HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 8318
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8318)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/21/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Final Map Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
Title: 3972, 3980 and 3990 El Camino Real [17PLN-00265]: Approval of a Final
Map for a 6.19-Acre Site That Includes the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
Site (3980 El Camino Real) and two Adjacent Commercial Properties (3972
and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line Removals to
Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels and Provide Access and Utilities
Easements, Subject to Conditions of a Tentative Map Considered by the City
Council on August 14, 2017
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final subdivision map for the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park (Attachment A).
[Note: The proposed Final Map is consistent with a Tentative Map that will be considered for
approval on August 14, 2017 and is being brought forward on an accelerated schedule to allow
for recordation of the Final Map in time to meet the applicant’s funding and property
acquisition timelines.]
Executive Summary
The requested action would consolidate and realign parcels on the site of the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park to allow for the acquisition and preservation of the Mobile Home Park by
the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. The Final Map (Attachment A), submitted
on July 24, 2017 by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC), reflects the
three parcels and easements shown on the Tentative Map scheduled for the Council’s review
on August 14th. The draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment B) presented to
Council for the August 14th hearing is attached.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background & Discussion
The Final Map application is the second of a two-phased process to reconfigure the existing
parcels of land into three (3) parcels. The Final Map is the official, legal document to be
recorded with the County to allow for separate ownership of the three parcels. The Final Map is
prepared under the direction of a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and is
based on a survey. Approval of a Final Map is ministerial if the Final Map is in substantial
conformance with an approved Tentative Map. While many cities delegate approval of the Final
Map to the City Engineer, under PAMC Section 21.16, the City Council is responsible for the
approval.
Recordation of the Final Map will allow the HACSC to purchase the 4.5-acre parcel (Parcel 1)
containing the Buena Vista Park, and also proceed with an agreement, as captured in Tentative
Map approval conditions, to lease for up to three years the 0.41-acre residential portion of the
0.7-acre parcel (Parcel 3) that also contains the service station at 3972 El Camino Real. This
lease will allow for relocation of residential tenants in that area to Parcel 1 during the three
year period.
The requested action is consistent with the Tentative Map recommended for approval by the
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on July 12th with one change (retention of the
30-foot Standard Oil access easement rather than abandonment), and as considered by the City
Council on August 14th.
The PTC staff report and minutes are available here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58656 and
http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-52/. Minutes are also included
as Attachment C.
The City Council staff report and a video of the meeting will be available here:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council.asp and
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp.
The RLUA for the Tentative Map includes all of the approval conditions, including the lease
provision noted above and a requirement for adjustment of a couple of existing motor homes
prior to recordation of the Final Map so they are not bisected by the new property lines. One of
these coaches (#28) is vacant and will be removed by August 11th. Coach #5 is anticipated to be
removed by the week of August 14th, following replacement of that coach on a different space
in the Park to house the family currently living there. Additional adjustments may be required
following HACSC’s acquisition and assessment of code compliance issues.
Policy Implications
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Final Map is the document containing the statements, acknowledgements and agreements
from the property owner, surveyor, City officials and beneficiaries that the Final Map is in
conformance with all applicable regulations and the approved Tentative Map. There are no
policy implications related to the approval of the Final Map, since the map is consistent with
the approved Tentative Map.
Resource Impact
To avoid the loss of affordable housing units at the Buena Vista Park, City Council committed to
providing $14.5 million in affordable housing fees via approval of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in June 2016. All MOU parties - the City of Palo Alto, HACSC, and Santa
Clara County - committed to preserving the affordable housing at the Park by contributing the
same amount of funding. The funding will be used to purchase and make improvements to the
housing units in the Park.
After the Final Map is recorded, the HACSC will purchase the Buena Vista Park Mobile Home
Park located on proposed Lot 1 of the subject property. The HACSC will also begin working with
Park residents and planning for any necessary improvements to the Park.
Environmental Review
Approval of a Final Map is ministerial and therefore exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Final Map (DOCX)
Attachment B: ROLUA Tentative map BV (DOCX)
Attachment C: Excerpt PTC Minutes T Map July 12 2017 (DOC)
Attachment
Project Plans
Hardcopies of the Final Map are provided to Council Members. This map is available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th
floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review the final map online:
1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “3990 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “3990 El Camino Real Final Map”.
APPROVAL NO. 2017-xx
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR
3972, 3980, 3990 EL CAMINO REAL: TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION [FILE NO.17PLN-
00197]
On August 14, 2017, the City Council approved the Tentative Map application for
reconfiguration of lot lines on a 6.19-acre site to three parcels, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”)
finds, determines, and declares as follows:
A. On June 2, 2017, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County applied for a
Tentative Map application for the reconfiguration of five lots to three lots on a 6.19-acre site that
includes the Buena Vista Modular Home Park (zoned RM-15) and commercial land uses (zoned
CN);
B. The RM-15 zoning district has a minimum lot size requirement of 8,500
square feet. The Parcel Map would result in a 4.5-acre parcel (Parcel 1) for the Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park under RM-15 zoning, and a 0.41-acre (17,859.6 square foot) portion of Parcel
3 that would remain in RM-15 zoning. Multiple family housing use would continue on these RM-
15 zoned sites and compliance with RM-15 standards related to new lot lines would be assured
with implementation of approval conditions;
C. The CN zoning district will remain on (1) proposed Parcel 2, where no site or
building changes are proposed, and where the proposed easements will not adversely impact site
improvements and required parking spaces, and (2) the portion of Parcel 3 supporting the 0.29-
acre gas station site, where no site or building changes are proposed. Access and utility
easements across Parcel 2 to serve housing units on Parcels 1 and 3 are proposed and have been
reviewed and approved by relevant City staff; and
D. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(Commission) reviewed and recommended approval of the Tentative Map on July 12, 2017,
supporting a condition of approval requiring up to a three-year lease back of the 0.41-acre
housing site on Parcel 3 to the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the project is categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines
Sections CEQA section 15301 (Existing Facilities), and section 15326, Acquisition of Housing for
Housing Assistance Programs.
SECTION 3. TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS
A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, if it makes any of
the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474):
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific
plans as specified in Section 65451:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The proposed Tentative Map, as
conditioned, is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including
the Housing Element 2015-2023, the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.20), and the RM-15 zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.13)
development standards.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent
with applicable general and specific plans:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site is physically suitable for the
existing uses, and the revised lot configuration is compatible with the pattern and scale of
existing and neighboring development, with implementation of approval conditions. There is no
specific plan designated for the area;
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The site’s lot reconfiguration will
allow for continuation of existing land uses. No development is proposed at this time; repair and
unit footprint(s) adjustment are necessary prior to Final Map recordation. The site is adjacent to
commercial, single-family residential and multi-family residential uses, and is zoned to allow the
continuation of uses and densities.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. As conditioned, the subdivision would
be consistent with the site’s development regulations of the RM-15 zone district. The existing
densities are not proposed to be changed; in particular, the overall number of housing units will
not be increased with this map.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause
environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site is located in an
established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in the area. The final map will comply with conditions of approval for protected
tree preservation.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems:
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel
will not cause serious health problems. The map is designed to provide easements allowing
access for emergency services, and utility services, such as electricity, gas, sanitation and water,
and is designed per City and State standards to ensure public safety.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that
alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements
of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
This finding cannot be made in the affirmative. The reconfiguration of existing parcels
will not conflict with existing public easements, and new public and private easements are
proposed for utilities and vehicular access.
Because none of the statutory findings authorizing denial can be met, the City Council hereby
approves the subject “Tentative Map”.
SECTION 4. Conditions of Approval.
1. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
2. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City,
its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and
against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified
parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole
discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS, IN RESPONSE TO MAP
SUBMITTAL OF JULY 6, 2017, SHALL BE PROVIDED IN A REVISED ROLUA SET AT COMMISSIONERS’
PLACES
SECTION 6. Term of Approval.
Tentative Map Approval. Within two years of the approval or conditional approval of
a tentative map the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and
a final map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the tentative map
as approved or conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act and this title and submitted to the city engineer
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
1
Planning & Transportation Commission 1
Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
July 12, 2017 3
Excerpt 4
5
6
Public Hearing 7
Action Item 3 8
PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL 3980 El Camino Real [17PLN-00197]: Request by the 9
Housing Authority of Santa Clara County for a Tentative Map for a 6.19-Acre Site that 10
Includes the Buena Vista Park Site (3980 El Camino Real) and Two Adjacent Commercial 11
Properties (3972 and 3990 El Camino Real), for Lot Reconfiguration and Lot Line 12
Removals to Reduce Five Parcels to Three Parcels, and Provide Access and Utilities 13
Easements. The Three New Parcels Will Be: (1) Parcel 1, at 4.5 Acres, Zoned RM-15 for 14
Multiple Family Residential Use (Buena Vista Park), (2) Parcel 2 at 1.0 Acre, Zoned CN for 15
Neighborhood Commercial Use (Existing Retail Building), (3) Parcel 3 at 0.7 Acres, Zoned 16
CN (Existing Gas Station Site) and RM-15 (0.41-Acre Rear Portion Supporting More than 17
Eight Buena Vista Park Studios/Modular Units). The 0.41-Acre Residential Portion Would 18
Be Leased to the Housing Authority for Up To Three Years, Allowing Tenants to Remain 19
Until They can be Accommodated on Parcel 1. For More Information Contact Project 20
Planner Amy French at Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.com 21
22
Chair Alcheck: Why don’t we begin with item number three, the Buena Vista Mobile Home area 23
adjacent commercial lots tentative map. Let me just reiterate, if there are speaker cards for 24
this item… if anybody wishes to speak on this item please fill out a speaker card and had it to 25
staff so that I can call it out. 26
27
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Excellent. Good evening, may I present? I’m Amy 28
French, Chief Planning Official. I am here to present the tentative map for the six plus acre site 29
which houses the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park or manufactured home park. The site is 30
located in Barron Park. It has existing zoning of RM-15, otherwise known as residential multi-31
family, 15 units per acre, and commercial neighborhood zoning. There are currently five parcels 32
on this site. The proposal is to reduce it to three parcels. The site is on the corner of Los Robles 33
and El Camino Real. 34
35
This image shows the three parcels that are proposed. Parcel One would be a mobile home 36
park known at Buena Vista Mobile Home Park, Parcel Three is the gas station parcel, next to El 37
Camino Real. This Parcel Three would include existing mobile home units at the rear. The Parcel 38
2
Two is entirely commercial, CN zone. I should mention that Parcel Three has split zoning; RM-15 1
where the mobile homes are, and CN where the gas station is. 2
3
The proposal would provide an easement for access and utilities across Parcel Two from El 4
Camino and across Parcel Two from Los Robles. The mobile home park currently has an 5
entrance on Los Robles. The parcel currently on the mobile home park has existing trees, both 6
within the park boundaries and along the right of way. There is no proposal to remove trees, 7
there’s no proposal to change zoning, there is no development proposed, there are no land use 8
changes proposed. 9
10
This is a simple matter, the reason it’s before the Planning Commission is because there are six 11
plus acres. Otherwise, it would just be a preliminary parcel map, a different process. The only 12
adjustments that would need to be made to the mobile home park are to observe the new lot 13
lines that are proposed, separating parcels one and three, and parcels three and two. As you 14
see the easement along the back of the retail building would provide the 10-foot setback 15
required by the zoning code, and I can say that the proposed easement will not affect the 16
parking spaced on parcel two; no impact there. 17
18
So, what’s great about this? Housing is going to be preserved, affordable housing. Luckily the 19
Housing Authority, who is here tonight represented by Flaherty Ward, is coming forward to 20
purchase the mobile home park and improve the mobile home park; the existing units. The 21
existing owner, Joe Jisser, would retain the commercial parcels on the parcels fronting El 22
Camino Real. And we are on a direct path to recordation to make sure that this deal goes 23
through. The escrow closes on September 1st, a very quick time line. 24
25
There will be no displacements. Families that are in housing units will remain, including on the 26
rear of parcel three, for up to 3-years. This happens to be the same lease term as the gas 27
station. 28
29
And our condition of approval, in the Record of Land Use Action At Places, includes such a 30
condition to ensure that this 3-year lease term lease-back to the Housing Authority is observed. 31
I should also note that in the At Places Memo there are two plan sheets, shrunk down. The only 32
change on these tentative map sheets is to indicate the dimension of 4.8-feet of easement 33
along El Camino Real, to ensure that we have the sidewalk width that is needed along El Camino 34
Real that’s dedicated back to the City for public access. 35
36
I’ll just quickly breeze through some images here. We have… the neighborhood is single-family 37
residences backing up to the park. We have RM-30 across Los Robles and RM-15 again, backing 38
up to the park on the other side. And then we have one and two-story development primarily 39
and we have retail along El Camino; CN zoning. These are some images of the residential 40
neighborhood context, the RM-30 development. We have… you can see here there are no 41
sidewalks along Los Robles adjacent to the park. In the future, should redevelopment be 42
proposed, that would be the time there would be improvements along this edge but there was 43
nothing proposed to date. The neighborhood retail context is neighborhood commercial zoning. 44
3
The retail building you can see here. We have a cell tower here in a fake magnolia and we have 1
sidewalks that begin here and continue on El Camino Real. These are some other images of the 2
nearby commercial on El Camino. This is an image that just shows the proposed easement, a 3
20-foot easement to get… just as there is there now, an easement to get to the mobile home 4
park from El Camino Real. And that concludes staff’s presentation. The applicant is here for 5
questions. Staff is here to answer questions as well. I should note that we did receive an email 6
today from Mr. Herb Borock, who has submitted a speaker card and let’s see if there’s 7
something else. 8
9
Ms. Gitelman: I’m hoping that I can take the director’s prerogative and jump in for a second 10
before we hear from the Housing Authority representative. Again, Hillary Gitelman the Planning 11
Director. I personally want to thank Amy French, she’s a senior member of our staff and she’s 12
the one who gets these short time frame projects. We think this is a pretty simple one, it’s just 13
a map to preserve an existing condition but it’s an existing condition that we all treasure in Palo 14
Alto. The City and the County have put a great deal of money into preserving the mobile home 15
park and this is one of the prerequisites to closing escrow and letting the Authority actually 16
follow through with the purchase. So, we’re hoping for the Commission’s support with this, this 17
evening and I want to thank Amy for jumping on this so fast. So, we’ll hear from the Housing 18
Authority and then any member of the public who would want to address the Commission. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, let me just…before you begin. I have a speaker card also from the 21
[unintelligible]… separately right? She is not speaking as part of the public comment, she’s 22
speaking as an applicant, is that right? Flaherty Ward. 23
24
Ms. Gitelman: Yes, yes. 25
26
Chair Alcheck: Yeah, so why don’t we have you come up and speak as part of the presentation 27
and then... 28
29
Ms. Flaherty Ward: Is it on? Yep. Good evening Commissioners, I am Flaherty Ward, I represent 30
the Santa Clara County Housing Authority. I just wanted to introduce myself. Also, reiterate big 31
thank you to Amy. While it is a simple task, in theory, we have an expedited time line to 32
purchase the park while we have the fund available to us. That is why the close is September 1st 33
so a big thank you to Amy and her Staff. And then we also… we’re looking forward to the 34
purchase and preserving the park so the residents, a lot of who are here tonight, can remain in 35
the park you know, in perpetuity. So, I am here to answer any questions that you might have. 36
Also, with me tonight is Palo Hernandez who is our land use consultant, who was instrumental 37
in getting the application submitted. So, we are both here to field any questions you might 38
have. 39
40
Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t… do you have a question? Ok. 41
42
Commissioner Lauing: Just briefly, the funding, does it also include annual maintenance? 43
44
4
Ms. Ward: Yeah, so we’re… the… there’s a… that’s a big question but yes, we… the park… the 1
residents pay space rent so the park actually kicks off cash flow. We envision that there is going 2
to be some upfront investment on the infrastructure that needs to happen and we’re hopeful 3
that after that, the property… we’re going to finance it in a way so that the property cash flow 4
is based on the rent that is kicked off of the space rents. We realize that between now and then 5
there might be some infusion that’s needed. 6
7
Commissioner Lauing: I just didn’t know if every 3-years you needed ‘X’ more just for ongoing 8
maintenance. 9
10
Ms. Ward: Yeah, at this point we’re in the preliminary stages of developing the operating and 11
income budget. A lot of those questions will be answered. You know we’ve had limited access 12
to the site and the residents so we’re just kicking off those assessments to determine what the 13
operating budget will look like. And we’ll have more of those answers as we get into the 14
process but the Housing Authority operates… you know we have 30 assets in our portfolio. All 15
multi-family housing throughout the County. We… it’s something that we’re good at, it’s 16
something that we are sensitive too, we spend a lot of time on our operating budgets to make 17
sure that maintenance, security, up keep and stable housing is what’s kept in mind. 18
19
Commissioner Lauing: This is a wonderful outcome. 20
21
Chair Alcheck: Ok. For her? Ok. 22
23
Commissioner Summa: So, just a quick question about the eight units that are on the gas 24
station parcel. So, they can stay for 3-years and then after that I assume you want to absorb 25
them into the parcel one. 26
27
Ms. Ward: Yeah, for instance, we learned recently and this is what we were hoping for. There 28
are actually twelve vicinities on this site. Either site vacancies where there is no structures or 29
empty coaches so the hope is by improving the park, improving flow, we can absorb those 30
coaches into the site easily. 31
32
Commissioner Summa: So, you won’t be… they won’t be in the position of being… 33
34
Ms. Ward: Nobody is getting displaced. Yeah, everybody can stay. That’s why the 3-years was 35
negotiated so that it gives us the time to pull them in. 36
Commission Summa: Ok, congratulations and thank you. 37
38
Ms. Ward: Thank you. 39
40
Chair Alcheck: Ok, why don’t I invite Herb Borock to speak and then I’ll close the public 41
comment and then we can have a discussion. And if there more question for Staff or the County 42
representative, we can get back into that. 43
44
5
Mr. Herb Borock: Ok, thank you. I attended the Board of Supervisors hearing 2 ½-years ago on 1
January 2015 to support the mobile home park remaining. Rather than saying as some people 2
did, just have a site for affordable housing without an emphasis on the mobile home park. And I 3
estimated that the cost would be 40 million dollars so I am pleased that we’ve gotten to this 4
point. I provided you a letter at your places about my concern about the zoning compliance and 5
that goes to the findings on the tentative map on both finding one and four, as to whether it 6
does comply with the zoning ordinance. The site was originally annexed to the City and already 7
existed and so has been allowed to continue even though the density is much more than the 8
existing zoning. However, I don’t believe you can just arbitrarily draw a line and say that 9
whatever’s on one side of the line since it’s in part of the entire mobile home park suddenly 10
now also complies with the zoning. And I provided you a suggestion of how to remedy that 11
concern. Even if you agree that the existing proposal for 4.5-acres is entitled to keep what was 12
there before, there is a question of what happens when the units from the adjoining parcel that 13
is being created get moved over. Unless the applicant is saying that they are going to reduce 14
the total number to what is on the 4.5-acre parcel. I am not aware that the State overrides the 15
zoning on the mobile home park, such as when another government agency owns land such as 16
like the Veterans Administration Hospital and can build whatever they want. In any event, if you 17
accept the argument that what would be on the new parcel, 4.5-acres, is entitled to be there 18
because it’s there now, what about the units that are going to be moved within the next 3-19
years? Thank you. 20
21
Chair Alcheck: Ok, so seeing no other speaker cards, I am going to close the… what is it? Public 22
comment and then open it up to Commissioners to make comments or ask questions. 23
Commissioner Gardias, do you want to start us off? 24
25
Commissioner Gardias: Sure, but I think that… thank you very much. So, I mean thank you very 26
much for the presentation and of course, kudos to you for backing this problem. So, I think the 27
question that Mr. Borock brought up is a very interesting one. So… and definitely suppresses 28
the questions that I had so could you help us to understand the core of this issue? I understand 29
that right now there is more units per existing zone that’s zone designated. And then once you 30
explain this to us, could you just take us through the response from your side. Thank you. 31
32
Ms. French: Sure. Well, as I noted in the presentation, there will not be any zoning change; so 33
the Parcel Three, I should go back to that slide, will have the same number of housing units 34
within the first 3-years. Should, in the future, Mr. Jisser wish to redevelop this, the back area is 35
still zoned for housing. So, in a redevelopment scenario, density units per acre would apply. The 36
same number of housing units here today and that would not change with this first map, or I 37
should say tentative map. As I noted, this is not a development project, there is no change. I 38
understand the gist of the concern, which is a reduction of acreage and what does that do to 39
the housing units on the other side. It’s not an issue for the parcel one; parcel three there’s no 40
change so it’s not an issue for that one either. I did the review of parcel three to see if that was 41
going to be a problem; it’s not, under today’s zoning. There is no change in zoning, there is no 42
proposal to remove those housing units. 43
44
6
Commissioner Gardias: So, if I understand this correctly, that the current condition because 1
there is no zoning change, it’s pretty much… there is no concern. However, if there was a new… 2
if this… we would be populating this lot of the mobile housing, then we would not be able to 3
have as many of those homes on RM-15 for lot three, is this right? 4
5
Ms. French: That’s not necessarily true. If for instance, all of the mobile homes were to be 6
removed and a new development came in with affordable housing, in this case, I believe it’s 7
one hundred percent of affordable housing, there are density bonuses that allow you to 8
increase beyond the maximum density in the underlying zone, and Hillary can comment on 9
that. 10
11
Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I just… I just want to avoid speculation about what might happen in the 12
future. What’s happening today is that we’re preserving the existing homes; the subdivision 13
enables that to happen. There is a nonconforming situation where there’s more units on this 14
parcel than would be allowed under the existing zoning but it’s not proposed to change. To the 15
extent that the Housing Authority undertakes renovation in the future, they mentioned utility 16
work and other site improvements, potentially removing some vacant coaches to put in the 17
coaches from the other parcel. All of those things are going to require permits; they will have to 18
be reviewed at the time they are proposed. We can’t really speculate today about what those 19
site changes are because they haven’t planned them but we do know that what we are 20
proposing here is consistent with our interpretation of the map back and with CEQA. We don’t 21
think there’s an issue and while I appreciate Mr. Borock’s input, we think that we’re good to go 22
on this, this evening. 23
24
Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you but we always appreciate Mr. Borock’s comments 25
and his presence here; I just wanted to mention this. When there’s going to be renovation 26
probably this… no, let me just talk to Amy because otherwise, we would have to reopen the 27
hearing. So, if there is going to be renovation with the houses and the houses are possibly 28
moved, I don’t know if there will be… under renovation, there might be some movement of the 29
houses within some boundaries. Would they have to comply with the setbacks? I believe that 30
some of them are entering the setbacks. 31
32
Ms. French: Yeah, so for new parcels line being created, then we would want the… you know, 33
any relocated homes to observe the setbacks. For the existing nonconforming coaches that are 34
within the setbacks, we’re not going to have them… relocate those. They are in an existing 35
nonconforming state that we inherited from when the area was annexed back in the 1970’s. 36
We’re not going to go and actively have all of those moved. They probably wouldn’t withstand 37
such a move; relocation. 38
39
Commissioner Gardias: I understand so let me maybe reformulate the question and maybe talk 40
to the representative from the Santa Clara Housing Authority. So, the question is like this, do 41
you expect that any renovation would require movement of any houses? Yes, please. Oh, 42
where’s Mike? Yes, please, if you could… 43
44
7
Ms. Ward: We don’t know yet. We are still in the assessment and fact-finding state of our 1
diligence to purchase the property. So, it is really hard to speculate on what that could look like 2
but am I understand it, any major renovation that we do will have to come through the 3
Planning Department as a land use application. I think at that time we would get comments 4
back on what requirements would be conditioned upon that approval. We would work with 5
planning Staff on trying to think of a thoughtful proposal on how to do all that. We know that 6
there are non-conforming uses out there. 7
8
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, and then if it’s not a so dumb question back to Amy, so say that 9
there may be a need to, because of the renovation, to move… to shift some of the houses that 10
are on the lot. Would it be… would that require a need for an exception… zoning exception or it 11
would be… or this would be a result at the Director’s level? 12
13
Ms. Gitelman: Again, we can’t speculate. We don’t have a specific proposal in front of us. They 14
just don’t know what they are going to need to do to upgrade the site. 15
16
Commissioner Gardias: Ok, let me move that to some other questions. So that 4.5-feet setback 17
along El Camino, I understand that this would allow… I am sorry, easement. That this would 18
allow for an 8-feet sidewalk. 19
20
Ms. French: It would allow … it would meet the El Camino Real Master Plan that prescribes a 21
certain setback. I can’t tell you where the curb is related to the property line. I am sorry but … 22
they are ensuring that 4.8-feet easement along the front of that parcel, and that was coming 23
from our Public Works Department to ensure that we’re meeting our plan lines that are shown 24
on the El Camino Real Master Plan. 25
26
Commissioner Gardias: Yeah, my question was getting to this point, which I hope that this is 27
going to be the result of this easement because as you know, we have an 8-foot minimum of 28
the sidewalk requirement at other areas so probably this would be the same. 29
30
Ms. French: Actually, I would say that, if and when let’s say a redevelopment were to come 31
forward on those commercial parcels, you know we have our El Camino Real Guidelines and the 32
CN zone standards that ask for even more than 8-feet. So, you know, it’s a minimum of a 33
sidewalk but there could be additional setbacks for any redevelopment, but there’s no 34
development proposed right now on those parcels. 35
36
Commissioner Gardias: Very good, thank you very much. Those are my questions, thanks. 37
38
Commissioner Monk: I wanted to also thank Ms. French and Ms. Ward for their presentations 39
today. It’s appreciated and I also want to acknowledge the number of residents that have come 40
out so that it’s reflected in the record when City Council reviews our transcript, I am counting 41
approximately 50 or so residents here. You’re here with your families and some children and it 42
really is important that you are here. That we see you here and it’s definitely noted that you are 43
here. Your presence is very much felt and it’s meaningful so thank you for coming here and 44
8
being a part of this process just by your presences alone. I did have some concerns about the 1
future development of parcel three as well but as Flaherty mentioned, we’re not looking at that 2
at this point so we will revisit that. This might not be within our purview but if there is further 3
development on Los Robles Avenue, I think parking in that area is really difficult. Especially for 4
parcel two and so if there is going to be any parking developed, perhaps you can consider 5
diagonal parking space or something in that area. I don’t think I have anything else so thank you 6
very much. 7
8
Commissioner Summa: There, I think, 117 structures… residential structures on… presently, if 9
that is right. So, kind of what you are saying is that number of residential structures will be 10
retained through grandfather in, is that correct? 11
12
Ms. French: There may end up being some removal of some of the coaches because we don’t 13
know about the building code compliance. We’re going to have to be having a look at a lot of 14
things out there, so we may reduce the number of housing units in the short term and we’ll see 15
in the long term. We don’t have a proposal. 16
17
Ms. Gitelman: Can I just pile on there? I mean I just want to be super clear, the purpose of the 18
map is to enable the purchase of the site with all of the existing structures in their current 19
locations, period. Then what’s going to happen is that the new owner of the parcel, once it 20
closes, is going to do an assessment of the site and what needs to be done to address utilities 21
and other things. At that point, they will know better whether there are, for example, vacant 22
coaches that can be removed so that some of these other ones can be moved on and whether 23
there are other physical changes. What we’ll have to do when they come in for permits for any 24
of these future things that we don’t know what they are, we’ll have to review them for 25
conformance with our codes to make sure that they meet the building code standard and the 26
planning standard, which is that you can’t accentuate or make a nonconforming situation more 27
nonconforming. 28
29
Commissioner Summa: Right but they would… through grandfathering, they retain the right to 30
have that number of units… 31
32
Ms. Gitelman: Correct. 33
34
Commissioner Summa: That’s what I was asking, I am sorry. So, I also appreciate Mr. Borock 35
coming in and I didn’t have a lot of time to study his letter. Is there any additional benefit to the 36
method that he’s suggesting or is it… I was not clear on it so I just wanted to ask your opinion 37
on that because he’s always full of good ideas. 38
39
Ms. Gitelman: It sounds like Mr. Borock is proposing to re-zone the site. You know so a 40
legislative change that would happen concurrent with the map and that’s just really not 41
something that the property owner or the purchaser had anticipated. It’s a lengthy process as 42
you know and it didn’t seem necessary to basically perpetuate the existing condition. 43
44
9
Commissioner Summa: And would that take too long to meet the requirement of the deadline? 1
2
Ms. Gitelman: Certainly. 3
4
Commissioner Summa: Ok, thanks. 5
6
MOTION 7
8
Chair Alcheck: I would like to congratulate the County as well. I think everybody in this 9
community is well aware sort of what’s been taking place and all the effort that’s been made. 10
And I… it’s pretty unique opportunity and I’m thankful that the City also invested its own funds 11
and is sort of achieving sort of a mutual goal here. So, it’s… I think this is a unique and special 12
event. We have a small role here in the review but I’ll make a motion now to… excuse me… to 13
recommend approval to the City Council of the tentative map application based on the findings 14
and subject to the conditions of approval and the draft record of land use. 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Commissioner Lauing: Second. 19
20
Chair Alcheck: Ok, would you like to speak to the motion at all? 21
22
Commissioner Lauing: You were eloquent. 23
24
Chair Alcheck: Ok, thank you. Make sure that is on the record. 25
26
Commissioner Lauing: I said it very loudly. 27
28
VOTE 29
30
Chair Alcheck: Ok, well let’s take a vote. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, please 31
raise your hand and say aye. That’s all-in favor; it's unanimous. Thank you all for your time. 32
Thank you for attending and let’s take a 5-minute break and begin with item number four after 33
that. Thank you 34
35
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0-2, Commissioner Rosenblum and Commissioner 36
Waldfogel absent) 37
38
Commission Action: Recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Map Application 39
based on the finding and conditions in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Motion made by 40
Chair Alcheck, seconded by Commissioner Lauing, motion passed 5-0 (Rosenblum and 41
Waldfogel absent) 42