Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-06 City Council (6)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alt C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 6, 2004 CMR:500:04 SUBJECT:792 MATADERO AVENUE: REQUEST BY IALITA AND PRASAD PARIMI TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 792 mATADERO AVENUE IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT. tHE PROJECT CONSISTS OF SUBDIVIDING A SINGLE 12,667 SQAURE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO EQUALY SIZED 6,333 SQUARE FOOT PARCELS WITH 55.85 FOOT WIDTHS RATHER THAN THE 60 FOOT WIDTH REQUIRED BY SECTION 18.12.050 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN INITIAL STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council: (1) approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment E), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and (2) approve the preliminary Parcel Map based on the findings and conditions in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). BACKGROUND This project is before the Council due to the requested exception for lot width. Preliminary parcel maps conforming to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment without Council action. The Director of Planning and Community Environment, however must forward any preliminary parcel map with exceptions to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council for action. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Commission reviewed this project at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 10, 2004. The Commission discussed the project and explained that it supports the application because the proposed lots would be consistent with the neighborhood character and that the future development of the lots would have little impact on traffic or CMR: 500:04 Page 1 of 3 trees. It noted that the project would be consistent with the lot pattern, would not impact a historic property, and would create standard lots over 6,000 square feet. It also noted that the project would have no impact on riparian habitat and would not cause public health or environmental damage. After closing the public hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Parcel Map in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval contained in the draft Record of Land Use Action. The Commission also recommended that the Council adopt the Negative Declaration. (Attachment E) DISCUSSION Minimum Lot Width ¯ The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zone District. The Site Development Regulations for the R-1 zone district require newly created parcels to have a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The proposal is to subdivide the single parcel into two equally sized parcels that would each have a lot width of only 55.85 feet. Since the proposed new parcels would be approximately 4.15 feet narrower than the 60- foot width required by the R-1 zone district, the applicant has applied for a conditional exception per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.32.010 (Subdivisions), which sets forth a process to allow exceptions to the requirements and regulations of the R-1 zone district. It is important to note the new lots would not be substandard. The lots would exceed the minimum lot depth as well as the minimum lot size required by the zoning.No exceptions would be needed for the future development of the parcels. Future Development The existing residence on the project site would be required to be demolished prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. If the application is approved, one single-family residence could be built on each of the resulting lots. Any proposal for construction, on either of the two resulting parcel.s, must conform to all zoning requirements and be subject tc~ .all applicable Development Impact Fees. To ensure conformance with the existing neighboring homes, neW two-story construction on either lot would be subject to review under the Single Family Individual Review Program. RESOURCE IMPACT The two lots that would be created are in an urbanized area of the city that is already served by city services such as police and fire and would not have a detrimental effect on City resources. Utility services are already provided in the street that provides access to the project. Being that only one residence presently exists on the property, Development Impact Fees would be required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the second of two residences that could be built on the resulting two lots. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project’s Compliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies is provided in a table attached to this report. (Attachment D) CMR: 500:04 Page 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. This project is not exempt from CEQA because the subdivision would create two lots that do not meet the 60 feet minimum lot width required by the zoning ordinance. In conformance with CEQA, an Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted. Staff has determined that the project poses no significant impacts and a Negative Declaration was prepared and is included as’ ~ittachment E to this report. PREPARED BY: Ass~ DEPARTMENT HEAD: and Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~SON Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Draft Record of Land Use Action Location Map Subdivider’s Statement Comprehensive Plan Table Environmental Checklist Form and Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report dated N6vember 10, 2004 (without Attachments) (Council Members only) Minutes of Planning and Transportation Commission meeting on November 10, 2004 (Council Members only) Preliminary Parcel Map (Council Members only) COURTESY COPIES: Mary Ann Welton Jean Wren CMR: 500:04 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 792 MATADERO AVENUE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP 04PLN-00000-00012 (LAL!TA AND PRASAD PARIMI, APPLICANTS) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a two-lot subdivision project with exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The dity Council of the .City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. on September 2, 2004, Lalita and Prasad .Parimi applied for~a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a Two-!ot subdivision.project ("The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of one lot (APN NO. 137- 15-039) of approximately 12,667 square feet. The site contains one residential structure. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, east and west. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project ~and recommended approval on November I0, 2004, subject to conditions of approval. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations are contained in the City Manager’s Report, CMR:, and the~ttachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning November 5, 2004 through November 24, 2004. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findinqs. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative 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 : The site is conslstent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is consistent with the following Comprehenslve Plan policies: Policy L-l: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development zo currently developed lands within the urban service area. The Project site is located within the urban growth boundary and the Project is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area; and Policy L-5: Maintain.the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their slze and scale. The Project would allow construction of two sincle- family residential structures, which is a permitted use within the R-I ~district and which is compatible with other R-I properties in the neighborhood; and Policy L-12: Preserve the character of resldential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the nemghborhood and adjacent structures. The Project would permit the subsequent constructmon of two single-family residential units, which would be subjecn to the R-I site developmenz regulations as the other R-I sites in the neighborhood. Furthermore, all new two-story structures would be subject co the Individual Review program, which promotes adequate privacy, compatible massing and appropriate streets.cape design with other residential structures. 3. That the site is not physically.suitable for the type of development : The Project site is comprised of one large relatively f~at lot in a residential neighborhood that would, be subdivided into two lots for the purposes of single-family development. Each lot would _exceed the minimum lot size requirements for R-I zoned properties. Each lot would exceed the minimum lot length requirements for R-I zoned properties. Each lot would allow for single family residential development without the need for zoning requirement exceptions for the construction of single family dwellings. 4~ That the site is not physically suitable for .the proposed density of development : The project would create two lots that exceed all but one of the site development regulations for properties in the R-I Single family Residence district. 5. That the design. of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish .or wildlife or their habitat : The Project will not ~cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that property is curr.ently developed and not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. 6.. That the design of the subdi vi si on or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The Project will not cause serious publ~c health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in the Negat&ve Declaration that was prepared for the subdivision project. 7. That hhe 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 fo.r access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There~are no easements on the subject property and no off site easement will be affected by the proposed project. 3 SECTION 4. Exception Findings i. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The subject property is nearly~twice the width of many of the other properties up and down the block on the same side of the street. The Barton Park neighborhood, where the subject property is located, is comprised of varied lot sizes and does not follow a standard pattern. It is however common in the vicinity of the subject property to find lots that do not meet the required minimum 60-foot lot width and are nearly the same width as would result from the proposed subdivision. (See location map Attachment B) o The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The City of Palo Alto interprets this finding to describe the existence of a hardship in relation to other neighboring properties. The existing lots adjacent to the subject property do not meet the 60-foot standard lot width established for the R-I zone district. Many of the other lots on the same side of .the street to the left and right of the subject property as well as those to the rear of the subject property are only 55 to-56 feet wide. The proposed lots would be nearly 56 feet wide and would have lot widths consistent with the widths of the neighboring parcels. o The granting of the exception will not be detrimental.to the public ~welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The division of this single parcel into two separate parcels will not have adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The addition of a single parcel to the street will not negatively impact traffic and the resulting lot widths will be sufficient to provide ample width for standard development of single family houses without the need for exceptions. o T~he granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals,, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception is c~nsistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan as well as the spirit of the law. Policy H-I of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states "Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the 4 city’s existing neighborhoods." The subdivision of this parcel creates only one new single family lot within an established neighborhood that already receives city services. The new !ot therefore would not diminish the quality of City services or diminish the capacity of infrastructure or transportation facilities. The subdivision of this parcel only serves to add further consistency to the existing lot pattern thus preserving the character of the neighborhood. Policy H-2 states "Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in different, locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing~ " The division of the lot will allowfor the construction of two modestly sized houses more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood rather than the construction of one large house that would be out of scale with the adjacent residences. The two smaller houses would also Me more affordable than the one larger home and allow for an additional housing unit in Palo Alto. SECTION 5. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted~by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and:’the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Parcel Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for revie~ and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial~conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by Alan Huntzinger titled "Preliminary Parcel Map", consisting of one (i) page, dated November 3, 2004 except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 6. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause:the subdivision or any part thereof to be. surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the .Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of.the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) . SECTION 7.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment ..... Planning Division i]Any new two-story construction on the lots will require review under the City’s Individual Review process. o The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those features. o Development Impact fees totaling approximately 11,253.00 dollars or, those fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, shall be paid to the city of Palo Alto prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the second of the two houses that could be built on the two parcels. Building Division o The existing buildings within the project area shall be demolished prior to recording the map. A separate permit shall be required for the removal of the building. o New addresses will be assigned to each lot with the subdivision, following recordation of the subdivision map. The applicant shall file and "Address request Form" and pay the requimed fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center. Public Works Engineering Department ° o A Parcel Map will be required after review of the Preliminary Parcel Map NO grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parce! Map is recorded with County Recorder. Any existing buildings must be removed from the site prior tO recordation of the Parcel Map. Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters to the existing building including~a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within I0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the Building Inspection Division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. i0.The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas wastewater service connection application-load sheets for City of Palo alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. 6 ii. 12. 13. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing services a necessary to handle anticipate~d peak loads. This responsibility includes al! cost associated with design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. All utility.installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. sECTION 8.Term of Approval. i. Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Parcel Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Parcel Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of Preliminary Parcel Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Parcel Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City,Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Alan Huntzinger titled "Preliminary Parcel Map", consisting of one page, dated November 3/ 2004. 7 Attachment B 792 Matadero Project Location Map Attachment C Sub divider’s Statement 792 Matadero Ave Lalita and Prasad Parimi. -, . We Lalita and Prasad Pasimi along With our children residing at 792 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto are requesting a Subdivision with exception: We movedt0 this residence .a few years ago for the educatiofi, of our children. We hke the excellent. Bah’on Park neighborhood, and wishto settle at this location with our children in the future. To continue living at the current residence, we have to up~ade the house due to a number of deficiencies. We would like to build a new residence instead of upgrading the old house. To be in sync with neighboring residences and to match the neighboring properties; we would like to build .two small houses. We hope our children can stay close to Us in future in one of the houses. The current lot size is 111.69 x 113.46 ft. We would like tosubdivide into 2 equal lots of sizes 55.85 x 113.46 ft. We believe that the exception (to allow lot with-< 60it frontage) supports the housing goals and policies as outlined in the housing section of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in the following ways.-. - ¯ " " 7. The exception will support Housing Goals, Policies and Progams Goals H-l, H-4 and H-6 under Housing Opportunities to increase the supply of housing. The new lot frontage Will be exactly same as the neighboring houses frontage. The frontage of 790 Matadero is 56.0 ft and that of 794 is 55.84 ft. There:are currently 2 separate properties just behind our current pr.operty and after subdivision, our 2 lots will.match exactly with the properties just~behind us. The city regulation for lot depth is 100it and for our property, the depth is 113.46ft which is 13 ft more than recommended dimension. So, even though the frontage is just-less than 4 it, the depth is more than.13 ft to.guidelines dimensions. Even with the exception, our each lot size will be >6300sq.fl where 6000 sq.ft is the minimum required by. zoning. Every lot in Barton Park was sub-divided at one point and still the process is continuing in a smaller scale. The exception would also support Goal H-l, to increase the supply, of affordable housing, by allowing the development of two more modest homes rather than one larger home. The aremore revenues from property .taxes from.two residences instead of one.r~sidence. We have contacted our neighbors and received good suppor~ for this project. We will furnish separate document to show neighborhood support. We strongly believe that this exception is appropriate because the resulting tots would match the neighborhood, with many similarly configaxred lots including .the 2 adjacent lots and 2 lots just behind our.current lot. . . Letter of Support to sub-divide lot at 792 Matadero Ave, Palo Alto .Prasad and Lalita Parimi, residing at 792 Matader0 Ave, Palo Alto would like to solicit your. support in sub-dividing our current residential lot into two equal lots. We moved to this residence a few years ago for the education of our children: We like the excellent Barron Park neighborhood, and wish to settle at .this location with our children in the future. To. Continue living at the current residence, we have to upgrade the house due to a number of deficiencies. We would like to build a new residence instead of upgrading the old house. To be in sync with neighboring residences and to match the neighboring properties, we would like to build two small.houses.. We.hope our children can stay close to us in future in one of the houses. In the .past we. have received strong .support from all of you for this project; but could not pursue due to some personal reasons: We request you to extend your support, again. Thank you, in advance, for your support. Please sign below to support.ou~ plans. Name Address ".Siffnature/D ate ATTACHMENT D COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE Policy L-l: Continue current City policY limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area Policy L,5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adj acent structures Policy H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the city’s existing neighborhoods Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in different locations. E~.ipha .... and encourage ~h~~,,~l~’~’~-*,~,~v-~1~1~ of affordable and attainable housing. The Project site is located within the urban growth boundary and the Proj ect is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area The Project would allow construction of two single-family residential structures, which is a permitted use within the R-1 district and which is compatible with other R- 1 properties in the neighborhood The Project would permit the subsequent construction of two single-family residential units, which would be subject to the R-1 site development regulations as the other R-1 sites in the neighborhood. Furthermore, all new two-story structures would be subject to the Individual Review program, which promotes adequate privacy, compatible massing and appropriate ’ streetscape design with other residential structures The subdivision of this parcel creates only one new .single family lot within an established neighborhood that already receives city services. The new lot therefore would not diminish the quality of City services or diminish the capacity of infrastructure or transportation facilities. The subdivision of this parcel ofdy serves to add further consistency to the existing lot pattern thus preserving the character of the neighborhood The division of the lot will allow for the construction of two modestly sized houses more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood rather than the construction of one large house that would be out of scale with the adjacent residences. The two smaller houses would also be more affordable than the one lager home and allow for an additional housing unit in Palo Alto. Attachment E City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:November 3, 2002 Application Nos.:04PLN-00000-00012 Address of Project: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 792 Matadero Avenue 137-15-039 Applicant/Owner:Lalita and Prasad Parimi Project Description and Location: The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 12,667 square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The site is located at 792 Matadero Avenue in the R-1 zone district. The R-1 zone district requires new parcels to be a minimum of 60 feet in width, 100 feet in depth, and to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet in area. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels 4.15 feet narrower than is currently allowed in R-1 development regulations. The proposed lots would be 55.84 and 55.85 feet wide ,and have a lot depth of 113.41 feet. The total lot area for each of the new lots would be 6,332.81 and 6333.95 respectively. The proposed lots would be larger in total area and deeper than is required by the zoning requirements. It is only the lot widths that will require the exception. II. DETERMINATION " in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study .to determine whether the PrOPosed project located at 1036 Cowper Street may have a significant effect on .the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLA_~_A_T!ON is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, Could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a .significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. H:LR.uss\SUBLNegDee.792 !vlatadero.doc The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. H:W,.u ss\SUBLN egD ec.792 Matadero.doe ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Dqpartment of Planning and Community Environment 1.Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: 792 Matadero Avenue Parcel Map City of Palo Alto -Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Russ Reich, Associate Planner (650) 617-3119 4.Project Location: 5.Application Numbers: 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 792 Matadero Avenue Palo Alto, California 04PLN-00000-00012 Lali~a and Prasad Parimi 901 West Cardinal Drive Sunnyvale, CA 94087 7.General Plan Designation: 8~Zoning District(s): 9.Description of the Project: Single Family Residential R-1 Single Family Residential 10. 11. The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 12,667 Square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The site is located at 792 Matadero Avenue in the R-1 zone district. The R-1 zone district requires new parcels to be a minimum of 60 feet in width, 100 feet in depth, and to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet in area. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels 4.15 feet narrower than is currently allowed in R-1 development regulations. The proposed lots would be 55.84 and 55.85 feet wide and have a lot depth of 113.41 feet. The total lot area for each of the new lots would be 6,332.81 and 6333.95 . respectively. The proposed lots would be larger in total area and deeper than is required by the zoning requirements. It is only the lot widths that will require the exception. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project site is located at 792 Matadero Avenue in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone district. The site is surrounded by single-family residential land uses. The site is composed of one parcel totaling 12,667 square feet and contains one single family dwelling. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the eheeldist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources Air Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Significance 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. 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find th’at although the propo_sed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentialiy 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. X Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "’No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g, the project falls outside a fault 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 2 2) 3) 4) 6) 7) 8) 9) a) b) 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 Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a)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. 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. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion, This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) b) c) d) AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,.ttees, rock outcr0ppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?. Create a new source of substhntial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in .the area? 1, 3 1, 3 X X X X II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricttltural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would. the project: a) b) c) C~nvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict :with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,34 N/A X X X III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1, 3 1,3 1,3 X X X X 4 e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1,2 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:- a) b) c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, pol!cies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere ~substantially with the movement of any native resident:or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict ,with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approyed local, regional or state conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of .an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? resource or site or unique geologic feature? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3" 1,3 1,3 (map L-7) 1,3 (map L-8) 1, 3 (L-4, L-8) X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Sources 1,3 (map L-8) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe 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. see below 1,3 X X ii)Strong seismic ground shaldng?3 (map X N-10) iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?3 (map X N-S) iv)Landslides?3 imap N-S).X b)Result in ~substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1 X c)XBe 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? d) e) 3 (map N-5) 3 (map N-5), 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? X X VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazardto the public or the !X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) Create a significant hazard.to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?- e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, .where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? t) g) h) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) b) c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere sul~stantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or. off-site? Sources .1 N/A N/A 1,3 (map N-7) 1, 3 (map N-7) 1, 3 3 (map N-2) Potentially Significant Is.sues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact NO Impact X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Sources Potentially Significant Potentially SignifiCant g) h) i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or,death involVe flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1 3 (map N-6) 3 (map N-6) 3(maps N-6 N- 8) 3(maps N-6, N- 8) Issues Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or .,.,ura, ~ommu .... y ~vn ..... t~ou plan? N/A 1, 3, 4 1,3 X X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to theregion and the residents of the state? 1,3 X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) c) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project Vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without .the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessivenoise 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? 1,3 3 N/A N/A XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes.and . businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,3 N/A N/A No ’ Impact X X X X X X .X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Soorces Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,-in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? P’olice protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 1 1 1 Less Than Significant .Impact No Impact x x x x x XIV. RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing - neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur.or be accelerated? b) 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? N/A XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. 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? 1,3 (maps T-7, T- 8,) X X. X X X X X X 10 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? Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) 0 g) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? N/A 1 1,4 1,3 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) b) e) e) 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 and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the whstewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1,3 1,3 1, 3 1,3 X N0 Impact X X X X X X X X X X X 11 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) 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 considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the proje~ct have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?- 1, 3, 4 1, 3 1-12 X X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 1.Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2.Project Plans,¯ entitled "Preliminary Parcel Map" 792 Matadero Avenue Street prepared by Alan Huntzinger, dated 11/03/04 3.Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 12,667 square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The site.is located in the R-1 zone district requiring new parcels to be a minimum of 60 feet in width. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels 4.16 feet narrower than the 60 foot minimum required by the zoning. The Parcel Map will create two single-family lots in the R-1 zone district where one had previously existed. No public trnprovements are required as a result of the lot split. One single family liome may be built on each of the two new parcels. The construction of two new single family homes is a ministerial act and is exempt under CEQA. The Environmental Chiclets was completed and all but one environmental factor was determined to be"No Impact". A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact". Since the project will be creating two non-conforming lot as described above, the project will be in conflict with the "Land Use Planning" portion of the checklist. This impact was determined to be "Less Than Significant" as is discussed below. 12 Attachment PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Russ Reich Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment November 10, 2004 Request by Lalita and Prasad Parimi to subdivide the parcel located at 792 Matadero. The project consists of subdividing a single 12,667 square foot parcel into two equally sized 6,333 square foot parcels with 55.85 foot widths rather than the required 60 foot width. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a negative declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning Districti Single Family Residential (R-l). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval contained in thedraft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Minimum Lot Width The project site is located in the Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zone. District. The Site Development Regulations for the R-1 zone district require newly created parcels to have a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The proposed project would subdivide the single parcel into two equally sized parcels that would each have a lot width of only 55.85 feet. Since the proposed new parcels will be approximately 4.15 feet narrower than the 60-foot width required by the R- 1 zone district, the applicant has applied for a conditional exception per Palo Alto Mnnicipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.32.010 (Subdivisions) allowing exceptions to the requirements and regulations of the R-1 zone district. City of Palo Alto Page Parcel lilaps conforming to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. However, the Director of Planning and Community Environment must forward any preliminary parcel map with exceptions to the Planning and Transpol~tation Commission and the City Council for action. Staff supports the project because the Parcel Map would create lots that are consistent with the existing pattern ~of lots in the neighborhood.. In addition, the allowable floor-area.ratio that could be built on the resulting 6,333 square foot lots would be’ more compatible with the existing neighborhood then would be allowed on the existing 12, 667 square foot lot. Future Development Th~ existing residence on the project site would be required to be demolished prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. I~¢the application is approved, one single-family residence could be built on each of the resulting lots. Any proposal for construction, on either of the two resulting parcels, must conform to all zoning requirements and be subject to all applicable Development Impact Fees. To ensure conformance with the existing neighboring homes, new two-story construction on either lot would be subject .to review under the Single Family Individual Review Program. Comprehensive Plan Compliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies has been provided in a table. (AttaChment D) TIMELINE: Action: Application Received: Application Deemed Complete: Negative Declaration Public Review Period: P&TC Meeting: Required Action by Council (Tentative): Date: September 2, 2004 November 3, 2004 November 5, 2004- November 29, 2004 November 10, 2004 December 6, 2004 RESOURCE IMPACT: The two lots that would be created are in an urbanized area of the city that is already served by city services and would not have a detrimental effect on city resources. Utility services are already provided in the street that provides access to the project. Being that only one residence presently exists on the property, Development Impact Fees totaling approximately 11,253.00 dollars would be required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the second of two residences that could be built on the resulting two lots. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmemal Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. This project is not exempt from CEQA because the City of Palo’Alto Page 2 subdivision would, create two lots that do not meet the 60 feet minimum lot width required by the zoning ordinance. An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and i,s included as an attachment to this report. ATTACHMENTS: B. C. D. E. F. Record of Land Use Action Location Map Subdivider’s Statement. Comprehensive Plan Table Environmental Checklist Form and Negative Declaration Preliminary Parcel Map COURTESY COPIES: Mary Ann Welton Jean Wren Prepared by:.Russ Reich ~ Associate Planner Reviewedby:Amy French, AICP ~ Manager of Current Plarming Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes November 10, 2004 DRAFT EXCERPT NEW B USINESS: Public Hearings. 1.792 Matadero Road*: [04PLN-00000-00012| Request by Lalita and Prasad Parimi for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions to create a two-lot subdivision. The requested exception would be for each parcel to have a width of 55.84 and 55.85 feet where 60 feet is the required minimum width. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential District (R-1). This item has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on December 6, 2004. SR Weblink: http~//www.cit~fpa~a~t~.~rg/cit~a~nda/publish/p1anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/3925.pd~ Mr. Russ Reich, Associate Planner: Thank you Chair Cassel and Commissioners. The application before you this evening is a request to subdivide the existing single-family residential property at 792 Matadero Avenue into two separate parcels. This would be accomplished by creating a new lot line down the center of the exiting lot creating two equally sized lots. Typically this type of minor subdivision of land would not come before the Planning and Transportation Commission for review. Your review of this application is required because this request involves an exception to the required lot width. The requested exception is to allow the subdivision of the single lot into two separate lots that will not meet the required 60-foot lot width required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed lots would be 55.85 feet wide. This is about four feet short of the width required. While the proposed lots will not meet the width required in the Ordinance they would be consistent with the lot widths of the existing lots in the neighborhood. The Map noted as Attachment B of your Staff Report clearly indicates that the proposed lot split will follow the existing neighborhood pattern in relationship to lot widths. It is important to note that the new lots would not be substandard. They will exceed the minimum lot depth as well as the minimum lot size required by the zoning. The granting of this exception of lot width will not necessitate the need for any future exceptions for the construction of a new residence on either of the parcels. The lot split will also have no impact on protected oak or redwood trees, as there are none at this location. The splitting of this lot will allow for two modestly sized homes to be built rather than one large home that could be built under the current regulations. This would be consistent with the house sizes along this side of the street. Normally a two-lot subdivision would be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 .32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Quality Act but due to the need for the exception CEQA review is required. In response to this requirement an initial study and Negative Declaration have been prepared and provided in your report. Staff.recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval for this project to the City Council. Staff and the applicant are here to answer any questions that you may have and the applicant, Mr. Parimi is here to make a brief presentation. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions they wish to ask of Staff at this time? Any clarification questions? Fine. Then we will goto the applicant and you have 15 minutes. We would like you to come up, state your name; where you live and make the presentation. The total party has 15 minutes at this time and you will have a three-minute summary later on. You don’t have to take all 15 minutes. Mr. Prasad Parimi, Applicant, 792 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening to all of you. Thank you for your time and your presence. This is my wife, Lalita, and we live at 792 Matadero in Barron Park. We are here to present our case for the subdivision of my lot into equal lots. Before I proceed with the presentation I would like to thank all my neighbors for their, excellent support and the great cooperation from the City Staff. A brief introduction about us and our plan£ before going into details of our subdivision and exceptions. We are living in this area for the last 21 years and at this location for the last 12 years. We have two sons, both of them grew up in the same house and studied in the local schools. Both of them are in college right now. They would like to come back and settle in the valley and we would like to continue to live also in the same house. We are not planning to sell this house and are not planning to sell this part of the subdivision after the subdivision is done. We would like to have the flexibility for one of the children to live with us in the future. We thought of proceeding with this plan in 1998 and at the time we approach our neighbors and we had excellent support from every one of them. So you can see from the Exhibit 1 most of the people around our house have approved our plans, Due to some reasons we could not pursue at the time so we revisit our original plan and again talk to all our neighbors before approaching the City. We talked to our neighbors and again they give very great support. You can see that from Exhibit 2. We have our neighbors from next door all the way to ten houses away we have support for this plan. This shows their confidence and even after six years There is a reason for us to go and look for a new house because the current house has a lot of deficiencies, I wouldn’t like to go through all of them but it is a very, very old house and we spent a lot of money to improve the house but there are things that we could not do. The main thing is the structure and the layout, So here are the current plans. The current plan is to subdivide into two equal lots and the current lots with 111.69 feet and by subdividing each lot will have 55.84 feet and 55.85 feet. We would like to build Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36. 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 one house at the beginning and if we see a really big savings in the cost we would like to build both of them at the same time. If we don’t subdivide actually on this lot we can build up to a 4,550 square foot house on a single lot. That is all allowed as per the City regulations. That will be completely out of Synch with the neighboring houses because most of the houses around us are smaller houses. By subdividing we actually build only 2,650 square foot house that is more in synch with the neighboring houses. We are not really planning to build to the maximum allowed size. We are not going to ask for any variances in the future too. We are going to build one house and we are tending towards building a basement so that we can have a smaller house or so that will be in synch with the neighboring houses. We want to maintain the character of the neighborhood. As mentioned earlier is started this project in 1998 and I have collected a lot of: information about subdivisions. Also there were subdivisions in Barron Park because Barron Park was not part of City of Palo Alto earlier. I have so many examples I wouldn’t like to go t!~rough all of them but what is important is if you have questions I can go back and visit them.~ I would like to show a couple of examples on Matadero Avenue~ The one on the left hand side is number 45 that was subdivided earlier and the one on the right hand side is at the intersection of Matadero and [Tipa ]. Next slide. I spent a lot of time at the County of Santa Clara to get all this information. You can see from the the subdivided lot on the left hand side is only 55 feet. Next slide. At the intersection of [Tip ] and Matadero the lot is 54.84 on the second house on the right hand side. You can show it magnified. The second shows the 54.84. These are a couple of example on Matadero. I have so many examples on’Barron Park I wouldn’t like to go through all of them. Historically a lot of subdivisions ongoing process. We are not asking for something really different. In most of the cases the lot width is between 50 to 55 feet. The current City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals and policies do recommend to have this lot subdivision in the sense that it will increase the housing as long as it actually meets the neighborhood character. That is very important. If we have one house and build a big house it is going to be out of synch with the neighboring houses. Actu~illy by subdividing we are going to be more in synch with the neighboring houses. Some things I would like to point out that we are not next to any creek, we are not in the flood zone, we don’t have any protected trees, we are not in the historic homes category either: Even though our lot is short by four feet in width the depth is 113 feet, 13 feet more than what is required by the current City regulations. The lot is 6,334 feet for each lot, which is 334 square feet more than what is required. By subdividing we are not going to have substandard lots because all the lots next to us are going to have the same area and same width. Next slide, If you look at this lot, which is prepared by the City Staff, the arrow shows where my current lotis and the two lots sitting just behindus. Both of them have 55.84 width and the lots on the left and fight sides have 55.84 width. All the records show that the lot widths are less than 60 feet. Some of the lots actually are close to 50 and less than Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 52. I have so many examples in Barron Park on Matadero that have lots smaller than 60 feet. Next slide. The main advantage ofhaving a subdivision is we can help match us to the neighborhood and to the character of the neighborhood and there will be increase to the property taxes for the City and additional housing and. increased property value to the.neighbors. If you look at this project it is a win/win situation for everybody. In summary, lot subdivisions are an ongoing process and not only in the City of Palo Alto but in Barron Park for a very long time. In most of the cases the lot widths are smaller than 60 feet. One thing that helps us is we can have a new house without all the problems. We will have the flexibility and feasibility for my children to live with us in the future. When we build the new houses we are going to follow all the regulations from the City, keeping in mind the interest of the neighbors because we want to live with them, we want to live there. That is the main difference. If there are anv mistakes inmy presentation or in my documents please excuse us because they are not intentional. Finally, we would like to thank all of our neighbors for giving extensive support for this project and also City Staff, Mr. Russ Reich and Ms. Beth for their excellent support on this project. Thank you for your attention. " Chair Cassel: Did you have anyone else you wish to speak as part of your presentation? Mr. Parimi: Actually, ten people signed. They said my signature is my approval.. Chair Cassel: I have a couple of cards. Mr. Parimi: Yes, I do have a couple of people here. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. I am going to call the public testimony. I have two cards one is from Douglas Moran and the other is from Margit David. If there is anyone else who wishes to speak to this item you need to fill out a card and turn it into the Secretary. Douglas Moran. You will have five minutes but you don’t need to use it all. Mr. Douglas B. Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: I live on the E1 Camino side of the subject property and Iean tell you that Prasad has struggled for many years with his worn out house. So he really does need to rebuild. I can very much believe that. Now generally I don’t like to deal with saying giving exceptions because they are bent to address problems and you don’t want to relSeat what are known problems but in this case we have what is an either or situation of a house that will be on a lot that is proven to be a little bit small for what people are currently building versus a lot that is much larger than what would fit into the neighborhood. So there are none of the constraints or problems that as Prasad said that we have across the street that you just dealt with. In terms of neighborhood compatibility he has lived in the neighborhood for a long time, he has interacted very well with neighbors so I think that he will do it plus a couple with their Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 children gone the house they would be building for themselves would not be subject to the same pressures for building up size and maxing out and causing the problems with neighborhood compatibility that you would get with a house being built by someone who was just planning to sell it. So given the constraints I think that the division is appropriate and I am hoping that Prasad and Lalita will be able to carry through with fitting into the neighborhood and I have confidence in them. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Margit David. I have no more cards, Ms. Margit David, 568 Georgia Avenue, Palo Alto: I live in Barron Park and I am here also to support the Parimi’s wish to subdivide the lot on Matadero where they live. I have known the Parimi family for many years as my children and theirs went through Palo Alto schools together. My lot in Barron Park is 50 feet wide and many in my neighborhood are that width. In fact it is my impression that most of the lots in Barron Park wouldn’t meet the current requirement of a width of 60 feet. As I look on their row I see that theirs is the only doublewide lot and that by subdividing it as has already been pointed out would make it consistent with the others on that row. I understand that most of the lots don’t meet the current 60-foot requirement. Personally, I see no reason to object to the plan and therefore I am hoping that the resolution will be passed to support their wish to subdivide their lot. Just as a personal interest I am very fond of this family and hope that they and their sons can stay in my neighborhood. Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. I think we will do questions of Staff and then I will let him give his three-minute summary. Do we have any questions of Staff? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a clarifying question. On page three of Attachment A at the very bottom it says there are no easements on the subject property. Then on page six of that same attachment in the first paragraph at the top it says the applicant shall confirm, etc., that there are no easements. So can we rest assured that there are no easements that would be in conflict with this proposal? The language is in conflict~ Mr. Reich: Yes, we can. The language on page six is a general condition of approval that is applied by Public Works just to ensure that they provide the information to the applicant to make sure that they have done that but we have reviewed the application and there are no easements on the property. Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to make sure that was boilerplate. Thank you. Chair Cassel: It is my understanding that this is a preliminary map so that if something comes up that is why it is preliminary before we get to the final map. Mr. Reich: Yes there will be a parcel map to follow. Chair Cassel: Okay. Pardon me? Are there any other questions? Lee. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for you Russ. With regard to the subdivision here what we are actually doing is creating two substandard lots. Mr. Reich: Technically they are not substandard. They don’t meet the minimum width required by the zoning but the Zoning Ordinance would only dictate that they are substandard if they have a lot width of less than 50 feet or a lot depth of less than 83 feet and they are not at least 83% of the minimum lot size. So this lot is actually longer than is required and exceeds the minimum lot size so it is not substandard. Commissioner Lippert: Okay, great. Chair Cassel: You can’t make a motion just yet I have to give the applicant an opportunity to summarize for the last three minutes if they wish to they don’t have to. Mr. Parimi: Thank you to all of you. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Now I am going to close the public hearing. Annette, do you want to make the motion? MOTION Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I Would like to move that the Commission approve the preliminary parcel map being presented to us in accordance with the attached findings to the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval contained in the draft Record of Land Use Action which is Attachment A to the Staff Report. Chair Cassel: And the Negative Declaration? Commissioner Bialson: We need to say that as well? Chair Cassel: Yes. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, that too. Chair Cassel: Okay. SECOND Commissioner Burt: Second. Chair Cassel’ Do you have any comments, Annette? Commissioner Bialson: I have no comments. I think the case for this approval is very well presented by both the applicant and neighbors. Chair Cassel: Pat. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 Commissioner Burt: I would concur with Commissioner Bialson and I would just like to point out an informative portion of the documentation that was supplied to us. We had a document labeled ’memorandum’ and on page 17, it’s page 16 and then behind it, this is January 13, 2003 that we had a quite similar subdivision occur I think in the University South neighborhood. I just thought that the compatibility list that Staff had supplied at ¯ the time is just continues to be completely appropriate for this circumstance, two small lots matching the neighborhood character, little impact on traffic or trees, consistent lot pattern, consistent with the neighborhood, not historic, lot size over 6,000 and then no .impacts on riparian, public health or environmental damage. I went through that one and said gee, all this just applies exactly to the one that we are considering today. I think it is just good to point that out for the record. The consistency that Staff has had and the Commission has had in addressing similar issues in recent years. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Pat. I wanted to make one other comment. Those are the reasons for supporting this item. As nice as it sounds to like your neighbors we cannot vote on something based on the fact that you hope to stay there forever or that you love each other but we have to make it based on the grounds that Pat had just discussed. I had a neighbor ask for an exception in my neighborhood. I was not able to vote on that it was too close to my house. There was a lot of contention on it. It was finally compromised to meet their needs and within a year he lost his job and moved to Oregon. So we have to keep in mind that these decisions are based on the facts that are presented to us. Good luck to you and thank you. Any other comments? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to additionally comment Staff on what I think is a very clear and concise Staff Report. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Griffin absent) Chair Cassel: Then all those people in favor of this motion please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? Any abstentions? The vote then is unanimous with the exception of Michael who .is absent. Michael was also absent on the last vote. Then that is it for these items, Now we have a couple of clean up things. Thank you very much for coming forward. Page 7