Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3335 City of Palo Alto (ID # 3335) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 12/10/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 827 Chimalus Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions to Subdivide an oversized Single Family Residential lot into two lots, resulting in parcels having a width of 55.845 feet where he R-1 Zone standard minimum width is 60 feet; and Approval of a Negative Declaration located at 827 Chimalus Drive From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City Council: (1) approve the Negative Declaration (Attachment E), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and (2) approve a Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) approving the Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for 827 Chimalus Drive, based on the stated findings and conditions. Executive Summary The project is for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the property located at 827 Chimalus Drive. This project is before the Council due to the requested exception to the minimum lot width requirements. Preliminary parcel maps conforming to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment without Council action. The Director of Planning and Community Environment, however must forward any preliminary parcel map with exceptions to the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council for action. Exceptions may be granted only upon a finding that the approval would substantially secure the objectives of the regulations or requirements, to which the exceptions are requested, shall protect the public health, safety, convenience, and the general welfare and shall be consistent with and implement the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Any approval of City of Palo Alto Page 2 exceptions may be made upon such conditions as are deemed necessary to secure such compliance. Background The application was submitted on September 14, 2012. The Commission reviewed this project at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 14, 2012. The Commission discussed the project and supported the application because the proposed lots would be consistent with the neighborhood character and that the future development of the lots would have little impact on traffic or trees. It noted that the project would be consistent with the lot pattern in the neighborhood, would not impact a historic property, and would create standard lots over 6,000 square feet. After closing the public hearing, the Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions in accordance with the findings and conditions of approval contained in the draft Record of Land Use Action. The Commission also recommended that the Council adopt the Negative Declaration. (Attachment E) Discussion Minimum Lot Width The project site is a non-conforming parcel located in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zone District. The existing lot is approximately 112 feet wide by 113 feet deep. The existing parcel is non-conforming because the lot area of 12,656 exceeds the R-1 Zone’s Maximum Lot Size standard of 9,999 square feet. The Site Development Regulations for the R-1 zone district prohibit newly created parcels to exceed 9,999 square feet, and require newly created parcels to have a minimum site area of 6,000 square feet and minimum site width of 60 feet. The proposal is to subdivide the single 12,666 square foot parcel into two equally sized parcels of 6,333 square feet that would meet the minimum site area and eliminate the site’s existing nonconforming lot size; however, the subdivision would result in lot widths of only 55.845 feet. Since the proposed new parcels would be approximately 4.15 feet narrower than the 60-foot width required by the R-1 zone district, the applicant has requested a conditional exception per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 21.32.010 which allows exceptions to the requirements and regulations of Title 21. The exceptions are necessary because Section 21.20.100 requires that “the size and shape of lots shall conform with any zoning regulations effective in the area of the proposed subdivisions” and, as noted, the R-1 zone district standard minimum site width is 60 feet. Staff believes the project is consistent with the required findings because the Parcel Map would create lots that do not exceed the maximum lot size and would be consistent with the existing pattern of lots in the neighborhood. The median width of each of the six (6) lots which are City of Palo Alto Page 3 contiguous to subject property is 55 feet (55, 55, 56, 55.4, 55.8 and 55.8 feet). The lot depth would remain 113 feet, a depth which is also consistent with those of the six adjacent properties. In addition, the allowable floor area ratio that could be built on the resulting 6,333 square foot lots would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood then would be allowed on the existing 12,666 square foot lot. Future Development The existing residence on the project site would be required to be demolished prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. If the application is approved, one single-family residence could be built on each of the resulting lots. Any proposal for construction, on either of the two resulting parcels, must conform to all zoning requirements and be subject to all applicable Development Impact Fees. To ensure conformance with the existing neighboring homes, new two-story construction on either lot would be subject to review under the Single Family Individual Review Program. Once the Parcel Map is approved, the parcels cannot be merged again because the resulting parcel would exceed the maximum site area. Resource Impact The two lots that would be created are in an urbanized area of the city that is already served by city services and would not have a detrimental effect on city resources. Utility services are already provided in the street that provides access to the project. Being that only one residence presently exists on the property, Development Impact Fees totaling approximately $12,738 dollars would be required to be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the second of two residences that could be built on the resulting two lots. Additionally, the City will realize incremental property and utility user revenues as well as a one-time documenatary transfer tax once the parcel(s) are sold. Policy Implications The project’s Compliance with applicable comprehensive plan policies is provided in a table attached to this report. (Attachment D) Timeline Action: Date: Application Received: September 14, 2012 Application Deemed Complete: October 23, 2012 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Negative Declaration Public Review Period: November 6, 2012- November 26, 2012 P&TC Meeting: November 14, 2012 Required Action by Council: December 10, 2012 Environmental Review The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lists a minor land division of property in an urbanized area into four or fewer parcels as exempt from CEQA if the subdivision is in conformance with all zoning regulations. This project is not exempt from CEQA because the subdivision would create two lots that do not meet the 60 feet minimum lot width required by the zoning ordinance. An Environmental Impact Assessment and a Negative Declaration finding that the division would not result in any significant environmental impacts was prepared for the project and is included as an attachment to this report. The comment period for the Negative Declaration concluded on November 26, 2012. No Comments were received. Attachments:  Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (DOC)  Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Subdivider's Statement (PDF)  Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan table (DOC)  Attachment E: Initial Study and Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (TXT) ATTACHMENT A 1 ACTION NO. XXXX-XX DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 827 CHIMALUS DRIVE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP 12PLN-00000-000369 (SAMIR TUMA AND KRISS DEIGLMEIER, APPLICANTS) At its meeting on December 10, 2012, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Parcel Map for the development of a two-lot subdivision project with exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On September 14, 2012, Samir Tuma and Kriss Deiglmeier applied for a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the development of a Two-lot subdivision project (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of one lot (APN No. 137- 15-050) of approximately 12,666 square feet. The site contains one residential structure. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, east and west. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on November 10, 2004, subject to conditions of approval. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning November 6, 2012 through November 26, 2012. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained as Attachment E to the November 14, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission Report to the December 10, 2012 City Council Staff Report and are hereby approved. ATTACHMENT A 2 SECTION 3. Preliminary Parcel Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a 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: 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-1: 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 allow construction of two single- family residential structures, which is a permitted use within the R-1 district and which is compatible with other R-1 properties in the neighborhood; 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 two single-family residential units, which would be subject to the R-1 site development regulations as the other R-1 sites in the neighborhood. Additionally, the parcel is currently non-conforming in terms of maximum lot size. The maximum lot size for R-1 zone parcels is 9,999 square feet. The subject site is 12,666 square feet. Subdividing the lots would remove the non-conformity and provide two conforming lots in terms of lot size, 6,333 square feet, and lot depth. This action would be consistent with Program H-5 which was designed to address the loss of housing due to the combination of single family residential lots and to consider modifying the R-1 Zoning District to create a maximum lot size to prevent the loss of housing or housing opportunities. 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. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: ATTACHMENT A 3 The Project site is comprised of one large relatively flat lot in a residential neighborhood that would be subdivided into two lots for the purposes of single-family development. Each lot would exceed the minimum lot size requirements for R-1 zoned properties. Each lot would exceed the minimum lot length requirements for R-1 zoned properties. Each lot would allow for single family residential development without the need for zoning requirement exceptions for the construction of single family dwellings. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create two lots that exceed all but one of the site development regulations for properties in the R-1 Single family Residence district. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that property is currently developed and not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. 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 Negative Declaration that was prepared for the subdivision project. 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. There are no easements on the subject property and no off site easement will be affected by the proposed project. ATTACHMENT A 4 SECTION 4. Exception Findings 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The subject property is nearly twice the width of many of the other properties up and down the block including all adjoining properties. The Barron Park neighborhood, where the subject property is located, is comprised of varied lot sizes and does not follow a standard pattern. It is however common in the vicinity of the subject property to find lots that do not meet the required minimum 60-foot lot width and are nearly the same width (55 feet) as would result from the proposed subdivision. (See location map Attachment B) 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The City of Palo Alto interprets this finding to describe the existence of a hardship in relation to other neighboring properties. The existing lots adjacent to the subject property do not meet the 60-foot standard lot width established for the R-1 zone district. Many of the other lots on the same side of the street to the left and right of the subject property as well as those to the rear of the subject property are only 55 to 56 feet wide. The proposed lots would be nearly 56 feet wide and would have lot widths consistent with the widths of the neighboring parcels. Additionally, the lot is currently non-conforming in terms of lot size, in that it exceeds the maximum R-1 lot size of 9,999 square feet. The subdivision would create two conforming lots in terms of lot size and lot depth. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The division of this single parcel into two separate parcels will not have adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The addition of a single parcel to the street will not negatively impact traffic and the resulting lot widths will be sufficient to provide ample width for standard development of single family houses without the need for exceptions. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan as well as the spirit of the ATTACHMENT A 5 law. Policy H-1 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan states “Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the city’s existing neighborhoods.” The subdivision of this parcel creates only one new single family lot within an established neighborhood that already receives city services. The new lot therefore would not diminish the quality of City services or diminish the capacity of infrastructure or transportation facilities. The subdivision of this parcel only serves to add further consistency to the existing lot pattern thus preserving the character of the neighborhood. The lot as it is currently situated exceeds the 9,999 square foot maximum lot size for R-1 zoned properties by approximately 2,700 square feet. The subdivision would allow the creation of two smaller lots that are more consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.12.040. Policy H-2 states “Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in different locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. “The division of the lot will allow for the construction of two modestly sized houses more consistent with the existing homes in the neighborhood rather than the construction of one large house on that would be out of scale with the adjacent residences. The two smaller houses would also be more affordable than the one larger home and allow for an additional housing unit in Palo Alto. SECTION 5. Preliminary Parcel Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Parcel Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Parcel Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by James Toby titled “Tentative Parcel Map”, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 14, 2012 except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Parcel Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Parcel Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). ATTACHMENT A 6 SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. Any new two-story construction on the lots will require review under the City’s Individual Review process. 2. 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. 3. Development Impact fees totaling approximately 12,738.83 dollars or, those fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance, shall be paid to the city of Palo Alto prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the second of the two houses that could be built on the two parcels. Building Division 4. The existing buildings within the project area shall be demolished prior to recording the map. A separate permit shall be required for the removal of the building. 5. 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 Engineering Department 6. A Parcel Map will be required after review of the Preliminary Parcel Map 7. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 8. Any existing buildings must be removed from the site prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 9. On the Parcel Map change lots to parcels. 10. Show all monuments to be set or found 11. Display width of street and show centerline. ATTACHMENT A 7 Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department 12. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters to the existing building including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the Building Inspection Division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 13. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas wastewater service connection application-load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing services a necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all cost associated with design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 15. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 16. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. 1. Preliminary Parcel Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Parcel Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Parcel Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Parcel Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of Preliminary Parcel Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Parcel Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTACHMENT A 8 ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by James Toby titled “Tentative Parcel Map”, consisting of one page, dated September 14, 2012. 137-09-034 137-15-053 137-09-031137-09-031 137-15-053 137-15-054 137-15-055 137-15-056 15-057 137-15-068 113.0' 55.8' 113.0' 55.8' 113.0' 113.0' 55.0' 11 89.7'131.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 50.4'55.0' 55.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 113.0' 113.0' 112.0' 112.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 50.4' 55.0' 56.0' 56.0' 56.0' 55.8' 55.8'55.4' 55.4'56.0' 56.0'55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 110.0' 110.0' 54.4' 108.0' 38.6' 38.6' 60.7' 1 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'55.0' 113.0' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 56.0' 74.4' 74.4' 50.0' 50.0' 104.0' 104.0' 53.0' 1 1 17.9' 85.0' 120.0' 50.0' 55.0' 55.0' 840 820 800 792 811 775 790 7 761 765 825 827 770 823 800 820 830 840 46 827 835 850 855 861 852 CHIMALU S DRIVE This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 59' 827 Chimalus CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2012 City of Palo Alto jnortz, 2012-11-06 10:49:22 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment D 827 Chimalus 12PLN-00000-00369 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1: Continue current City Policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Housing Element Policy H-1: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the supply of housing is increased. Ensure the preservation of the unique character of the City’s existing neighborhoods. Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in different locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable housing. 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 1 Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Planning and Transportation Commission review of a Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions for the purposes of subdividing a single 12,666 square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The requested exception would be for each parcel to have a width of 55.845 feet where 60 feet is the required minimum width. The site is located at 827 Chimalus Drive in the R-1 zone district. 1. PROJECT TITLE 827 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto, California 94306 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Jason Nortz Planner, City of Palo Alto 650-617-3137 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Samir Tuma 827 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94306 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 12-PLN-00369 6. PROJECT LOCATION 827 Chimalus Dr. Palo Alto Parcel Number: 137-15-050 The project site is located in the southern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of Interstate 280. 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 2 Negative Declaration 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The General Plan designation for this site is Single Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The Single Family land use designation allows for one dwelling unit on a lot. The net density in single family areas will range from 1-7 units per acre. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons per acre. The proposed subdivision within this section of the City is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. ZONING The project site consists of one parcels under the address of 827 Chimalus Drive. The parcel is zone R-1 (Single Family Residential) and is regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.12. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 12,666 square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The site is located at 827 Chimalus Drive in the R-1 zone district. The R-1 zone district requires new parcels to be a minimum of 60 feet in width, 100 feet in depth, and to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet in area. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels approximately 4 feet narrower than is currently allowed in the R-1 development regulations. The proposed lots would be 55.845 feet wide and have a lot depth of 113.40 feet. The total lot area of the new lots would be 6,333 square feet each. The proposed lots would be larger in total area and deeper than is required by zoning requirements. It is only the lot widths that will require the exception. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is located on the west side of El Camino Real, approximately a half of mile west of the intersection of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The site is surrounded by single family residential land uses. 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Office of the County Clerk-Recorder ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 3 Negative Declaration 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 project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well 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 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) “(Mitigated) 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 EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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) 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 any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 4 Negative Declaration answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,3 x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1,3 x c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1,3 x d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1,3 x e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 x f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1 x Mitigation Measure: None B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? 1 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1,3,4 X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of N/A X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 5 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Mitigation Measures: None C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? 1,3 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: 1,3 x i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); 1,3 x ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour (as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1,3 x 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 1,3 x 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 6 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1 x i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million 1 x ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI 1 x e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 x g) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1 X Mitigation Measures: None D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) 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? 1, 3 x b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including 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? 1,3 x c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 7 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1, 3 x d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 3 x e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1,3 x Mitigation Measure: None E. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1,3 MapL- 7 x b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1,3- MapL8 x c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3- MapL8 x d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1,3- MapL8 x e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1,3- MapL7 x f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 x 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 8 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: See below i) Rupture 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. 1, 3 x ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3-MapN- 10, x iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3-MapN- 5, 5,9 x iv) Landslides? 3-MapN- 5, x b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 x c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 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? 3-MapN- 5, x e) 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-MapN-5 x f) 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? 1 x g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1 x DISCUSSION: 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 9 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures None G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 x b) 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? 1 x c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X d) 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? 1, 3- MapN-9, 5 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X f) 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? 1 X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1,3- MapN-7 X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3-MapN-7 X i) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed 1 X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 10 Negative Declaration for the site? Mitigation Measures: None H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,3 X b) 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)? 3-MapN2 X 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? 1 X d) 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? 1 X e) 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? 1 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 X g) 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? 1, 3-Map N-6 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 3-MapN6 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year 3-MapN6 N8 X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 11 Negative Declaration flood hazard area? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 3-MapN6, N8 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,3- MapN6,9 X Mitigation Measure: None I. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 x b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,2,3,4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1,3 x d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1,2,3 x e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1,2,3, x f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1,2,3 x g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1,2,3 X Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Single Family Residential and the Zoning Ordinance designation is R-1 Single Family Residential. Newly created parcels must have a minimum site width of 60 feet. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with this designation because the lot widths resulting from the proposed subdivision would be 55.845 feet wide. The project applicant has applied for an exception to the 60-foot lot width requirement for two new parcels that would be approximately 4.16 feet narrower than required. The granting of this exception would not result in a significant impact because the resulting lot widths would be consistent with the lot widths of the neighboring properties. The exception would not disrupt a consistent lot pattern or result in a detrimental 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 12 Negative Declaration impact on the neighborhood. Mitigation Measures: None. J. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,3 X 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? 1,3 X Mitigation Measures: None. K. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 x b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibrations or ground borne noise levels? 1,3 x c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,3 x d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 x e) 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 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to 1 X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 13 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact excessive noise levels? g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1 x h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1 x i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1 x j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 x k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1 X Mitigation Measures: None L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 1,3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1 X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 14 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None. M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X Mitigation Measures: None N. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1 X 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? 1 X 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 15 Negative Declaration Mitigation Measures: None O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 1,3 x b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1 x c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1 x e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 x f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,3 x g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1,3 x h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1,3 x i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1,3 x j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause 1,3 x 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 16 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1,3 x l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1,3 x m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1,3 x n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1,3 x o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1,3 x p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, x Mitigation Measures: None P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1,3 X b) 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? 1,3 X c) Require or result in the construction of new 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 17 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1,3 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1,3 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1 X Mitigation Measures: None Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 1,3-Map L4,4 x b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 18 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 1,3 x c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1,2,3,4, x EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: The proposed project consists of subdividing a single 12,666 square foot parcel into two 6,333 square foot parcels. The site is located in the R-1 zone district requiring new parcels to be a minimum of 60 feet in width. The applicant has requested an exception to create two new parcels approximately 4.16 feet narrower than the 60 foot minimum required by the zoning. The Parcel Map will create two single-family lots in the R-1 zone district where one had previously existed. No public improvements are required as a result of the lot split. One single family home may be built on each of the two new parcels. The construction of two new single family homes is a ministerial act and is exempt under CEQA. The Environmental Chiclets was completed and all but one environmental factor was determined to be “No Impact”. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact”. Since the project will be creating two non-conforming lot as described above, the project will be in conflict with the “Land Use Planning” portion of the checklist. This impact was determined to be “Less Than Significant” as is discussed below. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Project Plans, Architectural Dimensions, received September14, 2012 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010. Parenthetical references indicate maps in Comp Plan. 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance 827 Chimalus Dr. 12PLN-00369 Page 19 Negative Declaration 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. x 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date Director of Planning and Date Community Environment 6764 Plans Page 1