HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-01 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
2
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
JULY 1, 2002
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR:319:02
525 SAN ANTONIO ROAD: REVIEW OF AN ,APPLICATION FOR
A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.64-ACRE SITE INTO 10
’SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the attached tentative map based on the attached findings (Attachment A) and
conditions (Attachment B).
The Subdivision Map Act requires the legislative body to act within a specified time
frame from the recommendation, of the Planning and Transportation Commission. This
application was continued from the City Council meeting of April 4, 2002, to allow staff
.to complete the Below Market Rate Agreement. , The alternatives to the Council for
action on this application are to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the
tentative map.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant.has submitted an application for a tentative map to subdivide two parcels¯
consisting of a existing 2.64-acre site into 10 single-family lots. The¯ lots would be
accessed from San Antonio Road by way of a new public right-of-way (cul-de-sac)
constructed on the project site.
The site is currently occupied with the Peninsula Day Care and Children’s Christian
Center. The site contains a surface parking lot fronting on San Antonio Road. The rest
of the site contains a large U-shaped building for the Day Care and Christian Centers, as
well as small accessory structures and children’s play areas. The owners of the property
anticipate continuation of the Day Care Center for at least the next 2 to 5 years.
However, they want the option of developing the site for single-family lots.
CMR:319:02 Page 1 of 4
All existing structures could remain until the final map is ready for approval. However,
the structures would be required to be removed prior to the Council approval of the Final
Subdivision Ma~. There are no historic structures or significant trees that would be
impacted as a result of this subdivision.
The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Single Family
Residential land use designation and the City’s Zoning Ordinance for R-1 single family
residential. The subdivision would provide the following single-family lot sizes: four
lots at 8,849 square feet; one lot at 10,170 square feet; four lots at 10,252 square feet, and
one lot at 11.,974 square feet. All of the lots would exceed the minimum 8,000 square-
foot lot size requirement for the R-1 (742) zone designation.
DISCUSSION
At the Commission meeting, the applicants addressed the issue regarding the continued
use of the site for child care. It is their desire to continue the use of the facility for as
long as they are able to operate it until retirement, or find a long-term lease agreement
with another childcare operator to maintain the facility. Since the Commission’s
meeting, the staff and the applicant have pursued this opportunity with potential
operators. Staff has met.with existing childcare operators regarding the facility on the
site. The discussions have explored both a lease and the purchase of the site for long
term use as a childcare center. With the approval of the tentative map, staff will continue
to work with the property owner to pursue this course.
Although the 2.64-acre site could yield a higher number of residential units through
multiple family density, the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning designations for the site
are for single family residential. The tentative map is consistent with these land use
designations. The area around the site is an existing single-family residential
neighborhood, and the applicant feels that this supports the compatibility of their
application with the existing residents near the site. The applicant has pursued the 10-lot
subdivision for these reasons, and the Findings for Approval support this application..
The applicant has agreed to comply with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) housing
program (Comprehensive Plan Program H720) through the dedication of one of the ten
lots with the approval of the Final Map (Attachment D). The lot that will be dedicated
will be a comer lot, numbered 1 on the tentative map, with a lot size of 11,640 square
feet. The City will determine the best use of this land for BMR purposes at a later date.
Depending on the method of development (individually built homes or one or more
merchant builders), additional below-market-rate housing fees may also be due when
homes are developed (see Attachment C).
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 13, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
reviewed the proposed subdivision and voted (5-0-2) to recommend approval of the
CMR:319:02 Page 2 of 4
tentative map. The Commission’s discussion centered on two issues regarding the
subdivision for~ingle-family homes. The first was the ultimate loss of a child care
facility, which provides a needed service to the community, and reinforced through
Comprehensive Plan Policy C- 11, "Support and promote the provision of comprehensive
child care services in Palo Alto by public and private providers, including employees."
The second concern was the potential for the site to yield additional housing units if it
was developed with a multiple-family density. Some Commissioners felt that this option
should be explored further. However, because the subdivision is. consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the current R-1 zoning, this was not sufficient grounds to
recommend denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were
prepared for the project.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Findings For Approval of Subdivision
Attachment B: Conditions For Approval of Subdivision
Attachment C: Below Market Rate Agreement
Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Report of February 13, 2002
(without attachments)
Planning and Transportation Commission minutes of February 13, 2002Attachment E:
Tentative Subdivision Map (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:
t Planning Manger
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
STEV~ EMSLIE ~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
ZMIL~’~HAR_R~SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:319:02 Page 3 of 4
A&D Protocol Transportation, c/o Mr. & Mrs. Herman Shaw, 525 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Kennetl~R. Schreiber, AICP, Land Use Planning Services, 432 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. and Mrs. Helene & Elliot Katzen, 455 Ferne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
CMR:319:02 Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT A
¯ DI~FT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
525 San Antonio Road
Recommended Findings for Approval
The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies and programs and the design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,
in that the project would be consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC
Section 21.20) and that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use map designation of Single Family Residential, the
properties R-1(743) zoning and the design requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance (PAMC 21.20) and would be consistent with the following
Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy H-l: Meet community and neighborhood
needs as the supply of housing is increased, in that the project includes 10
residential units that will increase opportunities for scarce housing in the area;
The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the
proposed 10 single family units are within the density range allowed by existing
zoning and compatible with the pattern and scale of neighboring development;
The design of the single family subdivision will not cause significant
environmental impacts in that an Environmental assessment and a Negative
Declaration was prepared for the project.
o The design of the single family subdivision will not result in serious public health
problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood
and would result in development of single family homes and accessory units
would be consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood in that the
project completes the land use pattern established by the area; and
o The design of the single family subdivision will not conflict with public easements
for access through the use of the property in that the resulting lots would have
frontage on a public street or cross easements that allow for vehicular access and
utility service to a public street.
Page
ATTACHMENT B
DRAI~ CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
525 SAN ANTONIO ROAD; 01-SUB-02
CONDITIONS FOR SUBDIVISION
GENERAL
Subdivider shall dedicate to City, pursuant to Program H-20 of the
Comprehensive Plan Below Market Rate (BMR) Program one lot identified as
Lot No. i on the Tentative Map. Subdivider shall be responsible at its own cost
for construction of all public and private improvements necessary for the
development of the dedicated lot with one unit but not including construction of
the building. Upon recording of the final subdivision map, title to the dedicated
lot shall transfer to the City or its designee. A bond, or other appropriate security
acceptable to the City Attorney, may be required to guarantee completion of the
public and private improvements benefiting the dedicated lot.
Subdivider shall sign a BMR agreement with the terms prior to Council approval
of the Tentative Map and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for
the Final Map and into the Subdivision Agreement in a form satisfactory to the
City Attorney’s Office.
Additional BMR fees for construction shall be payable upon development of the
remaining lots.
The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and
coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a
Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering
staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer-term communication with
appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of
design and construction matters.
o The soil report prepared by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer indicates that the
site has ground water measuring as shallow as 71/2 feet deep. This will require
subsequent, builders who intent to construct basements to submit a detail site
specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer, which
includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report
Page 6
shall identify the current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and
other available information, as well as professional experience, the engineer shall
estimate tile highest projected ground-water level likely to be encountered in the
future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water
level, then the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a
subsurface perimeter drainage system to relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not,
Public Works Engineering requires that structures (basements) be constructed in
such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels.
4.Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13’6" vertical
clearance. Road to meet weight access (65,000 lbs.) and turning radius (40 ft.)
requirements for fire truck. Road shall be all-weather and shall extend to within
150 feet of hose reach of any point on the first floor exterior of all buildings.
Parking will be allowed on only one side of the street.
The applicant is required to install "No Parking Any Time" signs and poles per
Transportation Planning specifications. A "Stop" sign and Stop bar shall be
installed at the San Antonio road intersection.
PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF FINAL. MAP
The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities
Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval of this
map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans
must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map.
The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering. This plan shall show spot elevations or contours of the site and
demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate
municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including
accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. The
revised plans shall incorporate a new manhole at the location of the new catch
basins. Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto
Building Inspection Division.
The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management
practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction
operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil,
Page 7
asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters
or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09).
Subdivision Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of
approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building
permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder.
All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be repaired and/or
removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec.
12.08.010.
o The unused driveways located along the frontage of the site shall be removed and
replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090.
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under
City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works
and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060.
The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the
finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this
sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developme.nts
BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off.
The preliminary grading plans indicate that the spot elevations are based on an
assumed datum of 303.66. Public Works requires all infrastructure and grading
plans to based on the City Standard Datum (USGS)
Utilities
11.
The subdivider shall coordinate with the Utilities Department to determine all
utility design and capacity requirements including water, sewer, gas, electric,
telephone and cable facilities. All new construction shall have underground utility,
telephone and cable service. The project shall be limited to single service laterals
for each lot for sewer, water and gas. Each parcel shall have separate electrical
service. All utility plans shall be approved by the Utilities Department before the
Parcel map is recorded.
The subdivider shall submit improvement plans and specifications for all utility
construction. The plans must show the proposed alignment of water, gas, and
sewer mains and services within the development and in the public right-of-way.
Page 8
12.The subdivider shall submit flow calculations which will show the off-site and on-
site water and sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows and sewer
capacity r~eded to service the development and adjacent properties during
anticipated peak flows.
Building
13.The existing buildings on the site are to be removed prior to approval of the final
map. A separate demolition permit is required for each building.
14.The name of the new street is to be approved by the City and the Building
Inspection Services Division shall assign the address numbers for each lot prior to
approval of the Final Map.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording of the final parcel or subdivision
map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off" site condition(s) of approval. The
Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments shall determine the amount of the
bond.
Planning
The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of PaloAlto.
The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the
Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements:
a)The subdivider shall be responsible for installing any required off-site
improvements, including utilities, to the satisfaction of the Utilities, Public
Works, and Planning Departments. These improvements shall be
guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City
Attorney.
b)The subdivider shall grant the necessary public utility easements to the City
for the location and maintenance of required utilities. The required
easements shall be shown on the face of the subdivision map.
3.The final subdivision map shall be filed with the Planning Division within two years
of the approval of the tentative subdivision map.
Utilities
Page 9
o All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Standard
Specifications and the Utility department Standard Conditions. The subdivider shall
show all utility easements prior to approval of the Tentative Map.
The subdivider shall be responsible for installing and upgrading on-site and off-site
water and sewer utilities as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibility includes the cost of all associated utility installations/upgrades.
The subdivider shall pay all costs associated with the required improvements to off-
site gas mains. All improvements to the gas system shall be installed by the City of
Palo Alto.
The subdivider shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities,
both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the
site, the Permit-tee shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at
least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
o All on-site and off-site improvements, including the relocation of any existing
utilities to accommodate the project shall be done at the subdivider’s expense. The
City will provide one electric service to the new merged parcel.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
June 27, 2002
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Division
Mr. and Mrs. Herman Shaw
A&D Protocol Transportation Inc.
525 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Re: Below Market Rate (BMR) Agreement for 525 San Antonio Road
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shaw:
This letter summarizes the agreement reached betweenyou and the Planning Division
staff regarding satisfaction of the provisions of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate
(BMR) Program. The requirements for a BMR component of a project are contained in
Program 20 of the City of Palo Alto Housing Element. This letter relates to the proposed
10-lot subdivision at 525 San Antonio Road herein after referred to as "the project".
You intend to obtain City Council approval of a final subdivision map for the project that
will allow future sale of individual units. The terms of this letter of agreement shall be
incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement which must be completed and signed prior
to the final map being considered by the City Council.
Lot Dedication
You agree to dedicate one of the 10 lots to the City of Palo Alto. The lot you agree to
dedicate at the time of parcel subdivision is designated Lot #1, as shown on the tentative
map dated June 27, 2001. It is located in the southwest comer of the proposed
subdivision and is 11,640 square feet in size. You also agree to extend utilities to the
BMR lot. The City shall decide the details of how to use this site for maximum BMR
benefit after the dedication is complete.
Payment of Fees In-Lieu of Building BMR Unit
The dedication of an unimproved lot does not provide an actual BMR unit, as would be
the case if you were both subdividing the land and developing it at this time. Therefore,
in addition to the dedication of Lot #1 to the City of Palo Alto, as the lots are developed,
the payment of an additional in-lieu fee is required prior to authorization of occupancy of
any unit. However, at present, the fee is not imposed for development of fewer than three
units; this exemption may be eliminated or reduced in the future.
250 Hamilton Avenue
EO. Box 10250 "
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
M/M Herman Shaw
Page 2 of 2
June 27, ~302
If payment is not made prior to issuance of the building permit, then security shall be
posted for its payment.
The fee shall be based on the higher of the following two values: the sales price of the
unit or the appraised value. The in-lieu fee rate will be assessed on the rate in effect for
the BMR program at the time of construction. The Draft Housing Element proposes
7.5% of the sales price or appraised value. Any appraisal shall be paid for by the
property owner and the appraiser shall be selected by the City of Palo Alto. The sales
price or appraised value, will include all improvements including, but not limited to, add-
ons, options, fixtures, appliances, landscaping, equipment and furniture that the buyer
purchases from the developer, or its contractors, prior to close of escrow and transfer of
title, or occupancy, in the event the developer retains ownership through occupancy. An
agreement giving notice of this fee requirement shall be recorded at the time of final map
recordation.
Thank you for your cooperation during the development of this BMR agreement. Please
sign this letter where shown below and return to me indicating that we have reached
agreement regarding your BMR contribution.
Sincerely
STEVEN R EMSLIE
Director
Department of Planning and Community Environment
I agree to provide a Below Market Rate component to the project at 525 San Antonio
Road as described in this letter dated June 27, 2002.
A & D Protocol Transportation
ATTACHMENT D
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
John Lusardi
February 13,2002
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on
an application by A&D Protocol Transportation for a Tentative
Map to subdivide a 2.64 acre parcel into 10 single family lots at
525 San Antonio Road, 01-SUB-02; Environmental Assessment:
An Negative Declaration has been prepared
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the attached tentative map based on the attached findings (Attachment A) and
conditions (Attachment B).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has submitted an application for a.tentative map to subdivide the existing
2.64-acre parcel into 10 single-family lots. Each lot would include a single family home
and covered parking. The lots would be accessed from San Antonio Road by way of a
new public right-of-way (cul-de-sac) constructed on the project site.
Site Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive
Plan designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in
Table 1.
City of Palo Alto Page I
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:~A&D Protocol Transportation c/o Mr. Herman
Shaw
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
A&D Protocol Transportation
147-08-046 & 047
Comprehensive Plan Designation:Single Family Residential
Zoning District:R-1 (743)
Surrounding Land Use:North: Palo Alto Unified School District
South: San Antonio road
East: Existing Multiple Family Residential
West: Existing Single Family Residential
Parcel Size:2.64 acres
Proiect History
The site is currently occupied with the Peninsula Day Care and Children’s Christian
Center. The site contains a surface parking lot fronting on San Antonio Road. The rest of
the site contains a large U-shaped building for the Day Care and Christian Centers, as
well as small accessory structures and children’s play areas. The owners of the property
anticipate continuation of the Day Care Center for at least the next 2 to. 5 years. However,
they want the option of developing the site for single-family lots.
Pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 21.16.010, a tentative map expires
two years if a Final Map has not been filed. The Council may grant an extension of time,
after recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
All existing structures could remain until the final map is ready for approval. However,
the structures would be required to be removed prior to the Council approval of the Final
Subdivision Map. There are no historic structures or significant trees that would be
impacted as a result of this subdivision.
The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the single-family designation for the
project site. The subdivision would provide the following single-family lot sizes: four lots
at 8,849 square feet (sf); one lot at 10,170 sf; four lots at 10,252 sf, and; one lot at 11,974
sf. All of the lots would exceed the minimum 8,000 sf lot size requirement for the R-1
(742) zone designation.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
This application would result in the loss of a childcare facility within the city. Childcare.
facilities provid[? an important service to the community and there is a lack of such
services within the city. The childcare facility would continue as long as it is
economically feasible to operate either by the owners or through a lease. The loss of the
facility would be offset by the development of ten new single-family housing units,
where housing is also a high priority for the city.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s
Zoning Ordinance for R-1 single family residential.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the R-1 (743) Single Family
Residential District. The (743) denotes a special residential building site combining
regulations whereby minimum site areas shall be 8,000 square feet and minimum interior
side yard setbacks shall be 8 feet.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The applicant is proposing compliance with the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing program (Comprehensive Plan Program H-20) through the payment of an in-lieu
housing fee. Staff is recommending that the compliance with the BMR program should
be met through the a dedication of one lot of the subdivision to the below market rate
housing program.. This requires the preparation of a BMR agreement prior to approval of
the Tentative Map.
The applicant is proposing to maintain a 30-foot, rather than 20, rear yard setback on the
adjacent single-family development in order to reduce visual intrusions. Development of
the ten single-family lots would also be subject to the City’s Single Family Individual
Review process. The proposed street cross section is designed to meet the city standards
for emergency access while minimizing the amount of paving and impact from the
roadway.
The applicant would be required to obtain an official street name for the new street. The
street name shall be determined in conformance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Sections 21.20.140 and 21.28.160. This process shall be completed concurrent with the
Final subdivision Map
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Impact Assessment and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
NEXT STEPS
Following Planing Commission review, the application will be heard bY the City
Council for decision at a meeting to be scheduled in March, 2002. If Council approves
the project, the applicant may apply for a final subdivision map. The existing buildings
on the site would be required to be demolished prior to approval of the final subdivision
map. Prior to subdividing the property, the applicant will be required to submit
improvement plans for the design of the adjacent sidewalks, utilities and the new public
right-of-way, a subdivision agreement, including a BMR agreement and an application
for approval of a Final Subdivision Map. The Final Subdivision Map will be reviewed
for compliance by the Public Works Department and must be approved by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment.
ATTA CHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A - Findings
Attachment B - Conditions
Attachment C - Subdivider’s Statement
Tentative Map [Commission members, only]
COURTESY COPIES:
A&D Protocol Transportation, c/o Mr. & Mrs. Herman Shaw, 525 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Mr. Kenneth R. Schreiber, AICP, Land Use Planning Services, 432 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. and Mrs. Helene & Elliot Katzen, 455 Ferne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Prepared by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Ciq of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENT E
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
February 13, 2002
EXCERPT
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
525 San Antonio Road (01-SUB-02~ 01-EIA-13)*: Application by A&D Protocol
Transportation for a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the subdivision of an
approximately 2.64 acre site into ten lots for single-family use. The lots would range in
parcel size from 8,700 to 11,800 square feet and would be accessed by the construction
of a new public right-of-way located on the project site. Environmental Assessment: A
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. Zone district R-1(743).
Chair Burr: Would Staff like to make a presentation at this time?
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission the
application is for a tentative map to subdivide an existing parcel into 10 single-family lots.
Insofar as the existing site contains structures that would cross both future property lines for the
single family houses as well as the new dedicated public street all existing structures would be
required to be removed prior to approval of the final map. Staff would like to make one revision
to the findings contained on page five of the Report. Staff is recommending that the language for
the draft findings for approval for number one be replaced with the following finding: The
proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use map designation of
single family residential, the property zoned R-1(743) and the design requirements of the
subdivision ordinance. There were no potentially significant impacts identified with the project
and therefore a negative declaration was issued for the project. Copies of the environmental
checklist have been provided to each Commissioner prior to this meeting. The Staff is
recommending that the subdivision meet the City’s below market rate housing program by
dedicating one of the 10 lots to the BMR program.
The applicant has agreed to this condition. The applicant has concerns with the last part of
condition number one on page six of the Staff Report. This condition is intended to comply with
the recent Council action to condition all projects to be subject to any future impact fees
approved by the Council. Staff is recommending that this language be amended accordingly.
With the revisions recommended at this time, Staff is recommending that the Planning and
Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the tentative map based
on the findings and conditions. The applicant is present to provide testimony and answer
questions. Thank you.
Chair Burt: John, can you clarify what you just said about the BMR fees?
Page 1
Mr. Lusardi: The requirement to meet the below market rate program, the applicant had initially
proposed to pay in lieu fees. Staff is asking for a condition that the project provide a dedicated
lot, one of the 10 ~bts. The applicant has agreed to that condition.
The second part of that condition was more relative to the Council’s recent action requiring all
future development to pay impact fees that they may have adopted or will adopt at the time the
project is being enacted.
Chair Burr: So you are saying those would still apply to this?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Chair Burr: Thank you.
At this time would the City Attorney be able to make some background comments to the
Commission regarding the respective role of the Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to this
discussion?
Ms. W_~ane Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes. The state has adopted a Subdivision
Map Act, which applies all over the state. It sets forth the procedures and the standards under
which a parcel of land is divided into smaller parcels of land for purposes of sale or lease. The
City in tum has adopted a set of procedures, which are in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, which specify some local procedures but basically keep the state standards going.
Subdivision Map Act procedures call for two kinds of maps when you have a subdivision like
this, which has 10 lots. First there is a tentative map and the tentative map application is made to
the City. It proposes a layout for the new subdivision, it talks about the public improvements
that might be there and it is at that time that the City imposes all the conditions that it believes
are necessary for this to be a proper and lawful subdivision. So it is at this point that for example
the City identifies the public improvements that would be needed, typically streets to start with
but there might be utility upgrades, street trees and other things.
In this City, that’s the point at which you identify the proposal for satisfying the below market
rate provisions of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to subdivisions. The findings on
approving or disapproving a tentative map are based on state law. Again, this is what they call
Quasi-Judicial. You have a set of fact, you have a set of standards and you apply those standards
to the facts. The StaffReport outlines those findings. Generally speaking when you are viewing
a tentative map you have to apply the standards that were in effect at the time the application was
made. Now, that doesn’t apply in certain cases where you have published a notice and adopted a
resolution indicating that you are going to make some changes. That is what the City just
finished doing with respect to impact fees. Generally speaking you don’t apply zoning rules or
Comprehensive Plan policies that have not yet been adopted. You have to apply the ones that are
in effect at the time that the application is made.
Those findings are sort of negative findings. You have to disapprove the map if it doesn’t meet
these findings. You must disapprove it, otherwise you approve it, if it is not consistent with the
Page 2
General, which in our case is Comprehensive, and specific plans; that the design of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans; and in that case
design would hav~ to do with things like street improvement, drainage, things like that; the site
is not physically suitable for the type of development; the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of development; the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements
are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat; that the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious health problems or that the design of the subdivision and the types of
improvements (this is not going to apply here) will interfere with easements that the public at
large has acquired for things like oceans and rivers and lakes.
For you in this City the issue normally is, is it complying with the Comprehensive Plan and is it
in compliance with the Zoning. When you are dealing with extreme terrain either because it is
very close to the Bay or very close to the hills or has some kind of particular exceptional seismic
vulnerability then you might be dealing with the physically suitable issue. I don’t believe that
there is anything in the report that indicates that is an issue here.
Chair Burt: You mentioned the compliance with existing or proposed Comp Plan elements.
Specifically I’m question the new Housing Element that has been preliminarily approved by the
Council. How does that play in here?
Ms. Furth: You deal with the Housing Element that is already in place. We view this one under
the existing Housing Element.
Chair Burt: Not under the prospective one?
Ms. Furth: That’s right.
Chair Burt: Thank you.
Ms. Furth: I should also explain that when you approve a tentative subdivision map with this list
of conditions then the property owner has two years to file a final map. When you file a final
map you have the proper Mylar drawing with all the engineering details on it you also have to
have completed all the conditions that are in the map except that the public improvements, the
streets, the curbs, the sewers, etc., are typically not done until after the map is recorded. Instead
we enter into a contract called a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the sub-divider. We
record that contract against the property. We also secure bonding so that if something should
happen to the sub-divider the City is able to make sure those improvements do in fact take place.
But all the other conditions have to satisfied before the final map records. Once that final map is
recorded then the lots can legally be sold.
Chair Burt: Any questions from Commissioners? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: One. John, could you clarify the first change that you made? I was
having trouble following where you said it was, it was on page five. What I sort of drew from
Page 3
that is that the single family residential guidelines would not apply. Could you clarify for me, I
just didn’t catch all of what you were saying there.
Mr. Lusardi: What I was trying to do was to simply clarify the fact that this map is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan land use desi .gnation for single family residential. The existing
zoning, R-1(743) and the design requirements of the subdivision ordinance per the Municipal
Code. So single family design guidelines would apply if the houses that were built were for
instance two story houses. They would still apply to that, yes.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have another question on that finding. Is that finding that you are
proposing, that you just spoke of, does that replace the whole finding that is on page five? All of
finding One?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, it is replacing the language in finding One.
Commissioner Packer: In other words, what it says essentially that it meets the Comprehensive
Plan policy H-1 about the supply of housing, you are replacing that finding?
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially what it is replacing the finding sentence that starts with,
"Comprehensive Plan policies H-I." It is replacing from there down.
Commissioner Cassel: Could you read that one again for us? You went through it and I couldn’t
write it down that fast.
Mr. Lusardi: Sure. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land
use map designation of single family residential. That speaks to the designation on the
Comprehensive land use map. ~
The property is consistent with the R-1 (743) zoning. The property is already under existing R-1
zoning and the design requirements of the subdivision ordinance per the Municipal Code. That
is essentially the conditions that are applied to the project for things like utilities, public right,
dedication, those things.
Chair Burr: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Why did you remove the other Comprehensive Plan policies, H-1 and H-
2, from the findings?
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially by being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan those policies are
implied implicitly. If the Commission wants to keep those policy statements in they can do that.
What we want to get on the record is that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and the Zoning Ordinance in the Subdivision Map Act. If you want to add that to the
existing statement, we can do it that way too.
Page 4
Chair Burt: What if the project is consistent with the existing zoning map of the Comprehensive
Plan and yet not consistent with other broad Comp Plan policies?
Mr. Lusardi: I’m not sure what policies you would be speaking to in particular with respect to
this project. So I can’t give a specific answer to that question. What policies are you
addressing?
Chair Burr: Well, Policy H-1 and H-2 and probably Policy C-11. But H-1 and H-2, which you
had originally included.
Mr. Lusardi: It is consistent with those two policy statements. It meets the community
neighborhood needs of supplying the housing increase. It considers a variety of strategies to
increase housing density and diversity in the appropriate locations. It is consistent with the
Comp Plan for single-family designation.
Chair Burt: I think the Commission may have further discussion on that. My question is what if
we "were to find that it is consistent with the zoning map but we were to find that it is inconsistent
with other Comp Plan policies? What are out prerogatives?
Ms. Furth: I think your first question has to be as you say the broader ones of is it consistent
with the zoning? Is it consistent with the land use map? If you believe there are other
Comprehensive Plan policies with which it is actually inconsistent, then you should raise those
with us and we can discuss whether that’s the kind of inconsistency that would justify a denial.
It is important not to read policies that, for example, encourage childcare or the promotion of
childcare as essentially treating a particular child care site as only available for childcare. So I
think if you raise those issues and you may want t.o, I don’t know if you need to raise them
before you open the public hearing, but if you are aware of them you might so the applicant can
address those issues, then we should examine those carefully. There certainly are
Comprehensive Plan policies that can justify or even require the tuming down of a tentative tract
map. More commonly they have to do with environmental effects more narrowly construed, not
social effects that have to do with habitat or extreme hazard or in this area, not in this City, but in
this state certainly often having to do with hillside properties and difficulties. But if you believe
there are policies that could be contradictory to this you should raise those issues and discuss
them and we will try to give you specific advice on specific policies.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This is another question for you, Wynne. It is sort of a legalistic kind of
thing. While the tentative map is in effect, assuming it is approved, there is a tentative map in
effect for two years before any final map is applied for, and let’s say that the Housing Element
goes through and there is a proposal to change the zoning for this site. Unless it is decided to
actually change the zoning what is the impact of the filing of a tentative subdivision map that
reflects the R-1 status and then someone wants to rezone it?
Page 5
Ms. Furth: It is rather complicated. The tentative tract map can still be finalized but that doesn’t
mean that the development contemplated at the time ,the map was originally proposed can be
carried out. It do~ not fi’eeze zoning.
Chair Burt: Can you explain that in a little more depth for the rest of us?
Ms. Furth: There are two different kinds of tentative tract maps. As you know, California is a
late vesting state. Under ordinary circumstances you have no constitutional right or statutory
right to build a project until you pull a building permit and start spending money on the basis of
that permit. That means that a great deal of money can go into planning a project and it may turn
out to be something that can’t be built because of changes in the law. The really dramatic cases
on that in California, AVCO is the most famous one, involved the projects that had been
underway in planning terms for a long time before the Coastal Act passed. The Supreme Court
held that unless you had actually started building under a permit you had no vested right and
those projects were not built. The state legislature and local governments and the building
industry have worked ever since that to devise appropriate balances between flexibility of elected
officials to make changes for changing circumstances and the desire to have a certain amount 6f
predictability when long term planning is desirable. One of the mechanisms that’s used that you
are familiar with from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation area and certainly from Sand Hill is the
Development Agreement which is a contract in which consideration is given by one party, a lot
of capital improvement, to the other of a guaranteed right to build an approved project. There is
another devise called a vesting tentative map. This is not a vesting tentative map where you
provide a great deal more information up front in Palo Alto, in fact you design the whole project,
and with a vesting tentative map. you not only get the right to record the subdivision and sell the
lots you get the right to build the project. In the absence of that if this was zoned at a higher
density the map could still record but to the extent possible those lots would have to be
developed under the new zoning. Now if they were still held in the same hands they would
probably be merged to develop it that way. If they had all been sold separately then you would
just have to do the best job you can of getting that higher density on those smaller parcels.
Chair Burr: Thank you, that’s very helpful. It helps us, at least myself, understand it a little bit
better. At this time are we prepared to hear from the applicant? The applicant, represented by
Ken Schreiber, would have 15 minutes to speak. Welcome Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Ken Schreiber, 432 Webster Street, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. I’m here tonight
representing Mr. and Mrs. Harmon Shaw, the owners of 525 San Antonio Road. The site has a
church., as all of you know and many of you have been out on the site in the last week, the church
since the 1960’s had been the location of the Peninsula Daycare Center. I first met the Shaws in
1974 when shortly after moving to California my wife and I enrolled our two and four year old
children in the daycare center. Our children will celebrate their 29th and 31 st birthdays next
month. That gives me a perception of just how long the daycare center has been in operation and
it was in operation before we arrived in 1974. So it has been a very longstanding use.
Mr. and Mrs. Shaw have reached the point where retirement is logical. If you have been on the
site when it is an active daycare center you see both of their names above the door and they
actively manage the site. Their hope is that over the next year or two a way can be found to
Page 6
continue the daycare center. Realistically a daycare center leased to another operator would
mean less income than selling the land and investing the proceeds since the value of the land as a
daycare center is ~ less than as residential land. The Shaws are interested in making that
tradeoffbecause of their longstanding commitment to providing daycare services. Hopefully, a
lease to a public or private daycare provider can be accomplished in the next year. However, it
may not be possible to reach an agreement for lease of the site. In that event redevelopment of
the Site with single-family houses would occur as Mr. and Mrs. Shaw enter retirement. Thus the
objective of the tentative map application is to give the Shaws the flexibility of an alternative use
of the land if continuation of the daycare use is not possible. I want to be very clear on that in
terms of the things that are likely to occur over the next year or two. This site may well
redevelop with single family housing, assuming the tentative map is approved and goes ahead,
and we may well find a way to retain the daycare center.
The tentative map that has been submitted to you is consistent with the site’s Comprehensive
Plan land use designation and the site’s single family zoning. Both the plan of land use
designation and the zoning have been in effect for at least the past quarter century, I think the
zoning probably goes well beyond that. The Comprehensive Plan designation goes back to at
least the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and whatever plans were in effect before that.
In discussing development alternatives with the Shaws we talked about the possibility of
multiple family housing. Their conclusion, which I found myself having to concur with, is that
the adjoining neighborhoods would prefer single-family housing. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw do not
want to have a controversial planning process that would create neighborhood discord. They
have lived with their neighbors for a long, long time. They know many of them for many
decades from their activities on this site and the neighbors and they do not want, at this point in
time, to end up with a neighborhood battle over how the site should be used, thus, the single-
family residential application in front of you. Again, it is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
I might just note in passing having been involved in Policies H-1 and H-2 that they were used in
two ways. One is in setting the land use plan map that was adopted with the Comprehensive
Plan. The second use is in the process you are going through right now with coming up with a
new Zoning Ordinance. The properties in Palo Alto were thoroughly looked at in the
Comprehensive Plan process and decisions were made on a whole variety of sites as to what land
use they should be designated and in this case I don’t think the site was actively looked at but
there certainly was no intention or desire to shift it to multiple family residential, the single
family residential that had been in effect remained in effect with the latest plan.
The only part of the application that is in some way not consistent with the zoning is that we
proposed a voluntary 30-foot rear yard setback where 20 feet is required. This would be for the
lots that back up to the existing single-family houses. The additional buffer would be
incorporated into the property deeds as a property development restriction. The 30-foot setback
addresses a concern that we received at a meeting we held with any number of the neighbors.
Since that meeting the City adopted new single-family design review procedures and that will
allow all of the square footage to be located in a one story structure or if there is a two story
Page 7
structure, as you well know, there will be a process of receiving neighborhood input on the
impacts of that second story.
We calculated that the allow, able floor area would fit within the setbacks even with a 30-foot rear
setback. The concern was with the intrusion of second stories and the City has a process to
address that. The Commission may want to eliminate the 30-foot setback, however, we are
agreeable to continue to incorporate that deeper setback. Again, we are in that sense responding
to neighborhood input. As John Lusardi noted the application had proposed satisfaction of the
BMR requirement through the payment of a fee. The Staff recommendation is that at the
conclusion of a final map process and the improvements that lot number one would be provided
as a BMR lot to the City and we have no objections to the provisions of one lot ratherthan the
fee process.
Mr. and Mrs. Shaw are here tonight as well as Jim Toby, a civil engineer, that prepared the
tentative map and we will be pleased to respond to any questions. Thank you.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: My question is if it is intended to explore looking for another daycare
provider for this site, why do this right now?
Mr.Schreiber: The application was filed on July 5. The preparation of the application began a
year ago with environmental studies, soil studies of the site and that type of thing. So the map
application was filed in July, for whatever reasons it has not reached you until now. Back in July
we anticipated that it might well reach you in September. I think if you look at the
environmental review it is dated September. So right now being February 2002 that was not our
intent. Our intent was to have this well through the Council and handled by then. The overall
timing is again triggered by the desire of Mr. and Mrs. Shaw to begin a process of detaching
from the daycare center, moving into retirement and sorting out what can be done with the site.
clearly there are three alternatives at least and one of those is redevelop the site consistent with
the City’s rules and regulations, policies and procedure; another will be to try to find a
continuation of the daycare use. Personally speaking as a planner and somebody that has
obviously worked in the City and worked with you for a long, long time, you have two
community groups here that you are looking at. You are looking at childcare and you are
looking at housing. I very honestly would have expected tonight to far more discussion of losing
the childcare services. It is a large childcare center. It provides a very valuable service that is a
very significant part of the community’s childcare slots. I certainly understand the desire for
multiple family housing but my sense is, and the Shaw’s sense very definitely is that if this was
noticed tonight at a zone change to multiple family housing and a Comprehensive Plan change
we would have many more people in the Chambers and many more people who would be quite
upset about it. Again, the Shaws at this point in their lives have reached a point where they
really don’t want to get into that type of a confrontational environment with their neighbors.
Chair Burt: Ken, we heard that if there is a tentative map adopted it this site could still fall
subject to the amendments to the Housing Element that are going through the City now. So,
Page 8
what are your comments on your clients’ receptivity to those prospective changes given that this
site is proposed ashigher density housing in the new Housing Element?
Mr. Schreiber: I don’t think I heard it quite the same way.
Chair Burt: I might not have understood it correctly.
Mr. Schreiber: The Senior Assistant City Attorney may well want to clarify this. The site needs
to be evaluated in the context of the Housing Element that is adopted right now. It is in that
binder that some of you have thatI have back at the chair. The City will quite likely adopt a new
Housing Element sometime in the next three, four, five, six months or something like that.
Assuming the tentative map is reviewed and approved it still has to be judged in light of the
adopted Housing Element. What I heard the Assistant City Attomey say is that a zoning cannot
be locked in place, not the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element but the zoning. So if the City
on its own volition wanted to rezone the site and change the Comprehensive Plan to multiple
family and rezone the site to multiple family that clearly is a situation that the City would have to
first deal with in terms of the process and involving neighbors, etc. and after that an assessment
would have to be made as to whether the multiple family zoning, which generally in Palo Alto’s
history has allowed single family and duplex structures on smaller parcels. We are not dealing
with 6,000 square foot lots, we are dealing with 8,500 and 9,000 and 10,000 square foot lots, the
multiple family zoning might still work on the lots. Maybe at that time it would make sense to
revert it to acreage and do pursue a multiple family project. That is simply all speculation in
terms of how it could play out and what type of multiple family zoning the City would develop
in the Zoning Ordinance and then how it would be applied to a site. So there are whole bunches
of questions that we really can’t answer tonight on that.
Chair Burt: One final question. Do you have any sense of how your clients would respond to
the prospect of having say 10 small lot parcels on this site in conjunction with a major portion of
the site remaining as a childcare center? So a combination of having this amount of housing but
on small lots and free up space.
Mr. Schreiber: I am not sure what you mean by small lots. The clear intent has been to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation, which I think is the fundamental
Comprehensive Plan decision. That’s where the focus needs to be in terms of consistency with
the Plan. Absent, as the Assistant City Attorney said, absent some type of overriding
environmental issue or something like that, consistency with the Plan and consistency with the
existing zoning. Smaller lots can be anything from 6,000 to something smaller than that. I’m
not sure how the neighbors would react. Right at this point in time we are not interested in
pursuing that. Daycare facilities need space. There are state requirements of so much space per
child in the daycare center and that site right now is intensively used as a daycare center. If you
cut it by a quarter or cut it down to one-fifth for the daycare center you will probably do an
almost proportional reduction in the number of daycare slots. So at this point in time I would say
we are not interested in pursuing that. That what we are interested in pursuing is what has been
provided to the Commission.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette.
Page 9
Commissioner Bialson: Ken, did the applicant consider making some of these lots for duplexes
or multi-family, o~pecially the ones towards San Antonio?
Mr. Schreiber: That gets back to the issue of then you need a Comprehensive Plan change and a
zone change, It gets back to their conclusion, which again I cannot disagree with, that the
treating of a set of multiple family Comprehensive Plan changes and multiple family zoning is
going to involve neighborhood controversy that the property owners do not wish to go through.
So no, we are not receptive to that type of division of the property.
Commissioner Bialson: To follow up on that, the sole reason is the neighbors and the concern
would not be lessened because the City might view with favor making the lots close to San
Antonio multiple family.
Mr. Schreiber: The concern is really two-fold. One is certainly neighbors and process but the
other is process time for alternatives. What Mr. and Mrs. Shaw do not want to get into is a long
difficult public process that drags out for any number of years and we get into an environmental
impact report perhaps or perhaps a lawsuit and everything gets tied up in that type of process.
They have observed the Palo Alto Planning for 50 years and they have an appreciation of the
Palo Alto process and bluntly, they would just as soon not get caught up in the types of processes
that would have to be involved to start introducing some multiple family or some changes in this.
I think they are correct in assuming that would take a notable length of time and they are in a
position now that they would like to make some decisions regarding their life. They would like
to make some decisions regarding the daycare. They would like to make some decisions in
terms of where this property fits into retirement planning and to introduce something that is
going to take significantly longer time is really not consistent with their desire.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: My question is actually for Wynne. Is that okay? Wyrme, I think I need
a clarification. Although I know we are working on the old Housing Element, I think there may
be a misunderstanding on the new one. My understanding is that it doesn’t actually change any
property designations. All it does is list some potential property that may be changed and it does
not change any specific sites.. After the Housing Element is adopted that it would then have to
go through a whole public hearing process in which we would then be beating the burden of the
public hearing and any other changes that would be made.
Ms. Furth: That’s correct. What that process does is identify a surplus of sites more than enough
sites to provide the additional housing that the City is required to provide as its fair share of
housing the people who work here.
Commissioner Cassel: If this was approved in the next three months this site would not actually
have anything on the site changed from its current designation.
Page 10
M’s. Furth: That’s right. They would have no change. Right now they have R-1 zoning and they
would have R-1 zoning then. They are not in a position to do anything else unless and until the
City changes at l~st the zoning.
Chair Burt: Karen and then Kathy.
Commissioner Holman: My question is to Mr. Schreiber. These lots are pretty substantial size
lots. I was wonder if, especially given that this is on San Antonio Road, if there was any
consideration for a different configuration so there could be more lots and then at least more
housing units albeit single family?
Mr. Schreiber: The civil engineer tried very hard and he can comment on this in greater detail
but he tried very hard to find a way to get more lots. With computerized graphic design
packages as they now have you can do a lot of alternatives rather quickly, this is the max under
the zoning. There was no way to get an eleventh lot or a twelfth lot. If there were, we would be
here asking for eleven lots or twelve lots. We tried very hard to find ways. The way the
property lays out and having to have a public street and given the various depth and width
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance it simply doesn’t work any other way than with the cul-
de-sac.
Commissioner Holman: I don’t have a solution in my head but another question. Even trying to
utilize an alleyway or two?
Mr. Schreiber: Again, yes because the length and width of the lots as it is laid out and the need
for some access on a public street and again not wanting to get into exceptions and variances and
all that sort of stuffthere wasn’t any way to lay this out consistent with the 8,000 square foot lot
minimum. If you had a different set of zoning regulations there may have been a way to lay out
more lots. We didn’t look at 6,000 square foot lots, for example, we looked at the zoning as the
City has had it on that site since at least the 1970s and probably well, well before that. We could
not come up with more lots. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw were hoping for more lots.
Commissioner Holman: One last follow up to that. I agree with you, the loss of a childcare
center I agree with you about that. I just don’t know that there is anything that we can do about
that. Again, given the size of the lots many of the lots would qualify for a second unit. Is that
something that the Shaws have considered?
Mr. Schreiber: Second units would need to be proposed by the owners of the individual parcels.
The Shaws are not proposing to develop the site, develop a bunch of single-family houses with
or without duplexes. If the childcare option doesn’t work out and the site goes into a single
family redevelopment mode I am not sure, at this point in time and no one is sure, as to whether
the site would be sold as one parcel with the final map or whether someone would come in and
put the improvements in and then sell individual lots. The point is that the buyers of those "
individual 10 parcels would have to make.decisions. I might add that to the extent that the City’s
regulations are purported to encourage single-family development rather than second story
development you are also probably in some way discouraging certainly second units. By putting
all ot~the floor area on one level you won’t have enough lot left generally to find space for a
Page 11
second unit at least without some very creative design and probably chewing into the open space
to a level that people wouldn’t be satisfied with. So that is one of the unintended consequences
of the second stor~ issue, that it probably will over time reduce the opportunity for second units
on large lots.
Chair Burr: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: Another question, Ken.
Mr. Schreiber: It feels like old times except I am not at the Staff table.
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, you have to stand up now. This question is in regard to the
childcare. I understand this is a fairly large childcare facility.
Mr. Schreiber: 340.
Commissioner Schmidt: Do you haveany idea what percentage of childcare spaces that
represents in the City?
Mr. Schreiber: I don’t but it is a notable percentage. Whether it is quarter or 30% or 22% or
whatever it is certainly a notable percentage. It is around 15% to 20% of the City’s total. I
believe it is the largest childcare center in Palo Alto.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t know how to put this in the form of a question. So maybe we
will just have a discussion. I just want to explore a little bit about the concern about the
neighbors. I see only five or six single-family homes on One side and on the other side is already
multiple family. In visiting the site, the site is a very busy place at least at the time when we
were there it was pick up time, etc. The neighbors are probably used to the kind of impact that
site has. It is hard for me to understand how a slightly more dense development would have a
greater impac~ on the five or six single family houses than the childcare center already has. To
what extent were ideas about how the site could be used discussed with these neighbors and what
really is going on here?
Mr. Schreiber: We did not have a process of taking a multiple family alternative to the neighbors
and saying would you support this. Certainly, conversations over the course of years reinforced
for Mr. and Mrs. Shaw that the neighbors highly prize the single-family nature of their
neighborhood. There certainly is a sense, as in probably most if not all Palo Alto single-family
neighborhoods, that the introduction of multiple family is in some way a problem. Whether that
is a big problem or a little problem for the general population depends on the circumstances but
it is in some way a problem. The history is that single-family property owners don’t care to have
multiple family up against them. They are concerned about traffic and that type of thing. So the
Page12
Shaws have had enough feedback over a long enough period of time to make that assessment and
in talking to a few people in the neighborhood I had to agree. I had to agree that a proposal for a
multiple family u~ on that site would inherently bring a lot of folks out to testify and have a lot
of concerns and thus would involve certainly a longer process and perhaps a significantly longer
process. The EIR process, six months of consultants and all of that is certainly not outside the
realm of possibility for multiple family use on this site given the traffic at Middlefield and San
Antonio and other concerns. So I think it was not a survey, it was not a formal presentation, but
it was a strong ~;ense that over the course of years that this is the type of feedback that they had.
When we went out with a single family proposal to the neighbors, only a few showed up and a
few called and again the only concern was that second story 20 feet from my backyard is going
to be awfully big, can you do anything to move the house farther back which lead to the
voluntary 30 foot setback.
Chair Burt: Ken, when you are referring to the neighbors, are you specifically referring to the
five lots on Fern and not the multi-family PC?
Mr. Schreiber: Correct. I am not referring to the multi-family. I am referring to more than the
five lots on Fern. I am referring to the neighborhood that includes the five lots on Fern. The
sense is that the broader neighborhood which has had a lot of concerns over the course of years
on traffic, access along the front and etc. that that neighborhood would have notable concerns
about a multiple family use in this area.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Any other questions? Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Ken, would you be able to describe a little bit more for us the nature of
the meetings that you did have with the neighborhood? What was on the agenda? What was the
gist of the discussion?
Mr. Schreiber: We had one neighborhood meeting it was in June I.believe. I would have to go
back and check my files for an exact date. We used the same mailing list as we gave the City
with the application. So it was all the property owners within 300 feet, etc. It was a fairly
substantial mailing list. Really, the only concerns, the only inquiries came from people in the
immediate area on either side of Fern or down Fern a little bit. We had a neighborhood meeting,
we had very small attendance and had feedback that some other people certainly said they
weren’t going to take the time to come because they didn’t have any problems with something
consistent with the zoning. So they felt okay with the fact that the proposal was not going to try
to increase the density or change how they perceived the neighborhood lot standard.
Chair Burr: Thank you. At this time we have two public speakers. The first is Sally Probst to be
followed by Herb Borock. Each speaker may have up to five minutes.
Ms. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I think the Planning
Commission has asked some very insightful questions tonight. I have strong feeling that this is
something that should not be allowed at this point. I realize that the owners talk about either
retiring in the next few years or wanting to lease the property. It seems to me that with the
tremendous demand for childcare that there is in this region that it might well be possible for
Page 13
them to find a leasing opportunitY. I am well aware of that district, that area, there is a gas
station right there on the comer of San Antonio and Middlefield. There is another one across the
street and businesl)es on the other comers. It is a very busy comer. There are often a whole slew
of school buses parked there so as it has been said, it is busy. There is a lotoftraffic going back
and forth and in and out in addition to the children. I don’t think that this agrees with Policy H-2,
to increase the density and diversity of the neighborhood. We have a surplus, you might say, of
large expensive houses. The houses that will be suggested for this neighborhood for these sizes
of lots will be 3,500 square feet up to over 4,000 square feet. That is pretty good size and we ~1o
have a lot of houses like that in the community. We do not have smaller houses adequate for our
needs. We do not have multi-family adequate for our needs. This is almost 2.5 acres and it
seems, I believe, that there could be a very good plan without the extra street that the subdivision
plan calls for with the turnaround at the end. A very good plan with multi-family housing which
could be very screed from those five houses that back up to it with a lot of trees, bushes, shrubs,
etc. I live off of Page Mill!Oregon and there is so much screening between me and the house in
the back of my house that it doesn’t bother us at all. This is the kind of thing that can be done if
those people who live in the five houses that back up have a concern. With a multi-family
building there could be very creative planning with a driveway in and out just for the multi-
family so that you wouldn’t have to have separate drives for 10 separate houses. I was pleased to
see that there was a change from what had been originally planned. They were only going to go
back to the old plan of 5% of the cost of the houses for BMR, it is much better to have one lot.
So that is one step that has been made that is good. I don’t believe that with the current needs, in
this village with the current policy that has been expressed by the City Council recently of not
needing a lot of the housing that we already have, of needing affordable housing that this is the
kind of decision that should be approved tonight. I hope that you won"t. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Herb Borock.
Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Burr, and Commissioners.
Welcome Mr. Emslie, I haven’t had a chance yet to welcome you to City Staff.
As I understand there was a change made to the findings but you don’t have it in writing.
Normally, if something like that happens, making motions, you should have something in writing
with duplicating machines in City Hall and I think that should be fairly easy to do. The concern
about the City possibly in the future changing the zoning to more intense zoning, R-1
development in current zoning is included. ~ So that if something is zoned RM-40 you can still
have an RM subdivision so that really has no effect. I believe that the comments that Mr.
Shreiber made about the neighbors is very important. There is a long history of the neighbor’s
concern about the use of this property and I believe that an R-1 subdivision would solve that
problem if in fact that is what is happening here as opposed to someone coming in with an R-1
subdivision and then generating from outside the support for intense development. I am
concerned about someone coming in for a tentative map so early and not asking for a vesting
tentative map if in fact they are thinking of a development that is five years from now. I don’t
recall, although you can look at it in the Title 21, in the subdivision ordinance, what is required
for the fight-of-way. At some length of street they require a 60-foot fight-of-way rather than a
50-foot right-of-way. This street is over 300 feet and it may trigger than. Then essentially
taking the 10 feet from the right-of-way and putting it as an extra 10-foot backyard and also
Page 14
getting the additional floor area. So if this length of street from the beginning of the street to the
end of the cul-de-sac may actually require a 60-foot tight-of-way and then you will have to make
findings for an exiJ~eption which I don’t believe is justified. Only one lot, this is an 8,000 square
foot minimum zoning, which means the only lot that can have a cottage is the one the City would
acquire. The BMR dollars from developed lots would be more than the dollars from the single
lot. Even though this particular lot is about 12% of the development so that 5% of houses being
built is going to be more money. So I have absolutely no understanding why Staff is
recommending that we take less money. Surely they are not recommending that we change the
zoning of that lot once the City acquires it. That should be something that should be part of this
application. I noticed on the small map on the wall, which is an excerpt of the zoning mapthat
only one of the two lots in this development is crossed off. Actually there are two parcels and
they are both included in this development. This property has a history with the smaller parcel,
the one closer to Middlefield Road, had come in about 30 years ago for 32 units of subsidized
housing for the elderly. The approvals, which went on for a period of time, got extensions when
that money wasn’t there to develop them. The City had the ability in Webster Street to hold onto
the land but a private owner did not want to keep on paying interest on loans and development
costs. So eventually they abandoned that development. I would think that if the Commission or
the Council or Staff wanted more intensive development then we would have to go back to the
very same neighbors who didn’t come to the meeting that the applicant’s development team
because they are assuming that what is going on here is a discussion of an R- 1 subdivision.
Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have other questions of Staff at this time or
comments? Karen and then Bonnie.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I would like to know if Staff can respond to Mr. Borock’s
comment about the BMR lot being worth less to the City than the in lieu fees?
Mr. Lusardi: Typically, what the Housing Staff asks for is the largest lot in the subdivision and ’
typically a comer lot because it is more conducive to building a BMR unit. Sometimes they try
to get two units on the lots so they ask for the largest lot. So I am not exactly sure how that
translates into the value. I don’t have any specifics on that.
Commissioner Cassel: Can this discussion be public? I can’t hear you.
Chair Burt: I’m sorry. The question was is it permissible to request a comment from one of the
public speakers. I was saying that I realized we had not closed the public hearing and so Wynne,
is that acceptable?
Ms. Furth: Yes it is. You can ask questions of those who have spoken even if you had closed
the public heating.
Chair Burt: Thank you.
Commissioner Holman: Could I ask Mr. Borock to then please clarify or comment.
Page 15
Mr. Borock: I believe Mr. Schreiber, who was Assistant Planning Director or something at the
time the school site subdivisions came through which had duplexes developed on those lots as
BMRs. So you h~tt a subdivision of single-family homes with a duplex. Every one of those
subdivisions came in with the zoning for the BMR lot. Zoning that j~ou had before you moved
for the lot that is being offered for BMR housing is an R-1 zoning. If the intent is to develop the
lot for more than one house or more than one housing unit then you should either have an R-2 or
a PC zone district on that lot as part of your subdivision. We need to know from Staffnow how ¯
many units of BMR housing they are planning to develop on the lot or whether they are planning
to sell it. In terms of the dollars, those of you can figure that out yourself.
Mr. Schreiber: IfI may, just to correct just a little bit of the history since Herb had it about half
right. With the school sites in the early 1980s the City’s decision was that the City would take
one lot on the site. Some of them had 20 or 23 lots. We would take one 10t as a BMR lot. The
Housing Corporation then processed a Planned Community Zone for a duplex on each one of
those and that process ended up taking a great deal of time to get a very little amount of housing.
I think the general conclusion after that was that processing Planned Community Zones in single-
family neighborhoods for duplexes for BMR was not a good use of anybody’s time. So at this
point in time there is no proposal to use a BMR lot on this site for a duplex or anything else. It is
simply that it would be transferred to the City. The City could then sell it or may want to pursue
use of it but there has been no discussion of number of units on the BMR lot. The assumption
would be that it is going to be one. It is zoned single family residential so at the max it would
have one plus perhaps a cottage.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Herb raised a question about the fact that the area is really two parcels.
Is that what we are talking about that is being subdivided? The map that was put at our places
seems to cross out just one of the two parcels. Is that a mistake?
Mr. Lusardi: That was done by the technician. I think that is a mistake.
Commissioner Packer: So we are still talking about the two parcels.
Mr. Lusardi: Yes.
Commissioner Packer: Then my other question is the issue about the street and Herb mentioned
about how long the street is. Is this street that is being proposed here consistent with the
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act?
Mr. Lusardi: It is essentially consistent with what is required by both public Works for street
width and by Fire Department for street width and the cul-de-sac turning radius for fire trucks.
So it is consistent with the City requirements, which in turn is consistent with the Subdivision
Map Act, yes.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Page 16
Commissioner Cassel: I’m ready to make a motion and have any other discussion follow that.
Chair Burt: Oka3~
MOTION
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll move that we approve the tentative map for 10 single-family lots at
525 San Antonio subject to the attached findings, which I agree with.
I think it would be the best use of this property if we could maintain it in its current use.
Chair Burt: Do we need a second to the motion and then you can speak to your motion? Do we
have a second to the motion?
SECOND
Commissioner Griffin: I’ll second the motion.
Chair Burt: A second by Commissioner Griffin.
Commissioner Cassel: Clearly the best use of this property is the current use that is on it. But
we don’t have a zone for this current use and this use needs to be taken over by a different person
who will handle this use and that is out of our hands to discuss tonight. It clearly should be
something on people’s agenda to work towards of the dais that we are on this evening.
The future use of this site may be changed by future actions by our body and by City Council in
a number of ways. We may choose at some time in the future to put some kind of zoning on this
site, which will give us greater intensity. We do not have, at this time, any zoning in place or
any zoning that has had any kind of a public hearing that would call for a change in the intensity
of the use of this site. It isn’t an intensity of use that I would like to see. I clearly think this is
the lowest intensity possible and a very site for it. But we have an obligation, when we have a
zone in place, to follow up on that zone if we meet the findings that are required. And to go
ahead in the future and change it in the future if we wish to do so. But when owners come in to
us with a zone in place it is not our job to try to change the zone right then on the spot. We can’t.
We will need a public hearing and what this owner is telling us is that he doesn’t want to hold or
pay for that public hearing to change the site zoning. So what will happen is he will have in
place a tentative map, which he has to then come in with a permanent map, in the meantime if
we wish to change the zoning to a more intense use, we will change that zoning to a more intense
use. If we put a minimum on it then he then has to change what he is doing. If not, and we don’t
put a minimum on that site, he can continue to build this site at this very low intensity. We have
an obligation, when a zone is in place, to follow through on that zone with those requirements
that are in front of us. Otherwise we create chaos and we intend to change our zone as we please
every time someone comes before us.
Chair Burt: Does the seconder have any comments?
Page 17
Commissioner Griffin: It appears to me that the applicant has presented a project that satisfies
all of the conditions that Staffhas presented. It seems to me inconsistent to deny him that
position. ~
Chair Burt: Other comments or discussion by Commissioners? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I understand and appreciate the comments made by Phyllis and Michael.
I think we all want something other than what we are being forced to agree with. I find myself
forced to agree with Phyllis and Michael and will vote for this motion. It is up to us to change
the zoning and put in minimum zoning as Phyllis indicates.
Chair Burr: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think Herb made a good point about having the finding in writing
attached to this. So if Staff can follow up with that. Also, can Staff offer any more explanation
of how the BMR parcel might be dealt with in the future so it doesn’t end up being one unit or
something of that nature? Is there a plan or a way Staff is intending on dealing with that? I
mentioned before I am not really that enamored with in lieu fees, I’d rather have something done
at the time because then you get it. If Staff could respond to that.
Mr. Lusardi: All I can respond to is the fact that when the parcel is dedicated to the City for the
BMR program then the disposition of that site or the decision is made at that time whether the
site is sold or whether the site is developed for an affordable housing unit at that time. It is not
made at the time of the tentative map. The only thing that is made at the time of the tentative
map is to fulfill the requirements of the BMR program through the dedication.
Chair Burr: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This project is very disturbing because we are constrained by the existing
zoning to vote as Phyllis said we need to do. What bothers me is the process that preceded
tonight. It seems to me, when we know, when our City knows that affordable housing is an
endangered species, when an applicant comes to the Planning Staff to discuss some ideas that the
applicant has with a parcel like this, some ideas that could have come forward would be perhaps
keeping the zoning for half the parcel or the part that’s on the Fern side as R-1 and maybe asking
for a zone change or a slightly higher density on the part of the parcel that is next to the RM
Zone. That still would have been an application. It probably would not have presented
neighborhood opposition but it is something that could have been discussed by the Staffwith the
applicant. It concerns me that our Staff is not really planning, our Staff is reacting and not
thinking about what is now a high priority of the City Council and that is looking for greater
density. We shouldn’t get proposals like this without more planning, without more foresight,
because you are after all a Planning Staff not a bureaucratic rubber stamper. So that is what
really concerns me about this. IfI end up voting yes it is with a great, great deal of reluctance. It
is only because legally you are telling us we cannot make any changes. Could we make a
finding, an environmental kind of finding?
Page 18
Ms. Furth: I’ll tell you what the court says on this topic. I don’t think it is all that cheery but to
make clear who has what authority. An exact map between a proposed subdivisidn and the
applicable genera~plan is not required. Rather the subdivision map must be compatible with the
objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the applicable plan. Quote, it is
emphatically not the role of the courts to micro-manage these development decisions. Our
function is simply to decide whether the City Officials considered the applicable policies and the
extent ,to which the proposed projectconforms with those policies, whether the City Officials
made appropriate findings on this issue and whether those findings are supported by substantial
evidence.
It is certainly true that much of what is discussed in the public hearing is interesting but from the
point of view of your decision tonight, it is beside the point. The applicant is not required to
come in with other zone changes. They are not required to accept Staff suggestions that they do
so. And it is not appropriate for the City to file a zone change application for a lot it might
acquire if this project goes through at this time.
So you are left with your Comprehensive Plan, your zoning and this proposal. You need to
evaluate the one against the other.
Chair Burt: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think Phyllis did a good job of explaining why we legally need to
support this. That it is within the zoning, within the Comprehensive Plan, but I agree completely
with all the comments that have been made that this would not be the use I would desire to see
there. It seems uncomfortable having a little short cul-de-sac going to San Antonio Road with
relatively large lots on it. I would hope first that it remains childcare,second that it could be
higher density multi-family. I think we do need to vote for this proposal. I will reluctantly
support it and will just say that I hope that we can move our Zoning Ordinance changes along
rapidly. We did list in the Comprehensive Plan the highest order of what we wo.uld like to see
accomplished in terms of implementation and Zoning Ordinance changes with things like
minimum densities are things that we need if we want to have higher density housing or if we
want to be able to preserve childcare. So let’s move the Zoning Ordinance along as fast as we
can and make changes where we need them.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I just feel like because there has been so much discussion up here that I
feel like it might be appropriate to let the applicants know that our frustration is not with them.
Our issues are certainly not with them and we appreciate that they are playing by the current
zoning rules and have every right to do what they are doing. Our concern and our fi-ustration is
certainly not with them or their actions. I think it is appropriate to mention that to them.
Commissioner Cassel: Pat, before we go any farther, we were supposed to at the very beginning
of this discussion indicate if we had seen anyone onsite. I had been to the site and I did talk with
Mr. Shaw.
Page 19
Chair Burt: Thank you. Other Commissioners wish to disclose either visits to the site or any
other appropriate contacts that should be made public?
Commissioner Bialson: I visited the site but did not speak to anyone.
Commissioner Packer: I visited the site and I had a conversation with Mr. Schreiber last night.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I did visit the site and had a brief conversation with the applicant.
Commissioner Cassel: I also talked to Mr. Schreiber.
Chair Burr: I visited the site and had a conversation with Mr. Schreiber.
I have a follow up question for the City Attorney. Bear with me if I’m sounding dense on this
subject but as you alluded to us evaluating this project in lieu of the Comprehensive Plan and
specifically for myself, I’m struggling with Policy H-2 primarily and secondarily with Policy C-
11. In what way are we allowed to have those policies have beating on our decision given that
the Comp Plan zoning map has zoned this R-l?
Ms. Furth: H-2 is about considering a variety of strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations. I think the short answer is very little. Just as the applicant
only has the right to apply for this density and probably something close to this configuration
under the City’s existing rules, those are the rules you certainly have to apply vis-a-vie density.
Now if there was a matter of minor adjustments to the lot sizes so that more of them could hold a
second unit for example, that is something that you could do. But in terms of asking for higher
densities your really can’t. I don’t believe that Staff thinks that there is anything about this
particular map that could appropriately be modified to facilitate higher densities. It is that level
of design detail that you are talking about here. It is what they call self-executing. In other
words, you have to adopt the zone changes that make it happen.
Chair Burt: Thank you. I would just like to say that the applicants have provided a very
valuable service to this community for a number of decades. We certainly hope that the City can
participate in facilitating whatever can be done to provide the applicants with a reasonable return
on their investment and find some way to help preserve the childcare use that exists on the
property today. I think it would just be a terrible loss for the community to lose 20% of its
childcare supply and frankly, that we are faced with this circumstance I think does point out
shortcomings, in hindsight, with what we’ve done in the process that has led us to this point. I
think we all share in that responsibility. So because of my strong reservation about approving
this I will out of principle abstain in my vote on this subject.
Commissioner Holman: Before you call the vote you need to close the public hearing.
Page 20
Chair Burr: Thank you. At this time the public hearing is closed. Seeing no other comments we
will have a vote.
MOTION PASSED
All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? I will abstain.
Commissioner Packer: I will abstain also.
Chair Burr: Commissioners Packer and Burr have abstained. The other Commissioners have
voted in favor.
Thank you very much. Thank you to the applicant and to the public. We appreciate all of your
patience.
Page 21