with children. The residence on the site dates back to 1925, but has not been
identified as a historic resource; it is not proposed for demolition in conjunction with this map.
The site is next to and across from multiple family residential housing units on Los Robles
Avenue, and next to and across from commercially zoned and used El Camino Real fronting
properties
Potential Redevelopment of El Camino Real Properties
The gas station site is listed in the City’s Housing Element as a housing opportunity site for five
housing units. The proposed 0.7-acre Parcel 3, on which the gas station is located, includes a
0.41-acre, RM-15 zoned area currently in residential use with approximately eight mobile
homes. Development is not proposed at this time; however, if proposed Parcel 3 were to be
redeveloped after the three year lease term, a mixed use development could include at least 10
market rate units across the site, in addition to a 5,052 square foot commercial building.
Conversion of auto service use existing as of March 19, 2001 to office use is not allowed in the
CN zone district. The corner property, updated in 1999, is also a potential redevelopment site
for mixed use or commercial use. No such redevelopment is proposed at this time.
Zoning Compliance2
The existing mobile homes and residential structures on proposed Parcels 1 and 3 are non-
conforming as to setbacks, existing and proposed. As noted, there are no proposed
development plans at this time. The proposed lot lines would create the following
conformances and non-conformances:
A 10-foot setback would be provided for the retail building on Parcel 2 from the
common property line with Parcel 1 (Park). This setback allows the proposed access and
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public
testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an
alternative action from the recommended action.
2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
utility easement for Parcels 1 and 3 and will meet the minimum 10-foot setback
requirement for CN zoned parcel that abuts a residentially zoned parcel. The CN zone
requirement for landscape screening and solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in
height cannot required at this time, since this is not a development proposal and there
is no room for such improvements given the location of existing buildings and the need
for access and utility easements to serve the existing mobile home park. Landscape and
fence requirements can be imposed with future development of these parcels.
The proposed lot line between Parcels 1 and 3 are shown bisecting two existing mobile
homes. One is vacant and will be removed. The other will remain in place for a limited
time or adjusted through a building permit and/or HCD process.
The proposed lot line between Parcels 2 and 3 will be very near three existing mobile
homes but not touching them; these homes will also remain in place for a limited time
or adjusted through a building permit and/or HCD process.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3
Commercial Properties
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, Policy L-35, contains a
diagram that shows the commercial sites at the northwesterly corner of Los Robles and El
Camino Real as a location to encourage street facing convenience commercial shopping.
Manufactured Home Park
The Palo Alto Housing Element notes that mobile homes represent less than 0.35 percent of the
total housing stock in Palo Alto, and cites a total of 99 mobile homes in Palo Alto as of 2013.
The Buena Vista Park is cited in the Housing Element, which notes that the Park consists of 104
mobile homes, 12 studio units and one single family home with estimated 400 residents.
Program H3.1.8 recognizes the Buena Vista mobile home park as providing low-and moderate-
income housing opportunities and states that to the extent feasible, the City will seek
appropriate local, State and federal funding to assist in the preservation and maintenance of
the existing units. The City’s Housing Element contains policies both supporting the
preservation and rehabilitation of existing units (Policy H1.1 and H1.2), and policies supporting
actions to increase the supply of affordable housing (Policy H2.1 and H2.2). The Housing
Element also documents at length some of the housing challenges facing Palo Alto and the
region, and articulates quantified objectives for the 2015-2023 planning period for
rehabilitation (600 below market rate units), preservation (334 below market rate units), and
new development (1,401 below market rate units), indicating the need for investments in all of
these activities. These policies and programs provided the basis for Council’s approval of
funding commitment for acquisition and improvements to the Park.
Consistency with Application Findings
3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
The attached draft Record of Land Use Action contains findings for approval of the Subdivision,
in accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Environmental Review
The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained
in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project has been found exempt from
CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for Housing
Assistance Programs.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper
and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least
ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto
Weekly on June 30, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing to
property owners within 300 feet of the site occurred on June 29, 2017, which is 13 in advance
of the meeting. The applicant has committed to notifying the tenants of the Park as to the map
application and PTC hearing.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Next Steps
City Council is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the map on August 14, 2017. A final map
process and recordation would quickly follow tentative map approval.
Alternative Actions
In addition to the recommended action, the Planning and Transportation Commission may:
1. Recommend Council Approve the map with modified findings or conditions; or
2. Recommend denial based on revised findings.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
Report Author & Contact Information PTC4 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, AICP, Assistant Director
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2679
amy.french@cityofpaloalto@email jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: LOCATION MAP (DOCX)
Attachment B: ROLUA Tentative Map BV (DOCX)
Attachment C: Tentative Map (DOCX)
4 Emails may be sent directly to the PTC using the following address: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org
LOCATION MAP: 6.19-acre Site, 3972, 3980 and 3990 El Camino Real
File: 17PLN-00197, Tentative Map
APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
3972, 3980, 3990 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION [FILE NO.17PLN-
00197]
On August 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Tentative Map application for
reconfiguration of lot lines on a 6.19-acre site to three parcels, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 2, 2017, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County applied for a
Tentative Map application for the reconfiguration of five lots to three lots on a 6.19-acre site that
includes the Buena Vista Modular Home Park (zoned RM-15) and commercial land uses (zoned
CN);
B. The RM-15 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 8,500
square feet. The Parcel Map would result in a 4.5-acre parcel (Parcel 1) for the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park under RM-15 zoning, and a 0.41-acre (17,859.6 square foot) portion of Parcel
3 that would remain in RM-15 zoning. Multiple family housing use would continue on these RM-
15 zoned sites and compliance with RM-15 standards related to new lot lines would be assured
with implementation of approval conditions;
C. The CN zoning district will remain on (1) proposed Parcel 2, where no site or
building changes are proposed, and where the proposed easements will not adversely impact site
improvements and required parking spaces, and (2) the portion of Parcel 3 supporting the 0.29-
acre gas station site, where no site or building changes are proposed. Access and utility
easements across Parcel 2 to serve housing units on Parcels 1 and 3 are proposed and have been
reviewed and approved by relevant City staff; and
D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Tentative Map on July 12, 2017,
supporting a condition of approval requiring up to a three-year lease back of the 0.41-acre
housing site on Parcel 3 to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines
Sections CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for
Housing Assistance Programs.
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of
the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474):
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The proposed Tentative Map, as
conditioned, is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including
the Housing Element 2015-2023, the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.20), and the RM-15 zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.13)
development standards.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is physically suitable for the
existing uses, and the revised lot configuration is compatible with the pattern and scale of
existing and neighboring development, with implementation of approval conditions. There is no
specific plan designated for the area;
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site’s lot reconfiguration will
allow for continuation of existing land uses. No development is proposed at this time; repair and
unit footprint(s) adjustment are necessary prior to Final Map recordation. The site is adjacent to
commercial, single-family residential and multi-family residential uses, and is zoned to allow the
continuation of uses and densities.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. As conditioned, the subdivision would
be consistent with the site’s development regulations of the RM-15 zone district. The existing
densities are not proposed to be changed; in particular, the overall number of housing units will
not be increased with this map.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause
environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located in an
established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in the area. The final map will comply with conditions of approval for protected
tree preservation.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel
will not cause serious health problems. The map is designed to provide easements allowing
access for emergency services, and utility services, such as electricity, gas, sanitation and water,
and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that
alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The reconfiguration of existing parcels
will not conflict with existing public easements, and new public and private easements are
proposed for utilities and vehicular access.
Because none of the statutory findings authorizing denial can be met, the City Council hereby
approves the subject “Tentative Map”.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS CITY DEPARTMENTS, IN RESPONSE TO MAP SUBMITTAL OF JULY 6, 2017,
SHALL BE PROVIDED IN A REVISED ROLUA SET AT COMMISSIONERS’ PLACES
SECTION 6. Term of Approval.
Tentative Map Approval. Within two years of the approval or conditional approval of
a tentative map the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and
a final map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the tentative map
as approved or conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and this title and submitted to the city engineer
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
Attachment C
Tentative Map
Hardcopies of the Tentative Map are provided to Commissioners. The Tentative map is
available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental
Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “3990 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “Tentative Map Submitted July 6, 2017”
6. Open the attachment named “Tentative Map”
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: PCE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT: PCE
AGENDA DATE: July 12, 2017 ID# 8228
SUBJECT: Record of Land Use Action with Approval Conditions
The attached Record of Land Use Action includes conditions of approval from several
departments. The conditions are based upon the revised Tentative Map submitted July
6, 2017 (received by PTC members), as modified by revised sheets 3 and 5 (submitted
July 11, 2017). The only change is to add the 4.8’ dimension for the width of public
access easement along El Camino Real to be dedicated along proposed Parcels 2 and 3.
___________________________ ___________________________
AMY FRENCH HILLARY GITELMAN
Chief Planning Official Director Planning and
Community Environment
From:herb
To:Planning Commission
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:July 12, 2016, Planning and Transportatrion Commission Meeting, Item #3: 3980 El Camino Real (17PLN-00197)
Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2017 2:04:04 PM
Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302
July 12, 2017
Planning and Transportation CommissionCity of Palo Alto250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301
JULY 12, 2017, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING,AGENDA ITEM #33980 EL CAMINO REAL [17PLN-00197]
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
The required environmental review includes the whole of theproject that will be subject to several governmentalapprovals. (CEQA Regulation 15378.)
The May 23, 2017, action of the Housing Authority of the County
of Santa Clara provides substantial evidence of the developmentproject that is the subject of this map application and that
must be considered as part of the environmental review. (Seehttp://hacsc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?
view_id=5&clip_id=335&meta_id=11150.)
The California Subdivision Map Act defines "development" toinclude uses intended for the land that is the subject of a map(California Government Code Section 66418.1.)
When the current development on the Buena Vista Mobile HomePark parcels that does not comply with the RM-15 zoningdistrict regulations is divided to create a smaller parcel tocontain the mobile home park that does not comply with theregulations, the newly created parcel no longer contains alegal use, because the use on the new smaller parcel mustcomply with the site development regulations of the existingRM-15 zone district.
Therefore, the Tentative Map should include a condition thatmust be satisfied before approving the Final Map to apply azoning district designation to the resulting smaller parcelthat would create a legal development on the smaller parcel.
The alternative zoning districts I have considered are (1) a
more intensive exclusive residential district; (2) the use ofthe State Housing Density Bonus law; (3) a site specific zonedistrict pursuant to the existing Planned Community (PC) ZoneDistrict regulations; and (4) a new site specific zone districtfor exclusively residential uses that are 100% affordable (i.e,for occupancy by families at or below the County low incomethreshold that is 80% of the County median income adjusted byfamily size).
I oppose increasing the intensity of the current residentialzone district by changing the zone district to another generalzone district.
I don't believe that the State Housing Density Bonus law wouldbe applicable, because the development requires more than themaximum number of three concessions (site coverage, floor arearatio, and multiple setbacks, where each setback would be aseparate concession.)
I don't believe that it makes sense to set the precedent ofusing the PC zone district, when the first use of the districtwould set the stage for other PC applications that are not 100%affordable housing projects.
Therefore, I suggest that the Tentative Map be conditioned onthe creation of a new site specific zone district forexclusively residential uses that are 100% affordable (i.e, foroccupancy by families at or below the County low incomethreshold that is 80% of the County median income adjusted byfamily size) that would be used for the Buena Vista Mobile HomePark and future 100% affordable housing projects.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
cc: Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Attachment F
Hardcopies of the Tentative map are provided to Council. The Tentative map is available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th
floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review the Tentative map online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “3990 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “Tentative Map Submitted July 6, 2017”
6. Open the attachment named “Tentative Map”
1
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
July 12, 2017 3
Excerpt 4
5
6
Public Hearing 7
Action Item 3 8
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3980 El Camino Real [17PLN-00197]: Request by the 9
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County for a Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site that 10
Includes the Buena Vista Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and Two Adjacent Commercial 11
Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line 12
Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access and Utilities 13
Easements. The Three New Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5 Acres, Zoned RM-15 for 14
Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena Vista Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for 15
Neighborhood Commercial Use (Existing Retail Building), (3) Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned 16
CN (Existing Gas Station Site) and RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More than 17
Eight Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre Residential Portion Would 18
Be Leased to the Housing Authority for Up To Three Years, Allowing Tenants to Remain 19
Until They can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. For More Information Contact Project 20
Planner Amy French at Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.com 21
22
Chair Alcheck: Why don’t we begin with item number three, the Buena Vista Mobile Home area 23
adjacent commercial lots tentative map. Let me just reiterate, if there are speaker cards for 24
this item… if anybody wishes to speak on this item please fill out a speaker card and had it to 25
staff so that I can call it out. 26
27
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Excellent. Good evening, may I present? I’m Amy 28
French, Chief Planning Official. I am here to present the tentative map for the six plus acre site 29
which houses the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park or manufactured home park. The site is 30
located in Barron Park. It has existing zoning of RM-15, otherwise known as residential multi-31
family, 15 units per acre, and commercial neighborhood zoning. There are currently five parcels 32
on this site. The proposal is to reduce it to three parcels. The site is on the corner of Los Robles 33
and El Camino Real. 34
35
This image shows the three parcels that are proposed. Parcel One would be a mobile home 36
park known at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, Parcel Three is the gas station parcel, next to El 37
Camino Real. This Parcel Three would include existing mobile home units at the rear. The Parcel 38
2
Two is entirely commercial, CN zone. I should mention that Parcel Three has split zoning; RM-15 1
where the mobile homes are, and CN where the gas station is. 2
3
The proposal would provide an easement for access and utilities across Parcel Two from El 4
Camino and across Parcel Two from Los Robles. The mobile home park currently has an 5
entrance on Los Robles. The parcel currently on the mobile home park has existing trees, both 6
within the park boundaries and along the right of way. There is no proposal to remove trees, 7
there’s no proposal to change zoning, there is no development proposed, there are no land use 8
changes proposed. 9
10
This is a simple matter, the reason it’s before the Planning Commission is because there are six 11
plus acres. Otherwise, it would just be a preliminary parcel map, a different process. The only 12
adjustments that would need to be made to the mobile home park are to observe the new lot 13
lines that are proposed, separating parcels one and three, and parcels three and two. As you 14
see the easement along the back of the retail building would provide the 10-foot setback 15
required by the zoning code, and I can say that the proposed easement will not affect the 16
parking spaced on parcel two; no impact there. 17
18
So, what’s great about this? Housing is going to be preserved, affordable housing. Luckily the 19
Housing Authority, who is here tonight represented by Flaherty Ward, is coming forward to 20
purchase the mobile home park and improve the mobile home park; the existing units. The 21
existing owner, Joe Jisser, would retain the commercial parcels on the parcels fronting El 22
Camino Real. And we are on a direct path to recordation to make sure that this deal goes 23
through. The escrow closes on September 1st, a very quick time line. 24
25
There will be no displacements. Families that are in housing units will remain, including on the 26
rear of parcel three, for up to 3-years. This happens to be the same lease term as the gas 27
station. 28
29
And our condition of approval, in the Record of Land Use Action At Places, includes such a 30
condition to ensure that this 3-year lease term lease-back to the Housing Authority is observed. 31
I should also note that in the At Places Memo there are two plan sheets, shrunk down. The only 32
change on these tentative map sheets is to indicate the dimension of 4.8-feet of easement 33
along El Camino Real, to ensure that we have the sidewalk width that is needed along El Camino 34
Real that’s dedicated back to the City for public access. 35
36
I’ll just quickly breeze through some images here. We have… the neighborhood is single-family 37
residences backing up to the park. We have RM-30 across Los Robles and RM-15 again, backing 38
up to the park on the other side. And then we have one and two-story development primarily 39
and we have retail along El Camino; CN zoning. These are some images of the residential 40
neighborhood context, the RM-30 development. We have… you can see here there are no 41
sidewalks along Los Robles adjacent to the park. In the future, should redevelopment be 42
proposed, that would be the time there would be improvements along this edge but there was 43
nothing proposed to date. The neighborhood retail context is neighborhood commercial zoning. 44
3
The retail building you can see here. We have a cell tower here in a fake magnolia and we have 1
sidewalks that begin here and continue on El Camino Real. These are some other images of the 2
nearby commercial on El Camino. This is an image that just shows the proposed easement, a 3
20-foot easement to get… just as there is there now, an easement to get to the mobile home 4
park from El Camino Real. And that concludes staff’s presentation. The applicant is here for 5
questions. Staff is here to answer questions as well. I should note that we did receive an email 6
today from Mr. Herb Borock, who has submitted a speaker card and let’s see if there’s 7
something else. 8
9
Ms. Gitelman: I’m hoping that I can take the director’s prerogative and jump in for a second 10
before we hear from the Housing Authority representative. Again, Hillary Gitelman the Planning 11
Director. I personally want to thank Amy French, she’s a senior member of our staff and she’s 12
the one who gets these short time frame projects. We think this is a pretty simple one, it’s just 13
a map to preserve an existing condition but it’s an existing condition that we all treasure in Palo 14
Alto. The City and the County have put a great deal of money into preserving the mobile home 15
park and this is one of the prerequisites to closing escrow and letting the Authority actually 16
follow through with the purchase. So, we’re hoping for the Commission’s support with this, this 17
evening and I want to thank Amy for jumping on this so fast. So, we’ll hear from the Housing 18
Authority and then any member of the public who would want to address the Commission. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, let me just…before you begin. I have a speaker card also from the 21
[unintelligible]… separately right? She is not speaking as part of the public comment, she’s 22
speaking as an applicant, is that right? Flaherty Ward. 23
24
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, yes. 25
26
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, so why don’t we have you come up and speak as part of the presentation 27
and then... 28
29
Ms. Flaherty Ward: Is it on? Yep. Good evening Commissioners, I am Flaherty Ward, I represent 30
the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. I just wanted to introduce myself. Also, reiterate big 31
thank you to Amy. While it is a simple task, in theory, we have an expedited time line to 32
purchase the park while we have the fund available to us. That is why the close is September 1st 33
so a big thank you to Amy and her Staff. And then we also… we’re looking forward to the 34
purchase and preserving the park so the residents, a lot of who are here tonight, can remain in 35
the park you know, in perpetuity. So, I am here to answer any questions that you might have. 36
Also, with me tonight is Palo Hernandez who is our land use consultant, who was instrumental 37
in getting the application submitted. So, we are both here to field any questions you might 38
have. 39
40
Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t… do you have a question? Ok. 41
42
Commissioner Lauing: Just briefly, the funding, does it also include annual maintenance? 43
44
4
Ms. Ward: Yeah, so we’re… the… there’s a… that’s a big question but yes, we… the park… the 1
residents pay space rent so the park actually kicks off cash flow. We envision that there is going 2
to be some upfront investment on the infrastructure that needs to happen and we’re hopeful 3
that after that, the property… we’re going to finance it in a way so that the property cash flow 4
is based on the rent that is kicked off of the space rents. We realize that between now and then 5
there might be some infusion that’s needed. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: I just didn’t know if every 3-years you needed ‘X’ more just for ongoing 8
maintenance. 9
10
Ms. Ward: Yeah, at this point we’re in the preliminary stages of developing the operating and 11
income budget. A lot of those questions will be answered. You know we’ve had limited access 12
to the site and the residents so we’re just kicking off those assessments to determine what the 13
operating budget will look like. And we’ll have more of those answers as we get into the 14
process but the Housing Authority operates… you know we have 30 assets in our portfolio. All 15
multi-family housing throughout the County. We… it’s something that we’re good at, it’s 16
something that we are sensitive too, we spend a lot of time on our operating budgets to make 17
sure that maintenance, security, up keep and stable housing is what’s kept in mind. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: This is a wonderful outcome. 20
21
Chair Alcheck: Ok. For her? Ok. 22
23
Commissioner Summa: So, just a quick question about the eight units that are on the gas 24
station parcel. So, they can stay for 3-years and then after that I assume you want to absorb 25
them into the parcel one. 26
27
Ms. Ward: Yeah, for instance, we learned recently and this is what we were hoping for. There 28
are actually twelve vicinities on this site. Either site vacancies where there is no structures or 29
empty coaches so the hope is by improving the park, improving flow, we can absorb those 30
coaches into the site easily. 31
32
Commissioner Summa: So, you won’t be… they won’t be in the position of being… 33
34
Ms. Ward: Nobody is getting displaced. Yeah, everybody can stay. That’s why the 3-years was 35
negotiated so that it gives us the time to pull them in. 36
Commission Summa: Ok, congratulations and thank you. 37
38
Ms. Ward: Thank you. 39
40
Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t I invite Herb Borock to speak and then I’ll close the public 41
comment and then we can have a discussion. And if there more question for Staff or the County 42
representative, we can get back into that. 43
44
5
Mr. Herb Borock: Ok, thank you. I attended the Board of Supervisors hearing 2 ½-years ago on 1
January 2015 to support the mobile home park remaining. Rather than saying as some people 2
did, just have a site for affordable housing without an emphasis on the mobile home park. And I 3
estimated that the cost would be 40 million dollars so I am pleased that we’ve gotten to this 4
point. I provided you a letter at your places about my concern about the zoning compliance and 5
that goes to the findings on the tentative map on both finding one and four, as to whether it 6
does comply with the zoning ordinance. The site was originally annexed to the City and already 7
existed and so has been allowed to continue even though the density is much more than the 8
existing zoning. However, I don’t believe you can just arbitrarily draw a line and say that 9
whatever’s on one side of the line since it’s in part of the entire mobile home park suddenly 10
now also complies with the zoning. And I provided you a suggestion of how to remedy that 11
concern. Even if you agree that the existing proposal for 4.5-acres is entitled to keep what was 12
there before, there is a question of what happens when the units from the adjoining parcel that 13
is being created get moved over. Unless the applicant is saying that they are going to reduce 14
the total number to what is on the 4.5-acre parcel. I am not aware that the State overrides the 15
zoning on the mobile home park, such as when another government agency owns land such as 16
like the Veterans Administration Hospital and can build whatever they want. In any event, if you 17
accept the argument that what would be on the new parcel, 4.5-acres, is entitled to be there 18
because it’s there now, what about the units that are going to be moved within the next 3-19
years? Thank you. 20
21
Chair Alcheck: Ok, so seeing no other speaker cards, I am going to close the… what is it? Public 22
comment and then open it up to Commissioners to make comments or ask questions. 23
Commissioner Gardias, do you want to start us off? 24
25
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, but I think that… thank you very much. So, I mean thank you very 26
much for the presentation and of course, kudos to you for backing this problem. So, I think the 27
question that Mr. Borock brought up is a very interesting one. So… and definitely suppresses 28
the questions that I had so could you help us to understand the core of this issue? I understand 29
that right now there is more units per existing zone that’s zone designated. And then once you 30
explain this to us, could you just take us through the response from your side. Thank you. 31
32
Ms. French: Sure. Well, as I noted in the presentation, there will not be any zoning change; so 33
the Parcel Three, I should go back to that slide, will have the same number of housing units 34
within the first 3-years. Should, in the future, Mr. Jisser wish to redevelop this, the back area is 35
still zoned for housing. So, in a redevelopment scenario, density units per acre would apply. The 36
same number of housing units here today and that would not change with this first map, or I 37
should say tentative map. As I noted, this is not a development project, there is no change. I 38
understand the gist of the concern, which is a reduction of acreage and what does that do to 39
the housing units on the other side. It’s not an issue for the parcel one; parcel three there’s no 40
change so it’s not an issue for that one either. I did the review of parcel three to see if that was 41
going to be a problem; it’s not, under today’s zoning. There is no change in zoning, there is no 42
proposal to remove those housing units. 43
44
6
Commissioner Gardias: So, if I understand this correctly, that the current condition because 1
there is no zoning change, it’s pretty much… there is no concern. However, if there was a new… 2
if this… we would be populating this lot of the mobile housing, then we would not be able to 3
have as many of those homes on RM-15 for lot three, is this right? 4
5
Ms. French: That’s not necessarily true. If for instance, all of the mobile homes were to be 6
removed and a new development came in with affordable housing, in this case, I believe it’s 7
one hundred percent of affordable housing, there are density bonuses that allow you to 8
increase beyond the maximum density in the underlying zone, and Hillary can comment on 9
that. 10
11
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I just… I just want to avoid speculation about what might happen in the 12
future. What’s happening today is that we’re preserving the existing homes; the subdivision 13
enables that to happen. There is a nonconforming situation where there’s more units on this 14
parcel than would be allowed under the existing zoning but it’s not proposed to change. To the 15
extent that the Housing Authority undertakes renovation in the future, they mentioned utility 16
work and other site improvements, potentially removing some vacant coaches to put in the 17
coaches from the other parcel. All of those things are going to require permits; they will have to 18
be reviewed at the time they are proposed. We can’t really speculate today about what those 19
site changes are because they haven’t planned them but we do know that what we are 20
proposing here is consistent with our interpretation of the map back and with CEQA. We don’t 21
think there’s an issue and while I appreciate Mr. Borock’s input, we think that we’re good to go 22
on this, this evening. 23
24
Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you but we always appreciate Mr. Borock’s comments 25
and his presence here; I just wanted to mention this. When there’s going to be renovation 26
probably this… no, let me just talk to Amy because otherwise, we would have to reopen the 27
hearing. So, if there is going to be renovation with the houses and the houses are possibly 28
moved, I don’t know if there will be… under renovation, there might be some movement of the 29
houses within some boundaries. Would they have to comply with the setbacks? I believe that 30
some of them are entering the setbacks. 31
32
Ms. French: Yeah, so for new parcels line being created, then we would want the… you know, 33
any relocated homes to observe the setbacks. For the existing nonconforming coaches that are 34
within the setbacks, we’re not going to have them… relocate those. They are in an existing 35
nonconforming state that we inherited from when the area was annexed back in the 1970’s. 36
We’re not going to go and actively have all of those moved. They probably wouldn’t withstand 37
such a move; relocation. 38
39
Commissioner Gardias: I understand so let me maybe reformulate the question and maybe talk 40
to the representative from the Santa Clara Housing Authority. So, the question is like this, do 41
you expect that any renovation would require movement of any houses? Yes, please. Oh, 42
where’s Mike? Yes, please, if you could… 43
44
7
Ms. Ward: We don’t know yet. We are still in the assessment and fact-finding state of our 1
diligence to purchase the property. So, it is really hard to speculate on what that could look like 2
but am I understand it, any major renovation that we do will have to come through the 3
Planning Department as a land use application. I think at that time we would get comments 4
back on what requirements would be conditioned upon that approval. We would work with 5
planning Staff on trying to think of a thoughtful proposal on how to do all that. We know that 6
there are non-conforming uses out there. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, and then if it’s not a so dumb question back to Amy, so say that 9
there may be a need to, because of the renovation, to move… to shift some of the houses that 10
are on the lot. Would it be… would that require a need for an exception… zoning exception or it 11
would be… or this would be a result at the Director’s level? 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: Again, we can’t speculate. We don’t have a specific proposal in front of us. They 14
just don’t know what they are going to need to do to upgrade the site. 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, let me move that to some other questions. So that 4.5-feet setback 17
along El Camino, I understand that this would allow… I am sorry, easement. That this would 18
allow for an 8-feet sidewalk. 19
20
Ms. French: It would allow … it would meet the El Camino Real Master Plan that prescribes a 21
certain setback. I can’t tell you where the curb is related to the property line. I am sorry but … 22
they are ensuring that 4.8-feet easement along the front of that parcel, and that was coming 23
from our Public Works Department to ensure that we’re meeting our plan lines that are shown 24
on the El Camino Real Master Plan. 25
26
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, my question was getting to this point, which I hope that this is 27
going to be the result of this easement because as you know, we have an 8-foot minimum of 28
the sidewalk requirement at other areas so probably this would be the same. 29
30
Ms. French: Actually, I would say that, if and when let’s say a redevelopment were to come 31
forward on those commercial parcels, you know we have our El Camino Real Guidelines and the 32
CN zone standards that ask for even more than 8-feet. So, you know, it’s a minimum of a 33
sidewalk but there could be additional setbacks for any redevelopment, but there’s no 34
development proposed right now on those parcels. 35
36
Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you very much. Those are my questions, thanks. 37
38
Commissioner Monk: I wanted to also thank Ms. French and Ms. Ward for their presentations 39
today. It’s appreciated and I also want to acknowledge the number of residents that have come 40
out so that it’s reflected in the record when City Council reviews our transcript, I am counting 41
approximately 50 or so residents here. You’re here with your families and some children and it 42
really is important that you are here. That we see you here and it’s definitely noted that you are 43
here. Your presence is very much felt and it’s meaningful so thank you for coming here and 44
8
being a part of this process just by your presences alone. I did have some concerns about the 1
future development of parcel three as well but as Flaherty mentioned, we’re not looking at that 2
at this point so we will revisit that. This might not be within our purview but if there is further 3
development on Los Robles Avenue, I think parking in that area is really difficult. Especially for 4
parcel two and so if there is going to be any parking developed, perhaps you can consider 5
diagonal parking space or something in that area. I don’t think I have anything else so thank you 6
very much. 7
8
Commissioner Summa: There, I think, 117 structures… residential structures on… presently, if 9
that is right. So, kind of what you are saying is that number of residential structures will be 10
retained through grandfather in, is that correct? 11
12
Ms. French: There may end up being some removal of some of the coaches because we don’t 13
know about the building code compliance. We’re going to have to be having a look at a lot of 14
things out there, so we may reduce the number of housing units in the short term and we’ll see 15
in the long term. We don’t have a proposal. 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: Can I just pile on there? I mean I just want to be super clear, the purpose of the 18
map is to enable the purchase of the site with all of the existing structures in their current 19
locations, period. Then what’s going to happen is that the new owner of the parcel, once it 20
closes, is going to do an assessment of the site and what needs to be done to address utilities 21
and other things. At that point, they will know better whether there are, for example, vacant 22
coaches that can be removed so that some of these other ones can be moved on and whether 23
there are other physical changes. What we’ll have to do when they come in for permits for any 24
of these future things that we don’t know what they are, we’ll have to review them for 25
conformance with our codes to make sure that they meet the building code standard and the 26
planning standard, which is that you can’t accentuate or make a nonconforming situation more 27
nonconforming. 28
29
Commissioner Summa: Right but they would… through grandfathering, they retain the right to 30
have that number of units… 31
32
Ms. Gitelman: Correct. 33
34
Commissioner Summa: That’s what I was asking, I am sorry. So, I also appreciate Mr. Borock 35
coming in and I didn’t have a lot of time to study his letter. Is there any additional benefit to the 36
method that he’s suggesting or is it… I was not clear on it so I just wanted to ask your opinion 37
on that because he’s always full of good ideas. 38
39
Ms. Gitelman: It sounds like Mr. Borock is proposing to re-zone the site. You know so a 40
legislative change that would happen concurrent with the map and that’s just really not 41
something that the property owner or the purchaser had anticipated. It’s a lengthy process as 42
you know and it didn’t seem necessary to basically perpetuate the existing condition. 43
44
9
Commissioner Summa: And would that take too long to meet the requirement of the deadline? 1
2
Ms. Gitelman: Certainly. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thanks. 5
6
MOTION 7
8
Chair Alcheck: I would like to congratulate the County as well. I think everybody in this 9
community is well aware sort of what’s been taking place and all the effort that’s been made. 10
And I… it’s pretty unique opportunity and I’m thankful that the City also invested its own funds 11
and is sort of achieving sort of a mutual goal here. So, it’s… I think this is a unique and special 12
event. We have a small role here in the review but I’ll make a motion now to… excuse me… to 13
recommend approval to the City Council of the tentative map application based on the findings 14
and subject to the conditions of approval and the draft record of land use. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Second. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Ok, would you like to speak to the motion at all? 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: You were eloquent. 23
24
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Make sure that is on the record. 25
26
Commissioner Lauing: I said it very loudly. 27
28
VOTE 29
30
Chair Alcheck: Ok, well let’s take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, please 31
raise your hand and say aye. That’s all-in favor; it's unanimous. Thank you all for your time. 32
Thank you for attending and let’s take a 5-minute break and begin with item number four after 33
that. Thank you 34
35
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0-2, Commissioner Rosenblum and Commissioner 36
Waldfogel absent) 37
38
Commission Action: Recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Map Application 39
based on the finding and conditions in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Motion made by 40
Chair Alcheck, seconded by Commissioner Lauing, motion passed 5-0 (Rosenblum and 41
Waldfogel absent) 42