HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 386-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 25, 2010 CMR: 386:10
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT ITEM
SUBJECT: Adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of Site and Design Review and
a Conditional Use Permit, and a Record of Land Use Action for a new 8,877
square-foot recreational facility (tennis court) and related improvements for an
associated single family residence on an adjacent lot under the same ownership in
the Open Space Zone District located at 3208 Alexis Drive.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council approve the following:
I. Negative Declaration, prepared for the proposed recreational facility of the property located
at 3208 Alexis Drive, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Attachment B).
2. A Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit application to allow a new 8,987 square foot tennis court and associated site
improvements, subject to the findings and conditions of approval contained in the Record of
Land Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1.57 acre project site is located within the Open Space Zone District. The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site land is Single Family Residential.
The project site is located at the terminus of Alexis Drive in the Palo Alto foothills adjacent to
Foothills Park and the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve, west of the Foothill Freeway and
within the City's Urban Service area. The subject property is located directly north of two
adjacent parcels under the same ownership; the three parcels together fonn a 5.5 acre residential
site. One parcel is developed with a 13,400 square foot (sq. ft.) primary residence and the
second parcel is developed with a 3,359 sq. ft. guest-house. The rwo homes are located near the
ridges of the two developed lots, visible from Vista Point in Foothills Park. The elevation of the
CMR: 386:10 Page I of 4
subject parcel is lower than the developed parcels, on the opposite side of the hill and sloping
away from Vista Point.
Thc 8,887 square-foot tennis court is proposed as the primary use of an Open Spaee parcel,
requiring approval of a Condition Use Permit. The court would be for daytime use by the guests,
property owners and residents of the home and guest house on the adjacent properties. The
tennis court would be surfaced in asphaltic concrete. The project also includes a paved
dininglkitchen area onlhe north and east side of the tennis court, a storage room below the tennis
court, stone retaining walls and a wood and steel pergola.
The tennis court would be enclosed by a ten-foot tall fence, to be constructed of mesh fabric over
black vinyl-covered sleel eore wire, mounted on top of a three-foot tall retaining wall on the
north side. Substantial landscape screening is proposed, with 29 trees in a variety ofspccics and
native and/or drought tolerant shrubs, and all existing trees on the site would remain. 'The
proposed site lighting includes 24 path lights and six down-lights for the dining area.
COUNCIL PURVIEW AND REVIEW CRITERIA
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.28.070 Additional Open Space District
Regulations, item (b)(2), requires the placement of a Site and Design Review project in the OS
district on consent calendar following a recommendation of approval by the P&TC. This process
reflects the 2009 process changes for review of Open Space development. Similarly, pursuant to
P AMC Section 18.77.060 (t), a Conditional Usc Permit may be approved by Council on consent
calendar following P&TC recommendation. The City Council may:
(l) Adopt the findings and recommendations of the Planning and Transportation
Commission: or
(2) Remove the recommendation from the consent calendar, which shall require three votes,
and:
a)
b)
Discuss the application and adopt findings and take action on the application
based upon the evidence presented at the hearing of the Planning and
Transportation Commission; or
Direct that the application be set for a new hearing before the City Council,
following which the City Council shall adopt findings and take action on the
application.
The Council's decision shall be based upon the findings of Site and Design Review Combining
District, the Open Space Development Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, and the findings for
Conditional Use Permit approvaL These items are provided in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A).
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The project was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on
September 29, 2010. A majority of the commissioners believed that a new tennis court was
preferred in the Open Space Zoning District over a new house, which would be an allowed use
on this parcel. One commissioner did not believe the tennis court would be compatible with the
Opcn Space District. The P&TC, with a votc of 6-1-0, recommended that the City Council adopt
CMR: 386:10 Page 2 of4
the Negative Declaration and approve the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to
allow the tennis court and associated improvements. The P&TC voted to incorporate additional
language in the conditions of approval to: 1) prohibit roofing or enclosing the tennis court, 2)
cJaIify that the approval of a recreational facility would be for a tennis court only, and 3) limit
the use of the tennis court use to the property owner and residents of the adjacent residences at
3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive and their guests. The Record of Land Use Action has been
amended accordingly. No members of the public spoke on this item.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Zoning Ordinance regulations
as set fOl1h in detail in the Draft Record of Land Use Action. Staff believes that the project is
supported by the findings for approval of the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Pelmit applications. The proposed tennis court is customarily associated with residential uses
and has been designed to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Criteria.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and staff
determined that no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development, and
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The
Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning September 2, 2010
through September 22,2010. No comments on the environmental document have been received
during the public review period.
PREPARED BY: E~
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTISII~LIA S
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR : 386:10 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration
Location! Aerial Map
Zoning Compliance Table
Topographic Map
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
September 29, 2010 PTC Staff Report and Minutes (without attachments)
Applicant Submiltal*
Attachment H: Plans (Council Only)
*Prepared by the applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Harvey Armstrong
Suzman and Cole
CMR: 386:10 Page 4 of4
ATTACHMENT A
ACTION NO. 201D-10
DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 3208 ALEXIS DRIVE:
SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (10PLN-00164) (SUZMAN
AND COLE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT)
On October 25, 2010, the Council of the of Palo
Alto approved the Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review
and Conditional Use Permit application for a new tennis court
and associated improvements 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. Suzman and Cole Design Associates, on behalf of
Open Space LLC, property owner, has requested the City's
approval for the construction of an, 8,897-square foot private
recreational facility, which includes a tennis court and
associated improvements on a vacant lot of approximately 1.57
acres associated with two adjacent residential lots all under
the same ownership within the Open Space Zoning District. The
recreational facility would be an accessory use to the
residential residences located at 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive.
The request ("The Project") is subject to a Conditional Use
Permit and Site and Design Review approval.
B. The site is designated on the Comprehensive plan land
use map as Single Family Residential and is located within Open
Space (OS) zoning district.
C. Following review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on
September 29, 2010, and recommended approval. The Commission's
recommendations are contained in CMR:XXX:10 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 the environment. The Negative
Declaration was made available for public review beginning
1
September 3, 2010 through September 23, 2010. The Environmental
Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are contained in CMR:
XXX:10.
SECTION 3.
1. The use
manner that will be
existing or potent
S and Design Review Findings
will be constructed and operated
orderly, harmonious, and compatible
uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
in a
with
The proposed tennis court would be located behind
the existing residences as seen from Vista Point and away from
the public street. Because the facility is proposed at a lower
grade, it would not be visible from Foothills Park or Vista
Point. The facility would be cut into the hillside to minimize
visibility from adjacent properties. A large amount of
landscaping is proposed to screen the site from offsite views.
The project utilizes natural materials, such as flagstone, in a
neutral color to blend into the surroundings.
2. The project 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 tennis court is customarily associated
wi th residential uses. Al though on a separate parcel, the
recreational facility would be to be used by residents of the
two adjacent parcels under the same ownership as the subject
parcel. The project is designed to be compatible with the
existing site and surrounding open space area. Project
construction is subject to compliance with the Uniform Building
Code and other applicable codes to ensure safety and high
quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and
ecological balance are observed in the project.
The proposed architectural and site changes are consistent with
the Site and Design Criteria adopted by the City Council.
Sustainable design features incorporated into the project
include the planting of native species, the use of water
conserving irrigation, and the use of permeable pavers. The
proj ect will not have a significant environmental impact as
indicated by the proposed Negative Declaration for this project.
The tennis court would be used during daylight hours only.
Accordingly, the only light proposed is low-level lighting for
the walking paths and the area under the pergola.
2
4. The use will be in accord wi th the Palo Al to
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy L-1 of the 1998 2010 Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to retain undeveloped
land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open
space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development
cons with the open space character of the area. The
project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located
within the City's Urban Service Area (map L 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the project site is Single Family Residential
and one residence is permitted on each of the parcels of the
project site. The proposed development's impervious coverage
is less than the maximum impervious area allowed on the
property. The project does not include development of a house,
but a recreational facility considered a residential accessory
use.
The design consistent and compatible with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan in that the design promotes Policy N-6, which
states, "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." The
proposal is subject to the Site and Design Review process,
complies with the applicable development standards and intent of
the Open space zone district, including the Open Space Criteria
therein derived from policies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan.
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 sited so it is hidden from
view.
The proposed recreational facility would be located down--slope
behind the owner's two existing residences. Because the
facility is located behind and is at a lower grade than the
residences that are vi from Foothills Park, it would not be
visible from Foothills Park or Vista Point. The facility would
be cut into the hillside to minimize visibility from adjacent
properties. The recreational facility is located at towards the
rear and away from any public street. A large amount of
landscaping is proposed to screen the site.
3
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and
designed to not extend above the nearest ridgeline.
The proposed facility would not be located at the top of the
hill and would not extend above the ridgeline. The facility
is proposed to be cut into the hillside to minimize
visibility. The retaining walls would be located as close to
the northern edge of the site to bring the area to be
developed as far downhill as possible.
3. Site and structure design should take into consideration
impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties.
The proposed recreational facility is sited to minimize views
from adjacent properties. It would be located outside of
setbacks, built into the hillside and away from the ridgeline
to reduce massing. The applicant is also proposing to plant a
substantial amount of landscaping to provide additional
screening, including over twenty large specimen trees. The
tennis court is designed to be used during daylight hours
only. As such, only path lighting and down-lights below the
arbor area are proposed.
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.
The new facility would be located
residences. The new development would be
tennis court. No new access roads
preserving natural habitats.
near the existing
clustered around the
are proposed, thus
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 retaining walls would follow the existing contours, to
minimize retaining wall heights, and to fit in better with the
existing topography. The facility would be built into the
hillside, reducing the massing. The native and/or drought
tolerant trees and shrubs to be planted have been specifically
chosen and placed to provide screening, but also to maintain
the natural look of the open space.
6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches,
measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be
preserved and integrated into the design.
4
The proposal includes the protection and retention of all
existing trees on site.
7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical
stability and to enable 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.
The grading for the project would consist of 75% cut to 25%
fill to help minimize the visual impact to neighboring
properties. The project includes 1,784 cubic yards of cut and
661 cubic yards of fill. The majority of graded soil, 1,123
cubic yards, would be taken offsite. The remaining fill would
not be placed at the drip-lines of any existing or planned
trees.
8. To reduce the need for cut
potential runoff, large flat
surfaces should be avoided.
and 11
expanses
and
of
to reduce
impervious
The facility is sited towards the middle the site to avoid
adding to the footprint of the two adj acent homes. The
recreational facility was cut into the hillside and designed so
runoff would be minimized through the use of a slow release
system to reduce the amount of runoff.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or
subdued colors.
The material for all walls is limestone in a beige tone.
Flagstone is proposed for the sitting areas. Both materials are
of earth-tone colors. Given the configuration, the retaining
walls would be the most visible element from offsite. The walls
would also be covered with vines to soften the construction and
allow it to blend better with the surroundings.
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 no
objections. The applicant is proposing primarily native
species, with a few adaptive and drought tolerant plants. A
condition of approval included to require the use of fire
retardant plants.
5
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensi ty and shielded
from view so it is not directly visible from off-site.
All lighting would be low voltage and kept to a minimum.
Safety lights are proposed along the paths. Down-lights are
proposed for beneath the arbor. The tennis court would only
be illuminated for safety as no nighttime use is proposed.
The project will be conditioned such that the lights will be
low intensity and directed downward to avoid any impact upon
surrounding property and open space lands.
Criterion 12 and 13 do not apply to the project as no new roads
are proposed and the development is not within an unincorporated
area.
SECTION 4. Site and Design Review Approval Granted.
Site and Design Review Approval is granted by the City Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G) .070 for
application 10PLN-00164, subject to the conditions of approval
in Section 8 of the Record.
SECTION 5. Conditional Use Permit Findings.
1. 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 was designed to minimize visibility from offsite
locations, especially from Foothills Park and Vista Point. The
tennis court would be located behind the two residential
buildings and is located at a lower point. Because the tennis
court sits below the residential buildings, it will not be
visible from Foothills Park. The grading would reduce
visibility of the court from adjacent lots. A substantial
amount of landscaping, including 29 new trees, would provide
additional screening. The private tennis court, for use by the
property owners and their guests, is a typical accessory use for
larger residential lots and would not introduce any noise
impacts not customarily associated with larger residential
properties. Thus, the proposed use will not be detrimental to
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
2. 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 proposed tennis court will be located and conducted in a
manner consistent with both the Comprehensive plan and the
Zoning Ordinance. The tennis court would be located outside of
6
all property setbacks and the project would not exceed the
maximum amount of impervious surface allowed on the parcel,
consistent with the development standards for properties located
in the Open Space Zoning District. The proj ect also compl s
with the Open Space Criteria and Comprehensive Plan Polic
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the
project site is Single Family Residential and one residence is
permit ted on each of the parcels of the proj ect site. The
project is a low intensity use customarily associated as an
accessory use to a primary residential use. The project does
not include development of a house as a primary use. A private
recreat use without a primary residential use is
conditionally allowed. The proposed tennis court would function
as an accessory use to the residences on the adjacent lots under
the same ownership.
SECTION 6. Conditional Use Permit Approval Granted.
s granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.77.060 for application 10PLN-00164,
subject to the conditions of approval in Section 8 of the
Record.
====_7,-. P~<l.n Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Modulus
entitled "Open Space LLC Tennis Court", consisting of 13 pages,
dated May '6, 2010, and received September 20, 2010, except as
modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section
Six. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of
Planning and Community Environment. The conditions of approval
in Section 6 shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted with the Building Permit application.
SECTION 8.
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be
in substantial conformance with plans received on September 20,
2010, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions
of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project
by the Planning Commission or City Council. The following
conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of
the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application.
7
2. The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings.
3.
dayl ight hours
property owners
their guests).
allowed and the
The recreational facility shall be used during
only as a tennis court for private use by the
and residents of 3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive (and
Lighting to facilitate nighttime play is not
court shall remain unroofed and unenclosed.
4. The transformer shall be placed inside the
enclosed storage area located beneath the facility.
5. All activities and any mechanical equipment
associated with the facility shall comply with the City of Palo
Al to Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code.
6. The conditions of approval for 07PLN-00362 and
09PLN-0088 are still applicable as appropriate, including the
requirement for landscape monitoring.
7. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on
the final construction drawings and shall be subj ect 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.
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 Native 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. The grading plan shall be reviewed by Public
Works Engineering and include provision of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPS). Grading and base course
material for the driveway and turnaround shall be applied
above the tree roots of adjacent trees.
10. Prior to the submittal of Building Permit
application, the applicants shall submit a proposal for semi
pervious terrace areas in detailed plans showing exactly which
8
of the semi-pervious areas will be permeable and which of the
semi-pervious areas will be impervious, such that 50% of the
area will be permeable. No area represented as permeable
paving in project plans dated May 6, 2010 shall be converted
to impervious paving unless an equal are of impervious paving
is converted to permeable paving, subject to the approval by
the Director of Planning.
11. All measures identified by the Fire Department
to address fire hazards on this site must be incorporated into
the design. Tree Appraisal. In addition to the Tree Survey
Report, the applicant shall submit a tree valuation for all
trees to be retained and protected, as indicated on the final
approval set of plans. The valuation shall be consistent the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.40 (each tree listed
separately and formula used) .
12. Tree Disposition Plan and Site Plans. A
certified arborist in conjunction with civil engineer shall
develop a Tree Disposition Plan. Show property lines and
delineate city right-of-way, all utilities, easements,
structures and hardscape features. The Plan shall include all
trees with the inventory number corresponding to the Tree
Survey. Include tree related information as required in the
submittal checklist, tree disclosure statement and City Tree
Technical Manual (TTM) , Section 6.20 and 6.35. Clearly
indicate trees to be preserved and proposed for removal.
The Tree Disposition Plan shall denote Type
I fencing around trees to be protected as a bold dashed
line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detail
#605, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section
6.35-Site Plans.
13. All civil plan sheets shall include a note
applying to the trees to be protected,
including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before
working in this area contact the Project Arborist at (650-
---------) "
14. All provisions and recommendations contained in
the Tree Survey 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.
15. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted
to and approved by the Planning Division. Landscape and
irrigation plans shall include:
9
a) All existing trees identified to be retained.
b) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size, and locations. Drought tolerant and native
plant material compatible with the open space district
shall be specified. The Plant list and Procedures for
Landscaping under Native Oaks, Tree Technical Manual,
Appendix L, shall be consulted.
c) Irrigation schedule and plan.
d) Fence locations.
e) Lighting plan with photometric data.
f) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
g) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details
for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches
deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with
2 -inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball
keeping clear of the trunk by I-inch.
h) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all new trees.
The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate
valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to
the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation
in the right-of-way requires a street work permit CPA
Public Works standards of a building permit.
15. Any revision to the plans which may fect 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 enclosures shall be
erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary
functions, 1) to keep the foliage 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. Fenced enclosures shall be erected around trees
to be protected to achieve three primary functions, 1) to keep
the foliage 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.
18. Tree fencing shall be erected before
demolition; grading or construction begins and remain in place
10
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.
19. 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 Practices (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in
the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Tree Preservation Report
(TPR) .
20. A Tree Preservation Report for trees to be
retained shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist and
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist.
The TPR shall be consistent with the City Tree Technical
Manual, Section 2.00. All specific recommendations from the
approved plan shall be implemented and maintained throughout
construction. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree to be
retained in which no soil disturbance is permitted shall be
established and be clearly designated on all improvement plans
as a bold dashed line, including grading, utility and
irrigation, and show that no conflict occurs with the trees.
The TPR shall specify, but not be limited to, monthly arborist
inspections, pruning, protective fencing, grading limitations
and any other measures necessary to insure survival of the
trees. Key elements of this plan shall be printed on a Tree
Protection Instructions sheet with the Project Arborist
contact number.
21. Because of the importance of visual screening
represented by the on site trees proposed with this project,
the property owner shall ensure the survival of the tree
plantings for a period of five years. The owner shall install
11
any necessary replacement trees and monitor their survival. A
certified arborist shall prepare a at the end of five
years documenting the condition of the trees and said report
shall be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Community
Environment. Any subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated
to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and
species stated on the approved building permit plans.
22. SUDDEN OAK DEATH (Best Management Practices).
To deter the potential spread of sudden oak death disease in
Palo Alto, the City requires that:
a. All contractor activit and delivery vehicles
perform the work according to the county quarantine
restrictions in the attached Sudden Oak Death Best
Management Practices. Violation is subject to penalty
and/or prosecution.
http://www.citY9 f paloalto.org/environment/default.asp
b. The tree protection report and project site arborist
shall determine (a) whether or not it is feasible to
remove any bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)
within 10-feet of any oak (Quercus sp) and, (b) to
evaluate with the land owner the benefits of proactive
Agrifos treatments on oaks to prevent SOD infection.
23. Project te Arborist Inspection. The
contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project
Arborist. A final inspection and report by the project
arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and
protected, as indicated in the approved plans, the activity,
health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and
for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The
report shall provide written verification to the Planning
Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are
installed and functioning as specified in the approved
The final arborist report shall be provided to the Planning
Department prior to written request for temporary or f
occupancy. The final report will be used to navigate the
security guarantee return process.
24. Soil Disturbance. Plans submitted for building
permit shall include a detailed landscape plan for both the
disturbed areas of the site and the construction and access
areas. The landscape plan shall specify all disturbed or
compacted soil areas prepared and seeded using Palo Alto
Hydroseeding Specification for the Los Trancos Watershed Area.
25. The staging, storage and parking area shall be
crosshatched in a designated section in the open hill de area
and not in the dripline of any tree.
12
26. 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.
•
•
All trucks hauling soil, sand,
be covered or shall retain
freeboard.
and loose materials shall
at least two feet of
All paved access roads,
at the construction
daily.
parking areas, and staging areas
shall be swept and watered
• Streets shall be swept daily if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
27. Construction activities shall comply 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) to reduce construction-related noise
impacts to less than significant levels.
28. During construction, the site shall be kept
clear of debris on a daily basis.
29. If during grading and construction activities,
any archeological or human remains are encountered, construction
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the te
to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's
office shall be noti to provide proper direction on how to
proceed. If any Native 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 and make further recommendations and be
involved in on planning.
30. Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not
restrict wildli movement through the project site. Planning
Staff shall review and approve the proposed perimeter fence
design prior to building permit issuance.
31. The property owner shall record, in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, a property use agreement for
the third parcel requiring, prior to the sale of that parcel,
removal of the recreational facility and either reconfiguration
or legal permission, such as an easement, for the portion of the
driveway located on the third parcel.
13
32. Upon submittal of an application for a building
permit, the project is required to comply with both the City's
Construction & Demolition (C&D) Diversion Program (PAMC 5.24)
and Green Building Program (PAMC 18.44 Tables A & B). More
information and the application can be found
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/green building/default
.asp and all questions concerning the City's Green Building
Standards should be directed to Kristin Parineh at (650) 329-
2189.
Fire Department
33. This project is located in the High Hazard Fire
Area. The construction is to comply with the 2007 CA Building
Code Chapter
Public Works Engineering
34. GRADING & DRAINAGE PERMIT: A Grading and
Excavation Permit from the Public Works at the Development
Center is required before a building permit can be issued if
more than 100 cubic yards of soil is to be cut, filled and/or
stored. Provide cut and fill soil quantities in the plans.
Refer to Public Works' website for "Excavation and Grading
Permit Instructions". Due to the sensitive nature of this
project, no grading work shall take place from October 1 to
April 15 (or before the rainy season ends, as determined by
the City Engineer) . SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this
project, the applicant must replace those portions of the
existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in
the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property
that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard,
and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip.
Contact Public Works' inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a
site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of
replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work
or include a note that Public Works' inspector has determined
no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the
right-of-way must be done per Public Works' standards by a
licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit
from Public Works at the Development Center.
35. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to
replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public
right-of-way along the property's frontage. Call Public
Works' arborist at 650-496-6905 to arrange a site visit so he
can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required
for this project. The site plan submitted with the building
permit plan set must show the street tree work that the
14
arborist has determined, including the tree species, size,
location, staking and irrigation requirements. The plan must
note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must
first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public
Right-of-Way from Public Works' arborist.
36. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must
include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed
professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations
and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the
site. The plan must show subgrade drainage systems and how the
drainage will work within the site. Grading will not be allowed
that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from,
neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow
rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter.
37. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's
full-sized "pollution Prevention -It's Part of the plan" sheet
must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from
Public Works at the Development Center or on our website.
38. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: If the project will
create or replace 500 square feet or more of impervious surface,
the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and
proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit
application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land
Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on our website.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be
of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.82.080.
SECTION 10. Indemnity Clause.
To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its
officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from
and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third
party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to
attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized
hereby for the Project, including (without limitation)
reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs
incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its
15
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 Suzman and Cole Design Associates,
titled "Open Space LLC Tennis Court", consisting of 13 pages,
dated May 6, 2010, and received on September 20, 2010.
16
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5 th Floor
Palo Alto, C~ 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX 1650) 329-2104
~NW,cityofpaloalto,org
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Ccd 21000 ) th ttl f ll' . t'lI h "fi f~ h . e , , et sec. a le 0 owmg prolec WI not a ve a slgm leant e ect on t e envlronment.
FiI~'N!lIlll:ier .. ITAz. . APN(s) ., I Dale'. ",1 '. ,
IOPLN-OOI64 I 184-054-008 109-02-10
PiQi!!Ct Nallle .. , ,ProJ~C£ T~pe '., .'
Open Space, llC Site and Design Review/Conditional Use Permit
"OwU'er ' , . ' , APplicant " .,., " . ' ".
Open Space llC Suzman and Cole Design Associates
Projecf Locatio,li ,
,
, '
3208 Alexis Dr. Palo Alto, CA
PrOject Description . ' .. ' " ,' ...
.. Request for a Site and Deslgn ReView and Condlttonal Use PerIllit to allow a new 8,897 sq. ft.
I recreational facility (tennis court) and related improvements associated with an existing residence in
I the Open Space 7.onmg District located at 3208 Alexis Drive. Zone District: OS
Purpose of Notice
, Notice is hereby given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto Department of
, Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B. 866, this
i
document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period.
! I'nbUcRevlewPeno!l: I Begins:Septeirlher. 3;2010,··· I Ends: Septenlber23,201 O.
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are
invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
en vironmental concems. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral comments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional infomJation on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
I
this project and the Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196
The ,l'r:litigated' NegaUve ,Declaration and Initial Study' may b~ viewed, at the fQllowhiglocations: •
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Responsiblc Agencies sent' a copy of this documcnt ,
..
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
I
I
I
Prepared by: U--' ----
Approved by:
.. -_ ....... _----_ .... --_ .
2:; 11'0
Date
1fr/Lo
Date
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Site and Design Review and ConditionallJse Permit to allow
a new 8,897 sq. ft. recreational facility (tennis court) and related improvements associated with an
existing residence in the Open Space Zoning District located at 3208 Alexis Drive. Zone District: OS
1. PROJECT TITLE
Open Space, LLC
3208 Alexis Dr.
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Deprutment of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON A:r-.'D PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
Dustin Moore
Suzman and Cole Design Associates
1265 Battery Street, 5th floor
San Francisco, CA, 94111
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
IOPLN-00164
6. PROJECT LOCATION
3208 Alexis Drive
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 182-54-008
The project site is located in the southwest section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern prut
of Santa Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and of State Route 82 (EI Camino Real), as
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN·00164 Page 1 Negative Declaration
shown on Figure 1, Regional Map. The project site is located at the terminus of Alexis Drive in
the Palo Alto Foothills. The improvements are proposed for one of three parcels that make up
this site and down slope from the existing two residences, which are under the same ownership.
The propelty is located adjacent to Foothills Park and near Arastradero Creek. The adjoining
properties to the north, south, east and west are open space parkland owned by the City, as
shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 " 2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation allows one main dwelling unit on each lot, as
well as conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be
zoned to allow second units or duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood
character and not create traffic and parking problems.
8. ZONING
The subject site is zoned OS (Open Space) [regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC)
Chapters 18.28]. The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and
procedures established by other relevant chapters of the Zoning Code shall apply to the OS Open
Space. The project, a private recreational use accessory to a residence, is pelmilted as a
condilionaluse in this zone district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal is for a Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approval of a private
recreational use (tennis COUlt) on a vacant parcel of a three-parcel single family residential
property under the same ownership. The modifications include additional landscaping for
screening, an outdoor dining area with counter and sink, an approximately 150 sq. ft. storage
area built into the hillside under the tennis court and retaining walls. No changes are [lroposed to
the existing residential buildings. The project includes substantial landscaping changes that will
involve grading approximately 2,445 cubic yards of dirt, which includes 2,784 cubic yards of cut
and 661 cubic yards of fill, to create a flat surface for the tennis court. No trees are proposed to
be removed as part of this project. Approximately 26 new trees would be planted to provide
screening.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The project site is bounded by Alexis Drive to the east and sun'ounded by City owned Foothills
Park to the nOlth, south and east. The closest single-family residences are located to the north
along Alexis Drive.
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
3208 Alexis Drive/l0PLN-00164 Page 2 Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUA TlON 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 adequately supported if the referenced information sources show
that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone), A "No Impact" answer should 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 pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of tbe 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" entlies when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation IncOlporated" applies
where the incOlporation 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 tieling, 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 foJlowing:
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
IncOlporated," 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.
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 3 Negative Declaration
I
7) SUPPOlting Information 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 checklist lists the 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 Signincant Slgnlllcant Signillcant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Subslantially degrade the existing visual X
character or qualily of the site and ils
surroundings?
1,2,3,5,
8 I --b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X
public view or view corridor? 1,2,3,5,
8
0) Substantially damage scenic resources.
ineluding, but not limited to, trees, rock 1. 2. 3.5, X
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 8
a slate scenic highway? ....... _ .. _ .. _ .. _ ... _ .... _ ... _ ...
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan I, 2. 6, 12 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area'?
1~2,3.5.
8
f) Substantially shadow public open space L 2, 3, 5. X
(other than publie streets and adjacent 8
sidewalks) between 9;00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is subject to the Site and Design Review Process to ensure compliance with the
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan policies and to allow public review. The
recreational facility is also a conditional use subject to the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure that
the project would not negatively impact the subject site, the immediate area or the City. The project
consists of a new tennis COUlt. landscaping for screening purposes, retaining walls, a small storage
3208 Alexis Drive110PLN-00164 Page 4 Negative Declaration
I
facility built into tbe billside, and a trellis. The majority of the site is developed with two single family
residences and no additional buildings are proposed. The existing residences are located on a high point
of the property and are visible from Vista Point in Foothills Park. However, the proposed recreational
facility is located down slope of the residences and would not be visible from Foot Hills Park. The
applicant is proposing to utilize primarily native tree species to provide substantial scrcening around the
new facility. The applicant is proposing to cut morc than fill to minimize appearance of the tcnnis court.
The retaining walls would consist of limestone and vine plantings to blend better into the hillside and to
soften the appearance. All other materials, including the trellis, have been designed to blend with the
sUiToundings. The project is not located in or near any scenic highways.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
aj Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,2,5
Monitoring Program of the California X
Resource~ .. Jl.gency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,5
c)
use. or a Williamson Act contract? X ... ~~----
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1,2,5 X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Fatmland", or "Farmland of Statewide
Importance" area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by
the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
3208 Alexis Driven OPLN-00164 Page 5 Negative Declaration
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signilieant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with Or obstruct with implementation , X
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,5,9
I Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)? I
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,5,9
quality violation i.ndicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational 1,2,5,9 X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 punds per day
andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (RaG), and
fine particulate maUer of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM w);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,2,5 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 cmissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (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 net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an X
applicable federal or slale ambient air qualilY 1,2,5
standani (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,5 X
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,2,5
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) X
exceeds jOin one million
ii, Ground-level concentrations of non-1,2,5
carcinogcnic TACs would result in a X
hazard index greater than one (I) for the
MEl
. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people? 1,2,5
~ l'<9tilIlplelllent all applicable construction 1,2,5 X
3208 Alexis Drive/1 OPLN-Q0164 Page 6 Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sonrces Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The subject project will not generate more vehicle tdps because no additional buildings or any
substantial additions are proposed. The project site is not located in an area that contains uses or
activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact
on air quality. The project may result in temporary dust emissions due to construction activity. 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 would involve demolition, excavating, grading. and paving activities
which could cause localized dust related impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PM IO).
Dust related impacts are eonsidered potentially significant but may be mitigated 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 pedod of time. Based on the size of the
proposed project. emissions of NO, and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant.
The project would be subject to the following City's standard conditions of approval:
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.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose matetials 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.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debtls before the issuance of a
demolition permit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is can'ied onto adjacent public streets.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN·00164 Pagel Negative Declaration
D BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Polentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Wonld the project: Issues Unless Impact
I Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either
directly or through habitat modifications. on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1.2-X
plans. policies, or regulations, or by the MapNI,5,
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any :
riparian habitat Of other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans. 1,2-X
i policies. regulations, including federally MapNI,5, I ,ro~.d wo""'" • Mmm " ''''roo '" of Ihe Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to. marsh. vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling. hydrological
interruption, or other means?
: cJ Interfere substantially with the movement of
I any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
I. X : species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the lise 2-MapNI •
-.... 9.Lnati ve wHdl!fe nursery sites? 5,
-
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
i protecting biological resources, such as a tree X
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3,5,
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance 7,8,9
(Municipal Code Section 8.1O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community X
Conservation Plan, or other approved local. 1,2,5,7,8.
regional, or state habitat conservationplan? 9
DISCUSSION:
The project would not impact biological resources. No trees are proposed for removal. The applicant is
proposing to plant 26 new native specie trees to provide additional screening, In the immediate vicinity
of the project, there are no tiparian 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 becn identified at
this site. Tree preservation guidelines will be incorporated into the conditions of approval stich 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 requiring protection of trees. the
project would result in a Jess than significant impact to biological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
3208 Alexis Drive/1 OPLN-00164 Page 8 Negative Declaration
:
,
E CULTURAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significan t Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
aj Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural I
resource that is recognized by City Council X
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2-X
pursuant to 15064.5'1 MapL8
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
I
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2-X
geologic feature? MapL8
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapLS
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
f)
a)
eligible for listing on the National andlor X
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2-
Historic Inventory? MapL7
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2
of California history or prehistory? X
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone.
Most of the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. A standard condition of approval
would require Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) be prepared by a qualified
archaeologist if any archaeological or human remains are encountered during grading or construction
activities. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office would be notified to provide proper
direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction would cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission of the State of Califomia, is able to evaluate the site and make further
recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
F. GEOl,OGY, SOILS AND SEISl\;flCITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentlany Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of See below
L-.. loss, injury, or death involving:
3208 Alexis Drive/l0PLN-00164 Page 9 Negative Declaration
, i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most reeent Alquist-X
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area 2-MapN-
or based on other substantial evidence of a 5,5,
known fault? Refer to Di vision of Mines
and Geolog)' Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-MapN-
10,5 X
iii) Seismic· related ground failure, including
liquefaction? 2-MapN5. X
5,
iv) Landslides? 2-MapN5,
5 X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? 1,2,5 X
"-
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,2,5 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
! result of the project, and potentially result in
on· or off-site landslide, lateral spreading. 2-MapN5. X
subsidence, liquefaction.or collapse'? 5
i
! e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or 2-MapN5, X
property? 5
f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not 1,5,
available for t~e disposal of was,te water? X .... ,-
g) Expose people or property to major geologic
hazards that cannot be mitigated through the l. 4, 5, X
use of standard engineering design and seismic
safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive Plan the
project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or
in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
Development of the proposed project would be required to confonn to all requirements in the Uniform
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 hazard~ will therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is
required.
The Public Works Department has found the proposed grading plan consistent with City requirements.
Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the project for
approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building pennit. The application of
standard grading. drainage, and erosion control measures as a pan of the approved grading and drainage
plan is expected to avoid any grading-related impacts.
3208 Alexis Drivell0PLN-00164 Page 10 Negative Declaration
The projeet will not involve the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
G HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS . -
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No~
Significant Significant Significant Impact
I
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
aj Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport. use, X
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5 -_.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable X
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the 1,5
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances. or X
waste within one~quarter mile of an existing or 1,5
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject
to hazards from hazardous materials X
contamination, emissions or accidental release? ,
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant X
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a I, 2-
result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9,
the public or the environment? 5
• e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or X
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1,2
the project area?
I) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the 1,2 X
project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2· X
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7 I
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk X
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are 2·MapN7
intermixed with wildlands?
i) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment from existing hazardous materials 1,6 X
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the she to contamination in excess of
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 11 Negative Declaration
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed projeet will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emISSIOn of
hazardous materials. The projeet site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection
Agency or the Califomia 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
emergeney response or evacuation. The project site is located in a designated fire hazard area and the
proposal has been reviewed by the Fire Department. The previous project was designed to incorporate
all feasible fire prevention design features for the two existing buildings. A standard condition of
approval will be included requiring that the project comply with the 2007 California Building Code
Chapter 7 A to address fire prevention in a hazard area.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
H HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .
Issnes and Supporting Information Resources Sources PotentiaDy Potentially Less Tban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
! a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,2,5 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 2-MapN2
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing laud
uses or planned uses for which permits have X
been ll,ranted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern X
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
erosion or siltation Ofl-or off-site? 1,2
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including 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 1,2,5 X
in flooding on-or off-site?
eJ Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwaler drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,5, X
runoff?
f) Other",isesubstantially degrade waterqualil)'?m 1,2 X
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 12 Negative Declaration
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped On a federal Flood Hazard 1,2,5
Boundary Or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? X
, h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede Or redirect 2-MapN6 X
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve noodmg, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 2-MapN6
levee or dam or being located within a 100-year N8
firxxl hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudtlow? 2-MapN6, X
N8
k) Result in stream bank instability? 2-MapN6, X
a)
N8
DISCUSSION:
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater recharge, and will not deplete groundwater
supplies. The project site is not located in a lOO-year flood hazard area and would not impede or redirect
flood flows. The project site is not in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. With the
City's required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant The
majority of the site will remain permeable, The project will create a de minimum contribution because
the site is already developed with two buildings and the project. The new third parcel will only be
minimally changed with the addition of a new driveway with permeable pavers, perimeter trail and spa.
The environmental conditions will essentially be the same whether or not the project is implemented.
The standard conditions of the project approval require that a grading and drainage plan be submitted
which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties, and an erosion control plan.
The contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water
pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
I LAND USE AND PLANNING .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Polentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
MitIgation
Incorporated
Physically divide an established community'? 1,2 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan.
policy. or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including. but not X
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,3,5
environmental effect?
3208 Alexis Drive/1QPLN-00164 Page 13 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issnes Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
0) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1,2 X
conservation plan?
d) SubstantiaHy adversely change the type or 1,2,5
intensity of existing or planned land use in the X
area?
eJ Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,5
! the general character of the surrounding area, X
including density and building height?
-~-------f) Contlict with established residential, 1,2,5
recreational. educational, religious, or scientific X
uses .of an area'!
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2,5
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to X
non~agricultural use'!
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is for a ptivate recreational facility on a vacant parcel under the same ownership as
the two adjacent parcels developed with one primary residence and one guest house. Recreational uses
in the Open Space Zoning district may be allowed as primary use via a conditional use permit. The
Policy L-J of the 1998·20 I 0 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to retain undeveloped
land west of the Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low
intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. The project, consisting of
one recreational facility associated with an adjacent residential use, is consistent with this policy. The
project site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located within the City's Urban Service Area (map L-2
of the Comprehensive Plan). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site
is Single Family Residential and one residence is permitted on each of the parcels of the project site.
The project's impervious coverage is less than the maximum impervious area allowed on the vacant
parcel. The applicant is not proposing to place a house on the parcel, but a private recreational facility
for the use of residents of adjoining homes under the same ownership
The proposed architectural and site changes comply with the Site and Design development regulations
and conform to the intent of the Open Space zone district. The design is consistent and compatible with
applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the design promotes the following
policies for development in the Open Space, including: Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site
and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations (P AMC 18.28), minimize impacts of
any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of
the hillsides. The applicant proposes grading that utilizes more cut than fill and materials that blend
with the adjacent buildings and hillside. ft is located behind the existing residences and on the down
slope of the property, so that the new facility would not be visible from Foothills Park. The view of the
facility as proposed from down slope would be interrupted by vegetation proposed with this project and
limited because it will be cut into the hillside. No lights are proposed for the tennis court. The project
will comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources as mitigated, and would not impact
farmland.
3208 Alexis Drive/1 OPLN·00164 Page 14 Negative Deolaration
!
Mitigation Measures:
None.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
In~()rporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locaUy-
important mineraJ resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 X
or other land 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 Resource Zone I (MRZ-I). 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.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
K NOISE .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
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 the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,2,5
ap~licable.standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to Of generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,2,5)
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,2,5
existing without .. t~.e .. project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
abov~..Ievels existing without the project? 1,2,5
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,2
excessive noise levels?
-----
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 15 Negative Declaration
i
!
--Issues and Supporting Infonnalion Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project expose people I
residing or working in the project area to 1.2
excessive noise levels?
I g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,2,5 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB'!
hl Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,2,5 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the aJ'ea to exceed 60 dB'1
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,2,5 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
J)
currentl,)' exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,2,5 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,2,5 X
! 1)
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater'?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,2,5 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by to dBA or more?
DISCUSSION:
Grading and new construction may result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical
noise sources would include mecbanical equipment associated with demolition, excavation, grading and
noise of construction in the building. Such noise will be short tenn in duration. The City's standard
conditions of approval limit the bours of construction and require tbat the applicant comply with the
requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, Once completed, long-term noise
associated with the revised project would he from recreational activities on the tennis court and would
be within acceptable noise limits typically associated with residential uses. The proposed tennis court is
an accessory use that is associated with an existing residence. Therefore. no noise impacts are
anticipated. The project site is not located within an airpOlt land use plan or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 16 Negative Declaration
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing X
new homcs and businesses) or indircctly (for 1,2,5
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? 1,5
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere? 1,5
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,2 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,2
population projections? X
DISCUSSION:
The project is for a recreational facility for an existing residential property. No additional population or
housing impacts are anticipated because no additional buildings are proposed.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
M PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1,2 X
Fire protection?
1,2 X
Police protection?
1,2 X
Schools?
1,2 X
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 17 Negative Declaration
Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
i Mitigation
Incorporated
Parks?
!,2 X
Olher public
DISCUSSION:
The site is presently served by the Palo Alto Fire Department. The proposed changes will not impact
presenl Fire Dislricl service 10 the site or area. The project would, as a condition of approval, be
required to comply with all Fire Department requirements for fire safety.
Police
The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The proposed changes
will not result in the need for additional police officers, equipment or facilities.
Schools
No direct demand for school services would result from the project, as the proposal does not generate an
increase in population and residents to Palo Alto
Parks
No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project, as the proposal does not generate
an increase in population and residents to Palo Alto.
Other Public Facilities
The project will not result in impacts to other governmental agencies because the project is small in size.
Mitigation Measures:
None
N RECREATION .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Uuless Impact
Mitigation
Iucorporated
a) WouJd the project increase the use of'
existing neighborhood and regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1,5
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which X
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1,5
environment? i i
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN·00164 Page 18 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is for a recreational facility for two existing residences under the same ownership.
Therefore, it would not have any significant impact on existing parks, nor include or require
construction of additional recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic X
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 1,5
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the X
county congestion management agency for 1,5
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels X
or a change in location that results in 1,5
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,5
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,2
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,2,5 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternati ve X
transportation (e.g., pedestrian. transit & 1,2,5
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,2,5
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) X
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V /C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1,2,5
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average X
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 19 Negative Declaration
!
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially l.ess Than No Impact
Siguificant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
j) Cause a regional interseetion to deteriorate 1,2,5
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,2,5
or contribute traffic in excess of I % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
I) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,2,5
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,2,5
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are I not limited to, spillback queues at project .
access locations; queues at turn fanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,2,5
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,2,5
resu1t of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,5 I
DISCUSSION:
The project is proposing only a private recreational facility, which is customarily associated with a
residence; in this case, the home(s) are on adjoining properties. No traffic impacts will result in the
project.
Mitigation Measures:
None.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially I Potentially I Less Than I No Impact
Signillcant Signillcant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater trealment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? 1,2 X
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 20 Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Miligntion
Incorporated
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. the X
construction of which could cause significant 1,2
environmental effects?
c) Require or resuil in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, tbe construction of X
which could cause significant environmental 1,2
effects?
• d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources. or are new or expanded 1,2 X
entitlements needed?
eJ Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves Or may
serve the project that it has inadequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing I
commitments? .. _-
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid wasle disposal needs? 1 X ..
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? I
X
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration I
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the I'roject? X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is for a recreation facility for an existing residence on adjacent property and would
not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a
wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation Measures:
None
3208 Alexis Drivel1 OPLN·00164 Page 21 Negative Declaration
!
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
aJ Does tbe project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, X
substantially reduce the babitat of a fisb Or
wildlife species, cause a fish Or wildlife
population 10 drop below self-sustaining 1,2-Map
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant Or animal LA,5
community; reduce tbe number or restrict the
range of a rare Or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, 1,2,5
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings! either directly or 1,5,
! indirect! y?
DISCUSSION:
The project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or histoIic
resources. The uses are approptiate for the site and the development would not result in an adverse
visual impact. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements
that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is cuncntly designated as a nonattainment area for
state and national ozone standards and national palticulate matter ambient air quality standards.
SFBAAB's nonattainment status is attributed to the region's development history. Past, present and
future development projects contribute to the region's adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis.
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to,
by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual
emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project's
contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. then the project's impact on air quality would be
considered significant.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) approach to developing a Threshold of
Significance for Green House Gas (GHG) emissions is to identify the emissions level for which a project
would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce
statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization, If a project would generate
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 22 Negative Declaration
GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a
cumulati ve impact, and would be considered significant.
The Tbresholds of Significance for operational-related GHG emissions are:
• For land use development projeets, the threshold is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction
Strategy: or annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e; or 4.6 MT
C02e/SP/yr (residents + employees). Land use development projects include residential, commercial,
industrial, and public land uses and facilities .
• For stationary-source projects, the threshold is 10,000 meltic tons per year (MT/yr) of C02e.
Stationary-source projects include land uses that would accommodate processes and equipment that emit
GHG emissions and would require an Air District permit to operate. If annual emissions of operational
related GHGs exceed these levels, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
The proposed project would not create any new operational GHG emissions. The tennis court facility is
accessory to the primary existing residential use and will be used by the homeowners in a non
commercial capacity. The projeet will not create any additional vehicle trips beyond what already
occurs. During the construction there will a temporary increase in emissions, this discussion is provided
in the Air Quality section of this report.
Mitigation Measures:
None
SOURCE REFERENCES
L Projeet Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed projeet
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (tmC) Standards for Seismic Safety and
Windload
5. Project Plans, Suzman & Cole Design Associates, received May 6, 2010
6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
7. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
8. Evaluation of Trees at 3230 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto, Banie Coate & Associates, received January 8,
2008
9. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, 2009.
PREPARED BY
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN-00164 Page 23 Negative Declaration
DETERMINA TION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
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 MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a ''potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, 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, hut 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.
Elena Lee (:j--
Project Planner
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
3208 Alexis Drive/10PLN'00164 Page 24
September 2, 2010
Date
Date
Negative Declaration
x
The City ()(
Palo Alto
.lee~. 2010'()9-O2 13lO 1~
(\\t>:.m"F"'Io'~d"'inIP6'''''''''!I!'",I"IIWr.J "'~~)
11
I I I I '----'
7·~~ j'v
r-~---~-------~-----------r ___ ~\ "
1. ,~
ATTACHMENT C
3208 Alexis Drive
Figure 2
•
.-.-. -ecce::::
------
-.---.-... _. -~-. ~.--
This map IS a product of tho
City of Palo Ano GIS
---"
ru, ~Jl\t,,\ ~ ~ gmpl-oit; '",,'.~"<l\alioo ~1Ii"I 01 00.1 3Vl1"bIo "'~'OQ'
1'110 Ott Q( V_I<) NIt> MWrMt rK> r~fijl/>Il,ffiiiili 1~' ~"~ 0111>1. to 1 IIIW'~ 20 m Ci\~ GI "'.., Al\o
ATTACHMENT 0
Zoning Code Compliance Table
Zoning Code 3208 Alexis
Standard total site Proposed Conformance
3,5 % ofIO
acres (Each
Impervious area in square site allowed 11,421 sq, ft,
feet allowed for entire site* 15,246*) total Conforms
Conforms per 1978
Size of site*'" 10 acres* 1.57 acres, Agreement
front -30 feet more than 30'
side -30 feet more than 30'
Standard setbacks**** rear -30 feet more than 30' Conforms
*Total impervious acreage based upon 10 acres, Ten acres x 43,560 sq,ftJacre x 3,5% =
15,246,
** Although the O-S District requires a minimum of 10 acres for development of a
residential unit, the project site is exempt from the requirement as a result of the 1978
Settlement Agreement allowing for Tract 6723 to have nine lots on 25 acres subject to the
dedication of an undeveloped ten-acre parcel to the City of Palo Alto,
The City of
Palo Alto
__ Contour Line
;:::::~ 3208 Alexis Drive (Project Site)
Assessment Parcel
Address Label
Contour Line Elevation (feet)
ATTACHMENT E
3208 Alexis Drive
Project Site
Topographic Map
This map !s a product of the
City of Palo AILo G!S
--33\'
,
The enrol , ,
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
AGENDA DATE: September 29,2010
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT: 3208 Alexis Drive [lOPLN-00164l: Request by Suzman & Cole, on
behalf of Open Space LLC, for a Site and Design Review and Conditional
Use Pernlit to allow a new 8,897 sq. ft. recreational facility (tennis court)
and related improvements associated with an adjacent residence under the
same ownership. Environnlcntal Assessment: An Initial Study and
Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California
Envirornnental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: OS
(Opcn Space).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the
City Council adopt a Negative Declaration (Attachment B) and approve the Record of Land Use
Action (Attachment A) approving the request for a Site and Design Review and a Conditional
Use Peffi1it to allow the development of a private recreational facility on a vacant parcel of land
in the Open Space District.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
Commission Purview
All development in the Open Space (OS) district is subject to the Site and Design and Review
regulations set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC) Cbapter 18.28.070(b) and Open
Space District development standards. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the project
includes the development of a tennis court as the primary use of a vacant parcel of land in the
Open Space District. The project site is a separate parcel ofland under the same ownership as
the adjacent developed parcels providing the primary and secondary residences. If the tennis
court were proposed to be located on the same parcel as the residence, it would be permitted as
City of Palo Allo Page 1
an accessory use and would be subject only to the Site and Design Review process required for
development in the Open Space District. The purview of the PTC is to review the project for
compliance with Open Space Review criteria, Open Space development standards and
Comprehensive Plan policies and to confirm that approval findings for the Site and Design
Review and Conditional Use Pennit can be made. The Record of Land Use Action provides draft
approval findings. The PTC may recommend approval, approval with suggested changes, or
denial. Following a positive recommendation by the PTC, the project will be forwarded to the
City Council for approval on their consent calendar.
BACKGROUND
The project site was included in the 91 acres of land in the Palo Alto foothills subject to a 1978
Devclopment Agreement where 25 of the 91 acres were designated for clustered development
and the remaining acreage was designated as public open space. The 25 acres were subdivided
into ten lots and in 1979, the nine lots, including the proposed site, were entitled for single
family residential use where up to 3.5% impervious site coverage was allowable based upon an
assumed 10-acre site area. A tenth parcel remains undeveloped as part of the property exchange
agreed upon by the City and landowners.
Two Site and Design Review approvals have been granted for the two parcels with the residences
now owned by Open Space LLC. The first Site and Design Review approval was granted in May
2000 to a previous owner for the construction of two homes on two lots (3220 and 3230 Alexis
Drive) under the same ownership. Open Space LLC purchased both developed parcels, which are
connected via a "tying agreement", as well as the adjacent vacant parcel, and received Site and
Design Review approval in March 2008 for modifications to the 5.5-acre residential site,
including site improvements on the vacant pareel to extend the existing driveway, trail,
landscaping, and provide an in-ground spa.
Site Description
The project site is loeated in the Palo Alto foothills adjacent to Foothills Park and the Enid
Pearson Arastradero Preserve, west ofthe Foothill Freeway and within the City's Urban Service.
The site's Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Single Family Residential and
the site is located within the Open Space Zone District. The subject property is a 1.57 -acre parcel
having a 33% slope, is located directly north of the primary residence and guest-house. It is part
of an overall 5.5-acre site comprised of three parcels of land located at the terminus of Alexis
Drive. The two homes are located near the ridges of the two developed lots, visible from Vista
Point in Foothills Park. The elevation ofthe subject parcel is lower than the developed parcels,
on the opposite side ofthe hill and sloping away from Vista Point.
The primary single-family residence, located on a 1.57-acre parcel, has approximately 13,400
square feet (s.f.) of floor area. The guest-house, located on a 1.91-acre parcel, has approximately
3,359 s.f. of floor area. The primary residential parcel and the subject pareel have direct access
onto Alexis Drive, whereas the guest-house parcel is a flag lot with limited street frontage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the eonstruetion of a private recreational facility as a primary use of an Open Space
City 01 Palo Alto Page 2
parcel, for use by the property owners living in their homes on the adjacent property. The
proposal includes a 7,200 square foot tennis court surfaced in asphaltic concrcte, a paved area on
the north and east side ofthe tennis court for dining (445 s.f.) and an outdoor kitchen (22 s.f.), a
ISO-square foot storage room to be located below the tennis court, and stone retaining walls. A
wood and steel pergola, similar to those existing on the adjacent parcels, is proposed for the
dining arca. A ten-foot tall fence, to be constructed of mesh fabric over black vinyl-covered stcel
core wire, would enclose the tennis court. The fence along the north side would be mounted on
top of a three-foot tall retaining wall. The outdoor kitchen would include a small refrigerator,
sink and storage area. The tennis court would be used only during daylight hours. The proposed
site lighting includes 24 path lights and six down-lights for the dining area. Substantial
landscaping is proposed to provide additional screening, with 29 trees in a variety of species and
native and/or drought tolerant shrubs. All existing trees would remain.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Staff has identified four primary issues: the visibility of the site, grading, landscaping, and
impervious surfaces. Compliance with the development regulations is analyzed in the attached
table and, with the Open Space Criteria, is cited in the draft Record of Land Use Action. A
discussion ofCondilional Use Permit and Site and Design Review findings, including the
project's confomlance with Comprehensive Plan policies, is provided below.
Visibility of Site
The existing residences on the adjacent parcels are visible from Vista Point in Foothills Park.
However, the proposed facility would be located down the slope from these parcels and would
not be visible from Vista Point. The City's Open Space Supervisor, Lester Hodgins, has
detennined that the project would not impact views from Foothills Park or Arastradero Preserve.
The new facility may be partially visible to residents or occupants located farther down the hill
from the site, including users of the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club (P AHGCC).
However, the proposed location of the facility below grade eoupled with strategic placement of
trees would minimize the views from below. Dirk Zander, PAHGCC General Manager, has
stated that the elub has no objections to the project. The native trees proposed throughout the site
would maximize privacy for the occupants and provide sufficient screening along the project's
perimeter. Once mature, the proposed trees would provide maximum screening of the site.
Grading
A substantial amount of grading is proposed to create a flat court by cutting into the 33 percent
slope. The total volume of grading would involve 2,445 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil, of which 1,784
c.y. would be cut and 661 c.y. would be fill. Approximately 1,123 c.y. of soil would be taken off
site. The remainder would be used on site for this project. The applicant has provided detailed
preliminary grading plans, ineluding site sections on Plan Sheets L7.5 and 7.10, to disclose the
proposed amount of grading. The proposed grading is consistent with the Open Space criteria
and Comprehensive Plan policies in that there would be more cut than fill, and the retaining
walls were designed to follow the existing contours to minimize wall heights and match the
existing topography. Although grading is proposed to create a flat area for the tennis court, it was
designed to minimize visibility when viewed from off site.
City of Palo AnD Page 3
Landscaping
A total of29 trees would provide screening of the proposed court. The 17 new trees include ten
48 inch box sized Coast Live Oaks, one 48-inch box sized Blue Oak, and six 48-inch box sized
Valley Oaks. In addition, twelve Olive trees would be planted. The combination of trees would
achieve a natural mixed canopy for a more natural oak-woodland and grassland zone and would
avoid creation of a mono culture of trees. The 29 new trees on the vacant parcel, along with the
trees previously approved for installation, would bring the total number of new trees on the
subject property to 45. Once construction on all three parcels is completed, over 350 new trees
will be in place across all the parcels. The project also includes the planting of a variety of
shrubs and perennials, including the Dwarf Strawberry Tree (shrub form), English Boxwood,
California Wild Lilac, Pacific Wax Myrtle and Verbena.
Imperviolls Area
The project plans indicate that approximately 11,421 s.f. of impervious site coverage is proposed.
This includes 1,859 s.f. of impervious coverage approved on the parcel as part of the previous
approval. The total impervious coverage is below the 15,246 s.f. allowed via the 1978
Development Agreement (3.5% impervious coverage of an assumed ten acre Open Space District
lot). The 11,421-square foot impervious coverage total includes the tennis court, the kitchen,
stairs and retaining walls plus the 1,859 s.f. attributed to previously approved stone walls and
stairs and 50% of the area of the permeable gravel perimeter path, consistent with the Open
Space Zoning District Requirements. A detailed list and breakdown of impervious coverage are
provided by the applicant in a table on the title sheet of the plan set.
Conditional Use Permit Approval Findings
1. 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 was designed to minimize visibility from offsite locations, especially from Foothills
Park and Vista Point,. Because the tennis court sits below the residential buildings and below
grade, it will not be visible from Foothills Park or Vista Pointe. The grading would reduce
visibility of the court from adjacent lots. A substantial amount of landscaping, including 29 new
trees, would provide additional screening. The tennis court is a typical accessory use for larger
residential lots and would not introduce any noise impacts not customarily associated with larger
residential properties. Thus, the proposed use will not be detrimental to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
2. 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 proposed tennis court would be located and conducted in a manner consistent with both the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The tennis courts are located outside of all
setbacks and the project would not exceed the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed
on the parcel, consistent with the development standards for properties located in the Open Space
Zoning District. The project also complies with the Open Space Criteria and Comprehensive Plan
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Policies. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Single
Family Residential and one residence is permitted on each of the parcels of the project site. The
project is a low intensity use customarily associated with residential use of a property. The
project does not include development of a house on the subject parcel. A private recreational use
of a parcel without a primary residential use is conditionally allowed. The new use would
function as an accessory use to the residences on the adjacent lots under the same ownership.
Site and Design Review Approval 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 recreational facility would be located behind the existing residences as seen from
Vista Point and away from the public street. Because the facility is proposed at a lower grade, it
would not be visible from Foothills Park or Vista Point. The facility would be cut into the
hillside to minimize visibility from adjacent properties. A large amount of landscaping is
proposed to screen the site from offsite views. The project utilizes natural materials, such as
flagstone, in a neutral color to blend into the surroundings.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the
conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the
same or adjacent areas.
The proposed recreational facility is customarily associated with residential uses. Although on a
separate parcel, the recreational facility would be used by residents of the two adjacent parcels
under the same ownership as the subject parcel. The project is designed to be compatible with
the existing site and surrounding open space area. Project construction is subject to compliance
with the Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes to ensure safety and high quality of
development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the
project.
The proposed architectural and site changes are consistent with the Site and Design Criteria
adopted by the City Council. Sustainable design features incorporated into the project include the
planting of native species, the use of water conserving irrigation, and the use of permeable
pavers. The project will not have a significant environmental impact as indicated by the proposed
Negative Declaration for this project. The tennis court is proposed to be used during daylight
hours only. Accordingly, the only light proposed is low-level lighting for the walking paths and
the area under the pergola.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Policy L-l of the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages the City to retain
undeveloped land west of Foothill Freeway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances
made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The projeet site is west of the Foothill Freeway and is located within the City's Urban Service
Area (map L-2 of the Comprehensive Plan). The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the projcct site is Single Family Residential and one residence is permitted on
each of the parcels of the projeet site. The proposed development's impervious coverage would
be less than the maximum impervious area allowed for residential development of the subject
property. The project does not include development of a house, but a recreational facility
considered a residential accessory use. Because the subject lot does not have a residence on it, a
conditional use permit is required for the new accessory use.
The design is consistent and compatible with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the
design promotes Policy N-6, which states, "Through implementation of the Site and Design
proeess and the Open Space zone dishict regulations, minimize impacts of any new development
on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides."
The proposal is subject to the Site and Design Review process, complies with the applicable
development standards and intent of the Open Space zone dishict, including the Open Space
Criteria therein delived from policies in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Detailed analysis of
conformance with the Open Space Criteria is incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable Zoning Ordinance regulations
as set forth in detail in lhe Draft Record of Land Use Action. Staff believes that the findings for
approval of the Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications can be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration (Attachment B) have been prepared by staff,
consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
CEQA documents were circulated September 2,2010 for a twenty day public comment period.
The project was designed to be consistent with City zoning and Comprehensive Plan policies to
avoid any significant environmental impacts. As of the wliting of this staff repOlt, no comments
from the public or other agencies have been received regarding the environmental review.
TIMELINE:
A tentative consent calendar date for the City Council has been set for October 25,2010, subject
to a favorable reeommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
City of Palo Alto
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration
Location Map
Zoning Compliance Table
Topographic Map
Applicant Submittal*
Plans (Commission only)
Page 6
*Prepared by the applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Harvey Armstrong
Suzman and Cole
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Amy French, Plruming Manager
DEP ARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROV AL:-;;"'--+-+--c--#------'~~--r-------
anning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 7
I Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 September 29, 2010
4
5 DRAFt EXCERPT
6
7
8 3208 Alexis Drive*: Request by Suzman & Cole, on behalf of Open Space LLC, for a Site and
9 Design Review and Conditional Use Penni! to allow a new 8,897 sq. ft. recreational facility
10 (tennis COUlt) and related improvements associated with a residence on an adjacent lot under the
II same ownership. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance
12 with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: OS (Open
13 Space).
14
15 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you. The project before you, as you mentioned, is a Site
16 and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit to allow the new tennis court on a vacant lot for
17 the use of the property owner with residences on two adjacent lots. The property was a subject
18 of a previous Site and Design Review permit in 2008 to basically allow some landscaping
19 changes, minor additions, facade changes, as well as incorporation of 3208, the subject lot, into
20 this residential development under the same ownership. The third lot was approved to be
21 developed with a portion of the driveway and landscaping. No structures were approved on that
22 site. A Conditional Use Permit is required because the tennis court, which is typically an
23 accessory use, would be the primary use on an otherwise vacant lot.
24
25 'The proposal meets the maximum impervious coverage and all other development standards. An
26 Initial Study was prepared for the project, and a Negative Declaration was circulated on
27 September 2 for a 20-day review period that ended on September 22. As of today no comments
28 have been received on either the environmental clearance of the project, the only comment Staff
29 received was a phone call with the manager of the golf course who indicated he had no objection
30 to the project. Pending a successful recommendation by Commission a tentative date of October
31 25 has been identified for a City Conncil hearing.
32
33 The Planning Arborist, Dave Dockter, is supportive of the plans and the direction of the project.
34 He is available to answer questions tonight. Lester Hodgins of Community Services
35 Department, Supervisor of Foothills Park, confirmed that the City has no objection to the
36 proposal and it does not impact Foothills or Vista Point. If the Commission finds the project and
37 the Negative Declaration acceptable Staff recommends that you reconnnend that the Council
38 adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the proposed project.
39
40 Following the Staffs report the applicant will provide more detailed information on the project.
41 Additionally. the color materials sample board is available tonight over there for your review.
42 This concludes Staff's report,
43
44 Chair Tuma: Thanks very much. We will I think go ahead and go to the applicant. The
45 applicant has up to 15 minutes for presentation. You are not obliged to take it all but you do
Page 1
I have that amount of time if you would like. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record
2 please.
3
4 Mr. Dustin Moore, Suzman & Cole for the Applieant: I am (he Landscape Architect with
5 Suzman & Cole. On the site plan above the two lots to the south and to the west were previously
6 approved as described Elena. This is the third lot, which could be used as a single family home.
7 We want to use it as a tennis court with two sets of walls on the top and one wall on the bottom.
8
9 This was the original plan from 2007. You can see the third lot was originally considered to be
10 undeveloped. It is close to a three-to-one slope. These are two significant trees. Ifwe wanted to
II develop this as a third parcel or a third home we would have to cut a driveway through this
12 space, which we do not. We just planted about 30 oak trces ranging in size from 36-inch box to
13 massivc.
14
15 This was the second submittal where we revised the pool. The pool is quite a bit larger in this
16 design. This was approved I believe close to a year ago or a year and t1u'ee or four months. I am
17 just trying to give you a history on the project.
18
19 This is current submittal. You can see the walls on top are somewhat significant. The larger one
20 is ten feet. This is four feet, and this is nine to ten feet in height. We have a small pergola
21 basically for viewing tennis. A regulation tennis court, a small storage structure that has an in
22 scale door, and a small kitchenette, which is a small refrigerator and sink, just for amenities to
23 the tennis court.
24
25 The planting is pretty restrained. It is predominantly California natives. We have a few exotics
26 like boxwood mainly because it is tough as nails and deer won't touch it. The rest of the plants
27 are California natives with the intent of blending into the landscape.
28
29 The concept below the tennis court, which this would be uphill and this is downhill. We are
30 going to plant a number of trees. I believe it is 25 or 30 trees. All different types of oak, we
31 have a handful of agri-folias. Our focus is on trees that will not be affected by sudden oak death,
32 which are additional hybrids including blue oak and a handful of other natives. Most of the
33 planting is pretty much adorning the trails and the actual structure. The rest of the landscape
34 would be hydro-seeded with the native seed mix that is approved for Arastradero Preserve and
35 Foothills Park.
36
37 Some of the elevations. This would be the tennis court looking back uphill. This is the
38 significant wall with a smaller wall to help break up the scale. We were planning on extensively
39 planting vines, a hedge at the bottom, so the end result in we are hoping five years but
40 realistically probably seven to tcn ycars would be that this is just a green wall and completely
41 blends into the surrounding.
42
43 We have two sections at the bottom showing the existing grade and then the proposed with the
44 tennis court, pergola, and walls. This would be the storage unit that is built into the hillside, the
45 ball machine, and any other pieces of equipment.
46
Page 2
1 The materials match the approved plan, which this shot shows all of different materials including
2 the flagstone that would be underneath the pergola. We are using a dark wood for the actual
3 structure of the pergola. This would be the ideal wall rock, which is shown on our materials
4 board. It is a limestone. This was the existing Cameron cut stone that is onsite that we are also
5 reusing. All of the paths on the third lot are gravel mainly to keep with the feel of the property.
6 We want to keep it trail-like or park-like. We also like the idea of it being penneable.
7
8 This aerial shows the current conditions before we started construction on the two properties, and
9 just showing kind of the character of the space. This is a current view from Foothills Park. As
10 you can see the entire property on the third lot is not visible. You could see the two massive oak
II trees peaking up above the house but predominantly that property is not visible from Foothills
12 Park and is only visible from parts of Arastradero Preserve that are not accessible from the trail.
13 I did walk the trail trying to find a point where the site was visible just to make sure that we were
14 doing a photoshop visualization to show that we are trying to screen the property, but I could not
15 find that location.
16
17 This is a shot from the golf course looking back up to the property. This is the third lot. We
18 have a photoshop rendering showing the proposed walls and you can see that the siting of the
19 structure is so far downhill that most of it will be out of view. We are hoping within, granted the
20 oak trees are slow growing, probably within ten to 15 years having a pretty decent canopy at the
21 bottom of the slope.
22
23 I also threw in some specs for some of the lighting because there were questions from Planning
24 Staff about the lights.
25
26 A few other points I wanted to touch base with are the environmental issues. We are using a
27 slow release drainage system. It would be similar to a cistern where the water is pushed into
28 these large tanks, and there is a very small outlet or outfall. This makes the release of the water
29 over days rather than having this large piece of impervious pavement and just dumping that
30 down the hillside and causing erosion. This will slowly release the water into the pavement.
31
32 We are also using less development than what is allowed for the site, which would be a single
33 family home. This is just a recreation facility. I touched base on some of the native plants,
34 which are also low water use. We are not removing any trees onsite. We want to protect them.
35
36 Other parts of the overall site, or the three properties, we have a massive cistern system that has a
37 capacity of 140,000 gallons. To put it in perspective it could water a ball field for three or four
38 months. We also have a geothermal system. The whole house is cooled and heated by
39 geothermal, which is very low energy. The program for the property is just for private use. The
40 intent is not to have large gatherings or large events. There is absolutely no intent of a roof. The
41 idea is to have an open-air structure. I know that is part of another project that had some issues.
42 I think that is most of my comments and description. Thank you.
43
44 Chair TUlIla; Okay, great. I don't have any cards from members ofthe public. So I will open
45 and close the publie comment period and come back to Commissioners. r will remind everybody
Page 3
I that this is a quasi-judicial item and so if they have any disclosures to be made let's not forget
2 that. I am looking for comments, question, or a motion. Commissioner Fineberg you are first.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a few questions. First I will disclose that I did take a tour of the
5 site this morning. There were no significant conversations or learnings other than the site
6 manager being kind enough to show me where the courts were and point out a couple of
7 north/south directions.
8
9 One question I have on this project is the timing ofthe review and the approvals given that the
10 site is currently a large mound of steeply graded hare earth. If this moves forward what is the
11 timing for when it is going to go to Council, when work will be done, and is the site going to be
12 put to bed for the winter and then construction start in the spring, or somehow is this going to
13 move so quickly that there won't be erosion problems?
14
15 Ms. Lee: This item is tentatively scheduled for October 25 pending of course PTC
16 recommendation. In terms of construction it won't be able to happen until after October, but I
17 will leave that to the applicant to answer those.
18
19 Mr. Moore: I can answer that. Right now the schedule, we are trying to push along with the
20 permits because in the past we have had very long processes for this. The building permit will
21 take two to three months just to get through everything. The earliest that we would start
22 construction would be mid-April when we come out of moratorium. So there wouldn't be the
23 erosion control potential.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so the protections for the bare steep slopes that are there now are
26 already in place with preexisting entitlements, and nothing that wc entitle now would then create
27 any issues. Wonderful, that is what I wanted to hear.
28
29 Another question for Staff. Is there anything about the building of the tennis court that would
30 require Building It Green checklist to be applied, or do we need to explicitly state thaI this is an
3 I exemption for the reasons that it could never qualify since there is no there there?
32
33 Ms. Lee: I consulted with Kristen our Green Building Planner and because there is no structure,
34 and because of the size of the project they don't trigger the requirement for green building.
35 Certainly we can request that they submit a checklist. I mean, consistent with the other
36 components of the project the applicant has been proposing fairly green practices. I am sure the
37 applicant can also provide additional information on that.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: I wouldn't necessarily advocate that they have to submit the checklist,
40 but ifit is intentional that there is no way to score the required points, and there is nothing that
41 triggers the Build It Green process I think it just needs to be explicitly stated as it moves forward
42 to Council that it is not a requirement because X, Y, Z. That way, it just doesn't come up as a
43 stumbling block.
44
45 Then on the site tour what I felt and saw was that once you are slightly downhill from the main
46 house, turnaround can't see Foothill Park, same as what Staff Report is saying. The one piece
Page 4
I where I had a concern was the most immediate neighbor, a single family residence, and it looks
2 like it is just across Alexis Drive is going to be the closest to the courts and is visible to the
3 courts. So does Staff know, and I am sorry I don't know the address there. I stopped at the
4 mailbox and there was no number on it, but there is a giant Airstream parked in the driveway if
5 that is an identifying criterion for anyone. So has Stafftalked to that homeowner? Are they
6 aware that this project is happening? That is the one place where I would have a concern with
7 noise, and also if Dave Dockter, the Arborist, could tell us whether there has been particular
8 attention for plant screening since that is the closest neighbor with the best view.
9
10 Ms. Lee: We have not actually spoken directly to any of the property owners, but they should
II have received notices and we have not recei ved anything from them.
12
13 Chair Tuma: It looks like the applicant maybe has something he wants to say.
14
15 Mr. Moore: Yes, I do. That particular neighbor we have been in contact with because we have
16 been trying to get them 10 clean up the property. On top of the Airstream he has three racecars
17 that he takes apart and rebuilds regularly.
18
19 We are planting Ihat whole side of the lot. You can see all of these oak trees. We have three oak
20 trees that are fairly massive right now. We just put in a massive row of poplars. I can guarantee
21 you within three years you won't be able to see that house. We made a point to screen that house
22 from our property because we are tired of looking at the Airstream. So in answer, he won't be
23 able to see it. There is also saddle in that portion of the property and we sited the tennis court in
24 that location just to take advantage of that to where it does tip in. The idea was to avoid any
25 views into that property while the trees are filling in. So we have covered that.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Can Ijust finish on that? Is the City Arborist comfortable that that's
28 your perception of the planting plans also?
29
30 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Yes. I feel that the screening will definitely become more
31 and more apparent, especially with the oak trees beneath the large oaks. I have not gone over to
32 the neighbors specifically and looked over from their vantage point. The rest of the property
33 from the large oaks to the edge is fully treed. So it is going to be a substantial green screen. I
34 feel comfortable that that whole section along Alexis will be satisfactorily screened.
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. I have one more issue if you want me to cede time or just
37 finish up? Okay. For conditions of approval, we had talked about this in the pre-Commission
38 meeting, and I am not sure ifit is in there and I missed it. Is it worth including a statement in the
39 conditions of approval that explicitly states that the recreational use is for private residential
40 recreational use and rule out commercial or public recreational uses? Has that been captured and
41 would Staff consider that a good addition? Then also the same question for whether or not to
42 include a prohibition on any kind of future roof or enclosed structure.
43
44 Ms. Lee: In terms of the Record of Land Use Action in the CUP findings it actually states that
45 this is a private recreational use and nol a commercial recreational use, but we can also
46 incorporate into the conditions of approval that the tennis court is for the property owner and
Page 5
I residents of 3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive and their guests. Then we can also incorporate that the
2 court shall remain umoofed. Since this is a Conditional Use Pennit we can certainly be more
3 specific.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: I think those would be good additions in the condition section. Thank
6 you.
7
8 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber.
9
10 Commissioner Garber: I am prepared to make a motion but 1 want to mnke sure that if there are
II other questions by any of the Commissioners that they have an opportunity to do that. So why
12 don't I wait until other questions have been asked and answered.
13
14 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Martinez.
15
16 Commissioner Martinez: To the applicant, do you have a slide of the cross-section through the
17 tennis court?
18
19 Mr. Moore: I do. The two sections are on the bottom. They are kind of faint but you can see the
20 existing grade.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: On the drawings we got you didn't indicate what the grades were, what
23 the elevations were at the top of the cut and the bottom. Can you tell us what those are?
24
25 Mr. Moore: There should have been a grading plan. Do you have hardcopies?
26
27 Cl}air Tuma: I believe it is L-7.2.
28
29 Mr. Moore: Yes, 7.2 is the grading plan.
30
3 I Commissioner Martinez: Okay. What are those elevations then?
32
33 Mr. Moore: The very top wall would be 783.75. The top of the second wall moving down
34 would be 777.5. Then the top of wall at the bottom ....
35
36 Commissioner Martinez: Actually, I am interested in the top on the topography of the existing
37 grade from the top ofthe cut to the bottom, not the walls themselves.
38
39 Mr. Moore: Okay. At the largest wall the cut would be approximately 12 to 13 feet.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: What is the elevation -not the elevation of the wall, of the ground?
42
43 Mr. Moore: So I am interpolating from, so this very top wall is at grade. I am talking this wall
44 and going upward so I am interpolating that it would be around 780 flat, and our grade at the
45 court would be 767 flat, which would be 13 feet.
46
Page 6
I Commissioner Martinez: So at that point where you light is now ....
2
3 Mr. Moore: That is where it breaks.
4
5 Commissioner Martinez: That is at 7-what did you say?
6
7 Mr. Moore: That would be 767 where the court ~ basically this is where cut and fill. This side is
8 fill and this side is cut. Then on the inverse section this is entirely cut and it is approximately 13
9 to 14 feet 0 f cut at its greatest.
10
II Commissioner Martinez: That is where the 2,000 cubic yards of cut come from?
12
13 Mr. Moore: Correct. The reason for that was wc wanted to cut much more than to fill otherwise
14 we end up with massive walls, and it also makes it mueh more visible from offsite.
15
16 Commissioner Martinez: Where does that extra earth go?
17
18 Mr. Moore: To be truthful we will try to trade that with other contractors to balance cut and fill.
19 If we cannot find that it will go to Steven's Creek qualTy, which is a landfill that accepts spoils.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. A question for Staff. Isn't there something in the
22 Comprehensive Plan that talks about not taking residential uses out of ..... am I making that up?
23 That if we have a residential lot you can't turn it into something else?
24
25 Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Are you thinking of the Open Space District or
26 just in general?
27
28 Commissioner Martinez: I have been reading the Comprehensive Plan a lot so I am mixing
29 things up.
30
31 Ms. Caporgno: We are going to look for it. I am unaware ofit. You maybe reading it a lot more
32 than most of us so you might be able to tell us, but we will search through it.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber, I think you are up.
37
38 MOTION
39
40 Commissioner Garber: I would like to move that the Planning Commission accepts the Staffs
41 recommendation that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Record of
42 Land Use Action approving the request for Site and Design Review and a Conditional Use
43 Permit to allow development of the private recreational facility on this parcel, and that the
44 Commission finds that the project is in compliance with the Open Space criteria and that the
45 project meets the Site and Design Review findings. I would also like to add that we call out that
46 the project does not require a Grecn Points Rating and I will save the rest of it for my comments.
Page 7
I
2 SECOND
3
4 Vice-Chair Lippert: Second,
5
6 Chair Tuma: So that is a motion by Commissioner Garber, seconded by Vice-Chair Lippert.
7 Commissioner Garber, you wish to speak to your motion?
8
9 Commissioner Garber: Yes. I will note that -I was going to ask the question but it was actually
10 made explicit when I reread the Staff comments there that there are no tennis lights, There are
11 just simply foot lights, and that it is for private use, and that the project is not visible from
12 Foothills Park, which was in my mind the largest concerning issue. Other than that I believe it is
13 a project that meets the Comprehensive Plan short of any notice by our Staff and they are
14 searching through the pages of the Comprehensive Plan over there, I will leave it at that.
15
16 Chair Tuma: Vice-Chair Lippert, would you like to speak to your second?
17
18 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, This is probably the third maybe the fourth time I have seen this
19 project. Actually I believe the first time I saw it was when I was on the Architectural Review
20 Board, and because it was three parcels it was subject to ARB review at the time. It was
21 supposed to be developed as I think three separate houses. Do you want to correct me?
22
23 Ms. French: The reason it came to the ARB at the time was because at the time our code said
24 two or more houses under the same ownership must go through ARB review. That was later
25 revised to threc or more homes.
26
27 Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, yes. Well, the reason why it came forward was because it was
28 developed as multiple houses so it was considered to be a tract developmcnt basically. Atthe
29 time it was quite unfortunate, it was the Goldman residence, and at the time he was a leader in
30 sustainabilityand it was actually built or designed to be a sustainable house. At that point,
31 before we had any sort of green point system or LEED there were a number of sustainability
32 features in and green features that were built into the project. Fortunately enough John
33 Chambers who then purchased the property saw the great wisdom to not only keep a lot of the
34 green features, but in addition to that built upon that with significant amounts ofiandseaping
35 greening up the project even more. So as far as a sustainability project this project probably
36 exceeds any green project in Palo Alto to date, if in fact all those criteria.
37
38 Getting to the actual approval that we are doing today, or the recommendation that we are doing
39 today, this is a rather benign use for that lot. I would much rather see a tennis court on that
40 parcel than another residence. So I think that they have been very sensitive in tenus of the
41 placement of that tennis court, the screening of the tennis court, as well as the additional features
42 of additional mature trees in tenus of screening the tennis court, and the fact that it is only going
43 to be used for private use, and that it is going to have a very low intensification in tenus of use. I
44 think it is a great project. I don't see any reason to deny them a use that other people can get on
45 their own parcels regarding recreational uses in the Open Space. So I support the project fully.
46
Page 8
I Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Martinez.
2
3 Commissioner Martinez: It looks like I am going to be the only one offering a protest vote on
4 this. I would have thought that, and I still want to believe that the residence of the Open Space
5 District care more about the land than about having sort of all the creature comforts one could
6 imagine in proximity to their house. I think that we have seen since I have been on the
7 Commission three items in the Open Space District that address in some manner how we see the
8 importance of the district and how we want to preserve our natural resources.
9
10 The first one was the maximum house size issue. The Commission felt that a 15,000 square foot
11 house made sense to be built in the Open Space District. The second was the recent ice rink that
12 the Commission felt was a good idea for a single-family residence to have in the district. Now
13 we have this 8,000 square foot recreation center that we will soon feel is okay to be in the Open
14 Space District. It is just confounding to me that we can debate for hours over moving a liquor
15 store 50 feet in order to preserve a grocery store, but what we do to the land means nothing as
16 long as we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and its so-called sustainable, and no one can
17 see it.
18
19 Well we are eutting, we the community, is allowing cutting this 13 foot hole in the earth to allow
20 for a tennis court. Now it seems to me we need to look inward, not necessarily that this applicant
21 is doing anything that they are not able to do or allowed to do, but is this the way we want to
22 preserve the earth? This kind of cutting and forming the earth into whatever we want it to be. A
23 tennis court is fine but what it leaves on the ground I just can't believe that that is okay. That we
24 get in the Open Space a proposed use that doesn't seem to be back to nature, or living with
25 nature, or how much we care about nature and the environment or open space. It is just an
26 incongruent use on our natural resources. So I am going to vote in the minority not to support
27 this application.
28
29 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber and then Fineberg.
30
31 Commissioner Garber: I would just like to state how much I respect Commissioner Martinez's
32 comments and him as a Commissioner. I appreciate the comments that he has made this
33 evening. I would encourage him to change his vote, not that I expect him to do so, because as
34 stated there isn't anything that the project does that is outside of what is allowable.
35
36 I would also caution you about presupposing what other homeowners in the Open Space District,
37 the impressions, or the understandings of the use of the land, and what they have. Commissioner
38 Tuma and I have spent some time with a number of the members up there as part of the
39 subcommittee and I think you would be very surprised by what they believe they should be
40 allowed to do, which isn't necessarily what is allowable under the eodes and zoning. It is often
41 in great contrast to what as they refer to us the 'flatlanders' believe should be done with that
42 open space. All that said, I respect the comments and am moved just to thank you for them
43 regardless if you end up in the majority or the minority of the vote.
44
45 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 9
I Commissioner Fineberg: I think my feelings on this projeet straddle the fence. I have mixed
2 feelings that frankly there is nothing green or sustainable or environmentally sound about
3 building a private tennis court. But I don't get to make that decision. There are rules and
4 entitlements and rights that landowners have, and guidance that we get from within the
5 Comprehensive Plan, from within Municipal Code and that is what I need to follow.
6
7 I am looking at the Vision Statement in Chapter 5 of our Comprehensive Plan, Natural
8 Environment. It talks about Palo Alto will respect and manage natural resources in a way that
9 sustains the natural environment, and proteets our foothills, Baylands, creeks, parks, wildlife, and
10 open space legacy. Elements of the natural environment will be conserved where they remain in
II tact, and restored where they have become degraded by past development. Without casting
12 aspersions the parcels that are combined to make this project have been degraded by past
13 development. They are not virgin, pristine, open space as is adjacent beyond the fence. So that
14 makes me less concerned, less worried about taking away pristine open space.
15
16 If the court is to get built I believe that the way it is being built honors the spirit of the
17 Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan says cut is to be favored and fill minimized and it
18 does that. It is not visible from the City parklands. The fact that the previous development on
19 the project was, ship sailed already. So being left with the idea ofless would be better I don't get
20 to make that deeision. I don't feel I do. So I will be inclined to support this. I would like to ask
21 the maker and seconder if they would consider two friendly amendments that I mentioned
22 earlier. The language that Elena had noted before regarding the conditions of approval including
23 the language that it be specifically for residential, private recreational use, not commercial, and
24 that there be prohibitions on future roof or enclosing structures.
25
26 Commissioner Garber: Future, I am sorry what?
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: I would want Staff to workout the language, but that there be a
29 prohibition that it not include a future roof or becoming an enclosed structure.
30
31 Commissioner Garber: Both are fine with me. Seconder?
32
33 Vice-Chair Lippert: T don't have a problem with either of those two friendly amendments. I
34 think that what could be a bit problematic is that I don't think we can put a prohibition on the
35 roof structure. If somebody came back to us with an application and said that they wanted to put
36 a roof structure on it they would have to go through Site and Design Review again, correct?
37
38 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Yes, we would create a condition that says they
39 can't do it as part of this CUP. If at some point in the future ifthc applicant wanted to come
40 forward with a new CUP and a new Site and Design Review it would go through that review.
41
42 Chair Tuma: Okay. I have just one comment, concern, or question. I just want to make sure
43 that the documentation makes it abundantly clear that what we are approving here is a tennis
44 court and not a recreational facility. I have heard those terms used interchangeably this evening.
45 I am not sure that the document specifically says that the use would be limited to a tennis court
46 and things associated with a tennis eourt. I don't know exactly how to say it, but I want to make
Page 10
I sure either the documents already say it or I would offer a friendly amendment to the motion that
2 says that it is limited to a tennis court and it is not a broader recreational facility.
3
4 Ms. French: Could I read a condition that I have been writing with the acceptance of the
5 amendment? Condition 3 to be amended, the tennis court shall be used during daylight hours,
6 only as a tennis court for private use by the property owners and residents at 3220 and 3230
7 Alexis. Followed by the sentence, "Alexis lighting to facilitate nighttime play is not allowed,
8 and the court shall remain unroofed and unenclosed." Does that cover?
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: I am not sure if I missed it but earlier I think Elena had said the
II residents and guests, did you capture guests?
12
13 Ms. French: Sure, I have 'and their guests' in parentheses in that sentence to add.
14
15 Chair Tuma: Elena.
16
17 Ms. Lee: Thank you. I just want to clarify that the Record of Land Use Action does refer
18 specifically to a tennis court. When it references recreational facility in parentheses next to it is
19 'tennis court.' So it is pretty clear but we can certainly go through it to make sure that we use
20 tennis court rather than recreational facility.
21
22 Chair Tuma: Yes, my point is that it needs to be limited, because sometimes if you say
23 recreational facility (tennis court) that could be interpreted a number of different ways. I think
24 we need to say that it is limited to being a tennis court. So at this point I would offer the
25 language that Amy proposed as a friendly amendment to sort of clean up the friendly
26 amendments and the motion if that is acceptable to the maker and the seconder.
27
28 Commissioner Garber: It is. I will note that on page I of Attachment A it is referred to as
29 recreational facility.
30
3 I Chair Tuma: Seconder?
32
33 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, that is agreeable with me as well.
34
35 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, since we are wordsmithing I would suggest that the wording that
38 Amy proposed that the first part of that actually read not the tennis court is to be used for tennis
39 but that the recreational facility is limited to use as a tennis court, etc. Because that deals with
40 the potential gap between the tennis court and other areas within the recreational facility, and I
41 think that tightens everything and solves the problem. So let me offer that as yet another friendly
42 amendment, and then I will have a couple of comments beyond that.
43
44 Commissioner Garber: Sure, done.
45
46 Vice-Chair Lippert: No problem.
Page II
I
2 Chair Tuma: Go ahead.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I think that I don't have any particular judgment as to whether people in
5 Open Space should or should not have tennis courts on their land. That is no! something I really
6 wish to weigh in on. I do observe that the alternative to this tennis court is the potential for
7 another house. A house in this location would have more impacts on the land than a tennis court
8 is likely to have. So I think the tennis court is much more likely, especially considering how it is
9 going to be screened, and I doubt that a house would be screened as equally nicely. So I think
10 this actually respects the land more than another house would.
11
12 With respect to the issue as to whether there is some sort of notion in the Comprehensive Plan of
13 not replacing houses with non-houses or something like that there is not a house there now. So
14 we are not reducing the number of housing units. On the other hand, there have been a number
15 ofteardowns in Old Palo Alto, some of those houses were historic, or at least of long age that are
16 much more of an issue because that actually reduces housing stock. This simply doesn't add one
17 to the mix and I think that from my point of view is different from actually tearing down an
18 existing house. So I will vote in favor of this motion.
19
20 Chair Tmna: Vice-Chair Lippert.
21
22 Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like to make one final comment. Again, I would like to second
23 Commissioner Garber's comment earlier to Commissioner Martinez. I respect your position on
24 this project and would hope that you could support it for a varicty of other reasons. \Vhen the
25 Open Space District was conceived the property owners or the developer at the time paid how
26 shall I say it, the freight up front. What they actually had done is when the subdivision happened
27 a significant number of acres were actually donated to the Arastradero Preserve. In doing so
28 those lots became somewhat reduced in their size. With regard to this particular project, again
29 the tennis court is a rather benign use when you compare it to the impacts of a house.
30 Considering that the three parcels have been developed together and that the property owners and
31 the subsequent property owners actually went and greened up each of the sites individually
32 adding other sustainable features to it, it actually begins to approach almost a non-impact site
33 with regard to the tennis court itself. So while again I think that the tennis court represents a
34 minor impact on the site it is preferable to having another house there. I think that was very
35 clearly said by Commissioner Keller. So again I would encourage Commissioner Martinez to
36 support the project on thaI basis, because we could have a house on that property.
37
38 Chair Tuma: Staff, Julie did you have something you wanted to say?
39
40 Ms. Caporgno: Yes. I just want to confirn1 that we couldn't find anything in either the Open
41 Space Chapter or the Land Use Chapter. I know there is nothing in the Housing Chapter that
42 pertains to that.
43
44 Chair Tuma: One second, Commissioner Martinez on the mike if you could.
45
46 Commissioner Martinez: Policy H-S.
Page 12
1
2 Ms. Caporgno: We don't have the Housing Element in front of us. Could you read it to us? We
3 looked at Open Space and Land Use.
4
5 commissioner Fineberg: Policy H-5, it is on page 19 of 41 in the Housing Element. It says,
6 "Discourage the conversion oflands designated as residential to nonresidential uses and the use
7 of multifamily residential lands by nonresidential uses such as schools and churches unless there
8 is no net loss of housing potential on a community wide basis."
9
10 Ms. Caporgno: That policy was specifically developed so that we wouldn't lose residential
II development to churches, etc., but I don't think there the intent was for a site that didn't include
12 any sort of development, and particularly multifanlily development. I think it is in the
13 multifamily section that that pertains to. Again, I don't have the Housing Element in front of me
14 but that's my recollection.
15
16 Chair Tuma: while you look at that the applicant is entitled to a three minute. Counsel, do you
17 have something?
18
19 Mr. Larkin: I was just going to add that the program that implements that policy does say that
20 part of the Zoning Ordinance Update process would be to change the zoning code to disallow
21 uses other than residential uses in the multifamily residential zones, not specifically to the Open
22 Space.
23
24 Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks for that clarification. You have up to three minutes if you would
25 like.
26
27 Mr. Moore: I have a few comments to hit on some of your comments. One is the housing code.
28 There is a small portion of the lot that could be developed into a one-bedroom apartment. So
29 there could be one unit put on the property, although we have absolutely no intention of doing it.
30 So there still is the potential to build a unit on that property. The whole reason the client bought
31 this property is to make sure that it is never developed. It would interfere with the view on the
32 other two lots and that was his entire drive to purchase this property.
33
34 Also, to hit on the reason for having the tennis court. He has a lot of security issues and he has a
35 tennis court at his current home, and he wants to have the same thing. On other properties in the
36 Open Space you could not develop a tennis court just for the coverage numbers. You are
37 allowed to have 15,000 square feet of coverage and a tennis COUll is about 8,000 square feel.
38
39 The way that it is designed currently it could never be roofed just because of height restrictions.
40 It would be over the 27-foot maximum.
41
42 I would also like to confirm that we will use as many green technologies as we can with fly ash
43 in the concrete. We have many other ways that we are trying to make it more green. I do
44 understand your concerns. Those are all my comments.
45
46 MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Martinez opposed)
Page 13
1
2 Chair Tuma: Okay. With that I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the
3 Commission for a vote. Does anybody feel the need for the motion to be restated? Okay. So we
4 will go ahcad and vote. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. (ayes) Opposed?
5 (nay) The motion passes on a six to one vote with Commissioner Martinez voting no. With that
6 we will close that item.
7
Page 14
April 29, 2010
Amy French
ATTACHMENT"
Submitted by Applicant
Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5'h Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: 3208 Alexis Drive Leiter of Application
Hello,
The proposed project for 3208 Alexis Drive is to include a tennis court, associated
fencing, retaining walls, guardrails, outdoor counter with sink and a small storage
area built into the hill and retaining wall, The use of the development is an
accessory structure to 3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive and does not have a primary
dwelling unit. The use of the structure is for recreation,
The tennis court is to be cut into the hillside to help mitigate views to the property
from Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, There are no views to the proposed
improvements from Foothills Park, The retaining walls have been designed to cut
more than fill to minimize the appearance from off site, The walls will be clad
with limestone and have vine plantings to soften the appearance of the walls,
The improvements are of sound environmental design and ecological balance,
The proposed design uses less energy and resources than siting a new residence
and maintains the eastern hillside as undeveloped with new oak tree plantings,
The proposed site design uses 59% of the allowable impermeable coverage and
retains all existing trees, The proposed improvements along with previously
approved improvements will add 45 trees to the property, The proposed
planting is predominantly native with a few adaptive and drought tolerant
plants,
The following addresses the Open Space District Criteria as described in section
18.28,070(pj of the Palo Alto Municipal Code:
1, The development is cut into the hillside to minimize the visual impact from
Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, There are no views to the
improvements from Foothills Park,
2. The retaining walls have been located as close to the Northem setback to
bring the developed area as for downhill as possible, The ridgeline is not
affected with the proposed improvements.
3, The development is cut into the hillside to minimize the visual impacl from
Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club. There are no views of the proposed
improvements from foothills Park,
Landscape Architectufe
1265 Battery Street, 5" Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.252.0111
Fax 415.861.6163
www.suzmnncole.com
4. The vast majority of developed area is clustered around the tennis court.
The remainder of the site is trails and planting with minimal impact. The
planting is predominantly native with a few adaptive plants.
5. The retaining walls have been designed to closely follow the existing
contours to minimize wall heights and fit the existing topography. All
plantings are to have a natural appearance in form and use native and
adaptive plants.
6. All existing trees are to be retained and protected.
7. The proposed improvements utilize a 75% cut to 25% fill proportion to help
minimize the visual impacl to adjacent properties.
8. The tennis court is a large flat expanse, but we will be retaining storm run
off wilh a slow release system to reduce Ihe amount of run off.
9. The material for all walls is limestone in a beige tone. The color is selected
to blend into the hillside. The hillside is predominantly grasses that turn
gold in summer and fall. The walls will be covered with vines to further
soften the appearance of the walls.
10. The planting is predominantly native with a few adoptive and drought
lolerant plants.
11. All exterior lighting will be low voltage and be kept to a minimum. The
lighting will be for safety purposes on pathways. The tennis court will
receive lighting only for safety purposes and will not have athletic lighting.
12. The improvements do not include a driveway or road. All access is to be
from 3230 and 3220 Alexis Drive. Parking is situated on both properties for
use of the tennis court.
Regards,
Dustin Moore
Design Associate
> ;""n,i; ." •. ,_, I:, {j-"_"~;' ., 'I"'"~
Landscape Afchitecture
1265 Battety Street, S'" Floor
S3n Francisco, CA 94111
Maio 415.252.0111
Fax 415.861_6163
www.suzmancole.com
June 30, 2010
Elena Lee
Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5'h Floor
Polo Alto, CA 9430]
Re: 3208 Alexis Drive leiter regarding conditional use permit
Hello Elena,
This letter serves os a response to comments received June 3, 20] 0 regarding the
conditional use permit for 3208 Alexis Drive,
A conditional use permit for the use of a tennis court is in line with the
comprehensive plan and will not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare
or convenience,
The proposed improvements are in line with tlo1e comprehensive plan in that they
reduce the amount of development in the Open Space district. Instead of
developing a single family residence, a series of retaining walls and a tennis
court are planned to be built. There is less strain on public utilities, less energy
consumption and the hillside fronting Alexis Drive will be left undisturbed, The
improvements are not visible from Alexis Drive or Foothills Pork, The
improvements will be visible from Polo Alto Hills Country Club, but the siting of
retaining walls and cutting into the hillside will help hide the improvements. In
addition, several trees will be planted to help screen the improvements in the
future.
The improvements will not be detrimental to public health safety, welfare or
convenience. The upper retaining walls will have guardrails to prevent a fall
hazard and the tennis court will be surrounded by fencing. In addition, the site is
surrounded by a previously approved six foot tail fence to prevent others from
reaching access to the improVements and is scheduled for installation in fall of
201 0, The location of improvements does not pose a threat to the slope or
existing trees. All existing trees will be protected per Palo Alto code and be
monitored by the project arboris!. The siting also screens the improvements from
Foothills Park and Alexis drive to reduce public visibility.
The earthwork spoils will be disposed at Stevens Creek Quarry in Cupertino, CA.
Imported topsoil will also be provided from Stevens Creek Quarry in Cupertino.
Regards,
Dustin Moore
Oesign Associate
;:;\i/i~ld"-ii, C::i(; D,~:,'(.:n (\,(_1) m\(>
landscape Architecture
1265 Battery Street 5'h Floor
SM francisco, CA 94111
Main 415_252.0111
Fax 415.661.6163
www suzmancole,com