The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0322.000- • , ) ------~ -~----------'--------;---~---•• ~~>- M'J 3:, 1990 HONORABlE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto) Califorlia Tentative JIII_~_ Ttl Create il SfI-Unit CondomiDlum at 728 Layne Co~r.:! Aembers ~f the Council: ~ ~a~ 9, 1990~ the 'lanning Commission recommEnded apprQval {5-1) {ChristeR~~ dissenting; C.lle~ absent} gf i condc~i.ium subdfw;slon, ~ith minor ~odificat;ons. The staff report to the ~lann;ng Commission fs attached, and the minutes Df the ~ay 9, 19;0 Planning !ornrn;ss;on meeting are included i~ your packet. A ~ajr.T issue identified on pages 2 an~ 3 Qf the attached ~ay « staff report is concer8 regarding the impact Qf the condominium preject on access t~ a 21-unil apartment bul1dfDg at 1St liJne Ccurt. The Commission c~ose not t~ rec~~ additiGnal conditions relating tG increasing t~e bact-up distance for t~e adjacent apartments, but strQnglJ recommended that t~e subdivider and the adjacent owner, ~. ~av1tll attempt to priyately resolwe the potentfal problem priGr t~ t~e (~tJ Council bearing. The issue raised at the Commf~sTon meetfng Is t~at two ,ine trees tn the public r~gbt-Qf-wal ~ad been remov~d between the time of the prep~ritiQn gf the staff report and the PlanniDg CDm'I1issfon bearing. The Comraissiorl recommended deleting conditions 4 and 8 i~ the May « report and replacing t~e~ ';tk the following condition~ 1. That the final landscape plan. including tree removal plans and tree prote,tfon measures, s~all be reviewed and appro~ed by the Architecture Review Board ,{i'RB). These ,lans shall include large replacement trees ttl replace those trees removed from the right-of-way with type and ~licement of the trees t. the s.llsf.ction of the ARB .nd the. (ItJ Arborist. RECOI!M£HOAHON Staff concurs ~it~ the Plannlng Commission recommendation t~at t~e CitJ Council approve the Tentative ~ap subject to t~e following findlngs and <:onditions: fINDINGS t. l~at the project. as propo>ed, ~ill not have I significant impact aD the pbysical environment t 1. t~at the project is limited i~ size and will not generate substantiil ~isual O~ traffic impacts. ]t was found t~at t~e red~ttiDn il back-up 5~ace for e;g~t parking spaces and the layne (curt ()1R :322:0 l ~ I ~ < if . - 2. J. , . , . , ...;.----------~---:.-- o Apartments will be fnconvenieot but will not impede traffic movement on the site or Ciuse ~afet1 prcb'ems~ The design of the project is tonsfstent wlt~ the CitJ's Comprehensive Plan obJectl,e. and co.,patible with t~e i""edhte environ ••• t, i. that it meets Program 9 of t~e Housing Element by providing i net gain ~f four housing units ,lus an fa-lieu payment for BMR units, an~ it promotes orderl, and ~armon;ous development Qf the slte. [. accordance .ith Val. Alt. ~unic;p.l tode (PAMC) Section 21.12.090(d). the proposed ~Ubd;11sion, as conditioned together ~it~ the provlsion for its desfgn and fmpr~yement, complies and is cons;stent with the provisions ~f state law and the PAMe, including Sections 66473.5 and 66414 of the Government Code, in t~at t~e site is physically s~ttable and zoned for the type of denslt, of the proposed development and, additional1,. there are no conflicts v1t1rl piJblic easements. COND1TlONS, ",,-" ) I. That prior to the recordation of the ffnal map, the subdifider shall enter i~to a subdiYision agreement ~itk the Cit, of Palo Alto t~at addresses the 'ollowin~ issues: l. That the subdivider shall agree to p:, 1 percent of tne act~al sales price of eac~ unlt as a BMR i~-lieu fee. These fees shall be paid UpOD the sale of eac~ of t~e units~ b. That the subdivider sha1l replace all existiog driv~ways ~t~ curb. gutter and sidewal t and 'nstall new d,riveways ill complianc.e wit .. III (it, standards and penai t procedures. These impriJv~ments shall !Ie ~arranted by bond or ot~er form of guarantee acceptable t~ the (ity Attorney. c~ r~a\ the developer s~al) be responslble for f~stalling all stora d',rainage improvements, water and s.ewer maillS and s.er..,1ces .. iDc1udfng any required off·site upgrades, to t~e satisfaction ~f the Utilities and Publfc Vorks Departments. These impro'l'ements s~all be guaranteed by bond or other for~ of guarantee acc.eptable to t~e (it, Attorne,. 2. That prior to filing the ff~al ~ap the subdiyider shall submit a drairoage plan to the satisfactioD of the Public Works Oepartment. 3. That tfl:e subdh'i,der sllall work with the Utilitfe-s Department t.o dete-rlll;ne ill ~tilit1 design and <apatlt, requirements including water~ sewer~ gas, elettrfc .. phone and cable facilities. Tne project s~al1 be lfmi\td to sfngle service laterals for sewer ~ater and gas. All ~tllit, plans snall be approved by the Utilities Department and Vater. Sewer an~ ~as Diyisfon before the final ~ap is recor~ed. C. The subdivider s.nall des;'gn and hstall all electrical ILItlTities l!l accordance ~tk Palo Alt~ standards, including ~ndcrgrcund utilities, to the satlsfacticm of the light and Power Dhfsion. '-'11 ele'Ctrfcal ~hns shall be appro'l'ed by tne Light and Power Division before t~e final Map is recorde($. C~.R:322:0 CMR728tA/K8 , , < , ... , 5/31/90 ·2· J ~_, J , ' \ .' \ .. I, :"" .. i 1 .. ... :i. ,{I' • " ; ,- ~~-"":',.~." ,:: " . , , , . . +.~ , I,~~L.[JLL._~~ __ ,-_~~\~ ~._~ ____ , __ , '---__ .. e _______ Q_._~., ,_ o ,.-.... .. _ C; ,~' f' ~. That He p"fQject 5.",,11 be constructed fa compliance with a11 ,lans and conditions establls~ed by the Arc~itecturil Review Board. 6. 7. To reduce dust leve1s dUTi~9 demolitfon and construction, It shall be reqiJired that exposed tart .. surfaces be ·"atered rrequentl, during the Tate mOTling and the end of the day, w't~ frequenc~ of waterlog increasing on windy days. All streets i'l[Id haul routes shall be <leaned dail1_ Spillage res51tfng rro~ ~aulfA9 ,peTitions along or across any publfc Dr private propert, s~al1 be removed immediately and pafd for by the contractor. Oust nuisances originating from t~e contractor~s operations. either i~side o~ outside the Eight-of-way. sha1l be contrglled at the contractor;s expeRse. that th! final landscape ,lan~ including trEe removal plans and tree protectfoD measures, shall be reviewed and approved by the Arc~itectural Revie. Seard (ARS). lbe •• ,lan •• ~all include two new 4B·inc~·box trees to replate those trees removed from the r19~t-of-~ay ~;t~ type and ,1acement of the trees tg the satisfaction of the ARB and the (ity Arborist. -t'/ / ,/:7 Aj~£' >' /4:/"U{I. / K£NNETH R. SCHREIB£R Director of Plannfng a~~ !ommunlt, Emwironment ~.~~ ~~st~~~I:~t, ~.nager Attachments~ ~aJ C, 1990 Plonning {ommission Staff Report Tentative Map {Councll members onlJ) C.C! frant JIIirllkani I ]373 .N. Leman Avenue. JIIenlo ParTe, CA,_ 94025 Publ ic Works, Da'o'e Jlfatson Utilities. Jack !:ence l ig'ht and Power., Cor.rla Hilden Assistant (;t1 Att~r.ey, Sue Case CMR:31Z;O CMRlZ81Io/KB 5/31/90 ·3· '~) > \~ , -r.' ' • '::;~~i ~ ~1 - --.J , i I , .. '. ~ I I - : ~ , c --~--,--j->', ·,-ri;~,:'£.~",~_; ,~. > ~: -. ~ • . -.' $. \ ) TO: 'ALO ALTO 'LANNING COMMISSION fiLE NO.: 90-SUB-I, 90-EIA-2 PR£PAR£D 81: Keith Boyl, OATt: ~'1 C, 1990 'R~Cl~~O~!IDK~ ______________________________________ __ LocatloD: Applicant: Pr01!..ert} Owners: !.e_~~~~ct i on: PROJECt SUIOWtY 728 layne Court frant "i rkhan t 1373 1_ lemon Avenue MenlCl Park .. (A Same Approvil ~f I tentative ~ap to subdi.lde t~e propert. into sfJ lirspace con~omi~iu~ units. The applicant p~cposes t~ build I six-unit town~o~S! condomiaium developm!r.t i. approved by the Arc~itecturil Revie~ Board (ARS) on ~'J 4, 1989 {88-ARB-167)_ As part of the proposal, the developer will provfele a three perce.t fo-li'. fee t. comply wit. the City's below-market-rate (BKR) requirements. Staff re,omme"~s that t~e Planning Commission recommend that the (it, Council approve the proposed t~ntatiye ~ap i. ~ccordance vit~ t~e findings and (onditions of approval ~utllned fa t.ls report. mU.!!fQIUIA=T1'-'O"'" __________ _ Parcel Size: ~_~_!! __ S sC!!'.~.~ ____ e~ ree 1 _~_~_~~~_!: ~JstlD9 Zooi09: co~_re~eRsjve 'lan Deslgn_~_~Jon: DeRsH)': £x i. s t iQs..!.a. __ "_ct_U se: Sur.!:_~_l.I_~_~'irtq Land Use: sub9001 kb .549 ilcres 127-53-CI8 ~-IS Multiple-famil~ reside~tial 10.9 units per acre Two single-famit, dwelliDQs layne Court Apartments North: fast: Vest: loma 'erde Townhomes~ Offices Apartllleflts SouU: Shopping Cenler > 5J4/~O -1- I ,--------"L " , , • , -1: : '> " • - • . ;! Mi story: lIandat()ry Action Oa.!!1!.l: £nvironmeDtal Impact ASSessment: ANAL YS [5 __ _ PROJftT DfSCRIPJION o The stte was de,.loped with two single-family hOm<s i. 1947. I. febc,.ry of 1984 the loma rerde Town~Qme Association acquired i lO-foot-w~de ingress and egress easeme~t Icr~ss t~e sout~er. end af t.is prGpert14 Th! easement 'Was obhfned hi order to prQ',dde i third dumpster Irfl for the comple~ f~ accordance .it~ ARB approval t however this easement was not required for fire Department access. The llyne Court I;11a5 project ~as bee~ t~rou9n several preliminary reviews~ beginning fa September of 1988. aod was fioally .pproved wlt~ conditions during t~e ~aJ 4~ ]989 ARB ~ear1D9. Duri~g these revfews t~e ARB found that iccess easement for the loma Verde Townhome project ~s no lonQer necessary and decf~ed not to establis~ conditions ~n the layne Court project to mitigate the loss of the dumpster access. In October of 1~ t~e loma Jerde lownhome Assocfitfo~ sold ~r. ~irk~ani their interest fn the ea~ement. The applicatioo was deemed complete 00 April 23. 1990. The Planning Commission must ~old a ~earlDg by May 30. 1990_ Council actio. oust b. taleR .tthfm 30 days of 'linning Commission action. An rillial Study ~as co"ducte~ for the proposed subdi'fisfon on ~ri1 18. 1990. ":0 slgniffcant impacts were identified and i negatfve declar.tion (90·[IA·G21 bas been p'.pared for your approval (see attached docu~~~t}. The proposed prgject proYi·des S1I tl1ree-bedroom re:oi'deqtfal units 11 three separate two-story bYlldlngs wit~ each unit ~aving prifate rear yards. Double-car garages are provided for eac~ unlt and guest parking and ~andicap irI(cessilDle ~arliDg are c.lustered illong the side pr'operl, lines. The project fs accessed by three new driveways alo~g the layne Court frontage. T~e prgject reflects a S~an;sh architectural ~otif ~t~ red til! roofs and tan stuec, exterior. Tbe applicants are reQuestfng that the 'lanning Commission recommend CftJ Council approval Clf a tentatiwe subdhision l1ap tl!) allow nle of th! units. ISSU£S Of CONCfRN Access to Pi~.f9hborinq Site The "lans. for the townhouse IIrCDject propose construction of a fence-.. long the eommorl side propert, 1 ine betweeQ 723 lilyne COiJr'. and 751 layne Cotlrt. The sub9001 kb 5/4/90 -2· • '. J . . . t '-". survey for l~e ~ap niS shown t~at the project's ~ropertl line does not e~d it the eXlstfng ~avement line betweeQ t~i5 parcel and the 27-unit apartment It 1SJ llYlle Court, b~lt the-propertJ' Une tct.tlall.1 extent1$ 6 feet hto the paved driveway ~n4 bact~up arel, (urrentl, used by the Llyne Court Apartments. If thfs condomitfum project is deyelQpe~. it will re~uce I portion of the llyne Court I~artments drfvew., from ZS feet to 19 ffel. ~\Te vehicle ~aneuyerlbilftl It the layne Covrt Apartments lrll) bee am! m~re restrlcted fer 8 parking spaces, ve~lcTes ~ll slill ~e able to enter and exit the site. Jransportltion DiYl1fon staff have determined that tht ~odificitioD will not res~'t fa a slgntficant adverse traffic impact. Howe~erl staff ack~owTfdges that substantial intonvenience ~lY r!s~lt from the change to residents of the Llyne Court ~artments. Because there do not appear to be any access eas~nts recor~ed a~aiAst eit~er Df the subject properties. staff ~as detenmined that issues related to impacts on ~ehfcle access It tn~ Layne Court Apart~ents are a private matter between affected propert1 owners. ]t sho~Td be noted t~at this issue ~as ~ot raised durfng ARB re~lew ~ecause an accurate su~veJ was ~ot available. The propert1 owner and tenants Qf the Layne Court A~lrtments bave been Dotified of the potential problems associated ~1th the de~elop~~t of this pr~ject. PIa iJlt e~~ __ ~J._lrees Due to the slze Qf the bu'ld1~gs and the orfginal survey error, the silt oals aTong t~e norther. property line ';11 ~ave to be removed. The projett will reswlt 11 the loss Qf ~ost of the existing trees on site wft. onT, In It-inch cam~~or and a !2-fnc~ pepper tree to remain 1~ the rear yard. and a 20-fnc~ elm te remai. fa the frant. It is recommended that all trees withtl t~e Cft, rj.gf'lt-~f-va, be lIa.intained. including the. two existing 'pine trees. The fiPla1 landscaping ,lan provides a significant amount af new trees and other vegetation wtici must be apprQved by the Arc'itectural Revfe~ Soard ~rfor to fss~ance Qf any building permits. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (OMPtIANCE T~ls pr~ject results i. the loss of one rental unit on the site a~d fSJ therefore, su~j~ct t6 t~e Cit)~~ BMR pro vis fens listed im Progra~ 9 of t~e Hous;~g Element. Since there are not te~ units i. the project. the applfc~nt is not required t~ provid! a~ actul' unit but fnstead may prcvide in i~-lfe~ fee of three percent of the actual sales price Qf each ~nit sold. A letter mf agreement to t~is provision is included and ~ll be fo~alfzed by the subdivision agreement. The project meets al) other Comp~e~e~sfve 'liD crjteTil~ includl~g de=sitJ and compatibilitJ ~l~ s~rroundlng uses. RECOI'l!1ENOA TI 0/1 ---_.-- Stiff r!commends that the Planning Commission r~commend that the (ttl CouncIl approve the proposed tentatfve ~ap 1ft accordance wit~ t~f f~llo~ing finding and conditionL fINDINGS -------.. ---- 1. That the project. is propos-e-d J will not have a significant impact on .t~e physical environme~t. fl that the project is limited fl size and ~ll not generate substantial Ylsual or traffic impacts. It was found that tne reductioD fl bact-up s~ace for efQ~t ~arkl~g spaces and the layne Court sub9DDI 1b S/C/90 ·3· \ ;'\ \ \ \ \ , . . ... ~ .... t::~~' :~ .-: . .;. <---.. I l , ',-. " " , " '., ~ ~'~--', . ,', , r --., ... '~of ). . ::'.,' . -.. ,'.., '::-::', Apartments will b~COn~enfent but wilJ aot fmped~iffiC m~yeme~t on the s~tt Dr cause sIfet1 probl~s. l. The design ~f t~e projecl fs consistent wIth t~e tit,'s tompr.~eosl'. 'h.n obj.. :thes and COft"oSllt1b1e with the immedilte environment. fa Uut it meets Pro9ri~ , of the Rousing Element b~ providing a net gail of four housing ~nits f~clading In f~·lreu ~ayment for SMR ~nits. Ind ft promotes or~erlJ and haMnO"jo~s develo~nt ~f the sife. 3. ,. accordance wlt_ Polo Alt. ~unlclp.l Code (PAMC) SectIon ll.ll.090(d), the proposed subdj1is1on t IS conditioned together witb the provision for its design Irld' impnwernent. cempT h I and is consistent ldth He prQ~isions Df ,tate llw Ind the PAM[. fncTudlng Sections 66473.S Ind 66414 of t~e Government Code, I. that t~e sIte fs poysfcoll, suitable ond zoned for the type of dens;t, of t~e proposed de~elopment and additionall} t~ere are no conflfcts ~ith public easements. CONDlTJONS _____________ _ J. That priOT to the reconh.tfon IIf the ffflal map .. V.e subdivider $.",11 ente~ j~to • subdivision agreement with t~e (it, Qf Palo Alto t~at addresses the following Jssues: a. That the s\Jbdhtder sha' I agree tel pay tfl~ee percent of the achal sales price of eac~ unit as a 8MR fa-lieu fee. These fees s~'11 be paid upon the sole of eac_ of the unUs. b. ~at the subdi.lder sholl repl.ce all e.l.tlng driveways w1t~ curb. gutter and sidawall and i~stalJ ~fW driveways in compliance wit~ .,) titl standards .n~ permit proced~res. These impro~ements s~all be varranted by bond or other form of guarante. accept.ble to the Citl Attorney. c. That the developer s~all be responsible for installing ill storm drainage improvements. water and 5e~er ~ai~s and services. incl~ding any required off-sIte ~P9radesJ to t~e satisfaetion ~f t~e ~tilltfes and Public Voris De~irtments~ These fmprovements s~al1 be guaranteed b1 bond or other fono of guar.nt.e acceptable to the Citl Attorney. Z. That prior to filing the f1~a' Map t~e subdiri~er shall submit a drainage Fl.n to t~e satisfaction of t~e Public Works De.artment. l. That the subdir1der shall work with the Utilities De~artm.ot to determine all utilftl design and capadt, requirements intluding )!later" sewer" 91S, electric, phone and ~'ble facilities. The project s~al1 be limited to sfngle SerYlCe litera" s for se ... er water anti 9is_ All ~ti1itl 'plans sJlal1 be ippro~ed b~ the utilities and Vater" Sewer Ind Gas Departments before the final Map is recorded. 4_ T~at subdi~fder s~al1 not remove any of the trees il the C1tl right-of-v., wIthout permissloD from the Di,ision of Parks and Open Space_ S. The subdivider shall design and i,stoll ,11 .lectrical .tllitie. ,. ~ccordan'e ~th Pile Alta standards fncl~df~g underground uttlitfes tm the sat"isfactiorl Df t~e l ig'ht and Power Df,fsion. All elec:trfcai Jlhns suMOOI kb 5/4190 ·4- ~'----::-L" " " '-. "" - ~, ; ,f" . '.'-'" • l ....... ,. "" .'" s~a'l be appro,~y the light and Po •• r Dfvfs'on-6erore the final ".p 15 recorded. ,. Jhat the project ,hoI I be 'ODI·.~cted f. compliance with .11 pIon. and condition, established by the Architectur.l Re'i.~ Bo.rd. 7. 10 reduce dust levels during demolltion and construction it s~al1 be required t~at exposed earth surf,ces be watered freQue~t11 durIng the late .orolng and the end or t"e day. with frequency of wat.ring locreaslng on windy oays. All stre.ts and ha.l routes shall be cl •• ned dailJ. Spillage r ••• ltlng froo haulIng operating along or acro.s any public or prl.ate propert, shall be removed immediat.l, and p.ld for by the contractor. Oust nuisances originating from the contracto~~s operations either foslde or outsIde the right·of-way s~al1 be controlled .t t~e contrictor~s expense. 8. That all •• "tlng trees to rem.'. shall be protected by standar4 tree protect ion ..,,,ur .. established by tho ARB sliff. An ACHIIEWTS loc.tlon Map [,vironment.l Assessment (SC'[I~-2) October 16. I98S 8MR letter and Respons. ~al 4. 1989 (keerpt ARB Minutes CondomioiuN Plan. (Planning Commissfon and Cft} Council ~embers onll) Jentative Map (PlannIng Commis.loD and Citl Council Members onl,) COPIES S£Ht TO _______ _ rrank Mirkhani. 1313 I. lemoR A.enue , ~~10 'irk. CA 94025 Public Voris, Dave Matson Utilit;es~ Jack Spence light and Power. Donna Hilden Assistant (ll, Attorney. Sue (ase suMOOI k~ S/(/90 -5- \ .' "." .".--.'" --,. .",1 I • -, 96 :M-30 L - \ • \ ! . '\ \ ,"0'" ;-5~~ .","" ••••.• ; -'l" I'~i :_.'-,~_-----... ,-t --;..r. ',;'~ ~f:l ~;;:,~<:.:." "'A'_. -. ,,-" . :,-:50:, \ .. :,~ ~t,',;:~(' . ~.~~ --5~ , . \ '--", ',- Environmantal Doeumeftt. -City of Palo Alto ENVIRONMLNTAL ASSESSMENT \ • Project Description/Title: Ccndo~in1u~ __ ~&p to establish 6 units vith on 9_r::~<:!_e parking on a 23,5114 .quare toot let on the aouth .I"deOf Layne Court. sppnsorInq Agency/Applicant. Address and Telephone of Applicant: '28 Layne C~rt~ ________________ ___ Palo Alto, CA. Frank Mirkhani 1371 N. Le~n Avenue Menl~ park, CA. 940~5 (41S) 321-7450 ApplIcatIon for: CondominIum SubdivIsion (e .9'.,. ZOr'l ing -chang=e=-, ~.::ubd==i v=l-:: • .,.i-::o::n,....,D::-f .. -=p;:r:;op~:-e rty ,. Ii reh i te c t ura 1 rev I e'ii ... us e permit) Z~ning at Project Location: Fee ReceIpt No •• 90-8 NOTICE OF OETERMINATION Based upo~ review cf the pro1ect files, the undersigned member of the Plan ning Department. has concluded: l:!I .Negat!_~ __ beclari!lt!o-n: The project. bas no 11q-nificant environlllental 1111- pact~ No £nvrror~ental Impact Report Is requlred~ The reasons for a Negative Declarat.ion are: in the attached_ inlt!al study. A record of proje~_~~.ct:io-n is. available for revie~t the Palo Alto __ Planning De";' p~_~tment located on the 50th floor -of City hall, 2S0 Ham.ilton Avenue, Palo Alto CA. I_I The project may bave & .ignifieant .nvironm.n~al impact. An Xnvlrcn ~ental l~pact Report v1ll be prepared. Planr.inq Department Officio 1. t '" ~---"Oot~,-,V~Y'-__________________ __ Planninq Director: K~ . .5~.. Date: l-f/Ilifoc> The p~oject bas been approved. The project has been denied. Jl:evisecS 8-1-79 - Date: Date: Fila ~o •• 90-EIA-02 90-ElA-O, 1 , t I I r-,,_." ! t- ; i , , I i , I . ' , \ o o [NVIROllKEN'l'AL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO nA-2a INITIAL STUDyl,2 I. Pro,.ct TiUejAddreu: '28 Layne Court, Palo Alto....s"'A".'-"9"4"'J,,O"'4'-___ _ U. lII. IV. Project DescrIption: Tentattve ~4~ to aubdivlde that 2),'14 square foot parcel into 6 condo~~!"n~i~um~_u~n~i"t~s".~ __________ . _______________ _ Environmental Setting: The Bite is currently develope~ with two dilapidated single famIly dwellIngs. Spver~l mature_trees includ~ ailk oaks, pines and Fewers are located on the m ..1:.fllrly level parcel~_ Environmental I~paet Checklist (ExplanatIon of all ·yes· answer& are in Section V) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes In qeoloqle substructures? b. Disruptions, dIsplacements, compactIon or overcoverinq of the aoil? c. Chan;e in. topography or qround surrace relIef features? d. The destructi~'# covering or modifica tion of any unIque qeoloqIc or phY5lc~1 features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of solIs, eIther on or Off the site? f. Exposure of peopl e or property to geologie hazards 8uch as 6arthquakes, landslide., aUdslidas, ground failure, or .i.llar bazards? Changes in .11tation, depoSition, or erosion which ~ay modify the channel of a rIver or the bed of • bay or inlet? lAdapted fron Appendix I, California Guidelines for IzplementatiDn of CEQA, December 14, 1976. 2updated May, 1982; June, 1981 ErAflICK <b ."" -~-:--- • • -" . ,,~ '~" ,~; ," -' ......... ~. Air. Will the propos.l re.ult in: a. Substantial air emIssions or de~erlora tion of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable ordors? c. Alteration of air mov~ment, moIsture temperature~ or any change in el!mat.~ either locally or r_qional? 3. Water. Will the proposal re.ult In: &. Chanqe6 In absorption rates, dra1naqe patterns, or the rate and amount of 6urface v~ter runoff? b. Alterations to the eour5e or flow of flood vat.era? c. Oischarqe into surface water., or In any alteration of surface vater qualIty, including but not li.ited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d. Alteration of the directIon of rat. o~ flev of ground waters? •• Exposure of peopl. or property to water relate~ batards .ueh as flooding or tidal 'Waves,? 1. Change in the quantity of 9round w.t~ra~ either through direct additions or with Qrawals~ or through interceptIons of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? 4. Plant Lire. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of specle5 6 or ~ number of any &P~c!.$ of plants (!nclud- in9 trees. shrubs, qras8. crops, micro- flora and aquatic plants)? _x_ b. ~~duction of the numbers of any unique. ~ rare or endangere~ species of plants? . 1 c. Introduction of nev epee!es of plant. Into an area 6 or In a barrier to the normal replenishment,of .~!sting .peeie.? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 90-£IA-02 ) ", . ~.;. . • .-~ .-.. : .>:: . < . . ' . "-'f ' ~::-.,. :~ ', . ..;. i' i r o o 5. Animal Life. Mill the propoo.l result In: a. change In the diver.tty of .p.~l.a~ or of any opeci •• of animals (bird., land ."balo Includi"9 reptile., fish and ahellfish, benthic orqanlams, lnsects or JDicrofauna)1 b. Reduction of the number. of any unique, rare or endangered species of anlmels? c~ Xntroductl~n ot new species of an1&&ls Into an area, or result in a barrier to the ~i9ration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration in exiotl"9 fioh or wild life habitat? 6. Moise. Will tho p:-opo .. l re.ult In: a. Increases In exIstIng nols. level.? b. Exposure of people to .evere nols. levels? 7. Light. and Glare. will the propcnl produce new llgbt 91are? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the preaent or pl anned land use: I).f an are.? s. Ener~~tural Resources. Will the proposal result in; a. Use of Substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increa&e in demand upon exis~ing sources of energy, or require the development of nev .ources cr energy? c. Increase in the rate of use Qf any natural resources? d. Substantial depletion of any nonrenew able natural resource? It>. Risk o(Upset. Does the pro;>oul involve a ri6k~-an explosion or the release of b,~zardous substances (including', b\.:It not li.ited to, 011# pestfcl~es, Chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accIdent or upset? EIAFlICl< kb -- l .~~- ~ r , t , , -:-.' ( , --\- .. ,.'~ :,',. c~~~-,' 11. Populatl0n!?ou.lng. a. will the proposal altar the location, L diatrlbutlon. densIty, cr qrowth rate of the buman population of an area? b. Will the proposal effect existing housSnq, or create a de~and tor a~i t.io<>al bousing? 12. !ronsportationjClrculation. Will the proposal result .in: a. Generation of sub.tantial additional vehicular &ove=ent? b. Effect. on existing par~lng facilities, or demand tor new parklnq? c~ Alterations to present pattern. of circulation or movement of pe~le and/ or qoods? d. Increa5e in traffic hazards to motor vehIcles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1]. ~bltc services. will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental aervlces In any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c.. Schools? d.. Parks or other recreatiGnal facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities. includlrl9 rosd .. ? L. Other qovernmental •• rv1c •• ? 14. Utilities. Will the proposal re.ult In a need EIAFXCIC kl> i ill rap ,~.::.,. ~- ~ '1 for ne~ syste~s, or 5ubstantlal alt.rat1cns ~o the following utilit!e., e. Power or natural 9&.1 b. Co~unication8 &y_t.ma? , , ; t , .. "~,-.. "'. " ~.' . ·.t .r-J 15. ,'. (' ! . , -, 0 c. Water? ". Sewer or ..pUc< tanl<? e. StOrlll 'Water drainage? f. Solid waste and dispC'S51? Human Healtb. Nill the proposal result a. creation of any bealth hazard or potential health h •• ard (excluding .. ental health)? 0 in: b. t>cpOs"re of people to potenthl hulth haze-rd,s? 16. Aesthetics. Nill the proposal result in the Obstruction of any 5cenlc vlsta or view open to the publIc, or ~ill the proposal result in the ereatlGn of an aesthetically offensive sIt. open to public viev? 11. Recreation. wl11 the proposal result in an IiPact upon tho quality or quantity of .xist ing recreational opportuniti.s? 18. CUltural Resource •. a. Will the proposal result in the altera tion of/or the destruction of a prehistoric er historic archaeological site? b. Will tbe prop¢sal result In adverae pbysical or aestbetic effect. to a prebistoric or historic bUilding, structure;. or object? c. Does the proposal bave the potentIal to causes a physIcal change ~bich would affect unIque cultural value5? d. Will the propos'l restrict .~l.tinq reliqieu5 or .aered ~5e. within th~ potential impact area? -- !M ~ " , , NO ~ l l l . .1'- l l EJAflICI( 9C-tlA-01 ~ 6 - • ' ' ."'~ f , , ~ \ ! , , , , ( " ;' ; i , , . '--1' -.. ~ , L i (') 19. Handatory rin4~. of Significance. a. ~! ~~e pro~act have tb. po~.ntlal to deqrade the quality of the environment, .u~stantl.lly r.~uce the hahltat'Df • fish or wildlife .p.~! •• , cau •• a fish or wildlife population to dr~ below self-sustaining level., threaten to ~~~.ina~~ a pl.nt_or ani~al communitYr reduce the n~mber of restrict the ran~. of a rare or endanqered plant or animal or eliminate important example. of the ma'or periods of California hi.tory or prehistory? b. Does the pro~.ct have tho potential to achieve .hort-t.ra~ to the d!5advantaqe of long-term, environmental 9Oa1 •• (A ~hort-terw i~pact on the .nvironmer.t is one which oc~ur. in a relatIvlly brief, definitive period of time vb!le long-term impact. will endure well into the futur •. ) c. Does the project have iapacta which are indivi~u.lly limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or sora .eparate resources where the impact on each resource ia relatively .mal1 8 but wbere the effect of the total of those impacts on the envIronment 15 .tgnificant. ) 6. Does the project have .nvir~na.ntal effect. vb!ch will cauae substantial adverse effect. on buman beings, .1ther directly or indirectly? v~ Explanation of ·yes· answers in environmental checkli.t. See att.&ched~ EJAFHCK l<l:> ... IiIS_, .'''''Cr'' "" ....... _. ....~.c~_·· '. .. .' . ""-' " '. • " .' ''" c '''"' , " - } " - J '. \ ';': , ~ .• ~?:; r· ~ ",1',: ".:-=,,2~~ ::~:oo: _", :.~~ :.:.'~:,:~~:~I result In minor change. to .ite t~r.phy. Since all par~lng will be at I 9rade~ a alnlmua amount of 9r.~ing vill be required. A det&il.~ 9ra~ln9 and draina;e plan .hall b. required tor review an~ Mpproval of the City Engineer prior to i.suance or any grading and cr bul1di~ p_rmlts. Tbe site i. located vlthin a .ei •• lc area of ~oderate ri.k, and vould be subject to very stronq qround _hiking in the event or en e~rt~~~~k€. All e~nstrL~t!cn ~~ the site .hall be lubject to the provl~1ons of the most current Uniform Building Code {USC}, portions of which ere directed at Mlniaizlnq .eismic rIsk and preventlnq 10 •• of lIfe and prop2rty in the event of an earthquak •. ~. Air (al' oemoliU"" ot the exIcUnq stN<:tur." and "enstNeticn <:t the new buildlngS vill temporarily result in an incr.ase in dust emissio~s over existinq ambient .ir conditions. To reduce dust level. durIng demolItion and construction it Ihall be required that expose~ earth surtaces ~e watered frequently 6urlnq the late ~crnlng and the end of the day~ with frequency of waterIng incre,sing on windy days. All 5tre~ts and haul routes shall be cleaned dailY4 Spillage resultIng from bacliuq operations along Qr across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid tor by the contr&~tor_ Dust nuisances criqinating from ~h. contractor" operations .ither inside or outside the. right-of-wa.y sha.ll,be controlled at the. contractor'. e,xp~nse_ 3. Water tal The development of th. site will result In minor alteratfcns to existing 4rainage patterns. A deta11eQ dralnaqe plan shall be requlreQ to be approved by the City Enqtneer prier to issuance cf a Buildin9 Permit. 4. Plant Lite Ca). As propos.~ the project yill result in the le •• of ~o.t of the existing trees on site v1th only a 11-ca~Phor and a 12-pe~per ~ree to re=ain in the rear yard and a 20· elm to remain in the front. P~eli.lna~ plans revIewed by the AR8 1dentlfiea sfqnificantly .or~ existing trees to be savea along the project. nortbern boundary. Havever# ~ survey of the property tor th. tentative map indicates that the projects northern property line begIns , teet within the pave~ drivevay area ot the adjacent property# thereby establ!5hing the buil~inqs in the araa vhere the existIng row of trees i. locat~d. Staff would prefer to see ~ore existIng trees maintaIned including the t~o pine trees in the city right-of-vay. It is recommende~ that the final land5cape plan be revised to provide more privacy Cor-the resIdential proj.ct on tbe north~ 'i'he final landsc8pe plan s~all be required to be revle~ed end approve~ by the Arcbitectural ~evl.w ~rd and tree protection ~easure& 8ball be consi&tent yith city standards. ~r Woise Ca). ConstructIon .ct1vItI •• will result in temporary inerea5e. in local ambient no!.e I_vel.. All con5tru~tiGn activIties .ball be subject to the provisions of the City'. NoI.e Or~!nanc., Chapter 9.10 PAMe. 7. Light an~ Glare. The project Yill result In a slight incr ••• e in light and glare generated trom the .It •• Jt Ia recommended that .11 e¥t.rior lightIng be shielded end directional in order to minim! •• light end glare 1~pact8 on adjacent residential uses. A final lIghting plan 5ball requIre nAFI!CI( l<b ( , \ - . .. c· .-..... . ! • , " ... • --------~:------,:..--.::..-~ • r-, 8 review and approval of til. AJtB; •• part of the tinal l';'~l5cape plan prior to the i.suance of a bul1~i~ perait. 11. Population and Hou.i~. rho demolition of two hou.i~ unit. and construction of 6 bou.i~ units viII result in a negligible increase in area population. Becaus. ~he projec~ will re.ult in the removal of rental bousing stock, ~he project .hall be .abject to the provision. ot Proqram 9 and 12 o~ the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan·. Hou5inq Element. Compliance vith these provIsions requires that the developer pay 3' of the actual sales price of ~~e ~nlt. to the ael~~ Xa%ket Rate program prior to the issuance of a Buil~iD9 Per.lt. 12. Transportation and Circulation. The transportation Department round that traffic generate4 by the tour additional units in the co~pl.¥ will hove a negligible impact on traffic in the vicinity. The project will provide 12 parkinq .paces in prIvate qarages and 2 uncovered ~est spaces which la in compliance with the zoning re~~lr.ments. The survey for the map has r.veale~ the projects property line does not end at the existing pavement line between this parcel and the adjacent 27 unit apartment. at 751 Layne Court. but actually extends six feet Int.o the paved eriveway and back up area currently used by the Lane Court Apartment.s. If thi& condominium proj ect is developed it 'Will red·uee a portion of the Layne Court apartments drive 'Way from 25 feet to 19 teet in width. Field vI. its document the following ~se~ationa: 1. That backup apace tor 8 parklnq apace. vill be reduc.~ trom l5 feet I 'Which il normally required by ordinance~ to 1~ feet which will create some Vehicle maneuverability problems. After placement of the propose~ fence alonq the common property line, the number of required movements in order to leave a. parkinq space and exIt in .. forward direction will Increas. from two to betveen four'and aIx movements. 2. Due to the reduced area for vehicle maneuverability. it Is likely that veblcles viII occasionally bump into the fence or other oostructlons. However, as cars vill atIIl be able to enter and exit these parkIng space5 1 the impact from the construction of the 728 Layne project is not considered to be a &ignificant adverse envlronment~l impact. EIAf}!CI{ kl> !JO-EIA-02 9 - "r' . , , , , .-,', , ; -: \ -\ , " \ •• • - • t - , , . o ;> a '!i,:! •• t:-5.J 4' ~;c: ..,~~:: ''''.''',:~., '"" 1; ... ::: Depart~~nt of Planning and (ommunitJ [nvironment l41S) 319-2110 October 16, 1!'89 Mr_ frank ~ir~ani lan~a Construction (ompany. Inc. i.{). 80;( 14l Meole Park, C~ 9402, -Dear-lIT. "irkhanl: 250 Hamilton Avenue P. O. Box I02~ P.lo ~lto, t~ 94JOI Subject: l.!--:,Li_~u. fee fer Be10w ~arket F:ate Re_.9..~Jre!Tlent At '.?L'=.!Lne (our.! Based' on the hlfo(ma! ion providet1 it t~e September 25, 19-89 ~eE't ing between you .. (1ro1 Jans.en and ~ar\. B.artt.olomelJ regarding your pro'posel'.i d'evelopmeT'lt of six 1~xur1 townbouse~ locatea ~t 128 layne (ourt~ staff ~as deter~fned t~at an h.-l ie~ fee contribut ion is the most appropriate l1echanism for YOIl te ~se to (.Ifill t~. Below~ar~.t Rate (BMR) Pr09ra~ requIrement. The BMR fee. -is bas.ed on U.r~e percent (3f.) af the actaa1 sales price tilf eacl\ unit seld. Piyment will be ~ade to the CitJ upon the sale of each unit in t~e su'bdi"islon. Proof of salH prices Ilust be submittEd h the (it! It the lime of sale. The h·lieu fee requirement for any [mit that 1S not sold' and becomes occlJpied on a renta,l 0," lease baS1S s.hall be based' l.I?cn the sales. Jlrfce (If the Ifl~st expensive unit 501<1. fayment shaH be due at time Df oc~upa~cy Df the unit{s) net sold. I ilolJld oP9f"echte your signi!"l9 this. letter indica.ting that 'Io'e 1'Ii!.'Ie niched agree;nent regardfn~ your BAA il!!-Heu fee contribution. Ttle (it, Attorney's Office will incor-porite Uis agreement as a condition Gf the Subdi"ider"'s Agreement betllleen you and the City, whlcl! will be swbject to approva1 by ne (;t, Counei L Sincere 1r. l[NNn~ I. SCHRHBER Direcfcr of 'lanning and (ommufiit, [nvi~onmeQt ~RS/l( , ~\ , , '. :: .. , Ji: .- ,-. , r ; ~"", . -" ... , , r Mr. Frint Mirkhani landa Construction October IS, 1989 f.ge Z Inc. o I agree to 5tJbm1t an fl!!· Heu fee of three (3) percel'1t of the ac.tual sa1es prlt~ foY ei~_ ;f the six units to to be developed at 725 layne Court. Piyme~t wi n fle lIad'e to the CH,)' of Pil0 ABo upon Ue ule ~f tic'll L.lnit in the subdivision. If (or any reason iii unit{s) is (are) not sold. payment for the unites) will be !las-ed' -UP0rl the sa1es prfee of the DIOst upensive unit sold. 'ayment s~al1 be dL.le it time of otcupant~ of the ~nit[s) nat sold. -M-~"k ~if~kn~ fRANK I'IlRKHANI • landa (onstruc\ion Company~ rnc. Date cc: S,1.ia Se~an~ Fale Alto Housing Corporation Sue (ase,. (ity Attorne,)"s Office Carol Jansen, Planning Department ~ark BartheT~ew~ Planniog Oepart~ent • > ,;~. ';;i'i.:! c;.- ." . "" • r" • ~--.....":_..."..;..;.--.. ,s:~.,...,,.,,-n--t ~~~~--..:..-~--------f::\ , - o I!Af ~. 1989 ARCHITECTURAL REY1EW BOARD E~CERPT~JNUTfS 2. 728 LAYNE COURT' (rank fllr-ic.Poani 88·ARB·J51 Final review of s'x~unit town~ouse projEct i~ th!~e two-story buildings ~jth itta,~ed qarlges ~ince the ipplicant's arc\ftect ~as not aVil1ab1e for thi presentatfon, 6Gb [vans ab~tifned on the unconfirmed possibility that ~lans ~a1 not be prepared by i 17censed ~rofes~ional and la keeping wit~ his position that ,l.n •• ppr.v.~ by the ARB for bolldings of wood frame construct1cD exceeding 4 units s~ould be prepared by a licensed ~rofessfonal p~rsuant t$ regulations adopted b~ the Boaid of ArC~ltecturil [~aroiner5~ One person spoke during ~ublic commefit on t~is project: Andrea leiderman~ 3]11 Mfddiefitld Road. ~s '~nc£rned ,bout t~e fcllo~n9; • the need for suffic1ent setback from the (root property JiG£, • the need fQr sufffcfent ~ar\ing for reSTcents and guests, • t~e sile and ~ass of the un;ts on the limited lot. • noise .. dust and (rime diJring the construction ~eriod, -the lo<ation and suff;ciencJ of tne trash receptacles. • th~ ~eed for pr~fessjona111 sj~n~d dri~;~gs. and • the long rang@ impacts of t~e project on the ~ef9hb~rhood. p3rllng and street. APPROVEO. )-). aftEr lengt~y discu5s10n and subject to the fol1c~ing conditions.: 1_ App1ic.nt sh.11 reev11b.te the design of the frent wall t. reduce the em~hasis of I grand ~ntrJ to tne garages. OS}04/89 ( 1 . ' , - , , cc Q, 2~ Prior to submission (or I Building 'ermit~ applicant s~al} ret~r. to the ARS with ]S percent working drawin9s for revre~ and appro~al. The ~or.ing drawings s~al1 indfcite all roo! ~ents which s~al1 ~e (l~stere~ and screened. 3. CoTors ana mat~r5als shall ret~rD fo~ ARB approval and shall include t~e use ~f ~ood wlndo~s. 4. Prior to submission for a BU1!ding Per~it. applicant shall prepare an accurate site plan. properly dfme~sioned for staff re~le~ and approv~l for code compliance. S. A slgn s~a'] be posted during the construction period indicatin9 the ~ondit;ons of construction. is required by tn! Pa10 Alto Pollce Departme~t. including noise and ~ori ~our 1 imltat ions. 6. During constroctlon applicant s~all see that stre!t is swept at least once a ~eek. 1_ A ffnal landscape plan intludj~g ~lintln9. irrigation~ lighting. fe~ce details~ trasb enclosures. etc .• s~all be apprQved by tne ARB and installed prior to cccupancy. 8. final lan~scape Flans s~al1 incTc~e a re~lsed design fer the dumpster area~ at the front of 725 lorna rerde~ t~at ~i11 .llo~ for the addition of • third dumpst.r at • f.ture d.l •. 9. Prior t~ s~bmittal of a tentative ~ap~ applicant s~all either {IJ provide i SMA unit. or {2} make an i"·lieu payment. Oeterminatioo is to be ~ade by the Director ~f Planning and CommunitJ {~~ironrne"t. Mr~ lYz~a woted no on the proje,1 because of ~ls concerB that the 5eparation bet~eeR the bU11dings was not sufficient to meet t~e (ode. lhe Board was very concer~ed about the design &f the a~chej ficnt wall an~~ f~ ~artfcwlar. the ~al1~5 relationshfp to the u~fts an~ the garage entrantes. END Of" [XCERPr L', . \, "~ -," .~ .. i" - I , ~ ':" ' f i l '..J,'-,' . . • I 1 I I ,I l