Resolution: Project No.: Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Grading Plan, Tree Removal Permit, and Parking Variance Page 2 of 18

Transcription

1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO ESTABLISH A DETAILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW, GRADING PERMIT, TREE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A REZONE FOR A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2200 CARLMONT DRIVE (ASSESSOR S PARCEL NUMBER ; ; AND ) FOR MERRY MOPPET PRESCHOOL AND BELMONT OAKS ACADEMY (APPL. NO. PA ) WHEREAS, Joanna Reams for Merry Moppet Preschool & Belmont Oaks Academy, applicant, on behalf of Pamela Clarke, property owner, requests, approval of entitlements for site improvements and an increase in enrollment and staff at the Merry Moppet Preschool and Belmont Oaks Academy (Conditional Use Permit to establish a Detailed Development Plan, Design Review, Grading Permit, Tree Permit, and Parking Variance) in connection with a Rezone for a Conceptual Development Plan (CDP), and Planned Development (PD) for the property located at 2200 Carlmont Drive (Assessor s Parcel Number ; ; and ); and, WHEREAS, on January 17, 2017, the Planning Commission, following notification in the prescribed manner, conducted a public hearing, at which hearing the Commission considered public testimony and a staff report on the aforementioned requested entitlements; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Belmont finds the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and discussed the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report as an informational document and applied its own independent judgment and analysis to the review, and in a separate action recommended that the Final Environmental Impact Report was completed in compliance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in a separate action made recommendations to the City Council with respect to a Rezone for a Conceptual Development Plan (CDP), and Planned Development (PD) for the property located at 2200 Carlmont Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the staff report dated January 17, 2017, and the facts contained therein as its own findings of facts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the project Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and associated Detailed Development Plan (DDP), Design Review, Grading Permit, Tree Permit and Parking Variance subject to the findings below and the City Council s approval of the Planned Development Rezoning and Conceptual Development Plan.

2 Page 2 of 18 Design Review The Planning Commission has considered the request for a Design Review Permit for the proposed project and finds that it meets required principles as set forth in Section of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: a) Review of buildings or structures for scale, mass, proportion, use of materials, relationship to adjacent elements and relationship to the community as a whole. The project considers the size and shape of the site in the overall design and layout of the campus buildings, which are oriented toward the center of the lot. The proposed new classroom building is built into the slope of the lot so that it presents a one story element on the Merry Moppet Lane frontage and a two story element at the center of the lot. A modern style class room building would be constructed in Phase 1 of the project. This building would include plaster and horizontal wood siding for exterior walls, fixed pane, metal windows, and a standing seam metal roof. The design of the building further mitigates project-related bulk by including projected and recessed building walls and color and material variation and ornamentation. Therefore, the proposed project would provide appropriate scale, proportion, and use of materials that would be compatible with the existing character of the community as a whole. This principle is met. b) Review of proposed exterior color and material application with relationship to adjacent architectural of natural elements. The intent with respect to review of color is to avoid the use of extreme color. Existing buildings have tan exterior building walls with brown or blue trim and black or gray roofing. The proposed color scheme for the new classroom building would include brown and off-white exterior building walls with gray trim and gray roofing. This color scheme is appropriate for its surroundings, and consistent with the structures in the vicinity of the development site. This principle is met. c) Review of the proposed location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges and screen plantings to ensure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations or other surfacing to prevent dust erosion. The project includes wooden and/or brown, vinyl-coated chain-link fences along the perimeter of the site. The existing trash area is enclosed with a brown, vinyl-coated chainlink fence with vertical brown slats for screening. Conditions of project approval require the trash area to be covered and plumbed to the sanitary sewer system. The perimeter of the site includes small wooden retaining walls and substantial tree coverage, which would soften and screen existing/proposed structures and utility areas. Best management practices for grading will be required as a condition of approval to prevent erosion and sedimentation impacts. This principle is met.

3 Page 3 of 18 d) Review of location, size, height, lighting and landscaping of signs as specified in the Sign Ordinance, in relation to traffic hazards and the appearance of harmony with the environment. The intent with respect to review of color is to avoid the use of extreme color. Signage standards have been submitted as part of the Planned Development (PD) Rezone; however, additional signage details would be submitted as part of a subsequent Sign Program submittal. PD Signage standards include a total of five signs with a maximum total sign area of 100 square feet. Standard review criteria and conditions of approval for a Sign Program would require that all proposed signage be integrated into the site design using comparable colors and materials, and thus signage would be in harmony with the built environment. Use of extreme color for signage would be prohibited, and signage lighting would be minimal. All proposed signage would be reviewed to ensure that the project would not present a traffic hazard or lead to driver confusion. Therefore, the size, height, and lighting of signs would be harmony with the environment. This principle is met. e) Review of site layout considering the orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the neighborhood, the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development and the surrounding landscape. The project considers the size and shape of the site in the overall design and layout of the campus buildings, which are oriented toward the center of the lot. The proposed new classroom building is built into the slope of the lot so that it presents a one story element on Merry Moppet Lane frontage and a two story element at the center of the lot. The basic visual character of the planning area consists of surrounding multi-family residential, uses. Surrounding buildings are generally 1-3 stories in height with wood or stucco exteriors and pitched or flat roofs, and are located on generally flat pads and surrounded by landscaping, and parking areas. The current buildings on site include a mix of architectural styles, and exterior materials (i.e., pre-manufactured portable buildings, a one-story craftsman style building with wood siding, and one and two story stucco buildings). The project would include the construction of a modern style class room building in Phase 1 of the project. This building would include plaster and horizontal wood siding for exterior walls, fixed pane, metal windows, and a standing seam metal roof. The proposed landscape plan includes retention of the vast majority of the trees on site, and replacement of trees at a 1:1 ratio (approximately 2:1 for protected size trees). The landscape plan would result in a substantial number of trees along the perimeter of the site. The changes to the site would not result in a look of clear cutting and would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Therefore, the site layout considers the location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site, the character

4 Page 4 of 18 of the neighborhood, the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development, and the surrounding landscape. This principle is met. f) Review of the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimension of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives and walkways. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Carlmont Drive, Merry Moppet Lane, and Lyall Way. Circulation for parking (staff and parents) and pick up and drop off of students occurs on public streets (Carlmont Drive, Merry Moppet Lane, and Lyall Way). There are two drop off locations for students (K-5 th grade) on Carlmont Drive and Merry Moppet Lane (west). A staff attended drop off occurs at these locations. Pre-school students are signed in by an adult in their classrooms. Sidewalks are provided from parking areas to school entrances on Carlmont Drive. The Public Works Department and a consulting City Traffic Engineer have reviewed the layout of the site with respect to locations and dimension of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives and walkways, and finds that as proposed and conditioned, the project would provide safe and appropriate access. This principle is met. g) Review of site landscaping including adequacy of irrigation plans, size and location of plant materials, and protection of existing plant materials. There are approximately 106 trees on the subject property, which are located predominantly along the perimeter of the project site. The proposed landscape plan includes retention of the vast majority of the trees on site, and replacement of trees at a 1:1 ratio (approximately 2:1 for protected size trees). Existing and proposed buildings would be adequately screened and softened by the proposed landscaping for the project. The proposed landscaping plan would be generally compatible with neighboring properties. This principle is met. The Planning Commission has considered the applicant s request for Design Review and finds it generally consistent with the Design Review Principles in Section of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed building architecture and believes the proposal conforms to all required standards and is generally compatible with neighboring properties. Conditional Use Permit The Planning Commission has considered the applicant s request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Detailed Development Plan and finds that it meets required findings as set forth in Section of the Zoning Ordinance, as follows:

5 Page 5 of 18 1) The location of the proposed use is compatible to other land uses in the general neighborhood and does not place an undue burden on existing transportation, utilities and services in the vicinity. Land Use Compatibility Merry Moppet Preschool and Belmont Oaks Academy began operations at its current location in The project site is adjacent to multi-family residential uses to the south, east and west, and Merry Moppet Lane and Lyall Way to the north. Key considerations for review of land use compatibility with these surrounding land uses include operation of the project with respect to significant adverse and/or unusual noise and vibration, odors, light/glare, use of hazardous materials, conflicts related to project pedestrian/vehicle circulation, parking and traffic, and incompatibility of project aesthetics. Noise & Vibration The Project would not include the use of heavy equipment after construction of the school and, thus there would be no operational vibration impacts. Operational use would result in noise from children playing; however, this type of noise has occurred on site for more than fifty years, and it is not unusual for school and residential uses to be in close proximity to one another. Odors The project includes a cafeteria and there would be food waste, which could lead to some odors. However, the applicant would remove food waste on a regular schedule in accordance with the specifications of the waste hauler, and the trash area would be enclosed and covered. Light & Glare The campus currently includes interior and exterior lighting. New site lighting would include exterior building mounted lights at entry/exit doors with a 40-watt maximum (fluorescent or LED equivalent) downcast to prevent light spill to adjacent properties. Any new site lighting would be low-level pathway lighting for occasional evening events such as Back-To-School Night, Open House, or Parent/Teacher conferences. This lighting would be 40-watt maximum (fluorescent or LED equivalent) downcast to prevent light spill to adjacent properties. Hazardous Materials No storage or transport of toxic, explosive or other hazardous materials is proposed for the project. School uses typically do not lend themselves to environmental hazards associated with transport, upset or emissions of hazardous materials or wastes. Hazardous materials impacts are largely associated with industrial, heavy commercial and some light commercial land uses.

6 Page 6 of 18 Pedestrian & Vehicle Circulation Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Carlmont Drive, Merry Moppet Lane, and Lyall Way. Circulation for parking (staff and parents) and pick up and drop off of students occurs on public streets (Carlmont Drive, Merry Moppet Lane, and Lyall Way). There are two drop off locations for students (K-5 th grade) on Carlmont Drive and Merry Moppet Lane (west). A staff attended drop off occurs at these locations. Pre-school students are signed in by an adult in their classrooms. Sidewalks are provided from parking areas to school entrances on Carlmont Drive. The existing/proposed drop-off and pick-up plan has been monitored by the along with the trip monitoring plan for the project. Implementation of the proposed drop-off and pick-up plans would avoid pedestrian/vehicle conflicts with surrounding land uses. Parking The applicant would provide 69 Vehicle spaces and 1 motorcycle space, where 67 parking spaces would be required for the maximum 67 staff employees; however a companion Variance for parking would be required as the parking spaces would be located in the public right-of-way, where parking is required to be located on site. As MM/BOA is currently legal non-conforming with respect to parking, the parking Variance is only required for the increase in intensity of use (fifteen parking spaces). The project traffic engineer (Fehr & Peers), and city staff observed the drop-off/pick-up of students and parking conditions, and found that there should be adequate on-street parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property to accommodate the proposed expansion of use (i.e. approximately 50 parking spaces were available at the most impacted parking time frame for school uses, where 15 additional parking spaces are required for the proposed project). Thus, with approval of a companion Variance application, adequate on-street parking would be provided for the project. Traffic A comprehensive traffic impact assessment (TIA) was prepared for the project by Fehr & Peers traffic consultants. The project TIA includes an evaluation of potential traffic impacts, which are based upon significance criteria (what constitutes a significant traffic impact). The traffic significance criteria and the scope of the TIA were determined by the Department of Public Works. The TIA was peer reviewed by a traffic consultant working for the city. The TIA evaluated circulation impacts due to the increased enrollment of students and the increase in staff for MM/BOA. Key considerations included student pick-up and drop-off, peak hour trips associated with school uses, and traffic related to special events. The TIA reviewed potential impacts for seventeen intersections along the Ralston Avenue Corridor between State Highways 92 and 82 (El Camino Real). The assessment found that

7 Page 7 of 18 most of the project traffic impacts would be less than significant; however, the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts at six non-signalized intersections that are currently operating below standards during peak traffic periods and would require installation of a traffic signal or other improvements to function adequately. At these intersections, even small amounts of project-related traffic warrant the installation of a traffic signal or other improvements. Typically in this situation, cities collect traffic impact fees (TIF) on a fair share basis from each project. Adoption of a TIF requires the establishment of a plan for improvements (i.e., Ralston Corridor Study), a program for the improvements in a Capital Improvement Fund (CIP), and environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With the adoption of traffic impact fees and an improvement plan, there is assurance that the required transportation improvements will be made as a result of the payment of fees. However, Belmont has not yet established a traffic impact fee, so this mitigation mechanism is unavailable to the applicant. The cost of improving all the intersections would greatly exceed the applicant s fair share, so the City cannot require that the applicant pay for all of these improvements. Instead, the applicant has offered to pay their fair share costs for improving intersections through a $62,046 payment into a traffic mitigation fund. Project Aesthetics The basic visual character of the planning area consists multi-family residential development to the south, east and west and Merry Moppet Lane and Lyall Way to the north. Surrounding buildings are generally 1-3 stories in height with stucco and wood exteriors and flat or pitched roofs. These building are located on generally flat pads and surrounded by landscaping, and parking areas. The current buildings on site include a mix of architectural styles, and exterior materials (i.e., pre-manufactured portable buildings, a one-story craftsman style building with wood siding, and one and two story stucco buildings). The project would include the construction of a modern style class room building in Phase 1 of the project. This building would be well designed and articulated, and include a mix of materials that are consistent with building on site and in the surrounding area (i.e., plaster and horizontal wood siding for exterior walls, fixed pane, metal windows, and a standing seam metal roof). The proposed landscape plan includes retention of the vast majority of the trees on site, and replacement of trees at a 1:1 ratio (approximately 2:1 for protected size trees). The landscape plan would result in a substantial number of trees along the perimeter of the site. The changes to the site would not result in a look of clear cutting and would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.

8 Page 8 of 18 Transportation, Utilities & Services The proposed use will not place an undue burden on existing transportation, utilities and service facilities in the vicinity. Transportation No new roads would be extended to any contiguous undeveloped areas and no residents would be displaced by the project. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation given that the subject property is located within close walking distance to public transit (there are existing bus stops on Ralston Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas within ¼ mile of the subject property). Some faculty may make use of the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) bus service; however, given the age of the students at Belmont Oaks Academy and the need to sign in the students at the pre-school it is not likely that many students would use the system. Given the limited number of faculty, this would not overburden the local public transportation system. As previously discussed, the Project would have impacts to the roadway system, which cannot be fully mitigated pursuant to the technical requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); however, the applicant would pay fair share costs for traffic improvements (benefiting other properties in the area), improve pedestrian access to the site and surrounding area to meet current accessibility requirements, and employ the existing/proposed pick-up and drop-off plan, which would prevent local traffic impacts (queuing, and traffic safety impacts). Utilities & Service The proposed use will not place an undue burden on existing utilities and service facilities in the vicinity. The project site is served for water supply by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD). The Project will pay fair share costs of additional sewer impacts, and replace existing sewer laterals as needed. The Project will not burden park and recreational facilities, as students would generally use recreational areas on site. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay park impact fees. Lastly, the Project has been reviewed by all appropriate departments (Fire, Police, Public Works, Building, Parks and Recreation) to ensure that all service levels can be maintained to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, the project will not place an undue burden on utilities or services in the area. This finding is affirmed. 2) The site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed use together with all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and such other provisions required by this Ordinance. Based on review of the submitted plans, sufficient room exists to accommodate the proposed project in conformance with all setback, height, and floor area ratio identified in the Planned Development application, and would be consistent with Section 8 (parking) of the Belmont

9 Page 9 of 18 Zoning Ordinance with approval of a companion Parking Variance. In addition, the project will provide adequate space between campus buildings to allow for public safety access. Therefore, the subject property is of sufficient size to accommodate the Project. This finding is affirmed. 3) The site will be served by streets of capacity sufficient to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared by Fehr and Peers traffic consultants, and peer reviewed by the Department of Public Works and a consulting Traffic Engineer for the City. The TIA concluded that the expansion to the school would result in potentially significant impacts, and mitigation measures were identified to avoid or lessen project impacts identified intersection improvements. Based upon the review of the project and implementation of the mitigation measures it was concluded that the site will be served by streets of capacity sufficient to carry the traffic generated by the proposed use. This finding is affirmed. 4) The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity or the general welfare of the City. The conditional use permit controlling the development and continued use of the Project will require compliance with Project-specific conditions, mitigation measures, and the City s regulations, as well as other regional, State and Federal regulations, all of which will prevent adverse effects to other property in the vicinity and protect the general welfare of the City. This finding is affirmed. The following two additional findings as per Section 12.4.C (1 & 2) of the Zoning Code are required in order to adopt a DDP as part of the Conditional Use Permit. 1. Such use or uses substantially conform to the adopted General Plan of the City of Belmont. The existing/proposed uses of the site are conditionally permitted under the current R-3 Zoning. The expansion of the uses (project) includes a Rezoning that will allow for flexibility in the layout of site improvements consistent with the use of the site. The proposed PD District will achieve objectives of the Zoning Plan and the General Plan of the City. The proposed expansion in use would substantially conform to the General Plan, as described in the General Plan Consistency analysis provided in Attachment IX of the January 17, 2017 Planning Commission staff report. 2. Such use or uses are as shown on the approved Conceptual Development Plan for the particular PD District. The proposed uses are clearly indicated as part of the approved Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for the site. This finding is affirmed.

10 Page 10 of 18 Grading Plan The Planning Commission hereby evaluated a Grading Plan proposal and finds that it meets the required findings set forth in Section 9-27(a)-(h) of the City of Belmont Municipal Code (Grading), as follows: a). The project will not endanger the stability of the site or adjacent properties, or pose a significant ground movement hazard to adjacent properties. The City's Building Division and Public Works Department have reviewed the grading plans for the project, and have determined that the plan is in conformity with the Building Code and the City of Belmont Grading Ordinance (Chapter 9 of the City Code). In addition, the City s standard requirements require the preparation of a site specific geotechnical investigation, independent peer review of the investigation and incorporation of the findings of the independent peer review into project design. The City s consulting geologist, Cotton Shires Associates (CSA) prepared an independent peer review of the geotechnical investigations proposed as part of the project and concurs with the characterization of the project site, findings, and design specifications. CSA adds that the project geotechnical consultant shall review all plans, field work and conditions to assure that the project is built to specifications. The project geotechnical reports and the City s independent peer review requirements will, as a matter of grading and building permit procedures, be required of the project as conditions of project approval. Based on reviews by City departments and the City s consulting geologist to assess site stability, no immediate safety concerns or hazards have been identified for the subject site or adjacent properties. Therefore, as proposed and conditioned, the project will not endanger the stability of the site or adjacent properties, or pose a significant ground movement hazard to adjacent properties. This finding is affirmed. b) The proposed drainage improvements, landscaping, and erosion control measures would be adequate to control erosion or flooding and would not degrade riparian habitats, stream channel capacity or water quality. There are no streams or rivers on the site. The applicant has submitted a C-3 Checklist, hydrology study, and landscaping, grading, and drainage plans. The submitted materials identify methods to treat drainage from the site primarily by utilizing vegetated areas. The project has been reviewed and found acceptable by the City s Department of Public Works at this stage of the Development Review process. Detailed working drawings and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required to be submitted for review and approval as part of the building permit application process. The Department of Public Works has also reviewed the proposed drainage plans and facilities, and has provided conditions of approval. In addition, the City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP s) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City conditions of project approval. For new development and construction

11 Page 11 of 18 projects, the City requires the implementation BMP s to ensure the protection of water quality in storm runoff from the project site. In brief, the measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training, etc. They also provide direction for the control of erosion and sedimentation as well as the establishment of monitoring programs to ensure the effectiveness of the BMP s. The City also requires an agreement with the applicant that ensures the permanent and on-going maintenance of water quality control improvements by the applicant and/or project site owner(s). Therefore, the proposed drainage improvements, landscaping, and erosion control measures would be adequate to control erosion or flooding and would not degrade riparian habitats, stream channel capacity or water quality. This finding is affirmed. c) The amount of grading proposed is necessary to allow reasonable use of the site. It is anticipated that approximately 1,580 cubic yards of export would be required for construction of the classroom building and other site improvements. The amount of grading proposed would allow for installation of required landscaping, storm water treatment measures, and construction of the proposed site improvements. The grading plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and found not to be excessive, as it is required for the expanded development of the property (i.e., there is no grading unnecessary for the project proposed on extraneous areas of the property). This finding is affirmed. d) The proposed grading would result in a building site that is visually compatible with the surrounding land and accommodates any required off-street parking and wall landscaping. The building site would be would be visually compatible with the surrounding area, which is similarly graded/developed with multi-family residential buildings located on generally flat pads and surrounded by landscaping, and parking areas. The proposed grading would accommodate construction of the building, drainage, utilities and the landscaping of the subject property. This finding is affirmed. e) The proposed grading will meet the standards and specifications of Article IV of Chapter 9 in the City Code (Grading Ordinance). Conditions of approval have been attached to the project to ensure that the final grading plan for the project will meet all of the standards contained in Article IV of Chapter 9 of the City Code (Grading Ordinance). This finding is affirmed. f) The Director of Public Services and the applicant s Geotechnical engineer shall find that the form of vehicular access and methods of excavation are the simplest and least intrusive possible to obtain the geologic information required by the city. The Public Works Department has reviewed the grading plan, vehicular access, and methods

12 Page 12 of 18 of excavation and, as proposed and conditioned, found them to be adequate and complete. Conditions of approval require the final grading and drainage plans be consistent with Public Works Department requirements for the design and construction of the site improvements. This finding is affirmed. g) The grading permit is conditioned on issuance of a hauling permit, if required. A hauling permit will be required in association with the Grading Permit for this project. This finding is affirmed. h) The design of the project preserves existing protected trees on the site and trees on adjoining property to the extent possible. The project includes the removal of 24 trees, including 14 protected trees. These tree removals are necessary for the proposed development of the site (i.e., to accommodate the site improvements, grading of the site, drainage improvements, fire access and safety, and utilities, etc.). A site-specific arborist report was prepared for the project which includes protection measures for trees to be retained. In addition, the applicant proposes to replant 24 trees on site, and a condition of approval would require the applicant to pay in-lieu replanting fees in the amount of $2,982 (equivalent to the value of six additional trees to be planted offsite). This finding is affirmed. Tree Removal Permit Necessity of Removals The project includes the removal of 24 trees, including 14 protected trees. The arborist report and the landscape plans submitted as part of the project indicate that the trees proposed for removal are either directly impacted by project construction, leaning, in very poor condition, located on steep slopes, and/or are interfering with electrical wires. Based upon review of the arborist report, and the site and grading plans, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed tree removal is necessary for the construction of the project. In addition, the Commission finds that adequate arrangements would be made for the protection of trees to be retained. Specifically, a condition of approval would require the project arborist to prepare an updated evaluation of tree protection measures (for trees to be retained), based on final approved plans, prior to issuance of permits. Conditions of Permit The project site is substantially forested with 106 trees. Total tree replacement to removal would occur at a 1:1 ratio, and protected tree replacement to removal would occur at approximately a 1.7:1 ratio (24 trees replanted and 14 protected trees removed). Based on the existing/proposed uses and layout of the site there does not appear to be room for additional tree plantings. While many of the proposed tree removals are native oak trees, the vast majority of the protected size trees that are proposed for removal are in fair, poor or very poor condition (78%).

13 Page 13 of 18 The Commission has considered: 1) The number of trees on site; 2) The number of trees the site could support; and 3) The condition, size and species of trees being removed in determining the required tree re-planting and/or in-lieu replanting fees, as described in the following table. Tree # 66 Species Canary Island date palm Size DBH Condition Reason for Removal Replacement Required 26 Good Project 3 67 Chinese Elm 13 Very Poor Project & Condition 0 68 Oak 14 Very Poor & Project & Leaning Condition 0 69 Oak 10 Poor Project 1 70 Oak 22 Good Project 3 71 Oak 14 Fair Project 3 72 Oak 11 Poor Project 1 73 Canary Island date palm 10 Good Project 3 75 Oak 10 Fair Project 3 79 Oak 10 Fair Project 3 80 Oak 15 Poor Project 2 86 Cherry 10 Fair Project Oak 12 Poor Project Oak 10 Fair Project 3 TOTAL 30 Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds that the replanting and in-lieu replanting fees sufficient for a total of 30 trees (replanting of 24 trees on site and the payment of in-lieu replanting fees for 6 trees), are appropriate conditions for approval of the proposed tree removal permit. The Planning Commission hereby approves the Tree Removal Permit for the project. Parking Variance The Planning Commission has considered the applicant s request for a Parking Variance and finds that it meets required findings as set forth in Sections (A-C), (A-E), and (A-C) of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance, as follows: Section (a) There appears to be adequate on-street parking available in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The project traffic engineer (Fehr & Peers), and city staff observed the drop-off/pick-up of students and parking conditions, and found that there should be adequate on-street parking

14 Page 14 of 18 within 1,000 feet of the subject property to accommodate the proposed expansion of use (i.e. approximately 50 parking spaces were available at the most impacted parking time frame for school uses, where 15 additional parking spaces are required for the proposed project). This finding is affirmed. (b) No physically feasible method appears available for the applicant to meet the standards in the vicinity of the proposed use. The 1.5- acre property has roadway frontage on Carlmont Drive and Merry Moppet Lane. The property has a mild upslope from front (east) to rear (west) at approximately 8%; however, there is a steeper slope (approximately 35%) located between the street side property line and the travel way for Merry Moppet Lane. There are also existing buildings and numerous trees located along the right side property line. These conditions severely limit vehicular access from Merry Moppet Lane. The Carlmont Drive frontage is relatively flat and could provide vehicular access via the emergency access lane to approximately seven, 90-degree parking spaces on the existing basketball courts at the front of the project site; however, vehicles entering and exiting the site at this location would interfere/conflict with the primary drop-off area, creating an unsafe condition for pedestrians on site. There is no reconfiguration that would provide fully compliant parking on the building parcel, and there is no other nearby vacant commercial property, which could be acquired and reasonably developed for parking. Therefore, no physically feasible method in the vicinity of the proposed use appears available for the applicant to meet the parking standards. This finding is affirmed. (c) The Commission finds that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area and would enhance development in the vicinity. Merry Moppet Preschool and Belmont Oaks Academy (MM/BOA) began operations at its current location in The project site is adjacent to multi-family residential uses to the south, east and west, and Merry Moppet Lane and Lyall Way to the north. MM/BOA has an effective pick-up and drop-off program that has minimized traffic conflicts with surrounding uses. Parking has been accommodated on street for the use, and the school donated land (parking area) that is shared with the surrounding community in the evenings and on weekends. Noise associated with the uses of the site is typical of a school (i.e., children playing). Lighting for the use of the site is the minimum required for safety, and the project would be compatible with the layout and design of surrounding uses. This finding is affirmed. Section a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Plan.

15 Page 15 of 18 There are no specific objectives identified in the Zoning Ordinance; however, the purpose statement and description for commercial districts provides some guidance: 1.1 PURPOSE - The following regulations for the zoning of land within the City are hereby adopted to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and to provide a precise guide for the physical development of the City. 4.1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED - Certain classes of districts, designated by the symbol "R" followed by a numeral, or a numeral and letter, and referred to collectively herein as Residential Districts or R Districts, are established to provide space in suitable locations for the various types of residential accommodations needed in the City, and to provide a means of regulating the density and distribution of the population in conformance with the purposes of the Comprehensive General Plan and this Ordinance. The existing uses on site are conditionally permitted in the current zoning district, and there is sufficient street parking to support the proposed expansion of these existing uses (50 spaces were found available within a ¼ mile of the project site where 15 spaces are required for the Variance). Given its shape, topography, location of trees, and the necessity for safe operation of a drop-off/pick-up plan for students the property could not be reasonably developed with additional on-site parking for the expansion of use. This finding is affirmed. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. The size, shape, and topography of the property, the previously established layout of building on site, and the operation of the existing uses limit the applicant s ability to provide the required off-street parking. These restrictions do not generally apply to other properties within the same district, which were developed with multi- family residential uses on properties where on-site parking was required/planned at the time of construction. For example, the 1.5- acre property has roadway frontage on Carlmont Drive and Merry Moppet Lane. The property has a mild upslope from front (east) to rear (west) at approximately 8%; however, there is a steeper slope (approximately 35%) located between the street side property line and the travel way for Merry Moppet Lane. There are also existing buildings and numerous trees located along the right side property line. These conditions severely limit vehicular access from Merry Moppet Lane. The Carlmont Drive frontage is relatively flat and could provide vehicular access via the emergency access lane to approximately seven, 90-degree parking spaces on the exiting basketball courts at the front of the project site; however, vehicles entering and existing the site at this location would interfere/conflict with the primary drop-off area, creating an unsafe

16 Page 16 of 18 condition for pedestrians on site. Therefore, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (size, shape, orientation, and frontage) and the existing/proposed layout and use of the site, which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. This finding is affirmed. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. Unlike the vast majority of development in the Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, MM/BOA predates the requirement for parking on site. Thus, the site was not planned and developed to address the need for on-site parking; however, MM/BOA has operated in concert with surrounding uses while utilizing on-street parking for 59 years, and strict or literal interpretation of the parking regulations would deny MM/BOA the ability to make a minor expansion of its use and upgrade its facilities in a way that would not substantially impact parking for the surrounding community. There are other properties within the City of Belmont that are similarly limited in on-site parking, which were developed prior to the effective date of the current parking requirements: The Belmont Vista Project at 900 Sixth Avenue; The Immaculate Heart of Mary (IHM) project at 1040 Alameda De Las Pulgas. These projects included rezoning from multi-family residential to Planned Development (PD) Districts, and expansions and/or increases in intensity of uses with approval of a Parking Variance and/or reliance on street parking or shared parking between uses. There are also several properties where Parking Variances were approved due to site constraints, and available on-street parking, including: 1020 Sixth Street, 1910 Ralston Avenue, 740 El Camino Real, 945 Ralston Avenue, and 300 El Camino Real. Therefore, the strict or literal enforcement of the parking regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. This finding is affirmed. d. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. There are unique conditions related to the physical constraints of this property, its layout and history of use that do not apply to other properties within the same zoning district. In addition, as noted in Finding c, above, there are other properties within the same district that were permitted to expand operations with approval of a Parking Variance and/or reliance on street parking or shared parking between uses. There are also several properties where Parking Variances were approved due to site constraints, and available on-street parking. The proposed project would conform to the standards identified in its PD District regulations, and would continue to operate in concert with surrounding uses while utilizing on-street parking for the uses on site. Therefore, the granting of the Variance will not constitute a

17 Page 17 of 18 grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. This finding is affirmed. e. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Granting this Variance will allow the expansions to MM/BOA with no off-street parking where 15 parking spaces are required; however, as noted above in Finding A, the project traffic engineer (Fehr & Peers), and city staff observed the drop-off/pick-up of students and parking conditions, and found that there should be adequate on-street parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property to accommodate the proposed expansion of use (i.e. approximately 50 parking spaces were available at the most impacted parking time frame for school uses, where 15 additional parking spaces are required for the proposed project). This finding is affirmed. Section The Commission may grant a Variance to a regulation prescribed by this Ordinance with respect to off-street parking facilities or off-street loading facilities, as the Variance was applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes the findings prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of Section and if, on the basis of the Commission's investigation, it makes the following additional findings: a) That neither present nor anticipated future traffic volumes generated by the use of the site, or the uses of sites in the vicinity, reasonably require strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. The existing neighborhood is built-out and is therefore unlikely to generate significant new traffic volumes or parking demand in the near future. The traffic and parking study for the project indicates that: 1) the traffic volumes generated by the project would not create a significant traffic impact; and 2) there would be available on-street parking to serve the proposed project (expansion of school uses). There would be 50 on-street parking spaces available within ¼ mile of the project site, where 15 parking spaces are required for the increase in intensity proposed by the project. As such, the strict or literal interpretation for the provision of parking is not required. This finding is affirmed. b) That the granting of the Variance will not result in the parking or loading of vehicles on public streets in such a manner as to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the streets. The proposed/existing pick-up and drop-off plan has been reviewed by the consulting traffic engineer and city staff; no significant queueing or traffic impacts were observed. There is adequate room (parking lanes) on surrounding streets to accommodate the on-street parallel parking for the project (.i.e., vehicles can parallel park safely without obstructing the free flow of traffic). This finding is affirmed.

18 Page 18 of 18 c) That the granting of the Variance will not create a safety hazard or any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Plan. The Variance from providing the additional parking on site will neither create a safety hazard nor any other condition inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Plan. As noted in Finding b, above, vehicle circulation related to the proposed/existing pick-up and drop-off plan has been reviewed by the consulting traffic engineer and city staff, and no significant queueing or traffic impacts were identified. In addition, vehicles would be able to parallel park on the street safely without obstructing the free flow of traffic. Lastly, sidewalk and cross walk improvements would occur as part of the project such that pedestrian access to the site would meet current accessibility standards. Therefore, as proposed and conditioned the project would not result in an unsafe traffic condition. This finding is affirmed. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Belmont held on January 17, 2017, by the following vote: AYES, COMMISSIONERS: NOES, COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS: RECUSED, COMMISSIONERS: Carlos de Melo Planning Commission Secretary