HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 379-09TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REPORT TYPE:
SUBJECT:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
SEPTElVffiER 21, 2009
PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 379:09
Zoning Ordinance Update: Approval of a Negative Declaration and
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending PAMC Chapter 18.28 Related to
Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) Zone District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the fall of 2007, the last significant revisions were completed for the Zoning Ordinance
Update. At that time, staff was directed to follow-up with revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone
district, with particular attention to the calculations of impervious coverage and the relationship
to floor area and house size. In a working group, staff, two Planning and Transportation
Commissioners, and OS stakeholders met five times over a period of eight months to discuss
these issues along with other stakeholder-raised concerns. After the completion of the working
group meetings, a Study Session was conducted with the full Planning and Transportation
Commission to update and receive feedback on staff's recommendations on the issues raised.
Attachment A represents the Planning and Transportation Commission and staff's
recommendations for the revisions to the Open Space zone district, the most significant changes
include a) calculation of impervious coverage based on the actual permeability of materials used;
b) a sliding scale of impervious coverage limits based on lot size; c) establishment of a maximum
floor area ratio based on lot size; and d) bonus impervious coverage and floor area allowances if
a substantial part of the lot is retained as natural vegetation or agricultural crops.
RECOMMENDA TIONS
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that Council approve the
draft Negative Declaration (Attachment K) and the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 18.28
(Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
On June 13,2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval
of Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the
Open Space (OS) district. One of the key revisions that was made to the OS zone was the
addition of section 18.28.070(1) to clarify that, with respect to impervious cover limitations in the
OS zone, all paved surfaces (including semi-pervious paving) count as impervious surface,
except 1) gravel driveways and 2) portions of driveways across scenic setbacks (e.g., along Page·
Mill Road). The PTC included this requirement so that excess impervious cover gained by using
CMR: 379:09 Page 1 of 4
semi..,pervious surfaces could not be added to the residence to increase house size. The PTC
directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit semi-
permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size, floor
area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale.
DISCUSSION
The working group discussed an extensive number of issues, including those identitifed by the
PTC plus several others at the suggestion of the residents. Attachment A is the proposed
ordinance which includes the following substantive changes:
1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development establishes floor area
ratio limitations and revises impervious coverage, based on a sliding scale and provides
for a FAR incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation. (18.28.050(b»
2. Impervious Cover Calculation would include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions
noted, and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material
and construction method to be used. (18.28.070(m»
3. Review Process is simplified to define a Minor project in the OS zone and creating two
levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed. (18.28.070(b»
4. Second Dwelling Units would be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and
would follow the Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units
(18.10.070 (b)).
5. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback would be allowed if located at least 50' from
the affected property line; required (4) spaces would not be allowed in the setback.
(18.28.090(b»
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of
the PTC (Garber and Tuma) and staff was assembled and met five times since October 2007 to
discuss the above mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns
as they related to other sections of the OS regulations. The neighborhood association, Palo
Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS), provided a position paper on its concerns that the
working group worked from as the base document for the on-going group discussions.
Attachment D provides the initial PAPOS position paper and staff's initial response.
On September 24, 2008, the PTC conducted a Study Session on the proposed revisions to the
Open Space district. Staff incorporated the comments received at the Study Session and returned
to the PTC on April 15,2009, for formal recommendation on the revisions. At this April
meeting, the PTC raised the issue of including a maximum house size, which had not been
previously discussed with the OS stakeholders. Direction was then given to provide notice to the
OS residents that the PTC will consider maximum house size standards and the hearing was
continued.
Throughout the working group meetings and public hearings, the residents generally have not
supported increased regulations for the OS zone. The residents are opposed to the FAR limit and
maximum house size. The residents do support less restrictive development standards and a
CMR: 379:09 Page 2 of 4
faster review process. Attachments D and I summarizes the views of the majority of the OS
residents.
On July 8,2009 the PTC voted to add a maximum house size to the development standards, but
that failed with a 3-3-0-1 vote (Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller for;
Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert against; and Commissioner Rosati absent). Aside
from the maximum house size issue, the PTC unanimously supported the proposed changes to
the OS regulations.
On July 8, 2009, with a vote of, the PTC then recommended approval (6-0-0-1) of the revisions
to the Open Space district with the exclusion of an added maximum house size limitation. There
were eight members of the community that spoke on this item, with the majority opposed to
maximum house size FAR limitations on the OS development standards. The staff report and
meeting minutes are attached for the last two PTC meetings.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The proposed revisions are not expected to have impacts on City revenue or expenses. Project
applications would require Site and Design review and staff costs would be reimbursed by the
applicant.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with
the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the
intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts of new development on
views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides.
Attachment J provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The
20-day public comment period for this document ran from April 8, 2009 through April 27, 2009.
No comments were received.
PREPARED BY:
CLARE CAMPBELL
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City Manager
CMR: 379:09 Page 3 of4
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Maps of the OS Zone District
C. Summary Table of OS Parcels
D. PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations with Staff Responses and PAPOS
Response, 0111412008
E. ,PTC Staff Report, July 8, 2009
F. PTC Excerpt Minutes, July 8, 2009
G. PTC Staff Report, April 15, 2009
H. PTC Excerpt Minutes, April 15,2009
L Correspondence
J. Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Open Space
K. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
COURTESY COPIES
Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS)
Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills
CMR: 379:09 Page 4 of4
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Chapter 18.28 Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC) of Title
18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Amending Sections
18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), 18.28.060
(Additional PF District Regulations), 18.28.070 (Additional
OS District Regulations), 18.28.080 (Additional AC District
Regulations), and 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading)
The Council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(a) The last update of the Open Space regulations took place in July 2007 with the
approval of the new P AMC Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) that consolidated the
Public Facilities (PF), Open Space (OS), and Agricultural Conservation (AC) districts into one
chapter, and at which time further direction was given by Council and Commission to make
additional revisions;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs and
policies related to open space protection. The proposed revisions assist the City in accomplishing
these programs and policies;
( c) The proposed revisions to the Open Space district would enhance the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
Sections:
18.28.010
18.28.020
18.28.030
18.28.040
18.28.050
18.28.060
18.28.070
18.28.080
18.28.090
18.28.100
090917 syn 0120368
Chapter 18.28
SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS
(PF, OS, AC)
Purposes
Definitions
Applicable Regulations
Land Uses
Site Development Standards
Additional PF District Regulations
Additional OS District Regulations
Additional AC District Regulations
Parking and Loading
Grandfathered Uses
1
NOT YET APPROVED
28.010 Purposes
(a) Public Facilities District [PF]
The PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility,
educational, and community service or recreational facilities.
(b) Open Space District [OS]
The purpose and intent ofthis district is to:
(1) protect the public health, safety, and welfare;
(2) . protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource;
(3) permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and
protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability
for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or
natural resource land; for the containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of
urban development; and for the retention of land in its natural or near-natural state,
and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, flood, and
seismic activity; and
(4) coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space
plans.
(c) Agricultural Conservation (AC]
The AC agricultural conservation district is intended to permit agricultural and compatible
uses on property intended for preservation and retention essentially in its natural, farmed,
or landscaped state.
18.28.020 Definitions
As used in this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following definitions
shall apply:
(a) "Conservation or natural resource land" means land which possesses or encompasses
conservation or natural resources.
(b) "Conservation or natural resource" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, streams,
watersheds, groundwater recharge, soils, wildlife habitat, as defined in this section, special land
forms, and natural vegetation.
(c) "Open space land" means any parcel or area of land essentially unimproved or in its
natural state, and devoted to an open space use as defined in this section, and which is designated
in the open space element for an open space use.
(d) "Open space district" means any area of land or water designated "OS" and subject to all
of the terms and regulations of this chapter. '
2
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
( e) "Open space use" means the use of land for:
(l) Public recreation;
(2) Enjoyment of scenic beauty;
(3) Conservation or use of natural resources;
(4) Production of food or fiber;
(5) Protection of persons and their artifacts (buildings, property, etc.);
(6) Containment and structuring of urban development.
(f) "Recreation land" means any area of land or water susceptible to recreational uses.
(g) "Scenic land" means any area of land or water that possesses scenic qualities worthy of
preservation.
(h) The "Stanford Hoover Pavilion" site is defined as that property designated as Assessor's
Parcel numbers 142-04-011 and 142-04-012.
(i) IIWildlife habitat" means any area of land or water valuable or necessary to the
preservation or enhancement of wildlife resources.
18.28.030 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established
by this Title shall apply to all Special Purpose Districts.
18.28.040 Land Uses
Table 1 shows the permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (CUP) land uses for the Special
Purpose Districts.
Table 1: Land Uses
Retail services as an accessory use to the
administrative offices of a non-profit organization,
CUp(l)
provided that such retail services do not exceed CUp(l)
25% of the gross floor area of the combined
administrative office services and retail service
uses
3
090917 syn 0120368
Current Code
Section 18.88
NOT YET APPROVED
Second dwelling units, subject to regulations in
Section 18.28.070
Agricultural Uses, including animal husbandry,
crops, dairying, horticulture, nurseries, livestock
farming, tree farming, viticulture, and similar uses
not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this
Administrative office services for non-profit
Other uses which, in the opinion ofthe zoning
administrator, are similar to those listed as
""r'1'n111T,,£J or conditi
All facilities owned or leased, and operated or
used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of
Santa Clara, the State of California, the
government of the United States, the Palo Alto
Unified School District, or any other
090917 syn 0120368
P
P
P
4
P
18.28.070
P
NOT YET APPROVED
Residential use, and accessory buildings and uses
customarily incidental to permitted dwellings;
provided, however, that such permitted dwellings
shall be for the exclusive use of the owner or
owners, or lessee or lessor of land upon which the
permitted agricultural use is conducted, and the
residence of other members of the same family
and bona fide of the aforementioned --
CUp(1)
Outpatient medical facilities with associated
medical research CUP
Temporary parking facilities, provided that such
facilities shall remain no more than five
CUP
P
CUP
18.40.
p
(I) provided such use is conducted on property owned by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa
Clara, the State of Cali fomi a, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School
Distri other and leased for said uses.
5
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 2. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter 18.28
(Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
18.28.050 Site Development Standards
(a) Development Standards
The development standards for the special purpose districts are specified in Table 2,
provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the Architectural
Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Table 2:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (acres)
Site Width (ft)
Site
Minimum Setbacks (ft)
Front Setback
Rear Setback
Interior Side Setback
Street Side Setback
Site Coverage and Impervious Coverage
Maximum Site Coverage
Additional Site Area permitted covered by
impervious ground surfaces
Maximum Impervious Coverage
Height Restrictions
Maximum Height (ft)
Maximum Height within 150 feet of a
residential district (ft)
Maximum Number of Stories
Daylight Plane for site lines abutting a
residential district
Initial height (ft)
090917 syn 0120368
Setback lines imposed by a special
setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08
35
6
code shall
See Table
lB%(4)
20.08
18.28.050(b)
18.28.070(ml
18.28.060( a)
NOT YET APPROVED
impervious area under this requirement.
(2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities district shall be equal to the
respective front, side, and rear yards required in the most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no
yard adjoining a street shall be less than 20 feet and that no interior yard shall be less than 10 feet.
(3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to
the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, and provided,
further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be .25: 1.
(4) Including buildings and all impervious ground surfaces, calculated pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.28.070(m). and provided that where a portion ofa sabdivision with clastered lots ofless
than ten aeres in siL!El eontains an area rendered I:mdevelopaele by afl opefl spaee restrietion, the
impervioas eoverage whieh woald otherwise be allotted to tRis Hnde-velopable area sRall be traflsferred
to those lots within the sHbeivisiofl 01'1 whieh eevelopment will ee permittee in a proportional mafmer
based on lot size
5
(b) Open Space Impervious Coverage and Floor Area
(1) Residential Use
The impervious coverage and floor area ratios shall be determined based on a sliding scale
calculation. Table 3 provides the range of allowable percentages for the calculation.
Allowable development for other site sizes between 1 and 10 acres shall be calculated on a
prorated basis between the acreages shown in Table 3.
<
(A) Bonus FAR
1f>80% of site remains undisturbed
and/or is restored with native
1f>85% of site remains undisturbed
and/or is restored with native
1f>90% of site remains undisturbed
and/or is restored with native·
1f>95% of site remains undisturbed
and/or is restored with native
(i) The bonus FAR incentive is intended to encourage property owners to preserve
and enhance the natural environment and agricultural uses in the OS district. For
those property owners who agree to maintain or restore the vegetative conditions
on their property to a natural state with appropriate native plantings or with
certain agricultural crops, the designated floor area bonus for the development of
the property shall be permitted. The minimum area that must be maintained in a
natural or restored state is described in Section 18.28.050(b).
7
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(ii) Areas to be set aside as "undisturbed" or "restored" shall include, but not be
limited to: a) vegetation that has not been disturbed by development
(construction, ornamental landscaping, farming, orchards, etc.); b) plantings with
vegetation that is now considered native to the area, especially including drought-
resistant;and fire-resistant plantings; and c) retention or planting of edible crops or
orchards with negligible grading and involving no removal of native vegetation.
For restoration projects, the proposed landscape plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. The Director of Planning shall develop and
maintain a list of native plantings and acceptable restoration vegetation.
(iii) As a requirement of receiving bonus FAR, the property owner shall enter into a
covenant that is recorded with the property and would apply to all future property
owners assuring that the designated areas will remain in the approved vegetative
condition; enforcement provisions acceptable to the City Attorney will be outlihed
in the covenant. To remove the landscape restrictions related to the bonus FAR,
the site development shall be modified to reduce the FAR to meet the standard
requirements. These modifications are subject to design review.
(iv) For projects approved with bonus FAR, the property owner shall be required to
submit a follow-up landscape/arborist report verifying the site is in compliance
with the approved plans, five years after the project's final sign-off, as outlined in
18.28.070(d).
(B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio
(i) Gross floor area shall be calculated based upon the same criteria as Low Density
Residential zone districts, as specified in Definitions Section 18.04.030(65)(C)
and (D), except as below.
(ii) Basements shall follow the same standards as the R-l Single Family Residential
district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is
constructed on a slope in excess often percent (10%).
(2) Non-Residential Use
Where non-residential uses are proposed on a site, the impervious coverage shall be
limited to 3.5% and the floor area ratio shall be limited to 5.0% ofthe site area. However,
the City Council may, after recommendation from the Planning and Transportation
Commission, allow increased impervious coverage and/or floor area through the Site and
Design Review process, where Council fmds that the use furthers the open space
objectives of this chapter. In no case shall impervious cover or floor area ratio be allowed
to exceed 10.0%.
8
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. Section 18.28.060 (Additional PF District Regulations) of Chapter
18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.28.060 Additional PF District Design Requirements
The following additional regulations shall apply in the PF district:
(a) Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval
by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that
board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
(b) Employee Shower Facilities
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 3.
Table 3:
All government or special district facilities
designed for employee occupancy, colleges and
universities, private educational facilities,
business and trade schools and similar uses
(c) Landscaping of Yards
10,000-19,999
20,000-49,999 2
50,000 and 4
(1) All required interior yards (setbacks) abutting or opposite a residential district shall
be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen.
(2) For sites abutting a residential district, a solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 ft in
height shall be shall be constructed and maintained along the common site line.
(d) Transfer of Development Rights
(1) The city council by resolution may, from time to time, designate one or more city-
owned buildings that are Category 1 or Category 2 on the city's historic inventory
and/or Category I, II, or IlIon the city's seismic hazards identification list as
eligible to participate as "sender sites" in the Transfer of Development Rights
program as provided in Chapters 18.18 and 18.64.
9
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(2) Before any transferable development rights are offered for sale, the city manager
shall establish, in writing, a public process using the city's formal bidding
procedures to sell bonus floor area development rights from any sites so designated
by the city council.
(3) Before formally soliciting the participation of other organizations or agencies in the
rehabilitation of a city-owned historic building, the city should have a historic
structures report prepared by a qualified expert in accordance with the standards
and guidelines of the California State Office of Historic Preservation.
(4) Before concluding a sale of transferable development rights for any city building,
the city shall comply with Section 18.18.080.
(5) The city manager shall establish and maintain a special fund into which all proceeds
of the sale of transferable rights, and any interest thereon, shall be deposited. Upon
receipt and entry into the accounting records for the fund such monies shall be
considered committed to the rehabilitation of the city-owned building from which
the development rights were sold, or to the rehabilitation of other city-owned
buildings in the Historic Category 1 or 2 or Seismic Hazard Categories I, II, or III .
• Editor's Note: Subsection (d) derives from fonner Section 18.32.090, as adopted by § 2 ofOrd. 4862.
SECTION 4. Section 18.28.070 (Additional OS District Regulations) of Chapter
18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
18.28.070 Additional OS District Regulations
The following additional regulations shall apply in the OS district:
(a) Second Dwelling Units
Not more than one attached or detached second dwelling units shall be allowed on a lot in
the OS district, and shall be subject to the following regulations:
(1) Second (hvelliag units shall be subject to the follo,tVing development requirements:
QA) Second dwelling units shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum actual site
area of -l-(}-2.. acres.;,
(2) Attached second dwelling units shall comply with the OS district height limitation
of25 feet; and
(3) Second dwelling units shall follow the standards set forth in the Residential Estate
(R-E) District for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b)). with the exceptions
outlined in subsections 1 and 2 above.
10
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Site and Design Approval
All sites in the OS district shall be subject to the Site Design and Review Combining
District (D) as provided in Chapter 18.~ of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the
following modifications:
(1) Minor Site and Design Review: For minor proj ects (e.g. fences, landscape changes to
an approved project, trash enclosures, accessory buildings 200 square feet or less,
etc.), the review process shall follow the Minor Architectural Review (staff level)
procedures as outlined in Section 18.77.070. To qualifY as a minor project, the project
shall have less than 10 cubic yards of excavation and or grading and be Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
(2) Major Site and Design Review: For all other projects not reviewed as Minor Site and
Design Review, the project will be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation
Commission for review and recommendation and then placed on the Council Consent
agenda for final action, as prescribed for staff actions outlined in Section 18.76.060
(Standard Staff Review Process). Provided. however, that the following projects may
be forwarded directly to the City Council Consent agenda by staff, without review by
the Planning and Transportation Commission. where all of the following conditions
mmlY;.
a. The project is not a second dwelling unit; and
b. The project would comprise less than 1,000 square feet of floor area, less
than 1,000 square feet of impervious cover. and less than 100 cubic yards of
excavation and or grading; and
c. The proposed floor area or impervious cover would not exceed 50% of the
allowable for the site; and
d. The project and any prior projects within the prior five years would not
cumulatively exceed these thresholds.
(c) Geological Soils Investigation and Report
(1) All applications for site and design approval shall be accompanied by a combined in-
depth geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a registered geologist
certified by the state of California as an engineering geologist, and by a licensed civil
engineer qualified in soil mechanics. Such report shall be based on surface,
subsurface, and laboratory investigations and examinations and shall fully and
clearly present:
(A) All pertinent data, interpretations, and evaluations;
(B) The significance of the data, interpretations, and evaluations with respect to the
actual development or implementation of the intended land uses, and with
respect to the effect upon future geological processes both on and offthe site;
(C) Recommendations for any additional investigations that should be made. All
090917 syn 0120368
costs and expenses incurred as a result of the requirements of this section,
including the costs and expense of an independent review of the material
11
NOT YET APPROVED
submitted under this chapter by qualified persons retained by the city, shall be
borne by the applicant.
(2) The requirement of subsection (1) may be waived by the city engineer for accessory
facilities and landscaping where such improvements, in his opinion, would pose no
potential hazard to life or property on the subject or surrounding properties.
(d) Landscaping
The existing natural vegetation and land formations shall remain in a natural state unless
modification is found to be necessary for a specific use allowed in this chapter through the
site and design approval procedure. Reduction or elimination of fire hazards will be
required where heavy concentrations of flammable vegetation occur. Landscaping as may
be necessary and required shall be consistent with the purpose of this chapter.
(1) Landscaping shall be designed and installed consistent with the requirements and
guidelines of Section 18.40.130 (Landscaping) of the Zoning Ordinance, and in
particular with subsection 18.40.130(c) regarding landsca,ping in Natural Areas, as
well as with the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies outlined in subsection (0)
below. Exceptions to tree removal restrictions may be made for invasive species such
as eucalyptus trees.
(2) A follow-up arborist and/or landscape report shall be required five years after the
final sign-off of the project completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees
and significant landscape that were required for screen planting or and/or were
designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the project. The
specifications of the report shall be provided in the conditions of approval of the
project. This requirement also applies to sites that receive bonus floor area ratio
(FAR) for maintaining specific percentages of the site as undisturbed native or
restored The property owner shall ensure the survi¥lll of tree plantings for a period of
a minimum of five years. The OVffler shall install any replacement trees and monitor
their survival. A certified amorist shall prepare a report at the end of the five year
period documenting the condition of the trees and said report shall be fol'Vtr.arded to
the Department ofPlarLRing and Community Environment for revie'.v. Any
subsequent owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of
the same size and species stated on the approved planning and building permit plans.
(e) Fencing Restriction
No barbed wire, or similar fencing having a cutting edge, may be installed except:
(1) To protect a vegetative community or wildlife habitat until it is fully established,
subject to the imposition of reasonable time limits through site and design review
pursuant to Chapter 18.30; and
(2) To enclose utility facilities, including, but not limited to, water or sewage pumps,
storage tanks, and wells.
12
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(0 Trash Enclosures
Trash/recycle enclosures shall be permitted, with staff-level design review, within the front
setback, including Special Setbacks, providing the enclosure is not more than six (6) feet
tall, is covered, is fitted with self closing gates, and is screened. The access to the enclosure
shall not be located on the side facing the street. The design of the enclosure shall be the
minimum size needed to accomplish the purpose of enclosing and screening the containers.
(fg) Tree Removal
Removal of live trees shall be permitted only as provided in Title 8.
(hg) Access to Remote Areas
Roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways for automobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles
or other wheeled vehicles shall not be developed except upon the securing of site and
design approval. No such approval shall be granted except upon finding that the purpose
for which the roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways are proposed is essential for the
establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that
the design and location of the proposed roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways will be
compatible with the terrain. The use of all roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways
existing at the time of the adoption of this chapter which are nonconforming or have been
established without proper approvals shall be terminated and shall be returned to natural
terrain unless given approval in accordance with the regulations set forth in this chapter.
(iii) Grading
No grading for which a grading permit is required shall be authorized except upon the
securing of site and design approvaL No such approval shall be granted except upon a
finding that the purpose for which the grading is proposed is essential for the establishment
or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the design,
scope, and location of the grading proposed will be compatible with adjacent areas and will
result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. All grading for which
no permits or approvals are required shall be subject to the provisions set forth in this
chapter.
Oi) Soil Erosion and Land Management
No site and design plan shall be approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment
control measures in accordance with any adopted procedures, technical standards, and
specifications of the planning commission. No approval will be granted unless all needed
erosion control measures have been completed or substantially provided for in accordance
with said standards and specifications. The applicant shall bear the final responsibility for
the installation and construction of all required erosion control measures according to the
provisions of said standards and specifications.
13
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(ID) Subdivision
All divisions of land into four or more parcels shall be designed on the cluster principle
and shall be designed to minimize roads; to minimize cut, fill, and grading operations; to
locate development in less rather than more conspicuous areas; and to achieve the purpose
of this chapter.
Ok) Substandard Lots
Any parcel of land not meeting the area or dimension requirements of this chapter is a
lawful building site if such parcel was a lawful building site on July 5, 1972. All other
requirements of this chapter shall apply to any such parcel.
(ml) Impervious Coverage
The intent of limiting impervious cover is to minimize runoff, enhance infiltration to the
soil, and provide a semi-rural appearance compatible with the OS district. Impervious
coverage allowances are prescribed in Section 18.28.050(b) and shall be calculated..M.
outlined below to include all building coverage, plus paved surfaces including but not
limited to driveways, parking areas, sports or tennis courts, swimming pools, patios or
decks, subject to exceptions and provisions as follows:
(1) All paved surfaces shall be classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based
upon the material that is to be used and the proposed design and installation.
Determinations shall be made by the Planning Director based on permeability information
provided by the applicant, and the Director may consult with the Public Works Department
when necessary to determine the extent of the permeability. The applicant may provide
information in the soils report to outline the baseline permeability of the specific areas
proposed for coverage, and the baseline may be considered in determining the permeability
of the material.
(2) A primary driveway composed of gravel or decomposed granite shall not be counted
as impervious up to a width of 20 feet, where approved for use by the Public Works and
Fire Departments.
fl-j(3) The pportion~ of a primary drivewaysJocated in the 200' scenic setbacks shall be
designed to have a natural appearance and shall not be counted as impervious up to a width
of 20 feet (assuming the primary residence is located beyond the 200' setback).
e1(4) A pp-rimary driveways are those is one that extend~.Jrom the nearest access road to
the garage or carport providing the required parking for the main residence!.
(41(5) The proposed pervious paving materials for the primary driveways shall only be
permitted if acceptable to the Palo Alto Fire Department.
(6) The water surface area for in-ground pools and hot tubs shall not be counted as
impervious. The Fire Department may require additional specifications for the pool in order
to utilize the water more effectively for emergency response.
W(7) The aAreas excluded from impervious coverage pursuant to approvals granted prior
to July 1,2007 shall remain excluded from impervious coverage calculations, unless the
surfacing material is altered to a less permeable material.
14
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(ym) Light and Glare
Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible
from off-site. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours ..
Utilizing treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement
can reduce the night glare. Skylights shall not use clear or white glass.:. and shall not be
illuminated from directly belo'.\' the skylight, to avoid glare at night. All ne>.v \vindows and
glass doors shall be of a non reflective material.
<!!.ft) Story Poles and Other Visual Review Aids
Story poles (with associated taping or flagging) shall be erected for projects involving new
residences or other structures, or for substantial additions to new residences, for the
purpose of providing a better understanding of the visual impacts of a proposal in the OS
district. Story poles shall accurately outline the perimeter and key and highest rooflines of
the proposed structure(s) and shall be durable and sturdy enough to be visible from distant
views. Story poles shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the director prior to notice of a
hearing and shall remain in place through the public hearing date. Erection of story poles
prior to public hearing notice may be required by the director to allow for staff and
neighbors to view the project. Other aids, such as taping the perimeter of other
development (structures, pools, sport courts, etc.) on the site and identifying trees to be
removed, may also be required by the director. Story poles shall be removed upon final
action on a project or upon the direction of the director."
m&) Open Space Review Criteria
In addition to the above provisions and development standards in Table 2, the following
criteria shall be considered in the Site and Design review of all development of land in the
OS district, as outlined in the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan:
(1) The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from
VIew.
(2) Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above
the nearest ridge line.
(3) Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views
of neighboring property.
(4) Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce
fragmentation of natural habitats.
(5) Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines
should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from
a distance ..
(6) Existing trees with a circumference of37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing
vegetation should be retained as much as possible.
15
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(7) Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and
should never be distributed within the drip lines of existing trees. Locate development
to minimize the need for grading.
(8) To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses
of impervious surfaces should be avoided.
(9) Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.
(l0) Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately
adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention
technique.
(11) Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly
visible from off-site.
(12) Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter,
and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.)
(gp) Standard Conditions of Approval
The director shall maintain a list of standard project conditions for projects in the OS
district that reflect the intent of the OS criteria. Conditions may address, but are not limited
to, landscaping, tree protection, planting, and maintenance, lighting, roofing materials,
grading, construction staging, and fire protection. .
(r) Development Standards Exception
Pursuant to a 1978 Settlement Agreement, nine designated lots less than 10 acres in size,
located on page 54, book 182 of the Assessor's Parcel Maps C182-54-xxx) are entitled to be
developed as if they complied with the 10 acre minimum lot size for the OS zone. Owners
of these nine lots may choose to comply with the parameters of the 1978 Agreement or the
standard development regulations as described in this Chapter. A site shall utilize either the
1978 Agreement standards or the regulations described in this Chapter, but cannot use both.
SECTION 5. Section 18.28.080 (Additional AC District Design Regulations) of
Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
18.28.080 Additional AC District Design Requirements
The following additional regulations shall apply in the AC district:
(a) Site and Design Approval
All sites in the AC district shall be subject to the Site Design and Review Combining
District (D) as provided in Chapter 18.30(G).
16
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
(b) Location of Agricultural Facilities
Barns, stables, sheds, chicken houses, and other similar facilities for the shelter and feeding
of animals, exclusive of domestic household pets, shall be located a minimum of 40 feet
from any site line.
SECTION 6. Section 18.28.090 (Parking and Loading) of Chapter 18.28 (Special
Purpose (PF, OS and AC) Districts) the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.28.090 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all permitted and conditional uses in
accord with Chapter 18.40. All parking and loading facilities on any site, whether required as
minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum requirements, shall comply with the
regulations and the design standards established by Chapter 18.42. In addition, parking facilities
shall be subject to the following regulations:
(a) PF District
In the PF district, no required parking space shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining
the street property line of any required yard.
(b) OS District
aLIn the OS district, no required parking space shall be located in a required front or side
yard or in a special setback.
(2) Vehicle parking. other than the four required spaces, may be allowed in the 200'
Special Setback if located at least 100' from the affected property line. as approved
through the Site and Design review process. A lesser setback. with a minimum of 50' , may
be considered if the 100' setback is determined by the Planning Director as infeasible
based on the site constraints. These additional spaces shall be screened from public views.
(c) A<: District
In the AC district, no required parking space shall be located in a required front yard or
required street side yard.
18.28.100 Grandfathered Uses
In the OS district, accessory dwellings and guest cottages existing on April 28, 1986, and which
prior to that date were lawful, conforming permitted uses may remain as legal nonconforming
uses. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace site improvements on the
same site, without necessity to comply with site development regulations for continual use and
occupancy by the same use;provided that any such remodeling, improvement or replacement
shall not add a kitchen nor result in increased floor area, number of dwelling units, height, length
17
090917 syn 0120368
NOT YET APPROVED
or any other increase in the size of the improvement without complying with the standards set
forth in Section 18.28.070(a) and without applying for and receiving a conditional use permit.
SECTION. The City Council finds that the changes effected by this ordinance are
categorically exempt (per section 15305 (Class 5) of the CEQA Guidelines) from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as they comprise minor alterations to land
use limitations and will have no significant environmental impacts.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the 31st day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090917 syn 0120368
18
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community
The City of
Palo Alto
~,2OI)9.{J4...0811:14:56
-""""""_\admh~~)
Open Space (OS)
Zone District
ATTACHMENT B
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 461T
document Is 8 graphic ~sentalOn
The City of Palo AlIO 35SUmB5 no MSp:lflslbJily for any Bfn)f'$ 01969!O 2009 City of Palo /lJ1O
The City of
Palo Alto
PF
Foothills
Park
Open Space (OS)
Zone District
Northern Section
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. .. 2300'
Legend
_ Open Space (OS) I: i.e;:! City Boundary
The City of
Palo Alto
ccampbe,2()()9..Q4.oa 11:28:32
~_oS'<ll"."""'h ... _.mdb)
Open Space (OS)
Zone District
Southern Section
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Allo GIS
-. 0' 2300'
Thlsdoameolll a bf'8PhIc ropt'9GOOtatioo onI'IcfbulaVl!lllabl'o&OUfoos.
The ClIyOfPaIo AlID assurnaa no responsltMHIy for MY MtlI8 01989 to 2009 City of Palo AIIo
ATTACHMENT C
OS Parcel Summary with Proposed Sliding Scale FAR Calculated
Total # of OS parcels: 114
Total # of developable parcels: 79-these do not include City owned parcels, Golf Course, and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
Number of developable lots 0-5 acres: 31 (39%)
Number of developable lots 5-10 acres: 30 (38%)
Number of developable lots 10+ acres: 18 (23%)
Number of developable lots subject to the 200' special setback: 22 (28%)
APN AREA ACRES FAR% FAR sf Max House
Size
351-09-003 13,718,086.5 314.9239 3.500% 480,133.03 12,000
351-12-001 7,169,248.1 164.5833 3.500% 250,923.68 12,000
351-12-006 6,080,626.0 139.5920 3.500% 212,821.91 12,000
182-38-021 1,959,067.0 44.9740 3.500% 68,567.35 12,000
1351-05-043 tlll,tI;.!O.O ;'!0.014;'! 3.500% 30,513.70 fT,UU(l
351-05-006 614,273.0 14.1018 3.500% 21,499.56 10,000
182-38-002 599,955.3 13.7731 3.500% 20,998.44 10,000
182-38-030 581,614.0 13.3520 3.500% 20,356.49 10,000
351-12-063 537,764.0 12.3454 3.500% 18,821.74 10,000
351-05-030 532,934.0 12.2345 3.500% 18,652.69 10,000
182-36-010 506,458.8 11.6267 3.500% 17,726.06 10,000
351-25-015 492,510.2 11.3065 3.500% 17,237.86 10,000
182-38-013 478,811.0 10.9920 3.500% 16,758.39 10,000
351-12-062 452,392.0 10.3855 3.500% 15,833.72 10,000
182-36-030 444,095.0 10.1950 3.500% 15,543.33 10,000
351-05-048 435,619.0 10.0004 3.500% 15,246.67 10,000
351-05-042 435,603.0 10.0001 3.500% 15,246.11 10,000
351-0b-04{ 435,602.0 10.0000 3.500% 15,246.07 10,000
351-05-049 435,593.0 9.9998 3.500% 15,245.82 8,000
351-05-045 435,581.0 9.9996 3.500% 15,245.52 8,000
351-05-050 435,579.0 9.9995 3.500% 15,245.47 8,000
182-46-019 420,196.3 9.6464 3.535% 14,855.46 8,000
182-38-015 417,474.1 9.5839 3.542% 14,785.31 8,000
182-46-014 415,587.4 9.5406 3.546% 14,736.49 8,000
182-36-029 413,194.5 9.4856 3.551% 14,674.34 8,000
182-36-031 411,079.5 9.4371 3.556% 14,619.18 8,000
351-05-010 384,001.0 8.8154 3.618% 13,894.90 8,000
182-46-013 383,907.6 8.8133 3.619% 13,892.35 8,000
351-12-043 380,584.0 8.7370 3.626% 13,801.12 8,000
351-05-024 379,636.0 8.7152 3.628% 13,775.00 8,000
351-05-046 367,936.0 8.4466 3.655% 13,449.29 8,000
351-05-009 338,736.0 7.7763 3.722% 12,609.00 8,000
182-46-020 337,867.1 7.7564 3.724% 12,583.40 8,000
182-46-015 335,846.7 7.7100 3.729% 12,523.73 8,000
182-38-028 322,217.4 7.3971 3.760% 12,116.31 8,000
351-05-044 279,948.0 6.4267 3.857% 10,798.51 8,000
182-56-006 269,521.1 6.1874 3.881% 10,460.83 8,000
351-05-037 264,162.0 6.0643 3.894% 10,285.33 8,000
182-56-010 262,163.7 6.0185 3.898% 10,219.55 8,000
182-46-017 235,946.5 5.4166 3.958% 9,339.57 8,000
182-56-001 235,925.3 5.4161 3.958% 9,338.84 8,000
Page 1 of2
FAR>Max SPECIAL FEET
House Size SETBACK
468,133.03
238,923.68
200,821.91 Skyline Blvd 200
56,567.35
'r8;0137O Fage lVllll Rd 1200
11,499.56 Page Mill Rd 200
10,998.44
10,356.49
8,821.74
8,652.69 Page Mill Rd 200
7,726.06
7,237.86 Page Mill Rd 200
6,758.39
5,833.72 Skyline Blvd 200
5,543.33
5,246.67 Page Mill Rd 200
5,246.11
·5,246:07 1 P-age ~ill Rd 1200
7,245.82
7,245.52 Page Mill Rd 200
7,245.47
6,855.46
6,785.31
6,736.49
6,674.34
6,619.18
5,894.90 Page Mill Rd 200
5,892.35
5,801.12 Skyline Blvd 200
5;775.00
5,449.29 Page Mill Rd 200
4,609.00 Page Mill Rd 200
4,583.40
4,523.73
4,116.31
2,798.51 Page Mill Rd 200
2,460.83
2,285.33 Page Mill Rd 200
2,219.55
1,339.57
1,338.84
APN AREA ACRES FAR%. FAR sf Max House FAR>Max SPECIAL FEET
Size House Size SETBACK
182-38-026 232,197.6 5.3305 3.967% 9,211.16 8,000 1,211.16
182-56-003 229,874.7 5.2772 3.972% 9,13U 8,000 1,131.27
182-46-018 228,950.0 5.2560 3.974% 9,099.41 8,000 1,099.40
351-12-054 224,678.0 5.1579 3.984% 8,951.€ 8,000 951.64 Skyline Blvd 200
182-56-002 223,629.8 5.1338 3.987% 8,915.26 8,000 915.26
182-56-013 222,670.9 5.1118 3:= 8,881.94 8,000 881.94
182-46-016 220,313.1 5.0577 3. 8,799.81 , 8,000 799.81
182-56-007 214,012.4 4.9130 .. · .. ···.4.043% 8,653.54 .. 8,000 653.54
182-56-009 198,475.7 4.5564 ." ·.··4,222% 8;379.27 8,000 379.27
182-54-012 196,822.0 4.5184 "4.241% 8,346.82 8,000 346.82
182-38-029 187,667.5 4.3083 4.346% ..•...... 8,155.79 8,000 155.79
182-54-013 184,203.0 4.2287 4.386% . 8,078.48 8,000 78.48
182-38-027 184,027.8 4.2247 4.388% 8,074.50 8,000 74.50 .... . ' ..... ... " .
182-56-012 178,615.8 4.1005 4.450% . 7,948.00 8,000
182-56-008 172,226.4 3.9538 ······.4.641 ....... 7,789.99 .8,900 '.
182-46-002 161,231.0 3.7014 7,496.15 8;000 '.
351-05-038 155,741.9 3.5753 . 4,71~% 1(·, 7,339.07 .... 8,000 ' ..
...... ....... .
182-38-025 153,651.7 3.5274
"
4.736%1. .7,277.44 . ' 8,000 .
35H2-065 151,139.0 3.4697 ...... 4,765% .> 7,202.02 8;000
182-54-006 114,501.0 2.6286 ...... 5.186%
I";
5,937.69 8,000
182-54-004 113,039.0 2.5950 5.202% 5;880.84. 8,000
182-36-022 111,328.0 2.5557 5;222% 5,813.69 8;000
182-54-005 106,852.0 2.4530 5.274% .i 5,634;85 8,000
182-54-014 106,! 2.4513 5.274% I ...•• 5,631.81 8,000 .... '.'
351-05-056 93,9 2.1566 '. 5.422% ..... 5,093.29 ... 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200
182-38-014 87,117. 1.9999 5.500% ". 4,791.50 8,000
351-12-060 84,835.0 1.9475 <~<4,688.18 8,OPO
182-54-015 83,043.0 1.9064 • ...• 5. 4,606.23 8,000
351-12-064 79,669.0 1.8289 •·••• .• ··5.586% ". '.' .' 4,449.93 8,000
182-54-016 69,128.0 1.5870 ,,'. 5.707% .. 3,944.80 8,000
182-54-008 68,348.0 1.5691 ': ... 5.715% i. 3,906.41 8,000 ....
351-25-012 61,187.1 1.4047' 5.798% I' 3,547.43 8,000 Page Mill Rd 1200
351-05-057 55,882.0 1.2829 5.859% • 3,273.88 8,000
..... . .•.....
351-05-029 50,127.9 1.1508 5.925% 2,969.$8 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200
351-05-058 44,821.0 la 5 .. 986% 2,682.77 8,000
351-05-054 43,378.0 O. 6.000% 2,602.68 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200
351-05-053 41,615.0 O. • 6.000% '" 2,496.90 .. 8,000 Page Mill Rd 200
~ol-Uo-U:,!o ;J\:J,OU4.!l U. ..... p,l,IUU'1o . :.!,;jru.:.!\:i . tsiUUU Il"'age Mill Rd 200
*Bold text higlights parcels included in the 1978 Settlement Agreement. These parcels are currently allowed to calculate
Impervious Coverage (3.5%) based on a 10 acre lot size.
Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT 0
PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations
Staff Responses
November 13, 2007
PAPOS Response, January 14,2008
Who we are:
Palo Altans Protecting Open Space (PAPOS) is a neighborhood association of property owners
living in the Open Space District on private property. Our property is private land, not public
land or parkland~ By living in the Open Space District we have a unique knowledge of its
special nature and we should be heard on any decisions made affecting the Open Space
District. PAPOS was organized to provide a united voice to government and private entities
involved with changes to Open Space District rules and regulations affecting the rights of private
property owners within the Open Space District. PAPOS is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-
religious qssociation.
This Position Paper
While PAPOS members may have positions on many topics related to Open Space, this
particular paper is focused on zoning regulations. This is largely due to a number of recent
changes, many of which we consider to be ill-considered. Had the residents of the Open Space
been consulted, we would have been able to point out these problems. This paper will outline
our concerns, and we hope that the city will work with us to correct these deficiencies.
For example, we do not understand and do not approve of changes which lessen fire control
abilities, are anti-environmental, and which will contribute to a degradation of the visible corridor.
Lot Sizes: The rules don't match actual property sizes
To the best of our knowledge, in the Palo Alto Open Space there are about 80 individual lots
with 59 unique owner/entities. Zoning rules appear to have been written with the assumption
that lots are all 10 acres or larger, and located on entirely flat surfaces. New lots are restricted
to be 10 acres in size, which we presume was done to prohibit property owners from sub-
dividing their properties. Unfortunately these assumptions don't match the actual properties. Of
the 80 lots, only 6 are larger than 20 acres, only 22 (27.5%) meet the 10 acre requirement, and
the majority, 58 (72.5%) of the lots are less than 10 acres. Of these 58 approximately 9 have a
development deal with the city which gives them the development rights of 10 acres. What this
means is that regulations that might seem reasonable for lots of 10 acres or more impose undue
hardships on the 61 % of the lots. Furthermore, nearly all of the properties are in rugged terrain,
where issues of parking driveway paving, and the 200 ft setback need to be considered.
Response: A map and summary of lot sizes is provided at the meeting; a comparison of
standards with other cities (Woodside, Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley) may be useful; staff does
not believe that zoning to RE or other district is appropriate, but could consider standards that
are "graduated" for lot size.
PAPOS Response: Graduated Impervious Coverage is an appropriate way to deal with the
nonconforming lot size (under 10 acres) of the majority of parcels in the OS District.
Pools: Used for Fire Control and Disaster Preparedness
Prior to the recent changes, zoning regulations sometimes required homeowners to have on-
site water storage facilities in the form of swimming pools, water reservoir, etc. In case of a fire,
earthquake, or other catastrophic emergency these storage facilities provide extra water
reservoirs for fire control and emergency water storage. For example, in the case of an
earthquake, city supplied water pipes may become broken, and hence there would be no water
for fighting fires or human consumption. The City of Palo Alto is currently planning to build a
reservoir just for such purposes. The recent changes to the zoning regulations no longer count
pools as permeable surface area making the installation of pools infeasible for many properties
thus, losing this emergency management tool.
Response: Staff believes that any pool that the Fire Department agrees is beneficial to fire
protection should be exempted from impervious cover, plus some minimum amount of decking
around the pool, but preliminary response from Fire Marshal indicates that pools are generally
not acceptable for fire protection purposes (staff will pursue this further), in which case they
should not be exempted from impervious cover; also, any pool area previously exempted should
not subsequently count as impervious.
PAPOS Response: We believe swimming pools should be encouraged in the OS District not
discouraged. Swimming pools or any water storage have a role in fire suppression as an
immediate and existing water source, for immediate responders along with the first responders.
A pool or any water storage is also a source of emergency water Ifthere is an earthquake
which disrupts the water supply we would like to have access to emergency water. A swimming
pool serves both of these functions.
Skylights: The rule changes are anti-environmental
Designing to reduce electrical usage should be encouraged. One way to reduce electrical usage
is to provide for natural light and ventilation through the use of skylights. Skylights are an
environmental strategy not only providing natural light but also used for passive solar designs.
Recent rule changes seek to restrict the use of clear skylights.
Response: Staff suggests the language be revised to encourage the placement and design of
skylights to avoid emitting light at night, such as using translucent glass or not locating lighting
directly below a skylight, etc.
PAPOS Response: We want to encourage a logical approach to skylights because they are
useful tools to reduce lighting demand.
Arborist Report:
One of the recent rule changes would call for an arborist report on every tree planted 5 years
after construction is finished. This is an unreasonable request. Not only are properties allowed
agricultural use but, many of the lots in the Open Space District already have hundreds trees.
Besides, trees are already protected by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. If the City believes this is
a good idea it should be included in the Tree Ordinance and apply to all properties in Palo Alto.
Response: Staff suggests that the language only apply to trees required for screen planting or
mitigation for removal of trees. In most cases, development in the OS requires tree removal. To
mitigate the removal of trees, and to address existing trees that may be impacted (e.g. due to
grading or root disturbance), the City requires regular assessments as part of an approved
project's conditions of approval. This mitigation monitoring isa standard requirement applied to
projects in similar circumstances throughout the city. The timeline of five years correlates to the
establishment time for the new tree to get well rooted and grow strong. The "report" is a letter
prepared by a qualified certified arborist to help the property owner and City identify any health
issues that may impact the newly planted trees and to provide a treatment plan.
PAPaS Response: This is a burden requiring action 5 years later. We would like the rules to be
fair. If this is a good idea for the as District it must be a good idea for all zoning district
Parking rules: Imposes Undue Hardship
Until the most recent revisions, parking was allowed in front yards in the as district. The new
rules call for prohibiting parking within the front yard setback. For many properties the front yard
setback is 200 feet. The majority of properties are less than 10 acres and the existing
geography would not allow any parking that fits these rules. The effect of this new rule is to
require longer driveways, more opportunity for erosion, more tree removal, and more cut and fill
to create a 'flat parking area and may force other poor choices: making homes odd shapes, or
taller than they otherwise could be.
This provision may solve one visual problem but, creates other visual problems and may
increase negative environmental impact. There are other ways to solve this problem, visual
screening is all that is necessary.
Response: Required parking spaces have never been allowed in the front setback; staff
suggests consideration of some limited exceptions within a 200' special setback, where not
visible from off site, substantially screened and of semi-permeable materials. If the concern is
that the prior code only specified that "required" parking spaces are prohibited from the setback,
that did not mean that spaces "not required" could be located in the setback.
PAPaS Response: Because in some locations there is no available on street parking all
automobiles visiting a home need to be accommodated on site. Parking can be screened.
Second Dwelling Units: Should be allowed on more properties
Currently, second dwellings are only allowed on properties 10 acres or larger in the as District.
The majority of properties are less than 10 acres. Second dwelling units should be allowed on
smaller parcels. Currently RE zoning allows 1 acre parcels a second dwelling unit and the City
of Palo Alto has recently allowed more R-1 properties to have a second dwelling unit. This is
inconsistent and creates an inequity. Also, allowing a second dwelling unit on more properties
would contribute to the City's housing stock imbalance.
Response: Staff suggests allowing a second dwelling pursuant to RE rules, but with a minimum
lot size of 3 acres; note, however, that a second dwelling counts as impervious cover and
requires 2 additional parking spaces (one covered).
PAPaS Response: We appreciate the reduction from the requirement of 10 acres to 3 acres.
However, this rule would exclude only 10 properties from having second dwellings. (There are
approximately 18 properties under 3 acres in the as District. Of the 18, 7 have a special deal
which allows a guest house and one other property has a grandfathered guest house, leaving
10 properties.) Anywhere else in the City of Palo Alto these properties would be able to have a
second dwelling unit. We urge the City to consider allowing all as District properties second
dwelling units.
Reasonable Home Sizes: Impervious Surface Rules are overly restrictive
The current ordinance is already overly restrictive. 3.5% impervious coverage is too strict for
the majority of lots which are less than 10 acres. Any further restriction is unnecessary and
onerous. While a 10 acre lot restriction will prevent further subdivision. applying these
impervious surface rules for the 74 properties (of 80) less than 20 acres is not reasonable. The
rules should be reasonable.
For example, there are many one acre lots. A one acre property with a 3.5% impervious
surface coverage allows only 1524 square feet of impervious surface. A 200 ft by 14-foot wide
driveway would take 2800 square feet of impervious surface. Hence, the driveway itself is
already over the limit, and leaving no square footage for a house or parking! The rules should
be changed to allow for reasonable size homes, perhaps similar to RE zoning restrictions for the
smaller properties.
Response: Staff suggests evaluating two approaches or a combination thereof: 1) excluding
driveway impervious cover in excess of 50 feet from the primaryparking area for the house; or
2) a sliding scale for impervious cover with percentages higher than 3.5% for lots less than 10
acres. The first approach would not penalize someone whose home is placed far from the
roadway. The second would provide somewhat greater percentage development on smaller lots
than larger lots, such as 10% impervious cover (4,356 square feet) for lots of one acre, 7.5%
impervious cover (9,801 sf) for lots of 3 acres, and 5% (10,890 sf) for lots of 5 acres. Coverage
for other lot sizes could be interpolated from those limitations, but coverage would never be
below 3.5% or above 10% (for example). It would be necessary, however, to limit house sizes if
such a system were adopted to avoid considerably larger homes on small lots (see below).
PAPOS Response: A sliding scale for impervious coverage is a good idea. This would give the
smaller properties reasonable rules. However, the sliding scale is unrelated to house size limits.
F ARiSlope DenSity
Members of the Planning Commission have suggested (but not yet implemented) Floor Area
Ratio limits, and Slope Density limits, for homes in the as district. This will has the affect of
downzoning. We believe that impervious cover is an adequate measure of environmental
impact. The Planning Commission has mentioned no evidence that alternative limits would
more accurately measure environmental impact.
If the Planning Commission wishes to adopt Floor Area Ratio limits or Slope Density limits as a
principled and fair choice, they should adopt limits similar to Los Altos Hills, and they should
remove the impervious coverage limit.
Response: Staff does not recommend slope density limits, as they introduce a complex new
approach to an area that is largely built out. A maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and/or
maximum house size should be considered, however, especially if the impervious coverage
Jimits are relaxed; for example: 1) FAR of 5.0% of lot size and/or 2) a maximum house size of
8,000 sf (excluding basement) except where exception approved by Council up to 12,000 sf
(excluding basement) where home is not highly visible and site is greater than 10 acres? More
research as to maximum home sizes and FAR in other cities may be appropriate. Also, staff
needs clarification on the treatment of basements to delete the 2-story limit and just use a height
limit, and/or to only exclude basements that are not exposed on any side. If a basement is
exposed, then it should be counted in FAR and house size.
PAPOS Response: 3.5% Impervious Coverage Jimits are already the most restrictive zoning in
the City of Palo Alto. The sliding scale does not relax impervious coverage, it just reduces the
need for variances. We are strongly against any further restrictions such as FAR or maximum
house size ..
Overhead Power and Phone lines: Unsightly
The City of Palo Alto designated Page Mill Rd and Skyline Blvd. Scenic corridors. The most.
unsightly thing along these corridors are overhead power and phone lines. The undergrounding
of these utilities should be a priority for the City.
Response: Staff suggests that this issue is outside the scope of a zoning study.
PAPOS Response: Alright. But given the City's concerns about the open space and scenic
corridors, the City of Palo Alto should do everything it can do to improve the public domain first.
It should include the Overhead lines in its areas of interest in the Open Space District.
Approval Process: Cumbersome
The requirement for houses in the OS District to progress from the Planning Commission to the
City Council for Approval is cumbersome. The City Council does not have the time to
thoroughly review residential projects and subsequently sometimes makes unreasonable
demands on homeowners.
The Planning Staff should represent the views of the Commission and the City Council. The
rules should be clear and not subjective. Each project should not remake policy.
RespOnse: Staff suggests that thresholds could be provided to aI/ow for staff level review with
PTC and CC Consent approval for small and moderate projects; for example, provide for staff
review with Consent (at CC) for projects of less than 2,500 sf FA, less than 5,000 sf impervious
cover. PTC review with Consent at CC for 5,000 sf FA, less than 10,000 sf impervious cover.
PTC and CC review required for others.
PAPOS Response: We believe relieving the burden on smaller projects is a great idea.
Impervious Cover
What counts and doesn't. Add "Intent" statement.
Response: Staff suggests that Intent should include permeability and open space/rural
appearance. Staff suggests presentation from staff engineer regarding impervious materials;
likely to count surfaces as percentage permeable, based on material and site conditions (slope,
subsurface, etc.); exclude pools (if supported by Fire), gravel or decomposed granite driveways,
driveways through designated scenic setbacks (if impermeability is minimized).
PAPOS Response: We agree with the exclusions above
Revise name of zone district
Change to something other than "open space."
Response: Staff suggests that deletion of "open space" is not likely to be politically acceptable
-high priority on identifying these areas as part of the city's open space network, with
residential use permitted but restricted; it might, however, be reasonable to consider "open
space residential" to provide both concepts in the district name.
PAPaS Response: We would appreciate an 'open space residential' or 'rural residential'
designation.
Summary: Talk to PAP OS
Many of the new rules don't make sense for the small and constant number of lots in the Open
Space. We encourage a dialog with PAPOS to work on making changes, which are reasonable
for the actual properties. We look forward to the working group process.
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORT A nON COMMISSION
Clare Campbell, Planner
July 8, 2009
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions
to Chapter 18.28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS)
District; Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and
a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28 (Attachment
A) and the associated draft Negative Declaration (Attachment G).
BACKGROUND
On April 15,2009, the PTC reviewed the proposed changes to the Open Space District. Other
than a few recommended clarifications, summarized in Attachment B, the PTC was generally
supportive of the proposed revisions. Towards the end of discussions one specific item was
raised by the PTC, maximum house size, which had not been previously discussed in any great
detail with the OS stakeholders. Direction was then given to provide notice to the OS residents
that the PTC will consider adding maximum house size to the OS development standards and the
action was continued (staff report and meeting minutes are attached).
DISCUSSION
Attachment A, the draft OS chapter, has been revised to incorporate revisions recommended at
the April 15 PTC meeting.
Maximum House Size
Maximum house size requirements are a development tool imposed in some hillside
communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola Valley (85% of
total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Staff has not recommended such a
City of Palo Alto Page 1
limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address the visual impacts of
the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a maximum house size
limitation, such as exists with the slope-density approach, so a maximum house size restriction
remains a policy determination for the Commission and Council. A maximum house size limit
would affect larger properties. The following proposed breakdown was briefly discussed at the
last PTC meeting:
Table 1
Lot Size (acres) Maximum House Size (s.f.)
< 10 8,000
~ 10 and < 15 10,000
~ 15 12,000
The proposed house size limitations above affects 54 (68%) of the 79 developable OS lots. There
are 25 lots that fall into the "less than 10 acres" category that are not large enough to have a floor
area ratio equal to or greater than 8,000 sf. Attachment E provides detailed calculations for the
proposed standard floor area ratio (FAR) for the developable OS lots. The developable lots do
not include parcels owned by the City, the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, and the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District.
Table 2
Lot Size (acres) Max House Size (s.f.) # Lots Affected Lot Size Range (acres)
< 10 8,000 36* 4.2-9.9
> 10 and < 15 10,000 13 10-14
~ 15 12,000 5 20-315
*Of the 61 OS lots <10 acres, 36 lots are large enough to have a FAR equal or greater than 8,000 sf.
Stakeholder Feedback
After the April 15 PTC meeting, staff sent notice cards to all the OS property owners/interested
parties to inform them that Maximum House Size will be considered by the PTC. Three
comment letters, submitted by individual OS residents, were received and were not supportive of
this added regulation (Attachment F).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with
the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the
intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views
of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Attachment
F provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review' under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQ A requirements. The
20-day public comment period for this document ran from April 8, 2009 through April 27, 2009;
no comments were received.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
NEXT STEPS
Upon direction from the Commission, staffwill revise the ordinance and forward it to the
Council for final review and recommendation or return to the Commission, if that is preferred.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Red-line Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts)
B.Summary of Code Modifications Resulting From the April 15, 2009 PTC Meeting
C. PTC Staff Report, April 15, 2009
D. PTC Excerpt Minutes, April 15, 2009
E. Summary Table of OS Parcels
F. Correspondence
G. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
COURTESY COPIES
PAPOS
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
DEP ARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROV AL:_~~",--=_W%.-~-",-~ .... ...."fltv'n"-L'LL-JoL..A--,----__ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ATTACHMENT F
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 July 8, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28
8 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment:
9 An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
10 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A) requirements.
11
12 Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Good evening Commissioners I have a very brief presentation for
13 you tonight. As you may recall Staff brought the revised Open Space Chapter for your review on
14 April 15. At that meeting the Commission discussed the proposed revisions and provided some
15 corrections and clarifications for the Chapter. These modifications, which have been
16 summarized in Attached B of the Staff Report, have been incorporated into the current draft
17 Chapter.
18
19 At the April 15 meeting Staff was asked to return to the Planning Commissioner for discussion
20 of maximum house size after the OS stakeholders have been notified of this added discussion
21 item. Other than the subject of maximum house size all of the other proposed revisions to the
22 OS Chapter were discussed, vetted, and agreed upon. Staff is asking the Commission to focus
23 discussions tonight on maximum house size.
24
25 As a starting point for the discussion the proposed maximum house size falls into the following
26 categories. For lot sizes, for lots less than ten acres it is a maximum size of 8,000 square feet.
27 For lots greater than or equal to ten acres and less than 15 acres a maximum house size of 10,000
28 square feet. For lots greater than or equal to 15 acres 12,000 square feet would be the maximum
29 house size.
30
31 In addition to the comment letters received from the stakeholders attached in the Staff Report,
32 Staff has also received additional letters that have been put at places tonight. The neighborhood
33 association as well as individual homeowners have not been supportive of adding maximum
34 house size to the Open Space District regulations. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: Thank you. Could you just review the Staff's recommendation on this item?
37
38 Mr. Williams: Yes. Two comments. First of all Staff has in previous discussions not
39 recommended maximum house size and continues to support that position. Primarily because we
40 believe that the Site and Design Review process gives you an opportunity to look at each house
41 individually. There may be homes that are 10,000 square feet and they are on a valley or flat
42 land and nobody sees them and then there may be houses that are 6,000 square feet that are on a
43 highly visible hillside and that is maybe too much. So we have tended to think that it is specific
44 to the site and that it is very hard to come up with just a house size limitation per se.
45
Page 1
1 I also then wanted to just note that the motion that you had last time specifically enumerated that
2 what was coming back tonight was the house size issue and that the other issues the Commission
3 had come to closure on, which of course legally doesn't bind you that way but that was your
4 intent to just focus on this provision on the maximum house size before forwarding a
5 recommendation to the Council.
6
7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, I would like to have a robust question period and
8 then we will go to the public comments. We have five cards. If there members of the public that
9 would like to speak on this item please come forward and fill out a card. At the completion of
. 10 the public speaking period we will enter into discussion of this item with a start of a straw poll as
11 to whether the Commissioners will support the Staff's recommendation or if we will need
12 additional discussion on it. With that I have a light from Commissioner Fineberg and then
13 Keller.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Question about Staff's, and I will read it from the Staff
16 Report. "Staff has not recommended such a limitation due to the use of Site and Design Review
17 process to address the visual impacts of the home." So my first question about that
18 recommendation is, and Mr. Williams just sort of answered part of it a few moments ago, is it
19 that Staff has not recommended a maximum size, or is it Staff recommends we not have a
20 maximum size? One is kind of a passive silence and the other is it is a bad idea. Can we get
21 some clarification as to what the 'not recommended' in the past means?
22
23 Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you. I think we have recommended not to adopt a maximum house
24 size for those reasons that there is another mechanism available to look at that issue. I see the
25 distinction there as well.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so it is an active recommend we not. Then you gave me a
28 perfect segue. When we talk about the Site and Design Review in the Staff Report it says that it
29 addresses the visual impacts of the home. What about the other impacts of larger homes?
30 Things like the use of construction materials with the general assumption that the bigger it is
31 beyond a certain point the less green it is. What about things like the displacement of wild1ife or
32 natural vegetation? Will the Site and Design Review capture those other items?
33
34 Mr. Williams: Site and Design review won't capture what materials are used or the amount of
35 materials. It would to some extent capture the wildlife because you would be able to look at the
36 site and see where the house is sited relative to a wildlife corridor or something like that.
37 However, the floor area ratio and impervious cover govern the total amount of development on
38 . the site. So that stays the same. Whether there is a maximum house size or not the same amount
39 of development, so the same amount of materials, and same potential level of disturbance, is
40 irrespective of the house size. So you may have a maximum house size that limits the house to
41 8,000 square feet but there is a 12,000 square foot limitation on floor area for that site, so there
42 can be another 4,000 square feet that is in a barn and a guesthouse or something like that on that
43 site. So the total amount of development on the site doesn't change whether you adopt a
44 maximum house size or not.
45
Page 2
1 Now last time you did adopt floor area ratios that are more restrictive at least in some of the
2 circumstances than what just the impervious cover. So you already to some extent have
3 addressed that particularly on the larger sites that might have had larger homes in other
4 circumstances.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you that's it.
7
8 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Holman.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. the first question in follow up to what Commissioner
11 Fineberg asked, has a Site and Design Review to the best of your recollection ever told
12 somebody "Your house is too big, reduce FAR"? Has that ever happened in a Site and Design
13 Review that the Site and Design was used and said it was just too big and needs to be smaller?
14
15 Mr. Williams: I don't recall it. We get not very many of these out there but not that I know of.
16 It certainly is a possibility. I think the more realistic possibility is that the house is shifted in
17 some way or something is done to minimize the visibility of it.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So do you envision that the Planning Commission might in a Site and
20 Design Review say it is just too big for that particular lot no matter where you put it it has to be
21 smaller?
22
23 Mr. Williams: I think that could be done. I think again what might be more likely is that it be
24 shifted in some way that it is not as prominent on a hillside or something like that.
25
26 Chair Garber: If I may offer, in the last four years we have had two items corne through since I
27 have been on the Commission. The first one was turned down not because it was too large but
28 because its position and the way it was massed was inappropriate.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Thank you Chair. I think basically the reason for this line of questioning
31 . is to understand the degree to which Site and Design review deals with the FAR issue or doesn't
32 deal with the FAR issue. I think the answer is if it deals with it it is in a very indirect way or not
33 at all.
34
35 The second point is that with respect to page 7 of Attachment A, Section 18.28.050, paragraph
36 (b) (1). There is example text and I had suggested not that it be deleted per se but that you use
37 something other than two acres in order to clarify things, like two and a half or one and a half
38 acres so that the interpellation would be clear. It looks like the example was deleted rather than
39 the number of two acres being changed.
40
41 Ms. Campbell: That is correct. The decision was made to remove that because we think it
42 creates more confusion than it does help. Then in the Summary on Attachment B what we are
43 planning to do is have a separate attachment that will provide very detailed explanations or show
44 the formula and how the calculation is done instead of trying to put a brief example in the actual
45 text of the code.
46
Page 3
1 Commissioner Keller: So I am still confused. I am not sure how that is handled. I don't see a
2 summary description. I see Attachment B but I am not sure where your language is ;going to be.
3
4 Chair Garber: Is there a table that is not a part of this?
5
6 Commissioner Keller: I think the example of one and a half or two and a half acres would
7 illustrate the intent quite clear without being confusing to people with knowledge of high school
8 mathematics. Different things can be read into this example because it is ambiguous.
9
10 Mr. Williams: What we anticipated doing and I don't know if we have it or not. Clare has done
11 sort of a formula but we are going to have a table of every lot in the Open Space District. We are
12 just going to create a table that has every lot and how much the square footages are that are
13 allowed on each one.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Okay.
16
17 Mr. Williams: There aren't so many lots that we can't basically do that. Somebody can look up
18 what the allowance is on their particular parcel.
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Pardon me. I believe Attachment E has that among other bits of data.
21
22 Mr. Williams: Right, yes.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Where is that? I don't see it.
25
26 Ms. Campbell: On Attachment E I have provided examples of the maximum floor area.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, thank you so I guess there are not a lot of lots. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, and then Tuma, and myself.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Yes just two things. One is I am sorry that it appears to some that this
33 was a last minute thought about maximum house size because way back when, way, way back
34 when, two years ago or more when we first started talking about Open Space we talked about
35 potential consideration of maximum house size. I guess it was not a part of the discussions that
36 happened with Commission Representatives and Staff with the neighborhood but it was one of
37 the items that we had put on the table way back when. So I am sorry that some people feel like it
38 was a late minute consideration because it truly was not.
39
40 My other question actually Commissioner Keller has asked. It is good to know that if we really
41 thought the only way to satisfy good Site and Design criteria was to reduce the size of a house or
42 the size of a structure that Staff would support that.
43
44 Chair Garber: Is that it? Okay. Commissioner Tuma and then Garber.
45
Page 4
I Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two quick questions. The thresholds in Table 1 on page 2 of the Staff
2 Report, how were those thresholds arrived at?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Those were thresholds that we just use because there are a couple of cities that
5 use 8,000 square feet. They generally are not lots that are more than ten acres or so. So we sort
6 of started with the 8,000 square feet for up to ten-acre lots. Then we thought there should be
7 some allowance above that as you get larger lots.
8
9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but you didn't run this against our lots that are in the Open Space and
10 see whether these cuts make sense?
11
12 Mr. Williams: We did, yes. I think Clare did that and generally wanted to see where that line
13 was. You can kind of see that from that table on Attachment E also as to where the break is,
14 where the 8,000 square feet intersects with the FAR that is allowed on the lot.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is fine. One other question. Do you recall how many full Commission
17 meetings we have had on this topic?
18
19 Mr. Williams: I think we have had at least three since the subcommittee met. We had probably
20 at least three before the subcommittee met. So we are probably looking at six or thereabout over
21 a couple of years.
22
23 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Thank you.
24
25 Chair Garber: So we have a maximum building size in the'R-l District. Could you describe
26 why it is appropriate there but not in the OS District?
27
28 Mr. Williams: We think it is appropriate there because there is a certain uniformity and
29 character to lots in the R-l patterns that doesn't exist in the Open Space District, which is an
30 amalgam of all different sizes and shapes of lots. So it seems to us that there is a very distinct
31 difference in those two cases.
32
33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg.
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: A follow up question on Commissioner Keller's question about the
36 maximum size related to Site and Design Review. If a property owner is entitled to build, I will
37 call it a superstructure, and they have the legal entitlement to do so will the Site and Design
38 Review legally be able to limit that size? Specifically are the design criteria things like visual
39 impacts so subjective that they would not be able to withstand a court challenge? Has it ever
40 been tested? Can there be subjective reasons given for why a homeowner would not get what
41 they would be legally be entitled to?
42
43 Mr. Williams: I think from a legal standpoint as long as you enumerate the findings of why that
44 would be I believe that legally that would be fine. I worked in Los Altos Hills for five years and
45 they have a maximum floor area ratio for a site but they don't have a maximum house size. As
46 you probably know they have lots of very large houses. I will tell you that the Planning
Page 5
1 Commission reviewed virtually every house that came through there. There were quite a number
2 of circumstances where based on those kind of subjective criteria that you have in Site and
3 Design Review they limited the size or the height or other components of the house, but size and
4 height were both things that were reduced and there was never any legal issue with doing that.
5
6. Ms. Tronguet: That is precisely the reason we ask you to make findings. Without the findings it
7 could appear arbitrary but when you make findings we assume that you generally have a
8 rationale and legitimate basis for doing that. That is why we ask you when you do review those
9 types of projects to articulate the reasons you are doing it and sort of your thinking behind the
10 requirements that you are imposing when you review those projects.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: So for an example, and I will exaggerate slightly. Let's say there is a
13 large parcel that is several hundred acres and because of the impervious surface limitations they
14 can build a 25,000 square foot home. Would the Site and Design Review be able to say no,
15 25,000 square feet is too big because it is too visible? How does one define what too visible
16 means? So could that finding be made or would we be told no that is too subjective it won't
17 stand a court test?
18
19 Ms. Tronguet: Well, what we would probably ask you to explain is why you think it is too
20 visible, and what components of it are too visible, and sort of the things that are wrong with it
21 that are leading to your conclusion that it doesn't quite fit where they want to build it.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I am asking that keeping in mind a specific project that went
24 through Site and Design Review that when you are standing at the peak in Foothills Park in my
25 personal opinion it is incredibly visible. Yet, somehow the process didn't keep that in the gate.
26 So how can a process be managed that we know in one of the most visible areas that should have
27 been maintained the most pristine, if it didn't work will that process continue to fail or what
28 would be different that process would work without a maximum size?
29
30 Mr. Williams: I appreciate your line of questioning. There is definitely some validity to it. The
31 reality is that when you get a large house in front of you a lot of work goes into that. There are
32 changes. I have certainly seen the Commission make changes to the way the house looks, and
33 rooflines and those kinds of things that help mitigate, additional landscaping, and that kind of
34 thing. But it is very difficult sometimes from a political standpoint to sit up there and say you
35 need to reduce the size of your house. If you had a maximum house size they would have that
36 expectation coming in. They would know that we didn't want to see houses over a certain
37 limitation. So I understand the sort of practical difficulty. There are issues with that.
38
39 On the other hand I would sort of ask you is it fair to those property owners that don't have those
40 constraints and those issues to be limiting· them in the same way? They wouldn't be eligible for
41 Variances. It is not a hardship situation. So the Site and Design does give you the legal ability
42 to do that, whether practically or not you feel - I am sure there are different opinions up there as
43 far as how far you might take that or your ability to take that to a point where you are actually
44 limiting the square footage of a house based on the Site and Design criteria, but you do have the
45 legal ability to do that.
46
Page 6
1 Chair Garber: Are there any other questions? With that let's take a quick five-minute break.
2 We have been at this for two hours. We will be back promptly and then we will take comments
3 from the public.
4
5 I will open the public comment period. Each speaker will have three minutes. We have eight
6 speakers. The first is Brian Schmidt followed by Aaron Lehmann.
7
8 Mr. Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills: Good evening I am here for Committee for
9 Green Foothills. I was the lone open space advocate that was on the working group that was
10 working on this issue. I should mention that I brought up the idea of maximum house size limits
11 during the discussion. Staff obviously didn't support it but again it is not like this idea has only
12 come up at the last minute. It has been around for awhile.
13
14 We do support the idea of a maximum house size limit. I think Commissioner Fineberg might
15 have thought she was giving an exaggeration when she discussed the 25,000 square foot house.
16 We, the Committee for Green Foothills opposed a 25,000 square foot house in Santa Clara
17 County, later reduced to a 17,000 square foot house. Staff supported it. Planning Commission
18 supported it. Board of Supervisors overrode both and denied the application, and then the
19 applicant litigated. I don't know what the status of the litigation is but if there were a bright line
20 rule saying what house size limits there were that would have addressed that issue.
21
22 Regarding Mr. Williams' discussion of the floor area ratios I think the way to handle that issue is
23 that house size limit should be an overall structural limit. It should be additional cap in addition
24 to floor area ratio. So on top of an 8,000 square foot cap you cannot put 4,000 additional square
25 feet in other structures. That might have even been the original intent of the idea, I don't know.
26
27 In general, house size limit is an environmental proxy that can handle things Site and Design
28 Review cannot. One example that was given was construction materials and environmental
29 impacts of construction. I will give another, which are defensible perimeters from wildfire. The
30 larger the house the larger the defensible perimeter you are going to have to go around a much
31 bigger house. The defensible perimeters usually mean a lot of restriction on what can be allowed
32 to have there in tenns of landscaping either natural or planted. So that is another example of an
33 environmental impact that can occur.
34
35 Finally, and most important the reason I would say is over a certain level you are not really
36 looking at a single-family residence anymore. When you have I would guess anywhere over
37 4,000 square feet you are starting to have a significant amount of household staff time involved
38 in the operation and maintenance of the house. When you are getting to big houses like these
39 8,000 and above we are talking about large amounts of staff. It isn't really a place for single
40 family anymore. It is more of an, I don't know, some large staff operated and primarily
41 something for that and it doesn't fit the original understanding of what a single family residence
42 would be. The current 8,000, 10,000, or 12,000 feet limits should actually be lower. Maybe you
43 could go up to those levels if they did some type of green bonus to get to those levels. Thank
44 you. Thank you.
45
46 Chair Garber: Thank you. Aaron Lehmann followed by Deborah Lehmann.
Page 7
1
2 Mr. Aaron Lehmann, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Open Space District and I am
3 speaking to oppose the inclusion of a maximum house size rule in the Open Space District
4 zoning. One of my concerns about this rule is that it is not clear what problem it is trying to
5 solve.
6
7 The rule was broadly opposed by the residents of the Open Space District so it seems only fair
8 that the Commission should present a case for it that shows some public benefit. Unfortunately
9 the Commission has not made its motivations clear. So I am unsure what the ultimate goal of
10 this policy is and whether there might be better ways to accomplish it.
11
12 A maximum house rule would be a third restriction oh structure size in addition to restrictions
13 based on impervious coverage and floor area ratio. In addition, the City has considerable
14 discretion to approve or deny development on a case-by-case basis through the Site and Design
15 Review process. It is not clear why the other restrictions and this broad discretion are not
16 sufficient to accomplish the Commission's unclear goal.
17
18 I also don't understand why this rule should only apply to houses in the Open Space District
19 rather than uniformly throughout the City. If the Commission is concerned about the appearance
20 or resource consumption of large homes then surely these issues apply just as much in the more
21 urban areas of the city. Even the current rules in the Open Space District limit development
22 more than surrounding areas like Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, and unincorporated areas of
23 Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. The proposed change would further reduce the allowable
24 development intensity by up to 65 percent for a ten-acre property. This could significantly
25 reduce property values because residents of the Open Space District may be very much impacted
26 by the proposed change. It is disappointing that the Commission has not yet engaged in any
27 meaningful way with the residents regarding a maximum house size.
28
29 I think possibly the most unfortunate effect of the maximum house size rule and other proposed
30 changes to zoning rules would be to promote a monoculture of similarly sized houses at the
31 expense of other types of use. The Open Space District has a huge diversity of lot sizes,
32 topography and types of use and it would be a shame to ignore this when formulating policy
33 concerning the district. Many of the zoning regulations, however well meaning, have unintended
34 consequences that limit what the district can offer the Palo Alto residents. For example,
35 regulations against selling and serving alcohol make it essentially nonviable to operate a winery
36 in the Open Space District. This is just one more example of how the residents of Palo Alto
37 would be better served by the City leaving leeway open to issue development permits on a case-
38 by-case basis rather than coding broad and harsh regulations into the law. Thank you.
39
40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Deborah Lehmann followed by Cathy Cartmell.
41
42 Ms. Deborah Lehmann, Palo Alto: Good evening. I also reside in the Open Space District. I
43 just wanted to call your attention tonight to some unintended consequences of the current Open
44 Space zoning rules. The Open Space District is meant to preserve the open space land while
45 encouraging public recreation and the enjoyment of scenic beauty in the area. However, the land
46 use regulations for the district are so strict they are actually driving diversity out of the area and
Page 8
1 promoting lot after lot of residential homes. A number of the zoning rules seem sensible but they
2 actually prohibit land uses that are perfectly well suited to open space and would actually
3 enhance the area. A personal example, my family owns a small vineyard, which is allowed
4 under the as restrictions, and we would like to operate a winery on the property. This is
5 consistent with the City's vision for the as District and gets you out of their homes into the open
6 space where they could walk through the fields and support the local agriculture. But a
7 successful winery requires a tasting room as well the retail sale of wine both of which are
8 prohibited under the current zoning laws. There is a restriction on eating and drinking services
9 in conjunction with permitted use. While certainly well intentioned it is understandable that the
10 City doesn't want restaurant and bars in the as District. Same with the restriction on retail
11 services, Open Space shouldn't be full of shops and stores. But these restrictions crowd out
12 things like wineries that really enhance the as District and encourage city residents to enjoy the
13 area.
14
15 A number of other regulations do the same thing. For example agricultural land use is allowed
16 and encouraged but the sale of agricultural products on the premises is prohibited. So that means
17 you can't operate a farm stand or have city residents come and pick their own berries. Palo Alto
18 has a thriving farmer's market and an interest in local food and farm stands and you-pick
19 operations encourage residents to celebrate the open space and take part in local agriculture but
20 both of those are prohibited under the current zoning guideline, which frankly just does not make
21 sense.
22
23 Dozens of other open space friendly activities are also prohibited. You are not allowed to hold a
24 watercolor class for example in the open space, allowing residents to paint the beautiful
25 surroundings. If you wanted to hold a yoga teacher training under the oak trees in the open space
26 you wouldn't be able to do that either.
27
28 There are so many possible uses for land in the open space that it doesn't make sense to issue
29 strict one size fits all guidelines for land use. If somebody wants to open a bar or a shopping
30 center the City can deny the permit that's fine and consistent with the vision for the as District.
31 But if somebody wants to open up a winery or a farm stand or a painting studio the City should
32 have the opportunity to consider the contribution of those operations to the as District. So
33 giving more discretion on matters of land use to the Planning Commission will give Palo Alto
34 and Open Space District that really promotes the enjoyment of the area's scenic beauty and not
35 one that is just lot after lot of residential homes. Thank you.
36
37 Chair Garber: Excuse me Commissioner Keller would like to ask a question.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you for your comments. I am wondering if anything that the
40 Commission is proposing to change is affected by the comments that you have and the things
41 you would like to see happen or whether those restrictions are of long standing.
42
43 Ms. Lehmann: Many of them are just in the current regulations but I think also the new plans
44 call for taking out I think it is either business and trade schools or some sort of educational
45 entity. So for example if you wanted to have like a yoga teacher training on a lot in the open
Page 9
1 space you wouldn't be able to do that if it is under a trade school or professional development.
2 So I think that was one of the things that was in the new regulations.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
5
6 Chair Garber: Cathy Cartmell followed by David Hopkins.
7
8 Ms. Cathy Cartmell, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I would like to first note that
9 many neighbors were unable to be here but several of them have sent correspondence, which I
10 am sure you have received. Though I have noted I have at least three different letters that I did
11 not see posted on the back table so you might not have received everything.
12
13 From what I see the huge majority of correspondence vigorously objects to the addition of these
14 regulations to which I add my voice. I would love to read them into the record but I have only
15 three minutes.
16
17 I would like to mention again the basis of all laws in California, the California Constitution,
18 which the very first thing, Article I, Section 1 says, all people are by nature free and independent
19 and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
20 possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
21
22 I did notice on the Staff Report under Discussion Maximum House Size, missing is the mention
23 of other communities such as Los Altos Hills and Santa Clara County which are closer to Palo
24 Alto and in Santa Clara County that differ dramatically on the topic of FAR and house size from
25 the numbers presented here for Portola Valley and Woodside. The current 3.5 impervious
26 coverage is quite adequate and very efficient in that it already quite sufficiently regulates FAR,
27 maximum house size, lot coverage, and impervious coverage all with one simple regulation.
28
29 I stand before you a full five foot, four inches high. Three and a half percent of five foot, four
30 inches is two and one-quarter inches. This paper right here is also five foot, four inches high.
31 You can see what 3.5 percent of five foot, four inches is and if I show that if I was my property
32 and I was only allowed to use 3.5 percent of it this is what I would be allowed to use -this much.
33 I say the City of Palo Alto has taken enough from us.
34
35 In closing, I would like to see no additional FAR, no additional maximum house size, no 200-
36 foot special setback, second dwelling units for all properties, and an even friendlier approval
37 process. Thank you.
38
39 Chair Garber: Thank you. David Hopkins followed by Richard Geiger.
40
41 Mr. David Hopkins, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in the Open Space District and we have
42 been there since 1971. I am here to speak in support of the Staff recommendation not to adopt a
43 maximum house size.
44
45 I would just ask Commissioners to please think of two questions as you deliberate and decide
46 this matter. Number one, what problem are you trying to solve? It seems like as best we Open
Page 10
1 Space residents can tell it all has to do with visual impact. If that is the problem you have many
2 ways of solving it, addressing it that are appropriate and seem fair. In particular, we would
3 certainly suggest, and those of us who have been through it have experienced it that your
4 mandatory Site and Design Review process covers it well. It is un-arbitrary. It gives you the
5 ability to consider the circumstances of the particular property and whether it is in fact visible.
6 Please recognize that this district is very diverse. Yes, there are properties that are adjoining
7 Palo Alto City parklands that are very sensitive in terms of visual impact but there are plenty of
8 properties that are not even visible from any Palo Alto public properties. That is what you are
9 dealing with here.
10
11 The second question. How much is enough? We started with impervious coverage ratios.
12 Those have been there since we built our house in 1979. Then came FAR in the last year or two,
13 and now you are proposing a maximum house size. Everyone of these is a takeaway from
14 current homeowners. You know that as well as we do, and future property owners. So I leave
15 you with that question, how much is enough?
16
17 Finally, just to sort of note, we are citizens of Palo Alto too. We ask that that Planning
18 Commission balance the interests of those who don't live in the Open Space District with those
19 who do, and therefore not impose an arbitrary maximum house size on all lots in the district
20 regardless of their particular circumstances. Thank you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Thank you. Richard Geiger followed by Herb Borock.
23
24 Mr. Richard Geiger, Palo Alto: I own property and a house up on Page Mill Road. I have
25 owned it since 1957. I am opposed to more restrictions. I want to be on the record as opposing
26 this house size. I am opposed to even ten-acre zoning. I think if you want smaller houses how
27 about two or three acre zoning and then you can more easily through the impervious or FAR
28 limit the house size. The problem with these ten-acre parcels is there is no real community
29 because everybody is spread out. I know you are not going to up-zone right away but it is
30 something to think about.
31
32 I think the FAR cut the house size by 50 percent already, having a FAR that is the same as the
33 impervious. The FAR had been -I don't think there was a FAR. There was just an impervious
34 coverage that limited the house size and all the building size and all the concrete and all of this
35 and all of that.
36
37 On my particular property the ideal site for a house that is away from the road over 200 feet, is
38 probably 300 or 400 or 500 feet even is down in the woods. It is not visible. It wouldn't be. It
39 is surrounded by large oak trees and other madrones and so forth. So it is not a visible site and
40 that should be taken into account not just arbitrary house size numbers. Okay, thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Herb Borock followed by our last speaker Christina Losq.
43
44 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Garber. I support placing a maximum house size
45 in the OS District just as there are maximum floor area limits in other general zone districts. I
46 also support retaining the current impervious coverage formula of 3.5 percent of lot size
Page 11
1 including the share of lot in the common open space area for clustered lot subdivisions. You
2 have been given one example in the Staff Report of the Mullin subdivision of this settlement of a
3 lawsuit from 30 years ago, but there is also the ten lot Hewlett subdivision, the eight lot Arillaga
4 subdivision, the five lot Lee subdivision and all of these have a 3.5 percent impervious coverage
5 calculated on a total lot area that includes its portion of common open space. I see no reason to
6 create new formulas for impervious coverage for lots.
7
8 In terms of house size I believe you should have a simple formula. The next zone district in the
9 hierarchy is the RE zone which is a one-acre zone, which has a house size limit of 6,000 square
10 feet. It would seem to be reasonable if you have a one-acre site here it should also have 6,000
11 square foot. I believe Staff has done the right thing by looking only at the portion of the lot that
12 is developable. For impervious coverage you want to look at the entire ten acres for the
13 entitlement but for the house size you just want to look at the portion of the lot that has been
14 carved off without the common open space. I would say if you had two acres that could be
15 12,000 but there should be some limit, which I think would be 15,000 square feet.
16 The formula say on 40,000 square feet a formula of 0.15 would give you 6,000 square foot.
17
18 As far as the idea that Site and Design Review would substitute for house size, I don't know
19 what the current zoning code requires but I recall mixed use developments requiring Site and
20 Design Review. Can you imagine Staff coming to you and saying you should have no floor area
21 limits in mixed use developments because Site and Design Review would take care of it? Or you
22 can have no floor area limits for a single-family home because they have a good architect and
23 you won't be able to see the house? That doesn't make sense to me at all. Thank you.
24
25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Our last speaker of the evening Christine Losq.
26
27 Ms. Christine Losg, Palo Alto: Good evening. I have been following this. I live in the Open
28 Space District. We have been of course following these discussions for the last two years. As
29 Commissioner Holman pointed out the idea of a maximum house size is not a new idea and it has
30 been in discussion for awhile. As Commissioner Fineberg pointed out it appears that this whole
31 discussion was triggered by that notorious property which is so blatantly in view from Foothills
32 Park. I am somewhat curious. I do support Staff's recommendation that there not be a
33 maximum house size limit for the following reason. On page 17 in Attachment A there is an
34 exemption. This exemption means that those properties, which are the most visible from public
35 lands, are exempt from maximum house size. One of those properties triggered this whole
36 discussion. It seems quite unfair to the rest of us in the Open Space that while nothing can be
37 done about the lots that are highly visible from open space that the rest of us should be extremely
38 restricted in the use of our property where our homes are not visible from any public lands.
39 Thank you.
40
41 Chair Garber: Excuse me. Is the text that you are speaking about on page 17 is that the
42 development standards exception?
43
44 Ms. Losq: Yes.
45
Page 12
1 Chair Garber: Which reads, based on a 1978 Settlement Agreement nine designated lots less
2 than ten acres in size are entitled to be developed as if they complied with the ten-acre minimum
3 lot size for the OS.
4
5 Ms. Losg: Yes and those are all adjacent to Foothills Park. The property that I think precipitated
6 this heated discussion of the past two years happens to be one of them.
7
8 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will keep the public comment period open should there be a
9 question by any of the Commissioners. Before we start our discussion here let me query the
10 Commission in a straw poll format. How many of the Commissioners would support Staff's
11 recommendation as we start right now? You can give me a nod of your head .. We have three
12 yes, two nos, and a maybe. Should we attempt a motion and then discuss? Commissioner Tuma.
13
14 MOTION
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am going to attempt a motion. My motion is for the Planning and
17 Transportation Commission to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed revisions to
18 Chapter 18.28, Attachment A, and the associated draft Negative Declaration, Attachment G.
19
20 SECOND
21
22 Chair Garber: I will second the motion. Would the maker like to speak their motion?
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would. So a number of things. One is this whole issue about when did this
25 topic come up. I wouldn't disagree that it has been mentioned but in my view it has never really
26 been on the table. We have had opportunity in a series of meetings prior to the subcommittee
27 meeting with the members of the community and in several meeting subsequent to those
28 meetings for this to be raised and vetted. I do think sort of from the perspective of working and
29 negotiating with the community in good faith I find it difficult to envision that we would come
30 up with a proposal after those discussions are closed and that this proposal never really be vetted.
31 Like I said, we have had a series of meetings as a Commission in which this could have been
32 truly put on the table and discussed. That is a fairness question.
33
34 Substantively a number of things come to mind. One is that I agree with the members of the
35 public who have stated that when it comes to this particular item it is not clear that there is a
36 problem that we are trying to solve. Absent hearing a very clear problem that this specifically
37 solves it is difficult for me to support.
38
39 Secondly, I can envision a nine-acre lot on which a 10,000 square foot house could sit and be just
40 fine, tucked back in a valley, hidden away under trees, built with the right materials. At the same
41 time I can envision a larger lot where a smaller house would not be appropriate because it is
42 sitting up on a hill, or it is sitting in such a way that it is visible, and the materials that it is made
43 out of, etc. So I think having these hard and fast rules about a certain number of square feet as a
44 function of the size of the lot doesn't necessarily do it justice. I say this having now not only
45 spent time there on my own time but through the process as part of the subcommittee when we
46 went up there. These lots are unique. There is nothing uniform about them. So it depends on
Page 13
1 what side of Page Mill you are on, and where you are, and how far away from Page Mill you
2 might be. There are just a whole variety of factors that the size of the lot doesn't necessarily
3 dictate.
4
5 With respect to there being a maximum house size in the flat lands if you will of 6,000 square
6 feet I think one of the speakers wasn't really intending to say well they ought to have that same
7 parameter up there because you would run up with a 6,000 square foot in the hills. They are two
8 very, very different environments. I think to avoid sort of the monster house that has a great
9 impact on everybody else that is around having a maximum house size in the flats makes sense.
10 To me it doesn't necessarily make sense it is more of the context in which it sits that is the siting
11 issue for me. So I would agree with the Planning Director's assessment that Site and Design is
12 the opportunity to address that.
13
14 The one other thing that I struggle with is it almost seems more like imposing and absolute house
15 size it is more of imposing one's morals. What is right and what is wrong in a particular setting.
16 In this environment I think there are people who are opposed to large houses and I get that. I
17 understand that but I am not supportive of that sort of notion. If people have their property and
18 they have their rights, and there are reasons to curtail those that is fine. We have done a fair
19 amount of that here. I agree that this is just one other thing loaded further on top and I just
20 cannot support a maximum house size in this district, certainly not the way that it is framed right
21 now.
22
23 Chair Garber: Thank you. I as the seconder have a few comments. First of all I strongly support
24 the Vice-Chair's motion foraH of his reasons, and I would like to iterate and emphasize some of
25 those.
26
27 It is hard to recognize how different this particular zone is relative to what we on this
28 Commission typically deal with. The R-l world and the commercial world are flat, but when
29 you look at the amount of acreage that the as District has it nearly equals the R-l District but
30 with only 100-some odd properties or parcels in it. The drivers in terms of houses in the R-l
31 District do have a lot to do with mass, scale, visual connections, etc. You simply don'thave
32 those issues in the as District. The drivers have to do with the visual impacts of these properties
33 as was pointed out by one of the members of the public. There are some technical issues, which
34 I think are also drivers but those are details relative to the overall purpose and intent I think of
35 this particular district.
36
37 I do believe that one of the drivers of this question has been the one aberrant project that was
38 accepted by the City and then built and then languished for many years. That has been a very
39 difficult problem for members of this Commission and members of Council and others to look
40 around, but I think it is bad policy to try and develop a policy around that one aberrant project.
41
42 When Commissioner Tuma and myself were assigned to the subcommittee to look into this we
43 spend some time with the members and owners of property in this particular district. We spent
44 some time on the properties there. To give the Commissioners a reminder and you have
45 probably heard this in some of our previous meetings. In the four or five parcels that we visited
46 in one visit if memory serves one of the parcels was five acres, but the amount property that they
Page 14
1 actually had, the amount of area that they had that they could actually build on was probably
2 only a couple of thousand square feet. The house that was being built was only a couple
3 thousand square feet. The amount of topography is tremendously limiting on the amount of area
4 that can actually be built upon. That one house that I just described was not the exception that
5 was the rule. We visited another house that had as much, or I should say as little property or
6 even less to actually build on given the rest of the property that they had, which was much too
7 steep to build on. Again, those sorts of circumstances do not occur in other parts of the city and '
8 it is very difficult to change one's mindset to understand that the visual impacts and the other
9 criteria that limits the building have a significant impact and have worked well, I believe, in
10 years past to serve the purpose of both the zone and the City's intent in the Comprehensive Plan.
11 12 I will leave that there. Commissioner Keller had a light and then Commissioner Lippert.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So firstly I have a few questions of Staff. My first question
15 is it is my understanding that in the last ten years that various pervious or semi-pervious material
16 has been developed. That because of the development of semi-pervious building materials such
17 as for grading and for driveways and such that that made the 3.5 percent impervious limitation
18 no longer as effective as it had been for limiting house sizes. Is that a reasonable assessment?
19
20 Mr. Williams: I would say it is no longer as restrictive or as limiting as it had been. I think that
21 is what you are saying. It provided more flexibility to increase house size indirectly because not
22 as much of the driveway or patio area, etc. gets counted as impervious.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: So effectively what is happening is that the nature of building materials
25 has been such that that caused the potential for increased developable area if you will. In some
26 sense we are going back and making changes that reduce that to compensate for the unexpected
27 increase in developable area from when the code was originally implemented.
28
29 With respect to page 17 of Attachment A that was mentioned. With respect to these nine lots
30 which can use the 1978 Agreement or the current standards would the semi-pervious or pervious
31 materials for driveways be considered -how would they be considered under the 1978 rules?
32 Would they be counted as impervious cover or if somebody were to use semi-pervious material
33 would they be counted as pervious? How would that be treated? That really wasn't envisioned
34 back in 1978.
35
36 Mr. Williams: We would treat it the way the new ordinance language is treated because the
37 language wasn't that clear then either. It would go back to the practice at the time, which is what
38 kind of evolved. So I think we would do that. The agreement really talks about treating it as a
39 ten-acre parcel. It isn't as specific as to say that it is treated under all of the rules that were in
40 effect at that point in time. It just means that we can use the ten acre limitation here so you have
41 the ten acres and the impervious coverage applies, but it is not as specific as to say how the
42 impervious coverage is calculated, what is considered impervious and what is pervious
43 depending on the material. So if that came through today we would use it based on the language
44 in here, which dictates that we look at the specific material that is being used and ascribe some
45 kind of percentage permeability to that material.
46
Page 15
1 Commissioner Keller: Since the last sentence of this paragraph says that a site shall utilize either
2 1978 Agreement standards or the current standard development standards, but cannot use both. I
3 am sort of wondering whether either it is entirely considered impervious which is what it was
4 back in 1978 or the development uses the new standards entirely including the new whatever
5 those limitations are. Does that make sense?
6
7 Ms. Campbell: It does make sense what you are saying. I believe the way the Agreement is
8 understood is that these lots can either choose to be considered a ten-acre size lot based on this
9 1978 Agreement or they can choose their actual real life size. Based on those two sizes, or one
10 of these sizes, you would then apply all of the standard regulations that we have in this revised
11 chapter to that lot.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: So let me see if I get this straight. So these lots would be considered lots,
14 assuming that is bigger than whatever their lot size is, and they would have to satisfy the current
15 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance based on a deemed ten acre size.
16
17 Ms, Campbell: That is correct if they chose to go with that Settlement Agreement, the
18 parameters of the Settlement Agreement.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Okay. Thank you. The next question is with respect to the comment that
21 was made by the person from the Committee for Green Foothills, with respect to defensible
22 space. To what extent does the amount of defensible space around a dwelling, or a building any
23 building, to what extent does that put limitations on the kind of vegetative screening that can be
24 planted around that building so as to screen it from public view?
25
26 Mr. Williams: I don't know specifically what that does. I know the Fire Department will look at
27 each house to determine that the defensible space is adequate. It depends a lot on the type of
28 vegetation that is used. So it may be that to the extent that the screening is vegetation that is fire
29 resistant then there may be more flexibility than if it is not fire resistant and it has to have a full
30 100 feet distance from the house. But I don't think we know all the specifics of that. That is
31 something that has been considered. Generally we are talking about lots that are big enough to
32 accommodate a defensible space and still have a lot of screening as well even if it has to be a
33 little distance from the house. We have not run into that specific problem at this point.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
36
37 Chair Garber: In that particular case part of the application would include the amount of area
38 that would have to be cleared, presumably to support the defensible space, at which point that
39 would become part of the review. Is that correct?
40
41 Mr. Williams: That is correct.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. There was a comment made that wasn't really related to the
44 changes we are making here today as was demonstrated by a question from my follow up to
45 questions from the Lehmann family. I am wondering what Staff's position is with respect to
46 their comments about wineries or farm stands. I realize that this is sort of the eleventh hour and
Page 16
1 30 minutes, pretty close to the end, if you will, but I am wondering whether it makes sense to do
2 something on that. I would assume that if we were to make changes it would be to Attachment
3 A, page 3, putting a CUP under eating and drinking services in conjunction with a pennitted use
4 and a CUP under retail services in conjunction with a permitted use. I don't know whether it
5 makes sense to do that since I guess we really weren't noticed to do that. I don't know if Staff
6 thinks that is a good idea or bad idea but I just figured I would bring that up.
7
8 Mr. Williams: A couple things. One is you are com~ct it was not noticed that way and the
9 Negative Declaration didn't consider the potential impacts of a winery or something for sale
10 where people would actually be traveling to these site for that purpose only. So it couldn't be
11 done tonight if that were the desire to include something like that.
12
13 Secondly, while I understand the interest in doing that there are major potential issues to address
14 in terms of traffic impacts and those kinds of things. Every community that currently allows
15 particularly wineries has battles over those kinds of use pennits particularly and mostly in terms
16 of the amount traffic that is associated with the activity. So I think it doesn't mean that it is not a
17 good idea maybe in some instances but I think it is a lengthy discussion and a number of
18 meetings to get there to try to address those issues.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Thank you I appreciate that. I think that since the members of the public
21 brought that up in their comments and even though it wasn't really part of our discussion it
22 seemed at least to me worthwhile to respond to it so that they could understand why we are able
23 to or are not able to address it tonight. Thank you.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, and then Fineberg, and Holman.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: I support the motion as presented by Vice-Chair Tuma and Chair
28 Garber. First of all I want to thank them for their work with the subcommittee and the neighbors.
29 I think that you have done a great job in terms of flushing out what the issues are and amending
30 the regulations here so far.
31
32 If you go back many years to how the Open Space development came about the subdivision out
33 there really is based on all the open space. Each of those sites not only has their own acreage but
34 the acreage in the Open Space that we use as our parks and the preserves in Palo Alto were split
35 off from those properties. So those sites really represent a much larger piece of land than each of
36 those property owners hold. With that what I see is the existing development that is out there
37 supports the Open Space. It is not in spite of the development that is currently there. The open
38 space that I enjoy when I go out as a cyclist or I see people hiking through Arastradero Preserve
39 or going through Foothills Park they are in those environments and being able to use them
40 because the subdivision was built up and carved out of those spaces and those were deeded.
41
42 Where I have difficulty is that the house sizes here seem awful arbitrary. I look at the difference
43 between even ten acres and 11 acres or 15 acres as a limit and the next number, which would be
44 16 acres. That is a huge amount of area. If we were to apply simply one acre, the difference
45 between the upper and lower limits of the next house size, you can build an extraordinary
46 amount of building if it was located in the Downtown or any other zone for that one-acre site. In
Page 17
1 the Open Space that one acre for the amount of housing that would be added really is a drop in
2 the bucket compared to the size of the overall site.
3
4 So in some ways I feel as though the house limit here is punitive and maybe it is our reaction to
5 everything that has gone on with regard to corporate greed and people wanting more, more,
6 more, but I don't see any harm as to what is coming about in terms of being able to develop in
7 the Open Space. I think it would be better suited if we were to limit house size for it to be based
8 on a realistic percentage of the lot size or as I have alluded to in the past something along the
9 lines of maybe slope density. Because, it is really geography and topography that govern out
10 there and make houses either work or not work on a site.
11
12 So I am going to support the motion. I think it is well conceived. I believe our current rules in
13 terms of how we do things with Site and Design Review pick up most of the bad designs. It is
14 unfortunate that one, I won't even call it bad, but one eyesore is really driving the house size
15 limitation here.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman.
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: There have been several mentions tonight about whether particular
20 properties would qualify for a Variance if the maximum house size were implemented. Mr.
21 Williams, you had said that people could not say there is a hardship and get a Variance if this
22 was implemented. I amjust curious, in the example Chair Garber gave where let's say there is a
23 relatively small parcel that most of it is a huge hillside that was very steep and a small portion of
24 it was buildable why would they not be able to apply for a hardship? Ijust can't imagine why a
25· Variance wouldn't be a possible outcome.
26
27 Mr. Williams: Because for a small parcel this 8,000 square foot wouldn't even come into play.
28 The FAR would be limited to under that to begin with. You don't even get to the 8,000 square
29 feet until 4.3 acres or 4.5 acres or something like that. So a small parcel wouldn't. If it is a large
30 parcel that just had a small area of flat land on it or something then you would look at it and sort
31 of determine what fit on that small portion of the land. I assume that is the size of the house.
32 The shape and all that wouldn't be a hardship to tell them they could build a 10,000 square foot
33 house on this large parcel and they wanted to build a 15,000 square foot house. The shape of the
34 lot isn't what is limiting them it is our maximum house size that is limiting them. I am not
35 seeing where or what circumstat;1ce maybe you can explain it more.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess what I am thinking of is in our commercial zones Downtown
38 we would consider a parcel that maybe was half as wide as several adjoining parcels or it has an
39 extra five-foot special setback requirement. If those conditions are such that it is a hardship that
40 you can apply for height exemptions or possibly get increased FAR to build a larger structure,
41 then why let's say if you are sitting on a ten acre lot with very steep hillsides and a small flat
42 area, why wouldn't you justify that it is a hardship? If it is not for us to judge that 10,000 square
43 feet is enough if the homeowner wants 12,000 and they are entitled but it wouldn't qualify
44 because of the smallness of the buildable area, I just don't see why they couldn't apply for a
45 Variance.
46
Page 18
1 Mr. Williams: It seems to me that in that instance you would be wanting to limit them to the
2 smaller house. If they have a limited area to build on why would that somehow justify a larger
3 house, which is what the Variance would be for is to have a larger house than somebody who has
4 a flat ten-acre lot. That wouldn't be equitable.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: I would agree with your logic but I am not sure that is how we apply
7 the same rationale on commercial structures Downtown.
8
9 Mr. Williams: Well commercial structures Downtown are a very different situation with the lot
10 patterns and the building allowances, and a lot of times what has been there versus what is
11 proposed, and all that. It is very restrictive it can be very restrictive there. In this case I am not
12 seeing that that's restrictive. It seems to me that it is the opposite and maybe I am just not
13 gettingit.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: I appreciate that information because it really goes to inform how I
18 understand your thinking.
19
20 Okay, a couple of members of the public and I would say on the Commission have asked what
21 problem is this maximum house size trying to solve? I want to try a crack at what I think it is
22 trying to solve. The crux of it is in the Staff Report Attachment A, page 1, down under (b) Open
23 Space, Section iii. It says, "The purpose and intent of this district is to: (1) protect the health,
24 safety, and welfare; (2) protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource;
25 (3) permit the reasonable use of open space land while at the same time preserving and
26 protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the
27 following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation and natural resource
28 land, for the containment of urban sprawl, and the structuring of urban development, and for the
29 retention of land in its natural or near natural state, to protect life and property in the community
30 from the hazards of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and (4) coordinate with and carry out
31 federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans."
32
33 So that third section I think is the crux of the matter. If the open space is to permit reasonable
34 use of the land and it never says encourage housing development, encourage large houses, there
35 is nothing in it that gives me guidance that the codes are to make developable tracts for larger
36 homes. It in fact if I read it leads to me to think the opposite that it is for the containment of
37 urban sprawl and structuring the urban development, and for the retention ofland in its natural or
38 near natural state. There is nothing about a 15 or 25 or 30,000 square foot house that is the
39 natural state of open space. By the time you have a property that large it is a powerful argument
40 for me that it is no longer a single-family home with the traffic that you get with a single-family
41 residence. When you have $10,000 and $15,000 and $20,000 properties there is staff, there is
42 multiple car trips, there is property managers, there is mUltiple service staff living at the
43 residence. There is office use even if it is just private office with assistants. I understand there
44 are restrictions on the conduct of trade like the tasting room for the winery but the City's
45 enforcement doesn't pry into people's private spaces and see if there is three or four, or six, or
46 ten private staff conducting business on a large property. So I don't see where a 20,000 or a
Page 19
1 15,000 square foot home contributes to the purpose of the Open Space and I see where it detracts
2 from the purposes and the uses of the Open Space. That is to me the rationale that makes the
3 maximum house size not a capricious limit, and not an imposition of morals. It is the
4 implementation of the purpose of the Open Space District.
5
6 One other area, we talked about the one property that was this poster child of how the process
7 shouldn't work. Page 17 in the Development Standards leads me to believe, and if Staff could
8 correct me that having a maximum house size would indeed provide limits that would prevent us
9 from making that same mistake. Those properties that are covered by that 1978 accord they
10 would get the benefit of being treated as ten-acre sites and then they would have a maximum
11 house size of 10,000 square feet as opposed to whatever the calculation would be with just the
12 impervious area. That makes a limit that sets expectations, it is firmer, and it requires a change
13 to be something that is done through Commission and Council action. It is not something that
14 exceptions could be granted on a case-by-case basis. It is something frankly that would
15 minimize the decision-making changes that would happen project-by-project at Council
16 depending on who is sitting on Council in a particular term. So I see that as another benefit of
17 having the limit that it is part of the statute rather than just a project decision that a particular
18 Council could make given the climate and the feelings of a particular Council.
19
20 One of the members of the public had suggested that these limits apply citywide. I have a
21 question. If there are any lots within the city that are ten acres that are not in Open Space
22 because in a sense if there are not then by default these standards would apply because there isn't
23 anything that would be ten acres or larger.
24
25 Mr. Williams: I am really not sure. There are sites like in the Research Park and that that are
26 large sites, and then in some of our industrial and office type zones. In R-l zones if there are I
27 am not aware of them. In RE, Residential-Estate, zone where we have a one acre minimum there
28 may be a few parcels that are that large, I am not sure, but I think most of them are pretty much
29 one acre. They are pretty uniform in size. As far as residential zones other than here I don't
30 think we have any ten acre. It would be a real anomaly to find anything over three or five acres.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: Would the lots in the Research Park that you referenced allow
33 housing?
34
35 Mr. Williams: They would not allow single-family standalone housing, no.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so-in a sense it applies by default unless there is a very limited
38 number of exceptions. So the only other comment I have on this is we are seeing a bit of a
39 phenomenon that often happens in public process. Most of the people, members of the public,
40 who have spoken to us tonight care greatly about this matter because it impacts them potentially
41 in a negative way. So they would have the most to lose by the imposition of a maximum house
42 size. That brings about an imbalance in who is speaking tonight because the people who don't
43 stand something to lose, the 58,000 other residents of Palo Alto, are not impacted by this and are
44 not necessarily motivated to take time and come speak to us. But those 58,000 are the people
45 who gain the protections of the limits of the uses in the Open Space District because the land is
46 then preserved as open space for their enjoyment. That would frankly be true for the residents of
Page 20
1 other nearby cities. So I appreciate the members of the public who have spoken to us tonight. It
2 gives all of us the opportunity to hear your thoughts and learn from you but I don't think we
3 should discount that the silent public isn't here because this is not a personal threat to them. We
4 have had a couple of members of the public who have spoken out about the benefits of
5 maintaining the character and the quality in the Open Space. So that is it for my comments.
6
7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: I have been smiling a fair amount during this because I have found this
10 whole process, from the very beginning, go back to the first meeting we ever had about this. The
11 genesis of looking at the Open Space District was because of the impervious surface issue. We
12 were getting developments that were not anticipated due to the result of development of
13 materials that are more permeable than when the code was instituted. For whatever reason, and I
14 can only express my perspective here, but for whatever reason it has never seemed to me that
15 there has been a clear understanding on the part of the property owners that in updating the code
16 we have not been taking anything away. We have been restoring the code to where it was
17 previously. I don't think, and with actually more allowances than were previously in place. I
18 have never gotten the understanding that that has been understood. So that has been really
19 interesting to me.
20
21 This evening, I don't remember who said it first so I am certainly not going to point a finger
22 anyway even if I did, but somehow or other this evening all of a sudden the genesis for
23 maximum house size has been the house that sits on the ridge top that you can see from Foothills
24 Park. From my perspective that is so not true, but yet it has just picked up a head of steam and
25 all of a sudden that is the genesis for maximum house size. It is sort of like losing sight of the
26 3.5 impervious surface. It is just not true but it has generated a life of its own.
27
28 Maximum house size, this is such a baby step, it is such a baby step. Maximum house size does
29 not limit the amount of development on a parcel it only says how big the house can be. The
30 reason for that is because -I wouldn't mind seeing it go further, actually I would appreciate it
31 going further. The reason for that is because homes generate the most usage of utilities, services,
32 and such. So at least it takes one baby step in the right direction. I am not sure people are
33 understanding that because the reaction has been that people feel like their development right is
34 taken away. All it does is just shifts it so that there is maximum house size but all of the
35 development potential is still there in terms of out buildings.
36
37 One of the other reasons for doing this is because it is how I feel about when we teardown
38 cottages and then we replace a house and cottage with a bigger house. It so curtails what the
39 future utility of that parcel is because once the cottage is gone and all of the allowable FAR is in
40 the main house there is no potential. Unless we up-zone again there is no potential for any
41 utilization of a second unit on that property. You could of course divide it off and create a
42 second unit in the main house but in houses of that size it just doesn't happen. Hasn't happened
43 since World War II probably, maybe if you go to the 1960s where there were communes in large
44 houses that is one other possibility, but it so limits the utility of the land.
45
Page 21
1 So for me the other reason for doing a maximum house size is to at least make accommodation
2 such that if somebody wanted to buy a property and they were interested in doing an agricultural
3 business of some kind of agricultural purpose on that property all of the FAR isn't taken up in a
4 house. There are outbuildings that could be utilized for that. There are going to be people who
5 are going to use their outbuildings for squash courts and such and we are not limiting that either.
6 It has been really an interesting kind of -it has been interesting to just watch this because the life
7 of the misinformation from my perspective has been really phenomenal in this process. This
8 process has gone on for so very, very long to address the zoning on 114 properties. It has been
9 absolutely phenomenal in that regard too. I have great respect and appreciation for all of the
10 effort that has gone on with this proposal both with subcommittee members and the Staff, and
11 certainly the members of the public. I just find it really puzzling as to how some of these topics
12 get a life of their own and they seem to continue as we witnessed tonight about the house that
13 you can see from the Foothills.
14
15 The 1978 Settlement, those properties, it isn't and Staff will correct me if I misstate, it isn't an
16 irrational, and this word wasn't used I am making it up, it isn't' irrational or unfair that those
17 smaller parcels have the same development right as larger parcels. That development involved
18 the dedication of permanent dedicated open space and that has to be remembered. But that isn't
19 a part of the discussion this evening.
20
21 So Site and Design does address a great deal of the issues, it doesn't address them all, not what
22 Staff is proposing but what maybe three of us are proposing with the maximum house size
23 addresses just a baby step I think in the right direction. For that reason I won't be supporting the
24 motion.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: I guess I am sort of the swing vote. So I have been hearing a lot of
29 different things.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: I am so sorry I didn't mean to presume your outcome. I apologize.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what I was wondering is what Commissioners Holman
34 and Fineberg were suggesting as an alternative as opposed to not supporting the current motion.
35 I would encourage Commissioners Holman and Fineberg to make a substitute motion, which I
36 could then consider which way I want to turn, based on that. Thank you.
37
38 Chair Garber: While Commissioners Fineberg and Holman are thinking about that I have a light
39 from Commissioner lippert and I was going to speak just briefly before I hand it off to
40 Commissioner lippert.
41
42 I would encourage the Commissioners that are considering not supporting the motion to think
43 about Commissioner Keller's question and in particular for Commissioner Fineberg to
44 emphasize again the difference in the scale of what this zone presents versus by comparison the
45 R-l District.
46
Page 22
1 As Commissioner Holman mentioned there are only 114 parcels of which only 79 are buildable,
2 that is 79 households, which is perhaps seven square blocks in the R-1 District. Those 79
3 households are spread over instead of those seven blocks it is spread over 314 acres. The
4 percentage of the impact is very, very low even in the worst of circumstances it is very, very low,
5 which hopefully would not happen.
6
7 As a reminder, I was just reviewing myself the list of items that are part of the Site and Design
8 criteria, of which there are 12, I won't read through them, but they are on page 16. They do
9 focus on quite a number of the impacts that many of the Commissioners have brought up.
10 Commissioner Lippert and then Holman.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: I had a process question for City Attorney. We have an even number of
13 members here, if we had a split vote here, does that mean all the previous work that was done
14 that has been already recommended moves forward to Council and that this one portion just
15 doesn't move forward with the recommendation?
16
17 Ms. Tronquet: Well, the motion has moved the Staff recommendation, which covers basically
18 all of exhibit A, which is the ordinance itself, so a tie vote on that motion would be no action. At
19 your last meeting you did recommend that the ordinance move forward at that point and then
20 discussion of maximum house size return. But at this point the motion has been made to approve
21 all of exhibit A, which is the Staff recommendation.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: So an amendment or a substitute motion might embody moving forward
24 the previous motion without the addition of the limit on house size?
25
26 Ms. Tronguet: Sure.
27
28 AMENDMENT
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: I would like to make an amendment to your motion. That amendment
31 would be that the previous action that the Planning and Transportation Commission took move
32 forward to the City Council sans the maximum house size.
33
34 Ms. Tronguet: I believe that is similar or almost exactly wl;lat the motion was, so it was the
35 same.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: I was just going to ask for a clarification.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: That is why I was asking that question as to what happens to all the
40 previous work that was done and almost in consensus of the Commission.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner '{uma.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me try this a slightly differently. Is it permissible for us to break this into
45 two separate motions? The current motion would cover everything other than maximum house
46 size. We could vote on that and have a second motion that covers whether or not the ordinance
Page 23
1 should be amended to add a maximum house size. Would that be pennissible from a legal
2 perspecti ve?
3
4 Mr. Williams: I was just going to say you could do that or you could do the reverse too and vote
5 on the maximum house size issue on its own and then you go with the rest of the whole
6 ordinance either includes or does not include that.
7
8 Ms. Tronquet: I think the motion that you made in your last meetings on that portion still stands.
9 So if you wanted to confinn your action on that and then make a recommendation on whether the
10 maximum house sizes should be included I think thatis perfectly fine and the Council gets clear
11 direction on your recommendation for both of those issues.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: So moved.
14
15 Chair Garber: So essentially the motion is to vote to not include the maximum house size with
16 the ordinance. Is that correct?
17
18 Mr. Williams: Pardon?
19
20 Chair Garber: The effective motion then is to move that the maximum house size not be
21 included in the ordinance as previously moved by the Commission in the last meeting.
22 Commissioner Tuma.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: With due respect I actually think it is slightly different than that. If it is
25 framed that way we are decided on the issue of maximum house size yea or nay. What my intent
26 here is to have a vote on everything other than the maximum house size, put that to rest. That
27 would be motion number one. When that is decided then have a second motion on whether to
28 recommend maximum house size or not. I think if we do it the other way we are sort of
29 precluding the second motion and I don't want to do that.
30
31 Chair Garber: Okay.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Can I get one clarification, please?
34
35 Chair Garber: Please.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: I just want to make sure because Commissioner Lippert I think
38 referenced, correct me if I am wrong, the previous ordinance that we had passed and that would
39 move forward. I just want to make sure that Commissioner Tuma is referencing the ordinance
40 that is before us tonight because there were some corrections or additions in this. I want to make
41 sure you are referencing the ordinance tonight.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Absolutely referencing the ordinance tonight because as you said the
44 ordinance tonight does have some modifications. What the ordinance tonight does not have is
45 any reference to a maximum house size.
46
Page 24
1 Commissioner Holman: Yes, appreciate it being broken in two and appreciate the clarification.
2
3 Chair Garber: The action still remains with Commissioner Lippert here because he had created
4 the amendment, which has yet to be seconded.
5
6 . Commissioner Lippert: I just want to clarify for Commissioner Holman that yes, it is the
7 language that is before us this evening sans the house size limitation. I was not here for the
8 previous hearing and so I only had the benefit of reading through the minutes.
9
10 Chair Garber: So Commissioner Tuma would you please state the motion?
11
12 MOTION
13
14 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend
15 to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28, Attachment A, and the
16 associated draft Negative Declaration.
17
18 Chair Garber: Just for the procedure's sake we are abandoning the first motion and that is being
19 replaced with this one that you have just made. Am I understanding correctly? I am getting
20 nods of approval.
21
22 The seconder will again second the motion. Is there any discussion on this item? Commissioner
23 Keller.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: I thought we were going to vote on the maximum house size issue first
26 and then vote on the other issue second. Is that what we are doing or are we doing it the other
27 way around?
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Other way around.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: So the question is procedurally if we approve the motion that moves this
32 forward how can we then procedurally further amend that to change the maximum house size?
33 That doesn't make sense to me. If you were first to vote on the maximum house size, which
34 could be an amendment to the process or some sort of amendment voted on on that but I am not
35 sure how you can do two separate motions the first approving something and the second one
36 changing that if that is not an amendment to the motion as opposed to a second motion. I am
37 confused.
38
39 Vice-Chair Tuma: That was the exact question I had asked the City Attorney and she said we
40 could break it into two separate motions.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I can understand you breaking it into two separate motions but if you do
43 it in that order you are actually ....
44
45 Chair Garber: Would the Attorney like to weigh in?
46
Page 25
1 Ms. Tronquet: We have a suggestion. What Commissioner Keller is saying does make some
2 sense. Why don't we ask for an amendment to the motion to include the maximum house size,
3 get a vote on that, and then depending on the outcome of that we can have a vote on the
4 remainder without the maximum house size. Does that make sense?
5
6 Commissioner Keller: You mean the resulting motion whether or not the house size amendment
7 passes.
8
9 Ms. Tronquet: Exactly, thank you.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: No. Of that is the desire of the Commission I will withdraw the motion then
14 because I am not prepared to make that motion.
15
16 Mr. Williams: No, no we understand that. We don't expect that you would make that motion.
17 You have made your motion. If someone else on the Commission would like to have the
18 maximum house size limitation included then there needs to be an amendment to the motion by
19 one of you to do that just like any other motion. So if somebody makes that amendment then the
20 Commission votes on that and then you come back to a main motion that either is the same as
21 what we have had or it is a motion to approve everything with the maximum house size.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: I think it is worthwhile pointing out exactly what we moved. It was on
26 Attachment D, page 291ast time. It was Commissioner Holman's motion. If Curtis thinks this
27 would be agreeable I was going to offer a motion that might actually settle that and would be to
28 move the Open Space ordinance come back to the Planning Commission, (1) for discussion of
29 maximum house size after appropriate notification; and (2) that the items included in the motion
30 that were set forth earlier be agreed upon. That doesn't actually move accept that in terms of
31 moving it forward to the Council in terms of last time, essentially it said it comes back to us.
32
33 Chair Garber: That is where we are tonight. I think the opportunity here is to ask for a friendly
34 amendment.
35
36 Mr. Williams: It is not going to be a friendly amendment.
37
38 Chair Garber: So then you would have to create a substitute motion or just an amendment that
39 would. Commissioner Tuma.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Point of clarification for Commissioner Keller. The motion had nothing to do
42 with Commissioner Holman's motion from last time. This is a motion anew and I will state it for
43 the third time. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council
44 approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.23, Attachment A, and the associated draft
45 Negative Declaration, Attachment G. That is tonight's motion. It has nothing to do with the
46 previous motion made by Commissioner Holman.
Page 26
1
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Fineberg.
3
4 AMENDED MOTION
5 Commissioner Holman: So Staff is looking for an amendment. So I will propose an amendment
6 that includes a maximum house size, not necessarily the ones stipulated, a maximum house size
7 in the Open Space District.
8
9 Chair Garber: Maker? I am assuming the maker has to accept this.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: No, he will not accept it I know. So I am looking for a second to my
12 separate amendment.
13
14 Chair Garber: I see.
15
16 SECOND
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: I second it.
19
20 Chair Garber: Okay, Commissioner Fineberg seconds it. I need a point of clarification here.
21 This isn't a substitute motion and it is not a friendly amendment. So does it need to be voted on
22 before we get back to the primary motion? Okay. Would the maker like to speak to their
23 motion?
24
25 Commissioner Holman: I think we have had enough conversation about it. I just did want to
26 note that it is possible that we might agree on a maximum house size if we don't stand with the
27 proposal in the Staff Report.
28
29 Chair Garber: Seconder, would you like to speak to your second?
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: I would concur with Commissioner Holman. Looking back in
32 tonight's discussion we really have not talked about the wisdom or lack of wisdom depending on
33 perspective of the maximum house size indicated in the Staff Report on page 2. So the idea of
34 having simply the language of a proposed maximum would mean that at some point we would
35 have to come back have discussion, decide what that maximum would be. So I don't know how
36 that would be handled but it seems wiser than abandoning ship.
37
38 Chair Garber: I am not seeing any other lights. I take that back. Commissioner Keller.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: I am sympathetic with the idea of some maximum house size because if
41 you look at Attachment E it is kind of silly that the 314-acre parcel can build a house of 480,000
42 square feet. So some idea of a maximum house size makes sort of sense. Exactly what it is I am
43 open to further discussion. .
44
45 AMENDED MOTION FAILS (3-3-0-1, Commissioners Holman, Fineberg, and Keller for;
46 Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert against; and Commissioner Rosati absent)
Page 27
1
2 Chair Garber: All those in favor of the amendment as stated say aye. (ayes) Those opposed?
3 (nays) We have a split vote with Commissioners Holman, Keller, and Fineberg voting aye and
4 Commissioners Garber, Tuma, and Lippert voting nay.
5
6 We now can go to the main motion, yes?
7
8 Ms. Tronguet: Yes.
9
10 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Rosati absent)
11
12 Chair Garber: So let us vote on the main motion. Do we need to restate it? Those in favor of
13 the main motion vote aye. (ayes) Those opposed? That passes unanimously with
14 Commissioners Holman, Keller, Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye and
15 Commissioner Rosati absent.
16
17 The attorney has a comment?
18
19 Ms. Tronguet: Did you close the public hearing?
20
21 Chair Garber: I was about to. We will close the public hearing.
22
Page 28
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT G
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Clare Campbell, Planner
April 15, 2009
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Community Environment
Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions
to Chapter 18.28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS)
District; Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and
a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
RECOMMENDATION·
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed revisions to Chapter 18.28 (Attachment
A) and the associated draft Negative Declaration (Attachment G).
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2007, the PTC recommended approval of Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts:
PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion on the Open Space (OS) district. One ofthe key
revisions that was made to the OS zone was the addition of section 18.28.070(1) to clarify that,
with respect to impervious cover limitations in the OS zone, all paved surfaces (including semi-
pervious paving) count as impervious surface limitations, except 1) gravel driveways and 2)
portions of driveways across scenic setbacks (e.g., along Page Mill Road). The PTC included this
requirement so that excess impervious cover gained by using semi~pervious surfaces could not
be added to the residence to increase house size.
The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential approaches to credit
semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum house size,
FAR, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale.
An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of
the PTC and staffwas assembled and has met five times since October 2007 to discuss the above
mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to
City of Palo Alto Page J
other sections of the os regulations. The neighborhood association, Palo Altans Protecting Open
Space (P APOS), provided a position paper on its concerns that the working group has worked
from as the base document for the on-going group discussions. Attachment D provides the initial
PAP OS position paper and staffs initial response.
On September 24, 2008, the PTC conducted a Study Session on the proposed revisions to the
Open Space district. Staff has incorporated many ofthe comments received at that meeting into
the proposed revisions below. The PTC minutes from the meeting are included as Attachment C.
DISCUSSION
Based on the comments received during the Study Session, staff has revised the preliminary
recommendations for revisions to the OS zone district. Below are the recommendations that were
discussed at the Study Session with additional clarification as to what has been modified since
that meeting. The draft ordinance, Attachment A, provides specific language for the following
recommendations:
1. hnpervious Coverage/Floor Area Ratio should be based on a sliding scale to determine the
maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native vegetation.
This recommendation has not been modified, except to add non-residential standards:
3.5% impervious cover and 5% floor area ratio, with greater allowances as approved by
Council through the Site and Design Review process.
2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces (with some exceptions
noted) and classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and
construction method to be used.
This recommendation has not been modified.
3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project
would be in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope
of work proposed.
The language has been streamlined; the threshold for higher level review has been
reduced to 1,000 sffrom 2,000 sf; and second dwelling units have been elevated to major
project review from a minor project review process.
4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project
completion. This report shall evaluate the health oftrees and significant landscape that were
required for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved
plans for the project (clarification of existing language).
This recommendation has not been modified.
5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is three (3) acres and shall
follow theResidential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.10.070
(b», except that the allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet.
The minimum lot size has been increased to five acres.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed iflocated at least 30' from the
affected property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required.
The 30' setbackfromproperty line has been increased to 50'.
7. Trash Enclosures should be permitted, with design review, within the front setback, including
Special Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self
closing gates, and screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side
facing the street.
This recommendation has been modified to include the sizing of the enclosure shall be the
most minimal to achieve the purpose of enclosing and screening containers.
8. Skylights. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing
treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce
the night glare.
This recommendation has not been modified; the existing requirement prohibiting white
glass has been maintained.
9. Change the District Name. Staff supports changing the name to "Open Space Residential."
Staff has not made revisions to the naming of the district.
ALTERNATIVES
There are a number of possible permutations of the various specific recommendations above that
could be considered by the Commission. In addition, some Commission members have
suggested imposing slope-density requirements and/or maximum house size restrictions to
further reduce development potential on Open Space district lots. Each ofthese alternative
approaches is discussed below.
Slope-Density: Slope-density requirements are imposed in some hillside communities in the Bay
Area, such as Woodside and Los Altos Hills. The provisions require a detailed topographic map,
generally divided into 3 or 4 categories of slopes, such as 0-15%, 15-25%, 25-35%, and over
35%. The slope-density formula may then be applied to allowable total development, total paved
area, or total floor area, or a combination thereof. The following table outlines estimated
impervious surface limitations and other development potential for a 10-acre lot in Palo Alto,
Woodside, and Los Altos Hills for four assumed "average slopes," using the most restrictive
zoning category in those communities and with some basic assumptions regarding area devoted
to floor area versus paved areas. Note that Woodside does not vary development on a site by
average slope, but uses slope-density to establish the allowable number oflots in a subdivision.
Impervious Cover and Floor Area Examples
Palo Alto Woodsidel Los Altos Hills
§ Average Slope
Impervious Area,( 15,246 sf 16,187 sf' 150,000 sf
Floor Area 17,844 sfJ 11,979 sf 60,000 sf
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Palo Alto Woodside' Los Altos Hills
20% Average Slope
Impervious Area' 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 117,855 sf = Floor Area 17,844 sf 11,979 sf 47,142 sf
25% Average
Impervious Area 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 101,783 sf
Floor Area 17,844 sfj 11,979 sf 40,713 sf
30% Average Slope
Impervious Area:t 15,246 sf 16,187 sf 69,638 sf
Floor Area 17,844 sf 11,979 sf 27,855 sf
1 ... Only applIes slope-densIty fonnula to subdIvIsIons to detennme allowable number
of lots.
2 Includes paved areas plus building footprints (assumes 60% of total floor area)
3 Assumes minimum 2,500 sf paved surfaces and second story floor area at 40% of
total floor area.
4 Assumes 40% second story floor area at 40% of total floor area.
Staff notes that Portola Valley (very similar to Woodside's regulations) and Saratoga also use
slope density restrictions, and some communities in Marin do as well. Staff has not attempted to
apply a slope density approach to specific properties in the OS district, as to do so would require
calculating areas of slope within each category, which is beyond the scope of staff's resources.
Staff does not believe that applying slope-density limitations in the OS zone in Palo Alto would
be productive, given:
1) more than half the lots existing have been developed under only impervious cover
criteria,
2) a complex process is required to accurately calculate and review slope-density
calculations,
3) the extent of development allowed currently is highly restrictive at 3.5% ofthe site, and
4) there is a preponderance of lots of 1-3 acres in the OS zone, which would be further
restricted by slope density requirements, though staff does not believe that those are the
lots that have concerned the Commission regarding the extent of development; those lots
are already most likely to require variances, which would be addressed with the sliding
scales for impervious cover and floor area ratios.
A new approach to limiting impervious cover would also cause significant problems with lots
that have been subdivided with specific allowances for impervious cover. Staff continues to
believe that adequate protection is provided in the site and design review process to address
OS criteria such as site visibility and protection of native vegetation.
Maximum House Size: Maximum house size requirements are another development tool imposed
in some hillside communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola
Valley (85% of total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Again, staff has not
recommended such a limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the visual impacts of the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a
maximum house size limitation, such as exists with the slope-density approach, so a maximum
house size restriction remains a policy determination for the Commission and Council. For most
properties, a maximum house size limit probably wouldn't come into play, but it would affect
larger properties. If the Commission wishes to proceed with that approach, staff recommends
that we renotice the ordinance revisions and reach out to the larger property owners to assure
their input at a subsequent meeting.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with
the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the
intent and policies of the Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views
of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides. Attachment
F provides a list of related Comprehensive Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project in accordance with the CEQA requirements. The
20-day public comment period for this document runs from April 8, 2009 through April 27,
2009.
NEXT STEPS
Upon direction from the Commission, staff will revise the ordinance and forward it to the
Council for final review and recommendation or return to the Commission, if that is preferred.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Red-line Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose Districts)
B. Maps ofthe OS Zone District
C. PTC Study Session Minutes, September 24, 2008
D. PAPOS Position Paper on Open Space Zoning Regulations with Staff Responses and PAPOS
Response, 01114/2008
E. Summary Table of OS Parcels
F. Comprehensive Plan Policies Regarding Open Space
G. Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study
COURTESY COPIES
PAPOS
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
DEP ARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: __ C::.....~<.s.:~~_\)J'--~~"""""""'''-''~IL'''4 ___ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT H
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 April 15, 2009
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and Recommendation of Draft Revisions to Chapter 18.28
8 related to Development Standards in the Open Space (OS) District; Environmental Assessment:
9 An Initial Study has been completed and a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
10 with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
11
12 Chair Garber: Okay, Item number 2, Zoning Ordinance Update Review and Recommendation of
13 Draft Revisions to Chapter 18:28 related to Development Standards in the Open Space District.
14 Environmental assessment and initial studies have been completed and a Negative Declaration
15 has been prepared.
16
17 Does Staff have a presentation?
18
19 Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, yes we do. So I will go ahead and get started with the
20 review of the recommendations, and then Curtis will jump in and discuss some other items as
21 well.
22
23 Just a little bit of background. The Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Open
24 Space District back in June 2007, and then shortly after that, the Council did adopt the revised
25 Chapter in September of 2007. With discussions with the Commission, Staff was directed to put
26 together a working group to evaluate some of the larger issues that had not quite been resolved
27 yet associated with house size, floor area and impervious coverage. Basically, Staff was working
28 with residents of the Open Space District and two of the Commissioners, and a couple of Open
29 Space advocates,and we met approximately five times. We reviewed and discussed some of the
30 concerns that the citizens had, as well as the issues that Staff was focusing on, based on
31 comments from the Commission.
32
33 Back in September, we did have a Study Session, and Staff presented recommendations, and the
34 nine core recommendations that we represented in September have been modified slightly based
35 on comments that we received at that time, but they are pretty much intact with what we had
36 presented previously, so I will go ahead and go through those.
37
38 Previously, we had proposed for impervious coverage in floor area, it should be based on a
39 sliding scale to determine the maximum allowable to provide, and to provide incentives for
40 maintaining or restoring native vegetation. We added clarification for nonresidential
41 development, and we put in 3.5 percent impervious cover and a 5 percent floor area ratio
42 maximum, and then we also put in that these could be considered for higher numbers, if it went
43 through a Site and Design Review, and Council took a look at that, reviewed those, and approved
44 that. The impervious coverage calculations should include all paved surfaces. There are some
45 exceptions that we've talked about in the past, and classified as either 100 percent, 75 percent, 50
Page 1
1 percent or 25 percent impervious, based on the types of material that is being presented. This
2 proposed recommendation hasn't been changed since we discussed it last September.
3
4 For the review process, we presented a hopefully more simplified process with a clear
5 understanding of what a minor project would be for the OS in creating two levels of a major
6 project review based on the scope of work proposed. When we met last time, we talked about
7 having a 2000 square foot threshold for that base level, higher level review. We were looking at
8 2000, and then that was too high a threshold, and then we reduced that to 1000 square feet for
9 that project. Also, we included a second dwelling unit that would also have to go through this
10 higher level review instead of a staff level review.
11
12 The next item is the Followup Arborist Report, and that should be done five years after the final
13 sign-off of the project. Basically, this is unchanged from what we had just discussed previously,
14 but we did add a clarification that it should also apply to sites that received the bonus floor ratio
15 incentive, and so that gets verified and checked on.
16
17 For second dwelling units, they may be permitted if the minimum lot size is three acres. This is
18 what we presented in September. We have increased that from three to five acres, based on
19 comments, and basically follow the RE Standards which have not been changed since we met
20 last time.
21
22 For parking, additional parking in the 200-foot setback, special setback, may be allowed if
23 located at least 30-feet from the affected property line, and what we have changed since that,
24 since we met, was that we increased it from 30 to 50 feet from the property line.
25
26 Some of the other items included trash enclosures. We modified this particular requirement to
27 specify that the sizing of the enclosure should be the most minimal to achieve the purpose of
28 enclosing and screening the containers, and we did say that it should be something that we could
29 do through Design Review, and we would allow that in the special setback, so that was what we
30 had talked about last time.
31
32 Skylights, we did not change anything from what we had discussed previously, and we want to
33 emphasize that the existing requirements that are in the Code already, about prohibiting white
34 glass,is being maintained. I know that was an issue for some Commissioners.
35
36 And we had shown that we were supporting the name change to Open Space Residential, but
37 based on feedback from the Commissioners last time, we have not incorporated a name change
38 to the District with this proposed revision.
39
40 Two other items that we have revised or added to the Chapter, is that the floor area calculations
41 should be based on the same criteria as the low-density residential districts, as specified in the
42 definitions section, so the same as in Rl property, for example, and basements should also follow
43 the Rl Standards for floor area ratio calculation, with the addition that "basement areas shall
44 count if any portion is constructed on a slope in excess of 10 percent."
45
Page 2
1 There were a few other comments that were made by more than one Commissioner that Staff had
2 considered, but we did not incorporate them into the revised Chapter, and we can also discuss
3 those more tonight if we need to.
4
5 One of the comments made was that second dwellings should be limited to a smaller size, and
6 there was no specific square footage discussed, but that was just put out there. Another one was
7 to create a subcommittee, a Planning and Transportation Subcommittee to be included in the
8 review of smaller, 1000 square foot plus, projects. Those are the ones that we proposed go
9 through the standard Staff review process.
10
11 [Background discussion] That's right, that's right. I'm sorry. Scratch that.
12
13 Another item that was brought up was the maximum house size, and Curtis will talk about that in
14 more detail in a little bit, and also another issue was the limitation on the Pool Impervious
15 Coverage Exemption. Basically, it was a limitation discussion, either limited to one pool or
16 having some kind of a number, or maybe a partial exemption instead of 100 percent exempt for
17 that water surface area.
18
19 Now, it's Curtis' tum. Thanks.
20
21 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Clare. Ijust want to touch briefly on a couple of the key parameters
22 for development slope density that were discussed as alternatives in the Staff report, and at the
23 Commission meeting last time, for slope density and maximum house size.
24
25 One of the issues was with slope density where we had looked at some of the other cities that use
26 it, and also I was hoping to maybe have an example or two of sites in the Open Space and try to
27 apply that, but one of the reasons that we have concern about doing it is that it takes a lot of
28 information to do that, topography maps and then dividing it up into different groupings of like
29 0-10 percent, 10-20 percent, 20-30 percent, over 30 percent, and that kind of analysis, and we
30 don't have the resources to do that. So we didn't get to look at an example.
31
32 We had provided this table previously to show some of that, particularly Woodside, Los Altos
33 Hills and Portola Valley, which are three that you are very familiar with, that use slope density.
34 This is also to show, to some extent, there are some maximum house sizes in some of these cities
35 as well. Woodside has 6000 square feet that can go up above that if the lot is over-sized.
36 Saratoga has 8000 square feet. Portola Valley is 85 percent of the total floor area. So those are
37 some of the concepts we were working with and that we have shown you before.
38
39 In looking at the two issues, the maximum house size from an administration standpoint is a
40 fairly easily criterion to use. Our concern about that had been, and continues to be, that you have
41 a lot of discretion through the site review to look at each house and determine the appropriate
42 locations and mitigations for limiting house size and in some cases the house can be very big and
43 not be seen by anybody. In other cases, not so big and highly visible, so it is so varied that we
44 think that it's pretty difficult to just adopt amaximum house size in this zoning district.
45
Page 3
1 The issue of slope density is one that, on the flipside, there is some innate sense to using that in
2 terms of relating to the slope of the land, the difficulty and the disturbance associated with
3 building on it, but the points that we made before (and continue to be concerned about) are the
4 amount of, again, analysis taken to draw that up and for Staff to analyze those things and the
5 additional calculations. And, secondly, that so much of this area is already built-out that it seems
6 to us to be kind of punitive to go into the remaining lots and say now you are under a different,
7 and more stringent, standard than all of the other properties out there that are already built,
8 recognizing that some of those will be rebuilt as well, but there isn't an awful lot of
9 redevelopment that occurs out in that zone.
10
11 Our sense is, at this point in time, that this might have been a good idea when 10 percent or 20
12 percent of the lots were built-out, but now that's quite a burden to impose slope density
13 requirements, so we wouldn't suggest that.
14
15 The approach that the Ordinance takes is it does basically two things. One, is that it creates now
16 a graduate scale of impervious cover, and it adds to that a floor area limitation, and the floor area
17 limitation is also graduated so that it is a higher percentage for smaller lots and a lesser
18 percentage for the larger lots. Once you are up to the lO-acre standard lot sizes for the OS
19 district, you are at the 3.5 percent impervious coverage that we have in there, and then you
20 additionally layer in a floor area ratio that is going to be more restrictive than anything that we
21 have today in terms of the actual square footage of the structures on the site.
22
23 Then, the second step in that process, is that we have provided some incentive to get a little
24 higher floor area ratio on these lots if a certain percentage of the site is retained in some kind of a
25 permanent fashion as either in its native condition or restored to a native vegetative state, or we
26 have added flexibility at this point which was not laid out last time to you, and this might need
27 some discussion, in agricultures types of uses. So it maybe that, in terms of looking at some
28 sustainability issues that we've talked about and the City has looked at, in terms of and around
29 the issue of agriculture and locally grown food, and that might be something that might also fit
30 into this category and would likely require some kind of restrictive covenant or some mechanism
31 . that would prescribe that these areas are left that way.
32
33 As Clare mentioned, we'd have a five-year check-in and monitoring of that as well, but with that
34 kind of (and depending on the size of the site) a certain percentage of the site being retained there
35 which, really, we think goes towards the goal of the Open Space District to preserve native
36 vegetation and agricultural uses, that this would justify this modest increase in "a bonus" floor
37 area ratio and, hopefully, achieving the intent of the Open Space District while allowing for more
38 flexibility.
39
40 We provided these examples last time. The hope on the smaller lots with the graduated scale
41 was that we would provide some additional flexibility for development there and minimize the
42 need for variances, as you can see on the one-acre lot with 1525 square feet of impervious cover
43 is patio and a driveway and you don't have a house, so it's very difficult to make that work.
44 Even with what is proposed, that is pretty restrictive, so we think those are workable numbers.
45 They do result in slightly more impervious surface being allowed than is currently the case, but
46 again overall in the big picture it is still very restrictive for the area.
Page 4
1
2 The next steps are for the Commission to review this Ordinance. We do have it in Ordinance
3 form, and if you move it forward, we will schedule it for Council and take it to them for final
4 approval. Thank you.
5
6 Chair Barger: Thank you. For the benefit of the public that has gathered for this item here, there
7 are three steps to the remaining hearing of this item, one of which is the opportunity for
8 Commissioners to ask questions, another and the second of which is the opportunity for the
9 public to make comments, and then third for the item to come back to the Commission for
10 discussion and a Motion.
11
12 I would like to, given the hour, and thank you for sticking around so long here, let me ask you, if
13 you would like to (by a showing of your hands) go first and ask your questions so that you can
14 get out of here, we can do that. Alternatively, you can wait for us to ask our questions, and I'll
15 try to keep it to within let's say 10-15 minutes, and then you can have your comments, which
16 would keep you here a little longer. So, by raising your hands, if you would like to go first
17 (before the Commission) please raise your hand. I see one, which I guess means, two. For those
18 that would like to hear the Commissioner's questions before they make their comments, please
19 raise your hands, and that's what we will be doing.
20
21 Commissioners questions, and let's see if we can keep it to 10 or 15 minutes. Commissioner
22 Keller, you had your light on first.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, if I might, I'm sorry, a procedural issue, and perhaps this
25 is for the City Attorney, but if there are folks who have time constraints, given the hour, perhaps
26 the two who would like to speak could go ahead and speak, and then the others could follow.
27
28 Mr. Larkin: I think that's to the discretion of the chair.
29
30 Chair Garber: Would the two that had raised their hands like to speak first? Herb Borock, you
31 will have three minutes, and Mark did you want to speak too? Go ahead.
32
33 Herb Borock, p.o. Box 632: Thank you, Chair Garber and Commissioner Holman. I'll just take
34 a moment of your time about one of the items which is the impervious coverage calculation on
35 Attachment A, the redline draft, Page 14, Paragraph one (1). This appears to continue the current
36 process where the calculation is a private discussion between the Applicant and the Planning
37 Director, and that the public does not participate. It's not a question of a typical public hearing
38 process where the public can submit substantial evidence to determine what the correct
39 calculations should be. I had previously given the Commission, when such evidence sometime
40 ago when this issue was first on your agenda, including a reference from one of the
41 manufacturers, Reema Stone, where the calculation depends upon the type of soil and the slope
42 and the length of time that this stone has been in place, and the language here is essentially
43 arbitrary language. It does not allow anyone, except the Applicant, the ability to question the
44 Director's decision, and I believe that should be part of the public process. I understand it is in
45 the Applicant's interest to put in some kind of paving that would work in terms of run-off, but
46 also some Applicants would prefer to use that as an excuse just to build something bigger, by not
Page 5
1 counting some that (if you looked at substantial evidence) would indicate it didn't do what it's
2 supposed to do. So that's one change that I would suggest. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mark Conroe.
5
6 Mark Conroe, 805 Los Traneos Road: Our family has been owners out here for about 20 years,
7 long-suffering members of the Commission, Staff and fellow Open Space-ers. Firstly, I want to
8 recognize and applaud Curtis and Clare and Dan, Samir and any other members of the Open
9 Space working group who spent the last couple of years running what I thought was a functional
10 process.
11
12 I have five comments, all somewhat technical, that comment on Staff's recommendations.
13
14 On the' second dwelling units, you will notice that tonight they are recommending something
15 new, and that's going from a three-acre to a five-acre site to have a second dwelling unit. One
16 practical implication of this, which I think should be considered, is that some sites it might be
17 appropriate to have a detached garage, and usually you would throw some living space above
18 that. I think this, for any site under five acres, it wouldn't allow for that. So I would ask, since
19 we're in that and our family owns one of those sites, that you either consider going back to three
20 acres, or allow a detached garage. Again, all this is subject to the new proposed FAR limits.
21
22 Second of all, I encourage you to follow Staff's recommendation on house size regulations. The
23 FAR is accomplishing that. There is a large drop in existing code compared to the new FAR
24 limits, so I think those are restrictive enough.
25
26 Third comment, on the FAR bonus, for example, on a five-acre site, you only get it if you leave
27 90 percent of the site undisturbed. We think that is a little too restrictive and maybe reduce that
28 to 80 percent and you accomplish, I think, what the Code is setting to do.
29
30 Related to that, on the "certain agricultural uses," I would note that our site for 120 years has
31 been planted with olive trees and for about 50 years has been growing vegetables and fruit trees,
32 so I would ask that those uses be mentioned. Some other places around us have grapes.
33
34 Finally, as to "process minor grading work goes to the City Council under proposed by the
35 Staff," I would ask that this be handled by Staff. It appears to be an overkill otherwise, and also
36 if you want to plant a tree that goes to the City Council, or at least it should clarify that you can
37 plant a tree, or if you need to do minor grading, that can be handled at the Staff level under a
38 minor Site and Design Review.
39
40 Thanks for hearing us tonight.
41
42 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Commissioner Keller, Vice-Chair Tuma, Commissioner
43 Fineberg, and then myself.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: A couple of quick questions. It said that maximum height of an attached.
46 dwelling is 25 feet. What is the maximum height of a detached dwelling, a separate dwelling?
Page 6
1
2 Ms. Campbell: It's 25 feet.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so next to it, a height of anything is 25 feet?
5
6 Mr. Williams: You're talking about a detached second dwelling unit, which I believe is one
7 story and 17 feet, but we will check that. It's whatever the Residential Estate (RE) Zone says.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: So the maximum height of the primary dwelling is 25 feet, is that the
10 idea?
11
12 Mr. Williams: Right, so if you've got a second dwelling part of that, then that is part of the main
13 dwelling at 25 feet, if it's detached.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: So if it's part of the primary dwelling, then essentially it's by the primary
16 dwelling rule of 25 feet, and if it's a second unitla second separate building, then the maximum
17 is 17, is that correct?
18
19 Mr. Williams: Right.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: The second thing is, maybe my mind is kind of warped, but I had trouble
22 trying to figure out the meaning of Page 14, bullet number 8, and I am hoping that you will
23 figure out a better way to word that so people can figure out what you are talking about, because
24 it's a little obtuse for me.
25
26 I think what you meant is that them minimum impervious cover is based on the presumed size of
27 the parcel, before you do the reduction for the dedicated Open Space that is non-develop-able,
28 and I'm not sure if that's what this means.
29
30 Mr. Williams: We have a, and I think it's only one, and I'll be corrected by members of the
31 audience if it's not, but one Development Agreement that has nine or ten lots in it that had that
32 specific provision that the lots could be smaller than ten acres, but there was a large Open Space
33 that was set aside and that, because of that, each of those individual lots (even though they were
34 less than ten acres) could be treated as ten-acre lots for the purpose of the Ordinance. That is
35 really it, and so maybe what we do is that we just come in here and we cite that Development
36 Agreement and say th~t Development Agreement is operative for builders' lots or something like
37 that.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Right, what you are basically saying is that they are treated as if they are
40 ten-acre lots, and I am not sure if this wording actually implements what you said.
41
42 The next, and my final thing here, is I'm trying to figure out Table 3, which is on Page 7 of the
43 Draft, and here is where my confusion is. It's that this gets to a question I think I asked the last
44 time, which is if you have three acres being five percent of impervious coverage and five percent
45 of floor area ratio, at two percent, when it's two acres, you said it was half of 7.5 and half of 5,
46 which is 6.25.
Page 7
1
2 Well, what I'm wondering is, why is three acres not one acre at 7.5 and two acres at 5? You
3 know, it's kind of confusing. Where do you get the breakpoint, because if you have 2.9 acres,
4 it's not quite three acres,and you actually might have this anomaly where if you do the
5 averaging you actually get more than if you don't do the averaging. So I'm confused by that.
6
7 Chair Garber: So if I am understanding, would/if each one of these four parcel size types had a
8 maximum and a minimum, would that answer your question?
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Well, there is an example above which says that the two acre site is
11 treated as one acre at 7.5 and one acre at 5, okay? So what happens if you have a 2.9 acre site?
12 Is it treated as one acre at 7.5, and 1.9 acres at 5? And then when you get to a three acre site you
13 actually lose impervious cover, so I'm confused. There are a bunch of numerical glitches here
14 that I don't understand.
15
16 Mr. Williams: What it is saying, and it's not saying one acre of your site of considered one at
17 7.5 and one acre at 5.5. It's saying that if you've got a two acre lot and you are prorating and
18 splitting it right down the middle, between one and three acres, then you are going to split right
19 down the middle between 5 and 7.5.
20
21 If you have a 2.9 acre lot, you are going to take th,e ratio of that difference between one and three
22 acres and apply that ratio to the same, prorate it between 5 percent and 7 percent, or 7.5 percent,
23 and so it is going to probably be 2.9 is going to work out to be probably like 5.2 percent or
24 something like that, and then you would do it again, between three and five and between five and
25 ten.
26
27 Clare had, rather ingeniously, put together a table of like from one acre to ten acres by a tenth of
28 an acre, or something, I don't know, or at least within one acre of each one of those, but what
29 that did is that it prorated it between one and ten acres and you got some pretty big numbers and
30 our thought was you really shouldn't start going higher until you get down to three acres or
31 something like that, so that's why there isn't as much. There's a much bigger difference between
32 like three acres and one acre than there is between ten acres and three acres, so you keep
33 pinching it d0wn a little bit until you really do get down to the smaller lots in the District.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: So then let me make this slight suggestion which is just to better transmit
36 your intent. If you could, instead of having an example of two acres, had an example of 2.5
37 acres, because my problem with two acres is that you are not sure what the' calculation is
38 meaning, but with 2.5 acres the interpretation is a lot easier to figure out than what's going on,
39 that's it one-quarter of the way towards three acres, and three-quarters away from one acre, and it
40 explains what's going on.
41
42 Mr. Williams: We'd be glad to do that, and I think that in the reality, when we actually
43 implement this, we will create a table like Clare said and we will probably have that by a tenth of
44 an acre or all the way through and give those numbers to Applicants and interested parties.
45
46 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma and Commissioner Fineberg.
Page 8
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just two quick questions. On Page 8 of 17 of the Ordinance, where you have
3 the section dealing with nonresidential use, and it talks about somebody wanting something other
4 than the 3.5 to 5 percentages, then they would go to the Planning and Transportation
5 Commission and Council in Site and Design Review. I thought we were going to use a
6 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process for that.
7
8 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, a CUP is required for some kinds of uses like educational uses or
9 some of these nonresidential uses do require CUPs. Some of them don't, so all of them require
10 Site and Design Review, so the thought was to be sure we are covering all of them and that the
11 Commission and Council weigh in on that and make that determination, so you may want to see
12 something differently for greenhouses, for instance, than if it's an educational building that isn't
13 necessarily as closely tied to the Open Space use as greenhouses mightbe.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: And then the other, just if you could address one of the speakers brought up
16 an issue regarding the need for someone to go to Council if they wanted to plant a tree or a minor
17 grading. Can you talk about it, and just address that?
18
19 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think, and I don't know if we need to make a change in the Ordinance or
20 not, but we do have a minor Site and Design Review that was for very minor things like that, that
21 is a Staff level review, and it's basically triggered by the same as like a minor Architectural
22 Review.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: Is that Page 10, Item B 1.
25
26 Ms. Campbell: Yes, it is.
27
28 Mr. Williams: That doesn't reflect ... that says "follow minor Staff level procedures as
29 outlined," oh, okay, so that does cover it, so most of those kinds of things will go through that
30 process at a Staff level review and not have to come to the Commission or be put on a Council
31 agenda.
32
33 Chair Garber: And if I may follow on there, Vice-Chair Tuma, under item 2B, there, the projects
34 that comprise less than 1000 square feet, is that where you were suggesting a tweak to that,
35 where that particular paragraph would then go up to Item Number 1, am I understanding that
36 correctly?
37
38 Ms. Campbell: No, what happened in the September Study Session, I think there were some
39 comments from at least two Commissioners saying that, for this level of project, that there would
40 be some interest in having a subcommittee sit in to hear about or keep up on those levels of
41 projects, and not necessarily being involved actively with decisions or action taking.
42
43 Mr. Williams: And if I could add, when you saw this in September, basically 2000 square feet
44 was the threshold for Commission review, and under 1000 dropped back to needing the Staff
45 review and the sense of the Commission seemed to be that you wanted either 1000 to be that
46 threshold or you wanted this Commission's committee to review between 1000 and 2000, so it
Page 9
1 was a little more straightforward to push the threshold to 1000, and there was also an indication
2 that you wanted second units, even though they are not even 1000 square feet, to come through
3 the Commission process, too, so we included the second units also.
4
5 Chair Garber: I'm going to ... Commissioner Fineberg, excuse me.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Staying on Page 10 for a moment, how many sites in the OS area,
8 approximately, are between five and ten acres? I'm looking at the item that used to be A. It's
9 now 1. "Second dwelling units shall only be permitted on sites with a minimum site area." It
10 was ten and now five, so what impact is that change going to have?
11
12 Chair Garber: Does attachment E help at all, that chart?
13
"14 Ms. Campbell: So on the attachment with the table that lists all of the parcels, it gives the basic
15 breakdown of the top, how things are split up, so the lots that are basically ranging from 5-10
16 acres, there are about 30 of those parcels. It has the different lot sizes, just a general breakdown
17 of each of them.
18
19 Chair Garber: Out of total of how many parcels?
20
21 Planner Campbell: Seventy-nine.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I'm seeing attachment E. Maybe you are looking at something
24 different. This may be 30 or 40 parcels.
25
26 Mr. Williams: It should say "OS Partial Summary" at the top, and it's a table.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: And it's a single page, one-sided, ah, two columns, got you, okay. So
29 it looks like there is a significant number on my chart, about half the volume is between five and
30 ten acres.
31
32 Mr. Williams: Well, we've got the numbers at the top there, and it says the number of
33 developable lots, 0-5 acres, number of lots ...
34
35 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so 38 percent then of the parcels will be allowed to have that
36 second dwelling unit.
37
38 Mr. Williams: Right, if they don't already. Some of them may.
39
40 Commissioner Fineberg: That seems significant. Can you comment on whether you think that is
41 a beneficial change, or is that consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals of keeping the area
42 undeveloped?
43
44 Mr. Williams: I think it is, in that particularly it's, and I mean it's 30 lots, and it may be 38
45 percent of the lots, but the acreage area is very considerable and the operative thing is that the
46 amount of development allowed on the site does not increase, and it is still counted against the
Page 10
1 impervious cover. It's counted against floor area ratio as it is proposed here, as well, so if you
2 are doing a second unit, that is an area that you cannot put into a house or cabana or some
3 impervious cover standpoint, patios and pools and whatever, so it all adds up to the same amount
4 of total development on the site.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Something I think might be a correction on Page 10 of 17, still, Item
7 Number 3, the last sentence refers to "second dwelling units shall follow standards," and it
8 continues on "with the exceptions outlined in subsections A and B above," and, I'm sorry, Page
9 1O?
10
11 Mr. Williams: That should be one and two, you are correct.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so, okay because some changes were made from A's to 1 's and
14 2's. Okay, could you comment on Mr. Borock's comment about only the Applicant being able
15 to appeal the Director's decision, and I believe that had to do with the impermeability, if I
16 understood his comment correctly.
17
18 Mr. Williams: Right, that was on the outline, Page 14, where it outlines the paved surfaces
19 calculations. The way this is worded, and it could be worded differently, but essentially before
20 the Ordinance was amended a couple of years ago, Staff was calculating iNhere was virtu~Ily
21 any permeability to a surface, then it was considered 100 percent permeable. If it was paved, it
22 was zero, and so the Commission's change to that was essentially almost the reverse and
23 virtually everything counted as no permeability except for gravel and so that's the way it is now.
24
25 So what we are looking at here is saying there are these various gradients in between, and some
26 materials clearly have a certain permeability. These days, we have pretty good data about the
27 level of permeability. and the kind of construction that needs to take place to be sure that they are
28 permeable, because a lot of them require the base to be constructed in a certain way that they are
29 truly permeable. And if we have a question, we could use our Public Works Engineering section
30 to look at that.
31
32 You know, if it's a Site Design project, and it's a Commission-reviewed project, you are going to
33 see that if you have questions about that, then we need to look at gathering more information and
34 justifying why we came up with a certain number, so certainly the Commission could question
35 that.
36
37 The language here, in the last sentence, says that the "applicant may provide information and soil
38 report to outline the baseline permeability in specific areas proposed for coverage," and that is
39 mainly because there are some areas where you have this really strong clay feature that doesn't
40 have much permeability already, and so you may be able to justify that what you are putting in
41 there is more permeable and then you would get some credit for doing that.
42
43 I don't think we have any objection. We can certainly make that more generic and just basically
44 say that information may be provided relative to that point, and it doesn't have to be the
45 Applicant; it can be whoever, but it's not, and until it gets to the Commission level, most likely
46 somebody is not going to know that is going to be there.
Page 11
1
2 But, if somebody wanted to bring in at that point some evidence that, in fact, that they don't
3 think this particular surface has that kind of permeability, then we'd have to address it as part of
4 the project and the Environmental Review, and justify that level, so we would be glad to make
5 that more generic wording if that would help.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Are there any Industry Standard definitions like certain types of pavers
8 are rated by the manufacturers? Is there some rating system that can be referred to or relied on,
9 or is it'completely subjective?
10
11 Mr. Williams: It's not completely subjective. It's that there are rating systems. I don't think our
12 Public Works folks would suggest one. But what they might suggest, and what I think they
13 would use, is that there is a handbook, a storm water quality handbook. It is used pretty broadly
14 in the Bay area. It has pages and pages of different kinds of materials, what their permeability
15 ratings are, what their permeability ratings are when they are on slopes as opposed to flat, how
16 they have to be constructed to get certain permeability levels in terms of the base material that
17 goes below them and that kind of thing. So, there are documents that do outline that, and that's
18 what we typically would rely on.
19
20 Chair Garber: And those sorts of comments would come through on specific project reviews and
21 they are part of the requirement because they have been adopted by the municipality, and/or they
22 would be made comments when they are reviewed by Public Works.
23
24 Mr. Williams: Right, and they would probably be referenced in the environmental review.
25
26 Chair Garber: I mean, that sort of technical stuff is outside the auspice of us. I mean, we can
27 require it, but the actual review and the exercise of checking that is by [unclear] inspectors.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: I was just asking this question because right now, the way I read the
30 Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant provides the information and the Director has the discretion of
·31 whether to consult with Public Works and then there is no requirement that Public Works apply
32 any rigorous analytical method to it. So I think there is room in that this be made a more
33 rigorous process, where there is fairness and hopefully without creating a huge burden of work
34 for Public Works, if there are these Industry Standards. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: I'm going to skip me. Commissioner Holman, and I'll just make comments later.
37 Commissioner Holman .
. 38
39 Commissioner Holman: Page 14, Number 3, and what's been changed in Number 3. "Portions
40 of primary driveways located in the 200-foot scenic setback should not be counted as impervious
41 up to a width of 20 feet, assuming the primary residence is located beyond the 200-foot setback."
42
43 Well, I would hope to goodness that the primary residence was beyond the 200-foot setback, but
44 the other thing is, I was wondering how Staff would feel about an addition to that language that
45 would say "up to a width of 20 feet, and if it is of a natural appearance," understanding that we
Page 12
1 have compatibility requirements, but you can have a tented concrete, for instance, and its still
2 concrete, so I am wondering how Staff would feel about adding that language.
3
4 Mr. Williams: I think that's fine.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Great, thank you. On Page 7, of 17, "as a requirement of receiving
7 bonus FAR, the property owner shall enter into a covenant that is recorded with the property and
8 would apply to all future property owners."
9
10 There is no penalty associated with that, and what ends up happening a lot of times, with any
11 Code enforcement, is that it's really the burden on the City because it's not cost recovery, and
12 it's not ... the City Attorney wants to say something.
13
14 Mr. Larkin: I was going to say, I would suggest a covenant acceptable to the City Attorney or
15 something like that, and what we would normally require is some standard language that would
16 allow us to get injunctive relief and require it to be put back to its prior state.
17
18 Commissioner Holman: So could this language be amended to say that the covenant would
19 require a penalty clause, or however you want to phrase it?
20
21 Mr. Larkin: Right, enforcement provisions would be one, but it wouldn't be necessarily a
22 penalty, because you wouldn't want to say it's a hundred-dollar penalty as that hundred dollars a
23 hundred years from now may be not very much money.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: I'm not in any means suggesting a specific dollar amount. I would
26 never do that.
27
28 Mr. Larkin: So I think that we could say to include enforcement provisions acceptable to the
29 City Attorney, or something like that.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Okay, so could we amend the language to include that, okay, thank you.
32
33 Maximum house size, just to go there for a minute. Staff provided, and thank you for the
34 information, but Staff provided examples of what other communities do, and in light of our
35 carbon footprint policy adopted by the Council, I'm interested in that and also because of our
36 Green Building and the biggest green building that is built to Green Building standards is still not
37 as green as a small house built with the same Green standards, and so I'm interested in that.
38
39 Staff comments that many of the parcels near the Open Space District are already developed.
40 Some will be, over time, redeveloped and there are some that are undeveloped. How many
41 parcels might this apply to, or is there any thought of that?
42
43 Mr. Williams: About maximum house size, if we had that? Well, assuming again that we are
44 looking at the larger sites, and I don't know if that's the intent or not, but when we get up to that
45 6000-8000 square foot number that some of the other cities have that this is sort of the threshold,
46 and then I think we are again approaching that five-acre kind of cut-off, so we've got the 30 lots
Page 13
1 between five and ten acres and another 18 that are more than 10 acres, and so that's 48 parcels,
2 total. Now, whether they are, and how many of those might be redeveloped or already have
3 homes on them, that would be speculative, but that is how many lots we have of those sizes.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: And the other approach is allowing no more than 85 percent of the
6 allowable FAR based on impervious to be contributed to the main house. Neither approach
7 actually limits the amount of development; it just limits that amount and maximum size of the
8 house, is that correct?
9
10 Mr. Williams: Right, both are intended to limit the amount of the house and additional square
11 footage available on the site could be used for a second dwelling unit or a pool house, or a shed
12 or artist studio, or whatever.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I'm still interested in that and we will see if other Commissioners are as
15 well.
16
17 And, Parking and Scenic Setback, one quick question is, and I actually might refer to the
18 architect on the Commission this evening, is skylights, and I had issues with this before, because
19 there are some things that you just cannot monitor. They provide ventilation, but so do windows
20 and doors, etc.
21
22 So I am just wondering if there is any kind of reasonable consideration you might have to offer
23 towards a maximum skylight dimension, and you can think on that.
24
25 And then, Parking and Scenic Setback, there are no limitations, and this was another issue.
26 There are no limitations on how many spaces might be accommodated there. It's not allowed
27 now. People do it sometimes, and it has to be screened. Does Staff have any concerns about the
28 parking and the scenic setback being used for the primary parking or how large it might become?
29
30 Mr. Williams: I think the language says it's not to be used for the primary parking, the four
31 spaces, and if you are question is that somebody may still use it that way, I don't know and it's
32 kind of hard to regulate that aspect of it. I don't think we have a concern about it, primarily,
33 because it is not like we get complaints about people seeing hordes of cars parked out there from
34 driving up Page Mill Road or something. So it hasn't really been a problem at this point, and
35 maybe because we don't allow it, but I don't think that it's a problem, but I also don't think that
36 it's a problem that put some number in there either, probably.
37
38 Commissioner Holman: My only concern is that I haven't noticed, anyway, a maximum number
39 of parking spaces accommodated so it's the "you build it/they will come" sort of thing. So that
40 is the issue that I raise.
41
42 Chair Garber: That is all the questions that I have. We will go to the public. Daniel Dulitz,
43 followed by Cathy Cartmell and then Richard Geiger again. You will have three minutes.
44
45 Daniel Dulitz, Palo Alto: Okay, yes, goodnight. First of all, thanks to the Staff and
46 Commissioners for participating in this process over the previous years, including visits to the
Page 14
1 Open Space District and a consultative process that I would agree with a previous speaker was
2 functionaL
3
4 My comments, I will try to keep them brief. My first question, or my first shortest question, is
5 whether in 18.280.70B 1 and I think this is on Page 10, whether "minor projects" is adequately
6 defined.
7
8 There is a cross-reference to another section that I have not looked up, but the e.g. does not
9 necessarily full enumerate all the things like planting trees on a nonspecific ally approved
10 landscaping plan that might relevant.
11
12 Secondly, and a more general point, the proposal as it stands is a compromise. The residents and
13 owners of the Open Space District who have participated in public meetings and the community
14 working group were unanimous in opposing slope density limits, floor ratio and maximum house
15 sizes even though many of us have very modest properties. Yet, we note that the proposal, as it
16 stands, does impose maximum floor area ratios that are quite restrictive. I won't argue against
17 them, even though they will substantially reduce the usefulness of some lots in the Open Space
18 District without improving the environmental feel of the open space. There were probably a few
19 truly gigantic projects that were built in the past that perhaps should not have been allowed. The
20 floor area ratios will prevent those exceptional projects, and so I agree that they are not
21 completely without merit.
22
23 Since the current proposal prevents these exceptional cases, I think there is little justification {or
24 additional restrictions such as slope density. The impervious coverage limits remain very strict,
25 between 95% and 97% of each lot must remain fully permeable. Reducing house sizes further
26 will not make an appreciable difference to the feel of the environment.
27
28 Finally, I will note that during the course of the rezoning, there have been several public
29 meetings and a community working group. As one might expect, the greatest participation has
30 come from the people who live in the Open Space District every day. While those who visit the
31 Open Space might enjoy it for a few hours a week, we who live there enjoy it for hours ever day.
32 We are bicyclists, hikers, equestrians, gardeners and naturalists. We are deeply committed to the
33 environmental values of the Open Space District, yet during this process, we who live in the
34 Open Space have unanimously asked that the already strict zoning restrictions not be made more
35 strict.
36
37 I feel like we have a particular insight into the character of the area and the city in which we live.
38 We have a good understanding ofthe costs and benefits ofthese regulations and we ask that
39 particularly burdensome changes, beyond those that have already been proposed by staff, not be
40 imposed on the people most affected.
41
42 Chair Garber: Cathy Cartmell to be followed by Richard Geiger.
43
44 Cathy Cartmell, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I'm Cathy Cartmell. I'm President
45 of PAPOS, which is Palo Altans Protecting Open Space. It is the neighborhood association in
46 the Open Space District of Palo Alto. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1984, so about half of my
Page 15
1 life, and most of my adult life. I have owned property in the Open Space District since about
2 1988. We bought our property because we loved it, and because it would increase in value over
3 the coming years, based on the Zoning Ordinance. I am sorry that more of my neighbors are not
4 here to express themselves and their views, but please realize we have been working on this, the
5 OS District Regulations, for the City which has been going on for two years now, so attendance
6 has dwindled a little bit.
7
8 The Planning Commissioners and City Council represent all the citizens of Palo Alto and act on
9 our behalf. You represent me. You represent my neighbors. As your constituents, I believe in
10 less government with fewer and simpler regulations rather than more and more complicated
11 regulations.
12
13 We, in PAPOS, share the City of Palo Alto's desire to keep the Open Space as Open Space for
14 future generations, but please realize that the Open Space Zoning Regulations are already very
15 strict, the strictest in Palo Alto.
16
17 As you can see, from my little piece of paper that I pulled out. This is the RI District and what
18 they are allowed to do, and this is what the Open Space District is currently regulated as, so you
19 can see that this is already very strict.
20
21 PAPOS is against adding maximum house size to the regulations. Size restrictions are already
22 implicit in the current regulations. PAPOS is against adding slope density formulas to the
23 regulation. There is no reason to make the already difficult approval process more difficult.
24
25 P APOS would like to see all Open Space property owners enjoy the benefits of a second
26 dwelling unit, even those under five acres. PAPOS is against adding FAR to the Open Space
27 Zoning Ordinance, adding a 3.5 percent FAR on ten acres cuts the theoretical house size on
28 larger properties in half. The 6 percent FAR for one acre is too restrictive, given that there are
29 several one-acre properties in the OS District which currently have much larger homes. The 6
30 percent FAR creates an inequity of value between neighbors.
31
32 PAPOS is against the difficult law and expensive approval process currently in place for the OS
33 District, and just for Commissioner Holman's information, we have no parking on the street up
34 there, so it is very difficult if someone comes to visit you to park any cars. If you had a dinner
35 party of three couples, you would have no place to park those people.
36
37 I did just want to comment on one section regarding the basements, that if there is a 10 percent
38 slope, that only gives a three-foot droop over a 30-foot wide house and this is not enough to
39 make it a legitimate story for day-lighting a basement, so it really doesn't make a whole story, so
40 to count that as a whole floor, then, it is really still a basement, even if it is only a three feet.
41
42 Thank you Commissioners.
43
44 Chair Garber: There is a question from Commissioner Fineberg for Cathy.
45
Page 16
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Cathy, thank you. Would you put up, and maybe Staff could help you
2 with this if it is not turned on, the two pages you showed to us, so we can see what they are?
3 Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: It might be helpful, Cathy, if you know what the acreage of each one of those
6 examples are.
7
8 Ms. Cartmell: Well, this just goes percentages. Yes, this just shows the percentage oflot
9 coverage that someone in Rl can cover, so the double-hatched area is the building coverage, and
10 the single hatch area is how much they could pave on a property, so impervious surface area. So
11 they are allowed to pave 90 percent of their property in the Rl District. And then in the OS
12 District the regulation is a little different in that they regulate impervious coverage rather than lot
13 coverage, so we are only allowed 3.5 percent of our property, so it's just that they show kind of
14 in g~neral the percentage of property that you are allowed to cover.
15
16 Chair Garber: Okay, thanks. Richard Geiger, three minutes.
17
18 Richard Geiger, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I've typed up a few pages since
19 before I came here, so I'll just go through and read them because I don't want to get too
20 distracted by only having three minutes to make comments on this major issue in my life.
21
22 First of all, I will just say that I object to almost every aspect of this Zoning Ordinance, flatly.
23 I've owned my land since 1958, and that was long before the City zoned it and annexed it. They
24 zoned it one acre like it was in the County, and then after we built our house they down-zoned
25 this to ten acres, and the house is situated not within the current zoning regulations. The setback
26 is maybe 100 feet for the house, but the 200 feet is the requirement on Page Mill Road, and I'm
27 just going to read the rest of this.
28
29 This zoning applies to almost one-half of the City. There are many sections over this area that
30 are very different in physical characteristics. There are many sections that are served by City
31 Utilities in different ways. There are many land parcels that have been developed under different
32 zoning laws and regulations. Prior to the down-zoning by a factor of lO-to-l in the 70s, the area
33 was developed with the City installing utilities based on one-acre zoning. Houses were built and
34 located on the properties based on the one-acre zoning, and that's almost all of the houses up
35 there, or many of them. When the 10 acre zoning was implemented, none of the houses met this
36 new zoning in location or size of the houses already built. Special variances are required for all
37 activities, remodeling, etc. on the houses. This involves very high fees, delays, arbitrary
38 decisions on allowing or denying the actions, changes or remodeling. Zoning Ordinances should
39 be written for this area of the City that are based on what is there now, what would make
40 variances unnecessary, and what would fit in without really affecting the environment or the
41 overall density.
42
43 Considering the vast public Open Space lands surrounding the private parcels, and I will throw
44 this in there, there are thousands of acres that surround this section of Page Mill Road ...
45
46 Chair Garber: Why don't you finish your letter, and then ...
Page 17
1
2 Mr. Geiger: Okay, thank you. This Ordinance seems to be written in such a way that it allows
3 arbitrary decisions to be made at every step of the way. Denying the use of property can be
4 made on the basis of the undefined wording and vague statements contained in the Ordinance.
5 This new revised version of the Open Space zoning has only been available in the last few days,
6 which did not allow enough time for me to thoroughly review it before approving it. I would
7 request a few more weeks be allowed to thoroughly review it.
8
9 Passage of this Ordinance will mean that this type of Zoning Ordinance can be applied to other
10 sections of the City, especially if only limited areas are involved, and there are enough voters to
11 approve such an ordinance. This Ordinance can be used a guide in writing ballot measures to be
12 put before the voters. There are several areas of this City that need down-zoning as much as, or
13 more so, that this southwestern area of the City to protect the environment as well as to protect
14 the pocketbooks of homeowners.
15
16 The developed areas of the southwestern section of the City are surrounded by many thousands
17 of publicly-owned lands and do not really need protecting from over-development or flooding
18 from naturally occurring rainfall. I personally object to every aspect of this ordinance. The IC
19 and the FAR numbers, especially the FAR that is the same as the IC. There is no reason to have
20 a FAR as long as there is an Ie. Having a FAR that is the same as the IC discourages second
21 stories. It encourages spreading out the single-story houses, and it makes no sense, and among
22 other things, it is vague, has very excessive fees, long delays in approval or denial and denies the
23 reasonable use of my property.
24
25 Overall, the real intent of the Open Space Ordinance appears to be to prevent the use of private
26 property. Thanks for listening to me. I could point a vague use/vague statement ...
27
28 Chair Garber: Mr. Geiger, I think ...
29
30 Mr. Geiger: ... like agriculture and Open Space uses, and list a bunch of things ...
31
32 Chair Garber: Mr. Geiger ...
33
34 Mr. Geiger: ... and similar uses not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Chapter.
35 Who is going to define those words. Anyway, thank you.
36
37 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners? Comments? Can we get to Motion and then have
38 discussion around that, or are there general comments that any of the Commissioners would like
39 to make. Commissioner Fineberg.
40
41 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a quick question, if I could. Regarding Commissioner
42 Holman's comments about a potential consideration of maximum house size, if you've got a ten-
43 acre lot, and I'm picking that just arbitrarily, what would the maximum house size be? We've
44 got it quoted with percentages, but would that mean? How big would a house be, maximum size,
45 on a ten-acre lot?
46
Page 18
1 Mr. Williams: It's difficult to say, under the existing Code, because you have to make certain
2 assumptions about how much of your impervious coverage you are going to use for a house
3 versus for a pool, etc. etc., and then how much of a second story you are going to have, or a first
4 floor. But we use some basic assumptions of 80 percent of the impervious cover going to the
5 house and that the second story is about 80 percent of the first story size.
6
7 Using that assumption, a ten-acre lot would have allowable floor area of 21,954 square feet,
8 which theoretically could all be the house size, then. Under the proposed limitations, instead of
9 21,954 square feet, that would be 15,246 square feet. And then there is actually a bonus, too, if
10 you did 95% ofthe lot site was left in native vegetation or agriculture than it would be a little bit
11 more at 17,424 square feet.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: Is that analysis somewhere in here, and I missed it?
14
15 Mr. Williams: You have the PowerPoint presentation, the Table is Slide 13, Development
16 Example.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so we can take that column that says this site FAR with bonus
19 and that could equate to the ground floor of the house?
20
21 Mr. Williams: That would equate to the total floor area.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: Including driveways and other impermeable surfaces?
24
25 Mr. Williams: No, floor area is in enclosed structure area, first and second floor added together.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: First and second. Got it, okay. Thank you.
28
29 Chair Garber: Sorry, is that it Commissioner Fineberg?
30
31 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, thank you.
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Rosati.
34
35 MOTION
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Let me try to throw out a Motion here, if I may, and I'd be happy to
38 entertain Amendments to it to just get it going.
39
40 The first thing is to move Staff recommendations with the following Amendments:
41
42 On Page 14 of the Ordinance, which is paragraph M, and I think this is 18.28.070M, let's see.
43 No, old Ml. It's new M which is the old L, sorry.
44
45 Chair Garber: Okay, and Item Number Ml, that starts, "All paves surfaces ... "
46
Page 19
1 Commissioner Keller: All paved surfaces, correct. Two Amendments to this.
2
3 The First Amendment is that where it says "all paves surfaces shall be classified as 100 percent,
4 75 percent, 50 percent or 25 percent impervious based on the material that is to be used and its
5 use," okay, because I think that the use of the materials is also important, not just the material,
6 but the use of the material, okay.
7
8 The second thing to this is that you figure out a wording for this in order to make this subject to
9 any member of the public allowing to add input, and I'll give Staff discretion in tenns of how to
10 add input to that. Okay?
11
12 The second change is with respect to the same section, except that it's paragraph three, and that
13 is the driveway within the scenic setback should be of a natural appearance.
14
15 The third changes is on Page 7, which is letter "a" which is, let's see, and let's be clear,
16 18.28.050b, number one, letter "A," amend this in the appropriate way to have an enforcement
17 provision that allows the City to require specific perfonnance or other penalties, and if you figure
18 out the appropriate wording of that.
19
20 The next item is 18.28.070b, and let me figure out where that is, and in particular in paragraph B
21 on Page 10, it's Bl and to specifically add that minor landscaping changes that involve less than
22 10 cubic feet, or changes that involve less than 10 cubic feet in grading change is to be
23 considered minor. So if they move 10 cubic feet, and I'm just coming up with something, and
24 maybe someone has a better number, but I'm just trying to quantify what "minor" might be in
25 that regard or relatively minor.
26
27 And, two changes that I am just going to reiterate to Staff so they have them, and these do not
28 have to be in the Motion, but I'm just going to mention them.
29
30 One is that Page 14 and 18.28.070, Paragraph 8, and I guess it's old L, new M8, and you are
31 going to figure out how to word that better, and similarly on 18.28.050 Bl, Table 3 on Page 7,
32 you are going to change the example to make it clear what you are talking about, something like
33 2.5 acres, and that's my Motion, and I'll be happy to entertain changes based on that.
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Second.
36
37 Chair Garber: Seconded by Vice-Chair Tuma. Would the Maker like to speak to his Motion.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: I have tried to get in here the gist of what I think that people have
40 suggested and tried to write them down, and I would also like to thank Chair Garber and Vice-
41 Chair Tuma for their work, and also the members of the public in the Open Space community,
42 and other interested parties in their work in putting this together. And I would like to thank Staff
43 for their work in bringing this forward. This has been a deliberate process, and I think that as is
44 with all compromises, not everybody is happy with everything, but I think this is a reasonable
45 compromise, and it would be nice to have this done, and enacted.
46
Page 20
1 Chair Garber: And the Seconder?
2
3 Vice-Chair Tuma: Actually, I had a question for the Planning Director. Any thoughts on 10
4 cubic feet as the right threshold here? I think Commissioner Keller was throwing it out there and
5 it strikes me as a bit low.
6
7 Mr. Williams: I think we already have a cut-off that you don't need a permit if it is under 100
8 cubic feet, so I think that we would stick with the 100 cubic feet which is not a lot of grading.
9 We have a ... and lwas just saying, Commissioner Keller, that you don't require permit under
10 100 cubic feet, so I think that would be a more appropriate number, and I had that question too of
11 Clare and that actually would be different. A hundred cubic yards gets to be a lot more, so.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, I was actually thinking it was 10 cubic yards. I hadn't realized it was
14 feet.
15
16 Mr. Williams: Yeah, so if we could use 10 cubic yards, I think that would be better, or 100 cubic
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is essentially just slightly more than a good-sized dump truck.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Let me just point out that if you look at Page 10, B2, it refers to the
21 threshold for Consent Calendar is the 100 cubic feet, so I was trying to pick something smaller
22 for one ...
23
24 Mr. Williams: Right, and I think it might be 100 cubic yards is ...
25
26 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so is the suggestion that I amend this to B2 be 100 cubic yards, and
27 to have Bl be 10 cubic yards?
28 .
29 Mr. Williams: Yeah.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I'll make that Amendment.
32
33 SECOND
34
35 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that would be acceptable. Okay, so with that, and in speaking to the
36 Motion, the only thing, and this is a second I suppose, the only thing that I would like to say,
37 having been a part of this process, is that it is actually quite nice to hear the comments from those
38 who were involved with this. I would agree and associate myself with the comments of the
39 members of the public in terms of it being a functional process. There is some give and take, and
40 in a compromise no one is 100-percent happy, and I think that is kind of where we have come to.
41 I think we were in a better position than we were before, but I really do sincerely appreciate the
42 process and the folks that were involved. While we were able to disagree and debate certain
43 things, there was a great degree of, I think, earnest effort to make things better. While we may
44 disagree about some of the things along the way, I really applaud the members of the public and
45 as Ms. Cartmell said, the numbers have dwindled from when we first started in terms of those
46 who were here, but I don't think the passion or the caring has dwindled at all on behalf of the
Page 21
1 members of the public, and I'm glad that you folks could come here and stick it out to this hour
2 and carry forward the sentiments of the members of the public up there, and I think we have
3 taken 'a lot of that on board, and I think that at the end of the day there are a few things that we
4 just didn't come to an agreement on, but there is a lot that we did, and I'm thankful for that
5 process. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati, Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner Fineberg.
8
9 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question about a comment made by Mr. Conroe, regarding
10 detached garages on properties that are less than, is it five acres, or three acres? Can you
11 comment on that?
12
13 Mr. Williams: Yes, I think what he was suggesting was that we allow detached garages with
14 second units above them. Detached garages are allowed. They are subject to now the
15 impervious cover floor area ratio limitations, but we do not allow, virtually in any of our Zoning
16 Districts, for second units, second story above-the-garage second units. There were a number of
17 them built some time ago, and we do have them around town, but generally all of the detached
18 second unit requirements are one-story and 17 feet.
19
20 Chair Garber: Is that it? Anything else? Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner
21 Fineberg.
22
23 Commissioner Holman: Yes, I also want to express appreciation to the Commissioners, the
24 public and Staff for participating in the process, and also gratitude to Staff for not recommending
25 the change of the District, and the reason is because the purpose of the District is to protect the
26 Open Space character and residential is an allowed use, but to put in the name changes, I think
27 the purpose and characteristics that would be proposed in the District, so I'm happy that that
28 didn't happen.
29
30 My question for Staff is, there are standing conditions of approval for the Open Space District.
31 Would it be appropriate to reference those because staff comes and goes, commissioners come
32 and go, and I get concerned sometimes that they get lost. Would there be an appropriate place to
33 reference those? It's like a checklist of standing conditions.
34
35 Mr. Williams: You mean to actually put those in the Ordinance itself, because we do have/we
36 did add the language about "Standard Conditions of Approval" on Page 16 that says that we
37 should maintain those standard conditions of approval.
38
39 Commissioner Holman: I overlooked that. Thank you very much.
40
41 Mr. Williams: Yeah, that was in there. The last go-around, the Commission made that addition
42 a couple of years ago.
43
44 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I had overlooked that this was already in there.
45
Page 22
1 And then one quick question having to do with parking in the scenic setback, is there a reason
2 that it is only 50 feet, because it's a 200-foot setback, so I'm wondering why it's only 50 feet?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Because it's more than 30 feet than it was last time.
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Fifty feet isn't very far, and especially ...
7
8 Mr. Williams: Wen, I think because, as Cathy Cartmell pointed out, there are instances where
9 you may have a nice flat spot where you can tum out, off the driveway and park your car,
10 particularly for visitors coming, and then you may not have another spot until you get up to the
11 house, or you may not have spots at the house if your own family is parking there. It needs to be,
12 and it should be, a distance that we are pretty comfortable that there is a requirement for it to be
13 screened, but even without that [screening], we are pretty comfortable in that area that it is likely
14 to be somewhat hidden and so I think 50 feet does that.
15
16 You know, it's not magic, but it's that we had 30 feet, and we thought that in most places up
17 there probably is enough to kind of hide the parking space, but we went with 50 as the
18 Commission obviously was not comfortable last time with 30, and we thought 50 was a workable
19 number.
20
21 Chair Garber: I'm sorry, did you have more, otherwise I was going to make just a comment
22 related to the ...
23
24 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, did you have any thought about maximum skylight size or
25 dimensions?
26
27 Chair Garber: I don't have a specific suggestion there, you know, sort of the maximum size of a
28 skylight that you can buyout of a catalog is probably in the area of 12 square feet or something
29 of that sort, you know, 3 x 4 feet. I'm hesitant, and I guess where my mind was going is that we
30 could create a limitation but you WOUldn't, for instance, want to ...
31
32 Commissioner Holman: I'm okay with that, if what you can generally purchase is no more than
33 12 square feet, that range, then people can buy or make custom ones, but/and then the other one I
34 had asked Commissioners to, and well, let me go back to the parking in the scenic setback. I'm
35 not going to be able to craft specific language, but I would feel more comfortable if there was an
36 alternate proposal that was submitted to Council if the Commission is comfortable with this,
37 such that parking was allowed in the scenic setback, and hang on her just a second, at 100 feet
38 unless no reasonable site was available and then it would defer to the 50-foot.
39
40 Chair Garber: Some comments regarding that. I think one of the learnings that I had, and I think
41 Vice-Chair Tuma had, in walking through a number of the sites up there, is that there are sites
42 where you could be lO-foot from Page Mill and not see the car. The other circumstance that
43 often occurs is that, because of the topography, there are houses that have to exist within 200
44 feet, and there is literally no place to park and it is very difficult to get around, so I'm
45 comfortable with 30 feet, although I was not here at the last meeting to participate in that
46 conversation.
Page 23
1
2 I'm also comfortable with the 50 feet, in that there is going to be plenty of opportunity to keep
3 cars from becoming dominant in the experience of moving up and down Page Mill. I have no
4 doubt that there will be requests for variances because there will be circumstances where those
5 who are trying to get that to occur just wiIl not be able to have them.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: You noted that I did include the 50-foot allowance.
8
9 Chair Garber: Yes. Yeah, yeah, I'm just reporting sort of from the field here.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, so are you okay with that alternate being provided to Council?
12
13 Chair Garber: State it again for me please, I'm sorry.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: That, and I'm not going to be able to draft the language, Curtis?
16
17 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think what it would probably say is something to the effect that parking,
18 other than the required parking space, could be allowed within the scenic setback, not closer than
19 .100 feet, unless let's say the Director determined that there was not a feasible location in which
20 case that it could be located no closer than 50 feet, or something like that.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: That sounds good.
23
24 Chair Garber: I'm good with that. Maker and the Seconder?
25
26 Commissioner Keller: I'll accept that.
27
28 Chair Garber: Alright.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: And then my last comment is, I actually do favor a maximum house
31 size and the reason is because it breaks up, and it doesn't affect how much can be developed on a
32 site, but I favor a maximum house size and I doubt the Director on what his notions were on this
33 and he gave me numbers of, and not to put you on the spot here; but there are numbers we have
34 seen bandied about, and there is a basis for them on Woodside, a suggestion of 8000 square feet
35 where the lot is less than 10 acres, to 12,000 where the lot is over 15 acres.
36
37 The reason is because it breaks up the development. You still want the buildings to be clustered.
38· That is consistent with the open space requirements. It reduces the roof form. The other thing
39 that it does, and I look at some of the projects that have come forward that have been just really,
40 really large single homes that have really expansive roof forms and what happens with that is
41 that the tree canopy gets interrupted. I don't care how compatible the roof form is, the tree
42 canopy gets interrupted so you see the bare spot. There is a gap in the tree canopy.
43
44 Those are the two reasons why I support a maximum house size. There are some green aspects
45 to this because houses get used more intensely, typically, than other buildings on a site, but that's
46 my reasoning and rationale, and I'm hoping that would be accepted as a Friendly Amendment.
Page 24
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Do I understand your Amendment to be that 85 percent of the allowed
3 FAR may be as part of the primary dwelling?
4
5 Commissioner Holman: That is not what I said. I said maximum house size. That's a different
6 approach. The 85 percent is a different approach.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Well, I don't know what is your proposal then? I am confused.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Maximum house size of 8000 square feet on parcels of less than 10
11 acres and 12,000 on parcels over 15 acres.
12
13 Mr. Williams: And then you would need to talk, actually, and maybe those kinds of ranges, but
14 it doesn't really speak between 10 and 15 acres.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: That's true, it doesn't.
17
18 Mr. Williams: So you can say 10,000 or whatever.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Ten thousand is fine.
21
22 Mr. Williams: But those are just numbers based on sort of similarities some other cities have.
23
24 Chair Garber: Let's get some discussion on this topic. Commissioner Rosati.
25
26 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question for Mr. Williams, given his experience in other cities
27 that have this limitation, if you could comment on that, please.
28
29 Mr. Williams: Well, the other cities that have this that I am particularly aware of, and especially
30 Woodside, have had this for a long time, so there is some consistency there that has been there
31 for a long time. I think the major concern I'd have is sort of introducing it now, but in those
32 communities I think it has had some beneficial affect of tending to avoid having some really
33 huge homes. On the other hand, there are sites I've seen in those communities where they could
34 easily add a much bigger home, and nobody would ever have known it, and it would not have
35 affected anyone.
36
37 I think that's the fundamental problem here is that each site is a bit different and you have Site
38 and Design Review to look at everyone and sort of make some of those determinations. I know
39 it's hard to say no, you go smaller, because it's going to big, so it's hard to say that. And then
40 the flipside also is that those sites tend to then spread out more, the development, when they have
41 those, and they tend to become more like compounds and that kind of thing, where you have got
42 several different buildings on a site and sometimes it looks like multiple homes, but it is not
43 reall y, so that's sort of the down side, but where it's been in affect for a while, it's been helpful
44 in preventing the really very large homes that you see in the country, on the opposite side of Los
45 Altos Hills, which has some slope density regulations and all of that kind of thing, but it doesn't
46 have any kind of maximum house sjze, so you get above about two acres and the sky is the limit
Page 25
1 with the house sizes, and you kind of see that, but then those are much more exposed than what
2 we are talking about here, I think, for the most part, in terms of having less vegetation than we
3 would see in the Open Space District here.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: If I might, Curtis points out one thing, in that it is very difficult and on
6 what do you base it? I've never seen support for affecting a project that comes forward that has
7 an enormous house, and I don't mean to name projects. You all have seen them, either out there
8 or you have reviewed projects here. How would you require a 25,000 square foot house to break
9 the mass up more or build around trees so that the roof form just doesn't just cause this bald spot,
10 basically, in the side of the hill, so that is really one of the primary reasons why I'm interested.
11
12 Again, it doesn't limit the amount of development that they are allowed, and they would still
13 have to cluster. I agree with Curtis that it might seem more like a compound but I don't know
14 that this is a bad thing. You would still want it clustered so that it's close by and you are not
15 disturbing a lot more land.
16
17 Chair Garber: Are you saying that for a site that would allow 20,000 square feet of house, that
18 you would allow a number of structures up to some limit? I mean, if you had a maximum house
19 size of 8000, you would be able to put two of those on a piece of property that had 20,000 square
20 foot allowable?
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Well, you can't put two houses on it, but you have the same
23 development privilege as you would if there was no maximum house size. It just wouldn't be in
24 the house.
25
26 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma.
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: I am open to a discussion about this topic and I think we should discuss it.
29 However, I think there is a note made in the staff report which I think makes a lot of sense. It's
30 almost midnight, and we are talking about an issue which we really have not spent much time
31 debating. We haven't spent much time investigating it and one of the things that was in the Staff
32 report is that if we wanted to explore this issue, we should re-notice this discussion and reach out
33 to those who would be affected and do some more research. I think if we want to go down this
34 path, I don't think the way to do it is to add it on almost at midnight.
35
36 I think we should, and I don't know if we could go and move forward with the Ordinance as is,
37 without this issue resolved, and come back on this issue as another Amendment to the
38 Ordinance, or do something different, but I don't/and I'm not opposed to it.
. 39
40 I'm opposed to it at this hour without the opportunity to really understand what the impacts are.
41 We are sort of somewhat arbitrarily picking 8000. We don't know, and I just, and I mean it is
42 anticipated that this might come up and the suggestion was that if we were going to do it, let's re-
43 notice it and get the information out there.
44
45 I would, if I was someone who read this, and I had a IS-acre parcel and I read this, and it said,
46 well, they are not going to decide this issue tonight, so if it comes up, I'll find out about it, and
Page 26
1 then we'll deal with it, and then we come through and we recommend these limitations, I think
2 that is problematic.
3
4 Commissioner Holman: That's fair.
5
6 Chair Garber: Does the Maker want to support that Amendment, or you were offering it as an
7 Amendment, were you not?
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Let me ask this question. Looking at Attachment E, it looks like there are
10 a couple of really large parcels, some/one 314-acre parcel, one 164-acre parcel, one 139-acre
11 parcel, one 44-acre parcel and then a 24-acre parcel. In other words, there are five really large
12 parcels. Do we know what those parcels are? You know, for example, there are things
13 belonging to the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and stuff like that. Are any of
14 those privately owned, or are those public, or what?
15
16 Ms. Campbell: Okay, the first two, the large ones, the 314-acre and the 164-acre lot, those are
17 owned by a private company. They were previously known as Kaiser Cement, but I think that
18 there has been a name change, so they are owned by it, and I think they have extraction and
19 mining purposes. If you look at an aerial photo, there is nothing actually happening on these
20 particular parcels, but if you look a little bit more to the right, you can see this big patch that has
21 already been worked on already. I don't think, and it doesn't seem or appear, that any change is
22 going to happen. I mea:n, who knows, but it doesn't look that way.
23
24 And the third lot that you mentioned, the one that is 139 acres, that is own by just a private
25 citizen.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: And the 44 acres and the 20 acres, do you know are those private citizens
28 as well? .
29
30 Ms. Campbell: Yes. All of the lots that are listed on this listing, we've/I've taken out the City-
31 owned parcels, the golf course and the Mid Peninsula Open Space lots, so that way we know that
32 those lots-are not going to be turned over for development, and all the ones that are there and are
33 listed are all privately owned.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, so basically what we have is a situation which there is
36 potential for some of the large lots to be redeveloped at some point with really eventually big
37 houses or subdivided into pieces, or whatever.
38
39 Chair Garber: As a reminder, your Seconder probably would not support the Amendment.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Well, then it probably doesn't matter whether I support it, so is that
42 correct? The Seconder will not support it?
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Like I said, I can't support doing it tonight without more investigation and
45 understanding. What I would propose is that, and with the procedure, I don't know what the best
Page 27
1 thing is to do here, but could we vote on the Ordinance as it is, and then request that this topic
2 come back to us for further discussion and possible Amendment?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Yes, you could do it in one or a couple of ways. One is you could recommend
5 the Ordinance move forward to Council and come back after we have noticed the other aspect of
6 it, and that one issue will come before you. Or, we could hold the Ordinance going to Council in
7 abeyance until you've had that opportunity so that the Council does not see it in two pieces. Or,
8 you could just basically maybe do like a straw poll supporting the Ordinance as it is now and
9 saying you are going to defer your final vote until we provide notice of the maximum house size
10 proposal and then come back with that, and my guess is that we are talking about probably 45
11 days or something like that to put a notice together, get it out there and allowing people to have
12 the time to call and ask questions and then get back on the Commission's Agenda.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: If we were going to consider this, I do think it makes sense to give the
15 public an opportunity to weigh in on this, because I agree with Vice-Chair Tuma, they have not
16 weighed in on it, and so I see a couple of different options. I think it's awkward for us. If we are
17 going to come back to this soon, I think it's awkward for us to pass the Ordinance and then
18 amend it later. That seems like an odd process.
19
20 What I would suggest is that we have two straw votes. One straw vote is on the current proposal
21 as is, as to whether people support that, and actually let's do it in the other order. First have a
22 straw vote on whether people want to consider a maximum house size limitation, and if people
23 want to consider it, then we can have a straw vote on whether people liked this, what we have
24 already done with the potential addition of a maximum house size Ordinance, and that will also
25 give us where to go, because otherwise if there is not enough support for a maximum house size,
26 then coming back to it just doesn't make any sense. Does that ...
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, I think the first part of that, having the straw vote on whether we want
29 to consider this topic at all. The other thing that I want to do is make sure that we don't come
30 back and revisit any of these other issues when we come back, and so whether that is done by
31 straw vote, or whether that is done by passing on the recommendation and then having the
32 Planning Department hold that in abeyance while we come back on the other issue, whatever
33 way we do that, Ijust don't want to reopen anything that we have already decided tonight when
34 we come back.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Commissioner Holman.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: I believe we should have a discussion on the maximum house size but I
39 agree with Vice-Chair Tuma that at midnight without public notice it would be inadvisable to
40 vote on it tonight. My concern is that the Ordinance is kind of a package deal, and it's a
41 compromise. There is a giving and a taking to craft something that hopefully is a good
42 Amendment to the Ordinance. If we separate out one aspect that's purely a taking, it becomes
43 something that is a negative on one issue as opposed to something in its entirety where there is a
44 give and a take. I would not want to see it passed with then a separate item coming back and I
45 would agree that, if it comes back to us as a package, that we can each refrain from undoing the
Page 28
1 progress that we have made tonight, and that be the only, and is there a mechanism that the
2 discussions limited to that additional point, and then that the vote would on the entire package?
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yeah, it's called a 12-inch ruler, and you get wrapped on the knuckles if you
5 start going back to the other things.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I would favor that with the continuation then.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
10
11 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
12
13 Commissioner Holman: If Curtis thinks this would be agreeable, I was going to offer a Motion
14 that might actually settle that and that would be to Move that the Open Space Ordinance come
15 back to the Planning Commission 1) for discussion of maximum house size after appropriate
16 public notification, and 2) that the items included in the Motion that was set forth earlier will be
17 agreed upon.
18
19 SECOND
20
21 Commissioner Keller: I'll second that.
22
23 Chair Garber: No, that we are agreeing to the Motion as was initially presented to us.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: So point of clarification it is so that the Amendment will come back to
26 us as previously agreed, but we are not approving the previous Motion. That's correct.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: In other words, we are directing staff to amend the Ordinance as per my
29 original Motion, and come back to us with the consideration of maximum home size?
30
31 Commissioner Holman: That is correct, except we are not piecemealing it. We are just getting
32 clarity that we are not going to reopen those topics again.
33
34 Chair Garber: And we have an Acceptance by the Maker and the Seconder. You are offering a
35 ... was that a Substitute Motion?
36
37 Commissioner Holman: That was the Motion.
38
39 Chair Garber: So you are retracting your ...
40
41 Commissioner Holman: No, it's the same thing. It's just a clarification of perhaps what the
42 Motion was.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: I'll take Karen's proposal as a Friendly Amendment.
45
46 Vice-Chair Tuma: And I will support that.
Page 29
1
2 Commissioner Holman: I was making it as a separate Motion.
3
4 Chair Garber: Yes, I think the way to do this Commissioner Keller is for you to retract your
5 Motion and adopt Commissioner Holman's Motion.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I will retract my Motion and second Commissioner Holman's
8 Substitute Motion.
9
10 Chair Garber: All those in favor, say aye (ayes) all those opposed? The motion passes.
Page 30
CORRESPONDENCE
OS Zone District Revisions
ATTACHMENT I
Staff received comment letters from the residents of the Open Space zone district. These
letters were generally unsupportive of added regulations to the district, as well as the
potential addition of a Maximum House Size regulation.
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Len Lehmann [Ien@vitelus.com]
Friday, May 01, 2009 2:25 PM
Campbell, Clare
Subject: Comments on the proposed Maximum House Size, OS district
Clare,
Page 1 of2 .
Please kindly circulate this correspondence to the members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
and add it to the public record on the proposed Maximum House Size within the OS district. Thank you,
Commissioners:
I oppose the inclusion of a Maximum House Size within the revised Open Space district zoning. The rule
appears arbitrary, unnecessarily harsh, and likely to promote undesirable consequences.
[1] The Commission has not yet stated what problem it is trying to solve, why the problem is significant, and
why the problem can't be mitigated through other, less imposing, means. The residents of the district are
content with the current rules and broadly oppose the proposed changes, including a Maximum House
Si~e. The Commission has requested staff to propose a variety of solutions to a problem which is not clear. I
did hear one commissioner say at a past meeting that a large house would necessitate staff, and consequently
commuting trips by staff. However, no facts have been introduced to support the case that there are too many
trips at present, or that limiting house size would substantially reduce traffic. There has been no comparison,
for example, between the traffic load introduced by home staff as compared with traffic load associated with
other permitted uses, such as educational institution, senior home, agricultural, or recreational. Staff load is
clearly inconsequential compared with these other activities. I also heard a previous comment by a
commissioner saying that a large house would require large resource consumption. This is true, but if this is
the problem the problem the City is trying to solve it would be much more effective to restrict inefficient
architecture throughout the city, or to limit square feet per resident throughout the city, rather than limiting
square feet per acre solely in the Open Space.
[2] The proposed rule reduces the property value of properties owned by citizens within the
District. Neighboring properties in Portola Valley, neighboring unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County,
neighboring unincorporated areas of San Mateo County and Los Altos Hills permit more development than is
even currently permitted in the Palo Alto Open Space. The proposed rule change would reduce the permitted
intensity of develop by up to 65% for a 10 acre property. The proposed rule change could reduce property
values substantially and therefore it seems to me that the City has a significant burden of showing the public
benefit of the changes.
[3] The Commission has already asked staff to restrict development on the basis of impervious coverage, and
again on the basis of FAR. A Maximum House Size would be a third, and unnecessary, layer of restriction,
three tools to accomplish the same, unclear, goal.
[4] I don't see "House" or "Maximum House Size" defined in 18.04 of the Municipal Code. The term is very
unclear. Does it mean the size largest residential structure? Does it mean any structure, or the sum of all
structures? Does it include the garage if it is attached? If it is unattached? How does this concept apply if the
property is used as an old-age home? How does the concept apply for non-residential uses?
[5] I am concerned that these changes to the zoning rules will ultimately promote a monoculture of similarly-
sized residential use. Currently, one of the most appealing things about the OS zone, and completely consistent
6/15/2009
Page 2 of2
with the General Plan, is that there is great diversity here, oflot size, of topography, and of use. We have
educational and research institutions, recreation, agriculture, at least one winery, as well as residential
uses. We should encourage this diverse use, and not focus so greatly on residential that we drive other uses out
of the zone and that the area becomes, frankly, boring.
Respectfully,
Leonard Lehmann
Property Owner
850 Los Trancos Road
City of Palo Alto, OS District
6115/2009
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
David Hopkins [dhopkins12@hotmail.com]
Saturday, May 16,20094:37 PM
Campbell, Clare
Subject: OS zone proposed maximum house size
To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto:
Dear Committee Members,
Page 1 of 1
We are long-time residents of Palo Alto in the OS zone district. We can appreciate that the City wants to
maintain a rural environment in this area. At the same time, as property owners we are very concerned
about the imposition of new zoning restrictions that will affect our ability to expand our home and the
value of our property. Given that the proposed action to impose significant new constraints on maximum
house size in the district will affect the freedom of property owners to build on their land, and therefore
the value of their land, the City should have a major and compelling reason to impose these restrictions.
Yet, we have not heard any reason articulated by the staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee.
We understand that the new focus on house size was triggered by the Goldman residence at the top of
Alexis Drive. This property occupies a very sensitive spot in the eyes of the City due to its proximity to
Foothills Park and since it is in the direct view line of the park's Lookout Point. In this regard, it is unique.
Had that house been located on practically any other property in the OS zone, it would not have offended
the City and its residents much, if at all. Given this fact, is it fair to penalize a hundred or so OS zone
residents, many of whom live nowhere near or visible from the City's park lands, due to this one special
situation that cannot be undone?
We hope, therefore, that you might agree that the interests of the property owners, who, after all, are
citizens of Palo Alto, are not at odds with the City's interests in this instance. Please do not pass these
restrictions on maximum house size. If you must do so, please reconsider the logic of
allowing the specified maximum house size --proposed to be 12,000 sq. ft. --on a is-acre lot, but not on
a 9-acre (or 2-acre) lot. If there is a compelling reason to restrict house size, why would it apply
differently to different lot sizes? Even a 2-acre lot can accommodate a 12,000 or a 20,000 sq. ft. house
and still have a considerable amount of land to act as a buffer zone. You already have control over this
through the existing restrictions on impervious coverage ratio, so why do you need more?
Thank you for your consideration.
David and Rosemary Hopkins
920 Laurel Glen Dr.
Palo Alto
Hotmail@ has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out.
6/15/2009
Page 1 of2
Campbell, Clare
From: Altman, Vernon [Vernon.Altman@8ain.com]
Sent: Saturday, lVIay 16.20095:19 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Cc: David Hopkins
Subject: FW: as zone proposed maximum house size
To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto:
Dear Committee Members,
The following email was sent to you by my friend and neighbor, David Hopkins. I want to express my
complete agreement with David's email.
In my opinion, this entire movement by the City of Palo Alto is unwarranted and is an inappropriate
challenge to the rights of property owners. When we purchased our land and built our home in Palo Alto,
we did so in good faith that the City would abide by the restrictions in force at that time. The City did so.
Our home was carefully reviewed by all relevant City representatives from the Planning Department to
City Council. We carefully operated within our rights as established by the City, and asked for no
variances in process or restrictions. It seems only fair that you should continue to maintain good faith
with property owners in the as by enforcing existing conditions and restrictions through your existing
processes, versus imposing new ones that seem arbitrary and without rationale.
I Sincerely and respectfully request that you and your colleagues leave the current policies, procedures
and restrictions in place. With the one exception indicated in David's email, the City has effectively
controlled development in the as for decades. Existing policies, procedures and restrictions should serve
the City well into the future.
Vernon E. Altman
928 Laurel Glen Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304
From: David Hopkins [mailto:dhopkins12@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 4:42 PM
To: Altman, Vernon; stluciw@yahoo.com; mark@presidiodp.com; paposna@yahoogroups.com;
winfriedwilcke@earthlink.net; fkirkman@earthlink.net; amazing_grace41@hotmail.com; lawinvest@mac.com;
pingem@yahoo.com; dulitz@gmail.com; Cathy Cartmell
Subject: FW: OS zone proposed maximum house size
I just send this letter in to the City if anyone is interested. I doubt whether it will make any difference,
but I guess we should still voice our opinions to the staff and P&T Committee before they act.
From: dhopkins12@hotmaiJ.com
To:
Subject: as zone proposed maximum house size
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:04 -0700
To the Planning and Transportation Committee of Palo Alto:
Dear Committee Members,
We are long-time residents of Palo Alto in the as zone district. We can appreciate that the City wants to
maintain a rural environment in this area. At the same time, as property owners we are very concerned
about the imposition of new zoning restrictions that will affect our ability to expand our home and the
value of our property. Given that the proposed action to impose significant new constraints on maximum
house size in the district will affect the freedom of property owners to build on their land, and therefore
6115/2009
Page 2 of2
the value of their land, the City should have a major and compelling reason to impose these restrictions.
Yet, we have not heard any reason articulated by the staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee.
We understand that the new focus on house size was triggered by the Goldman residence at the top of
Alexis Drive. This property occupies a very sensitive spot in the eyes of the City due to its proximity to
Foothills Park and since it is in the direct view line of the park's Lookout Point. In this regard, it is unique.
Had that house been located on practically any other property in the OS zone, it would not have offended
the City and its residents much, if at all. Given this fact, is it fair to penalize a hundred or so OS zone
residents, many of whom live nowhere near or visible from the City's park lands, due to this one special
situation that cannot be undone?
We hope, therefore, that you might agree that the interests of the property owners, who, after all, are
citizens of Palo Alto, are not at odds with the City's interests in this instance. Please do not pass these
restrictions on maximum house size. If you must do so, please reconsider the logic of
allowing the specified maximum house size --proposed to be 12,000 sq. ft. --on a is-acre lot, but not on
a 9-acre (or 2-acre) lot. If there is a compelling reason to restrict house size, why would it apply
differently to different lot sizes? Even a 2-acre lot can accommodate a 12,000 or a 20,000 sq. ft. house
and stili have a considerable amount of land to act as a buffer zone. You a Iready have control over this
through the existing restrictions on impervious coverage ratio, so why do you need more?
Thank you for your consideration.
David and Rosemary Hopkins
920 Laurel Glen Dr.
Palo Alto
Hotmail@ has ever-growing storage! Don/t worry about storage limits. Check it out.
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check~it~t. _________________ NOTICE __________________ --------
This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments,contains confidential information of Sain &
Company, Inc. ("Sain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information
in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other
purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but
for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in
error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relateto the official business of Sain shall be understood to
be neither given nor endorsed by Sain. When addressed to Sain clients, any information contained in this
e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract.
6115/2009
Page 1 of 1
Campbell, Clare
From: Mark Conroe [mark@presidiodp.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:07 PM
To: Campbell, Clare; Williams, Curtis
Subject: Comments to Proposed OS District Regulations
Dear Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the OS Working Group and for listening to those Palo Alto property
owners who are intimately and significantly impacted by the proposed changes to the OS District Regulations. As you
consider what details to include in the proposed regulations, I would ask that you consider the following comments:
1. Max House Size: Given that the size of proposed OS homes are not only limited by the 3.5% of impervious
coverage rule but also subject to the newly created FAR limitations (which have reduced the size of proposed
homes by up to 50%), it seems unnecessarily harsh to also impose a further restriction related to maximum
home size, especially for 5-10 acre parcels of land (especially one set at 8,000 sJ.). Also, would this maximum
house size include the secondary structure allowed (thereby further reducing the primary home size to less than
8,000 s.f.)?
2. Second Dwelling Units: I would ask that you go with Staffs originally recommended minimum 3 acre site
requirement for a Second Dwelling Unit (instead of 5 acres). Again, the area of the homes are being significantly
reduced and providing this flexibility for sites that are 3 to 5 acres in size would not increase the size of
allowable home area, just the distribution of it.
3. flCertain Agricultural Uses" /FAR Density Bonus: Many properties in the OS area have had agricultural uses
associated with them since the 1800s. For example, the property that my family has owned for decades has 100
year old olive trees and was used for vegetable and fruit growing for decades. Therefore, the density bonus
related to FAR should include as flnative vegetation" vegetable and fruit growing areas (for example, since 50%
of our property has been used for decades for fruit and vegetable growing, suggesting that 90% of it should not
have these uses is unrealistic and certainly would not provide any opportunity for a bonus).
4. Minor Site and Design Review: Please clarify that landscaping changes/additions and grading less than 100 cy
are included in this category. I can't imagine that anyone intends to require that the planting of a few trees
should require the City Council's time and scrutiny, months of staff time, and cost thousands of dollars in
application fees. It seems to us that the Planning Staff can handle small items such as these.
Thanks again for your consideration,
. Mark Conroe
575 los Trancos Road
612912009
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Hello Ms. Campbell
Sharon Luciw [stluciw@yahoo.com]
Sunday, June 28, 2009 4:32 PM
Campbell, Clare
The proposed changes to the Zoning regulations for the Palo Alto Open Space District are
excessive.
It is the City Council who approves variances to the ordinance and therefore the directive
you have received is a result of their own decisions.
The changes currently being proposed are based on the results of what appears to be an
arbitrary decision to grant permission to build a large structure on private property in
the Open Space District. .
In the last Planning and Transportation meeting on the proposed changes for the Open Space
District, a suggestion was made by one of the commissioners to add roof size to the
ordinance. Also the words'bald spots' in the Open Space District was used and is not a
term I am familiar with to describe the Open Space District area. These capricious
comments give the appearance the commission members are ill equipped to manage this change
to the ordinance. .
The proposed drastic changes to the ordinance may result in diminished property values and
not allow the development of reasonably sized homes.
I am very concerned the process has been arbitrary since the only reason the meetings
began with the property owners was due to the property owners taking notice in writing to
the commission. Proper notification and procedure for including the owners was not
followed at the on set, making the results and recommendations illegitimate.
The proposed changes are onerous and the commission needs to review the reasons behind the
changes and the process before proceeding any further.
Sincerely,
Sharon Luciw
1
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com]
Monday, June 29,20093:17 PM
Campbell, Clare
OS District Comments for July 8 meeting
The Planning and Transportation Commission c/o Clare Campbell Planning Division City of
Palo Alto
Dear Commissioners,
PAPOS, Palo Altans protecting Open Space, the Neighborhood Association for the Open Space
District, holds these positions on the following five topics regarding changes to the Open
Space Zoning Ordinance.
NO FAR. The current 3.5% impervious coverage is already excessively restrictive. The
proposed 5%-6% impervious surface coverage for the smallest properties is too excessively
restrictive. For example, a one acre (43560 sf) property in the Open Space District would
only be allowed a 2600 sf. home but in the R-1 District a 17,500 sf (.4 acres) lot is
allowed a 6000 sf house. The only issues in the Open Space District which are different
than issues in the R-1 District that would concern the general public are visibility
issues and visibility issues can be handled in a more equitable way. The proposed
restrictions will also create disparity between neighbors. A one acre property under the
new rules would be allowed a 2600 sf house when a next door neighbor with the same size
property has an existing +5000 sf house.
NO MAXIMUM HOUSE SIZE. The current 3.5% impervious coverage already restricts house size.
For example, in the R-1 District a 6000 sf house is allowed on a 17,500 sf (.4 acre) lot
but with the proposed changes to the open'space zoning ordinance only an 8000 sf house
would be allowed on a 9 acre (392,0400 sf) property. This is not close to porportional,
especially when the only issue that concerns the general public are visibility issues.
ALLOWANCES FOR AGRICULTURE USE. We appreciate the provision included in the draft that
addresses this need, although it is subject to individual approval and subsequently may
never be allowed.
2nd DWELLING. All properties should be allowed to have a second dwelling unit. A 43,560
sf lot is large enough to accommodate a second dwelling especially since the allowed
square footage remains constant, and that the
R-1 district in Palo Alto allows a second unit on 8100 sf lot
APPROVAL PROCESS. The approval process even as proposed is long and arduous and extremely
expensive.
Cathy Cartmell
President of PAPOS on behalf of PAPOS
1
Cam pbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com]
Tuesday, June 30, 20093:32 PM
Campbell, Clare
OS comments July 8 Planning Commission
Planning and Transportation Commission
c/o Clare Campbell
Planning Division
City of Palo Alto
Dear Commissioners,
Following are my thoughts and comments on the proposed changes of the Open Space Zoning
Ordinance
First I want to applaud the city of Palo Alto's representatives, Clare Campbell, Curtis
williams, Commissioner Dan Garber, and Commissioner Samir Tuma for their efforts in
working with the homeowners, and other interested parties on the study group convened on
the zoning ordinance for the Open Space District in Palo Alto. They all are extremely
patient, very professional lovely people with which to work.
I endorse and second all the communications sent by my neighbors to the Planning
Commission regarding the Open Space Zoning Ordinance, including comments from, PAPOS, Gary
Gechlik, Len Lehman, Mark Conroe, David Hopkins.
The property owners in the Open Space District are virtually all in agreement about the
major issues as out lined in the letter from PAPOS.
2 years ago at the beginning of this process, the Planning Commissioners assured us at the
that they just wanted to 'close the loop holes' in the current zoning ordinance that had
developed due to recent technical advances in paving. But 'closing the loop holes' has
ballooned into a whopping 71% reduction of development rights (this example is of my
property since the actual percent varies because every single property is different)
currently held in the OS District. The proposed changes to the Open Space zoning
ordin~nce go way too far. This is the very definition of Downzoning.
Visibility, the real issue
The only issue that is different in the OS District, than in other districts in Palo Alto,
are visibility issues, in other words visibility of the house from public areas. All
other issues are very similar to all other districts in Palo Alto. Visibility issues can
be handled in more direct ways then FAR and Maximum House Size. In fact it is already
addressed in the OS District Zoning Ordinance I believe as 'Open Space Review criteria'.
But by addressing visibility issues by introducing much more restrictive measures in the
form of FAR and Maximum House Size the City of Palo Alto places an
unfair burden on a minority group of property owners. To quote Dennis
Coyle from his book 'Property Rights and the Constitution' "When the cost are concentrated
and the benefits spread widely, the rights of the few are the most likely to be abused".
The Study group
We, the interested parties, have been working on this issue for over 2 years now. multiple
planning commission meetings, 5 'study group' meetings and even some city council meetings
if I remember correctly.
The draft of the ordinance that the planning department presented after 5 meetings of the
study group does not represent the positions of a large majority of the participants of
the study group on the major issues but was developed independently by the planning
department. I believe that the homeowners participation in the study group did have an
impact on some of the minor issues but when it came to the major issues, such as FAR,
Maximum House Size, and 2nd Dwelling units the Planning Department had a plan of their own
and paid little regard to the homeowners positions. Though Home Owners repeatedly asked
what was the motivation for the huge changes the Planning Department was proposing for the
Open Space District, we were never given the reasons. So I ask, What are the Planning
1
Departments motivations to reduce development rights by half (FAR) and now almost half
again (Maximum House Size)? The study group worked very well at allowing the homeowners
to express their positions both about the regulations and the actual planning process.
But the commissioners that attended the study group meeting were not allowed to express
their opinion (citing the 'Brown Act' or something) nor could they represent the planning
commissions intentions when talking to the study group. But, hopefully they were
sensitized to the many issues confronting the property owners. So the discussions evolved
around the homeowners positions but the conclusions produced by the Planning Department
did not reflect these positions. As the actual residents and property owners we are the
major stakeholders, we are by far the most effected class. We are a very small group of
80 or so properties and 70 or so property owners (if I remember correctly). You
definitely could say we are a minority in Palo Alto. A minority which you are regulating.
So our positions on these issues are important. What is the purpose of a study group if
not to find a consensus of the participants or at least a majority of the participants?
What is the purpose of the study group when the planning department simply imposes its
will on the study group?
At the last Planning commission meeting I heard commissioners comments on the successful
give and take of the rule changes. In reality the proposed zoning ordinance changes are
almost all 'take' with very little give, taking 71% of the remaining development rights I
have. Aside from approx 30 properties between 5 and 10 acres which will be able to now
have a second dwelling unit, really there was no 'give' to the property owners to balance
the substantial taking. (A second dwelling does not increase the allowable development
area)
Over the 2 years we have been talking to the city of Palo Alto, many of the property
owners in the OS District have come to the conclusion that the actual property owner's
positions made little to no difference in impacting the staggering changes to the OS
Zoning Ordinance the Planning Department is proposing. We are the actual constituency.
We are Palo Alto Citizens. We are Palo Alto property owners You represent us and as the
property owners and the residents. We are the most effected by these proposals. We are
adversely effected by these changes but the City of Palo Alto has chosen to disregard the
adverse effects on this minority constituency. I believe as the actual owners of the
properties effected we should have the most to say about the rules regarding our
properties. These rules effect the commissioners and all other people in only very minor
ways. Where is the 'government of and for the people. '
Legal issues
My understanding is that a widely held guideline in California suggest that a 95%
reduction of property for 'environmental reasons' may constitute a taking. The City of
Palo Alto has already taken 96.5% of every property in the OS District when they imposed a
3.5% Impervious Coverage Limit for all property in the Open Space District. To reduce
something by 96.5% than say the reduction was not enough and that you are going to take
another 71% off that would be a great sale at Macy's, but this is not a sale, these are my
property rights you are taking to supply to the public at a highly discounted rate. The
reSUlting rights of development retained is a miniscule 1% (29% of 3.5%)of property rights
I would say that a 99% taking is well past the 95% marker.
The issue of unreasonable taxes, was addressed in a recent court case. As property owners
we are taxed on our whole property but are already prohibited from using 96.5% of our
property not to mention the further proposed reduction resulting in a mere 1% of remaining
property rights. The fee or tax is in the form of land (the prohibition from using your
own land) not cash. The court found this to be an indirect form of taxation. Is reducing
the allowable development of a whole district by 96.5% and an additional approx 71% equal
to a taking? Or is it an improper tax or fee on development?
The extravagant 3.5% impervious Coverage The current zoning regulations made back in the
1960's I think, left the homeowners with the extravagant amount of 3.5% Impervious
Coverage only because the city was taking 96.5% of the property. Essentially meaning the
property owner only retains 3.5% of the property. Well I say the City of Palo Alto taking
96.5% of my property is already taking too much and that the city proposing to take two
thirds of the remaining rights is unbelievable. The Planning Department proposing already
to impose a new regulation in the form of FAR, effectively cutting the development area by
50%. And now you are proposing to cut this amount almost in half again by imposing
additional regulations in the form of maximum house size!!!!
2
No maximum house size
Why did the Planning Commission wait to raise the issue of maximum house size till
literally the 12th hour. The issue of Maximum House Size was not brought up until 11:45pm
on the night the commission was voting on an already extremely restrictive os zoning
Ordinance. The issue was brought forward as a 'friendly amendment' to the movement to
accept the proposed draft of the Open Space zoning Ordinance with 'minor' changes. Why
did the planning commission not discuss this with the working group we had 5 meetings over
the course of more than a year? I do not recall anyone from the planning commission
presenting maximum house size to the study group. I think it is in the very least
disingenuous not to have had a frank discussion with the interested parties in an open
forum, such as the study gro~p.
Apparently the Planning Department does not think someone should be allowed to have a big
house. Traditionally in our society this is determined by who can afford a big house.
Certainly this is how it is throughout Palo Alto.
No FAR
Here's the thing, the city has already taken 96.5% of our property. The planning
department is now proposing an FAR which cuts the development area of OS properties in
half and now you want cut that in half again by imposing additional regulations regarding
house size. Enough already. The city of Palo Alto has taken too much from us.
Second Dwelling Unit for alIOS properties To argue that granting all properties a second
dwelling unit in the Open Space District will generate too much traffic is contraindicated
by the policies in The Open Space District and The City of Palo Alto, for that matter,
which both promote heavy recreational use of their Open Space Areas.
This recreational use requires people to drive to the Open Space. So, to say properties
under 5 acres can not have a second dwelling unit because it might generate an additional
40 cars (2 additional cars per property effected). These cars are dispersed into 2
entirely different areas in the OS District, so 20 cars per area, seems contraindicated by
other City of Palo Alto Policies.
Palo Alto going green
For instance if the argument is we want to be a greener city so we are reducing allowed
development because development is not green. Then, this principal has to be applied
equally to all Property owners in Palo Alto not just property owners in a single district
in Palo Alto. If the reason is green, then, you must reduce all development equally, not
select one group to say they must be green and the rest of Palo Alto does not have to be
held to the same excessively high standards. This is signaling out a minority for
different treatment then .the majority. To be fair reduce everybody's developable area by
71~ every commercial propertu and every residential property in the City of Palo Alto. If
you want to be really fair first impose a 3.5% lot coverage and then reduce the remaining
developable area by 71%.
'Bald Spots' in them there hills
Someone on the Commission was concerned that big roofs would create 'bald spots' in the
trees. There are bald spots in the trees allover the place up here. I have about a 2
acre bald spot on my property, my neighbors also have various size 'bald spots', as does
the Los Trancos Open Space land across the street. Visually a roof will not appear any
differently then these naturally occurring 'bald spots'.
Creating a disparity of values between neighbors Such a drastic change in the zoning law
creates a great inequity between neighbors. Where one neighbors house may be 4 times
larger than the neighbor who wants to build now creates great inequity between neighbors.
A one acre property, remember that is 43560 sf., can certainly easily accommodate a 5000
sf. house. To restrict these properties to a 2600 sf.
house when the next door neighbor was allowed over 5000 sf just a few years
ago is not fair. Allowing a property to have a house only half the size of
their next door neighbor. This is not fair. I don't get it. Visibility is
the only issue and visibility issues can be accommodated in so many differents ways, that
to create this kind of disparity between neighbors is unnecessary.
3
Disparity between neighborhoods, os and R-1 See also the 6000 + 3000 house in the R-1
district someone else mentioned.
In the R-1 District of Palo Alto you can build a 6000 sf. house on a 17500 sf. lot, but in
the Open Space District a one acre property, 2.4 times bigger than the 17,500 sf. lot in
the R-1, would only be allowed a 2600 sf.
house. I don't get it. Visibility is the only issue and visibility issues can be
accommodated in so many other ways, that to create this kind of disparity between
neighborhoods is unnecessary.
The City of Palo Alto would never attempt to reduce the development area of a commercial
property or a larger group residential properties by first 96.5% then an additional 71%.
Permit process
Why are we saddled with an unwieldy excessively expensive permit process that cost each
property owner in the least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars)?
The development of more and more rules add tremendous expense and burden to Palo Alto
citizens and is not necessary, it is not necessary. The planning process is very
expensive, I am just an ordinary person making less than an ordinary living. As a
citizen of Palo Alto, The City should be making my life easier, less expensive, not adding
such huge burdens.
Set the record straight. my case
I guess I should be embarrassed, but back around 1988 I bought my property not just for
our home but also as a long term investment, 21 years so far.
And yes that purchase value was based on the zoning ordinance. I hear time and time again
various people claiming that the owners knew the rules when they purchased their
properties so too bad for them, this is simply not always the case. I would like to set
the record straight for my situation any way. Not everyone knows what they are walking
into when they buy property in the OS District. I have to say before we purchased our
property we did our due d~ligence and investigated the zoning laws but at the time the
'special' 200 foot scenic setback on Page Mill Rd was not written down in the Zoning
Ordinance and no staff member was aware of the 200 ft scenic setback or disclosed the
special scenic setback to us at the time. Also the surrounding houses were all built
based on the 35 foot setback. So we did purchase the property only to find out about the
'special' 200 foot setback much later after we owned the property. So those who say all
those property owners knew what they were getting into, it ain't necessarily so. And
incase you did not realize it 200 feet is a huge amount of property, and I do find it
excessive and an unfair purden. Especially when there are other more direct ways to
mitigate the visual impacts a house makes.
Government
I have to agree with Gary very strongly that you as a City have to ask yourself, What is
the point of government? Tyranny, I hope not. The government is to be of and for the
people. What is the reason for government? Certainly to maintain order. And the mission
of the Planning Department in particular, perhaps health, safety, and welfare. Also
consider the basis of government, The California Constitution Article 1,
Section 1,
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.
Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and
protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." when
deciding about the proper role of the Planning Department in Society. Then, ask yourself
Are these drastic changes to the Open Space Zoning Ordinance necessary because of health
safety and welfare issues? Or are they necessary to uphold the inalienable right of
acquiring, possessing, and protecting ones property? Because it looks like downzoning to
me.
What can I say, the over whelming majority, the huge majority, of interested parties have
been against FAR, and Maximum House Size but the Planning commission continues to pursue
these changes to the Open Space Zoning Ordinance.
3 minutes is just not enough when you are making decisions that impact myself and my
property to such a great degree. Your decisions on this matter will have very little
4
effect on any of you or any other resident of Palo Alto for that matter. However, these
rules do have massive impacts for the 80 or so properties in the Open Space District, of
which I own one.
Remember you must be fair and equitable to us and not hold us to standard not applied
elsewhere in Palo Alto. Certainly visibility issues are a burden that many property
owners in the Open Space District appreciate but this is very different than house size or
FAA.
Cathy Cartmell
Homeowner
Architect
5
Comprehensive Plan Policies That Relate To
Development in the OS Zone
Land Use Designation Description
ATTACHMENT J
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon
which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas.
Residential densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units
per acre where second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre.
Land Use and Communitv Design Polices & Programs
POLICY L-l:
Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the
urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth
boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space,
with allowances made for very low~intensity development consistent with the open space character of
the area. Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space.
POLICY L-69:
Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and
equestrians.
PROGRAM L~71:
Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road, Oregon
Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway), Junipero Serra
Boulevard/Foothill Expressway, and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes.
• Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway link the Bayshore Freeway to Interstate 280.
Northeast of EI Camino Real, a wide rjght~of~way and ample landscaping make the Oregon
Expressway portion of the corridor visually pleasing. Further west, the corridor has wide
setbacks within Stanford Research Park. Design requirements imposed by Stanford
University have set a high aesthetic standard for this segment. West of Interstate 280,
Page Mill Road climbs steeply through native woodlands and grasslands towards Skyline
Boulevard. Views are exhilarating as one approaches Skyline Boulevard. Skyline is a State~
designated scenic highway.
• Arastradero Road winds through the lower foothills and leads to scenic Alpine Road in
Porto.la Valley. To protect views and scenic qualities, Palo Alto has established a 200~ foot
setback along upper Page Mill Road, Skyline Boulevard, and the portion of Arastradero
Road in the lower foothills.
• Foothill Expressway-Junipero Serra Boulevard is extensively bordered by
undeveloped Stanford lands. Where development eXists, large setback reqUirements
maintain a rural character on the western edge of the City.
Natural Environment Goals. Polices & Programs
Goal N-l: A Citywide Open Space System that Protects and Conserves Palo Alto's Natural Resources
and Provides a Source of Beauty and Enjoyment for Palo Alto Residents.
POLICY N-l:
Manage existing public open space areas and encourage the management of private open space areas
in a manner that meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation
needs.
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT F
Part of the City's commitment to maintaining the foothills and baylands as open space is a
commitment to environmentally sound management and, maintenance practices. Ecological
values must be protected to realize the full aesthetic, recreational, safety, and educational
benefits of open space.
POLICY N-3:
Protect sensitive plant species resources from the impacts of development.
POLICY N-4:
Preserve the foothill area as predominantly open space.
This policy applies to public land, Stanford University land, and private land in the foothill
area.
POLICY N-6:
Through irnplementation of the Site and Design process and the Open Space zone district regulations,
minimize impacts of any new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and
the natural ecology of the hillsides.
PROGRAM N-6:
As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open Space zone district
that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that "story poles" be erected with outlining tape
depicting the building's location, bulk and height to aid in assessing the potential visual
impacts of the proposed project.
POLICY N-7:
All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard)
should be consistent with the following criteria:
City of Palo Alto Open Space Development Criteria
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As
much as pOSSible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest
ridge line.
3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of
neighboring properties.
4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make
it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats.
5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow
the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance.
6. EXisting trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level,
should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as
much as possible.
7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to
blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within
the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious
surfaces should be avoided.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to
structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from
off-site.
12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and
concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.)
13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in general conformance with
Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations.
Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENTF
POLICY N-17:
Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and
private property.
POLICY N-21:
Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal,
and transportation land uses and activities.
Water quality in San Francisco Bay has been degraded over time by pollutants from urban
runoff, sewage, sediment, industrial discharges, ships, and a wide variety of other sources.
Significant progress has been made in controlling water pollution from "point" sources like
wastewater plants and industry. "Non-point" sources have been more difficult to contain, since
they include a wide range of activities and are dispersed throughout the community. Emissions
and residual materials from vehicles including metals, by-products of combustion, oil and
grease are the greatest concern, but even activities like grading and lawn care can create
problems.
For example, preliminary data in the mid-1990s indicated that as much as 80% of the urban
runoff copper load is coming from vehicle brake dust. Pollutants like copper, diazinon, lead,
and zinc, are routinely carried by rainwater from paved surfaces and lawns to the City's storm
drains and creeks. The programs below are intended to reduce non-point source pollution and
restore water quality in the creeks and Bay.
POLICY N-22:
Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to reduce
urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco Bay.
PROGRAM N-34:
Evaluate the use of permeable paving materials that allow for natural percolation and site
drainage.
POLICY N-53:
Minimize exposure to wildland and urban fire hazards through rapid emergency response, proactive
code enforcement, public education programs, use of modern fire prevention measures, and adequate
emergency management preparation.
PROGRAM N-79:
Minimize fire hazards by implementing low density zoning in wildland fire hazard areas.
Page 3 of 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT K
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
. California Environmental Quality Act
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Date: April 7, 2009
Project Name:
Project Location:
Applicant:
Owner:
Project Description:
Background
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations
The Open Space (OS) zoning district is located in the most southern region of
the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, between U.S.
Highway 280 and Skyline Boulevard. The OS zoning district is comprised of
approximately 114 parcels.
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
On June 13, 2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion
on the Open Space (OS) district. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential
approaches to credit semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum
house size, floor area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale.
An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC
and staff was assembled and met five times from October 2007 through June 2008 to discuss the above
mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to other
sections of the OS regulations.
Proposed Project
Based on the direction given by the PTC and working closely with the OS residents, staff proposes
revisions to the following regulations in the OS zone district:
1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development should be based on a sliding scale
to determine the maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native
vegetation. Non-residential calculation should be a defined percentage.
2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions noted, and
classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method
to be used.
3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project would be
in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed.
Page 1 of2
4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project
completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required
for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the
project (clarification of existing language).
5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and shall follow the
Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.10.070 (b», except that the
allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet.
6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed if located at least 50' from the affected
property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required.
7. Trash Enclosures should be permitted, with design review, within the front setback, including Special
Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self closing gates, and
screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street.
8. Skylights. The . light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing
treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the
night glare.
II. DETERMINA TION
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto's procedures for compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine
whether the proposed project located on San Antonio Road and frontage roads from Alma
Street to U.S. Highway 101 Interchange could have a significant effect on the environment.
On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination:
x The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this
case because mitigation measures for traffic impacts have been added to the
project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential
environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required
for the project.
04"07:09,
Project Planner Date
Page 2 of2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Clare Campbell
City of Palo Alto
650-617-3191
4. PROJECT SPONSOR
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
5. PROJECT LOCATION
The Open Space (OS) zoning district is located in the most southern region of the City of Palo Alto, in the
northern part of Santa Clara County, between U.S. Highway 280 and Skyline Boulevard. The OS zoning
district is comprised of approximately 114 parcels, see Figures 1 and 2.
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
There are four Comprehensive Plan land use designations associated with the Open Space zoned parcels.
The land use designation that applies to the majority of the area is Open Space/Controlled Development.
The proposed revisions to the Open Space zone district are consistent with the associated land use.
designations. The four land use designations, as described in the Palo Alto 1998 -2010 Comprehensive
Plan, are the following:
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 1 Negative Declaration
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 2
allli"J.;:"
.. };:::rL _r,,,",
1Im!!!!l!"'~
l!Iit~'!'I!~';'.
!I!iIlI!l':i'"''
1Im!!!!l!-" . "",." .
Figure 2: Open Space Zone District
py
FooUillis ;.
Park
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District ","",.,uu",mo Page 3 Negative Declaration
Single Family Residential: Includes one dwelling unit on each lot as well as conditional uses requiring
permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be zoned to allow second units or duplexes
where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not create traffic and parking
problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1 to 7 units per acre, but may rise to a
maximum of 14 units in areas where second units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range
from 1 to 30 persons per acre.
Publicly Owned Conservation Land: Open lands whose primary purpose is the preservation and
enhancement of the natural state of the land and its plants and animals. Only compatible resource
management, recreation, and educational activities are allowed.
Streamside Open Space: The corridor of riparian vegetation along a natural stream. Hiking, biking, and
riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up
to 200 feet either side of the center line of the creek. However, along San Francisquito Creek between El
Camino Real and the Sand Hill Road bridge over the creek, the open space corridor varies in width
between approximately 80 and 310 feet from the center line of the creek. The aerial delineation of the
open space in this segment of the corridor, as opposed to other segments of the corridor, is shown to
approximate scale on the Proposed Land Use and Circulation Map.
Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which
some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in these areas. Residential
densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre but may rise to a maximum of 2 units per acre where
second units are allowed, and population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre. This designation is
found on the Former ITT Property.
7. ZONING
The proposed revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone district are consistent with the District's purpose
statement. The purpose and intent of the OS district is to:
(1) Protect the public health, safety, and welfare;
(2) Protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource;
(3) Permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its
inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as
agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land; for the
containment of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development; and for the retention of land
in its natural or near-natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from the hazards
of fire, flood, and seismic activity; and
(4) Coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans.
8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998-
2010 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan to minimize impacts of new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and
the natural ecology of the hillsides.
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 4 Negative Declaration
Background
On June 13, 2007, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended approval of Palo
Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts: PF, OS, and AC, with focused discussion
on the Open Space (OS) district. The PTC directed staff to assemble a working group to evaluate potential
approaches to credit semi-permeable materials against impervious cover in conjunction with maximum
house size, floor area ratio, or other new regulations to assure that house size retains an appropriate scale.
An OS working group comprised of OS district residents, open space advocates, two members of the PTC
and staff was assembled and met five times from October 2007 through June 2008 to discuss the above
mentioned issues and provided a forum for the residents to share their concerns as they related to other
sections of the OS regulations.
Proposed Project
Based on the direction given by the PTC and working closely with the OS residents, staff proposes
revisions to the following regulations in the OS zone district:
1. Impervious CoveragelFloor Area Ratio for residential development should be based on a sliding scale
to determine the maximum allowable and to provide incentive to maintain or restore native
vegetation. Non-residential calculation should be a defined percentage.
2. Impervious Cover Calculation should include all paved surfaces, with some exceptions noted, and
classified as 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% impervious, based upon the material and construction method
to be used.
3. Review Process should be simplified with a clearer understanding of what a Minor project would be
in the OS zone and creating two levels of Major project review based on the scope of work proposed.
4. Follow-Up Arborist Report should be required five years after the final sign-off of the project
completion. This report shall evaluate the health of trees and significant landscape that were required
for screen planting or and/or were designated as protected plantings on the approved plans for the
project (clarification of existing language).
5. Second Dwelling Units may be permitted if the minimum lot size is five (5) acres and shall follow the
Residential Estate (R-E) District standards for second dwelling units (18.1 0.070 (b», except that the
allowed maximum height for attached units shall be 25 feet.
6. Additional Parking in 200' Special Setback may be allowed if located at least 50' from the affected
property line; those parking spaces cannot be the designated 4 required.
7. Trash Enclosures should be peimitted, with design review, within the front setback, including Special
Setbacks, providing it is not more than six (6) feet tall, covered, fitted with self closing gates, and
screened. The access to the enclosure shall not be located on the side facing the street.
8. Skylights. The light emitted from skylights shall be minimal during the night hours. Utilizing
treatments such as translucent glass, shading systems, and interior light placement can reduce the
night glare.
Please review the proposed revised Chapter 18.28 (Attachment A) for additional details on the above
mentioned revisions.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The Open Space (OS) zone district is comprised of mostly open space preserve lands with limited single-
family uses distributed near the major access roads. The OS is located up in the foothills of Palo Alto and
generally extends to the city limits. The surrounding uses of the majority of the area is park land, open
space reserve (Los Trancos, Rancho San Antonio, Skyline Ridge, Russian Ridge, Long Ridge) and
unincorporated county land (Santa Clara and San Mateo) that have limited single family use.
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 5 Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adeqnately snpported if the referenced information sonrces show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (initigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Zone District Regulations Page 6 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following En.vironmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. The left-hand colunm in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A AESTHETICS .
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Uoless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1,2,3,4 X
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1,2-Map X
public view or view corridor? IA,3,4
C) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1,2-Map X
including, but not limited to, trees, rock L4,3,4
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan 1,2,3,4 X
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or 1,4 X
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
f) Substantially shadow public open space 1,4 X
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to March 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
All individual projects proposed in the Open Space (OS) district are subject to Site and Design review. The Site
and Design review is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in environmentally
and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative
aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and
development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental
and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code requirements include the following Open Space Review
Criteria that shall be considered in the Site and Design review of all development of land in the OS district:
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as
possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend above the nearest ridge line.
3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring
property.
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page? Negative Declaration
I
4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area surrounding it to make it less
conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats.
5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building lines should follow the lines
of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance.
6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the ground level, should be
preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be retained as much as possible.
7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the development to blend into
the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be distributed within the driplines of
existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces
should be avoided.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures,
fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site.
12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk
are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment.)
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new aesthetic impacts. All
individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to Site and Design review to address aesthetics; CEQA analysis
and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Fannland, Unique Fannland, 1,2,4 X
or Fannland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Fannland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,2-X
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9,4
c) Involve other changes in the existing 1,2-X
environment which, due to their location or MapL9,4
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations PageS Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
nature, could result in conversion of
Fannland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
There are two parcels in the Open Space (OS) district that are designated as "Prime Farmland." These two parcels
are owned and operated bya golf and country club. The proposed revisions to the OS zone district regulations do
not encourage development nor change the existing uses that have been established on these two parcels and
therefore is anticipated to have no impacts on agricultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation
of the applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,4
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation indicated by the following:
1. Direct andlor indirect operational 1, 4
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
andlor 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PMIO);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) 1,4
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS) i
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to i
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1,4
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 9
Potentially
Significant
Issues
....
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
x
x
x
x
Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels 1,4 X
of toxic air contaminants?
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the 1,4 X
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)·
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-1,4 X
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (I) for the
MEl
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1,4 X
f)
substantial number of people?
Not implement all applicable construction 1,4 X
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The Open Space district is located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), the regional agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources in the
Bay Area. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary
emission sources and through its planning and review process. All development in Palo Alto is subject to the
BAAQMD regulations. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new air
quality impacts. All individual proposed projects will be reviewed for impacts and are subject to CEQA.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1,2-X
directly or through habitat modifications, on MapNl,
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, 3,4
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1,2-X
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural MapNl,
community identified in local or regional plans, 3,4
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 10 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
policies, regulations, including federally
protected wetlands as defmed by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1,2-X
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife MapNl,
species or with established native resident or 3,4
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1,3,4, X
protecting biological resources, such as a tree 11
preservation policy or as defined by the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.1O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat 1,2,4 X
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
DISCUSSION:
The Open Space (OS) district provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants, including some designated
as protected or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects
are subject to Site and Design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an
environmentally sensitive project is approved. The Site and Design review is intended to provide a process for
review and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established
community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other
disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general
vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed revisions to the as district regulations will not create any new biological impacts. All individual
proposed projects in the as are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural 1,4, 12 X
resource that is recognized by City Council
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page II Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
resolution?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1,2-X
significance of an archaeological resource MapL8,
pursuant to 15064.5? 4
! c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1,2-X
paleontological resource or site or unique MapL8,
geologic feature? 4
d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1,2-X
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8,
4
e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or 1,2-X
1)
eligible for listing on the National and/or MapL7,
California Register, or listed on the City's 4, 12 Historic Inventory?
Eliminate important examples of major periods 1,2,4 X
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
Throughout the Open Space (OS) zone district there are low to moderate sensitivity areas for archaeological
resources. For all projects, if during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are
encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The
Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If
any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a
Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California,
is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any cultural impacts to the affected
area. All individual proposed projects in the OS district are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential -. . ..
substantial adverse effects, including the -.---... ---
risk of loss, injury, or death involving; ---
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, 4, 7 X
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 12 Negative Declaration
•
!
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2-X
MapN1O,
4
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, 2-X
including liquefaction? MapNS,
4
iv) Landslides? 2-MapNS X
4
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1,4 X
of topsoil?
c) Result in substantial siltation? 1,4 X
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 2-X
unstable, or that would become unstable as MapNS,
a result of the project, and potentially 4
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 2-X
Table l8-1-B of the Uniform Building MapNS,
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 4
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately 1,4 X
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major 1,4,6 X
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques?
DISCUSSION:
The Open Space (OS) zone district would experience a range from weak to very violent shaking in the event of a
major earthquake along the San Andreas or Hayward fault. The OS area also has two major geotechnical hazards
identified therein. There is a swath of land that has a high potential for surface rupture along fault traces and
potential for earthquake-induced landslides where sloped. And, there is a large area that has high potential for
earthquake-induced landslides. Although hazards exist, development in the OS area would not expose people or
property to major geologic hazards that cannot be addressed through the use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques, as required by building codes. With proper engineering new development is not
expected to result in any significant adverse short or long-term impacts related to geology, soils or seismicity.
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new geology, soils and
seismicity impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page \3 Negative Declaration
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X
environment through the routing transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous 1,4 X
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject 1,4 X
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list 1,2-X
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant MapN9,
to Govermnent Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 4
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
it) For a project located within an airport land use 1,4 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,4 X
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working the
project area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically 1,2-X I
interfere with an adopted emergency response MapN7,
plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland MapN7,
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to 4
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 1,4 X
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 14 Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
The Open Space (OS) district is located in the Palo Alto foothills, which has been identified as an area of medium
to high wildland fire danger. The Fire department has specific requirements of property owners in this area that
are directed at fire suppression and control. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not
create any new hazards and hazardous materials impacts. All individual proposed projects in the OS district are
subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1,4 X
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1,2-X
interfere substantially with groundwater MapN2,
recharge such that there would be a net deficit 4 in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
! c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern 1,4 X
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would 1,4 X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storrnwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,4 X
g) Place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard 1,4 X
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area 1,2-X
structures which would impede or redirect MapN6,
flood flows? 4
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk 1,2-X
of loss, injury or death involve flooding, MapN6
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 15 Negative
including flooding as a result of the failure of a N8,4
levee or dam or being located within a IOO-year
flood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,2-X
MapN6,
4
k) Result in stream bank instability? 1,4 X
DISCUSSION:
All development is required to comply with building codes that address the flood safety issues. All development
projects are required to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction activities as specified by
the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (CASQA, 2003) and/or the Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The BMPs include measures guiding the
management and operation of construction sites to control and minimize the potential contribution of pollutants to
storm runoff from these areas. These measures address procedures for controlling erosion and sedimentation and
managing all aspects of the construction process to ensure control of potential water pollution sources. All
development projects must comply with all City, State and Federal standards pertaining to storm water run-off
, and water quality.
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new hydrology and water quality
impacts. All individual proposed projects are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for
potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,4 X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1,2,3,4 X
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1,2,4 X
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
d) Substantially adversely change the type or 1,2,4 X
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with 1,2,3,4 X
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, 1,2,3,4 X
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 16 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or 1,2-X
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to MapL9,
non-agricultnral use? 4
DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Ordinance Update is intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the 1998·2010
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district reflect the intent and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on the open space
character, and the natural ecology of the hillsides.
Along with the OS development regulations, all development projects are subject to Site and Design review in
addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive project is approved. The
Site and Design review is intended to provide a process for review and approval of development in
environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive
to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and
development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental
and ecological objectives. The review process may reduce the scope of a proposed project to less than what is
permitted in the OS development regulations to meet the goals and objectives of the OS district.
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new land use impacts.
Compliance with the designated land uses and zoning is a requirement for all development. All individual
proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential
impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1,8 X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally·
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,8 X or other land use plan?
DISCUSSION:
The City of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation (DOC), Division of
Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-l). This designation signifies that there are
no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other resources. There is no
Revisions to the Open Space Zone Regulations Page 17 Negative Declaration
indication in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources
within the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measnres: None Required.
K. NOISE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1,2,4 X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 1,2,4 X
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1,2,4 X
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1,2,4 X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use 1,2,4 X
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1,4 X
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
g) Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,4 X
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,4 X
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
i) Cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an 1,4 X
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,4 X
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,4 X
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
1) Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,4 X
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 18 Negative Declaration
I
DISCUSSION:
All development, including construction activities, must comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (P AMC Chapter
9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term
construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in impacts that are expected to be less than
significant. .
The proposed reVISIons to the Open Space district regulations will not create any new noise impacts. All
individual proposed projects in the OS district are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1,4 X
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1,4 X
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1,4 X
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
d) Create a substantial imbalance between 1,4 X
employed residents and jobs?
e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local 1,4 X
popUlation projections?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the
district and therefore will not create any new population and housing impacts. All individual proposed projects in
the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 19 Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
a) Fire protection? 1,2,4 X
b) Police protection? 1,2,4 X
c) Schools? 1,2,4 X
d) Parks? 1,2,4 X
e) Other public facilities? 1,2,4 X
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the
district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing
public services for the City. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
N. RECREATION
Issues, and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of 1,2,4 X
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration ofthe
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational 1,2,4 X
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations does not encourage growth and development in the
district and is not anticipated to generate a significant number of new users as to create impacts to the existing
City recreational facilities. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 20 Negative Declaration
O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than NO
Significant Significant Significant IMPACT
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 1,4 X
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 1,4 X
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, 1,4 X
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 1,4 X
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,4 X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1,4 X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1,2,3,4 X
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit &
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection 1,4 X
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four'seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection aheady operating at 1,4 X
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate 1,4 X
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection aheady operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
L critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F 1,4 X
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
aheady operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would 1,4 X
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 21 Negative Declaration
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a 1,4 X
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development or function of 1,4 X
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a 1,4 X
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1,4 X
DISCUSSION:
All development projects must be submitted for Site and Design review and in that review the traffic impacts will
be considered. The proposed revisions to the Open Space district regulations do not encourage growth and
development in the district and is not anticipated to generate transportation impacts. All individual proposed
projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated On a case-by-case basis for potential impacts.
Mitigation: None Required
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
. Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1,2,4 X
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new 1,2,4 X
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
. which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1,2,4 X
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1,2,4 X
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 22 Negative Declaration
I
•
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would tbe project: ' Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
conunitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 1,2,4 X
pennitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes 1,2,4 X
and regulations related to solid waste?
h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration 1,2,4 X
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the Open Space district does not encourage growth and development and therefore no
significant increase in the demand on existing utilities and service systems or impacts to these services are
expected. All individual proposed projects in the OS are subject to CEQA and will be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis for potential impacts,
Mitigation Measnres: None Required
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Tban No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would tbe project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I a) Does the project have the potential to 1,2,3,4 X
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have h~pacts that are 1, 2, 3, 4 X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects 1,2,3,4 X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 23
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions to the Open Space (OS) district are not anticipated to degrade the quality of the
environment or create environmental effects that would adversely impact human beings. Those results would be
in direct conflict with the intent of the OS zoning, and the Site and Design review of all development projects.
The proposed revisions to the OS regulations are not anticipated to have cumulatively considerable impacts.
The OS district provides habitat for a broad range of wildlife and plants, including some designated as protected
or sensitive either by the State of California or through Federal designation. All development projects are subject
to Site and Design review in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) to ensure an environmentally sensitive
project is approved. The Site and Design review is intended to provide a process for review and approval of
development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which
may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to
assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible
with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed revisions to the OS zoning regulations are not anticipated to create any new or contribute to existing
environmental impacts. All OS projects submitted to the City will be analyzed for its specific environmental
impacts and the appropriate CEQA review will be completed.
Global Oimate Change Impacts
Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind
patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases,
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but
prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is lmown as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's
leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely
caused by humans. Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to
control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being
implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, pursuant to Senate Bi1197 the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is in the process of developing CEQA guidelines "for the mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions." OPR is required to "prepare, develop, and
transmit" the guidelines to the Resources Agency on or before July 1,2009. The Resources Agency must certify
and adopt the guidelines on or before January 1, 2010.
Assembly Bill 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990
emissions, and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-
effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below
1990 levels. While the state of California has established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are
no established standards for gauging the significance of greenhouse gas emissions; these standards are required to
be in place by 2012. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for analysis of
greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the chal1enge under CEQA is for a Lead
Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is
meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project creates or
contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and
what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
Although greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated by future development projects in the Open Space district,
as allowed under the Comprehensive Plan, would cumulatively contribute to global climate change, the OS
regulations supports limited development while preserving and conserving natural areas. In addition to the OS
development regulations and the Site and Design review, the City has adopted green building regulations that
apply to all development projects, residential and otherwise, which further facilitates the reduction of the GHG
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 24 Negative Declaration
emISSIons of all projects. The proposed revisions to the OS zone district regulations would not make a
cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions. All
individual proposed projects in the OS will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for its potential impacts.
SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 Zoning Ordinance
4. Proposed Revised PAMC Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC)
5. Staff Report: Properties Enrolled in the Williamson Act 2007-2008
6. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload
7. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
8. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan, http;/Iwww.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebanklbJobdload.asp?BlobID=9986
9. Green Building Regulations, PAMC 18.44
10. Tree Preservation Ordinance, PAMC 8.10
11. City of Palo Alto, Historic Inventory List
ATTACHMENT
A. Proposed Revised PAMC Chapter 18.28, Special Purpose Districts (PF, OS, AC)
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 25 Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiD be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wiD be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier Em or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
c=~ proJed lanner Date
Revisions to the Open Space Zone District Regulations Page 26 Negative Declaration