Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-13 City Council (7)Allta Manager’s Rep r 8 TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUniTY ENVIRONMENT DATE: JANUARY 13, 2003 CMR:108:03 SUBJECT:REQUEST BY HANNA SHACHAM ON BEHALF OF ERIC AND MARION GOLIN TO SUBDIVIDE TWO FORMERLY MERGED PARCELS AT 1036 COWPER STREET. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN INITIAL STUDY HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUIREMENTS. ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (929) RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Cormrdssion (Commission) recommend that the City Council approve the Parcel Map based upon the findings (Attachment A) and subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment B) of the staff report prepared for the Commission and attached to this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot parcel back into the two original 7,500 square foot parcels that existed prior to the lots being merged in December 2000. The site is located in the R-1 (929) zone district at 1036 Cowper Street. A 1,340 square foot single family home and a 216 square foot detached garage are located on the site. Surrounding land uses are both one- and two-story single family residential. The development regulations for the R-1 (929) zone district require newly created parcels to have a minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. This project would result in two parcels each with a dimension of 50 feet by 150 feet. These parcels would be 250 square feet less than the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and 10 feet less in width of the required 60 feet. Both lots would be interior lots. CMR: 108:03 Page 1 of 2 BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Planning and Transportation Commission The Commission reviewed this project at its meeting of December 11, 2002. The Commission discussed the project and was in support of the Parcel Map with exceptions because the project would return the lots to their historical configuration prior to the previous lot merger. The Commission was also in support because the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of each smaller lot is less than one large lot,. thereby allowing two homes, rather then one large home, to be constructed in ~eater context with neighboring homes. After closing the public hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended approva! of the Parcel Map to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Report to the Planning Commission dated December 11, 2002 Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Christo A. Riordan, Planner i~STEVFT’EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment EMILY’-HARRI Assistant City Manager Hanna Shacham, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Eric and Marion Golin, 178 Prince Street, West Newton, MA 02465 L. Wade Hammond L.S., 36660 Newark Blvd., Ste. D, Newark, CA 94560 CMR: 108:03 Page 2 of 2 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 1 TO:PLA?,,~-ING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Christopher A. Riordan Planner DEP.AA1TMENT: Plarm!ng and Cormnunity Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: December 11, 2002 Request by Hanna Shacham on behalf of Eric and Marion Golin to subdivide two formerly merged parcels at 1036 Cowper Street. The project consists of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot parcel back into the two original 7,500 square foot parcels. Environmental Assesslnent: An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: R-1 (929) RECOMMENDATION Staff recolnmends the Planning and Transportation Colmnission recomrnend approval of the Parcel Map to the City Council, based upon the attached Findings (Attactmaent A) and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Attaclmaent B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site and Project Infolanation The project will consist of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot parcel back into the two original 7,500 square foot parcels that existed prior to the lots being merged in 2000. The site is located in the R-1 (929) zone district at 1036 Cowper Street. A 1,340 square- foot single family home and a 216 square foot detached garage are located on the site. Surrounding land uses are both one and two story single family residential. The development regulations for the R-1 (929) zone district require newly created parcels to have a minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. This project would result in two parcels each with a dimension of 50 feet x 150 feet. These parcels would be 250 square feet less then the minimum lot size of 10,000 squaxe feet and 10 feet less in width of the required 60 feet. Both lots would be interior lots. City of Palo Alto Page PROJECT HISTORY: On December 21, 2000, the applicant was ga’anted a Certificate of Compliance to merge two 7,500 square foot parcels at 1036 and 1042 Cowper Street into one 15,000 square foot lot. The lots were originally created in 1907 as part of the University Park Subdivision. All lots in the original subdivision were 7,500 square feet with dimensions of 50’ x t 50’ square feet. Prior to the merger each parcel contained a single family home. The purpose of the merger was to create a larger lot thereby allowing construction of a larger home than could have been built on one 7,500 square foot parcel. The 1,184 square foot single family home and 324 square foot detached garage located at 1042 Cowper Street was demolished prior to the recordation of the Certificate of Compliance as required by both the zoning and subdivision ordinances. On July 26, 2002, the applicant filed a subdivision application to re-subdivide and replace, in the same location, the property line that had been removed by the Certificate of Compliance. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is consistent with the following policies of the Comprehensive Plan: 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 proposed project wilt recreate two 7,500 square foot parcels. This parcel size is more compatible with the historic pat-tern and majority of lots in the irmnediate neighborhood than the existing 15,000 square foot lot. Both new lots would be interior lots; the two interior !ots across the street also have 50-foot frontages and are approximate 7,500 square feet in size. The remaining two interior lots on the 1000 block of Cowper Street are also much closer to 7,500 square feet in size than 15,000 square feet. The allowable Floor Area Ratio for a 7,500 square lot is 3,000 square feet compared to 5,250 square feet allowable for a 15,000 square foot. Two 3,000 square foot homes would have ~eater compatibility with the square footage of existing homes in the neighborhood.. Policy H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. The proposed project would allow an additional home to be built on thevacant !ot created by the parcel map, thereby maintaining the number of homes in the city’s housing stock that existed prior to the demolition of the previously existing home. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The project’s compliance with the R-1 Ordinance is discussed below in the ~Sunvnary of Significant Issues". CiO, of Palo Alto Page 2 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Minimum Lot Area and Width The project site is located in the Single-Family Residence (R-l) 929 combining district. The development regulations for the R-1 (929) zone district require newly created parcels to have a minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The proposed project would re-subdivide an existing 15,000 square foot parcel back into two 7,500 square foot parcels that existed prior to the lots being merged. The two parcels would each be 250 square feet less then the minimum lot size of !0,000 square feet and 10 feet less in width of the required 60. Since the proposed new parcels will be smaller than allowed in the R-1 (929) zone district, though no sma!ler than most lots in the vicinity, the applicant has applied for a conditional exception per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.32.010 (Subdivisions) allowing exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations of the R-1 (929) zone district. Parcel Maps conforming to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. However, the Director of Planning and Community must forward any Preliminary Parcel map with exceptions to the Planning Commission and the City Council for action. Staff supports the project because the Parcel Map will return the lots to their historic configuration that existed prior to the lot merger and will be consistent with the prevailing lot pattern of the neighborhood. In addition, the allowable floor area ratio for a 7,500 square tot is more compatible with the neighborhood then would be allowed on a single 15,000 square foot lot. Future Development Any new construction on the proposed new lot would have to conform to all zoning requirements and be subject to all applicable development impact fees. To ensure conformance with the existing neighboring homes, new two-story construction on either lot would be subject to review under the Single Family Individual Review Pro~am. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a-minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. The project is not exempt from CEQA because the subdivision would create two lots not in compliance with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project and is attached. City of Palo A!to Page 3 NEXT STEPS Following review by the Commission, the application will be heard by the City Council on January 13, 2003. If Council approves the project, the applicant may apply for a final subdivision map. The Final Subdivision Map will be reviewed for compliance by City staff and the Director of Planning and Community .Environment and then returned to the City Council on the consent calendar for final action. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A - Findings Attachment B - Conditions Attachment C - Subdivider’s Statement Attachment D- Environmental Checklist Form and Negative Declaration Attachment E- Preliminary Parcel Map [Commission members only] COURTESY COPIES: Hanna Shacham, 245 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Eric and Marion Golin, 178 Prince Street, West Newton, MA. 02465 L. Wade Hammond L.S., 36660 Newark Blvd., Ste. D, Newark, CA 94560 Prepared by:Christopher A. Riordan, AICP Planner Reviewed by:Amy French, AICP Manager of Current Planning Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Paio Alto Page 4 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDMSION WITH EXCEPTIONS 1036 Cowper Street (02-PM-O1) R_ECOMMENDED FrN~INGS FOR APPROVAL There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property, in that the parcel has historically been two separate lots, each developed with a single dwelling, and it was only recently converted into one lot; the square footage of the property is too small to permit the return of }he lots back to their more appropriate and compatible size without an exception. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner, in that the parcel map would allow the lots to be re-subdivided and developed with single family homes similar in size as the surrounding neighborhood context. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated, in that the subdivision would restore the lot line back to its historical location prior to the lots being merged The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law, in that the project will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance. o The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, in that the project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.20) and that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of Single Family Residential, the properties R-1 (929) zoning and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC 21.20) would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy H-l: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased, in that the project will provide the opportunity of an additional residential unit to be added to the city’s housing stock. 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 proposed project will create two 7,500 square foot parcels. This CiO, of Palo Alto Page 5 parcel size is compatible and in greater context with the majority of lots in the immediate neighborhood. The allowable Floor Area Ratio for a 7,500 square lot is 3,000 square feet compared to 5,250 square feet allowable for a 15,000 square foot. Two 3,000 square foot homes would be more compatible with the s’quare footage ofexisting homes in the neighborhood. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed new lot would allow a residence to be constructed that is compatible with the pattern and scale of neighboring deve!opment; The design of the subdivision will not cause significant environmental impacts in that an Environmental Assessment and a Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The design of the subdivision will not result in serious public health problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood and would result in development of single family homes and accessory units consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood in that the project in consistent with the land use pattern established by the area. The desig-n of the subdivision will not conflict with public easements for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have frontage on a public street that allow for vehicular access and utility service to a public street. City of Palo Alto Page 6 ATTACI-1-5~ENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 1036 Cowper Street (02-PM-01) CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL MAP Public Works Engineering o Final Map and Survey CheckList - The applicant must complete and return to the City of Palo Alto the Final Map, the Survey checklist, a closure sheet for the map and other supporting documents referenced on the checklist. A copy of the Final Map checklist may be obtained from Public Works Engineering. The applicant shall adhere to requirements identified on the Final Map checklist during preparation of the final map. Monuments - Indicate the monuments that will be set. At minimum, the front three lot corners shall be set with iron pipes. 3.Reference Documents - Copies of all documents used to create the Parcel Map shall be submitted, i:e. record Map University Park (now Palo Alto). 4.Prior Certificate of Compliance - A copy of the prior certificate of compliance (for lot line adjustment!merger) on this property shall be provided. Easements - The presence of a new property line internal to the site will create conditions where easements between the new parcels will be required for purposes that may include but not limited to shared pedestrian and vehicle access, parking, utilities, stoma water surface flows and drain lines. Impervious Area - The proposed subdivision of this property will make the existing impervious area information invalid for the affected parcel. The applicant shall complete an impervious area calculation sheet for each new parcel created by this application. The completed work sheets must be accompanied by a marked-up site drawing. The drawing must identify the permeable and impermeable areas of each parcel with appropriate area summations to support the entries made on the completed worksheets. The impervious area worksheet form may be obtained from Public Works Engineering, A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following filing of the final map. City of Palo Alto Page 7 7.Public R/W Improvements - Minor sidewalk repairs are the only public right-of-way improvement needed at this time. Performance of this work may coincide with construction of on-site development of the parcels shown on the map. 8.Utilities - The applicant shall provide all required utilities to service the proposed parcels. Performance of this work may coincide with construction of on-site development of the parcels shown on the map. Plarming 9.The final subdivision map shall be filed with the Planning Division within two years of the approval of the tentative subdivision map. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Subdivider’s Statement Attachment C 1036/1042 Cowper Street Eric and Marion Golin We are requesting a subdivision with exception to reverse the merger of the !ors at 1036 Cowper Street and 1042 Cow-per street by subdividing the merged !ot back to the two original lots, each of which is 50’x150’ in dimension. We believe that the exception (to allow !ots of 50’ frontage) supports the housing goals and policies as outlined in the Housing section (S 4) of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in the following ways: 1)By returning the lots to the configuration in which they- existed from (at least) 1920 until December 2000, the exception will support Goal H-2, Conservation and Maintenance of PaloAlto’s Existing Housing Stock and Residential Neighborhoods. The lots would again be in their historic state. Also, this exception would afford the possibility that the existing house at 1036 Cowper Street might be preserved and enhanced by a future owner, rather than replaced by a single larger home as was to be the case w-ith the merged lot. 2) The exception would also support Goal I-t-l, to increase the supply of affordable housing, by allowing the development of two more modest homes rather than one larger home. We believe that this exception is appropriate because it a) restores the property to ks historic config~aration; and b) that the resulting iots would be in character with the neighborhood, which contains many similarly configured lots, including the two lots adjacent to the north of 1036 Cowper. Attachment City of Palo Alto Department of PIanning and Community Envh’onment California Environmental Quality Act NEGATIVE DECLARATION I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date:December 2, 2002 Application Nos.:02-PM-01 Address of Project:1036 Cowper Street Assessor’s Parcel Number: 142-02-002 Applicant/Owner:Eric and Marion Golin 178 Prince Street West Newton, MA. 02465 Project Description and Location: The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot Parcel into two 7,500 square foot parcels. The site is located in the R-1 (929) zone district requiring new parcels to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 60 feet in width. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels smaller than allowed in R-1 (929) development regulations. Prior to January 2001, two lots did exist in the same configuration as depicted on the parcel map and each contained a single-family residence. The applicant fried a Certificate of Compliance to merge the two 7,500 square foot parcels into one 15,000 square foot parcel. The residence at 1042 Cowper Street was demolished as a condition of approval of the Certificate of Compliance. The proposed parcel map will replace the same lot line prior to the lots being merged. II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the Cit3’ of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 1036 Cowper Street may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sig-nificant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. ENVIRONMENTAL CItE CKLIS T FORM City of Palo Alto 1,Project Title: 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: 3.ContaetPerson and Phone Number: 4.Project L~)cation: 5.Application Numbers: 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 7.General Plan Designation: 8.Zoning District(s): 9.Description of the Project: 10. 1036 Cowper Street Parcel Map Cir2 of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chris Riordan, Planner (650) 329-2149 1036 Cowper Street " Palo Alto, California 02-PM-01 Eric and Marion Golin 178 Prince Street West Newton, MA. 02465 Single Family Residential R-1 (929) Single Family R~sidential The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot parcel into two 7,500 square foot parcels. The site is located in the R-1 (929) zone district requiring new parcels to be a minimttm of 10,000 square feet and 60 feet in w~dth. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels smaller than allowed in R-1 (929) development re~lations. Prior to January 200!, m,o lots did exist in the same configuration as depicted on the parcel map and each contained a single family residence. The applicant-filed a Certificate of Compliance to merge the two 7,500 square.foot parcels into one 15;000 square foot parcel The residence at 1042 Cowper Street was demolished as a condition of approval of the Certificate of Compliance. The proposed parcel map will replace the same lot line prior to the lots being merged. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project site is located at 1036 Cowper Street in the R-1 (929) (Single-Family Residentialj zone district. The site is surrounded by single-family residential land uses. The site is composed of one parcel totaling 15,000 square feet and contains one single family dwelling and a detached garage, 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality X ttydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of t Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous NIaterials Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Significance DETERMLNATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that~he proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a hrEGATI~rE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wil! 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 I~rEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIROI~V£ENTAL ]2vI:PACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project !~kY 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 ENVIRON-M_ENT.A_L EVIPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLAR_~_TION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATI~rE DECI~ARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. X /Director md Community Environment Date Date EV_~LUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IN[PACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) ¯ All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as pr0ject-level, indirect as well as direct, ai~d construction as wel! as operational impacts. 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate ff there is substantial evidence that an effect may be.significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries whenthe determination is made, an EI~R 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" toa "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a tess 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 EI~ or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) b) Earlier Ana.lysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c)Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared.or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if an),, to reduce the impact to less than significance Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources significant Significant Significant impact Issi~es Unless Impact Mitigated I..~ESTH]£TICS. Would the project: a) Have a Substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista?1, 3 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 1, 3 X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? I xc) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 1 quality of the Site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial ligh~ or glare which 1 -X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? H.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 Conser~,afion as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the projeet: a) b) c) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,34 N/A X X X AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) 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? c) ’ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?. 1,3 1,3 X X X X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?1,2 X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) 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 migrator3’ wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, :Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conser~’ation plan? 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1, 3 1,3 1, 3 V. CUL~ RESOURCES. W~)uld 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, 3 (map L-7) 1, 3 (map L-8) 1,3 (L-4, L-8) X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SOLIFUes 1,3 (map L-S) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X ~rf. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial see adverse effects, including the risk of toss, injury, or death below involving: 1,3i) 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?3 (map X t N-10) iii)Seismic-related ground failure,, including liquefaction?3 (map X iv)Landslides?3 (map XN-S) b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1 X c)XBe located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 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? 3 (map N-5) d) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X X ~,~. HAZARDS A_ND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1 X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) 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 of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list Of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a.safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires~ including where wildtands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1,3 (map N-7) 1,3 (map N-7) Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact a) b) ~o Impact X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1, 3 X requirements? X3 (map N-2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the.alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosi6n or siltation on- or off-site? X Issues and Supporting Information Sources d) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. SDUFCes Potentially Sig-niiicant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact .No Impact X X f) Otherwise substantia!ly degrade water quality?1 X g) I xPlace housing within a !00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood I-Iazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 3 (map X would impede or redirect flood flows?N-6) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,3(maps X injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a N-6 N- result of the failure of a levee or dam?8) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?3(maps X N-6, N- 8) IX. LAhrD USE AND PLAh~qING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?N/A X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 1, 3, 4 X 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? e) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1, 3 X natural community conservation plan? X. b~E.RAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1, 3 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Issues and Supporting Information Sources b)Result in the 10ss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 :Potentially Significant Issues :Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated XI. NOISE. Would the project res’ult in: a)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? 1,3 b) e) d) e) 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 proj ect? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinitT 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? N/A Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would N/A X the project expose people residing or wor ~king in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Xa)1,3 N/A Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the N/A .X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact 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? Par’ks? Other Public facilities? see below 1 .1 1 1 X X X X X XTv. RECREATION 1a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and .regional parks or other recreational facilities such thatsubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? N/A XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 3 (maps T-7, T- 8,12) X X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 1 I X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?I 10 e) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an N/A X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safeD’ risks? Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,1 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity.?! 1,4 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 1, 3 X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?t X%rL UTILIT]J~.S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 1, 3 X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)1, ~X c) d) e) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? .1,3 10 X X X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capaci~" to 3 X accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and 1 X regulations related to solid waste?, il X-VIL _MANDATORY F~NDINGS OF SIGzNr£FICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of. the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 3, 4 1, 3 1-12 X X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 1.Project Planner’s tmowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2.Project Plans, entitled "Preliminary Parcel Map’: !042 & 1036 Cow’per Street prepared by L Wade Hammond, dated ! 1/19/02 3.Pato Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps found in the Comprehensive Plan. 4.Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: The site is surrounded by single-family residential land uses. The site is composed of one parcel totaling 15,000 square feet mad contains one single-family dwelling and a detached garage. The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 15,000 square foot parcel into two 7,500 square foot parcels. The site is located in the R-1 (929) zone district requiring new parcels to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 60 feet in width. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels smaller then allowed by the R-1 (929) development regulations. Prior to January 2001, r~vo lots did exist in the same configuration as depicted on the parcel map and each contained a single-family residence. The applicant filed a Certificate of Compliance to merge the two 7,500 square foot parcels into one 15,000 square foot parcel. The residence at 1042 Cowper Street was demolished as a condition of approval of the Certificate of Compliance. The proposed parcel map will replace the lot line removed by the Certificate of Compliance. The Parcel Map wi!l create two nonconforming, 7,500 square foot parcels in the R-! (929) zone district. The Parcel Map will be returning the lot line that existed prior to the lots being merged and no public improvements will be required. Furthermore, since a sin~e family home was demolished as a condition of the lot merger, it has been determined that there will be no environmental impact of a replacement home. The construction of a single family home is a ministerial act and is exempt ~om CEQA. The Environmental Chect~st was completed and alt but one environmental factor was determined to be ’2,Io Impact". A brief explanation is required for all answers except ’2,1o Impact". Since the project wilt be creating two non-conforming lots as discussed above, the project will be in conflict with the "Land Use and Planning" pordon of the checklist. This impact was de~ermined to be "Less then Significant" and is discussed below. tX.Land Use and P!ann~g The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for tS.is property is Single Family Residential and the Zoning Ordinance designation is Single Family Residential, with a (929) overlay zone specifying a !0,000 square foot minimum lot size. In addition, newly Created 12 parcels must have a minimum site width of 60 feet The proposed subdi~dsion is not consistent with these designations because the lots to be created would be 7,500 square feet in size and 50 feet in width..The project applicant has applied for an Exception to decrease the required lot size from 10,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet and a reduction of the requh-ed lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet. The proposed exceptions will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council to ensure they are appropriate for the site and not de~-imental to surrounding uses. The project site is not located within a habitat or natural community conservation plan area and is located in a developed residential area which will not cause any physical divisions to established communities. Impact: Less than Significant Mitigation Measures: None required Prqiect Vicinity-Map 13