The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-10-04 City Council Agenda Packet 10/04/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON TH IS AG ENDA SUBMITTED TO TH E CITY COUN CIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AV AILABLE FOR P UBLIC I NSPECTION IN TH E CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. A binder containing supporting materials is available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting. REVISED AGENDA Special Meeting October 04, 2010 6:00 PM ROLL CALL COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM STUDY SESSION 1. Joint Meeting with the Public Art Commission Regarding City Public Arts Issues ATTACHMENT 7:00 PM or as soon as possible thereafter COUNCIL CHAMBERS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2. Proclamation for the Cardiac Therapy Foundation of the MidPeninsula 40th Anniversary ATTACHMENT STUDY SESSION 3. Status Report on the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way and California Avenue/Fry’s Area Concept Plans CMR 367:10 and ATTACHMENT POWERPOINT CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the right to limit the duration or Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. 10/04/10 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON TH IS AG ENDA SUBMITTED TO TH E CITY COUN CIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AV AILABLE FOR P UBLIC I NSPECTION IN TH E CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. CONSENT CALENDAR Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members. 4. Adoption of Resolution Amending and Restanting the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8963 ATTACHMENT 5. Approval of a Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Record of Land Use Action for the Installation of a Roof Structure Over an Existing Open Air Sport Court Facility on a Developed Residential Property Located Within the Open Space (OS) Zone District at 610 Los Trancos Road CMR 364:10 and ATTACHMENT 6. Annual Report of Williamson Act Contracts (Open Space Preservation) With the City of Palo Alto CMR 368:10 and ATTACHMENT 7. Recommendation From High Speed Rail Committee for Approval of Amendment Two to Contract S10135594 With Capitol Advocates, Inc. to Extend the Term and Add $48,500 for a Total Not to Exceed Amount of $93,500 Legislative Advocacy Services Related to High-Speed Rail ATTACHMENT 8. Approval of Revised Composition for Stakeholder Task Force for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study CMR 371:10 and ATTACHMENT 9. Adoption of Six Resolutions Addressing Fall 2010 Ballot Initiatives: (1) Resolution Supporting Measure E, Foothill-De Anza Community College District Educational Opportunity and Job Training Parcel Tax; (2) Resolution Supporting Measure A, Parcel Tax for Healthy Kids Program; (3) Resolution Supporting Measure B, Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority Vehicle Registration Fee; (4) Resolution Supporting Measure C, Term Limits for Santa Clara Valley Water District; (5) Resolution Supporting Propo sition 25 Amending the California Constitution to Change the Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass the State Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority; and (6) Resolution Supporting Proposition 21 Establishing $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs CMR 374:10 and ATTACHMENT 10. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation for Mutual Cooperation and Support to Facilitate the Foundation’s Financial and Administrative Support of the Art Center CMR 350:10 and ATTACHMENT AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. ACTION ITEMS Include: Public Hearings, Reports of Co mmittees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Reports of Offic ials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters 11. Public Hearing: Zoning Ordinance Update: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) to Chapter 18.28 Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add a Maximum House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone District (Continued from 6/14/10) CMR 344:10 and ATTACHMENT PETITIONS 12. Adoption of Two Resolutions Addressing Fall 2010 Ballot Initiatives: (1) Resolution Opposing Proposition 20, Modifying the Redistricting Process for Congressional Districts; and (2) Resolution Opposing Proposition 27, Eliminating the State Commission on Redistricting CMR 373:10 13. Direction to Staff on Process for City Council Review of Refuse Agenda Items Scheduled on October 18, 2010 ATTACHMENT COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services, or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact 650-329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. City of Palo Alto Memorandum 1 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2010 SUBJECT: POTENTIAL TOPICS OF DISCUSSION FOR THE JOINT STUDY SESSION MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC ART COMMISSION Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint study session with the Public Art Commission at 6:00 PM on October 4, 2010: 1) Past Year’s Accomplishments Powerpoint presentation Postcard 2) Current Projects 3) Municipal Arts Plan 4) Budget CIP Budget General Fund Budget History of Art in Public Places Funding Project Status Summary of Findings from 2003 Research Project by Americans for the Arts Americans for the Arts Research CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION THE CARDIAC THERAPY FOUNDATION OF THE MIDPENINSULA 40th ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, cardiovascular disease affects an estimated 81 million American adults, of which 38 million are estimated to be age 60 and older; and WHEREAS, cardiovascular disease claims more lives each year than cancer, lower respiratory diseases and accidents combined; and WHEREAS, the program leading to the present day Cardiac Therapy Foundation was established by Dr. Gary Fry and Kathy Berra, RN, in 1970 to provide cardiac rehabilitation services to the residents of Palo Alto and the surrounding communities; and WHEREAS, The Cardiac Therapy Foundation’s mission is to provide a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation program that includes medically supervised exercise classes and educational classes covering heart-healthy nutrition, weight control, stress management, balance, and smoking cessation tailored to meet the individual needs and goals of those who are at risk of, or have, cardiovascular disease, as such programs have been shown to reduce mortality by 25-30% in the first three years after a cardiovascular event; and WHEREAS, during the past 40 years several thousand people with cardiovascular disease have benefited from the services that have been provided by The Cardiac Therapy Foundation; and WHEREAS, at the present time there are more than two hundred participants in The Cardiac Therapy Foundation’s program who, along with their families, are being helped to lead healthier, happier and more productive lives. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby acknowledge with appreciation the excellent cardiac rehabilitation services that The Cardiac Therapy Foundation of the Midpeninsula has provided to the residents of the City of Palo Alto and the surrounding communities for the past forty years. Presented: October 4, 2010 ______________________________ Patrick Burt Mayor TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2010 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 367:10 SUBJECT: Status Report on the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way and California Avenue/Fry's Area Concept Plans EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the study session is for staff to update the City Council on the progress in preparation of the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Area and California Avenue/Fry's Area Concept Plans and to allow an opportunity for the City Council provide direction as appropriate. The Concept Plans are part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update, which is currently in process. The intent of the East Meadow Circle concept plan is to evaluate retention of commercial uses, limitations on new residential development, providing support services and enhancement of pedestrian and bicycle connections. The intent of the California Avenue/Fry's area concept plan is to evaluate alternative development intensities, potential for housing increases, preferred uses for the Fry's site, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections. Following this study session, the two concept plans will be heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission for its recommendations. The items will then return to the City Council for direction to evaluate the plans in the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. CMR : 367:10 Page 1 of 12 PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about the status of the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Area and California Avenue/Fry's Area Concept Plans -currently under preparation as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff recommends that the Council review the general direction of both plans and provide comments to staff. BACKGROUND The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan to ensure that its land use designations and policies support projected needs and the City's land use visions through 2020. To help evaluate where specific land use designation and policy changes may bc needed, in 2006, the Council directed staffto conduct studies and develop concept plans for two areas: I) the East Meadow Circle/ Fabian Way area and 2) the California Avenue/Fry's area. The East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way area was initially identified for study because of concerns regarding land use changes from industrial to residential that have taken place in the area since 2000. The goals of the study have been to: I. Identify appropriate uses and type of development that would be desirable in the area 2. Update land use designations and policies to reflect and encourage those uses The focus of the study has been to: I. Evaluate the desirability/undesirability of additional housing in the area 2. Retain service commercial and light industrial uses and also encourage retail uses 3. Ensure the provision of adequate amenities and services for residents and employees, including bike/pedestrian connections The California Avenue/Fry's area, which includes the California A venue business district south to the properties that house the existing Fry's Electronics store, was identified for a concept plan study because most of it is within the zoning district designated Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD), and within the Transit-Oriented Residential designation in the current Comprehensive Plan, intended to allow high intensity residential development. Higher density residential development is planned in the PTOD area on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The concept plan process provides an opportunity for the City to evaluate the area and target specific sites for future intensification. Although on the periphery of the actual PTOD area, the Fry's site was also included within the plan area to address long range future uses on the property. The existing Comprehensive Plan includes the following relevant policies adopted for the California A venue area that provide context for the concept plan: • Connect the area with the transit station and California A venue. Provide streets and pedestrian connections that create a walkable neighborhood. • Develop a program for the Fry's site for its future use for mixed density multi-family housing and a park or other open space. (note: more recent Council direction includes evaluation of the feasibility of retaining commercial use on the site). CMR: 367:10 Page 2 of 12 • Develop one or more of the City-owned parking lots with primarily residential uses, provided that public parking spaces are replaced. • Improve the Park Boulevard streetscape. DISCUSSION Both concept plans have been in development for approximately 18 months. This report summarizes the work completed to date for each of the plans. East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Area Concept Plan The East Meadow Circle! Fabian Way area was chosen for study because of the substantial land use changes since 2000.Changes included: I. Echelon residential development 2. Vantage residential development 3. Altaire residential development 4. Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life During 2009, staff and the City's consultants collaborated with community members to conduct a scries of stakeholder meetings and three community workshops which yielded the following list of concerns and opportunities: • Impact of additional residential development on services- particularly on schools • Traffic impacts of additional development • Loss of manufacturing and light industrial uses • Need for neighborhood-serving commercial uses • Need for year-round access to the Baylands • Need for off-street parking facilities • Need for park/open space • Need for increased public transit service in the area The meetings and workshops also identified these five key areas/issues for further consideration: 1. East Meadow Circle Subarea II. East of San Antonio Subarea III. Charleston Road Subarea IV. Path along Adobe Creek V. Improved access to the Baylands " , , , • .,I'j ~I I I ~( .. J t\r~ns of the ib-SUCS that were i~IC't1hfjc\1 as a result .oflhe stakeholder meeting-'i find community workshops Input from the participants at the workshops guided staff and consultants in developing CMR: 367:10 Page 3 of [2 alternatives for each area/issue and ultimately in distilling preferred alternatives that generally reflected the collective input provided at the community meetings. Early in 2010, staff prepared the Draft East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Plan. It reflected concepts developed during the community workshops and the input ofstakeholder meetings, separate research and analysis conducted by staff and the consultant team, and consideration of Comprehensive Plan policies and planning principles. The following is a summary of the draft concept plan, presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission on February 10, 20 I O. I: East Meadow Circle Subarea: The draft plan envisioned a revitalized business park for East Meadow Circle and identified areas where design requirements would be needed to ensure a successful transition between new development and existing single-family neighborhoods. Recommendations for this subarea included: I. Modity development regulations to allow increased floor area for research/office uses and consider 3-story development. 2. Restrict or prohibit potential incompatible uses such as multi-family residential, schools, and day care and require conditional-use- permits for senior-housing and assisted-living residential uses. 3. Create amenities-tied to increased development potential-such as parking, a park, and enhanced bicycle/pedestrian connections. 4. Develop design guidelines for landscaping and architecture. II: East of San Antonio Subarea: East Mcadol\' Circle Subarea The draft concept plan envisioned larger-format retail stores-possibly with a grocery store as the anchor--{)n a swath of parcels along Charleston Road. The plan emphasizes the need for a balance of auto-oriented and pedestrian friendly streetscape. CMR: 367:10 Page 4 of 12 Recommendations for this subarea included: I. Change the land use designation to Service Commercial to encourage larger-scale frontage retail along Charleston Road. 2. Increase the allowable floor area ratio in this area, create zoning that encourages retail uses, and develop policies that encourage lot consolidation and restrict office uses. 3. Develop design guidelines for landscaping and architecture. III: Charleston Road Subarea: East of San Anlonio Subarea The draft concept plan envisioned a pedestrian friendly corridor of mixed uses on both sides of Charleston Road i.e., Blocks A and B. The draft concept plan recommended no change to Block C based on the stated intent of the study-retention of viable industrial uses. Recommendations for this subarea included: I. Change the land use design?tion from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial in limited areas to provide commercial services to support residential development. 2. Consider a policy to encourage retentionlrenovation of the Fairchild Building. 3. Consider a policy to encourage the retention of the neighborhood gas station. 4. Develop design guidelines for landscaping and architectural design that maintain a neighborhood-oriented streetscape with good bicycle/pedestrian circulation. 5. Enhance the streetscape of Charleston Road with street trees, improved pedestrian crossings and improved bicycle access and circulation. CMR: 367:10 C[m[cston Rond Subnrca Page 5 of 12 IV and V: Pedestrian/Bike Connections In addition to the preferred alternatives for the three subareas, the plan calls for a bike/pedestrian path along the Adobe Creek right-of-way and a bike/pedestrian overpass across Highway 101 to provide year-round access to the Baylands. On February 10,2010, staff discussed the draft concept plan with the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission). The Commission's major comments on the draft were: For I, the East Me adow Circle Subarea, the Commission: I. Requested that the subarea be expanded-to consider changes to land use designations and creation of development policies for additional parcels i.e., the parcels fronting Highway 101 and along Fabian Way 2. Did not support the creation of a new park but did support the concept of a greenbelt providing open spaces. 3. Introduced the concept of a floor area cap for consideration. CMR: 367:10 • : Possible Adobe Creek Path • ( Possible Overpass to Baylullds ,,"/\\ Possible e~pallsion of the Easl Mcadow Circle Subarea """ Page 6 of 12 For II, the East of San Antonio Subarea, the Commission: 4. Supported new retail development but requested that the area identified for retail development be expanded-potentially to include all the parcels north to Highway 101. For III, the Charleston Road Subarea, the Commission: 5. Introduced the concept of an overlay for Block A-to encourage mixed use with housing that is senior, assisted-living, or such that it complements uses at the Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life. 6. Introduced the concept of changing the land use designation of Block C from Light Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. California Avenue/Fry's area Concept Plan Several stakeholder meetings with property owners in the area, a meeting with business owners along California Avenue and three community workshops were held to discuss the California Avenue/Fry's area and options for a proposed plan. The main issues/concerns and opportunities raised at the workshops included: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. Retaining the unique neighborhood serving, small town feel of California Avenue. Providing support for neighborhood- serving businesses. Mixed use development on Park Blvd. that does not compete with California Avenue as a retail area. Addressing impacts on schools, traffic, parking and infrastructure from additional residential development in the area. Traffidcirculation and safety in the Park Boulevard area. CMR: 367:10 / " \ ,:~::-:-\ ~\ q Possiblc cxpallsioll of East of Sail Alltollio Sllbarcn nlld thc CI~1rlcstoll Rond Sllbarcn , ~., """' .. _.· ..... 1 Cnlifo"'ia Avclluc Fry's COllcept Plnll $ubnreas Page 7 of 12 6. Improving pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and providing adequate open space. 7. Encouraging retention of FlY'S Electronics. If Fry's relocates, new uses should consider other retail, high density residential or mixed use. The business owners along California Avenue also stressed the desire to retain the current "unpretentious" nature of the retail area and were concerned about the current lack of parking particularly during mid-day and supported increasing the capacity of the garages. The proposal to change the lane configuration on California Avenue from four lanes to two lanes to accommodate pedestrian use as part of the related streetscape project was also discussed. Some business owners and area residents were concerned that the traffic along the street would be impeded and adversely affect businesses and customers alike. Others supported the idea of slowing traffic and enhancing safety and the overall pedestrian experience. The streetscape project was discussed again in two recent meetings with businesses and the community in mid-September and the two-lane configuration continues to be an issue. The owner's of the Fry's property on Portage expressed concern about the site's viability as a commercial use and the site's future should Fry's Electronics leave after their lease expires in 2014. They prefer higher density housing on parcels located in the interior of the site, while commercial may be possible along EI Camino Real. The owners of 395 Page Mill would like to pursue a higher floor area than the maximum allowed under the current land use designation for additional office development to support California Avenue businesses. Draft California Avenue Concept Plan Alternatives Three specific subareas for the Concept Plan have been identified: I. California Avenue co. .. II .. II. Park Boulevard III. Fry's Site These subareas were chosen because of their geography, unique characteristics and development potential. Three draft Concept Plan Alternatives were developed by the consultants and staff for each of the three subareas. Generally, within each subarea one alternative was proposed with little or no change, a second with moderate intensification and a third with higher intensification. _ p~ f\,IV mrn rlity Co;J"(lYt¥(ot I _ l'l*r rl1Uutbr! b-E'hJ·. E~V.,.,..,1Xtnl _ Pra;t o.:.1 Q.(urJ.l!"1 @ I -SlJl.JI'\l8ou)j_u_> ____ , ...... ___ ~ Calilomia AWlIlIO Sllbar~a Existing l.'lId Uso Designatiolls Subarea I: California Avenue Subarea The California Avenue subarea includes the business district and surrounding streets. Alternative A would propose no change to the existing Regional/Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan land use designation. This alternative would allow the area to continue CMR: 367:10 Page 8 of 12 to develop as it has been. If no changes are made, it is anticipated that existing buildings may modernize gradually or may not change without incentives for redevelopment. California Avenue would remain a four lane road with possible tree plantings in the median in this version. Alternative B would propose changing the land use to allow medium density residential development. This density could yield two to three story buildings with retail on the ground floor and housing above. To facilitate the higher intensity development, three-story parking garages would be provided. Under Alternative C the land use would allow buildings between three and four stories in height. Because this would allow a greater intensity, redevelopment would become more economically feasible, and, therefore, more new buildings and other changes could result. Changes could include a substantial new park in the area; and, as in Alternative B, more parking structures would be provided CalifOrnia Avenue Streetscape Plan As mentioned above, staff has held several meetings with the neighborhood including businesses, property owners, and residents on California A venue as well as residents in the general vicinity to discuss the future streetscape for California Avenue. Past planning effolts for the area envisioned a multi-modal street that encourages pedestrian and bicycle usage and ensures safety for all types of travel. Changing the street from four lanes to two lanes enables the provision of amenities such as additional trees, bulbouts, reconfigured and added parking, and possibly widened sidewalks that encourage people to walk in the area and patronize the existing businesses. The plan for the lane reduction, however, has been controversial. Staff submitted a grant proposal last week to the Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) for funding for streetscape improvcments that may be granted only if the street is reconfigured to a two lane street. The grants will be announced in late November. If the Council does not support the lane reduction, staff can request withdrawal of the submitted application or can discuss with VTA acceptable modifications to the streetscape design. Subarea 2: Park Boulevard Subarea The Park Boulcvard subarea consists of the propelties located between Park Boulevard and Alma Street, including 395 Page Mill Road, fOlmerly the Agilent building. Alternative A for this subarea would propose two land use designation changes to reflect existing or already proposed uses on 2 sites. Street improvements such as sidewalk bulbouts at the intersections of Park Boulevard and Sheridan Avenue and replacing the dedicated right turn lane on Park Boulevard with street parking could also be implemented to improve circulation in the area. Alternative B for Park Boulevard includes changing the properties on Park Boulevard and 195 Page Mill Road from Light Industrial to allow mixed use development with two to three stories of housing. 2747 and 2785 Park would be redesignated from Light Industrial to allow multi-family residential. Other potential changes includc the same strcct improvements as _ ....... ::=--:-:----- CMR: 367:10 -----:;:-_ ....... - Page 9 of 12 Alternative A and pedestrian improvements at Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard. Alternative C would propose the four land use changes similar to Alternative B but at a higher density. The existing Light Industrial Park Boulevard properties would allow mixed use buildings to be three to four stories tall. The triangular property located across 395 Page Mill Road would be changed to Research/Office Park. Other Park Blvd. properties would be changed to allow mixed use development at a higher density. As a result of the more intense development, additional infrastructure improvements could include a new traffic signal (if warranted) on Park Boulevard, closing the ramp entering Oregon Expressway from Page Mill Road and/or improving the bicycle connection along Park Boulevard. Subarea 3: Frv's Site Subarea This subarea includes the commercial uses to the west and south of Fry's Electronics as well as some of the low density residential propelties to the north. • - _ Regio(\:\VCOI"M'II"nily COl'Ml~"6,u _ RcscardllOfflCf! Park b.-Bird'~ Eye Vlcwp~nl -Project I\ound"rr -Subarea Boun<.iary r · J_~--'.--'--l!L:. ~ Pnrk OOillevlliJ S,;bnrell Existing 1 .and ""C DCllignation. ')jn~~ Family ~d<;nti.:al Ught Ir.rustrl.l.l _ Hultl.F.lmily ~iJl Alternative A would change the Multi-Family land use designation of the Fry's property to Service Commercial to match the existing use. No other changes would be proposed. Under this designation, the Fry's property could still be developed with either all commercial development or as a mixed use project. No changes would be made to the streetscape or circulation since the land use pattern would remain essentially the same. Fry's Subarea Existing Land Use Designations CMR: 367:10 Page 10 of 12 Alternative B would result in two land use changes. While the designation for the portion ofthe property that actually houses Fry's would remain Multi-family residential, the portion that fronts Park Boulevard would be changed to Neighborhood Commercial. Should the property be redeveloped, housing would be developed in the interior of the site; however, parcels with Park Boulevard frontage could be developed with retail shops or offices. Redevelopment ofthe site would allow Portage and Acacia Avenues to be extended through the site to connect to Park Boulevard. Matadero Creek could also be used to create a linear park. The single family residential properties to the nOith along Olive Avenue could be redesignated as Village Residential, creating a logical transition from the single family neighborhoods to the north and east. Alternative C for the Fry's site would allow an even more intense redevelopment of the subarea. In this proposal, the interior parcels fronting Park Boulevard and the residential properties to the north would be changed to allow mixed use. This would allow redevelopment with a range of offices, retail and residential, offering the greatest amount of flexibility. Redevelopment could take the form of three to four story buildings developed around interior open space. Matadero Creek could also be developed as a linear park and more significant park and open space would be provided internal to the development. Portage and Acacia Avenues could be reconfigured to provide connections to Park Boulevard. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements would also be incorporated. Next Steps Following this hearing, the concept plans will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The Draft California Avenue/Fry's Concept Plan alternatives will be discussed at a hearing on October 27. The East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Plan will be discussed by the Commission on November 17'h. Subsequently, the PTC will recommend to the Council, and Council will then tentatively adopt Concept Plans to be evaluated in the Comprehensive Plan EIR. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The two draft concept plans are generally but not entirely, consistent with the existing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan policies as a whole are being revised conCUlTent with this effort, which will require some reconciliation of the plans and policies. ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW No Council action on either concept plan is requested at this time. The concept plans will be evaluated in the context of the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report. CMR: 367:10 Page 11 of 12 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~~ CURTIS WIL~ ~ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: CMR: 367:10 East Meadow Circle Area Concept Plan Boundary California Avenue/Fry's Area Concept Plan Boundary Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT A East Meadow/Fabian Concept Plan Area Map /' , ' / , .' / / '.l , , "'C ." .... ,,' , ;-> \\ '~~ r ,.~ .... ,/ , '. " . ?> ~ e ~ . o 0 , ;J>~ ~. -~ 0 I ~ . . .' '. \ ,. ~, I ~§u~~ .. I J -.. . ~ " < ~ \". - I 9 • ···1 .- • ~ ATTACHMENT B '1:1 o in' ~le ~ 3 o • -" ® " iii' California A venue "-. o " Concept Plan Area Map 1< -,; & c <!]" eng, .... " ~ if 0 TH~HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Pse!l~~2' ber 28, 2010 age RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for' Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8963 reservations, obtaining permits, or paying field use fees. Staff anticipates that a penalty will act as a deterrent and encourage users to follow proper procedures for field use. The additional changes proposed by CSD include increases to existing fees as follows: • Increasing the fee for unlawful fires in City parks to $1000, implementing a recommendation from the Foothills Fire Management Plan and helping promote fire safety. (pAMC §§ 22.04. 150(h), 22.04.300) • Increasing penalties for reckless driving, riding, and towing to deter unsafe driving and promote public safety in parks. (PAMC §§ 22.04.370,22.04.380) • Making other penalties related to after-hours use, compliance with park regulations, skateboards, bicycles and motorcycles on trails, and sound violations consistent with existing penalties for similar violations. (PAMC §§ 22.04. 150(c),(f); 22.04.180; 22.04.250) B. Public Works, Solid Waste Division Proposed Changes (pAMC Chapter 5.20) Staff in the Solid Waste Division provided the following justification for the increased penalties proposed for PAMC sections 5.20.050 and 5.20.130: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter (P AMC) 5.20 authorizes the City to regulate and control the collection, removal and disposal of all solid waste and recyclable materials generated at all places or premises. For this purpose, the City has a collection agreement with a service provider, currently GreenWaste of Palo Alto. The Public Works staff has authority to investigate and enforce the provisions of PAM C Chapter 5.20. In the last year, Public Works staff has found that there has been a substantial increase of reported violations of unauthorized use of illegal debris box containers from independent haulers providing service within city limits as well as lack of maintenance on both the approved and unapproved containers from the independent haulers. This has led to an annual loss of revenue of approximately $30,000 in the Refuse Fund. Public Works staff recommends that the administrative penalties for Sections 5.20.050 and 5.20.130 be increased to represent similar fines of comparable violations as representative in other local jurisdictions. The penalty for Section 5.20.050 would increase from $250 'per violation to $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for the second and'subsequent violations. The penalty for Section 5.20.130 would stay at $250 for the first violation, but would increase to $500 for second and subsequent violations. The following table lists a sample of administrative penalty amounts assessed in neighboring communities, based on a survey conducted by Public Works. The average penalty for similar violations as the City'S unauthorized containers, Section 5.20.050 is $636 per violation. 100921 sh 8261415 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 28, 2010 Page 3 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8963 Administrative Penalties for similar violations or unauthorized containers: Jurisdiction Initial Penalty San Jose $2500 Oakland $750 Santa Clara $500 Palo Alto $250 Mountain View $250 Sunnyvale $100 Campbell $100 By increasing the administrative penalties, the City will discourage independent haulers from placing unauthorized containers within City limits. Changing the structure of the administrative penalties for these sections will also create a greater deterrence for' the independent haulers, make it difficult for the haulers to simply absorb the violation penalty within theIr existing service, costs, and encourage higher compliance with these ordinances. In addition, the City'S Refuse Fund will benefit financially in two ways: 1) the increased penalties will generate revenue for the Refuse Fund; and 2) the users and contractors of the unauthorized containers will begin to use the approved Green Waste containers, which will lead to additional revenue to the Refuse Fund. C. Public Works, Water Quality Division Proposed Changes (PAMC Chapter 16.09) In June 2010, the Council approved a comprehensive update to Chapter 16.09, the City'S sewer use ordinance, to reduce discharges of pollutants to the City's sewer and storm drainage systems. The attached changes to 'the penalty schedule reflect the renumbering and new provisions adopted by the ordinance. The penalty amount for sewer use violations, $1000 per violation, is consistent' with the amount for similar violations under the old ordinance, and is justifiable because unlawful discharges into sewers or storm drains pose a significant risk and impact to public health and safety, as well as environmental health. D. Police Department Proposed Changes (Chapter 9.10; Civil Parking Penalties- PAMC Title 10 and CA Vehicle Code) Pursuant to Section 10;60.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, violations of City parking violations are punishable as civil penalties. California law allows such civil penalties to be payable to a city general fund, but also requires that a certain amount of each penalty be remitted for state purposes. An increase of $3 per violation is proposed to provide full cost recovery, with the exception of certain state-mandated penalties. 100921 sh 8261415 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 28, 2010 Page 4 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8963 In addition, the Police Department has proposed adding a $750 penalty for violations of Vehicle Code section 22511.57. This is a new law which limits parking or standing in disabled parking stalls as a result of misuse of a disabled parking placard or license. The Police Department proposes including violations of section 22511.57 in the penalty schedule in order to discourage misuse of disabled placards help make disabled parking spaces available to those who truly need them, and that the proposed fine of $750 is reasonable given that the law addresses various types of intentional misuse, including use of a lost, stolen, or falsified placard. Finally, tiered penalties for repeat violations have been found to promote better enforcement in some areas and, as a result, are proposed for section 9.l0.060(f) (leaf blower noise). E. Code Enforcement Division Proposed Changes (P AMC Chapters 8.08, 9.48, 9.56, 16.20, 18.42) The Planning Department employs two Code Enforcement Officers who address nuisance-related complaints and zoning violations reported to the City. The Code Enforcement Division policy is to obtain cooperative compliance whenever possible, which generally means that the Code Enforcement Officers issue several letters and warnings and personally follow up with violators to achieve compliance before taking more formal enforcement actions. However, in certain cases, particularly when there is (1) a simple solution for a violation and (2) no response to the initial letter or warning, the division has found that issuing an administrative citation following one warning is a more effective way to communicate the problem to individuals who ignore warnings. This approach often results in more immediate compliance than ongoing letters, and conserves staff resources for more complicated cases. In reviewing the penalty schedule for updates, Code Enforcement identified several code sections which cover easily correctable, minor offenses similar to those for which they currently issue citations, but for which the current penalty amount is so high that staff is reluctant to issue a citation. In these areas, they believe that lower citation amounts would be more commensurate with the violation, and that they would be more likely to use the administrative citation option. Therefore, they have recommended reductions in penalties (in most cases, from $500 to $200) for minor offenses. For example, the division frequently receives complaints about nuisances and weeds (Chapters 8.08, 9.48. and 9.56). These offenses are generally very easy to fix, yet warning letters frequently go ignored. Code Enforcement feels that $200 is a more reasonable penalty for thi§ type of violation, and that a citation at that level would promote fair and more effective and efficient enforcement. Similarly, section 18.41.070 currently provides a $500 fine for servicing vehicles in public view in residential areas. The current "cooperative" enforcement practices for this violation can take up to 45 days to gain compliance. The proposed $250 fine would provide a more immediate incentive for compliance. 100921 sh 8261415 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL September 28, 2010 Page 5 RE: Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution·No. 8963 The only increase proposed by Code Enforcement is from $250 to $500 for sign violations where design review is required. The department reports that these cases typically take extensive staff time and multiple inspections and consultations and believes a higher penalty would provide a greater incentive for more timely compliance. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed all of these proposed changes with the enforcing departments and supports the recommendations. GMB:MT:sh Respectfully submitted, dA,~ ~M.BAUM City Attorney ~W· MELISSA 1RONQUET ~ Senior Deputy City Attorney Attachments: Redlined copy of Resolution Amending Administrative Penalty Schedule 100921 sh 8261415 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** Resolution No. ---'--- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating the Administrative Penalty Schedule and Civil Penalty Schedules for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code Established by Resolution No. 8963 The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Administrative Penalties. The administrative penalty schedule for violations ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 8963 is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. $50 4.04.020 License or permit required. 300 4.04.100 Display of license or permit. 300 4.10.045 License fees for pushcart vendors. 300 4.10.050 Regulations for solicitors and peddlers. 350 4.10.055 Identification cards for solicitors. 250 4.10.057 Regulations for pushcart vendors. 300 4.10.070 License required -circus etc. 300 4.10.120 Arcade prohibited. 250 4.10.200 Pawn brokers prohibited. 250 4.10.230 Daily report of second hand dealers. 250 4.10.240 Maintaining reports -second hand dealers. 250 4.10.260 Failure to make report -second hand dealers. 250 4.10.270 Second hand goods held for inspection. 250 4.18.040 Unlawful dog or cat kennel. 250 4.30.010 Soliciting without a permit. 250 4.30.100 Conduct of solicitations. 250 4.32.020 . Soliciting without a permit. 250 4.32.060 Investigation of records of solicitor. 250 4.32.090 Acts required during solicitation. 250 4.32.100 Restriction of solicitation. 250 4.32.110 Hours of solicitation. 250 4.34.020 Permit required -closing out sale. 250 4.39.030 Audible alarms. 250 4.39.040 Limitation on automatic dialing devices. 250 4.39.060 Registration of alarm. 250 4.39.110 Alarm violations. 100 4.42.020 Certificate of public convenience. 1000 4.42.085 Controlled substance and alcohol testing. 500 4.42.090 Taxi owners permit. 250 4.42.100 Taxi driver's permit expired. 250 4.42.130(b) Taxi driver's permit not displayed. 250 4.42.160 Unauthorized pickup of passengers. 250 4.42.190 Taximeters. 500 4.42.200 Taxi cab operating regulations. 250 4.42.210(a) Interference with inspection. 500 4.42.210(b) Inspection of vehicles. 500 4.42.220 Operating regulations. 500 4.42.230 Maintenance of vehicles. 500 100921 sh 8261412 1 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 4.51.030 License required -bingo. 250 4.51.050 Minors restricted -bingo. 50 4.51.080 Staffing and operations -bingo. 250 4.51.110 Physical presence required -bingo. 250 4.52.020 License required -billiards and bowling. 1000 4.52.040 Minors restricted -billiards and bowling. 250 4.52.060 Offensive conduct -billiards and bowling. 250 4.52.070 Interference w/emerg. Access-bilIiards/bowling. 250 4.54.030(a) Permit required -massage establishment. 1000 4.54.060(a) Permit required -massage tech. 250 4.54.110 Massage establishment facilities. 250 4.54.130 Business name -massage. 250 4.55.030 License required -adult entertainment. 1000 4.56.030 License required -hot tub and sauna. 1000 4.56.060 Employee permit required -hot tub and sauna. 250 4.56.100 Hot tub/sauna establishment and operations. 250 4.56.120 Business name -hot tub and sauna. 250 4.56.150 Display of permit -hot tub and sauna. 250 4.56.200 Employment of persons < 18 -hot tub and sauna. 250 4.57.020 Permit required -firearms sales. 1000 4.57.095 Firearms dealers -business and security. 500 4.58.020 Minors restricted -narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750 4.58.030 Regulations -narcotics paraphernalia shop. 750 4.59.010 Pet shop requirements. 250 4.59.020 Pet shop sanitation. 250 4.59.030 Pet shop food. 250 4.59.040 Pet shop notification. 250 4.59.050 Pet shop -sale of dangerous or wild animals. 250 4.59.070 Dead animals. 250 4.59.080 Permit required -pet shop and kennel. 250 4.59.090 Permit required -grooming shop. 250 4.59.095 Sales of kittens and puppies. 250 4.59.100 ' Sales of raccoons. 250 4.59.105 Sales of rabbits, chicks, ducklings. 250 5.12.010 Permit required ~ refreshment stand. 250 5.20.030 Discarding solid waste. 100 5.20.040 Accumulation of garbage. 250 5.20.050 Unauthorized bins, boxes, containers-first violation. ~SOO Second and subsequent violations. _______ 1'--', O~O-"-O 5.20.080 Number of containers required. 250 5.20.130 Maintenance of bins and boxes-first violation. 250 Second and subsequent violatLons. _______ --'S'-'O'--"O 5.20.160 5.20.180 5.20.190 5.20.200 5.20.220 5.20.230 5.24.120 Spillage or leakage of solid waste. 250 No accumulation of solid waste. 250 No burning, burial, or dumping of solid waste. Hazardous waste. Scavenging prohibited. No trespassing in city landfill. Failure to meet diversion requirements. 5.30.020 Polystyrene & Non-Recyclable Plastic. 5.35.020 Bags at retail establishments. 5.35.030 Bags at supermarkets. 6.08.020(b) Interference with animal control officer. 6.16.010 No dog license. 6.16.080 Number of dogs allowed. 6.16.100 Leash Law. 100921 sh 8261412 2 250 500 100 250 $50 per ton of waste not diverted or . $1000, whichever is greater 500 500 500 250 100 100 100 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 9.14.020 Smoking prohibited -public places. 9.14.025 Smoking prohibited -service locations. 9.14.030 Smoking prohibited -city cars. 9.14.040 Smoking prohibited -child care facilities. 9.14.050 Smoking prohibited -restaurants. 9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines. 9.14.090 Display of tobacco products. 9.14.100 Failure to post "No Smoking" signs. 9.22.010 Impersonating public officials. 9.26.020 False representation as police officer. 9.28.010 Hotel guest register required. 9.28.020 Use offalse name by hotel guest. 9.40.020 Landing aircraft at other than airport. 9.44.010 Solicitation prohibited -public parking lot. 9.48.010 Displaying goods on sidewalk. 9.48.025 Sitting or lying on University Avenue sidewalks. 9.48.030 Operation of sidewalk elevator. 9.48.040 Throwing rubbish on streets. 9.48.050 Obligation to clean sidewalk. 9.50.010 Graffiti prohibited on public property. 9.56~030 Abatement of public nuisance. 9.56.030(a)(5) Thirtv-five foot site triangle. 9.56.030(a)(8) Foliage/branch obstruction. 9.56.030(a)(l0) Excessive planting strip vegetation height. 9.60.030 Blocking entrances to City Hall. 9.60.050 Placing signs or climbing on City Hall. 9.60.060 Bicycles and skateboards at City Hall. 9.60.070 Alcoholic beverages prohibited -City Hall. 9.74.030 Discrimination in housing. 9.78.020 Mosquito breeding places. 9.79.100 News rack violations. 12.08.010 Pennit required -public right of way. 12.08.100 Removal of City Engineer monuments. 12.12.010 Building on public easement without pennit. 12.16.030 Overhead wires in underground distric.ts. 12.16.090 Property owner responsibility. 12.20.010 Utility rules and regulations. 12.20.020 Providing false infonnation to City Utilities. 12.32.010 Water use regulation. 15.04.110 Violations ofUnifonn Fire Code. 15.04.012 Failure to abate a hazard. 16.04.110 Violations of California Building Code. 16.08.040 Violations of California Plumbing Code. 16.05.030 Violations of California Mechanical Code. 16.09.030 Limitations on point of discharge. 16.09.035 General Discharge Prohibitions. 16.09.040 Specific Discharge Prohibition -Standards. _____ .0..16=.-"-°-'-'9.=°-'-4"-5_ Additional Copper Limitations for Industrial Waste. j 6.09.050 Grease Disposal Prohibited. 16.09.055 Prohibited Discharge ofUnoolluted Water. 16.09.065 Best Management Practices (BMPs). 16.09.070 Trucker's Discharge Permit. 16.09.075 Food Service Establishment Requirements. 16.09.080 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Required. 16.09.085 Modification, Suspension or Revocation of Industrial Wastes Discharge. 100921 sh 8261412 4 100 100 100 100 100 1000 500 50 500 250 250 50 1000 100 50 100 500 250 ~200 500 500 unless otherwise specified 200 200 150 500 500 50 100 250 500 100 500 500 1000 500 500 500 500 100 250 Unless Otherwise specified 1000 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 16.10.020 Construction of private sewer system. 16.10.050 Permit required -private sewage system. 16.16.030 Violations of California Electrical Code. 16.17.020 Violation of California Energy Code. 16.20.020 Design review required -signs. 16.20.090 Prohibited signs. 16.20.100 Prohibited locations -signs. 16.20.110 Fuel price signs required. 16.20.210 Non-compliance with sign ordinance. 16.20.230 Abandoned signs. 16.20.250 Parking of advertising vehicles. 16.24.080 Fence violation. 16.28.060 Permit required -excavation and grading. 16.28.330 Protection of adjacent property. 16.28.340 Deposits of earth, rock, etc. 16.32.010 Permit required -moving a building. 16.36.050 Curb painting without a permit. 16.36.060 House numbering required. 16.38.020 Certificate of occupancy -community housing. 16.40.040 Dangerous and substandard bUildings. 16.40.090 Non-compliance with order of building official. 16.40.180 Interference with repair or demolition work. 16.42.090 Failure to submit seismic report. 16.45.070 Failure to pay fee -Stanford Research Park. 16.46.060 Failure to pay fee -San Antonio -West Bayshore. 16.4 7 .050 Failure to pay housing impact fee. 16.49.080 Maintenance of downtown historic structure. 16.49.090 Demolition of downtown historic structure. 16.52.070 Construction -flood hazards. 16.59.090 Failure to pay fee-Citywide Transportation Impact. 16.60.090 Failure to pay fee-CharlestoniArastradero. 17.04.020 Violations of hazardous materials storage. 17.04.030 Specific obligation -hazardous materials. 17.10.010 General obligation -underground storage tanks. 17.10.040 Permit required -underground storage. 17.10.140 Financial responsibility -underground storage. 17.10.150 Monitoring underground storage tanks. 17.10.170 Unlawful abandonment -underground storage tanks. 17.12.010 Permit required -hazardous materials storage. 17.12.020 New hazardous materials storage facilities. 17.12.060 Hazardous materials storage facilities. 17.16.010 Hazardous materials management plan. 17.20.010 Hazardous materials inventory statement. 17.24.010 Hazardous materials discharge report. 17.3 2.010 Permit required -storage of hazardous materials. 18.01.080 Violation of zoning laws. 18.16.060(d)Hotel stay in excess of30 days. 18.18.060( d)Hotel stay in excess of 30 days. 18.42.060(a)lncompatibilitv of Hhome occupations. 18.42.060(b) Employees of home occupation. 18.42.060(c) On site advertising of home occupation. 18.42.060(d) Floor area of home occupation. J 8.42.060(e) Traffic related to home occupation. 18.42.060Cf) Home occupation as nuisance. J 8.42.060(g) Outdoor storage related to home occupation. 18.42.070 Servicing vehicles in residential zone. 18.44.040 Green building requirements. 100921 sh 8261412 6 750 500 500 500 8-G-500 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 500 500 500 250 100 100 500 500 500 500 250 250 250 250 500 1000 500 250 250 500 Unless Otherwise specified 500 750 Unless Otherwise specified 500 500 1000 1000 750 750 750 250 250 750 1000 500 200 200 ~200 200 200 200 200 200 200 ~250 500 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** 22.04.390 Duck pond. 100 Second violation within 36 month period (unless otherwise specified). IS0% oflisted penalty Third & subsequent violations within 36 month period. Delinquency penalty. 200% of listed penalty (unless otherwise specified) 10% per month, simple interest, on delinquent amount SECTION 2. Municipal Code Civil Penalties. The civil penalty schedule for violations ofthe Palo Alto Municipal Code established by Resolution No. 8858 is hereby amended and restated to read as follows * : Standard penalty unless otherwise indicated below. 10.36.020 No parking in parkways. 1O.36.030(a)Storage on the street (72 hours). 1O.36.040(a)(l)Vehicie for sale on street. I 0.36.040(a)(2)Repairing vehicle on street. 10.36.0S0 Not w/in 18" of left curb--One-way street. 10.36.090 Removal of chalk markings. 1O.40.020(a)(l)Parking violation -red curb. 10.40.020(a)(4)Parking violation -green curb. 10.40.020(a)(S)Parking violation -blue curb. 1 0.40.020(b )Parking in violation of sign (except blue curb). 1 0.40.020(b )Unlawful disabled parking -signs (blue curb). 1 0.40.040(b )Commercial vehicle double parking. 10.40.0S0 Unlawful parking in yellow loading zone. 10.40.060 Unlawful parking in passenger loading zone. 10.40.070 Unlawful alley parking. 10.40.100(g)Parking in a bus zone. 1O.44.01O(b)Overtime parking (limited time zone). 1O.44.01O(c)Additional violation of time limited or no parking zones. 1 0.44.020(a)Oversized vehicle parking in residential or public facilities zones 2am-6am. 1 0.44.040(b )Not in space marking. 1 0.44.0S0(b )Parking violation--temporary sign. 10.44.060 Dealers--parking for sale or repair. 1O.44.070(b)Parking in violation of posted sign. 10.44.080 Vehicle obstruction of roadway or lot. 10.44.090 Unattended vehicle, engine running. 1 0.4S.11 0 Parking in on-street valet parking space. 10.48.030 Truck route violation. 10.60.070(c)Permit not properly displayed. 10.60.070(d)Overtime permit parking in City lot. 10.60.070(e)Parking without permit in permit area. 22.04. 1 SO(e)In Foothills Park after hours. 22.04.210 Parking in parks. Late payment penalty. $4M3 4M3 W83 4M3 tW12 4M3 -UB..LQli 4M3 4M3 30S 4943 30S 4M3 4M3 4M3 4M3 4M3 ~38 ;.&41 4{f43 4M3 4M" 4{f43 4M3 -UB108 4M3 2-G0208 ~38 ~38 4{f43 -!-9-5-108 -UBI 08 3S * All penalties include state-mandated assessments pursuant to Gov't. Code 76000 and S.B 1407(2008) totaling $9.S0, except 1O.40.020(a)(4)-(S) to which such assessments do not apply. 100921 sh 8261412 8 ** NOT YET APPROVED ** SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, and, therefore, no environmental assessment is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Deputy City Attorney Police Chief 100921 sh 8261412 10 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 364:10 SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Record of Land Use Action for the installation of a roof structure over an existing open air sport court facility on a developed residential property located within the Open Space (OS) Zone District at 610 Los Trancos Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council approve the following documents: 1. A Negative Declaration, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment J). 2. A Record of Land Use Action approving Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications to allow the installation of a roof structure over an existing open air sport court facility and surrounding screening vegetation subject to the findings and conditions of approval (Attachment A). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The application is for Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the construction of a new roof structure eight and a half feet above grade over an existing 7,329 square foot sport court facility, to enable its use as a hockey rink, a recreational use not customarily incidental to a permitted dwelling. With approval of the proposed CUP, the conversion of the structure to "habitable" floor area would be prohibited. The new roof structure would add eight and a half feet to the overall height of the facility, but would have a low overall profile, lower than the inflatable cover that had been placed over the rink by prior approval of a temporary use permit last winter. The court currently has walls that rise three feet above the existing grade on the north side of the structure, but are at grade on the south side. The proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope (2: 12) to CMR: 364:10 Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENTS Draft Record of Land Use Action Location Map/Topographic map Applicant Submittal letter and floor area calculation* Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003 PTC Staff report, September 1, 2010 (without attachments) PTC Draft Excerpt minutes from September 1, 20 I 0 PTC StaffrepOlt, September 15,2010 (without attachments) PTC Draft Excerpt minutes from September 15,2010 Public Correspondence Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. Attachment E. Attachment F. Attachment G. Attachment H. Attachment l. Attachment J. Attachment K. Envirorunental Documentation (Negative Declaration and Initial Study) Plans and photos* (Couneil only) COURTESY COPIES: John Lerch, Lerch Construction Company, 923 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Peggy Law Tom Vlasic, Town of Portola Valley CMR: 364:10 Page 4 ATTACHMENT A ACTION NO. -10 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (10PLN-00184) (JOHN LERCH, APPLICANT) On September 20, 2010, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit application for a covered sport court in the Open Space Zone District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Palo Alto ("City follows: Background. The City Council of the City of Council") finds, determines, and declares as A. John Lerch, on behalf of Scott McNealy, property owner, has requested the City's approval for the construction of a roof structure to cover an existing uncovered accessory facility, a sport court, on a developed residential site of approximately 13.35 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The sport court to be covered is 7,329 square feet and would continue to be used both as a tennis court and roller hockey court as use accessory to the primary residential use, plus a new conditional recreational use as an ice hockey rink ("The Project") subject Conditional Use Permit and Site and Design Review approval. B. The site is currently in residential use is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on September 1, 2010, and continued the project to September 15, 2010 and recommended approval of the Site and Design Review, the conditional Use Permit, and the Negative Declaration. The Commission's recommendations are contained in CMR:XXX:I0 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on 1 views of the Palo Alto foothills due to its low profile and earth tone roof material color. Similarly, the project complies with Policy N-6 by not having any new impact on views of the hillsides, on the character of the open space, or the natural ecology of the hillsides. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development Criteria (Policy N-7) numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,& 11 and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas. Compliance with the Open Space Criteria is as follows: 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be ted so it is hidden from view. The proposed roof would not be visually intrusive in that it would be low profile, standing only eight and a half feet above existing grade at the tallest point, with a gradual roof slope. It would also have a "weathered Wood" composition shingle roof that has been selected to blend with the surrounding environment. Additionally, based on its location, the structure would not be seen from public park lands or visually intrusive as viewed from any public roadway. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. The proposed roof is not located at the top of the hill and does not extend above the ridgeline. The roof structure is designed to be low profile and would be lower than the height of the adjacent residence. 3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The proposal to cover the sport court lity with a new roof is proposed as a measure to improve the current situation relative to privacy and views. Currently those properties that are at an elevation high enough to have a vantage point can see the open sport court facility, can sometimes hear the activities on the sport court, and can see the light that emanates from the sport court. The new roof enclosure eliminates the noise and light issues and while the roof may be seen, it would have less of a visual impression than the open sport court due to its The closest neighbor with a view the proposed roof supports the proposal. 4. Development should be clustered, or cl grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. 3 The new roof would be located upon a structure that is locat next to the existing residence. The two structures are clustered together relative to the lot making it conspicuous. No new access roads are proposed, thus preserving natural habitats. 5. Buil t forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The new roof structure would maintain a low profile so as not to al ter the impression of the existing topography that is no longer natural in this location as it has been previously developed with a sport court. The native trees and bushes to be planted have been specifically chosen and placed to maintain the natural look of the open space. 6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 above the ground level, should be preserved and Learated into the design. The proposal includes the protection and retention of all existing trees on site. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. The project meets of the criteria in that a earthtone material has been ected for the roof structure that due to its color blends into the semi natural environment. Most structures in the Open Space do not have natural materials for the roof as they can pose a significant fire hazard and are not as durable over time. 1.0. Landscaping should be na ve species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The Fire Department has reviewed the plant selection and has approved the plant species as being fire resistant. The plan has also proposed that the new landscape material be planted with a 20 foot fire buffer between the new material and the sport court roof. The new roof has also been designed with all non combustible materials. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-tyand shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. 4 material color. Similarly, the project complies with Policy N-6 by not having any new impact on views of the hillsides, on the er of the open space, or the natural ecology of the hillsides. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development (Policy N-7) numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,& 11 and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open space areas. Compliance with the Open Space Criteria is as follows: 1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be si ted SO it is hidden from view'. The proposed roof would not be visually intrusive in that it would be low profile, standing only eight and a half feet above existing grade at the tallest point, with a gradual roof slope. It would also have a "weathered Wood" composition shingle roof that has been selected to blend with the surrounding environment. Additionally, based on its location, the structure would not be seen from public park lands or visually intrusive as viewed from any public roadway. 2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline. The proposed roof is not located at the top of the hill and does not extend above the ridgeline. The roof structure is designed to be low profile and would be lower than the height of the adjacent residence. 3. si te and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The proposal to cover the sport court facility with a new roof is proposed as a measure to improve the current situation relative to privacy and views. Currently those propert that are at an elevation high enough to have a vantage point can see the open sport court facility, can sometimes hear the activities on the sport court, and can see the light that emanates from the sport court. The new roof enclosure eliminates the noise and light issues and while the roof may be seen, would have less of a visual impression than the open sport court due to its color. The closest neighbor with a view of the proposed roof supports the proposal. 4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. 6 The new roof would be located upon a structure that is located next to the existing residence. The two structures are clustered together relative to the lot making it less conspicuous. No new access roads are proposed, thus preserving natural habitats. 5. Buil t forms topography. terrain, and distance. and landscape forms should mimic the natural Building lines should follow the lines of the trees and bushes should appear natural from a The new roof structure would maintain a low profile so as not to alter the impression of the existing topography that is no longer natural in this location as it has been previously developed with a sport court. The native trees and bushes to be planted have been specifically chosen and placed to maintain the natural look of the open space. 6. Existing trees with a circumference 4.5 feet above the ground level, integrated into the design. of 37.5 inches, measured should be preserved and The proposal includes the protection and retention of all existing trees on site. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors. The project meets the intent of the criteria in that a earthtone material has been selected for the roof structure that due to its color blends into the semi natural environment. Most structures in the Open Space do not have natural materials for the roof as they can pose a significant fire hazard and are not as durable over time. 10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The Fire Department has reviewed the plant selection and has approved the plant species as being fire resistant. The plan has also proposed that the new landscape material be planted with a 20 foot fire buffer between the new plant material and the sport court roof. The new roof has also been designed with all non combustible materials. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. 7 4. The sport court area shall not be converted to habitable floor area for residential purposes and no additional FAR shall be added to the site. 5. The hours of operation and use of the hockey rink shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm. 6. All activities and any mechanical equipment associated with the sport court facility shall comply with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.10 of the Palo alto Municipal Code. 7. The number (Players/visitor/friends) people at any given time. of people using the sport court facility shall be limited to no more than 13 8. The applicant shall incorporate and maintain screening features approved by City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission to mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts. 9. Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The vegetative screening element of this approval is critical its function and success of the natural open space environment of the area. As a security measure to secure the health and/or replacement, as the case may be, of the screen trees and bushes, the project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree and shrub retention amount totaling the installed value of all the trees and shrubs as shown on the final landscape plan or $8,000, whichever is greater. The MoU shall cite size, number and species of trees and shrubs, attached map, criteria and timeline of five years (5-years) for return of security, and conditions as cited in this Record of Land Use Action for the project. For a period of five (5) years following completion of construction/planting of this project, Principal shall maintain a security guarantee reflected here by a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. A return of the guarantee shall be subj ect to a final tree assessment from the project arborist as approved by the City Arborist, five years following final inspection of the current project, to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The applicant and property owner shall be responsible to coordinate with the Director of Planning and Community Environment and City Arborist for the final inspection. The template for the MoU is available from Planning Division staff. 10. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and 9 15. Any revision to the plans which may affect the welfare of the trees and vegetation shall be reviewed and approved by the applicant's arborist and Planning Arborist prior to implementation. 16. During construction fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep the fol canopy and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved. 17. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition; grading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street Trees). The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: • No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. • The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. • Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. • Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering as identified in the Tree Protection Plan during all phases of construction per the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is requested. 18. For the life of the project, all landscape and trees shall be reasonably well-maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard Pract (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. 19. The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related construction impacts: • All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. 11 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 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. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: APPROVED: Director of Planning and Community Environment 1. Those plans prepared by Modulus titled "Bunker Rink Roof", consisting of 5 pages, dated August 16, 2010, and received on August 17, 2010. 13 WRGH ATTACHMENT C Submitted by Applicant CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LETTER OF APPLICATION Project: Bunker Sport Court Roof 610 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto, CA Sport Court Background 7/14/10 In 20M, we built a multi-purpose sport court that serves as a telUlis and roUer hockey eourt in the summer and serves as an ice hockey rink during the winter months. In order to minimize the visual impact of this structure, we suok the entire court and all of the eooling equipment nine feet into the ground, so that the top of the walls surrounding this area are at grade. In order to keep the weather out, save energy and mitigate the noise, we covered the rink with a temporary inflatable cover for the past two hockey seasons. Unfortunately, several neighbors felt that the cover was an unattractive tan color that did not blend with the surroundings, was reflective in the daytime and glowing in the night. They also felt that the sports activities were noisy. Despite our attempts to mitigate the problem with tennis court fencing and more sound control, one neighbor continued to eomplain. In order to ftnally and fully eliminate the problems that have arisen from this situation, we are proposing the following measures: • Obtain a CUP (Conditional Use Pennlt) for this structure as a Recreational Facility (Section 18.28.(40) in the OS District. • Construct a pennanent low profIle roof over the playing area with the following 923 Industrial Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 characteristics: o Lower overall profile than the inflatable cover o Class A rated roof assembly that is non-combustable. o Composition roofing (GAF "Timberline" series) that is non-reflective and blends with the surrounding vegetation. Color: Weathered Wood o Foam insulation on roof underside to provide increased thennal perfonnance and provide sound control for year round mitigation of noise from sports activities. o It will eliminate the indirect sport court lighting that currently shows after dark. o It will eliminate the need for tennis court fencing WW'N.I e rc h con struc tion. com General B'Jildmg CQrtraclors license #750953 phooe: 650,843,1144 fax: 650,843,1161 Letter of Application page 2 • At the perimeter of the rink: o Landscape the surrounding area in the following manner: • Leave the site contour as-is. No grading will be necessary. • Plant the area with trees, shrubs and ground cover species that are: o Native to the area o Fire resistant o Low water demand; Irrigation is needed only to get plants established afterward no irrigation is necessary. o Sized and placed in a way that will obscure the view of the roof from the surrounding neighbors. • Comply with Palo Alto Fire Department requirements o Class A non-combustible roof assembly o Plants and ground coverings around structure designed to be in compliance with Chapter 47 of the California Fire Code (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas) as amended by Palo Alto Municipal Code 15. (see site plan AI) o Fire sprinklers for the enclosed structure o Fire sprinkler flow alarm o Emergency egress lighting and lighted exit signs o A 20 foot wide "Defensible Space" that separates the surrounding plants from the sport court roof and provides fire department easy access to nearby "Wharf Hydrants". Open Space Review Criteria (1) The development should not be visually intrllSivefrom public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hiddenfrom view. The combination of low roof profile (ridge of roof is g' -4" above grade) and landscaping will hide this structure from public roadways. (2) Development should be located away from hilllOps and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line. The sport court is entirely sunken into the hillside such that the only projection above grade will be the roof structure. The nearest ridgelhilltop is well above this structure. (3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring property. The combination of low roof profile, natural-colored roof covering, and landscaping around the perimeter will help to blend this structure with the surrounding hillside. The perimeter native plantings should obscure the views from all but a few surrounding properties. Letter of Application page 3 (4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats. Not applicable (5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The built fonn cover is designed to mimic the gentle slopes in the surrounding area. It will be covered in non-reflective, natural-colored materials to blend-in with the existing house and vegetation. The landscaping will be planted with native species that will be a continuation of the existing vegetation nearby. (6) Existing trees with a Circumference of37.5 inches, measured 4.5 flet above the ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible. No trees or bushes will be removed. (7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enab(e the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. No grading will be necessary. (8) To reduce the need for cut and jill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Not applicable (9) Buildings should lise natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors Roofing: The roofing material \\~ll be Class A fiberglass asphalt shingles. Color: "Weathered Wood" (see color board). Concrete/exposed steel: Any exposed concrete and steel will be painted a natural green color to blend with the surroundings. Color: Benjamin Moore "Forest Floor". Letter of Application page 4 (10) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as fire protection. All landscaping is specified to be native species that are drought tolerant, and fire resistant. In addition, planting design will comply with Chapter 47 of the California Fire Code (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas) as amended by Palo Alto Municipal code 15. We propose to use the following plants: • Pacific Wax Myrtle (Myrica Califomica) • Toyon 'Davis of Gold' (Heterome1es Arbutiflora) • Cannel Ceonothus (Ceonothus Griseus) • Hannony Manzanita (Arctostaphylos Manzanita) • Marina Strawberry Madrone (Arbutus marina) • Flannel Bush (Fremontodendron califomicum) • Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis) • Valley Oak (Quercus Iobata) (11) Exterior lighting should be low intensity and shieldedfrom view so it is not directly visible fi'om off-site. We will not be adding any exterior lighting. (12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment) No access roads will go through this area. Construction The roof that we are proposing will sit on top of the existing sport court perimeter, which consists of a combination of concrete walls at both ends and tubular steel at portions of the sides. All ofthis structure is already in place, so there will be no need for excavation, concrete or structural steel work to provide a substructure for the roof. ROOF The roofwill be a low sloped (2112) structure composed of: • Open-web steel joists (99.1% recycled) • Steel roof decking (S2% recycled) • 5/S" DensDeck DuraGuard Gypsum Roof Board • GAF Timberline "Timberline Prestique High Definition" fiberglass asphalt shingles (Class A fire resistance). Color: "Weathered Wood" • Icynene foam insulation on the underside of the steel roof decking for thermal and sound control. • Other than ventilation grilles, the sport court will be sealed-off from outside, so we will control the noise from sports activities year round. Letter of Application pageS In order to minimize the impact of construction activity, the roof structure will be built off site and installed by crane in five days, with the roof decking and installation of roofing materials completed within 45 days. LANDSCAPING This will consist of planting native species in the size and locations shown on the landscape plans. No grading will be necessary. We will provide irrigation to the plants long enough for them to become established (probably two years). Once the plants are established, they will survive without irrigation. INTERIOR WORK The rest of the work (wiring, fire system, insulation, paint) will be done inside the structure and will have no impact on the surrounding wildlife, vegetation or neighbors. Bunker Summary FAR Calculations 8/13/20101 610 Los Trancos Road Palo Alto, CA Lot Area Summary A1 Lot Size: 13.347 acres::: 581,395 sf A2 Allowable FAR: 3.5% x 581,395 sf = 20,348 sf Floor Area Summary Location SF A3 Level A 2320 A4 LevelB 9274 A5 CeilinQ area over 17'-0" 1718 A6 Guest House 894 A7 Total existing floor area 14206 A8 Total allowable (from A2) 20348 A9 Net available floor area (A8-All 6142 A10 Tennis court 7329 Impervious Site Coverage A11 Main Residence 9274 A12 Patios 1800 A13 Tennis Court 7329 A14 Guest House 1096 Driveways are composed of permeable concrete and Eco-Stone A15 I permeable pavers 0 A16 Tota/lmpervious Coveraqe 19,499 A 17 Allowable Lot CoveraQe 3.5% 20,348 ATTACHMENT. ACTION NO. 2003-07 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW 02-D-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 02-EIA-10 (TOM JAKWAY, APPLICANT) On October 7, 2003 the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design Review application for a new house in the Open Space Zone District, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo. Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and ·declares as follows: A. Tom Jakway, on behalf of the Bunker Trust, property owners, have r~quested the City's approval for the construction of a new single family residence on approximately 13.35 acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The 34,466 square foot project includes a 9,274 square foot building footprint and related site improvements ("The Proj ect") . B. The site is comprised of two parcels that are substandard in size by today's Open Space development standards. Both parcels will be merged into a single parcel as part of the project. The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district. Access to the site is from a shared driveway connected to Los Trancos Road. The site is approximately 13.35 acres. The two parcels that form the site, 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road, are approximately 7.57 acres and 5.78 acres, respectively, and are developed with single-family residences. The site coverage of the two existing homes, patios, and driveway is 38,855 square feet. The project includes the removal of the two existing homes and existing driveway. The construction of a new single family house requires the two parcels to be merged into one parcel. The site is moderately sloped, ascending east from Los Trancos Road to the top of a ridgeline. The segment of the site that is located on the western side of Los Trancos Road descends slightly down hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This tributary passes through the site in a south to north direction with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 above sea level 1 and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland, natural perennial grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments. Both existing homes are located on the western facing hillside and are bordered by lawn, shrubs, oak trees, and ornamental plants. The adjoining properties are developed single family residential parcels that are also zoned and designated as Open Space. The project includes 23,173 square feet of impervious coverage including a 9,274 square foot building footprint for the main residence and related site improvements. The 1,096 square foot guest cottage includes an attached carport to cover one car. The guest cottage does not include a kitchen and ergot, is not considered a second dwelling unit and does not require a conditional use permit. The guest cottage is an accessory facility that is permitted by right. A swimming pool and tennis court is included. The basement includes an underground gymnasium. Living areas are proposed on the main level and on the upper level (illustrated on page 3 of the Development Plans, Attachment H). The maximum height of the main residence as measured from the midpoint of the roof is 25 feet above finished grade. C. Following Staff review the Planning ,and Transportation Commission (Commission) first reviewed the Project on May 28, 2003 and continued the project to their meeting of July 9, 2003. The Commission recommended approval on July 9, 2003. The Commission's recommendations are contained in CMR: 402:03 and the attachments to it. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that, with the implementation of mitigation measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning May 7 2003 through May 28, 2003 (and extended to June 3 to give interested parties sufficient time to review environmental documents). The Environmental Impact Assessment ,and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained in CMR: 402:03. 2 SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings 1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The proposed residence would be seen from the Portola Ranch in Portola Valley and the Blue Oaks Development. To mitigate this visibility, earth tone building materials were selected to blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural stone, integral color plaster walls, and a slate roof. Substantial native Oak trees surround the project, which help screen the building and hardscape as viewed from off site. The plantings on the site incl ude an irrigated lawn area on the north side of the site, providing a transition between the development and native grass areas. The proposed building and pathway lighting would be low voltage and all light sources would be screened to not be visible from off site. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirabili ty of investment, or· the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The proposed design and size of the residence and related site. improvements are generally consistent with the existing residences on Los Trancos Road. The construction of all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of developm~nt. 3. Sound principles of environmen tal ecological balance are observed in the project. design and The project has been designed to minimize the visibility as viewed from off site. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented with .any approval to mitigate impacts on biological resources, protected trees, and geotechnical stability. 4. The use will be in accord wi th the Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent 3 5. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the surrounding residences and open space lands. 6. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non- reflective material. 7. The Planning Commission and City Council will review the project to ensure that the .project' s screening features will mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts. 8. If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Nati ve American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. 9. All mitigation Department to address fire incorporated into the design. measures hazards identified by the on this site must Fire be 10. No area represented plans received on September 29, impervious paving unless an equal converted to permeable paving. as permeable paving in project 2003 shall be converted to are of impervious paving is 11. Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not restrict wildlife movement through the project site. Planning Staff shall review and approve the proposed perimeter fence design prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, planning staff shall review and approve of the amount of ,proposed lawn area. 13. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall submit a Soils Engineer report for review by the Planning Arborist and the Public Works Engineering Department describing the usefulness of the excavated bedrock as fill material and for the construction of stone landscape walls. Staff shall review this report for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the effect on the natural environment. 14. The size of the motor court shall be no larger than the minimum turning radius as required by the Fire Department. 5 15. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permi t to remove the existing structures on site, the applicant shall submit to Planning Staff for review and approval, a detailed deconstruction program for removal of the existing structures. Applicant shall consider, as part of the program, to allow the salvage company two weeks to deconstruct the buildings. 16. Oak tree Tag #39 is diseased and structurally unsound and will be removed by the project. Replacement tree mitigation for oak tree T,ag #39 shall be the installation of either (a) four 24-inch box size or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees, as stipulated in the Tree Technical Manual Section 3.20, Tree Canopy Replacement. Species shall be of the Quercus genus (valley oak, coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or Aesculus californica (California Buckeye) . 17. All provisions for the protection of trees shall be implemented, as outlined in the Tree Report dated April IB, 2003 and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the event of any conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall prevail. 18. 10 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52, p3, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93 shall be relocated and provided mitigation and monitoring as outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit of the 'total value of the trees to be relocated, provided for in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26, Security Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal submitted in the Tree Report, in the amount of $41,550. The Security Deposit shall be paid prior to building permit issuance, and shall be held for a period of two years following the permit for occupancy. 19. Any reVlSlon to the plans which may affect the welfare of t,he trees and vegetation shall be reviewed by the applicant's arborist and Planning Arborist prior to approval. 20. All provisions and recommendations contained in the Tree Survey prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants and dated April 18, 2003 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project arborist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report. 21. All provisions and recommendations contained in the Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Light, Air, & Space 6 Construction and dated November 18, 2002 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project biologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report. 22. duration of construction The following controls project construction impacts: shall be implemented for the to minimize dust related • All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. • All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard. • All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and watered daily. • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 23. Temporary impacts \~ould occur as a result of construction activities. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in duration. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the ne\~ building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter 9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday -Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m. on Saturday, and construction activities prohibited on Sunday and Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels. 24. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities, the applicant shall notify the City of Palo Alto Fire Department and all property owners within 1000 feet of the project site of the date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant shall comply with all directives recommended by the Fire Department. Building Division 25. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the existing buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new buildings. 7 26. The two lots comprising the site shall be merged. The parcel map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior to permit issuance. 27.· A separate grading permit shall be required if the volume of cut and/or fill grading exceeds 100 cubic yards. 28. Separate building permits shall be required for each independent building or structure. 29. No woodburnihg fireplaces shall be constructed except as provided in PAMC Section 9.06. 30. The proposed gymnasium, to be located in the basement of the main building, shall be considered as a non- residential occupancy. The occupancy classification shall be assigned based on the occupant load and the nature of the use. Exits shall be provided based on the occupant load calculated using the "exercise room" occupant load factor specified in Uniform Building Code Table la-A. A fire-rated occupancy separation shall be provided between the gym and the R3 residential living area, corresponding to the occupancy classification. 31. Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required for the construction private sanitary sewage disposal systems. If such a system is included within the scope of the proposed project, two copies of Health Dept. approved plans are to be submitted prior to permit issuance. 32. Implementation of the construction techniques contained in the report Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoForensics and dated August 2002 shall be incorporated into the project and approved by the Building Department. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must be s·ubmitted by the project geologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report. Fire Department 33. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width with 13'6" vertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (60,000 lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside requirements of fire truck. Road shall be all weather, and shall reach to within 150 feet of any point on the first floor exterior. (98CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The driveway configuration as shown does not meet this requirement. 34. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 -1996 Edition for 8 the main house. The guesthouse may be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA Standard No.13D -1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated. 35. An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system, and shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 1996 Edition. Fire supply system installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15. 04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements have been met. 36. Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a minimum of 3 hydrants available within 500 feet of the point on the access road closest to the structure. Fire supply shall be designed to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than 2,500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig. (98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of building materials to the site will be prohibited until the hydrants and an ,adequate water supply has been provided. 37. Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear of the structure in accordance with Appendix II-A of the 1998 California Fire Code. NOTE: No tree should be planted closer than 10 feet to any point on the exterior of the building. 38. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be either keyed for Fire Department access or a Key Box shall be provided. Contact the Fire Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details. Public Work Department Public Works Engineering 39. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule to PWE. The schedule must show the proposed grading schedule, and the proposed condition of the site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October 1, and October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The Master ~Iork Schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, and other project improvements. After permit issuance, updated schedule shall be provided to PWE each month that the permit is active. 40. The location and extent of applicable SWPP!BMP details should be indicated on the plan. Detail references for the Temporary BMP should carry a sheet number i.e. (ESCll)!4 where the 9 numerator is the specific detail number and the denominati,pr is the plan sheet where the detail can be found. The detailed reference should include the following BMPs: • Construction Entrance • Sediment Basin • Straw Wattles • Geotextile Mats • Concrete Waste Management • Preservation of existing vegetation • Hazardous Waste Storage *California Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks contain varies types of construction BMP' s. A copy of the handbooks can be purchased from Blue Print Service in Oakland. phone # 510-287-5485) . 41. Within.the plan set include the City standard Best Management Practice's (BMP) sheet titled "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan". The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and implements all stormwater quality control measures.' Failure to comply ~lith the approved construction BMP's shall result in the issuance of (correction notices, citations and/or a project stop work order.} 42. A set of notes addressing the requirements for Site and Winterization should be placed on the dra~lings. The notes should describe the winterization measures that will be implemented dur~ng wet season to prevent erosion and storm water pollution. The 'wet season" is defined as the period beginning October 1 through April 15 of the following year. This requirement shall be implemented during'any year when excavation activities are underway or grading operations have left areas unprotected. All work areas that have not been stabilized prior to onset of the Wet Season shall be graded to drain toward settlement basins at interior of Storm runoff water from un-stabilized areas shall be directed into'settlement basins and through BioWattles or other filtration devices prior to release from the site. Other SEPPP Temporary Measures and. Erosion Controls shall remain in effect during the Wet Season and are part of the Winterization Plan. 10 Identify the Limits of Work (LOW) on the plan. Provide a note on plans advising that vegetated areas outside the LOW must not be disturbed during the construction activities. Callout the BMP re Preservation of Existing Vegetation at those areas. 43. A certified geotechnical engineer must prepare a comprehensive geotechnical report for the site. The report, at minimum, should include subsurface investigation, seismic refraction survey, engineering analysis of fiied data, investigation of ground water level, and construction issues related to the location of the swimming pool. Based on the investigation of the ground water level, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground- water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the bottom of the proposed swimming pool is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then the pool can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to reI ieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the pool waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No external drawdown pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, however, PWE recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 44. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The imp.ervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from PWE. 45. The plan must include a drain near the swimming pool that can receive any wastewater that may be generated during the operation or routine maintenance of the swimming pool water. The swimming pool water in snot allowed to be di'scharged to municipal storm collection system or into a creek. If the applicant wishes to dispose of the swimming pool water at the site, a collection system equipped with an every dissipater must be designed for the site. The system should include design criteria, pipe capacity, erosion evaluation and impact of the discharge water down slope of the dissipater. 46. Building permit applicants are required to prepare and submit an excavation dewatering plan whenever the project soils report indicates that groundwater will be encountered during excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by PWE prior to the issuance of the building permit ~ Building permits that include a swimming pool where· groundwater is not expected to be encountered will be subject to a condition that a dewatering plan 11 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by Tom Jakway titled "Bunker Residence", consisting of 30 pages, dated November 27, 2002, and received on September 29, 2003. 13 developed with single family residential parcels that are also zoned and designated as Open Space. Existing development on the site includes 23, 173 square feet (sJ.) of impervious coverage, including a 9,274 s.f. building footprint for the main residence, an 894 s.f. guest cottage as an accessory facility, and an uncovered sport court identified as "Tennis Court" on the site plan (Sheet AO) included in the plan set dated August 16,2010 submitted for P&TC review. Sheet AO is for reference only, as it indicates proposed features that were actually constructed in 2007 and incidentally, it does not include the footprint ofthe guest house. The basement under the home was originally approved by Council for use as a gymnasium. A swimming pool also exists on the site, between the residence and the sport court. The height of the main residence, as measured from the midpoint of the roof, is 25 feet above finished grade. Process History On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved, via the Site and Design Review process, the merging of two parcels into one site and the development of a primary residence, guest house, and tennis court on the site. The Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003 is provided as Attachment D. The approval of the project was based upon Open Space District Site Development Standards that predate the current regulations, which now have a maximum floor area ratio. The previous regulations had only the impervious coverage regulations to limit building mass on a site. The existing, uncovered sport court was approved in 2007 via building pemlit as a tennis court, which was factored into impervious coverage and was considered an accessory use and facility, similar to a swimming pool, as "customarily incidental" to the permitted, primary residential use. The existing sport court is 7,329 square feet of paved area and is excavated nine and a half feet below the adjacent grade, minimally visible from other properties. It is used as an uncovered tennis court and roller hockey court in the summer and more recently, as an ice hockey rink in the winter via installation of temporary air-supported cover to maintain the colder temperature for the ice. The cover was initially installed without permits and drew complaints from owners of adjoining properties due to noise and the visual impact, but was subsequently approved by the Director on October 8, 2009 for a limited time via Temporary Use Permit (TUP), pursuant to Chapter 18.42.050 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The TUP approval included installation ofa nine-foot tall dark green colored screen along the north and east sides of the tennis court to screen the air-supported cover from views by the surrounding neighbors. The conditions were not, however, completely successful in mitigating visual and noise impacts and the owner was advised that a Site and Design permit would be required. Project Description The application is for Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for the construction of a new roof structure eight and a half feet above grade over an existing 7,329 square foot sport court facility, to enable its use as a hockey rink, a recreational use not customarily incidental to a permitted dwelling. With the proposed CUP, the installation of the City of Palo AI/o Page 2 roof would not convert the structure to "habitable" floor area. The plan set for the proposed project inclUdes a cover sheet (Site Plan AO) to show the site and indicate the location of the "Bunker Rink Roof", and four additional plan sheets (Sheets A I-A4) to show the proposed roof and landscape plan. In addition to plans, the applicant has provided reference photos to show views of the existing site and "after" photos simulating the completed project, and a "letter of application" dated July 14, 2010 to provide background infonnation, detail on the proposed projeet and reasons why the project meets the City's open space review criteria. Finally, a model and color and material board have been prepared for display at the P&TC hearing. The new roof structure would add eight and a half feet to the overall height of the facility, but would have a lower overall profile than the inflatable cover that had been placed over the rink by approval ofthe TUP. The court currently has walls that rise three feet above the existing grade on the north side of the structure and zero feet above grade on the south side. The proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope (2: J 2) to minimize its height and visibility. The roof material is proposed to be Class A fiberglass asphalt shingles in a dark "weathered wood" color to blend with the surrounding hillside environment. Any exposed concrete and steel will be painted a natural green color ("forest floor"). The proposal also includes the planting of new native, fire resistant, and drought tolerant trees and shrubs to provide screening for the proposed roof. Proposed plant materials include Pacific Wax Myrtle, Toyon, Carnlel Ceonothus, Manzanita, Madrone, Flannel Bush, Western Redbud and Valley Oak. Irrigation is proposed for approximately two ycars to establish the new vegetation, which would survive without irrigation thereafter. There will be no new cut or fill, no new impervious area, and no removal of vegetation as a result of this project. The roof structure is proposed to be constructed off site and installed by crane in five days, with the roof decking and installation of roofing materials completed within 45 days. SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION Commission Purview Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Staff detennined that the proposal was not suitable to divert for minor architectural review, particularly due to the proposed use, which had drawn attention from neighbors. The project was then determined to be subject to approval of a CUP, which may be reviewed and tentatively approved by the Director unless it is associated with a Site and Design Review requiring review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The Open Space Zone District allows for accessory buildings and uses to be permitted ifthcy are "customarily incidental to pemlitted dwellings; provided however, that such permitted dwellings shall be for the exclusive use of the owner or owners, or lessee or lessor of land upon which the permitted use is conducted, and the residence of other members ofthe same family and bona fide Cily 01 Palo Allo PageJ employees of the aforementioned." The proposed cover, enabling use of the court as a hockey rink, could be used for hockey practice by others (friends) by invitation of the property owner, and a hockey rink is not seen as "customarily incidental to permitted dwellings". Therefore, the proposal to convert the customarily incidental tennis court use into an enclosed sport court for use as a hockey rink was considered a "Recreational Use" requiring approval of a CUP. Recreational Uses are described in the OS district land uses table as "including riding academies, clubs, stables, country clubs, and golf courses." A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides findings for CUP and Site and Design Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES: Reduction of impacts The following benefits would result from the installation of the roof and screening: • The roof structure will reduce the noise associated with the sport court activities, particularly the noise made by hockey pucks; • The roof will eliminate the light associated with nighttime use of the sport court; • The roof will block views of the existing sport court from properties at a higher elevation; • The new landscape screening will screen the existing walls ofthe sport court as well as the proposed new roof from most vantage points. Only those residences that are at a higher elevation would see the new roof; • The proposed landscape screening material would be drought tolerant, fire resistive, native trees and shrubs, and would be placed 20 feet from the structure for fire safety; • The new roof, designed to be low sloping, would minimize the height and visual impact to other Open Space District properties and any potential public view vantage points; and • The proposed color of the composition shingle roof material was selected to blend into the hillside environment. CUP Conditions The issuance of a CUP approval would allow the City to enforce conditions of approval related to the use of the hockey rink, to ensure that hours of operation and noise generated from use ofthe court would not be detrimental to neighboring properties. It would also allow the City to restrict the sport court to recreational use, to limit the use to noncommercial purposes, and to prevent any conversion of the sport court to primary residential use, which would then count toward habitable, residential floor area. Floor Area The existing floor area on the site is 14,206 square feet (sq.ft.), comprised of the home at 13,312 sq.ft. and the guest house at 894 sq.ft., totaling 14,206 sq.ft., where 20,348 sq.ft. of floor area is pemlitted on the site pursuant to the Open Space District Site Development Standards adopted by Council in 2009 (3.5% x 581,395 sq.ft. = 20,348 sq. ft.). A total of6,142 sq.ft. of additional residential floor area would currently be available to construct on the site but there is only 849 sq. ft. of impervious coverage available. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The sport court does not count toward floor area currently, since it is unroofed. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section IS.2S.050(b) Open Space Impervious Coverage and Floor Area, (1) Residelltial Use, (B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio, gross floor area is calculated based upon the same criteria as in Low Density Residential zone districts, except for basements, which follow R-I zone standards (in other words, basements don't count) unless any portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent Although the 7,329 sq.ft. sport court is below grade, there is no floor proposed above it; therefore, it would not be considered a basement once the proposed roofis installed. If the proposed roofed court were ever converted to habitable, residential floor area, it would result in floor area exceeding the maximum allowable residential floor area by I, IS7 sq.ft. (.002 of the site area). The hockey rink use, considered a Recreational Use permissible via approval of a Conditional Use Permit, may be considered non-residential use that would be restricted to use as a sport court via the CUP, conditioned so that it canllot be converted to habitable, residential floor area. PAMC 1 8.28.050(b)(2) Non-Residential Use. specifies that non-residential floor area ratio shall be limited to 5% of the site area. Since a mix of uses is proposed for the site (residential and recreational), a CUP would allow the City to restrict use of the interior space of the sport court for non-residential use, and the installation of a roof would reduce potential impacts from the use of the sport court, staff is in support of enclosed area resulting from the installation of the proposed roof. Conditional Use Permit Findings I. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The project will result in the addition of a new roof structure over an existing sport court facility. New landscape screening materials are also proposed. The existing use is not impacted by the addition of the new roof structure. The sport court facility is already used as a roller hockey rink, ice hockey rink, and tennis court. The roof structure would eliminate light and glare that currently results from use in the evening, would reduce noise of sport court activities by enclosing them, and will reduce the visual impression of the facility for offsite observers with the planting of new screening materials. The conditions of approval, imposed as a result of this application, will further ensure that the facility will not be impactfuJ to adjacent properties. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposell of the Zoning Ordinance. The project would comply with the Comprehensive plan policies specifically Policy N-7 that establishes a set of 13 Open Space Development Criteria. These Criteria ensure that new development within the Open Space is ham10nious with the surrounding natural environment. Open Space Review Criteria Compliance P AMC 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations, section (P) Open Space Review Criteria, sets CUy of Palo Alto Page 5 forth 12 review criteria taken from the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element. The existing sport court was reviewed and approved as compliant with the Open Space Review Cliteria. The proposed roof and landscaping would specifically address criteria 1,3,9, 10, and 11, as follows: The design specifically complies with the Open Space design criteria in that the new roofwould be low sloping to reduce its height and visibility and would have an earthtone roof color that would blend with the surrounding hillside environment. The proposed landscape materials would be native, drought tolerant, and fire resistive species that would adequately screen the new roof and blend with the existing landscape materials. The new roof would also reduce the amount of light that is currently released from the facility. The applicant's letter also addresses how the project meets these criteria. The other seven open space review criteria are not applicable to this project. 'The Site and Design Review Findings fUliher describe how (he project complies. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. The proposal complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted above. While a hockey rink may not be a typical accessory use to single family residence, the Conditional Use permit process provides the ability to appropriately regulate such a use within the Open space environment. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. , TIMELINE A tentative consent calendar dale for the City Council has been set for September 20,20 I 0, subject to recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public corrunent. The comment period began on August 16, 2010 and ends on September 7, 20 I O. The proposal reduces existing issues related to light and noise by enclosing the sport court such that the light and noise from the sport court would no longer escape from the existing open air facility but rather would be contained within it. The new native tree and bush planting will improve the existing visual impact by providing landscape cover over the existing bald portion of the hill top as well as screen the existing walls 0 f the sport court and the new roo f. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Record of Land Use Action B. Location Map C. Applicant Submittal letter and floor area caJculation* D. Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003 Environmental Documentation F. Plans and photos* (Commission only) • Prepared by Applicant City of Palo Allo Page a COURTESY COPIES: John Lerch, Lerch Construction Company, 923 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Peggy Law City of Portola VaHey PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Planning Manager DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: C~\h)~~ Curtis Williams, Director City of Palo Alto Page 7 ATTACHMENTF 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 September 1, 2010 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 8 610 Los Trancos Road: Request by John Lerch on behalf of Scott McNealy for Site and Design 9 Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court facility and the 10 addition of new landscape material as screening for the new roof. Environmental Assessment: 11 An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act 12 (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: OS (Open Space) 13 14 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, good evening. Thank you Chair Tuma and 15 Commissioners. The application before you this evening includes a request for Site and Design 16 Review for the addition of the new roof structure over the existing sport court facility, and new 17 landscaping as screening for the new roof. The request also includes a Conditional Use Pennit 18 for an enclosed recreational facility. 19 20 The project site is located within the Open Space Zone District and is currently developed with 21 two family residences, a guest cottage, and a sport court facility. The existing uncovered sport 22 court is factored into the impervious coverage allowable for the site and is considered as an 23 accessory use and facility similar to a swimming pool as 'customarily incidental' to the permitted 24 primary residential use. The existing sport court is 7,329 square feet of paved area and is 25 excavated nine and a half feet below the adjacent grade to be minimally visible from other 26 properties. It is used as an uncovered tennis court in the summertime and more recently as an ice 27 hockey rink in the winter via the installation of a temporary air-supported cover to maintain 28 cooler temperatures for the ice. 29 30 In order to reduce potential impacts such as noise, light, and visual impacts associated with the 31 existing sport court the applicant has proposed to cover it with a new solid roof structure. The 32 new roof structure would be fully enclosed and insulated for energy efficiency and to reduce 33 noise associated with the sport court activities. The new roof would prevent indirect glare from 34 nighttime use of the facility and would cover the court with a roof material selected to blend with 35 the surrounding open space environment. The new roof would add eight and a half feet of height 36 to the existing structure that currently varies from zero feet to three feet above grade with a new 37 low sloping hip roof to keep the height low and to limit its visual impact. 38 39 New drought tolerant and native plant landscape plans are also proposed at the north edge of the 40 property adjacent to the structure to further reduce the visual impact. The tree and shrub 41 selections at places have been reviewed by Dave Dockter and the Fire Department for fire safety 42 and appropriateness for desired screening and effect and location in the natural open space 43 environment. 44 45 Staff has received two calls related to the project one from a neighbor whose primary concern 46 was noise, and another from the Town of Portola Valley. Staff has also received an email from a Page 1 I neighbor across the valley that is at a higher elevation than the subject property and has a bird's 2 eye view of the sport court. That email has been put at your places. She has indicated that she 3 believes the proposed roofis an excellent architectural solution assuming the sound insulation 4 performs as deseribed and the landscape plantings soften the view of the existing mechanical 5 building. 6 7 Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City 8 Council approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the Negative Declaration and Site 9 and Design Review to allow the new roof structure with the associated landscape screening, and 10 approving the Conditional Use Permit for the use of the sport court as a recreational facility. The 11 applicant is here to make a presentation. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Tuma: Thank you very much. Okay, you have up to I S minutes. 14 15 Mr. Scott McNealy, Applicant: I am the owner here and this is my wife Susan. We have four 16 boys eight, ten, 12, and 14. I plead guilty they are kind of noisy. They play road hockey out 17 here and they play all kinds of games out here. They have buddies over and they do noisy things 18 that boys do. So in the winter they are usually playing ice hockey out there. We also have a 19 little artificial turf area where they play soccer and other things that covers the water tank that we 20 had to build for fire protection. So it is kind of a play area for the boys out back here. 21 22 This is the loam here, which we built about five to ten feet below grade that he spoke of. I will 23 show you some more pictures to give you a little flavor for what the site looks like. This is that 24 water tank area with the artificial turf so we don't have to do any watering. This is looking 25 westward and you ean see the far edge of the sport court and it is clearly below grade. This is 26 kind of looking from the house looking towards Westridge. These houses are all about a mile 27 away. As you can see only a few of the houses are at the highest level or at 700. We are at 708 28 grade so only the people who are at 700-plus feet aetually get any kind of view of this thing at all 29 the way it currently stands. Certainly when we put the screening up, and I will show you that in 30 a bit, it changes. So this is the view from Westridge I showed you that hilltop. Went to the top 31 of the hill and took telephoto. This is a telephoto picture of this because you are a mile away 32 right here taking this picture. You can see the base of the court right along here. Then this is the 33 visual signature of the house at it is today. So we photo-shopped the roof in and you can see it 34 comes up about six to eight feet. 11 doesn't quite come up to the -this is the top of the first story 35 here behind, so you can see where the roof is and it is a low-profile roof. There is a little bit of a 36 problem with tennis in the summer. My boy's lobs and overheads are going to sufter a little bit 37 but we think to try and be good neighbors that this is a reasonable compromise for the boys. 38 39 When you add in that Dave Dockter was actually out on site and I want to commend him and the 40 whole Staff. They did a lot of work and he actually went out there with a hammer and little 41 stakes and he actually put stakes in all along the south side from here over to here exactly where 42 he wanted each kind of shrub and tree and plant, and all the rest of it. So this has all been 43 personally architected by Dave and his folks. 44 45 I want to show you here that we have actually reduced the visual signature of the property. I 46 want to go back real quickly. That is how much of the house you can see today. With the Page 2 I proposed changes you will actually see significantly less. We will have cleaned up this hillside. 2 This was actually a cliff that was created when there was an old quarry here a long time ago. So 3 the edge is kind of rough and jagged and open. We think we can do this with irrigating these 4 natural plants for just two years and then unplug the irrigation and it will have a natural 5 vegetation on that cliff's edge as well as reducing the signature of the house. 6 7 The letter you have actually is from the only Palo Alto resident who can actually see our 8 property, the Laws. They are off over this direction and they are about one-third of a mile away. 9 They are very comfortable so the one Palo Alto resident is comfortable with the architectural 10 strategy here. 11 12 This is kind of what it would look like if you were standing right on the cliff. Anybody who has 13 Alpine Road or lower, most of the way out west won't see anything except shrubbery along the 14 edge. They can't even see our house. So there is very little visual impact unless you are at the 15 top of Westridge. I wanted to show this picture, and I am sorry it doesn't show up as well here 16 but we have the actual photographs. This is the naked eye view without telephoto lens of our 17 house from a mile away on Westridge. So this is actually what people are looking at. This was 18 last year when the original cover was up with the green screen, a normal green screen that you 19 would find, a normal ten foot green screen around any other tennis court. At the same time I 20 looked at Alpine. I look down the hill and I see Alpine Hills and that is the green screen. You 21 can just barely see it here. I know we camouflaged that last year. This year we think we will 22 have an even better and more natural look than a normal green screen tennis ..... 23 24 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Scott, why don't you 25 hang on and let me tum the lights off. 26 27 Mr. McNealy: That helps a little bit. That is the green screen right there. Thank you. 28 29 So the structure is a low profile roof, obviously we can still play tennis in it but it will have to 30 have ground rule doubles and other local rules for tennis in there. You can see the roof covering 31 which will be very natural and blend in. We will be insulating it for two things. One is for 32 thermal because in the winter that will be a very eco kind of thing for us plus it will also serve as 33 a very good sound barrier. This will be entirely enclosed so that the sound even during the 34 summer when they are playing road hockey -today they play road hockey and all the rest of it 35 the sound will be mitigated to well below any other sounds we get up there including 36 motorcycles, leaf blowers, and airplanes that come in all day long, all the rest of it, and even the 37 Alpine Tennis Club. It will be quieter than the Alpine Tennis Club. 38 39 So we think that we will have definitely addressed those issues and there will be no light 40 escaping from this. Before this was covered it had a little bit of a translucent glow that people 41 noticed at night. It gets dark at 5:30 or 6:00 and the kids are out there playing. We have also 42 limited the playtime. We did that last year and the year before. We just said you are not going 43 to play late or early, besides by boys have to study, number one is their education. So there will 44 be no need for the tennis court covering that you saw in that previous picture. The landscaping I 45 think was already addressed by Russ and Dave Dockter. So that is my presentation and 46 hopefully it will save you some time. Thank you for your consideration. Page 3 I 2 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Thank you. Clarifying questions from the Commission. 3 Commissioner Martinez. 4 5 Commissioner Martinez: We have heard that there is one house in Palo Alto that can see this 6 roof. What about other building sites in Palo Alto or Portola Valley? Do we have a count of 7 how many potential houses may be able to view this? 8 9 Mr. Williams: We have not done like a total technical study to try to determine that. The best 10 gauge of that is when the dome was over the site sort of who we heard from, because folks in II Portola Valley there were quite a few that first year that called as well as the town itself, and the 12 Laws of course. I would guess there were at least a half dozen individual properties generally in 13 Portola Valley across the way there plus the Laws. Then last year with the tennis court fencing 14 around it there was one property who called and that was when the fencing came down in a 15 portion and they could see some of the dome again. So just going by that it appears there are at 16 least a half dozen, maybe ten or so, homes that have some visibility ofthe site. If this was not in 17 place or something more highly visible was, we would probably hear from them. But what we 18 have not done is a technical study as far as going out and topographically looking at who might 19 be or what lots might be at higher elevations. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. 22 23 Mr. John Lerch, Applicant: I am the builder. For what it is worth, nine out of the ten' people are 24 not from Palo Alto. As far as I know there is only one person in Palo Alto who even sees this. 25 26 Commissioner Martinez: Unfortunately we have to take into account other communities. I don't 27 see the letter but what was the position of Portola Valley? 28 29 Mr. Reich: Portola Valley did not write a letter. Portola Valley just made a phone call. They 30 actually have not seen the plans yet so they asked to get a copy of those. I didn't speak to them 31 until today. They called me yesterday and that was the first I had heard from them. They just 32 had some clarifying questions. They really didn't have a position or any comments related to the 33 proposal. 34 35 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. 36 37 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller followed by Commissioner Garber. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: So the first thing is, is this property visible from any public open space, 40 dedicated parkland, or is it only visible from private properties? 41 42 Mr. Reich: As far as I know I think it is only private property. I don't think you can see it from 43 Foothills Park. I didn't spend a lot of time up there searching for that but I am not aware of it. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Or any ofthe """ 46 Page 4 I Mr. Reich: You should ask the homeowners to see if the property is visible. 2 3 Commissioner ~eller: Or any of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District? 4 5 Mr. Lerch: I think if you got up on Skyline you might be able to see it. 6 7Chi,lir Tuma: Sorry guys, if it doesn't go on that mike then it doesn't get recorded. 8 9 Mr. Lerch: I think if you got up on Skyline or something you might be able to see it, but then 10 you see every house up there if you get way up high. II 12 CQmmissioner Martinez: How far away is that? 13 14 Mr. Lerch: Skyline is many miles away. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: It also depends on the topography whether it is visible so that is a factor. 17 18 Mr. McNealy: I should mention that the view from Windy Hill, which is the one he is talking 19 about, has a whole lot of mature oaks on that site and it is virtually impossible to see the roof 20 from Windy Hill. 21 22 Mr. Lerch: From the west you can't see anything there because there is a massive bank of trees. 23 24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Did we keep track of the property owners that made 25 complaints of prior stuff; and have they been notified, and did we get any feedback from them? 26 27 Mr. Reich: For the application we did the standard 600-foot radius mailing. I wasn't aware of 28 those particular property owners that had complained previously. There was no record of those 29 complaints. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Well, the problem is that 600 feet in the Open Space District is ...... 32 33 Mr. Reich: Doesn't go very far. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Yes. That is right it is an insignificant amount. Therefore I think that a 36 particular thing that should be done prior to this going before Council, and prior to the Negative 37 Declaration is adopted, time depending, we should notify all the people who have complained. 38 That would seem to me to be a cOlUieous thing to do considering that they made an effort to 39 contact the City of Palo Alto about this. 40 41 Mr. Williams: We can look at that. Again I don't know that we have all their names, but 42 whatever we have we will send out to them. I think generally at that several of them complained 43 to the Town of Portola Valley who then contacted us. So I am glad to hear the Town has copies 44 of plans now. I do think that some of these people even though it is 600 feet from the property 45 line ofthis property and other properties are big properties too. So I am guessing some of those Page 5 I people are the ones that would have abutting property lines, and their properties would be within 2 600 feet. 3 4 Chair Tuma: Yes, that is a clarifying question so we will come back. Commissioner Fineberg. 5 6 CommissionerFincberg: First off I had asked an earlier question of our attorney and I don't 7 know if you want to state it, or I can just state it, but this was supposed to be noted as a quasi- 8 judicial matter. So hopefully all of us have comported ourselves according to those standards. It 9 was not noted on our agenda but it is known that it is. 10 II Does Staff have a copy of the Open Space Zoning code here that I could look at briefly? I didn't 12 drag it in. If it is around and ifI could borrow that briefly. 13 14 One of the specific questions is are story poles required for this project? When we build a new 15 house we have to have story poles. I appreciate the graphics that you provided and you will have 16 to forgive me but I have no idea how accurate the photo-shopping is so having the ability to go 17 out to a parcel and see it, and see ifI can go into Foothill Park or into the Arastradero Open 18 Space Preserve and see a story pole tells me that it is visible or it isn't visible with a lot more 19 certainty than some thing that is unknown. 1 don't know whether that should be a requirement. 20 Okay, so are story poles required on this? 21 22 Mr. Williams: Story poles are not required on it. We do request that, and are authorized to 23 request that through the code on any structure. I think on this one we felt like the visualizations 24 and model that was done are preferable to them because the story poles are not very much higher 25 than eight feet above the ground. That doesn't present much to see and would probably be pretty 26 hard to see from off the site. I could have done that if that would have been helpful I will 27 apologize, we thought we had some other things here to use that we don't frequently have. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: You said mode, what model? 30 31 Mr. Y1.cNealy: We have a quarter inch scale model in the lobby if you would like to sec it. It is 32 pretty big. It does put it at a level that people across the valley see it. It is very accurate. I know 33 you can't see it from Foothill Park or the open space. Arastradcro Preserve I am not sure if you 34 can see something through the trees. It is very accurate if you want to take a look. 35 36 Chair Tuma: Is the model something that would fit in here? Is that the problem? 37 38 Mr. McNealy: We can bring it in here if you would like. 39 40 Chair Tuma: I think we should do that because I was going to ask about the model, because that 41 was something that was indicated to us that we would sce. 42 43 Mr. Y1.cNealy: Should we put it on that table? 44 45 Chair Tuma: That would be fine. Actually it would be preferable if you could put it here. 46 Commissioner Lippert. Page 6 I 2 Vice-Chair Lippert: One page 4 of the Staff Report it goes into the floor area and lot coverage. 3 We don't have limit in terms of floor area right now, correct? 4 5 Mr. Williams: We do now, as of the last year. 6 7 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so that has been adopted by Council. 8 9 Mr. Williams: Yes. \0 II Vice-Chair Lippert: Then with regard to the lot coverage it exceeds the lot coverage that is 12 permitted? Permeable, 13 14 Ms, Amy French, Current Planning Manager: The impervious, 15 16 Mr. Williams: It is not changing the coverage that is out there, What was permitted is still 17 permitted because it is already .. "Oh, I see ..... 18 19 Vice-Chair Lippert: .. "it says there is only 800 .. ", 20 21 Mr. Williams: Impervious coverage, not talking about lot coverage, which is different, which we 22 don't have .. " 23 24 Ms, French: Floor area ratio. 25 26 Mr. Lerch: So this is the court as it stands. This is the view of the first picture. The neighbors 27 over here, a mile from here and this is the tennis court as it stands right now. The house, of 28 course we only show a small portion of the house, The actual profile of the house is about like 29 that. There is a substantial house back here, Then the structure would be something like this. It 30 would be open web trusses, You can see how low they are, very low profile. 31 32 The view from Windy Hill, which is the only possible place I can imagine, is here, This is a 33 solid native oak or old coast live oak right here, That is about five or ten miles away, The shot 34 that you are seeing across the way towards"",", 35 36 Mr. McNealy: You can see the banks of oaks right here that is he is talking about. Those are all 37 along the side of the house. So from west of the house looking you don't see any of this and you 38 don't see much of the house either. 39 40 Chair Tuma: What about from the east? 41 42 Mr. McNealy: The east? There is a mass of oaks my next door neighbor. I can" see his house 43 and he can't see mine. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: It is a higher elevation? 46 Page 7 I Mr. McNealy: It is a higher elevation but there is a massive wall of trees and stuff so he can't 2 see me. 3 4 Chair Tuma: How about from a distance from the east? 5 6 Mr. Mcl\ealy: You can see. Peggy Law is the only person who really gets a good look at this. 7 She is right about there. 8 9 Mr. Lerch: Again we are not changing the visual signature of Peggy Law either. She is either 10 going to look at tennis court or she is going to look at the roof material. So we are not changing II the -we are in fact reducing the visual signature for most of the people who can see the place 12 and for Peggy we are just changing it from tennis court to the roofing material, which we think 13 will be better. She is happier with that. 14 IS Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So on page 4 down at the bottom, the last sentence. A total of6,142 16 square feet of additional residential floor area would currently be available to construct on the 17 site but there is only 849 square feet of impervious coverage available. So now that this is a 18 covered structure have they exceeded the amount of impervious coverage that is permitted on the 19 site? 20 21 Mr. Reich: No they have not. The existing sport court is already included in the impervious 22 coverage calculation. So with or without a roof on it they still have 849 additional square feet of 23 impervious coverage that they could add to the site. 24 25 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. 26 27 Mr. Reich: The roofis adding to the floor area oCthe site not to the impervious coverage. 28 29 Vice-Chair Lippert: That is the clarification I needed. Now, in terms of building a building are 30 they required to comply with Green Building regulations in terms of I guess it would be Build It 3 I Green in this case? 32 33 Mr. Williams: I think that is not directly covered by the requirements we have right now, but we 34 certainly could look at it. It doesn't fit into the category of the commercial or residential 35 structure but there is not a reason why we can't look at making sure that they are doing 36 essentially the equivalent of what we would be looking for in terms of trying to achieve certain 37 green buil ding goals. 38 39 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. What we have in the ordinance is basically it dictates or says when 40 you are building a residential structure or on a residential property it says there is certain 41 valuation for square footage that you have to comply with those rules. Then we adopted 42 separately additional rules when the FAR kicked in and you began to approach certain thresholds 43 in that area. I believe it was in the Open Space when we had updated that section. 44 45 Mr. Williams: Those provisions have not been adopted yet by the Council. It is going to the 46 Council in October. The green building relationships and ratio that would allow for larger Page 8 1 houses and set a maximum house size. However, what we could do is, and this is one residential 2 building site so you could look at the criteria for this residence on the lot and see how that would 3 meet our requirements, and it should meet the requirements for a residence of this size. 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. 6 7 Chair Tuma: I have just a couple of very quick questions. Is the court currently lighted? Are 8 there lights? 9 10 Mr. McNealy: 1 will show you. There is some lighting that aims down right here along the 11 sidewall on two sides, this side, and this side. 12 13 Chair Tuma: Are those lights currently visible when they are on from anywhere else? Can 14 Peggy Law for example see those lights? 15 16 Mr. McNealy: No, no. The only time that we use those is when we have the cover on. They are 17 not bright enough to play sports or tennis during the day. So when the cover was on they show. 18 19 Chair Tuma: Okay, good. In terms of sound reduction I read somewhere in here that one of the 20 reasons to do this is to reduce sound, particularly hockey pucks and things like that. Have you 21 gotten to the point where you specified what materials would be used and what sort of sound 22 rating and that sort of stuff would be involved? 23 24 Mr. Lerch: Just to address your thing about green, a lot of the structure where we are at here is 25 this is almost all recycled materials. The open trusses there are somewhere between 85 and 95 26 percent recycled. The raw syntech steel deck is the same sort of characteristic, very much 27 recycled. There is no wood in it. I am not sure how the composition roof works, but it is good in 28 that sense. In terms of the insulation what we were going to do is put about eight inches of close 29 cell insulation that is on the roof. We think that is about five inch so we need insulation value of 30 somewhere around 40 on the roof. Then in terms of the STC sound transmission we think we 31 will get around 50, which is pretty dam good. I think in addition to that Scott has done other 32 thing around the rink to quiet things down. The real noise is the hockey pucks hitting the boards. 33 So he has put sound dampeners on there. It is like anything, you have to put the structure up to 34 know how it is really going to perform. But he will see to it that it happens. Before it was pretty 35 noisy when the hockey pucks hit the boards. 36 37 Mr. McNealy: Especially during the summer because there is no cover on it. 38 39 Chair Tuma: One last question. Would you guys have any problem if we put a requirement on 40 there that the structure meets the requirements for residential green building? 41 42 Mr. McNealy: It depends on how much that would cost. We have built a pretty green house as 43 is. We have solar panels up. We have collected all of the water including the water that will run 44 off this roof will already be recaptured and put into the subterranean drainage system. We have 45 used that water facility as our heat sync. So it turns out we were going to use that for heat 46 exchange for the air conditioning but we don't run air conditioning. We have not turned the air Page 9 I conditioning on and I can verify that and show you the log. We have zero air conditioning all 2 summer including in the day because the house is so thermally performing across the board. We 3 probably run the heater two or three weeks a year and we capture heat out of the water tank to 4 heat the house. So it is an incredibly efficient house from that perspective. We have a very 5 important button with four boys in the house and in about six places we have an all off button 6 which turns off all the lights, which saves an enormous amount of energy for us because the boys 7 don't tum off lights. So we worked very hard on home automation systems and all the rest of it 8 to make this a very, very efficient house. 9 10 I would hate to have to go do something - I can tell you I have a huge motivation to build a 11 thermally efficient place here because we grow ice and you just don't want all of the heat to 12 come in. We only grow ice when it is cold. l3 14 Now I am going to do something I didn't want. There is an enormous amount of regulation. 15 When I bought the property I thought fire was a universal service and then I had build 350,000- 16 gallon water tank because the fire hydrants didn't work up there after I bought the house. I am 17 just a little nervous about saying do I have any complying with some new regulation. I guarantee 18 you he is going to build something that is very thermally efficient there and that fits in with our 19 very eco-effective house. So I just don't know how to answer that question. 20 21 Chair Tuma: Just to clarify it is not a new regulation. It is regulation that exists currently and 22 this project may in fact be subject 10 it either way. We will see, but it sounds like what you have 23 is something that would meet the requirements anyway. 24 25 Mr. Lerch: I think the structure that we would put up would be very green. Whether you start 26 going down the path now or with the overall system that is in place that is making ice and we all 27 know that is not a green thing to be making ice. The structure that we put in will be very green. 28 29 Chair Tuma: Okay, a couple more clarifying questions before we go to the public. 30 Commissioner Garber. 31 32 Commissioner Garber: I assume you have not done your building permit yet. 33 34 Mr. McNealy: That is the thing, I don't know you could probably help me. I don't know quite 35 how you do that. I know on a regular house I know how you do it. 36 37 Mr. Lerch: What was the question? 38 39 Commissioner Garber: It is a state requirement that you have to submit for your building pernlit. 40 That is a separate topic about how you would do that. I suspect you would not have much 41 trouble passing it given that your building a structure that is almost or more than half buried in 42 the ground, two, has 32 to 40 new walls and ceiling, no windows. I would find it astonishing 43 that you wouldn't be able to pass that and if you are passing that you are passing two-thirds of 44 what it would be to build it green anyway given your additional systems you are probably 45 without thinking about it way over the criteria. 46 Page IO I Mr. McNealy: That would be my guess. 2 3 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka. 4 5 Commissioner Tanaka: I have really one question for Staff. So I am looking at this spreadsheet 6 for the FAR. On line 89, Ijust want to make sure I understand this correctly, it says that the net 7 available floor area is 6,142. Then the tennis court right below it says it is 7,329. So my 8 question is is this exceeding the allowable FAR on the lot or not? Am I misreading this? 9 10 Mr. Reich: It doesn't, and the reason for that is because the limit, the available 6,142 is for II habitable residential square footage. One of the issues for the Conditional Use Permit is that this 12 is a recreational use. So the square footage of this is not part of the residential square footage. 13 There is a .5 percent FAR limitation for recreational uses and this falls well below that amount. 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: It looks like garages count toward FAR, correct? 16 17 Mr. Reich: Correct. 18 19 Commissioner Tanaka: And recreation doesn't? 20 21 Mr. Reich: In the Open Space there is a specific distinction between residential uses. The 22 restriction of the FAR in the Open Space is new. It used to be that there was only the 3.5 percent 23 impervious coverage limitation, which this meets with this sport court and house. When this was 24 all developed that was the standard. Since the construction of this we have adopted a residential 25 FAR limitation, which for a lot this size would be 3.5 percent. So if you were to add the sport 26 court FAR into that yes it would be over it, but because the sport court is being proposed as a 27 recreational use and not a residential use it is limited in the Conditional Use Permit conditions to 28 not be a residential use, if it is within the allowable FAR for commercial uses on the site. 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I am more used to this here where porches, garages, or anything covered 31 is FAR. 32 33 Mr. Reich: Right. 34 35 Mr. Williams: We are also looking at this as sort of a semi-basement. It is not under a structure 36 but it for the most part is buried. So it is not the same type of building. It is not habitable space 37 either. 38 39 Chair Tuma: Okay. So at this point we are scheduled to go to getting comments from the 40 public. I don't have any cards. So I am assuming that there are no comments from the public. 41 Next in order would be if the applicant would like to have three minutes for any closing 42 comments that you would like to make. 43 44 Mr. McNealy: I don't think so. I think we have covered most of the issues. I have no other 45 comments. Thank you. 46 Page II I Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Back to the Commission. Commissioner Garber. 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Commissioner Garber: I would like to move that we recommend that the City Council approve 6 the Record of Land Use action approving the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design 7 Review to allow a new roof structure over an existing sport court, with adjacent landscape 8 screening proposed for installation at 610 Los Trancos Road, and approving the Conditional Usc 9 Pemlit for use of the court as a recreational facility. 10 II Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me Chair I thought we were going to have comments before 12 the motion. 13 14 Chair Tuma: The procedure was to come back for comments and a motion. So whatever order 15 Commissioners choose to take that. So we definitely will have plenty of opportunity for 16 comments before the motion is voted on. Is there a second to the motion? 17 18 SECOND 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Second. 21 22 Chair Tuma: Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Garber, seconded by Commissioner Keller. 23 Would you like to speak to your motion? 24 25 Commissioner Garber: Yes. First I would like to note that I believe that the proposal meets the 26 various Site and Design Review findings. They include the use would be constructed and 27 operated in a manner that will be orderly and compatible with the existing or potential use of the 28 adjoining and nearby sites. In fact, they have here a description in our previous discussion that it 29 ",ill improve visual and noise conditions that are existing today. Two, the project is consistent 30 with the goal of ensure the desirability of the investment of the conduct of business, research, or 31 educational activities, or other authorized applications in the same or adjacent areas. Three, 32 sound principles in environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project. 33 Again I believe that this will actually improve the projeet site from what it is today. Four is that 34 the use will be in accord with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Again I think the project will put 35 it in greater compliance with the plan in that the visual and the noise issues are further mitigated. 36 37 Finally, the Conditional Use Permit Findings, the proposed use at the proposed location will not 38 be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. I believe that is met. 39 Then two, the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner and in accord with the 40 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. My previous comments 41 apply there. 42 43 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 44 Page 12 I Commissioner Keller: Yes, I agree with the statements of the maker of the motion, 2 Commissioner Garber. I have a few suggestions, which are not to be made as part of the motion, 3 but are suggestions for the Staff Report and the process as this goes forward. 4 5 The first is that we do particular outreach to any persons who have made commcnts or 6 complaints to the City of Palo Alto prior. Also, request that Portola Valley make outreach to 7 anybody who made comments or complaints in the past with respect to this property so that we 8 can get feedback of that in a timely marmer while the Negative Declaration is still being 9 considered. 10 II The second thing is that nonually the Open Space review criteria are specifically mentioned and 12 analyzed by Staff in the Staff Report and not relegated to a summary paper where the details are 13 in a document that came by the applicant. So I would suggest that even if Staff agrees with what 14 the applicant does there is some benefit for Staff owning it and traversing what the applicant has 15 made indicating the Stairs evaluation of that. So I think that is an important issue rather than 16 relegating thaI. 17 18 I am assuming that the Staff would traverse that and agree with what the applicant has said, but it 19 is still the Staffs responsibility to do that. The applicant can ccrtainly suggest how that could be 20 done but it is a Staff evaluation not an applicant process. 21 22 I also agree that this does seem to improve this particularly with the comment of the neighbor in 23 Palo Alto who has the most visibility to this being in favor of this. I think that where 24 developments cross boundaries, for example being in the Open Space, which is adjacent to 25 Portola Valley, I would not consider comments from Portola Valley any less than those from 26 Palo Alto. People in Portola Valley have as much right to comment on it as people in Palo Alto. 27 So we need to do the extra outreach. 28 29 Furthermore, finally, we should carefully consider the 600-fool notice requirement for the Open 30 Space District, and consider how to expand that so it is much more realistic in tenus of the kind 31 of impacts that are made with the terrain and the visibility around there in tenus of notice. So I 32 think that is something worth doing as well. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Tuma: Okay. Other comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Martinez. 35 36 Commissioner Martinez: In the Staff Report it calls this coverage for a non-habitable space. If 37 we look at the Building Code it would classify this building as an A-3 accessory building in the 38 same vein as a gymnasium. Indeed the project, the building, becomes about the size of a high 39 school gymnasium without the bleachers. Perhaps we are not supposed to talk about the building 40 code side of this but it does have impact on Site and Design. I think first because the structure 41 becomes like a basement structure, I question whether the egress that the building currently has 42 to that side and this side meet the egress requirements for an A-3 building. That needs to be 43 looked at. 44 45 In addition, I question whether the required one-hour rated roof structure is met by this steel 46 structure unless it is proposed that they are going to have fire proofing on the structure. Page 13 I 2 I assume that the storage tank that you have onsite is sufficient to provide the sprinkler water 3 pressure for it. Okay. So you are not going to use the swimming pool or anything else on site 4 for that. 5 6 Mr. McNealy: Do you want me to answer that? 7 8 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 9 10 Mr. McNealy: The design of the fire system, first off the roof assembly when we met with the II Fire Department about how far these plants had to be from the roof they said 30 feet away. 12 When that came back up in a rated assembly so there is nothing combustible about this roof. So 13 the timberline comes in-the shingles are Class A rated. The ice ring will have a layer of new 14 coating put on the inside so that it is a rate of zero. In addition to that it will be sprinkled. The 15 fire reservoir is designed to run at 2,000 gallons a minute for two hours or something like that. 16 So it has 1 DO-horsepower pump sitting there that will run not only the whole house but it will run 17 two fire hydrants. It is a massive, massive system that will easily handle this. There will be 18 nothing in there to bum other than maybe a banner or something. There is nothing in it the rink 19 to bum. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I appreciate that. Then this is a conditioned building that does 22 have to meet Title 24. Commissioner Garber is probably correct that it would probably exceed 23 any current requirements but it is still a requirement. 24 25 This leads me to my third point and in the Staff Report there was mention of only one item in the 26 Comprehensive Plan that should be considered. As I review it, do you have the conditions? 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: Later, yes. 29 30 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. There are some additional, if! could just mention them. Policy 31 N-7 the Open Space Development Criteria. Development should be visually non-intrusive. The 32 third one site and structure design, should take into account private use. Number five, built form 33 and landscape should mimic the natural topography. I think this new landscaping is actually 34 quite a bit different. Number nine, the building should use natural materials. I don't consider 35 comp shingles as a natural material. 36 37 Then Policy L3, guide development to respect views of the foothills. I don't think any ofthese 38 Comprehensive Plan policies have really been adequately addressed tonight. I think when we 39 look at this first structure we see a very large, unnatural, very monolithic form that is very much 40 not in keeping with the natural landscape and the natural order of this district. I am concerned 41 that, and I really respect all that Mr. and Mrs. McNealy have done to build a sustainable house, 42 but in keeping with that I see a gymnasium structure of this size and mass being very 43 inappropriate for the Open Space District. I find that you are doing everything you can to 44 minimize the impact, be a good neighbor, to landscape, to spend extra money to make it 45 something great for your family, but I just feel that your respect for where you live and your part Page 14 I of this open space community should extend to really questioning whether the idea ofthis 2 enclosed ice rink is appropriate for this location. Thank you. 3 4 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez's comments. I would 7 concur that thc Staff Report with the findings of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan just is 8 not consistent with how I read our Comprehensive Plan. The purposes oCthe Open Space don't 9 include massive structures. 10 II I forgot one question to ask before, if I can just jump around a little bit. When this home and the 12 tennis courts were originally approved did that approval include the infrastructure for the hockey 13 'rink? When that infrastructure for the hockey rink for the growing of ice, was that done with 14 permit with proper review and approvals? Does it have a right to continue or is that part of our 15 review with the CUP? 16 17 Ms. French: The CUP is for the hockey rink basically, though a building permit was issued and 18 it went though Site and Design for the sport court, the tennis court. I believe there was a 19 gymnasium in the basement of the house originally that was also approved in 2003. So I don't 20 know Mr. Lerch may have more on that. 21 22 Mr. Williams: I will just add as far as, I am not exactly sure what you mean .by infrastructure, 23 but as far as the improvements to the generator, the walls that have been altered in some way, 24 that doesn't require any planning approval per se. Electrical or those kinds of upgrades require 25 building permit approval but it wouldn't require planning approval as far as Open Space Criteria 26 goes. It is just when you start to do something on the exterior. 27 28 Commissioner Fineberg: So when the ice infrastructure was put in, not an insignificant amount 29 of electrical work, was that done with permit? 30 31 Mr. Williams: I don't know how much electrical work there was or permits. 32 33 Mr. McNealy: Everything that is there was done by permit. The only thing that was not done by 34 permit "illS the inflatable top. We asked the Building Department about it and at the time they 35 didn't think that was something, that a blow up top that you needed a permit for that. But 36 everything that is there now was all permitted and has all been inspected. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: Oreat, thank you. Okay, so thank you for allowing me to jump back. 39 \\I'hen we look at the Site and Design Review Findings and the consistency with the 40 Comprehensive Plan let me run through just quickly where my thoughts are. In the Staff Report 41 it talks about the project would be constructed and operated in a manner that is orderly, 42 harmonious, and compatible with existing potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. I don't 43 believe that Open Space and single-family residences are consistent with a recreational use of 44 that physical scale. We don't see it on any other sites in Open Space. So to me it is just 45 incongruous on its face. 46 Page 15 I On Policy N-l we talk about managing existing public open spaces and encourage the 2 management of private open space to meet habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and 3 low impact recreation needs. A recreational hockey rink is not consistent with that. We have 4 Policy N-2, I am sorry, let me skip ahead because I don't want to hit all of them. Policy N-4 5 talks about preserving the foothills as predominantly open space. That large of a structure is not 6 open space. 7 8 Policy N-6 says that through Site and Design and Open Space regulations minimize the impacts 9 of new development on views of hillsides and the Open Space eharacteristics and the natural 10 ecology of the hillside. I would agree and applaud you that the way you have designed it, ifit II has to be an enclosed structure you have attempted to comply with the spirit of it, but having any 12 structure with a roof that large is not open space, and it is not a natural ecology. So it is 13 inconsistent with Policy N-6. 14 15 I am not sure in Staff' findings of page 2 the first one they talk about, the goal of ensuring 16 desirable investment, and I don't know what that goal has to do with the review of Open Space. 17 Open Space's purpose is not investment within the community. The fact that the sports court is 18 already there and used that it is preexisting I don't understand how that is a justification that then 19 one codifies it by issuing a CUP. We have not really talked about whether there should be a 20 CUP for this use. If we answer that there should be a CUP then you build the best structure. I 21 think we need understand and give Council some guidance of whether this should be a use in the 22 foothills, not it is already there so let's make the best of it. 23 24 Then I am not surc I am comfortable in all cases with how the enforcement will be done. There 25 are a number of conditions, and I applaud you that the one condition that there would be no more 26 than 13 people in the facility. I did a little printout and found out there are six players per team. 27 So you have two teams and one ref, and there would be nobody else in there. How would the 28 City every enforce that? So do we want to be in the business of having to inspect? I don't think 29 we have a very good traek reeord of enforcement of private matters. We don't have budgets. 30 We don't have Staff. So other than the goodwill of the eurrent applicant, which I have not 31 reason to distrust but the entitlement goes with the land not with the owner. So are we creating a 32 situation where with a future owner we are going to have who knows what in the rink, and then 33 the City in the position where we have created something that we don't want to be enforcing? 34 35 Then the last thing in Conditions of Approval if this moves forward is I am wondering whether 36 we want to introduce a condition that would require inspections let's say five years out on the 37 trees, and a requirement that there be some sort of - I believe we had another type originally that 38 there is a bond and a requirement for watering. Would we want similar conditions for the 39 landscaping to ensure that until they get past that fragile young stage that they make it to where 40 they can be independent in the environment? 41 42 Chair Tuma: Thanks. Vice-Chair Lippert. 43 44 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for the City Attorney with regard to this. Is this in fact a 45 quasi-judicial hearing? 46 Page 16 I Ms. Tronquet: Conditional Permits generally are. 2 3 Vice-Chair Lippert: So what is the implication of it not being according to our notices and such? 4 Does that have any bearing or any relevance? Okay. 5 6 Ms. Tronguet: It is your process. 7 8 Vice-Chair Lippert: It is our process, okay. 9 10 Ms. Tronguet: It is your process to ensure due process for that. II 12 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. That is just one question that I had. 13 14 Chair Tuma: You may want to put that on the record. 15 16 Ms. Tronguet: No, the fact that it wasn't noticed, starred, I think you usually star it as quasi- 17 judicial is fine. What matters is the process. 18 19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, it is just one of many questions I have. I think that both 20 Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg have raised a number of questions, which are actually 21 excellent questions, and they have been sort of circulating in the back of my mind as well. 22 23 I want to relate a little case study. Back at the beginning of the decade I went to Japan. In my 24 travels to Japan I went to an island called Naoshima. On it is a world-class museum that was 25 built. Part of the conditions of the museum being built, there were several conditions placed on 26 it, first it is on an island and it is in the inland sea. Number one, they either wanted traditional 27 Japanese roofs or no roofs at all. The architect happened to be Tadao Ando and Tadao Ando is 28 an internationally known world-class architect. He opted to do no roof at all. What he in fact 29 did was built the museum into the side of this island and had it completely submerged with a sod 30 roof or green roof as they say, very similar to what the Academy of Sciences has up in San 31 Franciseo. It is not visible from the water at alL The second condition of it of course was that 32 they provide a hotel and that the hotel conforms with the same criteria. Part of it was that if you 33 were going to go to this island to go to this world-class museum they needed a plaee for people 34 to say because to travel out there for the day didn't make sense. That you would stay out there 35 for several days, and in fact you get to stay in the museum. 36 37 This is a very similar circumstance where here we have a rather large structure located in an 38 environmentally sensitive area, and it doesn't really respond to the environment at all. The 39 carbon footprint of this building alone in terms of ice generation is probably enormous. I don't 40 know what it takes to grow ice but I assume a lot of energy is involved. Yet, what it returns to 41 the natural environment is relatively nominal. 42 43 When we developed our Site and Design regulations for the Open Spaee the idea was that we 44 were going to have buildings or structures out in the Open Spaee that were compatible with the 45 natural environment. In some ways it does exactly what Commissioner Fineberg says. It meets Page 17 1 the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. So in some ways I am perplexed about this 2 building and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. 3 4 When we looked at maximum house size I was one of the people that was really opposed to it. I 5 didn't think that it was in our purview to mandate the floor area of the houses. But, when I hear 6 that this is exempt from the floor area because it is a recreational building I begin to question 7 how much recreation is too much. If somebody were to come along and say gee, I want to build 8 a theater here because that is recreation is that too much recreation? Does this set a precedent in 9 terms of somebody building a theater out in the Open Space for their own personal recreation 10 purposes? Maybe their daughter is a budding virtuoso and wants to conduct performances. So II not that I am opposed to what is being proposed here but I think that there are many questions 12 that are raised that are unanswered that need to be addressed. 13 14 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 15 16 So I am going to make a substitute motion. My substitute motion is going to be very simple. It 17 is going to be that this item be continued so that some of these questions that have come up from 18 myself and my fellow Commissioners can be addressed and answered. I want to raise one other 19 minor point here v.ith regard to ..... . 20 21 Chair Tuma: Is this part of your motion as well because it sounds like you were making a 22 motion? 23 24 Vice-Chair Lippert: You are right I was making a motion. So I will address that if somebody 25 seconds my motion. 26 27 SECOND 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: I will second. 30 31 Chair Tuma: So a substitute motion made by Vice-Chair Lippert and seconded by 32 Commissioner Martinez. Go ahead Mr. Lippert, address your motion. 33 34 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller raised a very important point, which is the public 35 process, and how we deal with our neighboring community of Portola Valley. What is 36 incumbent upon us or what is important here is that we share a mutual respect of adjacent 37 communities. It isn't so much that we don't conform to their regulations but when we do not 38 allow other communities to weigh in on what our rules are and how properties are developed our 39 voice is diminished. Our citizens' voices are diminished when we comment on their rules and 40 regulations. So in some ways we need to be able to respect each other as good neighbors in the 41 public review process. 42 43 Then there was one last comment I wanted to make for the applicant. I appreciate the work that 44 you have done in terms of connecting with your neighbors and siting the building in terms of the 45 views. But there are also your future neighbors that will be building their houses some day. 46 They will be subject to the same regulations that you are under here in Palo Alto, and they will Page 18 I have to comply with these rules as well. In the future when they build their homes they may 2 have a view of your structure that you are proposing here so we need to be sensitive to that as 3 well. Those are my comments. 4 5 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez, would you likc to speak to your second of the substitute 6 motion? 7 8 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. I agree with the Vice-Chair. First of all, I am a total sucker for 9 kids so if you would have brought your four boys in I probably would have told you how great 10 they are. 1 think the project can be better. I think it can be more sustainable. 1 know you have II come a long way and this is important to you and your lifestyle, and it is important to all of us. I 12 just would like to see our neighbors given a chance to have some input, for Staff to really look 13 hard at the Open Spaee District Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. r would especially like 14 to see you given a chance to really come back \vith something that really is more sustainable for 15 the Open Space District. 16 17 Chair Tuma: I have not had a chance to comment on this point. I am going to ask the Planning 18 Director if he has any commcnts at this point particularly with respect to thc issues that have 19 becn raised on thc compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Open Spaee District 20 Ordinance. 21 22 Mr. Williams: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. What I would just generally point out is I 23 think there are a lot of components, I understand there are a lot of perspectives that have been put 24 forth here. I do think that there are components of this that do further the Open Space goals in 25 terms of particularly as you saw from some of the intentional offsite views that I think the tinal 26 product would be something that generally portrays a more natural look to the site, and to some 27 extent helps hide the house more than it currently does. The roofline as some of you have 28 acknowledged, the roofline is sort of in the hillsides out there and low pitch. Thcn the materials 29 themselves are not necessarily natural but they are colored and textured in ways that do I think 30 from offsite have a natural appearance to them. 31 32 I think the representations or contentions as far as the recreational use and the CUP we do have 33 first of all a golf and country club out there with buildings under a CUP. We have buildings and 34 other arched structures that are recreational types of buildings out there. So I don't think that in 35 and of itself is inconsistent. You could argue a hockey rink is not an open space type of use as 36 some of those equestrian and golf could be. So think there may be some opportunities to make 37 some improvements. I think there probably are, but I think when you look at it compared to 38 looking at an existing tennis court, open tennis court, I think if this area were not already a tennis 39 court all those comments I think are right on target. But given that it is a tennis court the area is 40 already disturbed the improvements I think from an offsite standpoint are generally beneficial to 41 the area. Looking at the bigger picture of this whole site this is a very small portion of the site 42 here. The overall site is predominantly open space, natural appearance. So again if you 43 understand that some of these concerns and I think there is room to be able to work on something 44 and make the project more sustainable, and maybe look at the materials a bit and see if there isn't 45 some way to better satisfY those concerns. 46 Page 19 I Chair Tuma: So if this were to pass tonight through the Planning Commission it is currently 2 scheduled for Consent Calendar of the Council on the 20th, is that right? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Right. So I think schedule wise I think we would have to get with the applicants 5 and see what we can do. My guess is that it wouldn't be back to you until the September 29 6 meeting and then we would try to go to the Council as quickly after that as we can assuming the 7 Commission approves it. 8 9 Chair Tuma: Okay. So sort of where I am on this is that I think versus the status quo to me what 10 you are proposing here is much better. What you have now is sort of a noisy area. Hockey is II noisy with puck slaps against the wall and things like that. Even with tennis courts there is some 12 noise. It sounds like you have been making ice anyway and it is going to be a lot more energy 13 emcient to make ice with a roof on there and insulation, and all of the rest of that. So generally I 14 look at this and I think this is a good thing to do. 15 16 I will say that the lack of analysis with respect to some of the Comprehensive Plan policies that 17 have been raised tonight is a little bit troubling. I am not sure if we went through that analysis 18 that it would any way change my mind or point of view that this is a good project and should go 19 forward, but it is troubling that that analysis wasn't done. So I can see an argument for going 20 through that process to make sure that there is not something we are missing. At the same time 21 we don't really have a definitive answer here as to whether this would be subject to our green 22 building requirements. I have not heard a definitive answer on that one way or another tonight. 23 So perhaps some additional time to get an answer to that question as well would be good. I am 24 looking for a way that we can not put it beyond the next meeting of Council and bring it back 25 earlier. It doesn't sound like we would be able to do that. I don't really want to delay it here and 26 I don't think it is going to substantively impact the outcome of the decision, but there have been 27 some very solid questions raised tonight that I think do need to get addressed. So that is sort 28 where I am at this point. Commissioner Tanaka. 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I have been thinking about this a bit. We could continue it or we could 31 approve it as it is. I would like to put out an idea, not necessarily a motion, but an idea for us to 32 perhaps discuss and think about that maybe allows us to move this forward. One thought I had 33 was that right now the tennis court doesn't count toward the FAR, and in fact if it did it would 34 exceed their limit. Perhaps one alternative to get more consensus on the Commission on this 35 item to allow it to go forward would be to say that if we do allow this that all of the available 36 FAR is taken up. So they can no longer build the additional 6,142 square feet, which they could 37 do. Let's say we do approve this tennis court they could rightfully build another house or 38 whatever up to 6,142 square feet. It would be maybe just as large. So perhaps saying that this 39 counts towards that and nothing more is an option perhaps. I don't know if Staff has a comment 40 on that suggestion, but that is something I was thinking about. They do have a right to actually 41 build bigger if they wanted to for some other residential structure. 42 43 Mr. Williams: If I could just clarifY that a little bit. They only have SOO-plus square feet of 44 impervious surface left. So they couldn't put a one-story 6,000 square foot structure up there 45 because they don't haven the impervious surface. If they build over an existing area that was Page 20 I already impervious, say for example they took the swimming pool and covered that up and built 2 a structure on top of that It is already counted as impervious. 3 4 Commissioner Tanaka: Or they could replace the tennis court. 5 6 Mr. Williams: They could do that, yes. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: My point is or the way I look at it is they have certain rights right now 9 and we could say no we don't want this, but they could say well tomorrow I am going to build 10 another house here. So perhaps as a nice trade to make this move forward we could say look, we II realize that this is a recreational structure, and yes we realize that is really recreational and not 12 somebody's eoncert hall or somebody's spare little room, or whatever. Let it count towards the 13 FAR wc eliminate the net building floor area for future structures that would go with the land so 14 we don't have to worry about the policing issues necessarily, and it would also prevent perhaps 15 future owners from actually building out the additional 6,142 square feet, or converting it. If we 16 allowed it it perhaps could rightfully convert all that structure to livable residential use perhaps. 17 Anyway I just wanted to talk about this as a way for us to -because I assume that our applicants 18 are eager and our time is valuable. Perhaps this is a way that we can make it a win/win situation 19 for everyone. So that is the thing perhaps we could consider. 20 21 The second idea that perhaps we could think about and it is actually something that Vice-Chair 22 Lippert mentioned. I am not a structural engineer and we have three architects here who could 23 ,probably tell me whether this is out of the question or not. I would think that it wouldn't take a 24 lot to covert this given the steel structure to actually make this kind of a living or green roof even 25 with the current pitch. I don't know but perhaps if we say well, if it were a green roof, not by 26 color I mean by planting. Exactly. Maybe grass or turf or whatever it might be for the roof. 27 That would be making it conforming to the structure, to the foothills, and more to the land, and 28 allow the applicant to get what they want without a lot of additional work. It would also help the 29 environment because it would be offsetting the heat island perhaps and reducing the carbon 30 footprint. So it would do much more than just having a roof or having better insulation. It 31 would actually help make it some of the things that they actually already have with the chiller, 32 with the concrete being heated by the sun. So I wanted to throw that idea out there. Perhaps this 33 is a way for us to ask the Commission to move forward on this item, allow the applicant to get 34 what they need, and it also protects people who will see this later on. They will look at grass 35 instead of perhaps a composite shingle roof. So I would like to get your feedback and see if this 36 ' is something that perhaps we can make a doable situation. 37 38 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber. 39 40 Commissioner Garber: I will not be supporting the substitute motion as it currently exists. I 41 want to talk through a couple of tile issues as I see them. First of all, use. The recreational 42 facility is an allowable conditional use, meaning it is allowable unless the use is found the 43 findings can't be made to support it. If this use were being proposed in a place that there are 44 greater impacts felt relative to their impacts to existing Comprehensive Plan policies or goals. 45 So for instance say at a lower elevation, you have a site that has better access, a site that is say at 46 the bottom of the Foothills Park where there is greater visual access to it. Page 21 I 2 All of those start to bump into the various other policies of the Comprehensive Plan that have the 3 greatest impact to actually cause one to question whether that happens. In this particular site 4 those impacts are negligible. In fact, if you look at what is there now, which is a bright green 5 surface and a blue surface, those are two colors, which are not allowed in the Comprehensive 6 Plan. So introducing a color that is essentially barely changing the mass of the structure that is 7 currcntly seen out there but is brown, and recognizing also that the site itself is the result of a 8 very manmade act of a quarry, and results in a variety of very unnatural features which have only 9 been driven over time. This particular project also looks to mitigate those issues as well. So if 10 you made an argument that it shouldn't deal with them but I don't see how those kinds of II findings can actually be made when the reality is we are dealing with an existing condition that 12 was permitted. It was reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission whenever that was. 13 The size is not really an issue here. It was pointed out by the Director other similar size 14 . structures exist in the Open Space, and in fact exist in the Open Space in places that are 15 significantly more impactful. 16 17 The other issue that I will remind us of is that one ofthe issues of the Open Space is that they are 18 not the impacts to thc skylinc. Here is a mass, as big as it is has zero impact to the skyline. It is 19 beneath that house, it is beneath the surrounding hills. From our understanding of those that can 20 see it everyone that can see it is looking down at it. So there is no impact to the skyline. 21 22 So to restate, you mayor may not agree with the decision to have put the project there initially 23 . but we are being given something that improves visually and in relation to the noise impacts that 24 it has on the neighbors and better supports the Comprehensive Plan than what we have now. 25 26 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert. 27 28 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber you make some very compelling points here. I don'! 29 necessarily disagree with you. But what I see here is that there are a number of questions or 30 issues that are raised, and I simply wish to make sure that those questions are fleshed out. 31 32 There are some additional items that I wanted to add to that growing list of questions. It was 33 reviewed for the current cnnfiguration or the use as a tennis court, but I don't believe that at the 34 time that it was reviewed by our former colleagues that there was a bubble dome involved. The 35 bubble dome is something that was added. A building permit was not required but probably 36 would have had to return to the PTC for our review if they wanted to add that. Now what is the 37 significance of the bubble dome? The significance of the bubble dome is that that preserves the 38 ice. That allows for the ice to grow and remain. In the winter time if that bubble dome was not 39 there during our rainy season water would collect, pond, and in fact deteriorate the ice surface 40 whether it was at full court or not. In addition to that I am sure that the bubble dome adds to 41 insulative air quality value in terms of that ice melting on a sunny winter day. So while I don't 42 disagree that this is a better project than what is there where the subtlety is is that there are a lot 43 of questions that have been asked that need to be addressed before we can do our work in 44 forwarding this to the City Council with a recommendation. 45 Page 22 I Lastly I wanted to mention the degree or the volume at which this is a recreational use. Before I 2 had alluded to and used the examples of a museum on an island. I had used the idea of having a 3 theater for recreational purposes. In this case it is a hockey rink. So the intensification of the use 4 there for recreational purposes, in order to be able to be used, if! played tennis on that it is just 5 me and one other person. Maybe we are playing doubles and maybe there are a couple of people 6 that are watching. But you need 12 people to play ice hockey in a reasonable way, unless some 7 people are in a penalty box of course. Where I am going with this is it is for the private use of 8 the residents, however it is not uncommon to invite people and to have events, and to maybe 9 even have a whole hockey team tbere practicing on a regular basis. So what I am looking at or 10 where I am going with this is that the intensification of the use in the Open Space may not be II appropriate. In using the example of the theater if! were to build a theater this size for my 12 prodigy daughter that wishes to perfonn and invite all my relatives again that triggers the same 13 impacts in the Open Space. I am just making sure that we are covering all of our bases and this 14 doesn't begin to set a precedent. That's all. 15 16 Chllir Tuma: Commissioner Garber, you had something you wanted to respond to that. Then I 17 think our Planning Director has a comment he would like to make as well. 18 19 Commissioner Garber: You may have to review the relevance of the bubble because I anl not 20 sure I was getting what you were trying to get at there. Let me just talk abont the use for a 21 moment. First of all this is conditioned to be private use versus commerciaL Setting that aside 22 for a moment there is nothing that keeps me from inviting the Planning aod Transportation 23 Commission and their families over to my house every weekend, five days a week, which when 24 we add them all up is significantly more than a hockey team, Whether they would come or not is 25 another question. But the point is that in the private world you don't get a chance to weigh in on 26 that. The reality is that it is conditioned that I can't go out and open up a party store on my 27 property. I can't go out and start selling tickets to the well, it wouldn't be a hockey rink in the 28 back of my yard, but whatever I would be playing because that doesn't meet the code and 29 zoning. So the argument that it is an intensit1cation of use has no bearing. 30 31 Chair Tuma: Planning Director. 32 33 Mr. Williams; I just wanted to clarify for those of you who have questions, but my 34 understaoding of the number 13 in there as far as the number on the site is they play three-on- 35 three hockey, they don't play full six man hockey teams. So it is basically six players and maybe 36 a few other friends or parents or something like that that are there. 37 38 Then also I didn't address before the question of enforcement. Enforcement is always a good 39 issue to look at. In this case, I think it is largely self-enforcing in terms of we are going to hear if 40 there are more, and if they are bothering somebody we are going to hear from someone about 41 that. You are right, we wouldn't probably know if there are 15 instead of 13 and it is not 42 bothering anyone. The reason we have a number at all is so that the amount of traffic and the 43 amount of noise doesn't affect neighbors. If it starts to affect them I am sure we are going to 44 hear about that and will have to take action. If it is a continual problem then we would have to 45 come back to the Commission and look at whether the Use Permit needs to be revised. That is Page 23 lone ofthe advantages of having a Use Pennit, which is probably the most enforceable instrument 2 that we do have, because it is a living sort of document. 3 4 Chair Tuma: Okay. Mr. McNealy do you have a comment you want to make? 5 6 Mr. McNealy: No, I was going to ... This is not a hockey rink it is an ice skating surface. It is 7 well under half size, probably under a third of the size of a nonnal ice rink. You couldn't put full 8 teams on each side, and you would not hold any games or any sanctioned events or anything just 9 because it is a nonconforming, tiny piece of ice from a hockey perspective. Just so everybody 10 knows. II 12 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: I guess the question is whether the puck stops here. So first of all I 15 seconded the original motion because I did think that this was an improvement over the status 16 quo. I still agree with that. 17 18 In terms of code enforcement I notice that that's an interesting question. I notice that there is a 19 neighbor around the corner from me that has tons of garbage all over his house behind the fence 20 and code enforcement has been very lax with respect to that even though they have come out 21 several times and said do something. So whether they will come out here to enforce something 22 in the Open Space is even more of a questionable issue. 23 24 I am intrigued by the suggestions of Commissioner Tanaka. The one is very easy to implement 25 in tenns of the original motion and to amend it to basically not allow any additional FAR. That 26 is easy to do. With respect to the green roof however I am not sure whether that is something 27 that where that would be. I guess it doesn't really fit in this as an architectural issue. Does this 28 go before the ARB or does it not go before the ARB? 29 30 Mr. Reich: It does not go before the ARB. 31 32 Commissioner Keller: So it is not really clear how that fits. It is an issue of visual quality here. 33 34 Mr. Williams: It is Site and Design. You could refer it to the ARB for them to look at it but this 35 is Site and Design so you are looking at the design components. If you directed that it be a green 36 roofwe would have to work with the applicant to come up with something. I know they have 37 looked at that issue and didn't go that way so there are probably reasons they could explain why 38 they didn't think that was feasible. I think it is something that you would need to work with 39 them on to accomplish that. 40 41 Mr. McNealy: Can I respond to the green roof idea? We did discuss the green roof idea. First 42 of all, this is a unique property in the sense that there is only one resident in Palo Alto that is not 43 a mile away that can see this. They have written a letter saying they are comfortable with this, 44 and they are fine with the roof materials and all the rest of it. The other people are a mile away 45 and cannot see the roof within a couple of years of growing in the shrubbery. They will not see 46 it. They will not be able to see through the shrubbery. There is nowhere else anybody could Page 24 I build a house in Palo Alto to see this. There is just nowhere. There is no way. So doing the 2 added expense of putting significantly more heavy steel in here, waterproofing it, irrigating it, 3 and trimming it, or whatever else J would have to go do and then creating a fire hazard when I 4 don't irrigate it. It would be an incredibly expensive and maintenance-full kind of effort for 5 something that nobody else will see except when I look out our kitchen window. We are the 6 only ones that are going to be able to see this other than the one who lives in Palo Alto who is 7 comfortable with this. 8 9 So with respect to committing to never building something else on the site, this is my second 10 process through the Planning and permit process, J am pretty comfortable that I am done building II in Palo Alto. So 1 would be more than willing to make that compromise. 12 13 The final point I would like to make is my boys want to skate. We got permits and built this 14 thing so that they could skate. I am going to brag. They arc very elite hockey players. They are 15 all playing travel hockey. Two are playing on the top tier teams in Northern California and are 16 traveling. My 11 year old is going to eight different cities outside of the state and playing in 17 tournaments this year. We will have them skate but it is going to be noisy and it is going to be 18 energy consuming this winter if we don't get a cover put up on this thing. 19 20 My expectations when we did all this was not that the City was going to try and find a way to 21 keep me from skating but rather that the City would help us continue to do this in the least 22 irnpactful way to our neighbors. We did an enormous amount building the house to lower the 23 site. In fact, John will tell you that the Planning Commission has held our house up as a way to 24 build a green house, one that blends in with the environment. I think Dave Dockter will tell you 25 we have done a spectacular job of maintaining Open Space feel around that place. We spent an 26 enormous amount of time and energy to save trees around the place. So I guess I take a little bit 27 of personal affront, we came to Open Space to put the HP Pavilion up there. That is not what we 28 have done and I think we have worked very, very hard from the time we started the planning 29 process originally to do something that was very compatible with the Open Space, and have 30 created an envirorunent for kids to grow up in but not violate the letter or the intent of what 31 everybody is trying to do. Everything has been done by permit there. 32 33 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, were you done? 34 35 Commissioner Keller: No. So the interesting thing about this is we are at the beginning of 36 September. The winter is coming upon us soon as the rainy season is coming upon us. I am 37 wondering the extent to which there will be delays of impact on the schedule if it comes back 38 before us. The extent to which we can still take this maybe if it does come back before us maybe 39 it can be on our Consent Calendar based on identified issues so that this can be expedited 40 through the process and doesn't take much time. I am wondering the extent to which that can be 41 addressed. Is that perhaps something the applicant or the Planning Director can talk about the 42 impact on the schedUle? 43 44 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ask if there can be an amendment? 45 46 Commissioner Keller: I think it is worthwhile understanding the issue first. Page 25 I 2 Chair Tuma: Mr. Planning Director. 3 4 Mr. Williams: So the question is can this come back on your Consent Calendar basically. 5 6 Commissioner Keller: And will there be an impact on the schedule ifthal were to happen? 7 8 Mr. Williams: Well, if it were on the Consent Calendar for two weeks from now, which I am not 9 sure how we could, I think if you are looking at addressing the questions that you have asked that 10 could be difficult to do. We would have to have the Staff Report out by next week. Then it II would probably be on the Council's October 4 meeting as a Consent item rather than the 20th of 12 this month. There is not a meeting on the 27th by the Council. If it goes to the 29 th whether it is 13 Consent Calendar or not then it is best case going to probably be October II or actually there is 14 not a meeting on October 11 because that is a holiday. So it would be October 18. 15 16 Commissioner Keller: So perhaps a question for the applicant is how would the Council 17 approval being delayed roughly a month affect the schedule for this and affect whether we would 18 need another temporary use permit for the bubble or again or whether we could construct this in 19 time for this winter. 20 21 Mr. Lerch: Well, there is a little bit of a game of chicken that goes on here. I have engineers 22 that have studied this but it is hard to go authorize them to fully develop that and then to order 23 the trusses which take quite awhile to get made, and then the structure. The structure will go up 24 very fast. One of the things that wc liked about this and spent a lot of effort on this so that the 25 neighbors would not feel like there was this ma<;sivc construction project going on. The ring of 26 this thing is substantial. So this would come pre-made and thc trusses would go on very quickly. 27 That said it still pushes us into an awkward situation. Do r tell the engineers to go now or do we 28 still sit and wait in limbo? We are trying to get a sense. The north neighbors, I know most of the 29 people that complained. I want for the record to make it elear that the people across the way that 30 are part of this whole house, they came over. I gave them tours. I showed them the materials. 31 They were very engaged with this. They liked the orange dome but they were very engaged. So 32 if! gave the impression of to hell with the Portola Valley people, I didn't mean to do that. We 33 would engage them. 34 35 Chair TUl)1J!: Let me ask Commissioner Keller's question a different way. Let's assume that this 36 were to go through tonight, gct approved by City Council thc 20th of September. When would 37 you anticipate completion of this? 38 39 Mr. Lerch: Yeah. I think it will take about six weeks to get the trusses made, and about six 40 weeks to put it in and finish the whole roof. 41 42 Chair Tuma: So you think it is feasible that you would have this done by the end of the year. 43 44 Mr. Lerch: Yes. Now they start their sea~on. 45 46 Mr. McNealy: They have already started. All fouf of them. Page 26 I 2 Mr. Lerch: We would like to gct going so the lost time at this point is a tough one. 3 4 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg. 5 6 Commissioner Fineberg: Question for the City Attorney. If, I am not proposing this, but if 7 nothing was done at the site does the applicant have the legal entitlement to continue to use it as 8 an open ice hockey structure? Does using it for ice hockey without a roof, without any 9 construction, docs that use require a CUP? 10 II Ms. Tronguet: No. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So the intensification of usc from tennis to hockey. 14 15 Ms. Tronguet: I think it is a sport court, right? 16 17 Commissioner Fineberg: With completely different infrastructure. I just want to be really clear 18 on this because I think a lot of the issues relate to the intensification of use, traffic, and the 19 numbers of people. They are very difl'erent from a passive tennis court to an industrial structure. 20 21 Me. Williams: We don't have any restriction as to how that court is used right now. It is an open 22 ' court. If he wants to have 50 people out there playing paddle ball against the walls, its allowed. 23 That is not a sport court. We don't have any specific use restrictions. 24 25 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Just as a comment, I am quite troubled that as part of the 26 review of this I sensitive to the needs of the applicant, I am sensitive that time is money, but we 27 need to make due consideration. We need to make the right decision. We need to be respectful 28 of our Comprehensive Plan and our Zoning Ordinances. Those in my opinion trump making the 29 wrong decision quickly. So I believe we need answers to some of these questions that have been 30 raised. We need a better analysis by Staff for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We 31 need an analysis by Staff, visuals from Open Space, from Arastradero Preserve, from Foothill 32 Park. I have not heard statements from Staff that they were in those locations to confirm that this 33 was not visible. So those are big open items in my mind. We need an understanding of what 34 building code applies. We need an understanding of and a discussion which we have not had 35 tonight of whether the conditions that have been presented by Staff are appropriate. So I don't 36 see that this is ready for an affirmative recommendation to Council. I would support the motion 37 that this item be continued. The substitute motion that the item be continued and hope that it 38 would come back to us with the substantive issues addressed so that our consideration could 39 include those absolutely critical pieces. 40 41 Ch~jrT\lma: Commissioner Tanaka. 42 43 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I just wanted to address the applicant's concern about a 44 green roof. I know when you think about a green roof you are probably thinking really big 45 dollars. Actually, I put a green roof on my house and I am not a wealthy person by any stretch of 46 the imagination. If you were to put a rubber tree on that roof and groves of big pine trees that is Page 27 I going to be a lot of money. But there are a lot of types of green roofs out there like if you plant 2 grass. There is almost no or sometimes less structural impact. You might also find that there is 3 quite a bit of insulative value that happens as well, which will actually lower your electric bill for 4 your chillers. So I think structurally depending on how green you want to go, you can put five 5 feet of soil on there or you can put two inches for grass. I think it will affect the cost. I think if 6 you just go two inches I don't think your current structure is going to be inadequate but of course 7 you have to talk to a structural engineer. The insulating value I think that is actually offsetting 8 the carbon footprint from the chillers perhaps. 9 10 I actually did it because you get a rebate from the City actually by doing a green roof, by square 11 foot. So you have a lot of square footage you get a pretty big rebate. So that offsets some cost as 12 well and that is another thing to consider. 13 14 I appreciate the applicant's time, but I think for the Commission I think our time is also valuable. 15 I understand there are a lot of questions we don't know but I think expediency is important, and 16 what the intent is for the applicant to accomplish is important as well. So I think at this point I 17 would like to make a friendly amendment. 18 19 Commissioner Garber: To the substitute motion? 20 21 Chair Tuma: The substitute motion is the motion on the table. 22 23 Commissioner Garbel: Not unless the substitute motion fails and then it comes back to the 24 original. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. So it will have to wait. 27 28 Chair Tuma: Vice-Chair Lippert. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with Commissioner Fineberg and while I appreciate that the 31 applicant has a time schedule here and time constraints. On the flip side they could have come 32 before us a long time ago, prior to winter, and had come to us with a proposal and gotten the 33 comments. The important thing here is though is that in some ways Pandora's Box has been 34 opened. Even if! were to vote in support of this project the way it is right now, enough 35 questions have been raised that chances are City Council would pull this from the Consent 36 Calendar and ask those questions if they were not adequately addressed. So what I think makes 37 the most sense here is to have the applicant have Staff address the questions and concerns that 38 have been raised here. Let it come back to us as expeditiously as possible. I have no problem 39 with this coming back to us on Consent, but chances arc it will be pulled from Consent so that 40 the issues can be flushed out. Ijust want to see this thing move forward as quickly as possible. I 41 don't think the quickest way to get there is to make a recommendation to approve it tonight and 42 send it to Council. 43 44 Chair Tuma: A question on procedure. If we were to pass it tonight and the Council were to pull 45 this from their Consent Calendar does that mean that it would come back for a hearing or would 46 it actually be heard on the 20th? Page 28 1 2 Mr. Williams: It would come back for a hearing. I think the way -they generally don't go. 3 They generally want to provide full notice and set a hearing date. I think the way that I reeall the 4 attorney said before is that they could really only hear it that night if it is kind of on the reeord of 5 what is being done without any new evidence being presented which is counter to the way they 6 typically do hearings on a regular basis. 7 8 Chair Tuma: Procedurally remind me again how many Council Members it takes to pull an item 9 off of Consent. 10 II Mr. Williams: Three. 12 13 Commissioner Fineberg: A quick follow up. When an item goes to Council on the Consent 14 Calendar is there any information about the item included in the packet that is distributed to the 15 public? 16 17 Mr. Williams: The entire Staff Report and attachments. Exactly what the Council gets. 18 19 Commissioner Fineberg: So there isn't a truncated form or ... ? I thought ..... 20 21 Mr. Williams: No, we give them your Staff Report. all of your minutes, etc. Those are all 22 available to the public the same way as the Council. 23 24 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Kel!er. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: I am going to suggest if I maya friendly amendment to the substitute 27 motion. The friendly amendment is that this come back to us on Consent and not a datc ccrtain 28 but a goal date of September 29 or before. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have no problem with that. 31 32 Commissioner Martinez: That's fine. 33 34 Mr. Williams: Can you repeat that? 35 36 Commissioner Keller: I said that it come back to us on Consent. I am not suggesting we 37 continue it to a date certain because that has legal ranlifications, but that we have a goal of 38 having it on September 29 ifnot before. 39 40 Mr. Williams: We could do that. 41 42 Vice-Chair Lippert: There is no harm in stating a date certain. If Staff is not ready they will just 43 put it on the next agenda. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: Is it okay to have a date certain or would you feel more comfortable with 46 the way I worded it? Page 29 I 2 Mr. Williams: I am comfortable with the September 29 date. 3 4 Commissioner Keller: Should I make it a date certain of September 29? 5 6 Chair Tuma: So that friendly amendment has been accepted by the makers. I have a question 7 again of Staff. Is there any circumstance or is it at all feasible that it would actually come back 8 to us on the 15!!1 on Consent? In other words, are we boxing ourselves into the 29th by doing it as 9 a date certain as opposed to as soon as possible? 10 II Mr. Williams: There is no problem with saying that and we probably should do that. 12 13 Chair Tuma: Leave it open to as soon as possible? 14 15 Mr. Williams: Yes. Since it is on Consent it is not requiring notice. The public hearing is 16 closed right? As long as the public hearing is closed and it comes back on Consent we can do 17 the 15 or the 29th• 18 19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Are you asking for another friendly amendment? 20 21 Chair Tuma: Yes, to make it as soon as possible as opposed to a date certain in the event that we 22 can get it back on the IS, which potentially could keep it on track for approval by Council on the 23 20tll. 24 25 Mr. Williams: No it wouldn't. 26 27 Chair Tuma: In any event I would like a friendly amendment that we not box the date in and that 28 we try to do it as soon as possible. If we can get it done by the 15 then we get it done by the 15th 29 30 Viee-Chair Lippert: Acceptable. 31 32 ~hair Tuma: Any other comment or discussion before we vote on the substitute motion? 33 34 Commissioner Tanaka: I think we have been talking about this item for some time now. I think 35 there are a lot of questions not fully answered. I think we have ways to mitigate it perhaps. So I 36 would say that perhaps with some amendments we could actually move this forward. So I 37 wanted to throw it out there and we could consider that. 38 39 Chair Tuma: Before we vote, I would like to hear in the event that the vote on the substitute 40 motion was to fail what proposed amendments would you have? 41 42 Commissioner Tanaka: I would have three. One would be that basically there is no more FAR. 43 That it is taken up by this roof. That there is a green roof so basically the roof becomes 44 subordinate to the foothills. And three that everyone that complained got noticed by maiL I 45 think that would cover the majority of the issues that are being raised tonight Then the applicant 46 can move forward and we can move forward. Page 30 1 2 Chair Tuma: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Garber. 3 4 COll1l1lissioner Fineberg: Can I add to the list of conditions? If it failed the condition I 5 mentioned earlier about the maintenance and irrigation of the trees similar to the previous project 6 we saw. I talked about that earlier. Also, we really have not discussed the conditions of 7 approval. I think wc need to make sure that that is an inclusive as we would want it to be. We 8 have not touched on it at all frankly. 9 10 Chair Tuma: I do think in his original motion the maker of the underlying motion raised the II conditions of approval. So they were discussed in his motion. There may in fact be additionaL 12 One last thing before we vote. Mr. McNealy you look like you are dying to say something. 13 14 Mr. McNealy: At some point Planning, the incremental screening, building a roof, going 15 through this process, losing the season, all the rest of it far outweighs the energy cost of just 16 buying a little thermal rug to be thrown out. By the way, people do ice everywhere allover the 17 place and I don't think we get any of the visual advantages and all the rest of it that we are 18 willing to go do. So at some point, I don't know where that is, but I just say the heek with it I am 19 not going to deal with Planning, I am not going to do the roof, I am not going to mitigate the 20 noise, and I am going to play hockey. The ROlon that is that at some point the boys will stop 21 playing hockey. I don't play hockey any more. So I really think that we have made a very 22 aggressive compromising strategy. I am not interested in - I don't know. It took me two years 23 to get a building permit the first time. I know the Staff has worked very, very hard. We 24 submitted this originally back in because I was told in March that the Temporary Permit Use or 25 whatever it was called would not be allowed next year so we ought to start investigating some 26 more permanent structure. We started talking immediately after we got the letter, and then 27 submitted the original thing back in May. So we have been answering a million questions all 28 along the way and evaluating green roofs and all these other things. We have had Dave Dockter 29 out on numerous occasions to go work on exactly the right landscaping and all the rest of it. We 30 have tried to do this thing absolutely progressively and by the books, and to do things that are 31 just making it a better place. At some point I run out of gas. 32 33 <:;hair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, a last comment. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what the applicant is saying. I think though that we are 36 adding actually more certainty to the process by doing the vetting through the Planning 37 Commission and reducing the potential that the City Council will pull it from the Consent 38 Calendar. Therefore if the City Council were to pull it from the Consent Calendar it would be 39 even more delayed than we arc introducing now. So we are adding some delay but we are 40 reducing the variance in the process if you can understand what I mean by that. 41 42 Vice-Chair Lippert: If I might say something. I appreciate your frustration. I am a practicing 43 architect as well and I need to gct through the public process. In the end I would not act rashly. 44 Just Ict us do our job and we will try to get it through thc process as quickly as possible. 45 Page 31 I Chair T uma: I am going to ask one other procedural question of the Planning Director and then 2 we are going to vote. That question is if this were to go to Council and they pull it off of 3 Consent could they instead of them deciding could they send it back? In other words, based on 4 the issues that we have raised tonight is it conceivable that they eould send it back to the 5 Planning Commission and that would cause further delay? 6 7 Mr. Williams: Since it is at their discretion if they felt that would be useful they eould do that. 8 9 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0. Commissioners Tanaka, Garber, and Tuma opposed) IO II Chair Tuma: Okay. Anything else? So we are going to vote on the substitute motion, which I 12 believe in summary is that this mailer be continued to the first available date for the Planning 13 Commission, and that it come back to us with an analysis of the various issues that have been 14 raised including the additional Comprehensive Plan policies and Open Space District Ordinance, 15 and also the analysis against green building requirements. All those in favor of the substitute 16 motion please say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? (nays) So that motion passes with 17 Commissioners Fineberg, Lippert, Martinez, and Keller voting in favor and Commissioners 18 Tanaka, Garber, and Tuma voting against. So I will close tbe public hearing and this will come 19 back to us on Consent on the first available date. 20 21 Okay, thank you very much. 22 Page 32 DISCUSSION: Outreach The Town of Portola Valley provided address labels for those properties they believed may have a vantage point of the proposed roof and staff mailed meeting notice cards to those addresses on Tuesday September t h to provide a one-week courtesy notice prior to the September 15th P&TC meeting. Maps are included as Attachment B to this report to show the properties in Palo Alto and Portola Valley which were sent notices. There has been much discussion about the facility as a proposed "hockey rink." The telm "hockey rink" may lead some to a false impression of something larger and more impactful to its surroundings than the roof covering that is proposed. The homeowner states "The sport court is a multi purpose facility that is used year round by the residents and their friends. Activities include soccer, skateboarding, roller hockey, ice hockey, tennis and other games such as nerf dart wars." This is an existing sport court where the parents place some ice for their children to practice hockey. When the COUlt has ice, it is used primarily by the residents themselves after homework has been completed, and friends come over for one on one, two on two or three on three "pickup" games. The tennis court size of the rink makes it inappropriate for a normal game of ice hockey with six players on each side or for practice with a full team of players. There are no players' benches, scoreboards, penalty boxes or viewing stands. The size of the ice is less than a third of regulation ice rinks. While ice rinks arc not typical recreational activities on a residential lot in this area, the Open Space district does not place limits on how many gnests a resident may invite to their home or what kind of physical activities they may engage in. Off Site Views On September 1,2010, the applicant shared photographic views ofthe project taken with a telephoto lens from Westridge in Portola Valley. The entire western side of the sport court is hidden from views from the west by a massive cluster of mature oak trees. Staff has provided a topographic map to show that the project is not visible from Foothills Park or thc Arastradero Preserve. Comprehensive Plan Policies The September 1,2010 staff report (page 6) noted that Open Space Review Criteria 1,2,9,10 and II would be addressed by the proposed project, followed by a paragraph about the project to illustrate why it complied with those particular Open space Design Criteria. The Reeord of Land Use Action (RLUA) includes two sections responding to statements about the project's compliance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Section 3, Site and Design Review Findings (Finding #4) and Section 5, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Findings (Finding #2). Site and Design Review Finding #4 states, "The use will be in aeeord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan," reflecting the Open Space Review Criteria in the Plan and Zoning Code. The attached RLUA Section 3 has been modified to provide more specificity with respect to how the projeet complies with each ofthe criteria. CUP Finding #2 states, "The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance." The September I, 2010 RLUA cited only Comprehensive Plan PolieyN-7, which is the policy that sets forth the same City of Palo Alto Page 2 Open Space Review Criteria, It should also be noted that these criteria listed in the Comprehensive Plan are also included in the Open Space District zoning regulations. Policy N-6 and L-3 were cited by P&TC members as applicable to the project, related to their concerns regarding the extent of the roof and use. These policies are now included in the modified RLUA, whieh would be forwarded with the P&TC's recommendation to Council. While there are examples of Recreational Facilities subject to CUP approval in the Open Space Zone Distriet (Palo Alto Hills Country Club is one such examply, with roofed buildings on site), most recreational facilities associated with residential properties in the Open Space Zone District are non-roofed, are intended for use by the homeowners and their friends, and are considered accessory facilities customarily associated with the primary residential use. Swimming pools and tennis courts are usually non-roofed and do not trigger a CUP. There are, however, a multitude of recreational uses and structures that exist within in the hills of and above Palo Alto, There are swim and tennis clubs with multiple pools and tennis courts, There are equestrian centers with stables, barns, and lighted arenas. There is a golf and country club as well as schools and parks with soccer fields, baseball fields, and basketball courts. There is one property has a substantial warehouse complex with hundreds of vintage wartime vehicles including tanks. It is common to find recreational uses and facilities associated with the large properties typically found in the Open Space zone district. Many properties in the vicinity of the project have swimming pools, basketball courts, chipping/putting greens, stables and riding trails, etc, The sport court represents only 1 % coverage ofthe 13.35 acre site; if it were habitable area, the court would exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the site by 1,187 square feet. A draft condition of approval (Condition #4 in the RLUA) has been modified to restrict any additional FAR from being added to the property. Roof Materials Since the court structure is mostly buried, the proposed roof would have a very low profile, and the proposed vegetation was designed to screen the new roof, staff has supported the use of composition shingles for the project. This roof material, while not natural, was selected for its natural color and ability to blend into the open space environment This roof material is non- reflective and is fire retardant as opposed to some natural materials that have high reflectivity and may be fire hazards. A green roof had been suggested by one Commissioner. The primary environmental benefit of a green roof would be to reduee storm water runoff or to reduce the "urban heat island effect" caused by vast areas covered by paving or structures. They are therefore typically most effective in urban environments where those conditions exist. These are not issues in the open space where development is sparse. The only real benefit of a green roof applied in this location would be aesthetics. The natural plant material could blend well with the other plant material in the area. If the roof were highly visible, a green roof may be a reasonable solution, but the only vantage points of this roof are from a great distance away, The proposed roof and screening would adequately address any visual concerns. The City'S Grecn Building Regulations, P AMC 18.44, applies to new construction over 1,000 sf and is typically enforced at the time of building pernlit application. The Green Building Program offers the ability for applicants to apply for exemption to the requirements for projects with unusual scopes, or where the green building rating system, in this case LEED (Leadership in Energy and City 01 Palo Alto Page 3 Environmental Design) can not be feasibly applied. While very few exemptions have been approved to date, this project would be considered for an exemption since the use and location make it infeasible for an adequate amount of points to be claimed under LEED. For example, without plumbing fixtures, points can not be claimed in the water category, and with the structure planned over an existing sport court, on an existing residential property that has already been developed, it is not likely that any points are achievable in the site category. Furthermore, LEED was developed for broad use nationally, without variation for rural and urban application. Some of the points are not as environmentally beneficial or applicable in the open space, such as cool/green roofs. In consideration of the exemption request, staff will require the applicant to "green" the project as is feasible for the use and location. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. The proposal complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted in the RLUA. While a hockey rink may not be a typical accessory use to a single family residence, the Conditional Use permit process provides the ability to appropriately regulate such a use within the Open Space environment. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration were available for public review between August 16, 2010 and September 7, 2010. NEXT STEPS Upon recommendation by the P&TC, the project would be placed on the City Council consent calendar for approval. ATTACHMENTS: A. Record of Land Use Action (amended since September I, 2010) B. Notification Maps, Palo Alto/Portola Valley C. Public Correspondence D. Topographic map E. Initial StudylDraft Mitigated Negative Declaration COURTESY COPIES: John Lerch Peggy Law Town of Portola Valley Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager DepartmentlDivision Head Approval: __ --'~~~"""-'''-'.~-''\..L}J''''·'''~ ... n .... ''''>...rnM& ... ~'''lll'''''''':_ _ ___,__--- Curtis Williams, Director of Planning City of Palo Alto Page 4 ATTACHMENT H I Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 September 15, 2010 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 8 610 Los Trancos Road: Request by John Lerch on behalf of Scott McNealy for Site and Design 9 Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court facility and the 10 addition of new landscape material as screening for the new roof. Environmental Assessment: II An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act 12 (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: OS (Open Space) 13 14 Chair Tuma: On the Consent Calendar the one and only item on there is 610 Los Trancos Road. 15 Our procedure is that if there is any Commissioner that wishes to pull that item they would need 16 to indicate that to the Chair. At that point we would pull the item, have a discussion, and move 17 forward. If not, then I would be looking for a motion for approval of the Consent Calendar. So 18 at this point are there any Commissioners wishing to pull item one from the Consent Calendar? 19 20 Commissioner Martinez: I would. 21 22 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez, okay, very good. At this point we will ask Staff if they 23 have anything that they want to add to the updated Staff Report that was given to us in our 24 packets. 25 26 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: No, I don't think you. 27 You have a number of correspondence, a number of letter that came to you, or emails that came 28 to you over the -some of them were attached to the packet and a few came in this week. 29 30 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: It may also be important to note that of the comments that came 31 in from Portola Valley as a result of our additional noticing they were all positive. We didn't 32 have any negative responses to the outreach. 33 34 Chair Tuma: Okay, very good. Commissioners, back to us for discussion and/or questions. 35 don't have any lights at this point. Commissioner Martinez. 36 37 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I think the comments from Portola Valley actually were a 38 little bit mixed. They were pleased that the City of Palo Alto was in communications with them, 39 and they appreciate the opportunity to comment on that. They also noted the questionable land 40 use of a hockey rink. I think that needs to be mentioned. I didn't read that as a positive 41 comment. 42 43 Mr. Reich: If I may discuss? No? 44 45 Commissioner Martinez: I was going to go onto something else, Curtis. So go ahead if you 46 want to respond. Page I 1 2 Mr. Reich: Ijust want to make the point that based on the comments even they said in their 3 letter that they didn't necessarily have a really clear understanding of all the factors involved, but 4 based on what they said it was clear that they didn't have an understanding of what is actually 5 proposed here. They mentioned adequacy of parking for fans. That clearly demonstrates that 6 they don't have a clear understanding of exactly what is proposed. If they had more time maybe 7 they would have a better understanding. 8 9 Commissioner Martinez: I think that was raised in a question about what is the future of the 10 potential use rather than -and I think it is a question we all have. They recommended highly I I that this use be monitored carefully because they are concerned about potential misuse and other 12 items. I personally don't share that view that somehow it is going to tum into something else, 13 but I think they raised an important point. 14 15 I really wanted to look at this from a different point of view, and I will do it and kind of borrow a 16 play from Vice-Chair Lippert through a little story. Years ago when I had a young family we 17 bought our first house in the Berkeley Hills. This was in the early 1980s. Across the street was a 18 house we called the mansion. By today's standards it is probably a mini mansion. It was very 19 elegant and our understanding of the hi story is that it was built in 1916 by an industrialist for his 20 young wife. Sixty or seventy years later she was still alive and still living in this house but really 21 incapable of much, and she was attended to by nurses. Right across from us there was an 22 outdoor tennis court. This tennis court, you could tell by its decay was maybe not used for 30 or 23 40 years. The fencing was rusting, and the netting was falling apart, and the concrete was 24 cracking. What was probably a onee very vibrant use and contribution to sort of the ambiance of 25 the neighborhood really was sort of an archaic remnant of a life that didn't exist anymore. It 26 reminded this is an important use for this young family now with four energetic boys, and a 27 lifestyle that this makes perfectly good sense for today. Looking at the future of an ice rink with 28 the 7,000 square foot roof on it, in ten years from now, which isn't very long, is that really going 29 to make the best use of this land for them or who lives there then and their children? The 30 youngest McNealy will probably be a senior at UCLA at that point and not that interested in ice 31 hockey at home. So I am wondering whether in voting for a use like this we are committing this 32 land to a use that really has little utility for the future. 33 34 MOTION 35 36 Instead I would like to propose, do we have a motion on the floor? Okay. I would like to 37 propose a motion that we recognize the importance, if only to this family, of this use and we 38 extend the Temporary Use Permit for ten years with the inflatable dome that they are now using. 39 So they can continue in their lifestyle and in their support of their family for a use that is very 40 important to them, but at the end of that time that structure be taken down and allow the 41 approved use pennit to be reinstated. I would ask that there be conditions of approval that 42 include additional landscape screening to buffer noise and sight lines, and conditions that also 43 explieitly state the hours of use, and other uses for the number of people and visitors and like 44 that, and games that I am sure are not the intention today but who knows as the children grow 45 older. I would ask that the Staff work out those conditions with the applicant. So that is my 46 motion at this time. Page 2 1 2 Chair Tuma: Is there a second? 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissionerfineberg: I will second for discussion purposes. 7 8 Chair Tuma: Motion by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Commissioner Fineberg. 9 Commissioner Martinez, would you like to speak any more to your motion? 10 II Commissioner Martinez: No, I have said what is behind the motion. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: I think if I hold the wire it will work. I think we need that CUP project 16 to redo the sound system in here. The motion on the floor has I think some benefits and some 17 possible drawbacks. I am intrigued by the idea of approving something that only would commit 18 the land to that use for ten years. By not having a fixed strueture it will not have the impacts 19 over the life of a rigid framed roof. However, and I don't know how I would prioritize these, so 20 this would be I think a question for all of us. The inflatable bubble top created visual impacts in 21 excess of this low flat roof. It was lighted so it was kind of, to take other people's words, this 22 alien glowing object in an otherwise dark night sky. That is considerably less attractive of an 23 alternative than a dark roof that you can't see. So those two things have to be weighed. 24 25 If we proceed with this I would want to see a more fully flushed out list of conditions similar to 26 what is in the list now. 27 28 Then the last couple of things just bring up, actually should I go into full comments or just 29 comments on the motion? 30 31 Chair Tuma: Comments on the motion now. I think Plarming Director actually had something 32 he would like to add to this discussion. 33 34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So that is it for my comments on the motion. So I would like to 35 have discussion of it. I definitely see pros and cons in this. 36 37 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioners. I just want to point out and I think the City Attorney 38 can speak to it more but, first of all we don't have a process to extend a Temporary Use Permit 39 even through the Commission. Our Temporary Use Permits are generally 45 days and we have 40 oecasionally although I don't know the code specifies it have extended it to 90 days. It is a 41 generally a Staif approval. 42 43 Secondly, I don't think the item is noticed for this action tonight. That is kind of a departure 44 from the Conditional Use Permit. It would probably have to be renoticed and come back to you 45 if that is the direction that you would like to go. 46 Page 3 I Thirdly, I think while it doesn't address the temporary nature of the dome if there were some 2 desire to limit the length of the use permit to ten years or something less than that or have a 3 review after that period of time you could do that with the Conditional Use Permit. Understand 4 that leaves the roof on the way it is, but it does allow for that discussion of how have conditions, 5 is the use changing, are there additional conditions that we would put on if it were a different 6 kind of use with the same stmeture. So those options would be available that way. 7 8 Then I also want to echo some of the comments that Commissioner Fineberg made about the 9 dome did have some impacts which were objectionable to a few, not a lot, but a few of the folks 10 out there including visibility, the lighting, and the noise as well. So there also were some II complaints about still hearing the noise given the use of the dome last year. 12 13 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Lippert. 14 15 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for Staff. First I have a comment I need to make. I was 16 contaeted by a member of the public, Roxy Rapp, and I was not able to discuss the item with him 17 because following our rules this is quasi-judicial and so we don't talk to members of the public. 18 19 Question for Staff. I read through Tom Vlasic's letter and there were a number of points that he 20 made. He is the Planning person at Portola Valley. The first point I think he made was that he 21 felt that the Staff Report he was given from the September 1 meeting had a lot of open questions 22 similar to the ones that we had expressed as a body. So have those been clarified with Portola 23 Valley? Russ? 24 25 Mr. Reich: Tom had expressed the use of a Conditional Use Permit was a bit concerning to 26 them. I tried to explain to him why it was necessary in this instance. He said that he gets it, he 27 understood it. This letter doesn't seem to pose outstanding questions other than it seemed that 28 they didn't have a clear understanding of what was actually proposed based on the comments 29 that they provided. I am not aware that Portola Valley has asked any questions. 30 31 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then would this item, if it were to move forward tonight, be 32 agendized again for the September 20 City Council Meeting? Is that what it was proposed for? 33 34 !vir. Williams: October 4th 35 36 Vice-Chair Lippert: October 4th, okay. So in the letter here it requested an opportunity for 37 Portola Valley to actually have and it appeared to be sort of ajoint meeting or ajoint discussion 38 with the City. We don't necessarily do that. We are public forum for that so if Portola Valley 39 wanted to review this they could agendize it. There is plenty of time for them to do that, discuss 40 it amongst themselves, and then send a representative to speak before the City Council. 41 42 Mr. Williams: Yes, they could do that. I anticipate that discussion would basically be bctween 43 Tom and whoever he wanted to have with him and Staff. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So as indicated in their letter there is ample opportunity for Portola 46 Valley .... Page 4 I 2 Mr. Williams: And Russ, as he mentioned. Russ did talk to Tom so he was able to answer some 3 questions for them. 4 5 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 6 7 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, if that is the case I am going to make a substitute motion here. To 8 move to recommend approval of the project to the City Council subject to the revised Staff 9 Report and additional information that we have received here, as well as the letters that we have 10 received from residents local to the property. II 12 SECOND 13 14 Cgmmissioner Keller: Second. 15 16 Chair Tuma: ~otion by Vice-Chair Lippert, seconded by Commissioner Keller. Vice-Chair any 17 need to speak to your motion any further? 18 19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I would just like to say first of all I would like to thank Staff. You 20 have done a really great job of flushing out the issues. We had a lot of questions or 21 misunderstandings with regard to what is being proposed here, and those have been clarified as 22 to how it fits into Site and Design for such a conditional usc. I also want to thank the applicant 23 as well. I appreciate your patience. I know that it was a grueling process in the first meeting. I 24 appreciate you returning to us again. I think that there is ample opportunity here now that we 25 have a complete Staff Report and we have letters from the Town of Portola Valley as well as 26 local residents to be able to move this forward to the City Council for them to review and take 27 final action on this item. 28 29 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, would you like to speak to your second? 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think it was worthwhile continuing this to this point in time so that 32 we could make sure that we had adequate infornlation so that we would ensure that when this 33 went to the City Council on October 4 there was that much more likelihood that it could be 34 passed at that time. 35 36 I have an additional suggestion that doesn't have to be made part of the motion formally. I 37 suggest that copy ofthe Staff Report from today as well as the minutes from the last meeting as 38 well as any attachments that were received at the meeting today be as a packet delivered to the 39 Town of Portola Valley to make it easier for them to comment on it if they wish to at the October 40 4 meeting. We might want to suggest to them that they give us feedback sufficiently in time for 41 it actually be included in the Staff packet, the CMR, for City Council. I think that would 42 facilitate things as well. Obviously their deadline would not be that but we could tell them if it 43 was received by such-and-such a date that it would be in the Staff Report and that would make 44 their input that much more useful to the Council. 45 Page 5 I I think that sometimes a little delay actually makes things faster. I think that is what happened 2 here. I think a lot of important questions were raised and I think they were properly addressed. 3 Thank you. 4 5 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg. 6 7 Commissioner Fineberg: I need to start with disclosure that I did go and do a site tour of the 8 subject property this morning. There were no substantive discussions or any learnings in our 9 discussions. The applicant was kind enough to point out some directions. Is it okay for me to 10 characterize kind of what my sense of what I saw was, because I think that goes to inform a good II decision? 12 13 Chair Iuma: Sure. 14 15 Commissioner Fineberg: It made it really clear to me that the sports rink is sunk, that there is a 16 little bit of the wall visible, and that the roof structure at the current height is not going to be that 17 high above grade. So in that respect it was very comforting being onsite. 18 19 The piece that did give me some concern was just how visible the full view of I believe it is 20 cailed Westridge in Portola Valley is. 1fT can see their houses with my line of sight below the 21 ridge of the roof, then when they are in their homes they could see my eyes below the line of the 22 roof. So my one remaining concern is the appropriate vegetation on the kind of outboard side of 23 the rink. I am very pleased that in the revised Conditions of Approval that Staff has in today's 24 Staff Report there is a requirement that the vegetative screening be planted, that it be maintained, 25 and that there is a bond with a five-year inspection. That provides in my mind enough comfort 26 that that screening will alleviate any bad line of sight from Westridge trusting the planting plan 27 that Dave Dockter and the City Arborist have worked out. 28 29 I think also that there is a new Condition of Approval that was included. It was either part of the 30 fourth or fifth item in the list that limited the addition of new FAR in the site. That answers the 31 concern of is this too big, is this too much? It means that what is there now they keep. They are 32 entitled to it. They have it. But it kind of mitigates that there just won't be more. 33 34 I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez'S comment that I would not characterize the letter 35 from the Town of Portola Valley as necessarily supporting the pr~ject. To me the significant 36 issue is that they don't have enough accurate information to make informed comment. I think 37 that is what they were telling us. Some of that is timing because the quick turnaround from our 38 last meeting to today, and some of it is simply because that information was not in the first Staff 39 Report, which is why we had so many questions. 40 41 Just to go on record with a clarification one of my question, I was just kind of wondering why we 42 were worried about the investment in the zone. I was saying what does that have to do with this 43 CUP. In getting back to look at Title 18 I realized that that basically is one of the findings that 44 are required. So it is not an application of a Comprehensive Plan but it is the findings out of 45 Title 18, and it is appropriate that even though it doesn't make sense, we are not trying to build it 46 as an investment district, or a commercial zone that the underlying value in the residential Page 6 I neighborhood, the underlying value in the Open Space is preserved, So seeing Title 18 and 2 seeing that that was an affirmation of the finding gave me the context to understand why we 3 were considering that. 4 5 My last thing, and this is something that I would hope the applicant and Staff can work out I 6 appreciate greatly that the story poles were put up. However, they were narrow and dark. I 7 don't know that we necessarily have a definition per code of what a story pole should be, but the 8 ones I have seen before have big chunky sticks and orange caution tape that is really in your face 9 and visible so when you are looking for it you can see it. While seeing it from on the site meant 10 that I understood what the dimensions would be what is there now would be impossible for II anyone to spot from any of the hillsides. It is too dark, it is too small, and it blends in. So if I 12 can ask that there be the right height, the right dimensions so it portrays the right mass, but in 13 your face visible so that when people look for it they can find it. That needs to be in place for 14 the folks from Portola Valley so they can see it, and so that as this moves forward to Council if IS any Council Members or members of the public want 10 see it they have an opportunity to find 16 what they are looking for. That's it, thank you. 17 18 I will be supporting the substitute motion notthe original motion. I don't see a way of making 19 the original motion work given that we don't have a mechanism for a ten year Conditional Use 20 Permit. I think the fixed roof mitigates the impacts better than a glowing dome. So that is where 21 I am. 22 23 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Any other comments before we go to a vote, Commissioners? So the 24 motion on the floor is for approval of -right, sorry. Commissioner Tanaka. 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I just have a quick disclosure. I also was contacted by Roxy 27 Rapp but I told him I could not talk about this item. 28 29 The other comment r would like to make just real quick is I appreciate Commissioner Martinez's 30 comment about how things change. That is actually a very observant point. I think in this case, 31 beeause it is in the Open Space, I think it might be a little different Ihanlet's say if it were inside 32 the city or a more dense area. That is all I had, Thank you. 33 34 Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to make one comment. It is a procedural comment not 35 substantive. Just to clarify for everybody in this room and anybody watching or in the future, the 36 way our procedural rules stand today as a Planning Commission we have not an absolute 37 prohibition against discussing quasi-judicial matters outside of the context of our meetings with 38 applicants or with other interested parties. However, we do have a policy that strongly 39 discourages that. So it is correct to say that we are legally able to have those conversations, 40 however as a Commission as of now we have a policy that strongly dissuades Commissioners 41 from doing that. So there seems to be a little bit of confusion about that and I just want to clarify 42 that for everybody. As several Commissioners have said today if there is contact made it does 43 require disclosure. So it is legally permissible, however we discourage it as a Commission as of 44 now. So j us! to clarify that. 45 Page 7 I With that, we will go to a vote on the substitute motion which was for recommendation of 2 approval to Council and also I believe although it was not stated explicitly that a Conditional Use 3 Pennit be approved as well. 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: I said that. 6 7 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 8 9 Chair Tuma: All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously. 10 Page 8 Reich, Russ From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1 :51 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: French, Amy Subject: FW: LeUer of Support fyi From: Vinod Khosla [mailto:vk@khoslaventures,com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 12:55 PM To: Williams, Curtis Subject: Letter of Support To whom it may concern: I arn a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road. And I have a view of their home from my house while sharing the property line east of the sport court. This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover on their sport court. The project will reduce the visual impact of the house while reducing any potential noise or light issues that may emanate from the sport court though to be honest, as their closest neighbor we have never had a problem with the court, the light or noise issues that the current setup creates. We would like to see this project completed in a timely fashion. Regards, Vinod and Neeru Khosla 9/8/2010 ATTACHMENT I Betten, Zariah Subject: FW: From: lorrie@cardinalphoto.com Date: September 7,20101:52:08 PM PDT To: Curtis.williams@CitYofPaloAlto.org Cc: "'David J. Cardinal'" <dic@cardinalpholo.com> Mr. Curtis Williams Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Williams, Page 1 of 1 As Portola Valley neighbors with a direct view of the McNealy Home on Los Trancos Road, we are in support of their proposal to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side of the cover. Their plans (of August 31, 2010), which we have reviewed, will reduce the visual impact of the house and court, including any light that may emanate from the sport court. We appreciate the McNealys' thoughtfulness in sharing their plans with us and are hopeful that this project can be completed in a timely fashion. Thank you very much, David Cardinal and Lorrie Duval Lorrie Duval Cardinal Photo Nature and Travel Photo Specialists 340 Golden Oak Drive Portola Valley, CA 94028 bltQ:/www.cardinalpholo.com http:/www.nikondigital.org +1 650.851.3086 Tel +1 650.851.3190 Fax 91712010 Reich, Russ From: French, Amy Sent: Thursday, August 26, 20108:50 AM To: Reich, Russ Subject: Fwd: Planning and Transportation Commission re: McNealy Hockey Rink See below Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Peggy Law <mc;diaproji;!ct@igc,org> Date: August 26, 20107:29:42 AM PDT To: "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CilyofPaIQAlto.org> Cc: Curtis Williams <Curtis. Williams@CitYQ,f]>aloAllo.org> Subject: Planning and Transportation Commission re: McNealy Hockey Rink To Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee Re: McNealy Hockey Rink Page 1 of 1 We have reviewed the plans for the proposed pennanent cover for the McNealy Hockey Rink. We think this looks like an excellent architectural solution, assuming that the sound insulation perfonns as described and that the landscaping includes plantings that soften the visual impact oflhe existing mechanical building on the north slope of the property. Thank YO,I, Peggy and John Law 830 Los Trancos Rd Portola Valley, CA 94028 650-85/-1730 8i26!2010 Reich, Russ From; Williams, Curtis Sent; Thursday, September 09,201010;49 AM To; Reich, Russ Cc: French, Amy Subject; FW; me nealy sport court From: Jim [mallto;joboyce@earthlink,netj Sent; Thursday, September 09,201010:30 AM To: Williams, Curtis Subject: me nealy sport court To whom it may concern: I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road. And I have a direct view of their home from my house in the Portola Valley Ranch. This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side of the cover. Their house is a model of tasteful architecture that blends in beautifully with the natural surroundings of the hillside. And the sport court is very effectively hidden from view by a very healthy stand of trees between us and the court. as is most of the house. As far as I am concerned, I did not even mind the tan bubble and have never had any issues with noise coming from their property. I have no objections whatsoever. Let the boys have their sport court with a roof. 91912010 Page 1 of 1 Page 1 of 1 Reich, Russ From: Roxy Rapp [roxy@roxyrapp.Gom] Sent: Monday, September 13, 201012:18 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Williams, Curtis; Relch, Russ; French, Amy Subject: Letter of Support· McNealy's Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road, and I have a direct view of their home from my house in the Portola Valley Ranch. They have done a wonderful job building a home that blends in with the natural surroundings and that is set among the oak trees to minimize the visual impact. With respect to the sport court, a very dense stand of oaks on the western side of the court all but eliminates any view we have of this structure from the Ranch. Michelle and I have not had any issues with sound from the sports activities there. The City of Palo Alto should be proud that the McNealy family wants to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side. We feel this is a "'TIY- green thing to do; it will not only cut the energy required to run the ice rink but will also please the neighbors if there are any sounds they may be experiencing now. I encourage you to vote for the new roof and landscaping. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Roxy & Michelle Rapp (650) 575-9488 9/13/2010 Reich, Russ From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:09 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: French, Amy Subject: FW: McNealy Proposal From: DiBergeson@aol,com [mailto:DiBergeson@aol,com] Sent: Friday, September 10, 20102:07 PM To; Williams, Curtis Subject: McNealy Proposal Dear Mr. Williams, Our family are neighbors of Scott and Susan McNealy and have been for numerous years. Page 1 of 1 We live across the hill on Bear Gulch Drive in Portola Valley-across from their Los Trancos Road home. I ~ave a view of their home from my house and am delighted they did such· a nice job with their remodel as it· is extremely non-intrusive as it blends with the natural landscaping. This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side of the cover. The project will reduce the visual impact of the house while reducing any potential noise or light issues that may emanate from the sport ·court. I have been fortunate enough to see the proposed looK as they shared it with us and I am 100% in support of this project. I would like to see this project completed in a timely fashion as it will onty benefit everyone involved. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by email and I would be more than happy to address them. Thank you, Diana Bergeson and Family 9110/2010 Reich, Russ From: Williams, Curtis Sent: To: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:59 AM Reich, Russ Cc: Subject: fyi -original Message French, Amy; Betten, Zariah FW: McNealy sporl courl cover From, Len Lehmann [mailto,len®vitelus.comj Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:21 AM To: Williams, Curtis Subject, McNealy sport court cover Planning Commissioners: I am a close neighbor of the McNealy property on Los Trancos Road. I am aware of the McNealysl plans to erect a roof over their existing sport court and add screening plantings. I have studied the staff report prepared for your September 1 meeting and several renderings prepared by the McNealy family. My family and I support the McNealy proposal. The proposed improvements will lessen existing sound, light, and view impacts and will be a benefit to the surrounding homes and public parks, Respectfully, Leonard Lehmann 850 Los Trancos Road within the City of Palo Alto 1 Page 1 of 1 Reich, Russ From: Roxy Rapp [roxy@roxyrapp.comJ Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12'18 PM To: Planning Commission Cc: Williams, Curtis; Reich, Russ; French, Amy Subject: Letter of Support -McNealy's Dear Planning Commissioners, . I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road, and I have a direct view of their home from my house in the Portola Valley Ranch. They have done a wonderful job building a home that blends in with the natural surroundings and that is set among the oak trees to minimize the visual impact. With respect to the sport court, a very dense stand of oaks on the western side of the court all but eliminates any view we have of this structure from the Ranch. Michelle and I have not had any issues with sound from the sports activities there. The City of Palo Alto should be proud that the McNealy family wants to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side. We feel this is a very green thing to do; it will not only cut the energy required to run the ice rink but will also please the neighbors if there are any sounds they may be experiencing now. I encourage you to vote for the new roof and landscaping. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Roxy & Michelle Rapp (650) 575-9488 9113/2010 Russ Reich, City of Palo Alto, McNealy Sports Court, September 14, 2010 Page 2 Scope of permitted development on hillside/open space parcels. Any activities or development on the hillside parcels in Palo Alto, particularly those served by Los Trancos Road, potentially impact a significant portion of Portola Valley, both from a visual perspective and from a standpoint of access. Similarly, the areas of Portola Valley viewed from the Hills of Palo Alto contribute to the visual environment of the uses of these City parcels. As a result, we believe that there is the opportunity to share planning perspectives relative to the scope of permitted development and ensure that objectives and development provisions and guidelines for protecting these similarly situated, visually sensitive hillsides are as consistent as possible. We would look forward to the opportunity to do this at a mutually agreeable time. Timing for review and comment. Since the town only actually received notice for this proposal on August 30, it has been difficult to fully evaluate all of the materials and proposed CEQA documents. In the future, for developments in the Palo Alto Hills, particularly those served by Los Trancos Road, it would be helpful to have more time for review of such a referral. We could also discuss referral timing at the suggested meeting between community representatives. (As an aside, we have recently been made aware of a potential application, apparently discussed with your staff, for 850 Los Trancos Road, "Portola Vineyards." We understand that the owners of this property are in the process of pursuing permits for a series of winery-based concerts they would like to hold during the summer of 2011 as explained in the attached letter. The traffic, noise, and other conditions associated with any such concerts would be of significant concern to Portola Valley since access to these events would need to be through Portola Valley, so if any such permits are actually entertained, we would appreciate receiving an early chance to review and comment on them.) Specifics relative to McNealy proposal. It was acknowledged that the overall scope of development on the McNealy site has already been set with previous approvals and that both the magnitude of development on this property as well as the scope of uses permitted appear to go well beyond what would be allowed under Portola Valley land use provisions. The commissioners expressed a strong preference to minimize visual and noise impacts of the hockey rink as much as possible. While the proposed roof enclosure is intended to accomplish this relative to specific play in the rink, without the ability to do a full review of the proposal and visit the site, the commissioners were not able to offer more specifics on the proposals. They were, however, appreciative of your noticing of specific Portola Valley residents thai might be impacted by this project and asked thai you seriously consider their specific concerns, especially those dealing with noise and visual issues. During the ASCC review, we did consider the attached photos of the McNealy property from the Golden Oak Drive area in the town's Alpine Hills subdivision. The comments and suggestions offered by our ASCC for your consideration have specifically to do with the landscaping proposals. As you can see from the photos, there is a fairly large area on the subject property that appears to have not healed from the earlier phases of site construction. It was suggested that the landscaping include provisions for planting in this extended area, particularly since the proposed CUP authorizes recreational use of the parcel. This would help to ensure that the roofed sports court and surrounding improvements fully blend with the backdrop of the property. In follow-up to the Monday meeting where the above comments were offered by the planning commission and ASCC members, I had a chance to review the matter further with the chairs of each commission. Based on the review and individual comments offered Russ Reich, City of Palo Alto, McNealy Sports Court, September 14. 2010 Page 3 during Monday's meeting. I was asked to share the following more general observations relative to the hockey rink use with you. These are similar to those we discussed over the phone prior to your September 1 ,t commission meeting. In terms of the use permit and conditions. it was suggested that the impacts of the project may ullimately be less about visual presence than the suitability of the use. Concern was expressed over the consequential effects the use could have on traffic. lighting. and the need for more on site parking. It was noted that hockey is not a regular use on a residential property. that there are a limited number of available hockey rinks. and scheduling and usage can run early and late in the day to accommodate the demand. Not only use permit conditions. but regular monitoring would be needed for this facility to ensure it is only for private. residential family use and that it does not become more actively used in a manner that is no longer accessory to the primary residential use. Hockey in this climate requires a huge investment in infrastructure that typically is only available within club or public facilities. Hockey generally is practiced as a team sport. Again. use permit and monitoring should ensure that this does not become a team facility with attendant practices. games and site impacts of parking. "fan" attendance, etc. The conditions and permit monitoring should ensure that the use of the rink is consistent with the character of the open space zoning district that is accessed via a residential community. Again. thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and the extensive data that you and your staff have assembled on the project. Further. as noted above. at some point we would look forward to the opportunity to meet with Palo Alto representatives to discuss further mutual areas of interest in terms of guiding development on the larger parcels in the predominately. residential open space hillside areas of our two communities. In the meantime. please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely. \ \ /I ,11 ,. ,!I :·1 t'· /'; \:.'"./..;.: .. ,iA\i-'1> • ~ Tom Vlasic Town Planner cc. Leslie Lambert, Planning Manager Angela Howard. Town Manager Steve Toben. Mayor and Town Council Members Denise Gilbert, Chair Planning Commission and Planning Commissioners Carter Warr, Chair ASCC and ASCC members Sandy Sloan. Town Attorney ATTACHMENT J ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE 610 Los Trancos Road 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Russ Reich, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 650-617-3119 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS John Lerch, Lerch Construction 923 Industrial Palo Alto, CA 94303 5. APPLICATION NUMBER IOPLN-00000-00184 6. PROJECT LOCATION 610 Los Trancos Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Parcel Numbers: 182-38-030 The project site is located at 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road in southwestern Palo Alto, east from Portola Valley. Los Trancos Road is south of Alpine Road on the edge of the San Mateo and Santa Clara County boundaries. The site is located on the west and east sides of Los Trancos Road, approximately south from the intersection with Alpine Road. A small portion of the site is 610 Los Trancos Road Page 1 Negative Declaration located on the West Side of Los Trancos Road while the majority of the site is east of the roadway. 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 610 Los Trancos Road is designated as Open Space/Controlled Development in the Palo Alto 1998 - 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes residential uses. 8. ZONING The project site is zoned OS, Open Space. The OS zone district is designed to accommodate residential, commercial recreational, and agricultural uses. The project is a permitted use in this zone district. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal includes the construction of a new roof structure to cover an existing 7,329 square foot sport court facility. The sport court was designed such that it is recessed down into the hillside to be minimally visible. The existing sport court was approved three years ago and is used as a tennis COUIt in the summer and an ice rink in the winter. The new roof structure will add eight feet to the over all height of the facility. It currently has walls that rise about 3 feet above the existing grade on the north side of the structure and zero feet on the south side. The proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope to minimize its height and visibility. The roof material is proposed to be a composition shingle roof in a dark woodsy color to blend with the surrounding hillside environment. The proposal also includes the planting of new native, fire resistant, and drought tolerant trees and shrubs to add additional screening for the proposed roof. There will be no new cut or fill and no new impervious area as a result of this project. In addition to the physical changes, the application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Recreational Use. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The site consists of a moderately sloping hillside that ascends east from Los Trancos Road to the top of a ridgeline. The segment of the site that is located on the western side of Los Trancos Road descends slightly down hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This tributary passes through the site in a south to north direction with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 feet above sea level and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland, natural perennial grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments. The existing sport court is located at the northern edge of the property on a plateau with the residence located to the south on a downward slope behind. The land uses on all four sides of the site consist of residential development with rural homes on acreage. Foothills Park and the Arastradero Preserve are located to the east of site, but are not directly adjacent. 610 Los Trancos Road Page 2 Negative Declaration 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES • County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact" answer is adeqnately snpported if the referenced information sonrces show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls ontside a fanlt rnptnre zone). A "No Impact" answer shonld be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollntants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).] 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) , Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 610 Los Trancos Road Page 3 Negative Declaration 7) Supporting Infonnation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion, 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance, DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented, The left-hand column in the chccklistlists thc source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Resources Significant Signincant Significant Impact Issues Untess Impact Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated I a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X l character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,5 . b) Have a substantial adverse etTect on a ! public view Of view corridor'? 1,2,5 X MapL4 c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within I, X a state scenic highway? MapL4 d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visua1 resources? 1,2,5 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or X glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,5 --------.................. ..... - f) Substantially shadow Jffiblic open space 1,5 X (other than public streels and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a,m. and 3:00 p,m. from September 2It()l\1ar2~21? DISCUSSION: The roof addition to the existing sport court will only raise the height of the structure eight and a halffeet where it is currently only three feet above grade, The structure will be minimally visible from public view and with the new landscape screening possibly not visible at all. Some private vantage points "ill still exist, but the new roof will improve the visual impact of the existing sport court rather than cause and adverse impact. 610 Los Trancos Road ~~~~~~~ ....................... ~ .. ~~~~~~c-:-----cc--=c Page 4 Negative Declaration B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Signilicant Signillcant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) COllvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,5,9 Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Age.ll~y, .. to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,5 oj usc> or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1,5 X Fannland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resonrces Agency. The site is zoned for agricultnral use, but is currently developed with a Single family residence, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act 610 Los Trancos Road Page 5 Negative Declaration C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X of the applicahle air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,5 Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air 1,5 X quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational X emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate malter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PMIO); ._ .... ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) X concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level orService (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable nct increase of any criteria pollutant for which the X project region is non-attaimnent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,5 standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative UlTesholds for ozone prec\lr~()rs)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1,5 X I. Probability of contracting cancer for the X Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds 10 in one million ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-X 610 Los Trancos Road -=-----=------~-~~~c:__ ....... ~ Page 6 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significanl Significant Signifieant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated carcinogenic TAC, would result in a hazard index greater than one (I) for the MEl - e) Create objectionable odors affecting a I substantial number of people? 1,5 X ~, ........ f) Not implement all applicable construction X emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? DISCUSSION:. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows: Construction Impacts: The project may involve activities which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PMIO). Dust related impacts are considered potentially significant but would be minimized with the application of standard dust control measures. Construction equipment would also emit NO, and ROC. However, in order for emissions from construction equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of construction equipment over a long period of time. Based on the size ofthe proposed project, emissions of NO x and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant. Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with the proposed project. The project will not result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore, long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project does not involve grading or excavation or an increase in the intensity of use on the site. The sport court already exists. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~ ....... Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significallt Impact Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eitber directly or through hahitat modifications, on any speeies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional 1,2,5 X platts, policies, or regulations, or by the MapN 1 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on auy riparian habitat or other sensitive natural X eommunity identified in local or regional plans, 1,2,5 610 Los Trancos Road Page 7 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impaet Mitigation Incorporated policies, regulations, including federally MapNI protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological intenuption, or other means? c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife X species or with established native resident or 1,2,5 migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapN 1 of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,5,7 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.1O)? e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,5 regional, or state habitat conservation plan? DISCUSSION: The proposal would not impact biological resources. The project site is currently developed and the new roof proposal would improve existing conditions by reducing the sport court noise and lighting impacts. In the immediate vicinity of the project, there are no riparian or tree habitats for the candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site. Tree preservation guidelines will be incorporated into the conditions of approval such that the project will not have a significant impact on the code protected trees and the project will have no impact on any other biological resources. The proposed project will have no impact on biological resources and will require no mitigation. Per the standard conditions of approval, the project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources. E CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council 1,5 resolution? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 X pmsuant to 15064.5? MapLS c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2,5 X 610 Los Trancos Road Page 8 Negative Declaration .-... .. ..... - I I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Signifieant Significant Significant Impaet Would tbe project: Issnes Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated .... geologic feature? MapL8 d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2,5 X interred outside offormal cemeteries? MapL8 eJ Adversely affect a historic resource listed or I) eligible for listing on the National and/or X California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,5 Historic Inventory? MapL7 ... -. Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,5 X -of Cahform. h,stof}, or pfehlStor~? DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate sensitivity archaeological resource zone. Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction. If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of construction. This would be included as a standard condition of approval. Cultural resources would not likely be effected as the project site is not historic, and other than digging some holes for new landscape plants, there would be no earth moving to disturb buried remains. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Vnle .. Impact Mitigation Incorporated .......... -~ .... a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the Sec risk of loss,injyry, or death involving: below i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 1,2,5 Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on MapN-5 other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. -ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,5 610 Los Trancos Road Page 9 Negative Declaration MapN-1O X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2,5 including liquefaction? MapN5 X iv) Landslides? 1,2,5 X MapN5 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1,5 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,5 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as X a result of the project, and potentially 1,2,5 result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral MapN-5 spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building 1,2,4,5 Code (1994), creating substantial risks to MapN-5 X life or property? f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems 1,5 where sewers are not available for the X disposal of waste water? g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,5 geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated X through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? DISCUSSION: Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Building Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The potential onsite exposure to geological hazards will therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health alld Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5 610 Los Trancos Road Page 10 Negative Declaration b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the 1,5 environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,5 proposed school? d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 X to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,5 result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN-9 X the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adoptcd, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a X safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area? g) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the I proj ect area? h) Impair implementation of or physically i) j) interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2,5,8 X plan or emergeney evacuation plan? MapN-7 Expose people or structures to a significant risk X ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 1,2,5,8 urbanized areas or where residences are MapN-7 intermixed with wildlands? Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emlSSlon of hazardous materials. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either emergency response or evacuation. The project site is located in an area designated as a high fire hazard area but will be constructed to current fire code. While the project is located within an area of high fire hazard, it has been designed such that the fire risk is not significant. The new roof would be constructed of non-combustible material, it would have a fire 610 Los Trancos Road Page 11 Negative Declaration sprinkler system, and the new landscape material wiII be fire resistive and placed 20 feet away from the stmcture. H HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY . Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ----- • aJ v 101a,e any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1,5 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production 1,2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to MapN-2 a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have X been granted)? .................... - c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial X erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,5 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ineluding through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,5 X ~ in flooding on-or off-site? eJ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted 1,5 X mnom 1) Othe""is,,~ubstantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X g) Place housing within a I OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map Or other flood hazard delineation map? I X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect 2 X tlood tlows? IVlapN6 i) Expose people or structures to a signifICant risk ofloss, injury or death involve tlooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a 1,2 X levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year MapN-6 flood hazard area? N-8 j) Inundation by seiche. tsunami. or mudflow? 2 X MapN6 N8 .... _----- 610 Los Trancos Road Page 12 Negative Declaration I J MINERAL RESOURCES . Issues and Supportiug Information Resources Sourees Potentially PotentlaHy Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would tile project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource tllat would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? I, X b) Result in the loss of availability of a loeally- important mincra1 resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan I, X ~r()t~~rl~nd use plan? DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resonrce Zone I (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto. K NOISE . Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Soun:cs Potentially Potentially I Less Than No Impact Significant Signillcant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in tlte loeal general plan or noise ordinanee, or 1,3,5 applicable standards of other a.geneies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,5 bOlne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,5 existing without the pro'eet? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1,5 ej For a project located within an airport land use X plan or, where such a plan has 110! been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to I excessive noise levels? If) For a project within the vicinity of a private X I airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to I excessive noise levels? I gj Cause the average 24 bour noise level (Ldnl 10 1,5 X 610 Los Trancos Road Page 14 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Sources Potentially ])otentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would tile project: Issues Unless Impact MItigation i Incorporated increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or mare in an existing residential area, even irthe Ldn would remain below 60 dB? b) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,5 X an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,5 X existing residential area where the Ldn currentli' ex~~,,~s 60 dB? j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,5 X development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,5 X than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or ...... ~ greater? .............. - !I) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,5 X daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors bi' 10 dI>:0: or more? .......... _ .. DISCUSSION: Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with construction, which will be short tenn in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-tenn construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant. It is anticipated that the existing noise associated with the sport court activities will be significantly reduced as a result of the proposed project. The new roof would contain any noise within the structure whereas the current open air structure allows the noise to escape. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources SOUfi:es Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact I Significant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unles. Impact Mitigation J~~~rpor.t.d aj Induce substantial population growth in an X area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,5 example, through extension of roads or other ~infrastructureL b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 .......... --... ----~-~~~~~ ............... -~ ... -.. ~~~- 610 Los Trancos Road Page 15 Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Slgnillcant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitlgation lneof!lorated 0) ""h,bnti"i numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X ................ elllP!oyed residents and jobs? e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local I i X 1'0Quiation Qrojections? DISCUSSION: The proposed roof over the sport court would not impact population, jobs, or housing in any way. M. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Informatio n Resources Would the project: antial adverse a) Would the project result in subst physica! impacts associated with of new or physically altered gove facilities. need for new or physic governmental facilities, the constru which could cause significant en impacts~ in order to maintain ace ratios, response times or other pe objectives for any of the public s the provision ounental ally altered ction of vironmental epl.hle service rfommnce ervices: Fire protection? PoHce protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? DISCUSSION: Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Signlfican t Significant Significant Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1,5,8 X 1,5 X 1,5 X 1,5 X 1,5 X The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures, The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities, 610 Los Trancos Road Page 16 Negative Declaration I No demand for school services would result from the project, which would not generate an increase in Palo Alto's residential population. No significant direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, which would not generate an increase in Palo Alto's residential population. N RECREATION . Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Polentially Potentially Less Than I No hUllact Signilleant Slgnlllcant Significant Would Ibe project: (ssues Unless Impact Mitigation I Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? I X b) Does tbe project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the I environment? DISCUSSION: The recreational use is existing on the site as an open air sport court. The proposed roof encloses the sport court transfonning it into a building. The new roof would increase the facilities utility by providing weather protection from the rain and insulation to maintain the cool temps for the ice rink. o TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Significant Significant Significant Would Ihe project: Issues Unle..'is Impact Mitigation ..... I.llc<llJlor.tetl a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to tbe existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I result in a substantial increase in ejther the X number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at il1tersect~.:?~}? .... b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, X a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for 1 designated roads or bigll",a)'s? c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1 substantial safety risks? ~~~~~~ ....................... -... . 610 Los Trancos Road Page 17 Negative Declaration I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e,g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible I uses (e,g" farm equipment)? eJ Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 I ! X ! I f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? I I X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X programs supporting alternative transportation (e,g" pedestrian, transit & I I bicycle facilities)? h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1 X to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the eritical volumeicapacity ratio (VIC) value to increase by 0,0 I or more? i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1 • X LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? I~~~::n~b~~ !~t~~~~:it~n i~~e~e~~o~:~:e 1 X critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the i critical VIC value to increase by 0,01 or more? k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F I X or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? i I) Cause any change in traffic that would I X increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0, I or more? m) Cause queuing iropacls based on a I X coroparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at tum 1anes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillhack queues on ramps, 11) [ropede the development or functioll of I X planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1 X result of congestion? 1') Create an opera!~~~~J~~f~.!J.p.azard? I X DISCUSSION: 610 Los Trancos Road Page 18 Negative Declaration The sport court is existing and the construction of the new roof may increase its utility but it would not impact the volume of traffic to the residential property. The current users of the facility would continue to use the facility as they do now and traffic would not be impacted. P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS , Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impa<t Siguif1cant Significant Significant Would the project: Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X the applicable Regional Water Quality ! Control Board? 1,5,8 b) Require or result in the construction of new X water or wastewater treatment faeilities Of expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 1,5,8 environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new X stonn water drainage facilitIes or expansion of existing facmties~ the construction of which could cause significant environmental 1.5,8, effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to X serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded 1,5,8 ! entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X trealment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing 15,8 conunitments? ............... _ .... f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X pennilled capacity to accommodate the ............. project's solid waste disposal needs? 1,5,8 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X and regulations related to solid w~ste? 1,5,8 h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5,8 X of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the pro; ect? DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Demand on existing utilities would decrease as a result of the fact that the new roof would shield the ice rink from the heat of the sun and debris that cause the ice to melt. 610 Los Trancos Road Page 19 Negative Declaration Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact Slgnlflcant Significant Significant Would tlte project: Issues i Unless Impact I Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to ! degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce tbe babitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fisb or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community> reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal X or eliminate important examples of the major 1,5 periods of California bistory or prehistory? ... ~ ... b) Does the project have that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cOlmection with the effeets of past projects, 1,5 the effects of other CUlTent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c} Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or 1,5 indirectly? ... -.. ... -.. DISCUSSION: Global Climate Change Impacts Global climate change is the alteration ofthe Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturalIy OCCUlTing and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 20 Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a multiagency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1,2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 ora statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process, Under CEQA, the essential 610 Los Trancos Road Page 20 Negative Declaration questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures arc available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would reduce the demand on energy resources by keeping the ice rink cooler during wanner weather and keeping it free of debris that can melt the ice. Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would cumulatively contribute to global climate change, to detennine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is speculative, palticulariy given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to detennine an impact However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to confOlm with the CEQA Guidelines [§ I 6064(b)] , it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this project, its location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield site), the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons, this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. SOURCE REFERENCES -All reports used as sources and prepared specifically for the project should be listed by title/date I. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project 2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-20 I 0 3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance 4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 5. Project Plans, dated received May 18,2010 6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 7. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001 8. Departmental communication/memos. 9. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004. 610 Los Trancos Road Page 21 Negative Declaration DETERMINA TION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that althongh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case becallse revisiolls ill the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project i\1AY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAl" IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have II "potentially sigllificant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the ellvironment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Date ----~ ..................... ~ .... . 610 Los Trancos Road Page 22 Negative Declaration The attached initial study incorporates all relevant infonnation regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confinns the detennination that an EIR is not required for the project. Project Planner Date Adopted by City Council, Attested by Date Director of Planning and Community Environment Pagelof2 AttachInent A Williamson Act Properties Report for Calendar Year 2010 About the Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act is a state program to discourage agricultural lands from being converted urban uses. The program provides property tax relief to owners of agricultural land who agree to limit the use of their property to agricultural or other approved compatible uses. On July 24, 1974, the City of Palo Alto adopted Ordinance No. 2663 to establish rules for both establishing and administering Williamson Act contracts for Palo Alto properties. Highlights of the rules regarding administration of established contracts include: • Contracts limit the allowable uses of the property to what is described in the contract. • Contracts remain in place when a property is sold and new owners are subject to the same use· restrictions. • Contracts are for 1 O-year terms and have a renewal date of January 1. 1 • Each year-at least 80 days prior to that renewal date-the Council reviews the contracts and, at that time, may initiate a notice on nonrenewal for any contract or approve a notice of nonrenewal submitted by a landowner. If the Council takes such action then that contract does not renew on January 1 and terminates 9 years later. • Under certain conditions, the Council may also approve a landowner's request to cancel a contract. • Contracts, for which the Council has not approved a notice of nonrenewal or a cancellation, automatically renew for another 10-year term each Januaryl. About this List/Report On the following pages is a list of the 23 Palo Alto properties that were enrolled in the Williamson Act during the calendar year of 2010. • 4 contracts will not renew because Notices of Non renewal have been approved. See individual records for termination dates. • 19 contracts will renew on January 1,2011 if the Council approves this report AttachInent A 9/20/2010 Page 1 of7 Will Renew on January 1, 2011 II Palo Alto Golf and Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive APN: 182-35-035 Owner: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: 2008: $1,285,543.00 2009: $1,311,253.00 2010:$1,308,145.00 Prime 119.92 5/1/1973 Resolution No: 4279 Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: II No address; adjacent to Country Club at 3000 Alexis Drive APN: 182-35-008 Owner: Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, Inc., 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 2008: $46,649.00 2009: $47,581.00 2010: $47,468.00 Prime 5.52 5/1/1973 Resolution No: 4279 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. III Open Space land adjacent to the Arastradero Preserve APN: 182-33-014 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 2008: $0.00 2009: $0.00 2010: $0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasrpublic agency Prime 11.42 Unknown Resolution No: . Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. II EI Camino Park (west of Palo Alto Ave to the creek) APN: 12031001 Owner: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 2008: $8,492.00 2009: $8,492.00 2010: $8,492.00 Assessed Value Value Notes: The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned. Land Class: Prime Acreage: 0.72 Contract Start: Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: 9/20/2010 Page 2 of7 II EICamino Park (east of Palo Alto Ave to University Ave) APN: 120-31-009 Owner: Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Board of Trustees, P.O.Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 2008: $118,153.00 2009: $118,153.00 2010:$118,153.00 Assessed Value Value Notes: The City of Palo Alto leases this land for public use; however, it is privately owned. Land Class: Prime Acreage: 10.00 Contract Start: Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: lEI No address; onPage Mill Road; below Foothill Open Space Preserve APN: 351-05-043 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Richard D. Guhse Trustee, 37 Babras Court, Hollister, CA 95023 2008: $923.00 2009: $923.00 2010: $923.00 Non Prime 20.01 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: II 3837 Page MOill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-042 Owner: David P. and Cynthia Lautzenheiser Trustee, 3837 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 2008: $357,584.00 2009: $364,727.00 2010: $363,863.00 Non Prime 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. III 3845 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 9/20/2010 351-05-024 Judith A. Block Trustee, 412 Webster St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 2008: $47,005.00 2009: $47,937.00 2010: $47,823.00 Non Prime 8.72 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.72 2/16/1976 Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. Page 30f7 lEI 3849 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 APN: Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: 351-05-050 Jeffrey A. and Mary L. Thomas, 3849 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 2008: $1,349,631.00 2009: $1,376,623.00 2010:$1,373,360.00 Non Prime 10.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: II 3855 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94306 APN: 351-05-049 Owner: Assessed Va lue Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Patrick K. Suppes, 599 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 2008: $466,756.00 2009: $476,091.00 2010: $474,962.00 Non Prime 10.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: II 3865 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-048 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Grace Carland Trustee, 3865 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 2008: $32,289.00 2009: $32,925.00 2010: $32,847.00 Non Prime 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; oontract will continue for at least another 10 years. lEI 3875 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-047 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 9/20/2010 Richard D. Kniss Trustee & Et AI, 1985 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA94301 2008: $461.00 2009: $461.00 2010: $461.00 Non Prime 10.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. Page 4 of7 lEI 3885 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-046 Owner: William W. and Sharon T. Luciw Trustee, 3885 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 2008: $936,447;00 2009: $955,168.00 2010: $952,905.00 Non Prime 8.45 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 7.45 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 1 ° years. m 3895 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-045 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Lawrence Markosian, 635 Wildwood Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303 2008: $227,828.00 2009: $232,376.00 2010: $231,826.00 Non Prime 10.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 9.00 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 1 ° years. II 3905 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: 351-05-044 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Arthur Michelson Trustee, 3492 Murdoch Court, Palo Alto, CA 94022 2008: $1,012,222.00 2009: $1,032,466.00 2010: $1,030,019.00 Non Prime 6.43 minus 1 acre for Homesite 5.43 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 1 ° years. II 4201 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, 94304 APN: Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 9/20/2010 351-25-015 Bruce A Leak, 4201 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94022 2008: $1,434,081.00 2009: $1,462,726.00 . 2010: $1,459,262.00 Non Prime 11.31 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 10.31 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 1 ° years. Page 5 of7 , I III 5061, 5065, 22601 Skyline Blvd APN: 351-12-006 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Irene V. Fogarty Trustee & Et AI, 1009 Rosewood Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070 2008: $34,041.00 2009: $34,563.00 2010: $34,499.00 Non Prime 139.59 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 138.59 3/6/1973 Resolution No: 4707 Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. lEI 22601 Skyline Blvd, Palo Alto, 94306 APN: 351-12-062 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 2008: $509.00 2009: $509.00 2010: $509.00 Non Prime 10.39 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Contract Status: Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. General Notes: lEI No address; adjacent to 22601 Skyline Blvd APN: 351-12-063 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Harvey D. Jr. and Pamela K. Loucks Trustee, Rt 2 Box 332, La Honda, CA 94020 2008: $285,549.00 2009: $291,245.00 2010: $290,556.00 Non Prime 12.35 minus 1 acre for Homesite = 11.35 Unknown Resolution No: Unknown Unchanged; contract will continue for at least another 10 years. Will Not Renew on January 1,2011 because a Notice of Nonrenewal has been approved II Open Space within Foothill Open Space Preserve APN: 351-04-031 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 9120/2010 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 2008: $0.00 2009: $0.00 2010: $0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agency Non Prime 27.34 2/2711979 Resolution No: 5657 and 5658 Notice ofNonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/3112017 Page 6 of7 · , IJ Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve APN: 351-12-043 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 2008: $0.00 2009: $0.00 2010: $0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agency Non Prime 8.74 2/28/1973 Resolution No: 4706 Notice ofNonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/3112017 II Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve APN: 351-25-014 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 2008: $0.00 2009: $0.00 2010: $0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agency Non Prime 10.72 2/2611975 Resolution No: 5067 Notice ofNonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/3112017 II Open Space within the Montebello Open Space Preserve APN: 351-06-017 Owner: Assessed Value Value Notes: Land Class: Acreage: Contract Start: Contract Status: General Notes: 9/20/2010 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA 94022 2008: $0.00 2009: $0.00 2010: $0.00 Value not assessed because owned by public/quasi public agency Non Prime 24.00 minus 1 acre for Homesite 23.00 2/28/1973 Resolution No: 4708 Notice ofNonrenewal approved on 10/6/2008; contract will terminate on 12/3112017 Page 7 of7 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITYMANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2010 CMR: 357:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment Two to Contract S10135594 with Capitol Advocates, Inc. to Extend the Term and Add $48,500 for a Total Not To Exceed Amount of $93,500 Legislative Advocacy Services Related to High- Speed Rail RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve (1) An amendment number two to the contract with Capitol Advocates Inc. to extend the term to include November 1,2010 through February 2011 and add $48,500 for legislative advocacy services; and (2) Reimbursement from the City Council contingency account to the City Manager contingency account in an amount of$15,000 for legislative advocacy services paid for by the City Manager in July and August of this year BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City retained the services of Capitol Advocates Inc. (CAl) beginning in February 2010 to provide legislative advocacy services. The City's contract with CAl expired on June 30, 2010. Staff then entered into contract amendment one which extended the contract through, October 31, 2010. Staff seeks contract amendment number two to extend the contract to February 28th, 2011. The original contract and contract amendment number one provided for expenditure of $5,000 per month for legislative advocacy services. However, over the summer months of July and August monthly costs averaged nearly $7,500. This was due to many factors including a significant number of high speed rail (HSR) legislative bills, the release of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) Alternatives Analysis (AA) and subsequent Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (SAAR), CHSRA board meetings being scheduled over multiple days, additional HSR legislative hearings, the costs of the League of California Cities HSR meeting in San Diego, CA and related matters. All the above contributed to more time being spent on HSR CMR: 357:10 Page 1 of2 7 legislative advocacy. Approval of this amendment would provide $20,000 to cover these costs, which are not funded under the current contract. In addition this amendment will extend the contract through February 2011 at a rate $5,000 per month, including expenses. We are also including a provision in the contract that enables the City Manager to authorize additional services up to $8,500. The total contract amount is $93,500. The Council's High Speed Rail Committee reviewed extending the contract through February 2011 and recommended approval. In addition, staff also requests approval to reimburse the City Manager's contingency account from the City Council Contingency account in the amount of Fifteen Thousand for CAl invoices paid in July and August this year. The Town of Atherton and City of Menlo Park also have contracted with CAl for the same high speed rail services. We contacted the cities of Atherton and Menlo Park regarding the status of their contracts with CAL Each city has contracted with CAl through June 30, 2011. ATTACHMENT Contract Amendment #2 PREPARED BY: Steve Emslie Deputy City Manager CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CMR: 357:10 James Keene City Manager Page 2 of2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT, DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010 CMR: 371:10 REPORT TYPE: CONSENT SUBJECT: Approval of Revised Composition for Stakeholder Task Force for Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the revised composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, which includes adding a business member from the California Avenue area and replacing· Canopy (who withdrew) with an additional environmental/neighborhood representative. The Task Force membership will increase by one, to 1 7 members. BACKGROUND On July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with a scope of work and Request for Proposal for consulting services to assist with preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study. On July 26, 2010, the Council approved the composition of a 16-member stakeholder task force to be appointed by the City Manager to support the Rail Corridor Study. The Council's meeting minutes are included as Attachment B. Following Council action, staff provided approximately a one-month period for accepting applications for the Task Force, and for entities such as the PAUSD, Stanford, Palo Alto Neighborhoods, the Chamber of Connnerce, and others to make appointments. Staff has reviewed the various applicants (approximately 35) and evaluated how each fits into one or more of the specific categories of stakeholders designated for the Task Force. Also, Canopy has declined to participate on the Task Force, preferring to act as an environmental resource for the group, reducing the total number to 15. Staff believes" after its review of all of the applicants, that a couple of minor changes to the composition would enhance the representative nature of the group, and asks Council to formalize the revised makeup prior to the City Manager finalizing appointments. DISCUSSION The composition of the Task Force, as directed by the City Council, is outlined in Attachment A, which is modified to reflect the following two changes proposed by staff: CMR: 371:10 Page lof3 1. The business representation would be expanded to include one additional person, so that there would be one from downtown, one from the California Avenue area, and one more representing business interests in general (Chamber of Commerce). As the list has developed, it appears that the Califonlia Avenue area nlay be without representation otherwise. 2. Since Canopy declined to participate, an additional environmental/neighborhood representative would be added to the Task Force. The Sierra Club nominated 3 persons for the one environmental position, but they represent highly varying viewpoints in terms of their environmental perspectives. This addition, in lieu of Canopy, would allow for a second environmental representative who also is closely connected to neighborhoods (not necessarily within the rail corridor) to participate. Other Appointments Staff believes that the other applicants and appointees from other bodies will result in a well- balanced and productive Task Force for the study: 1. Five (5) neighborhood representatives would represent neighborhoods within or proximate to the rail corridor study area, and are geographically well dispersed from downtown north to Greenmeadow south, with two north of Oregon Expressway, two south, and another south but just outside the corridor area. 2. Another neighborhood representative will be at-large (appointed by Palo Alto Neighborhoods) from outside the corridor area, and one of the environmental representatives will similarly provide connections to the larger residential community. 3. The five (5) business representatives will represent downtown, California Avenue, the Chamber of Commerce at-large, a realtor, and an architect. 4. Specific appointments are made from P AUSD, Stanford, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, environmental organizations (2 persons), and a Caltrain rider who is also a Palo Alto resident. With Council approval of the revised composition, staff would finalize the appointments and set the first meeting of the Task Force for mid-October. A few boards and commissions have appointed liaisons to the Task Force, and staff expects to contact others that might be interested to assure they have the same opportunity. NEXT STEPS Staff has received five (5) Requests for Proposal from consultants to assist staff and the Task Force in preparation of the Rail Corridor Study. Three or four of the consultant teams will be interviewed by a combination of staff and community members over the next two weeks, and a contract will be presented to Council in late October or early November. The Task Force will meet once or twice prior to the consultant coming on board, focusing on organization, background information, and community outreach. CMR: 371:10 Page 2 of3 PREPARED BY: CURTIS WILLIAMS r of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS A. Revised Composition of the Rail Corridor Study Task Force B. July 26,2010 City Council Minutes CMR: 371:10 Page 3 of3 Attachment A Rail Corridor Task Force (t(}..17 members) 1. Neighborhood Representatives (in conidor): 5 members* 2. Palo Alto Neighborhoods (general representative): 1 member 3. Business Representatives: 42 merrlbers • Chamber of Commerce (1) • Silicon Valley Board of Realtors (1) • Propertylbusiness owner (1) • ArchitectlUrban Designer (1) • California Avenue Merchant/Owner (1) 4. Stanford University: 1 member 5. Palo Alto Unified School District: 1 member Caaopy: 1 member 6. Environmental Organization: 1 member + 1 environnlentallneighborhood in lieu of Canopy) 7. Social Service! Affordable Housing: 1 member 8. Caltrain Rider: 1 member I * The added environmental representative under #6 will also be a neighborhood representative 1 ATTACHMENT B Special Meeting July 26, 2010 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:40 p.m. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein, Price, Scharff, Shepherd, Yeh arrived at 6:00 p.m. Absent: Schmid ACTION ITEMS Assista 0 the City Manager, Kelly Morariu spoke on the process Policy and ices Committee and Staff worked through in setti e 2010 Council Prioritl . orkplan (Workplan). She reviewed the f Council top priorities, which . as follows: 1) City Finances; and Use and Transportation; vironmental Sustainabilit 4) Emergency Preparedness; and 5) Co nity Collaboration fo uth Health and Well- Being.Over the course of six .etings, the P" and Services Committee received presentations from Staf provi input on both the content of the Workplan and the current and fu rocess for developing Workplans. She spoke on the "See-It" site, matrix of final recommended priorities, strategies and actio help ac lish the Council priorities. She spoke on several issu _ at would neces' e follow-up work. She stated a more effectiv proach would be for ttl " "ty Council to adopt Council priorities e two years, and for Staff to then elop a Workplan and reporting cture based on this timeline. The Poli nd Services Committe " ntified the need to find more effective mec "ms for estab" 9 priorities, and reporting to the City Council on Staff w d. was an interest in having the Policy and Services Committee ident 1 07/26/10 before we actually bring back the Final EIR and the entitlements as a package in the fall, November/December timeframe. 3. Approval of a Stakeholder Task Force and Direction to the City Manager to Appoint Task Force Members for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (Continued from July 12, 2010). pirector of Planning & Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated that on July 12, 2010, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with a scope of work and Request for Proposal for consulting services to assist with the preparation of a Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study (Rail Corridor Study). The Agenda Item outlined the composition of the proposed stakeholder Task Force. Notice of Staff's suggested Task Force was emalled on July 15, 2010 to various organizations and individuals who might be considered stakeholders. Staff's proposal comprised of a 15 member Task Force. He outlined the proposed composition of the Task Force. The Task Force would recommend components of the Rail Corridor Study to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), which would report recommendations to the City Council. Staff proposed quarterly status reports of the Rail Corridor Study's progress. He spoke, on the advantages of a Task Force and Staff leading the Rail Corridor Study, opposed to the PT&C and Staff leading the Rail Corridor Study. Staff recommended that the City Council approve the composition of the Task Force for studying the Rail Corridor Study, and I' direct the City Manager to appoint the members of the Task Force. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired on any alternative scenarios that Staff looked into on the structure of the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the primary alternatives were including one or two more neighborhood representatives, and including representation from the Palo Alto Neig hborhoods (PAN) and the Chamber of Commerce. The exclusion of a Caltrain rider and a representative from the Santa Clara Valley American Institute of Architects was looked into. Staff considered the addition of a commercial property owner and residential housing developer. Council Member'Shepherd stated the Task Force was inspired by the SOFA2 Task Force. She inquired on the corn position of the SOFA2 Task Force. She supported the civic engagement aspects of the SOFA2 Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the SOFA2 Task Force members were appointed by the City Manager and was based on stakeholder representatives. 46 07/26/10 Mayor Burt spoke on the primary distinctions between the SOFA1 and the SOFA2 Task Force members.-He stated SOFA1 Task Force members were appointed by the City Council, and comprised of stakeholder representatives and alternatives. He spoke on the importance of defining the role of the alternate members. He stated stakeholder representatives wore more than one hat which expanded the members' roles. He stated Board and Commission members were appointed as representatives in the SOFA2 Task Force. Council Member Shepherd -inquired whether the current proposal for appointments could be made to individuals not residing in Palo Alto. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mayor Burt stated the City Council did not use a day and night distinction in appointing SOFA Task Force members solely based on whether they lived and worked in Palo Alto. He indicated it was a valid policy question for the City Council. Council Member Holman stated she did not relate the SOFA appointments with the Rail Corridor Study Task Force appointments. It was her belief the proposal eliminated much of the expertise found within the community. The Rail Corridor Study would evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the corridor. She suggested the Task Force include representation from the P&TC, Canopy, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and Stanford. She felt the Task Force should include representation from an environmental group, an architect, a business owner, and neighborhood members. Mayor Burt stated the Task Force would serve as a primary conduit for input on the information flow regarding the Rail Corridor Study to and from key stakeholders and the larger community. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Mayor Burt stated the SOFA Task Force communicated with neighborhood groups, and had defined subcommittee groups containing roughly 50 participants. Council Member Scharff inquired how the apPointment number of 15 was selected for the Task Force. He inquired whether Staff recommended additional members on the Task Force. 47 07/26/10 Mr. Williams stated Staff did not recommend more than 15 members on the Task Force. He stated appointing twelve to fifteen members was ideal. Council Member Scharff inquired who would be appointing the members to the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated Staff would propose appointment recommendations to the City Manager. The City Manager would have the ultimate decision on appointments to the Task Force. Council Member Scharff stated Staff would be conducting the recruitment process for the Task Force, and would recommend appointment recommendations to the City Manager. Mr. Williams stated that was correct. Council Member Scharff inquired whether other persons would be providing input. Mr. Williams stated Staff would be communicating with PAN, the Chamber of Commerce, Californians for Responsible Rail Design (CARRO), and other individuals and organizations. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recruitment process would be solely based on the individuals who have shown interest, or whether Staff would be recruiting other potentially interested individuals in the community. Mr. Williams stated the process would encompass a combination of reaching out to individuals currently interested, and seeking out other individuals within the community. Council Member Scharff inquired on the term of the Task Force, and how often they would meet. Mr. Williams stated Staff anticipated that the Task Force would meet once a month for a total of 13 to 16 months. He stated there may be additional meetings, as needed. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Task Force would vote on recommendations quarterly, or at the conclusion of the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated the voting process was still unclear at this time. The Rail Corridor Study would run parallel to the High Speed Rail process. He indicated Staff wanted to stay flexible in the Rail Corridor Study's analysis to 48 07/26/10 provide input in a timely manner with the High Speed Rail process. It was anticipated that the Task Force would report on quarterly status reports. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the recommendations by the Task Force would be folded in with the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Williams stated the two projects would be tracked parallel to one another. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the appointment of Task Force members would return for ratification by the City Council. Mr. Williams stated Staff's recommendation was not to have the appointments return to the City Council. Elaine Meyer, Palo Alto, spoke on the Rail Corridor Study's interest serving developers. Sheri Furman, Palo Alto, spoke on her recommendation for the composition of the Task Force, and the use of subcommittees. Ken Allen, Palo Alto, spoke on the importance of the Task Force complying with the Brown Act, and having access to record-keeping, Staff support, civil engineering and urban planning expertise. Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the necessity for the Task Force's subcommittees to comply with the Brown Act. He spoke on the relationship, and corresponding timelinesi between the Task Force and the California Avenue Area Study. Council Member Holman stated she would be interested in having an alternate composition of the Task Force. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 2 Planning & TranSportation Commission members, 1 Architect, 1 Representative from Canopy, 1 Bicycle Advisory Committee member, 1 Stanford representative, 1 member from an environmental group or environmental interest, 3 business owners or business property owners, 4 neighborhood representatives, and 1 Palo Alto Unified School District representative or liaison. 49 07/26/10 Council Member Holman stated her vision for the proceedings of the Task Force was a round table forum where input from each member was welcomed and accepted. She stated desired candidates would have expertise and knowledge on land use, transportation, and urban design along the Caltrain corridor. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated P&TC members could be liaisons to the Task Force, but not full participants. He stated this was because the Task Force was designed to be an advisory board to the P&TC. Council Member Holman stated P&TC mernbers could provide input, but could not give direction or advice as liaison members. Mr. BaLim stated P&TC members could attend Task Force meetings and respond to questions. P&TC members could not provide input on issues as they arose. The Task Force was established to provide recommendations to the P&TC. He stated P&TC members fully participating in the Task Force would conflict with the Fair Political Practices Cornmission Form 700 . . Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff could describe the definition of a liaison member. Mr. Baum stated a liaison member attended and monitored meetings without being full participants. They could not vote or provide input. He stated a liaison member could respond to a question on a plan, but could not recommend how a plan should be employed. Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern for appointing one member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Mr. Baum stated the highest level of concern was the appOintment of a P&TC representative on the Task Force. He stated all other appOintments were at the City Council's discretion .. Council Member Scharff spoke on his concern that there was not enough representation from the various neighborhoods. He stated four out of eleven neighborhoods was not enough representation. He suggested adding two additional members, from different neighborhood groups, to the Task Force. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the 2 Planning & Transportation Commission members be liaisons with the group, other Board & Commission members to serve as liaisons, and to include 2 additional members from neighborhoods. 50 07/26/10 Council Member Price stated the challenge of appointing the Task Force was ensuring it was inclusive and operational. She suggested one environmental representative and one Caltrain rider. She suggested geographic representation from the business representatives. She stated representation from the Youth Council and people-oriented services were not included in the Motion. CO,uncil Member Holman stated there was no attempt to exclude the Youth Councilor people-oriented services. She stated she focused her Motion on the stated goal of land use, transportation, and urban design opportunities along the Caltrain corridor, and recommended the appointment of individuals who had expertise in these fields. Council Member Price inquired whether the Maker of the Motion was in favor of including a Caltrain rider, and whether that experience could be met by a neighborhood representative. Council Member Holman stated a Caltrain rider could provide useful input to the Task Force. Council Member Shepherd recommended· that during the recruitment process, additional pOints be awarded to individuals that rode Caltrain. She suggested the Motion include two representatives being Caltrain riders, inclusive of their titles as a member on the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated Staff could possibly find one neighborhood member who regularly commuted on Caltrain. She spoke on her concern for precluding neighborhood members who were interested in the Task Force. She felt Caltrain ridership information could be provided without a designated Caltrain rider on the Task Force. Council Member Shepherd stated the Caltrain rider could be anyone of the indi'viduals selected on the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated her intent was having one neighborhood representative also be a routine Caltrain commuter. Her intent was not to preclude interested neighborhood representatives, however, priority be given to an individual that had significant Caltrain ridership experience. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the neighborhood representatives also be a routine train commuter. 51 07/26/10 Council Member Shepherd suggested that a member of the PAUSD be appointed to the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated that was the intention of the Motion. The PAUSD would be responsible for appointing a member to the Task Force, whether it was a member of the PAUSD, or Parent Teacher Association (PTA). Council Member Shepherd spoke of her concern that a social services provider was excluded from the Motion. She inquired whether it was possible to merge the environmental and Canopy representatives into one representative, and add a social services provider. Council Member Holman stated her preference was not to merge the environmental and Canopy representatives as they had different expertise. She stated social service providers were welcome to provide input. Council Member Shepherd inquired what specific expertise was desired in the environmental representative. Council Member Holman stated there was a broad spectrum of expertise desired in the environmental representative, which included circulation and aquifer expertise. Council Member Shepherd spoke on her interest for one of the business representatives being a realtor. Realtors were providing full disclosure material to potential homebuyers along the corridor, and understood the management of real estate along the corridor. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that one of the four business members be a realtor. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether the Motion was inclusive of all the recommendations in the Agenda Item, and the Maker was making changes strictly on the composition of the Task Force. Council Member Holman stated that was correct. Vice Mayor Espinosa inquired whether there was consideration by the City Council for a representative of PAN and the Chamber of Commerce. His intention was to replace the two positions, which opened due to the removal of the P&TC members, with a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative as a broad community voice .. 52 07/26/10 Council Member Scharff stated he supported this recommendation. Council Member Holman supported one of the six neighborhood representatives being a PAN representative. Mr. Williams stated there were not six neighborhood representatives. He stated there was the original four neighborhood representatives, plus one member from PAN, in lieu of one P&TC representative. The Chamber of Commerce representative was proposed in lieu of the second P&TC member removed. Vice Mayor Espinosa concurred with Mr. Williams's recommendation to appoint a PAN and Chamber of Commerce representative in lieu of the two removed P&TC representatives. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that there be 4 neighborhood members plus 1 member from Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN). Council Member Holman asked how much Stanford owned land was on the map contained within the Staff Report. She stated Stanford primarily owned land on the West side of EI Camino Real. Mr. Williams stated Stanford owned the Sheridan Hotel along EI Camino Real. He stated this parcel was in the general area of the Rail Corridor Study's preliminary boundary. Council Member Holman inquired on Staff's preference to have a Stanford represe~tative or the Chamber of Commerce representative on the Task Force. Mr. Williams stated Staff agreed with the approach to have a representative from PAN and the Chamber of Commerce on the Task Force as representatives of the broader community. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDED that the four business representatives would include one representative from the Chamber of Commerce. Council Member Yeh spoke on representation from the youth and a social services provider. He spoke on his concern of an on-going commitment from a high school student. He suggested the Task Force holding a targeted meeting with the youth and social services providers. 53 07/26/10 MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 1 PAUSD representative; 5 neighborhood representatives with one being from PAN; 4 business representatives with one being from the Chamber of Commerce and one a Realtor; 1 environmental representative; 1 member -from Stanford, 1 Bike Advisory Committee member, 1 representative from Canopy, 1 Architect; and two Planning & Transportation Commission liaisons. Mayor Burt spoke on his concern with the composition for the Task Force. He felt there should be less modification from Staff's proposal. He recommended that a Stanford representative be on the Task Force. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd that the composition of the Task Force for the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study be: 1 member from Stanford; 1 environmental representative; 3 business community members including 1 realtor, 1 member from the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 property/business owner; 1 Architect, 5 neighborhood representatives; 1 PAN representative; 1 PAUSD representative; 1 Caltrain rider; 1 social services/affordable housing member; and include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wish to participate. Mayor Burt stated that his Substitute Motion included one representative from Stanford, a social services provider, and a Caltrain rider rather than the representative from Canopy and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether an architect was included within the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated yes. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a Chamber of Commerce representative. Mayor Bu rt stated yes. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Substitute Motion included a realtor. Mayor Burt stated the realtor would be selected within the business community members' selection. 54 07/26/10 Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the Task Force would be involved in the Economic Study of the rail corridor. Mr. Williams stated the Task. Force would not be responsible for overseeing the Economic Study. He stated Staff would report to the Task Force on Economic Study work. Council Member Klein stated the creation of the Task Force was premature. He spoke on his concern for having two P&TC liaisons on the Task Force. He recommended one P&TC liaison on the Task Force, as seen in other City Task Forces. Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion consisted of Staff's recommendation to approve liaison representatives from a variety of interested City boards and commissions. Council Member Klein spoke on the differences between the Motion and Substitute Motion. He suggested that a representative from Canopy be included in the Task Force, in lieu of the social services provider. Council Member Shepherd inquired how Canopy would benefit the Task Force as a stakeholder member. Council Member Holman stated, in the last several years, there had been erosions near the rail corridor due to Caltrain projects, Public Works Department projects, and lack of replanting treescapes. Canopy was an organization that was knowledgeable on trees, and what types of trees would sustain the development that may happen in the rail corridor area. She suggested the Caltrain rider and neighborhood representative be merged into one member and add a Canopy representative. Mayor Burt stated Staff recommended the City Council approve no more than 15 Task Force members. He did not see the need for the Task Force to be an odd number of members, and recommended adding one Canopy member to bring the total membership to 16. INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add 1 Canopy representative. Council Member Shepherd stated her interest for adding a social services provider was due to the different trends seen at the station on California Avenue. 55 07/26/10 Council Member Price inquired whether the social services/affordable housing representative was part of the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated the Motion included one representative for those. two stakeholder groups. Council Member Price stated there was a distinction between transit dependent users and routine cornmuters of Caltrain. She stated the perspectives of the users were important. Council Member Scharff inquired how the business representatives were handled in the Substitute Motion. Mayor Burt stated the business representatives included a member from the Chamber of Commerce, a realtor, a business/property owner, and one representative at-large. Council Member Yeh stated there was much to be learned from non-Caltrain users. He spoke on the different motivations between Caltrain users and non-Caltrain users. Council Member Holman stated there were five neighborhood representatives proposed in the Substitute Motion. She stated one of those members was a PAN representative. She inquired whether the other four would be from different neighborhoods. Mayor Bu rt stated that was correct. Council Member Scharff recommended that the four neighborhood representatives be within the Rail Corridor Study area. Mayor Burt concurred with Council Member Scharff. Council Member Holman inquired whether different parts of town would be equally represented. Mayor Bu rt stated that was correct. Council Member Holman stated the business representatives included the Chamber of Commerce. She inquired whether the other business representatives would be from different parts of town. 56 07/26/10 Mayor Burt stated the Sub~titute Motion did not specify that. His intent was for Staff to recommend members that had broad perspectives, and diversity of geographic perspectives. Mr. Williams stated Staff would keep Mayor Burt's suggestion in mind when recommending potential members to the Task Force. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid absent Council Member Holman inquired on the position of the P&TC member as a liaison to the Task Force. Mayor Burt stated the Substitute Motion included Staff's recommendation to include liaisons from Boards and Commissions who wished to participate. Council Member Holman stated the Rail Corridor Study's map was sweeping in scope. She inquired when a refined map would be returning to the City Council. Mr. Williams stated the map was a broad first sweep of the rail corridor location, and there would be deviation to it. Refining the boundaries of the map would potentially be one of the first assignments of the Task Force. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Espinosa to accept the' balance of Staff recommendations: 1) The Task Force should serve as a conduit to and from other stakeholders and should work with Staff to set up networks and techniques at the outset of the process to assure engagement of the broader community throughout the study. An initial effort of the Task Force will be to develop a plan for outreach to assure extensive input from all interested and affected segments of the community, 2) Meetings of the Task Force would be subject to all Brown Act committee requirements. Meetings would be open to the public notice would be provided as prescribed by the Brown Act, at a minimum (Staff anticipates considerably more extensive notice would be provided to an extensive list of stakeholders and interested individuals, 3) Individuals on the Task Force would not, however, be subject to filing the Form 700 disclosure statements of conflicts of interest, since any recommendations will be subject to substantive intervening review by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PT&C), prior to recommendations to Council, 4) The Task Force Members will take votes to recommend components of the study to the Planning and Transportation Commission, which will then report its recommendations to the City Council, and 5) Quarterly status reports of the study progress will be provided by Staff to the Council, Planning and Transportation Commission, and the Council's HSR Comrnittee. Reports from the Planning 57 07/26/10 and Transportation Commission will be provided for information to the HSR Committee prior to Council review. Where timely, reports and recommendations of the Task Force that are relevant and timely to address High Speed Rail issues will also be forwarded to the Council's HSR Committee. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Schmid no 4. Direction Regarding Content of Charter Amendment to Repeal Binding Arbitration for Public Safety. Mayor Burt stated this was a continued Council session to further discuss the content of the proposed Charter Amendment to repeal Binding Arbitration for public safety. Assistant City Manager, Pamela Antil stated Staff included additional recent articles to assist with the City Council's discussion and possible direction to Staff. The ballot language preparation was in progress, and would return to the City Council on August 2, 2010. Mayor Burt inquired whether this would comply with the meet and confer requirements relating to union negotiations, and whether it was an obligation of the City. He inquired whether it should be included in discussions with the City's labor groups that would be potentially affected. City Attorney, Gary Baum stated it was as issue that was perrnissive subject of bargaining, and the City was not required to meet and confer. He spoke on several California cities where the issue was upheld. Staff provided the City Council with a memorandum that showed Staff's analysis. He indicated Staff's analysis had been reviewed and endorsed by the City's outside counsel. Herb Borock, Palo Alto, spoke on the Charter Amendment in 1978, past Binding Arbitration decisions, and the firefighters' petition. Robert Moss, Palo Alto, spoke on his support for the City Council to place the Charter Amendment on the ballot. Catherine' Capriles, Palo Alto Fire Department, spoke on her support for Binding Arbitration. Alan Davis, Palo Alto, spoke on the benefits of Binding Arbitration and meet and defer requirements. 58 07/26/10 Statewide Measures: Proposition 21 (Position -SUDDort): This measure would establish an $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs. A new trust fund would be created for these funds and the funds would be used solely for the operation, maintenance and repair of state parks and to protect wildlife and natural resources. There would be no fiscal impact of this measure on local governments. The measure is anticipated to generate approximately $250 million annually for state parks and wildlife conservation. Proposition 25 (Position -SUDDort): This measure would change the legislative vote requirement to pass the State budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Ifthe Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members would forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day they pass a budget bill. The lower vote requirement could affect the content of the budget and spending-related bills but there is no clear fiscal impact of this measure on local governments. Regional Measures: Measure A -Santa Clara County Children's Health Protection (Position -Support): This measure would enact a $29 annual parcel tax limited to 10 years. The measure is anticipated to generate $13-14 million annually and would create a source of funding to "protect and maintain children's health and prevent serious illnesses through regular medical checkups, immunizations, and early detection; to reduce costs from unnecessary emergency room use; and to prevent elimination of insurance coverage for low-income children of working families." The measure would provide funding for the Healthy Kids Program, which provides health care and medical insurance to approximately 8,400 children in the County. The program is run by the Santa Clara Family Health Plan, which is a public, not-for-profit health plan that operates solely in Santa Clara County. Attachment G provides a recent San Jose Mercury News article about the measure. Measure B -Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (position -Support): This measure would increase the motor vehicle registration fee (VRF) by $10 for each vehicle registered in Santa Clara County to relieve traffic congestion, improve streets and reduce polluted toxic roadway runoff. Approximately 80% of the revenues from the measure will go towards local road improvement and repair, 15% will go towards regional programs (leverage for other funds; regional intelligent transportation systems/technologies; county environmental mitigation for autos/trucks), and the remaining 5% will go towards program administration. The· measure is anticipated to generate approximately $14 million in revenues annually. Measure C -Santa Clara Valley Water District (Position -Support): This measure would limit Board members, whether elected or appointed, from serving more than three successive 4- year terms. The term limits would not be retroactive. Measure E -Foothill-De Anza Community College District (Position -Support): This measure would levy a $69 parcel tax annually for six years to provide additional revenues for operations at the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. The measure is anticipated to CMR: 374:10 Page 2 of3 Attachment A **NOT YET APPROVED** Resolution No. ----,-- Resolution of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Supporting Measure A, Parcel Tax for Healthy Kids Program WHEREAS, Measure A is a County initiative which if passed by voters in November 2010 would create a $29 tax on each parcel of land for 10 years beginning January 1,2011; and WHEREAS, Measure A would produce between $13 and $14 million annually to sustain the Healthy Kids Program in Santa Clara County; and WHERAS, the Healthy Kids Program provides medical, dental and vision benefits to all children up the age of 19 who are living in Santa Clara County, and whose families earn up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, and who are otherwise not eligible to obtain coverage; and WHEREAS, without the Healthy Kids program more than 10,000 children in Santa Clara County could lose their health insurance, and WHEREAS, the Palo Alto City Council supports the provision of health care to children whose families cannot otherwise afford it. SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto by the adoption of this resolution hereby supports Measure A on the November 2,2010 ballot. II II II II II II II II II 100929 sh 8261433 1 **NOr YET APPROVED** SECTION 2. The Council finds that adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act's definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Deputy City Attorney Director of Administrative Services 100929 sh 8261433 2 Attachment B **NOT YET APPROVED** Resolution No. --- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting . Measure E Foothill-De Anza Community College District· Educational Opportunity and Job Training Parcel Tax WHEREAS, Foothill College and De Anza College rank among the best community colleges in the nation and our community relies on them for healthcare professionals to serve our aging population and for skilled workers to fuel our economy; and WHEREAS, for many local students, Foothill and De Anza are a stepping-stone to transfer to top universities; and WHEREAS, community colleges have never been so important or in demand as UC and CSU schools turn away more and more students and increase tuition, making Foothill and De Anza the only affordable and accessible college education options for many students in this community; and WHEREAS, Foothill and De Anza have experienced more than $20 million in budget cuts due to state funding. reductions, leading to the elimination of many courses along with hundreds of faculty and staff positions; and . WHEREAS, student demand for community college courses is increasing and this year thousands of local students were unable to get classes they needed; and WHEREAS, passing of Measure E will allow Foothill College and De Anza College to continue to provide the academic courses students need to transfer to four-year universities and compete for good careers in math, engineering, technology and science; and WHEREAS, Measure E will provide stable funding that the State cannot take away to help these institutions: • Maintain core academic classes including math, science and writing • Prepare students for careers in engineering, math and science • Help students transfer to four -year universities • Prepare students for healthcare careers like nursing and paramedics • Restore classes and labs to meet demand; and WHEREAS, every penny from this measure will benefit our local college, no funds can be taken by the State or used for administrator salaries, an independent oversight committee and annual audits will ensure funds are used properly, and the measure wil~ automatically expire in six years; and WHEREAS, local funding measures like this are the only way for community college districts to secure stable funding for programs and staff and reduce dependency on the State; and 100929 sh 8261434 1 **NOT YET APPROVED** WHEREAS, this measure requires support from 66.7% of voters to pass and our community must rally to support t~is measure to protect the quality, accessibility and affordability of local community college courses for our students; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto by the adoption of this resolution hereby supports Measure E, the Foothill-De AnzaCommunity College District educational opportunity and job training parcel tax, on the November 2, 2010 ballot. SECTION 2. The Council finds that adoption of this resolution does not meet the California Environmental Quality Act's definition of a project pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, and therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Deputy City Attorney Director of Administrative Services 100929 sh 8261434 2 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 344:10 SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add a Maximum House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone District. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On September 21 2009, the City Council adopted revisions regarding impervious coverage and floor area ratio for the Open Space (OS) zone district and at that time directed the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to provide recommendations on the appropriate maximum house size and regulations for basement limitations in the OS district. Staff hosted two community outreach meetings to discuss these issues, though a large number of OS residents continue to express opposition to any additional changes to the district. At the PTC meeting on Mareh 10, 2010, the Commissioners unanimously voted not to add a maximum hOllse size limitation, but also noted that, if the Council wished to impose a size limit on homes, they recommend a 12,000 square foot limit, with increased size allowable upon attainment of exemplary green building achievements in excess of City requirements. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council (1) not approve the proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Chapter 18.28 to add a maximum house size limit to the Open Space zone district and (2) defer action on basement limitations until comprehensive city-wide basement recommendations have been developed. If the Council desires to adopt a maximum house size limit, staff and the PTC recommend the following limitations as outlined in the draft ordinance (Attachment A): 1. The maximum house size be set at 12,000 square feet; and CMR: 344:10 Page 1 of5 2. The maximum house size limit of 12,000 square feet may be exceeded up to the allowable floor area of the site in accordance with the folIowing requirements: (a) For each additional point exceeding the current green building requirements, the maximum house size may be increased by one percent (120 square feet); and (b) Any proposed maximum house size in excess of 12,000 square feet shall be submitted for preliminary review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.79.040 through 18.79.060, except that subsection 18.79.040(b) shall not apply and the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be the sole body to conduct preliminary review; and (c) Applications for preliminary review under this section shall be filed as set forth in Chapter 18.77.020; and (d) Following completion of the preliminary review process, applicants shall complete the site and design review process required under section 18.28.070(b) and l8.30(G); and (e) The maximum house size calculation shall include the gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwelling units. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2009, the City Council adopted revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone district. The most significant changes included a) calculation of impervious coverage based on the actual permeability of materials use; b) a sliding scale of impervious coverage limits based on lot size; c) establishment of a maximum floor area ratio based on lot size; d) bonus impervious coverage and floor area allowances if a substantial part of the lot is retained as natural vegetation or agricultural; and e) restrictions for basements on slopes in excess of 10%. As part of the motion, Council directed the PTC to provide recommendations on (I) an appropriate maximum house size; and (2) whether to include further regulations for the basement limitations. Council expressed concerns regarding the resource (energy, water, etc.) consumption related to having large homes and basements, as well as visibility and land disturbance issues. Attachment D provides the excerpt minutes of the Council Motion. Staff initiated two community meetings to discuss these two issues with stakeholders. The first meeting was on January 7, 2010 and was attended by approximately 10 interested individuals. The as residents were dissatisfied with the suggested additional limitations on maximum house size and basements for OS properties. Brian Schmidt, representing Committee for Green Foothills (open space advocacy group), supported adding a maximum house size limit. For the second community meeting on February 18, the residents informed staff that they were not interested in participating due to their continued dissatisfaction with the City'S process and the proposed zoning changes. Apart from staff, two PTC representatives, a Committee for Green Foothills representative, and one resident attended (for a brief time only) the meeting. Staff received several communications on the proposed changes and they are attached for review (Attachment G). CMR: 344:10 Page 2 of5 DISCUSSION Maximum House Size The current code that governs house size in the OS is based on a sliding scale for impervious cover and floor area ratio (FAR), as seen in the table below. The house size is limited by the floor area and lot coverage of the site. Attachment C provides a list of OS properties with the FAR calculations based no the Table I below. Table I: Open Space Residential Impervious Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Scale Impervious Floor Area • Parcel Size Coverage Ratio (FAR) FAR with Bonus If ::0:80% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored • < I acre 7.5% 6.0% 7.5% with native vegetation If 2:85% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored 3 acres 5.0% 5.0% 6.0% with native vegetation If 2:90% of site remains undisturbed and/or IS restored 5 acres 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 'll'it~llative vegetation If 2:95% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored 2: 10 acres 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% with native vegetation Based on the September 21, 2009 Council discussion, the issues that are intended to be addressed by implementing a maximum house size relate to the following environmental concerns and Comprehensive Plan policies: • Reduce impacts of energy and water use; • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides; • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#1): The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view; and • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Staff and the PTC believe that the existing Green Building and Site and Design Review requirements for development in the OS are designed to address the potential impacts of development in the OS. The Site and Design Review is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo CMR: 344:10 Page 3 of5 Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Site and Design Review, along with the required environmental assessment, identifies and addresses potential visual, biological, and other factors that could be considered an impact to the project site and its surroundings. In addition to the stringent design review, the City requires compliance with green building practices in order to obtain a building pelmit. Basements The current OS code requires basements to follow the same standards as the R-I Single Family Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent (10%). The latter part of this requirement is highly restrictive in that many, if not most, of the sites in the OS zone have slopes greater than 10% within their buildable area. Thus, staff and the PTC believe that the council's specific concerns are accounted for in the existing process, and that a maximum house size is consequently not necessary to address those concerns. Based on the September 21, 2009 Council discussion, the issues that are being addressed by implementing basement limitations relate to the following environmental concerns and Comprehensive Plan policies: • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided; • Reduce energy consumption (use of large quantities of concrete); and • Reduce excavation, energy, and water use in an environmentally sensitive area. These issues are not unique to the OS zone and staff is researching and preparing recommendations to address basement development throughout the City of Palo Alto. Staff and the PTC recommend that the existing requirements be maintained and defer any changes until comprehensive city-wide basement recommendations have been developed (anticipated to be completed this year). Changes that would be implemented at that time would then apply to the OS district. This option would allow for consideration of basement issues in a consistent manner across the City's zoning districts. Staff again notes that the basement restrictions added in the 2009 amendments already substantially limit basement construction in the OS zone. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On March 10,2010, the PTC recommended not to institute a maximum house size for the Open Space District and to defer basement discussion until the city-wide recommendations are developed. The PTC provided an alternative recommendation, as stated on page one, to guide Council if it wishes to pursue the implementation of a maximum house size. Details of the PTC discussion are provided in the attached meeting minutes (Attachment F). RESOURCE IMPACTS The proposed revisions are not expected to have impacts on City revenue or expenses. Project applications would require Site and Design review and staff costs would be reimbursed by the applicant. CMR: 344:10 Page40[5 Not Yet Approved ATTACHMENT A Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add a Maximum House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone District The Council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) The last update of the Open Space regulations took place on September 21, 2009 with the approval of revisions to PAMC Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) and at which time further direction was given by Council to make additional revisions; (b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and policies related to open space protection. The proposed revisions assist the City in accomplishing these programs and policies; (c) The proposed revisions to the Open Space district would enhance the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby anlended to read as follows: 18.28.050 Site Development Standards (a) Development Standards The development standards for the special purpose districts are specified in Table 2, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the Architectural Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. I 100526 syn Q120440 Not Yet Approved the City Attorney will be outlined in the covenant. To remove the landscape restrictions related to the bonus FAR, the site development shall be modified to reduce the FAR to meet the standard requirements. These modifications are subject to design review. (iv) For projects approved with bonus FAR, the property owner shall be required to submit a follow-up landscape/arborist report verifying the site is in compliance with the approved plans, five years after the project's final sign-off, as outlined in 18.28.070(d). (B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio (i) Gross floor area shall be calculated based upon the same criteria as Low Density Residential zone districts, as specified in Definitions Section 18.04.030(65)(C) and (D), except as below. (ii) Basements shall follow the same standards as the R -I Single Family Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent (10%). Cel Maximum House Size Exception The maximum house size limit of 12.000 square feet may be exceeded up to the allowable floor area of the site in accordance with the folloWing requirements: ill.... For each additional point exceeding the current green building requirements. the maximum house size may be increased by one percent (120 square fee!); and iliL Any proposed maximum house s.ize in excess of 12.000 square feet shall be submitted for preliminary review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.79.040 through 18.79.060. except that subsection 18.79.040Cbl shall not apply and the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be the sole body to conduct preliminary review: and (iiil Applications for preliminary review under this section shall be filed as set forth in Chapter 18.77.020: and (jvl Following completion of the preliminary review process. applicants shall complete the site and design review process required under section 18.28.070(bl and 18.30(0); and hl The maximum house size calculation shall include the gross floor area of attached garages and attached second dwelling units. If there is no garage attached to the house. then the sqllare footage of one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. (2) Non-Residential Use 4 100526 syn 0120440 Not Yet Approved Where non-residential uses are proposed on a site, the impervious coverage shall be limited to 3.5% and the floor area ratio shall be limited to 5.0% of the site area. However, the City Council may, after recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission, allow increased impervious coverage andlor floor area through the Site and Design Review process, where Council finds that the use furthers the open space objectives of this chapter. In no case shall impervious cover or floor area ratio be allowed to exceed 10.0%. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 100526 ,yn 0120440 5 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENT D City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, Motion for Item #25 Le6RaFEI LehmaRR;B50 Las Tl'aRcas Read, felt the f'f6f'6seei OS ZeRO Distrlet OFdIAaAeo "\'e~ld Ret I3l'&1ide fer thc al'>'crslty ef I:Jses that may beReftt the eemm!:lAity. ShareR Ll:leiw, 3885 Pa!!Je t1i11 Read, spelte eR hoI' dislilEe faf' the l'lreeess !:Isee 11'1 !:IpEiatiR!:I tAe prepased 05 ZeRO DlstFlet OFdiRaflcc. CatA',· Cartmell, 4001 Page Mill Read, felt Ma additiaRal 05 ZaAe District re!:ll:Jlatlafls were fleeessary. ChristiRe Lasq, spake 01'1 the hlstary of the OS ZaRO District. Richard Geiger, 714 East CharlesteR Read, speke 11'1 eppesltial'l af the AgeRaa Reffi.: BriaR Schmidt, 3921 East Bayshore Raaa, s(:1ol<e eM his eXf'eFiORCe as the sole 05 advocate eM the WOFldl'l!j !jFOI:Jf3. It was his belief the l'ecammeflElatioRS ..... ere a camJ'lremise, aAd stated his !:Ieflerel support af tM PietieR. Pl:Jblic heariA!j clesed at 11 :21 ".m. Council Member Burt stated his overall support of the Motion, He stated the proposed OS zone District Ordinance contained several trade-offs. The preceding Ordinance was problematic because It was a one-slze-flts-all Ordinance. He felt the proposed OS Zone District Ordinance was a good comprorpise that addressed concerns from Staff, P&TC, and reSidents. He Indicated it would provide property owners with latitude. He spoke on the proposed OS Zone District Ordinance's bonus that would encourage a greater amount of natural vegetation. Council Member Barton addressed his concern of comparing R-l zoned parcels and OS Zone District parcels. He felt they should not be compared because they were Intended for different purposes, 09/21/09 105-182 City Council Meeting Minutes Exce,pt, MotIon fo, Item #25 Council Member Burt stated aJtowlng the construction of a second dwelling would not increase the amount of Impervious coverage on a parcel. He stated the incentive was a fair compromise. Vice Mayor Morton stated the second dwelling would encourage more traffic. He Indicated the objective of the OS Zone District was to minimize the Impact In the neighborhood. Council Member Klshlmoto stated the additional dwelling unit would require additional parking spaces. Mayor Drekmeler stated smart growth was housing people close to jobs and services. He stated his support of second dwelling units In R-1 zoned areas; however, he thought it would encourage more traffic In Os Zone Districts. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Barton, Burt, Espinosa, Yeh no Council Member Burt stated maximum house size In the OS Zone District should be carefully reviewed by the P&TC. Council Member Klshlmoto spoke on other local communities which have considered a maximum house size In their codes. She spoke on the consequences of maximum house sizes. Council Member Klein stated his support to direct the P&TC to recommend a maximum house size limitation to the City Council. Vice Mayor Morton stated this Amendment would limit the Impact to an area that was Intended for open space. Mayor Drekmeler spoke on the amount of energy used to create concrete. He stated his dislike for the construction of basements throughout the City limits. Council Member Klshimoto stated basements contribute to excavation of open space and consume energy. 09/21/09 105-183 maximum house size and basements on their properties. Brian Schmidt, representing Committee for Green Foothills (open space advocacy group), supported adding a maximum house size limit. For the second community meeting on February 18, the residents informed staff that they were not interested in participating due to their continued dissatisfaction with the City's process and the proposed zoning changes. Apart from staff, two PTC representatives, a Committee for Green Foothills representative, and one resident attended (for a brief time only) the meeting. Staff received several communications on the proposed changes and they are attached for review, Attachment C. DISCUSSION Maximum House Size The current code that governs house size in the as is based on a sliding scale for impervious cover and floor area ratio (FAR), as seen in the table below. The house size is limited by the floor area and lot coverage of the site. Table 1: Open Space Residential Impervious Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Scale Impervious Floor Area Parcel Size Coverall.e Ratio (FAR) FAR with Bonus If 2:80% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored I < 1 acre 7.5% 6.0% 7.5% with native vegetation If 2:85% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored 3 acres 5.0% 5.0% 6.0% with native vegetation If 2:90% of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored 5 acres 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% with native vegetation If 2:95 % of site remains undisturbed and/or is restored > 10 acres 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% with native vegetation Maximum house size requirements are a development tool imposed in some hillside communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola Valley (85% of total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Staff has not previously recommended such a limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address the visual impacts of the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a maximum house size limitation, so a maximum house size restriction remains a policy determination for the Commission and Council. A maximum house size limit would affect larger properties. Attachment A provides comparison data on floor area, maximum house size, etc. for a few local jurisdictions with hillside development. 1. Concerns The issues that are being addressed by implementing a maximum hOllse size relate to the following environmental concems and Comprehensive Plan policies: Cily ot Pslo Alto Page 2 • Reduce impacts of energy and water use; • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides; • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#1): The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view; and • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. 2. Options Of the following options provided on how to determine a maximum house size, Staff recommends Option A. A. Scaled Lot Size (acres) Maximum House Size (sJ.) <10 8,000 > 10 and < 15 10,000 > 15 12,000 This option provides clear direction to homeowners and staff on what can be developed and recognizes that there are various sized properties in the OS zone and therefore would allow some flexibility in the house size. House size would not be more restrictive than FAR until a lot was at least four acres. B. Same as the R-l and R-E Single Family Residential Districts: 6,000 sf This option provides clear direction to both homeowners and City staff on what can be developed and applies the same R-J and RE standard to the as district. This standard, however, would be highly restrictive in larger lots, particularly is currently allowed on the much smaller R-J and R-E properties. C. Discretionary Review City 01 Palo Alto Indicate a baseline maximum house size (e.g. 6,000 sf), and if the homeowner includes substantial sustainable design/construction elements, additional floor area may be allowed for the house, as determined by the PTC and Council. Compliance with the Site and Design criteria is also implicit with the discretionary option. This option does not provide clear direction to homeowners and staff on how large a home can be built on a site. It does encourage the homeowners who desire a larger home to utilize green building and sustainable design in order to gain additional square footage for the house. This option does not provide certainty for the homeowner in the review process and places the burden on the City to Page 3 Basements consistently evaluate a project's worthiness for added square footage, The future monitoring of these projects may also be problematic, If the PTC desires to evaluate this option further. some specific sustainability criteria should be identified for stajfto consider and return to PTC in afuture discussion, The current as code requires basements to follow the same standards as the R-1 Single Family Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess of ten percent (10%), The latter part of this requirement is highly restrictive in that many, if not most, of the sites in the as zone have slopes greater than 10% within their buildable area, Basement, as defined by the PAMC. means that portion of a building between the lowest floor and the ceiling above, which is fully below grade or partly below and partly above grade, but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling, In the R-1 Single Family district, basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and basements are not allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks, except to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard setback by other provisions of this code, Basements are not included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that (1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or (2) basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation, L Concerns The issues that are being addressed by implementing basement limitations relate to the following environmental concerns and Comprehensive Plan policies: • Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided; • Reduce energy consumption (use oflarge quantities of concrete); and • Reduce excavation, energy, and water use in an environmentally sensitive area, 2, Options Of the following options provided to regulate basement sizes, Staff recommends Option A, A. Maintain the existing requirements and defer any changes until comprehensive city-wide basement recommendations have been developed (anticipated to be done this year). Changes that would be implemented at that time would then apply to the as district. Cily of Palo Allo This option would allow for consideration of basement issues in a consistent manner across the City's zoning districts. Page 4 B. Count basement square footage toward the total floor area of the site but not toward the maximum house size. This optionforther restricts basements, but provides an incentive to locate some above-ground square footage to basement·area that would not be visible. C. Prohibit new basements completely. This option avoids potential basement impacts, but would not recognize circumstances particular to a site, emerging technologies and energy efficiencies of basements, and would not provide any incentive to minimize above grade square footage. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on open space character, and on the natural ecology of the hillsides. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was completed and a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) was adopted on September 21,2009 in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The proposed changes to the development standards are not substantial and do not change the project impacts as originally discussed in the Initial Study. The adopted NO is deemed adequate for this project. NEXT STEPS Upon direction from the Commission, staff will prepare a draft ordinance and return to the Commission for final review and recommendation to the Council. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Attachment B. Attachment C. Attachment D. Comparison Data from Local Jurisdictions Summary Table of OS Parcels Correspondence Excerpt Minutes of City Council Meeting, 09121/09 COURTESY COPIES PAPOS Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:_G"';:"":'''''~<=~'<fJJ-,-"-,m""·,,,,~»=',-,-,,,,--__ _ Curtis Williams, Director City 01 Palo Allo Page5 ATTACHMENT F I Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Verbatim Minutes 3 March 10,2010 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and recommendation of maximum house size and 8 basement limitations to the development standards in the Open Space (OS) zone district. 9 Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration was adopted on September 21, 2009 in 10 accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A). II 12 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Yes, thank you Chair 13 Garber and Commissioners. I am Curtis Williams the Director of Planning and Community 14 Environment. The Planning Commission spent considerable time over the past couple of years 15 working on regulations related to the Open Space District. Vice-Chair Tuma and Chair Garber 16 were part of a subcommittee that participated in that and in some meetings with the residents of 17 the area. That effort resulted in the Council adopting revisions last September. There were quite 18 a number of revisions to the ordinance. They key ones at that time were that a floor area ratio 19 limitation was added to the code. Previously development was regulated primarily through 20 impervious cover limitations. So floor area ratio was added and both the impervious cover and 21 floor area ratio were developed based on a ratio relative to the lot size, so there was a sliding 22 scale rather than a flat 3.5 percent impervious, which existed before that. 23 24 There was also language that said that impervious cover is calculated based on the permeability 25 of the material rather than it being considered all impermeable or as 100 percent or zero percent. 26 There are different gradations of that. 27 28 There were some changes to the review process so that not all projects had to go through the 29 Commission and Council at public hearings. There was a change to some of the setback 30 requirements for parking and special setbacks. Then there also were some provision for allowing 31 garbage enclosures and such to be closer to the street, and some other kind of minor changes as 32 well. There also was a change to the basement provision that essentially said that basements 33 which were prior to that not particularly relevant because we didn't have a floor area regulation. 34 There was just the coverage regulation. Basements if they were on slopes over ten percent 35 would be counted against the floor area under the new regulations. So that was pretty limiting in 36 this area where there are a lot of steeper sloped. 37 38 So those changes were adopted by the Council but there was not a recommendation regarding the 39 issue in particular of maximum house size. That is an issue that the Commission did take up and 40 discuss, and had a set of numbers in front of it to consider, but first decided whether or not you 41 wanted to move that forward before you considered what the appropriate square footage might 42 be. You recommended against a house size and that is the recommendation that went to Council. 43 The Council however felt that they were at a minimum leaning towards imposing a house size 44 and since they didn't have a recommendation from the Commission sent that issue back to you, 45 and would like your recommendation on what an appropriate maximum house size or sizes 46 would be in the Open Space District. Page 1 I 2 They also referred back to you the issue of basements, which as you know we have had a couple 3 of meetings on with the Commission about basements citywide in terms of groundwater issues, 4 green building, and carbon emission issues, and impacts on adjacent neighbors. The Council 5 directed that the Commission also reconsider whether there should be additional basement 6 restrictions in the Open Space District beyond what had just been adopted. 7 8 Up on the screen right now is just the summary table from the ordinance that was adopted in 9 September. So these are in existence. This is the regulation right now as far as the maximum 10 impervious coverage, floor area ratios for lots depending on the size of the lot, and then on the II right side there are also some provisions for bonuses in addition to that if a certain high 12 percentage of the site is left in either its natural state or is restored with native vegetation. So 13 that is sort of where we are. 14 15 Staff has developed some recommendations for the Commission to consider as far as maximum 16 house size. We had recommended previously as the Commission did that there not be a 17 maximum house size based on the fact that we have full Sight and Design Review for all these 18 homes, which allows a look at everyone to see whether or not it was visually intrusive or 19 otherwise impacting. 20 21 So one of the questions that has been asked a number of times by the neighbors in particular is 22 sort of what was the basis or the justification for evaluating this, where did that kind of come 23 from? We went back to the minutes of the Council Meeting and pulled some references that we 24 saw there, and have sort of identified that the primary impetus for looking at maximum house 25 size is one to reduce the impacts of energy and water use, and then the others are generally 26 related to Comprehensive Plan policies to minimize impacts of any new development on views 27 of the hillsides and the open space character, and the natural ecology. Secondly, not being 28 visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands, sited so it is hidden from view as 29 much as possible. Lastly, to reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential fUnoffiarge 30 flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. So those seemed to us to be sort of the 3 I objectives that were enumerated by the Council, although they were not explicit about that it was 32 just in some of their comments. Those also related in some way or other to the basement issue as 33 welL 34 35 So a couple of things as we move into the issue of what a maximum house size should be we just 36 wanted to clarify how maximum house size is defined. We do have maximum house size 37 regulations of 6,000 square feet in the R-I zone and the RE zone right now, and basically have 38 treated maximum house size as being the primary dwelling unit on the lot. So other structures 39 that are not attached to that dwelling unit do not count against the maximum house size. They do 40 count against the total floor area ratio for the site floor area, but a detached garage for example, a 41 detached accessory living quarters, detached barn, or anything like that would not count against 42 the maximum house size. I just wanted to make that distinction. 43 44 What we have outlined in the Staff Report as one direction to go and our recommended direction 45 is that maximum house size be either set up as a maximum of 8,000 square feet generally, but 46 then between ten and 15 acres 10,000 square feet, and over 15 acres 12,000 square feet. The Page 2 I 8,000 square foot number is somewhat arbitrary. There is no magic to that but it does happen to 2 fit and be relatively analogous to some of the maximum house sizes that we have seen in other 3 communities, particularly Woodside and Saratoga. Then it would start to impact homes that 4 were about 4.2 acres or larger. 5 6 We also provided some options in the Staff Report. One option is to use the existing 6,000 7 square feet that we have existing. We feel that that is somewhat punitive in that that's on very 8 urban size lots because you would have to have probably about three regular size lots 10 be large 9 enough to get the FAR to do a 6,000 square foot house, but it is more of what is in other zoning 10 districts, and is not really applicable to these larger lots in the Open Space. Then a third option is II just to have a more discretionary review process whereby maybe there is a minimum set of 8,000 12 square feet or 10,000 square feet but then there is an option or a way to allow larger houses. 13 14 Some of the criteria that might be used are exemplary green building techniques, which address a 15 lot of the energy and water issues or impacts that had been brought up. Also, like we had for the 16 floor area ratio having some kind of a bonus based on the amount of area that is left undisturbed, 17 natural, or restored to a nalural state. So these are the two potential incentives that we have 18 identified that could be used in that kind of scenario are to exceed the green building 19 requirements or maintaining 95 percent of the site as undismrbed or restored with native 20 vegetation. Currently our green building regulations require using the Build It Green rating 21 system that a home achieve a minimum of70 points plus one point per additional 70 square feet 22 over 2,550 square feet. Then we have a maximum requirement of 150. The 150 occurs just 23 about at that 8,000 square foot house level. So that is another sort of equalizing factor there. 24 Even though you would calculate that say a 10,000 square foot house would require 176, ours 25 says we don't require you to go over 150. So one of the options here is that we could say there 26 are 8,000 square feet or so and then if you do achieve say 176 or 200 or whatever the number 27 would be that you could go through the Site and Design and request a house that is larger than 28 the maximum house size that we specify. So that is one type of criteria that we could use. We 29 are concerned about getting more discretionary than that. That is a numerical number that we 30 can calculate and it doesn't require Staffto then sort of determine with the applicant if they have 3 I done enough to request a larger house than what is specified or not. It is there in a nomerical 32 form and the same thing with the percentage of natural area. 33 34 These are just definitions of some of the other relevant criteria. Let me go back here a second. 35 We had some concerns. One of the concerns that we do have about like a green building type of 36 standard is being sure that we have some kind of enforcement mechanism that maintains that 37 standard, and that an applicant or owner can't go in and then alter a house in a way that would 38 reduce its green building efficiency and not be achieving what was set out to do. We would have 39 certainly a certification at the final inspection that it achieved all those things. A lot of those are 40 embedded in the house design and really can't be readily changed. There are some that probably 41 could so we would probably have some kind of conditions that we could then subsequently 42 enforce as a Code Enforcement issue if something were changed on the house. That does remain 43 out there as kind of a possibility. 44 45 So we have outlined several options there. We think that either at this breakdown of 8,000, 46 10,000, or 12,000, or just picking say a 10,000 square foot number is reasonably large to reflect Page 3 I that these sites are pretty large sites and can accommodate those houses with the explicit 2 understanding that Sight and Design Review is required on everyone of these homes. So you 3 still have the discretion to look at the placement of the home, the landscaping for the home, other 4 techniques to try to minimize the visual impact. Then perhaps with this discretionary option of if 5 you were to exceed the associated green building thresholds and the Open Space natural area 6 thresholds that you could request, and we have not specified what number above that. I think it 7 would open-ended at that point. However, you could request houses larger than maximum house 8 size that is specified. 9 lOOn the basement issue there are a number of ways to try to address that. Our preference and II recommendation at this point is that you not recommend any changes right now but that we defer 12 discussion of that until we come back to you with further information that you had requested on 13 basements citywide, because these issues are not all the same as the issues we have in other areas 14 but a lot of them are the same. So we think we really ought to address those all in one package 15 and then decide if they apply differently in different areas as part of that discussion. So I think 16 that is it, and would be glad to take any questions. 17 18 Also, Clare has provided you with a table that shows the breakdown that essentially has every lot 19 in the Open Space District and shows at what point the 8,000 square foot number becomes 20 restrictive, when does the floor area ratio exceed 8,000 square feet, and then 10,000 square feet, 21 and then 12,000 square feet. You can see the number of lots that potentially fall into those 22 categories. 23 24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just wanted to add a little bit with respect to the history of the process and 27 the discussions particularly focusing on the time since this was last in front of us and the series of 28 events that have taken place since then. 29 30 Obviously there was the Council action, which Staff has covered. Following the Council action 31 there were two noticed meetings with the public that Staff and members of the subcommittee 32 attended and participated in. The first of those meetings was a discussion that I would 33 characterize as one where the community came back and expressed disappointment in the fact 34 that we were going back and revisiting these issues despite Planning Commission 35 recommendation, which was consistent with Staff recommendation. There was some discussion 36 around what the way forward might be looking at various different options. 37 38 I think as a result of those meetings this meeting was postponed in order to give Staff and the 39 community an opportunity to think about a little bit more what we might do. There was then a 40 subsequent meeting scheduled with the community and most of the members of the community 41 chose not to appear at that meeting and indicated a form of protest as a result of previous 42 discussions. I will let the members of the public address the concerns there. 43 44 There was a member of Green Foothills who was in attendance and a couple of other members of 45 the public showed up very briefly and then left. It was in the context of that meeting that we 46 began to discuss this concept of if we were to go forward with a recommendation on maximum Page 4 I house size that there might be a discretionary way for applicants to go beyond the limit if they 2 were to build their projects in a certain way that effectively addressed some of the concerns that 3 maximum house size was intended to address. So that is I think where some of the 4 recommendations or the information in here comes in around discretionary review and using 5 perhaps the green building criteria as a way to allow additional house size if the concerns were 6 addressed through Sight and Design and the project proposal. 7 8 So I think that brings us to tonight. I don't know if the Chair has anything he wants to add as a 9 result of our discussions as well. 10 11 Chair Garber: Yes. I think one of the strongest concerns that was voiced by the members of the 12 public that have participated in these meetings that the subcommittee has participated in over the I3 last three or four years now has been what is trying to be solved. In that the Planning 14 Commission and Staff had made a recommendation in July and Council has now asked us to 15 come back and address the issue of maximum house size again. Much of the initial concern or 16 impetus for this occurred with one particular project that is now I believe over ten years old. It 17 was the one exception that has caused a ripple that we feel to today coming to pass in that a 18 number of the structures that are embedded in the zone and the Zoning Ordinance have 19 effectively worked, basically, up until the present moment with the exception of that one 20 exception. 21 22 So the question that appears to be before us is potentially a rhetorical one but one that we have 23 been asked to address which is, is there a need for maximum size, and if there is, how do we 24 address that? Is that fair? I am getting a not from the Co-Chair and the other member of the 25 Open Space ad hoc subcommittee. 26 27 So with that this would be the time that we would take questions from the Commission to Staff. 28 Then we will hear from the public. In deference to the public that are here we will do five 29 minutes a piece as opposed to our normal three. I would hope that if there are questions by 30 Commissioners that we can engage members of the public in them. Let us remember that we are 31 in a publie meeting and we will have to use the mierophone and you will have to be called on to 32 speak after we go through the cards that you filled out. Commissioner Keller and then 33 Commissioner Lippert. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So using the slide four that is actually on the screen is 36 actually what I want to talk about. So let me frame my question by saying that my understanding 37 from the last meeting is that Site and Design review is discretionary but doesn't really address 38 maximum house size. That was something that it didn't seem to really be effective addressing 39 and therefore in terms of the new ideas for addressing maximum house size and how to exceed 40 that is the idea of getting additional square footage of house size through green point rate it 41 which is essentially mechanical based. The idea here that is mentioned on this slide is that it 42 would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. I am wondering if Staff has any 43 thoughts on how that discretion could be applied in a way that doesn't result in landowners 44 spending a lot of time doing engineering calculations and architect drawings and then that comes 45 to a discretionary process where the Commission say we don't like that, we think it is way too 46 big, shrink it, and then a lot of money has been spent. So I am wondering if there is some Page 5 I process that might have an earlier feedback and while that feedback might not be binding would 2 sort of give some idea before a lot of money was spent. 3 4 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioner Keller, I think that is a very good question and 5 something we had thought about. It would be quite risky to go out and develop a 15,000 square 6 foot house and all the designs for that and submit it knowing you are meeting the numbers here 7 but not knowing that it is going to be even sort of within the ballpark of discretionary review. So 8 all I would essentially offer at this point is that it might be appropriate in a case like this what we 9 will have to do is come back to you with actual ordinance language. It might be very appropriate 10 to require a preliminary review with the Commission if that kind of avenue is chosen so that they II come forward with something conceptual and you at least get a sense of the lay of the land. You 12 may find that the location of the home is down in a valley and it is not particularly obtrusive 13 anyway and so it looks like that might be a case where you say go ahead and develop more 14 details plans. Then in other cases you might see something where it is of some concern because 15 of a high level of visibility and you might have different direction from that. So we are 16 comfortable I think developing that and that probably would be a good approach to require an 17 initial preliminary review before the Commission before doing real detailed drawings. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: Presumably a landowner could avail themselves of preliminary review 20 even if it didn't involve this. They could get earlier feedback on one that even did fit the normal 21 criteria so that they wouldn't have to go and get rejected potentially at the Sight and Design 22 Review stage. 23 24 Mr. Williams: Yes, we could do that too. 25 26 Commissioner Keller: I am going to go slightly on a limb and observe that the City Council's 27 direction to us was made by the prior Council. In terms of continuing Council Members three 28 voted yes, two voted no. In terms of the Commission the motion was deadlocked three-three 29 with one person absent. Three voting that we should take back in the future the issue of limiting 30 house size and three voting no and of the three who voted no those three are still on the 31 Commission and of the three who voted yes, two of the three of those are on the Commission. 32 So I just figure I would point this out just so people can do the electoral math and handicap 33 appropriately and figure out how they might want to phrase their discussions. Thank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert followed by Fineberg. 36 37 Commissioner Lippert: Can just briefly review and expand on the 1978 settlement agreement 38 just a tiny bit? 39 40 Mr. Williams: I don't know all the details of it and somebody in the audience I am sure can 41 correct me if I am wrong but this was a subdivision that the settlement agreement acknowledged 42 I believe there were nine or ten developable lots and then a large amount of open space set aside. 43 Rather than having minimum ten-acre lot sizes the lots themselves were smaller, like three acres 44 or something like that, and then the open space was made larger. But the settlement agreement 45 essentially stipulated that those smaller lots could be developed based on the standards for a ten- 46 acre conforming house sizes. So given that that is a settlement agreement we have essentially Page 6 I incorporated and then it was adopted by the Council, recommended by the in September, that 2 those be exempt from future regulations because the settlement agreement in effect at that time is 3 what is operative for those nine or ten lots. 4 5 Commissioner Lippert: So trying to get clarity, I am looking at your chart here, which is at 6 places but was included in the Staff Report the items that are bold they would be exempt from 7 the FAR or would they be subject to the FAR but based on a much larger lot size? 8 9 Mr. Williams: No, they would be exempt from the FAR or any maximum house size limitation. 10 II Commissioner Lippert: Okay and that doesn't create any sort of problem with regard to the fact 12 that it is all one zone and we are applying development regulations to the entire zone. Does it 13 represent us applying regulations inequitably? 14 15 Mr. Williams: I don't think so. Again, it already had been done so that these lots were being 16 treated somewhat differently than all the other lots in that zone. So anytime we have a settlement 17 agreement it usually differs in some way, shape, or form from the standard regulations and is 18 legally binding. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: I guess where I am coming from is more of a legal opinion from the City 21 Attorney's Office's Deputy City Attorney, which is that if we were to reach some sort of 22 understanding in terms of maximum lot size and somebody who was not one of those property 23 owners could come back and say well, you have applied your maximum lot size to us but not the 24 other properties. Would that undermine this? 25 26 Ms. Melissa Tronguet, Deputv City Attorney: I don't think so. I agree with the Planning 27 Director. I think really it is more of a policy distinction rather than a legal distinction at this 28 point because we do already have the settlement agreement in place. We do things like that 29 fairly frequently. But if that is something you wanted to consider sort ofa policy matter as you 30 are making your decision tonight that is certainly a fair consideration, I think. 31 32 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one other follow up question on that. Some of the larger 33 lots that might be accessible from multiple vantage points could those be subdivided and thereby 34 splitting I guess the maximum FAR that would be permitted? 35 36 Mr. Williams: There are some properties out here that I am sure could be subdivided. We have 37 not gone through and done an analysis of sort of physically whether it really made sense to 38 possibly do that but certainly some of them are large enough for that to happen. If that happened 39 then the FAR that applies to that resultant size lot is what would apply. If you built out 40 according to this FAR and then subdivided you would not be able to do that if you have used up 41 all the FAR on the site that already existed. 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: Well, what I am thinking, and I amjust purely thinking out loud, which 44 is if you take one of the larger lots here and you built out to the maximum FAR and you were 45 able to split off a piece of salvage that was able to be distinct unto itself and yet the maximum 46 FAR balanced out with the lot that the house is currently on that would be permitted. Page 7 1 2 Mr. Williams: As long as both resultant lots complied with the code. 3 4 Commissioner Lippert: Right. 5 6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg. 7 8 Commissioner Fineberg: Quick follow up on Commissioner Lippert's questions. For the parcels 9 that are subject to the 1978 settlement if let's say there were the greatest limitations placed on 10 ten-acre parcels. So let's say there was a maximum house size of6,000 square feet placed on 11 ten-acre parcels would those 1978 settlement lots be exempt then because they were exempted in 12 1978 or would the now current standards for ten-acre parcels apply? 13 14 Mr. Williams: We believe they would be exempt and not just exempt because of that but 15 because we basically wrote into the ordinance that was adopted in September that those lots are 16 subject only to what was in effect at the time of that 1978 settlement agreement. 17 18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Also, could Staff comment on 19 the genesis of what brought this matter, the whole issue of maximum house size in Open Space, 20 back before the Commission and Council? In our minutes from July 8, on page 21, former 21 Commissioner Holman, now Council Member Holman basically said that from her perspective 22 'The genesis of looking at the Open Space District was because of the impervious surface issue. 23 We were getting developments that were not anticipated due to the result of the development of 24 materials that are more permeable than when the code was instituted." 25 26 So if that is correct then isn't part of what we are trying to do is to, I don't know if the word is 27 ratchet back but if there was a cap on FAR and then when permeable materials were introduced 28 houses could get bigger so there was a gain. Are we trying to go in the direction of bringing it 29 back to where it was as opposed to a taking and a lowering? 30 31 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Fineberg my understanding is that was the basis for revisiting 32 the OS regulations. lt is not necessarily the basis for the maximum house size aspect of it. We 33 have addressed that issue. We did not have an FAR before so it was just impervious coverage. 34 The concern was just impervious cover and then a lot of what was impervious cover became 35 permeable, didn't count at all, and then you put it into the floor area for a house and then you 36 have two stories or two and a half stories of house so it doubles the benefit in terms ofthe square 37 footage that gets transferred into more building bulk. 38 39 So to address that number one we have FAR limits now not just impervious cover and number 40 two, previously if you had something that was 90 percent impervious and ten percent permeable 41 it counted as zero impervious cover, and we have changed that so that it now counts as zero, 25, 42 50,75, or 100 percent depending on the actual permeability of the material. So 1 think those 43 issues were substantively addressed through that process, and that is why it came back to that but 44 it was not specifically maximum house size that was being addressed. 45 46 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Page 8 I 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Garber. 3 4 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I know your community meetings were not everything 5 that you wanted them to be but did you get any sense that some of the objections to this 6 maximum house size had to so with sort of future plans or was it more of an abstract protection 7 of property rights? 8 9 Mr. Williams: Well, I am sure you can ask the neighbors this too but it wasn't related to specific 10 future plans. There are a number of people who objected to this that probably would not be II affected at all by the maximum house size because their lots are small enough that the floor area 12 ratio wouldn't even get to that kind oflevel. I will characterize it as a general frustration on their 13 part that there were more and more restrictions being applied in the Open Space zone. 14 15 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I got that too. Of the larger lots it seems like these have been in 16 ownership by a family for quite a while. Are they primarily sort of agrarian type uses or do you 17 see this as more of a rural suburban character to them? 18 19 Mr. Williams: I think the larger lots tend to be more agrarian. They have homes generally but 20 they tend to be mostly open space either agricultural or just open space properties with a home 21 that makes up a relatively small portion of those lots. To some extent there have been a couple 22 that in the last ten to 12 years or whatever were built on some of the newer large lots, and frankly 23 those are the couple that have been through the Commission and Council and have had hearings 24 after hearings and had issues associated with them, and I am sure are on the minds of those who 25 are concerned about having a maximum house size. But generally most of the large lots that you 26 are talking about that have been in families or that ownership for a long time have had minimal 27 impact on the properties. 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: One last question. Was there a strategy or consideration for 30 encouraging smaller houses like incentives to build a 6,000 square foot house instead of an 8,000 31 or 10,000 as part of the ordinance? 32 33 Mr. Williams: No there really isn't at this point. I don't know ifthey would be interested in that 34 but there isn't really particular incentive to do that. It is just based on the floor area that is 35 allowed on the site. I would want to point out that the restrictions are the maximum house size 36 or the floor area whichever is more restrictive. So we do have quite a few lots where the floor 37 area itself is more restrictive than the maximum house size, at least as proposed here, and that 38 would be operative and not allow getting to that size. There isn't anything that I would consider 39 to be an incentive for a smaller home. 40 41 Commissioner Martinez: I understand. Thank you. 42 43 Chair Garber: Your OS Parcel Summary with Maximum House Size Chart that you have at 44 places, could you walk us through that? I guess what I would like for you to highlight is what 45 today are the maximum sizes of houses that can be placed on any of these lots. How would I 46 read this to understand that? Page 9 I 2 Mr. WiUifjrn§ Clare can jump in here if I miss anything. Basically, if you see the column that 3 says FAR Square Footage that is the column that today tells you theoretically at least how large a 4 house could be on that site, assuming there were no other structures other than the house on that 5 site. The top line there, not the one five down or so where it is 20 acres or so, just below that for 6 instance the 14 acre parcel, 21,499 could be a maximum house size on that parcel. So then if you 7 go over to the next column that is tclling you essentially what under this proposal 8 8,000/10,000/12,000 would be the allowable maximum house size. 9 10 Chfjir Garber: That is your Option A. 11 12 Mr. Williams: That is our Option A. Then right next to that is essentially the difference between 13 the allowable floor area on the site and what that maximum house size would be. So on that 14 particular lot the maximum house would be 10,000 square feet and that would leave 11,500 15 square feet that could be developed in other structures on the site, again detached garages, barn, 16 studio workshop, second dwelling unit, etc. Then there are also columns that are specific to if 17 we just had a flat 8,000, or a flat 10,000, or a flat 12,000 what those differences would be. Then 18 working your way down, as you get down they go to essentially the threshold point of what size 19 of a lot at what point does the FAR essentially equal the maximum house size so that it below 20 that line doesn't really have any effect any more, the maximum house size. 21 22 Chair Garber: So you are looking at this bottom third or quarter down here. 23 24 Mr. Williams: Right. 25 26 Chair Garber: There I am looking for instance at line 79, which has an FAR of2,300 square feet 27 and change. Is that the maximum house size or is it the 8,000'1 28 29 Mr.Yv'illiflllls: Yes, that is. 30 31 Chair Garber: It is. And that is for a piece of property that could be as much as four times larger 32 than a lot that might be found in the R-1 district by way of example. 33 34 Mr. Williams: Right. 35 36 Chair Garber: Where in the R-1 district you would be allowed to build 6,000 square feet. 37 38 Mr. Williams: Right. 39 40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. 41 42 Commissioner Lippert: Please just clarify for me again the bold parcel numbers. Those 43 wouldn't have any limitations except for the maximum lot impervious lot cover. So in fact what 44 you have put in the column there for maximum house size scaled really is unlimited as long as it 45 is expressed as FAR and not in lot coverage or impervious surfaee. 46 Page 10 I Mr. Williams: That's right. That is correct, however when we went through this exercise in 2 developing the FAR what we found generally was these smaller lots in the zoning district under 3 the prior flat 3.5 percent were so restrictive that you couldn't get anywhere close to an 8,000 4 square foot house, which is why one of the things that was done is it was scaled. You will see 5 instead of having 3.5 percent those smaller lots now have 4.5 to six percent impervious cover is 6 the same basically as the FAR percentage on them. So they do allow more but I think 7 realistically it would be very difficult to get, maybe just a handful or so of those lots in that 8 category at the upper end might be able to do the 8,000 square feet. I think the others would 9 have a difficult time based on just the FAR, the 3.5 percent. 10 II Commissioner Lippert: Basically what you are saying is because it would be a multistory 12 building it would wind up being three or more stories and therefore it would then be obvious and 13 stick out. It would not meet the other criteria in terms of the Comprehensive Plan policies. 14 15 Mr. Williams: Right. I am assuming that at that point it is not going to be an acceptable design. 16 17 Chair Garber: I apologize Commissioner Lippert. Could you repeat your finding there? Then 18 we will go to Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg. 19 20 Commissioner Lippert: I am just saying that what it would represent is a three or four story 21 building because it would be constrained by the amount of impervious surface. Since it has 22 exceeded the impervious surface it would have to be expressed in mass as multiple stories, which 23 'then conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan policies. 24 25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg and then Keller. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: If we could put slide six of this presentation up I just want to clarify 28 something and make sure I am understanding. So when we look at the bottom there were it says 29 house size 12,000 square feet, current minimum big points required 150, 205 calculated I assume 30 that the 150 there is a result as it says down there as the maximum that could be required by the 31 code. If we didn't have that maximum because of the incremental size of the home 205 would 32 be sort of what would otherwise be required. 33 34 Mr. Williams: That is correct. 35 36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So theoretically if we were to build an incentive program using the big 37 scale we would want to have something using the 12,000 square foot number to start with, we 38 would want to have something north of 205 as real incentive. Is that fair to say? Or would 39 something north of 150 achieve the same goal? 40 41 Mr. Williams: Well, I think it depends on where you trying to go. If you are trying to get 42 something that is really out there on the edge in terms of green building then the 205 might be 43 the way to go. What we are saying is that right now you are going above and beyond if you do 44 more than 150. So maybe that is a threshold or maybe there are a couple of steps or tiers to get 45 to. 46 Page II I Yice-Chair Tuma: Okay, good. 2 3 Chair Garber: I was just going to add 150 is what has also been embedded in some of what the 4 current Green Ordinance is. Is that correct? That is a number that already exists in our 5 ordinance. 6 7 Mr. Williams: Right, that is in the ordinance as far as the most that we can require in the Green 8 Building Ordinance. 9 10 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Then I just wanted to make one other comment because the question II was asked about the nature of the expressed frustration. Having participated in these other 12 meetings I have an observation about that. Again, not to put words in the mouths of our public, 13 because I am sW'e they will do that themselves, but one thing that I observed was sort of a sense 14 that this entire process had been kind of a negotiated process where there was some give and take 15 on what made sense and what didn't make sense. We sort of came up with a set of restrictions 16 that addressed what Commissioner Fineberg had pointed out which was the whole what I might 17 call the permeable surface loophole, if you will. So we sort of addressed that. The sense that I 18 got from the public was we have dealt with the issue. We have participated in these discussions. 19 We had this somewhat of a negotiation or give and take and arrived at something that addressed 20 the loophole and now this is sort of getting piled on that is not fair. That was the sense of what I 21 got from the discussions. Again, I am sure we will hear from the public on that but since the 22 question had been asked about what the nature of the frustration was that was my sort of sense or 23 interpretation. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller. 26 27 Commissioner Fill~!Jerg: A couple more quick clarifying questions about how the three optional 28 limits would be applied and the maximum house size ehart. For properties number 55 to 79, 29 which are more or less at that threshold at four acres and under, would it be the FAR and the 30 FAR square foot that would rule or if there was Option A a scaled house size would the 31 maximum house size limit apply? So would parcel 55 be able to build -let me not pick on that 32 one that is not different. Let's look at number 79 would they be able to build 8,000 square feet if 33 we picked scaled Option A? 34 35 Mr. Williams: No, 2,379. 36 37 Commissioner Fineberg: So the FAR cap would still apply? 38 39 Mr. Williams: Right. You still have to have the floor area ratio within which to build the 40 maximum house size. 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. 43 44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 45 Page 12 I Commissioner Kel!er: So what is odd to me is I don't think anybody noticed during the process 2 of the Green Building Ordinance that we have a cap of 150 points when the cap of 150 points 3 only seems to come into play when we have 8,150 square feet or more. I don't know if that was 4 pointed out to anybody but I think it is odd that we were worried about that cap when we are 5 talking about a much larger house size. Was that cap decided because we were worried about 6 larger houses qualifying or not qualifying? 7 8 Mr. Williams: I think it was just a matter of sort of our knowledge at the time of what was sort 9 of realistic that you could achieve in a strong effort. I think now we would probably think that 10 could be higher and we may ultimately increase that and we may increase some of the other 11 categories as well. As you will recall, Build It Green in most communities is 50 points across the 12 board and our intent there was to recognize that larger houses including basements, you will 13 recall we included basement space as well, that they should achieve a higher level of green 14 building rating. So we have this factor in there. Then like I said just based on what we had seen, 15 and we had seen some pretty large houses come in that were getting close to that 150 number we 16 set that as sort of a target anticipating that larger houses ought to try to get there. I think we 17 knew that was going to be rare when that was the maximum. 18 19 Chair Gar\:l~x: Commissioner Keller, if I may add some additional information for you. In our 20 experience we have found that it is fairly easy to achieve the 120 points without frankly a lot of 21 effort, but now that is usually a higher quality home. It is not for a developer or somebody that is 22 trying to define a home for the base market if you will. I do know that the Building Department 23 had established the 150 points that is currently in the ordinance with the expectation that that 24 number would be studied to determine if it could be achieved with the expectation that that 25 number could escalate if it realizes that the submissions that are coming into the City can achieve 26 that with greater and greater ease. So there was a thought of constantly lifting that bar. 27 28 Commissioner Keller: So let me make an observation that mayor may not hold, and let me 29 know if this observation is true. So the 1978 agreement is independent of things like green 30 building ordinances and green building ordinances would apply to any of the houses in the 1978 31 agreement, is that true? 32 33 Mr. Williams: Yes. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: Second thing, if we took the 150 cap off and I realize that the Green 36 Building Ordinance is not in front of us but it is relevant so I am going to bring it up anyway. If 37 we look in the Green Building Ordinance revisiting at some point in the future took off the 150 38 cap and made it simply straight calculated no nothing else then effectively that would deal with 39 large houses and it would naturally be hard for them to build large houses because they would 40 have to achieve all those necessary points. Is that true or not? 41 42 Mr. Williams: Yes, they would have to if you didn't have the cap then they would have to 43 achieve those higher numbers and it would make it more difficult or you would just attain a 44 better green building product. 45 Page 13 I Commissioner Keller: Right. I doubt that it is possible to achieve 341 points because there are 2 probably things that are conflicting in there in that if you get some ofthese points you can't get 3 some of those points. Just for discussion sake I did the math. If you could achieve 341 points 4 without a cap the maximum house size is 21,520. So I am not sure if that should be the 5 maximum house size or not but I am just indicating that the Green Building Ordinance if there 6 wercn't a cap would essentially force that to be a maximum house size. Just bringing that out 7 there. 8 9 Now it might be that Build It Green might create more points for some other things. There might lObe new ways of creating points. Also, every few years Build It Green creates new standards II where they essentially ratchet it up so you need to do more for the same number of points and 12 you get fewer points for doing the same thing. So however that is. 13 14 I would like to change to one other topic, which is the issue that was brought up but not really 15 addressed which was the issue of the potential for parcelizing, for breaking down or subdividing 16 the larger parcels namely parcels that are identified as one through five into smaller parcels that 17 would then have more FAR. 18 19 First of all it is interesting there are no parcels between 15 and 20 acres. It makes a jump from 20 just over 14 to just over 20. So presumably it might be hard to take that 20-acre parcel 21 depending on where it is and how it is divided and break that up into two ten acre parcels. That 22 would be quite a challenge and have both of them have frontage and whatever so I am going to 23 ignore that. There are two large parcels that are identified as Kaiser Cement Corporation and 24 then there is a large parcel that is 139, almost 140, acres and a parcel of 45 acres. It seems to me 25 that these parcels are potentially at risk because of the maximum house size is particularly small 26 compared to the maximum FAR for these parcels to be subdivided into smaller parcels. Is there 27 potential for that risk? Is that something to worry about? A maximmu house size might drive 28 that subdi vision so I am wondering what your thoughts are about that. 29 30 Mr. Williams: I am not that familiar with those lots. Two are Kaiser Cement Corporation. I 31 have always questions whether they are actually in Palo Alto. I guess they are but one is Cement 32 Corporation and the other is Fogerty, which I imagine has some connection perhaps to the 33 winery in Portola Valley and County. I would think that if they were ripe for subdivision we 34 would have seen something before about those but maybe some of the residents out there have 35 more information about those. I am not familiar with the three sites specifically. 36 37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. I think that the nature of the potential for those being 38 subdivided because of a maximum house size. Now I don't think anybody is going to build a 39 480,000 square foot house but it does indicate some issue about in order to get a bunch of 12,000 40 square foot houses if they are divided into 20 or some odd number of parcels and put a new road 41 through there. I am wondering the degree to which that is possible. Thank you. 42 43 ChairG!!rQ~I: Commissioner Lippert and then if we have no more questions here we can go to 44 the public. 45 Page 14 I Commissioner Lippert: Aetually, that was the point that I was going to raise and Commissioner 2 Keller has covered it. I think that is an area to be further examined. 3 4 . Chair Garber: Okay. With that let us go to the public. We have seven cards. John Law 5 followed Bill Terry followed by Christine. Mr. Law, welcome. You will have five minutes. 6 7 Commissioner Lippert: I think it would also be helpful if when the speakers came up if they live 8 in the Open Space if they would identify their address. It is voluntary as you know but 1 think it 9 would be helpful in terms of us understanding where they are located. 10 II Chair Garber: If you are willing but you are certainly under no obligation to do so. 12 13 Mr. John Law, Palo Alto: Certainly. llive at 830 Los Trancos Road. 1 have been an architect in 14 Palo Alto for 48 years where my architectural firm did projects in most jurisdictions in the Santa 15 Clara Valley. I was a founding member of the first Architecture and Site Control Commission in 16 Portola Valley so I have some long-term experience in the issues now before this Commission. 17 18 On the issue of the proposed maximum house sizes this is not a reasonable step. On most sites 19 the size of the house is not the most important issue. There are much better ways to eontrol 20 visual impact, siting, design, colors, landscaping, etc. Palo Alto already has an excellent 21 multilayered review system for addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. The 3.5 percent 22 limit on impervious surface and the strict height limit that existed in 1981 when we built our 23 home was an excellent way to control the quality of architectural solutions. Now, the newly 24 imposed FAR sets a much more restrictive cap on development than did the previous impervious 25 materials restrictions. Why another restriction on top of that? When will this process end? 26 27 There should be no basement restrictions. Basements are excellent places to capture cool air and 28 can be distributed to the rest of the house thereby cutting down on the need for air conditioning. 29 Basements are excellent places to store green energy systems such as passive solar systems, 30 active solar and wind energy production, gray water recycling systems, etc. Basements shOUld 3 I not be limited in this district because 0 f groundwater concerns. The soils drain very well. There 32 is no water table issue. 33 34 Until recently I have been really happy to work and live in Palo Alto. I no longer feel that way. 35 This whole down zoning process has been arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfair. It has never 36 been based on a clearly stated public interest goal yet it is significantly diminishing our property 37 values and legislating our lifestyles. 38 39 Chair Gllrhel': Thank you. Bill Terry followed by Christine. 40 41 Mr. Bill Terry, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at 925 Laurel Glenn Drive, Palo Alto in the 42 hills. I am in the OS and I am one those 1978 exemption lots. 43 44 This whole project seemed like it started two or three years ago and it started on the basis of an 45 updated and modernization of the ordinance. Then it seemed to change course as it went along 46 to add more restrictions. In attending many ofthe public meetings we asked why and I received Page 15 I two answers at that time. One, we don't like large houses because they employ servants that 2 cause traffic problems. No evidence of that exists. Secondly, we don't like large houses because 3 they use a lot of concrete, which is made out cement, which is causing global warming. There is 4 no evidence of that either. Emissions from the manufacture of concrete or cement are very 5 highly regulated already. 6 7 In September more rules were added, F ARs. So now we have new rules for F ARs plus all the 8 old specialized rules of impervious coverage, wildlife corridors, fences, landscape controls, 9 sprinklers, color controls, plus all the regular residential rules on height, setback, etc., plus Staff 10 review and comment, ARB review, Planning and Transportation Commission review, and City II Council approval. Now on top of all of this we have some new rules that want to be proposed. 12 Basements, basements are bad because they produce dirt. I think that fill can be very useful in 13 creating berms that can be landscaped, that can soften the impact of any property. And more 14 rules on size. Size assumes that big is ugly. Well, the White House is big. I don't happen to 15 think it is ugly because it is well sited. It is also possible to design a very ugly small house. So 16 acceptable size is a very site-specific issue subject to review. 17 18 Let's use what we have and the good judgment of the Staffand the many, many case-by-case 19 review processes to accomplish our objectives. Thank you. 20 21 Chair Garber: Thank. you. Christine followed by Pam Law. 22 23 .Ms. Christine (no last name), Palo Alto: Good evening. I am still kind of in shock about what 24 happened at the City Council meeting, I have forgotten when it was, after more than two years of 25 just exemplary teamwork, working together as citizens of the same city, looking to make sure 26 that we assure the quality of the open spaee area. I would like to point out that I don't live in the 27 Open Space. I do live up on Page Mill Road and our property line is adjacent to the Open Space. 28 There is a big difference. I am not a squatter in the open space intent on despoiling the 29 landscape. I don't have staff. My house was just recently enlarged from 1,000 square feet to 30 1,497 square feet. There is no room for staff and I clean up my own messes. I don't have a 31 basement. I would love to have a ballroom in a basement but sorry, can't afford it. 32 33 I think that the maximum house size, I have come to the conclusion after working through this 34 process. I worked with the working groups. I am very embarrassed to be complaining in front of 35 this group of people because this group of people worked very, very hard to negotiate to resolve 36 concerns that the City had in a way that was not discriminatory. But in the end I feel like I have 37 fallen down the rabbit hole and when I faced the City Couneil it looks like the Queen of Hearts 38 sits in every chair. Off with their heads. Very reasonable, negotiated proposals were made and I 39 couldn't believe it as a citizen of the United States that a Council of, a majority of I have 40 forgotten how many, it was five, could completely undo three years of work of reasonable 41 citizens trying to resolve a problem. And come back with statements like well, you know your 42 staff creates too many car trips and you have a ballroom in the basement. So I don't think that 43 this whole process is actually about house size. I think it is about emotion. I think it is about 44 some people in this city disliking large houses that impose themselves from the view and 45 Foothills Park for example. I think the meeting this evening brought up three very important 46 points that I think for me are the takeaways. One is the question is there a need for more Page 16 I restrictions on construction in the open space? It seems that a rational examination of the code in 2 place would result in the conclusion that no, there is not. There is a 25 foot height limit on 3 construction. You can't build four stories in 25 feet. You can't build three stories in 25 feet. 4 There is a FAR cap that is already far more restrictive and I am speechless. I think that as a 5 citizen of this community I contribute to this community. As a resident adjacent to the Open 6 Space I very frequently get out of my car to piek up the trash left by the weekenders who left 7 their McDonald's bags and other garbage along Page Mill Road. We look out in the valley, from 8 our house we happen to be able to see Palo Alto from our house. We alerted the police to a 9 house fire because we could see it from up where we were. We live in this community. We 10 contribute to this community and there is absolutely no reason to impose these kinds of punitive II restrictions because some people don't like big houses. Who has big houses that big? Thank 12 you very much all of you for your hard work. 13 • 14 Chair Garber: Thank you Christine. Pam Law followed by Peggy Law. 15 16 Ms. Pam Law, Palo Alto: Hi I am co-owner along with my siblings and my parents of 830 Los 17 Trancos Road. I wanted to speak just briefly to your green building requirements and 18 suggestions and incentives. I was in the building trade at the time my parents built their house in 19 1981 and helped them to build it. We built a 2,000 square foot solar attic space in their house, 20 . which if you don't know what that is it is just a space, they open the panels in their roof every 21 day when it is sunny and close it when it is cloudy or at night so that they keep all the warmth in. 22 • They have not needed to use a furnace or use natural resources in that way for the whole 28 or 29 23 years that they have been there. We were really happy to do that but iffor instance we were 24 building today and someone wanted a 10,000 square foot home and there wasn't any of£~et for 25 green building we would just cut that out and we would put in a big old furnace and I don't think 26 that is what Palo Alto wants to have happen. So I hope that when you make your 27 recommendations to the Council and when this process goes forward they take that really 28 seriously. As a homeowner and as a green-minded builder I think it is really important. Thank 29 you very much. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Garber: Thank you. Peggy Law followed by Leonard Lehmann. Ms. Peggy Law, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live at 830 Los Traneos Road. There are a number of us who live in the residential district that abuts the open space that are not here tonight because they were so angry and discouraged with the process that they didn't feel that they should be here. I want to commend Staff and the Planning Commission for thoughtful work in the past. 1 want to speak to what happened when it left your desks and it went to the Council. Several of us got together representing our neighborhood association and were given eight of the nine Council Members agreed to meet individually with each of us. We are grateful for their time and attention. However, I am deeply disturbed by many of the things I learned while participating in those meetings. None of these Council Members, even those who have already voted on these issues, could answer the basic question brought up elsewhere tonight, what is the problem the City aims to solve by repeatedly downsizing our properties? They would tell us some of the issues they were concerned about but they would never answer that question. Page 17 I 2 Many Council Members, even some who have already voted on these issues, did not know where 3 the properties were that are affected by this effort to down zone. We had to supply them with a 4 map. They couldn't locate them on the map, and we had to give a good deal of explanation 5 about where they were, why they were non-adjoining these different areas, and the variety of the 6 terrain. Now this is alarming for us that our property is being dovo/11 zoned and doVo/11 valued by 7 people who actually have no idea of the area that they are that doesn't go for all Council 8 Members, but the majority of them. 9 10 Most Council Members were not aware that many properties in this district have few or no Palo II Alto services electricity, gas, recycling, garbage pickup, sewers, storm drains, water, etc. We 12 pay full taxes. We live in Palo Alto but are supplied in our case by PG&E. So even as a Palo 13 Alto resident when I go and get energy efficient new appliances Palo Alto won't give me any 14 rebates because I don't have Palo Alto energy. These are the issues that they brought up and 15 some of the comments that we are alarmed about. 16 17 The City needs to protect the foothills from more huge houses that are eyesores for those wanting 18 to enjoy the open space lands. However, none of the seven Council Members or others in the 19 City we have spoken with had any idea how many of these offensive houses there are now, 20 where they were, who owned them, could they be built today under existing Palo Alto 21 regulations, restrictions, and review processes. Indeed, they did not know if any of these 22 unspecified problem buildings were actually in Palo Alto or in Portola Valley or in Los Altos 23 Hill, yet they legislate. When I pushed this issue with one Council Member I was told that the 24 biggest issue was Los Altos Hills. Why, we asked. Because that is what we don't want Palo 25 Alto to become, they said. I pointed out the obvious that we are not Los Altos Hills. We did not 26 want to develop our properties in ways that mirror development in Los Altos Hills. Even if that 27 is what we wanted we would not be permitted under existing Palo Alto regulations. So what 28 does Los Altos Hills have to do with trying to add additional restrictions to those already in 29 place? The Council Member answered, well anyway it is the big issue. This does not fill us with 30 confidence that our City government is listening or representing us. 31 32 Maximum house has of course already been discussed. At the time we spoke with them most of 33 the Council Members did not even agree with each other on what maximum house size actually 34 means. So I am glad to see tonight that somebody is going to explain that. 35 36 There was no coherent or consistent response to our questions about why the house size was the 37 major issue. Bonus point I think is great but I want to remind you that it is not an option for 38 many of us who are on a tight budget. 39 40 No one could state any environmental impact reports or other data that supported some Council 41 Members' impressions that larger houses create more traffic. One Member stated at length that 42 Palo Alto Hill Country Club is interested in building a new facility and that raised great concern 43 about additional traffic. This person's concern was not lessened by our stating that this was not a 44 reasonable reason to restrict house size on private properties anywhere let alone on Los Trancos 45 Road, which is the other side of the district. 46 Page 18 I Several Council Members mentioned that house sized in the residential district had to be severely 2 restricted so it limited carbon footprint. When we said if this is indeed a real concern then it 3 should be a real environmental concern for all of Palo Alto not just for those of us in the 4 residential district. This is discriminatory. Other family members took less time, ifI may I 5 would like to finish. 6 7 Chair Garber: Please. 8 9 Ms. Law: Basement restrictions have already spoken to. There are no adjacent neighbors that 10 are going to be worried by our basements. One Council Member stated that protecting the II foothills also protected our properties and property values, which we agreed with. Then he 12 added so that is why we have to restrict your basements. When we allowed that we did not get 13 the connection this person backed down and said they got our point. It is not encouraging to 14 know that the down zoning of our properties and property values is being driven by this type of 15 reasoning. Polls indicate a big drop in Palo Alto residents trust in their City government. After 16 these experiences I can understand why. 17 18 So in sum, these experiences have led me to believe what Christine mentioned earlier. The City 19 is grasping at straws to find some reason to continue a down zoning process, which in many 20 ways they cannot justify why. Well, as was mentioned tonight by a couple of other speakers 21 City Council Members have stated it clearly. We have heard we don't like those big houses. A 22 3,000 square foot house is a big house. People don't need such big houses. I grew up in a 23 (fill in the blank) square foot house and that was plenty. No one needs more than that. 24 The clearest statement was made on this issue was, we don't want big houses. If all those rich 25 people in Palo Alto want to build these houses then we don't want those rich people in Palo Alto. 26 They need to live elsewhere. 27 28 Now, aside from the fact that that is incredibly prejudicial statement and I doubt that anywhere 29 we would hear people in Palo Alto using "all those people," and "if they want blank we don't 30 want them in Palo Alto." This is discriminatory. It is a prejudicial language that I in the rest of 31 my life fight in this state and all over the world to eliminate that kind of thinking and that kind of 32 language. I never thought would meet it in Palo Alto and I trust that this Commission will meet 33 some of these concerns for us. lbank you. 34 35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Leonard Lehmann followed by Herb Borock. 36 37 Mr. Leonard Lehmann, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. I live at 850 Los Trancos Road 38 in the Open Space District. I would like to thank Commissioners Tuma and Garber specifically 39 for voicing the concerns of the neighbors I think very fairly and giving us that level of respect. 40 They have been working this process for three years, put a lot of work in, and I thank them for 41 really being reasonable people. 42 43 [n much the same way I appreciate the Commission's attention to this issue. I find that this 44 Commission is knowledgeable on this subject and thoughtful in stark contrast to the Council, 45 which in general is not knowledgeable on these issues and is not thoughtful and is responding Page 19 I emotionally. I would hope that you would act as an expert in this case and help guide their 2 consideration. 3 4 On maximum house size the Council enacted in September the floor area ratio limits in the S district and also added the guidelines for development in the Open Space into the zoning code. 6 The development in the district is subject to a very thorough Site and Design process and review 7 by both this Commission and the CounciL There is a great diversity of properties in the district 8 as to their size, visibility, and topography. We thus think it is very appropriate to give discretion 9 to the Commission and the Council in approving new development. But there has been no 10 finding of fact that all of these restrictions that are in place today are not adequate. It is not clear II to us exactly what the problem is to be solved. 12 i3 A small house poorly designed and situated can detract from the unique qualities of the open 14 space. A large house well designed and situated can have minimum impact. We really value the I S per site discretionary review process and I personally value incentives to be given to good design 16 and energy efficient design. 17 18 In unincorporated Santa Clara County adjacent to our district there is no hard limit to 19 development, no maximum house size. They review the impact of each development on its 20 merits. In adjacent Los Altos Hills there could be a 30,000 square foot floor space on a five-acre 21 parceL A maximum house size is overwhelmingly opposed by those who are most affected by 22 the district zoning, those who reside here. 23 24 I did like Curtis Williams' answer to Commissioner Keller on the idea of a preliminary review. I 2S think that makes a great deal of sense. 26 27 As to basements it seems to me that we shouldn't be legislating solutions to problems that have 28 not been clearly identified. I an1 not clear what the concerns are here but if it is carbon footprint 29 then I think the City should limit basements and concrete use throughout the city not just on the 30 ten to 20 parcels that might be developable here in the Open Space District. There are 10,000 or 31 more parcels outside the district that cause environmental impact also. That is discriminatory. 32 33 There are minor costs environmentally in the increased excavation when including a basement 34 but that excavation is invisible after the construction and has no erosion consequence. 3S Basements also have real environmental benefits. They reduce massing and visibility. They add 36 to energy efficiency and provide for onsite storage rather than offsite storage, and the traffic 37 impact of that. Basements in the Open Space District do not have the environmental impacts of 38 basements potentially in the flats of Palo Alto. Water table is typically not a problem and there 39 is no need to shore up excavation that may be just a few feet from a property line. I would like 40 to remind the Commission too that large house size does not necessitate larger water or energy 41 use in general. 42 43 It has been my finding that the process at Council has been very prejudicial and arbitrary, not 44 based on findings of fact or clear public benefit. One Council Member told me if homeowner 45 has so many friends that he can't entertain them in an 8,000 square foot home then he has too Page 20 1 many friends. Seems to me that is not the role of government to tell us how many friends we 2 should have. 3 4 You are the experts and you are earefully considering these matters. I would encourage you to 5 really hold your ground on this and find as you did in July when you carefully considered these 6 questions previously. If you feel you are obliged to come back with some number to the 7 Council, if! can continue just to finish. 8 9 Chair Garber: Go ahead. 10 11 Mr. Lehmann: I would encourage you to state your reservations in your recommendation too. 12 would like to also point out that the Council has changed considerably in its membership since 13 November. We have been discussing the matter with Council Members and I believe we find 14 that the whole tenor and view of this issue has changed since November. Thank you very much. 15 16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Herb Boroek followed by Adam Montgomery. 17 18 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Garber and Commissioners. I do support their 19 being house size limits in the Open Space District. If you are going to recommend that there be 20 such limits I believe it should be a simple formula. I believe it eomplicates things by adding 21 exceptions for green building or for some other reason. Those are just to me various excuses for 22 not having a formula and a simple way of calculating house size. 23 24 This process has been going on for a number of years and sometime ago I did recommend a 25 simple fornmia, which would create larger house sizes. I happen to be familiar with the history 26 of the Open Space District and the settlement agreement for the subdivision Laurel Glenn Drive 27 and Alexis Drive. However, I am concerned that there isn't adequate information in your Staff 28 Report. You have never been given an adequate history of the Open Space District. Just this 29 evening you have one map on the wall, which doesn't relate to the tables you have because the 30 tables show parcel numbers and that is not the kind of a map that is there. It omits the 31 subdivision of the Portola slope parcel, which is the Arillaga parcel opposite Portola Valley. 32 This chart omits existing house sizes for these parcels. You have people here this evening who 33 live in the Open Space District and have houses. 34 35 Yes, on Page Mill Road there are some lots that are much smaller than ten acres because they 36 were down zoned as part of the J 972 down zoning and creation of the Open Space District, but 37 there are other lots here that are smaller than ten acres because they are part of cluster 38 developments in the Open Space District where they gain the impervious coverage for ten acres 39 but that most of their ten acres is in common open space. The 1978 settlement agreement refers 40 to only one such cluster development and it differs from the others in that it consisted of what 41 was originally 41 acres of City owned land plus 50 acres of private land that was down zoned. 42 43 I believe to understand the concerns of the residents of the area that have spoken you need a table 44 that shows how big their houses are now compared to what size they should be. You need a map 45 that relates these parcel numbers to as physical map of the area so you know what you are talking 46 about. You need to know the history ofthe various subdivisions. I believe if you do all that you Page 21 I might want to treat existing development the way it is done elsewhere in the zoning code that is 2 that people have a certain entitlement to redevelopment and the new laws apply if you are going 3 to be knocking down the old one. 4 5 Now, there is a lot of potential area for future development and I think that is a concern and why 6 there should be house limit sizes put in. The City owned parcels are not in the Open Space 7 District they are in the Public Facility District. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 8 has given notice to be removed from the Williamson Act and its parcels are not dedicated 9 parkland the way Palo Alto is. At some future date they may want to make trades with 10 landowners or sell off some of their parcels. II 12 The golf course is in the Open Space District. At some future date the Country Club may want 13 to keep its building but develop its golf course. That is how it got its development money in the 14 past by developing those parcels, in the one-acre zones that are off of Alexis Drive and the other 15 streets in the neighborhood. 16 17 In Palo Alto's planning area but not in the city Stanford University has about 1,250 acres ofland 18 that was acquired after the founding grant that is alienable land that could be sold at any time. I 19 have suggested in the past that developing that in the Open Space District makes sense. 20 21 Finally, in terms of the 6,000 square foot house size in the R-I district. You need a 17,500 22 square foot lot to get a 6,000 square foot house size in the R-I district. In the RE district you 23 need an acre, 43,560 square feet to get a limited house which is limited to 6,000 square feet also. 24 The fact that you need one land area in a district in the flat lands versus a different lot area in the 25 foothills is reasonable. It is just what the size of the house should be and what impact it has on 26 the neighbors, and until you actually see the fact that some people here might have an 11,000 27 square foot house and you are suggesting they have a limit of 8,000 square feet that may be what 28 the comments are about. You need that information and so does the Council to be able to make a 29 rational decision. Thank you. 30 31 Chair Garber: Thank you. Adam Montgomery followed by Mr. Hackmann. 32 33 Mr. Adam Montgomery, Government Affairs Director, Silicon Valley Association Realtors: 34 Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I am the Government Affairs Director with the 35 Silicon Valley Association Realtors. We traditionally don't get involved in issues that impact 36 such a few numbers of property owners but this situation we would definitely like to echo the 37 concerns of many of the property owners impacted by this proposal living in the Open Space 38 District in opposition to many of the proposals. 39 40 We traditionally do have a position though against these types of down zoning efforts. Our 41 membership looked at this proposal last week as we started hearing more about it. A number of 42 my members actually contacted us directly who have had previous clients who live in this district 43 who are just generally concerned that there has just been a concerted effort over the last few 44 years just to down zone these properties. 45 Page 22 I So generally the position of our association is to oppose situations where we feel that there is 2 public good that is trying to be sought and there is going to be some form of down zoning or 3 diminishing of property rights. In this case it appears that from some of the comment letters 4 from even Green Foothills and the Open Space Midpeninsula Open Space District that there is 5 some perceived some pu blic good that may occur from these down zoning efforts. In those 6 situations those property owners should be justly compensated in our mind. We feel that the 7 property owners concerns are valid in this case. 8 9 So the only thing I will leave with you is the question regarding basements. It is our 10 understanding that Santa Clara County in unincorporated areas through the View Shed Protection II Ordinance incentivizes and encourages basements in order to diminish the impact above ground 12 in terms of visual impacts from public roads. So to regulate basements might become a more 13 detriment to trying to diminish the visible impact of houses. So we would definitely like to 14 encourage you guys to leave the current basement regulations alone. Besides that we would just 15 like echo again the concems of the property owners. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Hackmann you will be our final speaker. 18 19 Mr. John Hackmann, Palo Alto: Yes,just briefly. I live on Embarcadero Road. I am not in the 20 Open Space District. r don't actually know any of the people and r don't represent them either. 21 22 I was present at the City Council meeting where this issue became contentious and I have to say 23 the people I thought made very reasonable remarks. It was one of those meetings that went until 24 midnight or 1 :30 in the morning. I really felt they weren't really listened to carefully. I thought 25 off-hand remarks like maybe our city shouldn't have basements or comments about how they 26 lived were inappropriate. They were not asked questions. I do feel after listening to this on 27 television, which is what prompted me to corne down here I like that TV aspect of it, I did learn a 28 lot about the details and the motives. I do not believe there is an important, clear, and rational 29 basis for greatly rcstricting the development of these fcw handful of properties at this time. 30 There might be later but the wide variety of rationales at least at tbe Council events, though this 31 group is more judicious, more logical, and more focused on the merits ofthe proposal, I just feel 32 as an observer that there isn't enough overwhelming public policy interest to restrict the 33 freedom, the house, the value, and the livability of the units in this additional way. Even the 34 impermeability, ifmay misspeak it correctly, can be compensated for in many ways. You could 35 probably build a house that has that has no net impermeability because of water retention, 36 because of repercolation, because of storage and so on. 37 38 You have been elected and chosen to exist in public office to carry out public laws and public 39 purposes. I think this Commission has bcen doing a pretty good job of it. But it is something 40 that everyone has to guard against at all levels of government, taking basically personal opinions 41 and ad hoc observations and prejudices against different kinds of groups and how other people 42 live and try to tum these things into policy. I think in this particular case where there doesn't 43 seem to be to average fellow an overwhelming need to add a layer of regulation, and there has 44 been this kind oftreatrnent ofthis group of people I think there may be just a little bit ofa drift in 45 that direction, which I would urge this Commission to make some effort to correct tonight. 46 Thank you. Page 23 I 2 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. That is the end of our public speakers. I will note that one 3 of the letters that we received asked specifically that it be read into the minutes of the meeting, 4 which I will do. It is from Rick Kniss. I regret that I will not be able to attend the Planning 5 Commission hearing on the OS District this evening. However, I am very interested and 6 concerned with the current issues being discussed and would offer the following comments. I) 7 Over the past couple of years there has been a significant amount of interaction between the 8 owners of property in the OS District, the Planning Staff, and the Planning and Transportation 9 Commissioners themselves. Concerns have been discussed by all parties, which culminated in 10 the passing of new regulations by the City Council for the OS District in the fall of last year. II Well, perhaps no one on either side was totally happy with the regulations I do believe they 12 represented a reasonable compromise between the City and the landowners. May I add that in 13 many cases landowners lost roughly 50 percent of their development rights, a significant 14 number. 2) Now with further consideration ofthis issue I feel that the City is unfairly and 15 unnecessarily corning back for "a second bite of the apple" in discussions of restricting house 16 size with possible basement limitations. 3) In my opinion the current FAR limitations along 17 with other regulations and a very involved review process for the OS District provide more than 18 adequate protection against undesirable development in the district. 4) I am opposed to 19 imposing specific house size limitations on top of the current FAR regulations for reasons stated 20 above. However, if the Commission chooses to recommend such then I believe that they should 21 be 14,000 square feet and should not include detached garages, barns, accessory buildings, etc. 22 These would be covered in the FAR limitations. 5) Concerning basements I do not believe there 23 is a need nor is it fair to impose restrictions on the OS District that are not part of a larger Palo 24 Alto City plan. If anything basements should be of a lesser concern in the OS District than in the 25 "flat land" of Palo Alto. Thank you for considerations. Sincerely, Rick Kniss, property owner, 26 ten acres, 3875 Page Mill Road. 27 28 With that we will leave the public hearing open should any of the Commissioners wish to call on 29 members of the public. May I suggest we take a brief three-minute break and then corne back 30 and start our discussion and action? If that is acceptable we will do that. If the Vice-Chair will 31 set his timer we will reconvene in three minutes. 32 33 Commissioner Tuma, I believe you have a thought about how to proceed. 34 35 MOTION 36 37 Vice-Chair TUJ1:lll: I do. I am going to make a motion. I move that the Planning and 38 Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council not institute a maximum house 39 size. In the alternative if the Council is inclined to institute a maximum house size I would like 40 to see the Planning Commission recommend the following. First that the maximum house size 41 be set at 12,000 square feet. Second, that if the applicant exceeds the then current BIG Points 42 requirement that the applicant could receive a 30 percent bonus on the maximum house size. 43 Next, in order to get the bonus the applicant would be required to submit for a preliminary 44 review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Additionally, that we carry forward the 45 definition of maximum house size, which currently exists in the R-J and RE zones. Finally, that Page 24 I we defer a recommendation on the basements issue until we look at basements on a citywide 2 basis. 3 4 SECOND 5 6 Commissioner Lippert: J will second that. 7 8 Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their 9 motion? 10 II Vice-Chair Tuma: I would. The first part of the motion reflects a sentiment that J share which is 12 that the process that we have been through over the last several years has been one of essentially 13 trying to address or close the permeable surface loophole. It was one that was sort of the genesis 14 of a lot of this discussion. It was one that created houses that where significantly largcr and had 15 other characteristics that were deemed to be undesirable. However, we have closed that 16 loophole. We did that through the prior changes that were made to the code by dealing with a 17 sliding scale on impervious surface, by putting in the FAR, and a variety of other items. So I do 18 not believe thaI a maximum house size is appropriate or necessary in order to achieve the goals 19 as stated by several people this evening. Additionally, the current Site and Design process and 20 the BIG Points requirements address the stated issues. The issues of screening, visual impacts, 21 cut and fill, and energy and water use. Triose have been addressed. 22 23 However, if again it is necessary to institute a maximum house size the fonnula that have 24 proposed allows for a house size that could be characterized as reasonable but it also allows for a 25 bonus if the applicant further addresses the key issues that have been identified. In other words, 26 ifthey do it right however that is defined and the yardstick we would be using here would be 27 BIG Points that they would be pennitted to exceed the house size, because the issues have been 28 addressed. I also believe that it is premature to address the basement issue without significantly 29 more data on the impacts of the use of concrete and cement on a citywide basis, and that 30 discussion should be deferred for those reasons. 31 32 Chair Garber: The seconder, would you like to speak? 33 34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. First of all, I would like to say I do agree with all of Vice-Chair 35 Tuma's points and I just want to add a couple of other thoughts here. First of all, we have a very 36 difficult regulatory process as it is with regard to the Site and Design Review. The projects out 37 there are scrutinized to a point that virtually every stone has been turned over. What I find here 38 is that what is a maximum house size? What is the purpose ofa maximum house size here? 39 When you have complied with all of the Site and Design requirements, when you have addressed 40 the issues of permeable lot coverage, when you have dealt with the issues of the green building 41 code, which is sustainabiIity, what is the rational or the reasoning for limiting a house size purely 42 on an arbitrary number? 43 44 I don't think that the limitations that are being placed on them are doing anything except creating 45 additional regulation, which has already been addressed with regard to the massing, its visibility, 46 the lot coverage issue, and the sustainability. So I have great difficulty supporting a maximum Page 25 I house size but then again if we do impact a maximum house size I believe that the 12,000 square 2 foot FAR is a very reasonable number. 3 4 Where I do have some difficulty and I will just express this generaIIy, and [think it is something 5 to be looked at and addressed, is the first three parcels in our tabulation here the parcels that are 6 one, two, and three, the 314 acres, the 164, and the 139 acres. To me, those parcel sizes are so 7 large that what they do represent is the potential for future development in the Open Space. 8 Obviously what would happen is you would have to build roads through the space in order to 9 create some sort of subdivision there. So with those three parcels I question whether any 10 limitation in terms of maximum house size or maximum FAR is achieving the goals that we want II to achieve. What it would do is force someone to sell those off and do a subdivision in that area 12 thereby achieving a number of houses in there. just simply by saying we don't put any 13 maximum house size on those three parcels or limit the maximum house size would not sort of 14 force the hand in terms of having those parcels be developed. So in some ways the subdivision 15 forces the question at some point. It may not be in a year from now, it may not be in two years 16 from now, but some time down the road someone is going to propose subdividing those generous 17 parcels. So perhaps I would just simply remove them from the table right now. 18 19 Chair GarQeI: You are not offering that as a friendly amendment at the moment. 20 21 Commissioner Lippert: I am not because I believe that it would require further study particularly 22 by Staff. I don't know the location of those parcels. I don't know what road adjacencies they 23 are. I don't know the topography of those sites. 24 25 I just want to add one more comment if I might. With regard to the basement issue the Open 26 Space again is a unique area when it comes to basements. I don't think we have any clear 27 direction until we have some direction as to where we are going with the rest of the city in terms 28 of basements. Aquifers, underground streams are not as big a potential problem when it comes 29 to sloped sites. When it comes to sloped sites you do have issues with regard to day lighting 30 because they are sloped sites. So if you were to build a basement eventually at some point it 31 might surface from the hillside. 32 33 Chair Garber: You are talking about water or the structure? 34 3S Commissioner Lippert: A structure. So if it did daylight out it would count as potentially FAR. 36 You do have significant foundation issues where you do have to dig down regardless of what you 37 are doing and in doing that potentially you are digging a basement anyway whether you backfill 38 it or not. So I think that needs to be further studied and I don't have any clear direction as to 39 where we should be going in terms oflimiting basements in the Open Space at this point. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, then Martinez, then Garber. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: So I have a few comments and friendly amendments. Firstly I do agree 44 with deferring the basement issue until it comes back to us in general, particularly with the 45 change that was made by the City Council that addressed basements in terms of slope. However, 46 a clarification I would like to make as a friendly amendment is that if there is a maximum house Page 26 I size imposed by the Council then if basements are included in the FAR then they are also 2 included in the maximum house size. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think until we have the discussion about the basements it is sort of 5 premature to predetermine that those would be considered part of the maximum house size. 6 7 Commissioner Keller: Well, since we are dealing with maximum house size now and that won't 8 come up when we deal with basements there won't be an opportunity to deal with that. 9 However, since the decision was made by the Council that they are included in FAR I am just 10 suggesting that basements be consistently treated with respect to that land area. II 12 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 13 14 Mr, Williams: I would just indicate that 1 don't think you need to add that. A basement that is 15 counted as FAR meaning here that it is on a slope greater than ten percent it is going to count. 16 Apart from whether we would consider it a basement or not, we would consider it as part of the 17 maximum house size in any event. 18 19 Commissioner Keller: So since you consider that I assume that there would be no problem in 20 making that explicit so that it becomes unambiguous. 21 22 Vice-Chair Tuma: State it again because I actually heard two different things. I am not sure that 23 you guys are addressing the same issue. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: I think we are. I think that what r am saying is that in the event that 26 because of slope issues the basement is included in the FAR then it should also be included in the 27 maximum house size. 28 29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that is fine by me. 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: r have no problem with that. 32 33 Commissioner Keller: Okay. The second thing is just a clarification, which I think probably you 34 agree with that the maximum house size can't exceed tne FAR limit. I assume that goes without 35 saying but I figured it is worthwhile saying just so that nobody is confused. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, Plarming Director that is the current state of the code, right? 38 39 Mr. Williams: Correct. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that is fine. 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that. 44 45 Commissioner Keller: The third thing is slightly more controversial. You said a maximum 46 house size of 12,000 square feet with a 30 percent bonus, which comes out to a weird number. I Page 27 I am suggesting it be a 25 percent bonus, which is a maximum of 15,000 as opposed to 15,000 and 2 some random number that comes from 33 percent rather than 25 percent. 3 4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Did I say 33 percent? 5 6 Commissioner Keller: You said 30. 7 8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thirty percent of 12,000 is 3,600 square feet isn't it? 9 10 {.:Ql)1missioner Keller: Yes, I was just suggesting that 25 percent would be an even 15,000, 1 I which seems to make more sense. Thirty percent is arbitrary. Twenty-five percent is arbitrary 12 but it seems to me that 15,000 is a more reasonable number than 15,600 in terms oftha!. It 13 makes more sense to me. 14 15 Vice-Chair Tuma: 1 would actually be open to any other comments or discussion on that. 16 17 ChairGarber: Seconder. 18 19 Commissioner Lippert: I think that the numbers are fairly arbitrary. Again we are just trying to 20 find an upper limit. So I don't have a problem with what Vice-Chair Tuma has suggested here. 21 Ifrounding it out will get more votes in support of the motion it is acceptable to me. I don't 22 think it is significant. 23 24 Chair Q!,Irber: Commissioner Tuma I will weigh in. I would tcnd to keep it at 30 just because it 25 is higher but again ifit is the wiII ofthe Commissioners. Commissioner Tuma. 26 27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me try one thing. Why don't we go through the rest of your hit list and 28 let's take them all together. 29 30 Commissioner Keller: Sure, that's fine. Great. The other thing is I would like to understand 31 your comment about how the Build It Green bonus deals with. In other words, what it takes to 32 get the Build It Green bonus I don't think I really understood the criteria there. 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. The way that I had framed the motion was that they would have to 35 exceed the then current minimum. So today that is 150. We had a lot of diseussion this even and 36 that number may go up over time. So instead of saying 150 say whatever the then eurrent 37 minimum requirement is so if that goes up to 180 then they have to exceed that. Whatever 38 number that goes up to in the future because of all the things that were diseussed this evening I 39 wanted that to also esealate in terms of what would be required to get the bonus. So we don't fix 40 a number today just because we happen to have a number here. It is whatever the then current 41 bonus would be. 42 43 Commissioner Keller: The interesting this is exeeed by how much. So let's suppose it is 150 do 44 you get the bonus if you go to 151 points? How mueh above do you need to get? 45 46 Vice-Chair Tuma: Exceed means exceed, so yes you get it if you hit 151. Page 28 I 2 Commissioner Keller: So they are required to hit 150, they get 3,000 or 3,600 square feet by 3 going to 151. I am confused about that. I could understand the idea if you will of removing the 4 cap, which is what I talked about earlier, and saying that you get as many points as you need 5 based on whatever square footage you have and therefore if you go more you get that. But 6 exceeding it by one point doesn't seem to be to me getting 3,600 or 3,000 more square feet. 7 8 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I think the topic of whether we should remove that cap at all is a good 9 topic for discussion for another day. If in fact that policy decision was made then the then 10 current number would be whatever they would have to meet. My sense from the discussions and 11 what I know about the BIG process is that my feeling is that if they exceed what is required then 12 in doing that they will be addressing the issues that are fundamental to what is trying to be 13 accomplished by a maximum house size number. In other words, if they are getting those points 14 they are addressing the concerns that have been discussed. So something beyond that triggers a 15 bonus. We could get more complicated. We could get more fine and say for every X number of 16 points they gct Y percentages. To me the concept here is if they are really trying and really a 17 good job and exceeding the minimum requirements that there ought to be a bonus for that. So I 18 was just trying to keep it simple, also something that is easier for Staff to administer, something 19 that is easier for the applicants to understand. Just sort of have a cutoff point that says if you 20 exceed what is required you get the bonus. 21 22 CommissiQllCr Keller: Since 150 points is required, and that number may change, and since 23 what I am hearing from you is a threshold of one point in excess, and it is very unlikely that 24 somebody will actually hit exaetly the maximum. It is more likely that in order to hit the 25 maximum they may go slightly over. So I think that that aetually effectively makes the 26 maximum 15,600 not 12,000. By that I am troubled by that. Yes? 27 28 Chllir Garber: I am sorry I apologize. The quizzical look is I am losing your thread. The 29 maximum points that the City requires at the moment is 119. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: It is 150. 32 33 Chair Garber: Well that is -what is the .... 34 35 Mr. Williams: For a home that is 12,000 it is higher. 36 37 Chair Garber: It would be 150, okay. So Commissioner Keller give me your logic again 38 beeause I am not quite getting it 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not an architect and you are, and I presume that when you 41 have to meet so many points that it is very unlikely that you will hit exactly that many points and 42 that you may go one or two or three over because of points work and how the design works. So 43 what we are basically saying is that you have to hit 150 points in order to have 12,000 square 44 feet. If just happen to go one point over, which you are likely to do anyway, then they get 45 15,000 or 15,600. To me that essentially means that the cap is not 12,000 it is 15,600. So unless 46 there is a significantly higher threshold over and above the requirement that gets them 12,000 Page 29 I then it is a distinction not a difference saying you get lSI points, or whatever, one point more 2 you get all the square footage bonus. 3 4 Chair Garber: I have a couple of different thoughts and r am not sure exactly how they apply. 5 Having worked through both LEED projects as well as BIG projects you add up the points and 6 you can be above or below, and if you are close you are trying to find ways to get to that 7 threshold. If you are over, whether it is a little bit or a lot, the fact is that you are over. That is 8 one comment. 9 10 The second comment is that regardless of what threshold you pick at some point you are always II going to hit it and you are either going to be at it or above it or below. I have stated that it is not 12 difficult for houses of some quality to get about 120 points. Getting the remaining 30 that would 13 make up the difference is a challenge. Also, my recollection and I shouldn't really state it but the 14 amount of total points that you can get after you do all the tradeoffs, etc. is in fact a range, is in 15 the low 200s if I am recalling correctly. Commissioner Lippert do you have an explicit memory? 16 17 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have an explicit memory but what happens is you are building a 18 house and even though you are adding additional square footage you are not necessarily 19 increasing the carbon footprint significantly. So you have diminishing return on every single 20 square foot that you are adding to that 12,000 square feet. That is one of the reasons why it is so 21 difficult in the LEED process to make the -it is easy to make the leap from say LEED Silver to 22 LEED Gold but it is increasingly difficult to make the leap from Gold to Platinum. 23 24 What I think you are saying here is reasonable in terms of what we are trying to accomplish hcre 25 which is with the increase of the physical footprint we are trying to reduce the carbon footprint. 26 Chances are individuals that are building a 12,000 square foot house are interested in a couple of 27 different things one of which is energy reduction for instance. So inherently they are going to be 28 looking at ways for reducing energy consumption, building maintenance, which are really the 29 majority of the most important elements that are necessary in ternlS of reducing the building 30 lifecyc\e cost. So I think people are either drinking the Kool-Aid and accepting that they are in it 31 for green building, or they are just trying to meet the requirements of the Green Building 32 Ordinance so they can build a larger building. 33 34 <;;hair Garber: Planning Director, you had a comment? 35 36 Mr.:wmiams: Yes, I did. I do think that Commissioner Keller's characterization is correct that 37 the reality is that is highly unlikely somebody is going to come in on the nose at 150 so 38 effectively they are going to get the additional square footage. So I think that sort of is your 39 policy question betore you. You could say ten percent above that number or something like that. 40 The Chambers house that you saw sometime ago came in on the green building thing a like 175 41 or 176 points or something like that. So it can be done if somebody wants to do it. They didn't 42 have to go that high but they wanted. So alleast having some bump up above that would be 43 helpful because otherwise I think to get just a few points above will not be particularly 44 meaningful. 45 46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. Page 30 1 2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that makes sense. I agree with it just being one point in retrospect I 3 think that is too close. Did you have some sort of formula or threshold in mind? 4 S Commissioner Keller: I am going to suggest something very simple and maybe it is too simple. 6 I am going to suggest is for every additional percent that you go you need that many percent 7 more points in the baseline. So if you want 30 percent more FAR in your maximum house size 8 then you have to get 30 percent more than the baseline points and it is very simple that way. 9 Unless you have a better one. 10 11 Vice-Chair Tuma: My sense is that when you get above the numbers that we require each point 12 gets extremely difficult to get. I am getting some nods from Staff on that. Let me try and 13 alternative, again in keeping it simple why don't we simply say if tbey exceed the minimum 14 requirement by ten percent then they get the bonus. IS 16 Commissioner Keller: Well, what is interesting to me about the formula I gave, first of all 176 is 17 not quite 30 percent it is about 25 percent more than 150. It is one-sixth more than that. So if 18 you think about that 176 is about one-sixth more than 150. What is interesting to me is in some 19 sense it is nice to have the more you do the more you get rather than a fixed thing is the way I am 20 thinking about it. This way if you can exceed it a little bit you get a little bit. If you exceed it a 21 lot you get more. Perhaps the formula based on 176 points if you will is you get two percent 22 FAR for one percent increase in points up to 30 percent FAR increase. 23 24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think that makes it too difficult to achieve. Let's come back to this one and 2S so what else is on your list. 26 27 CommissionerK~l1~r: The other things on my list are a question for Staff. To what extent are 28 subdivisions discretionary? So if somebody comes to us with a subdivision map for one these 29 Kaiser Cement Corporation spaces can we say no we don't think it is an appropriate place for a 30 subdivision that up there in the hills you just can't do it? 31 32 Mr. Williams: I will let our City Attorney add to this but ifthere were a subdivision of any of 33 those three large properties here you can be sure that a very full and extensive and lengthy 34 Environmental Impact Report will accompany that. So I think the basis of what could happen 3 S out there on those properties under a subdivision is going to be defined pretty strictly through the 36 Environmental Impact review process that goes along with a subdivision. There is going to be a 37 lot of discretion in terms of saying that in order to minimize the impacts here lots have to be such 38 and such a size, home sites should be located in these particular areas that maybe aren't 39 particularly visible. There is a lot. My guess is we would have a five to ten year subdivision 40 process for one of those sites. 41 42 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So let me suggest the following things. These are 43 taken from Herb Borock's comments and I think they should be added to the Staff Report or the 44 CMR that goes to the Council. One is a map of the Open Space District keyed to the parcel 45 numbers so they can figure out better what is going on. Second is some description that Mr. 46 Borock referred to in terms of the history of subdivisions. In particular some discllssion of the Page 31 I 1978 ones and indicate where they are on the map. Third, adding to the ehart the existing house 2 size. I think that is a useful addition to the discussion. Fourth, if there can be some discussion of 3 the potential impacts of subdivision of large lots. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space 4 District potential for land swaps and the golf course I think those the Council would be interested 5 in. I would encourage those to be added to the Staff Report. 6 7 Chair Garber: Let me just ask Staff, is existing house sizes achievable? 8 9 Mr. Williams: No it is not. There are some that we have. We have county information, 10 Assessor's Office, which we have found has been highly inaccurate and then others we don't II even have that information for. So it is not readily available. 12 13 Commissioner Keller: Let me suggest that to the extent that you have this infonnation providing 14 it would be appropriate. To the extent that it is onerous or not easily available then don't include IS it but I am not sure if that is a eomment or if that should be added to the motion. [assume it 16 should just be a comment. Okay. 17 [8 So to resolve this issue. Do you want me to come back later or address your ten percent issue? 19 20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Are you done with your potential friendly amendments or amendments to the 21 motion? 22 23 Commissioner Keller: Yes, basically the two issues that are pending are the issue of 25 percent 24 versus 30 percent and the issue of the sliding scale versus step function. 25 26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I think I can address both of those with one and I am not amending my 27 own motion but let's just talk about this. What I think in order to sort of create a sliding scale, 28 get rid of the automatic amount of the bonus and just say for each point that you exceed the 29 threshold you get one percent additional max house size. 30 31 CQmmissioner Keller: If you are making that as an amendment I would support it. 32 33 Vice-Chllir Tuma: That is different than what you were talking about. I want to make sure you 34 understand what I am proposing here. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So for everyone percent above ..... 37 38 Vice-Chair Tuma: No, listen very carefully. For each point by which you exceed the 39 requirement you then get one percentage point increase in the maximum house size. 40 41 CQmmissioner Keller: With a cap or without a cap? 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Without a cap. 44 45 Chair Garber: You will be limited by the number of points you can achieve obviously. 46 Page 32 1 Commissioner Keller: Okay, let me think about that and I will cogitate. 2 3 Yice-Chair Tuma: Yes, let's give other Commissioners an opportunity to talk. So none of that 4 has been accepted as a friendly amendment at this point. 5 6 Chair Garber: Just to reiterate the things that you are proposing Commissioner Keller are that 7 number one the maximum house size never exceeds the FAR and then you also had a proposal 8 for the 30 percent versus 25 percent conversation about BIG points and then the subdivisions, the 9 items that would be added to the CMR that would go to the Council. 10 II Commissioner Keller: There was one other which I think was accepted and that was only if 12 basements are included in FAR then they are also included in the maximum house size. 13 14 (;hair Garber: Okay. 15 16 Vice-Cha,irTuma: Point of clarification there as well, Chair Garber. I believe the last of those 17 issues dealing with subdivisions and that data wasn't ol1hed as a friendly amendment but rather 18 just as a request or comment. 19 20 Chair Garber: Comments to be added to the CMR. Yes, got you. I believe we are at 21 Commissioner Martinez. 22 23 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I actually like the first part of Vice-Chair Tuma's motion 24 that we don't have a maximum house size. I believe that the best stewards of the Open Space 25 District spoke to us tonight and care as mueh about this part of the city as anyone. However, 26 having said that I feel that this 12,000 square fool upper limit on the larger parcels isn't a 27 reasonable size house. It is inflated and could grow to be 15,000 square feet. I think it 28 completely misses what we are trying to achieve with this discussion and that is preservation of 29 the district, preservation of open space, of our natural habitats, migration, views. I appreciate its 30 attempt to give the property owners something back but I don't think it is addressing what the 31 real problem is. 32 33 I would be happy if we sent to the Council a recommendation of no maximum house size. With 34 that send a statement that says we are looking for the preservation of the district as it is and it can 35 be enhanced with a historical preservation of the kinds of structures, the kinds ofhomes, and the 36 kinds of uses that exist there now. By forwarding an unreasonable house size we are proposing 37 that we go forth in the future with a dramatic change to the district. I really can't support that. 38 Thank you. 39 40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let me just ask you, I want to be very careful about presupposing 41 what may be a large house size to anyone of us versus anyone else. Presumably in the scenario 42 where there is a max house size or let's not even put it in those temls, but in a scenario where 43 you are looking at a house that is 12,000 square feet or more, just say that was allowed for some 44 reason, the opportunity for the discretionary review to occur and the findings that have already 45 been set forth in the zoning presumably would have a lot to say about how that house is actually 46 designed, built, and whether it could be approved at that size or not. My only point to that is I Page 33 I wouldn't want to base a decision on max house size based on some preference that may be up to 2 the applicant to define as opposed to one of us. Commissioner Martinez. 3 4 !:Qmmissioner Martinez: I sort of agree with that to a point. I don't have as complete 5 confidence in Site and Design Review and our ability to alter the size of a house through our 6 review process. I agree that there are siting issues that we can recommend and there will 7 probably be opposition to why they can't do that in a kind of a give and take and compromise, 8 and sort ofa result that really doesn't give us those kinds of tools to control views and site 9 location and size of the house especially that we would like to see. I just don't see that we have 10 those kinds of powers to do that. II 12 Chair Garber: So if I am understanding you you would not support the motion as it is currently 13 stated with a preference and an 'if statement. So let me just ask you then in the case where you 14 have described that your preference would be that we recommend to the Council that there be no 15 maximum house size is the maximum house size then defined by default as the FAR that is 16 achievable on any particular property? 17 18 Commissioner Martinez: No because I believe those are at the upper end unreasonable lack of 19 limits, in can put it that way. Instead I believe we should focus on design elements, 20 preservation of views, preservation of migration, limits on fences, heights, whatever the design 21 requirements are, location on a large lot that is out of view. Design elements that can actually 22 allow the applicant to build a house that really meets the Open Space District goals rather than 23 really proceeding in a way without those kinds of goals as our sort of policies and programs. I 24 believe that there is less interest by the people living in this area now to build these kinds of 25 houses. Of course I am concerned about future generations and what happens with. that. I think 26 we can put better controls without giving the message that a 12,000 or a ] 5,000 square foot 27 house is sort of the model that we are purporting to see built and accepting to see built in this 28 area. I would rather not send that message. 29 30 Chair Garber: So forgive me I am still sort of parsing your statements here. Currently in the 31 Zoning Ordinance there are the open space review criteria of which there are ]2 in addition to 32 the other A through P paragraphs here, which I think address a number of the concerns that you 33 have described, the sort of design elements. 34 35 Commissioner Martinez: Yes they do. 36 37 Chair Garber: So are you thinking that in your proposal, which you have not offered as a 38 substitute motion here, but if you were that what you would be doing is suggesting that there be 39 no max house size but that we add additional criteria or tighten the open space review criteria to 40 extent greater than what is currently defined here. 41 42 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, if that is possible. 43 44 Chair Garber: Okay. So if that is the case then let me ask you if you are actually proposing a 45 substitute motion or if you are floating that to see if there is any support for it. 46 Page 34 1 Commissioner Martinez: Well, neither but I thought I would want to bring the conversation baek 2 to Vice-Chair Tuma's original first part of that motion that we recommend no maximum house 3 size and try to develop a discussion and a consensus of how we can go forward with thai idea. 4 5 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 6 7 Mr. Williams: Two points. One is the Council had that recommendation before. The Council 8 has asked you for a recommendation that if there is a house size what should it be. So I am 9 afraid that having that motion go to the Council will be back to you again with something. I 10 would really prefer not to do that. Secondly, the recommendation of the Commission if adopted II as proposed is that there not be a maximum house size but then the backup is if there is one this 12 is it. I did want to emphasize that the first part of the recommendation is the key clement, and 13 then recognizing that you have asked us to give you a number herc is a suggestion. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 16 17 Vi~:Chair Tuma: Perhaps when I made my motion I should have read into the record, pregnant 18 pause, we really, really mean it. I appreciate what Commissioner Martinez is proposing here. 19 While I spoke in a moment of levity before I do in fact believe that that is the right 20 recommendation. However, the reality is that the current direction that is from Council says that 21 if there is going to be one give us some guidance. So I think we would be remiss in not doing 22 that knowing yes the makeup of the current Council is different from that Council that gave us 23 direction. Perhaps the makeup of the current Council would be such that they would follow our 24 core recommendation if this were to be our recommendation, but as proposed. In fact the current 25 Council may just say you know, based on all the discussion and things that we have had 26 maximum house size doesn't make sense. So that is a possible outcome here, I think to simply 27 go back to Council without a recommendation that in the event there is a maximum house size 28 imposed we would be remiss in our duties because what we could wind up with is well, they said 29 that there is really no recommendation from the Planning Commission so we will just do our 30 own thing. They would eertainly be within their rights to do that. What I was trying to do was 3 I outline something so there was a fair balance between the competing interests and something that 32 could be palatable and move forward. 33 34 Commissioner Martinez: Can I just respond briefly? 35 36 Chair Garber: Yes, please. 37 38 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that but I would add to our recommendation of no 39 maximum house size why we are recommending that. Then I would add ifthat isn't acceptable 40 why we are recommending 12,000 square feet. 41 42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Please do. 43 44 Commissioner Martinez: No, it is your motion. Why are you recommending no maximum 45 house size? 46 Page 35 I Vice-Chair Tuma: I thought I had addressed that in the comment section. I would be happy to 2 sort of reiterate my thinking on that but the comments that I made following the motion to me 3 were that in essence through the lengthy process that we have had over the last few years we 4 have addressed the issues that I think were initially of concern in this process, and that those 5 issues have been addressed through a combination of the use of FAR, sliding scale, and 6 permeable surface, the ten percent grade on basements, a whole host of things that were put into 7 place awhile ago. So the reason for not having a maximum house size is that essentially the 8 issues have already been addressed and that it is simply not necessary. Beyond that I don't know 9 that have much more to offer. 10 I I Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert. 12 13 Commissioner Lippert: I think what is missing here is in the past five or six years that I have 14 been on this Commission we have seen a number of residences that have come through in the 15 Open Space District, and the process for Site and Design Review does work. We have had 16 projects come through where as a body we have been virtually unanimous in terms of our 17 recommendations in ternlS of denying and approving projects. Most of us have seen it the same 18 way through the criteria based review not necessarily on hard and fast numbers. Those really 19 have not been the relevant issues. It has really been ones of siting, the appropriate siting, the 20 appropriate access, where the house was located in relationship to the site and to the neighbors. 21 Our recommendations have also gone forward not only with either our support as a group in 22 terms of approving or denying but also the neighbors support as well. 23 24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, anything else? 25 26 Commissioner Martinez: I asked the question how many applications have come through in the 27 Open Space District. I was told in the last five years two. So we don't really have a great 28 history of Site and Design Review in this area. I have no history at all so I can't disagree with 29 your conclusions. I feel that we have before us in other measures other considerations about 30 green building and carbon footprint and preservation of open space and in this one I feel like we 31 are kind of punting. We are saying 12,000 plus 15,000 you can have it. Everybody will be 32 happy and ease closed. I don't think we are addressing the policies and programs of the 33 Comprehensive Plan for open space preservation, views, habitat preservation, ete. I feel first of 34 all that for the first part of the point, no recommendation that we don't have a mad rush, we don't 35 have a history of this overdevelopment of this area. We have a history of fairly good 36 stewardship of the Open Space District. We currently have sort of a purpose to develop 37 sustainable environments that we are choosing to ignore for the sake ofa kind of expediency. 38 am not sort of understanding why we are taking that posture. 39 40 Chair Garber: Forgive me, Commissioner Martinez. I am still struggling to understand sort of 41 where you are coming from because 1 don't think that anything that any of the Commissioners 42 here have stated this evening or to date are trying to find ways to exclude that. I think that there 43 is significant language in the existing zoning, which addresses all of those issues. Although 44 there have only been two issues that have come before the Commission over the last X number 45 of years they have supported the process to achieve the results that you are looking for thus far. 46 There is this one aberrant example that occurred more than ten years ago which for some reason Page 36 I that simply do not understand they did fail us. It is not dear to me if that is language or a 2 discretionary review that went wrong or a decision by the Planning and Transportation 3 Commission that was overridden by Councilor what. I really don't know. I think to date there 4 is some significant evidence that the requirements of the ordinance as it is currently written have 5 worked and they are trying to do many of the things that you are speaking about. So I don't 6 think or at least I am not sensing that the sorts ofthings that you are looking for or asking for are 7 being undermined by the proposed motions that have been made thus far. Does the maker or 8 seconder have any comments? Commissioner Lippert. 9 10 Commissioner Lippert: To give some illustrative value to the reviews, there probably have been II half a dozen reviews but it has really been centered on maybe four properties. The first property 12 where the review failed or we came back with some feedback as a denial was where the property 13 owner was speculating on a piece ofland, he was actually putting in a bid on it and wanted to 14 know whether it was acceptable to develop the property as such. It was actually placing an 15 Italianate villa on the ridge of the property. We felt that that was not appropriate because it 16 would be highly visible, Even though the property owner really wanted the views and the look 17 of an Italianate villa we found that something that was a little more discreet was appropriate, We 18 didn't outright deny him because it was a preliminary review of the Site and Design Review not 19 one where it was up and down and it would be forwarded to Council. 20 21 The other one focused around the Goldman properties at the end of Los Trancos Road, In that 22 there was a design that was previously approved for those properties, One of the buildings was 23 actually built and the other one was not completed when the property owner passed away, It was 24 subsequently acquired by John Chambers and his family, Those were approved but there were 25 also significant concessions that were made by the Chambers in developing those properties 26 reinforcing landscaping in the open space, particularly in Arastradero Preserve, establishing hard 27 fast boundaries on the property that could not be penetrated hy people going through the 28 preserve, and then also ceding to not being actually developed as a concession so that he could 29 enjoy the development on those properties which had been previously approved and the 30 approvals had expired. That was the only thing that had occurred. 31 32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma, 33 34 Vice-Chair Tuma: One other issue that Commissioner Martinez brought up which I wanted to 35 reassure him on is that I don't in any way want this to be seen as a direction or statement to the 36 public that what we want to see is a bunch of 12,000 or 15,000 square foot houses up there, To 37 me in order to get through Site and Design Review that would have to be an extraordinary house 38 in terms of meeting all the issues, the screening issues, energy impacts, and those sorts of things. 39 Under the right set of circumstances I could see that being reasonable, I am simply not prepared 40 to make a sort of value judgment about how big someone's house should or shouldn't be, I am 41 prepared to weigh in on the impacts to the environment, the visual field, and all the rest of those 42 things. I think that the mechanisms that we have in place afford us the opportunity to do that 43 without having to make a sort of a judgment about what size someone's house should be, or how 44 many friends they should have, or any of that sort of discussion. But this isn't a call for lots of 45 12,000 or bigger square foot houses but rather a maximum number that is achievable if you are 46 able to meet the criteria that are set out there. So I just want to make sure that that was clear in Page 37 I tenus of at least my intent in moving this forward, [would also venture to say based on the 2 feedback and the discussions that we have had with the community that lives out there that that 3 would not be a desired result for the folks who live there to see the entire hillside dotted with 4 12,000 or plus square fool houses, My impression, 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: A final point, 7 8 Chair Garber: Yes, please, 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: Both Commissioner Lippert and Vice-Chair Tuma really underscore II my point why we don't need a maximum house size because we do have tools and the policies 12 and programs to try to prevent that without sending a message to the community that we think a 13 12,000 or 15,000 square foot house is appropriate, Tbank you, I am done, 14 15 Chair Garber: All right, that comes to me and then we will go to Fineberg and then Keller, 16 17 I would like to potentially propose a friendly amendment to either the primary intent of no max 18 house size andlor the secondary part of the motion if the no max house size is accepted then 19 consider these, which would modify Commissioner Keller's amendment regarding FAR always 20 being larger than the max house size, That is because the other end of the scale, the very small 21 properties given the FAR calculation result in some fairly small allowable house sizes, My 22 preference here would be for the properties that are at the low end of the scale which start 23 essentially at one aere and go up that they be allowed to build up to 8,000 square feet regardless 24 of the FAR that they generate until the FAR equals that maximum house size at 8,000, which is 25 around four plus acres or so ifI am recalling correctly, 4.2 or thereabout. In comparison to 26 instanee the R-l or the RE zones, R-1 you are allowed to build up to 6,000 if your site is large 27 enough to accomplish that and that is on a site that is significantly smaller than the one acre size 28 that is being presented here in the open space, Does Staff have any thoughts regarding that 29 suggestion? What I am suggesting is that any property in the as District be allowed to build a 30 house of at least 8,000 square feet. 31 32 Mr, Williams: lfmy look doesn't say it, I think that for these lots that is very, very,,,,,,, 33 34 Chair Garber: That is too large, I see it down here, Where is the cutoff then? It is right there at 35 line 55, 36 37 Mr, Williams: Right. 38 39 Chair Garber: I see it. I retract my statement, I am misreading the chart here. So never mind, 40 We will go to Fineberg, 41 42 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with what I think is going to be my easiest 43 question for the maker of the motion, Could you repeat your third point? It was between the 30 44 percent bonus and deferring the recommendation on basements. 45 Page 38 I Vice-Chair Tuma: The point after the 30 percent bonus was in order to get the bonus the 2 applicant would be required to submit to a preliminary review by the PTC. Is that the one? 3 4 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, thank you. I guess the best way to sum up my questions and what 5 I am thinking is this is a psychotic choice to face. On the one hand, if one looks at the goals of 6 the Open Space District, and I will get detailed in a second, looking at the policies in our 7 Comprehensive Plan, looking at Title 18 the definitions of purposes of the Open Space District, 8 if one is addressing the issue of limiting house size to achieve those goals then a meaningful 9 limit that yields those goals would be a good thing. But if we are having a proposed limit that is 10 expensive, contorted, complicated, hard to administer, hard to enforce, and won't come into play II much then J don't see the purpose of having a limit. So then I flip to okay, no limit. 12 13 Now let me get specific. I look at Chapter 18 of our Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the 14 Open Space, and I will read this verbatim. "One, protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 15 Two, protect and preserve open space land and limited and valuable resources. Three, permit the 16 reasonable use of open space land while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent 17 open space characteristics to ensure its continued availability for the following as agricultural 18 land, scenic land, recreational land, conservation or natural resource land for the containment of 19 urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development and for the retention of land in its natural 20 or near natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from hazards of fire, 21 flood, and seismic activity. Four, coordinate and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and 22 city open space plans." 23 24 The phrase in there, 'the retention of land in its natural or near natural state' to me if I was asked 25 to interpret what that means it does not include many large houses. I am going to purposely not 26 define what large means for a moment. That directs us, that is in our Municipal Code, that tells 27 us it should be kept in its natural state, it should be maintained as scenic land, and we are to 28 contain urban sprawl. That means you don't build housing development up there. Now housing 29 is an allowed use and there are considerable limits now with the FAR, with a lot of the natural 30 elements, where you can build, what the setbacks are, what the slopes are. So we have a number 3 I of significant, we look at the chart that Staff made and if we were to look at a 12,000 foot limit, 32 so there are 79 total properties on this list, and properties 36 through 79 so that is about the 33 bottom half of the list already get less than 12,000 square feet based on the floor area cap. So a 34 12,000 square foot limit would only apply to properties one to 35. Jflet's say the owners are 35 inclined to want larger homes and they are inclined to spend the money to build according to the 36 BIG rating system then if the popped up to 15,600 that would mean that properties 15 through 35 37 would stilI be capped by their maximum floor area ratio. So this whole discussion would only 38 apply to properties one through 14. Properties one to five 1 don't think we understand yet how to 39 handle because if those got subdivided are we handing people with half a million acres the right 40 to build a bunch of 12,000 and \5,000 square foot homes on a subdivided lot? I have not heard 41 that Staff has said they are comfortable knowing how to handle that. So let's say we rule out 42 those four top properties. So we are talking about developing measuring criteria for 43 implementing maximum house size that would apply to house numbers five through 13. That is 44 kind of ridiculous. So I just don't see the meaning of this whole conversation tonight. 45 Page 39 I Why don't we just stay with where we are? That brings me back to the first part but then that 2 doesn't achieve the goals oflet's not turn it into suburbia up in the hills. It also doesn't achieve 3 the goals of limiting, if there is common agreement that more concrete is bad and more energy 4 usage and more people, if all those bad things the bigger it is worse then a limit is a good thing. 5 But we have those limits and the second half of the motion doesn't get us anything more. When 6 I say the second half of the motion I mean the four parts with the 12,000 max and then the bonus. 7 I concur with the motion to defer consideration on basements. We don't have enough 8 information and that is going to get thoroughly vetted when we look at the whole city. 9 10 I have grave, grave concerns about implementing a process where there is zoning based on third 11 party criteria that are developed, the BIG rating system. It is developed to encourage sustainable 12 growth, to reduce greenhouse gases it is meant so we build environmentally sound parcels. It is 13 not meant as a mechanism to cap house size. It is not meant as a mechanism to -why is one 14 percent of green points worth one percent of house size? There is no linkage. It is so random I 15 can't go there on it. What happens if BIG ceases to exist? What happens if their limits -I don't 16 know. What is the next best thing? Twenty years ago it was save the whales and now it is the 17 big system. What happens if ten years from now it is something we don't foresee and all of a 18 sudden we have these entitlements based on some measurement that we don't control and just 19 don't know where it is going to go. So I don't think it is prudent basing zoning and house sizes 20 on something that has nothing to do with zoning and house sizes. 21 22 I also think that as the second part of the motion with the limits is stated it is going to be difficult 23 to administer. It is going to be expensive on the parcels where it comes up both for the applicant 24 and for Staff time. It is going to create, as Staff indicated in their Staff Reports, uncertainty. It is 25 going to require us if any of these big parcels come back and want to subdivide we are going to 26 have to create some processes that simply don't exist today. Enforcement, continued 27 enforcement, if somebody plants a green roofwe are going to require them to continue to water it 28 and how are we going to know whether they are and what are we going to do if they don't? We 29 are going to take back some of their house size? We are going to fine them? How do we enforce 30 it? We don't have those mechanisms in place. We are doing that so we can regulate the house 31 size often parcels. So I don't think the limit, unless somebody can help me and give me a way 32 to see through this I don't see how the limits as proposed give us anything that is the intention of 33 what Council wants us to get to and it creates all kinds of thorny sticky-wickets. Given those 34 two choices I am not sure I've said would actually advocate for this but I would rather see no 35 house size limit than the limits as we have been discussing them. 36 37 Chl!irGarber: Commissioner Tuma. 38 39 Vice-Chair Tuma: At the risk of sounding psychotic let me try to address a few of the concerns 40 that you have raised. First of all, I think you were concerned that this didn't apply to 15 through 41 35 because of the potential for a bonus. I think quite to the contrary. I think this does apply to 42 those because it does create the need to go above and beyond in order to get that bonus. So I 43 wouldn't quibble with the fact that under or around seven acres, I think the cutoff is between 35 44 and 36 this doesn't put any additional restriction and I think that's appropriate, above that though 45 it does put additional restriction. It requires to go above and beyond and to achieve the 46 additional points. The point system I think does in fact bear a relationship to the goal that we are Page 40 I trying to achieve, which is that one of the big stated goals through this process has been to try to 2 make larger homes less impactful from an environmental perspective and that is exactly what the 3 BIG scale addresses. I believe through discussions with Planning Director my understanding is 4 that in order to come up with the BIG numbers here is an exercise for the applicant that is 5 measured in sort of a handful of thousand dollars, $5,000, something like that in order to do that. 6 So if you could weight in on that. I would interpret that in the context of building say a 10,000 7 or 12,000 square foot home and the attending cost, a handful of thousand dollars, $5,000, 8 wouldn't necessarily be onerous in that process. Could you illuminate this both in terms of what 9 the impact to Staff would be as well as the costs associated with this for the applicant? 10 II Mr. Williams: Well, the initial impacts for Staff are verifying the big compliance and we do that 12 regardless. So regardless of what the number is. For the applicant the cost of the verification 13 whether it is done directly from the Build It Green organization or if Staff does it, and we are 14 moving into a period where we have one person who can do Green Point Rating on our Staff and 15 we expect that we will have more and more of that as time goes by. So in either event it is not 16 more than a few thousand dollars to do that. I think what the biggest cost is the cost of achieving 17 those extra points. That is much bigger cost of putting in systems to do that and also then there 18 are some post certification costs that are probably higher when you achieve those greater points 19 to verify the mechanical systems or operating as they are supposed to and that kind of thing. So 20 those are the costs that I think are significant. The costs of verifying compliance are not 21 significant. Cost of enforcement and how we enforce is a good question but I think that the vast 22 majority of what is done through the Green Building Verification process is something that is 23 going to stay in place for quite some time. So it is not like putting in a hose and then you pull it 24 out the day after the final inspection occurs. There is some gray area in there as far as how will 25 we achieve over time the enforcement of those and be sure that ten or 20 years from now they 26 are still operating that way. We can take things on as code enforcement but we probably will not 27 know unless somebody tells us that something has changed. 28 29 Vice-Chi!!rTuma: Thank you. Just to address one final concern that Commissioner Fineberg 30 had raised which is what if BIG goes away. We have that problem on a larger scale across the 31 city and we have sort of already committed several other components of how we measure and 32 what we require to that. So it is a valid concem. I think that it is something that if it does go . 33 away we are going to have to figure out how to deal with that, but we already have that problem. 34 We already have the problem of if BIG just goes away or gets swallowed by a whale that we 35 saved how do we deal with that? I think the answer is yes, you are right we have to deal with 36 that but we already have that problem. So I don't think by tying it to that standard which is 37 specifically one of the reasons I had proposed that created any larger of a problem. We would 38 still have to deal with that if we knew it was going away. 39 40 Chair Garber: Actually Commissioner Lippert wanted to respond and then we will come back to 4 I Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Lippert. 42 43 Commissioner Lippert: I want to say that I remember back in the 1970s, I think it was 1974 44 when the State of California implemented smog regulations and testing of automobiles to reduce 45 air pollution in urban areas. Subsequently in addition to that what they did was they 46 implemented things like no lead in gasoline, and later on went to even higher standards for Page 41 I reducing smog. I think the standards are always going to change to achieve certain goals. They 2 are going to be refined over time. What is important here in the open space more than anything 3 is not necessarily the size of a house in terms of its overall building footprint but what is 4 important is that the impacts that it has are minimized and comply within our regulations in 5 terms of Site and Design Review and reducing the earbon footprint of the property so to speak. 6 think that there are a great number of incentives here. I think that what Vice-Chair Tuma has 7 done with his motion that I think is beautifully crafted is that if we have to have limitations in 8 tenns of the footprint or the floor area or the size of the house it is actually tied to performance 9 criteria rather than the impacts that we have already addressed in the development regulations 10 and the discretionary review that the project goes through. 1 1 12 ChairGarber: Commissioner Fineherg. 13 14 Commissioner Fineberg: A question for Staff. For the places where we already have Build It 15 Green in our codes and entitlements, I shouldn't say codes and entitlements, in our zoning code 16 are there places where there are entitlements that are set by BIG limits, BIG rating numbers, or 17 are they all for achieving reducing carbon footprints and building green? 18 19 Mr. Williams: The green building requirements we have are in a chapter of the zoning code. 20 They are not in any other chapters. They just apply to all development basically for the purpose 21 of reducing carbon footprint of development. 22 23 Commissiol)~:rFineberg: So this would be the first place where there is something seen as an 24 entitlement. 25 26 Mr. Williams: Well, it is but remember again that we already have a sliding scale as part of that. 27 As the house gets bigger the number of points you have to get gets bigger. 28 29 Commissioner Fineberg: But you don't gel a bigger house if you have points. 30 31 Mr. WiIli!lm~: No. 32 33 Commissioner Fineberg: It is that the bigger it is the more points you have to achieve to get that 34 house. 35 36 Mr. Williams: Right. 37 38 Commissioner Fineberg: So there is a distinction between your house can get bigger because of 39 points. 40 41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma had a comment here. 42 43 Vice-Chair Tuma: I might beg to differ with the Planning Director on that, in that in order to 44 build the house, in order to get the entitlement to build a house you have to achieve these points. 45 So in fact to be entitled to build the house you have to -so that concept already exists. In other 46 words you can't build the house if you don't hit those numbers. So effectively that gives you the Page 42 I entitlement to build the house. Today if you don't hit those numbers you are not entitled to 2 build. Am I correct about that? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Well that is correct. I am just saying that that is a uniformity that is across all 5 development. 6 7 Chair Garber: Does that help you at all, Commissioner Fineberg? 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: It does. Also, Commissioner Lippert had a point that I wanted to 10 follow up on. It is escaping me at the moment so I will come back to it. II 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller I think it is back to you. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first let me say that I was the one who made the motion 15 and voted in favor awhile ago for this to come back to us precisely because r thought we should 16 discuss it. That doesn'l necessarily mean that al the time [ fult that we should have a maximum 17 house size but [ thought when this went to the Council originally when we reviewed it last year 18 we hadn't vetted the issue of maximum house size appropriately, and I thought it was important 19 for this to come back to us. 20 21 With respect to the comment about the Council having made arbitrary decisions with respect to 22 zoning rules let me assure you from my perspective that those arbitrary decisions are not 23 necessarily limited to the Open Space District. Living as I do adjacent to Adobe Creek with a 24 concrete wall behind my house separating me from the creek the reason for applying the Santa 25 Clara Valley Water District's restrictions on building adjacent to the creek, the reason the 26 Council said they decided to apply that to a channelized creek instead of merely to a natural 27 riparian corridor is because, I will not say who said it, but one of the Council Members said we 28 would like to return that channelized creek to its naturalized state and we wouldn't want the 29 property values of the adjacent houses to go up from the increased development and thereby 30 make it harder for us to buy those properties. So I am not sure if that is nearly as arbitrary as 31 what you think may have happened here but sometimes decisions like that happen. 32 33 Thirdly, I pointed out earlier that the six -three vote by the Council to reeommend a maximum 34 house size be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation back to the Council I 35 said that of the six-three vote of the continuing members of the Council is a three-two vote but I 36 neglected to point out that one additional Council Member who I assume would be in favor of 37 this voted for it on the Commission. So effectively you have a four-two vote continuing forward 38 unless you ean convince other noses to ehange their mind. If you get one additional vote on the 39 Council Ii'om a newly elected Council Member you will have maximwn house size imposed. So 40 let me just give that as sort of background. 41 42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, interesting background although I think we should not be 43 trying to handicap the likelihood of a motion being successful or no!. We should be voting on 44 the merits of the issue before us. 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you and J am proceeding to that now. Thank you. Page 43 I 2 So the first thing is I realize the irony that more BIG points means you have a bigger house, but 3 it is a bigger house that is also greener, as Commissioner Lippert whispered to me. I also 4 understand that our current ordinance refers to a particular version of the Build It Green 5 checklist. Do we have to actually modify our ordinance when Build It Green comes out with a 6 new check list? 7 8 Mr. Williams: It is actually a resolution and we do modify that if that happens or if we were to 9 go to a different kind of rating system. 10 11 Commissioner Keller: I once had a secretary who had the concept of a tickle file. So I would 12 suggest that when Build It Green makes changes to their checklist or we go to that that we also 13 revisit the open space point issue because if we are imposing something with respect to Build It 14 Green there it is going to affect this. So we should look at both of them at the same time when 15 we do that and notice it appropriately so that if we have to make changes at that time to the green 16 point rating system that we notice not only that section of the Zoning Ordinance but also this 17 section of the Zoning Ordinance. 18 19 So I also agree with the sentiment expressed by others, as I mentioned earlier, that basements 20 were addressed by Council action appropriately and that we should come back with basements 21 when the whole city addresses basements. 22 23 Also, as a way of comment, there was a comment made by one of the members oflhe public 24 with respect to the number of friends and guests. For the record, I actually attended a large 25 gathering at Mr. Lehmann's house for an organization that we belong to. That was not in the 26 bouse it was actually in a big tent in the yard outside. So just by way of disclosure. 27 28 So two things. One is simple and that is in order to get the Build It Green bonus you actually 29 have to go through the commissioning and verification process. In other words, you are 30 committing to actual make sure that everything works. I am not sure that our current ordinance 31 the way it works is that you actually have to make sure that everything is commissioned and gets 32 verified at the end. . 33 34 Qhair Garber: If! may? 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Yes. 37 38 Chair Garber: The LEED criteria requires commissioning. Build It Green does not, however the 39 inspection that occurs that the City will do to determine that the items that were included in the 40 BIG checklist are in fact present in the field will be done, but that is actually different. That is 41 not actually commissioning. There will be no testing of the HV AC units and things of that sort 42 but it is simply to make sure that the items exist that have been itemized. So it is a subtle 43 distinction, which actually has an impact on dollars, etc., for your information. 44 Page 44 1 Commissioner K"IIi,'!: I appreeiate that but what I am wondering is if they are getting a 2 maximum house size bonus for putting these measures into effeet is there some way that we can 3 not merely ensure that they are in plaee but that they are actually operating? 4 5 Chair Garber: Again, the BIG isn't organized quite that way. The LEEO, if you were to impose 6 LEEO, it does have commissioning criteria. Commissioner Lippert. 7 8 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that the commissioning happens in LEEO after the 9 building is complete. The reason why it occurs afterwards is that there is no way to sort of 10 certify or substantiate that a building is in fact LEEO Gold or Platinum unit thc building is 11 operational. Once it is operational it may not be achievable. You may not be able to get 12 Platinum. You may not be able to get Gold. You can't go back and undo the building. The only 13 way you are going to know that is by building it and having it operate. 14 15 Chair Garber: That said, however, I believe that relative to the Build It Green scale the building 16 inspectors are going through training to be able to make the evaluations that the requirements 17 that the checklists arc requiring that occur at the time of building submission are in fact executed 18 in the field. 19 20 Commissioner Keller: I realize that LEEO requires a post commissioning process and that Build 21 It Green does not require a post commissioning process. I am wondering whether it makes sense 22 to have some post commissioning requirement process to make sure it actually works according 23 to the requirement in order to get the extra square footage. 24 25 Chair Garber: I would say that to do so would be asking for process and additional steps that are 26 beyond what is required in the ordinance right now. However, the ordinance does require that 27 the building inspectors, it is a certification, I forget exactly what it is, but they do actually have to 28 sign off on the things that are on the cheeklist. So there is a reporting back and a policing of it if 29 you will that is built into the ordinance as it stands. 30 31 Mr. Williams: I think we used the word verification. 32 33 Chair Garber: Verification, thank you. 34 35 Cormnissioner Keller: So let me not suggest that the ordinance be changed to reflect this but 36 make some sort of item or note that when the Green Building Ordinance comes back to us and 37 we revisit the Build It Green points and whatever that we also revisit the issue of veriiication in 38 paIticular for this but not at this time make any fUlther changes. 39 40 I actually will go for, if Vice-Chair T uma wishes to still offer it, I will go with his one point for 41 one percent additional FAR without a particular cap. That comes out to me to be one and a half 42 percent if you will under the current scheme, one and a half percent additional points sorry. 43 One point gives you essentially -what I had talked about if you will is each point gives you 44 essentially one and a half percent earlier. If it is one percent/one percent and this is one point 45 gives you one percent, which is better than J had talked about. So I think that that one point of 46 additional···· what I am understanding the offer and I will request that you make this amendment Page 45 I is that over and above required level for Build It Green green point points that every additional 2 one point above that allows you to exceed the FAR of maximum house size of 12,000 up to the 3 FAR limit by one percent. 4 5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Very slight wording misstep I think you made in there. You said up to the 6 maximum FAR house size and 1 think you didn't mean to have the word FAR in there. It is just 7 up to the maximum house size and then subject to FAR. 8 9 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I mean is that earlier you can't exceed FAR. 10 II Mr. Williams: It is up to the maximum FAR not maximum house size. So you can exceed the 12 12,000 up to the maximum FAR at a one to one basis. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: Right. So I am saying you can go above 12,000 but for each additional 15 BIG point you can go one percent above 12,000 with the overall cap being the FAR square 16 footage that you are allowed. 17 18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Based on our earlier conversation I had intended to modifY the motion 19 to reflect that for each additional point over the then current requirement for BIG the applieant 20 would be entitled to one percent of additional maximum house size. In large part because of the 21 issue that you had raised was that it does seem likely that basically by meeting it you would get 22 the bonus and it didn't really bear a relationship to a percentage. So I think that was a good 23 productive discussion. 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I agree but we are still in any event always limited by the maximum 26 FAR. 27 28 Vice-Chair Tum!!: That is correct. I think Commissioner Lippert has to decide whether he wants 29 to agree to the amendment. 30 31 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make sure I understand it. So it is one percent for each 32 point you are over the 120 points. 33 34 Yit;e-Chair Tuma: Currently it is 150 but the way that I proposed it is if that number changes so 35 does the requirement. So we are not sticking at 150 it is whatever the then current BIG 36 requirement is. 37 38 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, got it. So in other words if we upped it to 200 one point/one 39 percent. 40 41 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is exactly right. It is supposed to slide up as and when the requirement 42 slides up. 43 44 Commissiol1er Lippert: Okay, I have no problem accepting that. 45 46 1;:ommissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. Page 46 I 2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and Martinez let me just ask you if either of you have 3 additional comments or questions. Commissioner Fineberg. 4 5 CQlIlmissioner Fineberg: Thank you, I do and that is why my light was on. I am struggling still 6 to understand why we are talking about reducing carbon footprint, reducing impacts of big 7 houses as measured by the Build It Green measurements. I agree that those are laudable goals 8 but I am not getting the linkage between the Build It Green objectives and what I understood to 9 be the objectives of reducing house size in the foothills, in the open space specifically, in the 10 private open space. II 12 When I look at the Comprehensive Plan it talks about, let's look at Policy N-J, "Manage existing 13 public open space areas and encourage the management of private space areas in a manner that 14 meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs." So the 15 Build It Green reductions of impacts don't reduce the impacts at all in the open space area 16 regarding habitat protection or public safety concerns. When you look at Policy N-3, protect· 17 sensitive plant species, resources from the impacts of development. Build It Green doesn't 18 protect sensitive plan species. When you look at Policy N-4, preserve the foothill areas 19 predominantly open space. Bigger houses have bigger impacts even if they are beautifully 20 designed and one follows every zoning rule, every criteria we have, it is going to have bigger 21 impacts on the open space. So why do we then violate N-4 say build a bigger house because you 22 are reducing greenhouse gases, or reducing whatever it is that Build It Green is measuring. 23 Policy N-4 specifically says that preserving the foothills as predominantly open space applies to 24 private land in the foothill areas. 25 26 Look at Policy N-7, our open space development criteria. There are 13 of them. Nothing in 27 Build It Green addresses the criteria things like it shouldn't be visually intrusive from the public 28 roadway or public parklands. Build It Green isn't a measurement system that yields that. So if 29 we are trying to reduce impact in the foothills having a Build It Green measurement system, 30 which is a great system, but it is not intended to address impacts of development in foothills. It 3 I is apples and oranges not yielding why we are even thinking about limiting house size. So it 32 may be a futile effort but I would like to offer a friendly amendment that we go the first part of 33 the maker's motions and simply say no size limit with a pregnant pause, we really mean it. 34 35 Chair Garber: Well, with that let me ask the maker if he would accept that friendly amendment. 36 37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Before I sort of state a decision on that I want again to try to address the 38 concerns that Commissioner Fineberg was raising because I think they are valid concerns, 39 particularly as these projects relate to the Comprehensive Plan. That is the very thing, all of 40 those Comprehensive Plan provisions that you mentioned are applicable, but that is the very 41 thing that the Site and Design Review process is intended to address. So those are very 42 important components of the Comprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to the Open Space 43 District however we do have the Site and Design Review process to address those. So really 44 what this does is sort of takes me back to agrecing with my own motion about the first part of it 45 but recognizing the reality that we really are sort of obliged to put something forward as a 46 secondary. The reason I say we are obliged to, obviously we could choose not to, but if we do Page 47 I that we again run the risk of without anything before Council they don't have the benefit of what 2 would the recommendation be, reason, discussion, and all the rest of that. So I think having that 3 there as the backup is appropriate. So I agree with you that those issues need to be addressed. 4 When you get through Site and Design Review and you deal with the issues that you raise from 5 the Comprehensive Plan I think possibly the one set of issues that have been highlighted in the 6 Staff Report tonight that remain is the impacts of energy and water use. I think that is where 7 BIG comes in and helps address those types of issues. So if there is anything left after Site and 8 Design, if there is anything left after all of the other safeguards that have already been put in 9 place I think that is what is left. I think that if that is not covered and I don't agree, I think it has 10 been covered, but if it is not covered then perhaps that is where BIG comes in and deals with II those energy efficiency and water use issues that are left at that point in the process. 12 13 Chair Garber: So I am not hearing an acceptance or not but it sounds like we want some 14 discussion before we get there. 15 16 Vice-Chair Tuma: No, that being said I would not be inclined to accept the friendly amendment. 17 18 Chair Garber: Let's deal with this then. The friendly amendment has died but let me ask if the 19 Commissioner would like to make a substitute motion. 20 21 SUBSTITUTE MOTION 22 23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to make a substitute motion that the motion be that the 24 Commission puts forward a recommendation to Council that there be no new size limits 25 imposed. If Staff might be able to help me craft the wording that the existing limitations as 26 covered in floor area ratio, Site and Design Review, existing topography or site conditions 27 currently provide adequate maximum house size limits. 28 29 Chair Garber: Planning Director. 30 31 Mr. Williams: I am not sure. The topography one doesn't quite fit. Certainly the Site and 32 Design and the other regulations that have recently been adopted in and of themselves are 33 enough. It isn't that they impose maximum house size limits themselves but that they provide 34 the tools to assess maximum house size. 35 36 hQmmissioner Fineberg: I think I found the word I was struggling with it is site conditions. I 37 am thinking for instance let's say you have a one acre parcel that is at a 60 degree angle for its 38 entire one acre. Those conditions will define, they add to the definition of what can built on the 39 site. So the site conditions add to the existing limitations. 40 41 Mr. Williams: yes, that is fine. It is part of Site and Design but that is certainly relevant. 42 43 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so with our without that I am neutral. 44 45 Chair Garber: Is there a second to the motion? Would you repeat it? 46 Page 48 I Commissioner Fineberg: The motion was that the Commission put forward a recommendation 2 to Council that there be no new size limitations and subject to wordsmithing that the 3 Commission feels that the size limits that exist currently as defined by a combination of 4 maximum floor area square footage, site conditions, help me out there were a couple of other 5 things that I said before. 6 7 Chair Garber: Well, it is the existing regulations. 8 9 Commissioner Fineberg: Site and Design Review and existing regulations currently set adequate I 0 limits on size. 11 12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. 13 14 SECOND 15 16 Commi§sioner Martinez: I seeond it. 17 18 Chair Garber: We have a second. Let's vote. All those in favor. Excuse me is there some 19 discussion? I have lights from Keller and Lippert previously would you like to speak to this 20 now? Commissioner Lippert. 21 22 Commissioner Lippert: First of aliI will just say that I am not going to support the substitute 23 motion. I think that we are not doing the task that the Council had asked us to do. I think that in 24 the minutes they can read that we really, really mean it. But we have been asked to flush out a 25 maximum house size and to give them a number. They can have that discussion as to whether 26 they accept our number or it should be greater or smaller but we have given our rationale as to 27 how to achieve those numbers. 28 29 I think that by just going in with a motion that says no house size we are just going to be 30 spinning our wheels and it is going to be baek before us again. 31 32 Chair Garber: Anyone else? Commissioner Keller. 33 34 (::ommissiolleLKeller: So I think that the consideration is that a maximum house size in this case 35 is far from an entitlement because of the Site and Design proeess. I think that while there may be 36 some redundancy between these other processes and the maximum house size we were directed 37 to give them information about that, In particular it really affects the largest parcels and the 38 largest size houses, and therefore the original motion on the floor for which the substitute motion 39 is replacing basically only affects large parcels and does basically indicate that it sort of like 40 saying, you have got to be kidding. It is not an entitlement because they have to meet all the 41 other regulations. So 1 think it is worthwhile. I will not support the substitute motion and I will 42 support the original motion. 43 44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma. 45 Page 49 I Vice-Chair Tuma: I am concerned and I would implore Commissioner Fineberg to withdraw the 2 substitute motion. My concern is one of credibility with Council in the sense that they didn't 3 specifically say to us you must recommend maximum house size. What they said to us was if we 4 were to adopt a maximum house size what do you think that should be. So I don't think by sort 5 of going with the underlying motion as stated that in any way we are capitulating on the topic of 6 whether there should be a maximum house size or not. I think if we were to vote for the 7 underlying motion we would all be saying unanimously that in fact we think that is the right way 8 to go, but we would at the same time be giving Council what they had requested which was 9 guidance on what the right number should be if in fact they were to make the decision to impose lOa maximum house size. So I don't think it is seen as somehow giving up what we believe in or II what we think the right result should be here but rather it is a way of reiterating what we believe 12 in but at the same time being responsive to the request from the ultimate decision-making body. 13 So enough said. 14 IS Chair Garber: I would not be supporting the substitute motion for all the various reasons that 16 have been iterated. Commissioner Martinez. 17 18 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, since our motion is going down the tubes I have a question to 19 Curtis. If we are proposing a maximum house size of 15,000 square feet, the number that you 20 could achieve with these BIG points, what would the number of BIG points, the threshold, have 21 to be? Would it rise from ISO or would it remain at ISO? 22 23 Mr. Williams: Ifit were the 15,000 then that's 3,000. 24 25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, could you employ your math, please? 26 27 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So that is 15,000. 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me that is not the question I was asking. 30 31 Commissioner Keller: Fifteen thousand is 25 percent more. 32 33 Mr. Williams: It is 25 percent. 34 35 Commissioner Keller: I'm sorry, it is one-third more. 36 37 Mr. Williams: No. 38 39 Commissioner Keller: Fifteen thousand is 25 percent more than 12,000 and there fore you would 40 need 175 points. 41 Mr. Williams: Right, 25 more points. 42 43 Commissioner Martinez: That is not the question I am asking though. I am asking if we were 44 building a 12,000 square foot house we would have to achieve ISO points. 45 46 Mr. Williams: Right. Page 50 I 2 Commissioner Martinez: If the maximum were 15,000 would we still have to achieve, .. ? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Today? 5 6 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. 7 8 Mr. Williams: Yes you would still have to achieve 150 points. 9 10 Commissioner Martinez: So it doesn't matter whether it is 10,000 or 15, or 16. II 12 Mr.Williams: Right. The maximum today under our criteria is 150 points and you achieve that 13 once you get to, I think we showed about an 8,000 square foot house. Anything over about an 14 8,000 square foot house today you have to do 150 points. 15 16 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. Therefore I would like to enter a friendly 17 amendment to the original motion. 18 19 Chair Garber: Actually, we have the action of the substitute motion we have to deal with first. 20 21 Commissioner Martinez: We have to vote on that first? 22 23 Chair Garber: Unless you withdraw it or you relinquish your second. 24 25 Commissioner Martinez: 1\0. 26 27 Chair Garber: Otherwise we need to vote on the substitute. 28 29 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I'll wait. 30 31 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tuma were you asking to speak? 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. 34 35 MOTION }'AILS (2-4-0-0, Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg in favor) 36 37 ChairJJarber: Then let's vote on the substitute motion. Those in favor of supporting the 38 substitute motion say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? (nays) That motion fails four to two with 39 Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg voting yea and Commissioners Garber, Tuma, Keller, and 40 Lippert voting nay. 41 42 Okay, so we are back to the primary motion and Commissioner Tuma you had comments. 43 44 Vice-Chair Tuma: It was Commissioner Martinez. 45 46 Chair Garber: I am sorry. Commissioner Martinez. Page 51 I 2 CommissiQner Martinez: I would like to offer the friendly amendment that we reduce the 3 maximum house size to 10,000 square feet with the bonuses to be applied from that point. 4 5 Chair Garber: The maker of the motion, Commissioner Tuma. 6 7 Yic;c-Chair Tuma: Any thoughts on why? 8 9 Coml1lissioner Martinez: I feel that a 12,000 square foot house is a kind of precedent that is not 10 really the direction that the City really wants to go with rating a green building environment. r II think it is umeasonably large as a base. I don't think that .... not that I can say that 10,000 is a 12 magic number. I don't think there is really a substantial base to argue that that's the right 13 number. I feel that we would better serve the Open Spacc District if we reduced that number. 14 15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller. 16 17 Commissioner Keller: I think that is an interesting and intriguing idea particularly since we no 18 longer have any cap you just simply have to get more BIG points. So I think that that is 19 interesting. Before when we had a particular threshold cap it was harder but at this point it is not 20 as much of a problem. 21 22 Chair Garbe!: Commissioner Fineberg. 23 24 Commissioner Fineberg: That would apply to four additional homes. It reminds me of an old 25 adage from Churchill. Why don't we reduce it to nine or eight? These are decisions without any 26 criteria. [s there justification for why 12 is good or ten is better? Then is eight better? Is six 27 better? If smaller is better then six. So why is ten better than 12? What are we basing the 28 decision on? I am not sure if we are trying to protect the habitat, protect view sheds, protect 29 open space, why are we even creating a limit? I am still stuck. I don't see where adding four 30 houses and ten is better than using the -if we label our columns it is the sixth column, the FAR 31 square footage. Substantively no difference. 32 33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, I will just go ahead and say while I appreciate the sentiment I think Ijust 34 want to keep it as is stated because I am not convinced. The trouble is when we get into these 35 discussions about it should be a little bit up or a little bit down to me we are treading close to and 36 I am not at all comfortable with this idea about we should somehow decide what is right in tenus 37 of you get into a value judgment. So I am not going to accept the friendly amendment. 38 39 Ch!!ir Garber: Would the Commissioner like to tum his friendly amendment into a substitute 40 motion and/or a fom1al amendment? 41 42 CommiSJliQner Martinez: No, thank you. 43 44 MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-0, Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg opposed) 45 Page 52 I Chair Garber: Additional discussion on the primary motion. I am seeing none. Shall we vote? 2 All those in favor of the motion as amended say aye. (ayes) Those that are opposed say nay. 3 (nays) The motion passes with Commissioners Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea 4 and Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg voting nay. 5 6 I will close the public hearing and note that it is 10:50. I would like to thank the members of the 7 public that have attended for their patience. We will see you shortly presumably at the Couneil 8 hearing. I don't know when that is however. Do we know has this been agendized on the 9 Council? 10 II Mr. Williams: No it hasn't. By the way, what we will do, we didn't have an ordinance prepared 12 for this, and we don't have to come back with it. I have talked with the City Attorney I think we 13 can just go ahead. Since your primary motion was not go there we will develop an ordinance as 14 backup for the Council but your motion will be as you stated it and then if they want to go they 15 will have an ordinance in front of them to impose the maximum house size if they want to. But 16 we don't need to come back you have given us all the details of that. 17 18 Chair Garber: All right folks it has been a long haul. Thank you again. 19 Page 53 CORRESPONDENCE OS Zone District Revisions ATT ACHMENT G Staff received comment letters from the residents of the Open Space zone district and from two open space advocacy organizations. The letters from the residents were unsupportive of the. addition of a Maximum House Size regulation and added basement regulations. Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Mark Conroe [mark@presidlodp,com] Sent: Thursday, February 18,20105:08 PM To: paposna@yahoogroups,com; Campbell, Clare SubJect: OS hearing, Thursday, January 18th, 2010 Dear Clare, As has been expressed by many of owners in the OS District, our family is also concerned about the process and results thereof related to changes adopted and being considered for adoption in the OS District. Our family has owned our property in the OS District for nearly 20 years, Therefore, it is disturbing to have a significant diminution of our property rights recently passed without a clear description of the problem(s) being addressed and without the concerns of the as property owners taken into consideration. Having partiCipated in the community meetings with Planning Staff, members of the Planning Commission, and members of the public over the past year or two, I found these meetings to have been fair-minded and well-organized by Planning Staff. The disconnect appears to have taken place at the pol1tlcallevel: the Planning Commission and City Council appear to be making decisions which are not in line with Planning Staff recommendations and/or don't answer the questions raised by those most impacted by adopted changes (the owners in the OS District). We agree with the thoughts expressed by many of the other as owners regarding the process: while on the surface if appears like due process, in reality It appears that the Commission and Council have another unspoken agenda, All along, the questions raised by the os District owners remain unanswered: at the most basic level, what problem is the City trying to address? Preventing large homes? EnVironmental/energy concerns? Runoff? Visual impacts? In each case, there appears that a blunt instrument Is being applied to issues which deserve and require more finesse (and understanding). We think the OS owners are,in general, willing to address specific issues in a balanced manner. We would like the opportunity to creatively address all issues which impact the City at large and the as owners specifically. As you know, PAPaS have elected to boycott tonight's meeting to send the message that we think the process is broken and discriminatory. We hope the process can be more balanced, fair and based on facts, Sincerely, Mark Conroe 575 los Trancos Road 3/3/2010 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Vince [sharkstan@earlhlink.netj Thursday, February 18,20103:18 PM Campbell, Clare; WIlliams, Curlis; Planning Commission; City Mgr FW: Feb 18 Community Meeting #2 To whom it may concern, I will not be attending the community meeting February 18, 2010 as I believe that the City of Palo Alto Is not acting in good faith nor does It appear that the city has any interest In working with property owners. I will stand with my neighbors in boycotting the meeting. As a citizen of Palo Alto I am distressed that the City does not and Is not protecting the interest of a minority group of citizens. Reducing property volues, reducing property tax thus reducing income revenues for schools, fire and police protection. Regards Vincent Wood 31105 Page Mill Rd. 1 COMMITTEE FOR GREEN fOOTHilLS Pebruary 18, 2010 Curtis Wtlliams City of Palo Alto Dear Curtis; The Commiuee for Green Foothills makes the foUowing suggestions regnrding house size IJmltations, following up 011 our letter of September 22 from last yeat and later dlscussions. Direction from City Council. The Council directed U,. Planning and'Trnnsportation Commission to provide the Council with options on house size limits. They did not request the recommendations focul on whelM' size limils should be placed, but mlher to give them limit options •. Accordingly. recommendation. that foclIsed primarily on whether limits should be placed and only secondarily on what limits should be placed would conU'adic.! Council direction. Individuals alld groups that for their own part oppose any limits arc free to predominantly emphasize tllst point on their own if they wish. Lim,,, should provide 1\ range of options. Tlte Council sent tile issue back to the l'lanning Commission when the COlltlcil was considering whether to enact staff's (non-preferred) alt_alive recommendations of limits of 8,000 to 12,000 sqUat. feet depending on parcel size. Re.turning to the City Council with those slime proposed limits is not providing .. range of options allY greatcc than what they had in front of thtm in September. A better plaMing process should give the Council its requeRted tange of options, with dlffering reasons for choosing differing options, and a preferred recommendation from the PJanning Commission and possibly another from staff. An opdon to Urn It aU/most suuc(ures on the patcelshould be included for consideration. House size limits Ibot applied only to a main structure could be evaded. parti~lIy but not completely, by increasing thc size of accessoly SItlICturCS. This iss"e should be explained to the City Council, with options given as to hQw to handle the iSSue. The optiotl •• re: I. ignore it, on the reasoning that only limited amount of bulk could be added to other SI.<Ucnttes as • practical mattet; 2. cove.r all struc",r •• with • total .floor limit to eliminate the potential ovation; recogni~ing that the floor limit for some parcels may be more resttictive than Floor-Area ratios; or 3. blend tlle two concepts with sop ... te limits on accessory ~tructures, particularly on second residences. TIle Committee for Green Poothills favors option 2, with exceptions for agriculturc-rclated structures where ~griculture i. ptltcticed. Rccommehdations should describe reason. for house size limits. TIle Council's initial direction to provide limit options should be fleshed out by staff and the Planning Conunlsoion to include reasons for doing so. Staff h., mentioned severol possibilities in dle Febtuary 12 email fromC!.re Campbell. We support those recommendations, and ~ddition.lIy suggcgt the following be presented to the City Council as it reasons it could choose to either include or reject as re;l,ons to Unlit size: • No langer fits the category of a single family residence_ This would recognize that. designation of • single family home is not infinitely flexible when it cOmes to sIze As. practic.l matter, structures over • certain size will u,uaUy be staffed,either full time or part time. and nOl occupied by • single family, • House size is a proxy formuluplc envil6nmental f!ICtors. Energy use, carbon footprint, direct and indirect disturbance to natural envkonments, demand for emergency services, construction impaclS, U'affic, water usc, and other effeclS .U tend to increase with building size. A theoretical effort to limit each impact sepacateiy would be too cumbersome, possibly mOlc restrictive in cermln aspects that size limits, and still f~il to control some cnvironmen~.1 effects. TIlis Seems to coincide someWhal with the staff reasoning in the February 12 email, but attelllplli to spell out the proxy function more broadly. COMMlTl'E~ FOl GRUM POO~lillLS )921 "E. Bayshore Road 650.968. 7243 ~ info@GreenFooth1l1s.org Palo Alto. CA 9430J 650,968.8431 IAl< ww;!.Gr¢onFoothiHe.Ofg: Committee for Green Foothills February 18, 2010 Page 2 of 3 • Reasonable accommodation to homeowner interests, A size limit would be chosen that would be sufficient to accommodate a large family, guests, and occasional large parties. The limit would allow a very high quality of life and enable landowners to add significantly to the economic value of their parcel compared to a small residence. • Equity. House shoe limit in the Rl Districts is 6,000 square feet. While those parcels are much smaller than foothill parcels, floor"area ratios are not the only reason for house size limits. If they were, FAR could substitute entirely for house size limits. The City may instead determine that 6,000 square feet constitutes the limit of what can still be fairly described as a single-family residence, that other reasons described above justify the 6,000 foot limi~ and that it should be applied equaliy throughout Palo Alto. Suggested range of options and preferred alternative. Given all the above, Committee for Green Foothills recommends that staff and the Planning Commission provide the following range of options for house size limits: 1. Simple Equity with Flatlands. This proposal would assume the same size limits should apply in the foothills as in the flatlands: 6,000 square feet. 2. Modified Expanded Limits, with Incentives. This is the proposal that we submitted last September. Let owners have larger homes than in the f1ad.nds and larger still in the bigger parcels. Set upper limits based on the assumption that owners will use an incentive system for "green" building construction. We suggest 4,600 feet limit with a 2,000 foot expanded limit for green building on 10 acres or Jess; a 5,600 limit with 2,000 foot green building bonus On 15 acres or less; and 6,600 limit with 2,000 foot bonus on more than 15 acres. 3. Staff proposal. The staff proposal was an 8,000 foot limit for 10 acres or less; 10,000 feet for 15 acres or less; and 12,000 feet for more than 15 acres. We will leave to staff to describe how limits as high as these serve any of the reasons for limiting house size. We recommend Option 2 above, so that house size limits range nom 6,600 feet to 8,600 feet in the foothills jf owners make use of green building incentives. Even the strictest limits would still be ten percent larger than the Rl district. We recommend the limit be applied to all non-.gricultural structures. Altern.tively, we recommend that any limit the City Council chooses consist of an upper limit if the applicant meets certain green building standards above minimum requlred standards, and a lower limit if the applicant only meets minimum standards. Recommendation for alternative compliance to intention behind house size limits. While we believe it would be too difficult to develop broad regulatory standards that control every environmental impact regulated by house size, it may be helpful to give applicants an alternative: aliow them to submit an application that does not meet the size limits for their parcel but in every aspect they can describe, exceeds the environmental performance that could be achieved through size limits. The proposal would be approved or denied by a discretionary decision of a body like the Planning Commission. The idea is that an exceptional proposal for environmental quality might give a better outcome for the applicant and the community. Recommendations for is.ues raised by some landowner •. In the course of various meetings, some landowners have raised environmental issues that deserve recognition and further attention by the City: Basement issue. in the rest of the City. If basements are causing environmental problems elsewhere, they should also be addressed in the other parts of the City as weli, and not just the foothills. Light pollution of the night sky. Anything that reduces light poliution in the night sky would benefit people throughout the City. In addition to better regulation to cut off direct lighting from leaving people's property, Palo Alto could emulate the computer-controlled streetlight demonstration study by San Jose. "Smart" LED lights can be programmed to be less bright later in the night after most traffic h .. cleared from streets, so less light poliution " RIIlIIGIUil OpenSpace MldpenHlsula RegIOnal open ~p.le D.strict February 18, 2010 Ms. Clare Campbell City of Palo Alto Re: Conslderetion of a Maximum House Size end Basement Limitations Dear Ms, Campbell: The Midpenlnsula Regional Open Space Dlslrlct (MROSD) would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Maximum House Size and Basement Limitations for the City of Palo Alto's Open Space Zona District. MROSD has previously provided comments on revisions to the Open Space Zone Dlslr/clthat has resulted in the proposed Maximum House Size and Basement Limitations. Maximum House Size Reducing building footprints by Instituting a maximum house size limit within the Open Space Zone District (OSO) provides the City with a unique opportunity to preserve community aesthetics, protect the natural environment and encQurage sustainable growth. Large homes often require more natural resources to build, operete, and maIntain. Withoutlmplementa!lon of green building techniques. larger homes consume mora energy, especlelly those havIng a complex geometry requiring longer runs for ductlng and piping which can result in energy loss during conveyance of wann or cool air or hot water. The increased footpnnt of larger homes results In addlUonallmpermeable surface within the OSO. Stormwater that encounters Impermeable surfaces can pick up pollutants and Increase in velocity as it flows toward penneable surfaces and natul'l:ll drainage channels. Increasad run off and velocity can result In pollution of surface waters, downstream flooding, erosion of stream ohannel banks, and less available water for groUndwater rech<lrge. By Instituting a maximum hou6e sl~, and encouraging the use of permeable surfaces surrounding these homas, potential negative Impaots can be reduced. To further reduce environmental impacts, the MROSD recommands that basements be included when .:;:alculating the maximum house slza. By InclUding basements In the calculation the City will be promoilng new homes with smaller footprints that raqulre fewer resources to heat and cool. Selling a maximum housa size eliminates competitive building for the sake of .building by preventing new construction that emphaSizes .. outdoing" an earlier projact based on sheer size alone and Instaad encourages builders to compete In design, .construction materials, and craftsmanship of the homes resulting in more effJclent, sustainable. and desirable homes. Houses within tha Open Space Zone District should fit the scale <lnd character of the surroundings, not detract from them. The 080 is dominated by roiling hillsides. natural vegetation and eXpansive views. Homas within the OSD should be well crafted end tastefully sized to prevent negative visual Impacts within the 080. New houses or additions should not be massive or "overbuilt". Excessively large homes located in the wildland urban interface (where humans and their development meet or Intermix with wildland fuel) requira more fire resistant construction techniques and may require a larger area of vegetation modification to prolectthe Ms, Clare Campbell Conslderatlon of a Maximum House Size and Basement limitations February 18, 2010 home, resulting in a larger area of disturbance to native vegetation. Larger areas of ground disturbance are subject to invasion by weed species and can result in a reduction in acreage of native vegetallve communities and disruption to wildlife habitat. Larger building footprints also result in less available area within the parcel for homeowners to Implement defensible space. Property owners should be able to maintain up to 100 feet of defensible space contained within their own parcel when their homes are located adjacent to natural vegetallve communities. Larger housing footprints require a greater fireflghtlng effort, as therers more surface area exposed to wildfire flames and firebrands. Implementing a maximum house size, especially one that includes basement square footage, will result in less above ground surface area of homes that is exposed to wildland fire. MROSD is supportive of the City's desire to implement a maximum house size as it directly addresses the purpose and intent of the OSD which is identified as "agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land, containment of urban sprawl, and retention of land in its natural state: Setting maximum house size limits coupled with the City's maximum impervious coverage limits accommodates residential land use that avoids sprawl and the construction of overbuilt homes while maximizing retention of the land in its natural state within the OSD, Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input regarding the zoning ordinance update. If you have any questions, please contact Julie Andersen, Resource Planner I, by calling (650) 691·1200. Sincerely, -:£~$~ Planning Manager cc: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager MROSD Board of Directors City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioners Page 1 ofl Betten, Zarlah From: bluestonehome [blueslonehome@earthlink,netj Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:20 PM To: Campbell, Clare; Williams, Curtis Cc: Planning Commission Subject: Feb 18 Community Meeting #2 Curtis Williams and Clare Campbell: We will not be attending the community meeting tonight, February 18, 2010. We will stand with our neighbors in boycotting the meeting. Our purpose in boycotting the meeting is to make a clear statement to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the recommendations to come from the process are not endorsed by the homeowners. It appears that some Council members may have gotten the impression that because homeowners took time and showed up at community meetings -that the property owners substantially contributed to the Commission's recommendation. That has not been the case and as homeowners in the District, we do not support the rezoning which has already been enacted, We do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations the staff have made to date, nor the changes already enacted to the zoning regulations regarding Maximum House Size. The proposed restrictions on basements are not being imposed on other areas of the City, and are in fact discriminatory. It puzzles us that the City is not encouraging basements, but rather discouraging their use, particularly in the Open Space District. There is no finding of fact that a basement creates a problem. Basements generally reduce the above-grade mass of a structure and can lead to a reduction in the overall visual impact of the structure. If carbon footprint issues are a factor, we urge you to apply these measures to all building throughout Palo Alto, so that you do not discriminate against a minority of 80 property owners in the Open Space District. As citizens of Palo Alto and residents of the Open Space District lor 20 years, we are distressed that the City does not and is not protecting the interest 01 a group of citizens, albeit a minority. The City appears to be spending significant effort and tax dollars -in the form of Staff and Council time -on a solution looking for a problem. We have been confused about the problem to be addressed by the zoning changes. We believe that parcels in the district are so diverse in size, topography, landscaping, and visibility, and we should rely, as previously done, on the Site and Design Review process to determine which developments make sense on specific properties, rather than attempting to legislate this. We would look forward to a future meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to address our grievances with the process and proposed discriminatory actions. Please add these comments to the public record. Sincerely, Kathleen Roskos Scott Selover 4020 Page Mill Road 313/2010 Betten, Zarlah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com] Thursday, February 18. 2010 10:28 AM Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare Planning Commission feb 18 community meeting To whom it may concern, I will not be attending the community meeting February 18, 2010. I will stand with my neighbors in boycotting the meeting. That while the staff is very nice, the meetings provided by the staff for community Input, seem only to serve the objective of downzonlng the residential properties abutting the open space without a clear ond coherent reason. The City has demonstroted that the opinions of the property owners count for nothing. The City staff comes to the meeting and says this is what we intend to do. The residents object. The city writes up a report on what they intend to do and that they have discussed it with the property owners. The conclUsions drawn by the staff have never reflected the opinions of the Property owners, except on a few very minor points, Curtis Williams pointed out that yes they have made concessions to the Property owners, the residential properties abutting the open space are now allowed to have garbage enclosures woo hoolll, that Is after a design review, permit and fees. To me this is ridiculous after reducing our development rights by 50% that 'in exchange' we are allowed garbage enclosure. In addition the Planning Commission and the City Council is not aware of what the residents said or what has been discussed at the meetings. What is the purpose of a 'working group'? A maximum house sin is already addressed with the extremely restrictive FAR(3.5'Yo) and does not require any additional regulations. I am concerned about the definition of FAR and Maximum House Size as some have suggested that Maximum House Size supercedes FAR and includes all buildings and not just the main house as we have been publicly told. What is the definition of FAR and Maximum House Size? Basements should not be a special issue for the Residential Properties abutting the Open Space, though we do not in general have ground water issues, or cloSe neighbor issues, etc. But if it is being decided on carbon foot print issues this is something that must in all fairness be applfed to all building in Palo Alto, not just a minority of 80 property owners. I keep hearing the revision in the zoning ordinance waslls to fix some 'loop hole' In the regulations regarding impervious material (that technologically advanced materials created a situation where property owners can build larger, this is a false premise as gravel was always allowed and not counted as Impervious coverage). This supposed 'loop hole' was 'fixed' 3 years ago at the very beginning of this process. So, If Impervious surface area is not the reason what is the purpose of the additional regulation? What is the greater good being served by down zoning our property? Visibility? Visibility issues are addressed over and over in the existing regulations. 1 As a citizen of Palo Alto I am distressed that the City does not and is not protecting the interest of a minority group of citizens. Reducing property values, reducing property tax thus reducing income revenues for schools, fire and police protection. cathy cartmell 2 Betten, Zariah From: Inmaculada del Castillo [inmaculada_del_castlllo@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:24 AM To: Planning Commission; Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare SubJect: Planning Department meeting on Thurday Feb 18 Regarding today's meeting, I am boycotting the Planning Department meeting due to the fact that the recommendations that the staff Is going to present does not have Into consideration the Property Owner views. Moreover, it seems that on the regular bases our views, the Property Owner, Pagel of 1 are being Ignored, and we protest your Implication that you have listened to our views and are representing them. We, my husband and I, do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations the staff have made to date nor the changes already enacted to the zoning regulations. It seams that we, the Property Owners of the Palo Alto Open Space, has being singled out and are being dlscrlmlna.ted with draconian laws that pretend to be green. While in reality If Palo Alto City Hall desired to have green laws the burden of the laws should distributed equally between all Palo Alto residents. The recommendations that at this moment the staff have made will not seriously Impact the environment. If you wanted to make any Impact, then try applying these same recommendations across the entire city of Palo Alto, and you would find an overwhelming opposition to your proposals. We call for you to be honest in saying that the property owners are highly opposed to your proposed changes. Inmaculada and dave Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 3/3/2010 Page I of I Betten, Zarlah From: David Hopkins [dtfopkins12@hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 201010:15 PM To: Williams, Curtis Cc: Jan Terry; bluestonehome@earthlink.net; ken@scoltda.com; pingem@yahoo.com; blllierry@sbcglobal.net; mark@presidiodp.com; losqatcsl@aol.com; lawlnvesl@mac.com; losqatclea@aol.com; tony@cartmelllam.com; stluclw@yahoo.com; Vernon Altman; sharksfan@earthllnk.net; al@nerds.com; dulitz@gmail.com; katle@alcorn.tv; amazing_grace41 @hotmail.com: fkirkman@earthllnk.net; medlaproJect@igc.org; Campbell, Oare; plannlngcommisslon@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Your meeting with reSidents of the Open Space Residential District Dear Mr. Williams - I understand that the residents of the OS Residential district have been Invited to yet another community meeting tomorrow to discuss the City's plans to downzone our district. I know that you have heard from a number of our neighbors about the frustrations we have after attending numerous meetings, repeatedly asking for an explanation for why our properties should be subjected to legal restrictions that do not apply to any other reSidential areas of Palo Alto, and receiving answers that don't justify this form of discrimination. We do not see merit In attending any further meetings with your staff and members of the community who do not bear any consequences of the proposed actions to downzone our properties. Therefore, we will not attend any further such meetings. We do look forward to meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to address our grievances with the process and proposed discriminatory actions. Sincerely, David and Rosemary Hopkins Hotmali: Powerful Free emali with security by Microsoft. Get it now. 3/3/2010 Betten, Zarlah From: Sent: To: Co: Subject: Hello, Sharon Luciw [stluclw@yahoo.com] Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8;49 PM Planning Commission Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare Planning Commission Community Meeting for the Open Space Residential District 01 Palo Alto set for Feb 18th. I do not plan on attending the community meeting on Thursday, February 18, 2010 because of past reports made by the staff, in which they state: the property owners of the Palo Alto Open Space Residential District have had cooperative and productive meetings with the staff and have agreed to the outcomes of the meetings and recommendations of the staff. An example of not being a cooperotive atmosphere was when the gentleman representing green space responded to me in a threatening tone after I suggested all properties should be allowed to have a second unit, not just those 3 acres or more. In so many words he said, in this case he would not allow ANY properties to have a second unit. I was quite taken aback by this response. I didn't know he had more say in the outcome of the meeting than the property owners. I do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations the staff have made to date nor the changes already enacted to the zoning regulations. As I have stated in two of the public meetings -one with the commission and one with the city council, it appears there is a solution looking for a problem. In regards to the maximum house size, basement restrictions and the changes enacted by the city council regarding second units being restricted to 10 acres or more, many of the statements made by the city council appear to come from personal opinions and not from research data, based on the comprehensive plan, or on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Regarding the council's decision on the second units, It was base on the idea staff would be hired and they did not want to increase traffic on the roads. Where is the traffic study report of the area? No one sited an environmental impact report either. If an owner chooses to hire a house keeper, not having second unit probably is not going to prevent this staff from being hired. In fact, it will have more of an impact on the environment by having the staff commute to the property on a daily basis. Visitors from all over the world drive on Page Mill Road in the hills to see the views of valley and travel to the ocean along the scenic highways of the area. I know this because they ask for directions to the nearest gas station and it is quite obvious they are not from this country. Additionally, the Open Space groups encourage people to visit and hike in the open space. In fact, 1 the area across the road from my property now has street signs on the hiking trails to guide people along the way and they have made improvements to the pathways to encourage more visitors. In a sense the green and open space organizations are encouraging more traffic to the area. In order to understand if a change creates the Intended outcome, you need to makes changes one or two at a time. Adding maximum house size to the recent addition of FAR to 'prevent mega homes' will not allow the city to see clearly which, if any of the changes have produced the desired result. I also want to add that 'preventing mega homes' from being built In the Open Space Residential District doesn't appear to be a part of the city's comprehensive plan. As some of my neighbors have pointed out to me, restricting or preventing basements could have a negative impact on the environment by forcing property owners to store items off site, which will Increase traffic in the area. Basements can be use to reduce heating and cooling needs for the home and I believe this needs to be taken into consideration. The changes Palo Alto has and is trying to enact for my property, puzzles me. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Sharon Luciw 2 PAPOS Letter to Council Page 2 Please know that since June of 2007, the Planning & Transportation Commission and its Open Space Subcommittee have met on ten separate occasions regarding potential land use changes. As the City's Subcommittee representatives, Planning Commission Chair Dan Garber and Vice Chair Samir Tuma attended several community meetings, made site visits, and reviewed this matter exhaustively. Again, the public record clearly reflects they both strongly recommended that the Council take no action on maxinlum home size. P APOS fully concurs with the Planning & Transportation Commission and the Planning Department professionals that maximum home size legislation is unnecessary, as the foothills cherished by all Palo Altans are well protected by your 2009 zoning restrictions. Suspension of Zoning Changes --Certainty and Fairness For over three years, residents of the OS Zone District have cooperated with the City during its protracted campaign of zoning changes. Many of your constituents are now frustrated and angry by the continuous review of the District's zoning ordinance, and the astonishing number of public meetings in which we have needed to participate. Despite this, the previous Council insisted that yet another public hearing be held on an issue (maximum homes size) that is widely viewed as overkill by the City's appointed' land use officials and professional staff. You can understand why the now three year "process" in which we are engaged is seemingly endless. Please consider that your own Planning staff has acknowledged that not one home in the OS Zone District has been considered under the Council's 20009 ordinance that instituted greatly reduced FAR. Further, realistic projections suggest that of the seventy-nine (79) developable parcels in the District, only five (5) to ten (10) projects may come forward in the next 15 to 20 years. The OS Zone District has within it less than 1% of Palo Alto homes, yet the City's enduring zoning changes have encompassed fifteen meetings to date, at great expense to the city. Zoning is by definition designed to provide certainty, but in this case the City's process has had the opposite effect of creating long-term uncertainty for residents of the OS Zone District. As such, and in the interest of fair governnlent practice, P APOS and its supporters are respectfully requesting that Council suspend further land use restrictions (excepting city-wide basement review) in the OS Zone for at least the next five years to allow the Council' samended ordinance of 2009 to be evaluated. ATTACHMENT A Meetings held by the City on zoning changes to the Open Space District Date City attendees 6/13/2007 clerk, planning staff, city attorney 7/30/2007 clerk, city manager, planning staff, city attorney 9/8/2007 clerk, city manager, planning staff, city attorney 10/3/2007 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 11113/2007 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 1115/2008 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 2112/2008 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 6/5/2008 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 9/24/2008 clerk, planning staff, city attorney 4/15/2009 clerk, planning staff, city attorney 7/8/2009 clerk, planning staff, city attorney 9/21/2009 clerk, city manager, planning staff, city attorney 1/7/2010 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 2/18/2010 two Planning Commissioners and planning staff 3110/2010 clerk, planning staff, city attorney Description P&TC Commission City Council City Council City neighborhood input meeting City neighborhood input meeting City neighborhood input meeting City neighborhood input meeting City neighborhood input meeting P&TC Commission; special study session P&TC Commission P&TC Commission City Council City neighborhood input meeting City neighborhood input meeting P&TC Commission ATTCHMENTB PETITIONS The petitions refer to issues placed on the Council agenda for June 14, 2010. Those agenda items were re-scheduled for October 4,2010. PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City COWlcil remove from its proposed JWle 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: >-On September 21, 2009 the City COWlcil voted to severely restrict development in the as Zone District. COWlcil action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! >-The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City COWlcil take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on JWle 14. The COWlcil's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! >-The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The COWlcil has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on JWle 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's as Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City COWlcil enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The COWlcil should now honor the Wlambiguous position of as District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its JWle 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: N l ilff Dm~ Signature~ Address: ~ ~d-H\# ~ -:f\:sO\ }>O\l() A 1+0 9L{~D ~ Phone number and email: b~6 -~O 1--0q ':l-~ Y'l \ ~ @ 0.. L U M · (VI ~ -k eJ LA.. Jun 0310 08:48p Jolaine and Jaok Woodson (650) 856-3350 PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Counci1 remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land usc restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. ll1is petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: )-On Septem ber 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Co~ncil action sIasllcd allowable home size by up to 50%. ~nlis legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved fonvard since its adoption. The foothiUs are protected by the existing ordinance! ! )-The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission h.as twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council ~s own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no actiOll. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! };;-The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alta has in excess of 1 O~OOO home sites. The Conncil has engaged in an c:'.-pcnsive thrce- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less th~ 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to inlpact olllv five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto~ s as Zone District live among~ and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringcllt development limitations in this beloved portion of PaLo Alto. The Council shQuld now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commissiqn and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land usc restrictions in this neighborhood. p.1 Printed Namcy}q~f /JJoa~(J/J signatu~fb. ~ Address: If> 18 1f!j1l4 ff. / F ttl.!. A Ih >' c4 q 4-306 Phone number and email: 6Sb .. 7.fO . if 6C[ 1-;.J wtJlJt;f .(Oh@W *. OJ."., I'"; PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: }> . On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the as Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential 'properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: hi'l€A;l Sk..aw Signature: ~ Address: 1=1-0 A{es+-ev: /tvt21tttAlZ-!~~lo Alto, cA i 0/31:>3 Phone number and email: (p5 0 .... 8 S-J-I '6 r shaw @ ~(tA.~ .w. i +. -eJ t'\. PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21,2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: SIIA-nAJ<?Ai MAOt.?~~ Signature: ~~~~ Address: 'i/~ Me! c/ilk Ace.)' Pal<> !Mh" ~ 9 ~3o / Phone number and email: ~S-t:;3ZI-Cf.~.Il-/ GA'StXfHrI t@ 4£4) C-.. C~ 7 May 26 10 07:14p Niles Moseley 650-949-***** PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City COWlcil remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: :> On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take e:ffect~ as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! > The Palo Alto PlalUling and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own expert8U :> The Open Space Zone EJistrict has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 1 O~OOO home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targe1ing less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the Wlambiguous position of OS District residentst as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name;.-"M--=-·_l~...:..M-=r;;~" S~S._L..~E._l+(_ Signature:.rn. /'~ p.2 ;:') C2 -3 Address:~D 0 (fA cq:M~ ~ \ \LsL 1.A,lJ 1cfOCZ2- (-:(iA.lo i+~tO) Phone number and email:_G....:....7_4.\-~_q_-_O_7_{_I __________ _ ~\, ~ L V\, \ O.s:E.J--S-y i-@. ~<\-ibr4 L, ~ '4 K. " &V E. ~ Jun 02 10 09:08p Dan Sarouhan 650-325-7740 PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in tbe Foothills I respectfully request thattbe Palo Alto City Council remove-from Usl'roposed JUne 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: :> ·On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the as Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 500/0- This legislation bas not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothWs are protected by the existing ordinance! ! )-The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Conunission has twice V!).ted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! > The Open Space Zone District bas just 79· hom.es and parcels while Palo Alto bas in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Co:unoil bas engaged in an expensive three ... year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting Jess than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact ~ five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo A1to~s OS Zone Distriot live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion ofPaIo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of 08 District residents~ as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staffby removing from its Iune 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. PrintedName: ~()S\ ~~~\~\\ Signature:~ ~ Address:~1~~ ~SJ~ 0\r~1 '-?~~ t\ \\~ p.2 Phone number and email: ~~ -17~b ~t\R\\.&l\t-\\)\\u\. tl~ Jun 03 10 08:48p Jolaine and Jaok Woodson (650) 856-3350 PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Counci1 remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city~s Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for faimess and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21~ 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effuct. as not one development has . moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance!! ;.... The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own expertsr! ~ The 0pcn Space Zone District has just 19 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council bas 'engaged in an expensive thrcc- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) pl1blic hearings and meetmgs targeting less than I o~ of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact onI}: five to tell (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is tbis prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto ~s OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residel1ts~ as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staffby removing from its June 14 ~gcnda (and future agendas) any furtllcr consideration of land usc restrictions in this neighborhood. p.2 Printed;\lamc:~ W~~ Signature:~{(f~ Address: 678· -r1J~. f{u:p. ~ "&lfi .f.}f/o~ OJ· q 1-;506 Phone nwnberandemaiJ: Gm -:74tJ .Q1 57 ;'JariLww-rl~ @ ~~. I1rvf PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21,2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own. professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. PrintedName: C!te-trtttJ...C fk;t~vS Signature: ~t!~ stw£t'~: Ig/a..7~1S~~ PlLlIAj-h:J <f1/!fJ'1 MdlItojAddress: I2t '-, 12H}t ~1 0 y.1I~ ell 1'I(tJ Vb Phone number assJ}HlttH:_--=6;....;:9"--tJ-__ -'f--=-'1_7_ .... _9-'---!-tf--=..C?---1'1'---_______ _ PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance!! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council 'should now honor the unanrbiguous . position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: Dr Winfried W Wncke ------~4~~~2~P=ag=e~M~I"~R~d~-- Phone number and los Altos Hills CA 94022 6509482093 Signature: Mr~~ PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good governnlent on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the as Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! I ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's as Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent developnlent limitations in ---·--this-bel-oved-portioo-of-Pa-J.-o-:Alt-o~--hetotl:nti+1lllQtlltl-nQw-lieIiQt!-th.e-tlnafttbi-gueus--------------------·- position of as District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name:bat~e A \c.'O~ '" Signature: ~ ~'---- Address: ~~(? L05rtra.V\.~tJ5N\Vor\,~ ~tL\kr (PahA-~ Phone number and email: (os 0 -9 « I -{., <t () L X~~~@Jo..-\,c..~-rV\. ;TJ PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that-the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: > On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect~ as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! }> The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the' City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! \ }> The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10~OOO home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive tbree- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: :r~'\J= 6. He:) vft8.~ Signatur~~, ~ . Address: '3 3~ '7 K: ~L Il] <3lree:f $[0 14-f~ c:J4 QLf30 b PhOOenmnberandemail:(!SOJ Lfq"S--3s:-63 fj kJrb(VI eCo~~t U\ d PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the as Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of as District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: __ ~+----"a"--·..:....:..t(l.t~---'( __ ~;;..L..k---__ _ Signature:~ ~ Address: ~Ol PII1" [Y).1l R.J ~ AU-e~ \-bl~, (j. ~G,- Phone number and email: 6J?cJ. 'tis;' G:,'~ PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21,2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. 1 A n PrintedName:7)AvJD J. H/ilnIV1QtJD Signature: WJ ~ Address: {D61.., IlIIt~O G}~Gl..t6 I PAL-b Ac/TO Cit 9L/3Q} I , Phone number and email: f.S68S6·1£-&.1 c6 ~a \NlW\ <M de & bczj (d\D.I(L Vl e f PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: )-On September 21,2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance!! » The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! )-The Open Space Zone Distri~t has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1% of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staffby removing from its June 14 agenda (and future .agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: Ca+b~ril1e,La.~JI a.o., Signature: ~~ Address: prap~ Oc.JlIlGV:ot: g 30 t ~ 1X-a,V\Q;§ Ret. Phone number and email: 541-8';;ltt-lo, 8 coJ.l,eriVle.la.w:t) O~O"'~. eJ(,l PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. PrintedName:AndroJ C;-/~=...... Signature: elf~ Address: P/5 ~k/& AJ/~/ ~. ~/~) LA 9~~CJ/ Phone number and email: 630 c3 2./ -~c5 ~ Z PETmON Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance!! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration onJune 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targetiIlg less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: C?~~. ~a~:/\A Signature: ~ up= Address:, B 50 Lo s 1YMcos '(2J), Phone number and email: (6 <;b) <B It( ~2Io ( L.{ ~\~ V~ \~ leA-qqoZ3 GOIGO 'd PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Counei1 remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any furtber land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: :> On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable borne size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take etiect~ as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordln.nce! ! :> The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has ~ voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! > The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three· year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact ~ five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years'. Is tbls prudent use of Council and City staff time and resourees?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this beloved portion oCPalo Alto. The Council should now bmlm: the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staffby removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: I1MJatf!f{dt;r~~~!:? 'J}rcpe tf!J &vJfI.{lr <Jf'.' 8M LoS' Irtk ,,(t1.f M (] Adddss: , ljdolP. Va L Uj j M 9.J/C2;?. i"' Phone number and email: ~ 3 ) 'l()s -3tJ ~& k t'ss-~@ ~r<h 'ON X~:1 Wd 85:11 NflS 500G-90-83:1 MAY-31-2010 15:10 FROM: . 6504947721 TO: 8513456 PETmON Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the F'oothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City CouncH remove from its ,proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District This petition represents a public appeal for faimess and good government On this important issue. Please consider the following: > On September 21,2009 the City Councn voted to severely restrict developmen.t in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect. as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothlUs are protected by the existing ordiDau~e! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on JUne 14. The Councilis own professional 'Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the coupset of your own experts!! )0 The Open Space Zone DistrIct has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has i.ncluded fifteen (lS) public hearings and meeting" targeting Jess than 1 % of the residential propertles in .Palo A1to. The issues slated for consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (S .. 10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. b this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. Tn September, the City Council enacted stringent development limitations in this 'beloved portion ofPalQ Afro. The Couucll sbould 'now .b.2ll2t the unambiguous position of as District residents) as woll as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Dt.-partment staff by removing from its June] 4 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name: L(\lJ.(eA(~Y1~l~"~~ Signature:~ ~~...j.1 ~ .. 5g~5" ~~ \AA~\\ \lJ Address: GSS: !..eJ'\~ (.IlI.M.4 I Y9.lc ~ u 9tf"!C$ 'Phone number and ema.il: ~~~ llfg· 'Q£'1 Jr-~DS\a.tI\~ CO\/l" • .cct-sT, tAe:t- PETITION Good Governance on Development Restrictions in the Foothills I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council remove from its proposed June 14, 2010 agenda any further land use restrictions targeting the city's Open Space (OS) Zone District. This petition represents a public appeal for fairness and good government on this important issue. Please consider the following: ~ On September 21, 2009 the City Council voted to severely restrict development in the OS Zone District. Council action slashed allowable home size by up to 50%. This legislation has not had time to take effect, as not one development has moved forward since its adoption. The foothills are protected by the existing ordinance! ! ~ The Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission has twice voted to recommend that the City Council take no action on the home size and basement issues that are slated for consideration on June 14. The Council's own professional Planning Department staff also recommends no action. Heed the counsel of your own experts!! ~ The Open Space Zone District has just 79 homes and parcels while Palo Alto has in excess of 10,000 home sites. The Council has engaged in an expensive three- year land use campaign that has included fifteen (15) public hearings and meetings targeting less than 1 % of the residential properties in Palo Alto. The issues slated fot consideration on June 14 are projected to impact only five to ten (5-10) properties over the next twenty (20) years. Is this prudent use of Council and City staff time and resources?? The residents of Palo Alto's OS Zone District live among, and care deeply about the foothills. In Septerrlber, the City Council enacted stringent developnlent limitations in this beloved portion of Palo Alto. The Council should now honor the unambiguous position of OS District residents, as well as its own Planning Commission and professional Planning Department staff by removing from its June 14 agenda (and future agendas) any further consideration of land use restrictions in this neighborhood. Printed Name:_V::........:I--L.V ......... j' A.......,l\~/_---.l::£ __ ...a....;H"'-MA"""""-=-'· AI .............. JC---Signature: ~ Address: "l ro l oS T«J\ P Co \ r< f> A!(» i 0 g;ful,A. \J4.11;;Y I CA q 4 0 'It Phone number and email: (' ~St) 85 \ -s-s-g \ V~vi f!) vit~Q ~