Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 119-07City of PMo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JANUARY 22, 2007 CMR: 119:07 ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE ~ ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE DELETING CHAPTER 18.88 (SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS) AND ADOPTING NEW CHAPTERS 18.40 (GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS), AND 18.42 (STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES), INCLUDING CRITERIA FOR LANDSCAPING, STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION, STORM WATER PROTECTION, AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance to delete current Chapter 18.88 and to add new Chapters 18.40 and 18.42 to address miscellaneous general standards and exceptions and standards for special uses, respectively, including criteria for landscaping, stream corridor protection, storm water protection, and wireless communications facilities. Staff further recommends inclusion of amended language provided by the Planning Arborist subsequent to the P&TC recommendation and specified on pages 4-5 of this staff report. , BACKGROUND The proposed changes are intended to implement provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and State and regional requirements, and to codify current zoning practice. Specifically, creek protection and storm water protection requirements are mandated by the Santa Clara County Water Resources Protection Collaborative and by the C.3 requirements of the Countywide Storm Water Discharge Permit, respectively. Landscape requirements and guidelines are needed to implement current landscape best management practices and Comprehensive Plan landscape policies into zoning, and to enhance creek protection and storm water protection efforts. Wireless communications facility requirements are provided to assure that current review standards for conditional use permits are reflected in zoning requirements. Comprehensive Plan The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment chapter includes policies and programs for protection of water resources and landscaping, including programs to adopt a creek, CMR: 119:07 Page 1 of 7 creek setbacks, and building restrictions near creeks, as wel! as encouraging habitat compatible and drought-tolerant landscaping. The Land Use and Community Design chapter includes several programs regarding landscaping, including requirements for 50% tree canopy for parking lot landscaping (within 10-15 years). The Business and Economics chapter includes a policy supporting the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure. A complete list of related Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs is included in Attachment A of the November 29, 2006 P&TC staff report. Planning and Transportation Commission Review On December 13, 2006, the P&TC recommended (7-0) that the Council approve the draft ordinance (Attachment A) encompassing updated site planning and development criteria (the vote for the stream corridor section was 6-0, as Commissioner Keller could not participate due to a conflict). The Commission initially discussed landscaping standards and guidelines at a study session on October 25, 2006 and wireless communication facilities and stream protection measures at a study session on November 1, 2006. An additional public hearing on the entire ordinance package was conducted on November 29, 2006. The Commission’s revisions focused on 1) adding purpose statements to the new sections, 2) minimizing exemptions to the creek protection provisions, 3) requiring native landscape in the open space and baylands areas, 4) encouraging rooftop gardens, and 5) the extent of staff approvals and public notice provided for wireless facilities. The Commission also noted that the City should revisit the requirements for co-location of wireless facilities in 6 months or at such time as legal ramifications of recent legislation are better understood. It also encouraged staff to look at the potential for undergrounding equipment cabinets for wireless facilities, and to ensure that above ground equipment is counted against site coverage (note that it currently is). DISCUSSION Existing Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.88, Special Provisions and Exceptions, is composed of various sections that address a variety of miscellaneous development standards and special uses. The proposed ordinance separates this chapter into two new chapters and makes the following additional revisions: 1.Separation of the provisions into two new Chapters, one chapter for General Standards and Exceptions and one chapter for Standards for Special Uses; 2.An updated format consistent with other ZOU chapters; 3.Inclusion of new sections for landscaping, water resources, and wireless communication facilities; and 4. Deletion of text related to the maximum number of permits for on-sale alcohol licenses that may be issued in any single block. Landscaping Standards The Zoning Ordinance currently provides minimum landscape standards for perimeter landscaping adjacent to residential uses and landscaping for parking lots. Additional landscaping conditions may be approved as part of an architectural or discretionary review, and some landscape criteria are included in the ARB’s approval criteria. CMR: 119:07 Page 2 of 7 Proposed landscape provisions include requirements to: Preserve and enhance native vegetation in natural areas such as open space and hillside districts, the baylands, and riparian corridors. Landscape at least 50% of the required front yard setback in residential zones. Plant street trees in right-of-way for discretionary permit approvals, but assuring protection of sidewalks, utilities, and other infrastructure. Screen utilities and equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Provide tree plantings in parking areas designed to result in 50% shading within 15 years. Additional guidelines are included to encourage rooftop gardens, the use of structural soils, incorporation of recycled water usage into irrigation, and the use of landscape swales and other landscaping for storm water treatment. Planning Arborist’s Recommended Clarifications The Planning Arborist was highly involved in developing the concepts of the new landscape requirements and guidelines. He was, however, on an extended leave when the ordinance revisions were presented to the P&TC, and therefore did not have input to the final wording. He has suggested several minor modifications that staff recommends be incorporated into the ordinance revisions, but which were not reviewed by the P&TC (changes are underlined): In section 18.40.130(a) (Purpose), revise the second sentence to read "Tree shading and appropriate landscape design can contribute to economic vitality and public health, and can reduce the need for frequent infrastructure repair." In Section 18.40.130(d)(4), revise to read "Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with overhead or underground service lines...and, to the maximum extent feasible, with solar panel/collector access to adjacent lots." Section 18.40.130(e)(1), revise to read "Utilities (e._g~. transformer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets, large water check valves) and underground utilities shall not be placed within required landscaped areas, except where they will not preclude appropriate planting and will be predominantl7 screened from public view." Section 18.40.130(e)(2), add a second sentence to read: "Backflow preventers shall be located near the main structure to the maximum extent feasible, and shall .be predominantl7 screened from public view." Section 18.40.130(e)(6), add a second sentence to read: "The Planning Director may specify conditions of approval to assure that dead or diseased plantings are replaced in a timely manner and with adequate replacement plantings." The proposed revisions generally clarify the proposed wording. The final bullet is a specification of the Director’s authority to requite replanting of dead or diseased plantings. Similar conditions of approval are already frequently included in approvals for discretionary development permits, but this provision would codify that authority. Landscape Technical Manual In addition to the general landscape requirements outlined in the new section of Chapter 18.40, staff anticipates the preparation of a Landscape Technical Manual to provide guidance regarding CMR: 119:07 Page 3 of 7 technical landscape details, such as appropriate planting types in specific site circumstances, planting and irrigation details, and maintenance. The Technical Manual would be similar to the Tree Technical Manual in its intent and level of detail. There is no specific timeframe for producing the Landscape Technical Manual, but it would likely be a joint effort of a landscape architect consultant and the Planning Arborist. The development of this manual will be analyzed further during development of the Urban Forest Master Plan and within this context. Stream Corridor Protection The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative) consists of representatives from 15 municipalities, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and other community and environmental stakeholders. The Collaborative has developed a set of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S), that cover a wide range of issues affecting land development near and in local streams. The City of Palo Alto and other cities in the County have agreed to implement the components of the G&S in lieu of continued review by the SCVWD. In order to address the G&S, a new section 18.40.140 is proposed. The new section includes the following suggested additional stream corridor protection provisions: ¯A streamside review area comprising a corridor extending up to 20 feet beyond the top of bank is prescribed, with development in all zones other than R-l, R-2, and RMD generally subject to the review. Discretionary reviews (Individual Review, conditional use permits, variances, and home improvement exceptions) in the R-l, R-2, and RMD zones are also subject to the restrictions of the streamside review area. ¯Development and disturbance is generally prohibited within the streamside review area. °Exemptions are provided for minor landscaping or remedial creek stability work, interior improvements, replacement of utility services, and fences located at least 5 feet beyond the top of bank. Other exceptions may be granted by the Director of Public Works where slope stability is not affected, riparian vegetation is preserved, and other creek protection criteria are met. Storm Water Quality Protection Section C.3 of the Countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidance to encourage the incorporation of storm water- friendly site design measures into land development projects. Site design measures are features that reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces. Guidelines are provided in Section 18.40.150 of the new chapter to minimize storm water runoff and to protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site. These guidelines include: Minimizing land disturbance and preserving high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. CMR: 119:07 Page 4 of 7 Minimizing the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.) and directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain or stream. Designing streets, driveways, and parking lots to minimize impacts through the use of narrower paved areas, permeable pavements, shared driveways, etc. Using best management practices, including landscaped swales, bioretention, and other structures or techniques to promote filtration and infiltration of runoff and to minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. Wireless Communications Facilities Wireless communication facilities (WCF) currently fall into the "utility facilities" use category in the zoning ordinance and generally require a conditional use permit. Staff has developed standard requirements for such facilities to encourage location on existing buildings or co- location with existing facilities and to minimize visibility with a "stealth" approach to design. The draft amendments include a new section 18.42.110 to outline these criteria for review and a streamlined review process for wireless communications facilities that are located on existing buildings and meet all other criteria. The new provisions include: °Conditional use permit and architectural review requirements for all "stand-alone" projects (towers or poles), all projects on a residential site, and all building-mounted projects that exceed the allowable building height in a zone. °No conditional use permit (only staff level architectural review) requirement for building- mounted projects that do not exceed the existing building height or that are co-located with existing facilities. °Height and setback exceptions in limited circumstances and subject to conditional use review. °Criteria to limit the footprint, height, and size of equipment cabinets and enclosures and to screen them from public view. ° Requirements for architectural compatibility with the existing building and area and to minimize offsite visibility. ¯Removal of abandoned facilities within 90 days of abandonment. Alcoholic Beverage Control Regulations Section 18.42.090 of the new Chapter is revised to delete the references to the number of alcoholic beverage permits issued per block. This revision is required to be consistent with current Alcohol Beverage Control regulations and State law. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed zoning revisions will have little, if any, resource impact on the City of Palo Alto. Landscape requirements are similar to those currently imposed as conditions of approval, and would add minimal costs to projects when incorporated into the initial design. Water resource protections are generaily required by State and Water District requirements that reflect current practice and add minimalcosts. Minor incremental staff costs will be incurred in the review and enforcement of development proposals to implement these additional requirements. These costs will generally be recovered in application permit fees, however. To the extent the requirements CMR: 119:07 Page 5 of 7 reduce energy and water use (landscaping), minimize flooding and creek maintenance (water resources), and facilitate enhanced wireless communications, the amendments could have some economic benefit to residents, businesses, and the City in general. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Commission believe that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to enhance landscaping, to provide for creek and water quality protection and to improve technology services in the community. The landscaping and water resource protection measures also strongly support the City Council’s sustainability and climate protection policy direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed modifications to the Zoning Ordinance would not affect the intensity of development permitted, and would provide greater environmental protection regarding visual, hydrologic, and other potential impacts of development. The amendment~ are consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and with the Comprehensive Plan EIR. PREPARED BY: CURTIS WILLIAMS Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment Attachment B: Redlined Version of Ordinance showing new provisions C: December 13, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments D: November 29, 2006 P&TC Staff Report and Attachments E: December 13, 2006 P&TC Minutes F: November 29, 2006 P&TC Minutes G: Correspondence CMR: 119:07 Page 6 of 7 COURTESY COPIES Planning and Transportation Commission Architectural Review Board Doug Moran, Barton Park Association Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association Luis Jaimes, Santa Clara Valley Water District Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board Pam Stumer, San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council Ramsey Shuayto, Stanford Management Company CMR: 119:07 Page 7 of 7 NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DELETING CHAPTER 18.88 (SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS)AND ADDING CHAPTER 18.40 (GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS) AND CHAPTER 18.42 (STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES) OF TITLE 18 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. declares as follows: Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and (a) In December 2000, the City Council approved a work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters for new and revised land uses; (b) The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment chapter includes policies and programs for protection of water resources and landscaping, including programs to adopt a creek, creek setbacks, and building restrictions near creeks, as well as encouraging habitat compatible and drought-tolerant landscaping. The Land Use and Community Design chapter includes several programs regarding landscaping, including requiring a 50% tree canopy for parking lot landscaping (within 10-15 years). The Business & Economics chapter includes a policy supporting the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure; (c) The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) initially discussed landscaping standards and guidelines at a study session on October 25, 2006 and wireless communication facilities and stream protection measures at a study session on November 1, 2006. The P & TC conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed deletion of current Chapter 18.88 and the addition of new Chapters 18.40 and 18.42 to address miscellaneous general standards and exceptions and standards for special uses, respectively, including criteria for landscaping, stream corridor protection, storm water protection, and wireless communications facilities. On December 13, 2006, the P&TC recommended to the Council approval of an ordinance encompassing updated site planning and development standards. 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Chapter 18.88 (Special Provisions and Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 18.40 GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.40.010 18.40.020 18.40.030 18.40.040 18.40.050 18.40.060 18.40.070 18.40.080 18.40.090 18.40.100 18.40.110 18.40.120 18.40.130 18.40.140 18.40.150 Purposes Application Measurement Separation Between Buildings Location and Use of Accessory Buildings Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Projections into Yards Substandard Lots Height Exceptions Setback Map Utility Easements Hazardous Conditions Landscaping Stream Corridor Protection Storm Water Quality Protection 18.40.010 Purposes This chapter provides general site planning and development standards for all uses that are allowed by district regulations in multiple zoning districts. 18.40.020 Application The regulations established in this Chapter shall apply to all zoning districts,in addition to other applicable provisions including the standards of the zone district where the use is located. 18.40.030 Measurement Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new construction; provided, 2 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and improvements and changes thereto, and the building official, zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less restrictive manner of this section. 18.40.040 (a) Separation Between Buildings Minimum distance required The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16; provided, however, accessory buildings in the RE single- family residence districts shall be separated from the principal building by at least three feet. Connection of principal and accessory building A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of Title 16 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the accessory building. 18.40.050 Location and Use of Accessory Buildings (a)Accessory buildings setbacks Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side or rear yard. (b)Limitations of uses for accessory buildings In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations: (1) An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2) An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. (3)An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line, measured along the respective lot line. 070116 syn 0130041 3 NOT YET APPROVED (4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). (5) No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. (c)Swimming pool, hot tub and spa No swimming pool, hot tub, spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard. 18.40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by district regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: (a)Fences, screening, and enclosures permitted by Chapter 16.24; (b)Landscaping; (c)Outdoor recreation, including open structures and ground level facilities related thereto, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, other game or court facilities, sitting areas, decks, patios, terraces, and like features constructed at ground level or within 0.3 meters (one foot) above natural grade; provided, that no below-grade improvements such as swimming pools shall be permitted within 0.9 meters (three feet) from the property line; (d)Pedestrian walkways and driveways; (e)Required parking, in accord with the location provisions specified within each district. 18.40.070 Projections into Yards The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a)Architectural features Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet) or into a required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. In residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. 070116 syn 0130041 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) NOT YET APPROVED Canopies and patio covers A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. (1) A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. (2) The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of building coverage. (3) The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty percent of the required rear yard. (4) The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides. Storage structures Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Porches, stairways, landings and fire escapes Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than 1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard, and may extend not more than 0.9 meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into any yard above a first story. Pools, spas and hot tubs Pools, spas and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27 meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the property line shall be maintained. Building extensions and corner lots In residential districts, a portion of a main building which is less than half the maximum width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear yard not more than 3.0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story. 070116 syn 0130041 5 NOT YET APPROVED (g) (h) Encroachment into a special setback Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Excavated features: terraces and terraced landscaping In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions of Section 18.10.050(m), 18.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, may extend into a required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters (four feet). 18.40.080 Substandard Lots (a) (b) (c) Specified provisions and dates of recorded title Any lot having a site area, width, or depth less than required by this title, which meets one of the provisions specified in this subsection, may be used as a lot or site under the provisions of this title, subject to the applicable district regulations and other provisions of this title: (1)A lot shown upon an official subdivision map duly approved and recorded; (2)A lot for which a deed or a valid contract of sale is on record in the office of the county recorder of Santa Clara County prior to February 19, 1951, and was of legal area at the time it was recorded; (3)A lot for which individual water, sewer, and/or gas service or services were installed by the city prior to October 8, 1947; (4)A lot upon which a dwelling was constructed on or after October 8, 1947, and prior to July 20, 1978 which at the time of construction complied with all lot width and area requirements; (5)A lot otherwise meeting applicable requirements at the time such lot was created, but which does not meet the minimum requirements of this title as currently applicable to such lot, by reason of annexation, a change in zoning district, or a change in applicable regulations within a district. Substandard lots cannot be further reduced A substandard lot meeting one of the provisions designated in subsection (a) shall be considered a legal lot; provided the particular measurement (area, width, or depth) not in accord with this title shall not be further reduced. Lots merged by amendments to Subdivision Map Act All lots that were merged by the 1977 amendments to the Subdivision Map Act prior to the adoption of Chapter 234, Statutes 1977, are hereby deemed unmerged. 070116 sya 0130041 6 NOT YET APPROVED 18.40.090 Height Exceptions Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet); provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes. In OS, RE, R-1, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet). 18.40.100 Setback Map See Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code for setback map regulations. 18.40.110 Utility Easements No structures other than fences or landscaping features shall be located within any portion of an easement granted to the city for utility purposes, unless authorized pursuant to an encroachment permit granted by the city. Any structure now existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city 18.40.120 Hazardous Conditions In any area within the city identified by the Comprehensive Plan as having moderate or high risk due to flood hazard, seismic activity hazard, to other geologic hazard, the following provisions shall apply: (a)Geologic report - high risk In areas identified as subject to high risk, the building official may require, prior to issuance of a building permit or other permit authorizing any new construction, submission by the permit applicant of detailed geologic, soils, and engineering data sufficient to define the extent of any potential hazard and to demonstrate that the proposed construction shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate or otherwise recognize such hazard. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. (b)Geologic report- moderate risk In areas identified as subject to moderate risk, the building official may require such reports as described in (a) for any use except single-family use or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. 070116 syn 0130041 7 NOT YET APPROVED 18.40.130 Landscaping (a) Purpose The purpose of this section is to encourage creative and sustainable landscape design that enhances structures, open space areas, streetscapes and parking areas. Sustainable landscape design preserves native plant species to the maximum extent feasible, consumes less water and provides permeable surfaces for stormwater management and groundwater recharge. Good landscape design can contribute to economic vitality and public health. Landscaping provides recreation areas, cleans the air and water, prevents erosion, offers fire protection, replaces ecosystems displaced by development, and is water efficient. (b)General Regulations In addition to the provisions of this section, all projects shall adhere to the landscape requirements cited elsewhere in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance), including but not limited to: (1) (2) (3) Design Standards -General Parking Facilities (Section 18.83.100) Design Standards - Landscaping in Parking Facilities and Required Landscape Areas (Section 18.83.100) Architectural Review Findings (Section 18.76.020) (c)Natural Areas (Open Space District, Hillside Lands, Baylands, Creek and Riparian Areas) Landscaping should retain or enhance native vegetation in hillside, baylands or other natural open spaces areas or adjacent to such areas. The existing natural vegetation and land formations should remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary or appropriate for a specific use allowed through Architectural or Site Design Review. (1)In the selection of new landscaping, preference shall be given to natural, indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials. Non-indigenous landscaping should be limited to the immediate area around a structure or structures. (2) (3) (4) Site development plans shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in accord with the grading and subdivision ordinances of the City. Landscaping shall, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems; and be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. Colors of roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened in a manner that 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED (5) (6) (7) protects the viewshed from adjacent properties, including from views from above. Planting of invasive plant species shall not be permitted and removal of invasive species may be required as part of landscape plan requirements. To the maximum extent feasible, existing vegetation shall be retained or enhanced to maintain contiguous wildlife habitat. Riparian vegetation shall be retained or enhanced within natural stream corridors, and best practices for development shall be used to protect riparian habitat and water quality of adjacent streams. (e) Low-Density Residential Landscaping Design Standards (i)In the R-I, R-2, and RMD zones, a minimum of 50% of the required front setback area shall be landscaped, subject to the limitations of Section 18.12.040(h). Planting in the right-of-way shall not count towards fulfillment of the required landscape area. (2)Street trees may be required to be planted in the right-of-way frontage of any residential structure subject to Individual Review for a new second story or addition to a second story, or for other discretionary review in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. (3) (4) (5) Trees planted near public bicycle trails or curbs shall be of a species and installed in a manner that prevents physical damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other public improvements. Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with service lines (a minimum of five feet from water lines and ten feet from sanitary sewer lines), traffic safety visibility areas, and, where feasible, with solar access to adjacent lots. All proposed light wells and below-grade basements shall be screened to minimize visibility from public rights-of-way or other public properties. Special Design and Landscaping Standards Requirements: (1)Utilities (transformer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets) and underground utilities shall not be placed within required landscaped areas, except where they will not preclude appropriate planting of trees and will be screened from public view. (2)All landscaping within multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning districts shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems. (3)For all development within commercial and industrial zoning districts, lawn areas shall not exceed 15 percent of the planting area on a property. Required common areas, active recreation areas, and areas located within the public 070116 syn 0130041 9 NOT YET APPROVED right-of-way between the curb and public sidewalk shall not count against such lawn area. (4) (5) (6) Landscaping within surface parking areas shall include tree plantings designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years. All required perimeter yards shall be landscaped. The landscaping of these yards shall, at a minimum, consist of a combination of living vegetation, such as trees, shrubs, grasses or ground cover materials. Landscape buffering and screening shall be designed to create compatible relationships of scale and appearance with neighboring properties. Plant material shall be maintained in a healthy, disease-free, growing condition at all times. All required planting areas shall be maintained free of weeds, debris, and litter. Guidelines: (2) (3) (4) Rooftop gardens, edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives are encouraged for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and multi-family developments. Rooftop gardens are particularly encouraged where the rooftop is highly visible from neighboring properties. Structural soils, as specified by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, shall be preferred where planting in compacted soil areas, such as parking lots and sidewalks. Landscape swales, permeable paving and other landscape features should be incorporated into site design to the maximum extent feasible to accommodate filtration of stormwater runoff from impervious areas, particularly from parking lots. All projects requiring discretionary review within the multi-family, commercial, or industrial zoning districts should, where feasible, include the following: (a) Incorporation of recycled water usage into the design of landscape and irrigation systems. (b) Consideration of plants suitable for irrigation with recycled water. (c) The installation of the infrastructure necessary to connect the irrigation system to the city’s recycled water supply, if available in the foreseeable future. (5)The Director may allow a combination of hardscape and landscape to satisfy landscape requirements where permeable surface materials are used and where the visual quality and screening functions of the hardscape/landscape area are maintained, as specified in the conditions of approval. 070116 syn 0130041 10 NOT YET APPROVED 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (a) (b) Purpose The purpose of the water resources protection measures specified below is to provide site planning and development standards designed to preserve riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and minimize storm water pollution. The further intent of the regulations and guidelines is to consider these factors in site planning early in the review process. Water Resources Protection for Streamside Properties (1)Streamside review area "Streamside Review Area" means all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank, except those properties separated from the stream by a public street. (2)Applicability of streamside review area requirements and guidelines For parcels within the Streamside Review Area, the following types of developments are subject to these requirements and guidelines listed in subsections (3) and (4) below. (a) Development in all zones except the R-l, R-2 and RMD districts; (b) Development in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones requiring discretionary review, including but not limited to: (i)Individual Review for a new two-story home (ii)Individual Review for a new second story on an existing house, where an expansion or change in the building footprint results (iii) Variances, including for fences (iv) Home Improvement Exceptions; and (c)Development requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. The following projects are exempt from Streamside Review Area requirements and guidelines: (a)Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian vegetation or with remedial creek bank stability work deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works; (b) Interior construction; or (c)Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not readily available. (3)Requirements within streamside review area 070116 syn 0130041 11 NOT YET APPROVED (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 070116 syn 0130041 Slope stability protection area. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater. The following structures/uses shall not be allowed within the slope stability protection area: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) All structures (including accessory structures); Decks of any height; Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs; and Parking lots. Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works where the applicant provides a geotechnical slope stability analysis, demonstrating that the proposed development would not threaten the stability of the stream bank slope, require introduction of hardscape in order to maintain the stream bank slope, or be at risk of damage from future bank stability or erosion, and demonstrating how maintenance and repair of the stream could be provided with the proposed development in place, subject to compliance with requirements (b) through (i) below and with all applicable zoning setbacks. New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank. All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Replacement planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is approved for removal. Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material is listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream. Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream, provided that the Director may allow noise-producing equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or other setback requirements make compliance impractical. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. 12 NOT YET APPROVED (4) (i)All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the current version of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. Guidelines within streamside review area: (a)The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized. (b)Bright colors and glossy or glare-pr0ducing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas should be avoided. (c)Lot measurement along Watercourses No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood- control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. Provided the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1, 2002 easement had not been created. 18.40.150 Storm Water Quality Protection (a) Purpose The purpose of this section is to preserve and enhance storm water quality by reducing pollutants discharged to streams and the San Francisco Bay. Projects are encouraged to incorporate site design measures to reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces into land development projects. (b)Applicability of Guidelines All projects are subject to these guidelines. The following site design measures should be included in site and building design wherever feasible in order to minimize storm water runoff and protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site. (c)Guidelines for Storm Water Quality Protection (1) Minimize land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. 13 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED (2)Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.).. (3)Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain, street, or stream. (4) (5) Utilize minimum-impact street design standards (e.g., narrow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize .minimum-impact parking lot design standards (e.g., parking lot island and perimeter landscaping for storm water drainage, permeable pavements, etc.). (6)Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g., narrow width, "Hollywood" strips, shared driveways, permeable pavements, etc.). (7)Cluster structures, pavement and other impervious surfaces on the development site. (8) (9) (10) Route rain water leaders into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks or pop-up emitters, rather than directly to an underground storm drain, in order to promote filtration and infiltration of roof runoff. Utilize microdetention techniques (e.g., bioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. // // // // // // // 070116 syn 0130041 14 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 4. Chapter 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 18.42 STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES Sections: 18.42.010 18.42.020 18.42.030 18.42.040 18.42.050 18.42.060 18.42.070 18.42.080 18.42.090 18.42.100 18.42.110 Purposes Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Temporary Uses Home Occupations Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage Reverse Vending machines Alcoholic Beverages Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Wireless Communication Facilities 18.42.010 Purposes This chapter provides site planning and development standards for special uses in multiple zoning districts (e.g., in residential, commercial and/or industrial districts). 18.42.020 Application The regulations set forth in this Chapter shall apply to the special uses set forth below, in addition to other applicable provisions of this chapter including the standards of the zone district where the use is located. 18.42.030 Accessory Uses and Facilities (a)Examples of accessory uses and facilities Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this title: (1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (2) Customer, visitor, and employee parking facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (3) Facilities for storage incidental to a principal use; 070116 syn 0130041 15 NOT YET APPROVED (b) (c) (d) (5) (6) (7) (8) Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility; Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating and drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility; Building management offices when located within the principal facility and limited to the management thereof; Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in playgrounds, and in permitted public or private recreation facilities or schools; The operation of service facilities and equipment in connection with schools, hospitals, and similar institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal use. If associated with a permitted use or facility Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions of this section. Accessory uses and facilities are conditional on principal use facility permit No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or facility pursuant to this section shall be construed to be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. Relation to principal structures and location (1) Accessory uses and facilities shall be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively; (2)Accessory uses and facilities shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or the activities of a principal use, or the function of a principal structure; (3)Accessory uses and facilities shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served, except as otherwise authorized by this title. (4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the required rear yard. 070116 syn 0130041 16 NOT YET APPROVED 18.42.050 Temporary Use The Director of Planing and Community Environment ("director") may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) Application shall be made to the director and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. A temporary use permit, if granted by the director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. A temporary use permit may be granted by the director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1)The granting of the application 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. (2)The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title. Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. 18.42.060 Home Occupations Where permitted, a home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: (a)The home occupation shall be conducted in a manner that is compatible with residential uses permitted in the same district, and in a manner which does not change the character and appearance of the dwelling unit in which it is conducted. (b)No person shall be employed on the site in connection with the home occupation except lawful occupants of the dwelling unit within which the home occupation is conducted. (c) No advertising shall be permitted on the site. 17 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED (d)Not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit, or 46.5 square meters (five hundred square feet) of gross floor area on the site including accessory buildings, whichever is less, shall be devoted to the home occupation. (e)The home occupation shall not be conducted in a manner which generates traffic. or parking demand or vehicular deliveries substantially greater than customarily associated with residential occupancy of the dwelling unit. No mechanical, electrical, or other equipment shall be used, nor shall a home occupation be conducted in any manner which is a nuisance or is noxious, offensive, or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, particulate matter, odor, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions or effects. (g)No outdoor storage of any material, equipment or goods shall be permissible in connection with any home occupation. 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (a)Allowable. hours and location for vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or similar conveyance except when conducted within a garage or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not be. construed to prohibit occasional minor maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, belts and hoses. (b)Vehicle storage No person shall store, place or park any of the conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. (c)Maximum continuous hours of vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding [1] passenger vehicles other than house cars, and [2] 18 070116 syn 0130041 (d) (e) (h) (i) NOT YET APPROVED "pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other than a camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in locations where an accessory building or principal building of equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title. Refer to California Vehicle Code for conveyance definitions For the purpose of this section, references to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this section. Limitations for sleeping in recreation vehicles Subject to securing a permit therefore from the building official and otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a period not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of vehicles. Vehicle visibility from public streets Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or impermeable paving surface. Parked vehicles shall not obstruct traffic views at intersections No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic. Parked vehicles maximum coverage of front yard No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of any required front yard. Each day of violation: a separate offense Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. 070116 syn 0130041 19 NOT YET APPROVED 18.42.080 Reverse Vending Machines Reverse vending machines may be established only in conjunction with an otherwise allowed commercial or industrial use and may not exceed a maximum of three machines per site or one hundred fifty cubic feet in volume per site. Sites containing reverse vending machine(s) shall include a refuse container adjacent to the machine(s) and shall be maintained in a litter free condition. In addition, a reverse vending machine shall: (1)Not exceed eight feet in height; (2)Be located on the site in a manner which will assure compatibility with surrounding uses; (3) Be subject to the noise restrictions contained in Chapter 9.10 of this code. 18.42.090 Alcoholic Beverages (a) Conditional use permit required in tandem with on-sale license In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the State of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. (b) Conditional use permit required with new on-sale license A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. (c)Amendment to conditional use permit required with expansion In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. Amendment to conditional use permit required with new on-sale license In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. 18.40.100 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) In order to be located in any residential district or on any site in any other district used for residential occupancy, a mobile home (manufactured housing) must: 20 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED (a)National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Be certified under the provisions of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) or any successor legislation; (b)Permanent Foundation System Be located on a permanent foundation system approved by the building official pursuant to all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Health and Safety Code Section 18551 or successor legislation. (c) Site regulations Must meet all of the application site regulations of the district in which it is located; (d)Not allowed in historical district of the city Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent foundations shall not be allowed in any historic district of the city as designated in Chapter 16.49. 18.42.110 (a) Purpose Wireless Communication Facilities The purpose of this section is to accommodate continued improvements to wireless communications while minimizing visual impacts of such development. Wireless communication facilities (WCF) are permitted subject to architectural review and/or a conditional use permit for placement and design of the antennas and related equipment to provide for facilities that blend with the existing surroundings. Building mounted WCF and co-location facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b)Review Procedure For projects proposed on a historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, Historic Review is required in addition to the Architectural Review and/or Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review are required for: (1)Projects that are located on a residentially zoned parcel; (2)Projects that are located on a parcel with residential use; (3)Projects that are a stand alone wireless communication facility; (4)Building-mounted projects that exceed the existing height of the building/roof-top screening; or (5)An existing wireless communication facility that is modified from the original CUP approval (e.g. size, location, capacity, landscaping, etc.). 21 ¯ 070116 syn 0130041 NOT YET APPROVED Architectural Review, but no Conditional Use Permit, is required for: (1)Building-mounted projects that do not exceed the existing building/roof- top screening height; (2)Building-mounted projects on a Planned Community (PC) zoned site that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height; all other project types require a PC Amendment; or (3)Co-location facilities. (c) Development Standards and Exceptions Each proposed project shall meet the standard zoning requirements .for the zone district in which it is located. The following development exceptions may be considered and approved in conjunction with the required review process: (1)Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted building height in the zone. (2) Stand alone WCF shall be no taller than 65’. (3)Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (d)Equipment Cabinets and Enclosures (1)Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2)Shall be designed to minimize overall height, mass, and size; (3)Shall be screened from public view; and (4)Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. (5)Shall not bc placed in a location that removes required landscaping or reduces landscaping to a level of noncompliance. (e)Antenna Design (1) Antennas shall bc designed to minimize visibility offsitc and shall be of a "stealth" design; and (2)Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building. (f)Removal of Abandoned Equipment Wireless communication facilities, or any components of a facility, that arc no longer in use shall be removed by the applicant, service provider, or property owner within three months of the termination of use. No new permit shall be issued to a carrier if that cartier has not removed abandoned equipment. 070116 syn 0130041 22 SECTION 5. date of its adoption. NOT YET APPROVED This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: St. Assistant City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment 070116 syn 0130041 23 18.40.010 ATTACHMENT B rurposes Chapter 18.40 GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.40.010 18.40.020 18.40.030 18.40.040 18.40.050 18.40.060 18.40.070 18.40.080 18.40.090 18.40.100 18.40.110 18.40.120 18.40.130 18.40.140 18.40.150 Purposes Application Measurement Separation Between Buildings Location and Use of Accessory Buildings Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Projections into Yards Substandard Lots Height Exceptions Setback Map Utility Easements Hazardous Conditions Landscaping Stream Corridor Protection Storm Water Quality Protection 18.40.010 Purposes This chapter provides site planning and development standards for specific land uses that are allowed by district regulations in multiple zoning districts (e.g., in residential and commercial, and/or in commercial and industrial districts). 18.40.020 Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter in addition to other applicable, provisions including the standards of the zone district where the use is located. 18.40.030 Measurement Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new construction; provided, that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 18.40.040 Separation Between Buildings improvements and changes thereto, and the building official, zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less restrictive manner of this section. 18.40.040 Separation Between Buildings (a)Minimum distance required The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16; provided, however, accessory buildings in the RE single- family residence districts shall be separated from the principal building by at least three feet. (b)Connection of principal and accessory building A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of Title 16 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the accessory building. 18.40.050 Location and Use of Accessory Buildings (a) (b) Accessory buildings setbacks Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side or rear yard. Limitations of uses for accessory buildings In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations: (1)An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2) An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. (3)An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line, measured along the respective lot line. (4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 2 18.40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards (5) No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. (c)Swimming pool, hot tub and spa No swimming pool, hot tub, spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard. 18.40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by district regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: (a)Fences, screening, and enclosures permitted by Chapter 16.24; (b)Landscaping; (c)Outdoor recreation, including open structures and ground level facilities related thereto, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, other game or court facilities, sitting areas, decks, patios, terraces, and like features constructed at ground level or within 0.3 meters (one foot) above natural grade;provided, that no below-grade improvements such as swimming pools shall be permitted within 0.9 meters (three feet) from the property line; (d)Pedestrian walkways and driveways; (e)Required parking, in accord with the location provisions specified within each district. 18.40.070 Projections into Yards The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a)Architectural features Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet) or into a required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. In residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. (b)Canopies and patio covers A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 18.40.070 Projections into Yards (c) (d) (e) (g) (h) (1) (2) (3) A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of building coverage. The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty percent of the required rear yard. (4) The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides. Storage structures Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Porches, stairways, landings and fire escapes Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than 1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard, and may extend not more than 0.9 meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into any yard above a first story. Pools, spas and hot tubs Pools, spas and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27 meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the property line shall be maintained. Building extensions and corner lots In residential districts, a portion of a main building which is less than half the maximum width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear yard not more than 3.0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story. Encroachment into a special setback Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Excavated features: terraces and terraced landscaping In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions of Section 18.10.050(m), 18.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 4 18.40.080 Substandard Lots may extend into a required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters (four feet). 18.40.080 Substandard Lots (a)Specified provisions and dates of recorded title Any lot having a site area, width, or depth less than required by this title, which meets one of the provisions specified in this subsection, may be used as a lot or site under the provisions of this title, subject to the applicable district regulations and other provisions of this title: (1)A lot shown upon an official subdivision map duly approved and recorded; (2)A lot for which a deed or a valid contract of sale is on record in the office of the county recorder of Santa Clara County prior to February 19, 1951, and was of legal area at the time it was recorded; (3)A lot for which individual water, sewer, and/or gas service or services were installed by the city prior to October 8, 1947; (4)A lot upon which a dwelling was constructed on or after October 8, 1947, and prior to July 20, 1978 which at the time of construction complied with all lot width and area requirements; (5)A lot otherwise meeting applicable requirements at the time such lot was created, but which does not meet the minimum requirements of this title as currently applicable to such lot, by reason of annexation, a change in zoning district, or a change in applicable regulations within a district. (b) (c) Substandard lots cannot be further reduced A substandard lot meeting one of the provisions designated in subsection (a) shall be considered a legal lot; provided the particular measurement (area, width, or depth) not in accord with this title shall not be further reduced. Lots merged by amendments to Subdivision Map Act All lots that were merged by the 1977 amendments to the Subdivision Map Act prior to the adoption of Chapter 234, Statutes 1977, are hereby deemed unmerged, 18.40.090 Height Exceptions Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet); provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes. In OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 18.40.100 Setback Map chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet). 18.40.100 Setback Map See Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code for setback map regulations. 18.40.110 Utility Easements No structures other than fences or landscaping features shall be located within any portion of an easement granted to the city for utility purposes, unless authorized pursuant to an encroachment permit granted by the city. Any structure now existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city 18.40.120 Hazardous Conditions In any area within the city identified by the Comprehensive Plan as having moderate or high risk due to flood hazard, seismic activity hazard, to other geologic hazard, the following provisions shall apply: (a)Geologic report- high risk In areas identified as subject to high risk, the building official may require, prior to issuance of a building permit or other permit authorizing any new construction, submission by the permit applicant of detailed geologic, soils, and engineering data sufficient to define the extent of any potential hazard and to demonstrate that the proposed construction shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate or otherwise recognize such hazard. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. (b)Geologic report - moderate risk In areas identified as subject to moderate risk, the building official may require such reports as described in (a) for any use except single-family use or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. 18.40.130 Landscapin~ (a)Purpose The purpose of this section is to encourage creative and sustainable landscape design that enhances structures, open space areas, streetscapes and parking areas. Sustainable landscape design preserves native plant species to the maximum extent feasible, consumes less water and provides permeable surfaces for stormwater management and groundwater recharge. Good landscape design can contribute to economic vitality and public health. Landscaping provides recreation areas, cleans ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 6 Landscaping (b) the air and water, prevents erosion, offers fire protection, replaces ecosystems displaced by development, and is water efficient. General Regulations In addition to the provisions of this section, all proi ects shall adhere to the landscape requirements cited elsewhere in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance), including but not limited to: (1) (2) (3) Design Standards General Parking Facilities (Section 18.83.100) Design Standards Landscaping in Parking Facilities and Required Landscape Areas (Section 18.83.100) Architectural Review Findings (Section 18.76.020) Natural Areas (Open Space District~ Hillside Lands~ Baylands~ Creek and Riparian Areas) Landscaping should retain or enhance native vegetation in hillside, baylands or other natural open spaces areas or adjacent to such areas. The existing natural vegetation and land formations should remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary or appropriate for a specific use allowed through Architectural or Site Desima Review. (1) (2) (3) (4) In the selection of new landscaping, preference shall be given to natural, indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials. Non-indigenous landscaping should be limited to the immediate area around a structure or structures. Site development plans shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in accord with the grading and subdivision ordinances of the City. Landscaping shall, to the maximum extent feasible, integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems; and be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly spaced. Colors of roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape and be nonreflective. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened in a manner that protects the viewshed from adjacent properties, including from views from above. (5) (6) Planting of invasive plant species shall not be permitted and removal of invasive species may be required as part of landscape plan requirements. To the maximum extent feasible, existing vegetation shall be retained or enhanced to maintain contiguous wildlife habitat. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22107 7 Landscaping (e) (7)Riparian vegetation shall be retained or enhanced within natural stream corridors, and best practices for development shall be used to protect riparian habitat and water quality of adjacent streams. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Low-Density Residential Landscaping Design Standards In the R- 1, R-2, and RMD zones, a minimum of 50% of the required front setback area shall be landscaped, subject to the limitations of Section 18.12.040(h). Planting in the right-of-way shall not count towards fulfillment of the required landscape area. Street trees may be required to be planted in the right-of-way frontage of any residential structure subject to Individual Review for a new second story or addition to a second story, or for other discretionary review in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. Trees planted near public bicycle trails or curbs shall be of a species and installed in a manner that prevents physical damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other public improvements. Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with service lines (a minimum of five feet from water lines and ten feet from sanitary sewer lines), traffic safety visibility areas, and, where feasible, with solar access to adiacem lots. All proposed light wells and below-Bade basements shall be screened to minimize visibility from public tights-of-way or other public properties. Special Design and Landscaping Standards Requirements: (1)Utilities (transformer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets) and nnderground utilities shall not be placed within required landscaped areas, except where they will not preclude appropriate planting of trees and will be screened from public view. (2) (3) All landscaping within multi-family, commercial, and indnstrial zoning districts shall be equipped with automatic irrigation systems. For all development within commercial and industrial zoning districts, lawn areas shall not exceed 15 percent of the planting area on a property. Required common areas, active recreation areas, and areas located within the public fight-of-way between the curb and public sidewalk shall not count against such lawn area. (4) (5) Landscaping within surface parking areas shall include tree plantings designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 5(ears. All required perimeter yards shall be landscaped. The landscaping of these yards shall, at a minimum, consist of a combination of living vegetation, such as trees, slmlbs, grasses or ground cover materials. Landscape buffering and ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (6) screening shall be designed to create compatible relationships of scale and appearance with neighboring properties. Plant material shall be maintained in a healthy, disease-free, growing condition at all times. All required planting areas shall be maintained free of weeds, debris, and litter. Guidelines: (1) (2) (3) (4) Rooftop gardens, edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives are encouraged for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and multi-family developments. Rooftop gardens are particularly encouraged where the rooftop is highly visible from neighboring properties. Structural soils, as specified by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, shall be preferred where planting in compacted soil areas, such as parking lots and sidewalks. Landscape swales, permeable paving and other landscapefeatures should be incorporated into site design to the maximum extent feasible to accommodate filtration of stornlwater runoff from impervious areas, particularly from parking lots. All projects requiring discretionary review within the multi-family, commercial, or industrial zoning districts should, where feasible, include the following: (a) Incorporation of recycled water usage into the design of landscape and irrigation systems. (b) Consideration of plants snitable for irrigation with recycled water. (c) The installation of the infrastructure necessary to connect the irrigation system to the city’s recycled water supply, if available in the foreseeable future. The Director may allow a combination ofhardscape and landscape to satisfy landscape reqnirements where permeable surface materials are used and where the visual quality and screening functions of the hardscape/landscape area are maintained, as specified in the conditions of approval. 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (a)Purpose The purpose of the water resources protection measures specified below is to provide site planning and development standards designed to preserve riparian resources, protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and milfinfize storm water pollution. The further intent of the regulations and guidelines is to consider these factors in site planning early in the review process. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection Water Resources Protection for Streamside Properties (1)Streamside review area "Streamside Review Area" means all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank, except those properties separated from the stream by a public street. (2)Applicability of streamside review area requirements and guidelines For parcels within the Streamside Review Area, the following types of developments are subject to these requirements and guidelines listed in subsections (3) and (4) below. (a) Development in all zones except the R-l, R-2 and RMD districts; (b) Development in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones requiring discretionary review, including: (i)Individual Review for a new two-story home (ii)Individual Review for a new second story on an existing house, where an expansion or change in the building footprint results (iii) Variances, including for fences (iv) Home Improvement Exceptions; and (c)Development requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. The following projects are exempt from Streamside Review Area requirements and guidelines: (a) Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian vegetation or with remedial creek bank stability work deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works; (b) Interior construction; or (c)Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not readily available. (3)Requirements within streamside review area (a)Slope stability protection area. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is ~reater. The following structures/uses shall not be allowed within the slope stability protection area: (i)All structures (including accessory structures); (ii)Decks of any height; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 10 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (’4) (c) (d) (e! (g) (h) (i) (a) (b) (iii)Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs; and (iv)Parldng lots. Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works where the applicant provides a geotechnical slope stability analysis, demonstrating that the proposed development would not threaten the stability’ of the stream bank slope, require introduction of hardscape in order to maintain the stream bank slope, or be at risk of damage from future bank stability or erosion, and demonstrating how maintenance and repair of the stream could be provided with the proposed development in place, subiect to compliance with requirements (b) through (i) below and with all applicable zoning setbacks. New fences shall be constructed a minimum of five feet landward from the top of bank. All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Replacement planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is approved for removal. Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material is listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Coltaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream. Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream, provided that the Director may allow noise-producing equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or other setback requirements make compliance impractical. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the current version of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. Guidelines within streamside review area: The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized. Bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas should be avoided. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 11 Storm Water Quality Protection (c)Lot measurement along Watercourses No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood- control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. Provided the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1, 2002 easement had not been created. 18.40.150 Storm Water Quality Protection (a)Purpose The purpose of this section is to preserve and enhance storm water quality by reducing pollutants discharged to streams and the San Francisco Bay. Proiects are encouraged to incorporate site design measures to reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces into land development projects. (b)Applicabili,ty of Guidelines All projects are subiect to these guidelines. The following site design measures should be included in site and building design wherever feasible in order to minimize stoma water runoff and protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site. (c)Guidelines for Storm Water Quali .ty Protection (1)Minimize land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. (2) Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain, street, or stream. (4)Utilize minimum-ilnpact street desi,~a standards (e.g., narrow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.). (5)Utilize minimum-impact parking lot design standards (e.g., parking lot island and perimeter landscaping for storm water drainage, permeable pavements, etc.)_:. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 12 (6) (8) (9) (10) Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g., narrow width, "Hollywood" strips, shared driveways, permeable pavements, etc.). Cluster structures, pavement and other impervious surfaces on the development site. Route rain water leaders into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks or pop-up emitters, rather than directly to an underground storm drain, in order to promote filtration and infiltration of roof runoff. Utilize microdetention techniques (e.g., bioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 1/22/07 13 18.42.010 Purposes Chapter 18.42 STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES Sections: 18.42.010 18.42.020 18.42.030 18.42.040 18.42.050 18.42.060 18.42.070 18.42.080 18.42.090 18.42.100 18.42.110 Purposes Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Temporary Uses Home Occupations Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage Reverse Vending machines Alcoholic Beverages Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Wireless Communication Facilities 18.42.010 Purposes This chapter provides site planning and development standards for specific land uses that are allowed by district regulations in multiple zoning districts (e.g., in residential and commercial, and/or in commercial and industrial districts). 18.42.020 Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter in addition to other applicable provisions of this chapter including the standards of the zone district where the use is located. 18.42.030 Accessory Uses and Facilities (a)Examples of accessory uses and facilities Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this title: (1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (2)Customer, visitor, and employee parking facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (3)Facilities for storage incidental to a principal use; (4)Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.42.030 Accessory Uses and Facilities (b) (c) (d) (5) (6) Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating and drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility; Building management offices when located within the principal facility and limited to the management thereof; (7)Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in playgrounds, and in permitted public or private recreation facilities or schools; (8)The operation of service facilities and equipment in connection with schools, hospitals, and similar institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal use. If associated with a permitted use or facility Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions of this section. Accessory uses and facilities are conditional on principal use facility permit No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or facility pursuant to this section shall be construed to be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. Relation to principal structures and location (I) (2) (3) (4) Accessory uses and facilities shall be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively; Accessory uses and facilities shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or the activities of a principal use, or the function of a principal structure; Accessory uses and facilities shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served, except as otherwise authorized by this title. Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the required rear yard. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 2 18.42.050 Temporary Use 18.42.050 Temporary Use The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f). (g) Application shall be made to the zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. A temporary use permit, if granted by the director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. A temporary use permit may be granted by the director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1) (2) The granting of the application 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 proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title. Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. 18.42.060 Home Occupations Where permitted, a home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: (a)The home occupation shall be conducted in a manner that is compatible with residential uses permitted in the same district, and in a manner which does not change the character and appearance of the dwelling unit in which it is conducted. (b)No person, shall be employed on the site in connection with the home occupation except lawful occupants of the dwelling unit within which the home occupation is conducted. (c)No advertising shall be permitted on the site. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (f) Not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit, or 46.5 square meters (five hundred square feet) of gross floor area on the site including accessory buildings, whichever is less, shall be devoted to the home occupation. The home occupation shall not be conducted in a manner which generates traffic or parking demand or vehicular deliveries substantially greater than customarily associated with residential occupancy of the dwelling unit. No mechanical, electrical, or other equipment shall be used, nor shall a home occupation be conducted in any manner which is a nuisance or is noxious, offensive, or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, particulate matter, odor, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions or effects. (g)No outdoor storage of any material, equipment or goods shall be permissible in connection with any home occupation. 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (a)Allowable hours and location for vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or similar conveyance except when conducted within a garage or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not be construed to prohibit occasional minor maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, belts and hoses. (b)Vehicle storage No person shall store, place or park any of the conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. (c)Maximum continuous hours of vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding [1] passenger vehicles other than house cars, and [2] ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (e) (0 (h) (0 "pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other than a camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in locations where an accessory building or principal building of equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title. Refer to California Vehicle Code for conveyance definitions For the purpose of this section, references to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this section. Limitations for sleeping in recreation vehicles Subject to securing a permit therefore from the building official and otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a period not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of vehicles. Vehicle visibility from public streets Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or impermeable paving surface.. Parked vehicles shall not obstruct traffic views at intersections No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic. Parked vehicles maximum coverage of front yard No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of any required front yard. Each day of violation: a separate offense Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.42.080 Reverse Vending Machines 18.42.080 Reverse Vending Machines Reverse vending machines may be established only in conjunction with an otherwise allowed commercial or industrial use and may not exceed a maximum of three machines per site or one hundred fifty cubic feet in volume per site. Sites containing reverse vending machine(s) shall include a refuse container adjacent to the machine(s) and shall be maintained in a litter free condition. In addition, a reverse vending machine shall: (1)Not exceed eight feet in height; (2)Be located on the site in a manner which will assure compatibility with surrounding uses; (3) Be subject to the noise restrictions contained in Chapter 9.10 of this code. 18.42.090 Alcoholic Beverages (a)Conditional use permit required in tandem with on-sale license In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the State of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. (b)Conditional use permit required with new on-sale license A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. (c)Amendment to conditional use permit required with expansion In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. (d)Amendment to conditional use permit required with new on-sale license In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.40.100 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) 18.40.100 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) In order to be located in any residential district or on any site in any other district used for residential occupancy, a mobile home (manufactured housing) must: (a)National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Be certified under the provisions of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) or any successor legislation; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 7 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (b)Permanent Foundation System Be located on a permanent foundation system approved by the building official pursuant to all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Health and Safety Code Section 18551 or successor legislation. (c) Site regulations Must meet all of the application site regulations of the district in which it is located; (d)Not allowed in historical district of the city Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent foundations shall not be allowed in any historic district of the city as designated in Chapter 16.49. 18.42.110 (a) Purpose Wireless Communication Facilities The purpose of this section is to accommodate continued improvements to wireless communications while minimizin.~ visual impacts of such development. Wireless communication facilities (WCF) are permitted subiect to architectural review and/or a conditional use permit, for placement and design of the antennas and related equipment, to provide for facilities that blend with the existing surroundings. Building mounted WCF and collocation facilities are preferred and encouraged, subiect to all other provisions of this section. (b)Review Procedure For proiects proposed on a historic property, as designated by Chapter 16.49, Historic Review is required in addition to the Architectural Review and/or Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review are required for: (2) (3) (4) (5) Proiects that are located on a residentially zoned parcel; Projects that are located on a parcel with residential use; Proiects that are a stand alone wireless ~ommunication facility; Building-mounted projects that exceed the existing height of the building/roof-top screening; or An existing wireless communication facility that is modified from the original CUP approval (e.g. size, location, capacity, landscaping, etc.). Architectural Review, but no Conditional Use Permit, is required for: (1)Building-mounted projects that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 1/22/07 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (2)Building-mounted projects on a Planned Community (PC) zoned site that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height; all other proiect types require a PC Amendment; or (3) Collocation facilities. (c) Development Standards and Exceptions Each proposed project shall meet the standard zoning requirements for the zone district in which it is located. The following development exceptions may be considered and approved in conjunction with the required review process: (1)Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted building height in the zone. (2) Stand alone WCF shall be no taller than 65’. (3)Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (d)Equipment Cabinets and Enclosures (1)Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2)Shall be designed to minimize overall height, mass, and size; (3)Shall be screened from public view; and (4)Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. (5)Shall not be placed in a location that removes required landscaping or reduces landscaping to a level of noncompliance. (e)Antenna Design (1) Antennas shall be designed to minimize visibility offsite and shall be of a "stealth" design~ and (2)Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building. (0 Removal of Abandoned Equipment Wireless communication facilities, or any components of a facility, that are no longer in use shall be removed by the applicant, service provider, or property owner within three months of the termination of use. No new permit shall be issued to a carrier if that carrier has not removed abandoned equipment. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 t/22/07 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT 2 TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment December 13, 2006 Zoning Ordinance Update: Plarming and Transportation Commission review and recommendation to delete Chapter 18.88 and adopt new Chapters 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), which include criteria for landscaping, wireless communications, stream corridor protection, and storm water protection. Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan EIR. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance deleting Chapter 18.88 and adopting new Chapters 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses) as outlined in Attachments A and B. BACKGROUND: The PTC has discussed the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.88 at several previous meetings (Study Sessions on October 25 and November 1 and a Public Hearing on November 29, 2006). Previous staff reports and meeting minutes are attached for reference. DISCUSSION: Staff has made revisions based on the comments and recommendations received at these hearings and has attached the proposed two new replacement chapters for Title 18 (Attachments A and B). The existing contents of Chapter 18.88 have been separated into two new chapters, one focused on standards and exceptions (18.40) and one on special uses (18.42). The chapter on special uses has been revised to include wireless communication facilities and, for the alcohol beverages section, the City of Palo Alto Page 1 removal of the limit of permits issued per block (to be in compliance with the ABC regulations). The chapter on standards and exceptions has been revised to include new sections on stream corridor and storm water quality protection measures and landscaping standards. Reponses to comments.and questions that were noted from the November 29 PTC discussion are as follows: Water Resources ¯ R-2 Lots: There are only four R-2 (and zero RMD) lots that potentially could be impacted by these new regulations. If these four lots are excluded from being required to comply with the new regulations, they will only be subject to the new regulations if a Conditional Use Permit, Variance or Home Improvement Exception is requested (R-2 and RMD sites do not go through the Individual Review process). These sites therefore could be fully redeveloped (residentially) without applying the proposed streamside protection measures. Staff’s recommendation is to exempt R-l, R-2~ and RMD zoned lots from general compliance. Director of Public Works Exception: The requirements have been revised to state clearly that all projects mufit comply with requirements 18.40.140(b)(3)(b) through (i) and other standard zoning requirements in order for the Director of Public Works to grant an exception to the slope stability protection area setback (requirement 18.40.140(b)(3)(a)). Exempt Projects: The list of exempt projects has been revised to remove accessory structures and decks altogether, and includes more specific limits for the remaining items. Structures/Uses Not Allowed." All structures, impervious areas and decks regardless of size ¯ or height are not permitted within the slope stability protection area. Purpose Statement: Purpose statements have been added to the respective new sections of the code. Copper Usage: The new use of architectural copper is currently prohibited in the Pale Alto Municipal Code 16.09.160, effective 1/1/2003 (concern of Commissioner Burr subsequent to the 11/29 PTC meeting), so no change to the Zoning Ordinance is suggested. Wireless Communication Facilities o Conditional Use Permit: Instead of extending the noticing for a building-mounted project that exceeds the existing building height from 150’ to 600’ and requiting Architectural Review only, staffhas revised the review process for these types of facilities to require both a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review. Historic Review: There is currently a process in place that requires all projects that are proposed on historic properties, as defined in PANIC 16.49, to bereviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner and/or the Historic Review Board, depending on the scope of the project. Text has been added to the section spelling out this existing requirement. ¯ City of Pale Alto Page 2 Facility Type Preference: Within the purpose statement, text has been added to state that building-mounted and collocation facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of the section. Purpose Statement: A purpose statements has been added to this new section of the code. Landscaping The landscape requirements have been organized into the following sections: purpose, general regulations, natural areas, low-densi.ty residential standards, and special design standards. This last section has been divided into requirements and guidelines to diffe(entiate between mand~itory and desirable design solutions. Rooftop Gardens: Language has been added encouraging rooftop gardens (especially when rooftops are visible), edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives for commercial, industrial, and multi-family developments. Structural Soils: A guideline has been added to state that structural soils shall be preferred where planting in compacted soil areas, such as parkin.g lots. and sidewalks. Water Runoff Filtration: To accommodate filtration of stormwater runoff from impervious areas, particularly from parking lots, a guideline has been added stating landscape swales and other features should be designed where feasible. ¯Shade Trees: A requirement for trees to provide 50% shade within 15 years for parking areas has been added (details to be in the Tech Manual). Parking.Chapter: Reference is made in the new section that the requirements of the existing landscaping design standards in the parking chapter (18.83.100) must be complied with in addition to the 50% shade requirement. Purpose Statement: A purpose statement has been added to this new section of the code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed revisions are consistent with the policies and programs outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and with the Comprehensive Plan EIR. NEXT STEPS Subsequent to the recommendation from the Commission, a draft ordinance will be prepared for City Council review and adoption and is tentatively scheduled for January 22, 2007. ATTACHMENTS: A.Draft Chapter 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions B.Draft Chapter 18.42 Standards for Special Uses C.PTC Staff Report with Attachments, Nov.ember 29, 2006 D.PTC Minutes, November 29, 2006 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Eo G. H. I. PTC Study Session Staff Report, November 1, 2006 (Wireless Communication Facilities and Water Resources) PTC Study Session Minutes, November 1, 2006 PTC Study Session Staff Report, October 25, 2006 (Landscape Standards) PTC Study Session Minutes, October 25, 2006 Correspondence COURTESY COPIES: City Council ArchitectUral Review Board Doug Moran, Bah’on Park Association Shed Furman, Midtown Residents Association Luis Jaimes, Santa Clara Valley Water District Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board Pare Sturner, San Francisquito Watershed Council Joe Temsi, Public Works Prepared by: Reviewed by: Department/Division Head Approval: ~_~ Clare Campbell, Planner Julie Caporgno, Advanced Planning Manager Curtis Williams, Assistant Director City of Pale Alto Page 4 18.40.010 Purposes ATTACHMENT A Chapter 18.40 GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.40.010 18.40.020 18.40.030 18.40.040 18.40.050 18.40.060 18.40.070 18.40.080 18.40.090 18.40.100 18.40.110 18.40.120 18.40.130 18.40.140 18.40.150 Purposes Application Measurement Separation Between Buildings Location and Use of Accessory Buildings Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Projections into Yards Substandard Lots Height Exceptions Setback Map Utility Easements Hazardous Conditions Landscaping Stream Corridor Protection Storm Water Quality Protection 18.40.010 Purposes This chapter provides site planning and development standards for specific land uses that are allowed by district regulations in multiple zoning districts (e.g., in residential and commercial, and/or in commercial and industrial districts). 18.40.020 Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter in addition to other applicable provisions including the standards of the zone district where the use is located. 18.40.030 Measurement Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback ’ line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new construction; provided, that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions,~ or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions,. and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and ZOU Draft Chapter 18,40 12/06/06 18.40.040 Separation Between Buildings improvements and changes thereto, and the building official; zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less.restrictive manner ofth~s section. 18.40.040 Separation Between Buildings (a)Minimum distance required The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16; provided, however, accessory buildings in the RE single- family residence districts shall be separated from the principal building by at least three feet. (b)Connection of principal and accessory building A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of Title 16 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal building and accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the accessory building. 18.40.050 Location and Use of Accessory Buildings (a)Accessory buildings setbacks Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side or rear yard. (b)Limitations of uses for accessory buildings In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations: (1) An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and!or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2) (3) (4) An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. An accessory building shallnot be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from .any street line, measured along the respective lot line. Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 2 .40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards (5) No such accessory building shall have more than t~vo plumbing fixturesl Swimming pool, hot tub and spa No swimming pool, hot tub, spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard.. 18.40.060 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by district regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: (a)Fences, screening, and enclosures permitted by Chapter 16.24; (b)Landscaping; (c)Outdoor recreation, including open structures and ground level facilities related thereto, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, other game or court facilities, sitting areas, decks, patios, terraces, and like features constructed at ground level or within 0.3 meters (one foot) above natural grade; provided, that no below-grade improvements such as swimming pools shall be permitted within 0.9 meters (three feet) from the property line; (d) Pedestrian walkways and driveways; (e) "Required parking, in accord with the location provisions specified within each district. 18.40.070 Projections into Yards The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a)Architectural features Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet) or into a required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. In residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story.. (b)Canopies and patio covers A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet) from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 18.40.070 Projections into Yards (0 (h) (1)A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. (2) The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of building coverage. (3) The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty percent of the required rear yard. (4) The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides. Storage structures Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). Porches, stairways, landings and fire escapes Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than 1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard, and may extend not more than 0.9 meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into any yard above a first story. Pools, spas and hot tubs Pools, spas and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27 meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the property line shall be maintained. Building extensions and corner lots In residential districts, a portion of a main building which is less than half the maximum width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear ya}d not more than 3 i0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story. Encroachment into a special setback Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Excavated features: terraces and terraced landscaping In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions of Section 18.10.050(m), !8.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 4 18.40.080 Substandard Lots may extend into a required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters.(four feet). 18.40.080 Substandard Lots (a)Specified provisions and dates of recorded title Any lot haying a site area, width, or depth less than required by this title, which meets one of the provisions specified in this subsection, may be used as a lot or site under the provisions of this title, subject to the applicable district regulations and other provisions of this title: (1)A lot shown upon an official.subdivision map duly approved and recorded; (2)A lot for which a deed or a valid contract of sale is on record in the office of the county recorder of Santa Clara County prior to February 19, 1951, and was of legal area at the time it was recorded; (3)A lot for which individual water, sewer, and/or gas .service or services were installed by the city prior to October 8, 1947; (4)A lot upon which a dwelling was constructed on or after October 8, 1947, and prior to July 20, 1978 which at the time of construction complied with all lot width and area requirements; A lot otherwise meeting applicable requirements at the time such lot was created, but which does not meet the minimum requirements of this title as currently applicable to such lot, by reason of annexation, a change in zoning district, or a change in applicab!e regulations within a district. (b)Substandard lots cannot be further reduced A substandard lot meeting one of the provisions designated in subsection (a) shall be considered a legal lot; provided the particular measurement (area, width, or depth) not in accord with this title shall not be further reduced. (c)Lots merged by amendments to Subdivision Map Act All lots that were merged by the 1977 amendments to the Subdivision Map Act prior to the adoption of Chapter 234, Statutes 1977, are hereby deemed unmerged. 18.40.090 Height Exceptions Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet); provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or advertising purposes. In OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 18.40.100 Setback Map chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet). 18.40.100 Setback Map See Chapter 20.08 of the Municipal Code for setback map regulations. 18.40.110 Utility Easements No structures other than fences or landscaping features shall be located within any portion of an easement granted to the city for utility purposes, unless authorized pursuant to an encroachment permit granted by the city. Any structure now existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city. 18.40.120 Hazardous Conditions In any area within the city identified by the Comprehensive Plan as having moderate or high risk due to flood hazard, seismic activity hazard, to other geologic hazard, the following provisions shall apply: Geologic report- high risk In areas identified as subject to high risk, the building official may require, prior to issuance of a building permit or other permit authorizing any new construction, submission by the permit applicant of detailed geologic, soils, and engineering data sufficient to define the extent of any potential hazard and to demonstrate that the proposed construction shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate or otherwise recognize such hazard. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. (b)Geologic report- moderate risk In areas identified as subject to moderate risk, the building official may require such reports as described in (a) for any use except single-family us’e or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. 18.40.130 Landscaping Purpose The purpose of this section is to encourage creative and sustainable landscape design flaat enhances structures, streetscapes and patking areas. Sustainable landscape design preserv.es native plant species where possible, consumes less. water and provides permeable surfaces for stormwater management and groundwater recharge. Good landscape desi~m~ can contribute to economic vitality and public health.. Landscaping provides recreation areas, cleans the air and water, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 Landscaping prevents erosion, offers fire protection, replaces ecosystems displaced by development, and is water efficient. General Regulations In addition to the provisions of this section, all projects shall adhere to the landscape requirements cited elsewhere in Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance), including but not limited to: (1)Design Standards - General Parking Facilities (Section 18.83.100) Design Standards - Landscaping in Parking Facilities mad Required Landscape Areas (Section 18.83.100) Architeetm’al Review Findings (Section 18.76.020) Natural Areas (Open Space District~ Hillside Lands~ Baylands~ Creek and Riparian Areas) Landscaping should retain or enhance native vegetation in hillside, baylands or other natural open spaces areas or adjacent to such areas. The existing natural vegetation and land formations should remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessar) or appropriate for a specific use allowed through Architectural or Site Design Review. In the selection of new landscaping, preference shall be given to natural, indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials. Non-indigenous landscaping should be limited to the immediate area around a structure or structures. (2)S ite development plans shall, insofar as is reasonably practical, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in accord with flae grading and subdivision, ordinances of the City. (3)Landscaping shall, to flae maximum extent feasible, integrate and accommodate existing trees and vegetation to be preserved; make use of water-conserving plants, materials and irrigation systems; and be clustered in natural appearing groups, as opposed to being placed in rows or regularly s_paced. (4)Colors of roofing materials shall blend with the natural landscape mad be nom’eflective. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened in a mamaer that protects the viewshed from adjacent properties, including from views from above. (5) Planting ofinvasive plant species shall not be permitted. (6) Where feasible, existing vegetation shall be retained or enhanced to maintain contiguous wildlife habitat. (7)Riparian vegetation shall be retained or enhanced Within natural stream con’idors, and best practices for development shall be used to protect riparian habitat and water quality of adjacent streams. ZOUDrafl Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 Landscaping , (1) Low-Density Residential Landscaping Design Standards In the R-l, R-2, and RMD zones, a minimum of 50% of the required from setback area shall be landscaped, subject to the limitations of Section 18.12.040(h). Planting in the right-of-way shall not cotmt towards fulfilhnent of the required landscape area. Street trees may be required to be planted in the right-of-way frontage of any residential structure subject to Individual Review for a new second story or addition to a second story, or for other discretionary_ review in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. (3)Trees planted near public bicycle trails or curbs shall be of a species and installed in a manner that prevents physical damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters and other public improvements. (4)Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with service lines (a minimum of five feet from water lines and ten feet from sanitary sewer lines), traffic safety visibility areas, and, where feasible, with solar access to adjacent lots. . (6)All proposed light wells and below-grade basements shall be screened from public view. Special Design and Landscaping Standards Requirements: (1) (2) (3) Utilities (transfomaer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets) and under~,n’ound utilities shall not be placed within required landscaped areas, except where they will not preclude appropriate planting of. trees and will be screened from public view. All landscaping within multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning districts shall be equipped with automatic i~rigation systems. For all development within commercial and industrial zoning districts, lawn areas shall not exceed 15 percent of the planting m’ea on a property. Required conmaon areas, active recreation areas, and areas located within the public right-of-way between the curb and public sidewalk shall not count against such lawn area. (4) (5) Landscaping within surface parking areas shall include tree plantings, designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years. All required perimeter yards shall be landscaped. The landscaping of these yards shall, at a minimum, consist of a combination of living vegetation, such as trees, shrubs,, grasses or ground cover materials. Landscape buffering and screening shall be designed to create compatible relationships of scale and appearance with neighboring properties. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 8 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (6)Plant material shall be maintained in a healthy, disease-t~ee, growing condition at all times. All required planting areas shall be maintained free of weeds, debris, and litter.. Guidelines: (1)Rooftop gardens, edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives are encouraged for multi-family, commercial, industrial, and multi-family developments. Rooftop gardens are particularly encouraged where the rooftop is highly visible from neighboring properties. (2)Structural soils, as specified by the Director of Plalming and Community Environment, shall be preferred where planting in compacted soil areas, such as parking lots and sidewalks. (3)Landscape swales, permeable paving and other landscape features should be incorporated into site design where feasible to accommodate filtration of stormwater runoff from impervious areas, particularly from parking lots. (4)A!I proiects requiring discretionary review within the multi-family, cormnercial, or industrial zoning districts should, where feasible, include the following: (a) Incorporation of recycled water usage into the design of landscape and irrigation systems. (b) Consideration of plants suitable for irrigation with recycled water.~ (c) The installation of the infi’astructure necessary to connect the in’igation system to the city’s recycled water supply, if available in the foreseeable future. (5)The Director may allow a combination ofhards~ape mad landsdape to satisfy landscape requirements where perineable surface materials are used and where the visual quality and screenin~ functions of fl~e hardscape/landscape area are maintained. 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection Purpose The purpose of the water resources protection measures specified below is to provide site planning and development standards designed to prese~e riparian resources, protect improvements fi’om damaged caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, and reduce storm water pollution. The further intent of the regulations and guidelines is to consider these factors in site planning early ha the review process. (b)Water Resources Protection for Streamside Properties (1)Streamside review area ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection "Strearnside Review Aa-ea" means all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank, except those properties separated from the stream by a public street. (2) Applicability of streamside review area requirements and guidelines For parcels within the Streamside Review Area, the following types of developments are subiect to these requirements mad guidelines listed in subsections (3) and (4) below. (a) Development in all zones except the R-l, R-2 mad RMD districts; (b) Development in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones requiring discretionary review, including: (i)Individual Review for a new two-story home (ii)Individual Review for a new second story on an existing house, where an expansion or change in the building footprint results (iii)Variances, including for fences (iv)Home hnprovement Exceptions; and (c) Development requiring a Conditional Use Permit in the R-l, R-2, or RMD zones. The following prqiects are exempt from Streamside Review Area requirements and guidelines: (a) Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork associated with landscaping with native riparian vegetation or with renaedial creek bank stability work deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works; (b) Interior construction; or (c) Replacement of utility service laterals where location outside the protected areas is not readily available. Requirements within streamside review area Slope stability protection area. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:l (horizontal: vertical) landward fi’om the toe of bank, whichever is greater, The following structures/uses shall not be allowed within the slope stability protection area: .(i)All structures (including accessory structm’es); (ii)Decks of any height; (iii)Swimming pools, spas, mad hot tubs; and (.iv)Parking lots. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 10 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection (4) (b) (c) Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works where the applicant provides a geotechnical slope stabili _t-y analysis, demonstrating that the proposed development would not threaten the stability 0fthe stream bank slope, require introduction ofhardseape in order to maintain the stream bank slope, or be at risk of damage from future bank stability or erosion, and demonstrating how maintenance mad repair of the stream could be provided with the proposed development in place, subject to compliance with requirements (b) tl~’ough (i) below and with all applicable zoning setbacks. New fences shall be constructed a minimum of three feet landward fi’om the top of bank. All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the Director of Planning and Conmaunity Enviromnent. Replacement planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is approved for removal. (d) Planting of non-native invasive plant species is not permitted. Prohibited plant material is listed in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative’s User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. (e)Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream. (t)Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream, provided that the Director may allow noise:producing equipment closer than 50 feet where site conditions and/or other setback requirements make compliance impractical. (g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian con’idor of a stream. (i) In’igation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a mamaer consistent with the current version of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams. Guidelines within streamside review m’ea: The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian con’idor of a stream should be minimized. Bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas should be avoided. ZOU Draft Chapter 18,40 12/06/06 11 Storm Water Quality Protection (0 Lot measurement along Watercourses No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood- control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. Provided the expansion of an existing easement over a lo~ adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1, 2002 easement had not been created. 18.40.150 Storm Water Quality Protection Purpos,e The purpose of this section is to preselwe and enhance storm water qualify by reducing pollutants discharged to streams and the San Francisco Bay. Projects are encouraged to incorporate site design measures to reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing stoma water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces into land development proiects. (b)Applicability of Guidelines All projects are subject to these guidelines. The following site design measures should .be included in site and building design wherever feasible in order to minimize storm water runoff and protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site. Guidelines for Storm Water Quality Proteetlon (1)Minimize land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. (2)Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g,, buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). (3)Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm rtmoffinto vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain or stream. (4)Utilize minimnna-impact street design standards (e.g., nan’ow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.),. (5)Utilize minimuna-impact parking lot design standards (e.g., parking lot island and perimeter landscaping for storm water drainage, permeable pavements, ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 12 (6) (8) (9) (10) Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g., narrow width, "Hollywood" strips, shared driveways, penneabIe pavements, etc.). Cluster structures, pavement and other impervious surfaces on the development site. Route rain water leaders into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks or pop-up emitters, rather than directly to an underground storm drain, in order to promote filtration and infiltration ofroofnmoff. Utilize microdetention techniques (e.g., bioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.40 12/06/06 13 18.42.010 Chapter 18.42 STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES Purposes .A-I’-I’ACH Mi:N-i- B Sections: 18.42.010 18.42.020 18.42.030 18.42.040 18.42.050 18.42.060 18.42.070 18.42.080 18.42.090 18.42.100 18.42.110 Purposes Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Temporary Uses Home Occupations Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage Reverse Vending machines Alcoholic Beverages Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Wireless Communication Facilities 18.42.010 Purposes This chapter provides site planning and development standards for specific land uses that are allowed by district regulations in multiple zoning districts (e.g., in residential and commercial, and/or in commercial and industrial districts). 18.42.020 Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter in addition to other applicable provisions of this chapter including the standards of the zone district where the use is located, 18.42.030 Accessory Uses and Facilities (a)Examples of accessory uses and facilities A~cessory uses and facilities include, but a~e not limited to, the following.list of examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this title: (1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (2)Customer, visitor, and employee parking facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (3) Facilities for storage incidental to a principal use; (4)Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 18.42.030 Accessory Uses and Facilities (b) (5) ’ Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating and drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility; (6)Building management offices when located within the principal facility and limited to the management thereof; (7)Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in playgrounds, and.in permitted public or private recreation facilities or schools; (8)The operation of service facilities and equipment in connection with schools, hospitals, and similar institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal use. If associated with a permitted use or facility Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions of this section. Accessory uses and facilities are conditional on principal use facility permit No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or facility pursuant to this section shall be construed to be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. Relation to principal structures and location (1)Accessory uses and facilities shall be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively; (2) Accessory uses and facilities shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or the activities of a principal use, or the function of a principal structure; (3)Accessory uses and facilities shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served, except as otherwise authorized by this title. (4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty percent of the required rear yard. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 2 .42.050 . Temporary Use 18.42.050 Temporary Use " The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a) (b) (c) (e) (0 (g) Application shall be made to the zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. A temporary use permit, if granted by the director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. A temporary use permit may be granted by the director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1) (2) The granting of the application 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 proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title. Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. 18.42.060 Home Occupations Where permitted, a home Occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: (a)The home occupation shall be conducted in a manner that is compatible with residential uses permitted in the same district, and in a manner which does not change the character and appearance of the dwelling unit in which it is conducted. (b)No person shall be employed on the site in connection with the home occupation except lawful occupants of the dwelling unit within which.the home occupation is conducted. (c)No advertising shall be permitted on the site. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (e) Not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit, or 46.5 square meters (five hundred square feet) of gross floor area on the site including accessory buildings, whichever is less, shall be devoted to the home occupation. The home occupation shall not be conducted in a manner which generates traffic or parking demand or vehicular deliveries substantially greater than customarily associated with residential occupancy of the dwelling unit. No mechanical, electrical, or other equipment shall be used, nor shall a home occupation be conducted in any manner which is a nuisance or is noxious, offensive, or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, particulate matter, odor, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions or effects. (g)No outdoor storage of any material, equipment or goods shall be permissible in connection with any home occupation. 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (a)Allowable hours and location for vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or similar conveyance except when conducted within a garage or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not be construed to prohibit occasional minor maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, belts and hoses. Vehicle storage No person shall store, placeor park any of the conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach and similar noumotorized conveyance, or any other structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Maximum continuous hours of vehicle repair No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding [1] passenger vehicles other than house cars, and [2] ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 4 18.42.070 Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage (a) "pickup" motor truckson which no equipment other than a camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in locations where an accessory building or principal building of equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title. Refer to California Vehicle Code for conveyance definitions For the purpose of this section, references to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this section. Limitations for sleeping in recreation vehicles Subject to seduring a permit therefore from the building official and otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a period not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of vehicles. Vehicle visibility from public streets(g) ¯Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no (h) person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or impermeable paving surface. Parked vehicles shall not obstruct traffic views at intersections No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic. Parked vehicles maximum coverage of front yard No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of any required front yard. Each day of violation: a separate offense Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishab!e as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 5 18.42.080 Reverse Vending Machines 18.42.080 Reverse Vending Machines Reverse vending machines may be established only in conjunction with an otherwise allowed commercial or industrial use and may not exceed a maximum of three machines per site or one hundred fifty cubic feet in volume per site. Sites containing reverse vending machine(s) shall include a refuse container adjacent to the machine(s) and shall be maintained.in a litter free condition. In. addition, a reverse vending machine shall: (1)Not exceed eight feet in height; (2)Be located on the site in a manner which will assure, compatibility with surrounding uses; (3) Be subject to the noise restrictions contained in Chapter 9.10 of this code. 18.42.090 Alcoholic Beverages (a)Conditional use permit required in tandem with on-sale license In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the State of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. (c) Conditional use permit required with new on-sale license A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. Amendment to conditional use permit required with expansion In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. (d)Amendment to conditional use permit re.quired with new on-sale license In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 6 18.40.100 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) 6-per-rafts 18.40.1 O0 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) In order to be located in any residential district or on any site in any other district used for residential occupancy, a mobile home (manufactured housing) must: (a)National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Be certified under the provisions of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U;S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) or any successor legislation; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 7 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (b)Permanent Foundation System Be located on a permanent foundation system approved by the building official pursuant to all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Health and Safety Code Section 18551 or successor legislation. (c) Site regulations Must meet all of the application site regulations of the district in which it is located; (d)Not allowed in historical district of the city Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent foundations shall not be allowed in any historic district of the city as designated in Chapter 16.49. 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose The purpose of this section is to accommodate continued improvements to wireless communications while minimizing visual impacts of such development. Wireless communication facilities (WCF) are permitted subject to architectural review and/or a conditional use permit, for placement and design of the antennas and related equipment, to provide for facilities that blend with the existing surroundings. Building mounted WCF and collocation facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b)Review Procedure For projects proposed on a historic property, as designated by Chapter 16.49, Historic Review is required in addition to the Architectural Review and/or Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review are required for: (1)Projects that are located on a residentially zoned parcel; (2)Projects that are located on aparcel with residential use; (3)Projects that are a stand alone wireless communication facility;- (4)Building-mounted projects that exceed the existing height of the building/roof-top screening; or (5)An existing wireless communication facility that is modified fi’om the original CUP approval (e.g. size, location, capacity, landscaping, etc.), Architectural Review, but no Conditional Use Permit, is required for: (1)Building-mounted projects that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height; ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 8 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (c) (d) (e) (0 (2)Building-mounted p~ojects on a Planned Community (PC) zoned site that do not exceed the existing building/roof-top screening height; all other project types require a PC Amendment; or (3) Collocation facilities. Development Standards and Exceptions Each proposed proiect shall meet the standard zoning requirements for the zone district in which it is located. The following development exceptions may be considered and approved in conjunction with the required review process: (1) Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted height.of the zone. (2) Stand alone WCF shall be no taller than 65’. (3)Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. Equipment Cabinets and Enclosures (1)Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2)Shall be designed to minimize overall height; (3)Shall be screened from public view; and (4)Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. Antenna Design (1) Antennas shall be designed to minimize visibility offsite and shall be of a "stealth" design; and (2)Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existinz building, Removal of Abandoned Equipment Wireless communication facilities, or any components of a facility, that are no longer in use shall be removed by the applicant, service provider, or property owner within three months of the termination of use. ZOU Draft Chapter 18.42 12/06/06 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Whitney McNair, Contract Planner Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment DATE:November 29, 2006 SUBJECT: ¯Zoning-Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of proposed changes to Chapter 18.8 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for (1) wireless communication facilities; (2) water resources protection (streamside development standards and storm water quality protection); and (3) landscape standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment on changes to the Zoning Ordinance to include wireless communication facilities, water resources protection, and lhndscaping. BACKGROUND The City ofPalo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment ch@ter irMudes policies and programs for protection of water resources and landscaping. The Land Use and Community Design chapter includes several programs regarding landscaping. The Business.& Economics chapter includes a policy supporting wireless communications facilities. A complete list of related Comprehensive Plan Programs is included in Attachment A. The PTC discussed landscaping standards and guidelines at a study session on October 25, 2006 and the wireless communication facilities and stream protection measures at a study session on November 1, 2006. DISCUSSION Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.88, Special Provisions and Exceptions, is composed of various sections that address a variety of issues; it is considered the "catch all" section of the code. The proposed revisions to this Chapter include: City of Palo Alto Page 1 1.Separation of the provisions into two Chapters, one chapter for Standards for Sp.ecial Uses and one chapter for General Standards and Exceptions 2.An updated format ~onsistent with other ZOU chapters 3.-Inclusion of new sections for landscaping, water resources, and wireless communication facilities 4. Deletion 0ftext related to the maximum number of permits for on-sale alcohol licenses that may be issued in any single block Other than the additional sections, the proposed changes are not substantive. Wireless Communications Facilities Wireless communication facilities (WCF) currently fall into the "utility facilities" use category. Thedraft code language provides criteria for review and a streamlined review process for wireless communications facilities. At the November I PTC meeting, several issues were raised by the. commissioners and are discussed be!ow: Co-location: With the new State regulations, it is unclear how much authority the City will have in regulating co-location projects. The City Attorney’s office is currently researching the " implications of this new regulation. The review process proposed for co-location projects is limited to Architectural Review (at the staff level) until further notice from the City Attorney. On the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities submittal checklist (Attachment E), the first item required is a statement regarding co-location efforts for the related project. Staff understands that co-location is not always possible for new facilities due to the location requirements of each carrier and individual equipment requirements. Co-location is always encouraged, but cannot always be accomplished. For a new facility, staff could require the carrier to build a WCF that would physically accommodate another carrier, but that does not guarantee another carrier will find that site and setup useful. Abandoned Antennas: Staff has incorporated a requirement into the related development standards that states that all unused WCF, or components thereof, shall be removed within three months of discontinued use. This requirement would become a standard condition of approval. Aesthetic Concerns/Roof-Mounted Antennas: All projects are Subject to Architectural Review. This review carefully examines the proposed placement and treatment of the antennas as well as related equipment. The design goal is to create an end product that is unobtrusive and blends with the existing surroundings, whether attached to a building or a "fake" tree in a parking lot. As part of this review, visual clutter is a design concern that is taken very seriously, and applicants have been instructed to redesign their projects based on this primary aesthetic concern. To address the concern raised by the PTC about the potential of increasing the height of existing roof screens to screen new roof-mounted WCF, each project is evaluated on a case by case basis to make the best determination. Currently, the zoning code allows for rooftop equipment at a height maximum of 15 feet above the height standard for the zone district, subject to Ardhitectural Review. Project Notification: Although staff is recommending a change to the review process, certain types of facilities could require a greater radius for project notification than other, less visible, City of Palo Alto }~age 2 WCF. The attached table (Attachment F) shows the two review processes proposed and the notice requirements for each. All WTC projects Would require notification, either as a conditional use permit (600 feet) or for architectural review by staff (150 feet). Staff believes that the 150-foot radius will reach all potentially affected property owners for projects that are essentially negligible in terms of visual impact. As an alternative to having a standard 150 foot notification radius, however, the radius could be based on the project height (as shown on the table, Attachment F). For building-mounted projec.ts not exceeding the existing building height a notification radius of 150 feet would be utilized; but for projects exceeding the existing height, a notification radius of 600 feet would be used. City of Los Altos: One of the public speakers named Los Altos as having a more "big picture" approach for regulating WCF and some of the Commissioners were interested in learning more. That ordinance (http:(/www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/documents/LosAltosWirelessOrdinanceFinal.pdf) shares many of the same goals, standards, and processes that Palo Alto has been using to review these projects, The Los Altos code does refer to "distributed, repeater, or microcell antenna systems" as a separate category of WCF. Simply put, theseare antenna systems that cover a smaller, more specific area, to increase coverage and improve reception that can be installed either inside or outside of a building. This is a newer technology that is not as pervasive, but can be utilized for more discrete applications due to their smaller size and system requirements. The review process thi~t staff recommends is applicable to these-types Of facilities as well. Streamlined Review Process There are two review processes recommended for WCF (Attachment F), depending on the sensitivity of the project: A.Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review (Staff Level) process for.the following more sensitive projects: 1.Proposed on a residentially zoned parcel 2.Proposed on a site with residential type use 3.Developed as stand alone facilities (e.g. tree-pole, monopole, light standard, etc.) 4.Proposed for expansion beyond the original CUP .approval B. Architectural Review (Staff Level) process fo; less sensitive projects: 1.Building-mounted facilities 2.Building-mounted facility on a PC zoned site (use not already allowed) 3.Co-location projects (adding a new carrier to a site with an existing WCF use) Proposed Development Requirements The following development requirements are recommended to .codify the desired design standards and to allow for specific practical exceptions that would Otherwise require a Design Enhancement Exception: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1.Development Standards and Exceptions- Each proposed project shall meet the standard zoning requirements for the zone district in which it is located. The following development exceptions, as approved in the CUP/AR process, may be considered: a. Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted height b. Stand alone WCFmay be up to 65’ in height c. Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback 2.Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall utilize the smallest footprint possible 3.Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall be designed to minimize overall height 4.Cabinets and associated equipment shall be screened from public view- 5.Equipment enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site 6.Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building 7.All antennas shall have a "stealth" design to minimize visibility offsite 8.WCF, or any components of a facility, that is no longer in use shall beremoved by the applicant/service provider within three months of use termination. WaterResources Protection The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative) consists of representatives from 15 municipalities, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other community and environmental stakeholders. The Collaborative developed a set of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S). The G&S cover a wide range of issues affecting land development near .and in local streams. In order to address the G&S, a new section in this Chapter is recommended. The Chapter will also address a provision of the Countywide storm water, discharge permit requiring a mechanism to encourage land development project designers to utilize site design measures that protect storm water quality. At the November 1 PTC meeting, a few items were raised by the Commissioners that have resulted in a few revisions to the proposed standards: 1. Staff has changed the proposed separation requirement for noise producing equipment from 25 feet to 50 feet from the top of bank 2. The Planning Landscape Specialist or Arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank in conjunction with the discretionary review 3. "Impervious areas" is included in the list of items that cannot be located in the slope stability protection arba (taken from Com Plan Program N-7) 4.. The heading "Cohsiderations" is replaced with "Guidelines" 5. Additional terminology is added for the definitions section (Attachment G) Applicability Criteria Staff recommends the establishment of a "streamside review area", which includes all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank (except those properties separated from the stream by a public street). For parcels within the streamside review ~rea, the following types of development would be subject to the new Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams (G&S) requirements: 1.Development in all zones other than R1 (single-family use in the R2, RMD, RE, OS, RM15, etc. zones is NOT exempt from new requirements) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Development in the R1 zone requiring discretionary review: a. Individual Review (IR) for NEW 2 story house b. IR for new 2rid floor on existing house (where there is an expansion/change of the building (and/or accessory building) footprint) c. Variance (VAR) (including fences) d. Home Improvement Exception (HIE) 3. Development requiring a CUP in the R-1 zone (e.g. churches, schools) Exempt Projects 1. Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork 2. Interior construction 3. Structures <= 120 sf 4. Replacement of utility service laterals 5. Fences six feet tall or less 6. Decks <= 30" above grade Standards for Land Development Near Streams The following standards would be required for the aforementioned list of applicable project types within the streamside re#Jew area, in order to preserve the stream’s riparian.resources and protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion. Requirements: 1. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The slope. Stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizonta!: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater (Attachment G). The following accessory type stability protection area: (a) (b) (d) (e) structures/uses shall not be allowed within the slope Any structure larger than 120 square feet in area (including accessory structures) Decks over 30" in height Swimming pools Parking lots Other impervious areas in excess of 120 square fe~t in area Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director ofPubli~ Wbrks where a geotechnical slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance and repair of the stream banks would be accommodated. All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the Planning Staff/Landscape Specialist. Mitigation planting shall be required when native riparian.vegetation is allowed to be removed. Planting of non-native invasive plant species shall not be allowed on the project site. Refer to current version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams for plant lists and reference material (Attachment H). City of Palo Alto Page 5 Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream (Attachment I, plant list). Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and.stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located at least 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. Irrigation systems shallbe designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the latest version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Guidelines: 1.Maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream. 2.Avoid bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas. Storm water Quality Protection Section C.3 of the Countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidance to encourage the incorporation of storm water- friendly site design measures into land development projects. Site design measures are features that reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces..The following items should be added to Chapter t 8.88 as guidelines to be made for all development projects, not just those near streams. Guidelines: The following site design measures shall be included in site and buiIding design wherever- feasible in order to minimize storm water runoff and protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site: o Minimize. land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain or str.eam. Utilize minimum-impact street design standards (e.g. narrow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact parking lot design standards (e.g. parking space maximization within a given area,, use of parking lot island and perimeter landscaping as a storm water drainage feature, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g. narrow width, "Hollywood" ~ strips, shared driveways, permeable pavements, etc.). Cluster structures, pavement and other: impervious surfaces on the development site. Route rain water leaders .into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks or pop-up emitters, rather than directly .to an underground storm drain, in order to promote filtration and infiltration of roof runoff. City of Palo Alto Page Utilize microdetention techniques (e.g. use of bioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duratlon of storm runoff from the development site. Landscaping Standards Most of the City’s current landscape design standards are found in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.83.90, Design Standards--General Parking Facilities; and Chapter 18.83.100, Design Standards--Landscaping in Parking Facilities and Required Landscape Areas. Other area specific standards are located in the Sand Hill Road Development Area (Stanford West, Hyatt Senior Development, Stanford Shopping Center and Sand Hill Road) and for the Baylands. The purview of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) also includes landscape review. The Zoning Ordinance provides minimum landscape standards that are to be implemented with development projects. Additional landscaping conditions may be approved as part of an architectural or discretionary review. The existing code separates landscape areas into two general categories: (1)perimeter.landscaping surrounding a parking lot, and (2) interior landscaping between the parking lot and the building. The required landscape area is determined by a percentage of the total parking lot area. The code is brief, teaving much of the site planning and design up to staff and the applicant to work out on a case by case basis. Without having the landscape provisions of the Comprehensive Plan codified or implemented through a technical manual, it is often difficult to consistently integrate landscaping standards into a project. The PTC considered and discussed landscaping at its October 25 meeting. The outline below addresses several issues raised by Commissioners and the public at that meeting. Also, Attachment N provides responses to Commissioner Keller’s e-mail questions submitted in advance of that meeting. Outline of Draft Landscape Criteria Landscape provisions would be included in the new Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) to replace the current Chapter 18.88. The intent of these requirements and guidelines is to encourage creative ways to integrate landscape design as a primary resource for infrastructure management, economic vitality and punic health, as well as traditional aesthetic enhancement of structures, streetscapes and parking areas, Landscaping requirements also are intended to emphasize the preservation of and enhancement of natural areas with native vegetation, support water conservation and stormwater quality objectives. Emerging alternatives, such as rooftop gardens, usable (edible) landscape (Attachment J), and alternatives to hard surfaces are becoming increasingly feasible as best management practices. The draft landscape section will provide this direction but allow for creative design standards to respond to challenges posed by an individual project or site constraints. The draft section will apply to all new development and additions requiring architectural or discretionary review. Detailed landscaping provisions will be provided in a Landscape Technical Manual to be developed. A draft outline of the proposed sections include: A. General Regulations a. Applicability City of Palo Alto "Page 7 b. Minimum Landscape Requirements for Development Organization Review c. Reference to the Landscape Technical Manual (see outline below) d. Reference to the Tree Technical Manual e. Reference to other relevant technical documents . f. Reference to relevant elements of the existing code, PAMC 18.83.100 (Parking Design) Natural Areas (Open SpaceDistrict, Hillside Lands, Baylands, Creek and Riparian Areas): Basic program statements related to: a. Preservation of sensitive plant species, invasive eradication guidelines b. Habitat preservation c. Viewshed preservation d. Riparian best practices within stream corridors e. Low impact development alterhatives Special Design Landscaping Standards for public and private projects a. Screening utilities - transformer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets, plan view and elevations to show On all plan submittals b. Utilization of gray water for irrigation (potential, backup system, etc.) c. Limitation on the usage of lawns in commercial .development d. Special surface materials--hardscape and soflscape Residential Landscaping Design Standards a. Light well landscaping b. Screening standards, when stipulated c. Street tree guidelines d. Tree planting restrictions under power lines .Landscape Technical Manua Many of the requirements and guidelines of the code would be implemented through details outlined in a Landscape Technical Manual, to be developed subsequent to the adoption of the ZOU. Primary components of the Landscape Technical Manual would include: 1.. Design Standards - General and Specific Details and Specifications 2. Parking Areas, Trees and Green Practices: ¯Canopy Shade Formula for Vehicular Use Areas (Attachment M) ¯Design standards for reducing hard surfaces , - Design standards for increasing tree canopy, plantersize and root growing areas (Attachment L-Structured Engineered Soil) ¯Storm Water Management Best Practices and Design 3. Special Materials. Acceptable alternatives and design standards for hard surfaces, soft surfaces, ADA, roof garden planters, podium and wall planting, etc. 4. Screening and Landscape Buffers. Basic list of tree and shrub plants that could function to interrupt direct view of above-ground utility boxes 5.Recommended best practices for situating and screening above-ground utilities, transformer pads, backflow devices, electrical cabinets, trash enclosures, etc. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Tree Canopy Shade Formula The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goal L-75) identifies a parking lot shade goal of 50% over a 10-15 year period. This would be an achievable goal for most new construction projects if five main strategy components are in place (see below). A target formula is needed to replace the existing standard (one tree every 10 spaces, etc.). Staff research has concluded that Palo Alto should consider a ’shade benefits potential’ formula (Attachment M-Sacramento Model), rather than a ’points rating only’ formula used by Midwest!eastern jurisdictions (previously attached Oklahoma City Landscape Ordinance). The new Palo Alto Landscape Section could reflect the following direction for Vehicle Use Areas, Trees and Green Practices: Vehicle Use Areas (VUA) shall provide required landscape areas designed to achieve a minimum of 50% canopy Coverage within 15 years. Greater than 50% canopy is . encouraged to yield increased benefits, and should be considered for open landscape areas associated with pedestrian, common and usable open space landscaping. Canopy shade goals can be achieved but must provide for (a) available adequate rooting volume and (b) proper species size selection for the site, to be accompanied by the following strategies: 1.Codify the VUA canopy shade goal for 50% canopy coverage within 15 years. 2.Adopt a recommended VUA shade tree list (Landscape Technical Manual-LTM) 3.Adopt design standards for providing sufficient rooting volume in VUA landscape areas, islands, medians and hard surface areas (LTM). Consider alternative green design using CU-structural soil (Attachment K), pervious surfaces, etc. 4. Adopt conditions of approval to require landscape architect certification compliance with ordinance at (a) permitting and (b) construction final. 5. Adopt conditions of approval for a property owner/city monitoring and maintenance program (LTM). The manual would specify compliance standards, tree, plant and irrigation replacement, etc. The above five elements are extremely importantto achieving the city’s shading goal. The final bullet was deemed critical to achieving the goals, as reported by the Sacramento agency . representative in personal communication with staff in October 2006. Other Revisions to Chapter 18.88 Chapter 1.8,88 is proposed to be divided into two separate Chapters: Chapter 18.40 "General Standards and Exceptions" (Table of Contents in Attachment C) and Chapter 18.42 "Standards for Special Uses" (Table of Contents in Attachment D). The format wilt be changed to reflect other new sections of the Zoning Ordinance for ease of use and consistency. One section of the code (current 18.88.210) referencing the number .of alcoholic beverage permits issued per block will be removed to be consistent with current Alcohol Beverage Control regulations. NEXT STEPS Staff will prepare a draft ordinance for review and public hearing by the Commission at a future meeting scheduled for December 13, 2006. Upon recommendation from the Commission, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption in early 2007. City of Palo Alto Page 9 ATTACHMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan Policies B. Chapter 18.88 (current code section) C. Proposed Chapter 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions (Table of Contents) D. Proposed Chapter 18.42 Standards for Special Uses (Table of Contents) E. Wireless Communications Facilities Submittal Checklist F. Proposed Wireless Review Process Table G. Terminology Related to Stream Protection Area Standards H. Plant List - Non-Native Invasive Plant Species I.Plant List- Native Plant Species J. -Valley of Heart’s Delight K. Social Benefits of Trees, News Release L. Structured Engineered Soils M. Parking Lot Tree Shading Design & Maintenmice Guidelines (Sacramento Model - excerpts) N. Response to Commissioner Keller E-Mail of October 22, 2006 COURTESY COPIES City Council Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney Architectural Review Board Doug Moran, Barron Park Associatiori Sheri Furman, Mid,own Residents.Association Luis Jaimes,Santa Clara Valley Water District. Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board Pam Sturner, San Francisquito Watershe~t Council Joe Teresi, Public Works PREPARED BY: -Whitney McNair, Planner Clare Campbell, Planner REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 10 ATTACHMENT A Chapter 18.88 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.88.010 18.88.020 18,88.030 18.88.040 18.88,050 18.88.060 18.88.070 18.88.080 18.88.090 18.88.100 18.88,110 18.88.I30 18.88.140 18.88.150 18.88.160 18.88.170 18.88.180 18.88.190 18.88.200 1-8.88.210 Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Location of Accessory Buildings Separation Between Buildings Substandard Lots Utility Easements Watercourse or Channel Measurement Projections into Yards Height Exceptions Permitted Uses and Facilities .in Required Yards Home Occupations Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Hazardous Conditions Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage Setback Map ClotheslineRestrictions Prohibited Reverse Vending Machines Temporary Uses Sales of Alcoholic Beverages 18.88.010 : Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.020 Accessory Uses and Facilities (a)Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or when incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions of this section. (b) Accessory uses and facilities: Palo Alto Municipal Code (o) O) (3) (d) (e) Shall be subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively; Shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or .the activities 0f a principal use, or the function of a principal structure; Shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served, except as.otherwise authorized by this title. Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the following list of examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this title: (1) (2) (5) (6) (7) (8) Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; Customer, visitor, and employee parking facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; Facilities for storage incidental to a principal use; Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility; Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating and drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests th.ereof, of a principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility; Building management offices when located within the principal facility and limited to the management thereof; Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in playgrounds, and in permitted public or private recreation facilities or schools; The operation of service facilities and equipment in connectionwith schools, hospitals, and similar institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal use. No use Or facility permitted as an accessory use or facility pursuant to this section shall b~ construed to be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty Palo Alto Municipal Code percent of the required rear yard, (Ord. 4472 § 3, 1997: OrE 3465 § 20, 1983: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.030 Location of Accessory Buildings (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at ’all times be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side or rear yard. In residential zones, accessory buildings m~y be located in a required interior yard subjectto the following limitations: (I)An accessory building shall not be used for living and/orsleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2) (3) An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line, measured along the respective lot line. (4)Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane begirming at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). (5) No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. No swimming pool, l~ot tub, spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard: (Ord. 4869 § 43, 2005: Ord. 4716 § 12, 2001: Ord. 3905 § 16, 1989: Ord. 3577 § 3, 1984: Ord. 3536 § 37, 1984: Ord. 3465.§ 21, 1983: Ord. 3340 § 15, 1982: Ord. 3255 § 12, 1981: Ord. 3130 §. 12, 1979: Ord. 3108 § 19,1979: Ord. 3048 (part); 1978) 18.88.040 SeparationBetween Buildings The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16; provided, however, accessory buildings in the RE single-family residence districts shall be separated from the principal building by at least three feet. (b)A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of Title 16 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal building and Palo Alto Municipal Code accessory buildings, may be conr~ected by a structure meeting the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the accessory building. (Ord. 4869 § 44, 2005: Ord. 3905 § 17, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.050 (a) (c) (Ord. 3178 § 1 Substandard Lots Any lot having a site area, width, or depth less than required by this title, which meets one of the provisions specified in this subsection, may be used as a lot or site under the provisions of this title, subj ect to the applicable district regulations ¯ and other provisions of this tire:. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) A lot shown upon an official subdivision map duly approved and re(orded; A lot for which a deed or a valid contract of sale is on record in the office of the county recorder of Santa Clara County prior to February 19, 1951, and Was of legal area at the time it was recorded; A lot for which individual water, sewer, and/or gas service or services were installed by the city prior to October 8, 1947; A lot upon which a dwellir~g was constructed on or after October 8, 1947, and prior to July 20, 1978 which at the time of construction complied with all lot width and area requirements; A lot otherwise meeting applicable requirements at the time such lot was created, but which does not meet the minimum requirements of this title as currently.applicable to such lot, by reason of annexation, a change in zoning district, or a change in applicable regulations .within a district. A substandard lot meeting one of the provisions designated in subsection (a) shall .be considered a legal lot; provided the particular measurement (area, width, or¯depth) not in accord with this title shall not be further reduced. All lots which were merged by the 1977 amendments t.o the Subdivision Map Act prior to the adoption of Chapter 234, Statutes 1977, are hereby deemed unmerged. (a), 1980; Ord. 3130 § 22, 1979; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.060 Utility Easements No structures other than fences or landscaping features shall be located within any portion of an easement granted to the city for utility purposes, unless authorized pursuant to an encroachment permit granted by the city. Any structure now existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city. (0rd. 3048 (part), 1978) Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.88.070 Watercourse orChannel No portion of a lot whichis located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines carmot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river~ stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such tot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, al! measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shal! be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. Provided, the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood.Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1, 2002 easement had not been created. (Ord. 4751 § 3, 2002: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.080 Measurement Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measttre shall be applied for all new construction; provided, that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and improvements arid changes thereto, and the building official, zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less restrictive manner.. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.090 (a) Proj ections into Yards Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features, excluding flat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). .Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet) or Palo Alto Municipal Code (b) (c) (® (0 (g) into a required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. In residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet)from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: (1)’A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. (2)The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of building coverage. (3)- (4) The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty percent of tile required rear yard. The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed On more than two sides. Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height, or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square feet).in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding. 1.2 meters (four feet). Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not " more than 1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard, and may extend not more than 0.9 meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in.nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into any yard above a first story. Pools, spas and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27 meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the p.roperty !ine shall be maintained. In residential districts, a portion of a main buildingwhich is less than half the maximum width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear yard not more than 3.0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story. Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a spe.cial setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions Palo Alto Municipal Code of Section 18.10.050(m), 18.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, may extend into a required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters (four feet). (Ord. 4869 §§ 45, 46, 2005: Ord. 4716 § 13, 2001: Ord. 4081 § 1..3, 1992: Ord. 3683 §§ 14, 16, 1986: Ord. 3187 §-5, 1980: Ord. 31.08 § 12, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.100 Height Exceptions Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district bynot more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet); provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or ad-vertising purposes. In OS, RE, R-1, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet). (Ord. 3130 § 13, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.110 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by d.istrict regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: (a)Fences, screening, and enclosures permitted by Chapter 16.24; (b)Landscaping; (c)Outdoor recreation, including open structures and ground l~vel facilities related thereto, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, other game or court facilities, sitting areas, decks, patios, terraces, and like features constructed at ground level or within 0.3 meters (one foot) above natural grade; provided, that no bel0w-grade impr.ovements such as swimming pools shall be permitted within 0.9 meters (three feet) from the property line; (d) Pedestrian wallc~vays and driveways; (e)Required parking, in accord with the location provisions specified within each district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.130 Home Occupations Where permitted, a home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: (a) The home occupation shall be conducted in a manner that is compatible with Palo Alto Municipal Code (b) residentia! uses permitted in the same district, and in a manner which does not change the character and appearance of the dwelling unit in which it is conducted. No person shall be employed on the site in connection with the home occupation except lawful occupants of the dwelling unit within which the home occupation is conducted. (c) (d) No advertising shall be permitted on the site. Not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit, or 46.5 square meters (five hundred square feet) of gross floor area on the site including accessory buildings, whichever is less, shall be devoted to the home occupation. The home occupation shall not be conducted in a manner which generates traffic or parking demand or vehicular deliveries substantially greater than customarily associated with residential occupancy of the dwelling unit. (g) No mechanical, electrical, or other equipment shall be used, nor shall a home occupation be conducted in any manner which is a nuisance oris noxious, offensive, Or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, particulate matter, odor, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions or effects. No outdoor storage of any material, equipment or goods shall be permissible in connection with any home occupation. (Ord. 3048 (part), 19.78) 18.88.140 " Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) In order to be located in any residential district or on any site in any other district used for residential occupancy, a mobile home (manufactured housing) must: (b) Be certified under the provisions of the National Mobile.Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) or any successor legislation; ~ Be located on a permanent foundation system approved by the building official pursuant to all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Health and. Safety Code Section 18551 or successor legislation; (c) (d) Must meet all of the application site regulations of the district in which it is located; " Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent foundations shall not be allowed in any historic district of the city as designated in Chapter 16.49. Palo Alto Municipal Code (Ord. 3291 § 12, 1981: Ord. 3070 § 5, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978), 18.88.150 Hazardous Conditions In any area within the city identified by the Comprehensive Plan as having moderate or high risk due to flood hazard, seismic activity hazard, to other geologic hazard, the following provisions shall apply: (a)In areas identified as subject to high risk, the building official may iequire, prior to issuance of a building permit or other permit authorizing any new construction, submission by the permit applicant of detailed geologic, soils, and engineering data sufficient to define the extent of any potential hazard and to demonstrate that the proposed construction shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate or otherwise recognize such hazard. (b) Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. In areas identified as ~subject to moderate risk, the building official may require " such reports as described in (a) fo.r any use except single-family use or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.160 Vehicle and Equipment RePair and Storage Except as otherwise provided, parking is allowed in all residential districts and on all sites in any other district used for residentia! occupancy: (a)No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any Vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle: house car, boat, or similar conveyance except when conducted within a garage or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. when conducted in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not be construed to prohibit occasional minor maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, belts and hoses. (b)No person shall store, place or park any of the conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof, whichis disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, inciuding an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach and similar nonmotorized conveyance, or any other structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic feet) in volume to be carried upon Or in any such conveyance, or any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted Palo Alto Municipal Code (c) (d) (f) (g) (i) within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from.the street and adjoining lots by.a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding [1] passenger vehicles other than house cars, and [2] "pickup" motor trucks on which no eqrtipment other than a camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in loc~tions where an accessory building or principal building of equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), emergency repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any conveyance listed in subsection (a), when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an aggregate period of up to seventy-two hours in any continuous period of ninety-six hours exclusive o!l the screening requirements. For the purpose of this section, references to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this section. Subject to securing a permit therefor from the building official and otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a pe.riod not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any Calendar year for not more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of vehicles. Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or impermeable paving surface. No person shall store’ place, Or park any of the conveyances designated in this section Within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic. No person shall ~tore, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section in a manner that they cover more than 40 percent of any required front yard. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable as Provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. Palo Alto Municipal Code (Ord. 4768 § 2, 2002: Ord. 4453 § 67, 1997: Ord. 3291 § 13, 1981; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.170 Setback Map See Chapter 22.08 of the Municipal Code for setback map regulations. (Ord. 3130 § 24, 1979) 18.88.180 Clothesline Restrictions Prohibited Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property which prohibits or unduly restricts the installation or use of a clothesline in any residential zone is void and unenforceable. (Ord. 3277 § 1, 1981) 18.88.190 Reverse Vending Machines Reverse vending machines may be established only in conjunction with an otherwise allowed Commercial or industrial use and may ndt exceed a maximum of three machines per site or one hundred fifty cubic feet in volume per site. Sites containing reverse vending machine(s) shall include a refuse container adjacent to the machine(s) and shall be maintained in a litter free condition. In addition, a reverse vending machine .shall: (a) (b) Not exceed eight feet in height; Be located on the site in a manner which will assure compatibility with surrounding uses; Be subject to the noise restrictions contained in Chapter 9.10 of this code. (Ord. 3757 § 34,1987) 18.88.20.0 Temporary Uses The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use: subject to the following provisions: (a)Application shall be made to the zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee schedule. (b) (c) The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. \ The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. Palo Alto Municipal Code (®A temporary use permit, if granted by the director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. A temporary use permit may be granted by the director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1) (2) The granting of the application 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 proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title. Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 4826 § 129, 2004) 18.88.210 (a) (c) (d) (e) Sales of Alcoholic Beverages In any district where otherwise permitted by this rifle, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an onrsale license required by the State of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. A Conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage.. In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. The maximum number of permits for on-sale gener-al (liquor, beer and wine) and for on-sale beer and wine licenses which may be issued in any single block where any portion of the block is classified in one or more districts in which an eating Palo Alto Municipal Code and drinking establishment is a permitted or a conditional use shall be governed by the following table, and no applications for a conditional use permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages under an on-sale license from the State of California shall be accepted unless the standards in this section are met. fn any block having residentially zoned site area equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total block area: In any block having residential~ zoned site area equal to or greater than twen&-five percent of the total block area." Maximum Number og Square. Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s). Conditional Use Permits Allowing Eating and Drinking-Use as a Which May Be Authorized Permitted or Conditional Use No permit ................0 - 1,858.0 sq. m.(0-19,999 sq. ft.) 1 permit .............1,8581 - 3,716.0 sq. m.(20,000-39,999 sq. ft.) 2 permits ..........3,716.1 sq. m. and above (40,000 sq. ft. and above) 3 or more ......................In the same progression ft.) . (Ord. In any block having residentially zoned site area less than twenty-five percent of total block area: Maximum Number of Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Conditional Use Permits Allowing Eating and Drinking Use as a Which May Be Authorized Permitted or Conditional Use 4 permits ..............0- 14,864.4 sq. m. (0 - 159,999 sq. ft.) 5 permits ........14,864.5 - 29,728.9 sq. m. (160,000 - 319,999 sq. ft.) 6 permits ........29,729.0 - 59,457.9 sq. m. (320,000 - 639,999 sq. ft.) 7 permits..; .....59,458.0 - 118,915.8 sq. m. (640,000 - 1,279,999 8 or more ......................In the same pr’ogression. Additional conditional use permits may be authorized for establishments for on-sale beer and wine licenses. The total number of such additional permits shall be equal to half the number of on-sale general licenses permitted in the tables contained in subsection (c). 4826 §-130, 2004) 18.66.070 Non2conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities. Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the rezoning process referenced in. Section 18.66.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2005) Palo Alto Municipal Code COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Wireless Communications Facilities Policy B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. Water Resources Protection ¯ Policy N-IO: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flo6d control by use of low impact restoration strategies. ¯ Policy N-11: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. ¯ Program N-7: Adopt a setback along natural creeks that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet of the top of a creek.bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area,-provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. ¯ Program N-8: Develop and adopt a creek ordinance that establishes new development regulations for properties abutting creeks, establishes an exception process, and provides incentives to achieve maximum creek setbacks, such as reduced front yard setbacks and reduced on-site parking requirements. ¯ Policy N-12: Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation ofnative plants and the replacement ofinvasive, non-native plants with native plants .... ¯ Program N-13: Establish public education programs regarding the conservation of creeks and riparian areas. City of Palo Alto on 6 m nm ATTACHMENT Draft Table of Contents Chapter 18.40 GENERAL STANDARDS AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.40.010 18.40.020 18.40.030 1-8.40.040 18.40.050 18.40.060 18.40.070 18.40.080 18.40.090 18.40.100 18.40.1!0 18.40.120 18.40.130 18.40.140 Purposes Application Measurement Separation Between Buildings Location and Use of Accessory Buildings Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Projections into Yards Substandard Lots Height Exceptions Setback Map Utility Easements Hazardous Conditions Landscaping Water Resources Protection Palo Alto ZOU Draft 11/20/06 ATTACHMENT D Draft Table of Contents Sections: 18.42.010 18.42.020 18.42.030 18.42.040 18.42.050 18.42.060 18.42.070 18.42.080 18.42.090 18.40.100 18.42.110 STANDARDS .FOR SPECIAL USES Purposes Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Temporary Uses Home Occupations Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage Reverse Vending machines Alcoholic Beverages Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Wireless Communication Facilities WM Draft ATTACHMENT E City, of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The following informatiQn is required for the review of wireless communications facilities in addition to the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review submittal requirements. PROJECT SITE SELECTION PROCESS Detailed statement, including correspondence, documenting efforts to negotiate "co-location" with existing wireless facilities in the area. Detailed statement documenting the consideration of alternative project locations. Detailed statement justifying the need forthe tower and/or antenna site, includin, g information such as network design, search ring, and specific site selection criteria. Color copies (three) of service coverage maps with legend and other necessary graphics that demonstrate the need for the proposed tower site (additional copies may be requested). List of all existing or approved future antennas locations, including the street address, within the City limits. Each site listed should include the type of installation (e.g. roof-mounted, mono-p01e, faux tree, etc.). Submit a completed "Optional Checklist for Local Governments To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded" form. AESTHETIC QUALITY Statement describing the measures taken to minimize visual impacts of the project (e.g. substantial setback from major.roads, trees, stealth design, .slim line monopole). Include other proposed site enhancements that the project site will benefit from. PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL usES 121 Identify on a location map the distance and location of the nearest residence(s) within one-quarter mile from the proposed tower or antenna site. The information identified above must be provided in order tO accept your application for processing. Additional information may be required upon reviefb of the submitted materials. Wireless Facilities Revised 6/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 ATTACEMENT F 0 "0 0© o~.~o ATTACHMENT G Terminology Related to Stream.Protection Area Standards Riparian Corridor: Pertaining to the banks and other adjacent, terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) environs Of freshwater bodies, watercourses, and surface-emergent aquifers (e.g., springs, seeps, oases), whose imported waters provide soil moisture significantly in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation - soil moisture to potentially support a mesic vegetation distinguishable from that of the adjacent more xeric upland. Slope Stability Protection Area: The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward fxom the toe of bank, whichever is greater. For banks of larger streams, or for streams that are deeply incised or have highly erodable banks, the Department of Public Works may need to increase the protection area in order to protect water quality and other resources. Stream: A body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks. This may include watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, or other aquatic life. The presence of a stream is often shown as follows: 1. As designated by a solid line or dash and three dots symbol on the largest scale of the USGS maps most recently published or any replacement to that symbol; or 2. As designated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown on maps maintained by the District; or . 3. As designated on the most recent maps of the Santa Clara County and cities within Santa Clara County; or 4. On a si(e plan which may be required by a permitting agency using the Criteria to Verify or Identify a Watercourse as a Stream from the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Page 1 of 2 An alteration to a natural watercourse, such as the construction of culverts or other improvements within the bed of the.stream does not affect its status as a stream. Streams do not include features such as street gutters and asphalt orconcrete ditches which drain paved parking lots. Streamside Review Area: All properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank (except those properties separated fxom the stream by a public street). Top of Bank: Top of bank designates a stream boundary where a majority ofn0rmal discharges and channel fo .rming activities takes place. The top of bank boundary will contain the active channel, active floodpladn, and their associated banks. Top of bank of streams with levees will be delineated on the inner edge of the levee. Where there are no distinguishable features to locate top of bank, the local permitting agency or the Santa Clara Valley Water District will make a determination and document as appropriate. In the absence of this determination, the 100-year water surface will be used. Example 1: Stage, Example 2: Top of Bank Toe of Bank Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT H If the use of local native plants propagated from local stock does not fit your landscaping goals, choose: ¯Non invasive drought-tolerant, non native ornamental plants-having no potential to cross pollinate native riparian species. For example, if native valley and coast live oaks, willows, sycamores or cottonwoods exist in the riparian corridor, don’t plant ornamental oaks, willows, sycamores or poplars. Non invasive, drought tolerant, " non-local California natives (aka ornamental nati~}es), with no potential to cross-pollinate local native species; -for example- Fremontodendron or Romneya. When selecting plants and. choosing their Io6ation in an ornamental landscape, the project design goals are generally geared to human aesthetics. In choosing ornamental landscaping, hardscape features, such as patios, decks, and walk’ways, are design components. These features should be avoided within the riparian habitat area at all locations. The choices of plants that meet the criteria described above for ornamental landscaping is vast. Selection of a plant species for a particular site will depend on goals~ of the landscape plan, site constraints, the owner’s desires and budget. There are a variety of resources available from which selections can be made. Cities generally have plant lists available that were assembled for water conservation purposes. The East Bay Municipal UtilityDistrict has prepared a book, entitled "Plants and Landscapes for Summer Dry Climates" and the Sunset Western Garden Book, Commonly available at most nurseries, has plant selections identified that are suitable for dry places. Selectplants from these sources as long as you avoid invasive plants and take the caution provided above for - selecting native spe.cles that have not been propagated from your local watershed. The California Native Plant Society’] ’Guidelines for Protecting Native Plants from Genetic Degradation’ is a helpful reference on the subject. The following California native plants have a very low potedtial of hybridizing with our Santa Clara County natives since they do not naturally occur in northern California Chilopsis linearis, (Desert Willow), Lyonothamnus floribundus, (Catalina Ironwood), Prosopis glandulosa vat. torreyand, (Mesquite) Fremontodendron calffornicum or Fremontodendron mexicanum, (Flannel Bush), Galvesia speciosa, (Island Bush Snapdragon) Rhus integrifolia, (Lemonade Berry), Rhus ovata, (Sugar Bush), Romneya coulterl, Matilija Poppy, Simmondsia chlnensis, (Joioba) California invasive Plant CouncilWeb site: www.cal-ipc.org USF.R MANUAL: GUiD~.L!N~.S & STANDARDS FQ:R LAND US£ N]AR STREAb\S 4.7 C.OMMO N LY FOUND Acacia acacia spp. Almond prunus dulcis Ash, evergreen fra×inus uhdei Bamboo, running types arundinaria, chimonobambusa, phyllostachys, etc. Black locust robinia pseudoacacia Broom, french genista monspessulana, previously cytisus monspessulanus Broom, scotch cytisus scoparius Broom, spanish spartium junceum Cape weed arctotheca calendula Coloneaster .co toneasler Spp. Elm ulrn us spp. Eucalyptus eucalyptus spp. Fig ficus cafca Flowering plum, fruitful varieties prun us .spp. INVASIVE SPECIES Fountain grass pennisetum seraceum); purple variety "cupreum" is sterile and acceptable Foxglove digitalis p urp urea Giant reed arundo donax Glossy privet ligustrum lucidum Gorse ulex e uropaea Himalayan blackberry rubus discolor Holly oak quercus flex Iceplants carpobrotus edulis, c. Chilensis, mesembryanthemum spp. Ivy, algerian hede~a canariensis IVY, cape delairea odorata. previously senecio mikanioides Ivy, english hedero helix Kikuyu grass pennisetum clandestinum Lemon balm melissa oflicinalis TO BE AVOIDED Lombardy poplar populus nigra ’italica’ London plane tree platanus acerifolia Mint, any kind including pennyroyal, peppermint, spearmint mentha Spp. Monterey pine pinus radiata Myoporum myoporum laetum Olive oleo europaeo Pampas grass, jubata grass cortaderia selloana. C. Jubata Pepper treesschinus spp, Periwinkle vinca malor Pyracantha - pyracantha spp. Tamarisk,salt cedar tamarix spp. Tree of heaven ailanlh us altissima . Walnut, english or black Juglans regio, juglans californica vat. Hindsfi Find i’;" at: h~.’~p://w~,,r:,v.cnps.org/qrchives/ a rchi,,’es.htm Scroll down to: 1) Policies and Guidelines 2) Conservation Policies .3) Guidelines for Landscaping to Protect Native Vegetation from Genetic Degradation, California Invasive Plant Council Web site" www.cal-ipc.org iL]$3~ O~ ~,.]~\T]V~ ~LAN..]J ~C].~.J~ The following list is a conglomerateof riparian plan~ species that.exist within the boundaries of Santa Clara County. The distribution of one plant, may or may not overlap with the next one on the list. Sbme of them would never be seen together in the wild due to preferences for different ATTACHMENT I microclimates, s0il substrates and hydrologic regimes. ¯ If you are unfamiliar with local native plant ecology, consult local experts for help selecting the best plant palette for your particular creek or follow Nature’s example and copy what you see in a wild area located close to your project site. Big Leaf MapleAcer macrophyllum California Box ElderAcer negundo var.californicum California Buckeye Aesculus californica White Alder Alnus rhombitolia Western Sycamore Platan us racemosa Fremont Cottonwood ¯ Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii Black Cottonwood Poplus tfichocarpa Coast Live OakQuercus agrifolia Valley Oak Quercus Iobata Narrow-leave~ WillowSallx exig ua Red WillowSalix laevigata Yellow WillowSalix lucido ssp. lasiandra .Arroyo Willow Salix laslolepis Blue Elderberry~ambucus mexicana California Bay Laurel Umbellularia californica California Sagebrush Artemisia californica Mule Fat 8accharis salicifolia Virgin’s Bower Clemalis lig usti¢ifolia Toyon Heteromeles arbulifolia ¯ Coffeeberry Rhamnus callfornica California Wild Grape Vitus californica Brown Dogwood Comus glabrata California Rose Rosa californica California Blackberry Rubus ursinus Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus var. laev!gatus Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana Western Aster Aster chilensis Douglas’ Baccharis Bacchafis douglasfi Western Goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis Beardless Wlldrye Leymus triticoides Sticky Monkey Flower Mimulus auranflacus California Flgworl Scrophularia californica California Native Plant Society’s Web site" www.cnps.org 4.6 US,-"_R ~\,~AbtUAL: GUIDELINES & STAND,~RDS FOR LAND US:-- N~AP, Foundation for Global Community - Valley of Heart’s Delight Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT J Valley of Heart’s Delight Cultivating partnerships for a sustainable community Food is fundamental to a sustainable future. Transporting food uses non-renewable fossil fuels, which alters the climate with greenhouse gas Conventional. farming practices also pollute the water and deplete the s So, although supermarket shelves are filled today, we are undermining ability to produce enough food in the future. Fortunately, we live on some of the most fertile land on the planet. The region known today as Silicon Valley was once heralded by farmers: poets, and the Chamber of Commerce as the "Valley of Heart’s Delight." In 1940, productive fruit and nut trees graced over 105,000 acres in Santa Clara County alone~ In 1998, only 4,500 acres remained. Our project seeks to create a vision of the future, which integrates past and present. Our project name, Valley of Heart’s Delight, evokes the region’s rich agricultural heritage, rooting our vision in the understanding that healthy natural systems are essential for our well being. To meet the challenges that face US, we can .also draw upon Silicon Valley’s ability to find innovative solutions to ever-changing conditions. Our goal is to open up new opportunities for local, organically grown food " Check out ~he new guide for sustainable food in .the Bay Area Eating Sustainably Resources for the San Francisco Peninsula and Soutf production. In doing so, We can restore the fertility of our soils and reduce our reliance on the petrochemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, and fuels) that are polluting our environment. And by participating i this process, people will reconnect with the Earth as the source of our physical and spiritual nourishment. The project has six main components" ¯Home food gardens ¯Gettihg Going Growing ¯Harvesting for the Hungry ¯Healthy School Lunch Committee ¯Statewide coalition work ¯Educational events Home Food Gardens We encourage residents to plant fruit trees and vegetables. For those who wish to grow their own food, w~ offer "Grow Your Own" conferences, e-mail announceme.nts about garden classes,¯ and Or_qanic Garden Tours. We also organize regional Growinq Circles .where new and experienced food gardeners meet to share knov how, seeds and seedlings, produce, and occasionally tools and labor, Each group has its own format and http://www.globalcommunity-org/vhd/11121/2006 Foundation for Global Community - Valley of Heart’s Delight Page 2 of 2 schedule, and there’s no cost to participate. Sample schedules from exi.sting Growing Circles are available line (click here). For more information about joining or starting a Growing Circle near you, please contact Susan Stansbury sstansbury@globalcom munity.orq. Getting Going Growing With parents, teachers, students, and volunteers, we help establish food gardens in local schools - garder where children can connect with the wonder of the growing process and learn the value of caring fo~ the Earth. Other lessons can also be learned in connection with the garden - math, science, nutrition, art, music, writing and social skills. We help schools develop a garden plan, organize volunteers, find resource and integrate curric.ulum intothe learning experience. Click here for more information. Harvesting for the Hungry In collaboration with Village Harvest, we organize teams of volunteers to pick fruit from neighborhood frui trees. Each season we take a morning to harvest over a ton of produce for local food closets. Volunteers have fun while learniag the seasons of local fruit, the hungry benefit by receiving fresh produce, and homeowners appreciate having their trees harvested. For more information visit www.villaqeharvest.orq Healthy School Lunch Committee In partnership with parents, students and commun!ty members, we are working to bring fresh, local prodt into the Palo Alto Unified School District lunch program, as well as provide nutritional education and hand~ on learning experiences about healthy eating habits through school gardens. For more informa[ion visit th Healthy School Lunch Committee at www.homestead.com/hslc/ Statewide Coalition Work Through the CA Food aad Justice Coalition, we work to educate the state legislators about food security fr, a systems-wide approach. We also support policy that provides win-win solutions to our food .system such Farm to School, access of fresh food in low-income areas, and community based food systems. For more information visit the Food and Justice Coalition at www,foodsecurity.org/california Educational Events How secure is our food supply? There are many issues that effect food security in the long and short term In discussions such as sustainability, growth issues and cities’ comprehensive plans, food security is mentioned only in passing, if at all. In response to this lack of awareness, the Valley of Heart’s Delight project hosts speakers with expertise in food-related issues, and hold other educational events. Click here for more information. For more information, contact: Susan Stansbu sstansbury@globalcomm unity.c The Valley of Heart’s Delight is a project of the Foundation for Global Commun Emaih webmaster@qlobalcommunib/,orq I The Foundation is ~i 501(c)(3) nonprofi~ http ://www.globalcommunity.org/vhd/11/21/2006 ATTACHMENT K 0 January.qxD 12/29/05 10:44 PM Page 26 ~ ATTACHMENT L ; By Dave A Green Building Technique for Infrastructure Planning Structured soils allowtrees to co-exist within the urban community. .Landscape designers, engineers and cities who approve development projects are confronted with hard- choice’challenges of integrating trees and pavement - the merging of struc- tural-and horticultural needs for the urban envirormlent. As cities place more emphasis on approving de- <g~ts that have real components of aject sustainabiliw, many General tqans are currently being updated to reflect this emphasis of sustainability. Simply put, the goal is to provide the longest re~urn for the construction in- vestment by the owner (conmaur0ty residents) and the design mare (com- munity officials). These and other chal- lenges that face today’s professional are becoming increasingly important. The professional must now fare head- on the integration of sustainable and project teams are wise to consider such a tool as engineered stmc.mral soil certain applicatio.ns. Sustainable Green Building Practices 8ustainability may be defined as the industW working to promote infra- structure and landscapes in a way that is envh’orm~entally responsible,. profitable and contributes to healthy places to live and work. On a daily basis, planners and architects are adding alternatives to their quiver of best management practices (BMPs) and green materials list. Sustainability, in the context of our landscape design and urban forest, reaches outside the boundaw of merely buildings and structures. In time, LEED ratings will - include stronger emphasis_ on the contribu- Green Building Rating System, is’ a nationally accepted standard for green buildings developed by the US Green Building Council~. Susminability using engineered struc- tural soil mix technology for t.ree planting has been in use for some time. It is superior to the traditional standard in that tree resources are conserved longer, operating costs are reduced and the strain on local inl-~a- structure is minimized. Thus, the soil mix product produces benefits in three primary areas: environmental, economic and conmaunity benefits. Trees planted in conventional tree pits contrast this. Conventional Tree Pits Are Designed for Failure A tree canopy will only grow as large smart growth concepts into projects,tion of landscape infrastructure start-as the’roots enable it to grow. Limited Because trees are an intrinsic compo-dards. LEEDTM, the "Leadership in rooting area directly limits the ca’own nent of project landscape plans, the Ene,gy & Environmental Design"size, to wit, the bonsai effecL This Caltrain underpass connects bicyclists" and ped~triam’to doumtown Pale Alto./torn El Camino Real. Tbeproject was con.vtrained by unique and challenging factors--protection of her#age oaks; ogtical screening require- ments and tight working conditiom beneath railroad and street right-of-ways. Iv~idden within theinteresting geoma~c arcbitect-ure, the Homer Tunnel proj- ect incotporated a unique green building technique, engineered structured soil, which gives the shade trees a limitless jump-start to health a,~d to avert. infrastructure damage caused by tree roots. The concrete wearing sur.ihce will realize an extended service life. The City also used next-generation con- cepts by applying a tree tochnical manual for protecting and enhancing ~ree resources. Both of these cutting edge method~ are available for technology tram’Jar to other agencies at: .http:~t,ww.c~,~,.palo-al,eo.ct, z.tav/tre#~te&.nfczd- manual.html (Photo courtesy of Pale Alto Public P~Drks Dgpt). anuary.qxp’ 12/29/05 10:44 PM Page 27 The conventional tree pit typically used by civii engineering standards do not foster root-growing .medium but, instead, emphasize only com- p.actioi~-based infrastructure. Planting tr~es in these situations will incur sidewalk damage that is well documented. Due to structural demands for pave- ments and flatwork, the soil volume for a landscape tree is typically re- duced to confined small strips or is- lands. Planting details typically do not address soil outside of the pit. S0il outside the planter area is com- pacted too dense for roots to pene- trate, The result is that most urban trees either become root bound with a stunted crown and/or eventually lye the surface from the roots ex- yanding. Thus, conventional designs of the past dictate the high future costs and marginal benefits back to the community. Designing w.ith the Future in Mind Urban designers are using this green building technique to provide a solu- tion for tree/infrastructure issues. The mix provides load-bearing ca- pacity needed to support, pavements and flatwork: and the root growth/penetration needed by trees. It is a stone matrix blend of coarse aggregate, amended clay loam and hydrogel, proportioned so that when compacted in-place; the aggregate is in a dense state but the soil within the stone matrix in not over-com- pacted. The desirable potential is long-term benefits from tree growth, health and life expectancy and re- duced moverrient, failures, and. main- tenance costs for adjacent pavements and l:latwork. Using this m~dium is particularly suitable for new’ construction ects. Depth of the engineered s0il Itcan be a Big Job Cleaning Up Stormwater mix appears to require ~.cavating the subsoil a minimum of 24-inches deep and as. wide as necessary for the engineered soil mix. The length and width of the below-grade trench is defined by what makes sense and which is available for use. In any event, in doing ~o, you will have pro- vided for the trees an extraordinary increase in root growing volume, thereby increasing the above ground crown size potential and below ground health and longevity. Considering a Project Site The mix is not appropriate every- where, as in a ’one size fits aIt’ Spec- ification. Projects most suitable for using the mix are those that include areas that must be compacted for flatwork or paving and must also plant new trees adjacent to that area. Open landscape areas may remain native soil, as there is no need to compact these .areas. Irrigation lines It’s a good thing we make Big SNOUTs... Visit us at bmpinc.com Best Management Products, Inc. .’ Circle 144 ’ or www.LandQ~vdopmencToday.com/adinfo 0601_January.qxp 12/29/05 i0~5 PM Page 28 FEAT’URE I URBAN FORESTRY are laid after installing the mix and before the flatwork is applied. Again, the structural soil technique is partic- ularly suited for new construction projects. It is itnpractical for .reti-o- fitting around mature trees because of the difficulties of excavating the existing soil and re-spreading the mix among the roots without dam- age. Retrofitting, as experienced by a Stanford University project2 over the e,~tablished root systems of a large’ coast live oak, is labor-intensive, dif- ficult to specify in construction doc- uments and requires hands-on over- sight by trained staff and decision-makers. For each con=nunity taldng steps to ¯ implement sustainabIe designs, there always needs to be a first step or a benchmark project. The author ad- vises to get a pilot project going us- ing the mix to fm~iliarize staff with the steps involved with it’s use- ei- ther as a city- or a privately-funded project. As a capital improvement project, The pilot project in PaIo Alto (CA) occasioned invitations to city council members and other interested per- sons to observe the innovative tech- nique and became an occasion for lots of pat-on-the-backs, recognition [br environmental sustainability and posttive ne~vs media coverage. more than eight projects in California and notes that the structural soil can be placed and compacted using stan- dard construction equipment. The as-placed material density can be measured with a nuclear density gauge, the common field test method, but she prefers that afieId maximum density test be performed to compare with the field tests.History Of the Engineered Mix, Construction and Costs While" it will always be an important As more users install the mix, the all- point for someone to be advocating impot:tant precedent of acceptance is the use of the mix for a specific proj-now becoming adequately docu- ect design, it is equally important that mented as a viable option. The mix is the approving engineers know that available from over sixty p~’oducers many of their colleagues are satisfied across the country. The City of Palo. with using the structural mix and Alto became a field tester applying have signed-off on numerous proj-the technique in fall of 1998. Since ects. Planning~ public works depart-then, the technique which started as ments and soils engineers are be-a ripple in Cornell. has now become coining increasingly comfortable a wave, With over 30 public, and pri- with using the mix.rate projects applying the special soil mix in cities around the San CU-Structural Soil is a result of ex-Francisco Bay Area alone. tensive testing of different materials, ratios and trial elimination, was This numbe~ is growing every promutgated by Cornell University month, as designers and urban TM3 under the direction of Bassuki4 foresters are finding unique ways to . and Grabosk,/5 and is now patented adapt its use. In California, Dr. Greg using a specific polymer produced McPherson is studying and will be by AMEREQ, Inc.a The make-up of reporting on structfiral soil trials be-. structural soil is 70 to 75 percent (by ing conducted by the USDA Forest dry weight) crashed stone (3/4-inch Service Center for Urban Forest to 1-1/2-inch) and 25 to 29 percent Research at UC Davis. day loam (by dry weight).. The clay loam is amended as needed to pro- The cost, like any other project corn- vide the required pH, organics, nitro- ponent, must be figured in to the one section of sidewalk with trees or a new cul-de-sac development with new street tree planting would be prime. Or, as is most common, a pri- vately funded development would be directed to implement use of the technique-when approved by the re- viewing body. The designers may choose t6 specify gen, phosphorus, and potassR~m. structural soil in a section of parking Hydroget is used t~ help the soil ad- area adjacent to trees in islands. This may be either initiated at the city’s re- quest of the applicant’s architect; or by the applicant’s architect submittal to the city for review and approval. In either case, once approved, using structural soil is an important step to- wards sustainability and ’win-win’ message worthy of positive public relations recognition. here to the rock during transporta- tion and placement, reducing segre- gatiori. Thereafter, the hydrogel serves the role of hydration with the clay loam. Specifications for the mix may be obtained from the patent holder AMEREQ, Inc. Ms. Knudson, of Lowney and Associates Geotechnical Services~, has provided the geotech services for overall project cost in advance. The larger the project, the percentage of the total costs will be less than costs applied to a smaller project. Estimate of the cubic yards for the proposed trench is relatively easy to calculate and ranges from $30 to $75 per cubic yard for the mix delivered -- with the variable being the distahce of tt:ansport. For example, the 18-mile trip from the supplier in San Jose to the project in Palo Alto was approN- mately $42 cubic yard. 28 Land Development Today I0601_January. qxp i/2"/06 ii: 07 AM Page 29 The new stormwater runoff require- ments and BMP’s for dischargers opens up anothe~ possibility of using stmctu~ral soil. The structural soil ma- trix has .superior drainage character- istics that, when integrated into the parking area design, may be consid- ered as a detention basin, further en- hancing the site capaciW during peak runoff events, thereby combining capitol expenses and credits. Summary Using an engineered structul~ soft ~ a medium under pavement or flatwork improves tree-growing conditions and fosters longer tree life expectancy and real benefits, Incorporating structural soil into.your project plans can satisi}" the oppos’mg needs of structural sub- base support for flatwork and pave- ment while providing a matrik for tree roots to grow laterally with access to moisture and oxygen. As professional stewards of land, as consultants who provide technical in- formation to our clients, and as archi- tects and shapers of the world we will fivein, we are learning how to build with the furore in mind. Structural soil mix teclmology may not have been available to those of yesterday, but the technology is available today as a solid green building technique and an alter- native tool for those who wish to change the future for th~ betten IBI 1 US Green Building Council, htq@/wavw.usgbc.org z Personal communication with Stanford University planner, 2001 5 1.997 Cornell Re~eamh Foundation, Inc. 4 Nina Bassuk, Professor of Horticulture, Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University, nlb2@cor- neIl.edu . 5 Jason Grabosky, Rutgers Cook College, New Bmnswlck, New jersey 6 1999 AMEREQ, inc,, WWW.StKUCrU [al So~i.conl 7 Laura Knudsen, Lowney Associates, Government Sector Services, www.lowney.corn ~ Dave Dockter, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, (650) 617-3"145 9 Palo Alto Urban Forest Programs: http:/iw,,vw, city.palo-al to.ca.us/t tees/ Circle 176 ’ or wv,~:LandDevelopmentToday.condadinfb ATTACHMENT M CITY OF SACRAMENTO PARKING LOT TREE SHADING DESIGN AND IMIAINTENANCE G,UlDELINES .http./; www .qcode. us, c od.~s, sacramento/ :17.68.040 T~ee shading requirements for parldng lots City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS I!. III. IV. V. VI. INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE ............................................... ...............................3 SHADINGREQUIRMENTS AND CALCULATIONS ............................................3 TREE PLANTING PRACTICES .................................." ......................................5 DRAINAGE / WATER QUALITY OPTIONS ......................................................."10 GENERAL SHADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS ................................................13 A:IRRIGATION PLANS .............................................................................."14 B.LANDSCAPE PLANS .............................................................................15 C.GRADING ................................................................................................16 D.MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................16 TREES FOR PARKING LOT SHADING ............................................................17 APPENDICES Tree List ...................................; ......................................." ...............’ .........18 Definitions ................................................................................................22 ¯ Certification Form ....................................................................................23 Page 2 City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines .I.INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE: This document provides standards and guidance for the planting, maintenance, protection,-removal and replacement of trees planted pursuant to the parking lot tree shading regulations as defined in the City Code. The p.urpose of the Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines is to improve the effectiveness of the City’s parking lot shading ordinance. The standards and recommendations in this documents will help to encourage achievement of the City’s 50 percent shading requirement for a greater number of parking facilities. II.SHADING REQUIRMENTS AND CALCULATIONS: The parking lot tree shading ordinance requires that all new parking lots include tree plantii~gs designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years. The shading" requirements calculations apply to all new impervious, surfacing on which a vehicle can drive including: ¯Parking stalls ¯All drives within the property line (regardless of length) -All maneuvering areas (regardless of depth) Excepdons to the shading calculation include: Singlefamily and two family residential parking areas Parking structures Truck loading areas n front of overhead doors Truck maneuvering and parking areas unconnected to and vehicle parking exclusive of any Surfaced areas not to be used for Vehicle parking, driving or maneuvering, provided they are made inaccessible to vehicles by a barrier such as bollards, curb, .or fencing ,,Vehicle display, sales, service, and stSrage areas (parking facilities for these uses aresubject to shading requirements) Shading Calculations: 1. If a site has two or more unconnected parking areas, shade is eacuated separately for.each area. If theyare .connected by a joining drive, they are calculated as one lot. The amount of shade provided by. a given tree is determined by using the appropriate percentage and square .footage of the tree crown as indicated on the approved shade tree list (see Appendix A). Shading credit is given in 25 percent increments based on. the amount of the tree crown that shades the parking area (see Exhibit A). 3. Overlapping shade does not count twice. Page 3 City of Sacramento EXHIBIT A Parking Lot Tree Shading .Design and Maintenance Guidelines NOTES: 5O% 5o% \ / 1.This diagram is intended to reflect the manner in whioh shade is c~dited under various conditions. It is not necessarily an illustration of 50% coverage. 2. Trees may receive 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% c~dit as shown. 3. Shade overlap is not counied twice. Page 7 City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines EXHIBIT B TYPICAL PLANTER SPECIFICATION standard sial[ TREE WELL/PLA.NTER ENDISLANDPLANTER TYPICAL POURED CURB WITH OVERHANG Page 8 City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines Removed trees must be replaced, The formula for replacement shall be ,as . follows: Any required trees or other plantingsthat die or are improperly maintained shall be replaced with healthy specimens of similar species and size. However, replacement trees Shall not be required to exceed 48" box size. Removal and replacement of trees that have caused damage to city sidewal.ks or other .city infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to tree removal. If the removed tree is greater than 48" boxed tree size, then a 48" box tree shall be planted. Vl.TREES FOR PARKING LOT SHADING: The list of trees for parking lot shading, identified in Appendix A, was compiled to aid in species selection. Any trees proposed to be planted that are not on the list must receive approval from the City Landscape Architect dr the City Arborist. Such requests must be submitted through the City Building Division of the Planning and Building Department. Selection of the trees listed is based on adaptability to parking lot conditions. The characteristics identified in the tree list are provided to help select a good shade tree. The species listed are not suitable for all situations. Consultation with a nursery representative or landscape architect is desirable before any selections are made. Professional guidance is recommended to assure that optimal design is achieved to meet the needs of each development: Proper planting procedures, optimal spacing distance, soil, water requirements and maintenance programs should be ascertained.atthe start of the landscape project. It is important to note that proper planting procedures may include digging past the hardpan layer to assure deeper and pro.per growth! All other energy .conservation ordinances, resolutions and measures are available from the Planning and Building Department. Building permit plan approval will be based on these guidelines. Note:The use of structural soil mix within the planters is encouraged in planting locations requiring supplemental root growth areao Structural soft mixes should be considered in proposals fpr irregular shaped tree wefts. Page 17 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT N Williams, Curtis From:Williams, Curtis Sent:Monday, November 20, 2006 4:05 PM 3"0:Williams, Curtis Subject:FW: Response to Questions on Landscape Standards Responses are underlined. .....Original Message ..... From: Arthur Keller [mailto:ptc@kellers.org] Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:45 PM To: Betten, Zariah Cc: Arthur Keller Subject: Questions fo~ PTC Study Session on Landscape Standards of October 25 I. What landscapi.ng requirements are being recommended for screening the transitions between multifamily residential and single family residential properties, or between non-residential or mixed use properties and residential properties? What landscaping requirements are being recommended for screening the transitions between parking lots or driveways and abutting residential properties? ~esponse: The ZOU Landscape Standards and/or Landscape Technical Manual would recommend that appropriate plants are selected to meet different objectives: Parkinq lot shadinq, landscape buffers, privacy and utility screeninq, stormwater treatment, litter, compatibility with hardscape, water use and special situations, etc. Detailed plant species and sizing would be included in a technical manual. 2.Please provide a list of litter-free trees that are appropriate for parking lots. ~_~ponse: The ZOU Landscape Standards would reference a technical manual that would p~9vide suqgestions for appropriate trees. 3. When driving south on residential streets past North California Avenue, the street treescape changes from the tree .canopy hovering the street to not covering the street. Is this due to differing species? Should the street trees be ch0sen.and placed s~ that their canopy mostly covers the street? ~e___sponse: The ~ublic Works Urban Forest Strateqic Plan wiil address street and right-of-way plantinqs. 4. Please provide a list of litter-free trees that are appropriate as street trees. ~esponse: The Public Works Urban Forest Strateqic Plan will address, street and right-of-way plantinqs. 5. Is there an inventory of where street trees are supposed to be, so that trees improperly removed can be replaced? What is the mechanism for enforcing that street trees are not removed, or large trees on private property are not removed when not part of a construction project requiring a permit? 11/20/2006 , Re~onse: The Public Works Urban Forest Strategic Plan will address street and ~ght-of-way.plantinqs. Removal of larqer trees on private property need tree removal permits. These~are reviewed on a case by case basis. 6. .Where in the ordinance is the notion of a visibility triangle at intersections so that landscaping adjacent to the corner allow for sight lines by bicyclists, pedestrians, ind motorists? Is this ordinance adequate to current needs, or does it need updating? What is the enforcement mechanism ensuring, safety through ordinance compliance? ~esponse: The Zoninq ordinance addresses the visibility trianqle which is reviewed if there is a discretionary permit. Enforcement of this requirement is throuqh Code Enforcement. Public Works Urban Forest Strateqic Plan will address nuisances conflic}inq withstop signs and other safety issues. 7. Should the ordinance for landscaping standards on mUltifamily residential, mixed use, and non-residential developments have any mention of xeriscaping or other requirements to reduce water use for irrigating landscaping? Should these be requirements or guidelines? Should expected outdoor irrigation water use be part of the disclosure required for multifamily residential, mixed use, and non-residential developments? ~esponse: The ZOU Landscape Standards may have a recommendation to include plantinq~ that reduce the need for irriqation. The use of recycled water for landsca~in_~Lis a policy issue that can be included as either a ~ufdelineor requirement for certain types of developments. Best regards, Arthur Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Pal0 Alto, CA 94303-4507 tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424 11/20/2006 Attachment D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 3.5 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Verbatim Minutes November 29, 2006 ZoninR Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of proposed changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for (1) wireless communication facilities; (2) water resources protection (streamside development standards and storm water quality protection); and (3) landscape standards. Ms. Caporgno: I want to introduce our contract planner, Whitney McNair, who will give the presentation on the t~ee items. Ms Whitney McNair, Contract Planner: Thank you. Tonight’s hearing is the latest Zoning Ordinance Update focusing on Chapter 18.88, which is Special Provisions and Exceptions. The proposed revisions to the chapter include separating out the text into two c"hapters One for general standards and exceptions and one for special uses, updating the format to be consistent with the other updated code sections, the addition of new sections for landscaping, water resources and wireless communications, and deletion of some text that limits the number of liquor permits per block to be consistent with ABC Regulations. The deletion doesn’t remove the requirement for a conditional use permit just the number issued per block. The Commission has held two different study sessions one on October 25 and one on November. 1 to go over the new sections of wireless communications, stream protection; and landscaping. At those meetings the Council raised a few issues that the Staff Report addressed and I am just going to briefly go over. First we will go over the wireless communication facilities. With the new state regulations it is unclear how much authority the City will have in regulating collocation proj ects. Collocation review is limited to Staff level architectural review until further clarification from the City Attorney. Submittal requirements will include provisions to ensure the applicant has attempted to find suitable collocation sites. Collo.cation will be encouraged but may not always be accomplished. Development standards incorporate a requirement for all unused wireless communication facilities to be removed within three months of discontinued use was added. All wireless facilities are subject to architectural review on a case-by-case basis to review the proposed placement and treatment of the antennas and equipment. The goal of the project is that it will blend into the existing surroundings. ÷ Staff also reviewed ~he Los Altos antenna code. Their code does reference what they call ’micro-cell antenna systems’ under its own specific category. Those are just real small systems that cover a more specific area and are utilized more in like a downtown environment or within a shopping mall and they can be installed either inside or outside of a building. The recommended review process proposed is applicable to these types of facilities. There are two review processes for wireless communication facilities that are recommended based on the sensitivity of the project. The first one is a conditional use permit and Staff level architectural review is recommended for the more sensitive projects such as residentially zoned or used parcels. This would have a 600-foot notification and a public hearing. The second review.process would be a Staff level architectural review for less sensitive projects that include Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O .41 42 43 44 45 46 building mounted facilities and collocation facilities. This would have a 150-foot notification. Up here is the chart of the two different review processes that was attached in the StaffReport. We have that in there if we need to go back and reference it. Included in the code will be provisions for development requirements such as meeting the zoning requirements of the particularzone in which the facility is located, requiring equipment and enclosures to utilize the smallest footprint possible, ’minimize the height, screen from public view, and be architecturally compatible with the existing site, building mounted antennas are to be architecturally compatible, .they are to have a stealth design and shall be removed after no longer in use. Some exceptions may be considered if appr0ved in a review process and those include building mounted facilities may exceed the permitted height by 15 feet, and that 15 feet is equal to the existing allowance for rooftop equipment. A standalone facility may be 65 feet in height and may encroach into interior street-side and rear setbacks. The next new section .will include landscape standards, the landscape standards are included to encourage creative ways to integrate landscape design as a primary resource for infrastructure management, economic vitality, and public health, as well astraditi0nal aesthetic enhancements of structures, streetscapes, and parking areas. Landscaping requirements are intended to emphasize the preservation and enhancement of natural areas with native vegetation, support water conservation, and storm water quality objectives. The new sections will apply to all new development and additions requiring’architectural or discretionary review. The sections proposed include one for general regulations that would reference other technical and relevant documents, a section for natural areas with Open Space District, hillside lands, Baylands, creek and riparian areas. It would have basic program statements related to preservation of sensitive plant species, habitat, and view shed preservation. Asection on special design landscape standards for public and private projects and includes screening of utilities, utilization of gray water for irrigation, limitation on the usage of lawns in commercial development, and special surface materials and a section on residential landscaping design standards for light well landscaping, screening standards, street tree guidelines, and street planning restrictions under power lines. Many of the guidelines and requirements of the code would be implemented through the details outlined in a landscape technical manual. Right now some of the items that would be included in the technical manual are design standards, parking areas, trees, and green practices. Staff has researched and concluded that Palo Alto should consider a shade benefits potential formula for parking lot shade. That was one of the questions that was raised at the study session. The vehicle use area shall provide required landscape areas designed to achieve a minimum of 50 ¯ percent canopy coverage within 15 years and there is some detail about that in the Staff Report. Design Standards for reducing hard surfaces, increasing tree canopy, planter size and root growing areas, storm water management best practices design, special materials, screening and landscape buffers, and recommended best practices for stipulating and screening above-ground utilities. The last new item is the water resources protection. The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Coilaborative developed a set of guidelines and standards for land use near streams. These cover a wide range of issues affecting land development near and in local streams. Based Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46. on comments from the Commission Staff has made a few modifications to the requirements.. The proposed separation requirement for noise producing equipment was increased from 25 feet to 50 feet from the top of bank. The planning landscape specialist or arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation.within 100 feet from top of bank in conjunction with a discretionary review. Pervious areas are included in the list of items that cannot be located in a slope stability protection area. That Was taken from the Comp Plan Program N-7. Staff recommends the establishment of a.streamside review area, wiaich includes all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank except for those properties separated from the stream by a public street. These properties would be subject to the new guidelines and standards and the properties are development in all zones other than R-I. Development in R-1 zones requiring discretionary review such as Individual Review for a new two story house, Individual Review for a new second floor on an existing house in certain circumstances, a Variance and Home Improvement Exception, and then there is a list on the screen of a few exempt items such as interior construction and fences of six feet or less. The properties within this review area are subject to development requirement in order to preserve the stream’s riparian resources and to protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion. These development standards include all development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area, native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved, planting of normative invasive plant species shall not be allowed on the project site, and only native riparian vegetation shall be planted bttween the top of the bank and the streaml Also loading docks and trash enclosures and noise producing equipment shall be located, as I mentioned earlier, 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of the stream. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion, and all permitted improvements shall be constructed in a mariner consistent with the latest version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards For Land Uses Near Streams that was prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. The last small section of storm water quality protection is the countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidelines to encourage the incorporation of storm water friendly site design measures into land development projects. The guidelines will also be included in the code and include items about minimizing land disturbance and preserving high quality open space, minimizing the amount of impervious surface, directly connected impervious areas, and routing storm water runoff into vegetative swails, utilizing minimum impact street, parking lot and driveway design standards~ clustering structures and impervious surfaces, routing rainwater leaders into landscaped areas, and utilizing. techniques to slow and reduce storm water runoff, also minimizing changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of storm Water runoff from the development site. So the next steps for this ordinance are a draft ordinance will be prepared after the Commission meeting tonight and will be brought back to the Commission on December 13 for your review. A Council meeting would then be scheduled for early in 2007. The Water Resources Collaborative is encouraging adoption by the City by the end of February in order to implement Page 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29- 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 3 4 new requirements.~ So the goal would be to get it on the Council agenda early in 2007. That is the end of my presentation, There are also other Staffmembers who specialize in each of these areas here to answer any questions you might have. Chair Holman: I think at this point Commissioner Keller would recuse himself and we can take up the creek item. Does Staff have any additional comments or presentation to make? Ms. Campbel!: No we don’t. Ms, Caporgno: I would like to add one thing. I would like to let the Commission know that w~ notified all the property owners within the creek areas so that anybody who could possibly be affected by these ordinance changes would be aware of it. We also volunteered the information to the PAN website and I am assuming it was posted. We also indicated that we would be glad to meet with them to discuss any of the issues from the three items that you are going to be discussing tonight. Chair Holman: We expect nothing less of you so thank.you for doing that. Do we have any clarifying questions for Staff?. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: In your presentation you mentioned that when it comes to water resources protection specifically naming R-1 would any zones that are R-2 also have similar application? Ms. Campbell: Yes, they would. Basically everything that is not R-1 that is within the specific area would be subject to the new requirements. In the R-I zone only if it is going through a discretionary review as it was listed those would be the only R-1 properties that would be subject to the new requirements. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so would R-2 also have the same requirements as R-1 or would they be different? Ms. Campbell: No, they would be different. Anything that is not zoned R-1 would be required to do the requirements even if it has a single-family use on it. Vice-Chair Lippert: What is the reason why we are making a distinction in this case from R-1 and R-27 Mr. Williams: The primary reason that I see is that R-2 and the other low density residential zones like RMD allow more FAR and coverage and those kinds of things that have some increased impact on water resources in terms ofrunoffin particular. Certainly unless Joe tells us otherwise it is certainly within our purview to probably decide where to draw those lines but it is easiest obviously by zoning district rather than trying to get in and say well this is only a single family home so we are not going to apply it there but that is within your discretion if you choose to do that. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess my question is that I can see that there is a distinction between say RMD or RM-15 and R-1 but is there a significant difference really between R-1 and R-2 that it is Page 4 " ¯1 going to make that much more of a difference or are we creating more regulation than we need 2 to? 3 4 Mr. Williams: Good point. There is not alot of difference so again you have some discretion to 5 make that call as to where you are comfortable applying the new regulations. 6 7 Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess what would be helpful in making that determination would be an 8 understanding of the R-2 sites and where they abut the creeks. If th(y weren’t significant, if 9 there weren’t a significant number I might be inclined to say let’s just make the R-1 standard 10 apply to R-2. If there were significant sites backing up to a creek side then maybe it is worth 11 looking at. 12 13 Ms. Campbell: Staffhas done some analysis on the different parcels ’that are backing up to these 14 creek areas. Unfortunately I don’t have that specific breakdown here with me tonight I just have 15 a breakdown on single family versus multiple family but I don’t have the R-2 information but we 16 have done that analysis already. 18,Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s fine if we could have it at the time of the final. 19 20 Mr. Williams: We will look at the zoning ordinance and see where those R-2 zones are and see 21 how they relate to the creek areas and make a final recommendation to you with the ordinance as 22 to whether it looks like they are impacted or not. 23 24 Vice-Chair Lippert: That would be helpful. 25 26 Chair Holman: Two things. One is if we can look and see if there are more clarifying questions 27 and save our comments for later and then I also have three cards from the public, one that wants 28 to speak on wireless which we will do later and then I have two cards one from Art Kraemer and 29 one from Karen Sickel. If you wish to speak to the creek issue then you will speak nowor if you want to speak to something other than then you can speak later when we address that. Okay, Karen Sickel and you have five minutes. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ’41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Karen Sickel, Palo Alto: I live and have lived on the creek for 38 years. What I am concerned about is overlapping bureaucracy. We have to have permits from the county to remove a tree, to add on within the 50 feet from the top of the bank, to put in lighting or water. Whatever you want to do you have to have a permit. If they approve if you are going to add on something to your house and if they approve it then it goes to the City of Palo Alto where they review it. So I don’t see what is different other than you are specifying that you are going to do this. Is this some other little separate group of people that is going to review the streamside committee or is it the Planning.Commission? How many delays? I am concerned about that and how everybody is kind of at cross - can’t we all agree? Can’t we do it once? I guess that is my concern and I would like some clarificationon what that is all about. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Are there more questions for Staff?. Commissioner Burt. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ~36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Butt: I had two questions regarding items on page five, actually three. One I would be interested in the question that the previous speaker brought up about POtential overlapping permit approval wherever you think it is most appropriate to respond to that. Down under section one on page five of the Requirements it refers to exceptions to this requirement may be grante.d by the Director of Public Works where a geotechnical slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance and repair of the stream banks would be accommodated. So as I understand it then all of the (a)through (e)items above could be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Public Works provided that there is a slope analysis, etc. Why do we want to allow for instance structures larger than 120 square feet within the streamside setback just because.we have a slope stability? Mr. Joe Teresi, Public Works: Well, I would answer that by saying that part of the concern about having something too close to a stream is that in general a 2:1 slope is what is considered stable and anything steeper than that is not. If an analysis were to show that the bank is stable and that there Was no risk to that structure that is one thing that would have to be shown. Secondly that there is some other mechanism by which the stream can be maintained then those are two of the major impacts that we are trying to avoid. So if those two conditions could be satisfied then there is thisprovision ~’or exception. Commissioner Burt: So I guess I can appreciate why the concern over the stability would be addressed but there is a wholebunch of other concerns that we have as to why we don’t want to allow these things to encroach in the streamside. So how does the fact that the building would be stable affect all these other reasons that we don’t want to allow these kinds of encroachments? Ms. Caporgno: I would think the language enablesthe City to make that exception but it doesn’t require the City to make that exception. So the Director of Pubtic Works if the slope stability were proven to be sufficient they can be granted but it doesn’t say it will be granted. So other factors would enter into it also that maybe in certain instances we would want to allow it but in many we wouldn’t. Ms. Tronquet: I believe a flat prohibition on any kind of development without considering the factors that are listed here could also be problematic legally. Commissioner Burt: Okay, I can understand that but as it is worded it doesn’t sound to me as if what we are saying is that the prohibition is based upon lack of streamside stability then that can be waived by the Director of Public Works but then all of the other criteria Would still apply, ts that the intention? Ms. Caporgnd: Yes. It is only Under item one. So two through eight would still be appiicable. Mr. Williams: That is what I was going to say too. So the thought that you could have a structure within that area given sldpe stability is demonstrated but also given that you are preserving the native vegetation that does exist there, that you are not planting normative invasive, and all those other requirements still apply but it is just that in some cases you may be able to have a structure and accomplish all of those things as well. I certainly understand where Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 .34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 you are coming from and it looks like we could clarify that to be sure that people understood that it is subject also too compliance with items two through eight below. Commissioner Burt: Okay, I think that addresses most of my concem. Does it also in two through eight refer the fundamental structural setbacks? Is that elsewhere? Ms. Campbell: It doesn’t refer to the setbacks in those other items only number one refers to the setbacks. Commissioner Burt: But we do have elsewhere in our code reference to fundamental setbacks and I just want to make sure tha~ the Director of Public Works doesn’t have the authority to waive those, which is the way it sounded in this number one. Ms. Caporgno: No, itjust means that everything else would still be in place and items two through eight would be in place it is just that if the slope stability could be met and everything else could be met then he could waive that requirement. Mr. Williams: So we should add that to this qualifier to number one there. Commissioner Butt: Okay. Chair Holman: I would like to do a follow up to that ifI could. City Attorney if you didn’t allow these exceptions, you said they could be problematic, in what way? Ms. Tronquet: Just to ban all development completely in this area without providing for any exceptions could constitute a taking. I don’t know if that is a concept behind this or not but just to ban all development simply because it would occur near a creek could be problematic without providing any additional measures if the.justification is environmental protection. Chair Holman: That wouldn’t mean necessarily thought that we would have to say that all of these are the exceptions. We could, if you are concerned about a taking, we could pick and , choose whichever ones we thought. The reason that I am going there as well is because creeks change; storms happen, streams reroute themselves, there is erosion that happens .over time, and it is part of what has been witnessed along San Francisquito Creek for instance. There are some places where the sides of the creek are not nearly as stable as once they were. For instance ¯ swimming pools, personally I can’t even conceive of why no matter how stable the creek side seems now that we would allow that. Ms. Tronquet: Certainly reasonable conditions are permissible. I may have mistmderstood Commissioner Burt’s comment but I want to clarify that a flat prohibition would be problematic. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: My understanding was that the reason why we are looking at a 50-foot setback from top of bank is with the understanding that the creek will change with time. So the idea is that somebody may build a house or something and then at some time that top of bank is Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 going to shit~ over a period of time and that house or structure is actually going to be closer to top of bank. We are not saying that they have to demolish that structure what we are saying is you just can’t build within 50 feet of top of bank. We know that that top of bank is going to change over many years and that will gradually move I guess and cut into the property. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Not to add to the confusion. The intent, and I am asking this as a question, of the 50 feet if the creek moves obviously the 50 foot boundary moves as well. When we talked about this several weeks ago part of the reason I think there was interest in extending the boundary from 25 to 50 was to create a zone around the creek that was natural and to reduce the opportunity for built things to occur within that zone. Is that the understanding of the Staff when they wrote this? Mr. Teresi: All the points you are making are very good. First I might say that somehow we have gotten into this 50 feet, it is not 50 feet, it is 20 feet so I want to clarify that first of all. Again, a couple of the primary reasons, and there are others but the primary reason why this 20 feet was selected was twofold. One is that if something is allowed to be built too close to the bank and then the bank erodes and starts to threaten that structure that tends to result in a need to armor the bank which is something we Would like to avoid so therefore the idea is to move the structure further away so that there will be some allowance for some erosion without threatening the structure. The second issue is maintenance. If something is built so close to the top of the bank it doesn’t allow for vehicles and access to do the maintenance that is required from time to time. Certainly there are other issues that you have raised that are equally valid as far as keeping that space open. If you would like to make these restrictions more tight I certainly wouldn’t object to that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Let me just understand the concept here. Twenty feet from the top of the bank on either side of the stream that zone is nothing allowed to be built? Mr. Teresi: There are some exceptions that are listed that are relatively minor in nature but essentially most things are not allowed in that area. Commissioner Garber: Those that are going through a heightened.review process or more restrictive review process. Mr. Teresi.: It is just that there are certain things that are allowed to be built without a permit so there is no way for us to even know that they are being built. That is the reason why they are exempted because they are things that can be built without obtaining a building permit. Commissioner Garber: Okay, so then from 20 to the next 30 feet so that we are 50 feet from the top of the bank what does that zone refer to? Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ,38 .39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Teresi: That is not a zone. I think you are being confused because ~ight now currently under existing rules if someone is doing any work within 50 feet of the top of the bank they need to obtain a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. O.nce this new ordinance takes effect in our city and all the other citiesthen the Santa Clara Valley Water District will no longer have that requirement and anything adjacent to streams is going to be regulated by the local jurisdiction. The Water District will only be permitting things within their right-of-way or easement areas. Then the other area where 50 feet came up is that there is another section in here later that says any noise producing features like trash enclosures and other items have to be at least 50 feet away from top of bank. Commissioner Garber: Okay, let me try it again. Top of bank 20 feet with some minor exceptions things are not allowed to be built. The exceptions are allowed without building permit, which is why they in fact are so minor. Then within 50 feet that is only relevant to the fact that once that rule is enacted by Palo Alto and other municipalities a homeowner does not have to get a permit from the county they can simply get a single permit from the City. Is that correct? Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Pat, is it follow up to this? Commissioner Burr: Yes. I think Joe just addressed the question on the overlapping bureaucracies is that correct? Okay. So then as I understand it with this even without the exception under Requirement number one, if someone wanted to build a structure that was 110 square feet right up against the top of the bank there is no restriction against it. If they wanted to build a deck over their whole backyard right up to the top of the bank as long as the deck is below 30 inches in height there is no restriction. Are those accurate statements? Mr. Teresi: Those are certainly things that we wouldn’t want to see but yes since those things can be done without permit they have no enforcement tool to stop those things. We would certainly endeavor to do outreach and education to make people realize they shouldn’t do that but yes in fact it could be done since it could be done without a permit of any kind. Commissioner Burt: So then my question for Staffis if we didn’t want to allow those kinds of things to occur right adjacent to stream banks what tools might we have to restrict that given that they don’t technically require building permits to construct those? Can we still prohibit those even if there is no requirement of a building permit? How would you go about enforcing that? So any thought that you might have on that because it seems that those sorts of structures are contrary to the overall thrust of this section. Mr. Williams: We will probably need to explore this a little bit more with the City Attorney. I don’t know ifMelissa has thought it through at this point. It seems to me that regardless of whether a building permit is required or not that we can say something is prohibited, decking is prohibited. I think we have something later on about impervious areas now being added as not being allowed within 50 feet. These things, a deck and a structure less than 120 square feet are still impervious surfaces. So we would at least need to clarify that if that was not our intent. I think we do have the ability to prohibit these things as long as that is reasonable and it doesn’t sound like it would be taking someone’s property rights in that case. What Joe is saying is we Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 .37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 don’t have the readily available enforceable mechanism of a building permit to do that so it is not something we would catch at the building counter it is something we would hear about from a neighbor or know about some other way. Commissioner Burt: I suspect that if the requirements were known by the property owners the vast majority would voluntarily comply with the regulation if it were clear. So we would have some combination of an informal enforcement and just a voluntary compliance and hopefully get a lot of compliance between those two mechanisms. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: This is just a follow up on Commissioner Burt’s comment. The thing I think that would probably be built most likely without a permit is a fence. We have regulations for building fences but we don’t require building permits as long as they follow the guidelines. So what concerns me is generally those fences would be perpendicular to the flow of the bank and possibly obstruct flow and might even extend into the area where the flow of the stream is. Chair Holman: A follow up to that and I think Commissioner Garber has one as well I am a little perplexed and.at the same time understanding Why if a permit isn’t required it is hard to catch these so that is why they are being suggested as allowed. I guess the question I have is why wouldn’t we require for properties along a creek side building permits? Why let the tail wagthe dog? Why wouldn’t we require permits for accessory structures under 20 feet or less, the things that are allowed here, why wouldn’t we require permits for that instead of doing it the other way around? Commissioner Lippert brought up fences don’t require a building permit and there are illegal fences that go up all the time and we have very clear, very strict guidelines about what fences need to comply to. They are built illegally all the time. Mr. Williams: Right and they don’t need a permit but they don’t comply with the rules that they are supposed to be built to. I think some of the things you have mentioned, my guess is that we have some regulation somewhere that says that you can’t p.ut a fence across a creek in a way that it obstructs the flow or something like that. We have various things that prohibit you from doing ¯ some of these things probably anyway even though a building permit.isn’t required for it. I think it would be a great burden to require building permits for those structures within a creek area. I think it is much more direct to require or to prohibit these things and/or have some kind of an outlet process through a use perm.it or something like that, Where if someone wanted to get something approved within this prohibited area they could come through and make that kind of request. But to just basically require a building permit for structures in that zone is something that a lot of people are never going to pick up on. I think they would be much more likely to pick up on the fact that these things are prohibited within that area than that they need to come through with a building permit and then what are the criteria for ailowing them within the zone? If you just say a building permit is required then they come in and geta building permit for their 120 squ~ire foot structure. So if you don’t want them in the zone saywe don’t want them in the zone. Then if it is necessary to provide a use permit or variance process to allow it if there is some hardship case then we could consider that. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: OkaY. Then lastly I would say the safety issue, the safety of the structure has been mentioned as one of the reasons not to allow construction or structures in this area and because creeks erode and the creek can change. There is another one too which I would think would be a reason for doing this is as creeks erode or as people use different things, depending on what people store for instance in their accessory buildings that are 120 square feet or less, that can lead to toxics issues and pollution issues in the creeks. Commissioner Garber you had a follow up to this. Commissioner Garber: Actually I think everything that Ihad imagined has been said. I was simply going to introduce the concept of public safety as well in that structures in this zone that are either in that 2:1 area or the 20 foot zone could present issues of public safety in a flood or emergency situations which would be an answer to the issue of the taking. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: Now I would like to hit the other side 0fthe equation. The Commissioners obviously all share a concern for protection of the. riparian corridors on the other hand we have the needs and rights of the property owners there. So many of the creek side lots are large in size and a 20-foot setback does not create an unreasonable hardship for them. There must be some percentage of the lots that are smaller in size and where we have had creek erosion where their property boundary to extend to the center of the creek and as the erosion occurs over time their backyard has eroded away so the top of the bank has encroached more into their backyard and we are moving further back, I think correctly so we are moving further back, what can be the distance that they can build. Then we have some other regulations that we have adopted elsewhere, which have front yard setback constraints. It seems that we may need to 10ok .at the reasonableness of allowing latitude on front yard setbacks if we are basically protecting riparian corridors by essentially restricting rear yard setbacks in a way that is not normal for other prdperty. So that might be something that we should look at out of fairness. If somebody can’t build in the rear and it cuts back their buildable space on the lot then maybe we ought to allow them to build closer to the street or some other consideration that compensates that. I don’t know if that has been looked at, I don’t know how many properties that might apply to, but itis something that perhaps we need to take a look at. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert ............ Vice-Chair Lippert: I was just going to look at the flip side of this, which is that if you look at Arastradero Creek and portions of Matadero Creek those are basically drainage swails. They are concrete lines, they are reinforces, the top of bank there is really the top .of the concrete lined bed there. They are not going to shift. Maybe in those instances we do allow for some of these things !o occur in those areas. In addition to that I was going to say there are certain kinds of fences that are appropriate that are porous and are actually safety features from keeping people from failing into that creek and being swept away. So I think that we need to look at the instance whether it is a natural creek or whether it is a concrete lined swail of some kind. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Interesting discussion. I am only going to comment on some of the thoughts that Commissioner Burr had. Having dealt with similar issues to this not on creeks but in the Great Lakes I would be interested at the appropriate time having a discussion as to whether a property owner should be compensated for the natural events that occur on their property by creating exceptions to other rules. Although I would be interested in the discussion I am not sure at least initially that I would be in favor of that necessarily because of the compromises that then have to be made if you will on the other side of the property relative to the community. So that’s my two cents on that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Burr: As we are going into these different pros and cons I realize that we had kind of skipped over a discussion of what the objectives were and so maybe we ought to agree on the goals and then it may or may not shed light on the practices that we would endorse. So as I understand it there are at least two primary goals and maybe others. One is protection of the very critical natural habitats, the riparian corridors where 90 percent of our bio-diversity lies in this zone. We only have a few of those remaining in their natural state. The second is kind of a Public Works perspective, which is protection of stability of structures and things like that and stability of the creek bank itself and not doing harm in those ways. I am not sure if there are other objectives besides those two primary ones or does that capture it. Chair Holman: Toxics and such eroding into creeks. Commissioner Burt: So I would throw that under the protection of the riparian corridor and the natural habitat although you are right in that the exception that Commissioner Lippert cited of a non-natural stream that is a concrete stream like we have some today they still flow directly to the Bay so pollutants that are directly discharged the.re would have additional sensitivity although not greater sensitivity than our other storm drain system. So I guess those are the things we are trying to address. Then that leaves Commissioner Lippert’s questions of should there be a distinction between a natural streamside.and an unnatural streamside? Then the other one is Commissioner Garber’s response to my question of if we are now creating new restrictions that we think are appropriate to protect the natural habitat are there ways in which we should allow some relaxation .of other rules that otherwise might apply? In my mind what we had setup previously on front yard setbacks was needlessly restrictive when we set it up. So some relief in that area I suspect would not have an undue hardship. What we have today is that many of the homes that are historic and long standing could not be built today with our existing front yard setbacks and are homes that we look at every day and say this is great, it is beautiful, and it works, and it wouldn’t be allowed today because we have more restrictive front yard setbacks. So that is why I thought if there is such a problem, which I don’t know how many of these lots exist that are not very large that are stream side, that that might be one relaxation that would be reasonable and not create an excessive hardship on neighbors. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: The direction that you were going Commissioner Burt I think was very good. I think the point I was trying to make is that if we are going to require conditional use permits perhaps or having some sort of-permitting process for allowing some of these incidental structures to exist in a natural environment or where there is a natural top of bank yes, we could do it through a conditional use permit process. Where you have a concrete lined or stabilized top of bank no conditional use permit might be required. So that might be the way to approach it. Chair Holman: If I could add to that I was really pleased that the definition of stream included naturalized and those that had become concrete culverts.- The reason that I was really delighted to see that is because as we move hopefully forward some of those concrete culverts will become naturalized once again. Soas much as I can appreciate what is being stated it runs counter to being able to re-naturalize those now concrete structures. Something that we haven’t addressed is a question that I have I believe for the City Arborist, which is on page four and is the second number two on the page. The first number two under Water Resources Protection. It says the Planning Landscape Specialist or Arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation within 100 feet of the top of bank in conjunction with the discretionary review. Can you give an example of where that might occur? Why would we allow removal of natural vegetation or native vegetation? Ms. Campbell: I can just start offhere. What we were thinking about is if you have a homeowner who wants to redevelop their site and they want to build a brand new home. In doing so they may need to change the footprint of their home and that may lead to the next thing where they have an issue about the landscape requirement. So I think what we have tried to include in this statement is that with discretion with our review we can take a look at what is happening and what is being proposed and if it seems appropriate we can allow the removal of some of the native vegetation with mitigation involved: That way a single-family homeowner will have some ability to develop or rearrange their space. Chair Holman: So you are saying this only applies to R-l? It doesn’t state that and it also doesn’t mention mitigations. Ms. Campbell: The mitigations state under number two on page five, all native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by Planning Staff or a Landscape Specialist. Mitigation planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is allowed to be removed. So that applies to all projects. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that. Also.Commissioner Burr mentioned about going back to why we are doing this. In looking at the existing ordinance I don’t find any purpose statements and I think those are so very, very important. When we have done other aspects of the Zoning.Ordinance Update those purpose statements help keep us grounded in why we are doing something and also keep us in the future from making mistaken changes on something .that we may not be grounded in the purpose if we don’t have those purpose statements to refer to. Are there any other questions or comments regarding this portion of the Staff Report? Page 13 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35. 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 We are not taking final motions tonight. Does Staff have enough comments to feel like you knbw where we are headed or would you like some kind of sense motion? Mr. Williams: I wanted to just run through sort of what I have listed here as things to change or look at before we come back with the ordinance. One is to look at the R-2 zone and see how impacted that is or how relevant it is to apply these and come back with a recommendation to you on R-2. Secondly, to make some clarifications to that language on page five about being sure that we are clear that items two through eight apply even if the slope stability requirements are met and the structure is allowed to be in there that we still are consistent with that and also reference the other zoning setbacks being consistent with zoning setbacks as well. Third that we at least look at if not prohibiting these exempt projects within there being more eager in creating a use permit process or creating more language here that says under what circumstances these things are required like if fencing were deemed necessary for safety purposes or some of that kind of language. We can look at this issue that was brought up about the yard setbacks and all that. I think our preference would be to deal with that as a varianceand it sounds to me like pretty much a standard variance situation. In those cases if you are getting squeezed from the front and this is now pushing you back from the back then that would seem to be an appropriate way to !ook at that. Then the last one that I have is we will talk with Joe a little bit about the concrete swail issue and whether it seems to make sense to have something a little different in that sense. I think my initial reaction is probably not but we will look at that. Then the last one I have is to add.a purpose statement for this, which we will do as well as for the other few sections too. I think that is a very good approach. Ms. Caporgno: I just had two questions regarding the exempt projects and the structures less than 120 square feet and the decks that are over 30 inches. I am assuming that what the Commission wants is that for exempt pr0j ects we would just eliminate three and six from exempt proj ects and possibly under the requirements that structures and decks could be exceptions if the Director of Public Works determined that there was a geotechnical slope stability analysis provided that was adequate and it met all the other requirements then in certain instances a small structure or even one larger than 120 square feet, a structure period, could be allowed and/or a deck. Chair Holman: Samir you were next, is this direct follow up to this? Commissioner Tuma: Yes it is directly relevant. The way I was lo0king at this the only one of those exemptions that I see that would survive would be the interior construction exemption. The rest of them seem to me to at least be worth pulling back out. Those are all things that could create some of the conditions that other Commissioners were speaking about earlier. The interior construction one seems to be .... Mr. W{lliams: A no brainer, pretty much. The ones that I see that maybe we would use qualifiers with are maybe even less than three cubic yards of earthwork if necessary for stability purposes or something, erosion control, or some maintenance type things, replacement of utility service laterals. We could have a qualifier that there isn’t some readily available alternative to that but if there isn’t then it pretty much has to go in that location. Then again the fences to the extent that it is deemed to be appropriate or necessary for safety purposes and does not obstruct Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 the stream in any way or remove native vegetation or something like that. I think some of those we could maybe put some qualifiers on and like you said the interior construction one is no impact. We certainly are prepared to go back and make those changes and come back to you with the ordinance. Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Garber was next. Commissioner Garber: I think Curtis already spoke about it. I was just adding language for the circumstance where you are allowing structures the allowances that you were making for the ones that would exist sort of them also impacting public safety or obstruction of stream, whatever the language is I think you’ve got it or know the intent. Chair Holman: ’Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Procedurally for existing structures that exist and we are going to shif~ encroachment from the rear to the front perhaps the HIE process would be a little more appropriate than the Variance process. It is a little less cumbersome: So I would avail applicants of that. Then the second thing I just wanted to mention is that when it ~omes to decks below 30 inches decks below 30 inches are actually much more preferable than people going in and pouring concrete slabs out there. The idea here is that you are. allowing for penetration of groundwater but also it wouldn’t obstruct the flow if water came over top of bank. Whereas with concrete you would have some runoffproblems I think. Do you agree with that, Joe? So I think that in this case if there were going to be surfaces there we would want to encourage probably decks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I think to the degree that you are going to have a patio or a deck type structure the deck is pkeferred. My concern was does this allow us essentially a solid deck area right out to the top of the bank. So I don’t know what is the appropriate amount of incursion of decks into this zone but my primary concern was having this area occupied by deck. Chair Holman: If I could I would like a bit of a clarification. I understood certainly with exempt projects what we ar.e looking at. Under Reqhirements could you review that again, please? Ms. Cal~orgno: The comment that I was making is that if you remove from exempt projects, now the three that you are removing, but let’s use an example of structures under 120 square feet and we have under Requirements with the exception process we have structures larger than 120 feet. Do you want kind of the corollary of just a structure the Director of Public Works may be able to grant an exception under certain conditions for structures and any of these other items that you have removed as exempt projects? Chair-Holman: I guess from my perspective minding what City Attorney said earlier I am not seeing how any of those would be acceptable given that we are also being more restrictive in what’s allowed as exempt projects. So it would seem kind of contrary to the purpose to say that Page15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 structure 120 square feet or less are not now allowed in that setback but then say there is an exception that you can do one that is greater ~han or equal to 120 square feet. I think Commissioner Garber had a comment too. Ms. Capor_~lo: I wasn’t saying that. I was saying since you eliminated exempt projects or structures under 120 feet do you want under Requirements, which the exception process would allow; to just say any structure period because you don’t have to make the distinction between over and under 120 feet because there is no more exemption? Does that make sense? Chair Holman: Yes it does, thank you for the clarification. I will go to Commissioner Garber next. Commissioner Garber: Not that I want ~o be automatically entered into Commissioner Keller’s NPA, that would be the Nit Pickers Association, and I will only offer this because you have enough here I think the topic of decks being 30 inches on level the only concern that I have about decks being raised and being permeable is that they have to be raised and then they are above which allows water to come underneath them in a flood which creates snags and an opportunity for things to be caught under there and impede the flow of water, etc., etc., etc. Take it from there. Mr. Teresi: On the decks it was the same thing as far as the structures under 120 square feet. My understanding is that a deck that is less than 30 inches in height didn’t need a permit that is the only reason why it is in there. We don’t want any decks in there.- We should just say no decks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lipped: I just wanted to make sure of one other thing. In the last go aroundwhen we looked at this Commissioner Garber had brought up a novel idea, which was to show the top of bank actually on the site plan. I want to make sure that that’s still in here that we are requiring that the top of bank be done in a way that I guess is a measured way. I don’t know if we require that it actually be done by a licensed surveyor or not or whether it can be done as part of a site plan, which an architect would do. Chair Holman: So are we complete and clear? Does Staffhave another question? Okay, I think we are set and finished with that one and we can go to telecommunications. One other thing, which I didn’t hear in your notes, is a member of the public did ask about clarification about overlapping jurisdictions and Staffwould come back with some clarification on that. Mr. Teresi: I can comment on that. I think.this is actually going to help the situation because once this is adopted by our Council then there will be a clear demarcation. If the work is occurring within the District right-of-way then you go to the Districtfor a permit. If the work is occurring adjacent to but outside of the creek then you come to the City for a permit and there is Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 .31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 no longer a duplication but it is more of a cooperative process where the District has a certain area of jurisdiction and we have the accompanying area of jurisdiction not overlapping. Chair Holman: Great, thank you very much. Mr. Kraemer did you want to speak to wireless communications? Landscape, okay. We have one member of the public Denny Petrosian and you will have five minutes. Ms. Denny Petrosian, Palo Alto: Okay, I am going to do this fast. Or/page one of the Staff Report I don’t remember those communications being mentioned in theComprehensive Plan it was technology as I remember. I would be concerned if this were given undue weight as opposed to other technologies like fiber optics if that was in the best interest of the city. I am also concerned that we are looking at this in too small a way. This is not just about aesthetics and accommodating new carriers one by one and approving antennas one by one kind of in tunnel vision. We need to be looking at how is this technology gging to function in this city. There are going to be carriers coming in and there is going to be new bandwidths. There is going to be new infrastructure requirements maybe different for each new carrier. We have six of them now. It is just going to mushroom and get very confusing and we don’t want to be in a situation where we have to accommodate all of that plus the technology is galloping and changing and it could look totally different. So we need to get control on this. My feeling is that what we need to do is we need to look at the big picture, get a major hardware technology company to give us a citywide system. We deserve the best. Not a cell phone company. Cell phone companies have very narrow interests and everything they see is an antenna. So let’s ~go for the big picture. I think we need to be designing a citywide utility that is going to be like the cable situation that we put together, like our energy contracts, a communications technology structure, wireless, whatever that is subject to contractual obligations. I think that is the only way that we can get control on this. I think that there may even need to be a citizens technology advisory committee just like we have other major advisory committees. There are too many large issues here. In the meantime I think that there is no installation that is not sensitive. I think that every WCF should have a conditional use permit so that we can be on top of this step by step. Now this is going to sound extreme but I think it is true scientifically from everybody I have talked to. If we don’t.get control of this we could be in the position of unwittingly making Palo Alto a giant microwave oven. These rays areradiation it is only different in intensity and strength from any other kind of radiation. It is non-ionizing but it is a continuum of this. IfPalo Alto becomes unwittingly a giant microwave oven that means that all of us from one end of the city to the other are going to be constantly zapped by these rays. It is not only a health issue. Think of the electronic chaos that could result, he interference with everybody else’s gadgets and stuff. I am just going to throw out some issues here that I think need to be looked at and I am going to share with you the source of some of the information that I am giving because I am not an expert but I have been talking to someone who is very respected. I think we have to also remember that antennas, we are only talking about antennas, they are choke points. They slow down the flow of data. Your fast data comes from fiber optic connections connecting site to site. Zap there it goes, that’s your fast. If you have an antenna it is going to slow it down. A lot of cities don’t Page 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 even need wireless because everything is close together. Santa Clara County has fiber optic all 2 along Foothill Expressway that is all I know about that. New York City is putting a fiber optic 3 network together in New York City. Verizon is putting that network together in New York City. 4 You can zone without dealing with the health issues. You can make collocation a condition of 5 somebody getting a use permit for one antenna. You should consider requiring it in business and industrial sites not in residential or near schools and you can do that by zoning. The last point is how are you going to audit what is actually happening? Thirty percent of the sites in Los Altos audited are no longer in compliance with their use permit. They have put in extra capacity, they have added antennas, and they are out of compliance. There is a lot of expertise that needs to be brought to bear to.andit and make sure that what you permit is actually happening. This is a tricky issue all by yourself. You don’t want installations going in there with empty slots that later on somebody can put in extra power. So i will again get some more information to everybody about this. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you Ms. Petrosian. Questions for Staff, Commissioners? Mr. Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: A clarifying question with respect to the two different levels of review. In the memo on page three it is put in there that there is an alternative of the 600 foot requirement if the height requirement exceeds what is currently existing. Is that proposing that that-alternative be what we adopt or are you asking for a comment on that one way or another? Ms. Campbell: I think Staff feels comfortable with the 150 foot noticing that we have already discussed but we definitely have that in as an option that if the Planning Commission wants us to bring that forward we can do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: The Staff Report alluded to the new state regulations that may impact collocation and that the City Attorney’s Office is still looking into exactly how that might impact us. Can we get just a general sense of what that new regulation might cause? Ms. Tronquet: I am going to let Amy Bartell who is Special Council for our office answer that she has been working on this project. Ms. Amy Bartell, Special Council: Basically like you said we are still working on it and there is actually going to be some training. I don’t know if you are familiar with [SKIN ATOWA]. How would you describe that group? They are bunch of local agenciesthat get together and they do a lot of training for people like us to interpret the effect of these bills on zoning ordinances and that kind of thing. " There is going to be one of those in a couple weeks, which I think I will be attending because it is a relatively complex bill. In a nutshell what it is going to do is if you already have a wireless collocation facility it basically takes the city’s ability to - let me back up. If you already have a wireless collocation facility if somebody wants to come in and put another antenna there the process is very streamlined and you pretty much just approve it. If you want to have a new wireless collocation facility, a completely separate new one with nothing else already there then the bill doesn’t affect those. It is just existing ones. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: So it will actually encourage collocation but take away discretion from the cities. Ms. Bartell: Yes, that is what it would do but the cities don’t get all of their discretion pulled. What happens is the new collocation antennas still have to comply with all of the requirements that the original wireless collocation facility had. So if you had aesthetic requirements or other kinds of requirements on the original facilitythey can’t put in something that is going to be in opposite to those. Mr. Williams: Could I just ask a follow on to that? Is there an ability for the City in entgrtaining a new proposal to essentially limit it so that collocation cannot occur on it because we anticipate there would be visibility impacts associated with any additional antennas? We might say that ’one is fine just like it is but if you do any more than that and we see that it would have problems. Ms. Bartell: That is going to be one of the issues that gets hammered out a little bit more when I go to this training in a couple weeks. I think that we are going to have a little bit of a hard time prohibiting the Collocation facilities like you said. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, Commissioner Burr: Could you clarify, are all of our permitted sites for wireless allowed to be collocation facilities? If we put in one does it necessarily allow collocation? Ms. Campbell: That is definitely one of the questions that we need to get clarified because I don’t know if all of the ones that we have already approved all of a sudden now become a potential collocation facility or with new ones that come forward we identify those and say we are going to call you a collocation facility so then that one becomes eligible. I think it sounds like from what I have heard so far that the existing sites might just become collocation facilities. It is definitely one of the things that we have to figure out. Ms. Tronquet: We expect that we would have a very difficult time prohibiting all together or even severely restricting collocation at those sites. Although we don’t believe at this point that the ARB approval that we have outlined here would be prohibited.- So we are hoping to get more clarification on that when Amy goes to the training in a couple of weeks. We are hoping that agencies will be able to come up with a clear consensus and we will be able to give you a better answer then. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Keller: Yes. First of all I would hope that by the time that this comes back before us that those questions will have been resolved by that training. A couple of questions or issues. Would it make sense in terms of the encroachment into setbacks for those encroachments not to be allowed where the setback abuts a residential zone? So if you have a backyard setback of a commercial property that abuts a residential zone or residential uses that you don’t have this Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1-8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 facility that essentially overlooks the adjacent or abutting residential use. That would seem to make sense to me. Do you have any thoughts about that? Ms. Campbell: I think as part of the conditional use permit review we would take a look at that definitely as something to consider whether that is an appropriate location. We haven’t written it in specifically to say if it is adjacent to an R-1 property that we would prohibit it but through the use permit process and that review it would be a serious consideration that we would look at. Commissioner Keller: Similarly I wouldsuggest that a similar consideration appear in those corridors where there is a special setback for a certain distance away from that corridor. In the event that a parcel has the side be a street side corridor that the Parcel faces a perpendicular street that the side of that parcel then faces the street with the setback and you wouldn’t want the facility in that special setback. So that also would have to have special consideration similarly. Furthermore, there seems to be a great deal of public sensitivity about locating these adjacent to places where children congregate. Therefore thinking about adjacency issues with respect to schools, daycare facilities, and parks and churches and houses of worship I think are also things that we should consider. The science is out on that but I think that you will make the public a lot happier if such exclusions were to exist. Ms. Bartell: One thing I do know about the bill is that environmental considerations which is what you just described would fall under that kind of thing, like health considerations, are not allowed to be - you can only consider those to a pretty limited extent and that is pretty clear in the bill. Commissioner Keller: Can we include those as restrictions for adjacency for other issues? Do we have to say we are doing that because of environmental considerations or can we simply say that there are certain kinds of things just like you hive a conditional use permitfor in a residential area, you have a conditional use permit for adjacent to a residential area. Ms. Bartell: Basically if it is an environmental concern it is realIy limited. You have a lot more latitude to restrict things based on aesthetics or what the original wireless facility those requirements that were already set for the original facility. If you ~e going to.start trying to condition things based on these health effects or environmental effects it is very rigid what you can and can!t do. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: That is the perfect segue for me, which is to aesthetic effects. There are a number of historic buildings in Palo Alto and I know of a cell site that is on an historic building. Would those be when they collocate onto that building would it be subject to Historic Resources Board review? Ms. Tronquet: The collocation restricts I expect that it probably would be allowed to locate there. It might not prevent you from looking at that but if you have already located a site on an historic building the new requirements certainly strongly suggest that you could collocate another site there. Page 20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 1 2 Vice-Chair Lipper(: Well the issue I am thinking of off the top of my head is when you go 3 through and do historic rehabilitations Of the building there are certain requirements. What it 4 does is preserves certain entitlements for the property owner. When you begin to add things to 5 the historic building what you do is you undermine the historic nature of the structure. So simply by having a bl.anket allowanceof allowing collocation without the appropriate review you undermine the historic entitlement that is there. Ms. Tronquet: To the extent that it had something like a visual impact on the structure you might be able to look at it and regulate it. You would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis but if you could come up with a good argument that it had a significant visual impact that might be something that you could regulate. Vice,Chair Lippert: Where I am going is possibly we could put something in here that on historic Category I and Category II structures that those would be subject to review by the Historic Resources Board. Mr. Williams: I don’t know that there is a reason why we can’t do that. It is part of the aesthetics of the building it is not for health reasons it is for that. Assuming that it is a new application as opposed to collocating where one already exists, yes. Then the.other thing I was going to suggest is maybe we also list that we have building mounted antennas generally not requiring a use permit and maybe if it is an historic Category I or II.it requires a use permit and it goes to the Historic Resources Board for their input before it is approved because we have to consider the potential for collocation as well as the original antenna. So that gives it that extra bit of review. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I want to .go back to a question that Commissioner Keller had asked and was answered before about if you had an antenna that was proposed on a commercial property but that commercial property abutted a residentially zoned parcel would that fall under the requirement for a conditional use permit or not? Ms. Campbell: It depends on what type of facility they are proposing~ Basically you have two types of review process and they are outlined there forthe types of facilities. So if they were proposing a stand-alone facility then yes they would need to get a use permit. If they are proposing a building mounted facility then they would not need a use permit but it just goes through the architectural review with either the 150 foot noticing or a 600 foot noticing as is listed there if it was exceeding the existing height of the existing building roof and equipment. Commissioner Tuma: So even if it were on a property that abuts a residential if it is on a building then it would go through the lesserreview. Ms. Campbell: That is correct. Page 21 1 Chair Holman: Follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s question. I want to make sure I am clear 2 on this. An antenna.could be denied on an historic building due to aesthetic reasor~s. The 3 collocation though once there is one there does that mean that even on an historic building that 4 you would have to allow another or because it is an historic building and aesthetics are an issue 5 could there be a separate review process that would require review of any collocation attempt? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms.Bartell: My answer on this might change a little bit based what I learn in a couple of weeks but from what I have read so far if the second antenna is in compliance with the requirements for the original facility you have to let them put it on there. The whole point of bill is to streamline ¯ this process and basically put more antennas in sites where they already exist. I think the point was to avoid having to put all these new wireless facilities up we would just use the ones we already have and allow the process to go faster for those. So back to your question about the historical aspect if the second antenna complies with the requirements that the original site on the historical building had then it has to be allowed. Chair Holman: So I guess the question for Staff would be wouldn’t that require at a minimum Staff review if not HRB review to see if it does satisfy the same requirements. Mr. Williams: Yes, and I don’t think that there is any suggestion here that there is no review it is just that that’s basically the limit of out review is that we review it at a Staff level and that we assure that it is consistent with requirements that were imposed initially. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I am going to make a suggestion and this is purely a suggestion. I think that it is great that legal is going to have somebody go to this .training but it might be worthwhile to consider having somebody from Planning also attend that to approach it from the planning point of view not the legal point of view. Mr. Williams: We will see if that is appropriate and if we can do it. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I have two questions. One has to do with enforcement, One of the members of the public said that in a neighboring city many of the sites have had additions that rendered that site not in compliance with their permit. On the-one hand perhaps this mandate to allow collocation would take away some of the discretionary powers we would have anyway but what sort of enforcement tools do we have to assure that we don’t have additions to these sites that are going on beyond what we have permitted? Ms. Campbell: I think one of things that we can add either as a condition of approval or we were talking about adding language to the actual code was having the applicants test the site before they do the project for the RF emissions and do that after and then put in as a condition of approval that at any time Staff or the local citizens can require the applicant to do a test for these emissions to make sure it is still in compliance with the FCC regulations. So that is probably the Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 most that we can dobecause then it would be the FCC;s role to go in to regulate what happens next. Commissioner Burr: Well that might be a reasonable approach although I don’t know about the ’at any time’ but some reasonable frequency might be appropriate. My other question has to do with under the paragraph Aesthetic Concerns/Roof-Mounted Antennas. I read the paragraph as addressing both not just aesthetic concerns of roof-mounted because it talked about the ARB review. This paragraph all the things that I think I would agree with that the design goals to create an end produce that is unobtrusive and blends in and that applied to not only roof-mounted but stand alones. My question has to do with in the past we have heard some value structures on behalf of ARB that they prefer, ifI am characterizing this correctly,, they prefer these sorts of devices to stand alone and essentially not be fakes, not be a fake tree or not to be disguised in ways. We are saying that that’s not our objective that we want them unobtrusive. So if we are putting in the hands of the ARB a review for something that they don’t believe in do we have a built-in dilemma there? Ms. Campbell: I think for the recent application that we had from Manuela we had that discussion at the ARB. It was definitely kind of a split discussion. I do think that every site has its own characteristics and I think everything would be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. The only time or usually the ARB wouldn’t see, not that that means anything in particular, but the Board doesn’t usually see these projects unless it is appealed to the Board. I do think it is always a site-by-site situation and to make the bes~t analysis of what looks good there. It may be that in a certain situation that a normal monopole or regular monopole may be the best product there. Mr. Williams: I would just add that we make the regulations for the City and if it is to hide it then that is what we need to present to the ARB what we are trying to comply with. If they go a different direction and somebody appeals it and you see it or the Council sees it then you look at the same criteria and there might be a different result, Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Keller: So I think I had made this comment after the last meeting that I had to sit out because it wasn’t segmented. One of the things that is interesting is Ibelieve your form for a wireless communication facility requires that they applicant show all of the wireless communication facilities the applicant currently had within the city confines. It also shows some degree of coverage area. What I would recommend is that you ask for a map of the coverage including those locations, the wireless communication fa@ities located outside the City of Palo Alto and their locations that have coverage within the City of Palo Alto. If you think about coverage it is typically a point and a circle around it based on how far the signal can propagate. So what I would recommend is that as part of your application process you have all of the wireless communication facilities that broadcast into Palo Alto and their areas of coverage because those outside of Palo Alto that are located in adjacent towns would also affect Palo Alto and will allow you to better see where the need for having a communication facility located where they requested. Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I think that is a very good idea. I was going to follow up on that by suggesting that perhaps the way to approach the whole collocation issue is when an applicant comes fbrward and has a proposal is require them to present to the City the maximum build-out for that site. So in other words develop it or.show what thei} service is going to be plus any collocation that is going to be there as well and make that a requirement of the conditions of approval for that specific site. So they would actually build something that would be less than that but they at the inception would show you what the maximum would be. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: On the topic of abandon antennas as I understand it here there is going to be a requirement as a condition of approval that any abandon antenna be removed within three months. Is there a problem with abandon antennas not being removed today? Ms. Campbell: I am currently not aware of a problem but I think other Commissioners have expressed a concern that things might be left behind and we want to keep it aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Tuma: I was wonder if you could make it a condition of an application for another antenna that they certify that any abandon antennas have been removed or some other way to beproactive because I know enforcement could be difficult unless it is pointed out. If they have to certify that any abandon antennas have already been removed I think that gives you an additional level of assurance that that’s happened but I don’t know if that is possible. Mr. Williams: So you are saying if someone comes in with a new request that before we issue a permit for that that we make sure that they remove any other abandon .antennas that they. have elsewhere? Commissioner Tuma: Well, within the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Williams: Right. Okay. We can look at that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber ......... Commissioner Garber: I was simply going to remind that the concern there was because technology changes so quickly that if the circumstance occurred it would be nice to have that as part of the zoning that it comes out. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, did you have another question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. Also to follow up on that not only is technology changing rapidly the frequencies change over time and because the frequencies change the coverage distances change along with the. frequencies because some of formula, I don’t want to go into the physics of it right now and I once knew but I probably don’t remember any more. Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I am wondering to the extent to which the locations of antennas are considered public knowledge and people can go and say I want to look at a map of where the locations are of all the antennas in the city or by carrier. Is that considered a trade secret or is that considered public? Ms. Campbell: The Planning Department has not assembled such a complete list. I do have lists but I can’t tell you if they are 100 percent accurate. I would think that each of the different carriers would be able to provide that type of information because it is part of their service and they need to keep track of what they do. So I think they would be responsible for that. Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not sure that any carrier is going to tell me what the locations are as a private citizen but.to the extent that the coverage maps and the locations of the preexisting and proposed cell sites are a document that the public can actually look at that is an interesting question that should be analyzed. Secondly, to the extent that some entity in the City were to keep track of the locations on some sort of collected map or list that showed all the locations and a carrier were to come by and say we have a coverage gapin this area, having one of the carriers I certainly understand the notion of a coverage gap, and they say we want to put a wireless communication facility at this location if the City had that list of locatians it could then go back to a carrier and say well, rather than creating one where none currently exist have you considered these three sites whose coverage area would cover the region of the gap and would not require a brand new site. So it seems to me that the City could operate in that way as a clearing house to the extent that that information were not considered a trade secret. Ms. Tronquet: Just to answer your question about public records. I don’t know exactly what we require of applicants and I don’t know whether we make lists of people who install these things but whatever they file with us in terms of application materials would be a matter of public record. So you might not be able to get a full list of sites that a carrier had or the radius but you would be able to get the application information and compile it yourself if we didn’t have such a list. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then Commissioner Burt. Oh, I’m sorry Curtis. Mr, Williams: Could I add to that? After the last discussion you had on this item the next day or two days later I went to a Santa Clara County Association of Cities meeting where there were Council members from the various cities and the county convened to discuss various issues. Frank Benest is there because he is head of the City Manager’s Group and helps support them. Their big topic for the night was wireless communications. This was a joint venture and Silicon Valley is sort of taking the lead on trying to coordinate efforts throughout Santa Clara County in particular ~or helping to get more information out about cell sites, about gaps. in coverage, about the process that various cities use in terms of review, and they obviously as you would expect are pushing very hard for expediting reviews or at least dividing like what we are trying to do here in saying these kinds of reviews are pretty much no brainers that nobody every objects to but these here.are ones that could potentially be more critical and we should divide them up that way. One of the things that they were showing then was they had maps showing all the cell sites. They Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 know where all the cell sites are and they can draw circles and you can see gaps in coverage. They also have a map now that I think you can go to the website and it will actually show you people are calling in and telling them where they can’t get coverage and they are mapping all of those locations too. So there is already a lot of this information available. It is something that we should be sure we are tied in to so that when somebody comes through if some of those questions are up we can go there rather than creating our own database .to do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber then Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Garber: You may already know the answer to this but as part 6fthe questions you may ask as part of the learnings that you will have in the next couple of weeks would be the degree to which the bill allows when it has the cohabitation of antennae and equipment if carriers that are not the same can occupy the same space can utilize the same equipment, etc. rather than having to duplicate that and/or if that creates, I am assuming that would be allowed or perhaps required versus another carrier who is already there saying hey, don’t step inside my utility box. Ms. Tronquet: We will check it. We will look into that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, Commissioner Lippert, and then me and we will try to wrap this one up so we can go on to the next. We have one more piece ofbusi.ness to do. Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up .on this collocation question and the aesthetics of it. So in addition to whether they can share any equipment where we are using these fake trees and things I am just starting to envision this, are we anticipating that we are going to have little groves of fake trees and if so, do we have the prerogative to require one cell carrier that they have a compatible fake tree with the other carrier who is already there? Does that fall under our aesthetic guideline discretion? Ms. Tronqueti We will research that and get back to you. Mr. Williams: I do think and it would seem to me that collocation does not mean putting another tree where there is a tree already. It meansputting another antenna on an existing tree. Commissioner Burr: Better yet. Also if we get all of this fake tree and demolition issue we don’t have any danger of heritage fake trees starting to become a public issue. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I think where we are going with this is that I think what is desirable is to try to consolidate as many of these sites as possible. When a carrier goes in and makes application for a site we ~¢ant to encourage them to think in terms of collocation up front and make that a requirement of them getting the permit if we can do that. Ms. Campbell: So let me just address that right now. Even before this whole discussion about collocation just recently has come up it has always been a part of our process that collocation is one of the first things that we discuss with any new application that comes forward. So it is not Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 something that we brush aside or that we ignore it is our first priority that we look at and ask have you looked at other carriers, is there any other way that you can do this project without creating a new site? So it is something that we are currently, actively doing. Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s right and I think that is where we were going. If we know where these sites are located and we know what the basic coverage areas are then we can say to one carrier, another carrier has a site within 150 or 200 feet of where you propose to put this site, did you look at collocating and having your antenna on their site and world’ng out an agreement with them? Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I want to go back to ihe issue of when a conditional use permit is required and when it is not. Durin.g the last session on this it was brought up that the issue be considered that where you have a project that is on a residentially zoned parcel or on a parcel with residential use but also those abutting. That topic was raised last time. It doesn’t appear to have been incorporated into what is being proposed. Is there some resistance to doing that or is there some reason not to do that? I think where you have a situation where you have a commercial property right next door even though the antenna may go ona building mounted facility it is still right next door to a residential unit. So to me I don’t see the reason not to have it also apply to properties that abut either residentially zoned or a residential use. Ms. Campbell: When we are looking at this we are also looking at the process as well as the criteria for which types of sites .we would apply it to. So if you have a type of facility that seems like it would be more impactful like a stand-alone facility that we were talking about then you would have the 600-foot radius and everybody would be noticed with that radius. Then for the other type of process where we would only do 150 foot or potentially 600 feet we were calling them less sensitive projects the noticing would still get out there to what we think are the affected properties. So people would still have the opportunity to come in and look at the plans and make comments on the project and discuss their concerns with Staff. I think that we have covered it I don’t know if we need to take it to that next step to include adjacent residentially zoned parcels as well. Mr. Williams: There is also an issue, and I think Clare was alluding a little bit to this, of not just the aesthetic impact, which is basically what we can address, but the use issue. A wireless carrier pays the property owner something to put the facility on there. So on a residential property, figuring a single family residential, I think you start to question whether that becomes a commercial use when you start to put antennas on the site and is that appropriate? So that is another reason why we want a more elaborate process when it is ona residential property or there is a residential use on that property. We want to take a look at that and determine is that really necessary. We would prefer not to have residential properties having a commercial antenna facility on them. So that is another aspect of it and a reason why if it is on an adjacent property that is commercial or industrial then that issue doesn’t pertainit is just becomes the aesthetics issue. If it is a building mounted stealth design that those neighbors are going to have a hardtime even knowing it is there and even at 150 feet they are going to get no.tice of it anyway so is it really necessary to go to the use permit? We have had these and they don’t get Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 objected to. Like Clare said if it is a stand aione pole and it is next to those neighbors it is going’ to have a use permit and 600 feet of notice. That is our thought process. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, I appreciate that. Just to make the last comment that I have on this stuffwhich is I do think that the 600 feet alternative is the appropriate alternative where you have a facility that exceeds the existing height. I just think that we are limiting notice here and I understand that and streamlining it but I think where it exceeds the existing height to go the extra 450 feet with the notice is appropriate. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Quickly, one is I am skeptical as to whether one carrier will allow another carrier to use the same boxes containing the control equipment, I am very skeptical about that. However, using the same antenna and placing multiple transmitters on the same antenna is much more of a feasible concept. Secondly, I am assuming that the type of tree if it is a fake tree is part of the architectural review and that part of that will be to look at adjacent trees and things like that, real trees that are nearby and inparticular since it is fake I assume that the tree will be evergreen because deciduous fake trees don’t drop their ~eaves and grow them again in the spring. Finally, I think that I am sympathetic with Commissioner Tuma’s point regarding the adjacency issue to a residential property in the sense that a wireless facility that is visible to the abutting residential uses may be unsightly so there are some issues there. Chair Holman: A few things real quickly. One is a question that came up last time and I think it was me actually who brought it up. On page two under Aesthetic Concerns/Roof-Mounted Antennas, you don’t need to respond to this I jus~ wanted to mention it, there was some concern that if there is a lot of collocation that a 50 foot high building could take on the appearance of being a 65 foot building if there is a lot of collocation that takes place because it all has to be screened. So if that can be more clearly addressed I know it would be an aesthetics issue but it might be compatible with the existing building but then it alters the height so much that that could be an effect. So that’s-one. Then to go to the public speaker’s comments about other communities going to fiber optic as opposed to wireless. There is such a strong lobby that we can’t right now restrict the application for these except for aesthetics so along those lines the City of Los Altos is mentioned here because of two things. One ishow can we promote or help encourage the fiber or some other means other than these cell towers.. The City of Los Altos has, and maybe Curtis would like to speak to this just briefly, something else that they are trying to encourage which are these smaller systems and how successful they have been or not been, what the move is technologically for companies to go to that, and also I am curious as to whether even the current boxes could be put underground, if they could be subterranean as opposed to on top of the ground. Something I was really struck by today as recently at the Women’s Club we took the ceiling fans out of the ceiling and so now itis just the chandeliers that hang fxom the ceiling. Just having that eye-acne gone made one of the most remarkable changes in the building of anything that we have done there and we have done a lot of work there: So that is a question, could they besubterranean? Can we encourage other kinds of utility because of aesthetic uses .and encourage that kind of approach as opposed to what is being currently applied? Page 28 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2-0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: I will let Clare specifically address kind of Los Altos: ordinance for you. I haven’t seen one of these facilities be underground and I am guessing that they need side access into this equipment and they can’t just come from above but we can check into that and see if there is any. Have you seen any of those? No. One thing I will say about Los Altos is a Los Altos Council Member was at that meeting with the other city representatives and indicated that they do try to encourage people to think about these other kinds oftectmologies. They have not had any to date. They don’t require them. The representatives indicated that they are installing them in places like shopping malls and places where it is relatively small areas that it seems to work well inside but you would have to do it throughout a much larger area to be able to get citywide kind of coverage and you end up with a lot of these little boxes that dot the city then instead of a few installations otherwise. Clare looked specifically at the ordinance and can tell you what that says aboutthose facilities. Ms. Campbell: In the Los Alto; ordinance it lists as adifferent type of antenna system a distributed repeater or micro-cell antenna system as its own stand-alone category apart from monopoles or fake trees or building mounted. Basically these types of facilities require multiple antennas and I even have a picture of something similar where it is utilized in amore centralized area. I did a little bit of research on the Internet so it seems like if you wanted to improve coverage within a building or maybe like within a downtown or within a very specific area you could put up these repeater sites or micro-cell sites and that could improve the service. But on a large scale it is not something I think the carriers would do. Their language in their code for encouraging this type of facility they basically put an order of preference for facility type. They say would like building mounted facilities to be the first thing that would be done, The second would be a distributed repeater or micro-cell system and then the third would be a monopole. So that is their language in their code of how they show what they prefer or their hierarchy for their preference of sites. Basically we have these phones. This is just one example of someone wfio called or wanted to get some information, Basically the tops of these phone booths are these boxes and I refer to them as like maybe a suitcase kind of size, it is there and you can tell something is there. Basically these would be dotted out throughout a specific section o.r region to improve your service. So that is an example of what it would look like, Chair Holman: One thing I had mentioned to Staff yesterday I think was that with this kind of utilization perhaps it could be incorporated into newspaper racks or.that sort of thing at least in some parts of town so that we don’t have all these extra things popping up offthe ground. Unless there is anything else and if Staff thinks they have plenty and more than we should move on to - Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Burt: It is more on what we have to do yet this evening. Since we have two more items, the storm water and the landscape and I am looking at the agenda for the next meeting and it is one item so would it be possible to roll this over or does that make a problem for Staff?. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Williams: First ofalI I am confused because I thought the storm water was part of the water resources discussion. Chair Holman: Yes, I believe it was so we have landscape remaining. Mr. Williams: The item that is on your agenda next week is listed as one item but it is really four rezonings of sites that we know there is opposition to on Some of those and we don’t know how much discussion there will be but that could very well be a full night of discussion. The only other option would be to do an hour on landscape at the beginning at six o’clock or something like that for that meeting. The dilemma that we are in is that we are trying to get the or.dinance back to you by the 13th and that is important because we don’t have another meeting of the Commission until January 10 which already has some items on it and the storm water and water resources thing do have some timelines on them that we have committed to the Water District to make. Ms. Caporgno: I would like to add that.the City has made a commitment to the Water District that we would if at all feasible have the changes to the ordinance in place by the end of February. So if we come back to the Commission in January that is almost impossible to do. Chair Holman: Okay, so I would ask the Commission to be concise and bear with us as it is 120 to 11:00 and we did lose a member of the public unfortunately. We will now go to landscape standards. I am looking for Commissioner questions or comments. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: In the proposed shading calculation for the parking lots are trees the only thing that would be allowed to create shade or are trellises other such things allowed? What are the alternatives there? Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: We would entertain trellises and Other vegetation on walls. We would be highly encouraging trees to play the major function in shade. There are a lot of values that get weighed into the trees that would not be achieved by trellises and other types of things. So we would want to see predominantly trees play the role for providing shade for several reasons. Commissioner Garber: I am totally in line with the tree focus I am just thinking if you had" trellises would you also ideally have things that grew on the trellises as well? The idea is to have green live things, fight? Mr. Dockter: Well, yes shade cast plays a positive role on rain water interception, it reduces the heating that heats up gasoline in cars, it extends the life of pavement td the extent that vegetated trellises could achieve that they would play a role and not just trees. Predominantly I think we would achieve it by trees at least in a codified version of the ordinance. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Commissioner Keller: So instead of paving paradise and putting in a parking lot you are putting paradise back by adding the trees. I am wondering as a follow up to Commissioner Garber’s question if somebody.wanted to put photovoltaics as some sort of carport kind of thing, if you wanted to put a photovoltaic panel on top of parking would that make sense or not? Mr. Dockter: I suppose that would make sense to achieve some goals of more of a green parking lot that is producing something else other than just shade. You are creating a dual-purpose function in something. I think we would favor that. That may not even play a role in landscaping it my just be smart building in my opinion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: Dave, the report referred to the emerging alternatives of rooftop gardens, usable/edible landscape, and other alternatives. In our outline I didn’t see exactly where that would be folded in, can you clarify that a little bit? Mr. Dockter: In the ordinance we are going to be listing and encouraging/requiring the use of creative landscaping, creative parking lots, creative use of the land. Within that we will be pointing to a landscape technical manual that will have most of these, perhaps a hierarchy of suggestions or recommendations such as if it is stipulated to have a rooftop garden say we will have a list of alternatives and suggestions to achieve that. The same thing would go for parking lots and the same thing would go for planter islands to help a property owner achieve the goals if it is stipulated within conditions of approval. It will be encouraged and I think in the codified version of the ordinance we will get the property pretty roughed out by the code but I think a lot of the decisions and details will be left to the discussions with Staff and the manual. Commissioner Burt: We had a couple of years ago an agreement with a Stanford office development I think off California Avenue where they agreed to put in an apricot orchard, if I remember correctly, as part of their landscaping. I heard over the last year from one of the Stanford representatives that they have had no success in getting the fruit picked and no knowledge of the means to do so and consequently they would be very reluctant to do that sort of thing in the future. This was real disappointing because as we have discussed many times this is something that we Would like to see a lot more of. I see that you have the attachment on the Valley of Heart’s Delight program but it seems like if we are going to do this very positive thing of encouraging agricultural landscaping that the City can’t necessarily take on that task but we need to somehow play some kind of facilitator role to make sure that the growers and the pickers are hooked up. So I would like to encourage that we somehow build that into the programs if we are expanding this. My final question had to do with the structural soils and I hope everybody got a chance to read 41 42 43 44 45 46 this. As I was going through this I said great article and then saw that Dave Dockter wrote it. Dave has been a leader in these and our city has been a leader in the use of the structural soils. This is a real exciting new tool. The question I have is We have a lot of scars where we have had parking lots, etc., and other locations go in that really if we had had the structural Soils ten or 15 years ago we would have utilized them in those locations. So how can we heal those scars, is my question? For instance we had just adopted the new Comp Plan when the Stanford Shopping Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Center redevelopment or expansion went through and they redid their parking lots, tore out the trees thatwere mature trees there and somehow the City didn’t require them at that time to even meet that new standard of 50 percent canopy within 15 years thatwe have here. So what I am getting at is can we look at whether we want to require some sort of re.trofitting that when a development goes through a major permitting remodeling of some sort that we look at whether with these new options on the structure soils whether.they be required to come up to standard or come closer to up to code on providing tree plantings that would result in the 50 percent canopy within 15 years. So some kind of triggering mechanism that might let us heal some of those scars. Mr. Williams: I think there are some ways that we can probably try to do that. I would ask Dave if he has examples of or is that what you tried to do with the parking lot across from the clothing store down there in SOFA? Mr. Dockter: On retrofitting and reusing land there will always be a discretionary Staff decision on what is the nexus for really requiring a parking lot to be redone, changed, or not. If it were a whole site redevelopment heck yes, absolutely we would do that. We would have them put in street trees in the City right-of-way. In the code we will nudge everybody toward making the best use of the parking lot. The storm water requirements now to treat the water on the site is probably one of the most important criteria for actually redoing these parking lots and islands. The best thing that ever happened I think for trees was the storm water regulations mandated by the federal government, the C3 regulations. We are looking for opportunities on every parking lot andto retrofit even if it is adding in one. or two trees. If we can’t redo the whole lot we will do whatever we can like Anthropology on Addison that was a small retrofit project where they put in new trees and structural soil and a little strip. It is not a permanent fix but it sure goes a long ways towards making it work for them as well as the City. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to comment. I go to the fifth floor here, sometimes the seventh floor, and I look south and I am just amazed, I am bowled over every time I lobk south and I see the canopy of trees. That is something that I think is definitely something we want to try to preserve and promote.. I don’t like the idea or the notion of us having these buildings that punctuate o.r come up through this wonderful canopy. I think what we want to try to do is when you are up on the fifth or seventh floor and you look out you See this wonderful green canopy. By the same token though I think about the two times that I have gone to Italy and have seen these towers that punctuate these Italian towns. The families that were the captains of industry have planted trees at the tops of these towers. They are the most remarkable things so I think the whole notion o.f rooftop gardens has finally come about at a time that is appropriate when we are in some ways to high-technology what the Italian Renaissance was to architecture~ So I think that it is very appropriate that rooftop gardens are something that. are promoted now within the code. Then there was one last .comment that I wanted to make with regard to parking lots. The flipside of what happened at Anthropology and the adjacent parcel across the street that they are using as their parking lot and it has been landscaped and planted very nicely, the flipside of that is of Page 32 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 course [Fazani] Carpet at the comer of Alma and Hamilton where there is an adjacent parce! 2 there which was a parking lot that has been undeveloped, un-landscaped since I have been in 3 town in 1983 or 1984. The sole reason is that the owner of those two parcels, I think it is 4 actually one parcel, but it might be two parcels, doesn’t see the benefit of landscaping. So what 5 happened, the net result is, they are denied use of that as a parking lot until it is improved and 6 brought up to the quality and character of what it needs to be in order to meet our regulations. It 7 is just a blight on us. It is not being used. It is not pretty to look at. So I think now with these regulations we need to be able to facilitate away through these regulations to get areas like that either landscaped or redeveloped in some way. t wanted to say that there is a flipside to that which is that for every success story there is also a place where we have failed. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I wanted to clarify a comment that I had at our last meeting, which was about rooftop gardens and the greening.of roofs. That comment came up in the context of roof screening and this is simply a clarification that occurred to me after the fact, after that discussion. My intent was not to include that as part of a roof screening section-of the ordinance and I think there was a little bit of confusion around that but it may exist more naturally in a different section. The example that was being brought forward was one of the projects that came before the Commission this past year there is a circumstance where you would see down onto the roof and it wasn’t that the roof wasn’t screened it was that you are looking at the roof surface itself which was not an aesthetic experience and by greening it you would create that. So it may not be a part of the screening section but it may more naturally occur someplace else. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I just had a quick question. What did you have in mind with respect to design standards for light well landscaping on residential? Mr. Dockter: Screening for light wells used to be in the zoning code and there was a requirement for vegetating large, large light wells. They were actually below ground patio areas. Since I think that has actually been removed because it was almost impossible to achieve vegetating a large below ground patio unless’it was something just draping over the edge or a vine or something. If a light well were visible from the street we would just want to, not as a requirement but more probably as a guideline again in the landscape manual, provide elements for screening different types of things on a residential house. You would screen maybe air conditioners, light wells, anything that would stick up above ground in view. I think we were thinking more of as a screening benefit not as a ministerial mandate but more of as a guideline to learn how to and educate how to screen different areas. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Just as a follow up and I may encourage Commissioner Lippert to add in any comments he may have regarding light wells as well. Two questions occur to me as you were answering Commissioner Tuma’s query. One, is the intent of screening to also keep one’s view from looking down? In the case of a light well where you may not have something like an Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 air conditioning unit or something that is obviously sitting on the ground and you would screen that but where you have a well itself is the thought that you would screen it so you wouldn’t see below grade in those circumstances? Mr. Dockter: No, it would just be to interrupt the view of a concrete rim or a low wall. Commissioner Garber: I see, okay. Mr. Dockter: These tend to accompany light wells. Commissioner Garber: So the screening may in that case be grasses or something of that sort? Mr. Dockter: Sure. Commissioner Garber: The other question that I had and I am not recalling the requirements for the sizes of !ight wells right at the moment but frequently one has to provide access out of them and because of limitations there is great frequency where that access out occurs as a ladder. I am sure there has been discussion but I am curious if you are recalling pros and cons versus including or excluding the staircases from the requirements for.the areas of light wells such that a homeowner could avoid having a ladder but have a more natural staircase coming out of it and not have that included in the area of the light well. Mr. Williams: I can respond to-that and it is a little off the landscape topic but the amendments that were made to the R-1 district a year and a half ago or so they don’t exclude basically the emergency ladder kind of thing which takes up very little space anyway but the change that was made was that to the extent that you have larger than that like a sunken patio or something or like that the stairways coming out of that are not included any longer as part of the 200 square foot limitation or whatever the number is for-those. One of the reasons for that was to allow that area down below to be a more usable space and also to allow it to have some greenery and that. You are right if you include that stairway out, a nice usable stairway out, then it tends to take up half the space of the below grade patio. Commissioner Garber: Thank you for the reminder. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Burr: Two other items. Over several years on occasions where we had multi- family development We have had discussions about whether to mandate the inclusion of small community or common gardens that really are not only a preference to some of the passive landscaping that may exist but it really helps build community in those.multi-family developments. Has Staff looked at incorporating that principle within any of our landscaping standards for muiti-family housing? It seems that it has been a couple of years since We discussed it and so many of these Staff members may not have heard this discussion several years ago. If it isn’t something we have been addressing and if the Commission has an interest in tfiat I would be interested in having something brought back at our next review of this. Page 34 1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: It is something that now that you refresh my memory I do recall that we discussed that. We didn’t get very far with drafting anything before the multi-fam.ily district kind of went on the shelf for awhile. So I could talk to Dave and we could either try to see if that is workable in here or if it is something we need to say in the multi-family zone when that comes back to you early next year. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Then my other question is following up on Commissioner Lippert’s comment on certain places in town where we have long-term vacant lots. They maybe paved lots that have just essentially become blights on the community when it is something that goes on for 20 years and no development is occurring there. The thought occurred to me that maybe we need to consider whether a certain amount of minimal border landscaping would be required. Not a high cost thing but a shrub border or some percent or something like that. I don’t know if we are going too far with this concept but I can think of a couple of examples in town where you have a prominent location that might sit vacant for 20 years and it just really looks blighted. We require people to remove weeds offoftheir property and just .a blank slab of asphalt for 20 years strikes me as something that maybe a property owner should be required to do something at a minimal level.not somethin.g at a high cost. I wanted to toss that concept out. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: In this case of Anthropology what happened was that an offsite parking agreement was signed with Anthropology to make the adjacent lot the parking lot for Anthropology. So that triggered in that review process that that had to be landscaped, If you don’t do anything with the lot it just sort of stays there and that’s really the problem. What I am thinking of is there are numerous City lots in the Downtown that we don’t even follow our own requirements of every ten spaces putting in a tree. So we are not even i’ollowing our own requirements. Commissioner Burt: So regardless, maybe I misunderstood the point you were making. I can think of other examples in town where we simply have for a long period of time in a prominent location a blank asphalt lot that has little bits of weeds and just junky and everything. So my question is should we treat it like we would other blights where we require people to mow their weeds. In this case we might require a minimal low cost border landscaping on a certain portion of the border of that lot. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: -Yes, I have saved up a few comments. First as a follow up to Commissioner Garber’s comment I am wondering if that is roof screening or roof greening. In follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s comment I think the hanging gardens of Babylon preceded the Italian rooftop trees. I am wondering in terms of the interim landscaping that is mentioned in the landscaping standards in terms of perimeter landscaping and interior landscaping, the perimeter landscaping is surrounding a parking lot and I am wondering if you are going to include all of the landscaping on the property that is not simply part of the parking lot and its perimeter as part of the scope of Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ¯ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 this. In other words, not considering only that which is between the building and the lot but any other landscaping around the perimeter of the lot, is that par~ of what the new ordinance considers? Mr. Dockter: Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am hoping that with the new redevelopment of the parking lot at Town & Country that that’s taking advantage of your wonderful structural soil idea. Mr. Dockter: Where we were able to specify it, yes, structural soil is going in at Town & Country parking lot for the large oak trees. Commissioner Keller: With respect to pervious surface in parking lots is there a concern about the drippings that come from cars-that are petroleum based and the like that might contaminate groundwater through that. Is there something you can do to pervious surface to capture that so it doesn’t percolate down? Mr. Dockter-: We want to do very little to avoid that because we have learned that soil and the tree roots will actually clean the water before it goes offinto the Bay. The only thing we really want it to do is soak into the soil. The trees and the soil if the soil is semi-healthy do their thing on the oil. It is preferable to have that and maybe even stress the trees out a little bit than have it go fight into the storm drain and offthe site, So the whole intent with this methodology is to keep it on the site for as long as possible. Commissioner Keller: It will just sort of stay near the surface it won’t go down too far? Mr. Dockter: It depends on the site and the percolation. Mr. Williams: The storm water and this relates to storm water to some extent, just the philosophy of storm water runoff and capturing it and running it through grassy swails or into landscape ponds is that those soils and v.egetation do the most effective job of actually removing the materials before the water gets down to a groundwater table or something like that. The only exception to that tending to be some of the nutrients like fertilizers and such some of those do not cling to the soil particles the same way the oils and sediment and other pollutants do. Commissioner Keller: The last comment is actually a follow up to something I believe Commissioner Burr said with respect to these issues of fruit trees that aren’t being picked. I am wondering whether people who rent plots from community gardens or the community farm at Stanford the pickings should be made available to these people who obviously want to pick crops that they grow themselves. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Would the structural soils be a part of the technical manual as a recommendation as opposed to the ordinance itself or where would one find that? Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Dockter: We would envision that would be a provision in the technical manual not mandated at all within the ordinance because it is not a silver bullet. It only makes sense where a lot of compaction has got to occur to achieve a lot of goals, parking and surface areagoals. Then you have the same goal of a shade tree then it may play a good role. It needs to be reserved to specific conditions of approval or stipulated in certain areas and not just blanket broad-scope within the city. Commissioner Garber: Would it be used to provide soils for trees and other vegetation over underground parking and things of that sort or does it exist only Where the soil can eventually be graduated back into existing native soils? Mr. Dockter: The premise of structural soil is to provide a stone matrix that will support.high compaction when you need to compact for putting a wearing surface like a road or a sidewalk up on top. So you have a stone matrix soil that will support all of this load but yet it has a lot of air voids so that tree roots can grow that is the basic premise of it. sO if there were no need to compact over the surface we would prefer just to have regular soil and not any of this structured. soil.. So if there were fill that needs to occur for a tree our first preference would be just to use regular soil but if it has to be compacted that would shorten the life of the tree and we would consider structured soil. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Garber: What I am hearing is that the criteria that I just gave you doesn’t determine whether you use it or not it is a different’set of questions that you are trying to answer than the ones I was asking about. Thank you, Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, a quick question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I am wondering whether the structural soil is being used when streets are repaved and sidewalks are repaved in terms of protecting the street trees or if that is something else being done elsewhere? Mr. Dockter: Just briefly where new trees are going in and sidewalks are going in we are using structure soil where there is a limited growing area for the new trees. It is not something that we specify or require to be specified around older trees that are staying. It is really something relegated to new construction. Chair Holman: Okay, a few questions for myself here. The tree technical manual and there is discussion about a landscape technical manual, since they are so very, very related would it be feasible that they be one technical manual? A landscape and tree technical manual? Mr. Dockter: We have given Some thought to that. There is no reason to prohibit it. We would want to take a look at it I think to see if it would make something so unwieldy for one discipline to have a whole - it might be too cumbersome for some disciplines. On the other hand it may work perfectly so I think we would want to look at that and talk about it internally. It is a good suggestion though I think we should look at it. Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: The 15 year/50 percent canopy. The 15-year I am sure is based on the premise of how long it takes given trees to grow to have a given canopy. Is there any feasibility of reducing that to say 12 years or looking at some combination of trees that might get to a larger percentage of coverage quicker than 15 years? Especially when you are looking at larger projects 15 years is a long time. Mr. Dockter: I think we will have a mix of trees regardless on any given parking lot. We won’t have a monoculture. I think it is a realistic goal we should probably stick with, We are going to have some trees that are just there in ten years I am sure especially providing for the roots like I think we are going to be. I feel comfortable in the 15-year goal. The large parking lots where we have large acreages like in the Research Park there is going to be many, many trees there where I think the shading will be achieved with all of the five criteria that we listed in there as long as we have condition compliance goals or requirements I think we can achieve the shading goal. It is something that other cities have lacked is the actual compliance end of things and trees get removed without the city having any ability to require the tree to be put back or no long term condition monitoring. So as long as we have that integrated into it I think we are fine With the ten to 15 year goal. Chair Holman: I heard ten to 15 years so I am glad to hear that. For a separate reason I brought this issue up to Staff not so long ago. There are some developments that have been allowed to build underneath sidewalks, underneath streets, and underneath alleys. Could you comment about how that might affect the growth of street trees? Actually I might ask two questions at once here. The other thing is building height and proximity to trees, so for instance if there is a ten foot sidewalk and it is 60 feet high let’s say, how that might affect the growth of street trees or even perimeter trees that in addition to how building under sidewalks also might affect trees. Mr. Dockter: Those are two criteria that we should always be looking at. An older tree that becomes newly shaded will react and it will affect the health of that tree. It is something that should be-considered in the project. The same is true in the root area if it is restricted through an underground basement the trees will only grow as big as the root system will allow them to so if you limit it is going to be a bonsai tree. That is just a fact of life. So that is part of what we look at when there is use of the right-of-way underneath the sidewalk. It is something that should be part of our consideration from Public Works, Planning Commission or Council point of view. Chair Holman: Rooftop gardens, we recently talked about that I think it was even before we. looked at this the first time. We talked about maybe having some requirements for those as we looked at the sustainability as we had the sustainability study session andsustainability program coming out of that. If other things come up during the sustainability study session how Would we best incorporate those into what we are doing now and on the 13th if there is expansion of ideas or new ideas that come out of that. sustainability talk? Much of what we are talking about here., is sustainability. Mr. Dockter: In the code we will want to encourage use of green building and sustainable practices. For rooftop gardens it is probably as far as we are going to go is-stating the Page 38 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 1 encouragement of it. If it is stipulated within a project by one of the reviewing bodies then the 2 technical manual can provide more direction for that and as things unfold and as sustainability 3 learns and becomes more comfortable with areas we can update the landscape manual which will 4 have these details. It will be issued by the City Manager or the department head will be 5 overseeing this technical manual and it can change as technology changes. Within the ordinance the way I envision rooftops gardens islmerely trying to encourage the use of it. I don’t know " how we can build in benefits and bonuses other than employee amenities but I think at this point the landscape ordinance should just recognize that they are there, they are beneficial, and we encourage it, and we will provide them guidelines pro bono by the manual. Chair Holman: Great. Then another matter that actually addresses storm water as many things tree do, parking at the curb. In the Comp Plan one of the policies I have always disagreed with and we haven’t codified it so it hasn’t been used that much but it talks about allowing parking at the curb to be counted toward required parking. There are of course tree leaves that come down whether they are on private property or whether they are street trees, tree leaves accumulate and when you can’t sweep the street you have storm water issues. So I don’t know if you want to weigh in on that or have any comment about that or just let it stand as a comment as you wish. Mr. Williams: Like you said we haven’t imposed that requirement or allowed people to count that parking anyway at this point. You are probably going to get people parked up and down the street whether we do and that is why we haven’t allowed it because most streets have plenty of cars already parked on theml I think that is really outside the zoningpurview it is a right-of-way issue. As long as we don’t bring it up if we come to you with something on the parking on the street other than that the issue of does that create storm water problems and that is really a Public Works issue not a zoning issue. Chair Holman: Okay. I think the last thing is I think Commissioner Burt mentioned earlier about edible gardens as a part of multi-family projects. I guess if you stick around long enough these things that at one time are strongly discouraged come into favor. He and I have both been pushing that for multi-family and he didn’t mention affordable housing but also for affordable housing projects, which usually are PCs as well as for open space. So I am glad to see that that has found its way in here. So I don’t think I have any other questions or comments. So if Staff thinks they have enough direction and I see no other Commissioners with their hands up. Does Staff feel like you have enough? Mr. Williams: Yes, we have as you can see a little more of a task I think on this section than on ¯ the others in terms of we haven’t really given you as specific a language right now. We will be back with that on the 13th based on your comments. Thank you. Chair Holman: Great. Thank you very much. So we will close that item and I think I didn’t close the public comment on that item but I will do that now too. Page 39 Attachment E PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment November 1, 2006 Zoning Ordinance Update - Study session to discuss changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for wireless communication facilities and water resources protection. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment on proposed revisions to Chapter 18.88 Special Provisions and Exceptions to include sections for wireless communications facilities and water resources protection. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Business & Economics chapter includes a policy supporting wireless communications facilities and the Natural Environment chapter includes policies and programs for protection of water.resources. A complete list of these policiesand programs i.s attached to this staff report (Attachment B). Chapter 18.88 Special Provisions and Exceptions is composed of various sections that address a variety of issues; it is considered the "catch all" .section of the code. This chapter provides direction On accessory uses, accessory facilities; height exceptions; home occupation, etc. (AttachmentA provides a table of contents for the chapter). This chapter will likely be renamed, reorganized, and renumbered as part of the ZOU work program. Wireless Communications Facilities Wireless communications facilities (WCF) currently fall into the "utility facilities" use category. This use requires a conditional use permit in all standard zone districts along with Architectural Review (staff level unless appealed to the Architectural Review Board). For the Planned Community (PC) zone, the addition of this use to the gite would require a PC amendment if it is not already specified as an allowed use. The conditional use permit (CUP) process requires that the following findings are met in order to be approved: City of Palo Alto Page (1)The use/project 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; and (2)The use/project be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). In an effort to streamline the review process for wireless communications facilities (WCF), staff supports proposed changes to the review process and lists some specific development standards fo{ these types of project.s in the Summary of Key Issues below. Water Resources Protection The Santa Clara Valle, y Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative) was convened in February 2003 as an ad hoc working group to address issues related to land use near streams. The Collaborative consists of representatives from 15 municipalities (including the City of Palo Alto), the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and other community and environmental group stakeholders. ’Staff from the local agencies, District representatives, and stakeholders from community and environmental groups, assisted by a professional facilitator, have met monthly for the past three and a half years as members of the Collaborative.. The Collaborative has achieved a majoi: milestone by reaching consensus on a set of Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams (G&S). The G&S cover a wide range of issues.affecting land development near and in local streams. The G&S address issues such as building setbacks, riparian corridor buffers, creek bank stabilization techniques, vegetation management (i.e. preservation of native riparian vegetation and prohibitions against planting of non-native, invasive species, etc.), bridge and storm .drain outfall design, and floodplain management. The .Collaborative has devised a G&S implementation strategy under which the District will regulate and permit activities occurring within a District right-of-way or easement (this includes most, but not all, of the streams in Palo Alto), and local agencies will regulate and permit land uses near streams and within streams for which the District has no property rights.’ Adoption of the G&S as ordinances and/or policies by the District and each of the local agencies within Santa Clara County will ensure that stream and riparian corridor protection measures are applied un. iformly throughout the County. The Collaborative member agencies are striving to begin enforcement of the G&S in March 2007. Each agency is developing and implementing a plan for incorporation of the G&S into their existing land use permitting processes. In July 2005, Council approved a resolution committing the City to make best efforts to incorporate the G&S and associated implementation tools into appropriate land use review processes no later than February 2007 (CMR:321:05, Attachment E). A comprehensive description of the Collaborative’s guidelines and standards can be found on the web at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/documents /WRPC August2005.pdf In order to implement the G&S, and to address a provision of the Countywide storm water discharge permit requiring a mechanism to encourage land development project designers to utilize site design measures that protect storm water quality, a new section in Chapter 18.88 is recommended. ZOU staff has worked with the Public Works Department to draft proposed City of Palo Alto ~Page 2 requirements and applicability criteria that address the Collaborative’s requirements and the land development requirements (Section "C.3") of the countywide stormwater permit. In addition to providing these new sections of 18.88, section 18.04 (Definitions) will need to be updated to clarify the new terminology used in these sections. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Wirdess Communications Facilities For several years, the City has considered developing an ordinance to specifically regulate WCF due to their widespread proliferation. The recommended changes below specifically address streamlining the review process and provide for development standards that are more typical for these types of facilities. Streamlined Review Process The common issues, and reasons for appeal, raised by concerned parties regarding WCF revolve primarily around perceived health risks and the project aesthetics. The potential health risk has been viewed by the public as a direct conflict with the required findings for a use permit. However, as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the City cannot deny a project based on potential environmental or health risks due to the radio frequency emissions as long as the facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding such emissions. Although citizens are made aware that the City cannot deny a project solely based on the possible health risks, as mentioned above, the projects may be appealed and are then subject to both PTC and City Council review. The second most common concern raised by citizens is the visual impact of a project. Staff has historically performed the Architectural Review (AR) for WCF and works ektensively With the applicant to produce a high quality end product with success. Citizens do not typically appeal this staff level review to the Architectural Review Board, but rather focus the appeal on the CUP. In order to streamline the review process and to avoid unnecessary public hearings, requiring extensive amounts of City staff time’ and causing delays for the applicant, staff recommends utilizing the CUP and AR process for potentially more sensitive projects proposed in the following circumstances: 2: 3. 4. Proposed on a residentially zoned parcel Proposed on a site with residential type use Developed as stand alone facilities (e.g. tree-pole, monopole, light standard, e~c.) Proposed for expansion beyond the original CUP criteria Staff recommends requiring staff level AR only for projects attached to existing structures. These types of WCF tend to have less impacts because an existing structure is being utilized. Scenarios that could be considered to require AR only could be: Building,mounted facilities Building-mounted facility on a PC zoned site (use not already allowed) Collocation projects (adding a new carrier to a site with an existing WCF use) City of Palo Alto Page 3 One of the concerns that could be raised by eliminating the CUP process for specific project types is that neighbors would not receive notice of the project. In addition to the standard submittal checklist for CUP/AR, a separate submittal checklist has been utilized for all WCF (Attachment C). In order to address the noticing concern, as part of the submittal reqmrement on the WCF checklist, a limited 150’ notice could be required. This would provide a notice to the most immediate neighbors of the project. The staff level AR process does not currently require noticing. Proposed Development Requirements The following development requirements are recommended to codify the desired design standards and to allow for specific practical exceptions that would otherwise need a Design Enhancement Exception: Development Standards Exceptions- All proposed projects shall meet the standard zoning requirements for the relative zone district in which it is located. The. following development exceptions, as approved in the CUP/AR process, may be considered: a.Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted height b.Stand alone WCF may be up to 65’ in height c.Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback 2. Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall utilize the smallest fobtprint possible 3. Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall be designed to minimize overall height 4~ Cabinets and associated equipment shall be screened from public view 5. Equipment enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site ¯ 6. Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building 7. All antennas shall have stealth design Water Resources Protection Applicability Criteria Staff recommends the establishment of a "streamside review area", which includes all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank (except those properties separated from the stream by a public street). A definition for "stream" will be added to Section 18.04 (see Attachment D). For parcels within the .streamside review area, the following types of development would be subject to the new G&S requirements: Development in all zones other than R1 (single-family use in the R2, RMD, RE, OS,.RM15, etc. zones is NOT exempt from new requirements) Development in the R1 zone requiring discretionary review: a. Individual Review (IR) for NEW 2 story house b. IR for new 2nd floor on existing house (where there is an expansion/change of the building (and/or accessory building) footprint) c. Variance (VAR) (including fences) d. Home Improvement Exception (HIE) City of Palo Alto Page 4 3. Development requiring a CUP in the R-1 zone (e.g. churches, schools) Exempt Projects 1. Less th an 3 cubic yards of earthwork 2. Interior construction 3. Structures <= 120 sf 4. Replacement of utility service laterals 5. _Fences six feet tall ~r less 6. Decks <= 30" above grade Standards for Land Development Near Streams These standards would be applicable to non-exempt land development projects within the streamside review area, in order to preserve the stream’s riparian resources and protect improvements from damagercaused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion, Requirements: 1. All permitted improvements shall be located outside a slope stability protection area. The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater. Specifically, the following improvements shall not be allowed within the slope stability protection area: (a)Any structure larger than 120 square feet in area (including accessory structures) (b)Decks over 30" in height (c)Swimming pools (d)Parking lots Exceptions may be granted where a geotechfiical slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance and repair of the stream ban~ks would be accommodated. 2.All native riparian vegetation Within 100 feet from top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is recommended by a certified arborist as a result of a finding that the vegetation presents a threat to public health and safety (including an imminent danger of induced flooding) or that its removal will improve the riparian habitat. Mitigation planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is allowed to be removed. 3.Planting of non-native invasive plant species shall not be allowed. 4.Only native .riparian vegetation may be planted between the top of the banks of a stream. 5.Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located at least 25 feet from the top of bank of a stream. 6.Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. 7.. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. 8.All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the latest version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Nea~" Streams, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Considerations: 1.Maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream. 21 Avoid bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas, City of Palo Alto Page 5 Storm Water Quality Protection Section C.3 of the Countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidance to encourage the incorporation of storm water- friendly site design.measures into land development projects. Site design measui:es are features that reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces. The following items should be added to Chapter 18.88 as considerations to be made for all development projects, not just those near streams. Considerations: The following site design measures shall be included in site and building design wherever feasible in order to minimize storm water runoff and protect .and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site: 2. 3. 4. 5. Minimize land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a stormdrain or stream. Utilize minimum-impact street design standards (e.g. narrow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact parking lot design standards (e.g. parking space maximization within a given area, use of parking lot island and perimeter landscaping as a storm water drainage feature, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g. narrow width, "Hollywood" strips, shared driveways, permeable pavements, etc.). Cluster structures, pavement and other impervious surfaces on the development site. Route rain water leaders into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks orpop-up emitters, rather than directly to an underground storm drain: in order to promote filtration and infiltration of roof runoff. Utilize microdetention techniques (e.g. use of bioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site, Community Outreach Community input will be part of the Commission’s study session. Staff will then assess the need for further community meetings prior to bringing the draft ordinance to the Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW " Study Session review and comment does not require environmental review. NEXT STEPS Staff will prepare a draft ordinance encompassing sections .for landscape standards, wireless communication facilities, and water resources protection into PAMC 18.88 for review and City of Palo Alto Page d recommendation by the PTC. Upon recommendation from the PTC, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption in early 2007. ATTACHMENTS A. PAMC 18.88 Table of Contents B. Comprehensive Plan Policies C. Wireless Communications Submittal Checklist D. "Stream" Definition E. CMR: 321:05 COURTESY COPIES City Council ARB Luis Jaimes, Santa Clara Valley Water District Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Pdwers Board Pam Stumer, San Francisquito Watershed Council Trish Mulvey Joe Teresi, Public Works PREPARED BY:Clare Campbell, Planner Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer MANAGER REVIEWED BY:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams. Chief Planning and Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 7 Attachment F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes November 1, 2006 STUD Y SESSION: Zoning Ordinance Update: Study session to discuss changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address landscaping standards, requirements for wireless communications facilities and water resources protections. Mr. C. Williams: Yes, I would like to introduce Clare Campbell and we also have Joe Teresi and Julie Caporgno here. At your pleasure we can talk about the wireless section first and have questions or do the whole presentation together. I don’t know if Clare and Joe have it worked out that was; and then come back to each individual issue. Chair Holman: Would the Commission be just as happy to do the wireless first and then the creek? Yes, I think that is the wish of the Commission. Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening. Tonight we are presenting some new sections for Chapter 18.88. As you probably are aware this section is our catchall section of our zoning code. There are a variety of different uses and development standards that are listed within this chapter. It seems like the most appropriate location to add these additional sections that we are working on right now. As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update we are planning to reorganize this chapter and get it in a more user-friendly standard. We are going to reorganize and renumber and probably re-title the chapter. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 So the proposed sections for Chapter 18.88 cover the wireless communication facilities and the water resources protection. For the water resources protection there are going to be two sections for that the streamside development standards and the storm water quality protection standards as well. The wireless communication facilities we have had lots of projects come forward and the City has considered developing an ordinance for the telecommunications for quite some time. Prior to 20021 believe the City Attorney’s Office was working on a draft ordinance but priorities changed and that was never worked on since that time. The recommended changes that Staff is presenting tonight are basically trying to streamline the review process and to provide some development standards that are typically used throughout this industry. The current review process that wireless facilities currently fall under a Utility Facility and right now all of the zoning districts allow Utility Facilities with a conditional use permit. So it always requi.res a use permit and then we also require architectural {eview. Typically we do a Stafflevel review for these projects unless it is appealed to the Board for some reason. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Then for Planned Communities we have, unless it is written into the original uses that are permitted or conditional, we would need to do an amendment-for each time a project would come forward. We did that recently with 850 Webster. The proposed review process, what we are trying to do is for the more sensitive "projects, and typically the ones that I have listed here are ones that would be on residentially zoned parcels, sites that have a residential type use, or standalone facilities like the poles that we see, the tree poles and there is a light standard being proposed right now up at Foothill. These projects that may be potentially more sensitive we would want to recommend that there still be a use permit in place and do an architectural review for these projects. For projects that seem to be less controversial because they are attached to an existing building or an existing facility we are proposing just the architectural review for those projects. So a building mounted facility, a building mounted facility on a PC site which is currently not the way that it works right now, and this is something that we can discuss a little bit more, instead of doing an actual PC Amendment to allow that to happen, and a co-location project. Co-location is just adding a new carrier to a site that has an existing facility on that location. So these we are thinking have less impact and architectural review would be an inappropriate review process for these types of projects. One of the possible concerns raised by eliminating the use permit process I think it comes up with a lot ofthe neighbors is the noticing. They want to be aware of the project. So one of the methods of maybe trying to approach this concern is addressing it in the submittal checklist. We have a wireless facilities checklist that I think was attached to your Staff Report. We can add another item to that checklist stating that you would need to do a limited notification to the more immediate neighbors and I was recommending 150 feet for this requirement. This would let the immediate neighbors know what is being proposed so that way they would not feel that they were left out. Currently the Stafflevel architectural review does not require noticing for this type of project. For the development requirements we are proposing that the project Shall meet all of the standard zoning that they would need to comply with in each zoning district with the following exceptions. The way that it is worded is with the use permit and with the architectural review either both or one or the review process we can take a look at allowing these exceptions for these projects. One would be if it were a building mounted facility we can allow an additional 15 feet in height. Currently we actually do this as part of the height exceptions that we have written into 18.88 already. Standalone facilities can be up to 65 feet in height which kind of goes along with the 50 foot height limits that we have in place plus the additional 15 gives them the 65. Standalone facilities may encroach into the interior or street side setback or the rear setback. An example of this one where we had to do a DEE was on Los Robles in front of Blockbuster, E1 Camino and Los Robles, the tree that we did pretty recently about a year ago I think where we had to do a Design Enhancement Exception. Some of the other development requirements that we want to get down on paper so this way we can really try to enforce it strongly is the equipment cabinets and enclosure shell utilize the smallest footprints, the equipments cabinets and enclosures should be designed so they are the- most minimal height needed to accomplish their goals, the cabinets and all the equipment need to be screened from public view, the equipment enclosures have to be architecturally compatible Page 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 \40 41 42 43 44 45 1 with the existing site, building mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the 2 existing building, and all antennas shall have stealth design. The last. one, it may sound like it is 3 a lot to ask but typically with a lot of the technology today - and what that basically means is we 4 don’t want the ugly panels sitting out on its own.without some kind of enclosure because they 5 have the ray dome or they have these sheet coverings that you can put over that so that way it is not as obvious what it is. That kind of runs through what we are proposing for the development standards. Just to give you some other background, we did some research with some of the local Bay Area cities that have regulations in place. San Jose was the most common or basically is following the same type of thing where if it is a building mounted facility it was a permitted use and youjust had to go through a design review whereas if it was in certain residential zones or more sensitive areas then you had to do the use permit to get the project in place. So do you have any questions? ChairHolman: Clarifying questions? I think we have one member of the public. Commissioner Garber, I saw your hand first. Commissioner Garber: In your first set of definitions about what would require review is essentially any site that was in a residential area as opposed to abutting? Ms. Campbell: Correct. Commissioner Garber: Would that include then for instance a church that was surrounded by all residential uses? Ms. Campbell: The ones that we have seen or actually those churches have actually been in the R-1 zone so those would need the use permit. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Ms. Campbell: If it were the other way around depending upon the type of project they are proposing it would either be a use permit or just the architectural review. Commissioner Garber: Then the word ’stealth’ is that an industry-known name? Ms. Campbell: Yes it is. Commissioner Garber: It if foreign to me. Thank you, Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: I just had one question too about the stealth antenna in the residential area. How many are there in Palo Alto residential zones right now? Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Campbell: I would have to do a little bit more research to find out exactly how many we have. I know in recent years we have probably looked at least three or four. The church on Louis and Embarcadero there is an existing cell site within the cross there and there is a collocation proposal right now that is adding another facility for a different carrier in the same spot. So that is another one. The Manuela Drive that we just did six months ago or so that is another on in the R-1. There is a school that we. did on Middlefield that is an R-1. Those are the most recent ones I can think of. Mr. Larkin: This is a good opportunity, Clare mentioned the proposed collocation facility on Louis Road and I wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention that there is new legislation that will be effective January 1 of next year that will change how we ar~ able to regulate collocation facilities. I will introduce Amy Bartell who is a law clerk in our office, a recent graduate from Santa Clara Law School, has been helping us research that. She is here t.onight to answer questions if Commissioners have those but also to listen to see what Commissioners’ feedback is so that when we go to draft the language for the ordinance that we can make sure that we incorporate your comments as best we can while still complying with the new law that will be going into effect. Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Approximately how many applications do we get a year say over the course of the last five years? Ms. Campbell: We get approximately four to five probably a year. It seems like the number is increasing. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, and how do those breakdown? You have the sort of categorized as two different things, one would get a higher level of scrutiny and one would get a lower level of scrutiny. How do those breakdown between those two? Ms. Campbell: I would say it is probably about half and half. Commissioner Tuma: About half and half, okay, thanks. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I was going to ask a question regarding collocation. The ideal is to have a few cell sites as possible so c011ocation is something that is very desirable in this community. Can we make as part of condition of approval the fact that they have to allow for collocation? Mr. Larkin: I think that is something that we could do. It is not directly addressed by the new statute I am told but that is probably something that we could encourage, and require. It will be encouraged because one of the things that the new law does is restrict our ability to limit additions of new cell sites on collocation facilities. So once a collocation facility has been Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 established our ability to restrict new antennas on that facility is severely limited. So it will encourage applicants to seek out collocation facilities I would imagine. Vice-Chair Lippert: That was going to be my follow up to that which is if we were to actually make a condition of approval that you had to allow other wireless carriers to use your antenna site, collocation, can we then say we are going to restrict by radius so many feet having another cell site in proximity to that? Mr. Larkin: As long as we meet the Criteria in the federal code because the Telecommunications Act makes:difficult for us to restrict unless we can show that there is no gap in.service that would be.created. I think it is something we could do it would take some tweaking with the language but we could probably do something like that. Ms. Campbell: Ii’I could add to that too, a lot of times the carriers have their own specific requirements for their technology so it requires a certain amount of separation. So sometimes even if a pole may have the appropriate height that could allow maybe more than carrier and up to maybe three carriers if they don’t have enough physical separation between the antennas or the clearance when it shoots out even if the pole looks good and seems like it should be able to accommodate it may not be able to do it. Plus, the search rings too, if there are only certain areas that the need the service we may just have a pole sitting empty with just the one carrier because the other carriers may not need to go in that location. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, did you have another question? Commissioner Sandas: I did. Actually there are a couple of them. I am intrigued by the notion of the stealth concept. You mentioned the First Congregational Church at the coruerof Louis and Embarcadero. I don’t think I have actually seen the tower there. So could you describe in some ways how they would be placed stealthily? Ms. Campbell: That particular project is stealth within the crucifix. So the antennas are actually inside the crucifix and typically the building material that you use is fiberglass. So if you have fiberglass as the covering that will allow the radio frequencies to do their job. You can treat that surface and make it look like pretty much anything that we want them to make it look like. They do the brick finishing or stucco or they can make it look like wood. They can treat it and texturize that to make it fit with the building, So when I see these projects coming through those are the things that I am looking for to make the project lookgood and fit with the buildings. Commissioner Sandas: I have one more question and it is a little bit off the topic. I was thinking about those cable boxes, when we are talking about stealth design and realizing that they are not wireless but they are communication facilities. Where in the code do we have guidelines for those guys and if we don’t is there any way that we can incorporate some stealth language or concept with those at.this point? Mr. C. Williams: There are not specific guidelines for those. There is technically a design review process for those. So we just happen to have had a meeting yesterday with a number of different departments including someone from the legal department to talk about ways to better Page 5 1 2 3 4 5- 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 be sure that those are addressed through architectural review and other means, We are embarking on that process of inter-departmental communication to try to identify those way. That is definitely on our radar. It was a big subject at the ARB’s study session with the Council that they had a month or so ago. So we are pursuing trying to find something that maybe ultimately needs to go in the zoning code or the building code, Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: Just a follow up to Commissioner Sandas’ question, Is there reason that we, could not incorporate within this section those other telecommunications boxes? So instead of titling this ’wireless communications’ we might just call it ’telecommunications.’ Are those potentially interrelated and something that we should and could fold together? The guidelines that I am seeing seem like they might apply to those. Mr. C. Williams: I think that is something we can explore with the Attorney’s Office. They are obviously both communications, telecommunications I don’t know if the franchises or whatever, are different in ways that would govern them differently. Also the boxes are much more frequent and need to be in certain locations that are near streets and such and don’t have the same kind of flexibility to hide them in particular as the wireless but we will be glad to look into that and see if there is. Commissioner Burr:. I had another follow up question for the City Attorney. Don, you, alluded to this new law coming forward. Can you give us a little more sense of what is the essence of that new law and how it might impact our considerations tonight? Mr. Larkin: I will let Amy answer that question. Ms. Amy Bartell, Law Clerk: Basically the bill doesn’t address putting a single antenna anywhere at all. It is only talking about if you want to collocate an antenna on an existing wireless facility. Itsays that you have to approve collocation antennas if they are applying to put one on a wireless facility that has already got one. They use the language that you have to administratively approve it and it is taken out of the permitting process all together. Mr. C. Williams: IfI could just add back to Commissioner Burt’s last question before. Julie was pointing out one of the major constraints is that those boxes are typically in the right-of-way which is not governed by the Zoning Ordinance. So it would have to maybe be something we put in some of the Public Works sections of the Municipal Code. CommissionerBurt: One final quick question for Clare. I was trying to envision the different stealth concepts. We have the fake trees and then we have them embedded in crucifixes and other things. Are there other examples that you can think of?. Ms. Campbell: There could be face fagades on building. Like in the hotel they have the roof equipment rooms or those types of facilities and what they do is actually extend the wall out maybe another two feet or something, like that. So basically from your perspective it looks like it Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ¯ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 is the same room, the same space, but it is a faux wall that is a fiberglass wall and they can put the antennas behind that to shoot out do what they need to do. That is another example. At 850 Webster they have a fake chimney-looking structure and it kind of matches what is there already. So there are a variety of different ways. You can be really creative with getting these projects done. Chair Holman: I have a question about collocating. I know the lobby is very strong but is there no limitation? To this point in time it seems like - well, I know that we can’t address any safety issues or any safety perspective of the public or ours as well but]s there any limitation to the number of facilities that can be collocated? Is that being discussed? Is it just hands offfor the communities? What is being proposed? Mr. Larkin: I let Amy answer the specific question. I can tell you that one of the areas where we still have some level of discretion is in the Environmental Review and then the location of the collocation facility itself. The collocation facility is still subject to all of the standard permitting processes and all the discretionary review and also all of the environmental requirements. So we still have to do CEQA, it still might require an EIR or a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the facility itself. My understanding and Amy can correct me if I am wrong is that once the collocation facility has been approved the only limitation is the technological limitations of how many can you fit on the site. Chair Holman: Let me add this before you respond if there is any additional response to that, let’s say there is are continual applications for the same site and I don’t know if this would happen but perhaps let’s say there were five proposed collocations but they have a physical detrimental impact. Do we have .still no way-to say no to that as well? It has been stated that there needs to be sometimes some space between them so you can see there could be a lot of roof acne if you will no matter how well they are designed, it could look pretty strange. Ms. Bartell: The bill doesn’t say anything about an upper limit on how many they can put on a particular site. It does, like Don was saying, the permit for the new additional collocation antenna has to be completely consistent with all the requirements that went through for the original wireless facility. So I think going forward after the bill takes effect you can really only affect.this by if somebody wants to put in a whole new wireless facility. As far as new collocation antennas I don’t (hink there are a lot of options for the design review. Mr. Larkin: That would likely be something we would handle on the front end when the initial application comes forward and we do the initial design review we would be able to condition it on some of the physical and design criteria that would preclude roof acne, to use your phrase. Chair Holman: Just one other question. That has to do with we are talking about this now but time is going to pass and there are going to be improvements made to technologies and how this all gets done is going to change over time. What about abandoned antennas? Do we have any mechanism by which those have to be removed or how would Staff address that? Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Campbell: That is a standard that we could write into the code. We could write something in to say that if it is not used, I think I put it in as a condition of approval before that if the facility hasn’t been utilized for 12 months or something like that that the facility needs to be removed or taken down or something to that effect. We can include that language. Chair Holman: Okay, I think Vice-Chair Lippert had.a question. Vice-Chair Lippert.: Actually, Dan had a follow up first. Chair Holman: I’m sorry. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So in a circumstance where there is an existing area with an equipment box and there has been a defined, for instance in a PC where there is a defined, area for the equipment to exist and another carrier wants to collocate and their equipment does not fit in the footprint that has been outlined for the first one would that require an amendment to the PC if it was initially created as a part of the PC? Ms. Campbell: Aside from the collocation regulations affecting it currently right now we would require that they amend the PC unless in the original approval of that, like we did with 850 Webster, we just made it a permitted use and then you just need to come forward withadditional architectural review applications. We would review it based on that review. Mr. Larkin: We will need to look at how this new legislation would affect that practice. I don’t have an answer for you now. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert and then we have one member of the public Denny Petrosian. Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I have two questions and they are quite in opposite extremes. One has to do with roof screening. Currently not all roof screens are 15 feet high but we allow the extension of these antennas to go up to 15 feet high on a building. Would we require that the roof screening be extended to that point or be replaced? How would we administer that? Ms. Campbell: Typically what we wanted to do is look or fit with the existing building. So if everything on that rooftop is only ten feet above the roofline, if we are just going through the architectural review process and aesthetically as long as we typically say this is the highest you can go and you need to make it work with the existing height. If for some reason the additional height was feasible and aesthetically it works with the existing building then if they wanted to go through the process of increasing the height of the existing roof screens then they could do that as well as long as it looks good. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then the other extreme is out in the Open Space where we currently might not have trees. How are we handlingthe aesthetic issues? Ms. Campbell: Honestly, I don’t have a standard answer to that. We would have to look at each project as it comes forward just to see what is most appropriate. We don’t really have too many applications that are that far up. Typically they are by the major roads. We would just have to Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 look at that situation. If there isn’t a good place for thatantenna to go then it would no~ a feasible location. Chair Holman: Okay, I would like to go to the public. We have one card, Ms. Denny Petrosian and you will have five minutes. Ms. Denny Petrosian, Palo Alto: I would like you to not adopt the streamlining suggestions by the Staffby and large because I really am worried that this would not be in the hands of our elected representatives, the Council, the ARB and the Planning and Transportation Commission. I think it is just too important to have Staff be making these decisions. I think that too many horses are being let out of the barn. I think that what is important is we have~ no clue as you mentioned Ms. Holman, as to how this technology is going to develop and we need to keep all the control that we can. The citizens need to have as much access to this technology as possible. I think there is going to be deluge. If Staff approves a forest full of towers in Palo Alto then at that point it is too late. What can the Council and the Transportation Commission do about that? So please keep it in your hands and the Council’s hands. There is nothing that is not controversial about this. Radiation is radiation and it is proliferating everywhere. I know we can’t do the health effects argument at this time but please reserve your authority in case the FCC regulations should change and permit localities to decide on health issues. Please reserve that in the elected officials domain. In any case 150 feet notification for what is going on is really not adequate. It should be at least 500 feet because the effects of the radiation are projected out that far and even farther. A lot of this research is being done in Europe not here. Also Los Altos is kind of taking a bigger picture approach to this as.I understand. They are deciding on a high-speed connection with low radiation antennas. The big towers I have a feeling are going to become dinosaurs almost immediately. Why not start out with the micro-net which again is smaller and lower power with a fiber optic component connection there? Why not do that? Why not start out with what is really at everybody’s best iiaterest. You can decide on broad public benefit. That is something that is permitted for you to take into ¯ account. A lot oftheseinstatlations do not provide a broad public benefit they are just a benefit for a small group of people or one company or one church that gets $1,000 a month or whatever that is. What broad public benefit is being considered here? The health effects are pretty awful so I hope that you will be a lobbying group and the Council will be a lobbying group to permit localities into the health arena. The FCC adult exposure is 100 percent higher than allowed by Europe. It is 1,000 percent.higher than allowed by Switzerland and this is adult exposure. Children’s brains are much more sensitive and children’s bodies. The most vulnerable time for radiation effect is in cell division when cells are dividing and there is a lot of evidence that this already impacting children in a won’isome way. Again, the researchers are mostly not in this country. Page 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 So please take a big picture look at this. Don’t make decisions prematui:ely on how many big 2 cell towers and so forth. Step back and take a broad look about what you want Palo Alto to have. 3 just like we did with cable television. We didn’t allow every cable television company in the 4 world to come in and install stuff. We took a really good study of that and chose a very deliberate system. So I hope we will do that with wireless.. Please notify the public as much as possible about this again because yes, the health effects are the most worrisome but at some point we may be able to make decisions on that. Please don’t put the burden of appealing a Staff decision on the citizens. It is hard enough to appeal an ARB decision or a Transportation Commission decision or a Council decision it is not appropriate to put the burden on for appealing a Staff decision on this, .You have pretty broad leeway to make decision on technology under theComprehensive Plan and wireless is not in the Comprehensive Plan policy so take all of the jurisdiction that you have on that, please. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you, Staff, Ms. Petrosian brought up some questions about Los Altos and how they are dealing with this. Would you care to comment on that or what knowledge you have of that? Ms. Campbell: I am actually not aware of the current policy specifically addressing that. We can take a look at it and bring it back. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Another topic that Ms. Petrosian raised I am curious about and that is who is remunerated? For example if a church says yes you canput a tower in our steeple they are paid a fee by the cellular carrier for basically renting the space, is that correct? So whoever owns the property on which the cell tower is placed would be the one getting a fee. Ms. Campbell: That is typically.the arrangement. It is a lease agreement just like the Citywould get revenue for some of the flagpoles that we have. Even existing carriers like Sprint owns the flagpole and if they get another carrier to come in then they are renting out space on their flagpole. Commissioner Sandas: Right, subleasing it. Ms. Campbell: Yes, it is a lease agreement between the parties. Commissioner Sandas: Okay. This is a tax question so I don’t even know if it is relevant. Does the City benefit in any way from the placement of cell towers? Ms. Campbell: Not that I am aware of, only if it is on a City property. Chair Holman: Commissioners, shall we go around with comments then? Commissioner Tuma you look like you are ready. Page 10 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Tuma: The first comment that I have has to do with separating these into two separate processes. It sounds like the scope of the issue is a couple a year if there are four to five a year that come before us there may be a couple a year that dividing it this way would go under a more streamlined process. As you are probably becoming aware and you will be more over time this is always going to be an issue for me, taking the public out of the process is something that I don’t - there are occasions when I think it is valuable, helpful, and maybe I am just not seeing the scope of the issue here but it doesn’t seem to me that that’s something that we would want to do from a policy perspective. I understand that sometimes these are a little bit more difficult, I understand people raise issues that can’t really impact the decision, but for the policy that seems to be going behind this is to reduce the workload when it is not necessary. This isn’t resonating with me. The other thing is if we were to divide it I would like to see some of these expanded a little bit. For example it says, "proposed on a residentially zoned parcel," I think Commissioner Garber alluded to this but it should be, "or abutting a residential," some thing that is going to impact residences or within 150 feet is sort of expanding the scope: A similar comment with respect to the range of the notice, 150 feet seems short to me. I don’t know what the right number is but it just seems a little bit small. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: Curtis, this seems like we might be walking into a little bit of a landmine here in that we have almost no participation from the public on the broad policy issue whereas we have had very extensive participation by thepublic when we would have specific cell towers located. My sense is that the public isn’t really aware that these changes are being considered tonight. It is hard to get the word out. We all know that people become engaged when something is happening very adjacent to them and that is what gets their attention. We can put this in the Weekly and very few people might respond nevertheless we have seen times where the Commission Will go through and hear and consider from the Staff and the members of the public who are aware of it and then it gets up to City Council and suddenly a storm erupts. I am just apprehensive that something like that might be occurring despite everyone’s best intentions to have this be an open publicly noticed process. So I don’t know what to do about that but I do ¯ have that concern. Any thoughts on it? Mr. C. Williams: We will have to check and see who all we sent notice to but I do think we could do an expanded notice before we come back to you with anything and see and maybe offer a time to meet with people if there does seem to be a level of interest there that we are not capturing. Typically on our study sessions we have sent our notice out to our ’friends of zoning list.’ Ms, Campbell: Zariah said that she did send to the ’friends of zoning list.’ Mr, C. Williams: Which is iike 1,000 people or something like that. We have also now got better access to PAN and some other folks so w,e can make sure that they know as well and they get it out to all of their membership and do some other things. Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 .28 29 30 31 32 33. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Our history of when the public engages at a late stage isn’t necessarily anyone’s fault it is not Staff’ fault or the public’s fault it is just a reality that it sometimes takes awhile for an issue to percolate and somehow we have to try and figure out how to engage everyone as early in the process as possible. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber to be followed by Commissioner Sandas if that is agreeable. Commissioner Garber: A couple of comments. I would like to support Commissioner Burt’s comments relative to the public and the need to know there. In general I don’t have much problem with the way that Staff has proposed the organization into the two parts. Although, Commissioner Tuma’s points are well taken in that this isn’t going to be something that takes up a lot of Staff’s time presumably over the course of a year, although that is presumptuous of me to say and for you-to tell me. So that said, conceptually I don’t have a problem with the tw0-parted approach. It makes perfect sense to me that on a topic that cities in general have very little say about other than the aesthetic impacts that trying to focus inon the portions, the zones, that are going to have the largest potential impacts and creating notice, etc. around those and streamlining the other ones makes a lot of sense to me especially when we talk about issues of collocation because the technologies have already been reviewed, all the issues about alternative sites have already been reviewed, all of the issues bf adjacencies, etc., have already been reviewed so why should we be dragging the public through that yet again? The only risk there is that if technology changes dramatically. Presumably I don’t want the City to think of itself trying to fill a gap that the FCC should be filling because that is an awful big hole to fill. Yet, if there is some eminent danger then obviously we should be. I am very curious about the larger question of are there other technologies out there, I am certainly not aware of them, that are potentially less invasive or potentially perceived to be tess invasive but they may have other impacts as well to create additional network to them, to create additional technologies, there may be many other costs that I simply don’t know about but the larger question is an interesting one if there are other technologies out’there that Los Altos or some other communities have it would be worth knowing that if for no other reason it would be a technology that we haven’t then zoned for. Commissioner Sandas: One thing that I wanted to talk about a little bit is I think that it is kind of tricky that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 according to that a city can’t deny a project based on potential environmental or health risks due to the radio frequency emissions as long as the facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission regulations regarding such emission. Well, I don’t know what those guidelines are. I don’t know what the Act says. I think one of the things that I heard Ms. Petrosian say was.that there are noted health risks. I think that if that is the case or according to the FCC maybe that is not the case but it is not up to us, I know that. It is not up to the City to do that but I think it might be helpful in our outreach to maybe address what the FCC regulation is and how it fits in with what we are allowed to do or we are not. Page 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert.1 2 3 Vice-Chair Lipped: I see this whole.thing a little bit differently and what I see is the 4 proliferation of antennas or the potential proliferation of antennas. The issue is how do we really 5 minimize the impact of all of these cell towers and at the same time establish a network in which 6 we get adequate coverage in the city. I think that is really what the issue is here. I know we are 7 writing an ordinance as to how to review these projects but I think with a little more proactivity 8 and looking at where these current cell sites are located we might be able to actually generate 9 some sort of a plan that says we have some cell sites here and collocation and consolidation is 10 potentially a good thing and would prevent us from putting in one cell tower next to another cell tower and visible from another cell tower. In addition to that Ithink we have the potential of opening up the whole thing with maybe working with the City of Palo Alto Utilities to identify certain city sites which we would make available to, I want to use the word vendors but they are not they are carriers, that would sites that would be ultimately more desirable and take it out of the private domain and have them disguised as trees or church steeples or even just behind roof screens, which would be even more problematic I think. So I just have a slightly different take on this than other people. I do see that the roof screen issue is. going to be problematic and I would really hate to see a roof screen at a certain height that is covering the building equipment all of a sudden jarringly leap up to cover or obscure a cell antenna. I think that might be problematic or raising a roof screen up and making it look top-heavy on top of a building like a certain medical facility not located far from here has roof screens that go up pretty high. I still don’t like the whole notion of disguising these cell poles as trees. I don’t think that they work particularly well. I think that there is one other aspect that is not covered here which is that as we move closer and closer towards cell sites as being parts of essential services they are going to need backup generators. The carriers are going to say well, we require .a backup generator to be part of this cell site and we deem that as being part of the whole infrastructure that is there and I think that that’s going to be problematic in terms of screening and obscuring that. So those are basically my comments. I don’t have much more to add to that. Chair I-Iolman: I would associate myself with the comments of Commissioners Tuma and Burt. While I can appreciate absolutely that any time savings on the part of Staff is in a way a public good of its own I also think that as we, no pun intended here, underground some of these processes that without intention it effects actually the public trust. While there is no negative finding that the City can make because of the Telecommunications Act I still think the public is better and the city is overall better served if the public has this notification. Again, I appreciate why Staff would want to streamline this but I think the measured gain is not worth the cost of that. I also would like to go back to Commissioner Sandas’ comments earlier about the boxes on the ground and while that is a Public Works issue because they are usually in the public right-of-way if we could have any look-see at what that would be. Als0, the checklist wasn’t included here so when it comes back if we could get the checklist. Is it? I totally overlooked it then. I am sorry, my apologies. Page 13 1 2 3. 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39¯40 41 42 44 45 46 Then also having to do with the collocation, I am taking this to an extreme but I don’t know that it couldn’t happen. If there is no limitation on how many antennas could be put on the same site and we are going to screen all of them I SOl~ of in my mind’s eye could see that a 50 foot building suddenly has the appearances of a 65 foot building, which is sort of what Commissioner Lippert was referring to but he was referring to it as a top-heavy building. So I think those are my comments. IfI didn’t say I am also interested in how Los Altos might be handling this in some other fashion. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burr: Well, just a few comments. One I would concur with Commissioner Tuma’s concern that we perhaps should have a greater radius of notification. Second, I am intrigued by Commissioner Lippert’s concepts on the collocation although I can see that there can be certain pros and cons to it. Maybe what we need to look at is trying to describe some guidelines about those sites where collocation is really, a good idea and those where we may have antennas already and collocation, adding more antennas to the same site, may not be such a good idea after all. So maybe we can try to differentiate and have some guidelines on preferable sites for collocation. Then finally as far as the concept of dividing this between those approvals that would be ministerial and those that would go through, a full conditional use permit and Architectural Review Board process I am impressed that the development standards for ministerial approval are more clear and more well defined and more stringent I believe than what we have previously had as standards. So on the one hand we are moving to a more streamline process but it is a more rigid streamline process where we have clear guidelines that are less discretionary. I remember a lot of times where previous Commissions had gone’back and forth and debated subjectively well, I don’t think that is so bad and I kind of like it and another Commissioner says well, I think it is terrible. I think that we have something here that begins to attempt to define what is good. We may still have some tweaking going on but I think it is pointed in the right direction and my gut feeling is that it is close to on target in terms ofwhat sorts of restrictions we want to guard the aesthetic aspects of these approvals. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I would just like to thank Commissioners for their discussion. I wanted to add one more thing to it and it is really per the discussion for them as opposed to specifically the Staff. I wanted to come back to my concern that surrounds the topic of public notice specifically here. The Commission and the Commission’s meetings are one of the few times that the public.can become educated on what roles are, what regulationsare, the limitations of the Commission to have control over the various issues that are in front of it. Because of that and because it is in this setting it often raised the expectations, of the public that they can actually effect issues in waysthat rules, regulations, and other laws will not allow. So I am really coming back to one of the comments that Commissioner Sandas made which was that the educational piece is critical here. The more education that can occur outside of these chambers will set the right expectations for what it is these chambers Can actually officiate on. .. Chair Holman: Well stated. Staft2 Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. C. Williams: I was just going to suggest that it is five after seven and we were going to try to keep this whole study session to an hour and a half. I think the other item is probably a bigger one than this one for your discussion. So we do have a good sense. These are very.good comments. We have some work to do and we appreciate that input and we will come back to you with some changes and some more information after Mr. Lippert’s comments. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert says he has a burning question. Vice-Chair Lippert: On page five, point three at the top of the page, developing requiring a CUP in the R-1 zone. Do we have the ability to prohibit cell towers in R-1 completely? Mr. Larkin: A limited ability. If the career could show a gap our ability would be somewhat limited to preclude a site if it was required in the R-1 to fill that gap. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Chair Holman: Okay, so we will move on to .the creek discussion. Would Staff like to make a presentation? Mr. Joe Teresi, Public Works Engineer: Good evening, I am here this evening to talk to you about two separate but related items. One we are calling the Extreme Side Development Standards. They have come out of a group process known as the Santa Clara Valley Water ¯ Resources Protection Collaborative which I will talk about a little bit more in a moment and the second are the measures for storm water quality protection which come out of the storm water permit that is issued to the City by the Regional Board to discharge our storm water .into the creeks. I wanted to give you a little bit more background on what the Water Resources Protection Collaborative is all about. Currently the way the regulations work is that any time an application is doing work within 50 feet of a stream under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District then the applicants are required to obtain a permit from the district. Unfortunately that doesn’t always happen. There is a not a real good way for us to make sure that that happens so sometimes there are gaps when things aren’t reviewed properly. Secondly, the water district doesn’t really have any land use .powers so sometimes things that they .want are at odds with the cities’ rules. Back a few years ago the water district actually wanted to expand their sphere of influence to say that instead of 50 feet they wanted to go 150 feet. When the cities caught wind of that they didn’t like it much. They ¯thought it was too broad so they agreed to work together in this collaborative process to work together to come up with a set of goals and policies that both the cities and the county and the water district could all agree upon but it would keep the land use powers in the hands of the cities and have less in the water district. Yet if everyone agreed to the same set of guidelines then things would be done in a consistent manner throughout the county. So over the last few years the citiesand the water district and the County of Santa Clara and environmental groups, homeowners groups, other stakeholders worked together to come up with a set of guidelines and standards for land uses near streams. The plan is now that each city or agency is coming back to its governing board asking them to adopt either policies or ordinances or whatever mechanism is appropriate to regulate these land uses near streams and Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the water district in the future is only going to require permits if an applicant is actually a working within a right~of-way or easement owned by the district and all the other adjacent land uses are going to be regulated by the city or county as the case may be. So let me jus.tgo through quickly some of the materials. First of all there would be an establishment of what is called a Streamside Review Area and this is kind of the first-net that would capture the parcels that would be subject to these requirements. It would include all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet of a top of bank of a stream. At this point the guidelines and standards are established but each city and each agency is going to adopt their own specific sets of rules, they might be slightly different but they are all based onthesame principles. For us right now we are recommending at least as a starting point to only regulate development in the non-R-1 zone except for certain applications in the R-1 zone that do require a discretionary review, those would also be captured by this. There are certain things that by their nature aren’t permitted typically so these kinds of activities are going to be exempted from the standards. They are minor things that again don’t typicaliy require any kind of a permit from the City. As far as what the guidelines say we have kind of broken it into two parts. The first part is things that would be implemented as requirements and the second group is things that would just be things that would be considerations or recommendation. So within the requirements realm there is the concept of establishing a slope stability protection area. The problem here that we are trying to address is that in some cases folks build things too close to the top of the bank of a stream and streams have a tendency to change and move as the banks erode. Then what happens is if someone builds too close to that top of bank and the bank starts to erode then there is all of a sudden a need to harden that bank with some kind of either concrete or some kind of a wall or rock or something. So in order to avoid that this idea would be to set things back away from that top of bank so that even if the bank did move somewhat it wouldn’t put these structures and things like pools, large decks or parking lots at risk since they would be set back away from the top of bank. Another concept is management of the vegetation along streams. We want to encourage the retention of native riparian vegetation along these streams and to preventthe planting ofinvasive species, which tend to spread and crowd out and take over from the native vegetation. Then lastly there are a number of things that address things like loading docks and trash enclosures and lighting and things that you want to keep away from the streams in order to minimize their impact. Lastly there is kind of a general reference to this user manual for the guidelines and standards that you were given a link to and I hope some of you had a chance to take a look at it. It is the product of this three-year process that was gone through to identify the kinds of things we want to see put in place in order to protect these stream resources. Then there were also a couple of considerations that were listed that aren’t as prescriptive but are more general concepts about right things to do to minimize impacts to the streams. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Now, the second set of considerations is broader. In our Storm Water Discharge Permit there is a requirement that is something that is actually overdue for us, we should have done this awhi-le back but we are just now getting around to it. It requires the City to look at its design standards to look for ways to encourage site design measures that help to both reduce storm water runoff and protect the quality of that runoff. So these are all sets of general concepts that we would like to add to Section 18.88 so that applicants consider each of these when they are putting their projects together. They are all rather general. They aren’t thekind of things that you dan put into an absolute requirement. They are more concepts that need to be thought of as the applicant is going through the design process. I won’t go through them at this point in the interest of time. I think with that I will just open it up for your questions. Mr. C. Willi£ms: Madam Chair, could I ask Joe, maybe if you could explain to them what requirement we do have right now. They probably don’t understand what someone has to do from a storm water standpoint that comes through right now under our existing regulations and the review of a [swip] and when that threshold is and that kind of thing. Mr. Teresi: Okay. We do have a chapter in the Municipal Code, Chapter 16.11 that regulates development as far as its impacts on storm water. Currently there is a regulation in place that says that if a project is going to create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface or hardscape then they have to implement storm water treatment measures that will treat that water either through filtration or infiltration or other means to treat the water before it is discharged into the storm drain system. Then also typically on most construction projects they are also required to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan which covers the temporary impacts that occur during construction and things to keep sediment on the site and out of the storm drains and other materials in place. Chair Holman: Okay, Commissioners I have no cards from members of the public. So do Commissioners have questions for Staff?. Commissioner Burt. Okay, Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: So help me with a scenario here just so I can try and understand some of the impacts. Right now, ifI build a building that is adjacent to a stream, as opposed to abutting, that is more than 50 feet from the top of the stream bank the permit that I would need to get would be from the city but not from the county? Mr. Teresi: Yes, it is not the county it is the water district but yes. If it is at least 50 feet way from the top of bank then no permit is required at this point from the water district. Commissioner Garber: That would still be the case if this were adopted. Mr. Teresi: Yes because under this new set of rules you would only need a permit from the water district if you were working within the right-of-way or an easement that they have over the property. Commissioner Garber: Which would be within the 50 feet? ¯ Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Teresi: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Okay, So in. a circumstance, once again let me just follow through here, where that same building has to run a sewage line across or under that creek that sewage line would then need to go through the county but the city would not see that, Is that true? Mr. Teresi: I am not sure that there is a- I don’t know. He is asking is there any kind of a city permit required for installation of a utility. Commissioner Garber: Over or under a creek. Mr. Teresi: Over or under a creek, i don’t know. Mr. Larkin: I don’t think there is a specific city permit for under the creek but under current water district ordinance you would need one. Commissioner Garber: I guess what I am hearing though is that there would be no change if there this was adopted. This doesn’t address that sort of circumstance. You are reporting this is an agreement that the City has come to with its adjacent communities and with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and it doesn’t really change the permitting situation that is in place right now, Mr. Teresi: I wouldn’t say that. Commissioner Garber: Does it condition that permitting th~it is existing now? Is that the real impact there? Ms. Campbell: When We put this into 18.88 all of the projects that are not in the R-1 zone would need to comply with all of the regulations. For the storm water we are putting them as considerations. So unless we actually put them in as solid conditions of approval for the projects = they are considerations so we would condition them as part of the project approval we can write those in conditions. In the R-1 zone there are a few circumstances listed, Home Improvement Exception, Varian, Individual Review for a new two story home, or Individual Review if you are adding a second story and changing the footprint.of the first floor then you would need to comply with the other regulations for the near creek regulations. So does that help? Mr. Teresi: Maybe ifI give an example it might illustrate the change. Under the current rules let’s say that someone wants to build an accessory structure in the rear setback of the property and it is essentially right up to the creek. That is allowable to my understanding under the City’s zoning rules but since they are working within 50 feet of a creek they would have to go to the Santa Clara Valley Water District to get a permit. Now the water district would say we don’t think that’s a good idea but they don’t have land use powers so since that accessory structure meets the City’s zoning rules in some cases it gets built anyway because the water district doesn’t have any power to stop it. Under these new rules we would adopt a rule that says no Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 accessory structures shall be within 20 feet of the bank and we have the authority to enforce it so that building would not get built. Commissioner Garber:. Great, thank you. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: San Francisquito Creek is not really operated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District, That is under the purview of the Joint Powers Board is that correct? Mr. Teresi: All the creeks over a certain size are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District including San Francisquito. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. That wasn’t clear. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I just wonder if Staff could review, On page four we have the items for discretionary review which have to do with a house that is under IR review, a new second story home or a second story addition or a variance or an HIE. If we have a new single story structure could Staff review what restrictions we have that govern the construction of just a regular single story structure? Then the other question I have is could you briefly review the relationship between or the comparison I should say between the criteria that we have here and the Comp Plan guidelines on str’eamside setbacks and compatibility? Ms. Campbel!: I wilI answer the first part of that. Right now if a project were to come forward with a single story single farriily home in the R-1 zone they would not be subject to these new standards. It is only if they had to go through a discretionary process then they would be subject to .the new regulations. Commissioner Burr: Can I ask then is there a reason that we are not including regular single story homes in the context of these guidelines and constraints? Ms. Julie Caporgno, Advance Plarming Manager: This was first discussed at the collaborative, The various cities had a lot of concern for requiring it for all single:family development. So what was decided was that cities did not have to incorporate these requirements for properties under 10,000 square feet. Palo Alto has decided that since we.have discretionary review for these various types of projects that were identified in the StaffReport we wanted to incorporate them for those types but for properties that just came in through the building permit process we wouldn’t require it at least as far as this collaborative process will go. In the future given the Comprehensive Plan policies we may comeback and the Council may direct us when they hear this that they want us to come back and expand that but as far as the collaborative process we didn’t want to include it. In addition to what the requirements are we are making a commitment as far as the collaborative process that we will be monitoring this and having a fairly extensive reporting program for the collaborative so we didn’t want to get bogged down in a lot of Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34¯35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 bureaucracy for those types of projects also. So if the City elects to do that it would be done independently and then we wouldn’t have this collaborative relationship. Mr. Teresi: That being said I want to add as well that the collaborative is also planning to do outreach to R-1 single-family homeowners to at least encourage these same kinds of things even if they are not in fact enforceable. We certainly want to promote the same concepts and plan to put out some educational outreach materials that will help in that regard. Commissioner Burt: It is my recollection that our Comp Plan language may go beyond the restrictions of the collaborative process although our Comp Plan language is conceptual in nature and this is more specific. So I had assumed as this was coming forward it was to fulfill two objectives. One was the countywide collaborative process and ’at the same time be the vehicle to implement that aspect of our Comp Plan as it pertained to the Zoning Ordinance Update on creek side setbacks. It sounds like to not muddy the waters we are separating these two for right now if that is the case when would we see that the aspects of our Comp Plan come forward in our ZOU process? Ms. Caporgno: Curtis may want to add to this but I think some time ago the ZOU team had made the decision given the heavy workload that we needed to accomplish the ZOU even before we decided to streamline the ZOU so that we could proceed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that that was one of the items that was going to be done kind of in phase two, the streamside ZOU work, but we knew then that we had this co!laborative work that had to be done. We at one point weren’t even going to address the collaborative work for single family homes, we were considering not addressing the collaborative work for single family homes and for the ZOU we Were going to try to work it through the Individual Review guidelines. Then we felt it wouldn’t be rigid or stringent enough so then we decided to use the ZOU process to accomplish . that. I think for some time now it has been understood that we wouldn’t be able to accomplish the Comp Plan direction through the ZOU process. ¯ . Mr. C. Williams: Actually I think that we are waiting for the outcome of this process to plug in here. So if there is a desire to go beyond this again I do think it probably would take more time to do that and a lot more analysis to do like 100 feet instead of 50 feet or that kind of thing, So I think there has been a thorough process here with the collaborative to come to some recommendations and we consider that substantively we are addressing most of what is in the Comp Plan but it might not go quite as far as the Comp Plan policy does go, Commissioner Burr: If I might make a recommendation as a follow up to this study session recognizing that it may not be feasible to integrate our Comp Plan objectives on streamside setbacks with this collaborative process would Staff just take a look at the relevant elements of the Comp Plan and see if there are ones that could be easily folded into this without creating significant workload and without opening abig can of worms.- If there are ones that could be naturally and easily folded in maybe we could do that. - Paula is mentioning that probably the aspects that are mentioned in page eight of Attachment B probably covers all of that. So I take your word that it would add to the workload to attempt to Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 fully implement the Comp Plan objectives but if there are some that we could fold in here and now maybe that would be a good idea. Ms. Caporgno: I think that we could probably work with all of them except for Program N-7 that is the one With the 100 foot setback and that was the one basically that I was referring to. I think that has been for some time understood that we weren’t goingto be able to achieve that through the ZOU or that wasn’t coming out the water collaborative. Chair Holman: Vice Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to the construction process during a project there are certain impacts on a creek area. What about the adoption or implementation of say Cal Trans best management practices under the construction portion of any project? Mr. Teresi: We already have fairly rigorous requirements in our grading ordinance, which is in Chapter 16.28, that talk about sediment control and erosion control during construction. So we do have a good set of tools already in place in the code to enforce those kinds of measures. Vice-Chair Lippert: What about going further than that say with regard to things like temporary facilities, port-a-potties, you shouldn’t locate those in the setback area. With regard to dumping of concrete, the concrete truck shows up they are going to pour the foundation or do whatever concrete work there is and then they are going to dump whatever it is. Well, .you don’t want that dumped in that setback area. When they go to wash out the concrete truck you don’t want that stuffrurming downhill and perhaps into the creek bed area. So I think it might be worthwhile looking at what CalTrans standards are and maybe adopting some of those if not all of them. Mr. Larkin: I would just go one bitter in saying that there already are best management practices that have been adopted regionally that I think go beyond Cal Trans requirements. I am looking for the code section and I haven’t found it yet but I know it is in here because I’ve been involved in it. We have adopted those best management practices and we may be able to firm up the language but that wouldn’t be as part of the ZOU that would be part of our storm water ordinance. Chair Holman: On page five of the Staff Report, number five under Standards for Land Development Near Streams. I am curious why 25 feet fi:omthe top of the bank as opposed to 50 and especially when you consider what is being mentioned there or referenced there is loading ¯ docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas in particular, stationary noise producing mechanical equipment. Why 25 and not 50 feet? Mr. Teresi: I think in the guidelines and standards it simply says near and we chose that as a starting point but if you feel that that’s too short of a distance we could certainly look at increasing that. Chair Holman: Personally I would feel much more ’comfortable with 50 at a minimum. Then the considerations, maximize the distance for nighttime lighting in a riparian corridor and avoiding Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 bright colors and glossy or glare producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparians. Why considerations as opposed to requirements? Mr. Teresi: I think it isbecause those are hard to put into enforceable terms. They are more relative in nature. Ms. Caporgno: I was going to say something similar. I think instead of using the word ’considerations’ we probably should be calling these guidelines similar to what we are doing with the performance standards where we have the requirements and then we have the guidelines. Considerations does make it sound like it is something you can consider and dismiss. I think the guidelines indicate we want this to occur but we just don’t have any sort of quantification and real rigid regulation so that is why they are described more as in concept. Chair Holman: If they become guidelines as opposed to requirements, considerations I agree with you I think is a little too wafflely. It would seem to me also that the language could be improved such that we have Open Space requirements that talk about compatibility and I thi.’nk that kind of language would be an improvement perhaps on what is here, with all due respect. Then a quick comment about R-1 and structures less than 120 square feet could be within the 50- foot and I can think of a project that came to us once and was going to allow an accessory building of 120 feet in that setback. I guess what is troubling about that is because once it is built and people start living there and time passes there is an absence of thought thdt that is a 120 square foot accessory building and what the intention is and other things get put there too. So I guess I am not keen on allowing that one or make iteven smaller or something of that nature. I’d like to see if other Commissioners have comments about that. Then going to storm water quality protection again, same thing with considerations. Partly may question was referenced I guess but in looking at storm water quality protection there are a number of things here that talk about minimizing the amount of impervious surface, and minimizing land disturbance, route rainwater leaders into landscaped areas, minimize change to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. From a different perspective we looked at basement when we were doing the Zoning Ordinance Update. As one of the Commissioners last week mentioned where you have basements now there used to be in most occasions there was earth which absorbed water. So I am seeing a real inconsistency with the number and size of underground development that we have and how that satisfies these now considerations. So maybe Staff would like to take those as a lump sum and respond to that as opposed to my going on ad nauseam on each point or not. Mr. Teresi: I understand what you are saying but I guess considering the difference between a bui!ding on a site and a building of the same size with a basement I am not sure that the imperviousness is any different. You are still covering a certain percentage of the site and whether or not it has a basement under it that part of the site is not going to be able to absorb rainfall runoff. So I guess I am a little unclear on your point. Chair Holman: My non-engineer perspective is that if you have more earth on a site the site itself even if the lot coverage is the same that the site would be able to absorb more water. If Page 22 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. 42 43 44 45 there is a basement that is fully developed to the maximum as opposed to, to use an example, a half-basement it seems to me like there could be a lot more water retained onsite than sent offsite during rainy season. Commissioner Sandas did you have a question? Commissioner Sandas: I didn’t have a question I have some comments. I just wanted to follow up to what you said. I am just thinking in term of R-1 at the moment. We-try to keep the water out from underneath our house and from going into the dirt so I am not sure what the ratio is to keep the foundation secure. So I am not sure what the ratio is or the difference would be between the basemented house and a house that has drainage that goes out and around it to avoid getting the foundation wet. Do you see what I am saying? Chair Holman: I do and at the risk of this becoming conversational I guess we all of course try to keep water away from our foundations. I think it is the depth of the basement that exacerbates the problem again in my non-engineer perspective that is what I am referencing. Commissioner Sandas: Actually, I just wanted to finish up with a couple of points that I wanted to mention. One is the Standards of Land Development near Streams the requirements three and four I want to say hooray. Planting of normative invasive plant species shall not be allowed and or~ly native riparian vegetation may be planted - terrific. I am really glad that we are doing that. I just wanted to echo Chair Holman’s concern about the loading docks and trash enclosures, etc. at only 25 feet. That was a question that I had earlier that I completely neglected to ask. I also wanted to echo Commissioner Holman’s concerns about the Storm Water Quality Protection where we have considerations. If the word ’guidelines’ makes them stronger I would like to ask that you Would consider that. Thanks. Chair Holman: Seeing no other questions from Commissioners I dohave one member of the public who has just submitted a card, Trish Mullvey. Thank you and you will have five minutes. Ms. Trish Mullvey, Palo Alto: Thank you and I don’t expect to need that long. I live here in Palo Alto and I_have had the privilege of serving as one of the Environmental Community Representatives on the collaborative. I want to thank Joe and Julie for the lots of effort that they have put into getting us this far. There are just a couple of points that I want to make. First the water district has as of their meeting last Tuesday adopting their ordinance rescinding in its entirety their old ordinance that was adopted in 1983 effective February 28, 2007. So there is a timeline and timetable that Staff is working towards having your ordinances or whatever in place by then. Second I serve on the Outreach Materials Workgroup of the collaborative so we are developing the kinds of materials that Staffhas described for a streamside property owner outreach. The collaborative is a virtual organization so any use of those materials is going to be up to the member agencies. It is not like the collaborative is going to do a mailing to Palo Alto streamside Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 property owners. ’ So that will be something we will be working with Staff and with the water district on. Lastly, I wanted to go back to a point that was made by Cheryl at the beginning of your earlier discussion and that is that the section of the ordinance that you are dealing with is your catchall section. So my request is to figure out how to do the right materials for applicants when they come in at the beginning of your process to know that this hidden obscure catchall section applies to them. One of the biggest concerns we have had over time is there hasn’t even been a requirement that if there is a stream on your property that you show it on the plan when you bring it in. Sometimes Staff hasn’t even known that it is creek side. They are working now and we have GIS capability so your parcel number or your address will trigger that flag. So as I say my request is that you figure out how to make sure that the very beginning applicants know so they can plan what they need to do to be good creek stewards. I also want to offer sinceI am a resident if I can be helpful to you or to Staff as you are working through this with the community I appreciate though I am not on your 1,000 friends of Planning Commission notices Staff was very kind to make sure I knew about tonight. I am glad to be here and I really wanted to say thank you for the interest and concerns I have heard you express. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you for coming. I think you have experienced the new and improved Staff communications thanks especially to Mr. Williams. Any other questions or comments? I have one more if no One else does. Vice-chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I appreciate the work that Staffhas done along with Public. Works on this. I think it is a really good example of how the two departments can work together and also you have another entity that you have to deal with as well. My only caution here or the concern that I have is that we do have this riparian corridor, this creek bed area,.the one thing I would want to be very careful about is that I don’t want these regulations to extendwhat that corridor is. The whole purpose here is to protect the corridor and even though the corridor may over time change and widen, etc., it hasn’t widened. So I would just want to make sure that theprotections that we put in place aren’t putting undue regulations or burdens on property owners. That is really my biggest concern here. Ultimately if you look at the big pictare these streams they flow down to the Baylands and the idea is that we don’t want this garbage or junk or whatever or this impact that is on that corridor and a potential natural resource to again impact that and fl0w down to the bay. So again I don’t want it to preclude development I just want it to just sort of protect what is there. Chair Holman: I guess I am certainly pleased with the definition of stream because one ofthe things that I have commented about in the past is if we have a naturalized stream but then something else that has been concreted over time that we might at some point in time decide that it should be re-naturalized. So I am very happy with the definition of stream as I read it. There is a bit of an interface here also between the trees discussion that we had previously and water retention and purification and this. We haven’t brought that up yet this evening. So I am Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 rather hoping that wheia this comes back that we will have Mr. Dockter here as well so we can have that coordinated discussion. It looks like we will. At one point I wanted to make, and I won’t look for an answer for it, it is just a point I will make briefly. A couple of times, one time fairly recently, I had a brief discussion with Staff about development that happens at times under sidewalks and alleys and streets and that again could impact water quality, displacement, and also affects trees and that is where the interface also comes up with trees. So I know that is Public Works but also I think it is something we Ought to .take a look at at the Commission and see how that does or doesn’t happen. So given that I see no other comments by Commissioners. I am sorry Commissioner Garber I apologize. Commissioner Garber: I was just going to simply sum up. I think most of the points have been adequately covered. I agree with a number of the things and I will just emphasize the ones that I want to come back to. The 25 feet to 50 feet in general in my mind the 50 feet ideally is something that really has no development and is really a part of the corridor as opposed to having other things sort of begin to impinge on that. I think the image that Commissioner Lippert begins to paint about that corridor is sort of the right one and the one that Chair Holman has also commented on. A comment aboUt the guidelines, I think it’s great. Below grade issues I think those are fairly involved ones that have a lot to do with local conditions of what the soils are, and how they act, etc. It would take somebody that is smarter than I to understand just what that dynamic is from surface area to volume underneath. If the site plan issue is a real one where the site plans don’t have to show the streams then we should plug that hole quickly. Then I think the interface with landscaping is perfect. Thank you. Chair Holman: Have I cut anyone else off or has everyone had their say? I think that does complete this item then. Thank you. We will just take a really brief five-minute break before we take up item number two and we will come back with Commissioner Keller. Page 25 ATTACHMENT G PLANNING &TRANSPOR TA TION 1DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: DATE: Whitney McNair, Contract Plarmer Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist October 25, 2006 DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update: Study Session Regarding Landscape Standards RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment on possible changes to the Zoning Ordinance to implement landscaping requirements. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design and Natural Environment Chapters include numerous programs regarding landscaping. Several of these programs include consideration of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. A complete list of these Comprehensive Plan.Programs is included in Attachment A. Most of the City’s current landscape design standards are found in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.83.90, Design Standards--General Parking Facilities; and Chapter 18.83.100, Design Standards--Landscaping in Parking Facilities and Required Landscape Areas. Other area specific standards are located in the Sand Hill Road Development Area (Stanford West, Hyatt Senior Development, Stanford Shopping Center and Sand Hill.Road) and for the Baylands. The purview of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) also includes landscape review. Additional background information regarding landscape approaches and criteria are included as Attachments B through H. DISCUSSION The Zoning Ordinance provides minimum standards that are to be implemented in development projects. Additional landscaping conditions may be approved as part of a discretionary ¯ architectural review. The existing code separates landscape areas into two Categories: (1) perimeter landscaping within a parking lot, and (2) interior landscaping between the parking lot City of Palo Alto _Page I and the building. The required landscape area is determined by a percentage of the total parking lot area. The code is brief, leaving much of the site planning and design up to staff and the applicant on a case by case basis. Without having the landscape provisions of the -Comprehensive Plan codified or implemented, through a technical manual, it is often difficult to consistently integrate landscaping standards into a project. The goal of an updated zoning ordinance landscape section is to integrate and clarify many areas of the Comprehensive Plan landscape ,elements identified in Land Use & Community Design and Natural Environment Goals and Policies, existing zoning ordifiance language and other areas identified by staff, applicants, and reviewing bodies. This will help to streamline the process, implement more of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, and achieve and manage expectations of project applicants and the community. Landscape Functions Staff believes landscaping must perform multiple functions to serve the City, property owners, businesses and livability of the community. Current and future trends are changing the way a city views its land and streetscapes. Therefore amendments to the zoning ordinance should: Encourage creative ways to integrate landscape design as a primary resource for infrastructure management, economic vitality and public health as well as traditional entaancement of structures, streetscapes and parking areas (Attachment H). Emphasize landsqape greenery to extend the us.eful life of infrastructure, reduce overhead operation costs and enjoy more livable qualities. Where the former view of trees and landscaping was considered primarily aesthetic and ancillary to parking lots, the understanding of value based benefits are important underpinnings for landscape elements required by zoning code regulations. (Attachment B). Consider the landscape and streetscape as a primary infrastructure investment to keep operating costs and quality of life opt!mum (Attachment G). Utilize best landscape management practices. Potential Landscape Elements for Zoning Staff expects to move current landscape requirements into Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance, which includes a number of general standards and special use provisions. The key areas of landscaping that staffbelieves could be strengthened and should be considered for inclusion in the zoning ordinance update or an accompanying technical manual are: Landscaping elements identified in the Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A), such as: Creek and riparian areas: Setback criteria, single family exemption, existing development and new development strategies (Attachment D) Open Space District: recognize and preserve sensitive plant species, invasive plant eradication standards, habitat preservation and enhancing views of hillsides. Stormwater Management Best Practices City of Palo Alto Page 2 Clarification of required landscape for Single family Individual Review. such as: Landscaping of large below-grade patio or light wells o Adjoining parkway strip, planting of street trees or frontage Screening with vegetation 3.Clarification of landscape expectations and constraints for roof top garden planters and gardens. 4.Integration of landscaping with Storm Water Management Best Practices, especially using landscape as filtration for runoff from parking areas. o Screening and vegetation protectiordenhancement for work inthe Public Right-of-Way. Specific areas to provide landscape criteria are: ¯, Transformer cabinets, pads Fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets o Cross reference to other technical documents, such as: ¯. Landscape Technical Manual (to be prepared with landscaping details) ¯Single Family Technical Manual (currently in draft form) ¯Tree Technical Manual ¯Context Based Design Criteria (adopted by City Council on October 16, 2006) ¯E1 Camino Real Design Master Plan .Street Tree Master Plan (a comprehensive update is currently underway for this document under the title of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan) Shadow Study Guidelines (development effects on regulated trees and proposed screening elements, such as trees, hedges, tall fences, trellis or walls, and the shading effect to an adjacent property). In addition to the zoning ordinance update for landscaping, other documents would be prepared to assist with implementation. These include: Landscape Technical Manual - A technical document that would include details, specifications or graphics for areas referenced in the Landscape Ordinance. Options, recommendations, and/or alternative technology could be added. Development Review Checklist - A checklist for applicant guidance and staff review of the primary elements in the Landscape Section. Parking Lot Shade Tree Formula - A matrix indicating how a parking lot project will. achieve a 50% shade goal Over a 10-15 year period (Comprehensive Plan Goal L-75) Staff would appreciate Commission input on the suggested items for inclusion in the zoning ordinance update. Many of these landscape items may be more appropriate for the Landscape Technical. Manual, which will be developed as a follow-up, to the Zoning Ordinance Update. NEXT STEPS Staff will prepare a draft ordinance encompassing recommended landscape components for review and public hearing by the Commission at a future meeting. Upon recommendation from City of Palo Alto Page 3 the Commission, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption. ATTACHMENTS No B. C. D. E. F. G. H. Comprehensive Plan Implementation (relevant landscape sections only) Oklahoma City Landscape Code Urban Forest Research, the Case for large trees Fact Sheet, Stormwater control costs Fact Sheet, Where are the Cool parking lots? Tr.ees, Parking & Green Law News Brief, Trees as Capital Assets University of Illinois, Neighbors and Nature COURTESY COPIES City Council Don Larkin,’Senior Deputy City Attorney Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney Architectural Review Board Doug Moran, Barron Park Association Shed Furman, Midtown Residents AssoCiation Chamber of Commerce PREPARED BY:Whitney McNair, Planner Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager CurtiSWilliams Chief Planning and Transportation Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 .37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Plaiming and Transportation Commission . Verbatim Minutes October 25, 2006 Zoning Ordinance Updatei Study Session to discuss changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address landscaping criteria. Mr. Curtis Williams, Chief Planning and Transportation Official: Thank you. I will just briefly make a few comments before turning this over to Dave Dockter. We are coming to you tonight with our initial discussion of potential landscape requirements for the Zoning Ordinance Update. We currently have a section of the code that has a number of miscellaneous types of standards in it and we anticipate that landscape will be one of those subsections of that code chapter as it is reconstituted in the new zoning update. Some other items that are also going to be in that same Chapter include Wireless communications, the cell towers and guidelines for those as well as some requirements for streambed impacts and setbacks from creeks and other water resource relatedissues that we are required to implement by state and federal law. Those two items you will be discussing next week at a study session. We had originally intended to combine all three in one study session for you but Mr. Dockter is not available next week so we moved him up to tonight. What we would like to do is just have Dave talk about some of the concepts that are in the Comp Plan and that he is familiar with that we might look at incorporating into landscape criteria. We are also looking at developing a landscape technical manual similar to what we have for tree technical manual so a lot of the more detailed landscape information can go in there. We would like at this point have Dave make a.15 to 20 minute presentation to you and then just open it up for any thoughts that you have about what direction to go. We will try to come back to you probably in a month or five weeks or so with some draft language to consider along with those other issues that I discussed. It would probably be most efficient if we let Dave get through his presentation before having questions. I would also note that Commissioner Keller sent a few questions about the landscape issue and with his indulgence I would suggest also that we let Dave make his presentation because I think it will respond to some of those questions. Then subsequent to that if you still have questions raise them with Dave. We also have Whitney McNair here tonight, Whitney has been working with Dave on developing some of these criteria and looking into how to reformat our Zoning Ordinance to include them. I think all of you probably know Dave Dockter who is our Managing Arborist but he is more than that I think you are probably familiar with the fact that he does quite a bit of outreach with the community as far as trees in particular as well as other landscape issues, and in fact does a lot of outreach with a lot of communities. He has been speaking to other cities and at state functions and on radio programs and wherever else he can get the word out. With that I would like to let Dave go ahead and begin his comments. Then afterwards all of your comments that you make tonight we will take back with us and if you have subsequent comments you Page 1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 would like to email to us that is fine too. If you want to sit down with Dave I am sure he would be glad to do that on an individual basis. Thanks. Mr. Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist: Good evening Commissioners and Chair Holman. Thank you Curtis for the introduction. I think we will jump into some of the things that we have jotted down here as considerations. By no means is what you are going to see here tonight exhaustive or comprehensive and complete. These are just ideas that we want to pull in. The details will of course be coming forth in a draft. We really want your input on some of the direction on these topics that we have here for sure and any other details that you might have stored up over the years that need addressing in a landscape ordinance. We definitely want to encourage you to pass them all to us. Our existing landscape criteria are found in a few places particularly the zoning code has a few in design standards and parking facilities, as you are probably aware, 18.83 is where they are both found. Landscaping is referenced in our Comprehensive Plan so there is direction that Staff and the Boards and Commissionsand Council receive from the Comp Plan but it is not codified. We do find direction for landscaping there. The other projects like the Sand Hill Road, Arastradero Corridor, Charleston Corridor and the A_rastradero updates also have landscape specific direction that we receive for development projects. The Architectural Review Board also imposes landscape conditions on projects. All of these or most of these actually direct Staff that we have to do quite a bit of conditional approvals to be pretty site specific but also because there is a lot of fill-in and quality control that is left up to the discretion of the project designer or Staffto make sure that there is a quality element that we want to see. The landscape section is past due and we are really looking forward to shoring up the quality control that we want to see in Palo Alto. The existing Zoning Ordinance that we have discusses landscaping in two areas or it divides landscaping into basically two boxes those inside a parking area and those outside of a.parking area and that’s it. So those boxes there are the direction that Staff receives to actually create some of these site:planning scenarios that we go through. I think the goals of the landscaping standards that we want to entertain, that you will be key in drafting is we want to not fit everything into a couple of boxes but we want to really treat each site as it should be without the hardcore boxes around it. So we want to be a little bit more liberal in how we address the required details that we end up codifying. In that we want to integrate landscape design with a concept of it is actually becoming infrastructure. We want landscape to be considered a very major and primary element in a site. With that is going to come some of the requirements that we will have imbedded in the landscape section. That will play huge role in storm water management and in several other items that we Will be touching on here. Having this concept about landscape it will also be extending the life of all of our infrastructure that we are planning on and it will make things more efficient and cheaper to operate for the private property owners that build with these new landscape standards. Of course we will be pulling in all of the current best management practices and all the new technology that we have available. Part of the concept of this update will be referencing a landscape technical manual that will be companion document to the ordinance. It will directly reference it. We put all of the details and boring, tedious things in this landscape technical manual document. The real specs will be there, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 altematives, changes, choices that Staff may have or a property owner developing. Those we envision to be housed in this companion document similar to the tree technical manual so we leave the code pretty much just pure with formulas and true requirements. We have a couple of areas in the Comprehensive Plan as noted here that are really elevated in importance around creeks, riparian areas and the Open Space District and we did include the Bayland areas. Those three I guarantee are going to be a major emphasis that we have creating standards for these areas that are probably the three biggest missing.links for Staff anyway and I think Council and the Commissions that actually review projects that wish there were standards. So I think this will greatly help our consistency with the Comprehensive Plan to have some identified standards to build by and design with. A mention on the st.reetscapes, the street trees that we have there is a lot of reference in the Comp Plan and the community, the E1 Camino Master Plan; how we are looking at the Zoning Ordinance Update that we have in front of us tonight that we are looking at is we have decided it is important to leave the street improvements to be included in the Street Tree Master Plan predominantly. I don’t know ify0u have heard yet.but we can use tonight as a springboard to announce that we are considering updating the whole StreetTree Master Plan concept. The last update of that or the creation of it was 1984 so it is a timely document that will cover all of the future design, street tree plantings, sidewalk right-of-way use of the future. So this Zrning Ordinance Update that we are going to be entertaining here is really going to be predominantly applying to the private property aspects of our city. The Street Tree Management Plan may choose to reference the guidelines that we are setting up here. We will absolutely be referencing the Street Tree Management Plan. So some of the concerns that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan like fine clean trees that don’t make any litter or mess those type of things we are going to leave that up to the Public Works Lead in the Street Tree Management Plan that will be updated to find those perfect trees. We will help them all we can. So as you can see, the E1 Camino Master Plan, the Charleston Corridors those other specific plans we will bepointing to and acknowledging in the Zoning Ordinance. So we are going to make sure that everything is cross-referenced and not too much is left out of our designing so that everything that gets built can have context with the rest of the town. Now I am going to bounce off some of these bullets like little stepping-stones in a creek. They are more to just prompt consideration by the Commissioners tonight. Landscaping around single-family homes is an area that we are wedded to but we want to be very careful and consider it. There are some areas though that we do want to try to identify and try to clear up in the landscape section here. One is below-grade patios that end up being quite large, light-wells, above ground utilities on a single-family residence. We may want to see some definition of landscape screening and suggestions there again to give more tools to Staff and the reviewers ~’or single family Individual Review.. Planting of street trees is not a mandatory requirement currently. It is something that we may want to consider if a second story is being put up or if there are no street trees or if there is a rolled curb and sidewalk and no street trees maybe it should be a requirement to have at least a tree in the front setback. It is something we would definitely look for the Commission to provide some guidance on. Vegetation, types of screening, I think we do need a list of some sort to get property owners in the ballpark of what kind of trees and screening would be appropriate for the some of the skinny, narrow areas that Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 they have to deal with for privacy. There has been some discussion on several trees ate not protected however they might be quite sizable and pretty enhancing for a given neighborhood in the front. They are not protected so should the Tree Ordinance be expanded, nothing to do with the Zoning Ordinance. There have been discussions of how could single family Individual Review have a little bit more authority in designing around other important trees that may not be oaks or redwoods protected by the Tree Ordinance, It is just a thought and is there a way? Next we want to provide some guidance for expectations of builders regarding rooftop gardens, garden planters or rooftop almost lawns or a full garden. There is a big difference in the industry of full-blown roof garden or just rooftop planters. So we.would like to provide a little bit of definition so that designers know which of the two types of growth up on a roof they might want to entertain. There is a big difference in success rate and survivability. Obviously in our update we want to include the storm water best management practices. We want to somehow encourage landscapes to do double or triple duty and not only be a nice aesthetic thing to look at but actually get people out there using it to be a usable landscape. Somehow. in the code I think we can encourage that. It may not be mandatory but it could be a ¯ level of maybe a carrot that we can provide for property owners. Other areas, again screening and vegetation are really critical. We want to identify some specific areas and we want to specifically target types of concepts for screening the bumpers of cars in parking lots visible from public streets, side yard plantings between buildings there is a big difference between single family homes with only a six foot side setback and a requirement to screen between two windows. That can be a real challenge and a similar challenge for commercial buildings. Wl~at kind of screening is the appropriate thing? We are going to want to provide some sort of guidance in size, shape and a little bit of the solar orientation with that too. We always have with us utility cabinets. We also want to provide some guidance to designers for utility cabinets that get put on property and also maybe some suggestion for some of our right-of-way utility cabinets. Maybe the same list could be appropriate for both. Some of the Comprehensive Plan areas are very specific and we want to address that in the Zoning Ordinance landscape section and get some formality to some of the mandatory elements that we expect of every single project. This will greatly help Staff if we can codify some areas that will give creativity and liberty to a property owner and consistency and security for the environmental aspects of a project. Fire safety, preservation of quite a few trees, landscaping, retaining walls, I think there is really an opportunity to really get into some details there. Similarly, with the Baylands we have interface areas around the harbor that whole area is pretty dated and it is going to come up on the chopping block probably some day so I think this is the appropriate time to provide for that day to integrate Baylands areas, Bayland type theme landscaping. Again rooftop gardens, usable open space .- what is it andhow can we encourage that? That is .our challenge and our opportunity. Usable open space, the size of the project dictates what can be done with it but I think we can provide in our landscape codified section something for everybody, for the larger properties in the Research Park down to the small commercial areas Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 that want to put a little lunchroom in the parking lot type design. Water pollution remedies we are going to be specifically codifying some areas of designing with pollution control aspects in mind and design standards for parking lots will become key in that. We are doing that now on a project-by-project basis but it is a lot of custom hard work by Staff and it would be nice to have more standards available to us. We want to give a provision and guidance to smaller retrofit projects like the anthropology on the right is the before shot, it is just a blank asphalt parking lot, we. came up with something pretty creative. For a retrofit semi-temporary parking lot we have structural soil, we retrofitted with good shade trees, we did a pretty good job on a very, very problematic site. Again, parking lot standards, this is our most recent Challenge. When we get something that is a retrofit how do we deal with it and how do we incorporate best management practices? That is some guidance we want to provide in this update. New construction where it is an entirely new site design we want to provide like a different level of designing with infrastructure in mind for these. This is where I think the opportunity for planning for the long term is at its best. So we will pro.vide for that. The last bullet is very, very important. We have a Comp Plan policy that goes after 50 percent shading in ten to 15 years. That is achievable if we have some kind of a monitoring and compliance provision. This standard is out there in California but I hear that the biggest problem ¯ is actually monitoring it and maintaining that level. This is just a fact of life that I can’t help but put in but trees do pay us back and everything we can do in this Zoning Ordinance Update section here will really payoff for us as a city. It really, really will. We will spend less money and we are doing the property owners a favor by designing for the future. Very quickly just to wrap up, sustainability and green building design is going to be integrated in the landscape section. We will be encouraging property owners to consider use of gray water techniques, planning for the plumbing and the piping that may use that in the future, again the whole brand new site renovations projects definitely lend to that where small infill projects may not. Lastly, this update is intended again to cross-reference with all the other important guiding documents that are existing now and become a part of our community. So this is just a partial list but we-do want to convey that we don’t intent this to be a shortsighted or just an if the money is not there we have to cutback on comprehensiveness. So if you have things that you want to see included or referenced here now is the time to bring it up. The last siide is our next steps. Maybe is I could let Whitney just talk about these two next steps. here as a wrap up. Ms. Whitney McNair, Consultant: Staffwill be trying to write up a draft ordinance for review that will come back to the Commission. The timing of that is within the next couple of months. I understand the next month and a half is our goal. We don’t have that date yet determined and then we would take that to City Council for adoption. I know we have a half hour left of this Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ~tudy session so we are open to getting email as well if there are other items that don’t get discussed tonight or if it gets continued. Chair Holman: Thank you Staff. Commissioners it is a broad topic that has a lot of implications in pretty much every zone. We can anticipate that half an hour is not going to be long enough to discuss this. So I guess a question to Staffwould be, the more presentation we get in addition to our reading materials it is almost like we could divide this into sections and I am looking to Staff for some guidance here. If we wanted to deal with certain areas or certain zones as opposed to just broad brush if that might be helpful. Mr. C. Williams: I think that would be fine except I am concerned that you won’t get through it all doing it that way. It might be better for the purpose of this meeting as sort of an introductory thing to let everybody say What is kind of on their mind and then if there are some subjects that come up and if you have time you can focus on them, maybe you can work it that way. Chair Holman: I was thinking that one study session might not be enough for this topic given that we have half an hour to do it. So we will go and people can make comments on what their most important topic is. Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: Actually I have a question for you Dave that is a little bit off the topic but I am wondering where traffic circle landscape fits in. I know it doesn’t fit in to what we are talking about because we are talking about private building and parking lots. Mr. Dockter: It does. Commissioner Sandas: Well, I haven’t heard any discussion then of traffic circle landscaping and would love to make sure that there are some guidelines for that as well. Mr. C. Williams: Before Dave answers, it really doesn’t. We are talking about the Zoning Ordinance and this is generally private property so with the exception of if it is within the boundaries of a property like say the Hyatt Rickey’s site redevelopment internal roads and all that it would otherwise it is public right-of-way and that is a City issue. It is an important issue but it won’t be dealt with in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Sandas: So that is what I am asking, where will it be? Mr. C. Williams: So you should be asking Dave where is that? Commissioner Sandas: That was my question. Where will we be able to pick that Up? Mr. Dockter: That is a perfect concern. I think that the updated Street Tree Master Plan probably is the place for that. The Street Tree Master Plan may even be re-titled and broadened to be like an urban forest strategic plan. I think that would be the area that defines right-of-ways, landscaping planter strips and I that would be a simple element I think for that project to entertain and establish some standards forit. A transportation project, how it gets built would become a Transportation/Public Works project and it would be subject to its design criteria just Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 on its own but to provide that guidance I think still tlie Public Works document they would be the lead but I am sure Planning Commission and Council would have input to that document too because it would be a city-wide guidance document. Chair Holman: Okay, I am going to start at the end with Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Sort of a structural question. One of the things that it sounded like you were interested in some input in is which items should go in the Zoning Ordinance Update as opposed to those that would potentially go into the landscape technical manual. Developing the manual and going through the process of what is to be included and what it is actually going to say how does that work procedurally? Is that something the Commission is also involved in?’ Does that happen after the Zoning Ordinance Update? Does that get approve by Council? What is the process for that? Mr. C. Williams: ! will let Dave describe I think the tree manual is probably a model for that so you can talk about how that process works, Dave, but it would be done after the Zoning Ordinance Update is completed. Then we would begin on the technical manual. Mr. Dockter: The technical manual the way we envision it would start out to be literally like a folder that would collect some of the major details for designing which literally would just be schematic details to build to. Added to that would be some form code suggestions of alternatives or types of say paving materials that are like an approved list. So we would get to start with city preferences in color, sidewalk or concrete types. We would add to that then landscaping again suggestions or choi.ces, lists of trees, shrubbery, screening elements. What the technical manual will do is enable us to change the elements within it without acode amendment. So as policy or a new concept may come up we can literally change it just by rule of the Director or a recommendation from Commission or other things that make sense. As far as the process of adopting it the Tree Technical Manual was issued by the City Manager. I think that was the official process so it didn’t go through a City Council approval process neither did it go through a Planning Commission process for that. So it was issued by the City Manager as like the best management practices to implement the regulations of the Tree Ordinance. So this would implement the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. How do we implement that? Things can change over time. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, so you envision that as sort of a living document that changes over time and it wouldn’t come back. So I think that just may impact to some extent what we would be comfortable putting in the ZOU as opposed to the technical manual. One follow on question with that. So what is in the manual is more along the lines of guidelines as opposed to requirements or? Mr. D0ckter: It would have both within it. Requirements would be more of a fundamental thing in the technical manual. The Zoning Ordinance would require something to be addressed of a certain nature within the technical manual. Like you must have pervious paving in this area. You go to the technical manual and you find out what types of pervious paving you can choose Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ¯ 44 45 but you have to have one of them for instance as one item. It is the -way it probably would work most commonly. Chair Holman: I think what I would like to do is have two questions or comments and go down the row and then if we have extra time we will come back around if that is agreeable to folks. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Commissioner Tuma talked about the organization. I have a bunch of questions about the organization as well but you have already hit them so we will move on. You had indluded some additional information in the back of your Staff Report that included a description of the Oklahoma Landscape Ordinance. Am I recalling that correctly? Were you trying to suggest that possibly this point system should be something that should be considered for Palo Alto or was this just a sort of interest? What should we look for in here or what should we learn from it? Mr. Dockter: The attachment there was more of an information item that there can be a formula applied to achieve the 50 percent shading goal of a parking lot. My intent there was just to acknowledge the fact that there could be a formula applied. Right now we don’t necessarily have a shading formula applied to achieve this 50 percent goal. It is just sort of that we hope that the standards that are in our parking guidelines now will achieve good shading but it is just hit and miss. A point system could be one of many. Oklahoma is one in California Davis has another type of formula that is geared at achieving this 50 percent goal. Our existing formula is not geared that way at all so we want to change the way that we look at shade trees and plants. .Basically, a big tree would get a lot of points and a small crepe myrtle would just be a few points. Commissioner Garber: So you included this as one of many possible methods of determining the 50 percent mark? Mr. Dockter: That is correct. Commissioner Garber: Okay. I will take my second one and then I will move on. There are just a couple of things and I Won’t discuss them but a couple of things as you were skipping through the stones of your bullets that are things that I would like to return to one of which is the light- wells, the sizes, how they are landscaped, etc., would be a topic worth further discussion. Also, the issue of permeable surfaces which came up in a recent hearing the ratio of how much surface area we are taking up, is there an unrealized consequence that even though we .are creating surfaces that are permeable we end u.p if they solid we are also losing green stuffwhich we would also prefer to have. So that I think is worth additional conversation as well. I will save my others, thanks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, and we do need to be brief. My apologies but the clock is the clock. Page 8 1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Because of the need to be brief I sent in some questions 2 which you can address offline rather than taking up time now. I will use my time now to just 3 mention briefly some issues that I think you should think about. One is in terms of landscaping 4 particularly on single-family residential lots around utility poles and making requirement that 5 there be sufficient clearance so that utility workers can have access to that pole. If you plant 6 shrubs or something like that they don’t have access and they are not too happy. So I am not 7 sure to the extent that that should be in a landscape ordinance or not but think about that. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 In terms particularly in commercial properties, which are wide expanses, and on multi-family residential there are the issues of things like pesticide use and the contamination that accrues into the soil and into the water table and also in runoff. Related to that is the issue that if we are having permeable surfaces where cars.drive or park on how do avoid contamination by vehicle " fluids? That is something interesting to think about. If I may make a comment related to what Commissioner Garber said I wonder the degree to which so-called permeable surfaces are really permeable compared to natural surfaces. Therefore to the extent that permeable surfaces are not as permeable as natural groundcover, perhaps that there should be some weighting to them depending on the degree of permeability. Chair Holman: Thank you. Vice-Chair Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I have seen this now for maybe eight years between the ARB and the Plarming Commission having been involved in this particular section. I think that over the years, in the past I had to say at least 15 to 20 years, landscaping has become a very, very technical part of development. As such I think there are three legs to this stool that make up a really great environment. That is the parking development part, the natural environment part and then there is the water resources part. I don’t think the City has a handle on integrating all three of those elements so that is one area that I think that this ordinance really needs to focus in on. I will give you a couple of examples~ You have alluded to this in your presentation about the gray water irrigation aspects. It took years to get Public Works to begin to look at that and accept that and that really needs to be integrated a lot more into the Zoning Ordinance. We have seen over the years parking and development, actually parking, competing with landscaping. There really needs to be some address between parking and the landscaping portion of that if we are going to arrive at the 50 percent goal. Part of that might simply be that we are in a time where we are now encouraging small cars again we really need to press for those compact spaces and take the land that we would conserve, those little remnants of land that we would be able to get back from smaller parking spaces, and put them into more landscape. Now, this is where the rubber meets the road. There is no enforcement and big vehicles park in those small parking spaces. So again, the Parking Ordinance needs to be integrated with the landscape section that allows for these two elements to sort of work together. That is where I think really we need to begin to look at some of these things. That will be it for my comments for now and then I will come back on second pass. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas, did you have one more? Commissioner Sandas: I wanted to follow up a little bit with the notion of a point system just to expand on it a little bit and talk about perhaps an incentive system, big trees being better than Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 smaller trees like crepe myrtles andso on. policy idea. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr. I just wanted to throw that out there as a procedural Commissioner Burr: First I wanted to see if we could request for our next meeting on this maybe copies of your PowerPoint presentation, Most of the Commission probably doesn’t have what I had been fortunate to receive from you- a copy of the structural engineered soils and the benefits of those. Then some other materials that I think you may have on rooftop gardening and the trends associated there as well as information on local native vegetation because I know historically the prior Commissions were not terribly familiar with what really constituted native vegetation and native vegetation in different areas of the city, all the way from the top of Skyline down to the Bay it is not the same thing. Also, information on perhaps the Valley of Heart’s Delights program so that as we talk about native and edible landscaping or agricultural landscaping in perhaps some of.the Research Park areas we would have that background. Then I don’t think I got Commissioner Keller’s questions I don’t know if they went to the whole Commission but maybe we could get that too. Then related to Open Space there were two things that came to my mind. I saw that there was an intention to retain trees above 11.5-inch diameter both native and nonnative. I am not sure that we want to work toward retention of nonnative trees. In fact, in a lot of circumstances I would be willing to give points for people removing eucalyptus in the natural environment and things like that. Then the issue that Commissioner Keller brought up on the semi-pervious hardscape that when we first saw this in the Open Space area we thought what a neat thing and then we realized that it as a tradeoffwe were allowing a greater construction lot coverage when we did that and also perhaps it is not as pervious as native soils. Then finally that it is not a vegetated surface. So even though it may be pervious it is not providing vegetation and thereby not addressing all those other benefits that we get from vegetation of different sorts, which brings up the other thing I should have asked for is any aspects of the Green Ribbon Task Force and their efforts at CO2 reduction that would come into play with our landscaping efforts. So I will have more if we have more time otherwise I will email my additional questions .and comments. Chair Holman: Okay, and I will take a quick shot here with a few things. A lot of things have been said that I think are good questions. ,One thing that hasn’t been addressed specifically as I’ve heard it at least is Site and Design in the Research Park. We talked about Open Space but not Site and Design in the Research Park. I was kind of curious as to why we might or might not have a combination manual, the tree technical manual and the landscape manual be merged if that might be practical since they are so closely related. That edible gardens be considered as a part of multi-family and affordable housing projects. Again, that goes along with the Valley of Heart’s Delight. We are not talking street trees that are going to be messy and that sort of thing. They are going to be on private property. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 There has been some talk including at the last Council Retreat of a point system for permitting. think as the Commission is very interested in sustainabilityand is actually looking to have a sustainability study session, which hopefully will be longer than an hour, I think that would be something we could look to and look at different sections of guidelines in code that would need to be satisfied in order to get permits.. That is one way to go. So I am going to stop there and go back around just real quickly. We have about ten minutes so Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I will just briefly follow up on something that Commissioner Garber has mentioned because it was one of my issues coming in and that has to do with the below grade patio or light-wells. I think we have seen a lot more of those in recent years. I think they are a terrific way to create nice space. I would not like to see us do things that make that significantly more expensive or difficult for people to do because I do think it is a way to allow some growth but keep it underground and creating nice space. I have a lot more thoughts on that but I will just leave it at that being brief. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: The other topic that I know is often a topic with single family home owners is the issue of trees in the parkway especially when driveways have to be move around and inevitably there are trees that have to be moved around too. I don’t know if there are .opportunities to make some of the policies that the City has more clear to set expectations appropriately. There may be some opportunities there. Although it has already been talked about in a couple ways here the organization piece, it sounds like you are contemplating having more sections in the code to address a slightly different organization than parking lots and then everything else, which I think would be a good idea. Obviously I look to Staffto guide us to as to what those sections actually are and how they are divided up whether they are by actual location or by concept. You sort of outlined it both ways in your StaffReport so I am not exactly sure what the intention is. Then obviously things that are part of the zoning are things that can be enforced or will have explicit enforcement criteria to them versus the things, which are guidelines and are not again somehow that all needs to be clarified. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Following up again on what Commissioner Garber said, one of the categories of things should be screening kinds of plants. I think, that is one of the things you talked about in the nature of that screening. I think the particular thinking about water use and reducing - I think we would all be surprised at how much drinking quality water is used for irrigation, for outdoor plant irrigation. I think that reducing that partly through gray water, partly through low water plants and xeriscaping is something to think about. I can understand the reasoning for putting lawns in around single family residences or areas where there are residential because people like to walk on the lawns but I have a hard time understanding the Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 reasons for large expanses of lawns around commercial buildings. I think that there are much better uses for that space that use less water and are more attractive. Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. # Vice-Chair Lippert: Continuing my tirade earlier, again parking competing against landscaping. One thing to look at is parking structures being used to flee up more landscape area particularly in the Research Park. I think we saw that on the SAP project where it was built on a hillside. It .was ideal to build a semi-submerged parking structure and begin to free up more of that area for landscaping and therefore struc.tured parking is a way to get more landscaping. That is an obvious thing. The other thing is landscape reserve where there are applicants that do come forward and they do ask for more parking spaces than what would be permitted. There should be some sort of measure by which we can actually require that the quality of the landscaping be even better if they require those extra parking spaces because it is actually displacing landscaping. Then the last point I want to make is I agree with some of the comments that Commissioner Burr has made with regard to older trees and not necessarily being viable, they are normative species, but also we need to look at an appraisal of some of the more mature trees in terms of being an asset. Maybe what needs to happen is that there needs to be some sort of an appraisal made of those trees and allowing them to be taken out but then be replaced with something of equal value. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Just following up on some of the comments other Commissioners have made I think a lot of them might be grouped in a sense of qualitative versus quantitative landscaping. In that theme we have talked a lot about trees but trees are not the only important part of landscaping. As we are having a loss of native habitat a lot of the other plants are even more important than trees in terms of sponsoring habitat. One of the most important things that has been happening in our whole region is loss of milkweed, which is essential for monarch habitat. We are seeing it vanish and we are going to lose a lot of our monarch population. So we may want to really look at ways we can promote widespread use of native vegetation. I think that the commercial areas, the Research Park, and others have some tremendous opportunities there. Along the same theme you have demonstrated in the structural soils about what tremendous potentials are there for allowing a much greater Variety of trees as a result of that, of having rooftop gardens more, and I think thoseare just great opportunities that exist there. Then finally I didn’t hear anything abot~t the more recent recognition that we have had, we have planted the wrong gender of trees and created great pollen problems in the region. Are there ways in which we should begin to alter that process going forward? Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, you had one more?- Page 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2 Commissioner Garber: I can only emphasize some of the other things that were just said 3 regarding the organization again and that is that there are a number of opportunities where 4 obviously landscaping impacts some of the other existing zoning, surface area, the permeability 5 issues, obviously into the building codes relative to having rooftop gardens and being able to support those rooftop gardens with detailing, flashing, etc. There is a lot of opportunity for integration within the zoning. It would be great to be able to find those ties that create that comprehensive policy. Chair Holman: I had just a couple more to throw out. One is it would be nice to know what the impact is, I don’t know how accurate this is, but I have heard for a good while how the building height affects the viability of trees and what kinds of trees especially at the street. I am sure it is a light issue. If there is some information that you have about that that’s relevant it would be nice to have. Then also, having to do with creek setbacks the county has been working on updated creek setbacks and I would like to get some updated information about that and not just about the creek setbacks that are current natural creeks but also where there might be opportunities to, not now we have to plan for the future, there might be some time in the future when some of these concreted creek beds might be re-naturalized so that we look at the future and see what those setbacks should be too and see what guidance the county has offered to this point and if there is something that we feel like we have enough information to go ahead and adopt. Mr. C. Williams: IfI could just add that next week you will be getting a lot of information on creek setbacks as part of the water resources discussion of that workshop. Chair Holman: We have time for one more question Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: In terms of creeks the Santa Clara Valley Water District is in the process of passing an ordinance that allows communities like the City of Palo Alto to enforce the issues about the 50 foot right-of-way either side in terms of approving and is something we will have to think about. I would personally have no objection in general if the questions that I send in advance to Staff were made available to all the Commissioners and the public. That might be the best way of handling that in the future. Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: I just have a couple of comments in response to the emailquestions. One is that when we answer the questions we will provide that all of the Commissioners. One of the concerns I have is that Council has the one-hour rule, Planning Commission has a deminimous hour rule, as little time as possible, so if they are questions that are quick to answer that is appropriate to be submitted. But if they are questions that are going to involve a detailed amount of work on the part of the Staff those probably ought to be asked but understand that the answers may not be as forthcoming as you might like depending on the complexity of the question. Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Two things, one is that Commissioner Keller’s questions because they have been submitted now are a matter of public record at this point anyway so they will just be sent to us. Mr. Larkin: That’s right. So I think the general practice is to send them along with the answers ¯ but we haven’t had a chance to do that yet. Chair Holman: Could you clarify something for us, please? Yes, there is the one-hour rule, if Commissioners ask questions of Staff as you say there is the deminimous one-hour rule, however, if it gets raised at a Commission meeting and a number of Commissioners want information along the same lines then can you tell us what would come into play then? Mr. Larkin: We use our best efforts to answer all the questions it is just a concern that if we are being asked to basically drop all of our other work to do research it is going be somewhat difficult. It depends on the complexity and the number of questions. Most of the questions are real easy to answer and we will do that. Chair Holman: Right, I was just thinking and then I will go to Commissioner Burr, I was just thinking maybe incorrectly I was remember the Council for it to be longer than an hour that it has to be a majority of the Council Members or a number of Council Members to approve that time expenditure. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Just the one that City Attorney Larkin just mentioned was that normally the practice would be to give the Commission copies of the questions along with the answers and I don’t believe that is the normal historic practice because among other things it does not enable the rest of the Commission to see whether they concur with the need for the question prior to Staff determining whether it is one Commissioner’s issue or represents an interest of the entire Commission or a majority. Mr. Larkin: I don’t want to get into a long discussion but we have generally held off on answering email questions in email responses but you are right I misspoke when I said it. If we answer the questions be email we are required to make those public and we would present them to the full Commission. Commissioner Burr: I just need to clarify what my statement was. I wasn’t talking about¯ answers. I said that the questions would be forwarded to the Commission in advance not awaiting the answers before the Commissioners would see the questions. That is the point I was making. Chair Holman: Okay. Curtis. Mr. C. Williams: I just want to thank you for being concise with your comments. I know an hour is a short period of time. We will try to schedule - what we will do when we come back is I don’t think there is any way we can expect to have a final ordinance for adoption type of thing so I think we will do either another study session or it will be somewhere sort of in between so that we will have maybe bulleted points of what we anticipate to be in the ordinance, responses to your questions and issues, and then you can work from there. It might be better rather than Page 1,4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 calling it a study session to call it a regular item so that you can give us some direction as a consensus direction on where to go with some of the key issues that come up. Chair Holman: Thank you. Thank you to Mr. Dockter and Ms. McNair for bringing this matter to us. We appreciate it and obviously we don’t have enough time with you in front of us because we have lots of questions and appreciate your expertise. So we will adjoum the study session at this time. Page 15 Attachment I RECEIVED DEC 0 6 2006 D~PAFITMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Metro PCS’s application for a cellphone antenna disguised as a cross on the church hall of St Williams has been approved by the planning council. The Los Altos City council has approved a motion to appeal this approval (4-to-1) and review the cell phone antenna ordinance that failed to protect Covington against a new antenna application. Metro PCS i~ a niche player present only in Sacramento, San Francisco Bay Area, Miami metro, and Fort Meyers. Only Metro PCS subscribers will benefit from this antenna and then only for this small area (as their master plan for coverage has not been implemented). Although federal law prevents councils rejecting applications for health reasons; Zoning, esthetics, and benefit arguments are allowed and have been upheld in court. Distributed (repeater) networks, also called micro nets, allow for better coverage and much lower radio exposure. As they have fiber-optic connections and not T1 lines, their capacity for voice and data traffic is significantly higher then the antennas proposed by Metro PCS. These networks also allow for better coverage in (sub)urban settings. Los Altos has signed up for Silicon Valley Metro Connect, which will provide a high-speed regional wireless data connection that uses similar low-radiation antennas. Covington parents and neighbors successfully fended off a previous application by Cingular, based on over 200 signatures and many parents attending council meetings. We were also involved in creating a wireless ordinance that restricts building towers near schools. Exposure is regulated by the FCC and is based on adult workers. FCCs allowed exposure levels are 100 times higher then permitted in Europe and 1000 times higher then Switzerland. Exposure impacts brain development and cognitive abilities as demonstrated in mice and adults, respectively. That means that your child’s learning will be impacted! ,.d ~ttend the~c " ~ H . .. see http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/citycouncil/index.html for details and individual council member emails or use the shared email: councilC~ci.los-altos.ca.us Learn more about cell phones and their effects 2 The trouble with towers: http://www.planwireless.com/towers.htm ~ Macro cells can be regarded as transmission cells where the base station antenna is installed on a mast or a building above average roof top level. They are typically the first phase of a company seeking PCS coverage. As they become overloaded and demand increases, cell phone companies will start proposing more sites. Finally, micro cells--cells whose antenna height is under average roof top level--will enter the neighborhood environment. Why not start with micro cells, instead of having both towers and micro cells when demand increases? Ability to regulate Jell sites: htLp://www.planwireless.com/lawsuits.htm ~ The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC} ceded to "local authorities the primary authority on issues relating to the right-of-way access authorized by Section 7901, including the power to process and issue discretionary permits..." According to the California Court of Appeals in Sprint versus the City of San Diego, Section 7901.1 was clearly intended for the local governments to strengthen their control over "construction management issues" and not to limit or pre-empt cities and counties. Similarly, a Cell site’s neighbors can claim reduced property values as evidence. This was substantiated in federal court in Michael Liner, versus the Village of Wellington: "Aesthetic objections coupled with evidence of an adverse impact on property values or safety concerns can constitute substantial evidence." Trail lawyers advise against the use of aesthetics as primary reason, but diminished property values or other economic damage (like the reduced value of the significant investment in Covington School) can be cited. Why more antennas do not improve "coverage" The more people with cell phones in a particular area there are, the greater likelihood that calls will be interrupted, interfered with, or never connected. The only solution is a new cell site between the two existing cell sites, a process known as "cell splitting." Proceeding with these band-aids at the current rate, the number of sites in the US would reach 1 million in 2010. Imagine Los Altos becoming an antenna tower forest with diminished property values and decreased wellbeing. On April1, 2001, The San Francisco Chronicle had a lead story entitled, "Dead Zones: Where Cell Phones Don’t Work." (http://www.sfgate.c0m/cgi.,-, bin/article.cqi?f=/c/a/2001/O4/O1/MN94361 .DTL&hw= Dead+Zones+Where+Cell+ Phones+D Learn more about cell phones and their effects 3 on%27t+Work&sn=001&sc=1000; http://www.lieffcabraser.com/news2001.htm): "Cell phone towers can cause interference when crowded together. If a wireless phone is close to multiple towers, it might become confused about which one to use. Indeed, cell phones often cut out on hilltops, where they can overlook several transmitters, or on a ferry crossing the Bay, where the phone might have a clear wew of towers on both sides of the water." This article described the poor coverage and efforts of disgruntled consumers to undo their cell phone contracts. Cingular has been reprimanded for unjust and unreasonable marketing of cell phone coverage to consumers in California: J http ://72.14.253.104/search?q =cache :YF9prOSbbsEJ: www. ucan.orq/law policy/teledocs/ci nqularoii.htm+San+Francisco+Chronicle+%22Dead+Zones: +Where+Cell+Phones+Don% 27 t+Work.%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lanq nlllanq enllanq frllanq de. Assuming that more towers will improve coverage is unjustified and calls for more sites obscure the efforts of cell phone providers to add more revenue-bringing features. The latter will be meaningless when regional data networks as planned by Los Altos and in-place in Mountain View will take the place of the data-network (see "Firm selected for wireless network, Los Altos Town Crier September 12, 2006, page 4). The lack of cell phone company accountability and health research A CNET article asked itself"The cell phone industry: Big Tobacco 2.0?" (CNET.co~ . Tuesday, March 8, 2005; http..//www.cnet.com/4520-6033 1-574:1203-1.html).~"The product’s manufacturers deny the presence of any danger and even spend millions of dollars trying to discredit the research that points to problems. Then, an insider emerges, seemingly with proof that the product could be dangerous... A domino effect of future lawsuits []keeps the industry determined to maintain that the product is harmless, despite increasing evidence to the contrary." Scientific studies highlight these Conflicts of interest (A Corporate Risk Assessment of RF Bioeffects Studies Relevant to the Use of Mobile Phones by Children: Is it really science?; Paper presented at the International Scientific Conference, Children With Leukaemia: Incidence, causal mechanisms and prevention, Church House, Westminster, London, 6-10 September 2004.): ".~.Motorola has [] taken an active interest in selectively supporting cell phone research and influencing regulation through its membership and participation in both national and international expert standard setting and advisory committees. As part of Motorola’s partnership with Walt Disney to "tap the 6 to 12 year old customer electronics Learn more about cell phones and their effects 4 market", Motorola has conducted a risk assessment of the RF scientific literature ....An examination of this assessment illustrates how corporate conflict of interest in evaluating scientific literature can influence the outcomes of risk assessment... At the same time as Motorola dismisses [] unreplicated findings, the industry is keen to promote those results which they believe demonstrate ’No Effect’." Wake-up call (http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/marchO5/wakeupcallOl.html opens with a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards as an illustration how industry interests stifle unfavorable research. It continues with an examination of the studies that challenge the industry’s assertion that radio frequencies from cell phones are safe. Why cell phones are bad for children~The advice Independent Expert Group on (:IEGMP,from the UK Mobile Phones http://wwwjegmp.orq.uk/)~ chaired by Sir William Stewart and sometimes dubbed the Stewart Report. (2000) is: "refrain from promoting the use of mobile phones by children. ...restrict the use of cell-phones by children and do not place antennas near schools, hospitals, homes, etc." CM~iil:c:r~ Ea~:a ~1 cP:::u~ ~ nIcSyt, hi~lra~c: h2e: I~ ori3s~ t~:.’~/C:wa Swew f.~ rrnefaX tc ~as~. cP r:mC~ii°v~; aD::m ma ry why children have different risk factors then adults, as confirmed by EPA guideline differences for other agents. BBC News reported Mobile phones alter human DNA (http ://news.bbc.co.uk/qo/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/4113989.stm Published: 2004/12/21.) This latter fact becomes even more disturbing with the recent discovery that many individual characteristics, like protection against diseases, cannot be explained by DNA alone. This suggests that other mechanisms more sensitive to weak electromagnetic fields are at play. ~hh ~ :::~tap~/~V~ iwO nw. (:u~)a ~ ~~~.Pc~ n~ ~n~ ~n if~ ~oU ic~tty~cS: rmU tmi ~sZi~ ~i_S::k fs°. ~ ~ i~:~ _UdS~ ~e rms°. b i I e mobile-phones-children/article-156947). This inquiry was naturally decried by the industry. Learn more about cell phones and their effects 5 Increasingly experts ~re questioning the industry assertions that cell phones are safe~ children (http://webloqs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/laszlo/archives/OO5906.html).~A- report from UK National Radiological Protection Board (NRPD), was so strongly worded on this point that Communic8 Ltd, which makes a phone specifically designed and marketed for 4-8 year olds, is pulling its device off the market. "The decision to withdraw the product is taken in light of this new evidence, suggesting that long-term exposure can damage health, especially in the underdeveloped scull tissue of very young children." The following images demonstrate the effect of cell phones on children’s brains after 2 minutes. Now imagine exposing schoolchildren at Covington for an entire day, an entire school year~ and their entire primary education instead of a few minutes: The close-proximity of the cell tower antenna to Covington school makes the radiation exposure close effects very real. More details on disturbing findings can be found at: http://www.washinqton.edu/alumni/columns/marchOS/wakeupcall inside the wave.html and the research the EU is conducting at: http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/emf- net/doc/Reports/Report%20on%20European%20EMF%20plans%20Au_q2006.Ddf and in particular the effects of non-ionizing radiation, which covers cell phones: http://www.iarc,fr/ENG/U nits/RCA4.php. ~ The Association for Comprehensive Neurotherapy discusses electrical sensitivity and the impact of wireless technology on the development and health of children’s central nervous systems. See the articles in their journal Latitudes and their on-line forum http://www.latitudes.orcj/articles/electrical sensitivity articles.htm!. Medical professionals specializing in brain development note that the developing brain is extraordinarily sensitive to exposure levels that have no lasting effect on an adult’s brain. This development ~ continues into adolescence, (http://www.healthandenvironment.orq/learning behavior}. ATTACHMENT D PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Whitney McNair, Contract Planner Clare Campbell, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning & Community Environment DATE: SUBJECT: November 29, 2006 Zoning Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of proposed changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for (1) wireless communication facilities; (2) water resources protection (streamside development standards and storm water quality protection); and (3) 1.andscape standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and comment on changes to the Zoning .Ordinance to include wireless communication facilities, water resources protection, and landscaping. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment chapter includes policies and programs for protection of water resources and landscaping. The Land Use and Community Design chapter includes several programs regarding landscaping. The Business & Economics chapter includes a policy supporting wireless communications facilities. A complete list of related Comprehensive Plan Programs is included in Attachment A. The PTC discussed landscaping standards and guidelines at a study session on October 25, 2006 and the wireless communication facilities and stream protection measures at a study session on November 1, 2006. DISCUSSION Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.88, Special Provisions and Exceptions, is composed of various sections that address a variety of issues; it is considered the "catch all" section of the code. The proposed revisions to this Chapter include: City of Palo Alto Page I 1.Separation of the provisions into two Chapters, one chapter for Standards for Special Uses and one chapter for General Standards and Exceptions 2.An updated format consistent with other ZOU chapters 3..Inclusion of new sections for landscaping, water resources, and wireless communication facilities 4. Deletion 0ftext related to the maximum number of permits for on-sale alcohol licenses that may be issued in any single block Other than the additional sections, the proposed changes are not substantive. Wireless Communications Facilities Wireless communication facilities (WCF) currently fall into the "utility facilities" use category. The draft code language provides criteria for review and a streamlined review process for wireless communications facilities. At the November 1 PTC meeting, several issues were raised by the commissioners and are discussed below: Co-location: With the new State regulations, it is unclear how much authority the City will have in regulating co-location projects. The City Attorney’s office is currently researching the implications of this new regulation. The review process proposed for co-location projects is limited to Architectural Review (at the staff level) until further notice from the City Attorney. On the City’s Wireless Communications Facilities submittal checklist (Attachment E), the first item required is a statement regarding co-location efforts for the related project. Staff understands that co-location is not always possible for new facilities due to the location requirements of each carrier and individual equipment requirements. Co-location is always encouraged, but cannot always be accomplished. For a new facility, sthff could require the carrier to build a WCF that would physically accommodate another carrier, but that does not guarantee another carrier will find that site and setup useful. Abandoned Antennas: Staff has incorporated a requirement into the related development standards that states that all unused WCF, or components thereof, shall be removed within three months of discontinued use. This requirement would become a standard condition of approval. Aesthetic Concems/Roof-Mounted Antennas: All projects are subject to Architectural Review. This review carefully examines the proposed placement and treatment of the antennas as well as related equipment. The design goal is to create an end product that is unobtrusive and blends with the existing surroundings, whether attached to a building or a "fake" tree in a parking lot. As part of this review, visual clutter is a design concern that is taken very seriously and applicants have been instructed to redesign their projects based on this primary aesthetic concern. To address the concern raised by the PTC about the potential of increasing the height of existing roof screens to screen new roof-mounted WCF, each project is evaluated on a case by case basis to make the best determination. Currently, the zoning code allows for rooftop equipment at a height maximum of 15 feet above the height standard for the zone district, subject to Architectural Review. Project Notification: Although staff is recommending a change to the review process, certain types of facilities could require a greater radius for project notification than other, less visible, City of l~alo Alto Page 2 WCF. The attached table (Attachment F) shows the two review processes proposed and the notice requirements for each. All WTC projects would require notification, either as a conditional use permit (600 feet) or for architectural review by staff (150 feet). Staff believes that the 150-foot radius will reach all potentially affected property owners for projects that are essentially negligible in terms of visual impact. As an alternative to having a standard 150 foot notification radius, however, the radius could be based on the project height (as shown on the table, Attachment F). For building-mounted projects not exceeding the existing building height a notification radius of 150 feet would be utilized; but for projects exceeding the existing height, a notification radius of 600 feet would be used. City of Los Altos: One of the public speakers named Los Altos as having a more "big picture" approach for regulating WCF and some of the Commissioners were interested in learning more. That ordinance (http://www.ci.los-altos.ca.us/documents/LosAltosWirelessOrdinanceFinal.pdf) shares many of the same goals, standards, and processes that Palo Alto has been using to review these projects. The Los Altos code does refer to "distributed, repeater, or microcell antenna systems" as a separate category of WCF. Simply put, theseare antenna systems that cover a smaller, more specific area, to increase coverage and improve reception that can be installed either inside or outside of a building. This is a newer technology that is not as pervasive, but can be utilized for more discrete applications due to their smaller size and system requirements. The review process thht staff recommends is applicable to thesetypes of facilities as well. Streamlined Review Process There are two review processes recommended for WCF (Attachment F), depending on the sensitivity of the project: A.Conditional Use Permit arid Architectural Review (Staff Level) process for the following more sensitive projects: 1.Proposed on a residentially zoned parcel 2.Proposed on a site with residential type use 3.Developed as stand alone facilities (e.g. tree-pole, monopole, light standard, etc.) 4.Proposed for expansion beyond the original CUP approval B. Architectural Review (Staff Level) process for less sensitive projects: 1.Building-mounted facilities 2.Building-mounted facility on a PC zoned site (use not already allowed) 3,Co-location projects (adding a new carrier to a site with an existing WCF use) Proposed Development Requirements The following development requirements are recommended to codify the desired design standards and to allow for specific practical exceptions that would otherwise require a Design Enhancement Exception: City of Palo Alto Page 3 1.Development Standards and Exceptions - Each proposed project shall meet the standard zoning requirements for the zone district in which it is located. The following development exceptions, as approved in the CUP/AR process, may be considered: a. Building-mounted WCF may extend 15’ beyond the permitted height b. Stand alone WCF may be up to 65’ in height c. Stand alone WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback 2.Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall utilize the smallest footprint possible 3.Equipment cabinets and enclosures shall be designed to minimize overall height 4.Cabinets and associated equipment shall be screened from public view 5.Equipment enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site 6.Building-mounted antennas shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building 7.All antennas shall have a "stealth" design to minimize visibility offsite 8.WCF, or any components of a facility, that is no longer in use shall be removed by the applicant/service provider within three months of use termination: Water Resources Protection The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative) consists of representatives from 15 municipalities, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other community and environmental stakeholders. The Collaborative developed a set of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S). The G&S cover a wide range of issues affecting land development near and in local streams. In order to address the G&S, a new section in this Chapter is recommended. The Chapter will also address a provision of the Countywide storm water, discharge permit requiring a mechanism to encourage land ¯ development project designers to utilize site design measures that protect storm water quality. At the November 1 PTC meeting, a few items were raised by the Commissioners that have resulted in a few revisions to the proposed standards: 1. Staff has changed the proposed separation requirement for noise producing equipment from 25 feet to 50 feet from the top of bank 2. The Planning Landscape Specialist or Arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank in conjunction with the discretionary review 3. "Impervious areas" is included in the list of items that cannot be located in the slope stability protection area (taken from Com Plan Program N-7) 4. The heading "Considerations" is replaced with "Guidelines" 5. Additional terminology is added for the definitions section (Attachment G) Applicability Criteria Staff recommends the establishment of a "streamside review area", which includes all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank (except those properties separated from the stream by a public street). For parcels within the streamside review ~ea, the following types of development would be subject to the new Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams (G&S) requirements: 1.Development in all zones other than R1 (single-family use in the R2, RMD, RE, OS, RM15, etc. zones is NOT exempt from new requirements) City of Palo Alto Page 4 Development in the R1 zone requiring discretionary review: a. Individual Review (IR) for NEW 2 story house b. IR for new 2nd floor on existing house (where there is an expansion/change of the building (and/or accessory building) footprint) c. Variance (VAR) (including fences) d. Home Improvement Exception (HIE) 3. Development requiring a CUP in the R-I zone (e.g. churches, schools) Exempt Projects 1. Less than 3 cubic yards of earthwork 2. Interior construction 3. Structures <= 120 sf 4. Replacement of utility service laterals 5. Fences six feet tall or less 6. Decks <= 30" above grade Standards for Land Development Near Streams The following standards would be require.d for the aforementioned list of applicable project types within the streamside review area, in order to preserve the stream’s riparian resources and protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion. Requirements: 1. All development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area. The slope Stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:l (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater (Attachment G). The following accessory type stability protection area: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) structures/uses shallnot be allowed within the slope Any structure larger than 120 square feet in area (including accessory structures) Decks over 30" in height Swimming pools Parking lots Other impervious areas in excess of 120 square feet in area Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works where a geotechnical slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance and repair of the stream banks would be accommodated, All native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by the Planning Staff/Landscape Specialist. Mitigation planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is allowed to be removed. Planting of non-native invasive plant species shall not be allowed on the project site. Refer to current version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams for plant lists and reference material (Attachment H). City ofPa~Alto Page 5 6. 7. 8. Only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the banks of a stream (Attachment I, plant list). Loading docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas, and stationary noise-producing mechanical equipment shall be located at least 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion. All permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the latest version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Guidelines: 1.Maximize the distance.between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream. 2.Avoid bright colors and glossy or glare-producing building finishes on buildings facing streams or riparian areas. Storm water Quality Protection Section C.3 of the Countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidance to encourage the. incorporation of storm water- friendly site design measures into land development projects. Site design measures are features that reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or slowing storm water rtmoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of contiguous impervious surfaces. ¯The following items should be added to Chapter 18.88 as guidelines to be made for all development projects, not just those near streams. Guidelines: The following site design measures shall be included in site and building design wherever feasible in order to minimize storm water rtmoff and protect and enhance the quality of storm water runoff leaving the site: 2. 3. 4. 5. Minimize land disturbance and preserve high-quality open space, riparian corridors, and wetlands on the development site. Minimize the amount of impervious surface (e.g., buildings, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc.). Minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm runoff into vegetated swales and other landscaped areas before it reaches a storm drain or stream. Utilize minimum-impact street design standards (e.g. narrow streets and sidewalks, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact parking lot design standards (e.g. parking space maximization within a given area, use of parking lot island and perimeter landscaping as a storm water drainage feature, permeable pavements, etc.). Utilize minimum-impact driveway design standards (e.g. narrow width, "Hollywood" strips, shared driveways, permeable pavements, etc.). Cluster structures, pavement and other impervious surfaces on the development site. Route rain water leaders into landscaped areas through the use of splash blocks or pop-up emitters, rather than directly to an underground storm drain, in order to promote filtration and infiltration of roof runoff. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Utilize microdetenti0n techniques (e.g. use ofbioretention planters, cisterns, etc.) to slow and reduce storm runoff. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. Landscaping Standards Most of the City’s current landscape design standards are found in the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18.83.90, Design Standards--General Parking Facilities; and Chapter 18.83.100, Design Standards--Landscaping in Parking Facilities and Required Landscape Areas. Other area. specific standards are located in the Sand Hill Road Development Area (Stanford West, Hyatt Senior Development, Stanford Shopping Center and Sand Hitl Road) and for the Baylands. The purview of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) also includes landscape review. The Zoning Ordinance provides minimum landscape standards that are to be implemented with development projects. Additional landscaping conditions may be approved as part of an ¯ architectural or discretionary review. The existing code separates landscape areas into two general categories: (1) perimeter landscaping surrounding a parking lot, and (2) interior landscaping between the parking lot and the building~ The required landscape area is determined by a percentage of the total parking lot area. The code is brief, leaving much of the site planning and design up to staff and the applicant to work out on a case by case basis. Without having the landscape provisions of the Comprehensive Plan codified or implemented through a technical manual, it is often difficult to consistently integrate landscaping standards into a project. The PTC considered and discussed landscaping at its October 25 meeting. The outline below addresses several issues raised by Commissioners and the public at that meeting. Also, Attachment N provides responses to Commissioner Keller’s e-mail questions submitted in advance of that meeting. Outline of Draft Landscape Criteria Landscape provisions would be included in the new Chapter 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) to replace the current Chapter 18.88. The intent of these requirements and guidelines is to encourage creative ways to integrate landscape design as a primary resource for infrastructure management, economic vitality and public health, as well as traditional aesthetic enhancement of structures, streetscapes and parking areas. Landscaping requirements also are intended to emphasize the preservation of and enhancement of natural areas with native vegetation, support water conservation and stormwater quality objectives. Emerging alternatives, such as rooftop gardens, usable (edible) landscape (Attachment J), and alternatives to hard ¯ surfaces are becoming increasingly feasible as best management practices. The draft landscape section will provide this direction but allow for creative design standards to respond to challenges posed by an individual project or site constraints. The draft section will apply to all new development and additions requiring architectural or discretionary review. Detailed landscapin, g provisions will be provided in a Landscape Technical Manual to be developed. A draft outline of the proposed sections include: A. General Regulations a. Applicability City of Polo Alto Page 7 b. Minimum Landscape Requirements for Development Organization Review c. Reference to the Landscape Technical Manual (see outline below) d. Reference to the Tree Technical Manual e. Reference to other relevant technical documents f. Reference to relevant elements of the existing code, PAMC 18.83.100 (Parking Design) Bo Natural Areas (Open Space District, Hillside Lands, Baylands, Creek and Riparian Areas): Basic program statements related to: a. Preservation of sensitive plant species, invasive eradication guidelines b. Habitat preservation c. Viewshed preservation d. Riparian best practices within stream corridors e. Low impact development alterhatives Special Design Landscaping Standards for public and private projects a. Screening utilities - transformer cabinets, pads, fiber optic trenching and above ground cabinets, plan view and elevations to show on all plan submittals b. Utilization of gray water for irrigation (potential, backup system, etc.) c. Limitation on the usage of lawns in commercial development d. Special surface materials--hardscape and softscape Do Residential Landscaping Design Standards a. Light well landscaping b.Screening standards, when stipulated c.Street tree guidelines d.Tree planting restrictions under power lines Landscape Technical Manual Many of the requirements and guidelines of the code would be implemented through details outlined in a Landscape Technical Manual, to be developed subsequent to the adoption of the ZOU. Primary components of the Landscape Technical Manual would include: 1.. Design Standards - General and Specific Details and Specifications 2. Parking Areas, Trees and Green Practices: ¯Canopy Shade Formula for Vehicular Use Areas (Attachment M) ¯Design standards for reducing hard surfaces ¯Design standards for increasing tree canopy, planter’size and root growing areas (Attachment L-Structured Engineered Soil) Storm Water Management Best Practices and Design 3. Special Materials. Acceptable alternatives and design standards for hard surfaces, soft surfaces, ADA, roof garden planters, podium and wall planting, etc. 4. Screening and Landscape Buffers. Basic list of tree and shrub plants that could function to interrupt direct view of above-ground utility boxes 5.Recommended best practices for situating and screening above-ground utilities, transformer pads, backflow devices, electrical cabinets, trash enclosures, etc. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Tree Canopy Shade Formula The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goal L-75) identifies a parking lot shade goal of 50% over a 10-15 year period. This would be an achievable goat for most new construction projects if five main strategy components are in place (see below). A target formula is needed to replace the existing.standard (one tree every 10 spaces, etc.). Staff research has concluded that Palo Alto should consider a ’shade benefits potential’ formula (Attachment M-Sacramento Model), rather than a ’points rating only’ formula used~by Midwest/eastern jurisdictions (previously attached Oklahoma City Landscape Ordinance). The new Palo Alto Landscape Section could reflect the foll6wing direction for Vehicle Use Areas, Trees and Green Practices: Vehicle Use Areas (VUA) shall provide required landscape areas designed to achieve a minimum of 50% canopy coverage within 15 years. Greater than 50% canopy is encouraged to yield increased benefits, and should be considered for open landscape areas associated with pedestrian, common and usable open space landscaping. Canopy shade goals can be achieved but must provide for (a) available adequate rooting volume and (b) proper species size selection for the site, to be accompanied by the following strategies: 1.Codify the VUA canopy shade goal for 50% canopy coverage within 15 years. 2.Adopt a recommended VUA shade tree list (Landscape Technical Manual-LTM) 3.Adopt design standards for providing sufficient rooting volume in VUA landscape ¯areas, islands, medians and hard surface areas (LTM). Consider alternative green design using CU-structural soil (Attachment K), pervious surfaces, etc. 4. Adopt conditions Of approval to require landscape architect certification compliance .with ordinance at (a) permitting and (b) construction final. 5. Adopt conditions of approval for a property owner/city monitoring and maintenance program (LTM). The manual would specify compliance standards, tree, plant and irrigation replacement, etc. The above five elements are extremely important to achieving the city’s shading goal. The final bullet was deemed critical to achieving the goals, as reported by the Sacramento agency representative in personal communication with staff in October 2006. Other Revisions to Chapter 18.88 Chapter 18,88 is proposed to be divided into two separate Chapters: Chapter 18.40 "General Standards and Exceptions" (Table of Contents in Attachment C) and Chapter 18.42 "Standards for Special Uses" (Table of Contents in Attachment D). The format will be changed to reflect other new sections of the Zoning Ordinance for ease of use and consistency. One section of the code (current 18.88.210) referencing the number of alcoholic beverage permits issued per block will be removed to be consistent with current Alcohol Beverage Control regulations. NEXT STEPS Staff will prepare a draft ordinance for review and public hearing by the Commission at a future meeting scheduled for December 13, 2006. Upon recommendation from the Commission, the draft ordinance will be presented to the City Council for review and adoption in early 2007. City of Palo Alto Page 9 ATTACHMENTS A. Comprehensive Plan Policies B. Chapter 18.88 (current code section) C. Proposed Chapter 18.40 General Standards and Exceptions (Table of Contents) D. Proposed Chapter 18.42 Standards for Special Uses (Table of Contents) E. Wireless Communications Facilities Submittal Checklist F. Proposed Wireless Review Process Table G. Terminology Related to Stream Protection Area Standards H. Plant List - Non-Native Invasive Plant Species I. Plant List - Native Plant Species J. Valley of Heart’s Delight K. Social Benefits of Trees, News Release L. Structured Engineered Soils M. Parking Lot Tree Shading Design & Maintenance Guidelines (Sacramento Model - excerpts) N. Response to Commissioner Keller E-Mall of October 22, 2006 COURTESY COPIES City Council Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney Melissa Tronquet, Deputy City Attorney Architectural Review Board Doug Moran, Barron Park Association Sheri Furman, Midtown Residents Association Luis Jaimes, Santa Clara Valley Water District Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Board Pam Stumer, San Francisquito Watershed Council Joe Teresi, Public Works PREPARED BY: ¯Whitney McNair, Planner Clare Campbell, Planner REVIEWED BY: Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Curtis Williams Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chapter 1.8.88 SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ATTACHMENT A Sections: 18.88.010 18.88.020 18.88.030 18.88.040 18.88.050 18.88.060 18.88.070 18.88.080 18.88.090 18.88.100 18.88.110 18.88.130 18.88.140 18.88.150 18.88.160 18.88.170 18.88.180 18.88.190 18.88.200 18.88.210 Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Location of Accessory Buildings Separation Between Buildings Substandard Lots Utility Easements Watercourse or Channel Measurement Projections into Yards Height .Exceptions Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Home Occupations Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Hazardous Conditions Vehicle and Equipment Repair and Storage Setback Map Clothesline Restrictions Prohibited Reverse Vending Machines Temporary Uses Sales of Alcoholic Beverages 18.88.010 Application The regulations established by this title shall be subject to the special provisions and exceptions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.020 (a) Accessory Uses and Facilities Accessory uses and facilities shall be permitted in any district when incidental to and associated with a permitted use or facility, or wl~en incidental to and associated with an allowable and authorized conditional use therein, subject to the provisions of this section. (b) Accessory uses and facilities: Palo Alto Municipal Code (c) (1)Shall be Subordinate to the primary activity of the principal use or the principal facility, respectively; (2)Shall contribute to the comfort, convenience, efficiency, or necessity of the occupants or the activities Of a principal use, or the function of a principal Structure; (3)Shall be located on the same site as the principal use or structure served, except as otherwise authorized by this rifle. Accessory uses and facilities include, but are not limited to, the followirig list of examples; provided that each accessory use or facility shall comply with all provisions of this title: (1)Residential garages, carports, and parking facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (2)Customer, visitor, and employee parking facilities, and off-street loading facilities, together with access and circulation elements necessary thereto; (4) Facilities for storage incidental to a principal use; Recreational uses and facilities for the use and convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use or facility; (s) (6) Newsstands, gift shops, drugstores, and eating and drinking facilities, or similar services intended solely for the convenience of occupants or employees, or guests thereof, of a principal use, when conducted entirely within a principal facility; Building management offices when located within the principal facility and limited to the management thereof; (7)Refreshment and service facilities in parks, in playgrounds, and in permitted public or private recreation facilities or schools; The operation of service facilities and equipment in connection with schools, hospitals, and similar institutions or uses, when located on the site of the principal use. No use or facility permitted as an accessory use or facility pursuant to this section shall be construed to be permitted as a principal use or facility unless specifically authorized as a permitted or conditional use in the district in which it shall be located. Operation, occupancy, and continuance of allowable accessory uses and facilities shall be conditioned upon the continued occupancy or use of the principal use or facility being served. Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard, as permitted by this section, shall not individually or cumulatively occupy an area exceeding fifty Palo Alto Municipal Code percent of the required rear yard. (Ord. 4472-6 3, 1997: Ord. 3465 § 20, 1983: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.030 (a) Location of Accessory Buildings Except as otherwise provided in this section, accessory buildings shall at all times be located in conformance with requirements for principal buildings, and shall not be located in any required front, side or rear yard. In residential zones, accessory buildings may be located in a required interior yard subject to the following limitations: (1)An accessory building shall not be used for living and/or sleeping purposes unless the building was legally constructed for or legally converted to living and/or sleeping purposes prior to October 13, 1983. (2)An accessory building shall not be located in a required front yard, a required street yard, or a required rear yard of a through lot. (3)An accessory building shall not be located in a required interior side or rear yard unless the building is at least seventy-five feet from any street line, measured along the respective lot line. (4) (5) Accessory buildings located within a required interior yard as permitted by this section shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 2.44 meters (eight feet) at the property line and increasing at a slope of one meter for each three meters of distance from the property line, to a maximum height of 3.66 meters (twelve feet). No such accessory building shall have more than two plumbing fixtures. (c)No swimming pool, hot tub, spa or similar accessory facility shall be located in any portion of a required front or street side yard~ (Ord. 4869 § 43, 2005: Ord. 4716 § 12, 2001: Ord. 3905 § 16, 1989: Ord. 3577 § 3, 1984: Ord. 3536 § 37, 1984: Ord. 3465.§ 21, 1983: Ord. 3340 § 15, 1982: Ord. 3255 § 12, 1981: Ord. 3130 § 12, 1979: Ord. 3108 § 19, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.040 (a) (b) Separation Between Buildings The minimum distance between separate buildings located on the same site shall be as required by Title 16; provided, however, accessory buildings in the RE single-family residence districts shall be separated from the principal building by at least three feet. A principal building and an accessory building, meeting the requirements of Title 16 and each located on a site as otherwise permitted for principal building and Palo Alto Municipal Code accessory buildings, may be connected by a structure meeting the definition of a breezeway. Such structure, or breezeway, shall be a part of the accessory building. (Ord. 4869 § 44, 2005: Ord. 3905 § 17, 1989: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.050 (a) Substandard Lots Any lot having a site area, width, or depth less than required by this title, which meets one of the provisions specified in this subsection, may be used as a lot or site under the provisions of this title, subject to the applicable district regulations and other provisions of this title: (1) (2) A lot shown upon an official subdivision map duly approved and recorded; A lot for which a deed or a valid contract of sale is on record in the office of the county recorder of Santa Clara County prior to February 19, 1951, and was of legal area at the time it was recorded; (3)A lot for which individual water, sewer, and!or gas service or services were installed by the city prior to October 8, 1947; (b) (c) (Ord. 3178 § 1 (4)A lot upon which a dwelling was constructed on or after October 8, 1947, and prior to July 20, 1978 which at the time of construction complied with all lot width and area requirements; (5)A lot otherwise meeting applicable requirements at the time such lot was created, but which does not meet the minimum requirements of this title as currently.applicable to such lot, by reason of annexation, a change in zoning district, or a change in applicable regulations within a district. A substandard lot meeting one of the provisions designated in subsection (a) shall be considered a legal lot; provided the particular measurement (area, width, or depth) not in accord with this title shall not be further reduced. All lots which were merged by the 1977 amendments to the Subdivision Map Act prior to the adoption of Chapter 234, Statutes 1977, are hereby deemed unmerged. (a), 1980; Ord. 3130 § 22, 1979; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.060 Utility Easements No structures other than fences or landscaping features shall be located within any portion of an easement granted to the city for utility purposes, unless authorized pursuant to an encroachment permit granted by the city. Any structure now existing which does not comply with this section shall not be expanded, enlarged, or replaced in event of demolition or destruction, except as may be authorized by an encroachment permit issued by the city. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.88.070 Watercourse or Channel No portion of a lot which is located within the easement lines, or top of the banks in the event such easement lines cannot be ascertained, of any natural watercourse, river~ stream, creek, waterway, channel, or flood-control easement or drainage easement shall be included in the determination of lot area and lot dimensions. In the case of any such lot which is bounded, in whole or in part, by any such natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel, or fl0od-control easement or drainage easement, for those portions of the lot so bounded, all measurements and dimensions specified by this title and related to or determined from lot lines shall be measured from said easement line, or top of the bank, of such watercourse. Provided, the expansion of an existing easement over a lot adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and fronting on Edgewood Drive in favor of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (or its successor in interest) on or after January 1, 2002 shall not alter the calculation of lot area. Lot area, lot dimensions, and setbacks shall be calculated for such lots as if the post-January 1, 2002 easement had not been created. (Ord. 4751 § 3, 2002: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.8.8.080 Measurement Distances between buildings, or between any structure and any property line, setback line, or other line or location prescribed by this title shall be measured to the nearest vertical support or wall of such structure. Where one or more buildings do not have vertical exterior walls, the distances between the buildings shall be prescribed by the building official. In the application of measurements specified by this title in both English and metric measure, metric measure shall be applied for all new construction; provided, that where existing structures, uses, areas, heights, dimensions, or site improvements have been based upon English measures, the exact metric equivalent of the English measures prescribed by this title may continue to be used for improvements, extensions, and revisions to such facilities or uses. It is the purpose of this title to facilitate conversion from English to metric measures with minimum impact on property and improvements and changes thereto, and the building official, zoning administrator, director of planning and community environment and other persons responsible for interpretation and enforcement of this title shall, in case of conflict or difference between English and metric measurements, apply the provisions of this title in the less restrictive manner. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.090 Projections into Yards (a)Cornices, eaves, fireplaces and similar architectural features, excluding fiat or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2 meters (four feet). .Window surfaces, such as bay windows or greenhouse windows, may extend into a required front, side or rear yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet) or Palo Alto Municipal Code (b) (c) (0 (g) into a required front yard a distance not exceeding three feet. In residential districts or nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, the window surface may not extend into any yard above a first story. A canopy or patio cover may be located in any residential district in the required rear yard or that portion of the interior side yard which is more than 22.9 meters (seventy-five feet)from the street lot line measured along the common lot line. Such canopies shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) (2) A canopy or patio cover shall not be more than 3.7 meters (twelve feet) in height. The canopy or patio cover shall be included in the computation of building coverage. (3)The canopy or patio cover and other structures shall not occupy more than fifty percent of the required r~ar yard. (4)The canopy or patio cover shall not be enclosed on more than two sides. Structures not over 1.8 meters (six feet) in height or 2.3 square meters (twenty-five square feet) in floor area, used exclusively for storage purposes, may extend into a required side yard a distance not exceeding 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required front or rear yard a distance not exceeding 1.2.meters (four feet). Uncovered porches, stairways, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than 1.8 meters (six feet) into a required front or rear yard,, and may extend not more than 0.9 meters (three feet) into a required side yard; provided that, in residential districts or in nonresidential districts adjacent to residential districts, these projections may not extend into any yard above a first story. Pools, spas and hot tubs may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 4.27 meters (fourteen feet), provided that a minimum setback of 1.8 meters (six feet) from the property line shall be maintained. In residential districts, a portion of a main building which is less than half the maximum width of such building may extend into the required rear yard no more than 1.8 meters (six feet) and with a height of no more than one story, except that a comer lot having a common rear property line with an adjoining comer lot may extend into the required rear yard not more than 3.0 meters (ten feet) and with a height of no more than one story. Subsections (a) through (d) of this section notwithstanding, a projection shall not be permitted to encroach into a special setback, as established by the setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In residential districts the terraced and landscaped portions of excavated features, such as below grade patios and sunken gardens, that comply with the provisions Palo Alto Municipal Code of Section 18.10.050(m), 18.12.050(o), 18.17.050(p), or 18.19.050(o), as applicable, may extend into a required side yard a distance not to exceed 0.6 meters (two feet), or may extend into a required rear yard a distance not to exceed 1.2 meters (four feet). (Ord. 4869 §§ 45, 46, 2005: Ord. 4716 § 13, 2001: Ord. 4081 § 13, 1992: Ord. 3683 §§ 14, 16, 1986: Ord. 3187 § 5, 1980: Ord. 31.08 § 12, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.100 Height Exceptions Except in OS, RE, R-l, and R-2 districts, flues, chimneys, exhaust fans or air conditioning equipment, elevator equipment, cooling towers, antennas, and similar architectural, utility, or mechanical features may exceed the height limit established in any district by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet); provided, however, that no such feature or structure in excess of the height limit shall be used for habitable space, or for any commercial or ad-verfising purposes. In OS, RE, R-l, and R-2-districts, flues, chimneys and antennas may exceed the established height limit by not more than 4.6 meters (fifteen feet). (Ord. 3130 § 13, 1979: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.110 Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Except as otherwise prescribed by district regulations or other provisions of this title, use and development of required yards shall be limited to the following: (a) Fences, screening, and enclosures permitted by Chapter 16.24; (b)Landscaping; (c)Outdoor recreation, including open structures and ground level facilities related thereto, such as tennis courts, swimming pools, other game or court facilities, sitting areas, decks, patios, terraces, and like features constructed at ground level or within 0.3 meters (one foot) above natural grade; provided, that no below-grade improvements such as swimming pools shall be permitted within 0.9 meters (three feet) from the property line; (d). (e) Pedestrian walkways and driveways; Required parking, in accord with the location provisions specified within each district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.130 Home Occupations Where permitted, a home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations: (a) The home occupation shall be conducted in a manner that is compatible with Palo Alto Municipal Code (b) residential uses permitted in the same district, and in a manner which does not change the character and appearance of the dwelling unit in which it is conducted. No person shall be employed on the site in colmection with the home occupation except lawful occupants of the dwelling unit within which the home occupation is conducted. (c) (d) (e) No advertising shall be permitted on the site. Not more than twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit, or 46.5 square meters (five hundred square feet) of gross floor area on the site including accessory buildings, whichever is less, shall be devoted to the ,home occupation. The home occupation shall not be conducted in a manner which generates traffic or parking demand or vehicular deliveries substantially greater than customarily associated with residential occupancy of the dwelling unit. (0 No mechanical, electrical, or other equipment shall be used, nor shall a home occupation be conducted in any manner which is a nuisance or is noxious, offensive, or hazardous by reason of vehicular traffic, noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibration, particulate matter, odor, heat, humidity, glare, refuse, radiation, or other objectionable emissions or effects. No outdoor storage of any material, equipment or goods shall be permissible in connection with any home occupation. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.140 Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) In order to be located in any residential district or on any site in any other district used for residential occupancy, a mobile home (manufactured housing) must: (a) (b) (c) Be certified under the provisions of the National Mobile Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Section 5401, et seq.) or any successor legislation; Be located on a permanent foundation system approved by the building official pursuant to all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, California Health and Safety Code Section 18551 or successor legislation; Must meet all of the application site regulations of the district in which it is located; (d)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, mobile homes (manufactured housing) on permanent foundations shall not be allowed in any historic district ot the city as designated in Chapter 16.49. Palo Alto Municipal Code (Ord. 3291 § 12, 1981: Ord. 3070 § 5, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978). 18.88.150 Hazardous Conditions In any area within the city identified by the Comprehensive Plan as having moderate or high risk due to flood hazard, seismic activity hazard, to other geologic hazard, the following provisions shall apply: (a) (b) In areas identified as subject to high risk, the building official may require, prior to issuance of a building permit or other permit authorizing any new construction, submission by the permit applicant of detailed geologic, soils, and engineering data sufficient to define the extent of any potential hazard and to demonstrate that the proposed construction shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate or otherwise recognize such hazard. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. In areas identified as subject to moderate risk, the building official may require " such reports as described in (a) for any use except single-family use or two-family use. Such reports and data shall be required for any use involving public assembly. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.88.160 Vehicle and Equipment Repa, ir and Storage Except as otherwise provided, parking is allowed in all residential districts and on all sites in any other district used for residential occupancy: (a)¯ No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, Wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on any vehicle, motor vehicle, camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, house car, boat, or similar conveyance except when conducted within a garage or accessory building, or during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. when conductedin an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots by a legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not be construed to prohibit occasional minor maintenance such as changing spark plugs, oil, belts and hoses. No person shall store, place or park any of the conveyances designated in subsection (a), or any part thereof, which is disabled, unlicensed, unregistered, inoperative, or from which an essential or legally required operating part is removed, including an unmounted camper, camp trailer, trailer, trailer coach and similar noumotorized conveyance, or any other structure or device exceeding .46 cubic meters (sixteen cubic.feet) in volume to be carried upon or in any such conveyance, or any equipment, machinery, or similar material unless conducted Palo Alto Municipal Code (c) (e) (f) (g) (i) G) (k) within a garage or accessory building, or in an area screened from view from the street and adjoining lots bya legally located fence, wall, or equivalent screening. No person shall service, repair, assemble, disassemble, wreck, modify, restore, or otherwise work on, or store, place, and park any of the conveyances designated in this section (excluding [1] passenger vehicles other than house cars, and [2] "pickup" motor trucks on which no equipment other ihan a camper is mounted), whether disabled or fully operative, for an aggregate period of over seventy-two hours during any continuous period of ninety-six hours in any open areas on a lot only in locations where an accessory building or principal building of equivalent height or bulk would be permitted by the provisions of this title. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), emergency repairs and short-term or temporary parking of any conveyance listed in subsection (a), when owned by a person residing on the lot, may be conducted for an.aggregate period of up to seventy-two hours in any continuous period of ninety-six hours exclusive of the screening requirements. For the purpose of this section, references to types of conveyances shall have the same meanings as defined in the Vehicle Code of the state of California, where such definitions are available. Chapter 18.94 shall not be applicable to this section. Subject to securing a permit therefor from the building official and otherwise complying with applicable law, the use of a recreational .vehicle, as defined in this title, may be permitted for sleeping purposes only for a period not to exceed thirty consecutive days in any calendar year for not more than two nonpaying guests of the occupant of a single-family dwelling in accord with all applicable regulations governing parking and storage of vehicles. Except in the OS (open space) and AC (agricultural conservation) districts, no person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section, whether disabled or fully operative, in any areas visible from a public street unless it is parked or stored upon either permeable or impermeable paving surface. No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section within the thirty-five foot triangle of property at the intersection of streets improved for vehicular traffic. No person shall store, place, or park any of the conveyances designated in this section in a manner that they cover more than 2~0 percent of any required front yard. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable as provided in this code. Each day of violation constitutes a separate offense and may be separately punished. Palo Alto Municipal Code (Ord. 4768 § 2, 2002: Ord. 4453 § 67, 1997: Ord. 3291 § 13, 1981; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18:88.170 Setback Map See Chapter 22.08 of the Municipal Code for setback map regulations. (Ord. 3130 § 24, 1979) 18.88.180 Clothesline Restrictions Prohibited Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property which prohibits or unduly restricts the installation or use of a clothesline in any residential zone is void and unenforceable. (Ord. 3277 § 1, 1981) 18.88.190 Reverse Vending Machines Reverse vending machines may be established only in conjunction with an otherwise allowed commercial or industrial use and may not exceed a maximum of three machines per site or one hundred fifty cubic feet in volume per site. Sites containing reverse vending machine(s) shall include a refuse container adjacent to the machine(s) and shall be maintained in a litter free condition. In addition, a reverse vending machine shall: (a)Not exceed eight feet in height; (b)Be located on the site in a manner which will assure compatibility with surrounding uses; (c) Be subject to the noise restrictions contained in Chapter 9.10 of this code. (Ord. 3757 § 34, !987) 18.88.200 Temporary Uses The zoning administrator may grant a temporary use permit authorizing the use of a site in any district for a temporary use, subject to the following provisions: (a)Application shall be made to the Zoning administrator and shall be subject to the fee prescribed by the municipal fee Schedule. (b) (c) The permit may be granted by the director without a requirement for public hearing and notice. The permit may include authorization to vary from specific requirements of this title as may be solely related to the requested temporary use. Palo Alto Municipal Code (e) (0 (g) A temporary use permit, if granted by the director, shall be valid for a specifically stated time period not to exceed forty-five days. The director may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as he or she deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. A temporary use permit may be granted by the director if, from the application or the facts presented to him, he finds: (1) (2) The granting of the application 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 proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this tire. Any person who obtains a temporary use permit as provided by this section and fails to abide by its conditions is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person who uses a site for a temporary use in violation of Title 18 and fails to obtain a temporary use permit as required by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 4826 § 129,2004) 18.88.210 (a) (e) (d) (e) Sales of Alcoholic Beverages In any district where otherwise permitted by this title, any eating and drinking establishment or other use having any part of its operation subject to an on-sale license required by the State of California shall be subject to securing a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit shall be obtained in the case of premises for which no conditional use permit is in force, whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of Califomia. In the.case of premises for which a conditional Use permit is in force, which permits the sale of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever such use is intensified or is expanded in square footage. In the case of premises for which a conditional use permit is in force, but such use permit does not permit sales of alcohol, an amendment to such permit shall be required whenever a new on-sale license is required by the State of California. The maximum number of permits for on-sale general (liquor, beer and wine) and for on-sale beer and wine licenses which may be issued in any single block where any portion of the block is classified in one or more districts in which an eating Palo Alto Municipal Code and drinking establishment is a permitted or a conditional use shall be governed by the following table, and no applications for a conditional use. permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages under an on-sale license from the State of California shall be accepted unless the standards in this section are met. In any block having residentially zoned site area equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total block area: In any block having residentially zoned site area equal to or greater than twenty-five percent of the total block area: Maximum Number of Conditional Use Permits Which May Be Authorized Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Allowing Eating and Drinking. Use as a Permitted or Conditional Use No permit ................0 - 1,858.0 sq. m. (0-19,999 sq.. ft.) 1 permit ............1,8581 - 3,716.0 sq. m. (20,000-39,999 sq. ft.) 2 permits ..........3,716.1 sq. m. and above (40,000 sq. ft. and above) 3 or more ......................In the same progression In any block having residentially zoned site area less than twenty-five, percent of total block area: Maximum Number of Square Feet of Zoned Site Area in District(s) Conditional Use Permits Allowing Eating and Drinking Use as a Which May Be Authorized Permitted or Conditional Use ft. ) 4 permits. .............0 - 14,864.4 sq. m. (0 159,999 sq. ft.) 5 permits ........14,864.5 - 29,728.9 sq. m. (160,000 - 319,999 sq. ft.) 6 permits ........29,729.0 - 59,457.9 sq. m. (320,000 - 639,999 sq. ft.) 7 permits...’ .....59,458.0 ~ 118,915.8 sq. m. (640,000 - 1,279,999 sq. 8 or more ......................In the same progression. (f)Addi tional condi tional use permits may be authorized for establishments for on-sale beer and wine licenses. The total number of such additional permits shall be equal to half the number of on-sale general licenses permitted in the tables contained in subsection (c). (Ord.4826 ~ 130, 2004) 18.66.070 Non-conforming Uses and Non-complying Facilities Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the rezoning process referenced in Section 18.66.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district, the use and/or facility would then be subject to. the PTOD overlay standards. (Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006) Palo Alto Municipal Code ATTACHMENT B COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Wireless Communications Facilities Policy B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. Water Resources Protection ¯ Policy N-IO: Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flo6d control by use of low impact restoration strategies. ¯ Policy N-11: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. ¯ Program N-7: Adopt a setback along natural creeks that prohibits the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas within 100 feet of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle pathways where.there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 25 feet along the creek bank. ¯ Program N-8: Develop and adopt a creek ordinance that establishes new development regulations for properties abutting creeks, establishes an exception process, and provides incentives to achieve maximum creek setbacks, such as reduced front yard setbacks and reduced on-site parking requirements. ¯ Policy N-12: Preserve the habitat value of creek corridors through the preservation of native plants and the replacement of invasive, non-native plants with native plants. ¯ Program N-13: Establish public education programs regarding the conservation of creeks and riparian areas. City of Palo Alto 0 ~ ~o0 [] c Draft Table of Contents ATTACHMENT C Chapter 18.40 GENERAL STANDARDS .AND EXCEPTIONS Sections: 18.40.010 18.40.020 18.40.030 18.40.040 18.40.050 18.40.060 18.40.070 18.40.080 i8.40.090 18.40.100 18.40.110 18.40.120 18.40.130 18.40.140 Purposes Application Measurement Separation Between Buildings Location and Use of Accessory Buildings Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Projections into Yards Substandard Lots Height Exceptions Setback Map Utility Easemems Hazardous Conditions Landscaping Water Resources Protection Palo Alto ZOU Draft 11/20/06 ATTACHMENT D Draft Table of Contents STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USES Sections: 18.42.010 18.42.020 18.42.030 18.42.040 18.42.050 18.42.060 18.42.070 18.42.080 18.42.090 18.40.100 18.42.110 Purposes Application Accessory Uses and Facilities Permitted Uses and Facilities in Required Yards Temporary Uses Home Occupations Vehicle Equipment Repair and Storage Reverse Vending machines Alcoholic Beverages Mobile Homes (Manufactured Housing) Wireless Communication Facilities WM Draft ATTACHMEN’r E City. of Palo Alto Department of Plarming and Community Environment Planning Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES The following information is required for the review of wireless communications facilities in addition to the Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review submittal requirements. PROJECT SITE SELECTION PROCESS []Detailed statement, including correspondence, documenting efforts to negotiate "co-location" with existing wireless facilities in the area." []Detailed statement documenting the.consideration of alternative project locations. []Detailed statement justifying the need forthe tower and/or antenna site, including information such as network design, search ring, and specific site selection criteria. []Color copies (three) of service coverage maps with legend and other necessary graphics that demonstrate the need for the proposed tower site (additional copies may be requested). List of all existing or approved future antennas locations, including the street address, within the City limits. Each site listed should include the type of installation (e,g. roof-mounted, .mono-pole, faux tree, etc.). []Submit a completed "Optional Checklist for Local Governments To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded" form. AESTHETIC QUALITY l-I Statement describing the measures taken to minimize visual impacts of the project (e.g. substantial setback from major roads, trees, stealth design,.slim, line monopole). Include other proposed site enhancements that the project site will benefit from: PROXIMITY TO RESIDENTIAL usES []Identify on a location map the distance and location of the nearest residence(s) w, ithin one-quarter mile from the proposed tower or antenna site. The information identified above must be provided in order tO accept your application for processing. Additional information may be required upon review of the submitted materials. Wireless Facilities Revised 6/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT F m N ~ i1) .~_ J~ ATTACHMENT G Terminology Related to StreamProtection Area Standards Riparian Corridor: Pertaining to the banks and other adjacent, terrestrial (as opposed to aquatic) environs of freshwater bodies, watercourses, and surface-emergent aquifers (e.g., springs, seeps, oases), whose imported waters provide soil moisture significantly in excess of that otherwise available through local precipitation - soil moisture to potentially support a mesic vegetation distinguishable from that of the adjacent more xeric upland. Slope Stability Protection Area: The slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measuredat a ratio of 2:l (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater. For banks of larger streams, or for streams that are deeply incised or have highly erodable banks, the Department of Public Works may need to increase the protection area in order, to protect water quality and other resources. Stream: A body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks. This may include watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish, or other aquatic life.. The presence of a stream is often shown as follows: 1. As designated by a solid li~ie or dash and three dots symbol on the largest scale of the USGS maps most recently published or any replacement to that symbol; or 2. As designated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District as shown on maps maintained by the District; or . 3. As designated on the most recent maps of the Santa Clara County and cities within Santa Clara County; or 4. On a site plan which may be required by a permitting agency using the Criteria to Verify or Identify a Watercourse as a Stream from the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards for Land Uses Near Streams, prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. Page 1 of 2 An alteration to a natural watercourse, such as the construction of culverts or other improvements within the bed of the.stream does not affect its status as a stream. Streams do not include features such as street gutters and asphalt or concrete ditches which drain paved parking lots. Streamside Review Area: All properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank (except those properties separated from the stream by a public street). Top of Bank: Top of bank designates a stream boundary where a majority of normal discharges and channel fo .rming activities takes place. The top of bank boundary will contain the active channel, active floodplain, and their associated banks. Top of bank of streams with levees will be delineated on the inner edge of the levee. Where there are no distinguishable features to locate top of bank, the local permitting agency or the Santa Clara Valley Water District will make a determination and document as appropriate. In the absence of this determination, the 100-year water surface will be used. Example 1: Example 2: Top of Bank Toe of Bank Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT H ~ NTF/ODkICYIION If the use of local native plants propagated from local stock does not fit your landscaping goals, choose: Non invasive drought-tolerant, non native ornamental plants having no potential to cross pollinate native riparian species. For example, if native valley and coast live oaks, willows, sycamores or coflonwoods exist in the riparian corridor, don’t plant ornamental oaks, willows, sycamores or poplars; Non invasive, drought tolerant, ¯ non.local California natives (aka ornamental natives), with no potential to cross-pollinate local native species; for example- Fremontodendron or Romneya. When selecting plants and choosing their location in an ornamental landscape, the project design goals are generally geared to human aesthetics. In choosing ornamental landsca’ping, hardscape features, such as patios, decks, and walkways, are design components. These features should be avoided within the riparian habitat area at all locations. PLANT S~LECT]ON The choices of plants that meet the criteria described above for ornamentol landscaping is vast. Selection of a plont species for a particular site will depend on goals of the Ionds~:ape plon, site constraints, the owner’s desires and budget. There are a variety of resources available from which selections can be made. Cities generally have plant lists available that were assembled for woter conservation purposes. The East Bay Municipal Utility District has prepared a book, entitled "Plants and Landscopes for Summer Dry Climates" and the Sunset Western Garden Book, commonly available at most. nurseries, has plant selections identified that ore suitable for dry places. Select plants from these sources as long, as you ovoid invasive plants ond take the caution provided above for selecting native species that have not been propagated from your local watershed. The California Native Plant Socie~/’~ ’Guidelines for Protecting Native Plants from Genetic Degradation’ is a helpful reference on the subject. NON- LOCAL CALIFORN!IA NATIVE PLANTS The following California native plants have a very low poterffial of hybridizing with our Santa Clara County natives since they do not naturally ocdur in northern California Chilopsis lineoris, {Desert Willow), Lyonothamnus floribundus, (Catalina Ironwood), Prosopis glandulosa vat. torreyana, (Mesquite) SHRUBS Fremontodendron calffomicum or Fremonfodendron mexicanum, (Flannel Bush), Galvesia speciosa, (Island Bush Snapdragon) Rhus integrifolia, (Lemonade Berry), Rhus ovata, (Sugar Bush), Romneya coulteri, Matiliia Poppy, $immondsia chlnensis, (Joioba) California Invasive Plant Council Web www.cal-ipc.org site: USFR MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAP, STREA^AS 4.7 COMMONLY FOUND Acacia acacia spp, Almond prunus dulcis Ash, evergreen fraxinus uhdei Bamboo, running types arundinaria, chimonobambusa, phyllostachys, etc. Black locust robinia pseudoacacia Broom, french genista monspessulana, Dreviously cytisus monspessulanus Broom, scotch cytisus scoparius Broom, spanish spartium ]unce um Cape weed arctotheca calendula Cotoneasler cotoneaster spp. Elm ulmus spp. Eucalyptus eucalyptus spp. ficus carica Flowering plum, fruitful varieties prunus spp. INVASIVE SPECIES Fountain grass pennisetum setaceum); purple variety "cupreum" is sterile and acceptable Foxglove digitalis purpurea Giant reed arundo donax Glossy privel ligus~rum lucidum Gorse ulex europaea Himalayan blackberry rubus discolor Holly oak quercus ilex Iceplanfs carpobrotus edulis, c. Chilensis, mesembryanthemum spp. Ivy, algerian hedera canariet~sis Ivy, cape delairea odorata, previously senecio mi~:anioides Ivy, english hedera helix Kikuyu grass pennisetum clandestinum Lemon balm melissa officinalis TO BE AVOIDED Lombardy poplar populus nigro ’italica’ London plane tree platanus acerifolia Minl, any kind including pennyroyal, peppermint, spearmint mentha spp. Monterey pine pinus radiata Myoporum myoporum laetum Olive oleo europaea Pampas grass, jubata grass cortaderia selloano, C. Jubata Pepper frees schin us spp. Periwinkle " vinca major Pyracantha pyracantha spp. Tamarisk,salt cedar tamarix spp. Tree of heaven ailan th us altissima Walnut, english or black juglons regia, juglans colifornlca vat. Hindsii Find it at: http://w,~/.cnps.org/archives/ archives.htrn Scroll down to: 1) Policies and Guidelines 2) Conservation Policies 3)Guidelines for Landscaping to Protect Native Vegetation from Genetic Degradation. California Invasive Plant Council Web site: www.cal-ipc.org 4.8 USER ~¢~ANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS ~.IST OF NAT~V~ PLANT SPECIES The following list isa conglomerate.of riparian plant species that exist within the boundaries of Santa Clara County. The distribution of one plant may or may not overlap with the next one on the list. Sbme of them would never be seen together in the wild due to preferences for different ATTACHMENT I microclimates, soil substrates and hydrologic regimes. If you are unfamiliar with local native plant ecology, consult local experts for help selecting the best plant palette for your particular creek or follow Nature’s example and copy what you see in a wild area located close to your project site. TREES: Big Leaf Maple Acer macrophyllum California Box Elder Acer negundo var.californicum California Buckeye Aesculus californica White Alder AIn us rhombifolia Western Sycamore Platan us racemosa Fremont Cottonwood Pop ulus fremon tii ssp. fremon tii Black Cottonwood Poplus trichocarpa Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolio Valley Oak Quercus lobata Narrow-leaved Willow Salix exigua Red Willow Salix laevigata Yellow Willow Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra .Arroyo Willow Salix lasiolepis Blue ,Elderberry Sambucus mexicana California Bay Laurel Umbellularia californica SHRUBS AND VINES: California Sagebrush Artemisia califomica Mule Fat Baccharis salicifolia Virgin’s Bower Clematis ligusticifolia Toyon Heteromeles arbutifotia Coffeeberry Rhamnus califomica Callfornla Wild Grape Virus califomica Brown Dogwood Corn us glabra ta California Rose Rosa californica California Blackberry Rubus ursinus Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigatus Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana Western Aster Aster chilensis Douglas’ Baccharis Baccharis douglasii Western Goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis Beardless Wildrye ¯ Leymus triticoides ¯Sticky Monkey Flower Mimulus aurantiacus California Figwort $orophularia calffomica California Native Plant Society’s Web site" www.cnps.org 4.6 USEP, MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND US~ NEAR STP, EAMS Foundation for Global Community - Valley of Heart’s Delight Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT j Valley of Heart’s Delight Cultivating partnerships for a sustainable community Food is fundamental to a sustainable future. Transporting food uses non-renewable fossil fuels, which alters the climate with g_reenhouse gas Conventional. farming practices also pollute the water and deplete the s So, although supermarket shelves are filled today, we are undermining ability to produce enough food in the future. Fortunately, we live on some of the most fertile land on the planet. The region known today as Silicon Valley was once heralded by farmers, poets, and the Chamber of Commerce as the "Valley of Heart’s Delight." In 1940, productive fruit and nut trees graced over 105,000 acres in Santa Clara County alone. In 1998, only 4,500 acres remained. Check out ~he new guide for sustainable food in .the Bay Area Eating Our project seeks to create a vision of the future, which integrates past and present. Our project name, Valley of Heart’s Delight, evokes the region’s rich agricultural heritage, rooting our vision in the understanding that healthy natural systems are essential for our well being. To meet the challenges that face us, we can also draw upon Silicon Valley’s ability to find innovative solutions to ever-changing conditions. Sustainably. Resources for the San Franciscc Peninsula and Soutf Our goal is to open up new opportunities for local, organically grown.food " production. In doing so, we can restore the fertility of our soils and reduce our reliance on the petrochemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, and fuels) that are polluting our environment. And by participating i this process, people will reconnect with the Earth as the source of our physical and spiritual nourishment. The project has six main components: ¯Home food gardens ¯Getting Going Growing ¯Harvesting for the Hungry ¯Healthy School Lunch Committee °Statewide coalition work ¯Educational events Home Food Gardens We encourage residents to plant fruit trees and vegetables. For those who wish to grow their own food,w. offer "Grow Your Own" conferences, e-mail announcements about garden classes, and __Organic Garden Tours. We also organize regional Growinq Circles where new and experienced food gardeners meet to share knov how, seeds and seedlings, produce, and occasionally tools and labor. Each group has its own format and http ://www.globalcommunity.org/vhd/11/21/2006 Foundation for Global Community - Valley of Heart’s Delight Page 2 of 2 schedule, and there’s no cost to participate. Sample schedules from existing Growing Circles are available line (~click here). For more information about joining or starting a Growing Circle near you, please contact Susan Stansbury sstansbury@globalcommunity.org. Getting Going Growing With parents, teachers, students, and volunteers, we help establish food gardens in local schools - garder where children can connect with the wonder of the growing process and learn the value of caring for the Earth. Other lessons can also be learned in connection with the garden - math, science, nutrition, art, music, writing and social skills. We help schools develop a garden plan, organize volunteers, find resource and integrate curriculum into the learning experience. Click here for more information. Harvesting for the Hungry In collaboration with Village Harvest, we organize teams of volunteers to pick fruit from neighborhood frui trees. Each season we take a morning to harvest over a ton of produce for local food closets. Volunteers have fun while learning the seasons of local fruit, the hungry benefit by receiving fresh produce, and homeowners appreciate having their trees harvested. For more information visit www.villageharvest.org Healthy School Lunch Committee In partnership with parents, students and commun!ty members, we are working to bring fresh, local prodt into the Palo Alto Unified School District lunch program, as well as provide nutritional education and hand,, on learning experiences about healthy eating habits through school gardens. For more information visit th Healthy School Lunch Committee at www_.hqmestead.com/hslc/ Statewide Coalition Work Through the CA Food and Justice Coalition, we work to educate the state legislators about food security fr~ a systems-wide approach. We also support policy that provides win-win solutions to our food system such Farm to School, access of fresh food in low-income areas, and community based food systems. For more information visit the Food and Justice Coalition at www.foodsecurity.org/california Educational Events How secure is our food supply? There are many issues that effect food security in the long and Short term In discussions such as sustainability, growth issues and cities’ comprehensive plans, food security is mentioned only in passing, if at all. In response to this lack of awareness, the Valley of Heart’s Delight project hosts speakers with expertise in food-related issues, and hold other educational events. Click here for more information. For more information, contact: Susan Stansbu sstansbury@globalcommunity.( The Valley of Heart’s Delight is a project of the Foundation for Global Commun ( all content @ ’fouf~dati:on for dloba~ community Emaih webmaster@qtobalcornmunity,orq I The Foundation is ~i 501(c)(3) nonprofit http ://www.globalcommunity.org/vhd/11/21/2006 ATTACHMENT K z .~ ~ g° _January:qxp 12/29/05 10:44 PM Page 26 I ATTACHMENT L FEATURE I URBAN ~:ORESTRY I By D~ve. Do{kter A Green Building Technique for Infrastructure Planning Structured soils allow’trees to co-exist within the urban community. Landscape designers, engineers and cities who approve development projects are confronted with hard- choice, challenges of integrating trees and pavement - the merging of struc- tural and horticultural needs for the urban environment. As cities place more emphasis on approving de- sigias that have real components of project sustainability, many General Plans are currently being updated to reflect this emphasis of sustainability. Simply put, the goal is to provide the longest return for die construction in- vesmqent by the owner (community residents) and the design team (com- munity officials). These and other chal- lenges that fRce today’s pr6fessional are becoming increasingly important. The professional must now face head- on the integration of sustainable and smart growth concepts into projects. Because trees are an intrinsic compo- nent of project landscape plans, the project teams are wise to consider such a tool as engineered structural soil fbr certain applications. Sustainable Green Building Practices 8ustainability may be defined as the industt:y working to promote infra- structure and landscapes in a way that is environmentally responsible, profitable and contributes to healthy places to live and work. On a daily basis, planners and architects are adding alternatives to their quiver of best management practices (BMPs) and green materials list. Sustainability, in the context of our landscape design and urban forest, reaches outside the boundary of" merely buildings and structures. In time, LEED ratings will include stronger emphasis, on the contribu- tion of landscape infrastructure stan- dards. LEED’m, the "Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design" Green Building Rating System, is’a nationally accepted standard for green buildings developed by the US Green Building Council1. SustainabiliW using engineered StmC- tural soil mix technology for tree planting has been in use for some time. It is superior to the traditional standard in that tree resources are consmared longer, operating costs are reduced and the strain on local infra:- structure is minimized. Thus, the soil mix product produces benefits in three primary areas: environmental, economic and community benefits. Trees planted in conventional tree pits contrast this. Conventional Tree Pits Are Designed for Failure A tree canopy will only grow as large as the’roots enable it to grow. Limited rooting area directly limits the ca’own size, to wit, the bonsai effect. Thi~ Caltrain underpass connects bicycl£s’ts and pedestriam’to downtown Pale Alto from El Camino Real. The project was constrained by unique and challengtngJactors--protection of haritage oaks, critical screening requ.,re- wonts and tight working conditions beneath railroad and street right-of-ways. Hidden within the interesting geometric architecture, the Homer Tunnel proj- ect incorporated a unique green building technique, engineered structured soil, which gives the shade trees a limitless jump-start to health and to avert. infrastructure damage caused by tree roots. The concrete wearing surface will realize an extended service life. The Cit) also used next-generation con- cept, s’ by appl.~ng a tree technical manual forprotecting and enhancing tree resources. Both of these cutting edge methods are available for technology’ tranafer to other agen~zies at: httpJiu,ww.c~ty.palo-alto.ca.us/tree.~’techr, ical- manual:htrn! (Photo courtesy of Pale Alto Public Works Dept). _January.qxp 12/29/05 10:44 PM Page 27 The conventional tree pit typically used by civil engineering standards do not foster root-growing medium but, instead, emphasize only com- paction-based infrastructure Planting trees in these situations will incur sidewalk damage that is well documented. Due to structural demands for pave- ments and flatwork, the soil ’volume for a landscape tree is typically re- duced to confined small strips or is- lands. Planting details typically do not address soil outside of the pit. Soil outside the planter area is com- pacted too dense for roots to pene- trate. The result is that most urban trees either become root bound with a stunted crown and!or eventually heave the surface from the roots ex- panding. Thus, conventional designs of the past dictate the high future costs and marginal benefits back to tile community. Designing with the Future in Mind Urban designers are using this green building technique to provide a solu- tion for tree/infrastructure issues. The mnv provides load-bearing ca- pacity needed to support pavements and flatwork and the root growth/penetration needed by trees. It is a stone matrix blend of coarse aggregate, amended clay loam and hydrogel, proportioned so that when compacted in-place; the aggregate is in a dense state but the soil within the stone matrix in not over-com- pacted. The desirable potential is long-ten~ benefits from tree growth, he~tlth and life expectancy and re- duced movement, failures, and main- tenance costs for adjacent pavements and flatwork. Using this medium is particularly suitable for new construction proj- ects. Depth of the engineered soil mix appears tO require excavating the subsoil a minimum of 24-inches deep and as wide as necessary, for the engineered soil mix. The length and width of the below-grade trench is defined by what makes sense and which is available for use. In any event, in doing ~o, you will have pro- vided for the trees an extraordinary increase in root growing volume, thereby increasing the above ground crown size potential and below ground health and longevity. Considering a Project Site The mix is not appropriate every- where, as in a ’one size fits all’ spec- ification. P.rojects most suitable for using the-mix are those that include areas that must be compacted for flatwork or paving and must also plant new trees adjacent to that area. Open landscape areas may .remain native soil, as there is no need to compact these areas. Irrigation lines It can be a Big Job Cleaning Up Stormwater It’s a good thing we make Big SNOUTs... Visit us at bmpinc.com Best Management Products, Inc. 800.504.8008 Circle 144" or www.LamtD.evdopmen~Today.c~ra/adiafo 060 l_January, qxp 12/29/05 10:45 PM Page 28 FEATURE I URBAN FORE.STRY are laid after installing the mix and before the flatwork is applied. Again, the structura! soil technique is partic- ularly suited for new construction projects. It is impractical for .retro- fitting around mature trees because of the difficulties of excavating the existing soil and re-spreading the m~x among the roots without daxn- age. Retrofitting, as experienced by a Stanford University project2 over the established root systems of a large coast live oak, is labor-intensive, dif- ficult to specify in construction doc- uments and requires hands-on over- s~ght by trained staff and decision-makers. For each comanunity taking steps to implement sustainable designs, there always needs to be a first step or a benclmaark project. The author ad- vises to get a pilot project going us- ing the mix to familiarize staff with the steps involved with it’s use - ei- ther as a city- or a privately-funded project. As a capital improvement project, one section of sidewalk with trees or a new cul-de-sac development with new street tree planting would be prime. Or, as is most common, a pri- vately funded development would be directed to implement use of the technique .when approved by the re- viewing body. The designers may choose to specify structural soil in a section of parking area adjacent to trees in islands. This may be either initiated at the city’s re- quest of the applicant’s architect; or by the applicant’s architect submittal to the city for review and approval. In either case, once approved, using structural soil is an important step to- wards sustainability and ’win-win’ message worthy of positive public relations recognition. The pilot project in Palo Alto (CA) occasioned invitations to city council members and other interested per- sons to observe the innovative tech- nique and became an occasion for lots of pat-on-the-backs, recognition for environmental sustainability and positive news media coverage. History of the Engineered Mix, Construction and Costs While it will always be an important point for someone to be advocating the use of the ~nix for a specific proj- ect design, it is equally important that the approving engineers know that many of their colleagues are satisfied with using the structural mix and have signed-off on numerous proj- ects. Planning, public works depart- ments and soils engineers are be- coming increasingly comfortable with using the mix. CU-Structural Soil is a resuk of ex- tensive testing of different materials, ratios and trial elimination, was promulgated by Comell University TM5 under the direction of Bassuki4 and Grabosky5 and is now patented using a specific polymer produced by AMEREQ, Inc.6 The make-up of structural soil is 70 to 75 percent (by dry weigh0 crushed stone (3/4-inch to 1-1/2-inch) and 25 to 29 percent clay lomn (by dry weigh0.. The clay loam is amended as needed to pro- vide the required pH, organics, nitro- gen, phosphorus, and potassiiam. Hydrogel is used to help the soil ad- here to the rock during transporta- tion and placement, reducing segre- gation. Thereafter, the hydrogel serves the role of hydration with the clay loam. Specifications for the mix may be obtained from the patent holder AMEREQ, Inc. Ms. Knudson, of Lowney and Associates Geotechnical Services7, has provided the geotech services for more than eight projects in California and notes that the structural soil can be placed and compacted using stan- dard construction equipment. The as-placed material density can be measured with a nuclear density gauge, the common field test method, but she prefers that a field maximum densiw test be performed to compare with the field tests. As more users install the mix, the all- important precedent of acceptance is now becoming adequately docu- mented as a viable option. The mix is available from over sixty producers across the country. The City of Pato Alto became a field tester applying tbe technique in fall of 1998. Since then, the technique which started as a ripple in Cornell has now become a wave, with over 30 public and pri- vate projects applying the special soil mtx in cities ~tround the San Francisco Bay Area alone. This number is growing every month, as designers and urban foresters are finding unique ways to adapt its use. In California, Dr. Greg McPherson is studying and will be reporting on structural soil trials be- ing conducted by the USDA Forest Service Center for Urban Forest Research at UC Davis. The cost, like any other project com- ponent, must be figured in to the overall project cost in advance. The larger the project, the percentage of the total costs will be less than costs applied to a smaller project. Estimate of the cubic yards for the proposed trench is relatively easy to calculate and ranges from $30 to $75 per cubic yard for the mix delivered -- with the variable being the distance of transport. For example, the 18-mile trip from the supplier in San Jose to the project in Palo Alto was approxi- mately $42 cubic yard. 28 Janua,y2006 LandDeve{opmentToday 0601_January.qxp 1/2/06 11:07 AM Page 29 The new stormwater runoff require- ments and BMP’s for dischargers opens up another possibility of using structural soil. The structural soil ma- trix has superior drainage character- istics that, when integrated into the parking area design, may be consid- ered as a detention basin, further en- hancing the site capacity during peak runoff events, thereby combining capitol expenses and credits. Summary Using an engineered structural soil ,as a medium under pavement or flatwork improves tree-growing conditions and fosters longer tree life expectancy and real benefits. Incorporating structural soft into your project plans can satisfy the opposing needs of structural sub- base support for flatwork and pave- ment while providing a matrik for tree roots to grow laterally with access to moksmre and oxygen, As professional stewards of land, as consultants who provide technical in- formation to our dients, and as archi- tects and shapers of the world we will live in, we are learning how to build with the future in mind. Structural soil mix teclmology may not have been available to those of yesterday, but the technology is available today as a solid green building technique and an alter native tool for those .who wish to change the future for the better. I1~ l US Green Building Council, http://Wmw.usgbc.org 2 Personal communication with Stanford University planner, 2001 3 1997 Cornell Research Foundation, Inc. 4 Nina Bassuk, Professor of Hortfcnlture, Urban Horticulture Institute, Comell University, nlb2@cor- nell.edu 5 Jason Grabosky, Rutgers Cook College, New Brunswick, New Jersey 6 1999 AMEREQ, Inc., www.structu ralsoil.com 7 Laura Knudsen, Lowney Associates, Government Sector Services, www.lowney.com 8 Dave Dockter, City of Pals Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Pals Alto, CA 94301, (650) 617-3145 9 Pals Alto Urban Forest Programs: h ttp:iiwww.city.palo-’,dto.ca .us/trees/ Circle 176 ¯ or wswc.LandDevdopmentTnday.com/adinfo Circle 166 ¯ or www.LandDevdopmentToday.com/adinfo ATTACHMENT M CITY OF SA CRAMENTO~ PARKING LOT TREE SHADING DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE G.UIDEL!NES http://www, q c ode .us/code s/sacramento/ 17.68.040 Tree shading requirements for parking lots City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines TABLE OFCONTENTS I.INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE ......." .......................................: ...............................3 II.SHADING REQUIRMENTS AND CALCULATIONS ................: ...........................3 II1.TREE PLANTING PRACTICES ...................................: .......................................5 IV.DRAINAGE / WATER QUALITY OPTIONS .......................................................10 V.GENERAL SHADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS ................................................13 A,IRRIGATION PLANS ...............................................................................14 . B.LANDSCAPE PLANS ........................................................................- .....15 C.GRADING ................................................................................................16 D,MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................16 VI.TREES FOR PARKING LOT SHADING ............................................................17 APPENDICES .Tree List ...................................................................................................18 Definitions ................................................................................................22 ¯ Certification Form ...............................~ ....................................................23 Page 2 City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines INTRODUCTION / PURPOSE: This document provides standards and. guidance for the planting, maintenance, protection, removal and replacement of trees planted pursuant to the parking lot tree shading regulations as defined in the City Code. The p.urpose of the Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines is to improve the effectiveness of the City’s parking lot shading ordinance. The standards and recommendations in this documents will help to encourage achievement of the City’s 50 percent shading requirement for a greater number of parking facilities. II.SHADING REQUIRMENTS AND CALCULATIONS: . The parking lot treeshading ordinance requires that all new parking lots include tree plantings designed to result in 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years. The shading requirements calculations apply to all new impervious surfacing on which a vehicle can drive including: ¯Parking stalls ¯All drives within the property line (regardless of length) ¯All maneuvering areas (regardless of depth) Exceptions to the shading calculation include: -,Single family and two family residential parking areas ¯Parking structures ¯Truck loading areas =n front of overhead doors ¯Truck maneuvering and parking areas unconnected to and exclusive of any vehicle parking ¯Surfaced areas not to be used for vehicle paiking, driving or maneuvering, provided they are made inaccessible to vehicles by a barrier such as bollards, curb, or fencing ¯Vehicle display, sales, service, and storage areas (parking facilities for these uses are subject to shading requirements) Shading Calculations: 1. If a site has two or more separately for each area. calculated as one lot. unconnected parking areas~ shade is Calculated If theyare .connected by a joining drive, they are The amount of shade provided by a given tree is determined by using the .appropriate percentage and square .footage of the tree crown as indicated on the approved shade tree list (see Appendix A). Shading credit ts given in 25 percent increments based on the amount of the tree crown that shades the parking area (see Exhibit A). 3. Overlapping shade does not coUnt twice. Page 3 City of Sacramento EXHIBIT A Parking Lot Tree Shading .Design and Maintenance Guidelines 25% \ 2s% 25% 25% NOTES: PARKING LOT 1.This diagram is intended to reaflect the mannerin which shade is credited under various conditions. It is not necessarily an illustration of 50% coverage. 2. Trees may receive 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% credit as shown. 3. Shade overlap is not counted twioe. Page 7 City of Sacramento EXHIBIT B Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines TYPICAL PLANTER SPECIFICATION ]BIND ISLAND PLANTER TREE WELL/PLANTER TYPICAL POURED CURB WITH OVERHANG Page 8 City of Sacramento Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines 3.Removed trees must be replaced. The formula for replacement shall be as follows: Any required trees or other plantings that die orare improperly maintained shall be replaced with healthy specimens of similar species and size. However, replacement trees shall not be required to exceed 48" box size. Removal and replacement of trees that have caused damage to city sidewalks or other city infrastructure shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to tree removal. If the removed tree is greater than 48" boxed tree size, then a 48" box tree shall be planted. Vl.TREES FOR PARKING LOT SHADING: -The list of trees for parking lot shading, identified in Appendix A, was compiled to aid in species selection. Any trees proposed to be planted that are not on the list must receive approval from the City Landscape Architect or the City Arborist. Such requests must be submitted through the City Building Division of the Planning and Building Department. Selection of the trees listed is based on adaptability to parking lot conditions. The characteristics identified in the tree list are provided to help select a good shade tree. The species listed are not suitable for all situations. Consultation with a nursery representative or landscape architect is desirable before any selections are made. Professional guidance is recommended to assure that optimal design is achieved to meet the needs of each development.. Proper planting procedures, optimal spacing distance, soil, water requirements and maintenance programs should be ascertained .at the start of the landscape project. It is important to note that proper planting procedures may include digging past the hardpan layer to assure deeper and proper growth. All other energy conservation ordinances, resolutions and measures are available from the Planning and Building Department. Building permit plan approval will be based on these guidelines, Note: The use of structural soil mix within the planters is encouraged in planting locations requiring supplemental root growth area. Structural soil mixes should be considered in proposals for irregular shaped tree wells. Page 17 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT N Williams, .Curtis From:Williams, Curtis Sent:Monday, November 20, 2006 4:05 PM To:Williams., Curtis Subject:FW: Response to Questions on Landscape Standards Responses are underlined. .....Original Message ..... From: Arthur Keller [mailto:ptc@kellers.org] Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:45 PM To: Betten, Zariah Cc: Arthur Keller Subject: Questions fo~ PTC Study Session on Landscape Standards of October 25 I. What landscaping requirements are being recommended for screening the transitions between multifamily residential and single family residential properties, or between non-residential or mixed use properties and residential properties? What landscaping requirements are being recommended for screening the transitions between parking lots or driveways and abutting residential properties? ~esponse: The ZOU Landscape Standards and/or Landscape Technical Manual would recommend that appropriate plants are selected to meet different objectives: Parkinq lot shadinq, landscape buffers, privacy.and utility screeninq, stormwater treatment, litter, compatibility with hardscape, water use and special situations, etc. Detailed plant species and sizinq would be included in a technical manual. 2.Please provide a list of litter-free trees that are appropriate for parking lots. ~e_~onse: The ZOU Landscape Standards would reference a technical manual that would provide suggestions for appropriate trees. 3. When driving south on residential streets past North California Avenue, the street treescape changes from the tree canopy covering the street to not covering the street. Is this due to differing ,species? Should the street~ trees be chosen and placed so that their ..... canopy mostly covers the street? ~esponse: The Public Works Urban Forest Strategic Plan will address street and right-of-waY plantinqs. 4. Please provide a list of litter-free trees that are appropriate as street trees. ~esponse: The Public Works Urban Forest Strateqic Plan will address street and right-of-way plantinqs. 5. Is there an inventory of where street trees are supposed to be, so that trees improperly removed can be replaced? What is the mechanism for enforcing that street trees are not removed, or large trees on private property are not removed when not part of a construction project requiring a permit? 11/20/2006 Page 2 of 2 Response: The Publi~ Works Urban Forest Strategic Plan will address street and right-of-way, plantinqs. Removal of larger trees, on private property need tree removal permits. These are reviewed on a case by case basis. 6. Where in the ordinance is the notion of a visibility triangle at intersections so that landscaping adjacent to the corner allow for sight lines by bicyclists, pedestrians~ and motorists? Is this ordinance adequate to current needs, or does it need updating? What is the enforcement mechanism ensuring~safety through ordinance compliance? ~esponse: The Zoning ordinance addresses the visibility trianqle which is reviewed if there is a discretionary permit. Enforcement of this requirement is through Code Enforcement. Public Works Urban Forest Strategic Plan will address nuisances conflictinq with stop signs and other safety issues. 7. Should the ordinance for landscaping standards on multifamily residential, mixed use, and non-residential developments have any mention of xeriscaping or other requirements to reduce water use for irrigating landscaping? Should these be requirements or guidelines? Should expected outdoor irrigation water use be part of the disclosure required for multifamily residential, mixed use, and non-residential developments? ~esponse: The ZOU Landscape Standards may have a recommendation to include plantings that reduce the need for irriqation. The use of recycled water for landscaping is a policy issue that can be included as either a gui’deline or a requirement for certain types of developments. Best regards, Arthur Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Pal0 Alto, CA 94303-4507 tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424 11/20/2006 ATTACHMENT E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes December 13, 2006 EXCERPT Zoning Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation of an Ordinance deleting Chapter 18.88 and adopting new Chapters 18.40 (General Standards and Exceptions) and 18.42 (Standards for Special Uses), including criteria for landscaping, wireless communications, stream setbacks, and storm water prevention, and amending Chapter 18.83 (Parking) to revise landscape requirements. Environmental Assessment: Comprehensive Plan EIR. Mr. Williams: Madam Chair? Chair Holman: Yes? Mr. Williams: What we would like to do since Commissioner Keller is conflicted on this is have Whitney just briefly present the Stream Corridor Protection section to you after you finish your deliberations on this section then we will get Mr. Keller back and have Whitney review.the other sections for you. Chair Holman: Very good. Ms. whitney McNair, Planning Consultant: So we have takel:l the 18.88 and broken it up into the two chapters. The one 18.40 will be the General Standards and Exceptions and we have taken the water resources and broken it up into two separate sections. While Commissioner Keller is out we will go over the Stream Corridor Protection. We did add a purpose statement in at the direction of the Comlnission and included information about protection for streamside properties. There was a question about R-2 lots the Commission had and Staff looked into that. There are only four R-2 lots and no RMD lots that could potentially be impacted by the new regulations. So it is StafFs recommendation to exempt R-l, R-2, and RMD zoned lots from general compliance. So that was a follow up item. The other item that we looked at is the Requirements. There was quite a bit of discussion about what was going to be exempt from the Requirements so the list of exempt projects has been revised to remove accessory structures and decks all together and includes more specific limits for the remaining items. So that has been substantially changed based on your direction. Then structures and uses not allowed, we have included all structures, impervious areas, and decks regardless of size or height are not permitted within the slope stability protection area. There was one clarification on page 11 of the underlined portion of the attachment it is (4)(a) at the very bottom of page 11. The guidelines within the streamside review area and in (a) it says the distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be minimized and that actually should say ’maximized,’ it was just a slight typo. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: It is the third line from the bottom on that page, Ms. McNair: It is the last word in (4)(a). That is the end of the changes to the stream corridor protection. Chair Holman: Questions for Staff?. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I raised a question for Staff in clarifying copper usage. As you know asphalt composition shingles have impregnated granulated copper and my concern was runoff from those roofs into the stream. Mr. Joe Teresi, Public Works: There is a section in the Municipal Code, Section 16.09.160, which has been in effect since January 2003 which prohibits the use of copper metal roofing, copper granule containing asphalt shingles, and copper gutters. So all those items are not allowed. Vice-Chair Lippert: Who goes and makes sure that the asphalt shingles don’t have the granulated copper? My understanding is that all asphalt shingles are treated with granulated copper. So we would in fact be prohibiting the use of asphalt shingles in the entire city. Mr. Williams: We can check on that with Building and see what the situation is but it is already in here so there is not any particular benefit in adding it to the section as we had discussed yesterday. We will have to be sure that Building knows that and I didn’t have a discussion with a Building official today. I just forwarded your comment to Joe. Vice-Chair Lippert: Let me just tell you from my own personal perspective with granulated copper in asphalt shingles it is done for the east coast, it is done so that moss doesn’t develop on roofs which is really detrimental to roofs. Out here we don’t have that problem. The runoff from those roofs onto regular soil doesn’t necessarily bother me even though it might be a City ordinance because it is filtered through the soil and most of that stuff is taken out before it gets into the aquifer and runs out to the bay. However, in a condition where it is near a creek side area that may not be the case so it becomes even more of a concern. What happens is the granulated copper retards small plankton type things from growing, which basically wildlife live off of so it is a concern. Mr. Williams: .We will check with Building and see how this is being enforced and be sure they are aware of this requirement. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Burt: Well, I share Commissioner Lippert’s concern on the copper runoff. I would recommend that you speak with Phil Bobel and see whether his department has evaluated the options on granulated asphalt. I don’t know whether all forms contain it. Unfortunately my roof with granulated asphalt tiles has moss growing on it. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: It is granulated copper not granulated asphalt. Commissioner Butt: It is the copper in the granulated asphalt. The other thing is the concern isn’t limited to direct runoff into streams it is any storm water drain runoff, which is what we have in the Municipal Code on all of those sections. They are equally harmful to bay life. As you probably know the copper moves up the food chain and was an acute issue for the city. Just to make sure folks Phil Bobel’s department lead one of the most innovative programs in the country in an effort with Stanford to identify the 25 percent of all our copper runoff was coming from copper brake pads as well. We want to keep those issues at the forefront as Commissioner Lippert has done. Thanks. Chair Holman: Other Commissioner questions? Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I have a question to make sure I understand. In the previous memo we had there was a list of six exempt project types and I understand how five of those have been dealt with. I am just trying to make sure I understand with fences six feet tall or less how are they dealt with here? Mr. Williams: They are dealt with not by prohibiting them generally but there is an addition that they have to be setback at least three feet up from the top of the bank so that it can’t be the kind of case where it is crossing or in someway interfering with the stream flow or getting into an area of slope that might cause some instability where you placed the fence. We do feel it is necessary from a security standpoint and that to allow for fences. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, that applies to all new fences not just those six feet tall or less. Mr. Williams: Right. Commissioner Tuma: Thanks. Chair Holman: I see no other hands. I have two or three nits under the purpose statement. I want to thank Staff very much for including the purpose statements. I think from a going forward perspective this provides the history looking back such that when someone comes up later and sayswhy did they do this, this provides the basis and we don’t lose our toehold into what are current conditions are and just slip into an abyss of unintended consequences later. In that purpose statement on the fourth line in the middle of the line it says, "Flooding and bank erosion and reduce storm water pollution." I am wondering ifttie word ’minimize’ might be a better and stronger word for that as opposed to reduce. Mr. Williams: I think that is fine. Chair Holman: If other Commissioners are agreeable to that. In the line above that just the word ’damaged’ I think it should be ’damage.’ On page 11 two comments. "Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works," and nowhere in any of this list or within that statement does it mention pollution, reducing or minimizing pollution that I found. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 I’m sorry, it is page 11 at the top it says, "Exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works," and I don’t find or did not find that it referenced stream pollution. So I think reference to that should be added and ifI overlooked it Staff will correct me I am sure. Mr. Williams: I think two things, One is we do have another section that deals with storm water runoff per se so it is sort of addressed there but then most all of these criteria are criteria that - I mean that I think one of the purposes is to reduce or minimize pollution, preserving native riparian vegetation with 100 feet helps do that for preventing nonnative invasive plant species helps do that.. So all of these help do that in different ways. So I think it gets to that. If we put something else in here I am not sure what it would say other than very general language about reducing pollution and that doesn’t have much meaning as these other specific requirements do. So if you have some suggested language we could certainly consider that. Chair Holman: I guess some suggested language might be ~and does not increase storm water pollution.’ So it is just the reverse of what is in the purpose statement. Maybe it is not necessary and I do understand of course that the riparian vegetation helps to reduce the pollution it is just that it is not specifically noted. Again, we have as time goes on Staff changes so I am not going to harp on that one but it is something maybe others have concern with that are not. The other comment is (b) immediately under that. It says, "New fences shall be constructed a minimum of three feet landward from the top of bank." I guess I am finding three feet a bit troubling not because of it being three feet from but constructing a fence three feet from the top of a bank. I find that that would be very difficult to complete without some potential impacts. So I guess I would like other Commissioners to comment on that or Staff to comment on that. Again it is not the locating of it that close it is the construction of a fence that close. Vice-Chair Lippert: My experience with fences of this nature generally fences of that size and configuration are done with posthole diggers it is not done with heavy equipment. So it is a guy who is a ditch digger going out with a device and going ~plunk’ and lifting the soil outl What we might want to do is look at something along the line of heavy equipment not be used. Chair Holman: I guess my response to that is somebody with a posthole digger is what I envisioned and they are going to straddle that hole. So I see somebody being very close to the top of a bank in constructing a fence. So if that is concern of other Commissioner then so be it. I would suggest something more like seven feet or something like that just to have a little bit of person room not having a magic number to apply there. Mr. Teresi. Mr.. Teresi: I was going to say it is not really a magic number it was an attempt at a compromise between not being too close to the top of the bank and not malting a large portion of one’s yard inaccessible. Often times peoples’ property line extends all the way down into the creek. So it is basically that compromise number. Mr. Larkin: I apologize I don’t have a site off the top of my head but I know that we do have another provision in our code that requires best management practices for construction and those practices would have to involve some sort of protection during the construction of a fence. If I had the site I could tell you what it says but that might alleviate some of your concerns as well. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: That raises another point, which is that in this ordinance did we describe at all an applicant showing on any development where the top of bank is located? Mr. Williams: We discussed that and that is something that we will require as an application requirement but We don’t think it is appropriate in here any more so than other plan application requirements. So it is something that we need to incorporate. I don’t know to the extent to which we already do probably when you have a creek there but we will take care of that at the Staff level in terms of getting that into our application requirements but we don’t feel we need to specify that here again. It is an administrative procedural type of issue. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: As somebody who has dug a few fence post holes myself actually using not the posthole digger but one with arms on it and people hold onto it. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to the surrounding area. I concur with Chair Holman’s concerns about this. I think you can beat that area up, I think despite the idea of best practices, I know often times when people are out there they are just digging the holes. I think ifyou encourage it being slightly further away maybe five feet or six feet or something like that does seem to make sense to me. Mr. Williams: Maybe five feet. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then I think we will be ready for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Garber: I will forego my comments and offer to make a motion. I would like to move that we accept the Staff’s recommendations as presented here in the Zoning Ordinance Update specifically Chapter 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection with the following suggested revisions. One, in paragraph (a) that the word ’reduce’ become the word ’minimize,’ that the word ’damaged’ in line three become ’damage,’ that the word ’minimized’ in paragraph (4), item number (a) become ’maximized’ instead of ’minimized.’ Were there other items that we should be included here? Thank you. That the five foot recommendation by Staff on the setback of the fences from the property line. Chair Holman: Do we have a second? SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Second. Vice-Chair Lippert: Top of bank. Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Thank you, and noted. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas seconded. your motion? Commissioner Garber: I do not, thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: No. Commissioner Garber, do you need to speak to MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Commissioner Keller not participating) Chair Holman: Any discussion on the motion? We are therefore ready for a vote. All those in favor of the motion as stated please say aye. (ayes) No opposing so we have a six to zero vote in favor of the motion as made by Commissioner Garber with Commissioner Keller not participating. We will take about a seven-minute break. We have a Special Order of the Dayto attend to and we will be back in seven or eight minutes. Thank you very much. Okay, we will reconvene the meeting and go back to Chapter 18.40. I believe Staff’s desire would be to look at 18.40.150 first that would be the Storm Water Quality Protection. Would Staff care to make a presentation on that chapter? Ms. McNair: For that one section most of this is what you had seen at your last meeting. A purpose section was added and it is encouraging the incorporation of site design measures to preserve and enhance storm water quality and then guidelines. So this section includes ten different guidelines and won’t highlight all of them because I think you have seen them before. One of them to highlight is number three, which is to minimize directly connected impervious areas by routing storm water runoff into vegetative swales. So there weren’t any changes from when you saw this at the last Commission meeting. Chair Holman: Do we have any questions of Staff. Commissioner Garber. MOTION Commissioner Garber: I would like tO offer to make a motion to accept the Staff’s recommendations for the revisions to this section with is Section 18.40.150 as submitted. SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Second. Chair Holman: Would you care to speak to your motion, Commissioner Garber? Page 6 1 Commissioner Garber: No, I need not say anything more. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas? Any other comments or discussion about the motion? 4 Commissioner Keller, do you have a question? 5 6 Commissioner Keller: I notice that it talks about connecting directly to storm drains. I am 7 J wondering if that includes drainage directly onto the street. 8 9 Mr. Teresi: The concept would be to interrupt that continuous path from a hard surface into a 10 gutter or storm drain or a creek. You want to interrupt that by some kind of pervious or 11 landscaped area in order to filter the runoff and allow some of it to infiltrate before it gets into 12 the storm drain or creek. 13 14 Commissioner Keller: So I am wondering whether it makes sense to add the phrase ~street’ or 15 ~curb’ or whatever you want because people say I am not c,onnecting to the storm drain I am just 16 loading it out onto the street. So that is just one question. 17 18 Mr. Williams: Where are you looking at specifically to do something like that? 19 20 Commissioner Keller: Basically, it looks like (c)(3). 21 22 Mr. Williams: It specifically says to route the storm runoff into vegetative swales and other 23 landscaped areas. I see, you are saying before it reaches a storm drain, street or stream? 24 25 Commissioner Keller: Yes. 26 27 Mr. Williams: That’s okay. 28 29 Chair Holman: Would that be agreeable to the maker of the motion? 30. 31 Commissioner Garber: It would be. 32 33 Chair Holman: And the seconder? 34 35 Commissioner Sandas: Yes. 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Holman: Then I had a question I had posed awhile back that is a clarification about number ten. Minimize changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, or duration of storm runoff from the development site. I guess I was wondering how that is consistent or inconsistent with basement construction as we currently allow it. Mr. Williams: I will let Mr. Teresi answerthat. Mr. Teresi: That wasn’t really what we were thinking of when this was crafted. We were thinking more again of impervious areas tend to retard the infiltration of the runoff into the Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 ground and to also speed it up. So it gets out to the street and storm drains and creeks more quickly. I know that you had asked a question earlier about basements and pumping and I guess I could add that fairly recently the Public Works Department has changed its policy with respect to permanent pumping from basements. It changed its policy such that it is no longer allowed for applicants to construct systems that collect water around basements and pump it out. They instead have to build their basements to be waterproofed and to be of enough strength to withstand the hydrostatic pressures and uplift forces that is caused by any water. So the only time that there would be pumping for basements is during the actual construction where it is necessary in order build the structure, to have the hole dewatered first, On applications from here forward we should no longer see pumping on a permanent basis from these basements. Chair Holman: A clarification on that. In recent years I have seen and people have commented to me that they see- large hoses coming off construction sites and then going sometimes down one block and around the comer down the next block to a sewer inlet and their sewer drain. That is water being pumped off a site. So are you saying no longer will that be allowed and they will have to capture that water onsite? Mr. Teresi: No, I am saying that that won’t allowable once the basement is constructed and back filled. That kind of a practice is still used during construction when the hole needs to be dewatered in order to actually build the structure. The reason why these hoses and pipes run down the gutter is because it has been found that that is less of an nuisance than having several feet of water running down the gutter for several blocks. Chair Holman: The other part of that question for clarification is I myself note and people have commented to me that there are homes that have been built recently that clearly have basements and there are little round holes in the curb in front of the homes and water is continually, I can’t say 12 months a year, but water is pretty continually coming out of those holes off theproperty. You are saying that that is no longer going to be allowed? Mr. Teresi: That is correct. Chair Holman: Okay. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: IfI understand Staff’s response to the Chair’s question there isn’t a relationship between storm water runoff and the existence of basements except during the period of construction. Is that a correct statement? Mr. Teresi: Yes. Commissioner Garber: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Joe, could you just clarify? If the reason that there is ongoing pump-out that occurs in some of the circumstances where people have put in basements is because there is water filling up between the basement and the separation wall? Is that essentially why that occurs? Mr. Teresi: It occurs now because of either seepage water that seeps into the ground and collects along the basement wall or because during times of heavy rain over the course of several months the whole groundwater table can rise or you can have a perch level of groundwater that collects and often times the designers want to have a pump system to collect and remove that water for fear that the basement is going to leak or that the water is going to exert that extra pressure on the walls and they are trying to avoid that and having a pump is a simple way to avoid that. Commissioner Burr: That is what I thought and there are homes with basements in certain aquifer areas where we have underground streams running throughout the city in different places. So if we are now prohibiting that pumping what happens to that water? What is the alternative? Mrl Teresi: The alternative is that the designers are going to have to take a measure of care to have a more robust waterproofing system. Often times they are going to have to have thicker walls and slabs in order to withstand that pressure. Commissioner Burt: Nothing that would require appraisal in advance of whether certain locations are going to have an excessive amount of that sort of seepage? Mr. Teresi: We go to this new policy after making a series of changes to try and answer that question and one of the things that is done any time a basement is proposed is a soils report is done and a soils engineer is asked to assess this groundwater question. In the past we have asked them to estimate the highest level of groundwater. If they said the groundwater wasn’t going to come tip to the point of where the basement is they were allowed to have a pump that would be there to collect any nuisance water that comes from above. We found that in spite of their best efforts to estimate this groundwater they have been wrong so many times that we end up with these places where they said there was going to be no groundwater and lo and behold there is and we end up with these places where the water is pumping for months at a time. So in an attempt to avoid that in the future we have taken a stronger stand and said no pump system period because it hasn’t worked in the past. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: To understand what a basement is it is basically a swimming pool in reverse if you think about it. The way basements are constructed is there is a void in between where the ground is and where the actual basement wall is and that is filled with crushed gravel. The idea is that the groundwater or the storm water would come along and hit this gravel and the gravel cannot sustain or hold the water it just basically through gravity drops all the way to the bottom. At the bottom there is usually a perforated pipe located there. Now, in basement construction the sidewalls are generally treated with some sort of asphaltic membrane, which also prevents water from seeping through the walls of the basement and getting into this swimming pool in reverse. The weak link ho~vever is the bottom slab of the basement. Generally what happens there is that Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 it is very difficult to create a waterproof membrane there. So the way it has generally been done is that any of the water that seeps down and gets underneath the slab to the basement, again there is a layer of gravel and there is a sump that is located below that where the water would collect and get pumped out and also from this perimeter piping. What Joe has basically explained is that that pump would be eliminated. Therefore, what is important is that the bottom of the slab be adequately waterproofed. What that does now is it creates, and I want you to imagine a boat, in that the soil and all the groundwater around it is fluid. So the tendency is if it is not weighted down it is going to pop out of the ground and it is going to literally push the house up. So that is my Mr. Science explanation of the way basements work. I hope I have done an adequate job there. I think between the soils engineer and Public Works’ review of this it can be adequately addressed so that we don’t have all these houses popping up out of the ground. Chair Holman: I am having visions of cemeteries. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Keller: I understandthat you are prohibiting pumps outside the basement itself. In the event of a flood or somehow seepage into the basement are some sort of pump arrangements allowed with the basements themselves or is that prohibited as well? Mr. Teresi: I honestly don’t know the answer to that. This is not my policy. I am aware of it but I am not the one who is most familiar with it so I don’t know the answer to that question. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: At risk of becoming one of the most unpopular people in Palo Alto I have to ask this question. Are basements even a good idea here? Mr. Williams: We have had this discussion many times and with the Council as well. We think that at this point they aren’t a bad idea but that the policy is that these technical issues have been addressed and are addressed and that it is preferable to allowing more square footage above the ground. This is a way for people to get larger houses without building more above the ground. So that is the policy whether it is good, bad or indifferent, that is where we are now. We had a lot of discussion on this during the R-1 zoning reviews. In fact we had an environmental study of impacts on groundwater and that determined that it was not significant. Commissioner Sandas: Okay, pretend I didn’t ask that question. Mr. Williams: It is a very valid question. It is asked over and over just for your history. Chair Holman: At the risk of being even more unpopular than Commissioner Sandas I have raised many questions about basements and their viability and how they affect our community’s sustainability in terms of affordability and all manner of other !mpacts that the proliferation and size of basements that we allow in this community how that impacts our community. Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 However, back to our motion that has been made by Commissioner Garber and seconded by Commissioner Sandas as amended to add in (c)(3)the word ’street’ after, ’it reaches a street, or storm drain, or stream.’ Mr. Larldn: Before you do that we need to note for the record that there are no members of the public that wish to speak to this item. Chair Holman: This is correct. There are no members of the public. Mr. Larkin: And likewise with the prior item. The minutes can’t view the audience. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Thank you very mudh, City Attorney. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) There are none opposed so that passes on a seven to zero vote. So I think Staff’s intention is to go to the Landscaping section next, Chapter 18.40.130. Ms. McNair: Thank you very much. For Landscaping we did add a purpose section as well as General Regulations that reference the other applicable sections of the code. We have included information on Natural Areas with language in there to retain or enhance native vegetation unless modification is found necessary or appropriate for specific use allowed through architectural or site design review with the preference for natural indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials. There is also information included in (c)(4) that roof mounted equipment shall be screened in a manner that protects the viewshed from adjacent properties, including views from above, which was a comment by the Commission. On page eight we have included information for Low-Density Residential Landscaping Design Standards including a 50 percent of the required front setback to be landscaped. Street trees may be required for items that have Individual Re;ciew for a new second story or additions to a second story or for other discretionary reviews in certain zones. Also the Commission commented about again basements but this is a proposed light wells and below grade basements shall be screened from public view. We included some information about special design and landscaping standards. We separated these two sections out into Requirements and Guidelines. For Requirements the Commissioner did talk about screening of utilities so there is information on that. There were some comments about the percentage of lawn or a restriction for the amount of lawn in commercial properties. So for developments within commercial and industrial zoning districts there are some standards in there for requirements on limitations on lawn. There is also, based on the Commission’s comments about the 50 percent shading of parking lot surface areas within 15 years included in that. Then in the Guideline section we have some language to encourage rooftop gardens, edible gardens and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives for multi-family, commercial, and industrial developments. There is information about structural soils, a guideline where it is Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 preferred where planting in compacted soil areas such as in parking lots and sidewalks. We have also included, based on the comments from the Commission, some information about the incorporation of recycled water usage into the design of landscape and irrigation systems for multi-family, commercial, and industrial zoning districts where feasible. That concludes Staff’s presentation. Mr. Williams: Chair, ifI can just add a couple of things? One is that I just noticed and I will jump in here before Mr. Keller corr. ects me that under (d) item six should be item five, we jumped from four straight to six there so we will make that correction. Then the other thing is I had a call today from a resident that suggested a couple of language changes, which I think are useful on the Natural Areas section. In items two and six in particular there is language where one says, "in so far as is as reasonably practical," and the other says, "where feasible." Then in some other spots we have "to the maximum extent feasible" and I think we would like to use that language in all of those places and be consistent with that language in each of those. So we would modify items (c)(2) and (c)(6) to say like in (c)(2) would say, "Site development plans shall, where to the maximum extent feasible, provide for," and (6) "To the maximum extent feasible existing vegetation shall be retained." So we would offer those amendments as well. Chair Holman: IfI might add to that I had those very things highlighted on my plan too. On page six, under Landscaping (a) Purpose on the third line it also says "where possible" and if that might also be changed to the "maximum extent feasible." Did people track that? Then also on page nine under Guidelines, number three, the second line, "incorporate into site design where feasible" if that language could also be consistent so that it reads, "to the maximum extent" that would be good. Mr. Williams: Those are fine. Chair Holman: I’m sorry. On page nine under Guidelines, number three, the second line says in the middle of the line "where feasible" instead of "to the maximum extent." So questions? Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: Under (d) what I guess in now (d)(5) which deals with the light wells, it is labeled as (d)(6) here but should be (d)(5). We talked about this before and the language that is here to me is fairly vague and could be interpreted to be - "screened from public view." What we talked about before you described kind of holding up your fingers a couple of inches tall as something to kind of make it not as visible. This language here I think could have an unintended consequence of really getting people to not do these things. If you have a tall screening with a light well you may very well not get the benefit of the light well in the first place. So what I am trying to avoid here is something where people don’t do these and we don’t create as good usable space in a basement because you have to landscape it in such a way that it blocks the light. I don’t kmow if there is some way we could be more sPecific about what is required here but, "screened from public view," just seems fairly heavy handed. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: Actually this language already exists elsewhere in the zoning code in the R-1 and R-2 chapters of the code that talk about light wells and basements. I think when Dave Dockter was here last time he indicated he thought that we had lost that language that we had before but we didn’t it is still there and it says something very similar to this. If you would rather say something that says it minimizes view impacts or minimizes rather than saying, "shall be screened," maybe shall minimize view impacts from offsite or something like that. Commissioner Tuma: To me that would be better. Mr. Williams: What we have generally found is it takes relatively little landscaping on these things to screen it from offsite. Commissioner Tuma: Right and all I am trying to do is have the language reflect that that was the intent of what we were trying to do here. Mr. Williams: It does just take.a shrub. Okay. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: With respect to (c)(5) it says that, "Planting of invasive plant species shall not be permitted." What about invasive plant species that already exists? Is there some notion that when there is re-landscaping or landscaping maintenance, whatever the right triggeringpoint is, that invasive species be removed to the maximum extent feasible? Mr. Williams: I think that is kind of inherent in here but I guess I am open to seeing if there is more specific language to that effect. We have in number the preference is given in new landscaping to these things and that non-indigenous landscaping be limited, that the existing vegetation be retained or enhanced to maintain wildlife habitat, riparian vegetation being retained or enhanced. So I think there are words in here with the discretionary approval and landscaping plans coming in that these guiding principles would tend to lead us that way but if it would be helpful I don’t think it would be a problem to say planting ofinvasive plant species shall not be permitted and existing non-natives may be required to be reduced or something like that. Commissioner Keller: I think it might make sense to say existing invasive. Iam not suggesting removal. That we should require or mandate removal of non-native species but in particular invasive species is a different story and saying something explicit about removal ofinvasive species would make ;ense to me. Mr. Williams: Okay, I am just concerned about how far we go with that. If we have a fairly minor addition going through ARB on a project site in the Foothills someplace and there is an invasive species over five acres of land do we make them go out there and remove all of that as part of that very minor approval? Commissioner Keller: DO you have any suggestions on how we might handle that? Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. McNair: I do believe that there is some language in here about limiting it in and around the immediate area around the structure, non-indigenous landscaping. I agree with Curtis there might be invasive plantings, which might occur on a hillside or something like that, which actually stabilizes that area in some fashion, and removal of it might cause more disturbance than by keeping it. If you were to add language I would suggest not using the word ’shall’ but using something to the effect of existing invasive species should be considered for removal on a case- by-case basis or something. Mr. Williams: Yes, maybe shatl not be permitted and removal of existing invasive species may be required. Commissioner Keller: Would it be reasonable to say that it would be required when that space is re-landscaped? In other words if you are going to be worldng in an area maybe ..... Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, if I might, I think that is inferred. There has to be a trigger point and I think that is inferred in the language that was suggested. Would Staff concur with that? Mr. Williams: Yes. I think number one also supports that too in terms of new landscaping and re-landscaping type areas that we are going to look to have that done in a way that removes those and replaces them with the preference for the indigenous species. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I didn’t want to wordsmith it but I have a suggestion here following up on Commissioner Keller’s comment. Maybe it is done proportional to the amount of development. So if you were redeveloping an entire site, new building, it would apply to the entire site. Whereas a small 200 square foot addition is quite minimal so it would be proportional. The following up on Commissioner Tuma’s comment on (d) previously number six and now five on the light wells. It says "public view," and I think what was implied or meant there was public right-of-way as in when we do roof screening for instance it is not that it is observed from another property it is observed from the public right-of-way, correct? Mr. Williams: You could be correct with that but it is not necessarily a neighbor view. Vice-Chair Lippert: So that is a very important point. If it is public view it implies any surrounding property plus the public right-of-way whereas public right-of-way is very specific. Mr. Williams: I would have to check with Current Planning and see how they have interpreted that in the past on light well situations. I think it is important that neighboring properties not be looking down into a hole or that kind of thing too. So I think it has been done both ways in Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 practice but the words "public view" I think do infer the public right-of-way from a park or something like that. Chair Holman: I have just one comment, which is under the Purpose, and again thank you Staff for including these, under Landscaping, Purpose on page six. The purpose of this section is to encourage creative and sustainable landscape design that enhances structures, streetscapes, and parking areas. It would seem to me that it also would apply to open spaces so I am wondering if Staff might think that is appropriate to include. Mr. Williams: In terms of the enhances part? Chair Holman: Yes. Mr. Williams: Enhances open space areas? Chair Holman: Yes. Mr. Williams: That’s fine. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, are you going to make another motion? MOTION Commissioner Garber: Yes. I would like to move that we accept the Staff recommendation for this section of the code 18.40.130 Landscaping with the following recommended revisions. In item (a) Purpose that we include open spaces in the areas to encourage creative and sustainable landscape design. That sustainable landscape design preserves native plant species to the maximum extent feasible replace the ’where possible’ statement in that same paragraph. On paragraph (c)(2) that we use the same phrasing, "maximum extent feasible" in that sentence. That in (3) we introduce the concept of the removal recommended or as the Staff defines the actual actionable ~vord here, the preference for noninvasive species and the removal for invasive species that may be in .... Mr. Williams: Isn’t that paragraph (5)? Commissioner Garber: I thought it was (3). Chair Holman:. It is (c)(5) I believe. Commissioner Garber: I apologize, that would be (5) then. Then in item (6) we use the ’maximum extent feasible’ language with that sentence. Item (5) that should Staff return with a recommendation relative to better definition around the screening from public view or public right-of-way that be included. Mr. Williams: What do you mean? Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: You were going to check to see if the right language is to say that the light wells from below grade should be screened from public view or should they be screened from the public right-of-way. Mr. Williams: Okay, but I think we probably need to decide on something tonight because this isn’t coming back. So I would go ahead and put the language in ’shall be screened to minimize these from offsite’ if that works. Mr. Larldn: I would just point out that at this point it is most important to get the policy if there are language tweaks that need to be made those can be made prior to the Council meeting but at this point the policy question is important. Commissioner Garber: Right. The intention of the Commission is to minimize the view from offsite locations. Yes? Chair Holman: Why don’t we let Commissioner Garber complete his motion and then if we have amendments or suggestions make them. Commissioner Garber: Okay. Then finally that we under the Guidelines section item (3) that we use the ’maximum extent feasible’ in that sentence. I think those were all the notes that I caught. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas were you going to second this motion? SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Yes indeed, I second. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber do you need to speak to your motion at all? Commissioner Garber: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: No. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I do want to. I think the intent was not necessarily to minimize the view from offsite but rather from the public right-of-way. Offsite could be the neighboring private property. So I will offer a friendly amendment to that effect. Mr. Williams: Is that okay with everyone? Commissioner Garber: That is okay with the maker of the motion. Chair Holman: And the seconder? Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Chair Holman: Okay, any other comments? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, I am assuming that in your Guidelines (3) you are referring to (e)(3), just to be clear in your comment about ’maximum extent feasible’ just to make that unambiguous. With respect to this issue of proposed light wells and below grade basements shall be screened from public right-of-way to the extent that there is would that include for example public parldand and things like that? So I am sort of wondering ... Mr. Williams: I was going to suggest that that say public right-of-way or other public properties. So it would include any parkland or public lands. Commissioner Garber: That is acceptable to the maker. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to make a comment again on Commissiol~er Tuma’s amendment. I support the amendment I think it is the public right-of-way and to support that I would like to say good fences make good neighbors, Neighbors have the ability to screen that light well if they don’t wish to see it.’ Chair Holman: I guess I would say that isn’t true from a second story though a lot of times. I had a comment under Guidelines. I guess maybe it is a question actually. Under Guidelines (5), "The Director may allow a combination ofhardscape and landscape to satisfy landscape requirements where permeable surface materials are used and where the visual quality and screening functions of the hardscape/landscape areas are maintained." Would it be reasonable to add ’as per conditions of approval?’ The reason I am asking is because of enforcement issues. Would that be clarification of that section because a lot of times there is not maintenance of these areas? Mr. Williams: Yes, I think that is fine. I think that is probably a good suggestion. Chair Holman: Would that be agreeable to the maker of the motion? Commissioner Garber: It would. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Seeing no other hands or comments we are ready to vote on the motion. I think Staff has it clear with the many changes rather than repeat that. All those in favor of Page 17 1 Commissioner Garber’s motion seconded by Commissioner Sandas as we are doing tonight say 2 aye. (ayes) That passes on a seven to zero vote. 3 4 So now we will go to the balance of Chapter 18.40. Staff presentation? 5 6 Mr. Williams: I don’t think we have any presentation. The remainder of this chapter is 7 essentially existing language that has just been transferred into this section. 8 9 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: May I make a motion? Chair Holman: You may. MOTION Commissioner Garber: That we accept the Staff’s recommendation of the remaining Zoning Ordinance Update that has been offered this evening that is Chapter 18.40 as it has currently been worded. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas do I dare ask if you want to second the motion? SECOND Commissioner Sandas: Of course I do. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Okay. Any comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none we are ready to vote on the motion. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) That passes on aseven to zero vote. Mr. Larkin: I am just going to comment for the record once again that there were no members of the audience wishing to participate. Chair Holman: At the risk of being really brazen here I am going to correct the City Attorney that is not members of the audience but members of the public. Mr. Larkin: That works just as well. Chair Holman: So we are ready for Chapter 18.42. Staff. Ms. McNair: Chapter 18.42 is Standards for Special Uses. There are two sections the first is just a deletion of the limit of permits issued perblock in accordance to be in compliance with alcoholic beverage control regulations. That occurs on page six, item (e). Do you want to take a motion on that or can we go to wireless communication facilities, which is 18.42.110? We included a purpose section for this minimizing visual impacts of wireless communication facilities. We also included language about blending with the existing surroundings and a Page 18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 statement about building mounted wireless communication facilities and collocation facilities are 2 preferred and encouraged. All of those were based on Council input at the last meeting. We did 3 include some modifications to the review procedure. Instead of extending the noticing for a 4 building mounted project that exceeds the building height we have revised the review process for 5 those facilities to require both a conditional use permit and architectural review, There was also a question about historic and the review by the HRB, there already is a process in place for all projects that are proposed on historic properties to be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Planner or the HRB. Mr. Williams: We have specified that in the ordinance itself as well. Ms. McNair: The rest of the code is just clarification and putting into the specific format for the chapter. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes. In terms of paragraph (c)(3) I am wondering whether it makes sense to exclude encroachment into interior street side and rear setbacks where (a) the side in question abuts a residential property or residential zone or (b) where the side in question has a special setback for street setbacks or whatever as defined in the code? Mr. Williams: We don’t think it is necessary to do that mainly because any standalone facility is going to require a conditional use permit. So if there is some objection to that then someone can request a public hearing with the Commission to come forward with that. I don’t think a blanket statement prohibiting it in those areas that might be a very good location, it might be well screened, and it might not cause any problems at all. So just blanket prohibition does not seem to us to be appropriate. At the last meeting we were talking about particularly enhancing the notice for things like that but we would note that what we are talking about are standalone facilities and those wouldbecause they are standalone require use permit and 600 feet notice on all of those anyway. So I don’t know that that would cause problems by doing it but it just does not seem necessary to go there. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I would like some clarification on collocation that might have to come from the City Attorney. By approving an antenna with a conditional use permit whoever the applicant is or the wireless carrier is they can thereby have collocation at that site without any further review, is that correct? Mr. Larkin: It is unclear at this point because there is conflicting language within the statute. My general belief is that it is required to be permitted as a collocation facility so the use permit would actually permit it as a collocation facility as opposed to a standalone antenna and there would be a distinction between the two. It wouldn’t automatically become a collocation facility but there is some vagaries in the language of the statute that make me not 100 percent confident but that is my inclination. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, My question goes to would there be an additional review process for that collocation? Mr. Larkin: There wouldn’t be an additional review for the collocation but we could still place architectural review requirements so the ARB could recommend imposing conditions that would inhibit the collocation of the second facility if it were going to violate the terms of their architectural review. For example I think it would be extremely difficult for somebody to collocate a facility on one of our tree antennas because physically you couldn’t do that and still meet the architectural review conditions. Vice-Chair Lippert: Is it possible to require that the applicant or the wireless carrier present at the time that they are making the initial application what the maximum build out of collocation if they are going to in fact have collocation at that site? Mr. Larkin: I think that is possible. I am a little hesitant because I think we can’t anticipate advances in technology that would allow additional collocation where it is not feasible with the current technology. Vice-Chair Lippert: No, but what we could do and where I am going with this is if the plans deviate from what is proposed as the ultimate build out then in fact we could say that it is subject to additional review or revisiting. Mr. Larkin: It is difficult under the current status of the law for us to regulate by number of facilities or by radiation output. What we can regulate and is clearly within our purview is aesthetics. So that is where I recommend the restrictions be placed is on the aesthetics and the aesthetic impacts. That does limit you in terms of being able to review an application where under current technology it would be a single antenna and there is no way that a second antenna or transmitter would be able to be placed there. Ten years from now if technology is advanced enough that they can fit it into a smaller location and could place itfor example in one of our tree poles you are limited in that way by doing that but it is a lot safer legal position to be in because that is one area where the courts have consistently said the cities have the right to regulate. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess where I am going on this is that the permit is going with the site it is not going with a specific antenna. So it is very easy for an applicant or carrier in this case to go and say we are just going to build a second tree, in fact we are going to build a whole forest of trees. Mr. Larkin: I think that issomething that would be prohibited under the ordinance because we are requiring the CUP and the CUP is going to in conditioning the approval I would, expect the conditions would be such that they would preclude multiple plantings, so to speak. So it would have to be a second facility attached to the same pole and in order to do that it would have to not have an aesthetic impact. Right now that can’t be done but what that means in the future I don’t know. Vice-Chair Lippert: I am going to make a suggestion here and I am going to just throw it out. Since the law is ambiguous at this point that we accept the language that is here.. I am not Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 .36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 making a motion because I know that Commissioner Garber will want to make the motion eventually. But that we accept the language here but that we in fact revisit this maybe in about Six months when the City Attorney has a better handle on some of the decisions. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma I think you had a question. Commissioner Tuma: A couple of things. The first one is a comment which is I am really pleased with the suggestion and the resolution of this issue on notice and requiring the conditional use permit. I think that is a great result. Last time we had talked about abandoned equipment. I think there was some discussion around possibly requiring applicants to certify that all abandoned antennas had been taken down prior to accepting any new applications for approval. That continues to make sense to me. I don’t know if there is some way to incorporate that into (f). Mr. Williams: Right. I think we could add that. I think we would do that if we saw somebody come in and we knew there were abandoned antenna we would tell them they need to get that out and we wouldn’t approve a new antenna without them doing that. If we need to specify that here I don’t think that is a problem here either. Commissioner Tuma: I think what I am asking for is that we require them to affirmatively certify that there aren’t any such abandoned antennas still out there. In other words, we may not know about it but I think we want them to tell us and certify that there aren’t any abandoned antennas out there. It puts the burden on them because I think enforcement of these could be tricky. Mr. Williams: Okay, so we could say something like an appiicant shall prior to receiving any further permits certify that no existing abandoned facilities exist in Palo Alto. Commissioner Tuma: Certify that all abandoned antennas have been removed prior to the approval of any application is the language I had in mind. Chair Holman: Might I suggest it wouldn’t be just antennas it might be also cabinets or equipment? Commissioner Tuma: Yes, thanks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, did you have any questions? I had just a couple of clarifications here. I had inquired and maybe I need a reminder on this, I inquired if the equipment could be placed underground because it does end up being pretty prolific at grade. Was there a definitive answer on that if I could be reminded please? Mr. Williams: There wasn’t but I have never seen it tmderground. I just have to believe that there is a reason for that and that people have asked for it before. Chair Holman: It is cheaper to upgrade. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Williams: I know that but I think there needs to be access to it that doesn’t require going underground to get to but I can’t say that definitively. Chair Holman: I guess if the other Commissioners are interested in this before this goes to Council, and I don’t want to hold it up, but I would be most curious to find out if it could be placed below grade and understanding that they need to have access. There are ways to accomplish that. Part of what drives me there even though there are design and compatibility issues and conditions that are addressed in this revised ordinance it also happens that when there is a permit given and there is a collocation that happens there is more equipment that shows up. So sometimes we have additional boxes that show up and they end up taking up part of the landscape space. If we have lesser control over this than we might wish we have a street side acne situation that could be occurring. So I am interested in minimizing this to the greatest extent possible. City Attorney. Mr. Larldn: I would just add I don’t know that I was as clear as I could have been in answering some of Commissioner Lippert’s questions but when I say we have the ability to regulate aesthetics that includes bulk and massing and size. So to the extent that we limit the size of the equipment that goes at the base of the pole and that precludes additional facilities from collocating that is okay. It becomes more difficult when we just limit it to a specific number because then if the technology changes and they can fit two poles worth of equipment into one small box that we have already approved then we probably have to allow them to do that. Chair Holman: So is it possible, given the aesthetics are a control that we do have, to add some language that would indicate that equipment shall not take up required open space or required landscape? For instance if you have a PC and under conditions of approval you have a landscape area that has been required as a part of the project do we need additional language for collocation such that required landscape cannot be taken up by equipment that is as a result of collocation? Mr. Larkin: I think it could be done either through the PC ordinance or through the conditional use permit when it comes in. Mr. Williams: I wouldn’t see this as allowing in any way violating an open space requirement whether it is PC or a zoning district that requires a certain amount of open space or whatever to put this in. Chair Holman: I guess what causes me to ask this question is under architectural review but no conditional use permit is required for - I am seeing it now, okay. All right. One last thing, which is minimal. If the language on page nine, (d)(2) says shall be designed to minimize overall height. Essentially that is the same language that is used in (1) which is, "Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible." I guess it is the same thing as minimizing. So that is okay. Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, as a follow up to Chair Holman’s comments regarding the imposition of the equipment cabinets and enclosures on required landscape. I am wondering if Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the easiest way to handle that is to indicate that equipment cabinets shall be part of the lot coverage as far as zoning regulations are concerned. So in other words, just like a building has lot coverage that the equipment cabinets are considered lot coverage. Chair Holman: Does Staff have a response to that or not? Mr. Larkin: I believe that is addressed but I don’t know how and Curtis is looking it up. Chair Holman: While you are looking it up I had one other question, clarifying question. Having to do with two things, one with in general but also specifically regarding historic properties again it has to do with collocation. We can review and have purview over the aesthetics but the question has come up previously about if you allow a antenna and it has to be screened so there has to be screening here too but if you allow it to 15 feet above the maximum height, so 65 feet, how do we not end up with a proliferation of them such that the building appears ultimately to be a 65 foot high building or in the case of historic affects the historic design of the building? Can you respond to that? I know we have talked about it before but I guess I need clarification because I am not seeing it clearly addressed here. Mr. Larkin: You raised the historic issue and I will let Curtis address the overall height issue. For projects on historic properties it requires not only ARB review but also HRB review as well as the CUP. So I think between those three bodies that would review the project those concerns could be addressed and that would be an aesthetic quality that could be regulated. Chair Holman: Also for collocation. Mr. Williams: Realistically what I think we are going to see here with this ldnd of fresh on our minds is that first of all I think we have heard enough that the aesthetic aspect can be addressed through architectural review at least at a Staff level. If it is collocated in a position that is not appropriate and particularly contradicts the original approval then we can say that is not appropriate. The other thing is that I think realistically we are going to get to where I think Commissioner Lippert was sort of heading which is when one of these projects comes in with a potential for collocation we are going to look at it like what would it look like if it had more antennas on it or something like that and stipulate at that point sort of what the guidelines are in terms of additional antennas coming in so we have criteria. I think the attorney is saying sort of the worst-case scenario is still if we have the criteria set there for them they have to meet those as long as they are aesthetic criteria and not public health or those kinds of things that we can regulate that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Mr. Williams: I also forgot Mr. Keller’s question. Lot coverage essentially only excludes ground level paving, landscaping, and open recreational facilities. So everything else structurally is considered lot coverage. Commissioner Keller: So then I would suggest that on the form where wireless carriers apply for having a wireless communication facility that the form request the total current lot coverage and Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the total allowed lot coverage and the increased proposed lot coverage just to make that explicit in the calculations. I was a little confused by something that the City Attorney said. What you said is that collocation on an historic review required HRB, which I understand, ARB, which I understand, and I don’t understand it including CUP unless it is a standalone so please explain that to me. Mr. Larldn: The collocation facility, the facility itself would still require a CUP. It.is the additional antennas and maybe that is something that we need to make more clear before we get this to Council. The facility itself could still require a CUP but once the facility is approved when a new antenna is proposed to be located on that facility it would not require a separate CUP. Prior to the new legislation we required a CUP for each antenna now we would require a CUP for the initial facility but then for the collocated antennas we would not require a CUP. Commissioner Keller: Let’s suppose we have a steeple on a church and the antenna were placed in an historic resource, which is the church. It would be building mounted. My understanding of reading this is that that does not require a CUP. Do you understand otherwise? Mr. Larkin: That would be correct but the initial CUP would cover all of the proposed size and massing of whatever is located thee. So if something was going to be located within a steeple and the condition was that it not be visible that wouldn’t change just because they are adding a second antenna. So they would have to fit the second antenna within the obstructed view of the steeple and that HRB conditions would probably preclude - I think the concern was to use Chair Holman’s term, the roof acne, and that would be precluded by the HRB conditions. Commissioner Keller: I am just trying to make a distinction HRB conditions are not a CUP is that correct? Mr. Larkin: That is correct, they are conditions of approval. Commissioner Keller: Right. I am just trying to make the distinction that if it is building mounted it doesn’t require a CUP. Mr. Williams: Correct. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you had a question or comment? Vice-Chair Lippert: I did. I think what is difficult to do here is to sort of get our hands around the details here. So maybe we want to think about a couple of things here. I am looking specifically at page nine, (c) Development Standards. If you look at item (1) it says "Building mounted WCF may extend 15 feet beyond the permitted height of the zone." Maybe we want to look at that again and say no, we don’t want that. We don’t want a building mounted that extends 15 feet above, which would be roof mounted or we do. Now this is where I am going is that we want to try to reduce the height of the antennas as much as possible so in this case here the standalone shall be no taller than 65 feet, well that is going to really trump the roof mounted ones. It might be desirable to go with the roof mounted ones which are 15 feet above whatever Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 the height is and say that the standalone can only be as high as the building that is permitted on the site and eliminate the 15 feet which would make it 65 feet. Do you see where I am going? So again we are looking at standalone antennas actually being shorter and we allow the additional height for the ones that are building mounted per se. The other things that we could look at are things like the footprint that an antenna is going to cast. If it is going to be a long slender antenna it is going to cast a very small footprint in terms of area including its adjacent little equipment box. So maybe the thing to look at there again is maybe that figures into lot coverage and floor area that is permitted in the development of that site. I know it is rather minimal but somebody who then does a tree-looking antenna is going to have a much broader footprint. Maybe they won’t do that. Maybe they will look at that and say let’s incorporate it into a building and thereby reduce that footprint. So it is all in how you look at these antennas. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then let’s try to conclude this item. Commissioner Keller: My question has to do with this thing we have been talking about (c)(1). It says, "Building mounted WCF may extend 15 feet beyond the permitted height of the zone." To me height is ambiguous and I would prefer if it would say the permitted building height of the zone because I could imagine somebody saying, well, you allow 15 feet of various and sundry stuff on top of the building, that is the permitted height of the zone and I am going to go even further than that. Because we have had people twist things around from what we say I would prefer if it would say’ 15 feet beyond the building height of the zone,’ which is the kind of stuff we currently allow on top of buildings. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. MOTION Commissioner Garber: I would like to make a motion that we accept the Staff’s proposed revisions to Chapter 18.42 Standards for Special Uses with the following modifications. In subchapter 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities, paragraph (c) Standards and Exceptions, item (1) that we introduce the word ’building’ between permitted and height of the zone. Chair Holman: In (c)(1), right? Commissioner Garber: Yes, (c)(1), Development Standards and Exceptions, item (1) under (c). Two, although not previously discussed I would like to make a recommendation that on (d) Equipment Cabinets and Enc!osures, (2) "Shall be designed to minimize overall height," we include the words that also been used in the conversation so that the sentence reads, ’Shall be designed to minimize over.all height, mass and size.’ Then under item (f) Removal of Abandoned Equipment that we add language indicating that equipment and antenna be certified upon their removal. Page 25 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 2 I will cover the other comments that are important to the Commission under my comments after 3 the motion. 4 5 Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. 6 7 SECOND 8 9 Commissioner Sandas: I would like to second that motion. 10 Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber, would you care to speak to your motion? Commissioner Garber: Yes. There are three topics that I think are important to the Commission here that should be included if not specifically within the zoning but should be carried forward to the appropriate bodies be they ARB, HRB, etc. One, that we would like to revisit the issue of collocation once the language of the collocation is better defined and/or understood by the City. If not, before within at least a six-month timeframe even if we understand that we don’t know and we need to set that date further out. Mr. Larkin: We will come back to you with at least a status at the beginning of next year. Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you. Two, although it is implicit in many of the things that have already been said and some of the wording in the zoning it is of great interest of the Commission to minimize the overall visual impact of the equipment and the antenna on the environment even to the degree if it can be made underground. Whether that is technically feasible is unknown but to the way and to the extent that Staff can forward that interest of the Commission we would be interested to hear their recommendations outside of the zoning topic this evening. Three, that the application requirements be amended to include if they don’t already the definition of the proj ect’s site coverage and that that date include what is allowable, what exists if any in the case of a collocation, and then what is proposed so that that impact is more clearly understood at the point of application. That ends my comments. Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: No thanks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: !just want to make one comment that is a follow up on Chair Holman’s and Commissioner Garber’s motion. With regard to the minimizing of the equipment cabinet and potentially locating it below grade the most difficult one is going to be your first one. I think if you can find some way, shape, or form to do the research and be prepared that it can be accommodated underground then that becomes your case study for then presenting it to future wireless service providers. Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I would like to make a friendly amendment adding item (5) under paragraph (d) Equipment Cabinets and Enclosures. That is that equipment cabinets and enclosures shall not be placed on any required landscaping. Chair Holman: Is Staff okay with that or does Staff think that conditions of approval of proj ects would preclude that anyway or there is no harm in adding it here I presume? Mr. Williams: I don’t think there is any harm in doing it I am just trying to think - that is probably okay. I was thinking more of something that said in a way that it reduces the landscaping below required levels or something like that. I think the same thing is done probably with the language you suggested so I think we can live with that. Chair Holman: Would the maker accept that amendment? Commissioner Garber: The maker would. Chair Holman: Seocnder? Commissioner Sandas: Yes. Chair Holman: .Okay. If I might just ask for a clarification. As I understood your motion Commissioner Garber I think it may have missed part of Commissioner Tuma’s intention. As I heard it it was that it would have to be. certified that all existing abandoned equipment would have to be removed and that would have to be certified. I am not sure I heard as part of your motion that that would have to be certified prior to any new application being approved. Commissioner Tuma: I think there was some acknowledgement. The intent was that the wireless service provider would have to certify prior to or along with an application for any new antennas that all previously abandoned antennas would be removed. Chair Holman: So is that a clarification or addition to your motion, Commissioner Garber? Commissioner Garber: I will accept it as part of the motion. .Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas. Commissioner Sandas: As well. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: I assume that the wording should be ’have been removed’ not ’would be removed.’ Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Commissioner Garber: Yes, I accept that clarification. Chair Holman: Okay, with no other further comments seen are we ready to vote on the motion? Does Staff have it clear or do we need to restate the motion? Mr. Williams: We are fine. MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) Chair Holman: Okay, great thank you very much. I am so glad to hear that. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (ayes) That passes on a seven to zero vote. Page 28 ATTACHMENT F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Plannin ~ and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes November 29, 2006 EXCERPT Zoning Ordinance Update: Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of proposed changes to Chapter 18.88 of the Zoning Ordinance to address requirements for (1) wireless communication facilities; (2) water resources protection (streamside development standards and storm water quality protection); and (3) landscape standards. Ms. Caporgno: I want to introduce our contract planner, Whitney McNair, who will give the presentation on the three items. Ms. Whitney McNair, Contract Planner: Thank you. Tonight’s hearing is the latest Zoning Ordinance Update focusing on Chapter 18.88, which is Special Provisions and Exceptions. The proposed revisions to the chapter include separating out the text into two chapters one for general standards and exceptions and one for special uses, updating the format to be consistent with the other updated code sections, the addition of new sections for landscaping, water resources and wireless communications, and deletion of some text that limits the number of liquor permits per block to be consistent with ABC Regulations. The deletion doesn’t remove the requirement for a conditional use permit just the number issued per block. The Commission has held two different study sessions one on October 25 and one on November 1 to go over the new sections of wireless communications, stream protection, and landscaping. At those meetings the Council raised a few issues that the Staff Report addressed and I am just going to briefly go over. First we will go over the wireless communication facilities. With the new state regulations it is unclear how much authority the City will have in regulating collocation projects. Collocation review is limited to Staff level architectural review until further clarification from the City Attorney. Submittal requirements will include provisions to ensure the applicant has attempted to find suitable collocation sites. Collocation will be encouraged but may not always be accomplished. Development standards incorporate a requirement for all unused wireless communication facilities to be removed within three months of discontinued use was added. All wireless facilities are subject to architectural review on a case-by-case basis to review the proposed placement and treatment of the antennas and equipment. The goal of the project is that it will blend into the existing surroundings. Staff also reviewed the Los Altos antenna code. Their code does reference what they call ’micro-cell antenna systems’ under its own specific category. Those are just real small systems that cover a more specific area and are utilized more in like a downtown environment or within a shopping mall and they can be installed either inside or outside of a building. The recommended review process proposed is applicable to these types of facilities. There are two review processes for wireless communication facilities that are recommended based on the sensitivity of the project. The first one is a conditional use permit and Staff level Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 architectural review is recommended for the more sensitive projects such as residentially zoned or used parcels. This would have a 600-foot notification and a public hearing. The second review process would be a Staff level architectural review for less sensitive projects that include building mounted facilities and collocation facilities. This would have a 150-foot notification. Up here is the chart of the two different review processes that was attached in the Staff Report. We have that in there if we need to go back and reference it. Included in the code will be provisions for development requirements such as meeting the zoning requirements of the particular zone in which the facility is located, requiring equipment and enclosures to utilize the smallest footprint possible, minimize the height, screen from public view, and be architecturally compatible with the existing site, building mounted antennas are to be architecturally compatible, they are to have a stealth design and shall be removed after no longer in use. Some exceptions may be considered if approved in a review process and those include building mounted facilities may exceed the permitted height by 15 feet, and that 15 feet is equal to the existing allowance for rooftop equipment. A standalone facility may be 65 feet in height and may encroach into interior street-side and rear setbacks. The next new section will include landscape standards, the landscape standards are included to encourage creative ways to integrate landscape design as a primary resource for infrastructure management, economic vitality, and public health, as well as traditional aesthetic enhancements of structures, streetscapes, and parking areas. Landscaping requirements are intended to emphasize the preservation and enhancement of natural areas with native vegetation, support water conservation, and storm water quality objectives. The new sections will apply to all new development and additions requiring architectural or discretionary review. The sections proposed include one for general regulations that would reference other technical and relevant documents, a section for natural areas with Open Space District, hillside lands, Baylands, creek and riparian areas. It would have basic program statements related to preservation of sensitive plant species, habitat, and view shed preservation. A section on special design landscape standards for public and private projects and includes screening of utilities, utilization Of gray water for irrigation, limitation on the usage of lawns in commercial development, and special surface materials and a section on residential landscaping design standards for,light well landscaping, screening standards, street tree guidelines, and street planning restrictions under power lines. Many of the guidelines and requirements of the code would be implemented through the details outlined in a landscape technical manual. Right now some of the items that would be included in the technical manual are design standards, parking areas, trees, and green practices. Staff has researched and concluded that Palo Alto should consider a shade benefits potential formula for parldng lot shade. That was one of the questions that was raised at the study session. The vehicle use area shall provide required landscape areas designed to achieve a minimum of 50 percent canopy coverage within 15 years and there is some detail about that in the Staff Report. Design standards for reducing hard surfaces, increasing tree canopy, planter size and root growing areas, storm water management best practices design, special materials, screening and landscape buffers, and recommended best practices for stipulating and screening above-ground utilities. Page 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 1 The last new item is the water resources protection. The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources 2 Protection Collaborative developed a set of guidelines and standards for land use near streams. 3 These cover a wide range of issues affecting land development near and in local streams. Based 4 on comments from the Commission Staff has made a few modifications to the requirements. The 5 proposed separation requirement for noise producing equipment was increased from 25 feet to 50 feet from the top of bank. The planning landscape specialist or arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation within 100 feet from top of bank in conjunction with a discretionary review. Pervious areas are included in the list of items that cannot be located in a slope stability protection area. That was taken from the Comp Ptan Program N-7. Staff recommends the establishment of a streamside review area, which includes all properties abutting a stream or located within 50 feet from the top of a stream bank except for those properties separated from the stream by a public street. These properties would be subject to the new guidelines and standards and the properties are development in all zones other than R-1. Development in R-1 zones requiring discretionary review such as Individual Review for a new two story house, Individual Review for a new second floor on an existing house in certain circumstances, a Variance and Home Improvement Exception, and then there is a list on the screen of a few exempt items such as interior construction and fences of six feet or less. The properties within this review area are subject to development requirement in order to preserve the stream’s riparian resources and to protect improvements from damage caused by potential stream flooding and bank erosion. These development standards include all development shall be located outside the slope stability protection area, native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from the top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved, planting of nonnative invasive plant species shall not be allowed on the proj ect site, and only native riparian vegetation shall be planted between the top of the bank and the stream. Also loading docks and trash enclosures and noise producing equipment shall be located, as I mentioned earlier, 50 feet from the top of bank of a stream. Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of the stream. Irrigation systems shall be designed such that they do not cause soil erosion, and all permitted improvements shall be constructed in a manner consistent with the latest version of the User Manual: Guidelines and Standards For Land Uses Near Streams that was prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative. The last small section of storm water quality protection is the countywide storm water discharge permit requires each local agency to revise its development design standards and guidelines to encourage the incorporation of storm water friendly site design measur, es into land development projects. The guidelines will also be included in the code and include items about minimizing land disturbance and preserving high quality open space, minimizing the amount of impervious surface, directly connected impervious areas, and routing storm water runoff into vegetative swails, utilizing minimum impact street, parking lot and driveway design standards, clustering structures and impervious surfaces, routing rainwater leaders into landscaped areas, and utilizing techniques to slow and reduce storm water runoff, also minimizing changes to the volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of storm water runoff from the development site. Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 So the next steps for this ordinance are a draft ordinance will be prepared after the Commission meeting tonight and will be brought back to the Commission on December 13 for your review. A Council meeting would then be scheduled for early in 2007. The Water Resources Collaborative is encouraging adoption by the City by the end of February in order to implement new requirements. So the goal would be to get it on the Council agenda early in 2007. That is the end of my presentation. There are also other Staffmembers who specialize in each of these areas here to answer any questions you might have. Chair Holman: I think at this point Commissioner Keller would recuse himself and we can take up the creek item. Does Staff have any additional comments or presentation to make? Ms. Campbell: No we don’t. Ms. Capor~mao: I would like to add one thing. I would like to let the Commission know that we notified all the property owners within the creek areas so that anybody who could possibly be affected by these ordinance changes would be aware of it. We also volunteered the information to the PAN website and I am assuming it was posted. We also indicated that we would be glad to meet with them to discuss any of the issues from the three items that you are going to be discussing tonight. Chair Holman: We expect nothing less of you so thank you for doing that. Do we have any clarifying questions for Staff?. Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: In your presentation you mentioned that when it comes to water resources protection specifically naming R-1 would any zones that are R-2 also have similar application? Ms. Campbell: Yes, they would. Basically everything that is not R~I that is within the specific area would be subject to the new requirements. In the R-1 zone only if it is going through a discretionary review as it was listed those would be the only R-1 properties that would be subject to the new requirements. Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay, so would R-2 also have the same requirements as R-1 or would they be different? Ms. Campbeil: No, they would be different. Anything that is not zoned R-1 would be required to do the requirements even if it has a single-family use on it. Vice-Chair Lippert: What is the reason why we are making a distinction in this case from R-1 and R-2? Mr. Williams: The primary reason that I see is that R-2 and the other lo~v density residential zones like RMD allow more FAR and coverage and those kinds of things that have some increased impact on water resources in terms of runoff in particular. Certainly unless Joe tells us otherwise it is certainly within our purview to probably decide where to draw those lines but it is easiest obviously by zoning district rather than trying to get in and say well this is only a single Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 , 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 family home so we are not going to apply it there but that is within your discretion if you choose to do that. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess my question is ~hat I can see that there is a distinction between say RMD or RM-15 and R-1 but is there a significant difference really between R-1 and R-2 that it is going to make that much more of a difference or are we creating more regulation than we need to? Mr. Williams: Good point. There is not a lot of difference so again you have some discretion to make that call as to where you are comfortable applying the new regulations. Vice-Chair Lippert: I guess what would be helpful in making that determination would be an understanding of the R-2 sites and where they abut the creeks. If they weren’t significant, if there weren’t a significant number I might be inclined to say let’s just make the R-1 standard apply to R-2. If there were significant sites backing up to a creek side then maybe it is worth looldng at. Ms. Campbell: Staff has done some analysis on the different parcels that are backing up to these creek areas. Unfortunately I don’t have that specific breakdown here with me tonight I just have a breakdown on single family versus multiple family but I don’t have the R-2 information but we have done that analysis already. Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s fine if we could have it at the time of the final. Mr. Williams: We will look at the zoning ordinance and see where those R-2 zones are and see how they relate to the creek areas and make a final recommendation to you with the ordinance as to whether it looks like they are impacted or not. Vice-Chair Lippert: That would be helpful. Chair Holman: Two things. One is if we can look and see if there are more clarifying questions and save our comments for later and then I also have three cards from the public, one that wants to speak on wireless which we will do later and then I have two cards one from Art Kraemer and one from Karen Sickel. If you wish to speak to the creel( issue then you will speak now or if you want to speak to something other than then you can speak later when we address that. Okay, Karen Sickel and you have five minutes. Ms. Karen Sickel, Palo Alto: I live and have lived on the creek for 38 years. What I am concerned about is overlapping bureaucracy. We have to have permits from the county to remove a tree, to add on within the 50 feet from the top of the bank, to put in lighting or water. Whatever you want to do you have to have a permit. If they approve if you are going to add on something to your house and if they approve it then it goes to the City of Palo Alto where they review it. So I don’t see what is different other than you are specifying that you are going to do this. Is this some other little separate group of people that is going to review the streamside committee or is it the Planning Commission? How many delays? I am concerned about that and Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 how everybody is kind of at cross - can’t we all agree? Can’t we do it once? I guess that is my concern and I would like some clarification on what that is all about. Chair Holman: Thank you very much. Are there more questions for Staff?. Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I had two questions regarding items on page five, actually three. One I would be interested in the question that the previous speaker brought up about potential overlapping permit approval wherever you think it is most appropriate to respond to that. Down under section one on page five of the Requirements it refers to exceptions to this requirement may be granted by the Director of Public Works where a geotechnical slope stability. analysis is provided and maintenance and repair of the stream banks would be accommodated. So as I understand it then all of the (a) through (e) items above could be allowed at the discretion of the Director of Public Works provided that there is a slope analysis, etc. Why do we want to allow for instance structures larger than 120 square feet within the streamside setback just because we have a slope stability? Mr. Joe Teresi, Public Works: Well, I would answer that by saying that part of the concern about having something too close to a stream is that in general a 2:1 slope is what is considered stable and anything steeper than that is not. If an analysis were to show that the bank is stable and that there was no risk to that structure that is one thing that would have to be shown. Secondly that there is some other mechanism by which the stream can be maintained then those are two of the major impacts that we are trying to avoid. So if those two conditions could be satisfied then there is this provision for exception. Commissioner Burt: So I guess I can appreciate why the concern over the stability would be addressed but there is a whole bunch of other concerns that we have as to why we don’t want to allow these things to encroach in the streamside. So how does the fact that the building would be stable affect all these other reasons that we don’t want to allow these kinds of encroachments? Ms. Caporgno: I would think the language enables the City to make that exception but it doesn’t require the City to make that exception. So the Director of Public Works if the slope stability were proven to be sufficient they can be granted but it doesn’t say it will be granted. So other factors would enter into it also that maybe in certain instances we would want to allow it but in many we wouldn’t. Ms. Tronquet: I believe a flat prohibition on any kind of development without considering the factors that are listed here could also be problematic legally. Commissioner Burt: Okay, I can understand that but as it is worded it doesn’t sound to me as if what we are saying is that the prohibition is based upon lack of streamside stability then that can be waived by the Director of Public Worksbut then all of the other criteria would still apply. Is that the intention? Ms. Caporgno: Yes. It is only under item one. So two through eight would still be applicable. Page 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Mr. Williams: That is what I was going to say too. So the thought that you could have a 2 structure within that area given slope stability is demonstrated but also given that you are 3 preserving the native vegetation that does exist there, that you are not planting normative 4 invasive, and all those other requirements still apply but it is just that in some cases you may be 5 able to have a structure and accomplish all of those things as well. I certainly understand where you are coming from and it looks like we could clarify that to be sure that people understood that it is subject also too compliance with items two through eight below. Commissioner Burt: Okay, I think that addresses most of my concern. Does it also in two through eight refer the fundamental structural setbacks? Is that elsewhere? Ms. Campbell: It doesn’t refer to the setbacks in those other items only number one refers to the setbacks. Commissioner Burt: But we do have elsewhere in our code reference to fundamental setbacks and I just want to make sure that the Director of Public Works doesn’t have the authority to waive those, which is the way it sounded in this number one. Ms. Caporgno: No, it just means that everything else would still be in place and items two through eight would be in place it is just that if the slope stability could be met and everything else could be met then he could waive that requirement. Mr. Williams: So we should add that to this qualifier to number one there. Commissioner Burr: Okay. Chair Holman: I would like to do a follow up to that ifI could. City Attorney if you didn’t allow these exceptions, you said they could be problematic, in what way? Ms. Tronquet: Just to ban all development completely in this area without providing for any exceptions could constitute a taking. I don’t know if that is a concept behind this or not but just to ban all development simply because it would occur near a creek could be problematic without providing any additional measures if the justification is environmental protection. Chair Holman: That wouldn’t mean necessarily thought that we would have to say that all of these are the exceptions. We could, if you are concerned about a taking, we could pick and choose whichever ones we thought.. The reason that I am going there as well is because creeks change, storms happen, streams reroute themselves, there is erosion that happens over time, and it is part of what has been witnessed aiong San Francisquito Creek for instance. There are some places where the sides of the creel( are not nearly as stable as once they were. For instance swimming pools, personally I can’t even conceive of why no matter how stable the creek side seems now that we would allow that. Ms. Tronquet: Certainly reasonable conditions are permissible. I may have misunderstood Commissioner Burt’s comment but I want to clarify that a flat prohibition would be problematic. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: My understanding was that the reason why we are looking at a 50-foot setback from top of bank is with the understanding that the creek will change with time. So the idea is that somebody may build a house or something and then at some time that top of bank is going to shift over a period of time and that house or structure is actually going to be closer to top of bank. We are not saying that they have to demolish that structure what we are saying is you just can’t build within 50 feet of top of bank. We know that that top of bank is going to change over many years and that will gradually move I guess and cut into the property. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Not to add to the confusion. The intent, and I am asking this as a question, of the 50 feet if the creek moves obviously the 50 foot boundary moves as well. When we talked about this severn weeks ago part of the reason I think there was interest in extending the boundary from 25 to 50 was to create a zone around the creel( that was natural and to reduce the opportunity for built things to occur within that zone. Is that the understanding of the Staff when they wrote this? Mr. Teresi: All the points you are.making are very good. First I might say that somehow we have gotten into this 50 feet, it is not 50 feet, it is 20 feet so I want to clarify that first of all. Again, a couple of the primary reasons, and there are others but the primary reason why this 20 feet was selected was twofold. One is that if something is allowed to be built too close to the bank and then the bank erodes and starts to threaten that structure that tends to result in a need to armor the bank which is something we would like to avoid so therefore theidea is to move the structure further away so that there will be some allowance for some erosion without threatening the structure. The second issue is maintenance. If something is built so close to the top of the bank it doesn’t allow for vehicles and access to do the maintenance that is required from time to time. Certainly there are other issues that you have raised that are equally valid as far as keeping that space open. If you would like to make these restrictions more tight I certainly wouldn’t object to that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Let me just understand the concept here. Twenty feet from the top of the bank on either side of the stream that zone is nothing allowed to be built? Mr. Teresi: There are some exceptions that are listed that are relatively minor in nature but essentially most things are not allowed in that area. Commissioner Garber: Those that are going through a heightened review process or more restrictive review process. Mr. Teresi: It is just that there are certain things that are allowed to be built without a permit so there is no way for us to even know that they are being built. That is the reason why they are exempted because they are things that can be built without obtaining a building permit. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Okay, so then from 20 to the next 30 feet so that we are 50 feet from the top of the bank what does that zone refer to? Mr. Teresi: That is not a zone. I think you are being confused because right now currently under existing rules if someone is doing any work within 50 feet of the top of the bank they need to obtain a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Once this new ordinance takes effect in our city and all the other cities then the Santa Clara Valley Water District will no longer have that requirement and anything adjacent to streams is going to be regulated by the local jurisdiction. The Water District will only be permitting things within their right-of-way or .easement areas. Then the other area where 50 feet came up is that there is another section in here later that says any noise producing features like trash enclosures and other items have to be at least 50 feet away from top of bank. Commissioner Garber: Okay, let me try it again. Top of bank 20 feet with some minor exceptions things are not allowed to be built. The exceptions are allowed without building permit, which is why they in fact are so minor. Then within 50 feet that is only relevant to the fact that once that rule is enacted by Palo Alto and other municipalities a homeowner does not have to get a permit from the county they can simply get a single permit from the City. Is that correct? Okay, thank you. Chair Holman: Pat, is it follow up to this? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I think Joe just addressed the question on the overlapping bureaucracies is that correct? Okay. So then as I understand it with this even without the exception under Requirement number one, if someone wanted to build a structure that was 110 square feet right up against the top of the bank there is no restriction against it. !f they wanted to build a deck over their whole backyard right up to the top of the bank as long as the deck is below 30 inches in height there is no restriction. Are those accurate statements? Mr. Teresi: Those are certainly things that we wouldn’t want to see but yes since those things can be done without permit they have no enforcement tool to stop those things. We would certainly endeavor to do outreach and education to make people realize they shouldn’t do that but yes in fact it could be done since it could be done without a permit of any kind. Commissioner Burr: So then my question for Staff is if we didn’t want to allow those kinds of things to occur right adjacent to stream banks what tools might we have to restrict that given that they don’t technically require building permits to construct those? Can we still prohibit those even if there is no requirement of a building permit? How would you go about enforcing that? So any thought that you might have on that because it seems that those sorts of structures are contrary to the overall thrust of this section. Mr. Williams: We will probably need to explore this a little bit more with the City Attorney. I don’t know ifMelissa has thought it through at this point. It seems to me that regardless of whether a building permit is required or not that we can say something is prohibited, decking is prohibited. I think we have something later on about impervious areas now being added as not Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 being allowed within 50 feet. These things, a deck and a structure less than 120 square feet are still impervious surfaces. So we would at least need to clarify that if that was not our intent. I think we do have the ability to prohibit these things as long as that is reasonable and it doesn’t sound like it would be taking someone’s property rights in that case. What Joe is saying is we don’t have the readily available enforceable mechanism of a building permit to do that so it is not something we would catch at the building counter it is something we would hear about from a neighbor or know about some other way. Commissioner Burt: I suspect that if the requirements were known by the property owners the vast majority would voluntarily comply with the regulation if it were clear. So we would have some combination of an informal enforcement and just a voluntary compliance and hopefully get a lot of compliance between those two mechanisms. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: This is just a follow up on Commissioner Burt’s comment. The thing I think that would probably be built most likely without a permit is a fence. We have regulations for building fences but we don’t require building permits as long as they follow the guidelines. So what concerns me is generally those fences would be perpendicular to the flow of the bank and possibly obstruct flow and might even extend into the area where the flow of the stream is. Chair Holman: A follow up to that and I think Commissioner Garber has one as well. I am a little perplexed and at the same time understanding why if a permit isn’t required it is hard to catch these so that is why they are being suggested as allowed. I guess the question I have is why wouldn’t we require for properties along a creek side building permits? Why let the tail wag the dog? Why wouldn’t we require permits for accessory structures under 20 feet or less, the things that are allowed here, why wouldn’t we require permits for that instead of doing it the other way around? Commissioner Lippert brought up fences don’t require a building permit and there are illegal fences that go up all the time and we have very clear, very strict guidelines about what fences need to comply to. They are built illegally all the time. Mr. Williams: Right and they don’t need a permit but they don’t comply with the rules that they are supposed to be built to. I think some of the things you have mentioned, my guess is that we have some regulation somewhere that says that you can’t put a fence across a creek in a way that it obstructs the flow or something like that. We have various things that prohibit you from doing some of these things probably anyway even though a building permit isn’t required for it. I think it would be a great burden to require building permits for those structures within a creek area. I think it is much more direct to require or to prohibit these things and/or have some kind of an outlet process through a use permit or something like that. where if someone wanted to get something approved within this prohibited, area they could come through and make that kind of request. But to just basically require a building permit for structures in that zone is something that a lot of people are never going to pick up on. I think they would be much more likely to. pick up on the fact that these things are prohibited within that area than that they need to come through with a building permit and then what are the criteria for allowing them within the zone? If you just say a building permit is required then they come in and get a building permit for their 120 square foot structure. So if you don’t want them in the zone say we don’t want them in the Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 zone. Then if it is necessary to provide a use permit or variance process to allow it if there is some hardship case then we could consider that. Chair Holman: Okay. Then lastly I would say the safety issue, the safety of the structure has been mentioned as one of the reasons not to allow construction or structures in this area and because creeks erode and the creek can change. There is another one too which I would think would be a reason for doing this is as creeks erode or as people use different things, depending on what people store for instance in their accessory buildings that are 120 square feet or less, that can lead to toxics issues and pollution issues in the creeks. Commissioner Garber you had a follow up to this. Commissioner Garber: Actually I think everything that I had imagined has been said. I was simply going to introduce the concept of public safety as well in that structures in this zone that are either in that 2:1 area or the 20 foot zone could present issues of public safety in a flood or emergency situations which would be an answer to the issue of the taking. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burr. Commissioner Burt: Now I would like to hit the other side of the equation. The Commissioners obviously all share a concern for protection of the riparian corridors on the other hand we have the needs and rights of the property owners there. So many of the creek side lots are large in size and a 20-foot setback does not create an unreasonable hardship for them. There must be some percentage of the lots that are smaller in size and where we have had creek erosion where their property boundary to extend to the center of the creek and as the erosion occurs over time their backyard has eroded away so the top of the bank has encroached more into their backyard and we are moving further back, I think correctly so we are moving further back, what can be the distance that they can build. Then we have some other regulations that we have adopted elsewhere, which have front yard setback constraints. It seems that we may need to look at the reasonableness of allowing latitude on front yard setbacks if we are basically protecting riparian corridors by essentially restricting rear yard setbacks in a way that is not normal for other property. So that might be something that we should look at out of fairness. If somebody can’t build in the rear and it cuts back their buildable space on the lot then maybe we ought to allow them to build closer to the street or some other consideration that compensates that. I don’t know if that has been looked at, I don’t know how many properties that might apply to, but it is something that perhaps we need to take a look at. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I was just going to look at the flip side of this, which is that if you look at Arastradero Creek and portions of Matadero Creek those are basically drainage swails. They are concrete lines, they are reinforces, the top of bank there is really the top of the concrete lined bed there. They are not going to shift. Maybe in those instances we do allow for some of these things to occur in those areas. In addition to that I was going to sas;there are certain kinds of fences that are appropriate that are porous and are actually safety features from keeping people Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 from falling into that creek and being swept away. So I think that we need to look at the instance whether it is a natural creek or whether it is a concrete lined swail of some kind. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: Interesting discussion. I am only going to comment on some of the thoughts that Commissioner Burt had. Having dealt with similar issues to this not on creeks but in the Great Lakes I would be interested at the appropriate time having a discussion as to whether a property owner should be compensated for the natural events that occur on their property by creating exceptions to other rules. Although I would be interested in the discussion I am not sure at least initially that I would be in favor of that necessarily because of the compromises that then have to be made if you will on the other side of the property relative to the community. So that’s my two cents on that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: As we are going into these different pros and cons I realize that we had kind of skipped over a discussion of what the objectives were and so maybe we ought to agree on the goals and then it may or may not shed light on the practices that we would endorse. So as I understand it there are at least two primary goals and maybe others. One is protection of the very critical natural habitats, the riparian corridors where 90 percent of our bio-diversity lies in this zone. We only have a few of those remaining in their natural state. The second is kind of a Public Works perspective, which is protection of stability of structures and things like that and stability of the creek bank itself and not doing harm in those ways. I am not sure if there are other objectives besides those two primary ones or does that capture it. Chair Holman: Toxics and such eroding into creeks. Commissioner Burt: So I would throw that under the protection of the riparian corridor and the natural habitat although you are right in that the exception that Commissioner Lippert cited of a non-natural stream that is a concrete stream like we have some today they still flow directly to the Bay so pollutants that are directly discharged there would have additional sensitivity although not greater sensitivity than our other storm drain system. So I guess those are the things we are trying to address. Then that leaves Commissioner Lippert’s questions of should there be a distinction between a natural streamside and an unnatural streamside? Then the other one is Commissioner Garber’s response to my question of if we are now creating new restrictions that we think are appropriate to protect the natural habitat are there ways in which we should allow some relaxation of other rules that othe~vise might apply? In my mind what we had setup previously on front yard setbacks was needlessly restrictive when we set it up. So some relief in that area I suspect would not have an undue hardship. What we have today is that many of the homes that are historic and long standing could not be built today with our existing front yard setbacks and are homes that we look at every day and say.this is great, it is beautiful, and it works, and it wouldn’t be allowed today because we have more restrictive front yard setbacks. So that is why I thought if there is such a problem, which I don’t Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 l~ow how many of these lots exist that are not very large that are stream side, that that might be one relaxation that would be reasonable and not create an excessive hardship on neighbors. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: The direction that you were going Commissioner Burr I think was very good. I think the point I was trying to make is that if we are going to require conditional use permits perhaps or having some sort of permitting process for allowing some of these incidental structures to exist in a natural environment or where there is a natural top of bank yes, we could do it through a conditional use permit process. Where you have a concrete lined or stabilized top of bank no conditional use permit might be required. So that might be the way to approach it. Chair Holman: IfI could add to that I was really pleased that the definition of stream included naturalized and those that had become concrete culverts. The reason that I was really delighted to see that is because as we move hopefully forward some of those concrete culverts will become naturalized once again. So as much as I can appreciate what is being stated it runs counter to being able to re-naturalize those now concrete structures. Something that we haven’t addressed is a question that I have I believe for the City Arborist, which is on page four and is the second number two on the page. The first number two under Water Resources Protection. It says the Planning Landscape Specialist or Arborist may, where deemed necessary, approve removal of native vegetation within 100 feet of the top of bank in conjunction with the discretionary review. Can you give an example of where that might occur? Why would we allow removal of natural vegetation or native vegetation? Ms. Campbell: I can just start off here. What we were thinking about is if you have a homeowner who wants to redevelop their site and they want to build a brand new home. In doing so they may need to change the footprint of their home and that may lead to the next thing where they have an issue about the landscape requirement. So I think what we have tried to include in this statement is that with discretion with our review we can take a look at what is happening and what is being proposed and if it seems appropriate we can allow the removal of some of the native vegetation with mitigation involved. That way a single-family homeowner will have some ability to develop or rearrange their space. Chair Holman: So you are saying this only applies to R-l? It doesn’t state that and it also doesn’t mention mitigations. Ms. Campbell: The mitigations state under number two on page five, all native riparian vegetation within 100 feet from top of bank shall be retained unless its removal is approved by Planning Staff or a Landscape Specialist. Mitigation planting shall be required when native riparian vegetation is allowed to be removed. So that applies to all projects. Chair Holman: Okay, thank you for that. Also Commissioner Burt mentioned about going back to why we are doing this. In looking at the existing ordinance I don’t find any purpose statements and I think those are so very, very important. When we have done other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance Update those purpose statements help keep us grounded in why we are Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 doing something and also keep us in the future from making mistaken changes on something that we may not be grounded in the purpose if we don’t have those purpose statements to refer to. Are there any other questions or comments regarding this portion of the Staff Report? We are not taking final motions tonight. Does Staff have enough comments to feel like you know where we are headed or would you like some kind of sense motion? Mr. Williams: I wanted to just run through sort of what I have listed here as things to change or look at before we come back with the ordinance. One is to look at the R-2 zone and see how impacted that is or how relevant it is to apply these and come back with a recommendation to you on R-2. Secondly, to make some clarifications to that language on page five about being sure that we are clear that items two through eight apply even if the slope stability requirements are met and the structure is allowed to be in there that we still are consistent with that and also reference the other zoning setbacks being consistent with zoning setbacks as well. Third that we at least look at if not prohibiting these exempt projects within there being more eager in creating a use permit process or creating more language here that says under what circumstances these things are required like if fencing were deemed necessary for safety purposes or some of that kind of language. We can look at this issue that was brought up about the yard setbacks and all that. I think our preference would be to deal with that as a variance and it sounds to me like pretty much a standard variance situation. In those cases if you are getting squeezed from the front and this is now pushing you back from the back then that would seem to be an appropriate way to look at that. Then the last one that I have is we will talk with Joe a little bit about the concrete swail issue and whether it seems to make sense to have something a little different in that sense. I think my initial reaction is probably not but we will look at that. Then the last one I have is to add a purpose statement for this, which we will do as well as for the other few sections too. I think that is a very good approach. Ms. Caporgno: I just had two questions regarding the exempt projects and the structures less than 120 square feet and the decks that are over 30 inches. I am assuming that what the Commission wants is that for exempt projects we would just eliminate three and six from exempt projects and possibly under the requirements that structures and decks could be exceptions if the Director of Public Works determined that there was a geotechnical slope stability analysis provided that was adequate and it met all the other requirements then in certain instances a small structure or even one larger than 120 square feet, a structure period, could be allowed and/or a deck. Chair Holman: Samir you were next, is this direct follow up to this? Commissioner Tuma: Yes it is directly relevant. The way I was looking at this the only one of those exemptions that I see that would survive would be the interior construction exemption. The rest of them seem to me to at least be worth pulling back out. Those are all things that could create some of the conditions that other Commissioners were speaking about earlier. The interior construction one seems to be .... Mr. Williams: A no brainer, pretty much. The ones that I see that maybe we would use qualifiers with are maybe even less than three cubic yards of earthwork if necessary for stability Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 purposes or something, erosion control, or some maintenance type things, replacement of utility service laterals. We could have a qualifier that there isn’t some readily available alternative to that but if there isn’t then it pretty much has to go in that location. Then again the fences to the extent that it is deemed to be appropriate or necessary for safety purposes and does not obstruct the stream in any way or remove native vegetation or something like that. I think some of those we could maybe put some qualifiers on and like you said the interior construction one is no impact. We certainly are prepared to go back and make those changes and come back to you with the ordinance. Chair Holman: I believe Commissioner Garber was next. Commissioner Garber: I think Curtis already spoke about it. I was just adding language for the circumstance where you are allowing structures the allowances that you were making for the ones that would exist sort of them also impacting public safety or obstruction of stream, whatever the language is I think you’ve got it or know the intent. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Procedurally for existing structures that exist and we are going to shift encroachment from the rear to the front perhaps the HIE process would be a little more appropriate than the Variance process. It is a little less cumbersome. So I would avail applicants of that. Then the second thing I just wanted to mention is that when it comes to decks below 30 inches decks below 30 inches are actually much more preferable than people going in and pouring concrete slabs out there. The idea here is that you are allowing for penetration of groundwater but also it wouldn’t obstruct the flow if water came over top of bank. Whereas with concrete you would have some runoff problems I think. Do you agree with that, Joe? So I think that in this case if there were going to be surfaces there we would want to encourage probably decks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I think to the degree that you are going to have a patio or a deck type structure the deck is preferred. My concern was does this allow us essentiallya solid deck area right out to the top of the bank. So I don’t know what is the appropriate amount of incursion of decks into this zone but my primary concern was having this area occupied by deck. Chair HoIman: If I could I would like a bit of a clarification. I understood certainly with exempt projects what we are looking at. Under Requirements could you review that again, please? Ms. Caporgno: The comment that I was making is that if you remove from exempt projects, now the three that you are removing, but let’s use an example of structures under 120 square feet and we have under Requirements with the exception process we have structures larger than 120 feet. Do you want kind of the corollary of just a structure the Director of Public Works may be able to grant an exception under certain conditions for structures and any of these other items that you have removed as exempt projects? Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: I guess from my perspective minding what City Attorney said earlier I am not seeing how any of those would be acceptable given that we are also being more restrictive in what’s allowed as exempt projects. So it would seem kind of contrary to the purpose to say that structure 120 square feet or less are not now allowed in that setback but then say there is an exception that you can do one that is greater than or equal to 120 square feet. I think Commissioner Garber had a comment too. Ms. Caporgno: I wasn’t saying that. I was saying since you eliminated exempt projects or structures under 120 feet do you want under Requirements, which the exception process would allow, to just say any structure period because you don’t have to make the distinction between over and under 120 feet because there is no more exemption? Does that make sense? Chair Holman: Yes it does, thank you for the clarification. I will go to Commissioner Garber next. Commissioner Garber: Not that I want to be automatically entered into Commissioner Keller’s NPA, that would be the Nit Pickers Association, and I will only offer this because you have enough here I think the topic of decks being 30 inches on level the only concern that I have about decks being raised and being permeable is that they have to be raised and then they are above which allows water to come underneath them in a flood which creates snags and an opportunity for things to be caught under there and impede the flow of water, etc., etc., etc. Take it from there. Mr. Teresi: On the decks it was the same thing as far as the structures under 120 square feet. My understanding is that a deck that is less than 30 inches in height didn’t need a permit that is the only reason why it is in there. We don’t want any decks in there. We should just say no decks. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just wanted to make sure of one other thing. In the last go around when we looked at this Commissioner Garber had brought up a novel idea, which was to show the top of bank actually on the site plan. I want to make sure that that’s still in here that we are requiring that the top of bank be done in a way that I guess is a measured way. I don’t know if we require that it actually be done by a licensed surveyor or not or whether it can be done as part of a site plan, which an architect would do. Chair Holman: So are we complete and clear? Does Staff have another question? Okay, I think we are set and finished with that one and we can go to telecommunications. One other thing, which I didn’t hear in your notes, is a member of the public did ask about clarification about overlapping jurisdictions and Staff would come back with some clarification on that. Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Teresi: tcan comment on that. I think this is actually going to help the situation because once this is adopted by our Council then there will be a clear demarcation. If the work is occurring within the District right-of-way then you go to the District for a permit. If the work is occurring adjacent to but outside of the creek then you come to the City for a permit and there is no longer a duplication but it is more of a cooperative process where the District has a certain area of jurisdiction and we have the accompanying area of jurisdiction not overlapping. Chair Holman: Great, thank you very much. Mr. Kraemer did you want to speak to wireless communications? Landscape, okay. We have one member of the public Denny Petrosian and you will have five minutes. Ms. Denny Petrosian, Palo Alto: Okay, I am going to do this fast. On page one of the Staff Report I don’t remember those communications being mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan it was technology as I remember. I would be concerned if this were given undue weight as opposed to other technologies like fiber optics if that was in the best interest of the city. I am also concerned that we are looking at this in too small a way. This is not just about aesthetics and accommodating new carriers one by one and approving antennas one by one kind of in tunnel vision. We need to be looking at how is this technology going to function in this city. There are going to be carriers coming in and there is going to be new bandwidths. There is going to be new infrastructure requirements maybe different for each new carrier. We have six of them now. It is just going to mushroom and get very confusing and we don’t want to be in a situation where we have to accommodate all of that plus the technology is galloping and changing and it could look totally different. So we need to get control on this. My feeling is that what we need to do is we need to look at the big picture, get a major hardware technology company to give us a citywide system. We deserve the best. Not a cell phone company. Cell phone companies have very narrow interests and everything they see is an antenna. So let’s go for the big picture. I think we need to be designing a citywide utility that is going to be like the cable situation that we put together, like our energy contracts, a communications technology structure, wireless, whatever that is subject to contractual obligations. I think that is the only way that we can get control on this. I think that there may even need to be a citizens technology advisory committee just like we have other major advisory committees. There are too many large issues here. In the meantime I think that there is no installation that is not sensitive. I think that every WCF should have a conditional use permit so that we can be on top of this step by step. Now this is going to sound extreme but I think it is true scientifically from everybody I have talked to. If we don’t get control of this we could be inthe position of unwittingly malting Palo Alto a giant microwave oven. These rays are radiation it is only different in intensity and strength from any other kind of radiation. It is non-ionizing but it is a continuum of this. IfPalo Alto becomes unwittingly a giant microwave oven that means that all of us from one end of the city to the other are going to be constantly zapped by these rays. It is not only a health issue. Think of the electronic chaos that could result, he interference with everybody else’s gadgets and stuff. I am just going to throw out some issues here that I think need to be looked at and I am going to share with you the source of sorne of the information that I am giving because I am not an expert .Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 but I have been talldng to someone who is very respected. I think we have to also remember that antennas, we are only talking about antennas, they are choke points. They slow down the flow of data. Your fast data comes from fiber optic connections connecting site to site. Zap there it goes, that’s your fast. If you have an antenna it is going to slow it down. A lot of cities don’t even need wireless because everything is close together. Santa Clara County has fiber optic all along Foothill Expressway that is all I know about that. New York City is putting a fiber optic network together in New York City. Verizon is putting that network together in New York City. You can zone without dealing with the health issues. You can make collocation a condition of somebody getting a use permit for one antenna. You should consider requiring it in business and industrial sites not in residential or near schools and you can do that by zoning. The last point is how are you going to audit what is actually happening? Thirty percent of the sites in Los Altos audited are no longer in compliance with their use permit. They have put in extra capacity, they have added antennas, and they are out of compliance. There is a lot of expertise that needs to be brought to bear to audit and make sure that what you permit is actually happening. This is a tricky issue all by yourself. You don’t want installations going in there with empty slots that later on somebody can put in extra power. So I will again get some more information to everybody about this. Thank you. Chair Holman: Thank you Ms. Petrosian. Questions for Staff, Commissioners? Mr. Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: A clarifying question with respect to the two different levels of review. In the memo on page three it is put in there that there is an alternative of the 600 foot requirement if the height requirement exceeds what is currently existing. Is that proposing that that alternative be what we adopt or are you asking for a comment on that one way or another? Ms. Campbell: I think Staff feels comfortable with the 150 foot noticing that we have already discussed but we definitely have that in as an option that if the Planning Commission wants us to bring that forward we can do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: The Staff Report alluded to the new state regulations that may impact collocation and that the City Attorney’s Office is still looking into exactly how that might impact us. Can we get just a general sense of what that new regulation might cause? Ms. Tronquet: I am going to let Amy Bartelt who is Special Council for our office answer that she has been working on this project. Ms. Amy Barte11, Special Council: Basically like you said we are still working on it and there is actually going to be some training. I don’t know if you are familiar with [SKIN ATOWA], How would you describe that group? They are bunch of local agencies that get together and they do a lot of training for people like us to interpret the effect of these bills on zoning ordinances and that kind of thing. There is going to be one of those in a couple weeks, which I think I will be attending because it is a relatively complex bill. In a nutshell what it is going to do is if you already have a wireless collocation facility it basically takes the city’s ability to - let me back up. Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 If you already have a wireless collocation facility if somebody wants to come in and put another antenna there the process is very streamlined and you pretty much just approve it. If you want to have a new wireless collocation facility, a completely separate new one with nothing else already there then the bill doesn’t affect those. It is just existing ones. Commissioner Burr: So it will actually encourage collocation but take away discretion from the cities. Ms. Bartell: Yes, that is what it would do but the cities don’t get all of their discretion pulled. What happens is the n.ew collocation antennas still have to comply with all of the requirements that the original wireless collocation facility had. So if you had aesthetic requirements or other kinds of requirements on the original facility they can’t put in something that is going to be in opposite to those. Mr. Williams: Could I just ask a fo!low on to that? Is there an ability for the City in entertaining a new proposal to essentially limit it so that collocation cannot occur on it because we anticipate there would be visibility impacts associated with any additional antennas? We might say that one is fine just like it is but if you do any more than that and we see that it would have problems. Ms. Bartell: That is going to be one of the issues that gets hammered out a little bit more when I go to this training in a couple weeks. I think that we are going to have a little bit of a hard time prohibiting the collocation facilities like you said. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Could you clarify, are all of our permitted sites for wireless allowed to be collocation facilities? If we put in one does it necessarily allow collocation? Ms. Campbell: That is definitely one of the questions that we need to get clarified because I don’t know if all of the ones that we have already approved all of a sudden now become a potential collocation facility or with new ones that come forward we identify those and say we are going to call you a collocation facility so then that one becomes eligible. I think it sounds like from what I have heard so far that the existing sites might just become collocation facilities. It is definitely one of the things that we have to figure out. Ms. Tronquet: We expect that we would have a very difficult time prohibiting all together or even severely restricting collocation at those sites. Although we don’t believe at this point that the ARB approval that we have outlined here would be prohibited. So we are hoping to get more clarification on that when Amy goes to the training in a couple of weeks. We are hoping that agencies will be able to come up with a clear consensus and we will be able to give you a better answer then. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Keller: Yes. First of all I would hope that by the time that this comes back before us that those questions will have been resolved by that training. A couple of questions or Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 issues. Would it make sense in terms of the encroachment into setbacks for those encroachments not to be allowed where the setback abuts a residential zone? So if you have a backyard setback of a commercial property that abuts a residential zone or residential uses that you don’t have this facility that essentially overlooks the adjacent or abutting residential use. That would seem to make sense to me. Do you have any thoughts about that? Ms. Campbell: I think as part of the conditional use permit review we would take a look at that definitely as something to consider whether that is an appropriate location. We haven’t written it in specifically to say if it is adjacent to an R-1 property that we would prohibit it but through the use permit process and that review it would be a serious consideration that we would look at. Commissioner Keller: Similarly.I would suggest that a similar consideration appear in those corridors where there is a special setback for a certain distance away t~om that corridor. In the event that a parcel has the side be a street side. corridor that the parcel faces a perpendicular street that the side of that parcel then faces the street with the setback and you wouldn’t want the facility in that special setback. So that also would have to have special consideration similarly. Furthermore, there seems to be a great deal of public sensitivity about locating these adjacent to places where children congregate. Therefore thinking about adjacency issues with respect to schools, daycare facilities, and parks and churches and houses of worship ! think are also things that we should consider. The science is out on that but I think that you will make the public a lot happier if such exclusions were to exist. Ms. Bartell: One thing I do know about the bill is that environmental considerations which is what you just described would fall under that kind o~’thing, like health considerations, are not allowed to be - you can only consider those to a pretty limited extent and that is pretty clear in the bill. Commissioner Keller: Can we include those as restrictions for adjacency for other issues? Do we have to say we are doing that because of environmental considerations or can we simply say that there are certain kinds of things just like you have a condition~al use permit for in a residential area, you have a conditional use permit for adjacent to a residential area. Ms. Bartell: Basically if it is an environmental concern it is really limited. You have a lot more latitude to restrict things based on aesthetics or what the original wireless facility those requirements that were already set for the original facility. If you are going to start trying to condition things based on these health effects or environmental effects it is very rigid what you can and can’t do. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: That is the perfect segue for me, which is to aesthetic effects. There are a number of historic buildings in Palo Alto and I know of a cell site that is on an historic building. Would those be when they collocate onto that building would it be subject to Historic Resources Board review? Page 20 1 Ms. Tronquet: The collocation restricts I expect that it probably would be allowed to locate 2 there. It might not prevent you from looking at that but if you have already located a site on an 3 historic building the new requirements certainly strongly suggest that you could collocate 4 another site there. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Lippert: Well the issue I am thinking of off the top of my head is when you go through and do historic rehabilitations of the building there are certain requirements. What it does is preserves certain entitlements for the property owner. When you begin to add things to the historic building what you do is you undermine the historic nature of the structure. So simply by having a blanket allowance of allowing collocation without the appropriate review you undermine the historic entitlement that is there. Ms. Tronquet: To the extent that it had something like a visual impact on the structure you might be able to look at it and regulate it. You would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis but if you could come up with a good argument that it had a significant visual impact that might be something that you could regulate. Vice-Chair Lippert: Where I am going is possibly we could put something in here that on historic Category I and Category II structures that those would be subject to review by the Historic Resources Board. Mr. Williams: I don’t know that there is a reason why we can’t do that. It is part of the aesthetics of the building it is not for health reasons it is for that. Assuming that it is a new application as opposed to collocating where one already exists, yes. Then the other thing I was going to suggest is maybe we also list that we have building mounted antennas generally not requiring a use permit and maybe if it is an historic Category I or II it requires a use permit.and it goes to the Historic Resources Board for their input before it is approved because we have to consider the potential for Collocation as well as the original antenna. So that gives it that extra bit of review. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I want to go back to a question that Commissioner Keller had asked and was answered before about if you had an antenna that was proposed on a commercial property but that commercial property abutted a residentially zoned parcel would that fall under the requirement for a conditional use permit or not? Ms. Campbell: It depends on what type of facility they are proposing. Basically you have two types of review process and they are outlined there for the types of facilities. So if they were proposing a stand-alone facility then yes they would need to get a use permit. If they are proposing a building mounted facility thenthey would not need a use permit but it just goes through the architectural review with either the 150 foot noticing or a 600 foot noticing as is listed there if it was exceeding the existing height of the existing building roof and equipment. Commissioner Tuma: So even if it were on a Property that abuts a residential if it is on a building then it would go through the lesser review. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Campbell: That is correct. Chair Holman: Follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s question. I want to make sure I am clear on this. An antenna could be denied on an historic building due to aesthetic reasons. The collocation though once there is one there does that mean that even on an historic building that you would have to allow another or because it is an historic building and aesthetics are an issue could there be a separate review process that would require review of any collocation attempt? Ms. Bartell: My answer on this might change a little bit based what 1 learn in a couple of weeks but from what I have read so far if the second antenna is in compliance with the requirements for the original facility you have to let them put it on there. The whole point of bill is to streamline this process and basically put more antennas in sites where they already exist. I think the point was to avoid having to put all these new wireless facilities up we would just use the ones we already have and allow the process to go faster for those. So back to your question about the historical aspect if the second antenna complies with the requirements that the original site on the historical building had then it has to be allowed. Chair Holman: So I guess the question for Staff would be wouldn’t that require at a minimum Staff review if not HRB review to see if it does satisfy the same requirements. Mr. Williams: Yes, and I don’t think that there is any suggestion here that there is no review it is just that that’s basically the limit of our review is that we review it at a Staff level and that we assure that it is consistent with requirements that were imposed initially. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I am going to make a suggestion and this is purely a suggestion. I think that it is great that legal is going to have somebody go to this training but it might be worthwhile to consider having somebody from Planning also attend that to approach it from the planning point of view not the legal point of view. Mr. Williams: We will see if that is appropriate and if we can do it. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I have two questions. One has to do with enforcement. One of the members of the public said that in a neighboring city many of the sites have had additions that rendered that site not in compliance with their permit. On the one hand perhaps this mandate to allow collocation would take away some of the discretionary powers we would have anyway but what sort of enforcement tools do we have to assure that we don’t have additions to these sites that are going on beyond what we have permitted? Ms. Campbell: I-think one of things that we can add either as a condition of approval or we were talking about adding language to the actual code was having the applicants test the site before they do the project for the RF emissions and do that after and then put in as a condition of Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40. 41 42 43 44 45 approval that at any time Staff or the local citizens can require the applicant to do a test for these emissions to make sure it is still in compliance with the FCC regulations. So that is probably the most that ~e can do because then it would be the FCC’s role to g9 in to regulate what happens next. Commissioner Burt: Well that might be a reasonable approach although I don’t know about the ’at any time’ but some reasonable frequency might be appropriate. My other question has to do with under the paragraph Aesthetic Concerns/Roof-Mounted Antennas. I read the paragraph as addressing both not just aesthetic concerns of roof-mounted because it talked about the ARB review. This paragraph all the things that I think I would agree with that the design goals to create an end produce that is unobtrusive and blends in and that applied to not only roof-mounted but stand alones. My question has to do with in the past we have heard some value structures on behalf of ARB that they prefer, ifI am characterizing this correctly, they prefer these sorts of devices to stand alone and essentially not be fakes, not be a fake tree or not to be disguised in ways. We are saying that that’s not our objective that we want them unobtrusive. So if we are putting in the hands of the ARB a review for something that they don’t believe in do we have a built-in dilemma there? Ms. Campbell: I think for the recent application that we had from Manuela we had that discussion at the ARB. It was definitely kind of a split discussion. I do think that every site has its own characteristics and I think everything would be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. The only time or usually the ARB wouldn’t see, not that that means anything in particular, but the Board doesn’t usually see these projects unless it is appealed to the Board. I do think it is always a site-by-site situation and to make the best analysis of what looks good there. It may be that in a certain situation that a normal monopole or regular monopole may be the best product there. Mr. Williams: I would just add that we make the regulations for the City and if it is to hide it then that is what we need to present to the ARB what we are trying.to comply with. If they go a different direction and somebody appeals it and you see it or the Council sees it then you look at the same criteria and there might be a different result. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Lippert. Commissioner Keller: So I think I had made this comment after the last meeting that I had to sit out because it wasn’t segmented. One of the things that is interesting is I believe your form for a wireless communication facility requires that they applicant show all of the wireless communication facilities the applicant currently had within the city confines. It also shows some degree of coverage area. What I would recommend is that you ask for a map of the coverage including those locations, the wireless communication facilities located outside the City of Palo Alto and their locations that have coverage within the City of Palo Alto. If you think about coverage it is typically a point and a circle around it based on how far the signal can propagate. So what I would recommend is that as part of your application process you have all of the wireless communication facilities that broadcast into Palo Alto and their areas of coverage because those outside of Palo Alto that are located in adjacent towns would also affect Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 and will allow you to better see where the need for having a communication facility located where they requested. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: Actually I think that is a very good idea. I was going to follow up on that by suggesting that perhaps the way to approach the whole collocation issue is when an applicant comes forward and has a proposal is require them to present to the City the maximum build-out for that site. So in other words develop it or show what their service is going to be plus any collocation that is going to be there as well and make that a requirement of the conditions of approval for that specific site. So they would actually build something that would be less than that but they at the inception would show you what the maximum would be. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: On the topic of abandon antennas as I understand it here there is going to be a requirement as a condition of approval that any abandon antenna be removed within three months. Is there a problem with abandon antennas not being removed today? Ms. Campbell: I am currently not aware of a problem but I think other Commissioners have expressed a concern that things might be left behind and we want to keep it aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Tuma: I was wonder if you could make it a condition of an application for another antenna that they certify that any abandon antennas have been removed or some other way to be proactive because I know enforcement could be difficult unless it is pointed out. If they have to certify that any abandon antennas have already been removed I think that gives you an additional level of assurance that that’s happened but I don’t know if that is possible. Mr. Williams: So you are saying if someone comes in with a new request that before we issue a permit for that that we make sure that they remove any other abandon antennas that they have elsewhere? Commissioner Tuma: Well, within the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Williams: Right, Okay. We can look at that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I was simply going to remind that the concern there was because technology changes so quickly that if the circumstance occurred it would be nice to have that as part of the zoning that it comes out. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, did you have another question? Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Keller: Yes. Also to follow up on that not only is technology changing rapidly the frequencies change over time and because the frequencies change the coverage distances change along with the frequencies because some of formula, I don’t want to go into the physics of it right now and I once knew but I probably don’t remember any more. I am wondering to the extent to which the locations of antennas are considered public knowledge and people can go and say I want to look at a map of where the locations are of all the antennas in the city or by carrier. Is that considered a trade secret or is that considered public? Ms. Campbell: The Planning Department has not assembled such a complete list. I do have tists but I can’t tell you if they are 100 percent accurate. I would think that each of the different carriers would be able to provide that type of information because it is part of their service and they need to keep track of what they do. So I think they would be responsible for that. Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not sure that any carrier is going to tell me what the locations are as a private citizen but to the extent that the coverage maps and the locations of the preexisting and proposed cell sites are a document that the public can actually look at that is an interesting question that should be analyzed. Secondly, to the extent that some entity in the City were to keep track of the locations on some sort of collected map or list that showed all the locations and a carrier were to come by and say we have a coverage gap in this area, having one of the carriers I certainly understand the notion of a coverage gap, and they say we want to put a wireless communication facility at this location if the City had that list of locations it could then go back to a carrier and say well, rather than creating one where none currently exist have you considered these three sites whose coverage area would cover the region of the gap and would not require a brand new site. So it seems to me that the City could operate in that way as a clearing house to the extent that that information were not considered a trade secret. Ms. Tronquet: Just to answer your question about public records. I don’t know exactly what we require of applicants and I don’t know whether we make lists of people who install these things but whatever they file with us in terms of application materials would be a matter of public record. So you might not be able to get a full list of sites that a carrier had or the radius but you would be able to get the application information and compile it yourself if we didn’t have such a list. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber and then Commissioner Burt. Oh, I’m sorry Curtis. Mr. Williams: Could I add to that? After the last discussion you had on this item the next day or two days later I went to a Santa Clara County Association of Cities meeting where there were Council members from the various cities and the county convened to discuss various issues. FraNc Benest is there because he is head of the City Manager’s Group and helps support them. Their big topic for the night was wireless communications. This was a joint venture and Silicon Valley is sort of taking the lead on trying to coordinate efforts throughout Santa Clara County in particular for helping to get more information out about cell sites, about gaps in coverage, about the process that various cities use in terms of review, and they obviously as you would expect are Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ,19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 pushing very hard for expediting reviews or at least dividing like what we are trying to do here in saying these kinds of reviews are pretty much no brainers that nobody every objects to but these here are ones that could potentially be more critical and we should divide them up that way. One of the things that they were showing then was they had maps showing all the cell sites. They lcnow where all the cell sites are and they can draw circles and you can see gaps in coverage. They also have a map now that I think you can go to the website and it will actually show you people are calling in and telling them where they can’t get coverage and they are mapping all of those locations too. So there is already a lot of this information available. It is something that we should be sure we are tied in to so that when somebody comes through if some of those questions are up we can go there rather than creating our own database to do that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber then Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Garber: You may already know the answer to this but as part of the questions you may ask as part of the learnings that you will have in the next Couple of weeks would be the degree to which the bill allows when it has the cohabitation of antennae and equipment if carriers that are not the same can occupy the same space can utilize the same equipment, etc. rather than having to duplicate that and/or if that creates, I am assuming that would be allowed or perhaps required versus another carrier who is already there saying hey, don’t step inside my utility box. Ms. Tronquet: We will check it. We will look into that. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, Commissioner Lippert, and then me and we will try to wrap this one up so we can go on to the next. We have one more piece of business to do. Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up on this collocation question and the aesthetics of it. So in addition to whether they can share any equipment where we are using these fake trees and things I am just starting to envision this, are we anticipating that we are going to have little groves of fake trees and if so,.do we have the prerogative to require one cell carrier that they have a compatible fake tree with the other carrier who is already there? Does that fall under our aesthetic guideline discretion? Ms. Tronquet: We will research that and get back to you. Mr. Williams: I do think and it would seem to me that collocation does not mean putting another tree where there is a tree already. It means putting another antenna on an existing tree. Commissioner Burt: Better yet. Also if we get all of this fake tree and demolition issue we don’t have any danger of heritage fake trees starting to become a public issue. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I think where we are going ~vith this is that I think what is desirable is to try to consolidate as many of these sites as possible. When a carrier goes in and makes application for a site we want to encourage them to think in terms of collocation up front and make that a requirement of them getting the permit if we can do that. Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Campbell: So let me just address that right now. Even before this whole discussion about collocation just recently has come up it has always been a part of our process that collocation is one of the first things that we discuss with any new application that comes forward. So it is not something that we brush aside or that we ignore it is our first priority that we look at and ask have you looked at other carriers, is there any other way that you can do this project without creating a new site? So it is something that we are currently, actively doing. Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s right and I think that is where we were going. If we know where these sites are located and we know what the basic coverage areas are then we can say to one carrier, another carrier has a site within 150 or 200 feet of where you propose to put this site, did you look at collocating and having your antenna on their site and working out an agreement with them? Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I want to go back to the issue of when a conditional use permit is required and when it is not. During the last session on this it was brought up that the issue be considered that where you have a project that is on a residentially zoned parcel or on a parcel with residential use but also those abutting. That topic was raised last time. It doesn’t appear to have been incorporated into what is being proposed. Is there some resistance to doing that or is there some reason not to do that? I think where you have a situation where you have a commercial property right next door even though the antenna may go on a building mounted facility it is still right next door to a residential unit. So to me I don’t see the reason not to have it also apply to properties that abut either residentially zoned or a residential use. Ms. Campbell: When we are looking at this we are also looking at the process as well as the criteria for which types of sites we would apply it to. So if you have a type of facility that seems like it would be more impactful like a stand-alone facility that we were talking about then you would have the 600-foot radius and everybody would be noticed with that radius. Then for the other type of process where we would only do 150 foot or potentially 600 feet we were calling them less sensitive projects the noticing would still get out there to what we think are the affected properties. So people would still have the opportunity to come in and look at the plans and make comments on the project and discuss their concerns with Staff. I think that w.e have covered it I don’t know if we need to take it to that next step to include adjacent~ residentially zoned parcels as well. Mr. Williams: There is also an issue, and I think Clare was alluding a little bit to this, of not just the aesthetic impact, which is basically what we can address, but the use issue. A wireless carrier pays the property owner something to put the facility on there. So on a residential property, figuring a single family residential, I think you start to question ~vhether that becomes a commercial use when you start to put antennas on the site and is that appropriate? So that is another reason why we want a more elaborate process when it is on a residential property or there is a residential use on that property. We want to take a look at that and determine is that really necessary. We would prefer not to have residential properties having a commercial antenna facility on them. So that is another aspect of it and a reason why if it is On an adjacent Page 27 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 property that is commercial or industrial then that issue doesn’t pertain it is just becomes the 2 aesthetics issue. If it is a building mounted stealth design that those neighbors are going to have 3 a hard time even knowing it is there and even at 150 feet they are going to get notice of it 4 anyway so is it really necessary to go to the use permit? We have had these and they don’t get objected to. Like Clare said if it is a stand alone pole and it is next to those neighbors it is going to have a use permit and 600 feet of notice. That is our thought process. Commissioner Tuma: Okay, I appreciate that. Just to make the last comment that I have on this stuff which is I do think that the 600 feet alternative is the appropriate alternative where you have a facility that exceeds the existing height. I just think that we are limiting notice here and I understand that and streamlining it but I think where it exceeds the existing height to go the extra 450 feet with the notice is appropriate. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Quickly, one is I am skeptical as to whether one carrier will allow another carrier to use the same boxes containing the control equipment, I am very skeptical about that. However, using the same antenna and placing multiple transmitters on the same antenna is much more of a feasible concept. Secondly, I am assuming that the type of tree if it is a fake tree is part of the architectural review and that part of that will be to look at adjacent trees and things like that, real trees that are nearby and in particular since it is fake I assume that the tree will be evergreen because deciduous fake trees don’t drop their leaves and grow them again in the spring. Finally, I think that I am sympathetic with Colnmissioner Tuma’s point regarding the adjacency issue to a residential property in the sense that a wireless facility that is visible to the abutting residential uses may be unsightly so there are some issues there. Chair Holman: A few things real quickly. One is a question that came up last time and I think it was me actually who brought it up. On page two under Aesthetic Concerns/Roof-Mounted Antennas, you don’t need to respond to this I just wanted to mention it, there was some concern that if there is a lot of collocation that a 50 foot high building could take on the appearance of being a 65 foot building if there is a lot of collocation that takes place because it all has to be screened. So if that can be more clearly addressed I know it would be an aesthetics issue but it might be compatible with the existing building but then it alters the height so much that that could be an effect. So that’s one. Then to go to the public speaker’s comments about other communities going to fiber optic as opposed to wireless. There is such a strong lobby that we can’t right now restrict the application for these except for aesthetics so along those lines the City of Los Altos is mentioned here because of two things. One is how can we promote or help encourage the fiber or some other means other than these cell towers. The City of Los Altos has, and maybe Curtis would like to speak to this just briefly, something else that they are trying to encourage which are these smaller systems and how successful they have been or not been, what the move is technologically for companies to go to that, and also I am curious as to whether even the current boxes could be put underground, if they could be subterranean as opposed to on top of the ground. Something I was really struck by today as recently at the Women’s Club we took the ceiling fans out of the ceiling and so now it is just the chandeliers that hang from the ceiling. Just having that eye-acne gone Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 made one of the most remarkable changes in the building of anything that we have done there and we have done a lot of work there. So that is a question, could they be subterranean? Can we encourage other kinds of utility because of aesthetic uses and encourage that ldnd of approach as opposed to what is being currently applied? Mr. Williams: I will let Clare specifically address kind of Los Altos’ ordinance for you. I haven’t seen one of these facilities be underground and I am guessing that they need side access into this equipment and they can’t just come from above but we can check into that and see if there is any. Have you seen any of those? No. One thing I will say about Los Altos is a Los Altos Council Member was at that meeting with the other city representatives and indicated that they do try to encourage people to think about these other kinds of technologies. They have not had any to date. They don’t require them. The representatives indicated that they are installing them in places like shopping malls and places where it is relatively small areas that it seems to work well inside but you would have to do it throughout amuch larger area to be able to get citywide kind of coverage and you end up with a lot of these little boxes that dot the city then instead of a few installations otherwise. Clare looked specifically at the ordinance and can tell you what that says about those facilities. Ms. Campbell: In the Los Altos ordinance it lists as a different type of antenna system a distributed repeater or micro-cell antenna system as its own stand-alone category apart from monopoles or fake trees or building mounted. Basically these types of facilities require multiple antennas and I even have a picture of something similar where it is utilized in a more centralized area. I did a little bit of research on the Internet so it seems like if you wanted to improve coverage within a building or maybe like within a downtown or within a very specific area you could put up these repeater sites or micro-cell sites and that could improve the service. But on a large scale it is not something I think the carriers would do. Their language in their code for encouraging this type of facility they basically put an order of preference for facility type. They say would like building mounted facilities to be the first thing that would be done. The second would be a distributed repeater or micro-cell system and then the third would be a monopole. So that is their language in their code of how they show what they prefer or their hierarchy for their preference of sites. Basically we have these phones. This is just one example of someone who called or wanted to get some information. Basically the tops of these phone booths are these boxes and I refer to them as like maybe a suitcase kind of size, it is there and you can tell something is there. Basically these would be dotted out throughout a specific section or region to improve your service. So that is an example of what it would look like. Chair Holman: One thing I had mentioned to Staff yesterday I think was that with this kind of utilization perhaps it could be incorporated into newspaper racks or that sort of thing at least in some parts of town so that we don’t have all these extra things popping up off the ground. Unless there is anything else and if Staff thinks they have plenty and more than we should move on to - Commissioner Burt. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: It is more on what we have to do yet this evening. Since we have two more items, the storm water and the landscape and I am looking at the agenda for the next meeting and it is one item so would it be possible to roll this over or does that make a problem for Staff?. Mr. Williams: First of all I am confused because I thought the storm water was part of the water resources discussion. Chair Holman: Yes, I believe it was so we have landscape remaining. Mr. Williams: The item that is on your agenda next week is listed as one item but it is really four rezonings of sites that we know there is opposition to on some of those and we don’t know how much discussion there will be but that could very well be a full night of discussion. The only other option would be to do an hour on landscape at the beginning at six o’clock or something like that for that meeting. The dilemma that we are in is that we are trying to get the ordinance back to you by the 13th and that is important because we don’t have another meeting of the Commission until January 10 which already has some items on it and the storm water and water resources thing do have some timelines on them that we have committed to the Water District to make. Ms. Caporgno: I would like to add that the City has made a commitment to the Water District that we would if at all feasible have the changes to the ordinance in place by the end of February. So if we come back to the Commission in January that is almost impossible to do. Chair Holman:. Okay, so I would ask the Commission to be concise and bear with us as it is 120 to 11:00 and we did lose a member of the public unfortunately. We will now go to landscape standards. I am looking for Commissioner questions or comments. Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: In the proposed shading calculation for the parking lots are trees the only thing that would be allowed to create shade or are trellises other such things allowed? What are the alternatives there? Mr. Dave Dockter, City Arborist: We would entertain trellises and other vegetation on walls. We would be highly encouraging trees to play the major function in shade. There are a lot of values that get weighed into the trees that would not be achieved by trellises and other types of things. So we would want to see predominantly trees play the role for providing shade for several reasons. Commissioner Garber: I am totally in line with the tree focus I am just thinking if you had trellises would you also ideally have things that grew on the trellises as well? The idea is to have green live things, right? Mr. Dockter: Well, yes shade cast plays a positive role on rain water interception, it reduces the heating that heats up gasoline in cars, it extends the life of pavement to the extent that vegetated trellises could achieve that they would play a role and not just trees. Predominantly I think we would achieve it by trees at least in a codified version of the ordinance. . Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: So instead of paving paradise and putting in a parking lot you are putting paradise back by adding the trees. I am wondering as a follow up to Commissioner Garber’s question if somebody wanted to put photovoltaics as some sort of carport kind of thing, if you wanted to put a photovoltaic panel on top ofparldng would that make sense or not? Mr. Dockter: I suppose that would make sense to achieve some goals of more of a green parking lot that is producing something else other than just shade. You are creating a dual-purpose function in something. I think we would favor that. That may not even play a role in landscaping it my just be smart building in my opinion. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Dave, the report referred to the emerging alternatives of rooftop gardens, usable/edible landscape, and other alternatives. In our outline I didn’t see exactly where that would be folded in, can you clarify that a little bit? Mr. Dockter: In the ordinance we are going to be listing and encouraging/requiring the use of creative landscaping, creative parking lots, creative use of the land. Within that we will be pointing to a landscape technical manual that will have most of these, perhaps a hierarchy of suggestions or recommendations such as if it is stipulated to have a rooftop garden say we will have a list of alternatives and suggestions to achieve that. The same thing would go for parking lots and the same thing would go for planter islands to help a property owner achieve the goals if it is stipulated within conditions of approval. It will be encouraged and I think in the codified version of the ordinance we will get the property pretty roughed out by the code but I think a lot of the decisions and details will be left to the discussions with Staff and the manual. Commissioner Burt: We had a couple of years ago an agreement with a Stanford office development I think off California Avenue where they agreed to put in an apricot orchard, ifI remember correctly, as part of their landscaping. I heard over the last year from one of the Stanford representatives that they have had no success in getting the fruit picked and no knowledge of the means to do so and consequently they would be very reluctant to do that sort of thing in the future. This was real disappointing because as we have discussed many times this is something that we would like to see a lot more of. I see that you have the attachment on the Valley of Heart’s Delight program bm it seems like if we are going to do this very positive thing of encouraging agricultural landscaping that the City can’t necessarily take on that task but we need to somehow play some kind of facilitator role to make sure that the growers and the pickers are hooked up. So I would like to encourage that we somehow build that into the programs if we are expanding this. My final question had to do with the structural soils and I hope everybody got a chance to read this. As I was going through this I said great article and then saw that Dave Dockter wrote it, Dave has been a leader in these and our city has been a leader in the use of the structural soils. This is a real exciting new tool. The question I have is we have a lot of scars where we have had Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 parking lots, etc., and other locations go in that really if we had had the structural soils ten or 15 years ago we would have utilized them in those locations. So how can we heal those scars, is my question? For instance we had just adopted the new Comp Plan when the Stanford Shopping Center redevelopment or expansion went through and they redid their parking lots, tore out the trees that were mature trees there and somehow the City didn’t require them at that time to even meet that new standard of 50 percent canopy within 15 years that we have here. So what I am getting at is can we look at whether we want to require some sort of retrofitting that when a development goes through a major permitting remodeling of some sort that we look at whether with these new options on the structure soils whether they be required to come up to standard or come closer to up to code on providing tree plantings that would result in the 50 percent canopy within 15 years. So some kind oftfiggefing mechanism that might let us heal some of those scars. Mr. Williams: I think there are some ways that we_ can probably try to do that. I would ask Dave if he has examples of or is that what you tried to do with the parking lot across from the clothing store down there in SOFA? Mr. Dockter: On retrofitting and reusing land there will always be a discretionary Staff decision on what is the nexus for really requiring a parking lot to be redone, changed, or not. If it were a whole site redevelopment heck yes, absolutely we would do that. We would have them put in street trees in the City fight-of-way. In the code we will nudge everybody toward malting the best use of the parking lot. The storm water requirements now to treat the water on the site is probably one of the most important criteria for actually redoing these parldng lots and islands. The best thing that ever happened I think for trees was the storm water regulations mandated by the federal government, the C3 regulations. We are looking for opportunities on every parking lot and to retrofit even if it is adding in one or two trees. If we can’t redo the whole lot we will do whatever we can like Anthropology on Addison that was a small retrofit project where they put in new trees and structural soil and a little strip. It is not a permanent fix but it sure goes a long ways towards making it work for them as well as the City. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: I just want to comment. I go to the fifth floor here, sometimes the sever~th floor, and I look south and I am just amazed, I am bowled over every time I look south and I see the canopy of trees. That is something that I think is definitely something we want to try to preserve and promote. I don’t like the idea or the notion of us having these buildings that punctuate or come up through this wonderful canopy. I think what we want to try to do is when you are up on the fifth or seventh floor and you look out you see this wonderful green canopy. By the same token though I think about the two times that I have gone to Italy and have seen these towers that punctuate these Italian towns. The families that were the captains of industry have planted trees at the tops of these towers. They are the most remarkable things so I think the whole notion of rooftop gardens has finallycome about at a time that is appropriate when we are in some ways to high-technology what the Italian Renaissance was to architecture. So I think that it is very appropriate that rooftop gardens are something that are promoted now within the code. Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Then there was one last.comment that I wanted to make with regard to parking lots. The flipside of what happened at Anthropology and the adjacent parcel across the street that they are using as their parking lot and it has been landscaped and planted very nicely, the flipside of that is of course [Fazani] Carpet at the corner of Alma and Hamilton where there is an adjacent parcel there which was a parldng lot that has been undeveloped, un-landscaped since I have been in town in 1983 or 1984. The sole reason is that the owner of those two parcels, I think it is actually one parcel, but it might be two parcels, doesn’t see the benefit of landscaping. So what happened, the net result is, they are denied use of that as a parking lot until it is improved and brought up to the quality and character of what it needs to be in order to meet our regulations. It is just a blight on us. It is not being used. It is not pretty to look at. So I think now with these regulations we need to be able to facilitate away through these regulations to get areas like that either landscaped or redeveloped in some way. I wanted to say that there is aflipside to that which is that for every success story there is also a place where we have failed. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Commissioner Garber: I wanted to clarify a comment that I had at our last meeting, which was about rooftop gardens and the greening of roofs. That comment came up in the context of roof screening and this is simply a clarification that occurred to me after the fact, after that discussion. My intent was not to include that as part of a roof screening section of the ordinance and I think there was a little bit of confusion around that but it may exist more naturally in a different section. The example that was being brought forward was one of the projects that came before the Commission this past year there is a circumstance where you would see down onto the roof and it wasn’t that the roof wasn’t screened it was that you are !ooldng at the roof surface itself which was not an aesthetic experience and by greening it you would create that. So it may not be a part of the screening section but it may more naturally occur someplace else. Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma. Commissioner Tuma: I just had a quick question. What did you have in mind with respect to design standards for light well landscaping on residential? Mr. Dockter: Screening for light wells used to be in the zoning code and there was a requirement for vegetating large, large light wells. They were actually below ground patio areas. Since I think that has actually been removed because it was almost impossible to achieve vegetating a large below ground patio tmless it was something just draping over the edge or a vine or something. If a light well were visible from the street we would just want to, not as a requirement but more probably as a guideline again in the landscape manual, provide elements for screening different types of things on a residential house. You wouldscreen maybe air conditioners, light wells, anything that would stick up above ground in view. I think we were thinking more of as a screening benefit not as a ministerial mandate but more of as a guideline to learn how to and educate how to screen different areas. Chair Holman: Commissioner. Garber. Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Just as a follow up and I may encourage Commissioner Lippert to add in any comments he may have regarding light wells as well. Two questions occur to me as you were answering Commissioner Tuma’s query. One, is the intent of screening to also keep one’s view from looking down? In the case of a light well where you may not have something like an air conditioning unit or something that is obviously sitting on the ground and you would screen that but where you have a well itself is the thought that you would screen it so you wouldn’t see below grade in those circumstances? Mr. Dockter: No, it would just be to interrupt the view of a concrete rim or a low wall. Commissioner Garber: I see, okay. Mr. Dockter: These tend to accompany light wells. Commissioner Garber: So the screening may in that case be grasses or something-of that sort? Mr. Dockter: Sure. Commissioner Garber: The other question that I had and I am not recalling the requirements for the sizes of light wells right at the moment but frequently one has to provide access out of them and because of limitations there is great frequency where that access out occurs as a ladder. I am sure there has been discussion but I am curious if you are recalling pros and cons versus including or excluding the staircases from the requirements for the areas of light wells such that a homeowner could avoid having a ladder but have a more natural staircase coming out of it and not ’have that included in the area of the light well. Mr. Williams: I can respond to that and it is a little off the landscape topic but the amendments that were made to the R-1 district a year and a half ago or so they don’t exclude basically the emergency ladder kind of thing which takes up very little space anyway but the change that was made was that to the extent that you have larger than that like a sunken patio or something or like that the stairways coming out of that are not included any longer as part of the 200 square foot limitation or whatever the number is for those. One of the reasons for that was to allow that area down below to be a more usable space and also to allow it to have some greenery and that. You are right if you include that stairway out, a nice usable stairway out, then it tends to take up half the space of the below grade patio. Commissioner Garber: Thank you for the reminder. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Two other items. Over several years on occasions where we had multi- family development we have had discussions about whether to mandate the inclusion of small community or common gardens that really are not only a preference to some of the passive landscaping that may exist but it really helps build community in those multi-family developments. Has Staff looked at incorporating that principle within any of our landscaping standards for multi-family housing? It seems that it has been a couple of years since we Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 discussed it and so many of these Staff members may not have heard this discussion several years ago. If it isn’t something we have been addressing and if the Commission has an interest in that I would be interested in having something brought back at our next review of this. Mr. Williams: It is something that now that you refresh my memory I do recall that we discussed that. We didn’t get very far with drafting anything before the multi-family district kind of went on the shelf for awhile. So I could talk to Dave and we could either try to see if that is workable in here or if it is something we need to. say in the multi-family zone when that comes back to you early next year. Commissioner Burt: Okay. Then my other question is following up on Commissioner Lippert’s comment on certain places in town where we have long-term vacant lots. They maybe paved lots that have just essentially become blights on the community when it is something that goes on for 20 years and no development is occurring there. The thought occurred to me that maybe we need to consider whether a certain amount of minimal border landscaping would be required. Not a high cost thing but a shrub border or some percent or something like that. I don’t know if we are going too far with this concept but I can think of a couple of examples in town where you have a prominent location that might sit vacant for 20 years and it just really looks blighted. We require people to remove weeds off of their property and just a blank slab of asphalt for 20 years strikes me as something that maybe a property owner should be required to do something at a minimal level not something at a high cost. I wanted to toss that concept out. Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert. Vice-Chair Lippert: In this case of Anthropology what happened was that an offsite parking agreement was signed with Anthropology to make the adjacent lot the parking lot for Anthropology. So that triggered in that review process that that had to be landscaped. If you don’t do anything with the lot it just sort of stays there and that’s really the problem. What I am thinking of is there are numerous City lots in the Downtown that we don’t even follow our own requirements of every ten spaces putting in a tree. So we are not even following our own requirements. Commissioner Burt: So regardless, maybe I misunderstood the point you were making. I can think of other examples in town where we simply have for a long period of time in a prominent location a blank asphalt lot that has little bits of weeds and just junky and everything. So my question is should we treat it like we would other blights where we require people to mow their weeds. In this case we might require a minimal low cost border landscaping on a certain portion of the border of that lot. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, I have saved up a few comments. First as a follo~v up to Commissioner Garber’s comment I am wondering if that is roof screening or roof greening. In follow up to Commissioner Lippert’s comment I think the hanging gardens of Babylon preceded the Italian rooftop trees. Page 35 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 I am wondering in terms of the interim landscaping that is mentioned in the landscaping . 2 standards in terms of perimeter landscaping and interior landscaping, the perimeter landscaping 3 is surrounding a parking lot and I am wondering if you are. going to include all of the landscaping 4 on the property that is not simply part of the parking lot and its perimeter as part of the scope of this. In other words, not considering only that which is between the building and the lot but any other landscaping around the perimeter of the lot, is that part of what the new ordinance considers? Mr. Dockter: Yes, that is correct. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am hoping that with the new redevelopment of the parking lot at Town & Country that that’s taking advantage of your wonderful structural soil idea. Mr. Dockter: Where we were able to specify it, yes, structural soil is going in at Town & Country parking lot for the large oak trees. Commissioner Keller: With respect to pervious surface in parking lots is there a concern about the drippings that come from cars that are petroleum based and the like that might contaminate groundwater through that. Is there something you can do to pervious surface to capture that so it doesn’t percolate down? Mr. Dockter: We want to do very little to avoid that because we have learned that soil and the tree roots will actually clean the water before it goes off into the Bay. The only thing we really ¯ want it to do is soak into the soil. The trees and the soil if the soil is semi-healthy do their thing on the oil. It is preferable to have that and maybe even stress the trees out a little bit than have it go right into the storm drain and off the site. So the whole intent with this methodology is to keep it on the site for as long as possible. Commissioner Keller: It will just sort of stay near the surface it won’t go down too far? Mr. Dockter: It depends on the site and the percolation. Mr. Williams: The storm water and this relates to storm water to some extent, just the philosophy of storm water runoff and capturing it and running it through grassy swails or into landscape ponds is that those soils and vegetation do the most effective job of actually removing the materials before the water gets down to a groundwater table or something like that. The only exception to that tending to be some of the nutrients like fertilizers and such some of those do not cling to the soil particles the same way the oils and sediment and other pollutants do. Commissioner Keller: The last comment is actually a follow up to something I believe Commissioner Burt said with respect to these issues of fruit trees that aren’t being picked. I am wondering whether people who rent plots from community gardens or the community farm at Stanford the pickings should be made available to these people who obviously want to pick crops that they grow themselves. Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber. Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Garber: Would the structural soils be a part of the technical manual as a recommendation as opposed to the ordinance itself or where would one find that? Mr. Dockter: We would envision that would be a provision in the technical manual not mandated at all within the ordinance because it is not a silver bullet. It only makes sense where a lot of compaction has got to occur to achieve a lot of goals, parldng and surface area goals. Then you have the same goal of a shade tree then it may play a good role. It needs to be reserved to specific conditions of approval or stipulated in certain areas and not just blanket broad-scope within the city. Commissioner Garber: Would it be used to provide soils for trees and other vegetation over underground parldng and things of that sort or does it exist only where the soil can eventually be graduated back into existing native soils? Mr. Dockter: The premise of structural soil is to provide a stone matrix that will support high compaction when you need to compact for putting a wearing surface like a road or a sidewalk up on top. So you have a stone matrix soil that will support all of this load but yet it has a lot of air voids so that tree roots can grow that is the basic premise of it. So if there were no need to compact over the surface we would prefer just to have regular soil and not any of this structured soil. So if there were fill that needs to occur for a tree our first preference would be just to use regular soil but if it has to be compacted that would shorten the life of the tree and we would consider structured soil. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Garber: What I am hearing is that the criteria that I just gave you doesn’t determine whether you use it or not it is a different set of questions that you are trying to answer than the ones I was asking about. Thank you. Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller, a quick question? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I am wondering whether the structural soil is being used when streets are repaved and sidewalks are repaved in terms of protecting the street trees or if that is something else being done elsewhere? Mr. Dockter: Just briefly where new trees are going in and sidewalks are going in we are using structure soil where there is a limited growing area for the new trees. It is not something that we specify or require to be specified around older trees that are staying. It is really something relegated to new construction. Chair Holman: Okay, a few questions for myself here. The tree technical manual and there is discussion about a landscape technical manual, since they are so very, very related would it be feasible that they be one technical manual? A landscape and tree technical manual? Mr. Dockter: We have given some thought to that. There is no reason to prohibit it. We would want to take a look at it I think to see if it would make something so un~vieldy for one discipline to have a whole - it might be too cumbersome for some disciplines. On the other hand it may Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 work perfectly so I think we would want to look at that and talk about it internally. It is a good suggestion though I think we should look at it. Chair Holman: The 15 year/50 percent canopy. The 15-year I am sure is based on the premise of how long it takes given trees to grow to have a given canopy. Is there any feasibility of reducing that to say 12 years or looking at some combination of trees that might get to a larger percentage of coverage quicker than 15 years? Especially when you are looking at larger projects 15 years is a long time. Mr. Dockter: I think we will have a mix of trees regardless on any given parking lot. We won’t have a monoculture. I think it is a realistic goal we should probably stick with. We are going to have some trees that are just there in ten years I am sure especially providing for the roots like I think we are going to be. I feel comfortable in the 15-year goal. The large parking lots where we have large acreages like in the Research Park there is going to be many, many trees there where I think the shading will be achieved with all of the five criteria that we listed in there as long as we have condition compliance goals or requirements I think we can achieve the shading goal. It is something that other cities have lacked is the actual compliance end of things and trees get removed without the city having any ability to require the tree to be put back or no long term condition monitoring. So as long as we have that integrated into it I think we are fine with the ten to 15 year goal. Chair Holman: I heard ten to 15 years so I am glad to hear that. For a separate reason I brought this issue up to Staff not so long ago. There are some developments that have been allowed to build underneath sidewalks, underneath streets, and underneath alleys. Could you comment about how that might affect the growth of street trees? Actually I might ask two questions at once here. The other thing is building height and proximity to trees, so for instance if there is a ten foot sidewalk and it is 60 feet high let’s say, how that might affect the growth of street trees or even perimeter trees that in addition to how building under sidewalks also might affect trees. Mr. Dockter: Those are two criteria that we should always be looking at. An older tree that becomes newly shaded will react and it will affect the health of that tree. It is something that should be considered in the project. The same is true in the root area if it is restricted through an underground basement the trees will only grow as big as the root system will allow them to so if you limit it is going to be a bonsai tree. That is just a fact of life, So that is part of what we look at when there is use of the right-of-way underneath the sidewalk. It is something that should be part of our consideration from Public Works, Planning Commission or Council point of view. Chair Holman: Rooftop gardens, we recently talked about that I think it was even before we looked at this the first time. We talked about maybe having some requirements for those as we looked at the sustainability as we had the sustainability study session and sustainability program coming out of that. If other things come up during the sustainability study session how would we best incorporate those into what we are doing now and on the 13th if there is expansion of ideas or new ideas that come out of that sustainability talk? Much of what we are talking about here is sustainability. Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Dockter: In the code we will want to encourage use of green building and sustainable practices. For rooftop gardens it is probably as far as we are going to go is stating the encouragement of it. If it is stipulated within a project by one of the reviewing bodies then the technical manual can provide more direction for that and as things unfold and as sustainability learns and becomes more comfortable with areas we can update the landscape manual which will have these details. It will be issued by the City Manager or the department head will be overseeing this technical manual and it can change as technology changes. Within the ordinance the way I envision rooftops gardens is merely trying to encourage the use of it. I don’t know how we can build in benefits and bonuses other than employee amenities but I think at this point the landscape ordinance should just recognize that they are there, they are beneficial, and we encourage it, and we will provide them guidelines pro bono by the manual. Chair Holman: Great. Then another matter that actually addresses storm water as many things tree do, parking at the curb. In the Comp Plan one of the policies I have always disagreed with and we haven’t codified it so it hasn’t been used that much but it talks about allowing parking at the curb to be counted toward required parking. There are of course tree leaves that come down whether they are on private property or whether they are street trees, tree leaves accumulate and when you can’t sweep the street you have storm water issues. So I don’t know if you want to weigh in on that or have any comment about that or just let it stand as a comment as you wish. Mr. Williams: Like you said we haven’t imposed that requirement or allowed people to count that parldng anyway at this point. You are probably going to get people parked up and down the street whether we do and that is why we haven’t allowed it because most streets have plenty of cars already parked on them. I think that is really outside the zoning purview it is a right-of-way issue. As long as we don’t bring it up if we come to you with something on the parking on the street other than that the issue of does that create storm water problems and that is really a Public Works issue not a zoning issue. Chair Holman: Okay. I think the last thing is I think Commissioner Burt mentioned earlier about edible gardens as a part of multi-family projects. I guess if you stick around long enough these things that at one time are strongly discouraged come into favor. He and I have both been pushing that for multi-family and he didn’t mention affordable housing but also for affordable housing projects, which usually are PCs as well as for open space. So I am glad to see that that has found its way in here. So I don’t think I have any other questions or comments. So if Staff thinks they have enough direction and I see no other Commissioners with their hands up. Does Staff feel like you have enough? Mr. Williams: Yes, we have as you can see a little more of a task I think on this section than on the others in terms of we haven’t really given you as specific a language right now. We will be back with that on the 13th based on your comments. Thank you. Chair Holman: Great. Thank you very much. So we will close that item and I think I didn’t close the public comment on that item but I will do that now too. Page 39