HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 610-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010
REPORT TYPE: CONSENT
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 364:10
SUBJECT: Approval of a Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review, Conditional Use
Permit, and Record of Land Use Action for the installation of a roof structure
over an existing open air sport court facility on a developed residential
property located within the Open Space (OS) Zone District at 610 Los Trancos
Road.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council
approve the following documents:
1. A Negative Declaration, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(Attachment J).
2. A Record of Land Use Action approving Site and Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit applications to allow the installation of a roof structure over an existing open air sport
court facility and surrounding screening vegetation subject to the findings and conditions of
approval (Attachment A).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The application is for Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for
the construction of a new roof structure eight and a half feet above grade over an existing 7,329
square foot sport court facility, to enable its use as a hockey rink, a recreational use not
customarily incidental to a permitted dwelling. With approval of the proposed CUP, the
conversion of the structure to "habitable" floor area would be prohibited.
The new roof structure would add eight and a half feet to the overall height of the facility, but
would have a low overall profile, lower than the inflatable cover that had been placed over the
rink by prior approval of a temporary use permit last winter. The court currently has walls that
rise three feet above the existing grade on the north side of the structure, but are at grade on the
south side. The proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope (2: 12) to
CMR: 364:10 Page 1 of 4
minimize its height and visibility. The roof material is proposed to be Class A fiberglass asphalt
shingles in a dark "weathered wood" color to blend with the surrounding hillside environment.
Any exposed concrete and steel would be painted a natural green color ("forest floor"). The
proposal also includes the planting of native, fire resistant, and drought tolerant trees and shrubs
to provide screening for the proposed roof. There will be no new cut or fill, no new impervious
area, and no removal of vegetation as a result of this project.
Additional background and project details are outlined in the September 1, 2010 PTC report and
the September 15,2010 PTC report (Attachments E & G).
COUNCIL PURVIEW AND REVIEW CRITERIA
The project has been scheduled on the City Council consent calendar pursuant to the changes to
the Open Space ordinance approved in 2009, outlined in code section 18.28.070(b )(2).
According to the provisions of Code Section 18.77,060(f), the City Council may:
(1) Adopt the findings and recommendations of the Plarming and Transportation
comnllSSlOn: or
(2) Remove the reeommendation form 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 REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
At its meeting of Septcmber I, 2010, the Planning and Transportation Commission raised the
following key concems:
• Outreach to Portola Valley residents;
• Analysis of potential offsite views from public open space;
• Inclusion of a more detailed analysis of the Open Space Design Criteria of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Other concerns related to the sustainability of materials and energy use, compliance with
building codes to ensure egress, and the potential for additional floor area availability,
subsequent to the proposed construction. On a vote of 4-3 the item was continued to the consent
calendar for September 15, 2010.
CMR: 364:10
At its meeting of September 15, 20 I 0 the item was pulled from consent for further discussion.
On a vote of 7-0 the PTC recommended approval of the project. The PTC minutes for
September 15, 20 I 0 are included as Attachment H.
Staff has received comments, in the fotm of a letter, from the Town of Portola Valley. Seven
emails of support for the project were also received, from both Portola Valley residences and
adjacent Palo Alto neighbors. All of the neighbors' correspondence has been supportive of the
proposed project while the Town of Portola Valley expressed thanks for the opportunity to
coordinate with Palo Alto, but some concerns regarding the ice rink aspect of the proposed use.
The emails and the Town of Portola Valley letter have been included as Attachment 1.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Open Space Policies as set
forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA). The proposal complies with the Open
Space Development criteria as outlined on the RLUA. While a hockey rink is not a typical
accessory use to a single family residence, the Conditional Use Permit process provides the
ability to appropriately regulate such a use within the Open Space environment. Staff believes
there are no other substantive policy implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A Negative Declaration (Attachment J) has been prepared and circulated for public comment.
The comment period began on August 16,2010 and ended on September 7, 2010. The proposal
reduces potential impacts related to light and noise by enclosing the sport court such that the
light and noise would no longer escape from the existing open air facility, but would be
contained within it. The native tree and shrub planting will minimize impacts on the existing
.views by providing vegetation over the existing unplanted portion of the hill top, as well as
screening the existing walls of the sport court and the new roof.
PREPARED BY: ~u2 ..
RUSS REICH ~
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 364:10 Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Location Map/Topographic map
Applicant Submittal letter and floor area calculation*
Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003
PTC Staff report, September 1, 2010 (without attachments)
PTC Draft Excerpt minutes from September 1, 20 I 0
PTC StaffrepOlt, September 15,2010 (without attachments)
PTC Draft Excerpt minutes from September 15,2010
Public Correspondence
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Attachment E.
Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Attachment H.
Attachment l.
Attachment J.
Attachment K.
Envirorunental Documentation (Negative Declaration and Initial Study)
Plans and photos* (Couneil only)
COURTESY COPIES:
John Lerch, Lerch Construction Company, 923 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Peggy Law
Tom Vlasic, Town of Portola Valley
CMR: 364:10 Page 4
ATTACHMENT A
ACTION NO. -10
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (10PLN-00184) (JOHN LERCH,
APPLICANT)
On September 20, 2010, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit application for a covered sport court in the
Open Space Zone District, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1.
Palo Alto ("City
follows:
Background. The City Council of the City of
Council") finds, determines, and declares as
A. John Lerch, on behalf of Scott McNealy, property
owner, has requested the City's approval for the construction of a
roof structure to cover an existing uncovered accessory facility, a
sport court, on a developed residential site of approximately 13.35
acres within the Open Space Zoning District. The sport court to be
covered is 7,329 square feet and would continue to be used both as
a tennis court and roller hockey court as use accessory to the
primary residential use, plus a new conditional recreational use as
an ice hockey rink ("The Project") subject Conditional Use Permit
and Site and Design Review approval.
B. The site is currently in residential use is designated on
the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled
Development and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district.
C. Following staff review, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project on
September 1, 2010, and continued the project to September 15, 2010
and recommended approval of the Site and Design Review, the
conditional Use Permit, and the Negative Declaration. The
Commission's recommendations are contained in CMR:XXX:I0 and the
attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070,
Decision to Prepare a Negative Declaration. An environmental impact
assessment was prepared for the project and it was determined that
no potentially adverse impacts would result from the development,
therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on
1
the environment. The Negative Declaration was made avai for
public review beginning August 16, 2010 through September 7, 2010.
The Environmental Impact Assessment and Negative Declaration are
contained in CMR: XXX:10.
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed sport court roof would be seen from the
a Ranch in Portola Valley and the Blue Oaks Development. To
this visibility, earth tone roofing material and screen
ngs were selected to blend with the surroundings. The roof
was also designed with a low roof slope to reduce the overall
height of the structure to further reduce its visibility.
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 roof and new landscape materials would
improve ty, noise and light conditions for residents of
homes in the surrounding open space district. The construction of
all improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current
Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable
codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The project has been designed to minimize noise and
lighting impacts, and minimize visibility of the new roof as viewed
from off site. The roof wi enable the reduction in energy use by
keeping debris off the ice that would cause it to melt faster and
by keeping the ice cooler an enclosed controlled environment.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the
policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural
Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The proj ect
proposal meets Policy L-3 in that the project, does not impact the
2
views of the Palo Alto foothills due to its low profile and earth
tone roof material color. Similarly, the project complies with
Policy N-6 by not having any new impact on views of the hillsides,
on the character of the open space, or the natural ecology of the
hillsides. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development
Criteria (Policy N-7) numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,& 11 and the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open
space areas. Compliance with the Open Space Criteria is as
follows:
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public
roadways and public parklands. As much as possible,
development should be ted so it is hidden from view.
The proposed roof would not be visually intrusive in that it
would be low profile, standing only eight and a half feet above
existing grade at the tallest point, with a gradual roof slope.
It would also have a "weathered Wood" composition shingle roof
that has been selected to blend with the surrounding
environment. Additionally, based on its location, the structure
would not be seen from public park lands or visually intrusive
as viewed from any public roadway.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed
to not extend above the nearest ridgeline.
The proposed roof is not located at the top of the hill and does
not extend above the ridgeline. The roof structure is designed
to be low profile and would be lower than the height of the
adjacent residence.
3. Site and structure design should take into consideration
impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties.
The proposal to cover the sport court lity with a new roof
is proposed as a measure to improve the current situation
relative to privacy and views. Currently those properties that
are at an elevation high enough to have a vantage point can see
the open sport court facility, can sometimes hear the activities
on the sport court, and can see the light that emanates from the
sport court. The new roof enclosure eliminates the noise and
light issues and while the roof may be seen, it would have less
of a visual impression than the open sport court due to its
The closest neighbor with a view the proposed roof
supports the proposal.
4. Development should be clustered, or cl grouped, in
relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation
of natural habitats.
3
The new roof would be located upon a structure that is locat
next to the existing residence. The two structures are
clustered together relative to the lot making it
conspicuous. No new access roads are proposed, thus preserving
natural habitats.
5. Buil t forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural
topography. Building lines should follow the lines of the
terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance.
The new roof structure would maintain a low profile so as not to
al ter the impression of the existing topography that is no
longer natural in this location as it has been previously
developed with a sport court. The native trees and bushes to be
planted have been specifically chosen and placed to maintain the
natural look of the open space.
6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured
4.5 above the ground level, should be preserved and
Learated into the design.
The proposal includes the protection and retention of all
existing trees on site.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or
subdued colors.
The project meets of the criteria in that a earthtone
material has been ected for the roof structure that due to
its color blends into the semi natural environment. Most
structures in the Open Space do not have natural materials for
the roof as they can pose a significant fire hazard and are not
as durable over time.
1.0. Landscaping should be na ve species that require little or
no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire
retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention
technique.
The Fire Department has reviewed the plant selection and has
approved the plant species as being fire resistant. The plan has
also proposed that the new landscape material be planted with a
20 foot fire buffer between the new material and the sport
court roof. The new roof has also been designed with all non
combustible materials.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-tyand shielded from
view so it is not directly visible from off-site.
4
There is no new lighting proposed in this project. existing
lighting is shielded and directed such that it is not directly
visible from off-site. The existing lighting st emanates
from the sport court facility as it is not a completely enclosed
structure. The current proposal to add a roof structure would
eliminate the existing light that emanates from the sport court.
Criterion 7,8,12,13 do not apply to the project as there is no cut
or fill associated with the proposed improvements, no new roads are
proposed, and the development is not within an unincorporated area.
SECTION 4. Si te and Des~9ll:mReview 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·00184, subject to the conditions approval in Section 8 of
the Record.
SECTION 5. Conditional
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
The project will result in the addition of a new roof structure
over an existing sport court lity. New landscape screening
materials are also proposed. The existing use is not impacted
by the addition of the new roof structure. The sport court
facility is already used as a roller hockey rink, ice hockey
rink, and tennis court. The roof structure would eliminate
light and glare that currently results from use in the evening,
would reduce noise of sport court activities by enclosing them,
and will reduce the visual impression of the facility for
offsite observers with the planting of new screening materials.
The conditions of approval, imposed as a result of this
application, will ensure that the facility will not be
impactful to adjacent properties.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a
manner in accord with the Palo Alto ComprehenSive Plan and the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the policies of
the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment
elements of the Comprehensive plan. The project proposal meets
Policy L-3 in that the project, does not impact the views of the
Palo Alto foothills due to its low profile and earth tone roof
5
material color. Similarly, the project complies with Policy N-6 by
not having any new impact on views of the hillsides, on the
er of the open space, or the natural ecology of the
hillsides. The project proposal meets the Open Space Development
(Policy N-7) numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,& 11 and the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open
space areas. Compliance with the Open Space Criteria is as
follows:
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public
roadways and public parklands. As much as possible,
development should be si ted SO it is hidden from view'.
The proposed roof would not be visually intrusive in that it
would be low profile, standing only eight and a half feet above
existing grade at the tallest point, with a gradual roof slope.
It would also have a "weathered Wood" composition shingle roof
that has been selected to blend with the surrounding
environment. Additionally, based on its location, the structure
would not be seen from public park lands or visually intrusive
as viewed from any public roadway.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed
to not extend above the nearest ridgeline.
The proposed roof is not located at the top of the hill and does
not extend above the ridgeline. The roof structure is designed
to be low profile and would be lower than the height of the
adjacent residence.
3. si te and structure design should take into consideration
impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties.
The proposal to cover the sport court facility with a new roof
is proposed as a measure to improve the current situation
relative to privacy and views. Currently those propert that
are at an elevation high enough to have a vantage point can see
the open sport court facility, can sometimes hear the activities
on the sport court, and can see the light that emanates from the
sport court. The new roof enclosure eliminates the noise and
light issues and while the roof may be seen, would have less
of a visual impression than the open sport court due to its
color. The closest neighbor with a view of the proposed roof
supports the proposal.
4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in
relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation
of natural habitats.
6
The new roof would be located upon a structure that is located
next to the existing residence. The two structures are
clustered together relative to the lot making it less
conspicuous. No new access roads are proposed, thus preserving
natural habitats.
5. Buil t forms
topography.
terrain, and
distance.
and landscape forms should mimic the natural
Building lines should follow the lines of the
trees and bushes should appear natural from a
The new roof structure would maintain a low profile so as not to
alter the impression of the existing topography that is no longer
natural in this location as it has been previously developed with
a sport court. The native trees and bushes to be planted have
been specifically chosen and placed to maintain the natural look
of the open space.
6. Existing trees with a circumference
4.5 feet above the ground level,
integrated into the design.
of 37.5 inches, measured
should be preserved and
The proposal includes the protection and retention of all
existing trees on site.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth tone or
subdued colors.
The project meets the intent of the criteria in that a earthtone
material has been selected for the roof structure that due to its
color blends into the semi natural environment. Most structures
in the Open Space do not have natural materials for the roof as
they can pose a significant fire hazard and are not as durable
over time.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no
irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire
retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention
technique.
The Fire Department has reviewed the plant selection and has
approved the plant species as being fire resistant. The plan has
also proposed that the new landscape material be planted with a 20
foot fire buffer between the new plant material and the sport
court roof. The new roof has also been designed with all non
combustible materials.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from
view so it is not directly visible from off-site.
7
There is no new lighting proposed in this project. The existing
lighting is shielded and directed such that it is not directly
visible from off-site. existing lighting still emanates from
the sport court facil as it is not a completely enclosed
structure. The current proposal to add a roof structure would
eliminate the existing light that emanates from the sport court.
Criterion 7,8,12,13 do not apply to the project as there is no cut
or fill associated with the proposed improvements, no new roads are
proposed, and the development is not within an unincorporated area.
SECTION 6. Conditional Use Permit Approval Granted.
Approval is granted by the ty Council under Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.77.060 for application 10PLN-00184, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 8 of the Record.
SECTION 7.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Modulus
entitled "Bunker Rink Roof", consisting of 5 pages, dated August
16,2010, and received August 17,2010, 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. Condit
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with plans received on August 17, 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.
2. The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings.
3. The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to
blend with the natural surroundings.
8
4. The sport court area shall not be converted to
habitable floor area for residential purposes and no additional FAR
shall be added to the site.
5. The hours of operation and use of the hockey rink
shall be limited between the hours of 8:00 am and 10:00 pm.
6. All activities and any mechanical equipment
associated with the sport court facility shall comply with the City
of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.10 of the Palo alto
Municipal Code.
7. The number
(Players/visitor/friends)
people at any given time.
of people using the sport court facility
shall be limited to no more than 13
8. The applicant shall incorporate and maintain
screening features approved by City Council and the Planning and
Transportation Commission to mitigate the potential aesthetic
impacts.
9. Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
vegetative screening element of this approval is critical its
function and success of the natural open space environment of the
area. As a security measure to secure the health and/or
replacement, as the case may be, of the screen trees and bushes,
the project shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicant describing a tree
and shrub retention amount totaling the installed value of all the
trees and shrubs as shown on the final landscape plan or $8,000,
whichever is greater. The MoU shall cite size, number and species
of trees and shrubs, attached map, criteria and timeline of five
years (5-years) for return of security, and conditions as cited in
this Record of Land Use Action for the project. For a period of
five (5) years following completion of construction/planting of
this project, Principal shall maintain a security guarantee
reflected here by a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond
and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department
or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. A return of the
guarantee shall be subj ect to a final tree assessment from the
project arborist as approved by the City Arborist, five years
following final inspection of the current project, to the
satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist. The
applicant and property owner shall be responsible to coordinate
with the Director of Planning and Community Environment and City
Arborist for the final inspection. The template for the MoU is
available from Planning Division staff.
10. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the
final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and
9
15. Any revision to the plans which may affect the
welfare of the trees and vegetation shall be reviewed and approved
by the applicant's arborist and Planning Arborist prior to
implementation.
16. During construction fenced enclosures shall be
erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary
functions, 1) to keep the fol canopy and branching structure
clear from contact by equipment, materials and activities; 2) to
preserve roots and soil conditions in an intact and non-compacted
state and 3) to identify the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) in which
no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted,
unless otherwise approved.
17. Tree fencing shall be erected before demolition;
grading or construction begins and remain in place until final
inspection of the project, except for work specifically allowed
in the TPZ. Work in the TPZ requires approval by the project
arborist or City Arborist (in the case of work around Street
Trees). The following tree preservation measures apply to all
trees to be retained:
• No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area.
• The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall
not be altered.
• Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and
maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
• Watering Schedule. All trees to be retained shall receive
monthly watering as identified in the Tree Protection
Plan during all phases of construction per the City Tree
Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each
application of water shall be kept at the site. The City
Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before
final inspection is requested.
18. For the life of the project, all landscape and
trees shall be reasonably well-maintained, watered, fertilized,
and pruned according to Nursery and American National Standards
for Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard
Pract (ANSI A300-1995) as outlined in the Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual.
19. The following controls shall be implemented for the
duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least
twice daily.
11
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be
covered or shall retain at least two feet of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
the construction site shall be swept and watered daily.
• Streets shall be swept daily if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
20. 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.
21. During construction, the site shall be kept clear
of debris on a daily basis.
22. Include in plan sets submitted for building permit
"storm water pollution prevention: the City's full size "pollution
prevention -its part of the plan" sheet.
23. Install a monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
24. Install a non combustible roof.
25. Maintain the proposed vegetation.
26. The applicant shall
Utility Engineering Department
plan and building review.
comply with all the Electric
requirements noted during
27. Applicant/Developer must notify Utilities
Engineering (Electric) if the proposed project has any impact on
the existing electrical service ,voltage, or location. If
there are any changes, the Utilities will provide comments and/or
conditions along with any applicable and cost estimate.
SECTION 9. Term ofmApproyal.
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
To the extent permitted
indemnify and hold harmless the
12
Clause.
by law, the Applicant shall
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 sole discretion, elect to defend
any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
APPROVED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Modulus titled "Bunker Rink Roof",
consisting of 5 pages, dated August 16, 2010, and received on
August 17, 2010.
13
CQ
~ z
Uoj
~ :r: u
~
~ «
t:::J 610 Los Trancos (Project Site)
c::::::::J Assessment Parcel (=: ~ City Jurisdictio na l Lim its
(\'o»<'n_~) n..QtvolPob_-....-no
(0
The Cit y o r
Palo Alto
0.. ee
-dE ~ ....
00 ;:J oS
Q s:: s:: 0 ~ Q
E-< .~ oo..s::
00..
.....lee
050
-0 \00.. o
E-<
This map is a product of the
City of Pa lo Alto GIS
ffi --• ""
ATTACHMENT B
• -;;
() 0" '" "" 3 i» :;
o • 610 Los Trancos e ~
_n
_.
"tI ~. " . Area Map
o ~
o n ,. ,
8' &. with Zoning Districts >-~
" o ~ -0
~ "'2. ~,
" 0
0
WRGH
ATTACHMENT C
Submitted by Applicant
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY
LETTER OF APPLICATION
Project:
Bunker Sport Court Roof
610 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto, CA
Sport Court Background
7/14/10
In 20M, we built a multi-purpose sport court that serves as a telUlis and roUer hockey
eourt in the summer and serves as an ice hockey rink during the winter months. In order
to minimize the visual impact of this structure, we suok the entire court and all of the
eooling equipment nine feet into the ground, so that the top of the walls surrounding this
area are at grade.
In order to keep the weather out, save energy and mitigate the noise, we covered the rink
with a temporary inflatable cover for the past two hockey seasons. Unfortunately, several
neighbors felt that the cover was an unattractive tan color that did not blend with the
surroundings, was reflective in the daytime and glowing in the night. They also felt that
the sports activities were noisy. Despite our attempts to mitigate the problem with tennis
court fencing and more sound control, one neighbor continued to eomplain.
In order to ftnally and fully eliminate the problems that have arisen from this situation,
we are proposing the following measures:
• Obtain a CUP (Conditional Use Pennlt) for this structure as a Recreational
Facility (Section 18.28.(40) in the OS District.
• Construct a pennanent low profIle roof over the playing area with the following
923 Industrial Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
characteristics:
o Lower overall profile than the inflatable cover
o Class A rated roof assembly that is non-combustable.
o Composition roofing (GAF "Timberline" series) that is non-reflective
and blends with the surrounding vegetation. Color: Weathered Wood
o Foam insulation on roof underside to provide increased thennal
perfonnance and provide sound control for year round mitigation of
noise from sports activities.
o It will eliminate the indirect sport court lighting that currently shows
after dark.
o It will eliminate the need for tennis court fencing
WW'N.I e rc h con struc tion. com
General B'Jildmg CQrtraclors license #750953
phooe: 650,843,1144
fax: 650,843,1161
Letter of Application page 2
• At the perimeter of the rink:
o Landscape the surrounding area in the following manner:
• Leave the site contour as-is. No grading will be necessary.
• Plant the area with trees, shrubs and ground cover species that
are:
o Native to the area
o Fire resistant
o Low water demand; Irrigation is needed only to get plants
established afterward no irrigation is necessary.
o Sized and placed in a way that will obscure the view of
the roof from the surrounding neighbors.
• Comply with Palo Alto Fire Department requirements
o Class A non-combustible roof assembly
o Plants and ground coverings around structure designed to be in
compliance with Chapter 47 of the California Fire Code
(Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas) as amended
by Palo Alto Municipal Code 15. (see site plan AI)
o Fire sprinklers for the enclosed structure
o Fire sprinkler flow alarm
o Emergency egress lighting and lighted exit signs
o A 20 foot wide "Defensible Space" that separates the surrounding
plants from the sport court roof and provides fire department easy
access to nearby "Wharf Hydrants".
Open Space Review Criteria
(1) The development should not be visually intrllSivefrom public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hiddenfrom view.
The combination of low roof profile (ridge of roof is g' -4" above grade) and
landscaping will hide this structure from public roadways.
(2) Development should be located away from hilllOps and designed to not extend above
the nearest ridge line.
The sport court is entirely sunken into the hillside such that the only projection
above grade will be the roof structure. The nearest ridgelhilltop is well above this
structure.
(3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views
of neighboring property.
The combination of low roof profile, natural-colored roof covering, and
landscaping around the perimeter will help to blend this structure with the surrounding
hillside. The perimeter native plantings should obscure the views from all but a few
surrounding properties.
Letter of Application page 3
(4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
fragmentation of natural habitats.
Not applicable
(5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines
should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a
distance.
The built fonn cover is designed to mimic the gentle slopes in the surrounding
area. It will be covered in non-reflective, natural-colored materials to blend-in with the
existing house and vegetation. The landscaping will be planted with native species that
will be a continuation of the existing vegetation nearby.
(6) Existing trees with a Circumference of37.5 inches, measured 4.5 flet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation
should be retained as much as possible.
No trees or bushes will be removed.
(7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enab(e the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to
minimize the need for grading.
No grading will be necessary.
(8) To reduce the need for cut and jill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses
of impervious surfaces should be avoided.
Not applicable
(9) Buildings should lise natural materials and earth tone or subdued colors
Roofing: The roofing material \\~ll be Class A fiberglass asphalt shingles. Color:
"Weathered Wood" (see color board).
Concrete/exposed steel: Any exposed concrete and steel will be painted a natural
green color to blend with the surroundings. Color: Benjamin Moore "Forest Floor".
Letter of Application page 4
(10) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as fire
protection.
All landscaping is specified to be native species that are drought tolerant, and fire
resistant. In addition, planting design will comply with Chapter 47 of the California Fire
Code (Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas) as amended by Palo Alto
Municipal code 15. We propose to use the following plants:
• Pacific Wax Myrtle (Myrica Califomica)
• Toyon 'Davis of Gold' (Heterome1es Arbutiflora)
• Cannel Ceonothus (Ceonothus Griseus)
• Hannony Manzanita (Arctostaphylos Manzanita)
• Marina Strawberry Madrone (Arbutus marina)
• Flannel Bush (Fremontodendron califomicum)
• Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis)
• Valley Oak (Quercus Iobata)
(11) Exterior lighting should be low intensity and shieldedfrom view so it is not directly
visible fi'om off-site.
We will not be adding any exterior lighting.
(12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb,
gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment)
No access roads will go through this area.
Construction
The roof that we are proposing will sit on top of the existing sport court perimeter, which
consists of a combination of concrete walls at both ends and tubular steel at portions of
the sides. All ofthis structure is already in place, so there will be no need for excavation,
concrete or structural steel work to provide a substructure for the roof.
ROOF
The roofwill be a low sloped (2112) structure composed of:
• Open-web steel joists (99.1% recycled)
• Steel roof decking (S2% recycled)
• 5/S" DensDeck DuraGuard Gypsum Roof Board
• GAF Timberline "Timberline Prestique High Definition" fiberglass asphalt shingles
(Class A fire resistance). Color: "Weathered Wood"
• Icynene foam insulation on the underside of the steel roof decking for thermal and
sound control.
• Other than ventilation grilles, the sport court will be sealed-off from outside, so we
will control the noise from sports activities year round.
Letter of Application pageS
In order to minimize the impact of construction activity, the roof structure will be built
off site and installed by crane in five days, with the roof decking and installation of
roofing materials completed within 45 days.
LANDSCAPING
This will consist of planting native species in the size and locations shown on the
landscape plans. No grading will be necessary.
We will provide irrigation to the plants long enough for them to become established
(probably two years). Once the plants are established, they will survive without
irrigation.
INTERIOR WORK
The rest of the work (wiring, fire system, insulation, paint) will be done inside the
structure and will have no impact on the surrounding wildlife, vegetation or neighbors.
Bunker Summary FAR Calculations 8/13/20101
610 Los Trancos Road
Palo Alto, CA
Lot Area Summary
A1 Lot Size: 13.347 acres::: 581,395 sf
A2 Allowable FAR: 3.5% x 581,395 sf = 20,348 sf
Floor Area Summary
Location SF
A3 Level A 2320
A4 LevelB 9274
A5 CeilinQ area over 17'-0" 1718
A6 Guest House 894
A7 Total existing floor area 14206
A8 Total allowable (from A2) 20348
A9 Net available floor area (A8-All 6142
A10 Tennis court 7329
Impervious Site Coverage
A11 Main Residence 9274
A12 Patios 1800
A13 Tennis Court 7329
A14 Guest House 1096
Driveways are composed of
permeable concrete and Eco-Stone
A15 I permeable pavers 0
A16 Tota/lmpervious Coveraqe 19,499
A 17 Allowable Lot CoveraQe 3.5% 20,348
ATTACHMENT.
ACTION NO. 2003-07
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 610 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE
AND DESIGN REVIEW 02-D-05 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT 02-EIA-10 (TOM JAKWAY, APPLICANT)
On October 7, 2003 the Council of the City of Palo Alto
approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Site and Design
Review application for a new house in the Open Space Zone District,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo. Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and ·declares as
follows:
A. Tom Jakway, on behalf of the Bunker Trust, property
owners, have r~quested the City's approval for the construction of
a new single family residence on approximately 13.35 acres within
the Open Space Zoning District. The 34,466 square foot project
includes a 9,274 square foot building footprint and related site
improvements ("The Proj ect") .
B. The site is comprised of two parcels that are substandard
in size by today's Open Space development standards. Both parcels
will be merged into a single parcel as part of the project. The
site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open
Space/Controlled Development and is located within Open Space (OS)
zoning district.
Access to the site is from a shared driveway connected to Los
Trancos Road. The site is approximately 13.35 acres. The two
parcels that form the site, 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road, are
approximately 7.57 acres and 5.78 acres, respectively, and are
developed with single-family residences. The site coverage of the
two existing homes, patios, and driveway is 38,855 square feet.
The project includes the removal of the two existing homes and
existing driveway. The construction of a new single family house
requires the two parcels to be merged into one parcel.
The site is moderately sloped, ascending east from Los Trancos Road
to the top of a ridgeline. The segment of the site that is located
on the western side of Los Trancos Road descends slightly down hill
toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed tributary to
Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This
tributary passes through the site in a south to north direction
with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the
site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 above sea level
1
and the habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland,
natural perennial grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal
scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments.
Both existing homes are located on the western facing hillside and
are bordered by lawn, shrubs, oak trees, and ornamental plants.
The adjoining properties are developed single family residential
parcels that are also zoned and designated as Open Space.
The project includes 23,173 square feet of impervious coverage
including a 9,274 square foot building footprint for the main
residence and related site improvements. The 1,096 square foot
guest cottage includes an attached carport to cover one car. The
guest cottage does not include a kitchen and ergot, is not
considered a second dwelling unit and does not require a
conditional use permit. The guest cottage is an accessory facility
that is permitted by right. A swimming pool and tennis court is
included. The basement includes an underground gymnasium. Living
areas are proposed on the main level and on the upper level
(illustrated on page 3 of the Development Plans, Attachment H).
The maximum height of the main residence as measured from the
midpoint of the roof is 25 feet above finished grade.
C. Following Staff review the Planning ,and Transportation
Commission (Commission) first reviewed the Project on May 28, 2003
and continued the project to their meeting of July 9, 2003. The
Commission recommended approval on July 9, 2003. The Commission's
recommendations are contained in CMR: 402:03 and the attachments to
it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070,
Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and
it was determined that, with the implementation of mitigation
measures, no potentially adverse impacts would result from the
development, therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on the environment. The Negative Declaration
was made available for public review beginning May 7 2003 through
May 28, 2003 (and extended to June 3 to give interested parties
sufficient time to review environmental documents). The
Environmental Impact Assessment ,and Mitigated Negative Declaration
are contained in CMR: 402:03.
2
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner
that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or
potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
The proposed residence would be seen from the Portola
Ranch in Portola Valley and the Blue Oaks Development. To mitigate
this visibility, earth tone building materials were selected to
blend with the surroundings. The materials include natural stone,
integral color plaster walls, and a slate roof. Substantial native
Oak trees surround the project, which help screen the building and
hardscape as viewed from off site. The plantings on the site
incl ude an irrigated lawn area on the north side of the site,
providing a transition between the development and native grass
areas. The proposed building and pathway lighting would be low
voltage and all light sources would be screened to not be visible
from off site.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring
the desirabili ty of investment, or· the conduct of business,
research, or educational activities, or other authorized
occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
The proposed design and size of the residence and
related site. improvements are generally consistent with the
existing residences on Los Trancos Road. The construction of all
improvements will be governed by the regulations of the current
Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable
codes to assure safety and a high quality of developm~nt.
3. Sound principles of environmen tal
ecological balance are observed in the project.
design and
The project has been designed to minimize the
visibility as viewed from off site. Mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project and would be implemented with .any
approval to mitigate impacts on biological resources, protected
trees, and geotechnical stability.
4. The use will be in accord wi th the Palo Al to
Comprehensive Plan.
The project proposal as conditioned complies with the
policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural
Environment elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The project
proposal meets the Open Space Development Criteria and the intent
3
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in designated open
space areas.
SECTION 4. SITE AND DESIGN APPROVALS GRANTED. Site and
Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto
Municipal Code Section 18.82.070 for application 02-D-05, subject
to the conditions of approval in Section 6 of the Record.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Tom Jakway
titled "Bunker Residence, consisting of 30 pages, dated November
27, 2002, .and received September 29, 2003, 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 pI an set submi t ted with the
Building Permit application.
~~~~~6~. Conditions of Approval.
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 29, 2003,
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.
2. The approved building materials and color scheme
shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings,
patios, fences, util i tar ian enclosures and other landscape
features.
3. The roofing materials shall be earthtone in color to
blend with the natural surroundings.
4. The existing asphalt driveway shall be removed and
replaced with a permeable surface. In areas with slopes in excess
of ten percent, the surface shall be engineered to provide adequate
wet traction to emergency vehicles. Prior to building permit, an
engineering study of the adequacy of the material chosen shall be
reviewed by the Fire Department. Total impervious areas on the site
shall be limited to 3.5%.
4
5. Any proposed exterior lighting shall be shown on the
final construction drawings and shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Palo Alto Planning Division. All lighting shall be
minimal and shall direct light down and shield light away from the
surrounding residences and open space lands.
6. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a non
reflective material.
7. The Planning Commission and City Council will review
the project to ensure that the .project' s screening features will
mitigate the potential aesthetic impacts.
8. If during grading and construction activities, any
archeological or human remains are encountered, construction shall
cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address
the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall
be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any
Nati ve American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately until a Native American
descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of
the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make
further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
9. All mitigation
Department to address fire
incorporated into the design.
measures
hazards
identified by the
on this site must
Fire
be
10. No area represented
plans received on September 29,
impervious paving unless an equal
converted to permeable paving.
as permeable paving in project
2003 shall be converted to
are of impervious paving is
11. Perimeter fencing shall be designed to not restrict
wildlife movement through the project site. Planning Staff shall
review and approve the proposed perimeter fence design prior to
issuance of a building permit.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, planning
staff shall review and approve of the amount of ,proposed lawn area.
13. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant
shall submit a Soils Engineer report for review by the Planning
Arborist and the Public Works Engineering Department describing the
usefulness of the excavated bedrock as fill material and for the
construction of stone landscape walls. Staff shall review this
report for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the effect on
the natural environment.
14. The size of the motor court shall be no larger than
the minimum turning radius as required by the Fire Department.
5
15. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permi t to
remove the existing structures on site, the applicant shall submit
to Planning Staff for review and approval, a detailed
deconstruction program for removal of the existing structures.
Applicant shall consider, as part of the program, to allow the
salvage company two weeks to deconstruct the buildings.
16. Oak tree Tag #39 is diseased and structurally
unsound and will be removed by the project. Replacement tree
mitigation for oak tree T,ag #39 shall be the installation of either
(a) four 24-inch box size or, (b) two 48-inch box size trees, as
stipulated in the Tree Technical Manual Section 3.20, Tree Canopy
Replacement. Species shall be of the Quercus genus (valley oak,
coast live oak, black oak or blue oak) or Aesculus californica
(California Buckeye) .
17. All provisions for the protection of trees shall be
implemented, as outlined in the Tree Report dated April IB, 2003
and the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. In the event of any
conflict between the two, the more protective measure shall
prevail.
18. 10 oaks on the site shall be relocated, protected
and preserved. Tree Tag #51, 52, p3, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60 and 93
shall be relocated and provided mitigation and monitoring as
outlined in the Tree Transplanting and Relocation Plan, including
appropriate irrigation, interim and post relocation maintenance. As
a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a
security deposit of the 'total value of the trees to be relocated,
provided for in the Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.26, Security
Deposits. The amount shall be as determined by the Appraisal
submitted in the Tree Report, in the amount of $41,550. The
Security Deposit shall be paid prior to building permit issuance,
and shall be held for a period of two years following the permit
for occupancy.
19. Any reVlSlon to the plans which may affect the
welfare of t,he trees and vegetation shall be reviewed by the
applicant's arborist and Planning Arborist prior to approval.
20. All provisions and recommendations contained in the
Tree Survey prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants and dated April
18, 2003 shall be incorporated into the project. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, a letter must be submitted by the project
arborist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation
measures contained in the report.
21. All provisions and recommendations contained in the
Biological Resources Analysis prepared by Light, Air, & Space
6
Construction and dated November 18, 2002 shall be incorporated into
the project. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a letter must
be submitted by the project biologist stating satisfaction that the
project is in substantial conformance with the recommended
environmental impact mitigation measures contained in the report.
22.
duration of
construction
The following controls
project construction
impacts:
shall be implemented for the
to minimize dust related
• All active construction areas shall be watered at
least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose
materials shall be covered or shall retain at
least two feet of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept and watered daily.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets.
23. Temporary impacts \~ould occur as a result of
construction activities. Typical noise sources would include
mechanical equipment associated with excavation and grading and
noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short in
duration. Once completed, long-term noise associated with the ne\~
building would be within acceptable noise limits and no impacts are
anticipated. Proper implementation of and compliance with Chapter
9.10 (Noise) of the PAMC (limiting construction between the hours
of eight a.m. and six p.m. Monday -Friday, nine a.m. and six p.m.
on Saturday, and construction activities prohibited on Sunday and
Holidays) would reduce construction-related noise impacts to less
than significant levels.
24. Prior to the commencement of blasting activities,
the applicant shall notify the City of Palo Alto Fire Department
and all property owners within 1000 feet of the project site of the
date and time of all proposed blasting activities. The applicant
shall comply with all directives recommended by the Fire
Department.
Building Division
25. A demolition permit shall be required for the
removal of the existing buildings on the site. Removal of the
existing buildings and final of the demolition permits is to be
completed prior to issuance of the permit for the new buildings.
7
26. The two lots comprising the site shall be merged.
The parcel map or certificate of compliance shall be recorded prior
to permit issuance.
27.· A separate grading permit shall be required if the
volume of cut and/or fill grading exceeds 100 cubic yards.
28. Separate building permits shall be required for each
independent building or structure.
29. No woodburnihg fireplaces shall be constructed
except as provided in PAMC Section 9.06.
30. The proposed gymnasium, to be located in the
basement of the main building, shall be considered as a non
residential occupancy. The occupancy classification shall be
assigned based on the occupant load and the nature of the use.
Exits shall be provided based on the occupant load calculated using
the "exercise room" occupant load factor specified in Uniform
Building Code Table la-A. A fire-rated occupancy separation shall
be provided between the gym and the R3 residential living area,
corresponding to the occupancy classification.
31. Santa Clara County Health Dept. approval is required
for the construction private sanitary sewage disposal systems. If
such a system is included within the scope of the proposed project,
two copies of Health Dept. approved plans are to be submitted prior
to permit issuance.
32. Implementation of the construction techniques
contained in the report Geotechnical Report prepared by
GeoForensics and dated August 2002 shall be incorporated into the
project and approved by the Building Department. Prior to issuance
of a building permit, a letter must be s·ubmitted by the project
geologist stating satisfaction that the project is in substantial
conformance with the recommended environmental impact mitigation
measures contained in the report.
Fire Department
33. Provide Fire Department access road 20 feet in width
with 13'6" vertical clearance. Road to meet weight access (60,000
lbs.) and turning radius (36 ft. inside requirements of fire truck.
Road shall be all weather, and shall reach to within 150 feet of
any point on the first floor exterior. (98CFC902.2.2) NOTE: The
driveway configuration as shown does not meet this requirement.
34. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which
meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 -1996 Edition for
8
the main house. The guesthouse may be sprinklered in accordance
with NFPA Standard No.13D -1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be approved
unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
35. An approved underground fire supply shall be
provided for the sprinkler system, and shall meet the requirements
of NFPA Standard No. 24 1996 Edition. Fire supply system
installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (PAMC15. 04.083) NOTE: Fire Department approval will be
withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department
requirements have been met.
36. Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a
minimum of 3 hydrants available within 500 feet of the point on the
access road closest to the structure. Fire supply shall be designed
to provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than 2,500
gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 psig.
(98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of building materials to the site
will be prohibited until the hydrants and an ,adequate water supply
has been provided.
37. Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear
of the structure in accordance with Appendix II-A of the 1998
California Fire Code. NOTE: No tree should be planted closer than
10 feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
38. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be either keyed for
Fire Department access or a Key Box shall be provided. Contact the
Fire Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Public Work Department
Public Works Engineering
39. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant
shall submit a Master Work Schedule to PWE. The schedule must show
the proposed grading schedule, and the proposed condition of the
site on each July 15, August 15, September 15, October 1, and
October 15 during which the permit is in effect. The Master ~Iork
Schedule shall also show the schedule for installation of all
interim and permanent erosion and sediment control measures, and
other project improvements. After permit issuance, updated
schedule shall be provided to PWE each month that the permit is
active.
40. The location and extent of applicable SWPP!BMP
details should be indicated on the plan. Detail references for the
Temporary BMP should carry a sheet number i.e. (ESCll)!4 where the
9
numerator is the specific detail number and the denominati,pr is the
plan sheet where the detail can be found. The detailed reference
should include the following BMPs:
• Construction Entrance
• Sediment Basin
• Straw Wattles
• Geotextile Mats
• Concrete Waste Management
• Preservation of existing vegetation
• Hazardous Waste Storage
*California Storm Water Best Management Practice (BMP) Handbooks
contain varies types of construction BMP' s. A copy of the
handbooks can be purchased from Blue Print Service in Oakland.
phone # 510-287-5485) .
41. Within.the plan set include the City standard Best
Management Practice's (BMP) sheet titled "Pollution Prevention -
It's Part of the Plan". The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and implements
all stormwater quality control measures.' Failure to comply ~lith
the approved construction BMP's shall result in the issuance of
(correction notices, citations and/or a project stop work order.}
42. A set of notes addressing the requirements for Site
and Winterization should be placed on the dra~lings. The notes
should describe the winterization measures that will be implemented
dur~ng wet season to prevent erosion and storm water pollution.
The 'wet season" is defined as the period beginning October 1
through April 15 of the following year. This requirement shall be
implemented during'any year when excavation activities are underway
or grading operations have left areas unprotected.
All work areas that have not been stabilized prior to onset of the
Wet Season shall be graded to drain toward settlement basins at
interior of Storm runoff water from un-stabilized areas
shall be directed into'settlement basins and through BioWattles or
other filtration devices prior to release from the site.
Other SEPPP Temporary Measures and. Erosion Controls shall remain in
effect during the Wet Season and are part of the Winterization
Plan.
10
Identify the Limits of Work (LOW) on the plan. Provide a note on
plans advising that vegetated areas outside the LOW must not be
disturbed during the construction activities. Callout the BMP re
Preservation of Existing Vegetation at those areas.
43. A certified geotechnical engineer must prepare a
comprehensive geotechnical report for the site. The report, at
minimum, should include subsurface investigation, seismic refraction
survey, engineering analysis of fiied data, investigation of ground
water level, and construction issues related to the location of the
swimming pool. Based on the investigation of the ground water
level, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground
water level likely to be encountered in the future. If the bottom of
the proposed swimming pool is reasonably above the projected highest
water level, then the pool can be constructed in a conventional
manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to reI ieve
hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render
the pool waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic
and soil pressures. No external drawdown pumping of ground water is
allowed. In general, however, PWE recommends that structures be
constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or
projected ground water levels.
44. The proposed development will result in a change in
the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide
calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building
permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the
applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building
Inspection Division. The imp.ervious area calculation sheets and
instructions are available from PWE.
45. The plan must include a drain near the swimming pool
that can receive any wastewater that may be generated during the
operation or routine maintenance of the swimming pool water. The
swimming pool water in snot allowed to be di'scharged to municipal
storm collection system or into a creek. If the applicant wishes
to dispose of the swimming pool water at the site, a collection
system equipped with an every dissipater must be designed for the
site. The system should include design criteria, pipe capacity,
erosion evaluation and impact of the discharge water down slope of
the dissipater.
46. Building permit applicants are required to prepare
and submit an excavation dewatering plan whenever the project soils
report indicates that groundwater will be encountered during
excavation. The plan should be reviewed and approved by PWE prior
to the issuance of the building permit ~ Building permits that
include a swimming pool where· groundwater is not expected to be
encountered will be subject to a condition that a dewatering plan
11
shall be submitted to PWE for review and approval if groundwater is
encountered during excavation.
The plans shall carry a note requiring that "Where groundwater is
not anticipated but is encountered during construction, a
dewatering plan shall be submitted to the PWE for review and
approval.
47. The location of all existing utility structures must
be identified on the plan. If the site is utilizing a septic tank,
the location(s) of the septic tank and all associated plumbing,
including the leach fields, must be identified on the plans.
Construction, removal or abandonment of any septic system will
require prior approval from the City and the County of Santa Clara.
48. The applicant must submit a completed Certificate of
Compliance application with building permit request. The COC is
required when two lots are merged together. The COC must be
recorded with the County's Recorder office prior to issuance of the
building permit.
SECTION 28. 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.
PASSED: 9-0
AYES: Beecham, Burch, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Lytle, Morton,
Mossar, OJakian
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVEP AS TO FORM:
Gf)A /,-/",
Senior Asst. City AttOrney
12
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by Tom Jakway titled "Bunker Residence",
consisting of 30 pages, dated November 27, 2002, and received on
September 29, 2003.
13
TO;
FROM;
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLAKNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Russ Reich DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: September 1,2010
SUBJECT: Request by John Lereh on behalf of Scott Mc)Jealy for Site and Design
Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court
facility and the addition of new landscape material as screening for the
new roof at 610 Los Trancos Road. A Conditional Use Permit is also
requested to allow an enclosed Recreational Facility.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action approving a Negative Declaration and
Site and Design Review to allow a new roof structure over an existing sport court, with adjacent
landscape screening proposed for installation at 610 Los Trancos Road, and approving the
Conditional Use Permit for use of the court as a Recreational Facility.
BACKGROUND
Site Conditions
The property at 610 Los Trancos Road is located in the Open Space District, as illustrated in
Attachment C. The property has a total land area of 13.347 acres (581,395 square feet). The site
is moderately sloped, ascending east from Los Trancos Road to the top of a ridgeline. The
segment of the site that is loeated on the westem side of Los Trancos Road descends slightly
down hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed tributary to Los Trancos Creek
crosses through this portion of the site. This tributary passes through the site in a south to north
direction with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek occurring north of the site. Elevations
range from 550 feet to 712 feet above sea level and the habitats on site consist of non-native
annual grassland, natural perennial grassland, coast live oak wood, southern coastal scrub,
riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments. 111cadjoining properties are
City 01 Palo Alto Pagel
developed with single family residential parcels that are also zoned and designated as Open
Space.
Existing development on the site includes 23, 173 square feet (sJ.) of impervious coverage, including
a 9,274 s.f. building footprint for the main residence, an 894 s.f. guest cottage as an accessory
facility, and an uncovered sport court identified as "Tennis Court" on the site plan (Sheet AO)
included in the plan set dated August 16,2010 submitted for P&TC review. Sheet AO is for
reference only, as it indicates proposed features that were actually constructed in 2007 and
incidentally, it does not include the footprint ofthe guest house. The basement under the home was
originally approved by Council for use as a gymnasium. A swimming pool also exists on the site,
between the residence and the sport court. The height of the main residence, as measured from the
midpoint of the roof, is 25 feet above finished grade.
Process History
On October 7, 2003, the City Council approved, via the Site and Design Review process, the
merging of two parcels into one site and the development of a primary residence, guest house,
and tennis court on the site. The Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003 is provided as
Attachment D. The approval of the project was based upon Open Space District Site
Development Standards that predate the current regulations, which now have a maximum floor
area ratio. The previous regulations had only the impervious coverage regulations to limit
building mass on a site.
The existing, uncovered sport court was approved in 2007 via building pemlit as a tennis court,
which was factored into impervious coverage and was considered an accessory use and facility,
similar to a swimming pool, as "customarily incidental" to the permitted, primary residential use.
The existing sport court is 7,329 square feet of paved area and is excavated nine and a half feet
below the adjacent grade, minimally visible from other properties. It is used as an uncovered
tennis court and roller hockey court in the summer and more recently, as an ice hockey rink in the
winter via installation of temporary air-supported cover to maintain the colder temperature for
the ice.
The cover was initially installed without permits and drew complaints from owners of adjoining
properties due to noise and the visual impact, but was subsequently approved by the Director on
October 8, 2009 for a limited time via Temporary Use Permit (TUP), pursuant to Chapter
18.42.050 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The TUP approval included installation ofa
nine-foot tall dark green colored screen along the north and east sides of the tennis court to
screen the air-supported cover from views by the surrounding neighbors. The conditions were
not, however, completely successful in mitigating visual and noise impacts and the owner was
advised that a Site and Design permit would be required.
Project Description
The application is for Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval for
the construction of a new roof structure eight and a half feet above grade over an existing 7,329
square foot sport court facility, to enable its use as a hockey rink, a recreational use not
customarily incidental to a permitted dwelling. With the proposed CUP, the installation of the
City of Palo AI/o Page 2
roof would not convert the structure to "habitable" floor area.
The plan set for the proposed project inclUdes a cover sheet (Site Plan AO) to show the site and
indicate the location of the "Bunker Rink Roof", and four additional plan sheets (Sheets A I-A4)
to show the proposed roof and landscape plan. In addition to plans, the applicant has provided
reference photos to show views of the existing site and "after" photos simulating the completed
project, and a "letter of application" dated July 14, 2010 to provide background infonnation,
detail on the proposed projeet and reasons why the project meets the City's open space review
criteria. Finally, a model and color and material board have been prepared for display at the
P&TC hearing.
The new roof structure would add eight and a half feet to the overall height of the facility, but
would have a lower overall profile than the inflatable cover that had been placed over the rink by
approval ofthe TUP. The court currently has walls that rise three feet above the existing grade on
the north side of the structure and zero feet above grade on the south side. The proposed roof
would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope (2: J 2) to minimize its height and visibility.
The roof material is proposed to be Class A fiberglass asphalt shingles in a dark "weathered
wood" color to blend with the surrounding hillside environment. Any exposed concrete and steel
will be painted a natural green color ("forest floor").
The proposal also includes the planting of new native, fire resistant, and drought tolerant trees
and shrubs to provide screening for the proposed roof. Proposed plant materials include Pacific
Wax Myrtle, Toyon, Carnlel Ceonothus, Manzanita, Madrone, Flannel Bush, Western Redbud
and Valley Oak. Irrigation is proposed for approximately two ycars to establish the new
vegetation, which would survive without irrigation thereafter.
There will be no new cut or fill, no new impervious area, and no removal of vegetation as a result
of this project. The roof structure is proposed to be constructed off site and installed by crane in
five days, with the roof decking and installation of roofing materials completed within 45 days.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION
Commission Purview
Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally and
ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, compatible
with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Staff detennined that the proposal was not suitable to divert for minor architectural review,
particularly due to the proposed use, which had drawn attention from neighbors. The project was
then determined to be subject to approval of a CUP, which may be reviewed and tentatively
approved by the Director unless it is associated with a Site and Design Review requiring review by
the Planning and Transportation Commission.
The Open Space Zone District allows for accessory buildings and uses to be permitted ifthcy are
"customarily incidental to pemlitted dwellings; provided however, that such permitted dwellings
shall be for the exclusive use of the owner or owners, or lessee or lessor of land upon which the
permitted use is conducted, and the residence of other members ofthe same family and bona fide
Cily 01 Palo Allo PageJ
employees of the aforementioned." The proposed cover, enabling use of the court as a hockey
rink, could be used for hockey practice by others (friends) by invitation of the property owner,
and a hockey rink is not seen as "customarily incidental to permitted dwellings". Therefore, the
proposal to convert the customarily incidental tennis court use into an enclosed sport court for
use as a hockey rink was considered a "Recreational Use" requiring approval of a CUP.
Recreational Uses are described in the OS district land uses table as "including riding academies,
clubs, stables, country clubs, and golf courses."
A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides findings for CUP and Site and Design
Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Reduction of impacts
The following benefits would result from the installation of the roof and screening:
• The roof structure will reduce the noise associated with the sport court activities, particularly
the noise made by hockey pucks;
• The roof will eliminate the light associated with nighttime use of the sport court;
• The roof will block views of the existing sport court from properties at a higher elevation;
• The new landscape screening will screen the existing walls ofthe sport court as well as the
proposed new roof from most vantage points. Only those residences that are at a higher
elevation would see the new roof;
• The proposed landscape screening material would be drought tolerant, fire resistive, native
trees and shrubs, and would be placed 20 feet from the structure for fire safety;
• The new roof, designed to be low sloping, would minimize the height and visual impact to
other Open Space District properties and any potential public view vantage points; and
• The proposed color of the composition shingle roof material was selected to blend into the
hillside environment.
CUP Conditions
The issuance of a CUP approval would allow the City to enforce conditions of approval related to the
use of the hockey rink, to ensure that hours of operation and noise generated from use ofthe court
would not be detrimental to neighboring properties. It would also allow the City to restrict the sport
court to recreational use, to limit the use to noncommercial purposes, and to prevent any conversion
of the sport court to primary residential use, which would then count toward habitable, residential
floor area.
Floor Area
The existing floor area on the site is 14,206 square feet (sq.ft.), comprised of the home at 13,312
sq.ft. and the guest house at 894 sq.ft., totaling 14,206 sq.ft., where 20,348 sq.ft. of floor area is
pemlitted on the site pursuant to the Open Space District Site Development Standards adopted by
Council in 2009 (3.5% x 581,395 sq.ft. = 20,348 sq. ft.). A total of6,142 sq.ft. of additional
residential floor area would currently be available to construct on the site but there is only 849 sq.
ft. of impervious coverage available.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The sport court does not count toward floor area currently, since it is unroofed. Pursuant to Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section IS.2S.050(b) Open Space Impervious Coverage and
Floor Area, (1) Residelltial Use, (B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio, gross floor area is
calculated based upon the same criteria as in Low Density Residential zone districts, except for
basements, which follow R-I zone standards (in other words, basements don't count) unless any
portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent Although the 7,329 sq.ft. sport court is
below grade, there is no floor proposed above it; therefore, it would not be considered a
basement once the proposed roofis installed.
If the proposed roofed court were ever converted to habitable, residential floor area, it would
result in floor area exceeding the maximum allowable residential floor area by I, IS7 sq.ft. (.002
of the site area). The hockey rink use, considered a Recreational Use permissible via approval of
a Conditional Use Permit, may be considered non-residential use that would be restricted to use
as a sport court via the CUP, conditioned so that it canllot be converted to habitable, residential
floor area. PAMC 1 8.28.050(b)(2) Non-Residential Use. specifies that non-residential floor area
ratio shall be limited to 5% of the site area. Since a mix of uses is proposed for the site
(residential and recreational), a CUP would allow the City to restrict use of the interior space of
the sport court for non-residential use, and the installation of a roof would reduce potential
impacts from the use of the sport court, staff is in support of enclosed area resulting from the
installation of the proposed roof.
Conditional Use Permit Findings
I. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The project will result in the addition of a new roof structure over an existing sport court facility.
New landscape screening materials are also proposed. The existing use is not impacted by the
addition of the new roof structure. The sport court facility is already used as a roller hockey rink,
ice hockey rink, and tennis court. The roof structure would eliminate light and glare that
currently results from use in the evening, would reduce noise of sport court activities by
enclosing them, and will reduce the visual impression of the facility for offsite observers with the
planting of new screening materials. The conditions of approval, imposed as a result of this
application, will further ensure that the facility will not be impactfuJ to adjacent properties.
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and the purposell of the Zoning Ordinance.
The project would comply with the Comprehensive plan policies specifically Policy N-7 that
establishes a set of 13 Open Space Development Criteria. These Criteria ensure that new
development within the Open Space is ham10nious with the surrounding natural environment.
Open Space Review Criteria Compliance
P AMC 18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations, section (P) Open Space Review Criteria, sets
CUy of Palo Alto Page 5
forth 12 review criteria taken from the Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element. The existing
sport court was reviewed and approved as compliant with the Open Space Review Cliteria. The
proposed roof and landscaping would specifically address criteria 1,3,9, 10, and 11, as follows:
The design specifically complies with the Open Space design criteria in that the new roofwould be
low sloping to reduce its height and visibility and would have an earthtone roof color that would
blend with the surrounding hillside environment. The proposed landscape materials would be native,
drought tolerant, and fire resistive species that would adequately screen the new roof and blend with
the existing landscape materials. The new roof would also reduce the amount of light that is
currently released from the facility.
The applicant's letter also addresses how the project meets these criteria. The other seven open
space review criteria are not applicable to this project.
'The Site and Design Review Findings fUliher describe how (he project complies.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of
Land Use Action. The proposal complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted
above. While a hockey rink may not be a typical accessory use to single family residence, the
Conditional Use permit process provides the ability to appropriately regulate such a use within the
Open space environment. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications.
,
TIMELINE
A tentative consent calendar dale for the City Council has been set for September 20,20 I 0, subject
to recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
A Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public corrunent. The comment
period began on August 16, 2010 and ends on September 7, 20 I O. The proposal reduces existing
issues related to light and noise by enclosing the sport court such that the light and noise from the
sport court would no longer escape from the existing open air facility but rather would be
contained within it. The new native tree and bush planting will improve the existing visual
impact by providing landscape cover over the existing bald portion of the hill top as well as
screen the existing walls 0 f the sport court and the new roo f.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
B. Location Map
C. Applicant Submittal letter and floor area caJculation*
D. Record of Land Use Action by Council in 2003
Environmental Documentation
F. Plans and photos* (Commission only)
• Prepared by Applicant
City of Palo Allo Page a
COURTESY COPIES:
John Lerch, Lerch Construction Company, 923 Industrial Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Peggy Law
City of Portola VaHey
PREPARED BY: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY: Amy French, Planning Manager
DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: C~\h)~~
Curtis Williams, Director
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ATTACHMENTF
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 September 1, 2010
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7
8 610 Los Trancos Road: Request by John Lerch on behalf of Scott McNealy for Site and Design
9 Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court facility and the
10 addition of new landscape material as screening for the new roof. Environmental Assessment:
11 An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act
12 (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: OS (Open Space)
13
14 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Yes, good evening. Thank you Chair Tuma and
15 Commissioners. The application before you this evening includes a request for Site and Design
16 Review for the addition of the new roof structure over the existing sport court facility, and new
17 landscaping as screening for the new roof. The request also includes a Conditional Use Pennit
18 for an enclosed recreational facility.
19
20 The project site is located within the Open Space Zone District and is currently developed with
21 two family residences, a guest cottage, and a sport court facility. The existing uncovered sport
22 court is factored into the impervious coverage allowable for the site and is considered as an
23 accessory use and facility similar to a swimming pool as 'customarily incidental' to the permitted
24 primary residential use. The existing sport court is 7,329 square feet of paved area and is
25 excavated nine and a half feet below the adjacent grade to be minimally visible from other
26 properties. It is used as an uncovered tennis court in the summertime and more recently as an ice
27 hockey rink in the winter via the installation of a temporary air-supported cover to maintain
28 cooler temperatures for the ice.
29
30 In order to reduce potential impacts such as noise, light, and visual impacts associated with the
31 existing sport court the applicant has proposed to cover it with a new solid roof structure. The
32 new roof structure would be fully enclosed and insulated for energy efficiency and to reduce
33 noise associated with the sport court activities. The new roof would prevent indirect glare from
34 nighttime use of the facility and would cover the court with a roof material selected to blend with
35 the surrounding open space environment. The new roof would add eight and a half feet of height
36 to the existing structure that currently varies from zero feet to three feet above grade with a new
37 low sloping hip roof to keep the height low and to limit its visual impact.
38
39 New drought tolerant and native plant landscape plans are also proposed at the north edge of the
40 property adjacent to the structure to further reduce the visual impact. The tree and shrub
41 selections at places have been reviewed by Dave Dockter and the Fire Department for fire safety
42 and appropriateness for desired screening and effect and location in the natural open space
43 environment.
44
45 Staff has received two calls related to the project one from a neighbor whose primary concern
46 was noise, and another from the Town of Portola Valley. Staff has also received an email from a
Page 1
I neighbor across the valley that is at a higher elevation than the subject property and has a bird's
2 eye view of the sport court. That email has been put at your places. She has indicated that she
3 believes the proposed roofis an excellent architectural solution assuming the sound insulation
4 performs as deseribed and the landscape plantings soften the view of the existing mechanical
5 building.
6
7 Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
8 Council approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the Negative Declaration and Site
9 and Design Review to allow the new roof structure with the associated landscape screening, and
10 approving the Conditional Use Permit for the use of the sport court as a recreational facility. The
11 applicant is here to make a presentation. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Tuma: Thank you very much. Okay, you have up to I S minutes.
14
15 Mr. Scott McNealy, Applicant: I am the owner here and this is my wife Susan. We have four
16 boys eight, ten, 12, and 14. I plead guilty they are kind of noisy. They play road hockey out
17 here and they play all kinds of games out here. They have buddies over and they do noisy things
18 that boys do. So in the winter they are usually playing ice hockey out there. We also have a
19 little artificial turf area where they play soccer and other things that covers the water tank that we
20 had to build for fire protection. So it is kind of a play area for the boys out back here.
21
22 This is the loam here, which we built about five to ten feet below grade that he spoke of. I will
23 show you some more pictures to give you a little flavor for what the site looks like. This is that
24 water tank area with the artificial turf so we don't have to do any watering. This is looking
25 westward and you ean see the far edge of the sport court and it is clearly below grade. This is
26 kind of looking from the house looking towards Westridge. These houses are all about a mile
27 away. As you can see only a few of the houses are at the highest level or at 700. We are at 708
28 grade so only the people who are at 700-plus feet aetually get any kind of view of this thing at all
29 the way it currently stands. Certainly when we put the screening up, and I will show you that in
30 a bit, it changes. So this is the view from Westridge I showed you that hilltop. Went to the top
31 of the hill and took telephoto. This is a telephoto picture of this because you are a mile away
32 right here taking this picture. You can see the base of the court right along here. Then this is the
33 visual signature of the house at it is today. So we photo-shopped the roof in and you can see it
34 comes up about six to eight feet. 11 doesn't quite come up to the -this is the top of the first story
35 here behind, so you can see where the roof is and it is a low-profile roof. There is a little bit of a
36 problem with tennis in the summer. My boy's lobs and overheads are going to sufter a little bit
37 but we think to try and be good neighbors that this is a reasonable compromise for the boys.
38
39 When you add in that Dave Dockter was actually out on site and I want to commend him and the
40 whole Staff. They did a lot of work and he actually went out there with a hammer and little
41 stakes and he actually put stakes in all along the south side from here over to here exactly where
42 he wanted each kind of shrub and tree and plant, and all the rest of it. So this has all been
43 personally architected by Dave and his folks.
44
45 I want to show you here that we have actually reduced the visual signature of the property. I
46 want to go back real quickly. That is how much of the house you can see today. With the
Page 2
I proposed changes you will actually see significantly less. We will have cleaned up this hillside.
2 This was actually a cliff that was created when there was an old quarry here a long time ago. So
3 the edge is kind of rough and jagged and open. We think we can do this with irrigating these
4 natural plants for just two years and then unplug the irrigation and it will have a natural
5 vegetation on that cliff's edge as well as reducing the signature of the house.
6
7 The letter you have actually is from the only Palo Alto resident who can actually see our
8 property, the Laws. They are off over this direction and they are about one-third of a mile away.
9 They are very comfortable so the one Palo Alto resident is comfortable with the architectural
10 strategy here.
11
12 This is kind of what it would look like if you were standing right on the cliff. Anybody who has
13 Alpine Road or lower, most of the way out west won't see anything except shrubbery along the
14 edge. They can't even see our house. So there is very little visual impact unless you are at the
15 top of Westridge. I wanted to show this picture, and I am sorry it doesn't show up as well here
16 but we have the actual photographs. This is the naked eye view without telephoto lens of our
17 house from a mile away on Westridge. So this is actually what people are looking at. This was
18 last year when the original cover was up with the green screen, a normal green screen that you
19 would find, a normal ten foot green screen around any other tennis court. At the same time I
20 looked at Alpine. I look down the hill and I see Alpine Hills and that is the green screen. You
21 can just barely see it here. I know we camouflaged that last year. This year we think we will
22 have an even better and more natural look than a normal green screen tennis .....
23
24 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Scott, why don't you
25 hang on and let me tum the lights off.
26
27 Mr. McNealy: That helps a little bit. That is the green screen right there. Thank you.
28
29 So the structure is a low profile roof, obviously we can still play tennis in it but it will have to
30 have ground rule doubles and other local rules for tennis in there. You can see the roof covering
31 which will be very natural and blend in. We will be insulating it for two things. One is for
32 thermal because in the winter that will be a very eco kind of thing for us plus it will also serve as
33 a very good sound barrier. This will be entirely enclosed so that the sound even during the
34 summer when they are playing road hockey -today they play road hockey and all the rest of it
35 the sound will be mitigated to well below any other sounds we get up there including
36 motorcycles, leaf blowers, and airplanes that come in all day long, all the rest of it, and even the
37 Alpine Tennis Club. It will be quieter than the Alpine Tennis Club.
38
39 So we think that we will have definitely addressed those issues and there will be no light
40 escaping from this. Before this was covered it had a little bit of a translucent glow that people
41 noticed at night. It gets dark at 5:30 or 6:00 and the kids are out there playing. We have also
42 limited the playtime. We did that last year and the year before. We just said you are not going
43 to play late or early, besides by boys have to study, number one is their education. So there will
44 be no need for the tennis court covering that you saw in that previous picture. The landscaping I
45 think was already addressed by Russ and Dave Dockter. So that is my presentation and
46 hopefully it will save you some time. Thank you for your consideration.
Page 3
I
2 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Thank you. Clarifying questions from the Commission.
3 Commissioner Martinez.
4
5 Commissioner Martinez: We have heard that there is one house in Palo Alto that can see this
6 roof. What about other building sites in Palo Alto or Portola Valley? Do we have a count of
7 how many potential houses may be able to view this?
8
9 Mr. Williams: We have not done like a total technical study to try to determine that. The best
10 gauge of that is when the dome was over the site sort of who we heard from, because folks in
II Portola Valley there were quite a few that first year that called as well as the town itself, and the
12 Laws of course. I would guess there were at least a half dozen individual properties generally in
13 Portola Valley across the way there plus the Laws. Then last year with the tennis court fencing
14 around it there was one property who called and that was when the fencing came down in a
15 portion and they could see some of the dome again. So just going by that it appears there are at
16 least a half dozen, maybe ten or so, homes that have some visibility ofthe site. If this was not in
17 place or something more highly visible was, we would probably hear from them. But what we
18 have not done is a technical study as far as going out and topographically looking at who might
19 be or what lots might be at higher elevations.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you.
22
23 Mr. John Lerch, Applicant: I am the builder. For what it is worth, nine out of the ten' people are
24 not from Palo Alto. As far as I know there is only one person in Palo Alto who even sees this.
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: Unfortunately we have to take into account other communities. I don't
27 see the letter but what was the position of Portola Valley?
28
29 Mr. Reich: Portola Valley did not write a letter. Portola Valley just made a phone call. They
30 actually have not seen the plans yet so they asked to get a copy of those. I didn't speak to them
31 until today. They called me yesterday and that was the first I had heard from them. They just
32 had some clarifying questions. They really didn't have a position or any comments related to the
33 proposal.
34
35 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you.
36
37 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller followed by Commissioner Garber.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: So the first thing is, is this property visible from any public open space,
40 dedicated parkland, or is it only visible from private properties?
41
42 Mr. Reich: As far as I know I think it is only private property. I don't think you can see it from
43 Foothills Park. I didn't spend a lot of time up there searching for that but I am not aware of it.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Or any ofthe """
46
Page 4
I Mr. Reich: You should ask the homeowners to see if the property is visible.
2
3 Commissioner ~eller: Or any of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District?
4
5 Mr. Lerch: I think if you got up on Skyline you might be able to see it.
6
7Chi,lir Tuma: Sorry guys, if it doesn't go on that mike then it doesn't get recorded.
8
9 Mr. Lerch: I think if you got up on Skyline or something you might be able to see it, but then
10 you see every house up there if you get way up high.
II
12 CQmmissioner Martinez: How far away is that?
13
14 Mr. Lerch: Skyline is many miles away.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: It also depends on the topography whether it is visible so that is a factor.
17
18 Mr. McNealy: I should mention that the view from Windy Hill, which is the one he is talking
19 about, has a whole lot of mature oaks on that site and it is virtually impossible to see the roof
20 from Windy Hill.
21
22 Mr. Lerch: From the west you can't see anything there because there is a massive bank of trees.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Did we keep track of the property owners that made
25 complaints of prior stuff; and have they been notified, and did we get any feedback from them?
26
27 Mr. Reich: For the application we did the standard 600-foot radius mailing. I wasn't aware of
28 those particular property owners that had complained previously. There was no record of those
29 complaints.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Well, the problem is that 600 feet in the Open Space District is ......
32
33 Mr. Reich: Doesn't go very far.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Yes. That is right it is an insignificant amount. Therefore I think that a
36 particular thing that should be done prior to this going before Council, and prior to the Negative
37 Declaration is adopted, time depending, we should notify all the people who have complained.
38 That would seem to me to be a cOlUieous thing to do considering that they made an effort to
39 contact the City of Palo Alto about this.
40
41 Mr. Williams: We can look at that. Again I don't know that we have all their names, but
42 whatever we have we will send out to them. I think generally at that several of them complained
43 to the Town of Portola Valley who then contacted us. So I am glad to hear the Town has copies
44 of plans now. I do think that some of these people even though it is 600 feet from the property
45 line ofthis property and other properties are big properties too. So I am guessing some of those
Page 5
I people are the ones that would have abutting property lines, and their properties would be within
2 600 feet.
3
4 Chair Tuma: Yes, that is a clarifying question so we will come back. Commissioner Fineberg.
5
6 CommissionerFincberg: First off I had asked an earlier question of our attorney and I don't
7 know if you want to state it, or I can just state it, but this was supposed to be noted as a quasi-
8 judicial matter. So hopefully all of us have comported ourselves according to those standards. It
9 was not noted on our agenda but it is known that it is.
10
II Does Staff have a copy of the Open Space Zoning code here that I could look at briefly? I didn't
12 drag it in. If it is around and ifI could borrow that briefly.
13
14 One of the specific questions is are story poles required for this project? When we build a new
15 house we have to have story poles. I appreciate the graphics that you provided and you will have
16 to forgive me but I have no idea how accurate the photo-shopping is so having the ability to go
17 out to a parcel and see it, and see ifI can go into Foothill Park or into the Arastradero Open
18 Space Preserve and see a story pole tells me that it is visible or it isn't visible with a lot more
19 certainty than some thing that is unknown. 1 don't know whether that should be a requirement.
20 Okay, so are story poles required on this?
21
22 Mr. Williams: Story poles are not required on it. We do request that, and are authorized to
23 request that through the code on any structure. I think on this one we felt like the visualizations
24 and model that was done are preferable to them because the story poles are not very much higher
25 than eight feet above the ground. That doesn't present much to see and would probably be pretty
26 hard to see from off the site. I could have done that if that would have been helpful I will
27 apologize, we thought we had some other things here to use that we don't frequently have.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: You said mode, what model?
30
31 Mr. Y1.cNealy: We have a quarter inch scale model in the lobby if you would like to sec it. It is
32 pretty big. It does put it at a level that people across the valley see it. It is very accurate. I know
33 you can't see it from Foothill Park or the open space. Arastradcro Preserve I am not sure if you
34 can see something through the trees. It is very accurate if you want to take a look.
35
36 Chair Tuma: Is the model something that would fit in here? Is that the problem?
37
38 Mr. McNealy: We can bring it in here if you would like.
39
40 Chair Tuma: I think we should do that because I was going to ask about the model, because that
41 was something that was indicated to us that we would sce.
42
43 Mr. Y1.cNealy: Should we put it on that table?
44
45 Chair Tuma: That would be fine. Actually it would be preferable if you could put it here.
46 Commissioner Lippert.
Page 6
I
2 Vice-Chair Lippert: One page 4 of the Staff Report it goes into the floor area and lot coverage.
3 We don't have limit in terms of floor area right now, correct?
4
5 Mr. Williams: We do now, as of the last year.
6
7 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so that has been adopted by Council.
8
9 Mr. Williams: Yes.
\0
II Vice-Chair Lippert: Then with regard to the lot coverage it exceeds the lot coverage that is
12 permitted? Permeable,
13
14 Ms, Amy French, Current Planning Manager: The impervious,
15
16 Mr. Williams: It is not changing the coverage that is out there, What was permitted is still
17 permitted because it is already .. "Oh, I see .....
18
19 Vice-Chair Lippert: .. "it says there is only 800 .. ",
20
21 Mr. Williams: Impervious coverage, not talking about lot coverage, which is different, which we
22 don't have .. "
23
24 Ms, French: Floor area ratio.
25
26 Mr. Lerch: So this is the court as it stands. This is the view of the first picture. The neighbors
27 over here, a mile from here and this is the tennis court as it stands right now. The house, of
28 course we only show a small portion of the house, The actual profile of the house is about like
29 that. There is a substantial house back here, Then the structure would be something like this. It
30 would be open web trusses, You can see how low they are, very low profile.
31
32 The view from Windy Hill, which is the only possible place I can imagine, is here, This is a
33 solid native oak or old coast live oak right here, That is about five or ten miles away, The shot
34 that you are seeing across the way towards"",",
35
36 Mr. McNealy: You can see the banks of oaks right here that is he is talking about. Those are all
37 along the side of the house. So from west of the house looking you don't see any of this and you
38 don't see much of the house either.
39
40 Chair Tuma: What about from the east?
41
42 Mr. McNealy: The east? There is a mass of oaks my next door neighbor. I can" see his house
43 and he can't see mine.
44
45 Vice-Chair Lippert: It is a higher elevation?
46
Page 7
I Mr. McNealy: It is a higher elevation but there is a massive wall of trees and stuff so he can't
2 see me.
3
4 Chair Tuma: How about from a distance from the east?
5
6 Mr. Mcl\ealy: You can see. Peggy Law is the only person who really gets a good look at this.
7 She is right about there.
8
9 Mr. Lerch: Again we are not changing the visual signature of Peggy Law either. She is either
10 going to look at tennis court or she is going to look at the roof material. So we are not changing
II the -we are in fact reducing the visual signature for most of the people who can see the place
12 and for Peggy we are just changing it from tennis court to the roofing material, which we think
13 will be better. She is happier with that.
14
IS Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So on page 4 down at the bottom, the last sentence. A total of6,142
16 square feet of additional residential floor area would currently be available to construct on the
17 site but there is only 849 square feet of impervious coverage available. So now that this is a
18 covered structure have they exceeded the amount of impervious coverage that is permitted on the
19 site?
20
21 Mr. Reich: No they have not. The existing sport court is already included in the impervious
22 coverage calculation. So with or without a roof on it they still have 849 additional square feet of
23 impervious coverage that they could add to the site.
24
25 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay.
26
27 Mr. Reich: The roofis adding to the floor area oCthe site not to the impervious coverage.
28
29 Vice-Chair Lippert: That is the clarification I needed. Now, in terms of building a building are
30 they required to comply with Green Building regulations in terms of I guess it would be Build It
3 I Green in this case?
32
33 Mr. Williams: I think that is not directly covered by the requirements we have right now, but we
34 certainly could look at it. It doesn't fit into the category of the commercial or residential
35 structure but there is not a reason why we can't look at making sure that they are doing
36 essentially the equivalent of what we would be looking for in terms of trying to achieve certain
37 green buil ding goals.
38
39 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. What we have in the ordinance is basically it dictates or says when
40 you are building a residential structure or on a residential property it says there is certain
41 valuation for square footage that you have to comply with those rules. Then we adopted
42 separately additional rules when the FAR kicked in and you began to approach certain thresholds
43 in that area. I believe it was in the Open Space when we had updated that section.
44
45 Mr. Williams: Those provisions have not been adopted yet by the Council. It is going to the
46 Council in October. The green building relationships and ratio that would allow for larger
Page 8
1 houses and set a maximum house size. However, what we could do is, and this is one residential
2 building site so you could look at the criteria for this residence on the lot and see how that would
3 meet our requirements, and it should meet the requirements for a residence of this size.
4
5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay.
6
7 Chair Tuma: I have just a couple of very quick questions. Is the court currently lighted? Are
8 there lights?
9
10 Mr. McNealy: 1 will show you. There is some lighting that aims down right here along the
11 sidewall on two sides, this side, and this side.
12
13 Chair Tuma: Are those lights currently visible when they are on from anywhere else? Can
14 Peggy Law for example see those lights?
15
16 Mr. McNealy: No, no. The only time that we use those is when we have the cover on. They are
17 not bright enough to play sports or tennis during the day. So when the cover was on they show.
18
19 Chair Tuma: Okay, good. In terms of sound reduction I read somewhere in here that one of the
20 reasons to do this is to reduce sound, particularly hockey pucks and things like that. Have you
21 gotten to the point where you specified what materials would be used and what sort of sound
22 rating and that sort of stuff would be involved?
23
24 Mr. Lerch: Just to address your thing about green, a lot of the structure where we are at here is
25 this is almost all recycled materials. The open trusses there are somewhere between 85 and 95
26 percent recycled. The raw syntech steel deck is the same sort of characteristic, very much
27 recycled. There is no wood in it. I am not sure how the composition roof works, but it is good in
28 that sense. In terms of the insulation what we were going to do is put about eight inches of close
29 cell insulation that is on the roof. We think that is about five inch so we need insulation value of
30 somewhere around 40 on the roof. Then in terms of the STC sound transmission we think we
31 will get around 50, which is pretty dam good. I think in addition to that Scott has done other
32 thing around the rink to quiet things down. The real noise is the hockey pucks hitting the boards.
33 So he has put sound dampeners on there. It is like anything, you have to put the structure up to
34 know how it is really going to perform. But he will see to it that it happens. Before it was pretty
35 noisy when the hockey pucks hit the boards.
36
37 Mr. McNealy: Especially during the summer because there is no cover on it.
38
39 Chair Tuma: One last question. Would you guys have any problem if we put a requirement on
40 there that the structure meets the requirements for residential green building?
41
42 Mr. McNealy: It depends on how much that would cost. We have built a pretty green house as
43 is. We have solar panels up. We have collected all of the water including the water that will run
44 off this roof will already be recaptured and put into the subterranean drainage system. We have
45 used that water facility as our heat sync. So it turns out we were going to use that for heat
46 exchange for the air conditioning but we don't run air conditioning. We have not turned the air
Page 9
I conditioning on and I can verify that and show you the log. We have zero air conditioning all
2 summer including in the day because the house is so thermally performing across the board. We
3 probably run the heater two or three weeks a year and we capture heat out of the water tank to
4 heat the house. So it is an incredibly efficient house from that perspective. We have a very
5 important button with four boys in the house and in about six places we have an all off button
6 which turns off all the lights, which saves an enormous amount of energy for us because the boys
7 don't tum off lights. So we worked very hard on home automation systems and all the rest of it
8 to make this a very, very efficient house.
9
10 I would hate to have to go do something - I can tell you I have a huge motivation to build a
11 thermally efficient place here because we grow ice and you just don't want all of the heat to
12 come in. We only grow ice when it is cold.
l3
14 Now I am going to do something I didn't want. There is an enormous amount of regulation.
15 When I bought the property I thought fire was a universal service and then I had build 350,000-
16 gallon water tank because the fire hydrants didn't work up there after I bought the house. I am
17 just a little nervous about saying do I have any complying with some new regulation. I guarantee
18 you he is going to build something that is very thermally efficient there and that fits in with our
19 very eco-effective house. So I just don't know how to answer that question.
20
21 Chair Tuma: Just to clarify it is not a new regulation. It is regulation that exists currently and
22 this project may in fact be subject 10 it either way. We will see, but it sounds like what you have
23 is something that would meet the requirements anyway.
24
25 Mr. Lerch: I think the structure that we would put up would be very green. Whether you start
26 going down the path now or with the overall system that is in place that is making ice and we all
27 know that is not a green thing to be making ice. The structure that we put in will be very green.
28
29 Chair Tuma: Okay, a couple more clarifying questions before we go to the public.
30 Commissioner Garber.
31
32 Commissioner Garber: I assume you have not done your building permit yet.
33
34 Mr. McNealy: That is the thing, I don't know you could probably help me. I don't know quite
35 how you do that. I know on a regular house I know how you do it.
36
37 Mr. Lerch: What was the question?
38
39 Commissioner Garber: It is a state requirement that you have to submit for your building pernlit.
40 That is a separate topic about how you would do that. I suspect you would not have much
41 trouble passing it given that your building a structure that is almost or more than half buried in
42 the ground, two, has 32 to 40 new walls and ceiling, no windows. I would find it astonishing
43 that you wouldn't be able to pass that and if you are passing that you are passing two-thirds of
44 what it would be to build it green anyway given your additional systems you are probably
45 without thinking about it way over the criteria.
46
Page IO
I Mr. McNealy: That would be my guess.
2
3 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Tanaka.
4
5 Commissioner Tanaka: I have really one question for Staff. So I am looking at this spreadsheet
6 for the FAR. On line 89, Ijust want to make sure I understand this correctly, it says that the net
7 available floor area is 6,142. Then the tennis court right below it says it is 7,329. So my
8 question is is this exceeding the allowable FAR on the lot or not? Am I misreading this?
9
10 Mr. Reich: It doesn't, and the reason for that is because the limit, the available 6,142 is for
II habitable residential square footage. One of the issues for the Conditional Use Permit is that this
12 is a recreational use. So the square footage of this is not part of the residential square footage.
13 There is a .5 percent FAR limitation for recreational uses and this falls well below that amount.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: It looks like garages count toward FAR, correct?
16
17 Mr. Reich: Correct.
18
19 Commissioner Tanaka: And recreation doesn't?
20
21 Mr. Reich: In the Open Space there is a specific distinction between residential uses. The
22 restriction of the FAR in the Open Space is new. It used to be that there was only the 3.5 percent
23 impervious coverage limitation, which this meets with this sport court and house. When this was
24 all developed that was the standard. Since the construction of this we have adopted a residential
25 FAR limitation, which for a lot this size would be 3.5 percent. So if you were to add the sport
26 court FAR into that yes it would be over it, but because the sport court is being proposed as a
27 recreational use and not a residential use it is limited in the Conditional Use Permit conditions to
28 not be a residential use, if it is within the allowable FAR for commercial uses on the site.
29
30 Commissioner Tanaka: I am more used to this here where porches, garages, or anything covered
31 is FAR.
32
33 Mr. Reich: Right.
34
35 Mr. Williams: We are also looking at this as sort of a semi-basement. It is not under a structure
36 but it for the most part is buried. So it is not the same type of building. It is not habitable space
37 either.
38
39 Chair Tuma: Okay. So at this point we are scheduled to go to getting comments from the
40 public. I don't have any cards. So I am assuming that there are no comments from the public.
41 Next in order would be if the applicant would like to have three minutes for any closing
42 comments that you would like to make.
43
44 Mr. McNealy: I don't think so. I think we have covered most of the issues. I have no other
45 comments. Thank you.
46
Page II
I Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Back to the Commission. Commissioner Garber.
2
3 MOTION
4
5 Commissioner Garber: I would like to move that we recommend that the City Council approve
6 the Record of Land Use action approving the Negative Declaration and the Site and Design
7 Review to allow a new roof structure over an existing sport court, with adjacent landscape
8 screening proposed for installation at 610 Los Trancos Road, and approving the Conditional Usc
9 Pemlit for use of the court as a recreational facility.
10
II Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me Chair I thought we were going to have comments before
12 the motion.
13
14 Chair Tuma: The procedure was to come back for comments and a motion. So whatever order
15 Commissioners choose to take that. So we definitely will have plenty of opportunity for
16 comments before the motion is voted on. Is there a second to the motion?
17
18 SECOND
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Second.
21
22 Chair Tuma: Okay, so a motion by Commissioner Garber, seconded by Commissioner Keller.
23 Would you like to speak to your motion?
24
25 Commissioner Garber: Yes. First I would like to note that I believe that the proposal meets the
26 various Site and Design Review findings. They include the use would be constructed and
27 operated in a manner that will be orderly and compatible with the existing or potential use of the
28 adjoining and nearby sites. In fact, they have here a description in our previous discussion that it
29 ",ill improve visual and noise conditions that are existing today. Two, the project is consistent
30 with the goal of ensure the desirability of the investment of the conduct of business, research, or
31 educational activities, or other authorized applications in the same or adjacent areas. Three,
32 sound principles in environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the project.
33 Again I believe that this will actually improve the projeet site from what it is today. Four is that
34 the use will be in accord with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Again I think the project will put
35 it in greater compliance with the plan in that the visual and the noise issues are further mitigated.
36
37 Finally, the Conditional Use Permit Findings, the proposed use at the proposed location will not
38 be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. I believe that is met.
39 Then two, the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner and in accord with the
40 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. My previous comments
41 apply there.
42
43 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
44
Page 12
I Commissioner Keller: Yes, I agree with the statements of the maker of the motion,
2 Commissioner Garber. I have a few suggestions, which are not to be made as part of the motion,
3 but are suggestions for the Staff Report and the process as this goes forward.
4
5 The first is that we do particular outreach to any persons who have made commcnts or
6 complaints to the City of Palo Alto prior. Also, request that Portola Valley make outreach to
7 anybody who made comments or complaints in the past with respect to this property so that we
8 can get feedback of that in a timely marmer while the Negative Declaration is still being
9 considered.
10
II The second thing is that nonually the Open Space review criteria are specifically mentioned and
12 analyzed by Staff in the Staff Report and not relegated to a summary paper where the details are
13 in a document that came by the applicant. So I would suggest that even if Staff agrees with what
14 the applicant does there is some benefit for Staff owning it and traversing what the applicant has
15 made indicating the Stairs evaluation of that. So I think that is an important issue rather than
16 relegating thaI.
17
18 I am assuming that the Staff would traverse that and agree with what the applicant has said, but it
19 is still the Staffs responsibility to do that. The applicant can ccrtainly suggest how that could be
20 done but it is a Staff evaluation not an applicant process.
21
22 I also agree that this does seem to improve this particularly with the comment of the neighbor in
23 Palo Alto who has the most visibility to this being in favor of this. I think that where
24 developments cross boundaries, for example being in the Open Space, which is adjacent to
25 Portola Valley, I would not consider comments from Portola Valley any less than those from
26 Palo Alto. People in Portola Valley have as much right to comment on it as people in Palo Alto.
27 So we need to do the extra outreach.
28
29 Furthermore, finally, we should carefully consider the 600-fool notice requirement for the Open
30 Space District, and consider how to expand that so it is much more realistic in tenus of the kind
31 of impacts that are made with the terrain and the visibility around there in tenus of notice. So I
32 think that is something worth doing as well. Thank you.
33
34 Chair Tuma: Okay. Other comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Martinez.
35
36 Commissioner Martinez: In the Staff Report it calls this coverage for a non-habitable space. If
37 we look at the Building Code it would classify this building as an A-3 accessory building in the
38 same vein as a gymnasium. Indeed the project, the building, becomes about the size of a high
39 school gymnasium without the bleachers. Perhaps we are not supposed to talk about the building
40 code side of this but it does have impact on Site and Design. I think first because the structure
41 becomes like a basement structure, I question whether the egress that the building currently has
42 to that side and this side meet the egress requirements for an A-3 building. That needs to be
43 looked at.
44
45 In addition, I question whether the required one-hour rated roof structure is met by this steel
46 structure unless it is proposed that they are going to have fire proofing on the structure.
Page 13
I
2 I assume that the storage tank that you have onsite is sufficient to provide the sprinkler water
3 pressure for it. Okay. So you are not going to use the swimming pool or anything else on site
4 for that.
5
6 Mr. McNealy: Do you want me to answer that?
7
8 Commissioner Martinez: Yes.
9
10 Mr. McNealy: The design of the fire system, first off the roof assembly when we met with the
II Fire Department about how far these plants had to be from the roof they said 30 feet away.
12 When that came back up in a rated assembly so there is nothing combustible about this roof. So
13 the timberline comes in-the shingles are Class A rated. The ice ring will have a layer of new
14 coating put on the inside so that it is a rate of zero. In addition to that it will be sprinkled. The
15 fire reservoir is designed to run at 2,000 gallons a minute for two hours or something like that.
16 So it has 1 DO-horsepower pump sitting there that will run not only the whole house but it will run
17 two fire hydrants. It is a massive, massive system that will easily handle this. There will be
18 nothing in there to bum other than maybe a banner or something. There is nothing in it the rink
19 to bum.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I appreciate that. Then this is a conditioned building that does
22 have to meet Title 24. Commissioner Garber is probably correct that it would probably exceed
23 any current requirements but it is still a requirement.
24
25 This leads me to my third point and in the Staff Report there was mention of only one item in the
26 Comprehensive Plan that should be considered. As I review it, do you have the conditions?
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Later, yes.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. There are some additional, if! could just mention them. Policy
31 N-7 the Open Space Development Criteria. Development should be visually non-intrusive. The
32 third one site and structure design, should take into account private use. Number five, built form
33 and landscape should mimic the natural topography. I think this new landscaping is actually
34 quite a bit different. Number nine, the building should use natural materials. I don't consider
35 comp shingles as a natural material.
36
37 Then Policy L3, guide development to respect views of the foothills. I don't think any ofthese
38 Comprehensive Plan policies have really been adequately addressed tonight. I think when we
39 look at this first structure we see a very large, unnatural, very monolithic form that is very much
40 not in keeping with the natural landscape and the natural order of this district. I am concerned
41 that, and I really respect all that Mr. and Mrs. McNealy have done to build a sustainable house,
42 but in keeping with that I see a gymnasium structure of this size and mass being very
43 inappropriate for the Open Space District. I find that you are doing everything you can to
44 minimize the impact, be a good neighbor, to landscape, to spend extra money to make it
45 something great for your family, but I just feel that your respect for where you live and your part
Page 14
I of this open space community should extend to really questioning whether the idea ofthis
2 enclosed ice rink is appropriate for this location. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez's comments. I would
7 concur that thc Staff Report with the findings of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan just is
8 not consistent with how I read our Comprehensive Plan. The purposes oCthe Open Space don't
9 include massive structures.
10
II I forgot one question to ask before, if I can just jump around a little bit. When this home and the
12 tennis courts were originally approved did that approval include the infrastructure for the hockey
13 'rink? When that infrastructure for the hockey rink for the growing of ice, was that done with
14 permit with proper review and approvals? Does it have a right to continue or is that part of our
15 review with the CUP?
16
17 Ms. French: The CUP is for the hockey rink basically, though a building permit was issued and
18 it went though Site and Design for the sport court, the tennis court. I believe there was a
19 gymnasium in the basement of the house originally that was also approved in 2003. So I don't
20 know Mr. Lerch may have more on that.
21
22 Mr. Williams: I will just add as far as, I am not exactly sure what you mean .by infrastructure,
23 but as far as the improvements to the generator, the walls that have been altered in some way,
24 that doesn't require any planning approval per se. Electrical or those kinds of upgrades require
25 building permit approval but it wouldn't require planning approval as far as Open Space Criteria
26 goes. It is just when you start to do something on the exterior.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: So when the ice infrastructure was put in, not an insignificant amount
29 of electrical work, was that done with permit?
30
31 Mr. Williams: I don't know how much electrical work there was or permits.
32
33 Mr. McNealy: Everything that is there was done by permit. The only thing that was not done by
34 permit "illS the inflatable top. We asked the Building Department about it and at the time they
35 didn't think that was something, that a blow up top that you needed a permit for that. But
36 everything that is there now was all permitted and has all been inspected.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: Oreat, thank you. Okay, so thank you for allowing me to jump back.
39 \\I'hen we look at the Site and Design Review Findings and the consistency with the
40 Comprehensive Plan let me run through just quickly where my thoughts are. In the Staff Report
41 it talks about the project would be constructed and operated in a manner that is orderly,
42 harmonious, and compatible with existing potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. I don't
43 believe that Open Space and single-family residences are consistent with a recreational use of
44 that physical scale. We don't see it on any other sites in Open Space. So to me it is just
45 incongruous on its face.
46
Page 15
I On Policy N-l we talk about managing existing public open spaces and encourage the
2 management of private open space to meet habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and
3 low impact recreation needs. A recreational hockey rink is not consistent with that. We have
4 Policy N-2, I am sorry, let me skip ahead because I don't want to hit all of them. Policy N-4
5 talks about preserving the foothills as predominantly open space. That large of a structure is not
6 open space.
7
8 Policy N-6 says that through Site and Design and Open Space regulations minimize the impacts
9 of new development on views of hillsides and the Open Space eharacteristics and the natural
10 ecology of the hillside. I would agree and applaud you that the way you have designed it, ifit
II has to be an enclosed structure you have attempted to comply with the spirit of it, but having any
12 structure with a roof that large is not open space, and it is not a natural ecology. So it is
13 inconsistent with Policy N-6.
14
15 I am not sure in Staff' findings of page 2 the first one they talk about, the goal of ensuring
16 desirable investment, and I don't know what that goal has to do with the review of Open Space.
17 Open Space's purpose is not investment within the community. The fact that the sports court is
18 already there and used that it is preexisting I don't understand how that is a justification that then
19 one codifies it by issuing a CUP. We have not really talked about whether there should be a
20 CUP for this use. If we answer that there should be a CUP then you build the best structure. I
21 think we need understand and give Council some guidance of whether this should be a use in the
22 foothills, not it is already there so let's make the best of it.
23
24 Then I am not surc I am comfortable in all cases with how the enforcement will be done. There
25 are a number of conditions, and I applaud you that the one condition that there would be no more
26 than 13 people in the facility. I did a little printout and found out there are six players per team.
27 So you have two teams and one ref, and there would be nobody else in there. How would the
28 City every enforce that? So do we want to be in the business of having to inspect? I don't think
29 we have a very good traek reeord of enforcement of private matters. We don't have budgets.
30 We don't have Staff. So other than the goodwill of the eurrent applicant, which I have not
31 reason to distrust but the entitlement goes with the land not with the owner. So are we creating a
32 situation where with a future owner we are going to have who knows what in the rink, and then
33 the City in the position where we have created something that we don't want to be enforcing?
34
35 Then the last thing in Conditions of Approval if this moves forward is I am wondering whether
36 we want to introduce a condition that would require inspections let's say five years out on the
37 trees, and a requirement that there be some sort of - I believe we had another type originally that
38 there is a bond and a requirement for watering. Would we want similar conditions for the
39 landscaping to ensure that until they get past that fragile young stage that they make it to where
40 they can be independent in the environment?
41
42 Chair Tuma: Thanks. Vice-Chair Lippert.
43
44 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for the City Attorney with regard to this. Is this in fact a
45 quasi-judicial hearing?
46
Page 16
I Ms. Tronquet: Conditional Permits generally are.
2
3 Vice-Chair Lippert: So what is the implication of it not being according to our notices and such?
4 Does that have any bearing or any relevance? Okay.
5
6 Ms. Tronguet: It is your process.
7
8 Vice-Chair Lippert: It is our process, okay.
9
10 Ms. Tronguet: It is your process to ensure due process for that.
II
12 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. That is just one question that I had.
13
14 Chair Tuma: You may want to put that on the record.
15
16 Ms. Tronguet: No, the fact that it wasn't noticed, starred, I think you usually star it as quasi-
17 judicial is fine. What matters is the process.
18
19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, it is just one of many questions I have. I think that both
20 Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg have raised a number of questions, which are actually
21 excellent questions, and they have been sort of circulating in the back of my mind as well.
22
23 I want to relate a little case study. Back at the beginning of the decade I went to Japan. In my
24 travels to Japan I went to an island called Naoshima. On it is a world-class museum that was
25 built. Part of the conditions of the museum being built, there were several conditions placed on
26 it, first it is on an island and it is in the inland sea. Number one, they either wanted traditional
27 Japanese roofs or no roofs at all. The architect happened to be Tadao Ando and Tadao Ando is
28 an internationally known world-class architect. He opted to do no roof at all. What he in fact
29 did was built the museum into the side of this island and had it completely submerged with a sod
30 roof or green roof as they say, very similar to what the Academy of Sciences has up in San
31 Franciseo. It is not visible from the water at alL The second condition of it of course was that
32 they provide a hotel and that the hotel conforms with the same criteria. Part of it was that if you
33 were going to go to this island to go to this world-class museum they needed a plaee for people
34 to say because to travel out there for the day didn't make sense. That you would stay out there
35 for several days, and in fact you get to stay in the museum.
36
37 This is a very similar circumstance where here we have a rather large structure located in an
38 environmentally sensitive area, and it doesn't really respond to the environment at all. The
39 carbon footprint of this building alone in terms of ice generation is probably enormous. I don't
40 know what it takes to grow ice but I assume a lot of energy is involved. Yet, what it returns to
41 the natural environment is relatively nominal.
42
43 When we developed our Site and Design regulations for the Open Spaee the idea was that we
44 were going to have buildings or structures out in the Open Spaee that were compatible with the
45 natural environment. In some ways it does exactly what Commissioner Fineberg says. It meets
Page 17
1 the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. So in some ways I am perplexed about this
2 building and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
3
4 When we looked at maximum house size I was one of the people that was really opposed to it. I
5 didn't think that it was in our purview to mandate the floor area of the houses. But, when I hear
6 that this is exempt from the floor area because it is a recreational building I begin to question
7 how much recreation is too much. If somebody were to come along and say gee, I want to build
8 a theater here because that is recreation is that too much recreation? Does this set a precedent in
9 terms of somebody building a theater out in the Open Space for their own personal recreation
10 purposes? Maybe their daughter is a budding virtuoso and wants to conduct performances. So
II not that I am opposed to what is being proposed here but I think that there are many questions
12 that are raised that are unanswered that need to be addressed.
13
14 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
15
16 So I am going to make a substitute motion. My substitute motion is going to be very simple. It
17 is going to be that this item be continued so that some of these questions that have come up from
18 myself and my fellow Commissioners can be addressed and answered. I want to raise one other
19 minor point here v.ith regard to ..... .
20
21 Chair Tuma: Is this part of your motion as well because it sounds like you were making a
22 motion?
23
24 Vice-Chair Lippert: You are right I was making a motion. So I will address that if somebody
25 seconds my motion.
26
27 SECOND
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: I will second.
30
31 Chair Tuma: So a substitute motion made by Vice-Chair Lippert and seconded by
32 Commissioner Martinez. Go ahead Mr. Lippert, address your motion.
33
34 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Keller raised a very important point, which is the public
35 process, and how we deal with our neighboring community of Portola Valley. What is
36 incumbent upon us or what is important here is that we share a mutual respect of adjacent
37 communities. It isn't so much that we don't conform to their regulations but when we do not
38 allow other communities to weigh in on what our rules are and how properties are developed our
39 voice is diminished. Our citizens' voices are diminished when we comment on their rules and
40 regulations. So in some ways we need to be able to respect each other as good neighbors in the
41 public review process.
42
43 Then there was one last comment I wanted to make for the applicant. I appreciate the work that
44 you have done in terms of connecting with your neighbors and siting the building in terms of the
45 views. But there are also your future neighbors that will be building their houses some day.
46 They will be subject to the same regulations that you are under here in Palo Alto, and they will
Page 18
I have to comply with these rules as well. In the future when they build their homes they may
2 have a view of your structure that you are proposing here so we need to be sensitive to that as
3 well. Those are my comments.
4
5 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez, would you likc to speak to your second of the substitute
6 motion?
7
8 Commissioner Martinez: Yes. I agree with the Vice-Chair. First of all, I am a total sucker for
9 kids so if you would have brought your four boys in I probably would have told you how great
10 they are. 1 think the project can be better. I think it can be more sustainable. 1 know you have
II come a long way and this is important to you and your lifestyle, and it is important to all of us. I
12 just would like to see our neighbors given a chance to have some input, for Staff to really look
13 hard at the Open Spaee District Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. r would especially like
14 to see you given a chance to really come back \vith something that really is more sustainable for
15 the Open Space District.
16
17 Chair Tuma: I have not had a chance to comment on this point. I am going to ask the Planning
18 Director if he has any commcnts at this point particularly with respect to thc issues that have
19 becn raised on thc compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Open Spaee District
20 Ordinance.
21
22 Mr. Williams: Thank you Chair and Commissioners. What I would just generally point out is I
23 think there are a lot of components, I understand there are a lot of perspectives that have been put
24 forth here. I do think that there are components of this that do further the Open Space goals in
25 terms of particularly as you saw from some of the intentional offsite views that I think the tinal
26 product would be something that generally portrays a more natural look to the site, and to some
27 extent helps hide the house more than it currently does. The roofline as some of you have
28 acknowledged, the roofline is sort of in the hillsides out there and low pitch. Thcn the materials
29 themselves are not necessarily natural but they are colored and textured in ways that do I think
30 from offsite have a natural appearance to them.
31
32 I think the representations or contentions as far as the recreational use and the CUP we do have
33 first of all a golf and country club out there with buildings under a CUP. We have buildings and
34 other arched structures that are recreational types of buildings out there. So I don't think that in
35 and of itself is inconsistent. You could argue a hockey rink is not an open space type of use as
36 some of those equestrian and golf could be. So think there may be some opportunities to make
37 some improvements. I think there probably are, but I think when you look at it compared to
38 looking at an existing tennis court, open tennis court, I think if this area were not already a tennis
39 court all those comments I think are right on target. But given that it is a tennis court the area is
40 already disturbed the improvements I think from an offsite standpoint are generally beneficial to
41 the area. Looking at the bigger picture of this whole site this is a very small portion of the site
42 here. The overall site is predominantly open space, natural appearance. So again if you
43 understand that some of these concerns and I think there is room to be able to work on something
44 and make the project more sustainable, and maybe look at the materials a bit and see if there isn't
45 some way to better satisfY those concerns.
46
Page 19
I Chair Tuma: So if this were to pass tonight through the Planning Commission it is currently
2 scheduled for Consent Calendar of the Council on the 20 th , is that right?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Right. So I think schedule wise I think we would have to get with the applicants
5 and see what we can do. My guess is that it wouldn't be back to you until the September 29
6 meeting and then we would try to go to the Council as quickly after that as we can assuming the
7 Commission approves it.
8
9 Chair Tuma: Okay. So sort of where I am on this is that I think versus the status quo to me what
10 you are proposing here is much better. What you have now is sort of a noisy area. Hockey is
II noisy with puck slaps against the wall and things like that. Even with tennis courts there is some
12 noise. It sounds like you have been making ice anyway and it is going to be a lot more energy
13 emcient to make ice with a roof on there and insulation, and all of the rest of that. So generally I
14 look at this and I think this is a good thing to do.
15
16 I will say that the lack of analysis with respect to some of the Comprehensive Plan policies that
17 have been raised tonight is a little bit troubling. I am not sure if we went through that analysis
18 that it would any way change my mind or point of view that this is a good project and should go
19 forward, but it is troubling that that analysis wasn't done. So I can see an argument for going
20 through that process to make sure that there is not something we are missing. At the same time
21 we don't really have a definitive answer here as to whether this would be subject to our green
22 building requirements. I have not heard a definitive answer on that one way or another tonight.
23 So perhaps some additional time to get an answer to that question as well would be good. I am
24 looking for a way that we can not put it beyond the next meeting of Council and bring it back
25 earlier. It doesn't sound like we would be able to do that. I don't really want to delay it here and
26 I don't think it is going to substantively impact the outcome of the decision, but there have been
27 some very solid questions raised tonight that I think do need to get addressed. So that is sort
28 where I am at this point. Commissioner Tanaka.
29
30 Commissioner Tanaka: I have been thinking about this a bit. We could continue it or we could
31 approve it as it is. I would like to put out an idea, not necessarily a motion, but an idea for us to
32 perhaps discuss and think about that maybe allows us to move this forward. One thought I had
33 was that right now the tennis court doesn't count toward the FAR, and in fact if it did it would
34 exceed their limit. Perhaps one alternative to get more consensus on the Commission on this
35 item to allow it to go forward would be to say that if we do allow this that all of the available
36 FAR is taken up. So they can no longer build the additional 6,142 square feet, which they could
37 do. Let's say we do approve this tennis court they could rightfully build another house or
38 whatever up to 6,142 square feet. It would be maybe just as large. So perhaps saying that this
39 counts towards that and nothing more is an option perhaps. I don't know if Staff has a comment
40 on that suggestion, but that is something I was thinking about. They do have a right to actually
41 build bigger if they wanted to for some other residential structure.
42
43 Mr. Williams: If I could just clarifY that a little bit. They only have SOO-plus square feet of
44 impervious surface left. So they couldn't put a one-story 6,000 square foot structure up there
45 because they don't haven the impervious surface. If they build over an existing area that was
Page 20
I already impervious, say for example they took the swimming pool and covered that up and built
2 a structure on top of that It is already counted as impervious.
3
4 Commissioner Tanaka: Or they could replace the tennis court.
5
6 Mr. Williams: They could do that, yes.
7
8 Commissioner Tanaka: My point is or the way I look at it is they have certain rights right now
9 and we could say no we don't want this, but they could say well tomorrow I am going to build
10 another house here. So perhaps as a nice trade to make this move forward we could say look, we
II realize that this is a recreational structure, and yes we realize that is really recreational and not
12 somebody's eoncert hall or somebody's spare little room, or whatever. Let it count towards the
13 FAR wc eliminate the net building floor area for future structures that would go with the land so
14 we don't have to worry about the policing issues necessarily, and it would also prevent perhaps
15 future owners from actually building out the additional 6,142 square feet, or converting it. If we
16 allowed it it perhaps could rightfully convert all that structure to livable residential use perhaps.
17 Anyway I just wanted to talk about this as a way for us to -because I assume that our applicants
18 are eager and our time is valuable. Perhaps this is a way that we can make it a win/win situation
19 for everyone. So that is the thing perhaps we could consider.
20
21 The second idea that perhaps we could think about and it is actually something that Vice-Chair
22 Lippert mentioned. I am not a structural engineer and we have three architects here who could
23 ,probably tell me whether this is out of the question or not. I would think that it wouldn't take a
24 lot to covert this given the steel structure to actually make this kind of a living or green roof even
25 with the current pitch. I don't know but perhaps if we say well, if it were a green roof, not by
26 color I mean by planting. Exactly. Maybe grass or turf or whatever it might be for the roof.
27 That would be making it conforming to the structure, to the foothills, and more to the land, and
28 allow the applicant to get what they want without a lot of additional work. It would also help the
29 environment because it would be offsetting the heat island perhaps and reducing the carbon
30 footprint. So it would do much more than just having a roof or having better insulation. It
31 would actually help make it some of the things that they actually already have with the chiller,
32 with the concrete being heated by the sun. So I wanted to throw that idea out there. Perhaps this
33 is a way for us to ask the Commission to move forward on this item, allow the applicant to get
34 what they need, and it also protects people who will see this later on. They will look at grass
35 instead of perhaps a composite shingle roof. So I would like to get your feedback and see if this
36 ' is something that perhaps we can make a doable situation.
37
38 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Garber.
39
40 Commissioner Garber: I will not be supporting the substitute motion as it currently exists. I
41 want to talk through a couple of tile issues as I see them. First of all, use. The recreational
42 facility is an allowable conditional use, meaning it is allowable unless the use is found the
43 findings can't be made to support it. If this use were being proposed in a place that there are
44 greater impacts felt relative to their impacts to existing Comprehensive Plan policies or goals.
45 So for instance say at a lower elevation, you have a site that has better access, a site that is say at
46 the bottom of the Foothills Park where there is greater visual access to it.
Page 21
I
2 All of those start to bump into the various other policies of the Comprehensive Plan that have the
3 greatest impact to actually cause one to question whether that happens. In this particular site
4 those impacts are negligible. In fact, if you look at what is there now, which is a bright green
5 surface and a blue surface, those are two colors, which are not allowed in the Comprehensive
6 Plan. So introducing a color that is essentially barely changing the mass of the structure that is
7 currcntly seen out there but is brown, and recognizing also that the site itself is the result of a
8 very manmade act of a quarry, and results in a variety of very unnatural features which have only
9 been driven over time. This particular project also looks to mitigate those issues as well. So if
10 you made an argument that it shouldn't deal with them but I don't see how those kinds of
II findings can actually be made when the reality is we are dealing with an existing condition that
12 was permitted. It was reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission whenever that was.
13 The size is not really an issue here. It was pointed out by the Director other similar size
14 . structures exist in the Open Space, and in fact exist in the Open Space in places that are
15 significantly more impactful.
16
17 The other issue that I will remind us of is that one ofthe issues of the Open Space is that they are
18 not the impacts to thc skylinc. Here is a mass, as big as it is has zero impact to the skyline. It is
19 beneath that house, it is beneath the surrounding hills. From our understanding of those that can
20 see it everyone that can see it is looking down at it. So there is no impact to the skyline.
21
22 So to restate, you mayor may not agree with the decision to have put the project there initially
23 . but we are being given something that improves visually and in relation to the noise impacts that
24 it has on the neighbors and better supports the Comprehensive Plan than what we have now.
25
26 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Lippert.
27
28 Vice-Chair Lippert: Commissioner Garber you make some very compelling points here. I don'!
29 necessarily disagree with you. But what I see here is that there are a number of questions or
30 issues that are raised, and I simply wish to make sure that those questions are fleshed out.
31
32 There are some additional items that I wanted to add to that growing list of questions. It was
33 reviewed for the current cnnfiguration or the use as a tennis court, but I don't believe that at the
34 time that it was reviewed by our former colleagues that there was a bubble dome involved. The
35 bubble dome is something that was added. A building permit was not required but probably
36 would have had to return to the PTC for our review if they wanted to add that. Now what is the
37 significance of the bubble dome? The significance of the bubble dome is that that preserves the
38 ice. That allows for the ice to grow and remain. In the winter time if that bubble dome was not
39 there during our rainy season water would collect, pond, and in fact deteriorate the ice surface
40 whether it was at full court or not. In addition to that I am sure that the bubble dome adds to
41 insulative air quality value in terms of that ice melting on a sunny winter day. So while I don't
42 disagree that this is a better project than what is there where the subtlety is is that there are a lot
43 of questions that have been asked that need to be addressed before we can do our work in
44 forwarding this to the City Council with a recommendation.
45
Page 22
I Lastly I wanted to mention the degree or the volume at which this is a recreational use. Before I
2 had alluded to and used the examples of a museum on an island. I had used the idea of having a
3 theater for recreational purposes. In this case it is a hockey rink. So the intensification of the use
4 there for recreational purposes, in order to be able to be used, if! played tennis on that it is just
5 me and one other person. Maybe we are playing doubles and maybe there are a couple of people
6 that are watching. But you need 12 people to play ice hockey in a reasonable way, unless some
7 people are in a penalty box of course. Where I am going with this is it is for the private use of
8 the residents, however it is not uncommon to invite people and to have events, and to maybe
9 even have a whole hockey team tbere practicing on a regular basis. So what I am looking at or
10 where I am going with this is that the intensification of the use in the Open Space may not be
II appropriate. In using the example of the theater if! were to build a theater this size for my
12 prodigy daughter that wishes to perfonn and invite all my relatives again that triggers the same
13 impacts in the Open Space. I am just making sure that we are covering all of our bases and this
14 doesn't begin to set a precedent. That's all.
15
16 Chllir Tuma: Commissioner Garber, you had something you wanted to respond to that. Then I
17 think our Planning Director has a comment he would like to make as well.
18
19 Commissioner Garber: You may have to review the relevance of the bubble because I anl not
20 sure I was getting what you were trying to get at there. Let me just talk abont the use for a
21 moment. First of all this is conditioned to be private use versus commerciaL Setting that aside
22 for a moment there is nothing that keeps me from inviting the Planning aod Transportation
23 Commission and their families over to my house every weekend, five days a week, which when
24 we add them all up is significantly more than a hockey team, Whether they would come or not is
25 another question. But the point is that in the private world you don't get a chance to weigh in on
26 that. The reality is that it is conditioned that I can't go out and open up a party store on my
27 property. I can't go out and start selling tickets to the well, it wouldn't be a hockey rink in the
28 back of my yard, but whatever I would be playing because that doesn't meet the code and
29 zoning. So the argument that it is an intensit1cation of use has no bearing.
30
31 Chair Tuma: Planning Director.
32
33 Mr. Williams; I just wanted to clarify for those of you who have questions, but my
34 understaoding of the number 13 in there as far as the number on the site is they play three-on-
35 three hockey, they don't play full six man hockey teams. So it is basically six players and maybe
36 a few other friends or parents or something like that that are there.
37
38 Then also I didn't address before the question of enforcement. Enforcement is always a good
39 issue to look at. In this case, I think it is largely self-enforcing in terms of we are going to hear if
40 there are more, and if they are bothering somebody we are going to hear from someone about
41 that. You are right, we wouldn't probably know if there are 15 instead of 13 and it is not
42 bothering anyone. The reason we have a number at all is so that the amount of traffic and the
43 amount of noise doesn't affect neighbors. If it starts to affect them I am sure we are going to
44 hear about that and will have to take action. If it is a continual problem then we would have to
45 come back to the Commission and look at whether the Use Permit needs to be revised. That is
Page 23
lone ofthe advantages of having a Use Pennit, which is probably the most enforceable instrument
2 that we do have, because it is a living sort of document.
3
4 Chair Tuma: Okay. Mr. McNealy do you have a comment you want to make?
5
6 Mr. McNealy: No, I was going to ... This is not a hockey rink it is an ice skating surface. It is
7 well under half size, probably under a third of the size of a nonnal ice rink. You couldn't put full
8 teams on each side, and you would not hold any games or any sanctioned events or anything just
9 because it is a nonconforming, tiny piece of ice from a hockey perspective. Just so everybody
10 knows.
II
12 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I guess the question is whether the puck stops here. So first of all I
15 seconded the original motion because I did think that this was an improvement over the status
16 quo. I still agree with that.
17
18 In terms of code enforcement I notice that that's an interesting question. I notice that there is a
19 neighbor around the corner from me that has tons of garbage all over his house behind the fence
20 and code enforcement has been very lax with respect to that even though they have come out
21 several times and said do something. So whether they will come out here to enforce something
22 in the Open Space is even more of a questionable issue.
23
24 I am intrigued by the suggestions of Commissioner Tanaka. The one is very easy to implement
25 in tenns of the original motion and to amend it to basically not allow any additional FAR. That
26 is easy to do. With respect to the green roof however I am not sure whether that is something
27 that where that would be. I guess it doesn't really fit in this as an architectural issue. Does this
28 go before the ARB or does it not go before the ARB?
29
30 Mr. Reich: It does not go before the ARB.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: So it is not really clear how that fits. It is an issue of visual quality here.
33
34 Mr. Williams: It is Site and Design. You could refer it to the ARB for them to look at it but this
35 is Site and Design so you are looking at the design components. If you directed that it be a green
36 roofwe would have to work with the applicant to come up with something. I know they have
37 looked at that issue and didn't go that way so there are probably reasons they could explain why
38 they didn't think that was feasible. I think it is something that you would need to work with
39 them on to accomplish that.
40
41 Mr. McNealy: Can I respond to the green roof idea? We did discuss the green roof idea. First
42 of all, this is a unique property in the sense that there is only one resident in Palo Alto that is not
43 a mile away that can see this. They have written a letter saying they are comfortable with this,
44 and they are fine with the roof materials and all the rest of it. The other people are a mile away
45 and cannot see the roof within a couple of years of growing in the shrubbery. They will not see
46 it. They will not be able to see through the shrubbery. There is nowhere else anybody could
Page 24
I build a house in Palo Alto to see this. There is just nowhere. There is no way. So doing the
2 added expense of putting significantly more heavy steel in here, waterproofing it, irrigating it,
3 and trimming it, or whatever else J would have to go do and then creating a fire hazard when I
4 don't irrigate it. It would be an incredibly expensive and maintenance-full kind of effort for
5 something that nobody else will see except when I look out our kitchen window. We are the
6 only ones that are going to be able to see this other than the one who lives in Palo Alto who is
7 comfortable with this.
8
9 So with respect to committing to never building something else on the site, this is my second
10 process through the Planning and permit process, J am pretty comfortable that I am done building
II in Palo Alto. So 1 would be more than willing to make that compromise.
12
13 The final point I would like to make is my boys want to skate. We got permits and built this
14 thing so that they could skate. I am going to brag. They arc very elite hockey players. They are
15 all playing travel hockey. Two are playing on the top tier teams in Northern California and are
16 traveling. My 11 year old is going to eight different cities outside of the state and playing in
17 tournaments this year. We will have them skate but it is going to be noisy and it is going to be
18 energy consuming this winter if we don't get a cover put up on this thing.
19
20 My expectations when we did all this was not that the City was going to try and find a way to
21 keep me from skating but rather that the City would help us continue to do this in the least
22 irnpactful way to our neighbors. We did an enormous amount building the house to lower the
23 site. In fact, John will tell you that the Planning Commission has held our house up as a way to
24 build a green house, one that blends in with the environment. I think Dave Dockter will tell you
25 we have done a spectacular job of maintaining Open Space feel around that place. We spent an
26 enormous amount of time and energy to save trees around the place. So I guess I take a little bit
27 of personal affront, we came to Open Space to put the HP Pavilion up there. That is not what we
28 have done and I think we have worked very, very hard from the time we started the planning
29 process originally to do something that was very compatible with the Open Space, and have
30 created an envirorunent for kids to grow up in but not violate the letter or the intent of what
31 everybody is trying to do. Everything has been done by permit there.
32
33 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, were you done?
34
35 Commissioner Keller: No. So the interesting thing about this is we are at the beginning of
36 September. The winter is coming upon us soon as the rainy season is coming upon us. I am
37 wondering the extent to which there will be delays of impact on the schedule if it comes back
38 before us. The extent to which we can still take this maybe if it does come back before us maybe
39 it can be on our Consent Calendar based on identified issues so that this can be expedited
40 through the process and doesn't take much time. I am wondering the extent to which that can be
41 addressed. Is that perhaps something the applicant or the Planning Director can talk about the
42 impact on the schedUle?
43
44 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ask if there can be an amendment?
45
46 Commissioner Keller: I think it is worthwhile understanding the issue first.
Page 25
I
2 Chair Tuma: Mr. Planning Director.
3
4 Mr. Williams: So the question is can this come back on your Consent Calendar basically.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: And will there be an impact on the schedule ifthal were to happen?
7
8 Mr. Williams: Well, if it were on the Consent Calendar for two weeks from now, which I am not
9 sure how we could, I think if you are looking at addressing the questions that you have asked that
10 could be difficult to do. We would have to have the Staff Report out by next week. Then it
II would probably be on the Council's October 4 meeting as a Consent item rather than the 20 th of
12 this month. There is not a meeting on the 27 th by the Council. If it goes to the 29 th whether it is
13 Consent Calendar or not then it is best case going to probably be October II or actually there is
14 not a meeting on October 11 because that is a holiday. So it would be October 18.
15
16 Commissioner Keller: So perhaps a question for the applicant is how would the Council
17 approval being delayed roughly a month affect the schedule for this and affect whether we would
18 need another temporary use permit for the bubble or again or whether we could construct this in
19 time for this winter.
20
21 Mr. Lerch: Well, there is a little bit of a game of chicken that goes on here. I have engineers
22 that have studied this but it is hard to go authorize them to fully develop that and then to order
23 the trusses which take quite awhile to get made, and then the structure. The structure will go up
24 very fast. One of the things that wc liked about this and spent a lot of effort on this so that the
25 neighbors would not feel like there was this ma<;sivc construction project going on. The ring of
26 this thing is substantial. So this would come pre-made and thc trusses would go on very quickly.
27 That said it still pushes us into an awkward situation. Do r tell the engineers to go now or do we
28 still sit and wait in limbo? We are trying to get a sense. The north neighbors, I know most of the
29 people that complained. I want for the record to make it elear that the people across the way that
30 are part of this whole house, they came over. I gave them tours. I showed them the materials.
31 They were very engaged with this. They liked the orange dome but they were very engaged. So
32 if! gave the impression of to hell with the Portola Valley people, I didn't mean to do that. We
33 would engage them.
34
35 Chair TUl)1J!: Let me ask Commissioner Keller's question a different way. Let's assume that this
36 were to go through tonight, gct approved by City Council thc 20th of September. When would
37 you anticipate completion of this?
38
39 Mr. Lerch: Yeah. I think it will take about six weeks to get the trusses made, and about six
40 weeks to put it in and finish the whole roof.
41
42 Chair Tuma: So you think it is feasible that you would have this done by the end of the year.
43
44 Mr. Lerch: Yes. Now they start their sea~on.
45
46 Mr. McNealy: They have already started. All fouf of them.
Page 26
I
2 Mr. Lerch: We would like to gct going so the lost time at this point is a tough one.
3
4 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Fineberg.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Question for the City Attorney. If, I am not proposing this, but if
7 nothing was done at the site does the applicant have the legal entitlement to continue to use it as
8 an open ice hockey structure? Does using it for ice hockey without a roof, without any
9 construction, docs that use require a CUP?
10
II Ms. Tronguet: No.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So the intensification of usc from tennis to hockey.
14
15 Ms. Tronguet: I think it is a sport court, right?
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: With completely different infrastructure. I just want to be really clear
18 on this because I think a lot of the issues relate to the intensification of use, traffic, and the
19 numbers of people. They are very difl'erent from a passive tennis court to an industrial structure.
20
21 Me. Williams: We don't have any restriction as to how that court is used right now. It is an open
22 ' court. If he wants to have 50 people out there playing paddle ball against the walls, its allowed.
23 That is not a sport court. We don't have any specific use restrictions.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Just as a comment, I am quite troubled that as part of the
26 review of this I sensitive to the needs of the applicant, I am sensitive that time is money, but we
27 need to make due consideration. We need to make the right decision. We need to be respectful
28 of our Comprehensive Plan and our Zoning Ordinances. Those in my opinion trump making the
29 wrong decision quickly. So I believe we need answers to some of these questions that have been
30 raised. We need a better analysis by Staff for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. We
31 need an analysis by Staff, visuals from Open Space, from Arastradero Preserve, from Foothill
32 Park. I have not heard statements from Staff that they were in those locations to confirm that this
33 was not visible. So those are big open items in my mind. We need an understanding of what
34 building code applies. We need an understanding of and a discussion which we have not had
35 tonight of whether the conditions that have been presented by Staff are appropriate. So I don't
36 see that this is ready for an affirmative recommendation to Council. I would support the motion
37 that this item be continued. The substitute motion that the item be continued and hope that it
38 would come back to us with the substantive issues addressed so that our consideration could
39 include those absolutely critical pieces.
40
41 Ch~jrT\lma: Commissioner Tanaka.
42
43 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I just wanted to address the applicant's concern about a
44 green roof. I know when you think about a green roof you are probably thinking really big
45 dollars. Actually, I put a green roof on my house and I am not a wealthy person by any stretch of
46 the imagination. If you were to put a rubber tree on that roof and groves of big pine trees that is
Page 27
I going to be a lot of money. But there are a lot of types of green roofs out there like if you plant
2 grass. There is almost no or sometimes less structural impact. You might also find that there is
3 quite a bit of insulative value that happens as well, which will actually lower your electric bill for
4 your chillers. So I think structurally depending on how green you want to go, you can put five
5 feet of soil on there or you can put two inches for grass. I think it will affect the cost. I think if
6 you just go two inches I don't think your current structure is going to be inadequate but of course
7 you have to talk to a structural engineer. The insulating value I think that is actually offsetting
8 the carbon footprint from the chillers perhaps.
9
10 I actually did it because you get a rebate from the City actually by doing a green roof, by square
11 foot. So you have a lot of square footage you get a pretty big rebate. So that offsets some cost as
12 well and that is another thing to consider.
13
14 I appreciate the applicant's time, but I think for the Commission I think our time is also valuable.
15 I understand there are a lot of questions we don't know but I think expediency is important, and
16 what the intent is for the applicant to accomplish is important as well. So I think at this point I
17 would like to make a friendly amendment.
18
19 Commissioner Garber: To the substitute motion?
20
21 Chair Tuma: The substitute motion is the motion on the table.
22
23 Commissioner Garbel: Not unless the substitute motion fails and then it comes back to the
24 original.
25
26 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. So it will have to wait.
27
28 Chair Tuma: Vice-Chair Lippert.
29
30 Vice-Chair Lippert: I agree with Commissioner Fineberg and while I appreciate that the
31 applicant has a time schedule here and time constraints. On the flip side they could have come
32 before us a long time ago, prior to winter, and had come to us with a proposal and gotten the
33 comments. The important thing here is though is that in some ways Pandora's Box has been
34 opened. Even if! were to vote in support of this project the way it is right now, enough
35 questions have been raised that chances are City Council would pull this from the Consent
36 Calendar and ask those questions if they were not adequately addressed. So what I think makes
37 the most sense here is to have the applicant have Staff address the questions and concerns that
38 have been raised here. Let it come back to us as expeditiously as possible. I have no problem
39 with this coming back to us on Consent, but chances arc it will be pulled from Consent so that
40 the issues can be flushed out. Ijust want to see this thing move forward as quickly as possible. I
41 don't think the quickest way to get there is to make a recommendation to approve it tonight and
42 send it to Council.
43
44 Chair Tuma: A question on procedure. If we were to pass it tonight and the Council were to pull
45 this from their Consent Calendar does that mean that it would come back for a hearing or would
46 it actually be heard on the 20 th ?
Page 28
1
2 Mr. Williams: It would come back for a hearing. I think the way -they generally don't go.
3 They generally want to provide full notice and set a hearing date. I think the way that I reeall the
4 attorney said before is that they could really only hear it that night if it is kind of on the reeord of
5 what is being done without any new evidence being presented which is counter to the way they
6 typically do hearings on a regular basis.
7
8 Chair Tuma: Procedurally remind me again how many Council Members it takes to pull an item
9 off of Consent.
10
II Mr. Williams: Three.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: A quick follow up. When an item goes to Council on the Consent
14 Calendar is there any information about the item included in the packet that is distributed to the
15 public?
16
17 Mr. Williams: The entire Staff Report and attachments. Exactly what the Council gets.
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: So there isn't a truncated form or ... ? I thought .....
20
21 Mr. Williams: No, we give them your Staff Report. all of your minutes, etc. Those are all
22 available to the public the same way as the Council.
23
24 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Kel!er.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: I am going to suggest if I maya friendly amendment to the substitute
27 motion. The friendly amendment is that this come back to us on Consent and not a datc ccrtain
28 but a goal date of September 29 or before.
29
30 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have no problem with that.
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: That's fine.
33
34 Mr. Williams: Can you repeat that?
35
36 Commissioner Keller: I said that it come back to us on Consent. I am not suggesting we
37 continue it to a date certain because that has legal ranlifications, but that we have a goal of
38 having it on September 29 ifnot before.
39
40 Mr. Williams: We could do that.
41
42 Vice-Chair Lippert: There is no harm in stating a date certain. If Staff is not ready they will just
43 put it on the next agenda.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Is it okay to have a date certain or would you feel more comfortable with
46 the way I worded it?
Page 29
I
2 Mr. Williams: I am comfortable with the September 29 date.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Should I make it a date certain of September 29?
5
6 Chair Tuma: So that friendly amendment has been accepted by the makers. I have a question
7 again of Staff. Is there any circumstance or is it at all feasible that it would actually come back
8 to us on the 15!!1 on Consent? In other words, are we boxing ourselves into the 29 th by doing it as
9 a date certain as opposed to as soon as possible?
10
II Mr. Williams: There is no problem with saying that and we probably should do that.
12
13 Chair Tuma: Leave it open to as soon as possible?
14
15 Mr. Williams: Yes. Since it is on Consent it is not requiring notice. The public hearing is
16 closed right? As long as the public hearing is closed and it comes back on Consent we can do
17 the 15 or the 29th •
18
19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Are you asking for another friendly amendment?
20
21 Chair Tuma: Yes, to make it as soon as possible as opposed to a date certain in the event that we
22 can get it back on the IS, which potentially could keep it on track for approval by Council on the
23 20tll.
24
25 Mr. Williams: No it wouldn't.
26
27 Chair Tuma: In any event I would like a friendly amendment that we not box the date in and that
28 we try to do it as soon as possible. If we can get it done by the 15 then we get it done by the 15th
29
30 Viee-Chair Lippert: Acceptable.
31
32 ~hair Tuma: Any other comment or discussion before we vote on the substitute motion?
33
34 Commissioner Tanaka: I think we have been talking about this item for some time now. I think
35 there are a lot of questions not fully answered. I think we have ways to mitigate it perhaps. So I
36 would say that perhaps with some amendments we could actually move this forward. So I
37 wanted to throw it out there and we could consider that.
38
39 Chair Tuma: Before we vote, I would like to hear in the event that the vote on the substitute
40 motion was to fail what proposed amendments would you have?
41
42 Commissioner Tanaka: I would have three. One would be that basically there is no more FAR.
43 That it is taken up by this roof. That there is a green roof so basically the roof becomes
44 subordinate to the foothills. And three that everyone that complained got noticed by maiL I
45 think that would cover the majority of the issues that are being raised tonight Then the applicant
46 can move forward and we can move forward.
Page 30
1
2 Chair Tuma: Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Garber.
3
4 COll1l1lissioner Fineberg: Can I add to the list of conditions? If it failed the condition I
5 mentioned earlier about the maintenance and irrigation of the trees similar to the previous project
6 we saw. I talked about that earlier. Also, we really have not discussed the conditions of
7 approval. I think wc need to make sure that that is an inclusive as we would want it to be. We
8 have not touched on it at all frankly.
9
10 Chair Tuma: I do think in his original motion the maker of the underlying motion raised the
II conditions of approval. So they were discussed in his motion. There may in fact be additionaL
12 One last thing before we vote. Mr. McNealy you look like you are dying to say something.
13
14 Mr. McNealy: At some point Planning, the incremental screening, building a roof, going
15 through this process, losing the season, all the rest of it far outweighs the energy cost of just
16 buying a little thermal rug to be thrown out. By the way, people do ice everywhere allover the
17 place and I don't think we get any of the visual advantages and all the rest of it that we are
18 willing to go do. So at some point, I don't know where that is, but I just say the heek with it I am
19 not going to deal with Planning, I am not going to do the roof, I am not going to mitigate the
20 noise, and I am going to play hockey. The ROlon that is that at some point the boys will stop
21 playing hockey. I don't play hockey any more. So I really think that we have made a very
22 aggressive compromising strategy. I am not interested in - I don't know. It took me two years
23 to get a building permit the first time. I know the Staff has worked very, very hard. We
24 submitted this originally back in because I was told in March that the Temporary Permit Use or
25 whatever it was called would not be allowed next year so we ought to start investigating some
26 more permanent structure. We started talking immediately after we got the letter, and then
27 submitted the original thing back in May. So we have been answering a million questions all
28 along the way and evaluating green roofs and all these other things. We have had Dave Dockter
29 out on numerous occasions to go work on exactly the right landscaping and all the rest of it. We
30 have tried to do this thing absolutely progressively and by the books, and to do things that are
31 just making it a better place. At some point I run out of gas.
32
33 <:;hair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, a last comment.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what the applicant is saying. I think though that we are
36 adding actually more certainty to the process by doing the vetting through the Planning
37 Commission and reducing the potential that the City Council will pull it from the Consent
38 Calendar. Therefore if the City Council were to pull it from the Consent Calendar it would be
39 even more delayed than we arc introducing now. So we are adding some delay but we are
40 reducing the variance in the process if you can understand what I mean by that.
41
42 Vice-Chair Lippert: If I might say something. I appreciate your frustration. I am a practicing
43 architect as well and I need to gct through the public process. In the end I would not act rashly.
44 Just Ict us do our job and we will try to get it through thc process as quickly as possible.
45
Page 31
I Chair T uma: I am going to ask one other procedural question of the Planning Director and then
2 we are going to vote. That question is if this were to go to Council and they pull it off of
3 Consent could they instead of them deciding could they send it back? In other words, based on
4 the issues that we have raised tonight is it conceivable that they eould send it back to the
5 Planning Commission and that would cause further delay?
6
7 Mr. Williams: Since it is at their discretion if they felt that would be useful they eould do that.
8
9 MOTION PASSED (4-3-0-0. Commissioners Tanaka, Garber, and Tuma opposed)
IO
II Chair Tuma: Okay. Anything else? So we are going to vote on the substitute motion, which I
12 believe in summary is that this mailer be continued to the first available date for the Planning
13 Commission, and that it come back to us with an analysis of the various issues that have been
14 raised including the additional Comprehensive Plan policies and Open Space District Ordinance,
15 and also the analysis against green building requirements. All those in favor of the substitute
16 motion please say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? (nays) So that motion passes with
17 Commissioners Fineberg, Lippert, Martinez, and Keller voting in favor and Commissioners
18 Tanaka, Garber, and Tuma voting against. So I will close tbe public hearing and this will come
19 back to us on Consent on the first available date.
20
21 Okay, thank you very much.
22
Page 32
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT G
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Plam1ing and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: September 15,2010
SUBJECT: Request by John Lerch on behalf of Scott McNealy for Site and Design
Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court
facility and the addition of new landscape material as screening for the new
roof at 610 Los Trancos Road. A Conditional Use Permit is also requested to
allow an enclosed Recreational Facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transpo11ation Commission (P& TC) approve the attached
Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) on consent, to forward the project to the City Council
for their action on the Negative Declaration, Site and Design Review and Conditional Use Permit
BACKGROUND:
On September 1, 2010, the P&TC heard public testimony, closed the public hearing and voted (4-3)
to continue the item to a date uncertain with consent calendar placement, to allow questions the
P&TC raised during the public hearing to be answered by the applicant and staff.
The key questions were regarding outreach to Portola Valley residents and complainants, analysis
of potential views of the site from public open space, and inclusion of the comprehensive plan
policies applicable to the use and design in the staff report. Other concems related to the
sustainability of materials and energy use, compliance with building codes to ensure egress, and the
potential for additional floor area availability, subsequent to the proposed construction.
Since the question of story pole placement was raised by a Commissioner, the applicant has placed
poles on the sport court to indicate the extent of the proposed roof over the existing sport court.
City of Palo Allo Page 1
DISCUSSION:
Outreach
The Town of Portola Valley provided address labels for those properties they believed may have a
vantage point of the proposed roof and staff mailed meeting notice cards to those addresses on
Tuesday September t h to provide a one-week courtesy notice prior to the September 15 th P&TC
meeting. Maps are included as Attachment B to this report to show the properties in Palo Alto and
Portola Valley which were sent notices.
There has been much discussion about the facility as a proposed "hockey rink." The telm "hockey
rink" may lead some to a false impression of something larger and more impactful to its
surroundings than the roof covering that is proposed. The homeowner states "The sport court is a
multi purpose facility that is used year round by the residents and their friends. Activities include
soccer, skateboarding, roller hockey, ice hockey, tennis and other games such as nerf dart wars."
This is an existing sport court where the parents place some ice for their children to practice hockey.
When the COUlt has ice, it is used primarily by the residents themselves after homework has been
completed, and friends come over for one on one, two on two or three on three "pickup" games.
The tennis court size of the rink makes it inappropriate for a normal game of ice hockey with six
players on each side or for practice with a full team of players. There are no players' benches,
scoreboards, penalty boxes or viewing stands. The size of the ice is less than a third of regulation
ice rinks. While ice rinks arc not typical recreational activities on a residential lot in this area, the
Open Space district does not place limits on how many gnests a resident may invite to their home or
what kind of physical activities they may engage in.
Off Site Views
On September 1,2010, the applicant shared photographic views ofthe project taken with a
telephoto lens from Westridge in Portola Valley. The entire western side of the sport court is
hidden from views from the west by a massive cluster of mature oak trees. Staff has provided a
topographic map to show that the project is not visible from Foothills Park or thc Arastradero
Preserve.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
The September 1,2010 staff report (page 6) noted that Open Space Review Criteria 1,2,9,10 and
II would be addressed by the proposed project, followed by a paragraph about the project to
illustrate why it complied with those particular Open space Design Criteria. The Reeord of Land
Use Action (RLUA) includes two sections responding to statements about the project's compliance
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Section 3, Site and Design Review Findings (Finding #4)
and Section 5, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Findings (Finding #2).
Site and Design Review Finding #4 states, "The use will be in aeeord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan," reflecting the Open Space Review Criteria in the Plan and Zoning Code.
The attached RLUA Section 3 has been modified to provide more specificity with respect to how
the projeet complies with each ofthe criteria.
CUP Finding #2 states, "The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance." The September I,
2010 RLUA cited only Comprehensive Plan PolieyN-7, which is the policy that sets forth the same
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Open Space Review Criteria, It should also be noted that these criteria listed in the Comprehensive
Plan are also included in the Open Space District zoning regulations.
Policy N-6 and L-3 were cited by P&TC members as applicable to the project, related to their
concerns regarding the extent of the roof and use. These policies are now included in the modified
RLUA, whieh would be forwarded with the P&TC's recommendation to Council. While there are
examples of Recreational Facilities subject to CUP approval in the Open Space Zone Distriet (Palo
Alto Hills Country Club is one such examply, with roofed buildings on site), most recreational
facilities associated with residential properties in the Open Space Zone District are non-roofed, are
intended for use by the homeowners and their friends, and are considered accessory facilities
customarily associated with the primary residential use. Swimming pools and tennis courts are
usually non-roofed and do not trigger a CUP.
There are, however, a multitude of recreational uses and structures that exist within in the hills of
and above Palo Alto, There are swim and tennis clubs with multiple pools and tennis courts, There
are equestrian centers with stables, barns, and lighted arenas. There is a golf and country club as
well as schools and parks with soccer fields, baseball fields, and basketball courts. There is one
property has a substantial warehouse complex with hundreds of vintage wartime vehicles including
tanks. It is common to find recreational uses and facilities associated with the large properties
typically found in the Open Space zone district. Many properties in the vicinity of the project have
swimming pools, basketball courts, chipping/putting greens, stables and riding trails, etc,
The sport court represents only 1 % coverage ofthe 13.35 acre site; if it were habitable area, the
court would exceed the maximum allowable floor area for the site by 1,187 square feet. A draft
condition of approval (Condition #4 in the RLUA) has been modified to restrict any additional FAR
from being added to the property.
Roof Materials
Since the court structure is mostly buried, the proposed roof would have a very low profile, and the
proposed vegetation was designed to screen the new roof, staff has supported the use of
composition shingles for the project. This roof material, while not natural, was selected for its
natural color and ability to blend into the open space environment This roof material is non
reflective and is fire retardant as opposed to some natural materials that have high reflectivity and
may be fire hazards. A green roof had been suggested by one Commissioner. The primary
environmental benefit of a green roof would be to reduee storm water runoff or to reduce the "urban
heat island effect" caused by vast areas covered by paving or structures. They are therefore
typically most effective in urban environments where those conditions exist. These are not issues in
the open space where development is sparse. The only real benefit of a green roof applied in this
location would be aesthetics. The natural plant material could blend well with the other plant
material in the area. If the roof were highly visible, a green roof may be a reasonable solution, but
the only vantage points of this roof are from a great distance away, The proposed roof and
screening would adequately address any visual concerns.
The City'S Grecn Building Regulations, P AMC 18.44, applies to new construction over 1,000 sf
and is typically enforced at the time of building pernlit application. The Green Building Program
offers the ability for applicants to apply for exemption to the requirements for projects with unusual
scopes, or where the green building rating system, in this case LEED (Leadership in Energy and
City 01 Palo Alto Page 3
Environmental Design) can not be feasibly applied. While very few exemptions have been approved
to date, this project would be considered for an exemption since the use and location make it
infeasible for an adequate amount of points to be claimed under LEED. For example, without
plumbing fixtures, points can not be claimed in the water category, and with the structure planned
over an existing sport court, on an existing residential property that has already been developed, it is
not likely that any points are achievable in the site category.
Furthermore, LEED was developed for broad use nationally, without variation for rural and urban
application. Some of the points are not as environmentally beneficial or applicable in the open
space, such as cool/green roofs. In consideration of the exemption request, staff will require the
applicant to "green" the project as is feasible for the use and location.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record of
Land Use Action. The proposal complies with the Open Space Development Criteria as noted in
the RLUA. While a hockey rink may not be a typical accessory use to a single family residence, the
Conditional Use permit process provides the ability to appropriately regulate such a use within the
Open Space environment. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The draft
Initial Study and Negative Declaration were available for public review between August 16, 2010
and September 7, 2010.
NEXT STEPS
Upon recommendation by the P&TC, the project would be placed on the City Council consent
calendar for approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Record of Land Use Action (amended since September I, 2010)
B. Notification Maps, Palo Alto/Portola Valley
C. Public Correspondence
D. Topographic map
E. Initial StudylDraft Mitigated Negative Declaration
COURTESY COPIES:
John Lerch
Peggy Law
Town of Portola Valley
Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager
DepartmentlDivision Head Approval: __ --'~~~"""-'''-'.~-''\..L}J''''·'''~ ... n .... ''''>...rnM& ... ~'''lll'''''''':_ _ ___,__--
Curtis Williams, Director of Planning
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ATTACHMENT H
I Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 September 15, 2010
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7
8 610 Los Trancos Road: Request by John Lerch on behalf of Scott McNealy for Site and Design
9 Review of a new roof structure over an existing hockey/tennis sport court facility and the
10 addition of new landscape material as screening for the new roof. Environmental Assessment:
II An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act
12 (CEQA) requirements. Zone District: OS (Open Space)
13
14 Chair Tuma: On the Consent Calendar the one and only item on there is 610 Los Trancos Road.
15 Our procedure is that if there is any Commissioner that wishes to pull that item they would need
16 to indicate that to the Chair. At that point we would pull the item, have a discussion, and move
17 forward. If not, then I would be looking for a motion for approval of the Consent Calendar. So
18 at this point are there any Commissioners wishing to pull item one from the Consent Calendar?
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: I would.
21
22 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Martinez, okay, very good. At this point we will ask Staff if they
23 have anything that they want to add to the updated Staff Report that was given to us in our
24 packets.
25
26 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: No, I don't think you.
27 You have a number of correspondence, a number of letter that came to you, or emails that came
28 to you over the -some of them were attached to the packet and a few came in this week.
29
30 Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: It may also be important to note that of the comments that came
31 in from Portola Valley as a result of our additional noticing they were all positive. We didn't
32 have any negative responses to the outreach.
33
34 Chair Tuma: Okay, very good. Commissioners, back to us for discussion and/or questions.
35 don't have any lights at this point. Commissioner Martinez.
36
37 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I think the comments from Portola Valley actually were a
38 little bit mixed. They were pleased that the City of Palo Alto was in communications with them,
39 and they appreciate the opportunity to comment on that. They also noted the questionable land
40 use of a hockey rink. I think that needs to be mentioned. I didn't read that as a positive
41 comment.
42
43 Mr. Reich: If I may discuss? No?
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: I was going to go onto something else, Curtis. So go ahead if you
46 want to respond.
Page I
1
2 Mr. Reich: Ijust want to make the point that based on the comments even they said in their
3 letter that they didn't necessarily have a really clear understanding of all the factors involved, but
4 based on what they said it was clear that they didn't have an understanding of what is actually
5 proposed here. They mentioned adequacy of parking for fans. That clearly demonstrates that
6 they don't have a clear understanding of exactly what is proposed. If they had more time maybe
7 they would have a better understanding.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: I think that was raised in a question about what is the future of the
10 potential use rather than -and I think it is a question we all have. They recommended highly
I I that this use be monitored carefully because they are concerned about potential misuse and other
12 items. I personally don't share that view that somehow it is going to tum into something else,
13 but I think they raised an important point.
14
15 I really wanted to look at this from a different point of view, and I will do it and kind of borrow a
16 play from Vice-Chair Lippert through a little story. Years ago when I had a young family we
17 bought our first house in the Berkeley Hills. This was in the early 1980s. Across the street was a
18 house we called the mansion. By today's standards it is probably a mini mansion. It was very
19 elegant and our understanding of the hi story is that it was built in 1916 by an industrialist for his
20 young wife. Sixty or seventy years later she was still alive and still living in this house but really
21 incapable of much, and she was attended to by nurses. Right across from us there was an
22 outdoor tennis court. This tennis court, you could tell by its decay was maybe not used for 30 or
23 40 years. The fencing was rusting, and the netting was falling apart, and the concrete was
24 cracking. What was probably a onee very vibrant use and contribution to sort of the ambiance of
25 the neighborhood really was sort of an archaic remnant of a life that didn't exist anymore. It
26 reminded this is an important use for this young family now with four energetic boys, and a
27 lifestyle that this makes perfectly good sense for today. Looking at the future of an ice rink with
28 the 7,000 square foot roof on it, in ten years from now, which isn't very long, is that really going
29 to make the best use of this land for them or who lives there then and their children? The
30 youngest McNealy will probably be a senior at UCLA at that point and not that interested in ice
31 hockey at home. So I am wondering whether in voting for a use like this we are committing this
32 land to a use that really has little utility for the future.
33
34 MOTION
35
36 Instead I would like to propose, do we have a motion on the floor? Okay. I would like to
37 propose a motion that we recognize the importance, if only to this family, of this use and we
38 extend the Temporary Use Permit for ten years with the inflatable dome that they are now using.
39 So they can continue in their lifestyle and in their support of their family for a use that is very
40 important to them, but at the end of that time that structure be taken down and allow the
41 approved use pennit to be reinstated. I would ask that there be conditions of approval that
42 include additional landscape screening to buffer noise and sight lines, and conditions that also
43 explieitly state the hours of use, and other uses for the number of people and visitors and like
44 that, and games that I am sure are not the intention today but who knows as the children grow
45 older. I would ask that the Staff work out those conditions with the applicant. So that is my
46 motion at this time.
Page 2
1
2 Chair Tuma: Is there a second?
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Commissionerfineberg: I will second for discussion purposes.
7
8 Chair Tuma: Motion by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Commissioner Fineberg.
9 Commissioner Martinez, would you like to speak any more to your motion?
10
II Commissioner Martinez: No, I have said what is behind the motion. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: I think if I hold the wire it will work. I think we need that CUP project
16 to redo the sound system in here. The motion on the floor has I think some benefits and some
17 possible drawbacks. I am intrigued by the idea of approving something that only would commit
18 the land to that use for ten years. By not having a fixed strueture it will not have the impacts
19 over the life of a rigid framed roof. However, and I don't know how I would prioritize these, so
20 this would be I think a question for all of us. The inflatable bubble top created visual impacts in
21 excess of this low flat roof. It was lighted so it was kind of, to take other people's words, this
22 alien glowing object in an otherwise dark night sky. That is considerably less attractive of an
23 alternative than a dark roof that you can't see. So those two things have to be weighed.
24
25 If we proceed with this I would want to see a more fully flushed out list of conditions similar to
26 what is in the list now.
27
28 Then the last couple of things just bring up, actually should I go into full comments or just
29 comments on the motion?
30
31 Chair Tuma: Comments on the motion now. I think Plarming Director actually had something
32 he would like to add to this discussion.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So that is it for my comments on the motion. So I would like to
35 have discussion of it. I definitely see pros and cons in this.
36
37 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioners. I just want to point out and I think the City Attorney
38 can speak to it more but, first of all we don't have a process to extend a Temporary Use Permit
39 even through the Commission. Our Temporary Use Permits are generally 45 days and we have
40 oecasionally although I don't know the code specifies it have extended it to 90 days. It is a
41 generally a Staif approval.
42
43 Secondly, I don't think the item is noticed for this action tonight. That is kind of a departure
44 from the Conditional Use Permit. It would probably have to be renoticed and come back to you
45 if that is the direction that you would like to go.
46
Page 3
I Thirdly, I think while it doesn't address the temporary nature of the dome if there were some
2 desire to limit the length of the use permit to ten years or something less than that or have a
3 review after that period of time you could do that with the Conditional Use Permit. Understand
4 that leaves the roof on the way it is, but it does allow for that discussion of how have conditions,
5 is the use changing, are there additional conditions that we would put on if it were a different
6 kind of use with the same stmeture. So those options would be available that way.
7
8 Then I also want to echo some of the comments that Commissioner Fineberg made about the
9 dome did have some impacts which were objectionable to a few, not a lot, but a few of the folks
10 out there including visibility, the lighting, and the noise as well. So there also were some
II complaints about still hearing the noise given the use of the dome last year.
12
13 Chair Tuma: Okay. Commissioner Lippert.
14
15 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for Staff. First I have a comment I need to make. I was
16 contaeted by a member of the public, Roxy Rapp, and I was not able to discuss the item with him
17 because following our rules this is quasi-judicial and so we don't talk to members of the public.
18
19 Question for Staff. I read through Tom Vlasic's letter and there were a number of points that he
20 made. He is the Planning person at Portola Valley. The first point I think he made was that he
21 felt that the Staff Report he was given from the September 1 meeting had a lot of open questions
22 similar to the ones that we had expressed as a body. So have those been clarified with Portola
23 Valley? Russ?
24
25 Mr. Reich: Tom had expressed the use of a Conditional Use Permit was a bit concerning to
26 them. I tried to explain to him why it was necessary in this instance. He said that he gets it, he
27 understood it. This letter doesn't seem to pose outstanding questions other than it seemed that
28 they didn't have a clear understanding of what was actually proposed based on the comments
29 that they provided. I am not aware that Portola Valley has asked any questions.
30
31 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then would this item, if it were to move forward tonight, be
32 agendized again for the September 20 City Council Meeting? Is that what it was proposed for?
33
34 !vir. Williams: October 4th
35
36 Vice-Chair Lippert: October 4th , okay. So in the letter here it requested an opportunity for
37 Portola Valley to actually have and it appeared to be sort of ajoint meeting or ajoint discussion
38 with the City. We don't necessarily do that. We are public forum for that so if Portola Valley
39 wanted to review this they could agendize it. There is plenty of time for them to do that, discuss
40 it amongst themselves, and then send a representative to speak before the City Council.
41
42 Mr. Williams: Yes, they could do that. I anticipate that discussion would basically be bctween
43 Tom and whoever he wanted to have with him and Staff.
44
45 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So as indicated in their letter there is ample opportunity for Portola
46 Valley ....
Page 4
I
2 Mr. Williams: And Russ, as he mentioned. Russ did talk to Tom so he was able to answer some
3 questions for them.
4
5 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
6
7 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, if that is the case I am going to make a substitute motion here. To
8 move to recommend approval of the project to the City Council subject to the revised Staff
9 Report and additional information that we have received here, as well as the letters that we have
10 received from residents local to the property.
II
12 SECOND
13
14 Cgmmissioner Keller: Second.
15
16 Chair Tuma: ~otion by Vice-Chair Lippert, seconded by Commissioner Keller. Vice-Chair any
17 need to speak to your motion any further?
18
19 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. I would just like to say first of all I would like to thank Staff. You
20 have done a really great job of flushing out the issues. We had a lot of questions or
21 misunderstandings with regard to what is being proposed here, and those have been clarified as
22 to how it fits into Site and Design for such a conditional usc. I also want to thank the applicant
23 as well. I appreciate your patience. I know that it was a grueling process in the first meeting. I
24 appreciate you returning to us again. I think that there is ample opportunity here now that we
25 have a complete Staff Report and we have letters from the Town of Portola Valley as well as
26 local residents to be able to move this forward to the City Council for them to review and take
27 final action on this item.
28
29 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Keller, would you like to speak to your second?
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think it was worthwhile continuing this to this point in time so that
32 we could make sure that we had adequate infornlation so that we would ensure that when this
33 went to the City Council on October 4 there was that much more likelihood that it could be
34 passed at that time.
35
36 I have an additional suggestion that doesn't have to be made part of the motion formally. I
37 suggest that copy ofthe Staff Report from today as well as the minutes from the last meeting as
38 well as any attachments that were received at the meeting today be as a packet delivered to the
39 Town of Portola Valley to make it easier for them to comment on it if they wish to at the October
40 4 meeting. We might want to suggest to them that they give us feedback sufficiently in time for
41 it actually be included in the Staff packet, the CMR, for City Council. I think that would
42 facilitate things as well. Obviously their deadline would not be that but we could tell them if it
43 was received by such-and-such a date that it would be in the Staff Report and that would make
44 their input that much more useful to the Council.
45
Page 5
I I think that sometimes a little delay actually makes things faster. I think that is what happened
2 here. I think a lot of important questions were raised and I think they were properly addressed.
3 Thank you.
4
5 Chair Tuma: Commissioner Fineberg.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: I need to start with disclosure that I did go and do a site tour of the
8 subject property this morning. There were no substantive discussions or any learnings in our
9 discussions. The applicant was kind enough to point out some directions. Is it okay for me to
10 characterize kind of what my sense of what I saw was, because I think that goes to inform a good
II decision?
12
13 Chair Iuma: Sure.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: It made it really clear to me that the sports rink is sunk, that there is a
16 little bit of the wall visible, and that the roof structure at the current height is not going to be that
17 high above grade. So in that respect it was very comforting being onsite.
18
19 The piece that did give me some concern was just how visible the full view of I believe it is
20 cailed Westridge in Portola Valley is. 1fT can see their houses with my line of sight below the
21 ridge of the roof, then when they are in their homes they could see my eyes below the line of the
22 roof. So my one remaining concern is the appropriate vegetation on the kind of outboard side of
23 the rink. I am very pleased that in the revised Conditions of Approval that Staff has in today's
24 Staff Report there is a requirement that the vegetative screening be planted, that it be maintained,
25 and that there is a bond with a five-year inspection. That provides in my mind enough comfort
26 that that screening will alleviate any bad line of sight from Westridge trusting the planting plan
27 that Dave Dockter and the City Arborist have worked out.
28
29 I think also that there is a new Condition of Approval that was included. It was either part of the
30 fourth or fifth item in the list that limited the addition of new FAR in the site. That answers the
31 concern of is this too big, is this too much? It means that what is there now they keep. They are
32 entitled to it. They have it. But it kind of mitigates that there just won't be more.
33
34 I would like to echo Commissioner Martinez'S comment that I would not characterize the letter
35 from the Town of Portola Valley as necessarily supporting the pr~ject. To me the significant
36 issue is that they don't have enough accurate information to make informed comment. I think
37 that is what they were telling us. Some of that is timing because the quick turnaround from our
38 last meeting to today, and some of it is simply because that information was not in the first Staff
39 Report, which is why we had so many questions.
40
41 Just to go on record with a clarification one of my question, I was just kind of wondering why we
42 were worried about the investment in the zone. I was saying what does that have to do with this
43 CUP. In getting back to look at Title 18 I realized that that basically is one of the findings that
44 are required. So it is not an application of a Comprehensive Plan but it is the findings out of
45 Title 18, and it is appropriate that even though it doesn't make sense, we are not trying to build it
46 as an investment district, or a commercial zone that the underlying value in the residential
Page 6
I neighborhood, the underlying value in the Open Space is preserved, So seeing Title 18 and
2 seeing that that was an affirmation of the finding gave me the context to understand why we
3 were considering that.
4
5 My last thing, and this is something that I would hope the applicant and Staff can work out I
6 appreciate greatly that the story poles were put up. However, they were narrow and dark. I
7 don't know that we necessarily have a definition per code of what a story pole should be, but the
8 ones I have seen before have big chunky sticks and orange caution tape that is really in your face
9 and visible so when you are looking for it you can see it. While seeing it from on the site meant
10 that I understood what the dimensions would be what is there now would be impossible for
II anyone to spot from any of the hillsides. It is too dark, it is too small, and it blends in. So if I
12 can ask that there be the right height, the right dimensions so it portrays the right mass, but in
13 your face visible so that when people look for it they can find it. That needs to be in place for
14 the folks from Portola Valley so they can see it, and so that as this moves forward to Council if
IS any Council Members or members of the public want 10 see it they have an opportunity to find
16 what they are looking for. That's it, thank you.
17
18 I will be supporting the substitute motion notthe original motion. I don't see a way of making
19 the original motion work given that we don't have a mechanism for a ten year Conditional Use
20 Permit. I think the fixed roof mitigates the impacts better than a glowing dome. So that is where
21 I am.
22
23 Chair Tuma: Okay, great. Any other comments before we go to a vote, Commissioners? So the
24 motion on the floor is for approval of -right, sorry. Commissioner Tanaka.
25
26 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I just have a quick disclosure. I also was contacted by Roxy
27 Rapp but I told him I could not talk about this item.
28
29 The other comment r would like to make just real quick is I appreciate Commissioner Martinez's
30 comment about how things change. That is actually a very observant point. I think in this case,
31 beeause it is in the Open Space, I think it might be a little different Ihanlet's say if it were inside
32 the city or a more dense area. That is all I had, Thank you.
33
34 Chair Tuma: Okay. I am going to make one comment. It is a procedural comment not
35 substantive. Just to clarify for everybody in this room and anybody watching or in the future, the
36 way our procedural rules stand today as a Planning Commission we have not an absolute
37 prohibition against discussing quasi-judicial matters outside of the context of our meetings with
38 applicants or with other interested parties. However, we do have a policy that strongly
39 discourages that. So it is correct to say that we are legally able to have those conversations,
40 however as a Commission as of now we have a policy that strongly dissuades Commissioners
41 from doing that. So there seems to be a little bit of confusion about that and I just want to clarify
42 that for everybody. As several Commissioners have said today if there is contact made it does
43 require disclosure. So it is legally permissible, however we discourage it as a Commission as of
44 now. So j us! to clarify that.
45
Page 7
I With that, we will go to a vote on the substitute motion which was for recommendation of
2 approval to Council and also I believe although it was not stated explicitly that a Conditional Use
3 Pennit be approved as well.
4
5 Vice-Chair Lippert: I said that.
6
7 MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
8
9 Chair Tuma: All those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That passes unanimously.
10
Page 8
Reich, Russ
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1 :51 PM
To: Reich, Russ
Cc: French, Amy
Subject: FW: LeUer of Support
fyi
From: Vinod Khosla [mailto:vk@khoslaventures,com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 12:55 PM
To: Williams, Curtis
Subject: Letter of Support
To whom it may concern:
I arn a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road.
And I have a view of their home from my house while sharing
the property line east of the sport court.
This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover
on their sport court. The project will reduce the visual impact of the
house while reducing any potential noise or light issues
that may emanate from the sport court though to be honest, as their
closest neighbor we have never had a problem with the court, the
light or noise issues that the current setup creates.
We would like to see
this project completed in a timely fashion.
Regards,
Vinod and Neeru Khosla
9/8/2010
ATTACHMENT I
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW:
From: lorrie@cardinalphoto.com
Date: September 7,20101:52:08 PM PDT
To: Curtis.williams@CitYofPaloAlto.org
Cc: "'David J. Cardinal'" <dic@cardinalpholo.com>
Mr. Curtis Williams
Planning and Community Environment Department
City of Palo Alto
Dear Mr. Williams,
Page 1 of 1
As Portola Valley neighbors with a direct view of the McNealy Home on Los
Trancos Road, we are in support of their proposal to put a cover on their
sport court and landscape the land on the north side of the cover. Their
plans (of August 31, 2010), which we have reviewed, will reduce the visual
impact of the house and court, including any light that may emanate from
the sport court. We appreciate the McNealys' thoughtfulness in sharing
their plans with us and are hopeful that this project can be completed in a
timely fashion.
Thank you very much,
David Cardinal and Lorrie Duval
Lorrie Duval
Cardinal Photo
Nature and Travel Photo Specialists
340 Golden Oak Drive
Portola Valley, CA 94028
bltQ:/www.cardinalpholo.com
http:/www.nikondigital.org
+1 650.851.3086 Tel
+1 650.851.3190 Fax
91712010
Reich, Russ
From: French, Amy
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 20108:50 AM
To: Reich, Russ
Subject: Fwd: Planning and Transportation Commission re: McNealy Hockey Rink
See below
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peggy Law <mc;diaproji;!ct@igc,org>
Date: August 26, 20107:29:42 AM PDT
To: "French, Amy" <Amy.French@CilyofPaIQAlto.org>
Cc: Curtis Williams <Curtis. Williams@CitYQ,f]>aloAllo.org>
Subject: Planning and Transportation Commission re: McNealy Hockey Rink
To Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee
Re: McNealy Hockey Rink
Page 1 of 1
We have reviewed the plans for the proposed pennanent cover for the McNealy Hockey
Rink.
We think this looks like an excellent architectural solution, assuming that the sound
insulation perfonns as described and that the landscaping includes plantings that soften the
visual impact oflhe existing mechanical building on the north slope of the property.
Thank YO,I,
Peggy and John Law
830 Los Trancos Rd
Portola Valley, CA 94028
650-85/-1730
8i26!2010
Reich, Russ
From; Williams, Curtis
Sent; Thursday, September 09,201010;49 AM
To; Reich, Russ
Cc: French, Amy
Subject; FW; me nealy sport court
From: Jim [mallto;joboyce@earthlink,netj
Sent; Thursday, September 09,201010:30 AM
To: Williams, Curtis
Subject: me nealy sport court
To whom it may concern:
I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road.
And I have a direct view of their home from my house in the
Portola Valley Ranch.
This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover
on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side
of the cover. Their house is a model of tasteful architecture
that blends in beautifully with the natural surroundings of the hillside.
And the sport court is very effectively hidden from view by a
very healthy stand of trees between us and the court. as is most
of the house. As far as I am concerned, I
did not even mind the tan bubble and have never had any
issues with noise coming from their property.
I have no objections whatsoever.
Let the boys have their sport court with a roof.
91912010
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Reich, Russ
From: Roxy Rapp [roxy@roxyrapp.Gom]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 201012:18 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Williams, Curtis; Relch, Russ; French, Amy
Subject: Letter of Support· McNealy's
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road, and I have a direct view
of their home from my house in the Portola Valley Ranch.
They have done a wonderful job building a home that blends in with the natural
surroundings and that is set among the oak trees to minimize the visual
impact. With respect to the sport court, a very dense stand of oaks on the western
side of the court all but eliminates any view we have of this structure from the
Ranch. Michelle and I have not had any issues with sound from the sports activities
there.
The City of Palo Alto should be proud that the McNealy family wants to put a cover
on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side. We feel this is a "'TIY
green thing to do; it will not only cut the energy required to run the ice rink but will
also please the neighbors if there are any sounds they may be experiencing now. I
encourage you to vote for the new roof and landscaping. If you have any questions
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Roxy & Michelle Rapp
(650) 575-9488
9/13/2010
Reich, Russ
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 2:09 PM
To: Reich, Russ
Cc: French, Amy
Subject: FW: McNealy Proposal
From: DiBergeson@aol,com [mailto:DiBergeson@aol,com]
Sent: Friday, September 10, 20102:07 PM
To; Williams, Curtis
Subject: McNealy Proposal
Dear Mr. Williams,
Our family are neighbors of Scott and Susan McNealy and have been for numerous years.
Page 1 of 1
We live across the hill on Bear Gulch Drive in Portola Valley-across from their Los Trancos Road home.
I ~ave a view of their home from my house and am delighted they did such· a nice job with their remodel as it· is
extremely non-intrusive as it blends with the natural landscaping.
This is a letter in support of their proposal to put a cover on their sport court and landscape the land on the
north side of the cover. The project will reduce the visual impact of the house while reducing any potential
noise or light issues that may emanate from the sport ·court. I have been fortunate enough to see the proposed
looK as they shared it with us and I am 100% in support of this project.
I would like to see this project completed in a timely fashion as it will onty benefit everyone involved.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by email and I would be more than happy to address them.
Thank you,
Diana Bergeson and Family
9110/2010
Reich, Russ
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:59 AM
Reich, Russ
Cc:
Subject:
fyi
-original Message
French, Amy; Betten, Zariah
FW: McNealy sporl courl cover
From, Len Lehmann [mailto,len®vitelus.comj
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Williams, Curtis
Subject, McNealy sport court cover
Planning Commissioners:
I am a close neighbor of the McNealy property on Los Trancos Road. I am aware of the
McNealysl plans to erect a roof over their existing sport court and add screening
plantings. I have studied the staff report prepared for your September 1 meeting and
several renderings prepared by the McNealy family.
My family and I support the McNealy proposal. The proposed improvements will lessen
existing sound, light, and view impacts and will be a benefit to the surrounding homes and
public parks,
Respectfully,
Leonard Lehmann
850 Los Trancos Road
within the City of Palo Alto
1
Page 1 of 1
Reich, Russ
From: Roxy Rapp [roxy@roxyrapp.comJ
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 12'18 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Williams, Curtis; Reich, Russ; French, Amy
Subject: Letter of Support -McNealy's
Dear Planning Commissioners,
. I am a neighbor of the McNealy home on Los Trancos Road, and I have a direct view
of their home from my house in the Portola Valley Ranch.
They have done a wonderful job building a home that blends in with the natural
surroundings and that is set among the oak trees to minimize the visual
impact. With respect to the sport court, a very dense stand of oaks on the western
side of the court all but eliminates any view we have of this structure from the
Ranch. Michelle and I have not had any issues with sound from the sports activities
there.
The City of Palo Alto should be proud that the McNealy family wants to put a cover
on their sport court and landscape the land on the north side. We feel this is a very
green thing to do; it will not only cut the energy required to run the ice rink but will
also please the neighbors if there are any sounds they may be experiencing now. I
encourage you to vote for the new roof and landscaping. If you have any questions
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Roxy & Michelle Rapp
(650) 575-9488
9113/2010
Transmitted bv Email
Mr. Russ Reich
Senior Planner
Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
(650) 851-1700
September 14, 2009
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5'h Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: City of Palo Alto Referral to Portola Valley of Proposals for
Site Design and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Approval for
Sports Court/Hockey Rink Roof, 610 Los Trancos Road, McNealy
Dear Mr. Reich:
Thank you for your referral of the plans for the subject project to the town of Portola Valley
for comment. Further, we thank your planning commission for continuing its review of the
request from the September 1" to the September 15'" meeting so that we could receive and
review a copy of the plans. We also appreciate the commission's effort to reach out to
potentially impacted Portola Valley residents by having your staff send notice cards to some
50 residents of the town's Alpine Hills and Portola Valley Ranch areas. This has provided
the opportunity for concerned residents to share their views directly with Palo Alto. In
reviewing your September 15, 2010 staff report on the project I note that at least three town
residents, two from Portola Valley Ranch and one from the Alpine Hills area, have forwarded
comments to you in support of the proposal for construction of the roof over the sports
court/hockey rink.
As I informed you last week that I would, yesterday I took an opportunity to share the plans
with our planning commission and Architectural and Site Control Commission (ASCC).
Copies of your original staff report dated September 1, 2010 were also made available to
the members of these commissions prior to the meeting. At the request of the chairs of the
commissions, I've been asked to forward the following comments to you and your planning
commission and city council for consideration in completing their reviews of the McNealy
proposals and possibly as a basis for some follow-up discussions between representatives
of our communities.
Russ Reich, City of Palo Alto, McNealy Sports Court, September 14, 2010 Page 2
Scope of permitted development on hillside/open space parcels. Any activities or
development on the hillside parcels in Palo Alto, particularly those served by Los Trancos
Road, potentially impact a significant portion of Portola Valley, both from a visual
perspective and from a standpoint of access. Similarly, the areas of Portola Valley viewed
from the Hills of Palo Alto contribute to the visual environment of the uses of these City
parcels. As a result, we believe that there is the opportunity to share planning perspectives
relative to the scope of permitted development and ensure that objectives and development
provisions and guidelines for protecting these similarly situated, visually sensitive hillsides
are as consistent as possible. We would look forward to the opportunity to do this at a
mutually agreeable time.
Timing for review and comment. Since the town only actually received notice for this
proposal on August 30, it has been difficult to fully evaluate all of the materials and proposed
CEQA documents. In the future, for developments in the Palo Alto Hills, particularly those
served by Los Trancos Road, it would be helpful to have more time for review of such a
referral. We could also discuss referral timing at the suggested meeting between
community representatives. (As an aside, we have recently been made aware of a potential
application, apparently discussed with your staff, for 850 Los Trancos Road, "Portola
Vineyards." We understand that the owners of this property are in the process of pursuing
permits for a series of winery-based concerts they would like to hold during the summer of
2011 as explained in the attached letter. The traffic, noise, and other conditions associated
with any such concerts would be of significant concern to Portola Valley since access to
these events would need to be through Portola Valley, so if any such permits are actually
entertained, we would appreciate receiving an early chance to review and comment on
them.)
Specifics relative to McNealy proposal. It was acknowledged that the overall scope of
development on the McNealy site has already been set with previous approvals and that
both the magnitude of development on this property as well as the scope of uses permitted
appear to go well beyond what would be allowed under Portola Valley land use provisions.
The commissioners expressed a strong preference to minimize visual and noise impacts of
the hockey rink as much as possible. While the proposed roof enclosure is intended to
accomplish this relative to specific play in the rink, without the ability to do a full review of the
proposal and visit the site, the commissioners were not able to offer more specifics on the
proposals. They were, however, appreciative of your noticing of specific Portola Valley
residents thai might be impacted by this project and asked thai you seriously consider their
specific concerns, especially those dealing with noise and visual issues.
During the ASCC review, we did consider the attached photos of the McNealy property from
the Golden Oak Drive area in the town's Alpine Hills subdivision. The comments and
suggestions offered by our ASCC for your consideration have specifically to do with the
landscaping proposals. As you can see from the photos, there is a fairly large area on the
subject property that appears to have not healed from the earlier phases of site construction.
It was suggested that the landscaping include provisions for planting in this extended area,
particularly since the proposed CUP authorizes recreational use of the parcel. This would
help to ensure that the roofed sports court and surrounding improvements fully blend with
the backdrop of the property.
In follow-up to the Monday meeting where the above comments were offered by the
planning commission and ASCC members, I had a chance to review the matter further with
the chairs of each commission. Based on the review and individual comments offered
Russ Reich, City of Palo Alto, McNealy Sports Court, September 14. 2010 Page 3
during Monday's meeting. I was asked to share the following more general observations
relative to the hockey rink use with you. These are similar to those we discussed over the
phone prior to your September 1 ,t commission meeting.
In terms of the use permit and conditions. it was suggested that the impacts of the
project may ullimately be less about visual presence than the suitability of the use.
Concern was expressed over the consequential effects the use could have on traffic.
lighting. and the need for more on site parking. It was noted that hockey is not a regular
use on a residential property. that there are a limited number of available hockey rinks.
and scheduling and usage can run early and late in the day to accommodate the
demand. Not only use permit conditions. but regular monitoring would be needed for
this facility to ensure it is only for private. residential family use and that it does not
become more actively used in a manner that is no longer accessory to the primary
residential use.
Hockey in this climate requires a huge investment in infrastructure that typically is only
available within club or public facilities. Hockey generally is practiced as a team sport.
Again. use permit and monitoring should ensure that this does not become a team
facility with attendant practices. games and site impacts of parking. "fan" attendance,
etc. The conditions and permit monitoring should ensure that the use of the rink is
consistent with the character of the open space zoning district that is accessed via a
residential community.
Again. thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and the extensive data
that you and your staff have assembled on the project. Further. as noted above. at some
point we would look forward to the opportunity to meet with Palo Alto representatives to
discuss further mutual areas of interest in terms of guiding development on the larger
parcels in the predominately. residential open space hillside areas of our two communities.
In the meantime. please let me know if you have any questions regarding the above
comments.
Sincerely.
\ \ /I ,11 ,. ,!I
:·1 t'· /'; \:.'"./..;.: .. ,iA\i-'1> • ~
Tom Vlasic
Town Planner
cc. Leslie Lambert, Planning Manager
Angela Howard. Town Manager
Steve Toben. Mayor and Town Council Members
Denise Gilbert, Chair Planning Commission and Planning Commissioners
Carter Warr, Chair ASCC and ASCC members
Sandy Sloan. Town Attorney
ATTACHMENT J
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
610 Los Trancos Road
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Russ Reich, Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3119
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
John Lerch, Lerch Construction
923 Industrial
Palo Alto, CA 94303
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
IOPLN-00000-00184
6. PROJECT LOCATION
610 Los Trancos Road
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Parcel Numbers: 182-38-030
The project site is located at 610 & 620 Los Trancos Road in southwestern Palo Alto, east from
Portola Valley. Los Trancos Road is south of Alpine Road on the edge of the San Mateo and
Santa Clara County boundaries. The site is located on the west and east sides of Los Trancos
Road, approximately south from the intersection with Alpine Road. A small portion of the site is
610 Los Trancos Road Page 1 Negative Declaration
located on the West Side of Los Trancos Road while the majority of the site is east of the
roadway.
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
610 Los Trancos Road is designated as Open Space/Controlled Development in the Palo Alto 1998 -
2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes residential uses.
8. ZONING
The project site is zoned OS, Open Space. The OS zone district is designed to accommodate residential,
commercial recreational, and agricultural uses. The project is a permitted use in this zone district.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal includes the construction of a new roof structure to cover an existing 7,329 square
foot sport court facility. The sport court was designed such that it is recessed down into the
hillside to be minimally visible. The existing sport court was approved three years ago and is
used as a tennis COUIt in the summer and an ice rink in the winter. The new roof structure will
add eight feet to the over all height of the facility. It currently has walls that rise about 3 feet
above the existing grade on the north side of the structure and zero feet on the south side. The
proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope to minimize its height and
visibility. The roof material is proposed to be a composition shingle roof in a dark woodsy color
to blend with the surrounding hillside environment. The proposal also includes the planting of
new native, fire resistant, and drought tolerant trees and shrubs to add additional screening for
the proposed roof. There will be no new cut or fill and no new impervious area as a result of
this project. In addition to the physical changes, the application also includes a request for a
Conditional Use Permit for Recreational Use.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The site consists of a moderately sloping hillside that ascends east from Los Trancos Road to the
top of a ridgeline. The segment of the site that is located on the western side of Los Trancos
Road descends slightly down hill toward Los Trancos Creek. A small perennial unnamed
tributary to Los Trancos Creek crosses through this portion of the site. This tributary passes
through the site in a south to north direction with the confluence with Los Trancos Creek
occurring north of the site. Elevations range from 550 feet to 712 feet above sea level and the
habitats on site consist of non-native annual grassland, natural perennial grassland, coast live oak
wood, southern coastal scrub, riparian vegetation, and urban and suburban environments. The
existing sport court is located at the northern edge of the property on a plateau with the residence
located to the south on a downward slope behind.
The land uses on all four sides of the site consist of residential development with rural homes on
acreage. Foothills Park and the Arastradero Preserve are located to the east of site, but are not
directly adjacent.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 2 Negative Declaration
11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adeqnately snpported if the referenced information sonrces show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls ontside a fanlt rnptnre zone). A "No
Impact" answer shonld be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollntants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) , Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 3 Negative Declaration
7) Supporting Infonnation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion,
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance,
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented, The left-hand column in the chccklistlists thc source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Signincant Significant Impact
Issues Untess Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
I a) Substantially degrade the existing visual X
l character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,5
. b) Have a substantial adverse etTect on a
! public view Of view corridor'? 1,2,5 X
MapL4
c) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within I, X
a state scenic highway? MapL4
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan
policies regarding visua1 resources? 1,2,5 X
e) Create a new source of substantial light or X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,5 --------.................. ..... -
f) Substantially shadow Jffiblic open space 1,5 X
(other than public streels and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a,m. and 3:00
p,m. from September 2It()l\1ar2~21?
DISCUSSION:
The roof addition to the existing sport court will only raise the height of the structure eight and a halffeet where it
is currently only three feet above grade, The structure will be minimally visible from public view and with the
new landscape screening possibly not visible at all. Some private vantage points "ill still exist, but the new roof
will improve the visual impact of the existing sport court rather than cause and adverse impact.
610 Los Trancos Road
~~~~~~~ ....................... ~ .. ~~~~~~c-:-----cc--=c
Page 4 Negative Declaration
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signilicant Signillcant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) COllvert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1,5,9 Monitoring Program of the California X Resources Age.ll~y, .. to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2,5
oj
usc> or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9 X
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1,5 X
Fannland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resonrces
Agency. The site is zoned for agricultnral use, but is currently developed with a Single family residence, and is
not regulated by the Williamson Act
610 Los Trancos Road Page 5 Negative Declaration
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation X
of the applicahle air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,5
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,5 X
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational X
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate malter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM IO); ._ ....
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) X
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level orService (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable nct
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the X
project region is non-attaimnent under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,5 standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative UlTesholds for ozone
prec\lr~()rs)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels
of toxic air contaminants? 1,5 X
I. Probability of contracting cancer for the X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds 10 in one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-X
610 Los Trancos Road
-=-----=------~-~~~c:__ ....... ~
Page 6 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significanl Significant Signifieant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
carcinogenic TAC, would result in a
hazard index greater than one (I) for the
MEl
-
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a I
substantial number of people? 1,5 X
~, ........
f) Not implement all applicable construction X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:. The City of Palo Alto uses the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
(BAAQMD) thresholds of significance for air quality impacts, as follows:
Construction Impacts: The project may involve activities which could cause localized dust related
impacts resulting in increases in particulate matter (PM IO). Dust related impacts are considered
potentially significant but would be minimized with the application of standard dust control measures.
Construction equipment would also emit NO, and ROC. However, in order for emissions from
construction equipment to be considered significant, the project must involve the extensive use of
construction equipment over a long period of time. Based on the size ofthe proposed project, emissions
of NO x and ROC are anticipated to be less than significant.
Long Term Impacts: Long-term project emissions primarily stem from motor vehicles associated with
the proposed project. The project will not result in a significant number of new vehicle trips. Therefore,
long-term air-quality impacts are expected to be less than significant.
The project does not involve grading or excavation or an increase in the intensity of use on the site. The
sport court already exists.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
~ .......
Issues and Snpporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significallt Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eitber
directly or through hahitat modifications, on
any speeies identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,2,5 X
platts, policies, or regulations, or by the MapN 1 California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on auy
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural X
eommunity identified in local or regional plans, 1,2,5
610 Los Trancos Road Page 7 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impaet
Mitigation
Incorporated
policies, regulations, including federally MapNI
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
intenuption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife X
species or with established native resident or 1,2,5
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapN 1
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,5,7
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community X
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,5
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The proposal would not impact biological resources. The project site is currently developed and the new roof
proposal would improve existing conditions by reducing the sport court noise and lighting impacts. In the
immediate vicinity of the project, there are no riparian or tree habitats for the candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species
have been identified at this site. Tree preservation guidelines will be incorporated into the conditions of
approval such that the project will not have a significant impact on the code protected trees and the
project will have no impact on any other biological resources. The proposed project will have no impact
on biological resources and will require no mitigation. Per the standard conditions of approval, the
project would result in a less than significant impact to biological resources.
E CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council 1,5
resolution? X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,2 X
pmsuant to 15064.5? MapLS
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,2,5 X
610 Los Trancos Road Page 8 Negative Declaration
.-... .. ..... -
I
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Signifieant Significant Significant Impaet
Would tbe project: Issnes Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated ....
geologic feature? MapL8
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2,5 X
interred outside offormal cemeteries? MapL8
eJ Adversely affect a historic resource listed or
I)
eligible for listing on the National and/or X
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,5
Historic Inventory? MapL7 ... -.
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,5 X
-of Cahform. h,stof}, or pfehlStor~?
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate sensitivity archaeological resource zone.
Although existing and historic development has altered the native landscape, the potential exists that
now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in future planning area construction.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing
and produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to
the start of construction. This would be included as a standard condition of approval.
Cultural resources would not likely be effected as the project site is not historic, and other than digging
some holes for new landscape plants, there would be no earth moving to disturb buried remains.
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Vnle .. Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated .......... -~ ....
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the Sec
risk of loss,injyry, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault 1,2,5
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on MapN-5
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,2,5
610 Los Trancos Road Page 9 Negative Declaration
MapN-1O X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 1,2,5
including liquefaction? MapN5 X
iv) Landslides? 1,2,5 X
MapN5
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? 1,5 X
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,5 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as X
a result of the project, and potentially 1,2,5
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral MapN-5
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building 1,2,4,5
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to MapN-5 X
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems 1,5
where sewers are not available for the X
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,5
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated X
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Building
Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes
provisions to resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. The potential onsite
exposure to geological hazards will therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health alld Safety if the
primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,5
610 Los Trancos Road Page 10 Negative Declaration
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the 1,5
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,5
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,5 X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,5
result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN-9 X
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adoptcd, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a X
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1 the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the I
proj ect area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically
i)
j)
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,2,5,8 X
plan or emergeney evacuation plan? MapN-7
Expose people or structures to a significant risk X
ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 1,2,5,8
urbanized areas or where residences are MapN-7
intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,5 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not involve the handling, transportation, use, disposal, or emlSSlon of
hazardous materials. The project site is not identified by either the California Environmental Protection
Agency or the California State Water Resources Control Board as a hazardous materials site. The project
is not expected to pose airport-related safety hazards. The proposed project will not interfere with either
emergency response or evacuation. The project site is located in an area designated as a high fire hazard
area but will be constructed to current fire code.
While the project is located within an area of high fire hazard, it has been designed such that the fire risk
is not significant. The new roof would be constructed of non-combustible material, it would have a fire
610 Los Trancos Road Page 11 Negative Declaration
sprinkler system, and the new landscape material wiII be fire resistive and placed 20 feet away from the
stmcture.
H HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated -----
• aJ v 101a,e any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,5 X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production 1,2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to MapN-2 a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
X been granted)? .................... -
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial X
erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,5
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, ineluding through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,5 X
~
in flooding on-or off-site?
eJ Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,5 X mnom
1) Othe""is,,~ubstantially degrade water quality? 1,5 X
g) Place housing within a I OO-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map Or
other flood hazard delineation map? I X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 2 X
tlood tlows? IVlapN6
i) Expose people or structures to a signifICant risk
ofloss, injury or death involve tlooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 1,2 X
levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year MapN-6
flood hazard area? N-8
j) Inundation by seiche. tsunami. or mudflow? 2 X
MapN6
N8 .... _-----
610 Los Trancos Road Page 12 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The proposed projeet would be located on a hilltop and would not impact any water resources or be
impacted by flood waters. The proposal does not increase the existing impervious surface area and is
not located within a flood hazard area.
The project site is not located in an area of groundwater reeharge, and will not deplete groundwater
supplies. The project site is not located in a JOO-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.
I LAND USE AND PLANNING . _. __ ....
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• a) Physically divide an established community? 1,5 X
, b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted X for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,5 environmental effect?
e) Conflict witb any applicable habitat
conservation pIau or natural community 1,5
conservation plan? X
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,5 X
intensity of existing or planned land use ill the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses-o;~~iih 1,5 X
the general eharacter of the surrounding area!
including density and building height'!
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,5 X
recreational, edueational. religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,5,9 X
fannland of statewide imporlance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project is an allowed conditional use and is an appropriate use as regulated by the City of
Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan land usc designations. The land use designation
for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development which allows the proposed usc. The site is
zoned OS (open space), regulated by the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28. The
proposed project complies with the zoning and land use designation as described above.
610 Los Traneos Road Page 13 Negative Declaration
I
J MINERAL RESOURCES .
Issues and Supportiug Information Resources Sourees Potentially PotentlaHy Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would tile project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource tllat would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? I, X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a loeally-
important mincra1 resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan I, X
~r()t~~rl~nd use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC),
Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resonrce Zone I (MRZ-l). This designation
signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other
resources. There is no indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally
valuable mineral resources within the City of Palo Alto.
K NOISE .
Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Soun:cs Potentially Potentially
I
Less Than No Impact
Significant Signillcant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in tlte
loeal general plan or noise ordinanee, or 1,3,5
applicable standards of other a.geneies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,5
bOlne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,5
existing without the pro'eet?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1,5
ej For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or, where such a plan has 110! been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to I
excessive noise levels?
If) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
I
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to I
excessive noise levels?
I gj Cause the average 24 bour noise level (Ldnl 10 1,5 X
610 Los Trancos Road Page 14 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Sources Potentially ])otentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would tile project: Issues Unless Impact
MItigation
i Incorporated
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or mare in an
existing residential area, even irthe Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
b) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,5 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,5 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currentli' ex~~,,~s 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,5 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,5 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
...... ~
greater? .............. -
!I) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,5 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
bi' 10 dI>:0: or more? .......... _ ..
DISCUSSION:
Construction activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise
sources would include mechanical equipment associated with construction, which will be short tenn in
duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with
construction activity. Short-tenn construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in
impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
It is anticipated that the existing noise associated with the sport court activities will be significantly
reduced as a result of the proposed project. The new roof would contain any noise within the structure
whereas the current open air structure allows the noise to escape.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources SOUfi:es Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact I
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unles. Impact
Mitigation
J~~~rpor.t.d
aj Induce substantial population growth in an X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,5
example, through extension of roads or other
~infrastructureL
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 1 .......... --...
----~-~~~~~ ............... -~ ... -.. ~~~-
610 Los Trancos Road Page 15 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Slgnillcant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitlgation
lneof!lorated
0) ""h,bnti"i numbers of people, X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? 1
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1 X
................ elllP!oyed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local I i X
1'0Quiation Qrojections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed roof over the sport court would not impact population, jobs, or housing in any way.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Informatio n Resources
Would the project:
antial adverse a) Would the project result in subst
physica! impacts associated with
of new or physically altered gove
facilities. need for new or physic
governmental facilities, the constru
which could cause significant en
impacts~ in order to maintain ace
ratios, response times or other pe
objectives for any of the public s
the provision
ounental
ally altered
ction of
vironmental
epl.hle service
rfommnce
ervices:
Fire protection?
PoHce protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
DISCUSSION:
Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Signlfican t Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1,5,8 X
1,5 X
1,5 X
1,5 X
1,5
X
The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area. The conditions of approval for the
project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures, The site is located within the
jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for
additional police officers, equipment, or facilities,
610 Los Trancos Road Page 16 Negative Declaration
I
No demand for school services would result from the project, which would not generate an increase in
Palo Alto's residential population. No significant direct demand for additional parks would result from
the project, which would not generate an increase in Palo Alto's residential population.
N RECREATION .
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Polentially Potentially Less Than I No hUllact
Signilleant Slgnlllcant Significant
Would Ibe project: (ssues Unless Impact
Mitigation
I Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? I X
b) Does tbe project include recreational X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the I
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The recreational use is existing on the site as an open air sport court. The proposed roof encloses the
sport court transfonning it into a building. The new roof would increase the facilities utility by
providing weather protection from the rain and insulation to maintain the cool temps for the ice rink.
o TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would Ihe project: Issues Unle..'is Impact
Mitigation
..... I.llc<llJlor.tetl
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to tbe existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., I
result in a substantial increase in ejther the X
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
il1tersect~.:?~}? ....
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, X
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for 1
designated roads or bigll",a)'s?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in 1
substantial safety risks?
~~~~~~ ....................... -... .
610 Los Trancos Road Page 17 Negative Declaration
I
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X
design feature (e,g" sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible I
uses (e,g" farm equipment)?
eJ Result in inadequate emergency access? 1
I !
X
!
I
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? I
I
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e,g" pedestrian, transit & I
I bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the eritical
volumeicapacity ratio (VIC) value to increase
by 0,0 I or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at 1 • X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
I~~~::n~b~~ !~t~~~~:it~n i~~e~e~~o~:~:e 1 X
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
i
critical VIC value to increase by 0,01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F I X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F? i
I) Cause any change in traffic that would I X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0, I or more?
m) Cause queuing iropacls based on a I X
coroparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at tum 1anes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillhack queues on ramps,
11) [ropede the development or functioll of I X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1 X
result of congestion?
1') Create an opera!~~~~J~~f~.!J.p.azard? I X
DISCUSSION:
610 Los Trancos Road Page 18 Negative Declaration
The sport court is existing and the construction of the new roof may increase its utility but it would not
impact the volume of traffic to the residential property. The current users of the facility would continue
to use the facility as they do now and traffic would not be impacted.
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ,
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impa<t
Siguif1cant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
! Control Board? 1,5,8
b) Require or result in the construction of new X
water or wastewater treatment faeilities Of
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant 1,5,8
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new X
stonn water drainage facilitIes or expansion
of existing facmties~ the construction of
which could cause significant environmental 1.5,8,
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,5,8 !
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X
trealment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 15,8
conunitments? ............... _ ....
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X
pennilled capacity to accommodate the
............. project's solid waste disposal needs? 1,5,8
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid w~ste? 1,5,8
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,5,8 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the pro; ect?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project would not increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use
resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Demand on existing utilities would decrease as a result of
the fact that the new roof would shield the ice rink from the heat of the sun and debris that cause the ice
to melt.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 19 Negative Declaration
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Informatioll Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Slgnlflcant Significant Significant
Would tlte project: Issues i Unless Impact
I Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to ! degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce tbe babitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fisb or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community> reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal X
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,5
periods of California bistory or prehistory?
... ~ ...
b) Does the project have that are X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
cOlmection with the effeets of past projects, 1,5
the effects of other CUlTent projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c} Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or 1,5
indirectly? ... -.. ... -..
DISCUSSION:
Global Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change is the alteration ofthe Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and
wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturalIy OCCUlTing and anthropogenic generated
atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the
Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the
"greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate
change is underway and is very likely caused by humans. 20 Agencies at the international, national, state,
and local levels are considering strategies to control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming.
There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate
change; however, in California a multiagency "Climate Action Team", has identified a range of strategies
and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for
reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1,2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing
GHG emissions by January 1, 2011. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 ora statewide greenhouse gas
emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the
maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California
has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging
the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any
methodology for analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the
challenge under CEQA is for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document
for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process, Under CEQA, the essential
610 Los Trancos Road Page 20 Negative Declaration
questions are whether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts
from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures arc available to avoid or reduce
impacts.
The project would reduce the demand on energy resources by keeping the ice rink cooler during wanner
weather and keeping it free of debris that can melt the ice.
Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would cumulatively contribute to global climate
change, to detennine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change
is speculative, palticulariy given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to detennine an
impact However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to confOlm
with the CEQA Guidelines [§ I 6064(b)] , it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this
project, its location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a
greenfield site), the proposed project would not impede the state's ability to reach the emission reduction
limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. For these reasons,
this project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated
with greenhouse gas emissions.
SOURCE REFERENCES -All reports used as sources and prepared specifically for the project should
be listed by title/date
I. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-20 I 0
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and
Windload
5. Project Plans, dated received May 18,2010
6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
7. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.10.030, June 2001
8. Departmental communication/memos.
9. Important Farmland in California Map, California Department of Conservation, Division of Land
Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004.
610 Los Trancos Road Page 21 Negative Declaration
DETERMINA TION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that althongh the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case becallse revisiolls ill the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project i\1AY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAl" IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have II "potentially sigllificant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the ellvironment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner Date
----~ ..................... ~ .... .
610 Los Trancos Road Page 22 Negative Declaration
DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________ _
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: August 13,2010
Project Name: 610 Los Trancos
Project Location: 610 Los Trancos Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Applicant: John Lerch, Lerch Construction
Owner: Scott McNealy
Project Description:
A request for Site and Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a new roof
structure to cover an existing 7,329 square foot sport court facility. The sport court was designed such
that it is recessed down into the hillside to be minimally visible. The existing sport court was approved
three years ago and is used as a tennis court in the summer and an ice rink in the winter. The new roof
structure will add eight feet to the over all height of the facility. It currently has walls that rise about 3
feet above the existing grade on the north side of the structure and zero feet on the south side. The
proposed roof would be a hip roof configuration with a gentle slope to minimize its height and visibility.
The roof material is proposed to be a composition shingle roofin a dark woodsy color to blend with the
surrounding hillside environment. The proposal also includes the planting of new native, fire resistant,
and drought tolerant trees and shrubs to provide screening for the proposed roof. There will be no new
cut or fill and no new impervious area as a result of this project. In addition to the physical changes, the
application also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Recreational Use. Zone district:
Open Space (OS)
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the
basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the
project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant infonnation regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confinns the detennination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
Project Planner Date
Adopted by City Council, Attested by Date
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Pagel o f2