Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14371 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14371) Office of the Planning and Development Services City Council CAO Report Meeting Date: 8/1/2022 Report Type: Action Items Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1033 Amarillo Ave [22PLN-00016]: Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions to Subdivide a 20,787 square foot R-1 property into two (2) lots, where Lot 1 will be 10,668.50 square feet and Lot 2 will be 10,118.77 square feet. Exception is for minimum lot width and maximum lot size. Zoning District R-1 Single Family Residential. From: Jonathan Lait, Director Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions based on the attached findings and subject to conditions of approval. Executive Summary The proposed project is a Preliminary Parcel Map with Conditional Exceptions1, located at 1033 Amarillo. This application is to subdivide the existing 20,787 sf lot into two lots, 10,118 square feet, and 10,668 square feet, respectively. This requires the Council to make a decision on an exception to the maximum lot size and to the minimum lot width. The existing property contains four “cottage cluster” housing units. No changes are proposed to the existing structures as a part of this project, though at the October 25, 2021 prescreening with the City Council the applicant indicated a desire to redevelop the parcels. At least four house units are required to exist on this property as a result of State legislation regarding ‘no net loss’ of housing units. Such redevelopment would be the subject of a future application. Background A proposal to divide the property into four parcels went to Council Prescreening on October 25, 2021. The staff report and minutes are available online.2 At this time, the four parcel proposal was not supported, however the two parcel alternative was. 1 Commonly referred to as a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions 2 bit.ly/3vzMCHz Page 2 This project was presented to the PTC on April 27, 2022.3 The PTC did not recommend approval, based on Preliminary Parcel Map Finding #2, and Exception Findings #2 and #4 (see Findings, Attachment C). The PTC members discussed at length and disagreed on the desired number of units. Some PTC members also disliked the fact that the parcel map is being requested separately from any redevelopment proposal. The primary discussion with the PTC was regarding potential and allowable configurations of future development—which is not the subject of the application. PTC members in favor of the subdivision noted that through the division up to 8 housing units are possible and a minimum of 4 units must be maintained. So, the only way to increase housing on the site is through a subdivision. PTC members who recommended denial noted it was hypothetically possible to further subdivide the lot using SB 9, and that it was unknown if any proposed future units would be more or less expensive to live in than the existing units, as well as how many units would be proposed to be built. Staff’s analysis of the configurations possible lead staff to support the subdivision. To illuminate the possibilities, the potential units options are described below. In summary the following configurations are currently allowed, even without a subdivision: • Maintaining the existing four units as a legal non-conforming multi-family use in an R-1 zoning district under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12.150(b)(2) and (c). • SB 330 prevents the loss of housing units, this property could not be redeveloped to contain fewer than four units. Under state laws, including SB 9, potential configurations could range from four to six total units. With the proposed subdivision, the following are allowed: • Maintaining the existing configuration, with two units as a legal non-conforming two- family use on each lot in an R-1 zoning district. • Rebuilding each lot with one single-family house, with at least one ADU or JADU to maintain a total of four units. • Rebuilding each lot with one single-family house, and both an ADU and JADU. This increases the units from four to six units. • Use SB 9 to build a maximum of four units on each of the new lots (with or without additional SB 9 subdivision, for eight units total. While it is currently possible to redevelop the R-1 zoned property with four units utilizing the provisions of SB 9, this would involve a number of restrictions that may not be desirable. These restrictions include owner occupancy among others. 3 Report - https://bit.ly/3zesG0k. Video - https://bit.ly/3m6WvrZ Page 3 Staff analysis concludes that the proposed subdivision is the best option to allow redevelopment. However, the PTC expressed interest in maintaining the 1940’s cottage cluster on the basis of it providing a “less expensive” housing option within Palo Alto. Project Description 1033 Amarillo is an approximately 20,787 sf lot in the R-1 zoning district. It currently contains four housing units, arranged in what is commonly referred to as a “cottage cluster” with all homes taking access from a central driveway. This application is to subdivide the lot into two lots, 10,118 square feet (53.26 ft wide, 190 ft long), and 10,668 square feet (approximately 58.76 ft wide, 190 ft long), respectively. The larger of the two lots is irregularly shaped, the lot width at the street is 53.25 ft, but it widens by 5.51 ft to 58.71 ft in the rear. This requires the request for an exception to the maximum lot size and to the minimum lot width. The resulting lot size would be 10,118 sf and 10,668 sf, respectively, while the PAMC allows a maximum size of 9,999 sf. The lot width would be 53.26 ft and 53.25 ft, while the PAMC requires a minimum lot width of 60 ft. Though the proposed subdivision would not meet these dimensions, the subdivision would decrease the degree of nonconformity. This application does not include changes to the existing structures. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to PTC purview: • Preliminary Parcel Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and Government Code Section 66474. PAMC Section 21.12.090 requires the Director to review whether the proposed subdivision complies and is consistent with certain documents. These include the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), PAMC Title 21, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. A series of “reverse findings” are required to approve the project and draft findings are provided in Attachment C. • Preliminary Parcel Map with Conditional Exceptions: A subdivider may apply for exceptions to the requirements and regulations for lot width, lot depth, lot area, and street frontage or access, set forth in Titles 21 and 18. Exceptions may only be granted by the City Council following recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The findings for parcel map exceptions are set forth in PAMC Section 21.32.020 and draft findings are provided in Attachment C. Discussion Neighborhood Setting and Character The neighborhood setting is single-family, with lots that vary in size from approximately 4,600 to 7,600 square feet. Most of the houses in the vicinity, including the existing cottages, were Page 4 built in the late 1940’s to early 1950’s. The property adjacent at 1027 Amarillo is currently being rebuilt with a new one-story single-family house. Zoning Compliance4 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. The applicant seeks a preliminary parcel map with exceptions, utilizing exceptions for lot width and maximum lot size. The plan is substantially similar to the “two parcel” plan presented to the Council at an October 25th prescreening (File #21PLN-00212). The purpose of the prescreening was to consider a four parcel plan as well as the current two parcel plan. The applicant indicated through the prescreening an intention to replace the four housing units; however, that is not within the scope of the current application. Any future replacement housing will be subject to compliance with all applicable local and state laws. Overall, this project meets the requirements and is similar in scope to the previously approved Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions at 4221 Wilkie Way (20PLN-00235 and 21PLN-00127) and 640 Fairmede (20PLN-00203 and 21PLN-00214). One major difference is the prior projects facilitated adding at least one additional unit, where only one existed previously, whereas 1033 Amarillo already has four (4) units. Approval of the requested parcel map, however, would allow future development of additional units. The project requires an exception because the resulting lots are narrower than what's typically allowed, but the lot is also so large that the new lots exceed the R-1 maximum lot size. The subdivision proposal will create two lots that are approximately 53 feet wide, 7 ft narrower than the standard R1 lot width of 60 feet set forth in the zoning code. The new lots, however, will not be “substandard” lots by definition, because a substandard lot is less than 4,980 sf (80% of the minimum lot size of 6,000 sf). Furthermore, the typical lot width on this block is between 50 ft and 56.5 ft, so the width will not be out of character for the immediate context. The two lots will be 10,118.77 and 10,668.50 sf, respectively. The maximum lot size per the zoning code is 9,999 square feet. So, while the subdivision will not bring the property into complete compliance with the PAMC, it will decrease the degree of non-conformity. This property is also located in a flood zone and any future development will need to comply with all Public Works Engineering regulations for the AE10.5 flood zone. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines5 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Page 5 The Comprehensive Plan calls for the recognition and encouragement of the “cottage cluster” typology. This subdivision does not propose to change this character. The subdivision assists in allowing separate conveyance (sale) of the cottages, albeit in pairs. The subdivision does not affect the likelihood of the “cottage cluster” typology changing in the future. Due to SB 330, and local Palo Alto codes, the City does not allow demolition of a housing unit without replacement, when a housing project is proposed. Therefore, there will always be at least four housing units on this property. The layout and relationship of those units to one another, however, could change. Consistency with Application Findings This project is consistent with the Findings for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions (Attachment C). The applicant does not propose to change the density or number of housing units. The proposed lots are suitable in size for the existing uses. The proposed subdivision will not affect the environment, nature, public health, or conflict with existing easements. Summary of Key Issues Shared Driveway Staff recommends maintaining the location of the existing driveway and requiring a shared driveway easement for the new parcels. This is a common process that has been applied to several properties throughout the city. The benefit is reducing the number of curb cuts on city streets, which in turn allows for greater opportunity for street parking and is safer for pedestrians and drivers. Otherwise, it would be difficult to place two new driveways, given the Public Works Code requirements that new curb cuts to be a minimum of 20ft from an existing curb cut. While it is possible to place the driveway in the middle of the new lots, it is not ideal compared to putting it on either side. Since both neighbors have their driveways adjacent to 1033 Amarillo, it is not possible to push the driveways to either side, they would need to go adjacent to each other in the middle. This block is also subject to the contextual garage placement requirement, so any covered parking will need to be towards the rear of the property. This means a driveway down the center of one of the new lots could not work, because it would need to run deep into the lot. Therefore, a shared driveway easement is the only viable arrangement. In this case, because the two properties are under common ownership, the City would require a “covenant of easement,” as provided in PAMC Chapter 18.66. Staff have included this as a condition of approval. The applicant’s response is provided in Attachment E. Policy Implications SB 9 Page 6 This subdivision does not propose to use SB 9. Per current law, any R-1 or RE zoned property may use SB 9 one time. While the applicant does not intend to use SB 9 for this project, they or a future owner would be able to subdivide a resulting parcel one time under SB 9. With or without such further subdivision, SB 9 would also allow for a maximum of four units on each of the two proposed lots. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is a minor subdivision with no change to existing structures. This is exempt under CEQA Guideline 15301 Existing Facilities. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Council may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Deny the project based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment C: Draft RLUA (DOCX) • Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) • Attachment E - Driveway Letter from Applicant with Exhibit (PDF) • Attachment F: Link to Project Plans (DOCX) 7-02-028 127-02-027 127-02-026 127-02-036 127-02-037 127-02-038 127-02-029 127-02-030 127-02-031 127-02-032 127-02-082 127-02-100 127-02-099 127-60-042 127-02-075 127-02-077 127-02-076 127-02-025 127-02-051 127-02-050 127-02-049 127-05-007127-60-005 6 127-60-045 127-60-065 127-60-043 127-60-044 27-60-041 127-02-008 127-02-102 127-02-101 127-60-004 127-60-001 127-60-064 127-60-003 127-04-062 127-04-063 127-04-064 127-04-061 127-05-008 127-05-009 127-05-011 127-05-010 127-02-007 127-02-006 127-02-044 127-02-046 127-02-045 127-02-035 127-02-039 127-02-040 127-02-041 127-02-034 127-02-120 127-02-124 127-02-123 127-02-033 127-04-065 127-04-066 127-04-067 127-04-068 127-04-058 127-04-059 127-04-060 127-04-051 127-04-050 127-38-009 127-38-010 127-02-119 127-02-002 127-0 127-02-042 127-02-043 A M A RIL L O A V E N G R E E R R O A D A V E N U E EL M D A LE PL A C E N D D M O R E N O A V E N U E 1031 1033 1035 1037 1039A 1095 10 93 2701 1020 1026 2 7 0 7 1002 1008 302718 2708 1027 1087 1075 1081 2631 1080 1086 1090 2 6 4 1 1063 1041 2651 2719 1 0 8 1065 1067 106 1039 011 10 21 1031 26132601 1074 1010 2618 2632 26402607 2643 2621 984 1047 1045 1049 2518 052 1051 1057 996979 83 991 991 986 994 964 1015 2669 2657 983 1013 1003 985 1 1075 1077 1032 1038 1044 1050 1 27432731 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Current Features 0' 68' Attachment A: Location Map1033 Amarillo Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2022-03-31 14:45:09Assessor Parcels (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1033 Amarillo Avenue, 22PLN-00016 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 Minimum/Maximum Site Area 6,000-9,999 sf area Non-conforming: 23,787.27 sf Non-conforming: 10,668.50 sf Non-conforming: 11,215.3 sf Minimum Site Width 6 6 60 feet 106.51 feet wide at front, 112.02 feet wide at rear Non-conforming: 53.25 feet wide, additional portion 5.51 feet wide, 100 feet deep Non-conforming: 53.26 feet Minimum Site Depth FD 100 feet 190 feet 190 feet 190 feet Residential Density One unit, except as provided in 18.12.070 Non-conforming: Four units Two units Two unit (3) R-1 Floodzone Heights: Provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum heights are increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 33 feet. (6) R-1 Floodzone Daylight Plane: Provided, if the site is in a special flood hazard area and is entitled to an increase in the maximum height, the heights for the daylight planes shall be adjusted by the same amount. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Single Family Residential Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Parcel 1 Proposed Parcel 2 Vehicle Parking 2 parking spaces per unit, of which one must be covered 2 spaces, one covered for each unit Will comply Will comply 1 ACTION NO. XXXX-XX DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 1033 AMARILLO AVE: PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP 22PLN-00000-000016 (TED O’HANLON, APPLICANT) At its meeting on [DATE], 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 January, 18, 2022, Ted O’Hanlon 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. 127-02-006) of approximately 20,788 square feet. The site contains four residential structures. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the north, east and west. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is exempt to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15301, Existing Facilities. 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 does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as noted below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The map is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: a. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. b. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. 2 c. Policy L-3.3 Recognize the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character of Palo Alto and retain and encourage this type of development. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The site currently contains four single-family houses on a single lot. This property is more than twice the allowed maximum size for a single-family zoned property. Most residential lots in Palo Alto are between 5,000 and 7,000 sf, and the existing lot size is 20,787 sf. With four units, this is 5,197 sf per unit. The site is physically suitable for four units and is required by SB 330 to maintain the existing number of homes, which is currently four units. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The proposal for the site will not change the existing residential density. The site is physically suitable for four units and is required by SB 330 to maintain at least four units. It is possible SB 9 and/or ADU regulations could allow for additional units to be added to this site. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The minor subdivision will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat. The project site has been fully urbanized and developed and is centrally located within the Midtown neighborhood. There is no recognized sensitive wildlife or habitat in the project vicinity. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The creation of two individual parcels will not cause serious public health problems, as it does not substantially affect the existing conditions and overall function of the property as a site for single- family residences. 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. The existing site has no easements. The parcel map will be conditioned to have covenants of easement for existing utility lines, and/or the shared driveway as necessary for the approved design. 3 SECTION 5. Exception Findings. The Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions also meets the following Findings for the Exceptions (PAMC 21.32.020): 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. The existing property is larger than the 10,000 sf maximum allowed by the Zoning Code. The subdivision will bring the property into better conformance with the Zoning Code, although the resulting parcels will continue to exceed 10,000 sf. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. A property of this size is better equipped to provide more than one residential unit. One unit is what is allowed by the R-1 zoning. The maximum FAR for a property of the original size is 7,671 sf, however, the maximum house size allowed in Palo Alto is 6,000 sf. Four units currently exist, at density comparable to most of Palo Alto’s neighborhoods (approximately 1 unit per 6,000 sf). A substantial property right is the ability to rebuild unit(s) on the site. As the existing use/number of units is existing non-conforming, the petitioner is not currently able to rebuild the site in a manner that is consistent with both local zoning regulations and SB 330. 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 use of the property will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area, as the proposed use and density is more in conformance with the Code, and similar to other R-1 neighborhoods. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. Granting this exception is found to be consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan. It will facilitate rebuilding of existing units, and provides an opportunity for new units to be created. 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. 4 SECTION 6. Parcel Map Approval. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by BKF titled “Preliminary Parcel Map for Single-Family Purposes”, consisting of three (3) pages, dated April 7, 2022 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 Development Services, 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]). SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. PROJECT PLANS. The Parcel Map submitted for review and approval by the Director shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Parcel Map prepared by BKF “Preliminary Parcel Map”, consisting of 3 pages, uploaded to the Online Permit Services Portal on February 23, 2022, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of this approval. 2. PARCEL MAP COVER PAGE. At such time as the Parcel Map is filed, the cover page shall include the name and title of the Director of Planning and Development Services. 3. PARCEL MAP EXPIRATION. A Parcel Map, in conformance with the approved Preliminary Parcel Map, all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within two (2) years of the Preliminary Parcel Map approval date. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning if submitted prior to the expiration date. The resultant parcel map must be recorded prior to any building permit issuance. 4. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 5. COVENANT OF EASEMENT. Prior to approval of the Parcel Map, the Applicant shall provide the City with a covenant of easement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the purpose of securing 5 a shared driveway and any shared utilities necessary for the two parcels to be created. Such covenant shall be recorded simultaneously with the Parcel Map. Public Works Engineering 6. PARCEL MAP: This project is subject to, and contingent upon the approval of a preliminary parcel map/final map and recordation of a Parcel/Final Map. The submittal, approval and recordation of the Map shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Subdivision Map Act and Palo Alto Municipal Code Title 21 Subdivision requirements. All existing and proposed property lines, easements, dedications shown on the preliminary parcel map are subject to City’s technical review and staff approval during the map process prior to issuance of any construction permits. 7. MAP THIRD-PARTY REVIEW: The City contracts with a third-party surveyor that will review and provide approval of the map’s technical correctness as the City Surveyor, as permitted by the Subdivision Map Act. The Public Works Department will forward a Scope & Fee Letter from the third-party surveyor and the applicant will be responsible for payment of the fee’s indicated therein, which is based on the complexity of the map. 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: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney 6 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by James Toby titled “Tentative Parcel Map”, consisting of one page, dated September 14, 2012. ► � � w a:: a. � 1 1 1 ' I I r I I OF F I C E From:Ted O"Hanlon To:Foley, EmilySubject:Re: 1033 AmarilloDate:Friday, April 29, 2022 12:25:31 PMAttachments:image005.pngimage008.pngimage009.pngimage010.pngimage012.pngimage013.pngimage014.pngimage015.pngimage017.pngimage018.png1033 AMARILLO EXHIBIT.pdf Hi Emily Thanks again for your time yesterday to debrief on the PTC hearing. We shared a number of thoughts on the application, staff report and commissioners opinions. I felt it was quite constructive as the application will move to the CItyCouncil. Please confirm the date when available. Regarding the discussion about the 2nd condition and PWE's requirement that driveways be no less than 20' apart, BKF did a quick sketch to illustrate the ample room thatthe property would have to accommodate 2 new driveways and eliminate the current shared driveway. This assumes the property is subdivided, the current improvementsdemolished and a new single family home were built with at least one ADU, but could both have an ADU and JADU to comply with SB330 for no net loss of dwellingunits or perhaps an increase of 1 or 2 dwelling units that would count toward RHNA. Also regarding the driveway, the scenario that the lots would be subdivided and have a situation where one lot is developed and the other remains as is where the drivewaywould need to continue is highly unlikely and better left for potential future iterations of the property and for owning parties involved to address such an edge case situationif it were to come to be. As it would be after the subdivision, the current owners would still own both subdivided properties where an easement upon oneself is not such athing. We would request that this condition for approval be removed. From the City Council Pre-Screening round in Oct 2021 we actually tried to use the Comprehensive Plan that states to "encourage" the creation of cottage clusters andbased on the feedback, Councilmembers did not indicate an interest in this on R-1 properties. As part of this hearing, a clear statement was made to council by Director JonLait that ultimately the findings to subdivide the property could be made. With a lack of interest or zoning tools with which to encourage a cottage cluster, it seemsunbalanced that preserving the cluster, which similarly lacks zoning tools, can also be implemented. Lastly, for now, a potential redevelopment of the property post subdivision would utilize recent encouraging ADU guidelines that the City has approved. In the nextHousing Element cycle, the CIty has estimated over 500 ADU's might contribute to the mandated 6,000+ units in the next cycle. Given the opportunity that subdividing thisproperty presents to additional units and the City's reliance on ADU's being a significant contributor, I would concur with the observation of 2 or 3 commissioners on PTCthat subdividing creates a housing opportunity for Palo Alto. Appreciate your consideration and review of this lengthy message. I am looking forward to continuing to work on this application with you. Best RegardsTed ---Ted O'Hanlontedohanlon@gmail.com415.317.5070 mobile/text CA DRE #01868277 On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM Ted O'Hanlon <tedohanlon@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, thank you. On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:15 AM Foley, Emily <Emily.Foley@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hi Ted, Since I wasn’t able to attend the meeting yesterday, Amy scheduled a debrief with me for this afternoon. Can I call you around 3:30? Thanks, Emily Emily Foley, AICP Associate Planner Planning and Development Services Department (650) 617-3125 | emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org NOTE: REMOVE EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY PROVIDE NEW 12' WIDE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 1 PROVIDE NEW 12' WIDE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 2 10 ft 10 ft 31'-3" 31'-3" 12 ft 12 ft Attachment F Project Plans Project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “1033 Amarillo” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/1033- Amarillo-22PLN-00016