Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-06 City Council (7)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 6, 2004 CMR:504:04 SUBJECT: 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE [03-SUB-01, 03- EIA-03]: REQUEST BY MARK MIGDAL OF THE TWO TOWERS GROUP FOR A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE A FIVE-LOT SUBDIVISION. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. ZONE DISTRICT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l). RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends denial of the request for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision, as described in the Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Map, as described in the Record of Land Use Action, Attachment B. DISCUSSION The project site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137- 15-038) of approximately 1.1 acres adjacent to Matadero Creek in the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barron Park Elementary School is located onthe opposite side of Matadero Creek. Dense vegetation of native and non- native trees, shrubs and other plant materials are located along the creek and large trees are fom~d throughout the site. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a cul-de-sac street that would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define the extent of the five lots to be created as a part of this subdivision. The oak trees located on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal .Code, Title 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). These trees would limit a future owner’s ability to construct any portion of a residential structure within the tree protection zone unless specific design considerations are approved prior to issuance of a building permit. CMR:504:05 Page 1 of 4 Staff prepared a staff report that recommended approval of the Tentative Map to the Commission. Staff presented findings and conditions indicating that the project would not have a significant affect on the environment and that the project was in compliance with the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning), Title 21 (Subdivisions) and the Comprehensive Plan. Key issues for the Cormnission discussion included protection of the existing oak trees and vegetation near Matadero Creek; the dimensions of the proposed Cul-de-sac, which would be slightly smaller than a standard cul-de-sac in terms of width and radius; protection of the riparian areas along Matadero Creek; and proposed conditions for the provision of rental housing that would comply with the Colnprehensive Plan. These issues are fully described in the October 8, 2004 Commission staff report contained in Attachment D. Pursuant to the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a ~Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed, which identified the environmental factors that would be potentially affected by the project. These factors are: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality. These impacts would be mitigated with conditions that would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The environmental docmrient is contained in Attachment J. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff presented the recommendation for approval to the Co~vnnission at the meeting of September 8, 2004. Commissioner Griffin moved to recommend denial of the request, which wasseconded by Commissioner Bialson. The motion passed (5-2-0~0, Commissioners Cassel and Packer opposed) The Commission adopted a revised Record of Land Use Action on November 9, 2004. As reflected in the Record of Land Use Action, the Commission’s action on the project was based upon the following conclusions: ¯ The proposed lnap and subdivision design are not consistent with applicable general and specific plans, in that the subdivision would not meet the polices of the Comprehensive Plan related to the preservation of neighborhood character, design, scale, density, and protection of the enviromnent. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are likely to affect the immediate enviromnent of Matadero Creek, in that the subdivision would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. Construction of the cul-de-sac street and the storm drain outfall could disturb the creek bank to an extent that would affect the ability of the riparian corridor to CMR:504:05 Page support the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat of the area. In addition, construction activities could increase erosion, bank instability and loss of habitat, That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development, in that the existing lots contain numerous protected species of trees that are located in such a way that would restrict development on four of the five single-family lots. These restrictions would limit the design options for the homes that would otherwise be available to mitigate privacy, massing 0r streetscape issues. In addition, The subdivision would result in a greater than acceptable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or lot coverage, street parking with resultant negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety, and impervious surface on the site, which would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PREPARED BY:, DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: STE[CE EMSLIE Diregtor Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Record of Land Use Action to Deny the Tentative Map Record of Land Use Action to Approve the Tentative Map Location Map Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, September 8, 2004 Verbatim Minutes, September 8, 2004 Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 27, 2004 Verbatim Minutes, October 27, 2004 Planning &Transportation Commission Staff Report, November 10, 2004 Verbatim Minutes, November 10, 2004 Correspondence from Community Members Environmental Documents Tentative Map Plans CMR:504:05 Page COURTESY COPIES Owen Byrd Mark Migdal Doug Moran Maryanne Welton Jean Wren Georgia Griffin Cheryl Borj a Gary Curtis Mr. Prasad Alex Sherstiusky Zina Kaganovich Lubov Valetsky Bestsy Allyn Bob Moss CMR:504:05 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE: TENTATIVE MAP 03-SUB-01 (MARK MIGDAL, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto denied the Tentative Map for the development of a five- lot subdivision project, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. A. On April 9, 2003, Mark Migdal applied for a Tentative Map for the development of a five-lot subdivision project ("The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137-15-038) of approximately I.i acres. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Numerous oak tree are located on the lots, including a significant oak grove in the rear half of the lots. The lots abut Matadero Creek on the east side. A 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, measured from the rear property line of the lots, is located along Matadero Creek. Single- family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barton Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. C. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a’cul-de- sac street that .would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define the extent of the five lots to be created as a part of this subdivision. The map also indicates the location of a 32-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District easement measured from the rear property lines, the location of a public right of way @asement along Matadero Avenue, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement between Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would contain a storm drain system leading to an outfall on Matadero Creek. D. The oak trees on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 (TreePreservation and Management Regulations). This would limit a future owners ability to construct structures close to the protected species. 1 SECTION 2. Tentative Map Denial Findinqs. Following staff review, the Pla~ning and~Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial onSeptember 8, 2004, ~based upon the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474; PAMC Section 21.12.090) : i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451; and 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The proposed lots would contain numerous protected trees khat are located in such a way that would restrict development on four of the five single-family lots. These restrictions would limit the. design options for the homes that would otherwise be available to mitigate privacy, massing or streetscape issues identified through the Individual Review process. In addition, the immediate proximity of such a dense proposed five-lot subdivision to the riparian corridor would result in unacceptable impacts. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The subdivision would create five single-family lots, which would result in greater than acceptable (i) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or lot coverage, (2) street parking with resultant negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety, and (3) impervious surface on the site, which would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. That ,the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: . Policy L-12: "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacentstructures." ¯Policy L-6: "Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities." The subdivision would create a lot pattern that would severely impact the adequacy of buildable space remaining to whoever constructs the structures on the lots, resulting in new structures 2 incompatible with adjacent homes. The location of the riparian corridor, the No-Build zone, rear and side-yard setbacks, plus the distribution of on-site protected trees would yield building lots of such a nature that any such lot will be unable to adequately accommodate the housing density sought by the proposed five lot subdivision. corridors." Policy N-II: "Preserve the integrity of riparian The subdivision would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. ¯Policy N-13: "Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream .sedimentation and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks." Construction of the proposed five-lot subdivision with rear yard setback lines at approximately 50’ to the Matadero Creek centerline, would result in excessive and more than acceptable encroachment on the creek bank to an extent that would affect the ability of the riparian corridor to support the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat of the area. ¯Policy N-9: "Avoid fencing, piping and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the’creek." The subdivision would require the installation of a storm drain outfall through the riparian corridor to Matader© Creek~. The construction and storm drain outfall could have a negative affect on the immediate environment of the creek, in that construction activities could increase erosion, bank instability and loss of habitat. ¯Policy N-12: "Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation of native plants and the replacement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants." Creation of a five lot subdivision results in the rear setback lines of the lots located approximately 50’ to the creek and therefore is an unacceptable impact on creek side native vegetation and/or the decline in health of the creek habitat. Removal of non- native plant species is not proposed as a component of the subdivision.. 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 hab i tat : The five-lot subdivision is inconsistent with goal N-2 and policy N-12 in that it would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. SECTION 3. Tentative Map Denied. The City Council adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and denies the Tentative Map. PASSED: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney 4 Attachment B ACTION NO.. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE: TENTATIVE MAP 03-SUB-01 (MARK MIGDAL, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map for the development of a five- lot subdivision project, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. The city Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A0 On April 9, 2003, Mark Migdal applied for a Tentative Map for the development of a five-lot subdivision project ("The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of three 10ts (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137-15-038) of approximately i.i acres. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Numerous oak tree are located on the lots, including a significant oak grove in the rear half of the lots. The lots abut Matadero Creek on the east side. A 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, measured from the rear property line of the lots; is located along Matadero Creek. Single- family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barton Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. B. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a cul-de- sac street that would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define .the ~extent of ’the five lots to be created as a part .of this subdivision. The map also indicates the location of a 32-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District easement measured from the rear property lines, the location of a public right of way easement along Matadero Avenue, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement between Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would contain a storm drain system leading to an outfall on Matadero Creek. C. The oak trees on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 ~(Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). This would limit a future owners ability to construct structures close to the protected species. E. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial on September 8, 2004. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation ~is contained in the City Manager’s Report, CMR:504:04, and the attachments 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 or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, 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 madeL available for public review beginning August 13,. 2004 through September i, 2004. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: 504:041 SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings. 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): I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. 2. That .the design or improvement of the proposed subdivisionis not.consistent~with.applicable general.and specific plans: The Project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: policy L-l: Continue current City policy limiting futureurban development to 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 size and scale. The Project would add allow construction of five single- 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 residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The Project would permit the subsequent construction of five single-family residential units, which would be subject to the R-I site development regulations as the other R-I 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; and Policy N-If: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. A 32’ Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement extends from the top of bank of Matadero Creek into Lot’s 2, 3, and 4, which prohibits development along the creek bank. Furthermore, the project is condition to prohibit construction within the rear yard setback of Lots 2, 3, and 4. The rear yard setback is 20’ in width measured from the SCVWD easement. This condition would prohibit development within 52 feet of the rear property lines of these lots; and Policy N-13 Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks. The project would require the developer or individual homeowners to submit an appropriate Storm water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that would protect storm water quality. Standard conditions will protect Matadero Creek and riparian vegetation along the banks. Conditions include the installation of tree protection and vegetative fence along the entire length of the SCVWD easement as described on the Tentative Map. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The Project site is comprised of three large reiatively flat lots that would be merged and subdivided into five lots. for the purposes of single-family development. Each lot would meet or exceed the minimum.lot size requirements for R-I zoned properties. Each lot would meet or exceed the minimum lot width and length requirements for R-I zoned properties. Although the Project site contains significant oak trees that would limit deve!opment within the identified TPZ, the project would be conditioned to allow specific development within the TPZ that would help preserve the health of these trees. The SCVWD easement and the condition limiting development in the rear yard setback of Lots 2,3, and 4 would protect the riparian area along Matadero Creek. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create five.lots that meet or exceed the site development regulations for properties in the R-I Single family Residence district. 3 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 hab i tat : The Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that the SCVWD easement and the condition limiting development in the rear yard setback of Lots 2,3, and 4 would protect the riparian area along Matadero Creek. 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 public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in 5he Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the subdivision project. Mitigation measures and Conditions of approval have been proposed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvemehts 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 wi~thin the proposed subdivision. The Project will not conflict with easements on or off the~site, as all easements will be maintained and any adjustments or new easements shall only be allowed or established by the conditions of approval. SECTION 4. Tentative Map ApprovalGranted. Tentative 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 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Final Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Nielsen Engi.neering titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one (i) page, dated September i, 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 Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compl~iance 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 6~Conditions of Approval Department of Planning and Community Envirormment Planning Division Development on the lots is subject to the City’s architectural review provisions as described in Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 18.76.020. o The applicant shall record a "no-build easement" on the area defined as the rear yard setback for lots 2, 3, and 4 that is acceptable to the City, prior to application for the Final Map. The final map shall contain an information sheet that lists the document numbers of the recorded documents describing the .easements. 0 Any new two-story construction on the lots may require review under the City’s Individual Review.process. 0 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. The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. All trucks hauling soil, sandi and other loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging o areas at the construction site shall be either paved, watered three times~daily, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers. All paved access’ roads~ parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept (with water sweepersl daily. If visible soil material is carried onto public streets, the street shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. Pri~or to issuance of a building permit, a limited auger test on the site shall be conducted. The auger testing shall be conducted with a compact, trailer mounted motorized auger (general 550 or similar) capable of being operated in low- overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered with be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of completion of the work. The testing program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qual±fications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR l) . If, based upon a~ger testing, additional data recovery is warranted,, and Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be followed in the e~ent significant resources are discovered during~ construction. In addition, the plan shall include the following: (i) .a Research design, describing the questions to be addressed and the methodology to be used during data recovery; (2) provisions for artifact mataloging, analysis and curation; and (3) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR I) . Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). Construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site and prepare an Extended Phase i report to identify the extent of the remains. Recommendations from the Extended ~Phase 1 report shall be incorporated into the project. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional arghaeologist. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course ofaction acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is requiredi the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. Planning Division Arborist o Final Map Informational Sheet. The final map informational sheet shall include the following information: Tree Protection Restriction Zone. A tree protection zone (TPZ) applies to the following 16 ~protected trees’: #I, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees at the outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero creek. Encroachment of structures or soil disturbance greater than 4-inches is prohibited in the TPZ, pursuant to a tree preservation plan consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree.Technical Manual, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. I0.The applicant shall, secure a tree removal permit for removal of the seven coast redwoods regulated by the tree preservation ordinance. The entitlement for tree removal shall be contained in a document to be recorded that is acceptable to the City, prior to application for the Final Map. These trees, shall be replaced with the size and number of trees in accordance with the PaloAlto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.10 (one tree minimum for each of the five lots) and shall be included as required plantings ±n the development building permit. Housing Ii.The developer shall construct a secondary, attached second dwelling unit on Lot 3 that complies with the requirements for attached dwelling units as a replacement for the existing cottage being demolished. The applicant shall record a document indicating the requirement for construction of the attached dwelling unit that is acceptable to the City, prior to application for the Final Map. This condition would satisfy the Housing Element provisions regarding the creation of a 100% increase in number of units on the site. 12.This project is subject to the City’s Below Market Rate program, which requires 15% of the units to be affordable or that the developer would pay an in-lieu fee. The developer shall enter into an agreement that would satisfy the BMR requirement prior to Final Map approval. Building Division 13.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 each building. 14.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 required fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center. Public Works Prior to submittal of the Final Map 15.The applicant is required to meet¯ with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final map submittal to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo ~Alto’s companion document to "Star~t at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 16.Applicant shall adhere to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 for vertical controls survey throughout the design process. At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital As-Built Record Drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in ~hich the City owns an interest. A digital copy of the subdivision map shall also be~provided. All files should be delivered in Auto Cad .dwg format. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called a Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the technician who prepared theml~ 17.The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a finalmap. 18.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. The revised plans shall incorporate a new manhole at the location of the new catch basins. Permittee must obtain a~ grading permit from the Cityof Palo Alto Building Inspection Division. 19.Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements, onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. Flood Zone Utiiity Protection - All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. PMAC 16.52.150(d) . To comply with this requirement~the storm line connected to Matadero Creek shall be equipped with a backflow prevention device such as a flap gate. Thisshall be designed to comply with Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. 9 21.Agency Permits - The Developer shall contact other agencies including the Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Fish & Game, Corps of Engineers and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to determine which agencies will require permits for the proposed improvements in or near Matadero Creek. A copy of agency correspondence verifying agency review of the Tentative Map and identifying any agency conditions placed on the proposed (mapped) improvements must be received~by the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. Any design that directs overland storm water flow toward the creek bank should receive specific SCVWD approval. Evidence of this SCVWD permit does not waive the responsibility of the Permittee to obtain all other negessary authorization from other local, state and federal agencies [SCVWD Ordinance 83-2] . Prior to Recordation of Final Map: 22.The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and"off" site condition(s) of approval. The Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments shall determine the amount of the bond. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit: 23.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest, adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 24.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit: 25.The pro3ect is located within 50 feet of a creek, which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water i0 District (SCVWD) . A permit must be obtained from SCVWD and a copy provided to the City. Santa Clara Valley Water District ordinance 83-2. Any design that directs overland storm w.ater flow toward the creek bank should receive specific SCVWD approval. Contact the SCVWD Development Review Unit at (408) 265-2600. Evidence of this SCVWD permit does not waive the responsibility of the permittee to obtain all other necessary authorization from other local, state and federal agencies. The applicant must also contact the Department of Fish and Game, the Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain necessary approvals prior to construction of the outfall in Matadero Creek. 26.The applicantshall obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. 27. .This proposed development will disturb more ~than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWhCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permitrequires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. Measures that will be implemented during individual home construction projects shall also be specified. During Construction: 28.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any on site grading or work performed in the public right-of-way. 29.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or Qn the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 30.The developer shall requi.re its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution ii 31. prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City.jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility ¯Departments. Prior to Finalization: 32.All gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. Utilities Electric Department 33. 34. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 18-D(2) . The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters)’ and associated substructure as.required by the City. In addition, the owner shall, grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 35.The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other ~utilities. ~ 37. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc~.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. Rule & Regulation # 16-A(2) . The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 12 38.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 39~.The Appl’icant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of~vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within i0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 40. 41. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet musk be included with the preliminary submittal. Only one electric service lateralis permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 42. 43. 44. 45. This projecn requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers} switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as. required by the City. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. AlL conduits must be sized according to Nat.ional Electric Code requirements and no ~- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length~require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on 13 the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 46.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 47.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition~ cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet ~design drawings must be submitted to the Electric-Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 48.No more tha~ four 750MCM conductorsper phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 49.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 50.Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 51.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. During Construction Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit~from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 14 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. At least 48~hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800- 227-2600 to have existing undergroundutilities located and marked. The areas-to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. The customer is .responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~-inch size conduits are permitted.. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the~Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regulation #16. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation~shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 58.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 59.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & regulation #18. After Construction & Prior to Finalization 15 60.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and si-ze), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. Prior to Issuance of Building Occupancy Permit 61.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. 62.All required inspections have been completed and approved by both~the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 63.All fees must be paid. 64.All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need be signed by the City and applicant. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. i. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map .(PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment 16 Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Nielsen Engineering titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one page, dated September i 2004. 17 Attachment C % 3555 Barron ParkE!emenNry School The City of Palo Alto & 807 Matadero Avenue This map is a I?.roduct of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment D PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Steven Turner Senior Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environmem AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 8, 2004 797 & 807 Matadero Avenue [03-SUB-01, 03-EIA-03]: Request by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: ¯ Single Family Residential (R-1). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomlnends the Planning and Transportation Colnmission recommend to City Council approval of 1) the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment G); and 2) the Tentative Map, based upon findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background The proj ect site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137- 15-038) of approximately 1.1 acres adjacent to Matadero Creek in the Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barron Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. Dense vegetation of native and non- native trees, shrubs and other plant materials are !ocated along the creek and large Oak trees are found throughout the site. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a cul-de-sac street that would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define the extent of the five lots to be created as a part of this subdivision. City of Palo Alto Page 1 The oak trees located on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 (Tree Preselwation and Management Regulations). These trees would limit a future owners ability to construct any portion of a residential structure within the Tree Protection Zone unless specific design considerations are approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Tentative Map Findings This project is a major subdivision as defined by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 21.04.030 (any subdivision creating five or more parcels). The process to create a major subdivision requires the project applicant to submit a request for a Tentative Map. The Subdivision Map Act contains the requirements for legislative bodies that review Tentative Maps. The findings to act on the Tentative Map are included in the Record of Land Use Action, Section 3 (contained in Attachment A). Submittal of the Final Map If the City Council adopts the staff and Commission’s recommendation to approve the Tentative Map, the applicant may apply for a Final Map within two years of the Tentative Map approval date. The Final Map is the document containing the statements, acknowledgements and agreements from the property owner, smweyor, City officials and beneficiaries that the Final Map is in conformance with all applicable regulations and the approved Tentative Map. The Final Map is processed and recorded only after, an improvement plan and subdivision agreement have been processed. Conditions of Approval Recommended conditions of approval are contained in the Record of Land Use Action, Section 6. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:. Tree Protection Four of the five lots (lots 1,2,3, and 4) contain protected species of Oalc trees located in and around the buildable area of each lot. The Tentative map indicates the location of the protected trees. These trees would reduce the buildable area of each lot, as portions of the buildable area are located within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) as defined by Tree Technical Manual (TTM), Section 2.00. The intent of the TPZ is to provide an area large enough to protect the trees and roots from disturbance. The applicant has provided informational sketches of possible building footprints that comply with the requirements of the TTM (Attachment C). The applicant has described the minimum living area, size of garage, number of bedrooms and bathrooms that would be possible on each lot. The applicant also included a possible building footprint within the TPZ if a specific foundation system (Sketch 1, Attachment C) is used that would protect tree roots. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Staff has reviewed this information and found that there would be a reasonably sized building area for each lot containing protected trees. The Final Map would contain specific references to tree protection and construction requirements for each lot to be satisfied prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to this Tentative Map application submittal, the applicant truncated seven (7) Coast Redwood trees on the project site. At the time of this 2001 tree cutting activity, these trees were not a protected species under PAMC 8.10. In the intervening time since the cutting of the trees, the redwoods that were cut have produced secondary growth saplings from the remaining trunks, stumps and root systems that were not removed from the site. While the saplings are not considered to be protected under PAMC 8.10, the remaining trunk and root system of the trees continues to survive as a living entity. Staff recognizes that, while unusual in circumstance, these redwood trees are subject to the literal definition of a ’protected tree’ as defined in the municipal code, and therefore subject to its provisions. Therefore, the tree ordinance provisions that are germane to this tentative subdivision map application would require that, if the remaining portions of the seven redwoods were allowed to be removed, the provisions would require their replacement with new mitigation trees on the site (distributed among the lots) in accordance with the standards set forth in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration recognized this issue. A mitigation measure, requiring the replacement of protected trees, is included in the environmental document (Attachment G, Mitigation Measure BR-3). As a condition of approval, staff recommends that, prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant apply for a tree removal permit for the removal of the redwood trees and the addition of five (5) replacement tree in the subdivision, with at least one tree required for each lot of a size determined by the Tree Technical Manual. The discretionary approval for the removal and replacement of trees would be recorded with the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office. The Final Map would contain a reference to the recorded documents, so that future property owners in the subdivision would know that replacement trees would be required. Street Dimension Standards As described above, a cul-de-sac street would be constructed to allow each lot access to Matadero Avenue. The street would be approximately 150 feet in length, 40’ in width (measured from property line to property line), with a cul-de-sac bulb radius of 35’ measured to the outside edge of the curb. Although these dimensions are slightly smaller that the Public Works standards for street width and radius (50’ width and 40’ radius are the typical standards), Public Works and the Fire Department have found the proposed design to be satisfactory to maintain public services and to ensure public safety, in that: 1) sidewalks and vertical face curbs are not required in the Barron Park neighborhood, 2) the length of the street is such that public safety equipment could access each lot without the requirement for a specific turn-around radius, and 3) the location of a fire hydrant at City of Palo Alto Page 3 Matadero Avenue across from the subdivision would reduce the need for fire equipment to be located deep within the subdivision during an emergency. Valley gutters are standard throughout the area, which would allow enough room to maneuver equipment in and out of the subdivision. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 21, Section 21.20.010 (subdivision design criteria) allows adjustments to the standards if the City Council finds that due to the particular circumstances these design criteria are not necessary or that alternative designs are preferable. Staff is in support of the adjusted dimensions, in that the proposed width and turn-around radius would provide access for emergency vehicles into the subdivision. In addition, the valley gutter and rolled curb system are consistent with the Public Works Barron Park standards and would allow the creation of lots that meet the standards for lot width, length and area. The reduced street width is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy T-35, which calls for reducing neighborhood street and intersection widths and widening planting strips. The proposed narrower-than-standard street width would provide the proportions and sense of enclosure that make pedestrians feel comfortable, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-67. The rolled curbs would be consistent with the distinct character of Barron Park, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-35. Creek Protection Matadero Creek is located adjacent to the project site. Three of the proposed lots would border the creek. A combination of easements and rear yard setbacks will provide protection for the creek. A Santa Clara Valley Water District easement of 32’ measured from the creek centerline (and extending approximately five to ten feet from the top-of- bank) restrict building within the zone and also reduces the allowable floor area on these lots (the area of the easement is deducted from the gross site area). The 20’ rear setback area of these lots is measured from the edge of easement area, effectively creating a 52’ wide area along the creek where building would be limited under the existing zoning rules. The R-1 regulations allow for construction of small accessory buildings and a portion of the main building in the rear yard setback area. In order to further protect the creek, staff is recommending that the 20’ rear yard setback area be designated as a non- buildable area for any structure or outdoor recreation area (such as courts or swimming pools), other than a small accessory building less than 120 square feet in size. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Subdivision of the parcel into five parcels would eventually result in an increase in the number of housing units by three units. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Goal H-I, which encourages increasing housing for all income levels. The project is subject to Comprehensive Plan programs H-29 (Loss of Rental Housing) and H-36 (Below Market Rate Housing). To comply with Policy H-29, a Tentative Map condition requires one of the five lots to be built with a second unit to replace the cottage City of Palo Alto Page 4 unit that is cun’ently on the site. Condition #11 in Section 6 of the Record of Land Use Action describes this requirement. To comply with Policy H-36 the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement that satisfies the BMR requirement prior to Final Map approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by CEQA, was circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning on August 13, 2004 and ending on September 1, 2004. A copy of this environmental document is provided in Attachment G. Commehts received after the Commission meeting of September 8, 2004 will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. NEXT STEPS: Following review by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the application will be heard by the City Council. If the City Council approves the Tentative Map, the applicant may submit improvement plans, legal documents including easement and draft subdivision agreements for City staff review. Upon approval and payment of any fees, the applicant may apply for approval of a Final Map. The Final Map will be reviewed for compliance by Ci,ty staff and a final action will be taken by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: No B. C. D. E. F. G. Record of Land Use Action Location Map Applicant Submittal and Subdivider’s Statement Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Policies (Table 1) Zolfing Compliance (Table 2) Tentative Map (Commission Members Only) Envirolgnental Documentation COURTESY COPIES: Mark Migdal Doug Moran Maryanne Welton Dorothy Bender Prepared by:Steven Turner Senior Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: ~.)~, !(x~ "/~@A~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE: TENTATIVE MAP 03-SUB’01 (MARK MIGDAL, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Tentative Map for the development of a five- lot subdivision project, making the followi~g findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the-City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On April 9, 2003, Mark Migdal applied for a Tentative Map for the development of a five-lot subdivision project ("The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137-15-038) of approximately I.i acres. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Numerous oak tree are located on the. lots, including a significant oak grove in the rear half of the lots. The lots abut Matadero Creek on the east side. A 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, measured from the rear property line of the lots, is located along Matadero Creek. Single- family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Patron Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. B. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a cul-de- sac street that would be dedicated tothe City and the location of property lines that define the extent ofthe five lots to be created as a part of this subdivision. The map also indicates the location of a 32-foot wide Santa. Clara Valley Water District easement measured from the rear property lines, the location of a public right of way easement along Matadero Avenue, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement between Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would contain a storm drain system leading to an outfall on Matadero Creek. C. The oak trees on the site are protedted under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 (Tree Preservation and~Management Regulations). This would limit a future owners ability to construct structures close to the protected species. E. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on September 8, 2004, subject to conditions of approval. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations are contained in the City Manager’s Report, CMR:, and the attachments 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 or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, 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 August 13, 2004 through September i, 2004. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: SECTION 3. Tentative Map Findings. 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): i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: The site is consistent 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 Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-l: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to 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 size and scale. The Project would add allow construction of five single- 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 residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The Project would permit the subsequent construction of five single-family residential units, which would be subject to the R-I site development regulations as the other R-I 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; and Policy N-If: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. A 32’ Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement extends from the top of bank of Matadero Creek into Lot’s 2, 3, and 4, which prohibits development along the creek bank. Furthermore, the project is condition to prohibit construction within the rear yard setback of Lots 2, 3, and 4. The rear yard setback is 20’ in width measured from the SCVWD easement. This condition would prohibit development within 52 feet of the rear property lines of these lots; and Policy N-13 Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation and flooding by min±mizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks. The project would require the developer or individual homeowners to submit an appropriate Storm water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), incorporating Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that would protect storm water quality. Standard conditions will protect Matadero Creek and riparian vegetation along the banks. Conditions include the installation of tree protection and vegetative fence along the entire length of the SCVWD easement as described on the Tentative Map. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The Project site is comprised of three large relatively flat lots that wou~d be merged and subdivided into five lots for the purposes of single-family developmentl Each lot would meet or exceed the minimum lot size requirements for R-I zoned properties. Each lot would meet or exceed the minimumlot width and length requirements for R-I zoned properties. Although the Project site contains significant oak trees that would limit development within the identified TPZ, the project would be conditioned to allow specific development within the TPZ that would help preserve the health of these trees. The SCVWD easement and the condition limiting development in the rear yard setback of Lots 2,3, and 4 would protect the riparian area along Matadero Creek. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create five lots that meet or exceed 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 habi tat : The Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that the SCVWD easement and the condition~limiting development in the rear yard setback of Lots. 2,3, and 4 would protect the riparian area along Matadero Creek. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The Project will not cause serious public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the subdivision project. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have ~een proposed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 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, propert~y within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.~" The Project will not conflict with easements on or off the site, as all ~easements will be maintained and any adjustments or new easements shall only be allowed or established by the conditions of approval. SECTION 4. Tentative Map Approval Granted. Tentative 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 6 of this Record. SECTION 5. Final Map Approval. 4 The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map prepared by Nielsen Engineering titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one (i) page, dated September i, 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, ~urrent Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Final Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Tentative Map as-conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the CityEngineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]) . SECTION 6.Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division Development on the lots is subject to the City’s architectural review provisions as described in Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 18.76.020. 0 The applicant shall record a "no-build easement" on the area defined as the rear yard setback for lots 2, 3, and 4 that is acceptable to the City,. prior to application for the Final Map. The final map shall contain an information sheet that lists the document numbers of the recorded documents describing the easements. 0 Any new two-story construction on the lots may 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. °The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: All active construction areas shall be watered at least-twice daily. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging 5 o o areas at the construction site shall be either paved, watered three times daily, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. If visible soil material is carried onto public streets, the street shall be swept (with water .sweepers) daily. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a limited auger test on the site shall be conducted. The auger testing shall be conducted with a compact, trailer mounted motorized auger ¯ (general 550 or similar) capable of being operated in low- overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered with be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A report of ffndings shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of completion of the work. The testing program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR I). If, based upon auger testing, additional data recovery is warranted, and Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction.. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. In addition, the plan shall include the following: (I), a Research design, describing the questions to be addresse.d and the methodology to be used during data recovery; (2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis and curation; and (3) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR i) . Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e) . Construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site and prepare an Extended Phase I report to identify the extent of the remains. Recommendations from the Extended Phase i report shall be incorporated into the project. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If. avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California ~Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall~be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. Planning Division Arborist 0 Final Map Informational Sheet. The final map informational sheet shall include the following information: Tree Protection Restriction Zone. A tree protection zone (TPZ) applies to the following 16 ~protected trees’: #i, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees at. the outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero Creek. Encroachment of structures or soil disturbance greater than 4-inches is prohibited in the TPZ, pursuant to a tree preservation plan consistent with the City of Palo ~Alto Tree Technical Manual, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. i0.The applicant shall secure a tree removal permit for removal of the seven coast redwoods regulated by the tree preservation ordinance. The entitlement for tree removal shall be contained in a document to be recorded that is acceptable to the City, prior to application for the Final Map. These trees shall be replaced with the size and number of trees in accordance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.10 (one tree minimum for each of the five lots) and shall be included as required plantings in the development building permit. 7 Housing ii.The developer shall construct a secondary, attached second dwelling unit on Lot 3 that complies with the requirements for attached dwelling units as a replacement for the existing cottage being demolished. The applicant shall record a .document indicating the requirement for construction of the attached dwelling unit that is acceptable to the City, prior to application for the Final Map. This condition would satisfy the Housing Element’ provisions regarding the creation of~a 100% increase in number of units on the site. 12.This project is subject to the City’s Below Market Rate program, which requires 15% of the units to be affordable or that the developer would pay an in-lieu fee. The developer shall enter into an agreement that would satisfy the BMR requirement prior to Final Map approval. Building Division 13.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 each building. 14.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 required fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center. Public Works Prior to submittallof the Final Map 15.The applicant isrequired to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final map submittal to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts,- the plan shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP Shall include permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works - Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements of 16. 17o 18. 19. 20. the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. Applicant shall adhere to North American Datum 1983 State Plane.Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 for vertical controls survey throughout the design process. At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide ~ digital As-Built Record Drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest. A digital Copy of the subdivision map shall also be provided. All files should be delivered in ~Auto Cad .dwg f~rmat. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file will need to accompany the files. This is called a Metadata file and will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source Of the data, the company name and contact information, along with.the technician who prepared them. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map. The applicantshall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. The revised plans shall incorporate a new manhole at the location of the new catch basins. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division. Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and securi.ty of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. Flood Zone Utility Protection - All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. PMAC 16.52.150(d). To comply with this requirement the storm line connected to Matadero Creek shall be equipped with a backflow prevention device such as a flap gate. This shall be designed to comply with Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements. 21.Agency Permits - The Developer shall contact other agencies including the Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Fish & Game, Corps of Engineers and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to determine which agencies will require permits for’the proposed improvements in or near Matadero Creek. A copy of agency correspondence verifying agency review Of the.Tentative Map and identifying any agency conditions placed on the proposed (mapped) improvements must be received by the Public Works Department prior to approval of the Final Map. Any design that directs overland storm water flow toward the creek bank should receive specific SCVWD approval. Evidence of this SCVWD permit does not waive the responsibility of the Permittee to obtain all other necessary authorization from other local, state and federal agencies [SCVWD Ordinance 83-2] . Prior to Recordation of Final Map: 22.The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s) of approval. The Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments shall determine the amount of the bond. Prior to submittal for Building or Grading Permit:~ 23.A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building -Inspection Division is required for the proposed project. The applicant shall submit a~final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent. properties, shall be maintained. 24.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit: 25.The project is located within 50 feet of a creek, which is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water i0 District (SCVWD). A permit must be obtained from SCVWD and a copy provided to the City. Santa Clara Valley Water District ordinance 83-2. Any design that directs overland storm water flow toward the creek bank should receive specific SCVWD approval. Contact the SCVWD Development Review Unit at (408) 265-26~0. Evidence of this SCVWD permit does not waive the responsibility~of the permittee to obtain all other necessary authorization from other local, state and federal agencies. The applica.nt must also contact the Department of Fish and Game, the Corps Of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to obtain.necessary approvals prior to construction of the outfall in Matadero Creek. 26.The applicant shall obtain a Street Wqrk Permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protedtion on the public sidewalk and or construction proposed in the City right-of- way. Sec. 12.08.010. 27.This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works ~Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post.-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. Measures that will be implemented during individual home construction projects shall also be specified. During Construction: 28.The. contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any on site grading or work performed in the public right-of-way. 29.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 30~The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution II prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. ~It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 31.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Prior to Finalization: 32.All gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. Utilities Electric Department 33.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 18-D(2). 34.~The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 35.The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. 36.The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall’be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. Rule & Regulation # 16-A(2). 37.The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit 12 38.The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and iocation of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 39.The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within I0 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Submittal for Building Permit 40.A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must .be included with the preliminary submittal. 41.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 42.This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 43.The developer/owner shall provide space for installing ~ padmount equipment ~(i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. 44. 45. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must be sized accordingto National Electric Code requirements and no ~- inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs.over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. Location of the electric Panel/switchboard shall be shown on 13 the site plan and apprbved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 46.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 47.For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 48.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required. 49.The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 50.Any additional facilities and services re4uested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility ~deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 51.The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. During Construction 52.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digglng in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 14 53.At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800- 227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. .The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with whit~ paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 54.The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ~-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’.s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16. 55.All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends ~are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 56.All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regul,ation #16. 57.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shallmeet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 58.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance~ with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 59.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities Rule & regulation #18. After Construction & Prior to Finalization 15 60.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits(number and.size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer.pads. Prior to Issuance of Building Occupancy Permit 61. 62. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. All fees must be paid. All special Facilities contracts Or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SECTION 7.Term of Approval. i. Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Final Map (PAMC Section .21.16.010[c]) . Unless a Final Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two-year period from the date of Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Tentative Map shall explre and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment 16 Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Nielsen Engineering titled "Tentative Map", consisting of one page, dated September 1 2004. 17 stumer, 2004418-31 10;05:39 This documeht is a grapk~ representation only of best awilable scurfs, Two TOWERS GROUP 593-A Lytton Ave. , Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ Tel 650.566.1038 ¯ Fax 650.566.1039 August 31, 2004 Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re:- 797-807 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto - Tentative Map; 5 lots Subdivision Attachment C Dear Commissioners: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Attached is the formal Subdivider Statement which describes this project. In addition, we would like to add the following: We began working with this land more than 4 years ago. During this time we reviewed with the City and neighbors at least 5 major subdividing proposals. We began with proposal to subdivide these 3 parcels into 6 lots with the private one-way street going around all six lots. (see Attachment 1) Though this approach would have provided the best economical advantage it’ was abandoned due to the possible negative erosion effect to the top of the creek bank. One of the later proposals (see Attachment 2) was also considered by us and the City Planners for a long time. This idea was eventually transformed into the present subdivision proposal. The major adjustments where determined by the need to secure and protect the Heritage Oaks on the property and at the same time to create lots, which could be improved with acceptable future homes. While working with the City on this latest version of the Tentative Map we successfully demonstrated that even/proposed lot could be improved with a nice single family home, while the well- being of the protected oaks is not compromised. As a measure of securing the tree protection we, together with Planning Department and City Attorney Office and most specifically with the help of City Arborist Mr. Dave Dockter, developed the means of creating Recordable Restrictions on the design and construction of the future homes in this subdivision. It was agreed that a Tentative Map will have all protected trees clearly identified and described on the face of the Tentative Map. The specific circles around each protected tree will clearly defined Tree Protection Zones (TPZ). Any possible future encroachment into this TPZ will be subject to special design and construction measures such as: hand trenching in the areas, where roots of the trees could be present; bridging the foundation over the roots, which must be protected; and so on. It was agreed that any such design measures will become a subject of a special review and approval by the City Arborist. DUring our work with this map we invited Barton Park Association members to express their opinions and concerns as related to our plans. We had one big meeting where the whole neighborhood was invited and where we gave a detailed description of our plans. Our presentation was complemented with different illustrations and drawings. The Architect was present to answer design and privacy related questions. We had few subsequent meetings with the President of the Association- Mr. Doug Moran and with Vice- President- Ms. Maryanne Welton. Most of the concerns of the neighborhood were related to the potential traffic and parking issues and to the need to protect the heritage oaks on the property. As it was described above the tree protection measures were incorporated into a Comprehensive Agreement defining Tree Protection Zones (TPZ). We are certain that this agreement and the measures it describes will satisfy all neighborhood concerns regarding the need to protect Heritage Oaks. In response to the concerns of the neighborhood regarding possible increase in number of cars parked along Matadero Avenue we reached an agreement_with TransPortation and Fire Departments of the City, which would eliminate the need to install "No Parking" signs inside new street and the cul-de-sac. Each one of the future homes will have 2 car garage and 2 additional parking spots in front of the garage which could be used by the guests and visitors. Beside that the new street and cul-de-sac would be able to accommodate up to additional 12 to 14 cars of the future visitors. As a result it is most certain that when 5 new homes will replace 2 existing homes this would not create any additional parking load and inconvenience along Matadero Avenue. To summarize we would like to state that this small subdivision will be a definite asset to Barron Park and most specifically to the immediate neighborhood. Five new homes will replace all of the present dilapidated unpleasantly looking improvements on this property. The proposed development is fully consistent with the character of the neighborhood. All of the .proposed lots are in excess of 6,000 square foot. The future cul-de-sac and the size and the shape of the proposed lots are fully consistent and actually bigger than the lots in few most recent subdivisions and cul-de-sacs in Barron Park such as: Pena Court, ]ulie Court, Carlitos Court, and the most recent subdivision at the end of Georgia Avenue. (see Attachment 3 to 6) This subdivision is very similar to another subdivision we completed few years ago in Miranda neighborhood of Palo Alto. It became known as Arroyo Court. (see Attachment 7). That subdivision also had a short street and cul-de-sac and 5 lots around it. Just like at Matadero Ave 3 out of 5 homes of the Arroyo Court subdivision where backing to Adobe Creek. During that project we undertook all necessary measures to protect the trees, the Creek and to prevent any possible negative effect on the vegetation and the habitat along the creek bank. At this new subdivision, just like at the Arroyo Court, we plan to work closely not only with the City of Palo Alto, but also with Santa Clara Valley Water District in order to secure a successful completion of the project. Thank you very much. Very truly yours, Mark Migdal MATADERO AVE. $33"05’00"W $33’05’00"W I 87.00’87,00’ I .I $33"05’00"W $33’05’00"WI87.00’87,00’ $33"05’00"W $33"05’00"W 98.00’76.00’ ~ 0 ~"~,. "’~FOR ~T~E~O CREEK 40.66 N,,OO,L~.6gS MATADERO AVE. ¯ N33"O5’OO"E 52,00’ N33"O5’OO"E 52.00’ N33"O5’OO"E 52.36’ I LOT 7 72.47 ./0.00-* M AY BE LL .AVE. f. O0 k.oo ~ 0 o ~.oo ~.oo ~. oo GEORGIA AVE. b ToweRs GRou 593-A Lytton Ave. Pal,o Alto CA 94301 ¯ Tel 650.566.1038 ¯ Fax 6,R0.,566.1039 September 1, 2004 SUBDIVIDER’S STATEMENT 797-807 MATADERO AVENUE, PALO ALTO A, Existinq Structures: The property used to be an older farm comprised of 3 adjoining lot. Presently there are two dilapidated single family homes, which are approximately 70 to 80 years old. Barn and hay storage (90 to 100 yrs. old) were demolished 2 years ago. Numerous carports throughout and 2 workshops. Zone District: R-l, Single Family Proposed Use.:. Merge three existing lots and to subdivide into five lots with the construction of the new street and cul-de-sac. They will be built to the City standards and will be later dedicated to the City for the public use. C. Improvements and Public Utilities: Subdivider will design and install new street and cul-de-sac with all utilities which include: electricity, gas, water, sewer, cable TV and telephone to be put underground. Storm drainage will be provided with catch box to be installed at the edge of the cul-de- sac with the storm water discharge taken by underground pipe to the bottom of the Matadero Creek. Street lights and street landscaping will be installed prior to completion of the project. All public related work will be completed prior to the future homes construction. Provision for Sewer and Sewage Disposal’,. All lots will be connected to the new sewage manhole to be installed close to the middle of the new cul-de-sac. The manhole will be connected to the sewage line at the Matadero Avenue. E. Public Area Proposed: Ten (10) foot strip along Matadero Avenuefrontage will be cut of the property and dedicated to the City’s Right-of-Way. Planting strip and utility easement will be provided in front of each lot. F. Proposed Landscaping and New Trees Planting: The new map layout and landscaping design will include protection of the sixteen (16) existing oaks on the property and additional planting of at least ten (:tO) new trees. Landscape design will be coordinated with the City of Palo Alto Arborist. G. Street Liqhting: Two new street lights will be installed, one to light the inside of the cul-de-sac and one at the Matadero Avenue entrance to the new street. H. Existing Restrictive Covenants, Leases, Licenses and Encumbrances: None, except Matadero Creek Maintenance Easement to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (shown on the tentative map). I.Requested Exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinances: Subdivider is not requesting exceptions with the lot dimensions in the proposed subdivision. All proposed lots will exceed 6,000 sq.ft, of minimum lot size required for this area. The width of 40’ (instead of 50’) for the proposed street and the cul-de-sac radius of 35’ (instead of 40’) are within the Transportation and Fire Department guidelines for the new streets, which are shorter than 200’ which will be serving 10 households or less. Ariel Kronenberg Mark Migdal David Migdal By: Mark Migdal (See letter attached) Two TOWERS GROUP 593-A Lytton Ave. ¯Palo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ Tel 650.566.1038 * Fax 650.566.1039 August 31, 2004 STEVEN TURNER, City Planner City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: - 797-807 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto - Authorization to Mr. Mark Migdal to Represent the Owners Dear Mr. Turner: We, the owners of all 3 lots at 797 and 807 Matadero Avenue would like to advise you that we are in a process of setting up a Partnership: "Emma Court Homes". We will transfer ownership of each lot to this Partnership. "Emma.Court Homes LP" will be the official name of the subdivider. We will advise you immediately after this name will be registered by the Office of the Secretary of the State. Meanwhile please accept this letter as our Authorization and Permission to Mr. Mark Migdal to represent all of us with the City of Palo Alto in all matters related to this properties. Very sincerely yours, Ariel Kronenberg (APN: 137-10-132) David Migdal (APN: 137-15-038) ~=° JLIL 2.3 ?)304 _,~entafive Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps 21.12.040 Ingormation to be shown.~n tentative map; ’ " 1. Name of Record owner or 3,.Name of Subdivider 4 Address of Subdivider ......................................... or 5., .-Name of Business 6 Address of Business ....................................................................... ,.. e. Average area of" each 10t proposed ......................................................... f.1 .Number of Lots ................................................................................... ....~,.,, 2. average size 3. size of smallest lot ................................................ /-" g.1. Sufficient Elevations or 2. contours ..... 3. all drainage features .................................................................... ~ ......... Filenm, ne: tenpin01 .wpd 1 As of June l; 1999 F{lenumber: Yes h.Existing Streets .: ............................................................................ ........ 1, Name of Streets .........................’. .......................... 2. Looations of Streets ...................................................................""~;"~. 3. ~dth of Streets ......................................"" I.Proposed Streets ..................................................................................., 1,~am~ ~f Streets ....................................................................... 2.-Locationsof S~re~s .................................................................. "~ 3.~dth of Streets ........................................................................ "~’ 4.~ade of Streets .................................... ""~" j, T~c~ ,Cross Section of all Streets and ~]~ys ~o be 1. Constructed .....................................................................................;.. 2 widened,~, 3. improved or ...................................................................................... 4 d~dieat~d .................................................................................... ~ PI~ and Profi]~ features of all Streets and Alleys within the proposed subdivision ..................................................................... 1. Easements 1. LocatiOns ..................¯ ............................................................... 2..widths and ..........~’ 3. purposes of all exisnng and proposed ea.semen~s: ...................... ~ Pipe lines, sewer, gas, water, storm. ¯ 1. Locations, ............................... ’ , 2. size and .................................... ................................................. 3. chara~er of all existing pipelines .................................................. 4. and related structures, and ..........................................................: ..... 5. all other public ufifit~es .........." ...................................................... 6 shqw~ng the ground elevations and ..................................................... ~ 7 flow line elevations at the connection to existing pipelines, and ......... 8. all building and use restrictions applicable to any. ........................ l ..... ~O~tS; ................................................................................... I No N/A Filename: tenpm0l.wpd 2 As of June 1, 1999 Filenumber: Yes n. Lot Layout - Dimensions approximate 1. Lot layout and.. - 2. approximate dimensions of each lot to the nearest foot. ............... 3. Each lot shall be numbered ..................................................... o. l, Dimensions and locations of any existing buildings ....................... ’ 2: Show which building to remain and show any are to be removed "’"~’>" 1. Approximate boundaries of areas subjectto inundation of storm water overflow and the ...... 2 location o.fall water courses ....................................................... 3 widtl~ of all water courses ................................ 4 and direction of flow of all water courses .................................... q. All water wells ............................................................................~ ........... r. proposed public areas, if any ......................................: .................... ........~",...,.. s location of.wooded areas,,tree masses .................................................... t, a list of parcels have good potential for passive so}at design residences ............................................................................ : ..... Subdivider Statement 2 I. 12.050 s, Existing use or uses and zone district or district of the prope~y ..... ,,./~.., b, Proposed us~ or uses Ofpropm-ty ......................... c. Statement of l. the improvemems .................................... 2. &nd public utilities proposed ~o be made or installed ...................... d, Provision for sewerage and sewage disposal ......................................... e. Public areas proposed ............................................................................. f. Tree planting proposed ...... " ....... No N/A’ Filename: tenprn0] .wpd 3 of 4 As.of June 1, 1.999 ]Filenumber: N/AYes No g, Proposed Street Lighting ............................................................,.,i ..... .....’ ........... h. Existing restrictive , !. covenants .........................................................’ ¯. 5. encumbrances ......................................................................................."""’!’." ’.i’.’~’ I; A statement regarding the compliances of the subdivision with ., -. ,... , those applicable elements of the Pale Alto comprehensive ~’~ ,.o ..,.. plan, or the manner in which such compliance will be attained .........., .............: ....: ..... j, Justification and reasons for any requested exceptions to provisions of’this title ........................................................................... ~,, ................................ , ...... .................................. ¯ _ .....................................................................~ .... k .amy additional information regarding the subdivision as may be ’’ : deemed necessary by the director of planning ...................................: ...................: ..... Additional Ch~eking Points... ¯, Description of Daturn .............................................................................,,../’- .. I .... Flood Zone ................................................................f Block Book: book Page , . 1. Existing PUE’s .................................................................................. ,. 2. Existing Utilities. Storm ............................................/ Electrical. overhead, u~dergroun’~ ............." ..........................’"~"’i ,’.’.,.’,’.’j ............ Zoning Map ............................................... ....7 Metro Scan Filename: tenpin01 ,wpd 4 of 4 As ofJune, l, 1999 Sketch of Lot # 1 Lot Size Minimum Living Possible Living Garage No. of No. of Net Area (SF)*Area (SF)**Bedrooms Bathrooms 6,200 2,230***2,650 2 4 4.5 *.Minimal size of the future house without any encroachment into the roots protected area. **Possible size of the future house with minor encroachment into the roots protected area, subject to the City’s approval of the Roots protected measures incorporated into the design of the house and it’s foundation. ***Future house could possibly have a basement of up to 900 SF of additional living space. Sketch of Lot # 2 Lot Size Minimum Living Possible Living Garage No. of No. of Net Area (SF)*Area (SF)**Bedrooms Bathrooms 6,568 2,575***2,773 2 4 5.5 * Minimal size of the future house without any encroachment into the roots protected area. **Possible size of the future house with ~Nnor encroachment into the roots protected. area, subject to the City’s approval of the Roots protected measures incorporated into the design of the house and it’s foundation. ***Future house could possibly have a basement of up to 900 SF of additional living space. Sketch of Lot # 3 Lot Size Net 6,522 Minimum Living Area (SF)* 2,350*** Possible Living Area (SF)** 2,758**** Garage No. of Bedrooms No. of Bathrooms 2 car + 1 5 3.5 carport **** * Minimal size of the future house without any encroachment into the roots protected area. **Possible size of the future house with minor encroachment into the roots protected area, subject to the City’s approval of the Roots protected measures incorporated into the design of the house and it’ s foundation. ***Future house could possibly have a basement of up to 650 SF of additional living space. ****House on Lot # 3 will have an attached rental unit of +/- 250 SF with separate entrance and one-car parking. Sketch of Lot # 4 Lot Size Minimum Living Possible Living Garage No. of No. of Net Area (SF)*Area (SF)**Bedrooms Bathrooms 6,810 2,540***2,853 2 4 4.5 * Minimal size of the future house without any encroachment into the roots protected area. **Possible size of the future house with minor encroachment into the roots protected area, subject to the City’s approval of the Roots protected measures incorporated into the design of the house and it’s foundation. ***Future house could possibly have a basement of up to 900 SF of additional living space. Sketch of Lot # 5 Lot Size Minimum Living Possible Living Garage No. of No. of Net Area (SF)*Area (SF)**Bedrooms Bathrooms 6,200 2,650***2,650 2 4 4.5 * Minimal size of the future house without any encroachment into the roots protected area. **Possible size of the future house with minor encroachment into the roots protected area, subject to the City’s approval of the Roots protected measures incorporated into the design of the house and it’ s foundation. ***Future house could possibly have a basement of up to 900 SF of additional living space. Attachment D Attachment E Attachment E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ’ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission September 8, 2004 Verbatim Minutes EXCERPT NEW B USINESS: Public Hearings. 797 and 807 Matadero Avenue* [03-SUB-01, 03-EIA-03|: Request by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map with exceptions to create a five-lot subdivision. The requested exception would be for a 40’ wide cul-de-sac street, where 50’ is normally the required minimum width and a cul-de-sac turn around radius of 35’ where a 40’ radius is normally the required minimum radius. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential District (R-l). This item has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on September 27, 2004. SR Weblink: http://www.cit~~fpa~~a~t~.~rg/~it‘/agenda/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/369~.pdf Ms. ~¥ French, Current Planning Manager: Good evening Commissioners. The five-lot subdivision proposal before you tonight is a Tentative Map along with a Mitigated Negative Declaration for recommendation to City Council. There are no variances connected with this application. All lots proposed exceed the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-1 zoning district and the Map includes all required setbacks per the R-1 district. The previous proposal for a six-lot subdivision did include an application for variance. The Map has changed. Staff supports the current proposal as meeting the City standards subject to the recommended 64 conditions of approval. Additional conditions of approval may be placed on the Tentative Map by the Commission and/or City Council. There are no building footprints to be reviewed and acted upon by the Commission tonight. These have been provided by the applicant as an indication so that Staff could determine whether a building could indeed be placed on each of these lots. Compatibility of the homes with the neighborhood and streetscape would be reviewed at such time as development proposals are submitted. Any development of three or more homes at one time would require review by the City’s Architectural Review Board, Two story homes developed one at a time or taken together in twos would be subject to the City’s Individual Review program, This is a program that was developed in the year 2001 and is a five-year program subject to continuation by the City Council. It focuses on mass, streetscape and privacy of new two story homes and second story additions. There is a 52 foot setback proposed from the creek within which no building may occur except for one accessory structure of 120 square feet or less. These structures do not require building permit. The Santa Clara Valley Water District requires a 32-foot setback from the creek.. The City’s rear yard setback is 20 feet within which no building other than the accessory structure I mentioned. The City’s Comprehensive Plan does call for a 100-foot setback from the top of City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 bank for all undeveloped single-family residential property southwest of Highway 280. So this area, the R-1 district in this area, is exempt from that 100-foot setback. The conditions of approval ensure protection of the creek via a no build zone. The street width and turnaround meet the City’s requirements for a short street. The adjustments to standard street width and turnaround noted on page seven of your Staff Report, this is also published in the paper, on cards and on the posted agenda, do not require a variance and do not require specific findings to be made. The proposed street width and cul-de-sac turnaround are slightly less in width than standard and noted in the StaffReport it is 40 feet to property lines for the street where 50 feet is standard, 35 feet for the turnaround where 40 feet is standard. Staff from Fire, Public Works, Transportation and Planning support these adjustments. This is a short dead end street where fire trucks would typically pull in and back out. The applicant has included in his submitted Pena Court in Barron Park as an example for precedent for the Planning Commission to be aware of. It has the same characteristics for street width and bulb out. Staffhas also referenced Comprehensive Plan policies in the report to support the smaller street width. There was a community meeting last night I attended. The applicant stated in last night’s meeting that approximately 12 to 14 parking spaces could be accommodated on the street on Emma Court stating that five would be possible on each side of the straight part of the street and two to four would be possible on the curved turnaround part of the street. Parking spaces are typically 20 feet long and eight feet wide although seven feet is more typical in the drawings that would be looked at by the Transportation Staff. The valley gutter widths are also treated as part of this total available paved roadway width. I am addressing this because some concern has raised by the neighborhood on parking and potential spillover parking on to Matadero. So pardon the detail. The Transportation Staff did find the street parking acceptable and in addition each home would be required to include two off street parking spaces setback at least 20 feet from the front property line. There has been some question about basements and whether that is proposed. Obviously the proposal does not include development so there is some concern or question about the plume under the property. It is called the Hillview Corridor Plume. There are extraction wells around there that have reduced via C-compounds in the shallow ground water to below drinking water standards, And there is evidence in the file that the DTSC does not expect the levels of TCE detected in nearby wells to pose an indoor air issue given the proposal; They did state that the portion of the plume in the deeper water bearing zones does not extend onto this property. Nevertheless the DTSC would need to be consulted to determine whether any proposal for basement development would be acceptable given the underlying plume or potential for it, Any proposal for basements would also need to accommodate existing trees. A tree protection plan would be required as each lot is developed. The Commission can always add extra conditions as precautions regarding basements. Regarding trees we have our Planning Arborist here on Staff to answer specific questions. There were two Arborist Reports prepared for this project. One was the inventory the other was the assessment of damage to oak trees. The Staff Report pretty fully describes that. There was a City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 41 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 code enforcement case that was resolved in October of 2002. Tree protection zones are required they are addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration page 16 and condition of approval number nine. Again the Planning Arborist is here to address specific questions. That concludes Staff’s presentation. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Does the Commission have questions of Staff?. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Amy, I am wondering if you could reiterate your statement about the ARB involvement in this project again. Ms. French: The ARB has not been involved in reviewing the subdivision design however they would be involved should a development application for three or more homes be submitted simultaneously. Anything less than three homes submitted simultaneously in this subdivision would go through the Individual Review program. The ARB would review those homes pursuant to their findings whereas the Individual Review would concentrate on the guidelines spelled out in that program. Chair Cassel: Individual Review if it is two stories, Ms. French: Yes, if it is two stories or down the line if it is an additional second story. Commissioner Griffin: The ARB would then review this business about cantilevered flobrs and whatnot that were in the draft documents that we looked at. Ms, French: The cantilevered floors being over the roots of the trees? Yes, that would be reviewed thoroughly by our tree Staffhere with the City and would be included in documents presented to the Architectural Review Board. Chair Cassel: I would like to remind people if you wish to speak to this item you should complete acard which is found at the back and take it over to our Secretary. Thank you. Dan. Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Council to City Attorney: I just think it would maybe be helpful to give you a short reminder’ on subdivision approvals. As you know any creation of a subdivision that has five or more lots requires a Tentative Map and a Final Map. What the Tentative Map does is lays out the configuration of the lots or the proposed parcels. What you are really focusing on at the Tentative Map stage is the design and improvement of those parcels. When I talk in terms of design and improvement in this context I don’t mean design.and improvement of the structures on the lots or parcels I mean design and improvement of the parcels themselves. That includes such things as street alignments and width, drainage, right of way, traffic access and the physical characteristics of the lots themselves. So that should really be your focus tonight when you are considering the Tentative Map ....... If you recommend approval of the Tentative Map it then goes up to City Council for final action. If it is eventually approved the applicant would then have two years to submit a Final Map. In association with the Final Map the applicant would also turn in a detailed set of improvement plans that would show the details of how the public improvements are going to be constructed. City of l~alo Alto Page 3 of 41 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 Then we also enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement at that time to ensure that the public improvements are going to be constructed in accordance with our standards and there is adequate surety at the stage. So tonight, like I said, your main focus really should be just on the physical configuration of the lots and how those lots relate to the surroundings and how they conform with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Question back to you, Dan. Our areas of inquiry are the physical are the physical improvements of the lots themselves. Can we go into issues such as adequacy of parking? Is that something that is within our purview? Mr. Sodergren: Usually those types of details that really relate to the specific uses on the sites are reserved for later review. Again, it is more big picture issues in terms of compatibility with broad general plan policies at this point. I should point out that we do get into some detail as far as tree protection issues and whatnot but we do that simply by way of reference. As you know the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance and that is basically self implementing. In other words that Tree Protection Ordinance is codified and applies to that property whether or not there is a map there or not. What we have done though is made a requirement and it is simply a noticing requirement since all that you Can have on the Final Map is simply survey information on the lot lines but the Subdivision Map Act allows you to also attach an informational sheet which is simply for informational purposes only. As you notice in some of the conditions we require information to be included on that informational sheet to put future purchasers of the lots on notice that the City has a Tree Protection Ordinance and we do enforce it that there will have to be conformance with our below market rate requirements and those types of things. Those will be referenced on the informational sheet. But all that you can really have when it comes to Final Map stage is simply the survey information on the streets and lots. The same thing goes for the additional setback. That there will be an additional setback recorded by separate instrument and it will basically be a public easement, a no build setback. Chair Cassel: Dan, would you also explain the term compatibility as it relates to a subdivision map? The term gets used in a number of different ways. Mr. Sodergren: By means of compatibility in the subdivision context again we are talking about the physical characteristics of the lots to ensure that those don’t interfere with any of the general plan policies that we have or Comprehensive Plan policies. We as you will note in the record of land use action those are addressed as part of the findings and those findings are required both under the state Subdivision Map Act and our local ordinance that we make that finding of compatibility. Chair Cassel: Does it also have to meet the zoning requirement to be compatible? Mr. Sodergren: Yes. Chair Cassel: Karen. City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 41 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Some of our comments not specifically related to the layout might affect though how an applicant might determine he would like to adjust or not the layout. So those comments as they refer to tree protection or zoning or anything of that nature would be pertinent I would think. Mr. Sodergren: Right. Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the no build zone Palo Alto allows for people to build fences without a permit. Would fences be permitted in the no build zone? Mr. Sodergren: I will have to defer to Amy. Ms. French: That is a good question. I know that in our proposal for conditions it only addresses the one accessory structure that is 120 square feet or less. That doesn’t require a building permit. I imagine if somebody were to go out there and put up a fence that doesn’t require a building permit either and it would just be a matter of whether that was consistent with the no build zone. Commissioner Lippert: As a follow up to that Stanford West has a no build zone and as a condition of their appr6val they were not allowed to put even trellises back in that no build zone. Ms. French: I think it is up to the Commission and Council as to what is no build in the no build zone. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: The 100 riparian corridor setback does not apply in these residential areas but do all the other aspects that talk about creek and riparian area protections under Goal N-2 of the Comp Plan apply with the exception of those that are specific to open space districts and the exception under Program,N-7 that you cited earlier? Ms., French: I was focused on Program N-7, which does exempt single family. So let me study N-2. Commissioner Butt: If you want to take your time and maybe even alter the public comment because that is a pretty extensive portion of the Comp Plan area and you may want to have a chance to digest the question. I think that is it for the moment for me. Chair Cassel: Bonnie, do you have a question? Vice-Chair Packer: No. City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I wanted to go back and pick up on what Commissioner Bialson asked ¯ you Dan about our ability to get into detail in regard to parking. The reason that this is important to me is that I am concerned about the issue of leakage of parking into Matadero Avenue. The applicant in the document that was supplied to us in our packet and apparently in a comment last night at a public meeting has made the statement that there is adequate on street spaces for 12 to 14 cars. I am wondering if we can discuss that because that is going to have an effect on the way I perceive the design of the platting of this proposed subdivision. Specifically, I would like to know whether Staff has vetted that number of 12 to 14. I haven’t scaled it out here on the plan but I am wondering if perhaps Staff has or could do that. Ms. French: I can say that 64 feet is the straightaway and again it was a 20-foot depth for parking stall so not much room to spare there, four feet to spare. Then around the radius two cars I think. There are no driveways indicated there. I am trying to find the length of the radius but I believe you could fit, depending on the placement of driveways, two cars. I don’t know about four. I think it really depends on the placement of driveways. Chair Cassel: Dan. Mr. Sodergren: Just to respond to your question as to whether or not that is within your scope I do believe those types of issues do fall within the scope of what you are looking at here because the findings that you are looking at is the site physically suitable for the type of development. Also, would the subdivision have any effects on the environment and there is really a two part environmental review for maps. There is environmental review under CEQA but there is also separate and independent environmental review that applies when you are making your map finding. We try to coordinate them but they are independent of one another. So I think in those contexts it is appropriate to discuss impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and traffic issues., Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice-Chair Packer: On the map on Matadero Avenue it shows a ten-foot easement for roadway purposes, which does not exit there today, it is covered with shrubbery. Would that ten-foot easement for roadway purposes be a place where cars could be parked and be out of the traffic on Matadero? Chair Cassel: That is along the front property line. Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: As long as it does not conflict with trees yes they could park in that area. Vice-Chair Packer: And if there was no driveway curb cut. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Chair Cassel: You have a related question, Pat? City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 41 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Yeg. In the applicant’s subdivider statement, which is Attachment C or something, they speak about and note E under that statement on the top of the second page talks about the public area proposed. I take this to mean the same frontage area that Commissioner Packer was just inquiring about. In that it says a ten-foot strip along Matadero Avenue will be cut of the property and dedicated to the City’s right-of-way, planting strip and utility easement will be provided in front of each lot. So if it is intended as a planting strip can it be a parking strip at the same time? Ms. Grote: Again~ yes, they could park in portions of it as long as it doesn’t interfere with either trees or other planting materials that are in there. People do, especially in Barron Park, park along sides of the street where there are no curb gutter sidewalk. So we would need to see the planting plans, see how that is configured in order to determine whether you can park in it. But as long as there isn’t conflict with those plant materials they could conceivably park there. Chair Cassel: When the applicant speaks maybe he can address your question. Karen. Commissioner Holman: A couple more questions for Staff. I am understanding that perhaps there is a standard size for cul-de-sac development in Barron Park. Could Staff say how that size compares to the size of this parcel? I have a couple more. Do you want me to do all three at once or do you want to answer one at a time? Then another is because this is a subdivision project do we have the ability to condition the project such that if the intention is to develop five different lots here can we condition this such that they all would be reviewed by the ARB regardless of whether they were developed at the same time or not since that is the intention of that ordinance? Then the other is Program H-29 which is referenced a couple of times in the Staff Report could Staff comment how this project satisfies that? Where I am going with that is I am fairly familiar with this property, not intimately but fairly familiar with it, and the one house was long term. an owner occupied and the other house was a rental. So there is one rental being removed. I am having great difficulty relating how a 250 square foot attached second unit which cannot by findings in the Staff Report have its own even utilities is going to function as a rental unit separate from and I find that would be difficult for the Staff to even follow up on that. So could Staff comment on all three of those, please? ......... Ms. Grote: I will take the last question first. In Program H-29, which calls for replacement of rental units in the Housing Element, rental units are defined as anything over the first or beyond the first unit, So in this case there are two units on the site. The first unit could conceivably and was for a long time occupied by the property owner. So there isone rental unit, which would be replaced as you noted with a cottage or a second unit on one of the sites. In the conditions of approval it was very specifically worded that it would be an attached unit on lot number three. That doesn’t necessarily have to be the case it could be a detached unit on lot three or any of the other lots where those requirements can be met. If it is detached it has to be at least 12 feet away from the primary dwelling, has to be able to meet the parking requirements and the access requirements. On some of the lots that are at the top of the bulb of this cul-de-sac meeting some City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 of those requirements might be difficult that is why we said attached. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be attached we would actually recommend changing the language in that one condition to allow greater flexibility on how that second unit would be configured and where it would be’ placed. So in that respect they would be required to replace the one rental unit on the site that is on the site now. Then that would also increase the total unit count so that there is a 100% increase in the number of overall units. So that is how Program H-29 is being met. In terms of the other questionS, your second question on the Barron Park standards you were referring to the bulb radius or were you referring to lot size? Lot size. We will need to look into that a littlebit more. These lots do exceed the R-1 standard in terms of 6,000 square foot minimum but we will need to look into the file to see how it compares to the other lots around the site. Then on the third question conditioning the houses to go through an ARB review even if they come through singly or fewer than three at a time I need to confer with Dan real quickly. Commissioner Holman: Would you like to answer that later after the public has had its comments? Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: Lisa? Would the rental unit when considered in addition to the housing units trigger ARB review? Ms. Grote: So it would in effect increase the number so that they would be three or more? Yes, it would be considered a living unit. So if someone came in with a primary unit with a second unit and then a lot next-door that could be considered three units which would trigger the need for Architectural Review. Is that your question? Commissioner Lippert: Or the developer might come in and develop two lots, one lot with a rental unit on it that is another two units and then two more lots and circumvent review by ARB. Ms. Grote: If you could repeat that. Commissioner Lippert: If they were developed as two units at a time. In other words, two lots two units, one lot with the one unit plus a rental unit and then two lots with a unit a piece that would circumvent ARB, correct? Ms. Grote: That is correct. They would not go through ARB they would go through Individual Review but not ARB. Chair Cassel: They will go through Individual Review if they are two stories. Ms, Grote: That is correct. Chair Cassel: Do you have another question, Pat? City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 ~6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Yes. Could Staff summarize the any restrictions applicable to these lots due to their location and special circumstances that create greater restrictions on the development of these lots than other typical 6,000 square foot lots in that area due to the trees and easements and setbacks and any other circumstances that would restrict the ability of the developer or subsequent owner to build out to the maximum allowable FAR and lot coverage and other restrictions or other limits that typically apply? Ms: French: I would say there are quite a few constraints. The lot shape, the creek, the trees, the need for access to the sites, setbacks. I think those provide a challenge to any developer that would propose home design on those parcels. Chair Cassel: I would like to go to the public. It is typical that the developer speaks for up to 15 minutes to explain the project. I need a card from him with his name. The applicant is Mark Migdal. You have 15 minutes to speak now and after the public hearing you will get another five minutes to respond. If anyone wishes to speak to this item would you please bring a card forward and hand it to Zariah. The cards are found in the back. Mark Migdal, Applicant, 593 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto: I represent one of three owners of ...... theselots that are in front of you. This was a long process that took us to come here today. We bought the property almost five years ago. During this time we reviewed numerous ways to approach the division. Numerous ways. During this time while we were approaching this future project we for example what is in front of you right now is the very first I would say economically the most advantageous approach which we explored first at the very beginning with the Planning Department. We were trying to have six lots back to back with a private road, one-way street kind of looping around all these six lots. This was a very interesting approach however erosion of the creek due to the proximity between the future road and the creek actually moved us away from that proposal otherwise this would have been very nice with six lots a very compact subdivision. All the lots were to meet the minimum lot size requirement at that time. Then we had at least another half a dozen different proposals in front of us which we discuss with Planning Department very closely. What you see right now is the one, which laid the longest. This was subject ~of our previous application. This looks like it was favored by everybody including regional responses by the Planning Department. However, later on what was brought up here is the necessity to protect oaks which we have almost 17 oaks on the property. The eventual shape of the lot was determined not only by the need to protect those oaks but also to substantiate and to prove to the Staffthat every lot which we are proposing would be a buildable lot. So that is why from this ideal shape, very symmetrical design, we slowly came to the one which you have in front of you which considered everything that was important. Tree protection, width of the street, diameter of the cul-de-sac and the parking requirement. I want to bring to your attention the fact that we made the point of not going in front of you unless and until we have all Staff concerns satisfied to the degree that.the Staff would be supporting our application. To achieve this was not easy because as I said we had to make sure that every oak on the property is protected and every lot, which we create as a result, will be a buildable lot. So we come back with a study where we planted on every lot oaks and we surrounded these oaks with so-called tree protection zone. In my project description you will Page 9 of 41City of Palo Alto 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 see there are five sketches and I think we could it show it to you now where every lot shows the potential possible footprint of a potential house and the dimensions of this house which actually tells.us and toldPlanning Department that every lot will be possible to improve with a very comfortable house where size could be between 2,300 to 2,500 or 2,600 square feet. How we have shown that is just by drawing every lot with all the protected trees on the lot and with so- called tree protection zone that we developed between us and Dave Dockter, City Arborist, and with the help of the legal department. We plotted all this onthe lot and then we put all required setbacks and then we successfully demonstrated that every lot will be buildable with a decent house, comfortable house, of the size common in 6,000 square foot area in Palo Alto. We could show you one by one. You will see that this is Lot 1, Lot 2 and David will show. you Lot 3 and Lot 4 where the footprint of the house show the potential size of the house which could be built and tree protection zone will not be encroached. I think this was quite an achievement in our process towards approval of the Tentative Map because this satisfies the most difficult, the most restricted limitations, which we have while proposing this Tentative Map. I would like to take a second to describe to you how the tree protection zone we arrived at. We had two separate arborist companies, three companies, doing studies on this subject. Both of them clearly indicated that almost 95% of the tree roots are located in the ball around the trunk, which is roughly the radius of ten diameters of the trunk. It is common knowledge, a so-called fact, among arborists that 95% of the bulk of the root is located in that ball. With David Dockter we developed a size of twice-bigger diameter and that is what you see on the Tentative Map. We agreed to show restricted zone of 20 diameters of the trunk not ten, which in terms of space made the space almost three times bigger than if it would be ten diameters of the trunk as the dimensions of the restricted zone. So why am I telling you this? I am telling you this to show that we took extremely favorable for the tree protection approach here and exceeded all possible dangerous area where the tree could be impacted and imposed this on ourselves and satisfied City and Planning Department specifically that with those extraordinary restrictions every lot would still be buildable and will support design and construction of relatively pleasant homes of very decent size. So that is regarding the tree protection zone. There was a lot of concern from the neighborhood regarding parking. Right now as you can see there are three lots which people theoretically could build three homes, three families. We are proposing five.lots, which will be like five homes. Two homes bigger than if no subdivision applied for. So it could be four to six cars more. I want to tell you that very originally we were trying to approach the City with 35-foot straight portion of the street and the cul-de-sac with a radius of 30 feet. If we could show this one. This is a little cul-de-sac almost immediately next to our property, which has also 35-foot straight portion of the cul-de-sac, and the circle is built based on a diameter or radius of 30 feet. When we approached the Transportation Department and Fire Department they originally supported this especially that we have this precedent next door but then they told us that in this case in order for a fire truck to go unrestricted at least one of the sides of the street, the one we were proposing, would have to have no parking signs because if the cars were parked on two Sides possibly for the fire truck it would be difficult. In response to this suggestion we decided to increase the width of the street to make it commonly known in Palo Alto for the street which serves ten or less families and we made it a 40 foot wide City of Palo Alto Page 10 of 41 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 3.4 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 street on the straight portion onour map and the cul-de-sac itself is based on a radius of 35 feet which mean diameter will be 70 feet, ten feet more than in Julie Court next door. As a matter of fact if you have a chance to look at Pena Court subdivision which is the most recent one in ~ Bah’on Park I remember some of you asked question to the Staff how consistent is our proposal, our Tentative Map, with what was done more recently in Barron Park. This Pena Court in Barron Park this cul-de-sac serves eight lots. In our case our cul-de-sac actually would serve only three families because two would have access directly from Matadero so inside cul-de-sac will only be used by three families. This Pena Court cul-de-sac is used by eight families and it also has 40-foot wide straight portion of the street and a radius of 35 feet. So we agreed to increase our dimensions to meet this and we exceeded the dimensions of Julie Court next door. As a matter of fact these type of dimensions are very common in some other parts of Palo Alto when new little subdivisions, so-called in-fill subdivisions, are designed and new little cul-de- sacs serve small number of households often or less. It is suggested by the City that pavement will be decreased to 40 feet and the radius of the cul-de-sac will be only 35 feet. By doing this the less natural grade is covered by asphalt and the more open area and this type of dimensions support the ability to have cars parked on both sides. That is how I am coming back to the question of calculating how many cars we could park inside cul-de-sac. I will address this more specifically because a lot of people are concerned about this. You know that by zoning ordinance every house in Palo Alto will have to have two-car garage and that is what is planned here. So the family will have two-car garage to start with. Then let’s say guests are coming. Then we have another two parking in front of the garage for the guests. This is also without even coming inside Emma Court inside the street. Then if you have even more let’s say four cars parked onsite is not sufficient then by our agreement between us and the Transportation and Fire Departments then after we went to 40 foot wide street they removed from us the condition to put no parking signs. So now the cars could be parked on both sides of the straight portion of our cul-de-sac. So it will be 100 feet for each lot on the straight portion, which accommodates five cars and five cars is already ten cars. Then the bulb itself I just estimated could take at least two cars or hopefully four. That is how I answer your question of how we come up with this number. So unless it is a huge wedding or something like that definitely all the not only families but even normal number of guests would definitely prefer to park inside cul-de-sac close to the home they are visiting rather than leave their cars on Matadero and walk there. That is how we came up with the number. Chair Cassel: Does anyone have a question? Pat, Commissioner Burt: Could you show us again the prospective structure footprint for lot number two? Thank you. Chair Cassel: Did you have a question, Pat, concerning that front setback and landscaping as well? Commissioner Burt: No, I don’t think so. Chair Cassel: Karen, City of Palo Alto Page 11 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Just briefly could you clarify? I think I heard you say that lots number one and five would have street access from Matadero? I did not notice from the drawings in our packet that those would have curb cuts. So the project would have three curb cuts is that what I understand now, just briefly? Mr. Migdal: Specifically lot number one we discuss with Dave Dockter that in order to protect that massive oak and if the owner of the future lot will approach the City with a garage facing Matadero then I think the special driveway which doesn’t have to be solid asphalt could be allowed to go through the area that is tree protected zone. But once again, as it was agreed between us and the City and specifically David Dockter and us that any possible encroachment into tree protection zone would be subject of special consideration and special decision and without this no encroachment would be allowed and we agreed to that. If you notice some of the sketches, actually every sketch on this lot shows the size of the house without any encroachment. Then how possible encroachment could be done without damage to the roots and all that. This is one example. Chair Cassel: Thank you. You are going to have five minutes at the end and I have David Migdal listed as the applicant and he has some comments. So I think you should include those comments in the five minutes at the end. Now we will go to the public hearing. The first person I have to speak is Douglas Moran. You are going to have three minutes to speak. Each person will have three minutes to speak. I presume I have all the cards now and I have 13 of them. You need to give your name and your address where you live to us before you speak. Thank you. Mr. Douglas B. Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello. I live directly across from lot one of the proposed subdivision. You have in front of you copies of what look like PowerPoint slides. I am not doing that. I am going to oppose the project and what you will see is the presentation talks about the perspective of the residents. We are looking at what this decision means for the next steps. We are worried that it is going to critically shape and bias those steps. The developer as you well know this creates entitlements legal, virtual, psychological and the developer has plenty of advantages property rights, information control and initiative. We are concerned that this not stack the deck against the legitimate interests of the neighbors. The devil is in the details and there are a lot of unrevealed plans and intensions we have this feeling here. When I deal with monster homes one of the interesting comments was it is not the size of the homes that is the problem it is the size of the lots, They are too small for the size homes people want to build. What this is doing is taking the lots that are common across the street as the normal size and these are lots that we have already had problem after problem after problem with houses that are too large for those lots. So why do we want to repeat what we know to be a mistake? Also they are saying these lots are comparable. They are not. As you have all said the creek, the trees and other aspects. So what I am saying is I am looking at this proposal which is creating a situation which is designed for conflict, continuing conflict coming back to you all and it is designed for failure. As you heard Mr. Migdal say, he played with every possible scenario. This was the only one that worked. I am an engineer and I say something this complex that there are going to be no future surprises? No way. You heard him. He doesn’t kr). ow this sort of environment. He put a City of Palo Alto Page 12 of 41 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 road right on top of a creek bank. He is going to have his surprises. So what happens? He is going to try to take unfair share of common resources, to recover from these surprises and mistakes and you are going to have things coming back to you. So I am hoping that you will be able to find a way to avoid a narrow technical compliance judgment in dealing with this. Also in mitigating the risk I hope you can look at the assessment of this applicant. This is not criticism of him: There are a lot of types of music I don’t like and I wouldn’t take a job where I had to work listening to that music all the time. This is an applicant who doesn’t fit well with this sort of property. His strength as he says is packing a big house into a small property. He cites the house at Stanford and Columbia. I have looked at that house and I said I didn’t know you could build something so close to a row house in an R-1 zone in Palo Alto. What he sees as irrelevant is community design and natural environment. He doesn’t look at the Comp Plan defining elements for neighborhoods in Barron Park’s case creeks and rural. Thank you very much. Chair Cassel: Thank you: The next person to speak is Jean Wren to be followed by Reed Content. Ms. Jean Wren, 800 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: I have lived on Matadero since 1971 so I knew the former owners of this property quite well. I knew what they did and how the property was used. I am opposed to the project as it is proposed. First of all I think it is incompatible with the surrounding homes in that part of Barron Park. Some parts of Barron Park do have monster homes on small lots for example Pena Court. However, that is in an area where there are multi family housing, commercial development and is very close to E1 Camino. This is farther away from E1 Camino. Most of the ones nearby have good backyards and are not built out. This development would produce a bunch of cookie cutter stucco type houses in an area where no two houses in this area look alike at all. They are all different. In the past this developer has shown no concern for large trees by cutting down a standing grove of redwood trees that were huge just before the protection went in. Parking and traffic. I honestly do believe that he can pack that many cars into that cul-de-sac as he says unless they are Mini Coopers. I have tried to park in Julie Court and found it nearly impossible even when I drove a Volkswagen bug. The big thing though and I really have experience in this area, I worked at [Stoffer Chemical] in their agricultural research lab as a chemist in the late 1970s. The former owner had a tree care business. He pulled his trucks, his ’ sprayers into that lot and took care of them. Emptied them, cleaned them, recharged them, he stored the pesticides on that lot. I am convinced that there are pesticides in the soil surface of that area. Some of them are going to have been protected from normal environmental degradation by the sheds in which they were stored. Others are going to be bound to the clay type soil to be released when the developer goes in there and starts churning up the soil so we will all be breathing it. One of the herbicides, a broad leaf herbicide very popular for lawns because it was great for getting rid of weeds but left all the grass beautiful and green is known to kill fish when it migrates into any water area that has fish in it. It was considered a great herbicide until they tried it in the rice paddies in Asia and all of a sudden all of the farmers complained. Thank you. I oppose the project. Please vote against it. City of Palo Alto Page 13 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33, 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: Thank you. Reed Content to be followed by Georgia Griffin. Mr. Reed Content, 827 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have lived at 827 Matadero since 1991. We are the third lot toward the direction of Bol Park. We were particularly attracted to Barron Park due to its rural feel, its mature oaks and redwood trees and the creek corridor, My chief concern for the proposed map is neighborhood compatibility, the overflow parking issue and also precedent for future development in our portion of Barron Park. The majority of houses in the immediate vicinity are older single family homes, single story homes and the new cul-de-sac with five two story houses will really have a major impact. I recognize development is likely but I think the scope is inappropriate. The less than standard cul-de-sac size and street width seems inconsistent with the goal of neighborhood compatibility. For overflow parking I am unconvinced that the project will result in no impact on parking on Matadero. It is a very narrow street that is already crowded by parked cars many of which already extend into the street. There is a lot of bicycle and pedestrian traffic that is near the junction of the ballpark bike path and I see this as having a big impact. I am concerned about the precedent for future development. It is kind of a slippery slope there are other relatively undeveloped parcels in this part of Barron Park and I am concerned that approving this now would set a terrible precedent for future projects in the immediate area. I believe that this has basically been designed with a whole overall approach of minimum compliance with the requirements. As an example, multiple redwood trees were cut down on this site a day before they would have been protected by the City. I think approach puts the Staffin the position that the map complies therefore it becomes a matter ofjudgrnent by the Commission as to whether the project is appropriate for the neighborhood. I believe there are still substantial questions to be resolved before this map is approved. A neighborhood is really more than a collection of houses. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Georgia Griffin to be followed by Cheryl Borja. Ms. Georgia Griffin, 789 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello. I live right next to this subdivision. I have come here to object to this large project next door to me. I was born in Palo Alto and have lived here all my life. My parents bought this property in 1946 when I was still a girl and I have there ever since. I live in the house at the back of this property by lot number two. My daughter and my family live in the house in front. I love Barron Park for tranquility and the style of people it attracts. I have talked with the developer, let me refer to him as Mark, many times about my concems, Hehas told me that my privacy will be protected but that will be a tall fence and that the windows on the second floor will be po~sted, so that those residents don’t look down on me. What Mark does not seem able to understand is my desire to have some view not just a two story wall six feet from our property line. From what I can tell I won’t be able to see even the very top of the big oak across from my patio. My fears and the pending development are based in part on my interactions with Mark as the owner of the property. I have had problems every year with him for not cutting the weeds and letting them dry into a fire hazard. When he cut down the trees he left the debris in the yard. He did not respond to my request to clean up. He did not respond to warnings from the code enforcement officer. He acted only when faced with significant penalties. Last night at the meeting between Mark and some of the neighbors Amy French said that the City counts on neighbors to help alert them to City of Palo Alto Page 14 of 41 1 ~2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46. violations by developers. I don’t want to spend the next few years watching this property like a hawk, I am no expert in these matters and I am afraid that I would not recognize a violation until it is much too late, Before Mark I didn’t know that there was such a thing as a code enforcement officer. Now I have the number in the front of my phone book. Please, I don’t want to have to add numbers and many types of instructions. Listen from history that Mark will try to exceed what he is allowed. Please require that the subdivision plans include enough slack so that these violations do not affect my property. I would like to spend my remaining years enjoying my property instead of fighting to protect what my parents passed on to me and what I intend to pass on to my daughter and my grandchildren. Thank you very much. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Pat, do you have a question? Commissioner Burr: I have a question, ma’am. Your dwelling in relation to lot number two, I don’t know if you had a chance to see the prospective outline of the prospective development there. Where is your house in relation to where the structure would be built? Ms. Griffin: Yes, by lot number two. Commissioner Burr: Yes and I am just wondering what portion of lot number two. Ms. Griffin: Yes, that is my house. Commissioner Burr: Okay, I think I have a feel for it. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Our next speaker is Cheryl Borja to be followed by Mitchell Borja. Ms. cheryl Boria, 791 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. You have a copy of this. That was my mother speaking. I live at 791 Matadero right next to the subdivision frr lot one. I am on lot one she is on lot two. I work for the Palo Alto School District in the cafeteria. I have been there 11 years. I also previously worked at HP. You have heard from my mother Georgia Griffin. I live in the front house on the property. We recently did a large remodel. We had the option to do a second story but chose not to do it. We felt that it would have a violation to the spirit of Barton Park. By doing two stories it would lose the country style. I would like to second what my mother said about the discussion with Mark. He told us something on what he was planning to do but he also didn’t seem to understand our concerns or maybe he just doesn’t seem concerned about them. After all he is not going to be living in the homes he is just selling them. It is going to be breaking my heart to see the country style going away from Barron Park that I was brought with. I would appreciate whatever you could do at this stage to head offthis becoming a concern for giving us many headaches in the years. Also, my front yard or the front of my house is the living area and it is also going to be on the front lot and if he has a two story it is going to interfere with my light that is going to be in my living areas. Thank you very much. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Mitchell Borja to be followed by Gary Curtis. Mr. Mitchell Boria, 791 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello. I live fight next to the subdivision. I work at Andronico’s. I am the fourth generation of my family on this property. My girlfriend City of Palo Alto Page 15 of 41 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 lives in a development very similar to this subdivision and she cannot stand it. Mark clearly doesn’t understand the neighborhood. He told me that if he had it his way he would build 12 houses on this property. I was very upset when Mark had cut the redwoods down to avoid the deadline, I wanted to see the redwood trees saved because they are an important part of the creek. The redwood trees are very big right now and they are right in the middle of the cul-de- sac and they should be saved because they are up on code big enough to be saved. I feel like I am being chased out of my own property because I love the rural area and I do not want to look up on two story houses, I feel like I have to get out and go somewhere else like Palo Alto Hills and I feel like I shouldn’t be able to do that. I should live without seeing two story homes like that. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Gary Curtis and the card I have is Prasad. Mr. Gary Curtis, 821 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: I live immediately adjacent to both lots four and five. I live on a flag lot, I am opposed to the project for a number of reasons. First of all I believe the project will change the character of the neighborhood. This stretch of Matadero has about four or five two story houses and these five new two story houses will obviously double the number in that region. In addition I think that if you look at some of the lots on the cul-de- sac they have a particularly crowded feel. For example in lot three there are three driveways for about 30 feet and a typical sidewalk. It pretty much uses up the entire front yard. So the entire front yard approaches a driveway that is completely different from the character of Barron Park. The second point that I would like to make concerns the trees on the property. I know from my own experience that I had the misfortune of losing two heritage trees to crown rot because the former owner raised the grade around the trees~ Based on that I told Mark that I was most concerned about the privacy issues and there are a number of heritage trees along the property line separating lot four and my property. I said I was particularly interested in saving those. Those trees were trimmed shortly after I specified that that was my primary interest. Those are the trees that resulted in some kind of code interaction. While the trees were being trimmed I received a call from the tree trimming company saying it really would be a good idea to trim my side of the trees to get them balanced. So I now I don’t know how viable those trees really are. The final thing that I urge you to consider very carefully is that traffic issue. Because of the repaving of Matadero there is one long stretch from Laguna down to Tipawingo. It is perhaps a quarter of a mile long and any spillover into the street is going to have a really large effect on people’s lives and people’s safety. Thank you very much. Chair Cassel: The next person speaking is Prasad and the person to follow is Alex Sherstiusky. Mr. Prasad, 792 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live just opposite the ....... development. After talking to all the people and hearing from different people I have a concern that really the applicant is going to keep his promises. From what I hear I am losing confidence on his ambitions and what he plans to do. So I want to make sure that this Commission takes appropriate precautions to make sure that he follows all his promises. City of Palo Alto Page 16 of 41 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 One of the main concerns that I have is the traffic. I just live opposite to the development and spillover is going to block my house and my driveway. It happens sometimes once in awhile. Once a year is not a problem but if it happens regularly on a daily basis it is hard for me. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Alex Sherstiusky to be followed by Bob Moss. Mr. Alex Sherstiusky, 4162.King Arthur Court, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the area that happens to be called Green Acres. A lot of people confuse it with Barron Park because they are so close together. They don’t know that our area called Green Acres exists but it does. It is a very small adjacent area to Bah’on Park. Iam an engineer. I used to work at HP. My wife and I are middle-income family. We live in a 1,300 square foot house and it is on a cul-de-sac called King Arthur Court. We frequently walk to the Barron Park area including Matadero and ballpark our two year old kids because we love the nature. I would like to actually offer a different opinion in support of the project for reasons that may not be apparent to everybody. We are in some ways outsiders. We have lived in our house a little less than three years. We come from different cities. I come from San Francisco and my wife comes from Los Angeles where you find neighborhoods that are even less affluent than Palo Alto that have homes that are uniformly nicer. When we walk around Palo Alto we see this beautiful nature we enjoy the rural environment but we see some homes are incredibly beautiful large modern and others are pretty shabby. They are unpleasant even to look at. The front lawns are not taken care of. There are old cars that will never start again in the front yard and people don’t take care of the neighborhood and there are no sidewalks. If we take a step back and look at Palo Alto people call us the founding place, the epicenter of Silicon Valley. The highest value creation point of the world and yet our streets and our homes are very uneven to say the least. So from our perspective Palo Alto cannot remain the same or we will lose the influx of the minds that made it and continue making the largest valley creation in the world that brings in tax revenues, jobs and all of the great things that we have to be thankful for for we are reaping the benefits by living here. Our property goes up in value. So we need to support that we need to renovate Palo Alto. Another story is that I first saw what a cul-de-sac is more than 20 years ago and I fell in love with the concept. We live in a cul-de-sac and our kids can actually play there and feel safe. I really love the idea of more developments that have cul-de-sacs. I like two story homes that are new. So that is my perspective. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Zina Kaganovich: Mr. Robert Moss, 4010 Orme Street, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Cassel and Commissioners. I am going to begin by trying to answer some of the questions that you asked at the beginning of the meeting. First in regard to what a typical cul-de-sac in Barron Park is like it is 40 to 50 feet wide. The vast majority of them Laguna Court, Laguna Oaks, [Lakia] Court they ’ are nothing like the proposed development. Comparing the proposed development to Julie Court which was a mistake made by the County almost 30 years age is a gross miscarriage of justice. I think the last thing you want to do is build another one of those suckers. Talking about the ten- foot easement along lot five, along Matadero, if you look at Attachment B you will notice that City of Palo Alto Page 17 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the street width is uneven. That last lot which includes what will be lot five juts into Matadero between five and ten feet. So the ten-foot easement merely recovers the initial street width that it should have been in the first place. This by the way is not uncommon in Barron Park. A number of streets have uneven depths. My street does for example, because of historic aberrations. The question was asked about structures such as fences in the rear setback where the creek is. That is not to be decided by the City. The Santa Clara Valley Water District discerns that and typically the only type of structure they would allow in that creek setback is a floodwall not a lattice, not a fence, nothing, There is a question askedabout the 250 square foot rental unit and I brought that up at the meeting last night I think that is absurd. If you can have a rental unit have a real rental unit, which means that you can’t put it on the properties, which have been gerrymandered into this area. The basic problem with this proposal is that the developer has tried to maximize his benefits and his profits and minimize the advantages and the compatibility with the community. As you may remember when Barron Park was annexed it was promised that there would be due consideration given to the environment and the neighborhood and you would not be required to follow the same kind of cookie cutter development as in the rest of the City. Therefore, no sidewalks, no curbs and gutters and houses that are different and interesting not all the big two story monsters. I used to call them elephant turds but I was told that was politically incorrect so let’s just call them two story monsters, which are not appropriate for this area. I urge you to reject the proposal that is before you and direct them to come back with a subdivision, which has no more than four lots and will accommodate both the creek setback and the protected heritage trees. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Th’ank you. Zina Kaganovich and Lubov Valetsky. Ms. Zina Kaganovich, 706 La Para Avenue, Palo Alto: I live ion Barron Park. Our family has been living here for past ten years. As a real estate agent I am aware of and follow up on all new developments in Palo Alto including Barron Park. It is true that Barron Park has its own unique character. It is also true that there are a lot of older houses that do not meet current building codes and lack modem amenities desired by families in our community. I have known Mark Migdal for over 15 years. I know him as not only a friend but as his agent and I have sold many of the homes that he has built. Mr. Migdal is a very responsible builder. All his subdivisions and new homes are well designed and carefully constructed. Many new owners of his homes are very happy and have become is personal friends. I went to the neighborhood meeting to hear Mr. Migdal’s proposal for his new subdivision and I have also heard the neighbors who supported his plan and those who had reservations. Those who had reservations should know that Mr. Migdal has resolved all of his issues with respect to parking and tree protection. It is my understanding that Mr. Moran has filed objections to the application for the subdivision. I am a Barron Park citizen and I don’t agree with Mr. Moran’s supposition. I don’t think he is representing the interests of all our community. By introducing new high quality homes in Barron Park our neighborhood will look better and our properties will benefit from it. A new little cul-de-sac with five beautiful homes will be a very nice addition to our area. Mr. Migdal and the Planning Department have a developed a very comprehensive tree protection plan. Mr. Migdal followed all of the zoning requirements set by the City of Palo Alto to create this subdivision. As any property owner he has the right to develop his property to its highest potential as long as he complies with all existing laws and regulations. Two story homes City of Palo Alto Page 18 of 41 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 are allowed on this street. They leave a larger area for backyards and compensate for lack of available land to create a more comfortable living environment. I am sure that Mr. Migdal will make the best effort to keep all of the neighbors happy and will work with everyone to reduce the impact and inconvenience. Considering the demand and cost of homes in our area you must understand that someone is going to develop this property anyway. Mr. Migdal is one of the best people to do that. As a Barron Park resident I support the application please approve it. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Lubov Valetsky to be followed by Betsy Allyn and that is the last card I have. Ms. Lubov Valetsky, 788 Encina Grande Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in Barron Park. We moved into Barron Park almost ten years ago. We bought an old one-story house and remodeled it to end up with an almost new two story home. My daughter who basically grew up here and I ride bikes and walk everywhere in Bah’on Park so we know very well this side of Matadero Avenue which looks like two old dilapidated homes on a huge lot right now. I think that the developers should be supported and the proposed Tentative Map should be approved. The proposed subdivision and five new future homes will be a welcome addition a fresh blot into the relatively old Matadero Avenue neighborhood. I also think that the developer should be complimented for his extraordinary efforts to resolve all of the issues related to parking and the protection of the heritage oak trees on the property. I know that some of the neighbors do not like two story homes. On this subject all I want to say is that personally I am very glad that we live in a two-story home. Our lot is not very big but with a two-story building we still have reasonably big backyard where we love to spend time. I think that in our neighborhood two story homes are the most efficient way to develop fairly small lots. Yesterday I attended a meeting for Barton Park residents during which the parking situation on Matadero Avenue was discussed. One of the neighbors said that a lot of people she knows use their garages to store old junk so they have to park their cars on the street. Therefore she feels that these five new homes will create parking problems on Matadero Avenue. Well, again with two story homes you will have much more space for closets and storage. Plus, I am sure that if people spent a little bit of time cleaning their garages, putting away at least part of this junk and putting up some shelves on walls they would be able to use the garages for the cars as well as store some stuff. It would be just a little effort. Everybody can do that. I also would like to add that Mr. Moran filed today an opposition paper on this subject. I ask the Planning Commission to support and approve this Tentative Map. Chair Cassel: Thank you. The last person to speak is Betsy Allyn. Ms. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, Palo Alto: Hi I live in Green Acres II, which is the neighborhood that abuts to Barron Park. I am at a disadvantage this evening because I thought I City of Palo Alto Page 19 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 was on a list to be notified of projects coming in the new plans and the new organization. I was not notified as a representative of the neighborhood and Icame down two days ago to try to find this plan. I finally talked to Doug and I came down this morning and there was no plan. So the only time I have seen this plan is this evening when I got here. My concern. I would like to address the gentleman’s concern about minds living in big houses because I wonder if anybody has ever seen Albert Einstein’s home in Princeton, New Jersey. It is not two stories. I am reading in the Comp Plan, which is not law, but it does say that we use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. It seems to me a development of this size of these large homes on small lots is making it a little less desirable. L-5, maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Where possible avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas or residential areas of different densities. These are profound ideas for the City of Palo Alto and they should be followed. I am also concerned about four of the five lots having basements that close to Matadero Creek. I am sure you all agree that there are many problems with Matadero Creek and flooding. I am concerned not only that these four of five houses have basements I am concerned about all the basements that are being allowed in Palo Alto as we speak. Some houses have two basements. Some have three. Why? Is it to rent them out? Well, that is a whole other story. Comprehensive Housing Element. A supply of affordable and market rate housing. I don’t know of any houses in my area and in the areas surrounding us that are selling for less than $1.0 million. Also I would just like to say that in this example of the developer’s housing, big houses on small properties, 1475 Stanford Avenue on Columbia this was across the street from my parents’ home. What was across the street was a beautiful old two story colonial. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Betsy. Ms. Allyn: Which I saw When I came back from the east and saw it again it had a house the same size in front of it and the same size in back. Unimaginable. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. Now the applicant has an opportunity to respond to this if they wish. There seems to have beena small misunderstanding. The applicant had 15 minutes to present his total presentation and that didn’t mean an additional amount of time for each other person that wanted to speak. Sometimes we get confused with this. So I believe David Migdal who listed himself as the applicant wanted to speak and comment to some people. You have five minutes between you and your father to make comments including those. And if you have anything in writing then you can submit that to us. Mr. David Migdal: Can this be submitted and read? Actually I am not the applicant I am the son but I have letters here. Chair Cassel: .Well, you listed this as the applicant on the card. City of Palo AIto Page 20 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr, Migdal: Can these letters be read out loud? These are letters provided by various members. Chair Cassel: Let me check with the rest of the Commission because normally we don’t have someone come in and read several letters for someone else. But we can receive those and they will be copied and given to all of us. You can summarize if you want to with your dad what has been said. You have five minutes you and your dad. Mr. Mark Migdal: I would like to summarize the gentleman who came yesterday to our meeting is the President of Miranda Neighborhood Association. His name is Don Wilson. He handed over to my son his letter with his specific request to please read it on my behalf tomorrow because I was planning to be present on the first of September when this item was originally scheduled. That is why he rescheduled his holiday. " Chair Cassel: Can summarize what he is saying? Mr. Migdal: It is in a way very important because a few years ago I was involved with a very similar subdivision also five lot, also very small creek, also very small cul-de-sac and the creek at the back. We went through very similar process with the city, with the neighbors that is why knowing how happy the neighborhood is, how difficult it was to get them on my side and how happy they are now I thought it would be very important if the president of that neighborhood would share with you, with Staff and with residents his views. Chair Cassel: Excuse me, Mr. Migdal you have five minutes to tell us what the gentleman said. Mr. Mi.~dal: Actually I am not reading it. I will just hand it over to you because I want to use my five minutes to comment on what was said. I will just hand it over to you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. You have three and a half minutes. Mr. Migdal: This letter is very supportive. Chair Cassel: I have to keep this tight otherwise we would have people bringing in everyone else’s letter and reading it. Mr. Migdal: This neighborhood which we are talking about the people who were part of our previous project, which is very similar with the same issues and same concerns, and those two letters show how exceptionally satisfied they are. What I want to say as a summary is first of all people talk about.monster homes. These are not 5,000, 7,000, 8,000 square foot homes which are called monster homes. These are below the average new home built in Palo Alto. The average new home is 2,800 square feet. Every one of these homes are much, much less than the average new house. So I really don’t think they should be called monsters. They should be called what they are two story homes with most likely three bedrooms upstairs and two and a half bathrooms. They are not monsters. City of Palo Alto Page 21 of 41 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 Also I wanted to tell some people commented that minimum allowed lots if you will look at the map in reality lot numbers two, three and four are almost 9,000 square feet. What we subtracted was the area controlled by Santa Clara County Valley Water District as a no buildable area. Those lots are substantially bigger. Yes we do cut trees sometimes in our projects. We do onlyifit is allowed. We never touch protected trees. We do this in perfect consideration of the law. As a matter of fact, you can look at any subdivision we have done for every tree we cut we plant four or five instead. So the replacement obviously tells how responsible we are if we have to cut trees. We heard here three members from one family who are immediate neighbors here. Grandmother, daughter and a grandson of those two homes, which stretch along lot number one and lot number two. As a matter of fact right here, this one, this is the garage, which will be almost at the fence of the lot number two and the house is behind this. There are two homes behind each other. Those are the people who we heard most and clearly they object to this subdivision but the fact is if you could see they are almost at the property line, which separates US. Chair Cassel: Bonnie, do you have a question? Vice-Chair Packer: Yes. I have a question, which will help me understand the feasibility of the size of these lots and their buildability taking into consideration the no build area and the tree protection. If it turns out that after review by either the Architectural Review Board or the IR ’ process that the size of the homes that you would be able to build are smaller than you anticipated will you still be willing to go ahead and develop the property? Mr. Migdal: I will answer very simply. Nobody will issue the permit to the future applicant who will decide to build whether it is me or anybody else if it will be in noncompliance in any fashion to present City Zoning Ordinance. Plus, we have additional restrictions imposed on future owners by signing to, by accepting, these restrictions imposed by tree protection zone. Clearly, if somebody wants to build a home on the lot with all those restrictions he will have to abide this or he will have to convince the City Arborist to show him measures how the possible tree roots could be protected or he won’t be allowed to encroach in that area. Then whatever he will be left to deal with he will have to build that house. So the nfimbers are what you see and are the type of homes, which most likely could be built. We would not ask to design the homes. We were asked to show Staff that they are not supporting creation of the lot, which will become unbuildable, This was the main goal behind our application not to ask for any exceptions, not to deviate from any rules, to abide strictly by the rule. As you know we didn’t ask for any variance in this application. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Mr. Migdal. Mr..Mi~dal: So could I give you those two letters? Chair Cassel: Absolutely. We will put them as part of the record, They will be included in the information and they will make copies for us. Give them to the Secretary over here. City of Palo Alto Page 22 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Migdal: I will give them to Zariah. It is one letter from the President of the association and the neighbor. Chair Cassel: Okay. Let me bring it back to the Commission and ask Staff to respond if you have items you would like to respond to in this presentation. Also please outline for us the scope of our work this evening. Mr. Sodergren: We have had time to look at the question Commissioner Holman raised about the Architectural Review provisions. As you know under the new Architectural Review provisions ARB review is required for the construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or duplexes. The way I read that requirement and because this subdivision would necessarily allow for the construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes I believe that construction on any of the parcels created by it would be subject to the Architectural Review provisions. That being the case one option for the Commission would be to require a condition of approval, which would be simply a notification provision that could read something as follows. This is not very artful but the following statement should be included on the informational sheet of the Final Map and then a statement that would read something as follows: Because this subdivision would allow for the construction of three or more adjacent single family homes construction on the parcels created by it is subject to the City ofPalo Alto’s Architectural Review requirements as contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.76.020. Under these requirements Architectural Review is required before a building permit may be issued for any of the lots created by this subdivision. So that would be one option for the Commission to consider. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice,Chair Packer: I just wanted a clarification. The review wouid apply even if thelots were not developed at the same time or even near in time to each other? For example if there was a year or two years between each application each one would require review? . Mr. Sodergren: That would be how I would interpret this provision because these lots which are all adjacent to one another and when I say adjacent a street doesn’t count for map purposes or for zoning purposes. So necessarily it would allow for the creation of three adjacent single, family structures. So I think the intent of the ordinance is clearly in a situation like this to have it apply to each of the lots regardless of when they are constructed as far as timing of the lots or the actual developer of the lots. Vice-Chair Packer: Thank you. Chair Cassel: Let’s go to Lisa and get this done. Ms. Grote: Thank you very much. I just wanted to follow on with what Dan said. In response to Commissioner Burt’s question about which other natural environment policies would apply as the Architectural Review is being conducted Policy N-9, which talks about avoiding fencing in riparian corridors, would apply. Policy N-12 that talks about preserving habitat, value of creeks City of Palo Alto Page 23 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 and riparian corridors would apply. Policy N-13 that discourages bank instability would apply. Policy N-11 preserving the integrity of riparian corridors would also apply. Those would be considered as physical development is proposed on the site. Also in response to Commissioner Holman’s question regarding general lot sizes in the area. Those lots that are across Matadero, this is an estimate, but they vary in size probably from 5,000 square feet to 6,500 square feet. On the same side of Matadero as the proposed subdivision it looks like there is a greater variation. It might be from about 6,000 square feet up to about 12,000 or 12,500. There are a lot of flag lots on that side. These are estimates because we don’t have the exact dimensions but there are a wide variety of lot sizes. Chair Cassel: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Two things. One is clarifying the question. It wasn’t what the lot sizes are in the area but it was a question I posed to a Staff member earlier that my understanding was and perhaps it was a misunderstanding that there is a standard for a minimum lot size for cul-de- sac development in Barron Park that is different than necessarily the 6,000 square foot lot. Perhaps I misunderstood that conversation earlier. Ms. Grote: I am sorry I misunderstood your question. There is not a minimum lot size on a cul- de-sac in Barron Park. There are different street and curb gutter requirements in Barron Park and it is called the Barron Park Standard. That is something that is issued as a policy and practice from the Public Works Department but there is not a different cul-de-sac minimum or maximum lot size. Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification. Then clarification for the City Attomey. As i understood your comments so if these parcels came in one at a time to be developed they would still have to go to the ARB. Would it also be conceivable that we could condition it so that a plan for however many lots it is that that plan come forward and be reviewed at the same time even if only one is going to be built at a given period in time? So there is a comprehensive plan because that again I think is the purpose of the ordinance. Could we do that? / Mr. Sodergren: The review on tentative maps and the conditions you impose on the tentative maps really have to relate to the standards and the process you have in place at the time the map is filed. So I would say that as far as ARB review asfar as that goes you would have to follow what you have existing in the code and you couldn’t really expand on that. Commissioner Holman: I was just wondering if that might be an interpretation because that is I think what the intention is so that is why I was looking to for guidance on that. Mr. Sodergren: I think that the way I read it it is an individual building permit under the code however, I think that over time of course you are going to have to take into account the existing built lots and how those relate to one another. So I think necessarily that will probably end up being part of your review over time but I don’t think there is any way under our existing ARB regulations that we can require an overall plan for all the building permits at one time. City of Palo Alto Page 24 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44. 45 46 Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have questions of Staff?. Michael, you haven’t had any questions yet. Commissioner Griffin: The comment about ARB reviewing this project, would the ARB review then supercede the IR review or would these two stories be subjected to both an ARB review as well as IR? ¯ Ms. French: ARB would be the initial review for the first homes I would say and Dan you can correct me if I am wrong but down the road as replacement homes come to replace those homes I would think those could individually go to Individual Review because it is built out. Chair Cassel: In other words, what you are saying is.it goes to ARB it doesn’t go to both. It will go to ARB whether it is single story or whether it is two-story whereas if it were single story it would not go to IR for single story. But all of them will go to ARB. Ms. French: Yes, initially. Then I would say down the road, five or ten years after they have been built, they stop going to the ARB anymore it is just like any other. Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions of Staff?. Pat. Commissioner Burt: A member of the public testified about an historic use of the property that had storage, use and possible inadvertent disposal of toxic substances on the site including pesticides and herbicides. Had Staff previously been aware of that use and do you have any comments on that? Ms. French: Well I looked through the soils report up here and I didn’t see anything regarding agricultural pesticide storage. Commissioner Burt: So that was a soils analysis report? Ms. French: Yes, not a hazards report. Not a Phase I Environmental. ¯ Commissioner Burt: Would that report address herbicides also’ if they were present? Ms. French: Yes, What I had referred to earlier as the plume discussion and that is the groundwater underneath them. There was TCE mentioned. I can locate that letter and let you know if there were any other chemicals that were cited on that letter. Commissioner Burt: My memory is failing me. Is TCE [triclorethane]? Ms. French: Yes, ethylene. Commissioner Burt: Which is I think about two orbiters of magnitude more toxic than ethane. Chair Cassel: Why don’t we look it up before we make that presumption but that has been City of Palo Alto Page 25 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 cleared up is the other issue. Ms. French: Yes, [tricloroethelene] was detected in the shallow monitoring wells. Chair Cassel: And the follow up for that has been? Ms. French: The follow up in this letter from the DTSC was that the level in the wells would be similar concentrations below the property. The DTSC has not collected the information required, this is for indoor air concentrations, but they said we do not expect the levels of TCE detected in the nearby wells to pose an indoor air issue. Commissioner Burt: Does that address basements so subterranean construction where we have a shallow water aquifer? Ms. French: No. As I mentioned earlier when I get the report if basements were to be proposed we would need to put that through a rigorous look with the DTSC because I their assumptions were that there were no basements with this project which is true. There are no basements. Commissioner Burt: I have several questions related to trees and the creek side. I don’t know whether we want to group them separately." I presume that they would involve the City Arborist. I don’t know other people would like to ask questions first but there are a number of related questions that I will have on those subjects. Chair Cassel: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I wanted to start with Dave Dockter so I think, that would be great. As an aside I just want to say to Staff that I appreciate your operating under the disadvantage of not having the planner here who was used to working on this project and you are a doing a great job pulling together all the information we are asking for. I thank you for that. Dave, I am looking at this 36 inch oak that is at the front of lot one in the area of Matadero Avenue and looking at whether or not we have in your estimation room given that tree being there to put a driveway into Matadero Avenue for lot one. I think a driveway would be 20 feet wide, is that correct, Staff’?. Is a normal driveway for a double car garage about 20 feet? Ms. French: If you were going to do a doublewide garage straight from the curb you would do a 16 to 18 foot driveway. You can do a ten to12 foot. The minimum is ten to 12 to start initially with a curb cut. Commissioner Bialson: The applicant had mentioned the possibility of putting the driveway in using permeable pavers or something like that. Could you give us an idea of whether that makes any sense in your estimation? Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: That would not be the preferable location for a driveway off Matadero in lot one. I want to make it clear that there were no private agreements agreed to by Staff and the applicant that there were guarantees of driveways going directly to Matadero or in City of Palo Alto Page 26 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 relation to travel over root zones and whatnot. So that remains to be reviewed with the specific application with a footprint and driveway. So we definitely need to reserve assessment of that with the specific lot configuration. Anything is possible. If it has a minor to a little impact or footprint to the roots but we wouldn’t immediately encourage a driveway going over the roots in lot one of that specific tree. We would prefer to see it come off of Emma Court for that lot. Chair Cassel: Do you have a question about that tree? Vice-Chair Packer: Yes, I have a question about the same tree. Right now the circumference of the TPZ goes out over Matadero Avenue. So the city street is over the root ball, is that correct? Mr. Dockter: That is correct. Vice-Chair Packer: So it is okay for the city street to be there but not to have a driveway there, is that what we are telling the applicant? Do you understand my question? Mr. Dockter: In a sense yes it is okay because the tree has grown with the street there for quite, quite some time. The older a tree gets it is more sensitive to negative impacts from new cuts or new grading. So it has lived with its roots and the street compaction there for many, many years. It is fine. It is less able to handle new grading, new compaction and new driveway type things. Chair Cassel: Do we have other questions on that tree? Pat. Commissioner Burt: On that general subject maybe the City Attorney could comment on the legal constraints and the purview of this Commission are as I understand it to look at whether the proposed project is in compliance with the City Ordinances and Zoning and not whether there may be existing conditions where tree root systems are impacted by city owned right-of- ways. Is that correct? Mr. Sodergren: I think the only reason you are looking at trees at this point is first of all as I mentioned previously we did require our tree protection zones that exist under our current Municipal Code those to be shown on the Final Map as an informational item but they also in addition to being an informational item for future purchasers of the lot they could also aid the Commission in making that determination of the appropriateness of the physical configuration of the lots. So to that extent that is within your scope and you can take those tree protection zones and do a count when you are reviewing the map. Chair Cassel: Did you have another question for Dave Dockter? Commissioner Burt: Yes. A couple of related ones. As I understand it there were several significant prunings of oaks that occurred in the last couple of years, is that correct? Are the constraints that we are looking at here based upon the pruned canopy of the oak or what would have been the natural canopy had it not be excessively pruned? Mr. Dockter: Yes there were significant prunings that have occurred in the past. Those were City of Palo Alto Page 27 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 mitigated as required by the code enforcement agreement, The new configuration of how Staff looked at the tree protection zones was there buildable area for a reasonable structure took into account the former canopy of the treesl So it is measured to ten times the radius as required by the code. We did not impose an over and above or extra tree protection zone as was previously indicated by the applicant. This is meeting the code and it meets the requirements in the code and does not give a preference to the modified canopy that occurred after the pruning happened. Commissioner Burt: Formerly the most significant or largest tallest trees on the site were the " redwood trees, is that correct? Mr. Dockter: I believe they were the tallest. Commissioner Burr: Now after their cutting what we have are the stumps of the redwood trees and then it looks like some very rapidly growing shoots that are becoming trees. Those stumps and those shoots are proposed to be removed and somehow mitigated. Is that correct? Mr. Dockter: The scenario with the redwoods is they actually qualify as living entities according to the code. They are living redwood trees large enough to qualify by the code. It is questionable whether they will perform ever to become a tree again, a sound tree, because they are all stump sprouts coming up. So they are just a mass of uncontrolled sprouts. We were looking at the project with the attitude that if Commission and Council authorized their removal they would be mitigated by required plantings, which is required by the code. The justification for their removal would be based on whether they are ever going to function as a protected tree was intended to function according to the code or not. It is an unusual circumstance we all admit because they were truncated. They were done so before the law was in effect so there was no violation of the law then but they are protected by the code now. It is kind of an awkward situation. Commissioner Burt: They were truncated after the law was adopted but before it took effect. Is that correct? Mr. Dockter: It was before the law was adopted, I would have to check that. ’Commissioner Burt: If you could that would be great. Mr. Dockter: If it were in that month before the effective date after City Council. Commissioner Burt: Then you have examined the impact of basements on the root systems of the trees as well? That is part of your consideration? Mr. Dockter: We have not evaluated basements with regard to the protected oaks on site. We would take that into account very carefully with any new proposal. Basements were not a part of this Tentative Map review process. That was the applicant’s offering I believe. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. That is all I have on trees. There mayb, e another series of questions after Michael on riparian corridor. City of Palo AIto Page 28 of 41 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 Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: That question about basements led into a question that I had having to do with the ramifications of a basement excavation that immediately abuts the tree canopy. You said ~hat you had not investigated the effects of a basement excavation in this particular instance but based on your prior experience can a basement excavation be successfully executed right up against the drip line of a tree, specifically an oak tree, and can we then. expect the oak tree to survive that kind of an incidence? Mr. Dockter: A couple of issues come into play with basements. One is temporary construction after the basements typically are built and everything is backfilled, hydrostatic pressure is returned and the aquifer is just normal, during construction there could be a depletion of the moisture for the roots. First of all just not cutting off roots for a basement would be important. There needs to be a tree protection or a buffer zone for each tree that gets designed and that would dictate the proximity of a basement, how close. So the roots would define where basements could go. The other issue of water table and aquifer can be ,adjusted and mitigated if the roots are left viable. So two issues, proximity to the roots making sure they ,are carefully kept and it may be beyond the tree canopy zone for that. Each individual tree needs to be assessed with a project in mind. Commissioner Griffin: So in other words, you do have to assess each individual tree as a separate entity and you can’t just use a rule of thumb that yes we can excavate right up to the drip line? Mr, Dockter: That is correct. And that plays true with which side of E1 Camino you are on. It is different for each area of the City. The soil texture and profile is pretty key there. So it is an individually assessed issue. Chair Cassel: So if you didn’t think a basement would allow the tree to survive then you could simply say not that will not allow it and that will not be built. Mr. Dockter: That is correct and the code supports that. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Karen. Commissioner Holman: A question about the impermeability this being proposed for the property. Because there are a number of trees on this site and there is I can suppose an impervious driveway or street that is being proposed here and then the amount of structure that is being proposed, do you see that as having an impact on the trees hydration? Is that too broad a question?? It is a pretty significant change in environment that is why I am asking the question. Mr. Dockter: Yes it will have some effect on the trees. Particularly I would say lot three would be the most confined and the setback areas on lot one would probably be sufficient on those trees. City of Palo Alto Page 29 of 41 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: Pat did you have some more questions? Commissioner Burt: Yes. Regarding the creek side corridor and this would be for either Dave or the rest of Staff. Has there been discussion about prospective constraints on types of vegetation that would be allowed in the easement or the setback zone that would be consistent with Goal N-2 of the Comp Plan? Ms. Grote: At this point there has not been that kind of discussion. That would apply during the review of the proposal for actual structures on the site. Commissioner Burt: There was an earlier question by one of the Commissioners regarding fences. Has Staff had any additional consideration on whether fences would be allowed within either the easement or the setback zone? Ms. Grote: Fences would not be allowed within that 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District area, that easement. They do not permit fences. Now there is the question about whether or not fences would be allowed within the 20 foot no build. The policy in the Comp Plan calls for avoiding fences along riparian corridors. So that would lead us to during again review of actual development proposals to prohibit those fences in the no build corridor. Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: If my fellow Commissioners would go to the Tentative Maps and preliminary parcel maps prepared by the professional registered engineer, Marius Nielson, and go to the last page there, properties located in a flood zone. So a basement would be prohibited. Commissioner Holman: We are not sure where you are Lee. Commissioner Lippert: It is about halfway through. It is right beforethe little examples of lot one. So it is located in a flood zone and if the basement is lower than the base flood elevation it is a mute point. Ms. French: Just a point of clarification. It has two floodzone types on this site. The creek part is in flood zone A the rest of it is flood zone X. Just a point of clarification. It has two flood zone types on this site. The creek part is in flood zone A the rest of it is flood zone X. Chair Cassel: In flood zone X can you put in a basement? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice-Chair Packer: I just have a follow up question on the fence issue. If the neighbors who are City of Palo Alto Page 30 of 41 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 not part of the subdivision on either side wanted a fence on their property they can build it today because they are not part of this application. What I am saying is that if there are concerns about privacy and they want to have a fence they can put it on their property on the edges. Ms, Grote: They could. They do not have a similar no build easement on their sites, Chair Cassel: Pat, you have one more question? Commissioner Burt: Yes. ~ presume that because the City has not yet proceeded on Program N- 8 which is a creek ordinance that was part of the Comp Plan, should we then, and maybe this is more for the City Attorney, be using the overall Goal N-2 as guidance in interpreting how this project should be viewed in the absence of a more specific new creek ordinance? Ms. Grote: Yes, I would say overall Goal N-2 does apply to this proposed subdivision as well as those specific programs that I had listed earlier. Again, those would for the most part be applied during review of actual development on sites. So things like fences, other kinds of vegetation that might be required along the corridor would be conditions that are attached to the review of specific houses. Commissioner Burt: Eventually we may have a more specific creek ordinance but at this time since we don’t have one we have to go with the more general guidelines. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Mr. Sodergren: I just wanted to follow up on that. I was trying to find the provisions in the Subdivision Map Act, the state law, and they do broadly define general plan and comprehensive plan conformance to include goals, policies, and statements so it is within the scope. Chair Cassel: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about setbacks. We recently had some discussions about what constitutes the front of a lot and that determines the rear setback. So I am interested ih lots two and four why what would appear to be the rear setbacks are six feet on this proposal. Now I understand we are not looking at this as a development at the same time it might impact what an applicant might do going forward. So I think it is a relevant question, Ms. French: I can answer that because of the definition of the rear lot line being the farthest and most parallel. Now being on a curve what is most parallel is a good question but I think in this case it was determined that the farthest line is the one on lot two close to the creek. What was the other lot you mentioned, lot four? Commissioner Holman: Yes. Ms. French: The same situation at the farthest line from thefront lot line is the line that is adjacent to the creek so that would be the rear. City of Palo Alto Page 31 of 41 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 Chair Cassel: Michael, do you want to say something? Commissioner Griffin: I have a motion if Commissioners are finished. Commissioner Holman: I wasn’t finished, actually. I have a couple more questions. The street is a reduced width than what is actually required. What was the purpose of that? To what end? Ms. Grote: What was the purpose of reducing the bulb and the street width? To have less impervious coverage was one of the purposes. Commissioner Holman: But it could be pervious. Ms. Grote: The street will be impermeable. Water will not be able to get through the street width but if you have a narrower street width and a narrower bulb it increases the amount of permeable area on the overall site. So you have less coverage in street. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Chair Cassel: You are telling me that this meets the standards ’for small streets, for short blocks? Ms. French: Yes, that is true the standards and to the scrutiny of the Staff review. Commissioner Holman: My last question has to do with the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Five-B about causing substantial adverse changes and the significance of an archeological resource. In the explanation on page 17 it talks about no prehistoric cultural resources are observed during the surface reconnaissance and of course that is not where they would likely appear but four prehistoric sites and studies have been recorded within a half mile radius of the project site. So I find myself really disagreeing with less than significant impact there. I think it is potentially a very significant issue that could be unearthed there, no pun intended. ~ Ms. Grote: On page 17 it does say potentially significant unless mitigated and then the mitigation measures including limited auger testing on the site and if something is discovered if .based upon auger testing additional data recovery is warranty it shall be prepared prior to construction and shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted. Project personnel should be alerted to the possibility of encountering ardhitectural resources during construction. So there are a series of mitigation measures included should that auger testing reveal anything prior to the issuance of a building permit. Chair Cassel: So there is a whole list of standard mitigations that are taken for developments that we do in the area including stopping the whole project and seeking that out. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Commissioner Holman: Right but on the Mitigated Negative Declaration it says less than significant impact so I am disagreeing with that. City of Palo Alto Page 32 of 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 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. French: Are you talking about the checklist? Commissioner Holman: Yes. Ms. French: On page six? Commissioner Holman: Page five. Ms. French: Well if you go to page six-D it says disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemeteries and potentially significant unless mitigated is what is checked. Commissioner Holman: Wouldn’t it also apply to B? I don’t want to nit-pick but it something we are supposed to recommend approval for to the Council. Ms. Grote: I think with the mitigation measures it is a less than significant impact. That is why that box or that column was checked. We do have the mitigation attached. We can modify this before it goes to the Council with your recommendation and say potentially significant unless mitigated because the mitigation measures are there on page 17. Chair Cassel: Okay, we will see how that goes. Michael, you wanted to speak next? MOTION Commissioner Griffin: I would like to propose a motion. I would move that this project be accepted with a maximum number of lots to be developed capped at four and that all four of the lots would be subject to an ARB review. SECOND Commissioner Bialson: I will second that. Chair Cassel: Do you want to explain why? Mr. Sodergren: Could I one thing, In order to condition the subdivision it would helpful to have findings on what that condition is based whether it be a Comprehensive Plan policy or some other requirement to tie that condition to in the map. Commissioner Holman: Madam Chair, could I get a clarification, please? Chair Cassel: Yes. Commissioner Holman: The motion is, as I understood it, that we would accept this but that it. be for a maximum of four properties. So wouldn’t that mean that we are denying the application? City of Palo Alto Page 33 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: I believe so because I don’t think we can do a line drawing. You would actually be proposing to deny it. Mr. Sodergren: I think it would be more appropriate to if that is your intent to move to deny it. If you do want to amend the motion to deny it again I think it would be helpful to take a look at the findings on pages two through four of the Record of Land Use Action, which is Attachment A of the Staff Report. Those are the findings in which the City must deny the approval of a map if it makes any of those findings. It would be helpful to get at least the reasoning why one or more of those findings are met. Chair Cassel: So your motion Michael should include some findings why this should be denied, why it does not meet these findings. Mr. Sodergren: Actually, they are worded in the negative so on whether they are affirmatively met I guess is the way to go. Commissioner. Griffin: I think that there are plenty of issues that we developed this evening having to do with riparian corridors, traffic issues, tree preservation areas and setbacks as well as potential issues of hazardous materials still resident in subterranean areas and all of those would lead me to a motion for denial. IfI need to specify which of these items please weigh in. Mr. Sodergren: I think at this point I think we have the general nature of the reasoning behind. What we can do if the motion carries is we can bring back a draft or a record of land use approval at your next meeting in order for you to confirm that we got those findings correctly. If that is all right. Commissioner Griffin: That is certainly suitable for me if my seconder and other colleagues are amenable to that solution I would appreciate it. Chair Cassel: Would the seconder wish to speak to this? Commissioner Bialson: What you proposed Dan is fine. I think essentially what the motion from my perspective says is that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development that is item number three. Item number four that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Those are the two big issues that we have here. We have some Comprehensive Plan and some issues with regard to the habitat. There is substantial environmental damage that we are concemed about. I think it is summed up in three or four that we find those to be difficult. So if Staff could assist us to articulate more clearly as a guide to the applicant what we are looking for and also as a guide to Council I for one would very much appreciate it. Chair Cassel: Let me hear what other Commissioners feel. Bonnie. Vice-Chair Packer: I am going to vote against the motion. I don’t know if it is appropriate to offer a substitute motion that we approve the Tentative Map at this time. City of Palo Alto Page 34 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: You can move a substitute motion and see if you have a second. Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Chair Cassel: She better make the motion first. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Vice-Chair Packer: I move that we approve the Tentative Map for this five-lot subdivision at 797 and 807 Matadero Avenue and that we approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this map. The reasons that I think we should approve it is one this subdivision reminds me a lot of the cottage cluster work that we were working on a couple of weeks ago. This is the kind of development that I think is good for Palo Alto. I do understand that there are issues about the trees and the creek and those will be addressed because we have good ordinances about tree protection, we have a lot of guidance in our Comprehensive Plan about protecting the riparian corridor and these will be addressed at the time that development applications are made for these lots. I also feel because of the restrictions on the lots the houses will probably be a lot smaller than the developer is currently envisioning. I don’t imagine that these will be monster homes. We may end up with some modest size homes in almost a cottage cluster type arrangement, which will enhance this area of Barron Park. We have to keep in mind that the rest of Matadero Creek is very well developed and has been for many years not that we have to develop the creek side. I think the Comprehensive Plan efforts to maintain our riparian corridors are wonderful and we should follow those. I think the way this has been divided into five lots is better than having four lots because four lots would mean that we would have larger homes. We have five smaller lots with all these limitations we will have some modest homes. I think the parking issues can probably be addressed. Chair Cassel: Wait a minute. You have made your motion don’t address all of it. Vice-Chair Packer: I’m sorry, thank you for cutting me off. Chair Cassel: Lee. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will gladly second that. Chair Cassel: Let Bonnie finish what she was saying. Vice-Chair Packer: I just wanted to make sure I was addressing all the concerns. I think these will be addressed during the development process and right now we. are just approving the creation of five new lots, which are all consistent with R-1. They are all a little over 6,000 square feet when you subtract all the no build ar~as. This is what this neighborhood is, it is an City of Palo Alto Page 35 of 41 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 R-1 neighborhood and there is nothing incompatible about creating five 6,000 or so square foot lots to be built on. Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I second the motion and I agree with everything Commissioner Packer has said there. Particularly I agree that having five smaller houses is preferential over four larger or what might be construed as monster homes. I think that there are enough protections within the process tobe able to navigate or guide this whole project architecturally through the Architectural Review Board process and for them to resolve a lot of the issues that we have raised today with regard to the quality and character. The applicant has demonstrated through a number of steps that he has taken that there would be a diversity of homes there. The plans reflect that as well as protecting the natural riparian habitat as well as the native tress that are there. I do have some concems but those can wait. Chair Cassel: Bonnie, I wondered if you would be willing to add the condition that Dan mentioned earlier that all of these would be reviewed by the ARB. Vice-Chair Packer: Yes, that is what I was just asking ifI could add that. That they would be all reviewed by ARB no matter when they are developed. Ms. French: Yes, condition three would be modified in that case. Commissioner Lippert: I accept that. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Vice-Chair Packer: Also that the issue about the second dwelling be made more flexible. Commissioner Lippert: I accept both of those amendments. Chair Cassel: Okay, let’s work down the line. You want to speak to that, Pat? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I oppose the substitute motion for the reasons stated by the makers of the primary motion and just to clarify that some of the general comments that they included actually address findings one and two as well and so I think that findings one and two cannot be substantiated. More specifically both as reasons for objecting to the substitute motion and to help include should we return to the primary motion we have Comp Plan policies that I believe are not met by the current proposal. That is Policy L-12, L-6 both dealing with neighborhood compatibility and abrupt changes in scale and character. H-29, which has to do with the housing tmiti we have an existing housing unit that is provided and we have one under the proposal that may be available as a rental unit. Those are very different distinctions, Then the various policies and programs under Goal N-2 dealing with the riparian corridor issues that we have discussed. So I wanted to be more specific about a variety of Comprehensive Plan policies that I City of Palo Alto Page 36 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6" 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 believe cannot be met by shoehorning these five parcels onto this particular proposal. Mr. Sodergren: Could I just clarify that? As part of that motion that motion would be rather than to deny the project tonight it would be to direct Staff to draft and bring back to the Commission findings that are in accord with your motion. Commissioner Burt: No. Chair Cassel: No, we have a substitute motion going at the moment. Mr. Sodergren: I thought it was another substitute motion. Commissioner Burt: No it was not a substitute. It was speaking against the substitute motion and the same points that I am making against the substitute motion would be proposed to be included should we return to the primary motion. Mr. Sodergren: Just to truncate that if we should return to the primary motion that was my intent of the primary motion. It would be to rather than deny the subdivision tonight would be to direct Staff to draft the findings, bring it back for the Commission’s consideration before your report was actually filed with the Council. Chair Cassel: Okay but let me go on. Karen, do you want to say anything about the substitute motion? I will. I am going to support the substitute motion. This is not an issue about two story homes. Two story homes are allowed in Barron Park and I think it is very arbitrary to suddenly decide that we should not have two story homes. I think the Commission recognizes that. It is not an issue about the traffic on Matadero because Matadero road has been designed to meet the requirements that Barron Park wants which means that the parking is extremely limited and it is limited because they don’t want sidewalks, they don’t want a wide enough road or space on that road or anything moved on that road that would allow parking on the side. That’s fine that is the selection.,0f it. But the difference between three houses and five houses or four houses is not going to make a big difference on the amount of parking. There will actually be more parking per space even though it seems limited per house even if we use more narrow public street parking counts than the developer is using. The project is conditioned in a variety of ways to be sure that it meets all of the standards of the City. I think that we are supposed to be passing ordinances for subdivisions that meet the standards of the City. We clearly have to be extremely careful about what is happening in the riparian creek area. I agree with you on that, Pat. The problem is we don’t have a creek ordinance in place that could make it stricter at this time and we have to meet the goal. I did just what you did, I happen to copy those sheets that you were quoting from the Comp Plan because I was also concerned there. I am glad that the ARB would be doing the review. I think this is very important on this project City of Palo Alto Page 37 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 because I think the blending of the sites I agree that the units would be smaller because the lots are smaller. If these lots are four lots then the homes on them are going to be much larger and they really will seem very large. The road needs to be narrow and smaller because it will be matching a road that is not a very large road and it would look very strange. We are only feeding three houses and the two street side houses onto that court. So I think it should be smaller. I went over to see Pena Court it seems large enough. So for those reasons I will support the substitute motion. Did you two want to make any other statements? Annette or Michael? Commissioner Bialson: I am going to oppose the substitute motion because I am very concerned about the impact on the environment especially the trees, the riparian fight-of-way. Those two items given the number of lots we have here and the building of homes on them of anysize single story with or without basements I think is going to be a real problem. Looking at the impact on neighbors I think we would be better serving both the City and any potential renter of the so-called unit that is going to be available and the environmentby having no more than four homes on this. So I will be opposing the substitute motion. I think what we need to do at this point is get on with it. MOTION FAILS (3-4-0-0 Commissioners Burt, Griffin, Bialson and Holman voting no.) Chair Cassel: All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) The motion fails with Commissioners Lippert, Packer and Cassel voting in favor and Commissioners Burt, Griffin, Bialson and Holman voting no. So we should go back to our main motion. Commissioner Griffin: I will resubmit the main motion. Chair Cassel: Now I understand that we want to make sure that this is worded in such a way that it meets Dan’s requirements. Is that agreeable with you? Dan wants this to read that it will recommend denial and it will come back to us after they have worded it. Commissioner Griffin: I am in agreement with that and I would also like to incorporate Commissioner Burt’s additional points that he made here ten minutes ago. Commissioner Burt: Would the maker of the motion also accept a friendly amendment that the alternative project minimize any spillover parking onto Matadero Avenue? Commissioner Griffin: I would. Chair Cassel: Seconder? Commissioner Bialson: I prefer not to I think that the thrust of the what we are doing is to accomplish that but to state that I think would in a way make our action a little less appealing to Council. So I would rather not state it. City of Palo Alto Page 38 of 41 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: For that reason I had chosen "minimize" and not "eliminate." Chair Cassel: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have onequick question for Staff first. Because this is a street but really almost functions as a driveway is there any possibility given the sensitivity of this property, is there any possibility that Staff could explore this street being permeable rather than impermeable? That could also affect how we might view the project that would come back to US. Chair Cassel: I think you are getting into a detail that we shouldn’t be presenting with the motion. We are dealing with a motion. We are about ready to vote on it. You can ask Michael if you would like too. Commissioner Holman: An answer to my question might determine what I might offer as a friendly amendment to the motion to be accepted or not. Chair Cassel: Do the rest of the Commission wish to explore that issue? Okay, go ahead. Ms. Grote: We can certainly look into that. We will be checking with our Fire Department on the ability of a permeable surface to withstand the weight of fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. We will look into that with Public Works as well. Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I have just a couple/three friendly amendments to add to the motion. One is that finding number five was not mentioned specifically but I also find the project does not satisfy that. So if that could be accepted. Also I understand from having an earlier conversation with the Director of Planning that there is some flexibility with setbacks and I don’t know if you want to accept that as this or just take it as a comment to Staff. I will’look forward to your comment on that. That Comp Plan Policies N-9, 12, 11 and 13 be added as consideration. Commissioner Griffin: Karen, I am not following this, sorry. Commissioner Holman: I’m sorry. So adding that finding number five cannot be made for the project. That deals with natural environment. The environmental consequences or damage. Commissioner Griffin: Was there more to that or was there more you wanted to say on five? Commissioner Holman: That is all I wanted to say on five is just include that so that when Staff comes back to us they will reference finding number five as well. It has been the subject of a lot of our conversation. City of Palo Alto Page 39 of 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11,, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Griffin: I will approve it. Commissioner Bialson: Fine. Commissioner Holman: Then that reference be made for inclusion of reference to Comp Plan Policies N-9, 11, 12, and 13, all which have to do with riparian corridor and creek preservation. Commissioner Griffin: I thought we had all those read to us by Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Holman: Those were ones he did not include, Commissioner Burt: I believe that I only stated Goal N-2 and the relevant policies under Goal N-2 and N-9, 11, 12 and 13 1 believe would be those specific policies and the ones that Lisa Grote had said would apply to the project so I think that just adds greater clarification to what I had already said. Commissioner Griffin: All right, Karen, I would accept thatl Commissioner Bialson: It is fine with me. Is there anything else? Commissioner Holman: Just two more. One is that any project that comes back to us because again it might affect how viable we find the project to be that a permeable street or driveway might be a part of that consideration and with Staff direction to see if that should be included as a part of the motion or just a word of interest to them. Ms. Grote: You could include consideration of permeable surface for theroadway and then we can look into that and come back to you with information at the next meeting. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Would the maker? Commissioner Griffin: I will accept it as a consideration and an item for investigation. Commissioner Bialson: Do I understand that is going to be our motion and that it is going to come back with all of these things being addressed by Staff and we then have an ability to clean it up? I just want to be very clear to Council as to why we are moving the way we are on this. I am afraid bringing in all these things is going to muddy the picture considerably, So I am trying to see from Staffhow you are going to handle all these additional adornments here. Mr. Sodergren: I think you have two options. If there are things you want brought back or if you want to consider additional items at your next meeting then ,you should probably move to continue this hearing to a date certain. However, if you are satisfied that the motion includes everything necessary to make those findings at this meeting then you can close the hearing and then we can simply bring back the confirming resolutions. So those are two options. Chair Cassel: We only need to give the findings for denial. They don’t have to go into all these other details in order to get this denial. We are not conditioning something else because no other City of Palo Alto Page 40 of 41 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 proposal is before us. The owner may not wish to do that. Pat. Commissioner Burt: I think if Staff is comfortable with simply exploring that it might be more clean to not have it as part of the motion and the basis for denial. Then we will just entrust that Staff will look at the feasibility of that when they return to us. That would be one way in which they might look at addressing some of these other specific Comp Plan policies that are the basis for denial. I think they have heard the suggestion and will look at feasibility if that is all right. Chair Cas~el: We are not spending time now making recommendations on what a developer may come back with. This is a denial. Commissioner Holman: Understood. I was just looking at this also as our opportunity to give feedback to Staff for something they might consider in the future. Chair Cassel: No, it is not an appropriate time for that. So we will vote? Does anyone else want to comment on the main motion? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I would just like to say that I will support the motion and the reason is that, and it is going to sound kind of weird but, I really want this project to move forward. I think it is real important. First of all this is an infill development. I think thatinfill developments I prefer to see an infill development versus another development out in the foothills somewhere. We do have a jobs/housing imbalance here in the City and fi:ankly I would like to see five units but four units, I’ll take it. Chair Cassel: We don’t have a proposal for four units on the floor. We have a motion to deny the project and we have no idea if anything is coming back. Commissioner Lippert: I understand that. I would like to see this project move forward but I will vote in support of the motion because I would like to see the developer be able to come back with something. MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0 Commissioners Cassel and Packer voting no.) Chair Cassel: Okay. Let’s vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That motion passes with Commissioner Burt, Griffin, Bialson, Lippert and Holman voting yes and Commissioners Cassel and Packer voting no. City of Palo Alto Page 41 of 41 Attachment F PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Senior Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: October 27, 2004 797 & 807 Matadero Avenue [03-SUB’01, 03’EIA’03]: Record of Land Use Action denying an application by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential (R-l). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the Record of Land Use Action denying the application for a five-lot subdivision (Attachment A). " SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background On September 8, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed an application by Mark Migdal requesting a five-lot subdivision on Matadero Avenue in the Single-Family Residence district. Commissioner Griffin moved to recommend denial of the request, which was seconded by Commissioner Bialson. The motion passed (5-2-0-0, Commissioners Cassel and Packer opposed) and the Commission directed staff to submit a revised Record of Land Use Action with findings that would reflect the Commission’s decision to recommend denial of the project. A copy of the September 8, 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission Report is contained in Attachment B and an excerpt of the meeting minutes are contained in Attachment C. Discussion The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) includes the recommended findings for denial based upon the Commission’s action on the project. City of Palo Alto Page 1 The public hearing on this item has been closed and the Commission has taken final action, Therefore, the Commission’s review should be .limited to whether the proposed Record of Land Use Action adequately reflects the previous action by the Commission. TIMELINE: Action: Application Received: Application Deemed Complete: Negative Declaration Public Review Period: P&TC Meeting: PTC Confirming Action Meeting Required Action by Council: Date: April 9, 2003 August 13, 2004 August 13-September 1, 2004 September 8, 2004 October 27, 2004 November 27, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This is a confirming action and no environmental review is required. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning on August 13, 2004 and ending on September 1, 2004. ATTACHMENTS: A.Record of Land Use Action B.Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, September 8, 2004 C.Verbatim Minutes, September 8, 2004. COURTESY COPIES: Mark Migdal Doug Moran Maryarme Welton Dorothy Bender Jean Wren Georgia Griffin Cheryl Borja, Mitchell Borja Gary Curtis Mr. Prasad Alex Sherstiusky Zina Kaganovich Lubov Valetsky Bestsy Allyn Prepared by:Steven Turner, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: ~~@~3~ Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment A ACTION NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE: TENTATIVE MAP 03-SUB-01 (MARK MIGDAL, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto denied the Tentative Map for the development of a five- lot subdivision project, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. A. On April 9, 2003, Mark Migdal applied for a Tentative Map for the development of a five-lot subdivision project ("The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137-15-038) of approximately i.I acres. The site contains two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Numerous oak tree are located on the lots, including a significant oak grove in the rear half of the lots. The lots abut Matadero Creek on the east side. A 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, measured from the rear property line of the lots, is located along Matadero Creek. Single- family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barron Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. C. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a~cul-de- sac street that would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define the extent of the five lots to be created as a part .of this subdivision. The map also indicates the location of a 32-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District easement measured from the~ rear property lines, the location of a public right of way easement along Matadero Avenue, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement between Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would contain a storm drain system leading to an outfall on Matadero Creek. D. The oak trees on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). This would limit a future owners ability to construct structures close to the protected species. 1 SECTION 2. Tentative Map Denial Findinqs. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial on September 8, 2004, based upon the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474; PAMC Section 21.12.090): i. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451; and 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: ¯Policy L-12: "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures." The subdivision would create a lot pattern in the neighborhood that is not consistent with the existing pattern, in that the predominate pattern of lots along Matadareo Avenue are essentially rectangular lots that are perpendicular to the street. Introduction of the cul-de-sac street would interrupt this pattern; ¯Policy L-6: "Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and .between residential areas of different densities." The subdivision would create five single-family lots, where only three lots would be possible if the predominant lot pattern was followed. The proposed lot configuration would increase the density of homes oriented along a cul-de-sac street above what would normally be possible on a similarly sized subdivision that follows the existing lot pattern in the neighborhood ..................... Policy N-II: "Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors." The subdivision would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. ¯ Policy N-13: ~Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks." Construction of the cul-de-sac street and the storm drain outfall could disturb the creek bank to an extent that would affect the ability of the riparian corridor to support the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat of the area. ¯Policy N-9: "Avoid fencing, piping and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek." The subdivision would require the installation of a storm drain outfall through the riparian corridor to Matadero Creek. The construction and storm drain outfall could have a negative affect on the immediate environment of the creek, in that construction activities could increase erosion, bank instability and loss of habitat. ¯Policy N-12: "Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation of native plants and the replacement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants." Construction activities within and adjacent to the riparian corridor could result in the removal of native vegetation or the decline in health of the creek habitat. Removal of non-native plant species is not proposed as a component of the subdivision. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development : The proposed lots would contain numerous protected species of oak trees that are located in such a way that would restrict development on .four of the five single-family lots. These restrictions would limit the design options for the homes that would otherwise be available to mitigate privacy, massing or streetscape issues identified through the Individual Review process. In addition, the subdivision would create a lot pattern that is not consistent with the existing pattern in the neighborhood, in that the predominate pattern of lots along Matadero Avenue are essentially rectangular lots that are perpendicular to the street. Introduction of the cul-de-sac street would interrupt this pattern. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development : The subdivision would create five single-family lots, where only three lots would be possible if the predominant lot pattern was followed. The proposed lot configuration would increase the density of homes oriented along a cul-de-sac street above what would normally be possible on a similarly sized subdivision that follows the existing lot pattern in the neighborhood. This increased density could have a negative affect on the riparian corridor and the existing protected oak trees on the site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The subdivision would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. Construction of the cul-de-sac street and the storm drain outfall could disturb the creek bank to an extent that would affect the ability of the riparian corridor to~ support the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat of the area. In addition, construction activities could increase erosion, bank instability and loss of habitat. SECTION 3. Tentative Map Denied. The City Council adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and denies the Tentative Map. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachment G 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 Wednesday, October 27, 2004 REGULAR MEETING at 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 DRAFT EXCERPT NEW B USINESS: Other Items. ..... 1.797 & 807 Matadero Avenue [03-SUB-01~ 03-EIA-03]*: Review of the Record of Land Use Action denying an application by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision. The recommendation for denial would be forwarded to the City Council for the final decision. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential (R- 1). SR Weblink: http://www.~it~fpa~a~t~.~rg/~it~agenda/pub~ish/p~anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/3858.pdf Mr. Steven Turner, Senior Planner: Yes I would Madam Chair. Good evening, my name is Steven Turner, Senior Planner from the Planning Division and I am the project manager for this project. Staff is presenting to you this evening a Record of Land Use Action for your consideration this evening. The Record of Land Use Action includes findings for denial, which were developed based upon the testimony of the Planning Commission from the meeting of September 8, 2004. Staff would be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding those draft findings. The Commission has two options tonight. You may choose to find that the Record of Land Use Action satisfactorily describes the findings for denial. The other option that you have would be to provide Staff with guidance on modifying the findings for denial and thereby continuing this item to a date certain. So that we would come back to you and perhaps more accurately reflect your intentions from September 8. If you have any other questions we can certainly answer them. Chair Cassel: I think Dan wants to speak. Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. First is the Commission knows you have already taken action on this item and the public hearing on this item has already been closed. So the purpose of tonight’s meeting is very limited and that is to determine whether the Record of Land Use Action you have before you adequately reflects the action you took when you considered this item. That being the ,case however, I would still recommend that you allow the public to comment on the item under the Brown Act not for the purpose of reopening the public hearing because that has been closed but there should City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 1 of 18 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 still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the limited scope of what you have before you tonight. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Could Staff clarify the Staff recommendation that is on our October 27 Staff Report? It says under recommendation that Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the Council the adoption of this Attachment A. Is that what Staff means? Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Actually we should have been more precise in our language. What we are recommending is that you review the attached findings for denial and determine whether or not they adequately reflect your previous discussion. Our recommendation is as originally stated is for approval and we had presented those findings to you at the previous meeting. Chair Cassel: Did anyone else have a question of Staff7. I would like to go to the public. I do have a card for Owen Byrd. You will have five minutes to speak. This is not part of the public testimony but part of your Brown Act rights. Mr. Owen Bgrd, 418 Florence Street, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioner Cassel. I am speaking on behalf of the applicant. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I want to address process and then substance. I discussed it today with the City Attomey and we will never know who is right because we are not going to litigate it but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion from Staff that this is a closed matter. The reason for that is because we are all here tonight as Phyllis said in her opening this is a continuation of a prior item. It has historically been Planning Commission practice that until an item including all of the actions associated with it are complete that the Commission has its ability if it chooses to go back and to continue to discuss and revisit any element of the item that it wishes, in other words on process. I know what the vote was last time and I am assuming everybody still feels how they feel but iflam suddenly so persuasive and eloquent on the merits of this thing that any one of you chose to change your mind it is my legal opinionthat you could then tonight reopen and revote on the issue of approval or denial of the map. You have heard from the City Attorney and in his view it is this kind of a clerical cleanup matter and we simply have two different legal readings of the Planning Commission process. On substance, I think the easiest way for me to address it is not revisit all of the issues that I have read in the minutes and that you heard at the last hearing but is rather to quickly go through these tentative findings for denial. Because I think when you dissect them you find that they are pretty thin and in my opinion argues in favor of the Staff position, which is that you should recommend to the Council that this map be approved. So I will go through them quickly. In section two on the findings number two~ Policy L-12 is about preserve character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible. The finding speaks only to lot pattern. It doesn’t have anything to do with structures. That finding makes no sense. Secondly, Policy L-6, where possible avoid "abrupt" changes in scale and density. I don’t know precisely City of Palo Alto; P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 2 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 what abrupt means but going from three to five given the pattern along Matadero it seems hyperbolic to me to suggest that that is an abrupt change in scale and density. Ironically, on the second issue of density by going to the four lot alternative you are going to end up with larger homes increasing the abrupt nature of the transition from the houses along Matadero the four larger homes that would otherwise be replaced with five smaller homes and therefore that finding makes no sense to me. The third one, preserve the integrity of riparian corridors, I am not exactly sure what that word means in this scientific context but I do see that the finding only speaks to the cluster of single family lots "adjacent" to the corridor. So the policy speaks to the integrity of the corridor itself but the finding only speaks to what is adjacent to it and that a storm drain outfall could negatively impact it. The next one, discourage creek bank problems. Again the word ’could’ is shot through there not ’would’ and the finding demands would. The next one speaks to fencing, piping which is a culvert and channelization, which is concrete. None of that is proposed for the creek itself. That finding doesn’t make any sense. The next one, preserve the habitat value of the creek corridor and preservation of native plants, again it relies on ’could’ not ’would.’ There is no evidence in the record that the plants would be harmed. The final sentence that we are not planning to remove non-native plant species is nonsensical. That doesn’t have anything to do with the subdivision map. No subdivision map applicant I have ever known of has ever said oh by the way when I do my map I’ll get rid of the invasive species next door. The third one that says the site is not physically suitable for the type of development again relies on ’would’ and not ’could’ and when it speaks to how it would constrain the Individual Review Process that is the applicant’s risk to take not a finding on which to base denial. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Owen. Mr. Byrd: And finally, the site is not. Chair Cassel: Wait a minute I think you are done. Did you have a question? Mr. Byrd: I think since I am speaking on behalf of the applicant I ought to be allowed to finish. Chair Cassel: Just a second, Owen. Did you have something you wanted to say, Bonnie? Vice Chair Packer: Yes. Mr. Byrd, did you have something further to say about the last finding? I would be interested in hearing what you have to say. Mr. B’~a’d: There are two more it would take about less than 30 seconds. Vice Chair Packer: Thank you. Mr. Byrd: Number four says the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Well, all it says is it doesn’t follow the existing lot pattern and I see nothing in the General Plan or the Municipal Code that demands that infill follow the existing lot pattern. In fact, that is what infill is it changes the lot pattern. Finally, the design of the subdivision is likely to cause "substantial environmental damage" or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife. I thing that is hyperbole again and it is pretty much of a stretch to be able to assert that the map asproposed would definitely substantially impact the environment and fish and wildlife. City of Palo Alto, P& TC October 27, 2004 Page 3 of 18 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 It is shot through with coulds, So for’all those reasons I would encourage the Commission number one to reopen the map and to vote in favor of recommending approval of the map or in the alternative adopt alternative findings for denial because these are inadequate. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you~ Mr~ Byrd, Are there any questions of Staff at this time? Pat. Commissioner Burt: This might not be easy for us to do but could Staff point out us to where in our minutes they found the direction to make these cases for the findings as best you are able to? Ms. Grote: Yes~ we will look for page numbers and get those for you, Mr, Turner: The motion begins on page 33 of the minutes. Within that motion there is discussion regarding relevant Comprehensive Plan policies that the Commission felt would not be able to be supported by this project. So beginning on page 33 and continuing to the end is essentially the discussion of those items that Staff received from the Planning Commission that we should analyze and get back to the Commission regarding findings. Commissioner Burt: So as I recall I had made and on page 36 is reference to three policies and one goal and then elsewhere I believe Commissioner Holman had added reference to policies N- 9, 11,12 and 13 on page 40 at the top. Although as I had reread the minutes earlier in our discussions I believe that we had alluded to certain ways in which those findings or excuse me those policies were not complied with by the proposal before us. I am not sure whether, I think for tonight we will want to look carefully at whether the good efforts by Staff to try to capture what our intent was is exactly what we want to have as the basis of support for the findings. Chair Cassel: I would suggest we take each finding one by one and see if that seems to reflect what we say. Would that be all right? It doesn’t look like we have any more questions directly of Staffright now so we could take a look at those. Commissioner Griffin: I am prepared to make a comment about Policy L-12. Chair Cassel: Okay. Commissioner Griffin: I understand how the applicant may feel about the word ’structures’ in the discussion of Policy L-12 however, my concern all along with this item has revolved around the adequacy of appropriate building space left to the developers of these parcels in the proposed five lot configuration hemmed in by the 52 foot no build rear setback, the large oak trees in the front and sides plus the short street up the middle of this development. It seems to me that there is just simply insufficient maneuvering room and we are going to wind up with resulting structures that in fact are going to be difficult to, I am searching for the way to say this. Commissioner Burt: I have language, Commissioner Griffin: Why don’t you pull the rabbit out of the hat? Thank you. Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Pat. City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 4 of 18 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 Butt: Let me make a stab at this and see if this captures what was the intent of the Commission and what they are comfortable with tonight. The structures resulting from the proposed lot pattern and the restrictions placed upon them by setbacks and tree preservation would be incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Chair Cassel: Bonnie, Vice Chair Packer: I think we need to remember as Commissioners that what we are being asked to well, what our decision is looking at was a denial last time. What we are looking at is a two-dimensional map. We are not looking yet at whatever structures might be built on the map. That is why I believe the legal structure that we are bound with, the types of findings that we are supposed to make either in support or denial of this kind of an application is limited to the ones that are in italic here in the Staff Report. I think Michael’s concern about that possibility of what can fit into the configuration that is being proposed by the applicant is probably more appropriately addressed in the finding three that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development or that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development. I would like to go back to a very difficult issue that we deal with a lot on this’Commission and that is what do you do when an application comes before us that is completely consistent with the underlying zoning code but for some reason it bothers us. The case here, as I understand it, everything about this subdivision is completely consistent with the R-1 development standards. Each of the lots proposed is greater than 6,000 square feet. The applicant for the sake of illustration and I think it is required in the map has to show where structures may end up being and show all the setbacks totally consistent with the R-1 zone. The lot pattern of a cul-de-sac is also totally compatible with the neighborhood. I counted several, several cul-de-sacs, Julia Way is down the street, Laguna Court is around the corner, La Mesa Way. All those three back up to the creek and they are all cul-de-sacs. So this in not an incompatible land use pattern. So what we are faced With is if this Commission and I voted for this project but if this Commission decides that it wants to deny this project the findings it makes have to be based on real facts. These are findings of facts and they have to be reasonable. So that is what we need to do tonight is make findings that are correct and that are based on facts. For example I could not say that it is a fact that the lot pattern in the neighborhood that the subdivision would create a lot pattern that was inconsistent with the neighborhood. That is not a fact. In fact it is just not true. I can’t say that creating a set of R-1 single-family homes in a single-family neighborhood is incompatible. I can’t say that is a fact, the explanation given for supporting the incompatibility with Policy L-6. I can go on and on and when we get to the issues about riparian corridor I don’t find that the explanation tracks. So that is what we need to look at. If the rest of the Commissioners can find facts to support the findings then we are okay but if not then we are ¯ dealing with a situation here that is in compliance with the R-1 zone. Chair Cassel: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate there are differing feelings and opinions on the Commission but I think what we need to do is get some direction from Staff. If the Commissioners feel that City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 5 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 the physical configuration of these lots knowing that at some point in time they are going to come back with structures that are going to try fit on these lots as constrained as they are don’t we have the ability to think forwardly with regard to just what structures are going to be on those lots? I am looking to you, Dan, for some input on this. Mr. Sodergren: I am a little hesitant right now to get into the substantive details again because this isn’t a reconsideration of the item. I liken this almost to approval of minutes. The findings have already been made when you took action on this last time. This is simply clerical in nature to conform to your action last time. That is why I am a little hesitant to revisit the substantive items just because I think may confuse things. Commissioner Bialson: I am not asking you to revisit but I am saying as we attempt to phrase our findings can we not cite to the physical configuration of the lot? 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Sodergren: Oh, yes, yes. Commissioner Bialson: Okay. So I think what we need to do then is recognize that perhaps Staff has been overly enthusiastic in the way they have expressed some of these issues with regard to the policies that we have here and go back to the fact that it seems like four of us today felt that the physical configuration was not suitable and maybe we need to focus the findings on that. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burr: I would like to respond to Commissioner Packer’s comments just to set the record straight, First, as we reviewed this the first time it is quite clear that when we have a zoning map change it is a requirement that it be in compliance, excuse me a major subdivision, it is a requirement that it be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff had cited certain Comprehensive Plan policies, we added additional considerations and I don’t think it is correct as a matter or record that our consideration of these things was based upon mere factual considerations. The interpretation of compliance with Comprehensive Plan is one, a legislative matter and a matter of judgment. Second, as a point of order as the City Attorney has just clarified Commissioner Packer’s effort to reconsider the actions of the Commission of the last hearing as I understand it is not in order tonight and not to be discussed as part of what we are doing this evening. Is that correct? Chair Cassel: We are not reconsidering whether this is a denial. It doesn’t say you can’t express why you feel that these do not reflect what was said at the previous heating. So we are going to have to be a little careful in terms of expressing this in those terms. Is there someone else who wishes to speak? Well, I think we don’t want to tit and t~t over whether this is fact or not f~ct. I think that will come forward as other people look at this. I would like to make a comment however that the way this is worded, the way this policy has been worded by Staff indicates that the lotting pattern in this neighborhood is a lotting pattern in which the lots are rectangular and facing the street. That is not the lotting pattern in this City of Palo Alto; P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 6 of 18 i 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 neighborhood. So I think if people wish to use this wording they need to change the wording to mean what they were trying to say. The lotting pattern here is a pattern of a lot of flag lots as well as a lot of cul-de-sacs and there are many irregular shaped lots. I think if you proceed with that what you are going to say i; we can’t have any more cul-de-sacs because the lots are all going to be at odd angles and that is not going to be allowed in any neighborhood where the primary street that the cul-de-sac is off is rectangular lots. So I think the wording here one, didn’t reflect what was being said at the meeting and two, is going to cause major disaster problems down the way when someone else wants to come in and produce a cul-de-sac. The other issUe is that Policy L-5 is quoted in the beginning of that phrase and it doesn’t go all the way through to the end of the policy or to any of the programs. This particular policy deals with the way the homes are being developed and how we can preserve homes and how to establish pedestrian oriented design guidelines, which we did discuss as to how that would be met with this road. L-12, I am sorry, L-12 is preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with neighborhood and adjacent structures: Guidelines to encourage certain design patterns and are provided to all interested developers. Guidelines are used in approving Home Improvement Exceptions and these are in terms of talking of we are anticipating we would have something like the IR guidelines, it talks about pedestrian oriented ones, it talks about compatible with neighborhood character when using the zoning and Home Improvement Exception process. Then we were talking about this particular finding, Policy L-6, where possible avoid abrupt changes in the scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. This is talking about going from commercial to .... residential or going from one residential zone to another residential zone and not within an R-1 district but rather going from an R-1 to a different size in the R-1 district or another kind of residential district. " I think there are several others in here. As you read through these policies they don’t seem to match it but I am very concerned that what has been said is not reflected in these findings. What we said was not reflected in these findings. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I tend to agree that what Staffhas come up with does not reflect the Minutes and what we need to do is go back to what we did say. I think that to me looking at this is starting off with the, site is not physically suitable for the type of development due the physical configuration of the lots. Then go into why we feel that is the case and perhaps we then say after that that it is foreseeable that the homes that would have to fit within the constraints that are imposed on these lots would not be suitable to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods pursuant to Policy L-12. I do agree, with you that L-6 has nothing to do with this whatsoever. So maybe we just come down to two findings and nothing more. Now we can sit here and do that tonight and I am perfectly happy to do that or we can ask Staff to go back and limit themselves in their presentation. I am open to whatever my fellow Commissioners feel. Pat. City of Palo Alto, P& TC October 27, 2004 Page 7 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burr: I think Dan has clarified that that would be a different procedural matter. These are the findings that we used and the question is whether the language supporting those findings that we in our Minutes cited these policies. Unless we want to reopen the hearing at a later date the issue before us tonight is the justification for these findings as opposed to reconsideration of the findings. If we want to go to a reconsideration of the findings I think we have to go to a whole other hearing, is that correct, Dan? Mr. Sodergren: Under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in order for there to be a motion for reconsideration it has to be on the same night, the same meeting, that you took action on the item. So that would preclude a reconsideration of this item. Vice Chair Packer: But Dan, isn’t this a continuation of that meeting? Does it have to be physically in the same day? Mr. Sodergren: It is not a reconsideration, it is not a continuance of the item because the hearing was closed and it wasn’t continued for Brown Act purposes. It would have been possible to continue the item and!or the public heating but that is not what occurred. So this is basically a new item. Chair Cassel: What I am going to do despite all the pages I prepared the other way we are going to stay with what is it on this deriial that actually we said the other night. So what I am hearing now on one is people are saying, no we did not say that these were rectangular lots and I hear some suggestions or maybe I could hear a motion indicating what we actually did say would be helpful. Go ahead, Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I think what Staff did and I think they tried the best they could is looked at some policies that were brought up as various Commissioners brought up various policies. I don’t know that there was ever a vote to see whether there was agreement amongst the Commissioners whether a particular policy was one that the application was not in compliance with. I just want to clarify something so that it isn’t misconstrued what I said. I agree that a project has to be in compliance with the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies but in order to show that it is not in compliance you have to have the facts to show that. You can’t say well, maybe it could not be in compliance, You have to say it is x, y and z and therefore it doesn’t fulfill this Comprehensive Plan policy. I wasn’t saying that it didn’t have to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The point is that we threw out or collectively people mentioned different policies and said well, maybe it doesn’t comply with this but we are not really sure and we didn’t really relate the facts of the matter to the particular policy we were afraid that the project may not be incompliance with and that is why we are in this pickle, I think Annette’s suggestion for us to focus on whether the proposed layout of the five lots would create a situation that would make it physically incompatible may be the only to go at this point. Because the other issues we don’t really have the facts to support those other Comprehensive Plan policies that this project is allegedly not in compliance with. City of Palo Alto; P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 8 of "18 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 Chair Cassel: Thank you, Bonnie. Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Again, if I understand what you have been telling us we are obliged to stay with these different policies every one of them. This is not a menu from which we can select the most appropriate ones. We have to stick with the ones that Staff has selected here for us, is that what you are saying? Mr. Sodergren: Correct, unless for example there was a typographical error. Chair Cassel: Could they not just say that they don’t agree with this reason for denial or they didn’t feel it was an adequate reflection and state what they would like it to say? Would that not be just as easy? Mr. Sodergren: Well, right as long as it reflects the Minutes. Chair Cassel: Okay. Does that make sense? So you can either vote that these reflect the Minutes or you could reword it to reflect what you think the minutes say. Commissioner Griffin: So it is time to wordsmith basically if we don’t like the text that is supplied here under each one of these items. Commissioner Burt: Point of order. Chair Cassel: Go ahead. Commissioner Burr: I think we are confusing some issues here. What is before us is not a question of whether these findings reflect the Minutes. I think that is unambiguous. Excuse me, that these particular Comprehensive Plan policies were referenced in the Motion. Chair Cassel: That is correct. Commissioner Burt: Okay, so then what we are discussing is the justification for why these policies were not met by the proposed project. So that is the narrative after the citation of the Comp Plan policy that was in Commissioner Griffin’s motion. That is what before us under discussion unless someone can find factually in the record of the Minutes where that was not part of the motion. .... Chair Cassel: Those were referenced in the motion. What was not referenced in the motion was the details of how it was written. So the question is do those details that came in adequately reflect what you put in the motion. Commissioner Burt: Yes, but that is not what I heard said just a moment ago. I want to make sure that we are zeroing in on the correct thing, Chair Cassel: We are zeroing in on making sure that you have in this denial is what you said in the meeting. Yes? City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 9 of 18 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 Bialson: Are you saying that all we can do is go to these policies? I thought we had general discussion and reference in our motion to again the physical configuration issues. Chair Cassel: I would presume I would refer that back to Dan. We are wordsmithing the exact details of it. We proposed a denial, we had in the Minutes the reasons for that denial, there were policies thrown out and were discussed but I would presume that these could be reworded as long as they reflected the Minutes. Mr. Sodergren: I think it is fine to clarify as long as it is not something new. If you want to clarify something that may have been unclear in the Minutes. Commissioner Bialson: So when there is a reference in there that the site is not physically suitable for that type of development it seems what you are asking for is some specifics that address that physically suitable orwhat I am using now physical configuration. Okay, thank you. I would recommend that the Commission focus on trying to fill in the details, staying as broadly within that rather than arguing about whether a policy because it references structures does or does not have import here. I think that should be put as item number two of our findings but item number one, the most impactful, which is the physical unsuitability of this, should be number one. Commissioner Burt: I have been looking over our Minutes more and the original motion that Commissioner Griffin made had one aspect and then he supported subsequently the reference to the specific Comp Plan policies. His original Motion said that he would move that this project be accepted with a maximum number of lots to be developed capped at four, that all four of the lots would be subject to an ARB review. I was trying to follow, I wanted to make sure I didn’t or I may have in fact gotten that confused because then we had a Substitute Motion that failed. Then we returned to that original Motion and he subsequently accepted amendments to that Motion by Commissioner Holman and myself that made specific citation to Comp Plan policies and goals. Is that the consensus of the Commission as to what did occur? Then maybe we can move forward. Chair Cassel: That is what occurred and then Staff filled that out and the question is whether they filled it out in a way that reflects what we intended. You are talking about four units they are talking about reducing it to three. I do not have any recollection of getting rid of a cul-de-sac and yet the items in here talk completely about that. Commissioner Burt: Phyllis, I am in agreement with you on that but I wanted to start with a sound framework because also when you went after I had tried to clarify that Commissioner Packer’s argument was out of order on arguing to eliminate one of the policies that we had referenced you subsequently did the same thing. We seem to be going around in circles. I want to make sure... Chair Cassel: I trying to go back and make sure we are on the same pattern. City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 2-7, 2004 Page 10 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: So it is as succinct as I think I just made it. Chair Cassel: Now let’s try making these changes that people seem to agree that some need to be made. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think going back and looking at the Minutes, page 34, in which Michael made his Motion. He began to make it on page 33. I seconded it and then he went on to explain it. Can we use the explanation, the plenty of issues that we developed this evening having to do riparian corridors, traffic issues, tree preservation areas and setbacks, etc. Then I come in with a second saying what I understand the Motion to be. Can we say that that’s the Motion and that the findings then just have to support those two? Because that is even before we started citing to specific Comp Plan items. I am just asking. Commissioner Burt: Annette, I saw elsewhere where it was specifically accepted as part of the motion. Do you want me to see which pages? There were two locations, bottom of page 36 I had made reference to specific policies and on lines 34 and 35 on page 38 is where Commissioner Griffin accepted that reference. Then subsequently Commissioner Bialson: But I didn’t as a seconder if you go down to the bottom of that. Commissioner Burt: I see on lines 44 through 46. Commissioner Bialson: I did not accept it as part of the Motion. Commissioner Burt: Well, that is a good point. Subsequently after Commissioner Griffin said he would accept those additional points the seconder said she would rather not accept it. What is confusing is then subsequently on page 40 at the top when Commissioner Holman requested inclusion of Policies L-9, 11, 12 and 13 Commissioner Griffin thought that had been captured by my previous recommendation implying that that had been accepted, I clarified no mine were limited to other policies. Then Commissioner Griffin said that he would accept it and Commissioner Bialson said it would be fine with you and that fine with you seemed to be referring back to both Commissioner Holman’s recommendations as well as my own. So the record is a little bit confusing. When you had first said that you were reluctant to accept my recommendations and then I offered a clarification as to why I had chosen minimize and not eliminate there wasn’t a response until Commissioner Griffin then indicated that he had accepted them and you accepted that characterization along with Commissioner Holman’s addition. Commissioner Bialson: Then I later stated is it going to come back to us so we can clean it all up because at that point I was getting really confused. Commissioner Burt: So we have a little bit of ambiguity there. Having laid the ambiguity on the table, Dan do you have any other comments and guidance for us? Mr: Sodergren: We; Steven and I sat down and went through the same exercise. This is what we came up with and again these are the types of issues we need clarification on if that was truly the City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 11 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 intent of the Motion, truly the intent of the amending motions and the seconds and whatnot. So you do have the discretion to clarify those items and what is part of the Motion. Chair Cassel: Okay, shall we go back to trying to clarify what was the intent of these motions and what was the intent that we spoke to in our Minutes? Commissioner Griffin: All I can do is reiterate what is already on the record. I thought the items on page 34 both my comments as well as those of my seconder spoke most clearly to the aspects of this that were most meaningful to me in an attempt to gain consensus I did accept additional items that were suggested by colleagues. So all I am doing is just repeating what Pat just got through saying, Chair Cassel: Okay, does that mean then that these explanations that they gave for preserving the character means that the.subdivision would create lot patterns in the neighborhood that are not consistent with the existing pattern and the predominant pattern of the lots. Is that what you meant or did you mean something else? Commissioner Griffin: Again, I had much more concem about the fact that the proposed arrangement of lots yielded building sites that were destine to yield inappropriate structures and how else to say that I know not. Chair Cassel: Karen. Commissioner Holman: In regards to that particular one I have on my copy crossed out where it starts under that number three about midway down, in addition a subdivision would create a lot pattem that is not consistent with existing pattern. I had crossed that part out because I don’t think that was part of our discussion. So the first part of it I think is consistent with the discussion in our Minutes but the second part I think is not. Chair Cassel: I don’t understand where you started the subdivision would create a lot pattern in the neighborhoodthat was not consistent is or is not? Commissioner Holman: Is not. So if you are looking at number three that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. Commissioner Burt: Wait, we are still on two though. Commissioner Holman: I am sorry, I thought Commissioner Bialson had just referenced number three, which is that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. Is that not what you had referenced? Chair Cassel: That item gets repeated in different places. Commissioner Burt: So if I might, it is correct that a similar argument is made in support of item number three, So we have a question of whether we would find it suitable to have language that would support item two, Policy L-12. I had tossed out some language earlier it seems that we City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 12 of 18 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 would have the choice of either coming up with language that we are comfortable with in support of L-12 or saying that we do not with to include that policy reference. If it is all right I will restate the prospective language and we could have the choice of those two options. Michael wants to say something. Commissioner Griffin: Well I had a question. I thought we did not have the ability to knock off, to delete, some of these references that we had to accept them all. Mr. Sodergren: One thing that we had to do in drafting the Record of Land Use Action is several of these were policy references and we plugged those into the appropriate findings. If you think as part of the Motion your intent was not to put it in finding two but perhaps another finding that should be brought up. Commissioner Burt: So ifI understand that correctly we have an option to reference Policy L’12 under another finding if we think that is a more appropriate use of it. Mr. Sodergren: Correct. Commissioner Griffin: But we have to stick with L-12. I mean L-12 is not going to go away but we can put new findings under it. Chair Cassel: Wait a minute. Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I am totally confused. The findings, the words that are in italic, are the government code required categories of findings that we need to make. That is what is in italic. So we were looking and we identified, we collectively not me, certain policies that we thought this project did not comply with. It could be now in our discussion oh no we didn’t really mean to say that it didn’t comply with L-12 or doesn’t comply with another policy. In other words, we tonight we should identify those Comprehensive policies that most influenced our reasons for denial back on September 8. I don’t know ilL-12 was really mentioned I can’t find it. There were a lot of riparian corridor type N policies that we were concerned about. Mr. Sodergren: Let me just explain a little bit. If in the Minutes there was a reference to a certain policy and you based a finding on that but you didn’t specifically reference which finding you wanted it under ! think we put it in multiple findings. But we put that as a reasoning as far as where it best fit in the findings. Again, if it was an intent of the Motion that Policy L-12 only was intended for one of the findings and not say two or three then that should be brought up tonight. Commissioner Griffin: So if you would like to read your suggested text for L-12 I for one am interested in it. Commissioner Burt: Okay. So we have one question. Do we believe that L-12 is appropriate to include in support of denial of finding number two. Then second a second question is what language we would want to use that would specifically support inclusion of L-12 at that location. So the language I would suggest would be that the structures resulting from the proposed lot City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 13 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 pattem combined with the restrictions placed upon them due to setback, tree preservation and riparian corridor adjacency would cause those structures to be incompatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Chair Cassel: Pat, you would like that to take the place ofwh~tt is now underneath Policy L-12? Commissioner Butt: Correct. Chair Cassel: Would you like to make a motion? MOTION Commissioner Burr: Yes. I would like to put that language in a motion. SECOND Commissioner Griffin: I would second that. MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-1, Commissioners Packer and Cassel voting no and Commissioner Lippert absent) Chair Cassel: Okay. Is there any other discussion for that item? Other than the fact that I don’t think it reflects L-12 if there is no other discussion I will call a vote on that. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nays) That passes four to two with Commissioners Holman, Bialson, Griffin and Burt voting yes and Commissioners Packer and Cassel voting no. Okay, now is Policy L-6 what you feel that you meant by that policy under item number two? I don’t remember any of us gaying this particular thing at that meeting. I have been through the Minutes and I cannot find anywhere where we said you couldn’t put five lots in the spot. And in. a spot we reworded Policy L-12. Commissioner Burt: Phyllis? Chair Cassel: But I don’t see that. Pat, .... Commissioner Burt: In fact as we spoke about earlier the main motion specifically referenced four lots maximum and not three lots maximum. I do not believe there was any reference to elimination of cul-de-sacs. I would like to state for the record also something that I neglected to clarify at the time, Chair Cassel had stated that she did not believe it was appropriate for us to deny this project on the basis of wanting to prohibit two story homes in this neighborhood. That was unfortunately subsequently quoted in the press.. There is nothing in the record that supports any Commissioner, nothing that I could find in the record that supports any Commissioner, saying that they were denying this project on the basis of wanting to restrict the construction of two story homes, I think it is very important that Council understand that that is definitely not any of the basis for our denial. I think it is incumbent on Commissioners to be careful in how they characterize the positions of ...... City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 14 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: All of us make statements and try things and I think that is not the intent of the meeting tonight. I think we should try hard to keep this on the agenda that is here. Commissioner Burt: The reason for stating it is because .... Chair Cassel: I don’t think we need to chastise each other in the public meeting. Thank you. Okay, so what do you want to do with the information that you just gave us in terms of the four lots and the cul-de-sac? .... Commissioner Burr: A question I have is do we need to have supportive narrative or can we simply cite the Comp Plan policy? Do we have to have that narrative? Can we simply cite Policy L-6 and say that this is an abrupt change? Mr. Sodergren: The purpose of having the narrative is simply to make it easier for the Council to digest what you did at the meeting. So legally your finding and reasoning is already in the minutes. This is to try to make it easier for the Council to figure out what you did at the meeting. Soit is helpful to have that narrative. Commissioner Burr: Then I will take a stab unless anybody else wants to. Okay. Karen? Commissioner Holman: Just a comment not specific language, just a comment. I think two things actually. We didn’t get included in our packet the original Staff substantiating information and I am not sure ilL-6 came from the Staff recommendation or not, if that is what originated or not. That is just a comment but to maybe clarify or not. The other is I think the reason that we were finding the density issue was an issue was because of potential traffic and parking issues. That was the density change issue not having to do with a change of zoning. Vice Chair Packer: That was the part of the motion that you wanted in and Annette would not accept. So that was not a part of our Motion, Karen that was a concern of one Commissioner or maybe two Commissioners but it wasn’t part of the motion. Chair Cassel: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let’s ask Annette what she meant by her part of the Motion. Commissioner Bialson: No, I referenced traffic. I specificallyreferenced traffic as a reason for my support of the Motion. Vice Chair Packer: I am sorry. I thought it was the parking part that you were concerned about. Chair Cassel: Okay. So you have referenced that, Have you any information that would verify that that would make such a difference? Are there any numbers? Is there anything in the EIR? Is there anything anywhere that would indicate that there is more traffic on that road? That is the question. Are you going to give Staff some or are just going to make that general or are you going to give any other references? City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 2-7, 2004 Page 15 of 18 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 Holman: I think general is where we are. It is our belief that. I mean none of these findings reference specific numbers or a substantiatable statistics. Vice Chair Packer: That is the problem with the findings is that we just throw out concepts and if we don’t have fact to support our concepts then these are not reasonable findings. It is not really helping the Council make a decision if we send up findings that are not based on reason and on fact. Commissioner Holman: We would have to have a traffic study to come up with that. Chair Cassel: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I think that we should continue this motion. Chair Cassel: Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Bialson: I think we are breaking ground that we don’t want to necessarily want to break at this point. I think that we can go back and wordsmith our findings and then propose them and submit them to one another and I think the Commission would be best served that way. So how would we proceed on that basis is my question. Chair Cassel: Well, I need some motion to indicate how you think this was handled. I raised some questions in terms of content and Pat has picked up a couple of those. Commissioner Bialson: I am saying that we stop the hearing at this point and bring it back to us at some point in the future when we have a little less emotion around it to discuss. I think that is one of the alternatives open to us now, is it not, Dan? Mr. Sodergren: Yes, you can continue the item. Chair Cassel: But I think you also need to give Staff some idea of if there are any clarifications or do you think what they said reflects the meeting. If you don’t make those clarifications he is not going to be able to reword them in a way that is going to reflect the meaning of the group. Commissioner Bialson: I think that instead of tossing it back to Staff at this point it should come back to the Commissioners to perhaps wordsmith this. Staff has made a wonderful effort here but I don’t think you have captured the essence of what our findings were about. So can we do that? Can we take it back into our own laps as it were and say that we will look at this? I appreciate Pat’s efforts to try to wordsmith it here but I also findthat we are having some sidebar comments and some conflict, which is not very healthy for the Commission. Chair Cassel: Is it possible for the Commission to have a subcommittee of people who voted for this to work on the wording of this? Does that meet the requirements? Mr. Sodergren: You may do that. That is a possibility. City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 16 of 18 1 2 Chair Cassel: Would that be of interest to the Commission if two members who had voted in 3 favor of this item? 4 5 Commissioner Bialson: We can have two members. I believe this was a five to two vote so 6 maybe we should have three members. I would suggest that perhaps Michael, I and Pat whether 7 it be a meeting or something wordsmith this and look at the Minutes, look at the Staff report that 8 was earlier given as Karen cited it may have said some things. I think the Minutes here seem to 9 indicate that I was referring to certain items in the Staff report. I think we can then bring it back 10 and hopefully at that point have the full five of us who voted for the Motion there to approve or 11 disapprove those findings. 12 13 Chair Cassel: Is it okay if they have three members? Do we run into any other problems with 14 too many of us in one room at one time? That is my only concern. 15 16 Mr. Sodergren: Just as long as it is less than a quorum of the Commission so I think that’s fine. 17 18 Chair Cassel: Would that be of interest to the rest of the CommissiOn? Annette has suggested a 19 committee, is that okay with everyone? Annette and Michael and Pat get together come up with 20 a draft which reflects the Minutes and bring that back. Can that be brought back to a date certain 21 on November 10th? 22 23 Ms. Grote: We do have available agenda space if you would like to bring it back to a date 24 certain November 10. 25 26 Chair Cassel: 27 28 MOTION 29 30 31 32 Can I have a motion? Commissioner Bialson: I would move that the Commission appoint a subcommittee of Pat, myself and Michael to set forth the exact language of the findings as we recall them from the Minutes, submit them back to the Commission for the Commission’s comments and adoption 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 and ratification. Do I have a second? Chair Cassel: Do I have a second? SECOND Commissioner Holman: Sure. MOTION PASSED (6-0-01, Commissioner Lippert absent) Chair Cassel: Is there any other discussion? And it is okay with you? Then all those in favor please say aye. (ayes) That is to come back to a date certain on November 10 and the report will be to us with those recommendations. I want to state for the record the motion was that we City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 17 of 18 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 would have a subcommittee, which will review the minutes and present a summary of, Annette will you reword it? I’m sorry. Commissioner Bialson: We will review the minutes and draft the findings and submit them to the Commission for their review and comment and hopefully adoption. Chair Cassel: It was a six - zero vote with Commissioner Lippert absent. We are going to have Michael gone at that time but we will still have a majority vote to reflect that vote. Thank you very much. Commissioner Griffin: Can I give my proxy vote to anyone? Chair Cassel: No unfortunately we can’t give a proxy vote. Pat, would you like to say something? Commissioner Burt: I just want to make sure with Dan if we are only going to have six member Commission at that time and for that matter with Commissioner Lippert not here tonight is there any Brown Act problem with a three member subcommittee? Mr. Sodergren: No, no it will take a majority 0fthose present to do it and it is just a confirming action. Chair Cassel: All fight then that will be the end of this item tonight. It will come back to us on November 10 as a continued item with a date certain. City of Palo Alto, P&TC October 27, 2004 Page 18 of 18 Attachmem H PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Steven Turner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Senior Planner Environment AGENDA DATE: November 10, 2004 SUBJECT:797 & 807 Matadero Avenue [03-SUB-01, 03-EIA-03]: Record of Land Use Action denying an application by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision.. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential (R-l). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the Record of Land Use Action prepared by the P&TC Sub-Committee members, Bialson, Burr and Griffin, denying the application for a five-lot subdivision (Attachment A) and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Planning staff recommendation for approvaI of the application will be forwarded to the City Council along with the P&TC recommendation. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION: Background On September 8, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed an application by Mark Migdal requesting a five-lot subdivision on Matadero Avenue in the Single-Family Residence district. Commissioner Griffin moved to recommend denial of the request, which was seconded by Commissioner Bialson. The motion passed (5-2-0-0, Commissioners Cassel and Packer opposed) and the Commission directed staff to submit a revised Record of Land Use Action with findings that would reflect a decision to recommend denial of the project. On October 27, 2004, the Commission reviewed a draft Record of Land Use Action provided by staff that incorporated the September 8, 2004 discussion and motion to deny the application. The Commission moved to continue the heating to November 10, 2004 City of Palo Alto Page 1 so that the Planning and Transportation Commission subcommittee could further refine the findings for denial. DISCUSSION: The Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) includes the modifications made by the Commission and the subcommittee and includes the recommended findings for denial. ATTACHMENTS: ...... A.Record of Land Use Action B.Verbatim Minutes, October 27~ 2004. COURTESY COPIES: Owen Byrd Mark Migdal Doug Moran Maryanne Welton Dorothy Bender Prepared by:Steven Turner Senior Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 2 ACTION NO. 2004- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE: TENTATIVE MAP 03-SUB-01 (MARK MIGDAL, APPLICANT) At its meeting on , the City Council of the City of Palo Alto denied the Tentative Map for the development of a five- lot subdivision project, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION I. Background. A. On April 9, 2003, Mark Migdal applied for a Tentative Map for the development of a five-lot subdivision project (~The Project"). B. The project site is comprised of three lots (APN No. 137-10-132, 137-10-131, and 137-15-038) of approximately i.i acres. The site contains.two residential structures used as rental units and other accessory buildings. Numerous oak tree are located on the lots, including a significant oak grove in the rear half of the lots. The lots abut Matadero Creek on the east side. A 32-foot Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, measured from the rear property line of the lots, is located along Matadero Creek. Single- family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lots to the north, south and west. Barron Park Elementary School is located on the opposite side of Matadero Creek. C. The Tentative Map indicates the location of a cul-de- sac street that would be dedicated to the City and the location of property lines that define the extent of the five lots to be created as a part ’of this subdivision. The map also indicates the location of a 32-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District easement measured from the rear property lines,~ the location of a public right of way easement along Matadero Avenue, and a 10-foot wide public utility easement between Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would contain a storm drain system leading to an outfall on Matadero Creek. D. The oak trees on the site are protected under the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). This would limit a future owners ability to construct structures close to the protected species’. 1 SECTION 2. Tentative Map Denial Findinqs. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended denial on September 8, 2004, based upon the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474; PAMC Section 21.12.090) : I. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451; and 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of devel opmen t : The proposed lots would contain numerous protected species of oak trees that are located in such a way that would restrict development on four of the five single-family lots. These restrictions would limit the design options for the homes that would otherwise be available to mitigate privacy, massing or streetscape issues identified through the Individual Review process. In addition, the immediate proximity of such a dense proposed five lot subdivision to the riparia,n corridor would result in unacceptable impacts. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development : The subdivision would create five single-family lots, which would result in greater than acceptable (i) Floor Area Ratioh (FAR) and/or lot coverage, (2) street parking with resultant negative impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety, and (3) impervious surface on the site.(Should we state the reasons why FAR and coverage would be not acceptable i.e. not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.) 4 That’ the design or improvement ~ of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is not consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: ¯Policy L-12: "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjaceht structures." ¯Policy L-6: "Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in sca’le and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities." The subdivision would create a lot pattern that will severely impact the adequacy of buildable space remaining to whoever constructs the structures on the lots, resulting in new structures 2 incompatible with adjacent homes. The location of the riparian corridor, the No-Build zone, rear and side-yard setbacks, plus the distribution of on-site protected trees would yield building lots of such a nature that any such lot will be unable to adequately accommodate the housing density sought by the proposed five lot subdivision corridors." Policy N-If: "Preserve the integrity of riparian The subdivision would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively impact this area. ¯Policy N-13: "Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream sedimentation and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks." Construction of the proposed five lot subdivision would result in excessive and more than acceptable encroachment on the creek bank to an extent that would affect the ability of the riparian corridor to support the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat of the area. (Specify the amount of encroachment) ¯Policy N-9: "Avoid fencing, piping and channelization of creeks when flood control and public safety can be achieved through measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the creek." The subdivision would require the installation of a storm drain outfall through the riparian corridor to Matadero Creek. The construction and storm drain outfall could have a negative affect on the immediate environment of the creek, in that construction activities could increase erosion, bank instability and loss of habitat. (Would a smaller project still require the construction of the storm drain outfall?If this wouldn’t be an acceptable finding and should be deleted.) ¯Policy N-12: "Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation of native plants and the replacement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants." Creation of a five lot subdivision and construction activities within and adjacent to the riparian corridor results in the lots being pushed too close (give specific setback from the creek) to the~creek and therefore an unacceptable impact on creek side native vegetation and/or the decline in health of the creek habitat. Removal of non-nativeplant species is not proposed as a component of the subdivision. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habi tat : The five lot subdivision is inconsistent with goal N-2 and policy N-12 in that]~would introduce a dense cluster of single-family lots adjacent to the riparian corridor of Matadero Creek, which contains protected species of trees and sensitive wildlife habitat. Construction activities within the riparian corridor, including installation of a storm drain outfall to Matadero Creek, could negatively imPact this area. SECTION 3. Tentative Map Denied. The City Council adopts the findings and recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and denies the Tentative Map. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney 4 Attachment I EXCERPT FROM THE PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES ON NOVEMBER 10, 2004 UNFINISHED B USINESS : Other Items: 797 & 807 Matadero Avenue |03-SUB-01~ 03-EIA-03]*: Review of the Record of Land Use Action denying an application by Mark Migdal of the Two Towers Group for a Tentative Map to create a five-lot subdivision. The recommendation for denial would be forwarded to the City Council for the final decision. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone District: Single Family Residential (R- 1). SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/plannin~-transportation- meetings/3924.pdf Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: I did just want to note that the revised ordinance in front of you at places is the ordinance that incorporates the findings as discussed by the subcommittee. The one that was attached to your Staff Report did have some blanks in it we have attached the correct ordinance which reflects those comments made by the subcommittee and that is available at the back of the room for the public as well. Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attomeys: I just wanted to answer one other question that has come up as whether or not the Commission has to make all the findings. The way the Map Act reads and the way our subdivision ordinance reads you only really need to make one of the findings because they are phrased in the negative. So I just wanted to clarify that. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burr! So Dan, when you say make the findings you mean we only have essentially not be able to support a single finding. Mr. Sodergren: Correct. Right. Chair Cassel: We have one person who wishes to speak to this item. The public heating is closed but as we are heating it this evening under the Brown Act we must allow someone to speak if they wish to speak to it. It is not part of the public heating. I have a card from Owen Byrd and I will give you three minutes to talk. Page 1 of 10 Mr. Owen Bgrd, 418 Florence Street, Palo Alto: Good evening I am Owen Byrd appearing for the applicant. I only want to speak this -evening to changes and new information since the last heating. Number one the revised document that was circulated by Staffwith the cover memo of November 9 contains formatting errors in that it does not fully identify all the changes that the Commission made. For example the ordering of the different findings has been changed. Number two used to be number three, three used to be four, four used to be two. I am not sure of the significance of that and why the Comp Plan policies were moved down the list and perhaps that means that you find them less important. Secondly, under number two all of the three sentences are underlined and yet the first two sentences have been left unchanged: It is the third sentence that you added and I believe that that could mislead the public and anyone reviewing the record. That third sentence which has been added which says, "In addition the immediate proximity of dense subdivision to the riparian corridor would result in unacceptable impacts." remains imprecise and it inadequate for making the findings because it is says unacceptable impactsbut it doesn’t define what they are. Also, in your now number four about the Comp Plan policies under Policy N-13 you have added a reference to the setback lines at 50 feet to Matadero Creek and you added that same reference under Policy N-12. I should think that that reference proves that the subdivision should be approved because it complies with the ordinance. The ordinance requirement is 50 feet and what you are stating is compliance and therefore a basis for approval not a basis for denial. Also, under Policy L-6 you added two new sentences of text which are not underlined here and therefore are not identified as changes to the findings which I continue to assert are not adequate for making the findings for denial because the supposed adequacy of the building space remaining to whoever builds houses on the lots is the risk bourn by the owner/applicants of those lots under the Individual Review design process not an ~ adequate basis for denying the subdivision. Other than that I continue to encourage the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction and discretion because this is Unfinished Business to reopen the Map itself and to approve the ’Map or in the alternative to make findings for denial that are the legally required findings that contain adequate precision and detail to justify the findings for denial. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Owen. I will bring this back to the Commission. I would like to have a report from the committee. Is Pat going to do this? Commissioner Burt: Yes, I would be glad to do so. Before commencing with the . committee report does Staffhave any responses or clarification to any of the comments from the speaker? Ms. Grote: We will review his comments and we are not aware that there were any changes to the order of the Comprehensive Plan policies so we will look into that and his other comments. Thanks. Page 2 of 10 MOTION Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Well, the committee of Commissioner Bialson, Griffin and myself met about a week and a half ago and reviewed the findings of the majority of the Commission and worked out language that we felt articulated those findings. Commissioner Bialson acted as our lead person and subsequently has conferred with Staff and come up with the verbiage that we have before us this evening. I think that what I would like to offer is I will make a motion to approve the findings and the supporting rationale for the findings. Then with a couple of corrections on typos that I would like to just have addressed outside of the motion. Chair Cassel: Is there a second? SECOND Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chair Cassel: Would you like to express your other concems? Commissioner Burt: You mean the typos? Chair Cassel: That or any other support or anything else you would like. Commissioner Burt: Briefly I will just go through just a couple very minor issues. On the second finding it refers to. numerous protected species of oak trees and I am not sure that we have multiple species. We may have a number of different specimens. I would just suggest we delete species of and just say numerous protected oak trees. Then down at Finding 4 following Policy L-6 the description says that the subdivision would create a lot pattern that will severely impact and I would just change that to ’would.’ Back on Finding 3 there is a typo where it says floor area ration that would be ratio. Finally, under Finding 5 there appears to be a deletion on the second line of the rationale where it says, the five lot subdivision is inconsistent with Goal N-2 and Policy N-12 in that I presume it meant to say ’it would.’ Chair Cassel: Pardon me, I don,t have a finding number five. I have my pages out of order? Sorry. I gotit~ Thank you. Commissioner Butt: So having said that and none of those are of significant consequence I would just like to say that .... Chair Cassel: That’s okay with you, Annette? Thank yore Commissioner Burt: I would just like to say that the subcommittee believed that the findings in substance reflected the basis for denial that was articulated by the Commission at the previous hearing, that if there are any changes in the underlining and Page 3 of 10 notations that are appropriate per Mr. Byrd’s comments then I would like to include ’ within the motion that those be corrected by Staff prior to submittal to Council. Is that acceptable by the seconder? Commissioner Bialson: Yes it is. It was my understanding these underlinings were an attempt to show us what had been changed by Staffthat they would not be part of the findings by this Commission. Ms. Grote: I believe the underlining is what was changed by the subcommittee. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t think that is right. This rear yard setback lines at approximately 50 feet was not the subcommittee. Ms. Grote: There were three areas that were a result of more detail being requested by the Director so we inserted that 50-foot dimensions. There are those three areas, the two that refer to the 50 feet and thenthere is a third one that we can identify however most of the underlying ’is the result of the subcommittee’s additions and changes. Commissioner Bialson: We are not going to have underlinings in our final record are we? Ms. Grote: That is correct. You will not have underlining in the final record. Commissioner Bialson: I think that answers what you asked, Pat. Commissioner Burt: Great. So on that basis I would like to open it to the Commission for their comments and questions on whether the subcommittee’s language with the additional input from Staff that we appreciate adequately reflects the sense of the Commission. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Pat. Annette, you are next. Commissioner Bialson: Obviously I am going to support this motion. The intent of the subcommittee was to better frame in the words of the Commission the findings that we thought would be appropriate in order to convey the sense that we felt we were shoehorning these five parcels into this location and that that was causing all sorts of unacceptable consequences. It was the phrasing of those that was difficult to convey and I appreciated how Staff attempted to capture our thoughts but we felt that we needed to bring it back to the Commission to articulate those thoughts better. My concern and I only have one is with the language that Staff has put in that it not be thought that the sole reason why something is unacceptable is because of the rear yard setback lines being at approximately 50 feet. I would hope that as Staff reads that and as the Commission reads that if we need to modify that language so that it doesn’t look like the sole reason for our lack of approval I would be interested in hearing the results. Chair Cassel: Karen. Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Holman: I have a question for Commissioner Burr who recommended the change in number two which is the proposed lots would contain numerous protected .... species of oak trees, I believe there were more than just oak trees there so I am actually more comfortable with the language being numerous protected trees and leave out ’oak’ because I think there was an unclear determination about some of the redwoods for instance. Commissioner Burr: That would be fine with me. Commissioner Bialson: That would be acceptable to me as the seconder. Commissioner Holman: Then beyond that I would like to congratulate the subcommittee. I think they did a very good job and I think these findings do reflect the thoughts of the Commission. Chair Cassel: Lee, do you want to make a comment? Commissioner Lippert: Well, I am not in support of these findings at all, My Vote in affirming or going along with the recommendations at the initial hearings were ones of moving this forward and getting it before Council. My concern is I don’t see if we voted similarly to how we voted at the last hearing how this can actually move forward tonight. I think that we might actually have a split Commission here so I am very troubled by what I see here in this document and I am not going to support it. In doing so I don’t see how the Commission might have a majority in support of the document to have it move forward to the City Council. Chair Cassel: Last week or when we heard this last was try to talk about whether these notes now reflect what was said at that meeting rather than whether we agreed with it or not. We will have to see what happens. Go ahead Bonnie you are next. Vice Chair Packer: I think I can help in this conundrum by pointing out all the ways in which many of the supporting language for these findings do not reflect what we discussed on September 8. If you will bear with me for a moment I would like to have my fellow Commissioners go back to the Mitigated Negative Declaration which references a report on page 15 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration under the discussion of biological resources. It references a report that was submitted by the applicant which concluded that no state or federal endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species are likely to occur on the project site, native plant communities are not present and habitat degradation associated with urban residential development and human activities preclude the presence of special status species. The Mitigated Negative Declaration discussion did not dispute the conclusions of that report yet many of the rationales for supporting these findings say that there would be a negative impact on the environment and assume just the opposite, There are a lot of assumptions that are written into these proposed findings that there is going to be a negative impact on environmentally sensitive habitats and protected species of animals and plants and we did not have that information in front of Page 5 of 10 us on September 8. Let me finish Pat, I am going to be discussing for quite a few minutes if you give me a chance. We didn’t have that information before us. So that wasn’t part of the record that we were considering on September 8 so I don’t know how we could make that findings. So that would affect Finding 5 because we didn’t have a record that there was sensitive wildlife habitat. It is true that there are protected species on the property I don’t deny that and that was certainly a clear fact and one that we were concerned with but not the other part of that finding. My concern also applies with many of the rationales under Finding 4 dealing with the Comprehensive Plan policies under Natural Environment all the N policies, N- 11, 13 and 9, particularly the assumption that the installation of a storm drain would have a negative impact. The storm drain was a mitigating requirement in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. It was part of a mitigation of some other impacts. There was nothing in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that said that the storm drain itself would have a negative impact in fact it said the storm drain had to be built in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. So to turn a mitigated requirement around and describe it as a negative impact not only do we not ever mention storm drain at all in our discussion on September 8 but just the opposite is in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. So I have to vote against the motion for that reason as well. Also, again, the issue that the lot pattem may result in structures that would be incompatible with adjacent homes that issue is not before us. It is true we discussed it but that is not an area that we can consider in evaluating whether or not to grant this Tentative Map. Those issues will be resolved through the IR process and we had in an original motion to approve the Staff recommendation suggested that there be a condition that no matter when these homes are built that they go through an IR process. We also had recommended more requirements on restricting basements and other ways to deal with it. So for those reasons I think we cannot support these proposed Map denial findings. Chair Cassel: Now I am going to solve the conundrum, I am going to abstain. That way, although I agree with Bonnie’s comments this item can move forward to City Council. Are there any other comments that anyone wishes to make? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a couple and one is a question for Staff. Correct me, when the majority voted to deny the application, the subdivision, did .we not also at the same time deny the Mitigated Negative Declaration? Don’t those go in partnership one with the other? Ms. Grote: That is correct. You did not approve the Negative Declaration nor did you approve the subdivision. So you were recommending a denial on both. Commissioner Holman: So the comments referencing the Mitigated Negative Declaration that Commissioner Packer made, with all due respect, I don’t think are applicable because we did not approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 6 of 10 Chair Cassel: The Mitigated Negative Declaration was developed and it was a difference of opinion of some Commissioners as to whether that was valid or not. You voted that it was not. Okay? Commissioner Holman: Yes, .... Chair Cassel: Is there any other discussion? So your recommendation does not include Negative Declaration it doesn’t mean that other people aren’t saying that they support the Staff Report, which did have the Negative Declaration in it. Commissioner Holman: I understand that. I was comparing the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the comments having to do with the findings. That is the link I was making. Then just a clarification that the IR process,"well two things. One, mitigations can often times have impacts of their own. The other is that the IR process cannot resolve some of the issues having to do with development because the IR process for instance cannot reduce FAR or increase setbacks is my understanding. So if we have a project that we are looking at and this is what I understood the majority of the Commission to state if we have a project that sets forth a situation where the development is going to result in incompatible development that that’s what the intention was and IR can only go so far. So that is why I would continue to support the motion that is on the floor. Chair Cassel: Lee, ..... Commissioner Lippert: Going back to the findings here again under item number four that the design improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans and then it goes into describe policy L-12 and L-6. I think under Policy L-12 again the reason why we have the IR process and also the ability of the Architectural Review Board is to make sure that the development of those houses that are there are compatible with the neighborhood structures and that is why we have those plans in place. So that would be one reason why I couldn’t support this. Then also under Policy L-6 that is cited here is avoid the abrupt changes in scale and density. Well, the truth of the matter is when I look at the parcels that were proposed under the original subdivision the density that would be approved is one that is consistent with the other parcels in that neighborhood so it would generate the same density as other houses that would be allowed for other houses in that neighborhood. And frankly, we are going to be looking at another subdivision this evening, which recommends a similar parcel size. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I am very concerned about us taking an action finding a Mitigated Negative Declaration inadequate when there was no testimony before us by an expert of any kind to show us that there was something factually incorrect about the Mitigated Negative Declaration. To disagree with facts based on speculation is not a good basis for Planning Commissioners to find a Mitigated Negative Declaration inadequate. Had there been testimony from the public or from other experts saying that this report is wrong Page 7 of 10 there is some species of animals that would be endangered or yes, this storm drain is even though it is required is going to have another kind of impact that should be added to this environmental statement then we would have had valid reason to disagree or to find that Mitigated Negative Declaration inadequate. But just because we don’t like a project or we have a funny feeling about it or we feel a little nervous about it should never be a reason in the absence of facts to find an environmental document prepared by experts inadequate. So I am very concerned that you just throw out facts that are in front of us in order to make findings that are not based on fact. Chair Cassel: Pat, did you wish to have a comment at this time? Commissioner Burr: Yes, First Dan had stated for us at the beginning something I just want to make sure the Commission is clear on. If we found that any of the find findings that have to be made according to the California Government Code and the Subdivision Map Act if we find any of those five can’t be met, not all of the five or not a preponderance of the five, but any of them we are required to deny. I just want to make sure the Commission is clear on that aspect. Second, there were comments made by Commissioner Packer repeatedly referring to endangered species and threatened species and the like and species of special concern. That is not what the Comp Plan is referring to and not what the subcommittee is referring to. There seems to be confusion between endangered species and natural habitat. The riparian corridor as is clear in Policy N-12 and elsewhere refers to protecting the natural habitat whether it has any endangered species or threatened species whatsoever. So those are not the same issue and I want to make sure that is clear. Finally, we have both Finding 1 and Finding 4 that place the requirement for the Planning Commission and the City Council to find consistency of the subdivision that it must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in the case of the language that they use.is the general plan but it is referring to the same document that we in Palo Alto call our Comprehensive Plan. So even though we have a process of the Individual Review we as a Commission are bound by law to make findings based upon whether this proposal before us is consistent with those policies and programs in the Comp Plan. If they are not consistent then it is our obligation to then deny it. It is not our prerogative to say that well we may see it as inconsistent but there is this other process that may or may not make it more consistent than what we can judge based on what is put before us. So I think it is important that we differentiate that, the IR review process is a valuable tool that takes things and tries to achieve greater compatibility but that is not the same thing as what we have before us. And that is why the Planning Commission is a legally constituted body and the Council is and the IR review proces~ is something quite different from that and has its limitations on dealing with things such as floor area ratio. In all of our discussions as we initially constituted the IR review program and as we revised it we had a lot of discussions about that it is not in the purview of that program to start trying to impose FAR limitations on parcels. So if we create a circumstance where no structure that would be allowed according to the floor area limits could be compatible we place the Individual Review process in a predicament where they can’t really address Page 8 of 10 the fundamental concem. That is our job to address the fundamental one and then they try to do the best they can with what is left over. So I just want to clarify those issues, MOTION PASSED 3-2-1-1, Commissioners Packer and Lippert voted no with Commissioner Cassel abstaining and Commissioner Griffin absent) Chair Cassel: I want to thank everyone for their comments. I have just two. One is it should be noted that under Policy N-11 there is an exception for single family homes l~om the 100 foot setback and there is no indication that there is other requirements for those. And for me, some of the concerns that we had could have been conditioned to meet. Without any other comments I would like to call a vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) Abstentions? Myself. So that will mean that the motion passed with Commissioners Holman, Bialson and Burt voting in favor, Commissioners Lippert and Packer voting no and Commissioner Cassel abstaining. Thank you. Commissioner Holman: Yes, I would like to ask Staff a question still pertaining to this item. Chair Cassel: The item is finished. We shouldn’t be going back and asking questions at this time. Commissioner Holman: These are questions not having to do with the motion but questions having to do with... I want to know when would be the time to make these comments because the applicant is here and there are things that came up at our meeting before last about this proposal. Chair Cassel: Well, it should have been done when we had the open discussion. Commissioner Holman: But they aren’t pertinent to the motion or the subdivision. Chair Cassel: Dan, should I go ahead and proceed with that? Mr. Sodergren: It is up to you whether you want to allow them now or if they are general comments at the end of the meeting during matters initiated by the Commissioners. It is up to you. Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to ask the question when would be the time to bring up issues that would have to do with any subsequent subdivision that would come forward with issues such as there was in the proposal that Staff brought to us allowance for an accessory structure in the creek setback for instance and there were other issues . having to do with pervious and impervious surface and that was dictating the layout but Page 9 of 10 there is impervious concrete now I am understanding. So where would those comments go o when should I make those comments? How should they be directed so the applicant is fully aware should they bring another project back to us for a subdivision? Ms. Grote: Those comments would be made during you discussion of the initial subdivision request. So during your initial hearing. In this case it would have been on September 8 when you were having your initial conversation and discussion about the request. That is when you would bring up those kinds of questions and those kinds of issues~ Chair Cassel: The next item on that is when is this going forward to Council? Ms. Grote: It has not yet been scfieduled for Council. We will be working with the City Clerk’s Office to find a date for that and we will notify everyone within 600 feet of the site when that occurs. Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. We are going to go on to the next item. The next item on the agenda is New Business. It is 792 Matadero Road. It is a 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. The Environmental Assessment is a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The zoning district is single family residential. Could we please have a Staff Report? Page 10 of 10 BARRON PARK PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA Attachment J September 24, 2004 City Council City of Palo Alto PO Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: Proposed Subdivision at 797 - 807 Matadero Dear Members of the City Council: The Barron Park Association Board fully supports the September 8 decision of the Planning and Transportation Commission to reject the application of a developer to subdivide the property at 797-807 Matadero Avenue into five lots. We emphasize particularly our view that the proposal as submitted failed adequately to address the "defining characteristics" of the Barron Park neighborhood, including comprehensive plan policies for neighborhood compatibility, riparian protection, tree protection, and traffic impacts. Most specifically, we are not satisfied that the plan as submitted adequately protected against undesirable parking impact on already crowded Matadero Avenue and possible soil contamination from residual pesticides. We furthermore urge that there be no approval of a revised plan unless these problems are satisfactorily addressed. We strongly urge and request that any such revised plan be discussed at an open neighborhood forum in Barron Park, with adequate notice, before it is resubmitted to the City. Sincerely, Maryanne Welton, Vice President Barron Park Association Cc: Steven Tumer 7 September 2004 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 Dear Commissioners: Subject: Comments on Mark Migdal’s development of Arroyo Court This letter is being written at the request of Mr. Mark Migdal as a part of his interest in the development of a culdesac on Matedero Ave. in the Barron Park section of Palo Alto. The position taken here is not intended to advocate that project or not but simply to convey our Miranda neighborhood experience with him on a similar project some years ago involving Arroyo Court. It addresses only the developer, his project as it unfolded, and the existing neighborhood at the time, The development of the property that became Arroyo Court had some early difficulties that dragged on from about 1994 to 1996 as its first developer tried to get the project underway and failed. This left the abandoned nursing facility a neighborhood eysore. In June 1996 1 was approached by the second developer, Mark Migdal, who, at the outset, seemed interested in the broader issue of the neighborhood. Before buying the property, he wanted to know about nearby residences and their attitude toward what might happen to the property. As president of our local homeowners group, I was in a position to tell him the history of the property and how adjacent residents had suffered when it was a very poorly run nursing facility. The neighbors and I took that display of interest positively but we decided to meet independently to monitor the development and insure that our interests were protected. Over the course of the next several months Mr. Migdal held at least three open meetings to make sure that the nearby residents were informed of his plans. I met with him or his associates many times in addition. While favoring the residential development of the property, the neighbor’s had several concerns. One was that the site not be overbuilt; that the proposed residences enhance the value of the neighborhood and that lot sizes should be approximately 9,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. Another was the location and orientation of the proposed two story homes so as not to intrude on the privacy of existing neighbors. Others were individualized house architecture and a softening landscaping, which eventually was defined by the City. Beyond that, the developer agreed unconditionally to support some project that the neighborhood needed. As it turned out, the neighborhood had a critical one. So, by January 1997, the neighborhood, in view of the mediated plans and other aspects of the project mentioned below, decided to support Mr. Migdal’s proposal to the Planning Commission. The project actually got underway in 1996 with the demolition of the on-site buildings that had been abandoned for two years. The neighbors were anxious to see them go. Then, after several months delay due to an extended rainy winter, construction began. As the project proceeded through the architectural phase, the neighbors examined the ongoing plans and schedule to make sure that what was agreed upon was built and that the project would enhance and not degrade our neighborhood. Also, because the site bordered on a very steep embankment to Adobe Creek, there were some development constraints that that had to be met. From my point of view, the two most important results of our interaction with Mr. Migdal were first, his willingness to work with the neighborhood, alter his original density plans from six to five homes, and other/vise meet the above neighborhood stipulations, and second to help underwrite the neighborhood’s obligation to the City for the acceptance and upgrading of the southernmost end of Miranda Ave..Because of some historical right-of-way problems, the City project to improve Miranda Ave. from Miranda Green south required the neighborhood to provide half the costs. Mainly because of property transfer issues, the roadbed upgrading project encountered repeated delays. That delay ultimately exceeded the nominal time limits that were part of Mr. Migdal’s 1997 written agreement to help underwrite the roadbed project. I had kept Mr. Migdal ..... informed of the progress and when the money eventually was due at the City. In July 2001 he reaffirmed his commitment and ultimately met his obligation, simply saying he had given me his word. All in all, the neighborhood profited from the Arroyo Court development with new, enhancing homes and a neighborhood street that the City, for the first time completely owned, and agreed to maintain in the future. During the construction phase, the access and noise concerns of the nearby neighbors were satisfied to the extent I am aware. Thus, the overall experience of the Miranda neighborhood to the Arroyo development and Mr. Migdal was positive. I very much regret that I cannot be there to offer this opinion in person but previously arranged travel makes it impossible. I would be happy to answer any questions about the above episode upon my return. Respectfully, Donald L. Nielson President, Greater Miranda Community Association Cc:Mark Migdal GMCA files 7 September 2004 Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 ~RED INTO PUBLIC RECORD Oiq Dear Commissioners: Mark Migdal was the developer of the Arroyo Court project that got underway in the Miranda Avenue neighborhood in 1997. The exit from my property (formerly 4283 Miranda and since changed to 880 Arroyo Court) is via a 300-foot driveway to Miranda Avenue. With the new development between Miranda and my home, I obviously had a strong interest in both the construction process and the result. With Don Nielson, president of our neighborhood association, as liaison, Mr. Migdal worked closely with the neighborhood to determine what would be acceptable to us, scaling back an original proposal of six houses to five, and agreeing to neighborhood benefits including a subsidy towards the recent repaving of the southern end of Miranda Avenue. Though no construction project is painless, it seems to me the work proceeded in an expeditious manner. I was never blocked in my driveway for more than the few minutes it took to move equipment. The end result has been five attractive homes, with new landscaping that improves the approach to my drive. Sincerely, Lillian Haning 880 Arroyo Court Palo Alto CA 94306 Cc: GCMA files Mark Migdal Grote, Lisa From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Betten, Zariah Tuesday, September 07, 2004 7:37 AM Grote, Lisa; French, Amy Lusardi, John FW: Response to Staff Report on 797-807 Matadero staff-rpt-reply.html FYT. .....Original Message ..... From: dmoran@dougmoran.com [mailto:dmoran@dougmoran.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 5:27 AM To: Planning Commission; Pat Burt; Pat Burt; kcholman@earthlink.net; abialson@yahoo.com; Phylliscassel@aol.com; jazz~uff@sbcglobal.com; bbpacker@earthlink.net Cc: Emslie, Steve Subject: Response to Staff Report on 797-807 Matadero Planning and Transportation Commissioners: Please forgive the length of the attached reply to the staff report (8 pages from my browser), but much of it is quoted from the Comp Plan and the Staff report so that you didn’t have to go flipping back and forth. It address errors and significant omissions in the staff report. Many of the errors are small, but taken together represent a pattern. From my perspective, it also represents a failure of the fast-track planning process - key stakeholders (neighbors) have effectively been shut out of the process despite attempts to get info and provide input. Please forgive me for errors - this was written partly in the heat of the day and partly in the sleep-deprived portion of the night. Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing Wednesday September 8, 2004 Item: 797 and 807 Matadero Avenue 103-SUB-01, 03-EIA-03 Res po nse/O p pos ition To this Application Contact: Douglas B. Moran 790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto 94306 650-856-3302 serving as editor of this document and as coordinator of the neighbors opposing this application. RECEIVED SEP o 3 20Oh, Department of Planning & Community Environment Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) Positions I have divided up the objections to this project along lines that I expect will match the interests of various groups of residents, allowing them to support just those positions on which they have opinions. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Variance is not justified, the high,level argument Opposition to variance for substandard cul-de,sac based upon experience with Julie Court (a nearby substandard cul-de-sac) by Marianne Strickfaden, resident of Julie Court Parking and Traffic Concerns Tree Protection Layout and impact on neighboring properties Concerns about Quantity of Basements and Changes to Subsurface Water Movement Concerns about Toxics Response to Historical Report - applicant’s report is generic to neighborhood and fails to include details of the specific property Response to Habitat Assessment Report - applicant’s report is grossly inadequate Supporters A list of supporters for the above positions will be provided to the Commission before the hearing. The positions were finalized on September 1 and some of the people who had indicated support based upon the draft outline did not have time to review the final versions before the submission deadline for the packet. Figures (Photos) Available online at http://www.dougmoran.corn/Benedict/index.html 1.Street scape 2.Redwoods 3.Excessive Pruning of Back Oak 4.Trenching around Back Oak 5.Heavy Pruning of Front Oak Directional Conventions The property at 797-807 Matadero does not fit neatly onto a north-south and east-west grid, and experience has shown that attempting to use those terms leads to confusion. Instead, these documents will use the terms. bay-ward ¯ toward San Francisco Bay (and E1 Camino Real) (bearing 20-degrees, roughly north- north-east) foothill-ward: toward the foothills (and Laguna Avenue and Foothill Expressway). creek-ward: toward the creek. SRP-ward ¯ toward Stanford Research Park (and Matadero Avenue) Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 1. Variance not justified Overview We oppose the applicant’s request for a variance for a subdivision on the property at 797-807 Matadero Avenue. A variance should be granted only where there is a compelling reason to not adhere to the zoning ordinance. This may involve truly exceptional circumstances or the change enhances the proposed project in a way that benefits the larger community. The requested variance is does not meet these tests. Instead this variance is necessitated by the applicant’s desire to pack more houses onto this site than would otherwise be justified, to the detriment of the immediate neighborhood. Anticipated arguments about economic utility are addressed below. The request for this variance should not be viewed in isolation. First, the requested substandard cul-de-sac is likely to increase off-site parking on a pending bicycle boulevard that has little capability to absorb that additional parking and that is being forced to function as a collector street although it was not designed as such. This problem is detailed in an accompanying position paper. Second, this variance is needed only because the applicant is attempting to .squeeze more houses onto the property than is warranted. The requested variance allows the requirements for other aspects of this proposed subdivision to be technically satisfied, but often in such a constrained manner that any changes could have a substantial ripple effect. Some of these problems are addressed in the accompanying position papers. Assessment of Potential Economic Arguments Decisions on variances should not unjustly deprive an owner of reasonable use of his property. But neither should they rescue an owner from a bad decision. The subject property was purchased during the dot-com boom in a private sale. The owners had been approached by neighbors (Moran and Parimi and possibly others) with contact information of people interested in acquiring a large property for their new home. They were also approached by various local ’ realtors. It is unknown why the daughter who handled the property sale chose not to contact any of these potential purchasers. The initial subdivision proposed by the applicant was for six houses, which would have required so many variances that its approval was implausible. Even after it was scaled back to five houses, the initial proposed rough layouts would have required multiple significant variances. During the downturn, the applicant was approached by another local developer interested in purchasing the property for a two-house development, but that offer was rejected. Consequently, we believe that there is not a valid arg.ument that a 5-house subdivision is required to make economic use of this property. Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) If the applicant makes the argument that a 5,house subdivision is necessary to justify the purchase price, this is irrelevant. There have been insignificant changes to the ordinances regarding this property subsequent to its purchase. While redwoods were added as "protected trees" under the Tree Ordinance, this addition was easily foreseeable at the time of the purchase of the subject property. If the applicant failed to consider these requirements in making its offer for the property, that is their error and the City should not attempt to rescue them from their mistake. Similarly, the applicant should not be given "consideration" for the delays from the purchase of this property: the delays are the results of the applicant failing to produce a fleshed-out proposal suitable for review. The applicant was told very early in the process by the initial City Planner assigned to the project (Rachel Adcox) that he was unlikely to receive approval for more than four houses on the subject property. Further evidence that the delays are the responsibility of the application is that at least one previous project - the subdivision at Arroyo Court (off Miranda) - took many years to get through the development process (funding, plans, construction). Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 2. Opposing substandard cul-de-sac: the Julie Court Experience The below message was sent as plain text: mark-up (for example, bold fonts) has been added here. Subject: From: To: Date: Heating Comments RE: 797-807 Matadero Road[03-sub-01,03-eia-03] "Marianne Strickfaden" <marianne_str@hotmail.com> steven.turner@cityofpaloalto.org Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:10:54 -0700 Dear Mr. Turner, I am writing regarding the proposed cul-de-sac at 797 Matadero Road. Thank you for the hearing notice I received yesterday in the mail. I live on Julie Court, a nearby cul-de-sac, which has a 30-foot cul-de- sac radius and a 25-foot entrance width. There are 4 properties on my court. I have lived on Julie Court for 25 years and have the following observations and comments to offer. Density of proposal: 5 properties are too many. I find the four on Julie court almost too many at times. The number of trips in and out of the court, added to the number of turnarounds from random drivers entering the court brings safety into question. I would recommend 4 at a maximum, and three is better for the quality of life for the families who will be buying the homes. For safety of children playing in the court a smaller number is imperative. Especially, as the homes will probably have little or no backyards with that density, the youth of the court will gravitate to the cul-de-sac to play with the neighbors and have room for baseball and other games. Parking and entrance width: Parking for a cul-de-sac can be very problematic. On a daily basis neighbors on Julie Court park nose-in rather than parallel which makes turning around a problem. When residents or visitors park in the entrance roadway on both sides, we then have a serious hazard in that fire trucks can not fit in the court! The proposed 797 Matadero subdivision needs to address parking for the properties and must verify that the narrow width can still accommodate emergency vehicle access with U-haul type trucks parked on either side of the entrance way. We on Julie court have experienced such conditions, and have had to ask neighbors to move their vehicles to get out of the court! On garbage day, when the various trucks come, the court access is cut off due to the narrow entrance. The garbage trucks can not even enter when cars are parked along the entrance street. Parking for such a cul-de-sac also spills out on to Matadero. If the overflow is only for occasional parties, then that is something Matadero neighbors should normally be willing to accommodate, however, if parking is so limited that overflow onto Matadero is a common occurrence, then that is not acceptable. Overflow parking for parties on Matadero typically fills both sides of the street reducing the through vehicle width to one lane for the duration of the party. 5 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) On Julie Court, we have a total of 15 bedrooms adding up rooms from all the 4 properties. When those homes have had teenagers, the houses have had 4 cars per address overflowing the two car spaces on the driveway. Only one of the homes parks one car in their garage. All the other garages are storage or work spaces. When the six bedroom house was rented out to Stanford students, parking was impossible and always overflowed to the narrow entrmace, or Out on to Matadero. The 797 Matadero plans must have less homes and not large ones to keep the number of cars to a minimum; plus adequate parking must be provided for liveability of the homes and impact on neighbors. Cul-de-sac radius: Julie court has a 30-foot radius, the proposal is for a 35-foot radius. The City of Palo Alto should keep to the minimum 40-foot radius and not allow this exception. Julie Court was built under the direction of Santa Clara County which allowed such a small radius street. It is very difficult to maneuver in Julie Court and I wish the County had not allowed such a small radius court. It is very hard to back out of my driveway and turn around in the court most mornings trying to avoid my neighbors’ cars. When moving vans or delivery trucks arrive they can barely fit in the court and block the court. Gardeners bring their trucks with trailers into the court weekly and get stuck, or have great difficulty trying to turn around. If the court is empty with everyone off to work, then it is easy to maneuver. But any other time the 30-foot radius is way to small, and 35-foot would not improve our situation very much. Even City vehicles have difficulty turning around in the court, and when water or sewer lines are worked on, it is almost impossible to keep access to the homes. Now that the City must purge the water lines every month, their vehicles fill the court and prohibit anyone in the court from getting in or out of their dirveways during the process (which is thankfully short). With a small radius the street sweepers also cannot do their job. Julie Court residents have to sweep the court themselves to keep debris from building up. The full 40-foot minimum should be maintained to allow for future safety, ease of maneuverability for the residents, and access for service vehicles. In summary, I strongly recommend reducing the size of the proposed subdivision to ideally three homes, and not permitting the exceptions to the minimum entrance width and radius. I know this will reduce the money the developer will realize, but from my experience of living on a cul-de-sac I know it will provide for three homes that the residents will enjoy, properties that can be adequately accessed and served by City vehicles, and a cul-de-sac that will be safer for children to grow-up in. Matadero neighbors will not be severely impacted by putting three homes where two would normally go. Barron Park still has a lower density, country atmosphere. A five-home cluster would be in stark contrast to the neighborhood ambiance. Sincerely, Marianne Strickfaden 6 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 3. Parking and Traffic Concerns Concern This section of Matadero is very sensitive to on-street parking. We are concerned that the combination of small lot sizes, small driveways and a substandard cul-de-sac will result in noticeable spill-over parking on Matadero, which will detrimentally impact safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The e-mail comment by Marianne Strickfaden Background Matadero Avenue is designed as a residential collector street, but was not designed as such. It is the primary bay/foothills-ward street in Barron Park on the SRP-ward side of Matadero Creek. The lanes are 10-feet wide with 3-foot wide valley gutters on each side, the result of a rebuilding of the street in fall 2002. There are no sidewalks beyond the first block from E1 Camino. In many places, street trees and shrubbery closely abut the valley gutters. In a few places, the valley gutters needed to be rerouted around the existing street trees and utility poles. Matadero is designated in the current Bicycle Transportation Plan to become a bicycle boulevard. As a connection between the Bol Park bike path (from Arastradero/Foothill to Hanover) and the Park Boulevard bikeway, Matadero already sees significant bicycle traffic during the day. Matadero also sees significant pedestrian traffic: Immediate residents Residents from other sections of the neighborhood include it as part of their loop for jogging and dog walking Employees from the Stanford Research Park walk down Matadero in groups at lunch time. People in wheelchairs are also a not-uncommon sight on Matadero. Some of these are residents and others are patients at the VA Hospital. Parking Problems In this stretch of Matadero Avenue, there is no official on-street parking. Various residences provide space for parking along the street. Some of these spaces are paved, some are gravel and some are dirt. Some of these spaces are wide enough to park entirely off the street; others are half-width, wide enough if the valley gutter is also used. But note that the valley gutter is used as a sidewalk and bike lane, so this impedes pedestrians and bicyclists. Some of the potential along-the-street spaces have lengths that are tightly constrained by street trees, and hence tend to be little used. Ahnost all the houses in this area have substantial off-street parking areas, typically enough for themselves and a guest or two. What along-the-street parking occurs is short-term during the middle of the day. The appendix provides a rough count of the available parking in this "block." This suggests 7 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) much more parking than empirical evidence shows is actually useful: when there is a yard sale or party, enough of the parked cars extend far enough into the street to make it effectively a single lane, or a series of single-lane pinch points (similar to what Ms. Strickfaden reported for the Julie Court area). This not only forces on-coming traffic to negotiate turn-taking, it also forces pedestrians into the center of the street. Exacerbating the problems is that this ~ection of Matadero (Tippawingo to Laguna) is a very long block with no apparent interruptions (Julie Court is invisible) that is an invitation to speed - an invitation that too many drivers accept. For most adult pedestrians, the pinch points created by parked vehicles are tolerable during daylight hours, but create dangerous situations after dark. This situation (of into-the-street parking) currently exists in the section of Matadero near the bridge (Tippawingo-Josina). Parents with children remarked that they thought that the installation of valley gutters provided a distinct improvement in safety because they provided a demarcation between street and non-street that had been missing before. Cars parked over the gutters - and forcing pedestrians to walk in the street to get past them - reduce this safety factor. Appendix Survey of potential parking per property between Julie Court and Tippawingo/La Mata Court. A full width along,street parking spot allows a compact sedan to park without intruding significantly into the valley gutter. A half width along-street parking spot allows that compact sedan to park, but it overlaps the valley gutter (which doubles as a sidewalk) and may intrude somewhat to the main travel lane. ............... I- . ....:i0ff-str~etlAlong’street [ Along~stree[Address # Stories Parking: FullWidth, HalfWidth 738 748 754 i760 2 3 786 1 t2 790 ~[ 1 4 792 ~[.!6+ 800 111 - 2 820 2 2 840 i 1 3+ 1 2 0 1 _ ]5 0 1 ]4 2 2 0 <1 i0 1 i0 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 850 , 1 5 0 0 856 il il4 __2_ ............. 753 { 1 i2 1 i O I0 ’t789-791 1 0 7~7 ~ ~+ Io 1 so7 1 4+~o Io N/A N/A~ 821 1 .825 1 3 ~__0 ~827 1 1 0 [829 11 I~Na N/A ........ 1861 1 2 1 0 875 ,1 2.3 10 N/A - Not applicable - this is a flag lot, hence it has no street frontage other than its driveway. Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 4. Tree Protection Concerns The trees on the subject property are a critical portion of the urban forest, in part because of the size of the property and in part because of a loss of street trees. These trees on this property are also a critical portion of the riparian corridor centering on Matadero Creek. The applicant has committed multiple actions against the trees on this property prior to any development that make us highly concerned about what will happen once construction begins. 1.Cutting down redwood trees days before they became protected trees 2.Cutting offhalf of a protected Coast Live Oak tree. Was cited and fined for this action. 3.Trenched around protected Coast Live Oak, exposing roots, and then left trench open despite explicit instruction from City Arborist Dave Dockter that it needed to be closed immediately. 4.Pruning of the protected trees that pushed the limit with no immediate justification, implying that it was a precursor to subsequent heavy pruning. In the drawing of potential locations of houses within the proposed sub-division, the areas identified as potential basements intrude into the probably root zones for the protected trees. The protected trees impose significant constraints on where buildings can be placed on this property. The applicant would be able to achieve greater return on this investment were these trees not present. His actions in cutting down the redwoods to beat the deadline and his cutting of half the Coast Live Oak fit this pattern. The root zones of the protected trees occupy a substantial portion of the yards of the proposed lots. This is highly likely to push the residents to use these spaces in ways that are detrimental, potentially fatal, to the health of these protected trees, with summer watering and soil compaction being the foremost concerns. (Details in the positions on Layout Concerns and Concerns about Quantity of Basements and Changes to Subsurface Water Movement). Recommendations Note." As this submission was being finalized, we heard that the city staff and the applicant had developed a "Tree Protection - No-Construction Zone" agreement, but we not able to obtain a copy to review. Reduce the incentives to illegally harm the protected trees by rejecting the proposed subdivision. The attempt to squeeze 5 houses into this property creates unacceptable pressure on the developer and subsequent owners to harm these trees. Should you decide to approve the subdivision: Require that the deeds for this property and its successors carry "no build" zones for the footprints of the existing protected trees. Including this in the deeds reduces the chance that the protection would be negated by a sham sale, or that an existing owner would kill the trees to 10 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue -Doug Moran (ed.) raise the property values for an anticipated legitimate sale. Our concern is that the normal penalties for killing protected trees under the current ordinance is insignificant compared to what a developer gains in increased develop-ability of the property. Require protection for these trees during construction on any part of the property, not just on the individual lots. The contractor may choose to build in phases and given the very tight layout of the site, the contractor is likely to be tempted to use the other lots for parking and storage, and the available space is likely to be the root zones of the protected trees (compacting the soil in the root zones is typically fatal). Given the applicant’s protracted legal problems with his Arroyo Court development (and reportedly others), it is critical that these provisions be clear, unambiguous and easily enforceable. Street Trees: role of subject property History Oral tradition on the street say that the original set of street trees were Acacias that were all killed by a severe frost in the late 1920s. Black Acacias were chosen as replacements because they were more frost- hardy. There are relatively few of these trees remaining on Matadero because we are at the upper end of their expected lifespan (70-90 years), and because some of the trees had to be removed when they became safety hazards because of improper/inadequate pruning when they were young. As these street trees died, their replacement was deferred because Matadero Avenue was scheduled for major rebuilding. The expected changes to the borders of the street as well as the construction activity itself was likely to kill some of the street trees (as it in fact did). This construction was then repeatedly deferred, first awaiting construction of the Matadero-Barron Creek bypass and then the rebuilding of the water main. The large oak in the front yard of 797 is a critical part of the street-scape as well as the urban forest. Figures 1 a and 1 b show the street-scape facing both bay-ward and foothill,ward along the street. Problems with treatment of protected trees on subject site Cutting of redwoods In the days immediately before redwoods were added to :the Tree Ordinance as protected trees (March 2002), the applicant had a row of mature redwoods cut down to avoid becoming subject to the ordinance. The job was so rushed it was done in the rain, and the company did not return to clean-up until after complaints to Code Enforcement (Paul Camilleri). These redwoods were planted by Harold Benedict in the late 1940s (possibly the early 1950s)i They were on the boundary between the 797 and 807 properties and would have been on the edge of the proposed paved cul-de-sac. Most were large enough to have qualified for protection under the ordinance (more than 18-inch diameter at a 54-inch height). Reference: http://w\~,v’.cityofpaloalto.org/trees/private-trees.html 11 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) Figures 2b-e provide photos of several of the trunks of these trees. Note: Because of the vigorous regrowth, it is very difficult to get in close enough to the stumps to put a measuring tape on them, and even more difficult to illuminate the full breadth of the stump for a picture that adequately conveys its true size, These were healthy tree and there has been substantial regrowth. Several are at least 20 feet tall - significantly taller than a one-story house (Figure 2a)~ "Excessive pruning" of protected oak A protected oak on proposed Lot 3 of the subdivision (towards rear of foothill-ward side of current 797 property) had a branch removed that was roughly half the tree. From Figure 3b, you can see that this branch was roughly the same diameter as the main trunk. Figure 3a show the branch part way into its removal, as well as a photo of the final result, including the substantial pruning of the main trunk. The applicant was cited by the City Arborist and was fined. Trenching of root zone of protected oaks Applicant dug a trench near the dripline of the oak that had been excessively pruned, reportedly in order to eval.uate whether the tree could be relocated. The trench was dug on Tuesday May 11, 2004. On Friday May 14, City Arborist Dave Dockter reportedly told the applicant that leaving the trench open endangered the health of the roots and instructed him to fill in the trench immediately. At the end of business on Tuesday May 20, the trench was still open and Mr. Moran informed the City Arborist of applicant’s failure. The trench was finally filled back in during Thursday May 20, having been open for 9 full days. The trenching revealed that there were substantial roots going out well beyond the dripline. Figures 4a-e show the trench. Pruning of oaks unmotivated by current site needs On Friday April 24, 2004, the: applicant heavily pruned the large oak in the front of 797 and the oaks along the foothill-ward side of 807. The apparent purpose was to push back and upward the canopies, in preparation for construction. Assuming that 20% of the canopy was removed and that another 20% was removed 12 months later, this would be a cumulative 36% reduction of the canopy of these protected trees. Figure 5a-d attempt to show the extent of the pruning of the front oak. The pruning of the large oak in the front of 797 had a significant impact on that property and on the one directly across the street (790). Raising the canopy changed the entire character of the front yard of 797 - where it had been shaded and had a feeling of being enclosed, it was now sunny and open (like much of the rest of the property). From across the street (790), the raising of the canopy meant that the house at 797 was no longer largely invisible (Figure 5e), 12 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 5. Layout Concerns Recommendation There are many problems with the layouts of individual lots within the proposed subdivision, emanating from the applicant’s attempt to squeeze five lots onto this property. We strongly urge you to reject this application. Should you instead decide to approve this application, we strongly urge you to require that all the houses in this subdivision be approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Although ARB review is normally required for such subdivisions, we are aware that there are v~ous ways to skirt this requirement. Given the multitude of the design problems imposed by this attempt to squeeze 5 houses onto this property, we believe that this review is critical, both for the existing neighbors and for the people who may purchase houses within this subdivision before the full impacts of the decision are visible. Background Because Matadero Creek angles away from Matadero Avenue, lot sizes vary along the creek-ward side of the street. This section of Matadero is primarily one-story houses. In the segment between Julie Court and Tippawingo/La Mata Way, there are only 4 two-story houses: 749, 759, 760, and 820. Mature landscaping reduces the impacts of the narrow lots that are common in this area (56-foot width is typical). Lot 1 The sketch of Lot 1 provides an unrealistic treatment of the requirements of large oak tree. It treats the root system as extending only to the drip line. Based upon the trenching of the oak at the back of the property Figure 4, the roots should be expected to extend well beyond the drip line. Because the tree is close to the street, the root system within the subject property is of crucial importance for the survival of this tree. The sketch shows basement run up to the drip line. The sketch shows cantilevered floors over a significant portion of the area under the drip line. The highly constrained lot will encourage residents to park within the root zone, with substantial risk that the resulting soil compaction will kill the tree. The anticipated second story of this house would likely have daylight plane problems with the front portion of the neighboring house (791) and well as privacy issues: Lot 2 The footprint of this house is long and thin. The annotation suggests a second-story is presumed. Daylight plane requirements would seem to severely limit having a usable second floor. The rear house (787) on the adjoining property has its patio in the area that would be impacted, plus the majority of the 13 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed,) windows in this house face this property (south-south-west-facing windows). The front house (791) would be similarly impacted. Lot 3 The root zone for the large oak that was excessive pruned is totally unrealistic when one takes into account the location of the large limb that was removed (Figure 3a). A more reasonable estimate (from the trenching shown in Figure 4) would have the root zone extend under a significant portion of the main house and all of the rental unit. Notice that the parking for the rental unit intrudes under the dripline for a protected oak, again raising the concern about fatal compaction of the soil. Notice that the entire side yard of this house is the root zone of protected oaks, meaning that it should be a no-summer-water zone. This constraint is likely to be violated by the residents, resulting in the death of these trees. Lot 4 Again, this is a very irregularly shaped house resulting from the constraints of the property. Again, the sketch underestimates the likely root zones of the trees. Notice that the root zones for the trees on Lot 3 extend into this lot, but are not shown on the sketch. Again, notice the large portion of the yard that needs to be a no-summer-water zone to avoid damaging the protected trees. The trees along the foothill-ward side of the property are critical for the privacy of the neighbors. Lot 5 The only uncomplicated lot. However, the minimal setbacks provide little room to establish landscaping to provide a privacy screen for the adjoining neighbor. Riparian Protection Comprehensive Plan Program N-7: ... provide border of native riparian vegetation at least 25feet along the creek banks. In Lots 3, 4, and 5, the setbacks are the minimum required and given the small sizes of the yards, it is hard to image the residents dedicating much, if any, of this to native riparian vegetation. The expectation would be that the residents would install lawn up to the limits, with the fertilizers and other lawn-care chemicals quickly finding their way into the creek. General Interactions with Neighbors Concern about whether the design of the proposed homes has been raised by the neighbors frustrations with the applicant’s maintenance of the property since he bought it. 14 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) The’ neighbors at 789-791 Matadero are the most impacted because their houses look onto the backyard of 797. Over the years, there have been numerous unmet requests to mow down the weeds, first when live and then when dead. Action was obtained, and then only grudgingly, after complaints were made to the City and the Code Enforcement officer set a final deadline. 6, Concerns about Quantity of Basements and Changes to Subsurface Water Movement Background This area has a very complex geology, which shows up in Matadero Creek having series of "gaining" and "losing" segments. A losing segment is where water percolates out of the creek into the ground water system, whereas a gaining segment is the reverse - the water table is so high that water flows from the ground back into the creek. This complexity was discovered as part of the remediation of the toxic discharge in the Hillview-Porter area and other sections of the Stanford Research Park. This alternation of gaining and losing segments allow the pollutants to spread much faster and broader than they could have done if they had simply travelled through the groundwater. Two of the wells for monitoring the status of the remediation effort were located on this property (they have since been closed and filled with concrete). Concerns The combination of the substantial amounts of hard Surfaces (streets, driveways and houses, ...) and the substantial amount of area likely to be basements raises concerns about possible disruption of the existing subsurface water flow within this property and extending into the adjacent properties. The biggest concern is that the protected trees may be cut off from enough of their existing water sources that they will decline and die. Much of the surface water that went into the ground to support the trees throughout the year will now be directed into a drain that dumps directly into the creek. 15 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 7. Concerns about Toxics Concern and Recommendation The applicant’s submission makes no mention of potential problems with toxics on this site. This property is immediately adjacent to a natural section of a creek (in addition to flowing to the Bay), and directly across from the Barron Park Elementary School. Because the applicant’s plans include substantial excavation (for basements), we urge that the Commission take any additional steps within its powers to ensure that the development of this site does adequate testing and does not release any locked- up toxics into the environment (water and air). Background The previous owner of the subject property was Harold Benedict who ran a tree service company from the property until his retirement in the 1975. in his business, Mr. Benedict used pesticides and herbicides which were stored on the property. According to the family and neighbors of that period, the spraying tanks were loaded and cleaned on the subject property. Drums, barrels, tanks and other containers dating to this time were still on the property at the time of its sale. Mr. Benedict was forced to retire because of neurological damage attributed to his use of pesticides on the job, and was confined to a wheelchair in his later years. Different informants have different recollections about how much pesticide and herbicide might have entered the soil. Not knowing accurately what chemicals were being used makes it difficult to guess what residues might still be present, and at what depths and concentrations. Even though it has been 30 years since the tree service business ended, many of the chemicals used at that time were extremely persistent, and some are potentially very persistent under certain conditions (for example, absence of sunlight), The chemicals in common use in the tree care industry during this period include: DDT 2,4-D heavy metal compounds tin compounds organo-phosphates (nerve agents) thiols malathion parathion 16 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) 8. Response to Historical Assessment Although the historical assessment report provided a general overview of the Barron Park neighborhood, it omitted readily available specifics of this individual property. All four of the daughters of the previous owner still live in the area, Carolyn Charles (Palo Alto), Jean Benedict (Palo Alto), Virginia Hendrickson (Sunnyvale), and Mary Ann Kempner (San Jose). His widow, Margery, is in a nursing home in San Jose. Harold Benedict moved to this area from Pennsylvania in 1929 and bought this property shortly thereafter, and lived there until his death (1999-01-16). The neighboring residence 789-791 has been occupied by the present owners since the early 1950’s. We are not aware of any historic aspects of the structures on this property. But buildings are not the only artifacts of a person’s presence. Harold loved the outdoors and nature and the natural setting on this property is part of his legacy. 17 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (edo) 9. Response to Habitat Assessment Report Introduction The submitted Habitat Assessment Report is 1. grossly deficient in the species listed, 2. mistaken in the case of two of the species of concern, 3. fails to note relationship to PAUSD’s Barron Park (Elementary) School These deficiencies call into question whether the assessment that the standard setbacks from the creek are adequate. Except for the mention of this setback, the report ignores that this is a riparian corridor, which is a critical natural habitat in this area. The fuller list of species also emphasizes the importance of the mature trees on the subject property. This listing is based upon one on the BPA website www2.bpaonline.org/habitat/wildlife.html Species of Concern errors, omissions, understatements o Cooper’s Hawk (CSC): listed as "low potential" to occur. However, Cooper’s Hawks have nested in the immediate area since the early 1990s and are routinely seen hunting over the subject property, both flying and perching in the trees. In 2001, a pair nested at 715 Matadero. In 2002, a pair nested in a Black Acacia at the intersection of Julie Court and Matadero. In 2003 and 2004, the exact nesting site was not identified because I (Moran) was not present during the daytime during the period when the pair "announce" their location. However, based upon their flight patterns, the nest is probably somewhere between Julie Court and 807 Matadero. °Bewick’s Wren (FSC): listed as "low potential" to occur. However, it is routinely seen on the subject property and is also routinely seen on adjacent properties (790 and 800). ¯Red-legged frogs: listed as "unlikely" to occur. However, according to long-term residents, this species of frogs was present in this section of Matadero Creek prior to the toxic problems starting in the 1970s (toxics from Stanford Research Park entered the ground water and then into Matadero Creek). With remediation largely complete, there is significant potential for natural repopulation - upper sections of Matadero Creek (in Arastradero Preserve) have well- documented populations of Red-legged Frogs and these frogs are occasionally heard in the Bol Park area of the creek. Caveat: remediation is not fully complete and some problems remain, as was revealed by an attempt at reintroducing Pacific Tree Frogs into this segment of the creek. °Herons and egrets: the rookeries for herons and egrets are on the listing for special concern (CSC). None are present here. However, the adjacent section of Matadero Creek is an important foraging area for egrets and herons. It is not uncommon to see them in this section of the creek (or flying into or from it). Before the redwoods on the subject property were cut-down, it was common to see egrets and herons perching there. Now, one occasionally sees them perching in the oak trees near the creek. Omissions and understatements on other noteworthy species 18 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (ed.) The report is silent on cavity-nesting birds. It is hard to enter the subject property and not be aware of cavity-nesters: A tree at the entry to the driveway of 797 has readily apparent woodpecker nesting holes (8-10 feet high). This tree was actively used as a nest through 2003 (not in 2004). The presence of chickadees and titmice is revealed by their calls. The report should have included them because their population is continuing to decrease because of loss of nesting sites. The mature trees on the subject propertysupport a significant population of these birds. Barron Park (Elementary) School Barron Park (Elementary) School is directly across the creek from the subject property. The school is part of the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Adopt-a-Creek program, having adopted this section of the creek. The school also has science program (especially fourth grade) related to the creek. A fuller list of species of note: Birds Asterisks mark the species mentioned in the Habitat Assessment Report as being present. Observations by residents of adjacent properties who pay attention to birds (below the level of qualifying as "birders"), primarily 790 (Moran) and 800 (Wren). There are other species of song birds present but not listed here because not enough distinguishing marks have been seen to make an reliable identification. Commonly seen - resident Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Dendrocopos nuttallii ) Chestnut-backed Chickadee (Parus rufescens) Plain Titmouse, Oak Titmouse(Parus inornatus) Common Bushtit (Psaltriparus minirnus) Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) Anna’s Hummingbird (Calypte anna) Mourning Dove (Zena. idura macroura) California Thrasher ~oxostoma redivivum) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) American Robin (Turdus migratorius) House Finch* (Carpodacus mexicanus) Sparrows - various Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) : frequently seen in the stretch of Matadero Creek between the bridge at Tippawingo/Josina and the upper reaches of Bol Park. Nesting location(s) unknown (they live in holes in banks). Mallard Duck (Anasplatyrhynchos) : They nest in several locations along Matadero Creek. Previous owner (Benedicts) reported them nesting on bank of subject property. Swallows - various subspecies Scrub Jay* (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Steller’s Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) : At least one pair has taken up residence on Matadero Creek beginning in the late 1990s. Normally regarded as bird of higher elevations (cooler, denser forest). Seen infrequently on the SRP-ward side of Matadero Avenue. Spotted Towhee, Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo eruthrophthalmus) Goldfinch (Spinus...) (especially notable in winter when they gather in large flocks) 19 Response to request for variance for subdivision of 797-807 Matadero Avenue - Doug Moran (edo) Commonly seen - foraging, but non-resident Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteojamaicensis) Common Egret, Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) Snowy Egret (Leucophoyx thula) Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) Common Crow, American Crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) Common Raven (Corvus corax) Occasionally seen, resident ¯Owls - species unknown, but Great Horned Owls have been seen by knowledgeable birders within a few blocks of subject property. ¯White-tailed Kite, Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus leucurus) Nested between bike path and Matadero Court, on property very .similar to subject property. °Hairy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos villosus) ¯ Nutall’s is dominant species of woodpecker. ¯Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopospubescens) °Red/Yellow/hybrid -shafted Flicker (Colaptes auratus/cafer) °Flycatcher (Myiarchus ...) ¯Western Flycatcher (Empidonax diffieuliX) ¯Oriole °Northern Bobwhite Quail (Golinus virginianus) ¯ Not native to California, but populations created by escapees from game farms, facilities training bird-dogs and similar captive settings. Was definitely present on subject property one summer (2002), but that incident generated reports of earlier habitations by quail (species unknown - may have been native species). Occasionally seen - foraging, but definitely non-resident ¯White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) - presumably stopped in creek during commute between the bay and the coast. Very impressive - makes egrets look small. Common winter visitors Oregon Junco (winter oily) (Junco oreganus) Cedar Waxwing (Botnbycilla cedronum) Grosbeaks Occasional winter visitors White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) A fuller list of species of note: Mammals Raccoon* (Procyon loto0 Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Opossum (Didelphis marsupialus) Tree Squirrels: Grey and Black 20 Page 1 of 2 Betten, Zariah From:Bobgmoss@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:58 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:797 Matadero Subdivision Dear Planning Commissioners In regard to the proposed subdivision at 797 Matadero: The proposed subdivision is too dense, threatens a number of heritage trees, has inadequate on-street parking, and is inconsistent with the existing nearby development.. It should be rejected, and the applicant should be given the oppommity to return with asmaller subdivision 0fno more than 4 lots with adequate setbacks from Matadero Creek and both the remaining heritage oaks and the re-sprouted redwoods that are growing back from trees destroyed by the applicant a few days before the heritage tree ordinance took effect for redwoods. Overflow parking on Matadero from the proposed project would have an extremelyadverse impact on bicyclists, traffic, safety, and students walking to school. The street is a very narrow collector identified as a bicycle and school route. Presently parking along Matadero is rare. The proposed subdivision and street has inadequate on-street parking and is very likely to cause overflow parking on Matadero with Serious adverse impacts on traffic and safety. The claim that it provides i2 to 14 on-street parking spaces appears very generous.. The developer based this on using the entire 100 foot street frontage of lots 1 and 5 for parking, ignoring the need for driveways into those lots. Three of.the lots have very small street frontages and could not park more than 1 car each, or perhaps 3 cars for 2 lots if their driveways are adjacent. Lots i and 5 might have street parking for at most 6 to 8 cars. It would be difficult to park more than 10 or 11 cars on the street as the"lots are laid out presently. In addition the proposal claims each lo~ will have on-site parking for 4 cars, 2 in garages and 2 in front of the garage. None of the garage setbacks shown in the plot plans exceed 20’, too shallow a driveway to park cars adequately, especially SUVs. Lots 1, 2 and 5 have driveways and front yard setbacks of about 16’. These Setbacks are not compliant with R-1 zoning regulations which require 20’ front yard setbacks. The actual requirements for driveway depths should be 22’, in order to assure adequate on-site parking as proposed by the developer. When questioned about these deficiencies the developer’said the layouts shown in the application are just examples, not necessarily what actually will be requested or built. This. confirms ’the need for larger, more rational, lots that will allow homes more compatible with the neighborhood.. The proposal claims that other nearby cul-de-sacs with narrow street widths do not have adverse impacts, but these-examples are not comparable to the situation on Matadero. Pena and Carlitos courts are both much deeper than the proposed street, and have more on-street parking spaces than does the proposed cul-de-sac. Pena court is offMaybell, which is wider at this point than Matadero is at the proposed street. Overflow parking on Maybell alongside Pena lot 1 has little impact on bike or school traffic, unlike the adverse impacts from overflow parking on Matadero. Julie Court has 2 side yards 80 to 110 feet long for overflow parking, and only 4 lots on the cul-de-sac, 3 of which have at least 1 on-street space. Spill-over parking from Julie court onto Matadero has been a problem on many occasions. Julie Court was approved by the County more than 25 years ago. It would Page 2 of 2 never be approved today. The bulb end of Georgia has only 3 lots with any spill-over parking at the end of Georgia, a lightly traveled local street, not a collector street. Arroyo Ct. intersects Miranda, a very lightly traveled local street with ample overflow parking on Miranda along Lot 1.- None. of these other cul-de-sacs are comparable to the proposed new cul-de-sac off of Matadero, and none of them would have the same adverse impact on bicycle and school traffic that overflow parking on Matadero from the proposed development would have on bicycle and school safety. The proposed new homes would all be 2 stories plus basement; not consistent with existing homes in this area. The project must have ARB review to assure compliance and consistency with existing homes and the overall streetscape. No mention is made of possible impacts of basements on groundwater or the creek. This should be considered to assure there will be no adverse impacts on the creek; and no seepage of water from the creek into the proposed basements. No BIVIR requirements are explicitly stated. Ideally one of the five homes proposed would be sold ¯ under BMR restrictions, providing at least the standard t5% BMR. requirement. BIVIR requirements must be explicitly stated and. enforced if this subdivision goes forward. Yours verytruly, Bob Moss 4010 Orme Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Attachment K ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto epa:~rtmentofPlanning a d Comm~.~ffn=jO,~2~E~v~i~~ 1.Project Title:Five-lot Subdivision Q Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Steven Turner, Planner, (650) 329-2155 4.Project Location:795 and 807 Matadero Avenue 5.Application Number(s):03-SUB-01, 03-EIA-03 o Project Sponsor Name and Address:Mark Migdal, Matadero Avenue, LLC 593 Lytton Avenue, Suite A, Palo Alto, CA 94301 7.Property Owner:Mark Migdal, Matadero Avenue, LLC 8.General Plan Designation:Single-Family Residential 9.Zoning:R-1 (Single Family Residential District) 10.Project Description: The project consists of a tentative Map to subdivide a 1.1-acre parcel into five single- family parcels. The lots would be accessed by a cul-de-sac street that the applicant is offering for public dedication. An exception is required to ailow a street width of 40-feet, where 50-feet is normally the minimum required. The applicant has not submitted an application for approval of single-family homes to be constructed on the proposed lots. Architectural Review Board approval would be required for any two or more homes that the current or future owners constructed simultaneously on the proposed lots. Property owners that develop a single lot with a two-story structure would be subject to the Individual Review process. 11.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The property is bordered by Matadero Creek to the east and single-family residential properties to the north, south and west. Single-family residential properties are located on the opposite side of the creek to the east. 12.Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara Valley Water District permits will be required for construction of additional outfalls to the creek fro site drainage. Date Prepared: August 12, 2004 Public Review Period: August 13, 2004 to September 1, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics X Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic X X X Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise PopulationYrlousing Public Services Recreation Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance None 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 that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E[R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X Project ~aflt~neri~ ~ /’ ,._ ~Di~e~br~f P~a~ing and Com~munity Environment Date Date 2 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. AI"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) 3) 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. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program El:R, 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 ........ Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9)The explanation of each issue should identif~v: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance a) b) Issues and Supporting Information Sources AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated 1,2 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which 1, 2 X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland b) 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? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment.which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,2 1,2 1,2 X X X 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: 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? 1, 14 1, 14 1, 14 1, 14 X a) b) c) X X Xd) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors (residential, school) to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number 1, 14 [X of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)1, 2 X b) c) d) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurser)" sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an. adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved lo’cal, regional or state conservation plan? 1,2 (N-I), 8 1, 2 (N-l) 1,2 (N-l), 8 X 1,2 (N-I) X X X X V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b). c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 2 (L-7), 7, 9 1,2 (L-S), 7, 9 1,2 X 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred 1, 2 (L-X outside of formal cemeteries?8), 7, 9 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)XRupture of a ~known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2 (N- 5), 18 2 (N-5, N-10), 4 2 N-8, N- 10), 4 iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X X ix’) Landslides?2 (N- 5), 4 X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1, 4, 6 X c)X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 5), 4, 6 2 (N- 5), 4, 6 1, 6, 14 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? e) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS., Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact X X Issues and SupportingInformation Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile (1,320’) of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For .a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wiidland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wiidlands? Sollgces 17 1,2 (N-7) 1,2 (N-7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X 1,2 (N-2) X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 2, 15 X requirements? b)XSubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 11, 15 c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X 7 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? g) h) 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? Sources 1, 6, 11, 15 1, 6, 14 1, 15 1, 11 1,2 (N-6), 11 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated X X Less Than Significant Impact X X No Impact X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,1, 2 X injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a (N-6, result of the failure of a levee or dam?N-8), 4 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?1, 2 X IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:! a) Physically divide an established community?1, 2 X b)1, 2, 3 XConflict 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 natural community conservation plan? I, 2 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 the region and the residents of the state? 1,2 8 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 1,2 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) e) 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 excessive noise levels? 1,2 (N- 3), 3 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 1,2,3 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X f) For a project within the vicinity Of a private airstrip, would 1 X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)1, 2 XInduce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? x X 9 Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant 1 mpact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? 12 1 1,2 1,2 2 X X X X X XIV. RECREATION a) b) Would the project increase the use Of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1,2 1,2 X b) c) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change inair traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1, 2 (T- 7, T-8), 13 1, 2, 13 X ’ X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) Sources Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 2, 8 1, 2, 3 Potentially Significant Unless 1, 2, 3 Less Than Significant Impact e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially Significant Issues Mitigated X a) b) c) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 0 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Complywith federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2, 14 1, 2, 14 1, 2, 14 1, 2, 14 1, 2, 11 1, 2, 11 X No Impact X X X X X X X 11 a) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. X b) c) 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X SOURCE REFERENCES: 2. 3. 4. 5. o 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14: 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Site visit, planner’s knowledge of’project, review of project plans dated July, 2004. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 & Maps L-7, L-8, L-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5, ~N-6, N-8, N-10, T-7, T-8 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) and Title 16 (Building Regulations) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Arborist Report & Tree Inventory, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, dated June, 2000 and Wood Tree Works, dated July 2000 Soil and Foundation Investigation for 797 & 807 Matadero Road, American Soil testing Inc, February 2000 Historic Resource Evaluation, 807 Matadero Avenue, prepared by Carey & Co. Ine, August 2000 Special Species Habitat Assessment, prepared by Wetlands Research Associates, February 2001 Cultural Resource Evaluation~ prepared by Archaeological Resource Management, November 2000 City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist’s comments City of Palo Alto Public WorkS Department comments City of Palo Alto Fire Department comments City of Palo Alto Transportation Division comments City of Palo Alto Utility Department comments ........ Santa Clara County Water District comments - Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 8 (Trees and Vegetation) State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List dated December, 1994 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996 (updated 12/99) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Location Map 12 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: I. Aesthetics a) The City’s Comprehensive Plan does not identify the project site as a scenic resource and the site is not located within any major identified view shed. Therefore, the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista. b) There are no scenic resources or historic buildings located on the project site. The nearest highway to the site is Interstate 280, which is approximately two miles to the east of the site. Although Interstate 280 is a scenic highway’ in San Mateo County, there would be no impacts to this scenic resource. Theproject would not involve construction of any buildings. The site would be developed for single-family housing at some time in the furore. These structures would be limited to a maximum height of 30-feet, which would not result in significant scenic impacts. c)The project consists of the demolition of the existiflg single-family structures and accessory buildings on the site. Vegetation, including shrubs and trees other than oaks or redwoods, may be removed for construction of public improvements including a cul-de-sac, curbs, gutters and utilities. Although these changes would change the appearance of the property as viewed from Matadero Avenue, the changes are not expected to result in significant impacts. The mature, vegetative area of the project site along Matadero Creek would not be changed to accommodate the project. The site would be developed for single-family housing at some time in the future.. The applicant has not submitted an application for approval of single-family homes to be constructed on the proposed lots. Architectural Review Board approval would be required for any two or more homes that the current or future owners constructed simultaneously on the proposed lots. Property owners that develop a single lot with a two-story structure would be subject to the Individual Review process. These processes include design review of massing, scale, and neighborhood context, which result in new structure that are compatible with the neighborhood. d)While the proposed project would not bring any additional light or glare to the site. Although the site would be developed as single-family housing in the future, no significant impacts are anti cipated. Residual Impact:Less than Significant Mitigation Measures:None required II. Agriculture Resources For all issues: The project site is locatedin a developed residential area zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District. The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area and is not designated as a Williamson Act Property. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No impact None required 13 III. Air Quality a-c)The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) thresholds of Significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The project would involve demolition, excavating, grading, and paving activities which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter ~M10). Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but mitigable with the application of standard dust control measures. Construction equipment would also emit NOx and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of time. Based on the size of the proposed project, emissions of NOx and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant. d) ¯ Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Transportation!Traffic section of this Initial Study, the project is not expected to result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. Sensitive receptors are defined as children, elderly, or ill people who can be more adversely affected by air quality problems. The proposed project will be located in a developed residential area. The Barron Park Elementary School is adjacent to the project site, across from Matadero Creek. Although sensitive receptors are in the immediate vicinity of the project, the mitigation measures for the construction impacts as described below would result in a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors. e)The project consists of a five-lot single-family housing subdivision, which is not anticipated to create objectionable odors. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated AQ-1)The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: ¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. ¯All trucks hauling soil, gand, and other loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. All unpaved access roads, par’king areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be either paved, watered three times daily, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, par*king areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. ,If visible soil material is carried onto public streets, the street shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. IV. Biological Resources a-d) The project site is located in a residential setting adjacent to Matadero Creek, which, in the project area, 14 is an un-charmelized, natural flowing creek. The property extends into Matadero Creek. A 32-foot wide Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement is located at the rear of the property. This easement area is deducted from the gross site area and no development is allowed in the easement area. A 20-foot rear yard setback area as shown on the tentative map is measured from the SCVWD easement line. e) The applicant has submitted a report, "Special Status Species Habitat Assessment, Matadero Avenue Project Site" by Wetlands Research Associates, which describes the creek in the project site. The report described the creek as low-gradient stream channel with flows that are probably perennial to intermittent in the area and containing vegetation that consists of scattered coast live oak and several exotic plant species associated with residential landscaping. The report also describes the special status species of mammals, birds, reptile, amphibians, fish and vegetation that typically exist in Southern San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County in similar habitats as the project site. The report concluded that, "no state or federal endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species are likely to occur on the project site because (1) native plant communities are not present and (2) habitat degradation associated with urban residential development and human activities preclude the presence of special status species." The report further concludes, "The proposed residential development would not significantly impact stream habitat or steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) since the existing channel and it’s associated riparian vegetation (including exotic species) would be avoided during construction." Based upon the findings of the report, the proposed subdivision and subsequent construction of five new single family homes will not have a significant impact on the riparian habitat. The project site contains species of trees regulated by local ordinance, referred to as ’protected trees’, including Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) and Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). The arborist report prepared in June 2000 by Mayne Tree Expert Company and a tree survey by Wood Tree Works in July 2000 has identified trees and shrubs of varying size and health on the existing lots., The report has concluded that the preservation of the trees could be accomplished through the standard tree protection practices. Seven coast redwoods are considered unsalvagable but require replacement according to provisions of the tree preservation ordinance. The tree preservation ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 contains regulations for properties containing protected trees. Construction of single-family dwellings on four of the five proposed lots would be affected by the presence of protected trees that will be preserved. The project applicant has provided information that describes how single-family dwellings could be constructed on each lot that would comply with the requirements of Chapter 8.10, Each house that is to be constructed would be required to comply with the tree protection measures as outlined in PAMC 8.10 and the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. The Planning Division Arborist has recommended approval of the project with specific mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would ensure that future property owners in the subdivision are aware of the building constraints due to protected trees to be preserved. The mitigation measures for trees to be preserved and protected are listed below. 15 Seven coast redwoods that are protected by the tree ordinance would be removed. The Planning Division Arborist has recommended approval of the project with the mitigation measure that would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure would ensure that the required replacement trees would be included in the improvement plans for the project sites. The mitigation measure for the redwood trees to be removed is listed below. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated BR-1)Tentative Map information, The tentative map shall show precise location and size of each mink, size, and species of all existing trees on site with special notation of 16 ’protected trees’ (trees #1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees atthe outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero Creek.). Map shall indicate each tree by n .umber (matching the tree inventory) and depict a tree protection zone (TPZ) as a bold dashed line for each protected tree, including the creek trees and the trees adjacent to the storm drain. Oak tree #26 shall depict a TPZ radius of 23-feet from the perimeter of the tree trunk. Oaks #1,20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two creek oaks shall depict a TPZ radius of 10-times the tree trunk diameter. The legend shall include a TPZ note stating: "Tree Protection Restriction Zone--See informational sheet" BR-2)Final Map Informational Sheet. The final map informational sheet shall include the following information: Tree Protection Restriction Zone. A tree protection zone (TPZ) applies to the following 16 ’protected trees’: #1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees at the outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero Creek. Encroachment of structures or soil disturbance greater than 4’inches is prohibited in the TPZ, pursuant to a tree preservation plan consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. BR-3)Seven coast redwoods regulated by the tree preservation ordinance shall be removed with the provision that they be replaced in accordance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.10, and included as required plantings in the public improvement plans. V. Cultural Resources ....................... a-d) The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate sensitivity zone due to the site location adjacent to Matadero Creek. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future plarming area construction. The applicant has submitted two reports that analyzed the cultural and archaeological aspects of the site. The first report, "Historic Resource Evaluation, 807 Matadero" by Carey & Co. Inc, describes the existing condition of the site and structures and a historical background of the Barron Park neighborhood. The report found that the property would not be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 16 The second report, "Phase One Archaeological Assessment, Cultural Resource Evaluation of Property at 797 and 807 .Matadero Avenue" investigates the presence or absence of any significant cultural resources in the area. The report found that no prehistoric cultural resources were observed during surface reconnaissance of the site, although the site is located in an area known for having buried archaeological deposits. Four prehistoric sites and studies have been recorded within a half-mile radius of the project site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update EIR included in its mitigations that areas of moderate sensitivity shall be "subject to surface survey and/or subsurface probing if (a) the area is unimproved land, (b) the project will entail excavation more than 5 feet below the existing grade on improved land, or (c) mass grading is anticipated for large commercial, transportation, or utility projects." Residual Impact:Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Mitigation Measures: CR-1)Prior to issuance of a building permit, a limited auger test on the site shall be conducted. The auger testing shall be conducted with a compact, trailer mounted motorized auger (general 550 or similar) capable of being operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered with be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A report of findings shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Palo Alto within 30 days of completion of the work. The testing program shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 1). CR-2) CR-3) If, based upon auger testing, additional data recovery is warranted, and Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. In addition, the plan shall include the following: (1) a Research design, describing the questions to be addressed and the methodology to be used during data recovery; (2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis and curation; and (3) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 1). Project personnel shal! be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction mad appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified irnmediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). Construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site and prepare an Extended Phase 1 report to identify the extent of the remains. Recommendations from the Extended Phase 1 report shall be incorporated into the project. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until 17 it can be evaluated bya qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards asoutlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation, The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. VI. Geology and Soils a, c-d) The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the project site as being in an area that is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. However, the proposed is not in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landsliding. Soils and/or geotechnical reports maybe required in conjunction with the Building Permit application for the project. All new construction will be required to comply with to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no geological or seismic impacts are expected. A soils and foundation investigation was conducted on this site by American Soils Testing, Inc. in February 2000. Subsurface borings were taken at various points on the project site. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the site for appropriate foundation engineering. The report concluded that the site is suitable for the propose development on either natural ground for engineered fill provided the recommendations of the report are incorporated into the design considerations, project plans and specifications. Potential for liquefaction was low due to the dense natuie of the soil. Buildings constructed on the site shall be appropriately reinforced as recommended by a structural engineer in accordance with the most Current UBC. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the report should be required as a condition of approval of the subdivision. b) Permanent changes to the site topography are not expected. Grading activity associated with this project would be associated with the new cul-de-sac and installation of utility systems. A final grading and drainage plan for the project is subject to the approval of the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application of standard grading drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts, e) The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Residual Impact:Less than Significant Mitigation Measures:None required 18 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a-c)The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. d)The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. e-f)The projec~t site is located over one mile to the southeast of the Palo Alto Airport. The additional public activity associated with the intensified use of the site is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. g) The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation, h) The project site is not located in a designated fire hazard area. Residual Impact:No Impact .... Mitigation Measures:None required ..... VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a,c-f) Construction of the proposed building and related site improvements will decrease the amount of impervious surface area on the site, increasing the potential for on-site stormwater absorption and decreasing the rate and amount of surface run-off. Approximately 6,400 square feet of the 46,422 square foot site would consist of the impervious cul-de-sac and roadway surfaces. Each parcel would be allowed lot coverage of 35% for a two-story house or approximately 40% for a single story house that utilize the maximum floor area allowed on the ground floor. The site would be able to absorb additional storm water, as a significant portion of the site would remain undeveloped or as pervious surfaces for stream bank and oak tree protection. Standard Conditions of Approval require the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is also required to be submitted in conjunction with building permit plans to address potential water quality impacts. Because the site is located adjacent to Matadero Creek, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) will review the proposed drainage plans prior to Final Map approval. Storm water runoff would be collected into an onsite storm drain system that would be distributed to an outfall on Matadero Creek. The outfall will be designed in accordance with the SCVWD standards. b)The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and wil! not deplete groundwater supplies. g-i)A portion of the project site is located in the "ACr" 100-year flood zone. Matadero Creek carries stormwater runoff and could become flooded after a significant rainfall event. The side would be irnproved with a cul-de-sac and utility systems. Storm water runoff would be directed to an outfall on Matadero Creek, rather than to the City’s storm drain system. The cul-de-sac would be graded to direct 19 flows to the onsite storm drain system. The future development of five single-family residential structures would not significantly alter the ground level of the sites, which would be largely open and unobstructed. Therefore the future residential development is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows. While the development associated with the project would allow a greater intensity of use on the site, the application of standard building code provisions relating to construction in the floodplain will prevent the exposure of people or structures to significant flood-related risk. j) The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche~ tsunami, or mudflow. Residual Impact: ..... Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant .......... None required IX. Land Use and Planning a-c)The proposed five-lot subdivision will not cause a significant conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation or the R-1 Single-Family Residential district zoning on the site. The proposed density of five units per acre complies with the Single Family land use designation, which establishes a range of one to seven units per acre. Each parcel would meet the minimum requirements for lot area, width and length. Lots 1, 3, and 4 contain oak trees in the building area as defined by the setback lines. Oaks are protected species per Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 8.10 and special construction consideration is required when development is proposed in the vicinity of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The tree protection requirements will limit the development of specific structures on those lots and would restrict future property owner’s ability to develop the property. As each property is developed, an arborist report and tree survey will be required. Specific tree protection measures and construction techniques will be identified as part of these studies. The building permits will show the required tree protection and indicate the special construction details to ensure tree protection during construction activities and after the project is complete.. The applicant has requested approval of street width exceptions for the project. Exceptions are required to allow a cul-de-sac width of 40-feet, where 50-feet is the minimum standard established by the Public Works. The proposed street width has been found to be acceptable by Public Works and the Fire Department. Specific exception findings are required in order to approve the request. Approval of the findings would result in impacts that would be less than significant .......... The proposed lot pattern would be consistent with other cul-de-sac lot patterns in the neighborhood, such as La Mata way and .Laguna Court and would not physically divide an established community. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant ..... None required X. Mineral Resources a-b)The project site is not located in a designated mineral resource recovery site. No impacts to mineral resources are expected. 2O Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No Impact None required XI. Noise a-d)The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 60 Ldn. This noise level is typical for single-family residential districts. Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and construction, which will be short term in duration. The project must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts are expected to be less than significant. Long-term noise associated with the single-family residential use is expected to be less than significant. e-f)The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Residual Impact:Less than Significant Mitigation Measures:.None required XII. Population and Housing a-c)The project site consists of three parcels containing two rental units. The project would merge the three parcels and create five new lots. The existing rental units would be demolished. The five units would bring approximately 14 new residents to the area (2.7 persons per unit x 5 units). Although the project would indirectly cause an increase of residents to the area (through the approval of the subdivision and construction of the cul-de-sac), the increase would not be substantial. The project would therefore not induce a substantial population growth in the area. Although two rental units would be demolished, the project will not displace a significant amount of existing housing. The project would be subject to the policies and regulations of the Below Market Rate Housing program, including the payment of in-lieu fees. Residual Impact: No Impact Mitigation Measure: None required XIII. Public Services a)Fire The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is not located in a high fire hazard area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by 21 itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities. Schools No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. Parks No significant direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto’s residential population. Other Public Facilities None Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required XIV. Recreation a,b) Palo Alto follows the National Recreation and Park Association Standards as guidelines for determining parkland needs. This requires two acres of parkland for each 1,000 people. The project could generate t4 additional persons, resuking in a demand of 0.03 acres of parkland. This increase in parkland is not a considerable amount and is a less than significant impact. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measures: No Impact None required XV.Transportation/Traffic a,b) The proposed five-lot subdivision would nor result in a significant traffic impact. A trip generation analysis prepared for this application by the Transportation Division estimates that the project would produce approximately 50 trips per day. This is not sufficient to increase the level of traffic congestion at surrounding intersections or require a Congestion Management Program traffic impact analysis. No traffic impacts are expected as a result of this project. The design of the proposed cut-de-sac road, including the 40-foot right of way, where 50-feet is normally required has been reviewed by the Transportation Division and determined to be adequate to serve the single family properties. Although the cut-de-sac turnaround has a radius of 35-feet, where 40-feet is normally required, it would allow for emergency vehicle access and an adequate turn around radius. Additionally, construction of a narrower road results in less impervious surface and fewer drainage and water quality impacts on Matadero Creek. c) The project will not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d,e)The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Department and Transportation Division and does not contain design features that will substantially increase hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. f) The subsequent construction of five single-family residential units as a result of the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity for the area. Each single family home would be required to include two off-street parking spaces setback at least 20 feet from the front property line. The width of the cul-de-sac is adequate to allow on-street visitor parking and provide emergency vehicle access, thereby reducing the need for overflow parking on Matadero Avenue. A unique characteristic of the Barron Park neighborhood is the absence of sidewalks. The project does not include sidewalks in the cul-de-sac or on Matadero Avenue. Pedestrians and cyclists would share the streets with vehicles. The proj ect would not narrow Matadero Avenue and therefore would not create additional impacts above what already exist in the area. Residual Impact: Mitigation Measure: No Impact None required XVI. Utilities and Service Systems c)The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has reviewed the project and has determined that there shall be no overbank drainage of water into the creek. The SCVWD will require storm water runoff to be collected in a storm drain water system and either distributed to an existing storm drain system or to an outfall on Matadero Creek. The outfall shall be designed in accordance with the District’s guidelines. Property design and construction of the storm water system will result in less than significant impacts. Residua! Impact: Mitigation Measures: Less than Significant None required 23 Mitigation Measure Summary AQ-1)The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: ¯All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. o All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be either paved, watered three times daily, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers. All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. If visible soil material is carried onto public streets, the street shall be swept (with water sweepers) daily. BR-1)Tentative Map information. The tentative map shall show precise location and size of each trunk, size, and species of all existing trees on site with special notation of 16 ’protected trees’ (trees #1, 20, 21,23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees at the outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero Creek.). Map shall indicate each tree by number (matching the.tree inventory) and depict a tree protection zone (TPZ) as a bold dashed line for each protected tree, including the creek trees and the trees adjacent to the storm drain. Oak tree #26 shall depict a TPZ radius of 23-feet from the perimeter of the tree trunk. Oaks #1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two creek oaks shall depict a TPZ radius of 10-times the tree trunk diameter. The legend shall include a TPZ note stating: "Tree Protection Restriction Zone--See informational sheet" BR-2)Final Map Informational Sheet. The final map informational sheet shall include the following information: Tree Protection Restriction Zone. A tree protection zone (TPZ) applies to the following 16 ’protected trees’: #1, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and two trees at the outfall of storm drain easement into Matadero Creek. Encroachment of structures or soil disturbance greater than 4-inches is prohibited in the TPZ, pursuant to a tree preservation plan consistent with the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030. BR-3)Seven coast redwoods regulated by the tree preservation ordinance shall be removed with the provision that they be replaced in accordance with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.10, and included as required plantings in the public improvement plans. CR-1)Prior to issuance of a building permit, a limited auger test on the site shall be conducted. The auger testing shall be conducted with a compact, trailer mounted motorized auger (general 550 or similar) capable of being operated in low-overhead settings. Appropriate borehole logs and associated documentation shall be prepared so that any artifacts recovered with be recorded and replaced in their respective auger hole. A report of findings shal! be prepared and submitted to the Ci~ of Pa!o Alto within 30 days of comp!etion of the work. The testing program shal! be implemented by an individua! meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 1). CR-2)If, based upon auger testing, additional data recovery is warranted, and Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) shall be prepared prior to construction. The AMDRP shall define how data recovery and construction monitoring will be conducted and protocol to be followed in the event significant resources are discovered during construction. In addition, the plan shall include the following: (1) a Research design, describing the questions to be addressed and the methodology to be used during data recovery; (2) provisions for artifact cataloging, analysis and curation; and (3) Native American coordination and involvement in the event prehistoric skeletal remains are encountered. The AMDRP shall be implemented by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards in Archeology (36 CFR 1). Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and appraised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). Construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site and prepare an Extended Phase 1 report to identify the extent of the remains. Recommendations from the Extended Phase 1 report shall be incorporated into the project. In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concemed parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native Americafi community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED AUGUST 13, 2004, PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 797 & 807 MATADERO AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. APi~tieant/ ~i/g’s nature 25