HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 344-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: OCTOBER 4,2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 344:10
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section 18.28.050 (Site
Development Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to Add a Maximum House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone
District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 21 2009, the City Council adopted revisions regarding impervious coverage and
floor area ratio for the Open Space (OS) zone district and at that time directed the Planning and
Transportation Commission (PTC) to provide recommendations on the appropriate maximum
house size and regulations for basement limitations in the OS district. Staff hosted two
community outreach meetings to discuss these issues, though a large number of OS residents
continue to express opposition to any additional changes to the district. At the PTC meeting on
Mareh 10, 2010, the Commissioners unanimously voted not to add a maximum hOllse size
limitation, but also noted that, if the Council wished to impose a size limit on homes, they
recommend a 12,000 square foot limit, with increased size allowable upon attainment of
exemplary green building achievements in excess of City requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that Council (1) not
approve the proposed Ordinance (Attachment A) amending Chapter 18.28 to add a maximum
house size limit to the Open Space zone district and (2) defer action on basement limitations until
comprehensive city-wide basement recommendations have been developed. If the Council
desires to adopt a maximum house size limit, staff and the PTC recommend the following
limitations as outlined in the draft ordinance (Attachment A):
1. The maximum house size be set at 12,000 square feet; and
CMR: 344:10 Page 1 of5
2. The maximum house size limit of 12,000 square feet may be exceeded up to the allowable
floor area of the site in accordance with the folIowing requirements:
(a) For each additional point exceeding the current green building requirements, the
maximum house size may be increased by one percent (120 square feet); and
(b) Any proposed maximum house size in excess of 12,000 square feet shall be
submitted for preliminary review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 18.79.040
through 18.79.060, except that subsection 18.79.040(b) shall not apply and the
Planning and Transportation Commission shall be the sole body to conduct
preliminary review; and
(c) Applications for preliminary review under this section shall be filed as set forth in
Chapter 18.77.020; and
(d) Following completion of the preliminary review process, applicants shall complete
the site and design review process required under section 18.28.070(b) and l8.30(G);
and
(e) The maximum house size calculation shall include the gross floor area of attached
garages and attached second dwelling units. If there is no garage attached to the
house, then the square footage of one detached covered parking space shall be
included in the calculation.
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2009, the City Council adopted revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone
district. The most significant changes included a) calculation of impervious coverage based on
the actual permeability of materials use; b) a sliding scale of impervious coverage limits based
on lot size; c) establishment of a maximum floor area ratio based on lot size; d) bonus
impervious coverage and floor area allowances if a substantial part of the lot is retained as
natural vegetation or agricultural; and e) restrictions for basements on slopes in excess of 10%.
As part of the motion, Council directed the PTC to provide recommendations on (I) an
appropriate maximum house size; and (2) whether to include further regulations for the basement
limitations. Council expressed concerns regarding the resource (energy, water, etc.)
consumption related to having large homes and basements, as well as visibility and land
disturbance issues. Attachment D provides the excerpt minutes of the Council Motion.
Staff initiated two community meetings to discuss these two issues with stakeholders. The first
meeting was on January 7, 2010 and was attended by approximately 10 interested individuals.
The as residents were dissatisfied with the suggested additional limitations on maximum house
size and basements for OS properties. Brian Schmidt, representing Committee for Green
Foothills (open space advocacy group), supported adding a maximum house size limit. For the
second community meeting on February 18, the residents informed staff that they were not
interested in participating due to their continued dissatisfaction with the City'S process and the
proposed zoning changes. Apart from staff, two PTC representatives, a Committee for Green
Foothills representative, and one resident attended (for a brief time only) the meeting. Staff
received several communications on the proposed changes and they are attached for review
(Attachment G).
CMR: 344:10 Page 2 of5
DISCUSSION
Maximum House Size
The current code that governs house size in the OS is based on a sliding scale for impervious
cover and floor area ratio (FAR), as seen in the table below. The house size is limited by the
floor area and lot coverage of the site. Attachment C provides a list of OS properties with the
FAR calculations based no the Table I below.
Table I: Open Space Residential Impervious Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Scale
Impervious Floor Area
• Parcel Size Coverage Ratio (FAR) FAR with Bonus
If ::0:80% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
• < I acre 7.5% 6.0% 7.5% with native vegetation
If 2:85% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
3 acres 5.0% 5.0% 6.0% with native vegetation
If 2:90% of site remains
undisturbed and/or IS restored
5 acres 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% 'll'it~llative vegetation
If 2:95% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
2: 10 acres 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% with native vegetation
Based on the September 21, 2009 Council discussion, the issues that are intended to be addressed
by implementing a maximum house size relate to the following environmental concerns and
Comprehensive Plan policies:
• Reduce impacts of energy and water use;
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process
and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development
on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides;
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#1): The development should not be visually intrusive
from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible, development should be
sited so it is hidden from view; and
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce
potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided.
Staff and the PTC believe that the existing Green Building and Site and Design Review
requirements for development in the OS are designed to address the potential impacts of
development in the OS. The Site and Design Review is intended to provide a process for review
and approval of development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas in order to
assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will
be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo
CMR: 344:10 Page 3 of5
Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Site and Design Review, along with the required environmental
assessment, identifies and addresses potential visual, biological, and other factors that could be
considered an impact to the project site and its surroundings. In addition to the stringent design
review, the City requires compliance with green building practices in order to obtain a building
pelmit.
Basements
The current OS code requires basements to follow the same standards as the R-I Single Family
Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed
on a slope in excess often percent (10%). The latter part of this requirement is highly restrictive
in that many, if not most, of the sites in the OS zone have slopes greater than 10% within their
buildable area. Thus, staff and the PTC believe that the council's specific concerns are accounted
for in the existing process, and that a maximum house size is consequently not necessary to
address those concerns.
Based on the September 21, 2009 Council discussion, the issues that are being addressed by
implementing basement limitations relate to the following environmental concerns and
Comprehensive Plan policies:
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce
potential runoff, large flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided;
• Reduce energy consumption (use of large quantities of concrete); and
• Reduce excavation, energy, and water use in an environmentally sensitive area.
These issues are not unique to the OS zone and staff is researching and preparing
recommendations to address basement development throughout the City of Palo Alto. Staff and
the PTC recommend that the existing requirements be maintained and defer any changes until
comprehensive city-wide basement recommendations have been developed (anticipated to be
completed this year). Changes that would be implemented at that time would then apply to the
OS district. This option would allow for consideration of basement issues in a consistent manner
across the City's zoning districts. Staff again notes that the basement restrictions added in the
2009 amendments already substantially limit basement construction in the OS zone.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 10,2010, the PTC recommended not to institute a maximum house size for the Open
Space District and to defer basement discussion until the city-wide recommendations are
developed. The PTC provided an alternative recommendation, as stated on page one, to guide
Council if it wishes to pursue the implementation of a maximum house size. Details of the PTC
discussion are provided in the attached meeting minutes (Attachment F).
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The proposed revisions are not expected to have impacts on City revenue or expenses. Project
applications would require Site and Design review and staff costs would be reimbursed by the
applicant.
CMR: 344:10 Page40[5
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
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 open space character,
and on the natural ecology of the hillsides.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration (ND) was adopted on September 21, 2009 in accordance with the CEQA
requirements. The proposed changes to the development standards are not substantial and do not
change the project impacts as originally discussed in the Initial Study. The adopted ND is
deemed adequate for this project.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROV AL:
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Maps of the OS Zone District
C. Summary Table of OS Parcels
CLARE CAMPBELL
Planner
CURTIS WILLIAMS
. ctor ofPlann~ an
. ~K./~-
City Manager
D. City Council Excerpt Minutes of September 21, 2009
E. PTC Staff Report, March 10,2010
F. PTC Excerpt Minutes, March 10,2010
G. Correspondence
COURTESY COPIES
Open Space Working Group
Brian Schmidt, Committee for Green Foothills
Open Space Residents
CMR: 344:10 Page 5 of5
Not Yet Approved ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to add a Maximum
House Size Limit to the Open Space Zone District
The Council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(a) The last update of the Open Space regulations took place on September
21, 2009 with the approval of revisions to PAMC Chapter 18.28 (Special Purpose
Districts) and at which time further direction was given by Council to make additional
revisions;
(b) The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan includes several programs
and policies related to open space protection. The proposed revisions assist the City in
accomplishing these programs and policies;
(c) The proposed revisions to the Open Space district would enhance the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards) of Chapter
18.28 (Special Purpose Districts) of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby
anlended to read as follows:
18.28.050 Site Development Standards
(a) Development Standards
The development standards for the special purpose districts are specified in Table
2, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the
Architectural Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
I
100526 syn Q120440
Not Yet Approved
a e : ;pecla T bl 2 S . 1 P urpose D' Istnct S' D Ite eve opmen t St d d an ar s
PF OS(5) AC
Sub.tect to
Regulations
in Chapter:
Minimum Site Specifications
Site Area (acres) 10 5
Site Width (ft) 250
Site Depth (ft) 250
Setback lines imposed by a special
Minimum Setbacks (ft) se tback map p"rs"antto Chapter 20. 08
of ihis code shall apply
Front Setback y) 30 30
Re ar Setback }') 30 30
Interi or Side Setback Jl) 30 15 40.0S
Street Side Setback _"I 30 24
Maximum Floor Area Ratio I:IP) See Table 3 IS.2S.050(b)
Maximum House Size 12,000 sf 18 .2 8 .050 (b)
Site Coverage and Impervious Coverage
Maximum Site Coverage 30%PI 10%
Additional Site Area permitted covered by 10%(1)
impervious ground s urfaces
Maximum Imperv ious Coverage See Table IS.2S.050(b)
3(4) IS.28.070(m)
Height Restrictions
Maximum Height (ft) 50 25 35
Maximum Height within 150 feet ofa 35 IS .2S.060(a) re s identi al di str ict (ft)
Maximum Numbe r of Stories 2
Daylight Plane for site lines abutting a
residential district
Initial height (ft) 10
Slope 1:2
Residential Density. I unit/acre
(I) For cemetery uses, all markers of graves shall be flush with grade level, and shall be considered
impervious area under this requirement.
(2) The minimum front, side, and rear yards in the PF public facilities di strict shall be equal to the
respective front, side, and rear ya rds required in Ihe most restrictive abutting district; provided, that no
ya rd adjoining a s treet sha ll be less than 20 feet and that no interior ya rd s hall be less than 10 feet.
(3) Provided that, for parking facilities the maxi mum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal 10
the floor area ratio and si te coverage establish ed by the most restrictive adjacent district, and provided ,
further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be .25: l.
(4) Including building s an d all impervious ground surfaces , calculated pursu ant to the provisions of
Section IS.2S.070(m).
(5) See section IS.2S .070(r) for specific exception s to these development standards.
2
100526 'yn 0120440
Not Yet Approved
(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 I and 10 acres shall
be calculated on a prorated basis between the acreages shown in Table 3.
I aCre 7.5% 6.0% 7.5%
3 acres
:::: 10 aCres 3.5% 3.5% 4,O~/o
subsections (A) and (B) below.
(A) Bonus FAR
and/or is restored with native
If 0':85% of site remains undisturbed
and/or is restored with native
of site remains Un(IlS11Jro,m
and/or is restored with native
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 vegctati ve 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 l8.28.050(b).
(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
3
100526 'yn 0120440
Not Yet Approved
the City Attorney will be outlined in the covenant. To remove the
landscape restrictions related to the bonus FAR, the site development shall
be modified to reduce the FAR to meet the standard requirements. These
modifications are subject to design review.
(iv) For projects approved with bonus FAR, the property owner shall be
required to submit a follow-up landscape/arborist report verifying the site
is in compliance with the approved plans, five years after the project's
final sign-off, as outlined in 18.28.070(d).
(B) Calculation of Floor Area Ratio
(i) Gross floor area shall be calculated based upon the same criteria as Low
Density Residential zone districts, as specified in Definitions Section
18.04.030(65)(C) and (D), except as below.
(ii) Basements shall follow the same standards as the R -I Single Family
Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if
any portion is constructed on a slope in excess often percent (10%).
Cel Maximum House Size Exception
The maximum house size limit of 12.000 square feet may be exceeded up
to the allowable floor area of the site in accordance with the folloWing
requirements :
ill.... For each additional point exceeding the current green building
requirements. the maximum house size may be increased by one percent
(120 square fee!); and
iliL Any proposed maximum house s.ize in excess of 12.000 square feet shall
be submitted for preliminary review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
18.79 .040 through 18 .79.060. except that subsection 18 .79 .040Cbl shall
not apply and the Planning and Transportation Commission shall be the
sole body to conduct preliminary review: and
(iiil Applications for preliminary review under this section shall be filed as set
forth in Chapter 18.77 .020: and
(jvl Following completion of the preliminary rev iew process . applicants shall
complete the site and design review process required under section
18.28.070(bl and 18.30(0); and
hl The maximum house size calculation shall include the gross floor area of
attached garages and attached second dwelling units. If there is no garage
attached to the house. then the sqllare footage of one detached covered
parking space shall be included in the calculation .
(2) Non-Residential Use
4
100526 syn 0120440
Not Yet Approved
Where non-residential uses are proposed on a site, the impervious coverage shall
be limited to 3.5% and the floor area ratio shall be limited to 5.0% of the site area.
However, the City Council may, after recommendation from the Planning and
Transportation Commission, allow increased impervious coverage andlor floor
area through the Site and Design Review process, where Council finds that the
use furthers the open space objectives of this chapter. In no case shall impervious
cover or floor area ratio be allowed to exceed 10.0%.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
100526 ,yn 0120440
5
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
The Ci(), o r
Palo Alto
I: '
Open Space (OS)
Zone District
ATTACHMENT B
Th Is map Is a product of the
City o f P alo Allo G IS
--tell'
The City or
Palo Alto
PF
Foothills
Park
Open Spa?e (OS)
Zone Dlstnct
Northern Section
This map Is a product or the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--, ""'
The City of
Palo Alto
Open Space (OS)
Zone District
Southern Section
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Allo GtS
.-.. -... -.-~ , ~
ATTACHMENT C
OS Parcel Summary wIth Proposed SlidIng Scale FAR Calculated·
Total # of OS parcels: 114
Total" of developable parcels: 79-these do 11<)1 Include Glly owned parcels, 0011 Gour.e, and Midpenlnsula Regional Open Space
Number of developable lois 0-5 acres: 31 (31l%)
Number of developable lots 5-10 acres: 30 (38%)
Number of developable lots 10+ acres: 18 (23%)
Number of developable lots subject to Ihe 200' special setback: 22 (28%)
-09-003
182-38-021
Page 1 of 2
182·:;&.029
182-54.oos
'Bold le)(\ hlgllghla parcalslncluded In the 1976 Settlement Agreement, The$!! parcels are currenlly allowed to calculale
Impervious Coverage (3,5%) based on a 10 acre 101 sl~e,
Paga2 of 2
ATTACHMENT D
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt, Motion for Item #25
Le6RaFEI LehmaRR;B50 Las Tl'aRcas Read, felt the f'f6f'6seei OS ZeRO Distrlet
OFdIAaAeo "\'e~ld Ret I3l'&1ide fer thc al'>'crslty ef I:Jses that may beReftt the
eemm!:lAity.
ShareR Ll:leiw, 3885 Pa!!Je t1i11 Read, spelte eR hoI' dislilEe faf' the l'lreeess
!:Isee 11'1 !:IpEiatiR!:I tAe prepased 05 ZeRO DlstFlet OFdiRaflcc.
CatA',· Cartmell, 4001 Page Mill Read, felt Ma additiaRal 05 ZaAe District
re!:ll:Jlatlafls were fleeessary.
ChristiRe Lasq, spake 01'1 the hlstary of the OS ZaRO District.
Richard Geiger, 714 East CharlesteR Read, speke 11'1 eppesltial'l af the AgeRaa
Reffi.:
BriaR Schmidt, 3921 East Bayshore Raaa, s(:1ol<e eM his eXf'eFiORCe as the
sole 05 advocate eM the WOFldl'l!j !jFOI:Jf3. It was his belief the
l'ecammeflElatioRS ..... ere a camJ'lremise, aAd stated his !:Ieflerel support af tM
PietieR.
Pl:Jblic heariA!j clesed at 11 :21 ".m.
Council Member Burt stated his overall support of the Motion, He stated the
proposed OS zone District Ordinance contained several trade-offs. The
preceding Ordinance was problematic because It was a one-slze-flts-all
Ordinance. He felt the proposed OS Zone District Ordinance was a good
comprorpise that addressed concerns from Staff, P&TC, and reSidents. He
Indicated it would provide property owners with latitude. He spoke on the
proposed OS Zone District Ordinance's bonus that would encourage a
greater amount of natural vegetation.
Council Member Barton addressed his concern of comparing R-l zoned
parcels and OS Zone District parcels. He felt they should not be compared
because they were Intended for different purposes,
09/21/09 105-182
City Council Meeting Minutes Exce,pt, MotIon fo, Item #25
Council Member Burt stated aJtowlng the construction of a second dwelling
would not increase the amount of Impervious coverage on a parcel. He
stated the incentive was a fair compromise.
Vice Mayor Morton stated the second dwelling would encourage more traffic.
He Indicated the objective of the OS Zone District was to minimize the
Impact In the neighborhood.
Council Member Klshlmoto stated the additional dwelling unit would require
additional parking spaces.
Mayor Drekmeler stated smart growth was housing people close to jobs and
services. He stated his support of second dwelling units In R-1 zoned areas;
however, he thought it would encourage more traffic In Os Zone Districts.
AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Barton, Burt, Espinosa, Yeh no
Council Member Burt stated maximum house size In the OS Zone District
should be carefully reviewed by the P&TC.
Council Member Klshlmoto spoke on other local communities which have
considered a maximum house size In their codes. She spoke on the
consequences of maximum house sizes.
Council Member Klein stated his support to direct the P&TC to recommend a
maximum house size limitation to the City Council.
Vice Mayor Morton stated this Amendment would limit the Impact to an area
that was Intended for open space.
Mayor Drekmeler spoke on the amount of energy used to create concrete.
He stated his dislike for the construction of basements throughout the City
limits.
Council Member Klshimoto stated basements contribute to excavation of
open space and consume energy.
09/21/09 105-183
City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt~ Motion for Item #25
Council Member Yeh inquired whether the approval of the Amendment would
create a dual process to the procedure that was already in place by Staff and
the P&TC.
Mr. Williams stated the issues regarding basements had been discussed and
was currently before the P&TC. He stated the Amendment was a logical
topic as a side discussion with what had already been discussed.
Council Member Espinosa spoke on the need to set limits on growth and
development in the as. However, he did not share the same concerns of all
the Council Members.
Council Member Burt inquired whether there was a point system that
required off-setting points if a basement was built in the Build It Green
Policy.
Mr. Williams stated yes.
Council Member Burt stated he would be opposing the Amendment;
however, he looked forward to a future Agenda Item detailing broader
basement guidelines.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
MOTION: Cel:lAeil P1effiBer Kle/A ffia't'ea, seeeREled 131' CauRe" P4effiaer
P1erwR te eeRt/Rue A§eREla Iteffi Nas. 26, 27, aAa 27A ta a Elatel:lAeertaiA.
MOTION PASSED: 7 2 DroltffieieF, ESj3iA6Sa fie
26. Panel' & SeF¥iees Ceffiffiittee ReeeffiffieRaatiaR te GeAtiAl:Ie the Oj3eA
City tlal! ORURe Ferl:lffi
COUNCIL ~4AITERS
27. Cellea!jl:le's Meffie ffeffi G6l:1Aeil P4effi13eFS ~iSAiffiete, KleiA, aAa YeA
Re§8FBifl§ elrod/A!) the City P4aA8ger ta E)(j3laro Wa",s ta ReEll:lee
PataBle Water Use iA Pale Alta By 20 PeroeAt 13'1 2020.
09/21/09 105.-184
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Clare Campbell, Planner
DATE: March 10, 2010
DEPARTMENT: Planning &
Cominunity Environment
SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and recommendation of a maximum house
size and basement limitations to the development standards in the Open Space
(OS) zone district. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration was
adopted on September 21, 2009 in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and provide
direction regarding a maximum house size and basement limitations, and request staff to return
with a draft ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On September 21 2009, the City Council adopted revisions to the Open Space (OS) zone district.
The most significant changes included a) calculation of impervious coverage based on the actual
permeability of materials use; b) a sliding scale of impervious coverage limits based on lot size;
c) establishment of a maximum floor area ratio based on lot size; and d) bonus impervious
coverage and floor area allowances if a substantial part of the lot is retained as natural vegetation
or agricultural. As part of the motion, Council directed the PTC to provide recommendations on
(1) the appropriate maximum house size; and (2) regulations for the basement limitations.
Council expressed concerns regarding the resource (energy, water, etc.) consumption related to
having large homes and basements, as well as visibility and land disturbance issues. Attachment
D provides the excerpt minutes of the Council Motion.
Staff initiated two community meetings to discuss these two issues with stakeholders. The first
meeting was on January 7, 2010 and was attended by approximately 10 interested individuals.
The OS residents were uniformly dissatisfied with the suggested additional limitations on
City 01 Palo Allo Page 1
maximum house size and basements on their properties. Brian Schmidt, representing Committee
for Green Foothills (open space advocacy group), supported adding a maximum house size limit.
For the second community meeting on February 18, the residents informed staff that they were
not interested in participating due to their continued dissatisfaction with the City's process and
the proposed zoning changes. Apart from staff, two PTC representatives, a Committee for Green
Foothills representative, and one resident attended (for a brief time only) the meeting. Staff
received several communications on the proposed changes and they are attached for review,
Attachment C.
DISCUSSION
Maximum House Size
The current code that governs house size in the as is based on a sliding scale for impervious
cover and floor area ratio (FAR), as seen in the table below. The house size is limited by the
floor area and lot coverage of the site.
Table 1: Open Space Residential Impervious Coverage and Floor Area Ratio Scale
Impervious Floor Area
Parcel Size Coverall.e Ratio (FAR) FAR with Bonus
If 2:80% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored I
< 1 acre 7.5% 6.0% 7.5% with native vegetation
If 2:85% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
3 acres 5.0% 5.0% 6.0% with native vegetation
If 2:90% of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
5 acres 4.0% 4.0% 5.0% with native vegetation
If 2:95 % of site remains
undisturbed and/or is restored
> 10 acres 3.5% 3.5% 4.0% with native vegetation
Maximum house size requirements are a development tool imposed in some hillside
communities in the Bay Area, such as Woodside (8,000 square feet), Portola Valley (85% of
total floor area allowed), and Saratoga (8,000 square feet). Staff has not previously
recommended such a limitation due to the use of the Site and Design Review process to address
the visual impacts of the home. However, there is no significant burden on staff to implement a
maximum house size limitation, so a maximum house size restriction remains a policy
determination for the Commission and Council. A maximum house size limit would affect larger
properties. Attachment A provides comparison data on floor area, maximum house size, etc. for a
few local jurisdictions with hillside development.
1. Concerns
The issues that are being addressed by implementing a maximum hOllse size relate to the
following environmental concems and Comprehensive Plan policies:
Cily ot Pslo Alto Page 2
• Reduce impacts of energy and water use;
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design
process and the Open Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new
development on views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural
ecology of the hillsides;
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#1): The development should not be visually
intrusive from public roadways and public parklands. As much as possible,
development should be sited so it is hidden from view; and
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to
reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided.
2. Options
Of the following options provided on how to determine a maximum house size, Staff
recommends Option A.
A. Scaled
Lot Size (acres) Maximum House Size (sJ.)
<10 8,000
> 10 and < 15 10,000
> 15 12,000
This option provides clear direction to homeowners and staff on what can be developed
and recognizes that there are various sized properties in the OS zone and therefore would
allow some flexibility in the house size. House size would not be more restrictive than
FAR until a lot was at least four acres.
B. Same as the R-l and R-E Single Family Residential Districts: 6,000 sf
This option provides clear direction to both homeowners and City staff on what
can be developed and applies the same R-J and RE standard to the as district.
This standard, however, would be highly restrictive in larger lots, particularly is
currently allowed on the much smaller R-J and R-E properties.
C. Discretionary Review
City 01 Palo Alto
Indicate a baseline maximum house size (e.g. 6,000 sf), and if the homeowner
includes substantial sustainable design/construction elements, additional floor
area may be allowed for the house, as determined by the PTC and Council.
Compliance with the Site and Design criteria is also implicit with the
discretionary option.
This option does not provide clear direction to homeowners and staff on how
large a home can be built on a site. It does encourage the homeowners who desire
a larger home to utilize green building and sustainable design in order to gain
additional square footage for the house. This option does not provide certainty for
the homeowner in the review process and places the burden on the City to
Page 3
Basements
consistently evaluate a project's worthiness for added square footage, The future
monitoring of these projects may also be problematic, If the PTC desires to
evaluate this option further. some specific sustainability criteria should be
identified for stajfto consider and return to PTC in afuture discussion,
The current as code requires basements to follow the same standards as the R-1 Single Family
Residential district, except that in addition basement area shall count if any portion is constructed
on a slope in excess of ten percent (10%), The latter part of this requirement is highly restrictive
in that many, if not most, of the sites in the as zone have slopes greater than 10% within their
buildable area,
Basement, as defined by the PAMC. means that portion of a building between the lowest floor
and the ceiling above, which is fully below grade or partly below and partly above grade, but so
located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is more than the vertical distance
from grade to ceiling,
In the R-1 Single Family district, basements may not extend beyond the building footprint and
basements are not allowed below any portion of a structure that extends into required setbacks,
except to the extent that the main residence is permitted to extend into the rear yard setback by
other provisions of this code, Basements are not included in the calculation of gross floor area,
provided that (1) basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as crawlspace; or (2)
basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no more
than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation,
L Concerns
The issues that are being addressed by implementing basement limitations relate to the
following environmental concerns and Comprehensive Plan policies:
• Comprehensive Plan Policy N-7 (#8): To reduce the need for cut and fill and to
reduce potential runoff, large flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided;
• Reduce energy consumption (use oflarge quantities of concrete); and
• Reduce excavation, energy, and water use in an environmentally sensitive area,
2, Options
Of the following options provided to regulate basement sizes, Staff recommends Option
A,
A. Maintain the existing requirements and defer any changes until comprehensive
city-wide basement recommendations have been developed (anticipated to be
done this year). Changes that would be implemented at that time would then apply
to the as district.
Cily of Palo Allo
This option would allow for consideration of basement issues in a consistent
manner across the City's zoning districts.
Page 4
B. Count basement square footage toward the total floor area of the site but not
toward the maximum house size.
This optionforther restricts basements, but provides an incentive to locate some
above-ground square footage to basement·area that would not be visible.
C. Prohibit new basements completely.
This option avoids potential basement impacts, but would not recognize
circumstances particular to a site, emerging technologies and energy efficiencies
of basements, and would not provide any incentive to minimize above grade
square footage.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Staff believes that the proposed amendments reflect the intent and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan to minimize impacts new development on views of the hillsides, on open space character,
and on the natural ecology of the hillsides.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Initial Study was completed and a Draft Negative
Declaration (ND) was adopted on September 21,2009 in accordance with the CEQA
requirements. The proposed changes to the development standards are not substantial and do not
change the project impacts as originally discussed in the Initial Study. The adopted NO is
deemed adequate for this project.
NEXT STEPS
Upon direction from the Commission, staff will prepare a draft ordinance and return to the
Commission for final review and recommendation to the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Comparison Data from Local Jurisdictions
Summary Table of OS Parcels
Correspondence
Excerpt Minutes of City Council Meeting, 09121/09
COURTESY COPIES
PAPOS
Prepared by: Clare Campbell, Planner
DEPARTMENTIDIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:_G"';:"":'''''~<=~'<fJJ-,-"-,m""·,,,,~»=',-,-,,,,--__ _
Curtis Williams, Director
City 01 Palo Allo Page5
ATTACHMENT F
I Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 March 10,2010
4
5 EXCERPT
6
7 Zoning Ordinance Update: Review and recommendation of maximum house size and
8 basement limitations to the development standards in the Open Space (OS) zone district.
9 Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration was adopted on September 21, 2009 in
10 accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A).
II
12 Mr. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning and Community Environment: Yes, thank you Chair
13 Garber and Commissioners. I am Curtis Williams the Director of Planning and Community
14 Environment. The Planning Commission spent considerable time over the past couple of years
15 working on regulations related to the Open Space District. Vice-Chair Tuma and Chair Garber
16 were part of a subcommittee that participated in that and in some meetings with the residents of
17 the area. That effort resulted in the Council adopting revisions last September. There were quite
18 a number of revisions to the ordinance. They key ones at that time were that a floor area ratio
19 limitation was added to the code. Previously development was regulated primarily through
20 impervious cover limitations. So floor area ratio was added and both the impervious cover and
21 floor area ratio were developed based on a ratio relative to the lot size, so there was a sliding
22 scale rather than a flat 3.5 percent impervious, which existed before that.
23
24 There was also language that said that impervious cover is calculated based on the permeability
25 of the material rather than it being considered all impermeable or as 100 percent or zero percent.
26 There are different gradations of that.
27
28 There were some changes to the review process so that not all projects had to go through the
29 Commission and Council at public hearings. There was a change to some of the setback
30 requirements for parking and special setbacks. Then there also were some provision for allowing
31 garbage enclosures and such to be closer to the street, and some other kind of minor changes as
32 well. There also was a change to the basement provision that essentially said that basements
33 which were prior to that not particularly relevant because we didn't have a floor area regulation.
34 There was just the coverage regulation. Basements if they were on slopes over ten percent
35 would be counted against the floor area under the new regulations. So that was pretty limiting in
36 this area where there are a lot of steeper sloped.
37
38 So those changes were adopted by the Council but there was not a recommendation regarding the
39 issue in particular of maximum house size. That is an issue that the Commission did take up and
40 discuss, and had a set of numbers in front of it to consider, but first decided whether or not you
41 wanted to move that forward before you considered what the appropriate square footage might
42 be. You recommended against a house size and that is the recommendation that went to Council.
43 The Council however felt that they were at a minimum leaning towards imposing a house size
44 and since they didn't have a recommendation from the Commission sent that issue back to you,
45 and would like your recommendation on what an appropriate maximum house size or sizes
46 would be in the Open Space District.
Page 1
I
2 They also referred back to you the issue of basements, which as you know we have had a couple
3 of meetings on with the Commission about basements citywide in terms of groundwater issues,
4 green building, and carbon emission issues, and impacts on adjacent neighbors. The Council
5 directed that the Commission also reconsider whether there should be additional basement
6 restrictions in the Open Space District beyond what had just been adopted.
7
8 Up on the screen right now is just the summary table from the ordinance that was adopted in
9 September. So these are in existence. This is the regulation right now as far as the maximum
10 impervious coverage, floor area ratios for lots depending on the size of the lot, and then on the
II right side there are also some provisions for bonuses in addition to that if a certain high
12 percentage of the site is left in either its natural state or is restored with native vegetation. So
13 that is sort of where we are.
14
15 Staff has developed some recommendations for the Commission to consider as far as maximum
16 house size. We had recommended previously as the Commission did that there not be a
17 maximum house size based on the fact that we have full Sight and Design Review for all these
18 homes, which allows a look at everyone to see whether or not it was visually intrusive or
19 otherwise impacting.
20
21 So one of the questions that has been asked a number of times by the neighbors in particular is
22 sort of what was the basis or the justification for evaluating this, where did that kind of come
23 from? We went back to the minutes of the Council Meeting and pulled some references that we
24 saw there, and have sort of identified that the primary impetus for looking at maximum house
25 size is one to reduce the impacts of energy and water use, and then the others are generally
26 related to Comprehensive Plan policies to minimize impacts of any new development on views
27 of the hillsides and the open space character, and the natural ecology. Secondly, not being
28 visually intrusive from public roadways and public parklands, sited so it is hidden from view as
29 much as possible. Lastly, to reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential fUnoffiarge
30 flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided. So those seemed to us to be sort of the
3 I objectives that were enumerated by the Council, although they were not explicit about that it was
32 just in some of their comments. Those also related in some way or other to the basement issue as
33 welL
34
35 So a couple of things as we move into the issue of what a maximum house size should be we just
36 wanted to clarify how maximum house size is defined. We do have maximum house size
37 regulations of 6,000 square feet in the R-I zone and the RE zone right now, and basically have
38 treated maximum house size as being the primary dwelling unit on the lot. So other structures
39 that are not attached to that dwelling unit do not count against the maximum house size. They do
40 count against the total floor area ratio for the site floor area, but a detached garage for example, a
41 detached accessory living quarters, detached barn, or anything like that would not count against
42 the maximum house size. I just wanted to make that distinction.
43
44 What we have outlined in the Staff Report as one direction to go and our recommended direction
45 is that maximum house size be either set up as a maximum of 8,000 square feet generally, but
46 then between ten and 15 acres 10,000 square feet, and over 15 acres 12,000 square feet. The
Page 2
I 8,000 square foot number is somewhat arbitrary. There is no magic to that but it does happen to
2 fit and be relatively analogous to some of the maximum house sizes that we have seen in other
3 communities, particularly Woodside and Saratoga. Then it would start to impact homes that
4 were about 4.2 acres or larger.
5
6 We also provided some options in the Staff Report. One option is to use the existing 6,000
7 square feet that we have existing. We feel that that is somewhat punitive in that that's on very
8 urban size lots because you would have to have probably about three regular size lots 10 be large
9 enough to get the FAR to do a 6,000 square foot house, but it is more of what is in other zoning
10 districts, and is not really applicable to these larger lots in the Open Space. Then a third option is
II just to have a more discretionary review process whereby maybe there is a minimum set of 8,000
12 square feet or 10,000 square feet but then there is an option or a way to allow larger houses.
13
14 Some of the criteria that might be used are exemplary green building techniques, which address a
15 lot of the energy and water issues or impacts that had been brought up. Also, like we had for the
16 floor area ratio having some kind of a bonus based on the amount of area that is left undisturbed,
17 natural, or restored to a nalural state. So these are the two potential incentives that we have
18 identified that could be used in that kind of scenario are to exceed the green building
19 requirements or maintaining 95 percent of the site as undismrbed or restored with native
20 vegetation. Currently our green building regulations require using the Build It Green rating
21 system that a home achieve a minimum of70 points plus one point per additional 70 square feet
22 over 2,550 square feet. Then we have a maximum requirement of 150. The 150 occurs just
23 about at that 8,000 square foot house level. So that is another sort of equalizing factor there.
24 Even though you would calculate that say a 10,000 square foot house would require 176, ours
25 says we don't require you to go over 150. So one of the options here is that we could say there
26 are 8,000 square feet or so and then if you do achieve say 176 or 200 or whatever the number
27 would be that you could go through the Site and Design and request a house that is larger than
28 the maximum house size that we specify. So that is one type of criteria that we could use. We
29 are concerned about getting more discretionary than that. That is a numerical number that we
30 can calculate and it doesn't require Staffto then sort of determine with the applicant if they have
3 I done enough to request a larger house than what is specified or not. It is there in a nomerical
32 form and the same thing with the percentage of natural area.
33
34 These are just definitions of some of the other relevant criteria. Let me go back here a second.
35 We had some concerns. One of the concerns that we do have about like a green building type of
36 standard is being sure that we have some kind of enforcement mechanism that maintains that
37 standard, and that an applicant or owner can't go in and then alter a house in a way that would
38 reduce its green building efficiency and not be achieving what was set out to do. We would have
39 certainly a certification at the final inspection that it achieved all those things. A lot of those are
40 embedded in the house design and really can't be readily changed. There are some that probably
41 could so we would probably have some kind of conditions that we could then subsequently
42 enforce as a Code Enforcement issue if something were changed on the house. That does remain
43 out there as kind of a possibility.
44
45 So we have outlined several options there. We think that either at this breakdown of 8,000,
46 10,000, or 12,000, or just picking say a 10,000 square foot number is reasonably large to reflect
Page 3
I that these sites are pretty large sites and can accommodate those houses with the explicit
2 understanding that Sight and Design Review is required on everyone of these homes. So you
3 still have the discretion to look at the placement of the home, the landscaping for the home, other
4 techniques to try to minimize the visual impact. Then perhaps with this discretionary option of if
5 you were to exceed the associated green building thresholds and the Open Space natural area
6 thresholds that you could request, and we have not specified what number above that. I think it
7 would open-ended at that point. However, you could request houses larger than maximum house
8 size that is specified.
9
lOOn the basement issue there are a number of ways to try to address that. Our preference and
II recommendation at this point is that you not recommend any changes right now but that we defer
12 discussion of that until we come back to you with further information that you had requested on
13 basements citywide, because these issues are not all the same as the issues we have in other areas
14 but a lot of them are the same. So we think we really ought to address those all in one package
15 and then decide if they apply differently in different areas as part of that discussion. So I think
16 that is it, and would be glad to take any questions.
17
18 Also, Clare has provided you with a table that shows the breakdown that essentially has every lot
19 in the Open Space District and shows at what point the 8,000 square foot number becomes
20 restrictive, when does the floor area ratio exceed 8,000 square feet, and then 10,000 square feet,
21 and then 12,000 square feet. You can see the number of lots that potentially fall into those
22 categories.
23
24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: I just wanted to add a little bit with respect to the history of the process and
27 the discussions particularly focusing on the time since this was last in front of us and the series of
28 events that have taken place since then.
29
30 Obviously there was the Council action, which Staff has covered. Following the Council action
31 there were two noticed meetings with the public that Staff and members of the subcommittee
32 attended and participated in. The first of those meetings was a discussion that I would
33 characterize as one where the community came back and expressed disappointment in the fact
34 that we were going back and revisiting these issues despite Planning Commission
35 recommendation, which was consistent with Staff recommendation. There was some discussion
36 around what the way forward might be looking at various different options.
37
38 I think as a result of those meetings this meeting was postponed in order to give Staff and the
39 community an opportunity to think about a little bit more what we might do. There was then a
40 subsequent meeting scheduled with the community and most of the members of the community
41 chose not to appear at that meeting and indicated a form of protest as a result of previous
42 discussions. I will let the members of the public address the concerns there.
43
44 There was a member of Green Foothills who was in attendance and a couple of other members of
45 the public showed up very briefly and then left. It was in the context of that meeting that we
46 began to discuss this concept of if we were to go forward with a recommendation on maximum
Page 4
I house size that there might be a discretionary way for applicants to go beyond the limit if they
2 were to build their projects in a certain way that effectively addressed some of the concerns that
3 maximum house size was intended to address. So that is I think where some of the
4 recommendations or the information in here comes in around discretionary review and using
5 perhaps the green building criteria as a way to allow additional house size if the concerns were
6 addressed through Sight and Design and the project proposal.
7
8 So I think that brings us to tonight. I don't know if the Chair has anything he wants to add as a
9 result of our discussions as well.
10
11 Chair Garber: Yes. I think one of the strongest concerns that was voiced by the members of the
12 public that have participated in these meetings that the subcommittee has participated in over the
I3 last three or four years now has been what is trying to be solved. In that the Planning
14 Commission and Staff had made a recommendation in July and Council has now asked us to
15 come back and address the issue of maximum house size again. Much of the initial concern or
16 impetus for this occurred with one particular project that is now I believe over ten years old. It
17 was the one exception that has caused a ripple that we feel to today coming to pass in that a
18 number of the structures that are embedded in the zone and the Zoning Ordinance have
19 effectively worked, basically, up until the present moment with the exception of that one
20 exception.
21
22 So the question that appears to be before us is potentially a rhetorical one but one that we have
23 been asked to address which is, is there a need for maximum size, and if there is, how do we
24 address that? Is that fair? I am getting a not from the Co-Chair and the other member of the
25 Open Space ad hoc subcommittee.
26
27 So with that this would be the time that we would take questions from the Commission to Staff.
28 Then we will hear from the public. In deference to the public that are here we will do five
29 minutes a piece as opposed to our normal three. I would hope that if there are questions by
30 Commissioners that we can engage members of the public in them. Let us remember that we are
31 in a publie meeting and we will have to use the mierophone and you will have to be called on to
32 speak after we go through the cards that you filled out. Commissioner Keller and then
33 Commissioner Lippert.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So using the slide four that is actually on the screen is
36 actually what I want to talk about. So let me frame my question by saying that my understanding
37 from the last meeting is that Site and Design review is discretionary but doesn't really address
38 maximum house size. That was something that it didn't seem to really be effective addressing
39 and therefore in terms of the new ideas for addressing maximum house size and how to exceed
40 that is the idea of getting additional square footage of house size through green point rate it
41 which is essentially mechanical based. The idea here that is mentioned on this slide is that it
42 would be at the discretion of the Planning Commission. I am wondering if Staff has any
43 thoughts on how that discretion could be applied in a way that doesn't result in landowners
44 spending a lot of time doing engineering calculations and architect drawings and then that comes
45 to a discretionary process where the Commission say we don't like that, we think it is way too
46 big, shrink it, and then a lot of money has been spent. So I am wondering if there is some
Page 5
I process that might have an earlier feedback and while that feedback might not be binding would
2 sort of give some idea before a lot of money was spent.
3
4 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Commissioner Keller, I think that is a very good question and
5 something we had thought about. It would be quite risky to go out and develop a 15,000 square
6 foot house and all the designs for that and submit it knowing you are meeting the numbers here
7 but not knowing that it is going to be even sort of within the ballpark of discretionary review. So
8 all I would essentially offer at this point is that it might be appropriate in a case like this what we
9 will have to do is come back to you with actual ordinance language. It might be very appropriate
10 to require a preliminary review with the Commission if that kind of avenue is chosen so that they
II come forward with something conceptual and you at least get a sense of the lay of the land. You
12 may find that the location of the home is down in a valley and it is not particularly obtrusive
13 anyway and so it looks like that might be a case where you say go ahead and develop more
14 details plans. Then in other cases you might see something where it is of some concern because
15 of a high level of visibility and you might have different direction from that. So we are
16 comfortable I think developing that and that probably would be a good approach to require an
17 initial preliminary review before the Commission before doing real detailed drawings.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Presumably a landowner could avail themselves of preliminary review
20 even if it didn't involve this. They could get earlier feedback on one that even did fit the normal
21 criteria so that they wouldn't have to go and get rejected potentially at the Sight and Design
22 Review stage.
23
24 Mr. Williams: Yes, we could do that too.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: I am going to go slightly on a limb and observe that the City Council's
27 direction to us was made by the prior Council. In terms of continuing Council Members three
28 voted yes, two voted no. In terms of the Commission the motion was deadlocked three-three
29 with one person absent. Three voting that we should take back in the future the issue of limiting
30 house size and three voting no and of the three who voted no those three are still on the
31 Commission and of the three who voted yes, two of the three of those are on the Commission.
32 So I just figure I would point this out just so people can do the electoral math and handicap
33 appropriately and figure out how they might want to phrase their discussions. Thank you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert followed by Fineberg.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Can just briefly review and expand on the 1978 settlement agreement
38 just a tiny bit?
39
40 Mr. Williams: I don't know all the details of it and somebody in the audience I am sure can
41 correct me if I am wrong but this was a subdivision that the settlement agreement acknowledged
42 I believe there were nine or ten developable lots and then a large amount of open space set aside.
43 Rather than having minimum ten-acre lot sizes the lots themselves were smaller, like three acres
44 or something like that, and then the open space was made larger. But the settlement agreement
45 essentially stipulated that those smaller lots could be developed based on the standards for a ten-
46 acre conforming house sizes. So given that that is a settlement agreement we have essentially
Page 6
I incorporated and then it was adopted by the Council, recommended by the in September, that
2 those be exempt from future regulations because the settlement agreement in effect at that time is
3 what is operative for those nine or ten lots.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: So trying to get clarity, I am looking at your chart here, which is at
6 places but was included in the Staff Report the items that are bold they would be exempt from
7 the FAR or would they be subject to the FAR but based on a much larger lot size?
8
9 Mr. Williams: No, they would be exempt from the FAR or any maximum house size limitation.
10
II Commissioner Lippert: Okay and that doesn't create any sort of problem with regard to the fact
12 that it is all one zone and we are applying development regulations to the entire zone. Does it
13 represent us applying regulations inequitably?
14
15 Mr. Williams: I don't think so. Again, it already had been done so that these lots were being
16 treated somewhat differently than all the other lots in that zone. So anytime we have a settlement
17 agreement it usually differs in some way, shape, or form from the standard regulations and is
18 legally binding.
19
20 Commissioner Lippert: I guess where I am coming from is more of a legal opinion from the City
21 Attorney's Office's Deputy City Attorney, which is that if we were to reach some sort of
22 understanding in terms of maximum lot size and somebody who was not one of those property
23 owners could come back and say well, you have applied your maximum lot size to us but not the
24 other properties. Would that undermine this?
25
26 Ms. Melissa Tronguet, Deputv City Attorney: I don't think so. I agree with the Planning
27 Director. I think really it is more of a policy distinction rather than a legal distinction at this
28 point because we do already have the settlement agreement in place. We do things like that
29 fairly frequently. But if that is something you wanted to consider sort ofa policy matter as you
30 are making your decision tonight that is certainly a fair consideration, I think.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one other follow up question on that. Some of the larger
33 lots that might be accessible from multiple vantage points could those be subdivided and thereby
34 splitting I guess the maximum FAR that would be permitted?
35
36 Mr. Williams: There are some properties out here that I am sure could be subdivided. We have
37 not gone through and done an analysis of sort of physically whether it really made sense to
38 possibly do that but certainly some of them are large enough for that to happen. If that happened
39 then the FAR that applies to that resultant size lot is what would apply. If you built out
40 according to this FAR and then subdivided you would not be able to do that if you have used up
41 all the FAR on the site that already existed.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: Well, what I am thinking, and I amjust purely thinking out loud, which
44 is if you take one of the larger lots here and you built out to the maximum FAR and you were
45 able to split off a piece of salvage that was able to be distinct unto itself and yet the maximum
46 FAR balanced out with the lot that the house is currently on that would be permitted.
Page 7
1
2 Mr. Williams: As long as both resultant lots complied with the code.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Right.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: Quick follow up on Commissioner Lippert's questions. For the parcels
9 that are subject to the 1978 settlement if let's say there were the greatest limitations placed on
10 ten-acre parcels. So let's say there was a maximum house size of6,000 square feet placed on
11 ten-acre parcels would those 1978 settlement lots be exempt then because they were exempted in
12 1978 or would the now current standards for ten-acre parcels apply?
13
14 Mr. Williams: We believe they would be exempt and not just exempt because of that but
15 because we basically wrote into the ordinance that was adopted in September that those lots are
16 subject only to what was in effect at the time of that 1978 settlement agreement.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Also, could Staff comment on
19 the genesis of what brought this matter, the whole issue of maximum house size in Open Space,
20 back before the Commission and Council? In our minutes from July 8, on page 21, former
21 Commissioner Holman, now Council Member Holman basically said that from her perspective
22 'The genesis of looking at the Open Space District was because of the impervious surface issue.
23 We were getting developments that were not anticipated due to the result of the development of
24 materials that are more permeable than when the code was instituted."
25
26 So if that is correct then isn't part of what we are trying to do is to, I don't know if the word is
27 ratchet back but if there was a cap on FAR and then when permeable materials were introduced
28 houses could get bigger so there was a gain. Are we trying to go in the direction of bringing it
29 back to where it was as opposed to a taking and a lowering?
30
31 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Fineberg my understanding is that was the basis for revisiting
32 the OS regulations. lt is not necessarily the basis for the maximum house size aspect of it. We
33 have addressed that issue. We did not have an FAR before so it was just impervious coverage.
34 The concern was just impervious cover and then a lot of what was impervious cover became
35 permeable, didn't count at all, and then you put it into the floor area for a house and then you
36 have two stories or two and a half stories of house so it doubles the benefit in terms ofthe square
37 footage that gets transferred into more building bulk.
38
39 So to address that number one we have FAR limits now not just impervious cover and number
40 two, previously if you had something that was 90 percent impervious and ten percent permeable
41 it counted as zero impervious cover, and we have changed that so that it now counts as zero, 25,
42 50,75, or 100 percent depending on the actual permeability of the material. So 1 think those
43 issues were substantively addressed through that process, and that is why it came back to that but
44 it was not specifically maximum house size that was being addressed.
45
46 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
Page 8
I
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Garber.
3
4 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I know your community meetings were not everything
5 that you wanted them to be but did you get any sense that some of the objections to this
6 maximum house size had to so with sort of future plans or was it more of an abstract protection
7 of property rights?
8
9 Mr. Williams: Well, I am sure you can ask the neighbors this too but it wasn't related to specific
10 future plans. There are a number of people who objected to this that probably would not be
II affected at all by the maximum house size because their lots are small enough that the floor area
12 ratio wouldn't even get to that kind oflevel. I will characterize it as a general frustration on their
13 part that there were more and more restrictions being applied in the Open Space zone.
14
15 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, I got that too. Of the larger lots it seems like these have been in
16 ownership by a family for quite a while. Are they primarily sort of agrarian type uses or do you
17 see this as more of a rural suburban character to them?
18
19 Mr. Williams: I think the larger lots tend to be more agrarian. They have homes generally but
20 they tend to be mostly open space either agricultural or just open space properties with a home
21 that makes up a relatively small portion of those lots. To some extent there have been a couple
22 that in the last ten to 12 years or whatever were built on some of the newer large lots, and frankly
23 those are the couple that have been through the Commission and Council and have had hearings
24 after hearings and had issues associated with them, and I am sure are on the minds of those who
25 are concerned about having a maximum house size. But generally most of the large lots that you
26 are talking about that have been in families or that ownership for a long time have had minimal
27 impact on the properties.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: One last question. Was there a strategy or consideration for
30 encouraging smaller houses like incentives to build a 6,000 square foot house instead of an 8,000
31 or 10,000 as part of the ordinance?
32
33 Mr. Williams: No there really isn't at this point. I don't know ifthey would be interested in that
34 but there isn't really particular incentive to do that. It is just based on the floor area that is
35 allowed on the site. I would want to point out that the restrictions are the maximum house size
36 or the floor area whichever is more restrictive. So we do have quite a few lots where the floor
37 area itself is more restrictive than the maximum house size, at least as proposed here, and that
38 would be operative and not allow getting to that size. There isn't anything that I would consider
39 to be an incentive for a smaller home.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: I understand. Thank you.
42
43 Chair Garber: Your OS Parcel Summary with Maximum House Size Chart that you have at
44 places, could you walk us through that? I guess what I would like for you to highlight is what
45 today are the maximum sizes of houses that can be placed on any of these lots. How would I
46 read this to understand that?
Page 9
I
2 Mr. WiUifjrn§ Clare can jump in here if I miss anything. Basically, if you see the column that
3 says FAR Square Footage that is the column that today tells you theoretically at least how large a
4 house could be on that site, assuming there were no other structures other than the house on that
5 site. The top line there, not the one five down or so where it is 20 acres or so, just below that for
6 instance the 14 acre parcel, 21,499 could be a maximum house size on that parcel. So then if you
7 go over to the next column that is tclling you essentially what under this proposal
8 8,000/10,000/12,000 would be the allowable maximum house size.
9
10 Chfjir Garber: That is your Option A.
11
12 Mr. Williams: That is our Option A. Then right next to that is essentially the difference between
13 the allowable floor area on the site and what that maximum house size would be. So on that
14 particular lot the maximum house would be 10,000 square feet and that would leave 11,500
15 square feet that could be developed in other structures on the site, again detached garages, barn,
16 studio workshop, second dwelling unit, etc. Then there are also columns that are specific to if
17 we just had a flat 8,000, or a flat 10,000, or a flat 12,000 what those differences would be. Then
18 working your way down, as you get down they go to essentially the threshold point of what size
19 of a lot at what point does the FAR essentially equal the maximum house size so that it below
20 that line doesn't really have any effect any more, the maximum house size.
21
22 Chair Garber: So you are looking at this bottom third or quarter down here.
23
24 Mr. Williams: Right.
25
26 Chair Garber: There I am looking for instance at line 79, which has an FAR of2,300 square feet
27 and change. Is that the maximum house size or is it the 8,000'1
28
29 Mr.Yv'illiflllls: Yes, that is.
30
31 Chair Garber: It is. And that is for a piece of property that could be as much as four times larger
32 than a lot that might be found in the R-1 district by way of example.
33
34 Mr. Williams: Right.
35
36 Chair Garber: Where in the R-1 district you would be allowed to build 6,000 square feet.
37
38 Mr. Williams: Right.
39
40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: Please just clarify for me again the bold parcel numbers. Those
43 wouldn't have any limitations except for the maximum lot impervious lot cover. So in fact what
44 you have put in the column there for maximum house size scaled really is unlimited as long as it
45 is expressed as FAR and not in lot coverage or impervious surfaee.
46
Page 10
I Mr. Williams: That's right. That is correct, however when we went through this exercise in
2 developing the FAR what we found generally was these smaller lots in the zoning district under
3 the prior flat 3.5 percent were so restrictive that you couldn't get anywhere close to an 8,000
4 square foot house, which is why one of the things that was done is it was scaled. You will see
5 instead of having 3.5 percent those smaller lots now have 4.5 to six percent impervious cover is
6 the same basically as the FAR percentage on them. So they do allow more but I think
7 realistically it would be very difficult to get, maybe just a handful or so of those lots in that
8 category at the upper end might be able to do the 8,000 square feet. I think the others would
9 have a difficult time based on just the FAR, the 3.5 percent.
10
II Commissioner Lippert: Basically what you are saying is because it would be a multistory
12 building it would wind up being three or more stories and therefore it would then be obvious and
13 stick out. It would not meet the other criteria in terms of the Comprehensive Plan policies.
14
15 Mr. Williams: Right. I am assuming that at that point it is not going to be an acceptable design.
16
17 Chair Garber: I apologize Commissioner Lippert. Could you repeat your finding there? Then
18 we will go to Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg.
19
20 Commissioner Lippert: I am just saying that what it would represent is a three or four story
21 building because it would be constrained by the amount of impervious surface. Since it has
22 exceeded the impervious surface it would have to be expressed in mass as multiple stories, which
23 'then conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan policies.
24
25 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg and then Keller.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: If we could put slide six of this presentation up I just want to clarify
28 something and make sure I am understanding. So when we look at the bottom there were it says
29 house size 12,000 square feet, current minimum big points required 150, 205 calculated I assume
30 that the 150 there is a result as it says down there as the maximum that could be required by the
31 code. If we didn't have that maximum because of the incremental size of the home 205 would
32 be sort of what would otherwise be required.
33
34 Mr. Williams: That is correct.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So theoretically if we were to build an incentive program using the big
37 scale we would want to have something using the 12,000 square foot number to start with, we
38 would want to have something north of 205 as real incentive. Is that fair to say? Or would
39 something north of 150 achieve the same goal?
40
41 Mr. Williams: Well, I think it depends on where you trying to go. If you are trying to get
42 something that is really out there on the edge in terms of green building then the 205 might be
43 the way to go. What we are saying is that right now you are going above and beyond if you do
44 more than 150. So maybe that is a threshold or maybe there are a couple of steps or tiers to get
45 to.
46
Page II
I Yice-Chair Tuma: Okay, good.
2
3 Chair Garber: I was just going to add 150 is what has also been embedded in some of what the
4 current Green Ordinance is. Is that correct? That is a number that already exists in our
5 ordinance.
6
7 Mr. Williams: Right, that is in the ordinance as far as the most that we can require in the Green
8 Building Ordinance.
9
10 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Then I just wanted to make one other comment because the question
II was asked about the nature of the expressed frustration. Having participated in these other
12 meetings I have an observation about that. Again, not to put words in the mouths of our public,
13 because I am sW'e they will do that themselves, but one thing that I observed was sort of a sense
14 that this entire process had been kind of a negotiated process where there was some give and take
15 on what made sense and what didn't make sense. We sort of came up with a set of restrictions
16 that addressed what Commissioner Fineberg had pointed out which was the whole what I might
17 call the permeable surface loophole, if you will. So we sort of addressed that. The sense that I
18 got from the public was we have dealt with the issue. We have participated in these discussions.
19 We had this somewhat of a negotiation or give and take and arrived at something that addressed
20 the loophole and now this is sort of getting piled on that is not fair. That was the sense of what I
21 got from the discussions. Again, I am sure we will hear from the public on that but since the
22 question had been asked about what the nature of the frustration was that was my sort of sense or
23 interpretation.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller.
26
27 Commissioner Fill~!Jerg: A couple more quick clarifying questions about how the three optional
28 limits would be applied and the maximum house size ehart. For properties number 55 to 79,
29 which are more or less at that threshold at four acres and under, would it be the FAR and the
30 FAR square foot that would rule or if there was Option A a scaled house size would the
31 maximum house size limit apply? So would parcel 55 be able to build -let me not pick on that
32 one that is not different. Let's look at number 79 would they be able to build 8,000 square feet if
33 we picked scaled Option A?
34
35 Mr. Williams: No, 2,379.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: So the FAR cap would still apply?
38
39 Mr. Williams: Right. You still have to have the floor area ratio within which to build the
40 maximum house size.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
45
Page 12
I Commissioner Kel!er: So what is odd to me is I don't think anybody noticed during the process
2 of the Green Building Ordinance that we have a cap of 150 points when the cap of 150 points
3 only seems to come into play when we have 8,150 square feet or more. I don't know if that was
4 pointed out to anybody but I think it is odd that we were worried about that cap when we are
5 talking about a much larger house size. Was that cap decided because we were worried about
6 larger houses qualifying or not qualifying?
7
8 Mr. Williams: I think it was just a matter of sort of our knowledge at the time of what was sort
9 of realistic that you could achieve in a strong effort. I think now we would probably think that
10 could be higher and we may ultimately increase that and we may increase some of the other
11 categories as well. As you will recall, Build It Green in most communities is 50 points across the
12 board and our intent there was to recognize that larger houses including basements, you will
13 recall we included basement space as well, that they should achieve a higher level of green
14 building rating. So we have this factor in there. Then like I said just based on what we had seen,
15 and we had seen some pretty large houses come in that were getting close to that 150 number we
16 set that as sort of a target anticipating that larger houses ought to try to get there. I think we
17 knew that was going to be rare when that was the maximum.
18
19 Chair Gar\:l~x: Commissioner Keller, if I may add some additional information for you. In our
20 experience we have found that it is fairly easy to achieve the 120 points without frankly a lot of
21 effort, but now that is usually a higher quality home. It is not for a developer or somebody that is
22 trying to define a home for the base market if you will. I do know that the Building Department
23 had established the 150 points that is currently in the ordinance with the expectation that that
24 number would be studied to determine if it could be achieved with the expectation that that
25 number could escalate if it realizes that the submissions that are coming into the City can achieve
26 that with greater and greater ease. So there was a thought of constantly lifting that bar.
27
28 Commissioner Keller: So let me make an observation that mayor may not hold, and let me
29 know if this observation is true. So the 1978 agreement is independent of things like green
30 building ordinances and green building ordinances would apply to any of the houses in the 1978
31 agreement, is that true?
32
33 Mr. Williams: Yes.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Second thing, if we took the 150 cap off and I realize that the Green
36 Building Ordinance is not in front of us but it is relevant so I am going to bring it up anyway. If
37 we look in the Green Building Ordinance revisiting at some point in the future took off the 150
38 cap and made it simply straight calculated no nothing else then effectively that would deal with
39 large houses and it would naturally be hard for them to build large houses because they would
40 have to achieve all those necessary points. Is that true or not?
41
42 Mr. Williams: Yes, they would have to if you didn't have the cap then they would have to
43 achieve those higher numbers and it would make it more difficult or you would just attain a
44 better green building product.
45
Page 13
I Commissioner Keller: Right. I doubt that it is possible to achieve 341 points because there are
2 probably things that are conflicting in there in that if you get some ofthese points you can't get
3 some of those points. Just for discussion sake I did the math. If you could achieve 341 points
4 without a cap the maximum house size is 21,520. So I am not sure if that should be the
5 maximum house size or not but I am just indicating that the Green Building Ordinance if there
6 wercn't a cap would essentially force that to be a maximum house size. Just bringing that out
7 there.
8
9 Now it might be that Build It Green might create more points for some other things. There might
lObe new ways of creating points. Also, every few years Build It Green creates new standards
II where they essentially ratchet it up so you need to do more for the same number of points and
12 you get fewer points for doing the same thing. So however that is.
13
14 I would like to change to one other topic, which is the issue that was brought up but not really
15 addressed which was the issue of the potential for parcelizing, for breaking down or subdividing
16 the larger parcels namely parcels that are identified as one through five into smaller parcels that
17 would then have more FAR.
18
19 First of all it is interesting there are no parcels between 15 and 20 acres. It makes a jump from
20 just over 14 to just over 20. So presumably it might be hard to take that 20-acre parcel
21 depending on where it is and how it is divided and break that up into two ten acre parcels. That
22 would be quite a challenge and have both of them have frontage and whatever so I am going to
23 ignore that. There are two large parcels that are identified as Kaiser Cement Corporation and
24 then there is a large parcel that is 139, almost 140, acres and a parcel of 45 acres. It seems to me
25 that these parcels are potentially at risk because of the maximum house size is particularly small
26 compared to the maximum FAR for these parcels to be subdivided into smaller parcels. Is there
27 potential for that risk? Is that something to worry about? A maximmu house size might drive
28 that subdi vision so I am wondering what your thoughts are about that.
29
30 Mr. Williams: I am not that familiar with those lots. Two are Kaiser Cement Corporation. I
31 have always questions whether they are actually in Palo Alto. I guess they are but one is Cement
32 Corporation and the other is Fogerty, which I imagine has some connection perhaps to the
33 winery in Portola Valley and County. I would think that if they were ripe for subdivision we
34 would have seen something before about those but maybe some of the residents out there have
35 more information about those. I am not familiar with the three sites specifically.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. I think that the nature of the potential for those being
38 subdivided because of a maximum house size. Now I don't think anybody is going to build a
39 480,000 square foot house but it does indicate some issue about in order to get a bunch of 12,000
40 square foot houses if they are divided into 20 or some odd number of parcels and put a new road
41 through there. I am wondering the degree to which that is possible. Thank you.
42
43 ChairG!!rQ~I: Commissioner Lippert and then if we have no more questions here we can go to
44 the public.
45
Page 14
I Commissioner Lippert: Aetually, that was the point that I was going to raise and Commissioner
2 Keller has covered it. I think that is an area to be further examined.
3
4 . Chair Garber: Okay. With that let us go to the public. We have seven cards. John Law
5 followed Bill Terry followed by Christine. Mr. Law, welcome. You will have five minutes.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: I think it would also be helpful if when the speakers came up if they live
8 in the Open Space if they would identify their address. It is voluntary as you know but 1 think it
9 would be helpful in terms of us understanding where they are located.
10
II Chair Garber: If you are willing but you are certainly under no obligation to do so.
12
13 Mr. John Law, Palo Alto: Certainly. llive at 830 Los Trancos Road. 1 have been an architect in
14 Palo Alto for 48 years where my architectural firm did projects in most jurisdictions in the Santa
15 Clara Valley. I was a founding member of the first Architecture and Site Control Commission in
16 Portola Valley so I have some long-term experience in the issues now before this Commission.
17
18 On the issue of the proposed maximum house sizes this is not a reasonable step. On most sites
19 the size of the house is not the most important issue. There are much better ways to eontrol
20 visual impact, siting, design, colors, landscaping, etc. Palo Alto already has an excellent
21 multilayered review system for addressing these issues on a case-by-case basis. The 3.5 percent
22 limit on impervious surface and the strict height limit that existed in 1981 when we built our
23 home was an excellent way to control the quality of architectural solutions. Now, the newly
24 imposed FAR sets a much more restrictive cap on development than did the previous impervious
25 materials restrictions. Why another restriction on top of that? When will this process end?
26
27 There should be no basement restrictions. Basements are excellent places to capture cool air and
28 can be distributed to the rest of the house thereby cutting down on the need for air conditioning.
29 Basements are excellent places to store green energy systems such as passive solar systems,
30 active solar and wind energy production, gray water recycling systems, etc. Basements shOUld
3 I not be limited in this district because 0 f groundwater concerns. The soils drain very well. There
32 is no water table issue.
33
34 Until recently I have been really happy to work and live in Palo Alto. I no longer feel that way.
35 This whole down zoning process has been arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfair. It has never
36 been based on a clearly stated public interest goal yet it is significantly diminishing our property
37 values and legislating our lifestyles.
38
39 Chair Gllrhel': Thank you. Bill Terry followed by Christine.
40
41 Mr. Bill Terry, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at 925 Laurel Glenn Drive, Palo Alto in the
42 hills. I am in the OS and I am one those 1978 exemption lots.
43
44 This whole project seemed like it started two or three years ago and it started on the basis of an
45 updated and modernization of the ordinance. Then it seemed to change course as it went along
46 to add more restrictions. In attending many ofthe public meetings we asked why and I received
Page 15
I two answers at that time. One, we don't like large houses because they employ servants that
2 cause traffic problems. No evidence of that exists. Secondly, we don't like large houses because
3 they use a lot of concrete, which is made out cement, which is causing global warming. There is
4 no evidence of that either. Emissions from the manufacture of concrete or cement are very
5 highly regulated already.
6
7 In September more rules were added, F ARs. So now we have new rules for F ARs plus all the
8 old specialized rules of impervious coverage, wildlife corridors, fences, landscape controls,
9 sprinklers, color controls, plus all the regular residential rules on height, setback, etc., plus Staff
10 review and comment, ARB review, Planning and Transportation Commission review, and City
II Council approval. Now on top of all of this we have some new rules that want to be proposed.
12 Basements, basements are bad because they produce dirt. I think that fill can be very useful in
13 creating berms that can be landscaped, that can soften the impact of any property. And more
14 rules on size. Size assumes that big is ugly. Well, the White House is big. I don't happen to
15 think it is ugly because it is well sited. It is also possible to design a very ugly small house. So
16 acceptable size is a very site-specific issue subject to review.
17
18 Let's use what we have and the good judgment of the Staffand the many, many case-by-case
19 review processes to accomplish our objectives. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank. you. Christine followed by Pam Law.
22
23 .Ms. Christine (no last name), Palo Alto: Good evening. I am still kind of in shock about what
24 happened at the City Council meeting, I have forgotten when it was, after more than two years of
25 just exemplary teamwork, working together as citizens of the same city, looking to make sure
26 that we assure the quality of the open spaee area. I would like to point out that I don't live in the
27 Open Space. I do live up on Page Mill Road and our property line is adjacent to the Open Space.
28 There is a big difference. I am not a squatter in the open space intent on despoiling the
29 landscape. I don't have staff. My house was just recently enlarged from 1,000 square feet to
30 1,497 square feet. There is no room for staff and I clean up my own messes. I don't have a
31 basement. I would love to have a ballroom in a basement but sorry, can't afford it.
32
33 I think that the maximum house size, I have come to the conclusion after working through this
34 process. I worked with the working groups. I am very embarrassed to be complaining in front of
35 this group of people because this group of people worked very, very hard to negotiate to resolve
36 concerns that the City had in a way that was not discriminatory. But in the end I feel like I have
37 fallen down the rabbit hole and when I faced the City Couneil it looks like the Queen of Hearts
38 sits in every chair. Off with their heads. Very reasonable, negotiated proposals were made and I
39 couldn't believe it as a citizen of the United States that a Council of, a majority of I have
40 forgotten how many, it was five, could completely undo three years of work of reasonable
41 citizens trying to resolve a problem. And come back with statements like well, you know your
42 staff creates too many car trips and you have a ballroom in the basement. So I don't think that
43 this whole process is actually about house size. I think it is about emotion. I think it is about
44 some people in this city disliking large houses that impose themselves from the view and
45 Foothills Park for example. I think the meeting this evening brought up three very important
46 points that I think for me are the takeaways. One is the question is there a need for more
Page 16
I restrictions on construction in the open space? It seems that a rational examination of the code in
2 place would result in the conclusion that no, there is not. There is a 25 foot height limit on
3 construction. You can't build four stories in 25 feet. You can't build three stories in 25 feet.
4 There is a FAR cap that is already far more restrictive and I am speechless. I think that as a
5 citizen of this community I contribute to this community. As a resident adjacent to the Open
6 Space I very frequently get out of my car to piek up the trash left by the weekenders who left
7 their McDonald's bags and other garbage along Page Mill Road. We look out in the valley, from
8 our house we happen to be able to see Palo Alto from our house. We alerted the police to a
9 house fire because we could see it from up where we were. We live in this community. We
10 contribute to this community and there is absolutely no reason to impose these kinds of punitive
II restrictions because some people don't like big houses. Who has big houses that big? Thank
12 you very much all of you for your hard work.
13 •
14 Chair Garber: Thank you Christine. Pam Law followed by Peggy Law.
15
16 Ms. Pam Law, Palo Alto: Hi I am co-owner along with my siblings and my parents of 830 Los
17 Trancos Road. I wanted to speak just briefly to your green building requirements and
18 suggestions and incentives. I was in the building trade at the time my parents built their house in
19 1981 and helped them to build it. We built a 2,000 square foot solar attic space in their house,
20 . which if you don't know what that is it is just a space, they open the panels in their roof every
21 day when it is sunny and close it when it is cloudy or at night so that they keep all the warmth in.
22 • They have not needed to use a furnace or use natural resources in that way for the whole 28 or 29
23 years that they have been there. We were really happy to do that but iffor instance we were
24 building today and someone wanted a 10,000 square foot home and there wasn't any of£~et for
25 green building we would just cut that out and we would put in a big old furnace and I don't think
26 that is what Palo Alto wants to have happen. So I hope that when you make your
27 recommendations to the Council and when this process goes forward they take that really
28 seriously. As a homeowner and as a green-minded builder I think it is really important. Thank
29 you very much.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Garber: Thank you. Peggy Law followed by Leonard Lehmann.
Ms. Peggy Law, Palo Alto: Thank you. I live at 830 Los Traneos Road. There are a number of
us who live in the residential district that abuts the open space that are not here tonight because
they were so angry and discouraged with the process that they didn't feel that they should be
here.
I want to commend Staff and the Planning Commission for thoughtful work in the past. 1 want
to speak to what happened when it left your desks and it went to the Council. Several of us got
together representing our neighborhood association and were given eight of the nine Council
Members agreed to meet individually with each of us. We are grateful for their time and
attention. However, I am deeply disturbed by many of the things I learned while participating in
those meetings. None of these Council Members, even those who have already voted on these
issues, could answer the basic question brought up elsewhere tonight, what is the problem the
City aims to solve by repeatedly downsizing our properties? They would tell us some of the
issues they were concerned about but they would never answer that question.
Page 17
I
2 Many Council Members, even some who have already voted on these issues, did not know where
3 the properties were that are affected by this effort to down zone. We had to supply them with a
4 map. They couldn't locate them on the map, and we had to give a good deal of explanation
5 about where they were, why they were non-adjoining these different areas, and the variety of the
6 terrain. Now this is alarming for us that our property is being dovo/11 zoned and doVo/11 valued by
7 people who actually have no idea of the area that they are that doesn't go for all Council
8 Members, but the majority of them.
9
10 Most Council Members were not aware that many properties in this district have few or no Palo
II Alto services electricity, gas, recycling, garbage pickup, sewers, storm drains, water, etc. We
12 pay full taxes. We live in Palo Alto but are supplied in our case by PG&E. So even as a Palo
13 Alto resident when I go and get energy efficient new appliances Palo Alto won't give me any
14 rebates because I don't have Palo Alto energy. These are the issues that they brought up and
15 some of the comments that we are alarmed about.
16
17 The City needs to protect the foothills from more huge houses that are eyesores for those wanting
18 to enjoy the open space lands. However, none of the seven Council Members or others in the
19 City we have spoken with had any idea how many of these offensive houses there are now,
20 where they were, who owned them, could they be built today under existing Palo Alto
21 regulations, restrictions, and review processes. Indeed, they did not know if any of these
22 unspecified problem buildings were actually in Palo Alto or in Portola Valley or in Los Altos
23 Hill, yet they legislate. When I pushed this issue with one Council Member I was told that the
24 biggest issue was Los Altos Hills. Why, we asked. Because that is what we don't want Palo
25 Alto to become, they said. I pointed out the obvious that we are not Los Altos Hills. We did not
26 want to develop our properties in ways that mirror development in Los Altos Hills. Even if that
27 is what we wanted we would not be permitted under existing Palo Alto regulations. So what
28 does Los Altos Hills have to do with trying to add additional restrictions to those already in
29 place? The Council Member answered, well anyway it is the big issue. This does not fill us with
30 confidence that our City government is listening or representing us.
31
32 Maximum house has of course already been discussed. At the time we spoke with them most of
33 the Council Members did not even agree with each other on what maximum house size actually
34 means. So I am glad to see tonight that somebody is going to explain that.
35
36 There was no coherent or consistent response to our questions about why the house size was the
37 major issue. Bonus point I think is great but I want to remind you that it is not an option for
38 many of us who are on a tight budget.
39
40 No one could state any environmental impact reports or other data that supported some Council
41 Members' impressions that larger houses create more traffic. One Member stated at length that
42 Palo Alto Hill Country Club is interested in building a new facility and that raised great concern
43 about additional traffic. This person's concern was not lessened by our stating that this was not a
44 reasonable reason to restrict house size on private properties anywhere let alone on Los Trancos
45 Road, which is the other side of the district.
46
Page 18
I Several Council Members mentioned that house sized in the residential district had to be severely
2 restricted so it limited carbon footprint. When we said if this is indeed a real concern then it
3 should be a real environmental concern for all of Palo Alto not just for those of us in the
4 residential district. This is discriminatory. Other family members took less time, ifI may I
5 would like to finish.
6
7 Chair Garber: Please.
8
9 Ms. Law: Basement restrictions have already spoken to. There are no adjacent neighbors that
10 are going to be worried by our basements. One Council Member stated that protecting the
II foothills also protected our properties and property values, which we agreed with. Then he
12 added so that is why we have to restrict your basements. When we allowed that we did not get
13 the connection this person backed down and said they got our point. It is not encouraging to
14 know that the down zoning of our properties and property values is being driven by this type of
15 reasoning. Polls indicate a big drop in Palo Alto residents trust in their City government. After
16 these experiences I can understand why.
17
18 So in sum, these experiences have led me to believe what Christine mentioned earlier. The City
19 is grasping at straws to find some reason to continue a down zoning process, which in many
20 ways they cannot justify why. Well, as was mentioned tonight by a couple of other speakers
21 City Council Members have stated it clearly. We have heard we don't like those big houses. A
22 3,000 square foot house is a big house. People don't need such big houses. I grew up in a
23 (fill in the blank) square foot house and that was plenty. No one needs more than that.
24 The clearest statement was made on this issue was, we don't want big houses. If all those rich
25 people in Palo Alto want to build these houses then we don't want those rich people in Palo Alto.
26 They need to live elsewhere.
27
28 Now, aside from the fact that that is incredibly prejudicial statement and I doubt that anywhere
29 we would hear people in Palo Alto using "all those people," and "if they want blank we don't
30 want them in Palo Alto." This is discriminatory. It is a prejudicial language that I in the rest of
31 my life fight in this state and all over the world to eliminate that kind of thinking and that kind of
32 language. I never thought would meet it in Palo Alto and I trust that this Commission will meet
33 some of these concerns for us. lbank you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. Leonard Lehmann followed by Herb Borock.
36
37 Mr. Leonard Lehmann, Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening. I live at 850 Los Trancos Road
38 in the Open Space District. I would like to thank Commissioners Tuma and Garber specifically
39 for voicing the concerns of the neighbors I think very fairly and giving us that level of respect.
40 They have been working this process for three years, put a lot of work in, and I thank them for
41 really being reasonable people.
42
43 [n much the same way I appreciate the Commission's attention to this issue. I find that this
44 Commission is knowledgeable on this subject and thoughtful in stark contrast to the Council,
45 which in general is not knowledgeable on these issues and is not thoughtful and is responding
Page 19
I emotionally. I would hope that you would act as an expert in this case and help guide their
2 consideration.
3
4 On maximum house size the Council enacted in September the floor area ratio limits in the
S district and also added the guidelines for development in the Open Space into the zoning code.
6 The development in the district is subject to a very thorough Site and Design process and review
7 by both this Commission and the CounciL There is a great diversity of properties in the district
8 as to their size, visibility, and topography. We thus think it is very appropriate to give discretion
9 to the Commission and the Council in approving new development. But there has been no
10 finding of fact that all of these restrictions that are in place today are not adequate. It is not clear
II to us exactly what the problem is to be solved.
12
i3 A small house poorly designed and situated can detract from the unique qualities of the open
14 space. A large house well designed and situated can have minimum impact. We really value the
I S per site discretionary review process and I personally value incentives to be given to good design
16 and energy efficient design.
17
18 In unincorporated Santa Clara County adjacent to our district there is no hard limit to
19 development, no maximum house size. They review the impact of each development on its
20 merits. In adjacent Los Altos Hills there could be a 30,000 square foot floor space on a five-acre
21 parceL A maximum house size is overwhelmingly opposed by those who are most affected by
22 the district zoning, those who reside here.
23
24 I did like Curtis Williams' answer to Commissioner Keller on the idea of a preliminary review. I
2S think that makes a great deal of sense.
26
27 As to basements it seems to me that we shouldn't be legislating solutions to problems that have
28 not been clearly identified. I an1 not clear what the concerns are here but if it is carbon footprint
29 then I think the City should limit basements and concrete use throughout the city not just on the
30 ten to 20 parcels that might be developable here in the Open Space District. There are 10,000 or
31 more parcels outside the district that cause environmental impact also. That is discriminatory.
32
33 There are minor costs environmentally in the increased excavation when including a basement
34 but that excavation is invisible after the construction and has no erosion consequence.
3S Basements also have real environmental benefits. They reduce massing and visibility. They add
36 to energy efficiency and provide for onsite storage rather than offsite storage, and the traffic
37 impact of that. Basements in the Open Space District do not have the environmental impacts of
38 basements potentially in the flats of Palo Alto. Water table is typically not a problem and there
39 is no need to shore up excavation that may be just a few feet from a property line. I would like
40 to remind the Commission too that large house size does not necessitate larger water or energy
41 use in general.
42
43 It has been my finding that the process at Council has been very prejudicial and arbitrary, not
44 based on findings of fact or clear public benefit. One Council Member told me if homeowner
45 has so many friends that he can't entertain them in an 8,000 square foot home then he has too
Page 20
1 many friends. Seems to me that is not the role of government to tell us how many friends we
2 should have.
3
4 You are the experts and you are earefully considering these matters. I would encourage you to
5 really hold your ground on this and find as you did in July when you carefully considered these
6 questions previously. If you feel you are obliged to come back with some number to the
7 Council, if! can continue just to finish.
8
9 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
10
11 Mr. Lehmann: I would encourage you to state your reservations in your recommendation too.
12 would like to also point out that the Council has changed considerably in its membership since
13 November. We have been discussing the matter with Council Members and I believe we find
14 that the whole tenor and view of this issue has changed since November. Thank you very much.
15
16 Chair Garber: Thank you. Herb Boroek followed by Adam Montgomery.
17
18 Mr. Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Garber and Commissioners. I do support their
19 being house size limits in the Open Space District. If you are going to recommend that there be
20 such limits I believe it should be a simple formula. I believe it eomplicates things by adding
21 exceptions for green building or for some other reason. Those are just to me various excuses for
22 not having a formula and a simple way of calculating house size.
23
24 This process has been going on for a number of years and sometime ago I did recommend a
25 simple fornmia, which would create larger house sizes. I happen to be familiar with the history
26 of the Open Space District and the settlement agreement for the subdivision Laurel Glenn Drive
27 and Alexis Drive. However, I am concerned that there isn't adequate information in your Staff
28 Report. You have never been given an adequate history of the Open Space District. Just this
29 evening you have one map on the wall, which doesn't relate to the tables you have because the
30 tables show parcel numbers and that is not the kind of a map that is there. It omits the
31 subdivision of the Portola slope parcel, which is the Arillaga parcel opposite Portola Valley.
32 This chart omits existing house sizes for these parcels. You have people here this evening who
33 live in the Open Space District and have houses.
34
35 Yes, on Page Mill Road there are some lots that are much smaller than ten acres because they
36 were down zoned as part of the J 972 down zoning and creation of the Open Space District, but
37 there are other lots here that are smaller than ten acres because they are part of cluster
38 developments in the Open Space District where they gain the impervious coverage for ten acres
39 but that most of their ten acres is in common open space. The 1978 settlement agreement refers
40 to only one such cluster development and it differs from the others in that it consisted of what
41 was originally 41 acres of City owned land plus 50 acres of private land that was down zoned.
42
43 I believe to understand the concerns of the residents of the area that have spoken you need a table
44 that shows how big their houses are now compared to what size they should be. You need a map
45 that relates these parcel numbers to as physical map of the area so you know what you are talking
46 about. You need to know the history ofthe various subdivisions. I believe if you do all that you
Page 21
I might want to treat existing development the way it is done elsewhere in the zoning code that is
2 that people have a certain entitlement to redevelopment and the new laws apply if you are going
3 to be knocking down the old one.
4
5 Now, there is a lot of potential area for future development and I think that is a concern and why
6 there should be house limit sizes put in. The City owned parcels are not in the Open Space
7 District they are in the Public Facility District. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
8 has given notice to be removed from the Williamson Act and its parcels are not dedicated
9 parkland the way Palo Alto is. At some future date they may want to make trades with
10 landowners or sell off some of their parcels.
II
12 The golf course is in the Open Space District. At some future date the Country Club may want
13 to keep its building but develop its golf course. That is how it got its development money in the
14 past by developing those parcels, in the one-acre zones that are off of Alexis Drive and the other
15 streets in the neighborhood.
16
17 In Palo Alto's planning area but not in the city Stanford University has about 1,250 acres ofland
18 that was acquired after the founding grant that is alienable land that could be sold at any time. I
19 have suggested in the past that developing that in the Open Space District makes sense.
20
21 Finally, in terms of the 6,000 square foot house size in the R-I district. You need a 17,500
22 square foot lot to get a 6,000 square foot house size in the R-I district. In the RE district you
23 need an acre, 43,560 square feet to get a limited house which is limited to 6,000 square feet also.
24 The fact that you need one land area in a district in the flat lands versus a different lot area in the
25 foothills is reasonable. It is just what the size of the house should be and what impact it has on
26 the neighbors, and until you actually see the fact that some people here might have an 11,000
27 square foot house and you are suggesting they have a limit of 8,000 square feet that may be what
28 the comments are about. You need that information and so does the Council to be able to make a
29 rational decision. Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Thank you. Adam Montgomery followed by Mr. Hackmann.
32
33 Mr. Adam Montgomery, Government Affairs Director, Silicon Valley Association Realtors:
34 Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I am the Government Affairs Director with the
35 Silicon Valley Association Realtors. We traditionally don't get involved in issues that impact
36 such a few numbers of property owners but this situation we would definitely like to echo the
37 concerns of many of the property owners impacted by this proposal living in the Open Space
38 District in opposition to many of the proposals.
39
40 We traditionally do have a position though against these types of down zoning efforts. Our
41 membership looked at this proposal last week as we started hearing more about it. A number of
42 my members actually contacted us directly who have had previous clients who live in this district
43 who are just generally concerned that there has just been a concerted effort over the last few
44 years just to down zone these properties.
45
Page 22
I So generally the position of our association is to oppose situations where we feel that there is
2 public good that is trying to be sought and there is going to be some form of down zoning or
3 diminishing of property rights. In this case it appears that from some of the comment letters
4 from even Green Foothills and the Open Space Midpeninsula Open Space District that there is
5 some perceived some pu blic good that may occur from these down zoning efforts. In those
6 situations those property owners should be justly compensated in our mind. We feel that the
7 property owners concerns are valid in this case.
8
9 So the only thing I will leave with you is the question regarding basements. It is our
10 understanding that Santa Clara County in unincorporated areas through the View Shed Protection
II Ordinance incentivizes and encourages basements in order to diminish the impact above ground
12 in terms of visual impacts from public roads. So to regulate basements might become a more
13 detriment to trying to diminish the visible impact of houses. So we would definitely like to
14 encourage you guys to leave the current basement regulations alone. Besides that we would just
15 like echo again the concems of the property owners. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mr. Hackmann you will be our final speaker.
18
19 Mr. John Hackmann, Palo Alto: Yes,just briefly. I live on Embarcadero Road. I am not in the
20 Open Space District. r don't actually know any of the people and r don't represent them either.
21
22 I was present at the City Council meeting where this issue became contentious and I have to say
23 the people I thought made very reasonable remarks. It was one of those meetings that went until
24 midnight or 1 :30 in the morning. I really felt they weren't really listened to carefully. I thought
25 off-hand remarks like maybe our city shouldn't have basements or comments about how they
26 lived were inappropriate. They were not asked questions. I do feel after listening to this on
27 television, which is what prompted me to corne down here I like that TV aspect of it, I did learn a
28 lot about the details and the motives. I do not believe there is an important, clear, and rational
29 basis for greatly rcstricting the development of these fcw handful of properties at this time.
30 There might be later but the wide variety of rationales at least at tbe Council events, though this
31 group is more judicious, more logical, and more focused on the merits ofthe proposal, I just feel
32 as an observer that there isn't enough overwhelming public policy interest to restrict the
33 freedom, the house, the value, and the livability of the units in this additional way. Even the
34 impermeability, ifmay misspeak it correctly, can be compensated for in many ways. You could
35 probably build a house that has that has no net impermeability because of water retention,
36 because of repercolation, because of storage and so on.
37
38 You have been elected and chosen to exist in public office to carry out public laws and public
39 purposes. I think this Commission has bcen doing a pretty good job of it. But it is something
40 that everyone has to guard against at all levels of government, taking basically personal opinions
41 and ad hoc observations and prejudices against different kinds of groups and how other people
42 live and try to tum these things into policy. I think in this particular case where there doesn't
43 seem to be to average fellow an overwhelming need to add a layer of regulation, and there has
44 been this kind oftreatrnent ofthis group of people I think there may be just a little bit ofa drift in
45 that direction, which I would urge this Commission to make some effort to correct tonight.
46 Thank you.
Page 23
I
2 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. That is the end of our public speakers. I will note that one
3 of the letters that we received asked specifically that it be read into the minutes of the meeting,
4 which I will do. It is from Rick Kniss. I regret that I will not be able to attend the Planning
5 Commission hearing on the OS District this evening. However, I am very interested and
6 concerned with the current issues being discussed and would offer the following comments. I)
7 Over the past couple of years there has been a significant amount of interaction between the
8 owners of property in the OS District, the Planning Staff, and the Planning and Transportation
9 Commissioners themselves. Concerns have been discussed by all parties, which culminated in
10 the passing of new regulations by the City Council for the OS District in the fall of last year.
II Well, perhaps no one on either side was totally happy with the regulations I do believe they
12 represented a reasonable compromise between the City and the landowners. May I add that in
13 many cases landowners lost roughly 50 percent of their development rights, a significant
14 number. 2) Now with further consideration ofthis issue I feel that the City is unfairly and
15 unnecessarily corning back for "a second bite of the apple" in discussions of restricting house
16 size with possible basement limitations. 3) In my opinion the current FAR limitations along
17 with other regulations and a very involved review process for the OS District provide more than
18 adequate protection against undesirable development in the district. 4) I am opposed to
19 imposing specific house size limitations on top of the current FAR regulations for reasons stated
20 above. However, if the Commission chooses to recommend such then I believe that they should
21 be 14,000 square feet and should not include detached garages, barns, accessory buildings, etc.
22 These would be covered in the FAR limitations. 5) Concerning basements I do not believe there
23 is a need nor is it fair to impose restrictions on the OS District that are not part of a larger Palo
24 Alto City plan. If anything basements should be of a lesser concern in the OS District than in the
25 "flat land" of Palo Alto. Thank you for considerations. Sincerely, Rick Kniss, property owner,
26 ten acres, 3875 Page Mill Road.
27
28 With that we will leave the public hearing open should any of the Commissioners wish to call on
29 members of the public. May I suggest we take a brief three-minute break and then corne back
30 and start our discussion and action? If that is acceptable we will do that. If the Vice-Chair will
31 set his timer we will reconvene in three minutes.
32
33 Commissioner Tuma, I believe you have a thought about how to proceed.
34
35 MOTION
36
37 Vice-Chair TUJ1:lll: I do. I am going to make a motion. I move that the Planning and
38 Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council not institute a maximum house
39 size. In the alternative if the Council is inclined to institute a maximum house size I would like
40 to see the Planning Commission recommend the following. First that the maximum house size
41 be set at 12,000 square feet. Second, that if the applicant exceeds the then current BIG Points
42 requirement that the applicant could receive a 30 percent bonus on the maximum house size.
43 Next, in order to get the bonus the applicant would be required to submit for a preliminary
44 review by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Additionally, that we carry forward the
45 definition of maximum house size, which currently exists in the R-J and RE zones. Finally, that
Page 24
I we defer a recommendation on the basements issue until we look at basements on a citywide
2 basis.
3
4 SECOND
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: J will second that.
7
8 Chair Garber: Seconded by Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to their
9 motion?
10
II Vice-Chair Tuma: I would. The first part of the motion reflects a sentiment that J share which is
12 that the process that we have been through over the last several years has been one of essentially
13 trying to address or close the permeable surface loophole. It was one that was sort of the genesis
14 of a lot of this discussion. It was one that created houses that where significantly largcr and had
15 other characteristics that were deemed to be undesirable. However, we have closed that
16 loophole. We did that through the prior changes that were made to the code by dealing with a
17 sliding scale on impervious surface, by putting in the FAR, and a variety of other items. So I do
18 not believe thaI a maximum house size is appropriate or necessary in order to achieve the goals
19 as stated by several people this evening. Additionally, the current Site and Design process and
20 the BIG Points requirements address the stated issues. The issues of screening, visual impacts,
21 cut and fill, and energy and water use. Triose have been addressed.
22
23 However, if again it is necessary to institute a maximum house size the fonnula that have
24 proposed allows for a house size that could be characterized as reasonable but it also allows for a
25 bonus if the applicant further addresses the key issues that have been identified. In other words,
26 ifthey do it right however that is defined and the yardstick we would be using here would be
27 BIG Points that they would be pennitted to exceed the house size, because the issues have been
28 addressed. I also believe that it is premature to address the basement issue without significantly
29 more data on the impacts of the use of concrete and cement on a citywide basis, and that
30 discussion should be deferred for those reasons.
31
32 Chair Garber: The seconder, would you like to speak?
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. First of all, I would like to say I do agree with all of Vice-Chair
35 Tuma's points and I just want to add a couple of other thoughts here. First of all, we have a very
36 difficult regulatory process as it is with regard to the Site and Design Review. The projects out
37 there are scrutinized to a point that virtually every stone has been turned over. What I find here
38 is that what is a maximum house size? What is the purpose ofa maximum house size here?
39 When you have complied with all of the Site and Design requirements, when you have addressed
40 the issues of permeable lot coverage, when you have dealt with the issues of the green building
41 code, which is sustainabiIity, what is the rational or the reasoning for limiting a house size purely
42 on an arbitrary number?
43
44 I don't think that the limitations that are being placed on them are doing anything except creating
45 additional regulation, which has already been addressed with regard to the massing, its visibility,
46 the lot coverage issue, and the sustainability. So I have great difficulty supporting a maximum
Page 25
I house size but then again if we do impact a maximum house size I believe that the 12,000 square
2 foot FAR is a very reasonable number.
3
4 Where I do have some difficulty and I will just express this generaIIy, and [think it is something
5 to be looked at and addressed, is the first three parcels in our tabulation here the parcels that are
6 one, two, and three, the 314 acres, the 164, and the 139 acres. To me, those parcel sizes are so
7 large that what they do represent is the potential for future development in the Open Space.
8 Obviously what would happen is you would have to build roads through the space in order to
9 create some sort of subdivision there. So with those three parcels I question whether any
10 limitation in terms of maximum house size or maximum FAR is achieving the goals that we want
II to achieve. What it would do is force someone to sell those off and do a subdivision in that area
12 thereby achieving a number of houses in there. just simply by saying we don't put any
13 maximum house size on those three parcels or limit the maximum house size would not sort of
14 force the hand in terms of having those parcels be developed. So in some ways the subdivision
15 forces the question at some point. It may not be in a year from now, it may not be in two years
16 from now, but some time down the road someone is going to propose subdividing those generous
17 parcels. So perhaps I would just simply remove them from the table right now.
18
19 Chair GarQeI: You are not offering that as a friendly amendment at the moment.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I am not because I believe that it would require further study particularly
22 by Staff. I don't know the location of those parcels. I don't know what road adjacencies they
23 are. I don't know the topography of those sites.
24
25 I just want to add one more comment if I might. With regard to the basement issue the Open
26 Space again is a unique area when it comes to basements. I don't think we have any clear
27 direction until we have some direction as to where we are going with the rest of the city in terms
28 of basements. Aquifers, underground streams are not as big a potential problem when it comes
29 to sloped sites. When it comes to sloped sites you do have issues with regard to day lighting
30 because they are sloped sites. So if you were to build a basement eventually at some point it
31 might surface from the hillside.
32
33 Chair Garber: You are talking about water or the structure?
34
3S Commissioner Lippert: A structure. So if it did daylight out it would count as potentially FAR.
36 You do have significant foundation issues where you do have to dig down regardless of what you
37 are doing and in doing that potentially you are digging a basement anyway whether you backfill
38 it or not. So I think that needs to be further studied and I don't have any clear direction as to
39 where we should be going in terms oflimiting basements in the Open Space at this point.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, then Martinez, then Garber.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: So I have a few comments and friendly amendments. Firstly I do agree
44 with deferring the basement issue until it comes back to us in general, particularly with the
45 change that was made by the City Council that addressed basements in terms of slope. However,
46 a clarification I would like to make as a friendly amendment is that if there is a maximum house
Page 26
I size imposed by the Council then if basements are included in the FAR then they are also
2 included in the maximum house size.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think until we have the discussion about the basements it is sort of
5 premature to predetermine that those would be considered part of the maximum house size.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Well, since we are dealing with maximum house size now and that won't
8 come up when we deal with basements there won't be an opportunity to deal with that.
9 However, since the decision was made by the Council that they are included in FAR I am just
10 suggesting that basements be consistently treated with respect to that land area.
II
12 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
13
14 Mr, Williams: I would just indicate that 1 don't think you need to add that. A basement that is
15 counted as FAR meaning here that it is on a slope greater than ten percent it is going to count.
16 Apart from whether we would consider it a basement or not, we would consider it as part of the
17 maximum house size in any event.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So since you consider that I assume that there would be no problem in
20 making that explicit so that it becomes unambiguous.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: State it again because I actually heard two different things. I am not sure that
23 you guys are addressing the same issue.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: I think we are. I think that what r am saying is that in the event that
26 because of slope issues the basement is included in the FAR then it should also be included in the
27 maximum house size.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that is fine by me.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: r have no problem with that.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: Okay. The second thing is just a clarification, which I think probably you
34 agree with that the maximum house size can't exceed tne FAR limit. I assume that goes without
35 saying but I figured it is worthwhile saying just so that nobody is confused.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, Plarming Director that is the current state of the code, right?
38
39 Mr. Williams: Correct.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that is fine.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have a problem with that.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: The third thing is slightly more controversial. You said a maximum
46 house size of 12,000 square feet with a 30 percent bonus, which comes out to a weird number. I
Page 27
I am suggesting it be a 25 percent bonus, which is a maximum of 15,000 as opposed to 15,000 and
2 some random number that comes from 33 percent rather than 25 percent.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: Did I say 33 percent?
5
6 Commissioner Keller: You said 30.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: Thirty percent of 12,000 is 3,600 square feet isn't it?
9
10 {.:Ql)1missioner Keller: Yes, I was just suggesting that 25 percent would be an even 15,000,
1 I which seems to make more sense. Thirty percent is arbitrary. Twenty-five percent is arbitrary
12 but it seems to me that 15,000 is a more reasonable number than 15,600 in terms oftha!. It
13 makes more sense to me.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: 1 would actually be open to any other comments or discussion on that.
16
17 ChairGarber: Seconder.
18
19 Commissioner Lippert: I think that the numbers are fairly arbitrary. Again we are just trying to
20 find an upper limit. So I don't have a problem with what Vice-Chair Tuma has suggested here.
21 Ifrounding it out will get more votes in support of the motion it is acceptable to me. I don't
22 think it is significant.
23
24 Chair Q!,Irber: Commissioner Tuma I will weigh in. I would tcnd to keep it at 30 just because it
25 is higher but again ifit is the wiII ofthe Commissioners. Commissioner Tuma.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: Let me try one thing. Why don't we go through the rest of your hit list and
28 let's take them all together.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Sure, that's fine. Great. The other thing is I would like to understand
31 your comment about how the Build It Green bonus deals with. In other words, what it takes to
32 get the Build It Green bonus I don't think I really understood the criteria there.
33
34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Sure. The way that I had framed the motion was that they would have to
35 exceed the then current minimum. So today that is 150. We had a lot of diseussion this even and
36 that number may go up over time. So instead of saying 150 say whatever the then eurrent
37 minimum requirement is so if that goes up to 180 then they have to exceed that. Whatever
38 number that goes up to in the future because of all the things that were diseussed this evening I
39 wanted that to also esealate in terms of what would be required to get the bonus. So we don't fix
40 a number today just because we happen to have a number here. It is whatever the then current
41 bonus would be.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: The interesting this is exeeed by how much. So let's suppose it is 150 do
44 you get the bonus if you go to 151 points? How mueh above do you need to get?
45
46 Vice-Chair Tuma: Exceed means exceed, so yes you get it if you hit 151.
Page 28
I
2 Commissioner Keller: So they are required to hit 150, they get 3,000 or 3,600 square feet by
3 going to 151. I am confused about that. I could understand the idea if you will of removing the
4 cap, which is what I talked about earlier, and saying that you get as many points as you need
5 based on whatever square footage you have and therefore if you go more you get that. But
6 exceeding it by one point doesn't seem to be to me getting 3,600 or 3,000 more square feet.
7
8 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I think the topic of whether we should remove that cap at all is a good
9 topic for discussion for another day. If in fact that policy decision was made then the then
10 current number would be whatever they would have to meet. My sense from the discussions and
11 what I know about the BIG process is that my feeling is that if they exceed what is required then
12 in doing that they will be addressing the issues that are fundamental to what is trying to be
13 accomplished by a maximum house size number. In other words, if they are getting those points
14 they are addressing the concerns that have been discussed. So something beyond that triggers a
15 bonus. We could get more complicated. We could get more fine and say for every X number of
16 points they gct Y percentages. To me the concept here is if they are really trying and really a
17 good job and exceeding the minimum requirements that there ought to be a bonus for that. So I
18 was just trying to keep it simple, also something that is easier for Staff to administer, something
19 that is easier for the applicants to understand. Just sort of have a cutoff point that says if you
20 exceed what is required you get the bonus.
21
22 CommissiQllCr Keller: Since 150 points is required, and that number may change, and since
23 what I am hearing from you is a threshold of one point in excess, and it is very unlikely that
24 somebody will actually hit exaetly the maximum. It is more likely that in order to hit the
25 maximum they may go slightly over. So I think that that aetually effectively makes the
26 maximum 15,600 not 12,000. By that I am troubled by that. Yes?
27
28 Chllir Garber: I am sorry I apologize. The quizzical look is I am losing your thread. The
29 maximum points that the City requires at the moment is 119.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: It is 150.
32
33 Chair Garber: Well that is -what is the ....
34
35 Mr. Williams: For a home that is 12,000 it is higher.
36
37 Chair Garber: It would be 150, okay. So Commissioner Keller give me your logic again
38 beeause I am not quite getting it
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not an architect and you are, and I presume that when you
41 have to meet so many points that it is very unlikely that you will hit exactly that many points and
42 that you may go one or two or three over because of points work and how the design works. So
43 what we are basically saying is that you have to hit 150 points in order to have 12,000 square
44 feet. If just happen to go one point over, which you are likely to do anyway, then they get
45 15,000 or 15,600. To me that essentially means that the cap is not 12,000 it is 15,600. So unless
46 there is a significantly higher threshold over and above the requirement that gets them 12,000
Page 29
I then it is a distinction not a difference saying you get lSI points, or whatever, one point more
2 you get all the square footage bonus.
3
4 Chair Garber: I have a couple of different thoughts and r am not sure exactly how they apply.
5 Having worked through both LEED projects as well as BIG projects you add up the points and
6 you can be above or below, and if you are close you are trying to find ways to get to that
7 threshold. If you are over, whether it is a little bit or a lot, the fact is that you are over. That is
8 one comment.
9
10 The second comment is that regardless of what threshold you pick at some point you are always
II going to hit it and you are either going to be at it or above it or below. I have stated that it is not
12 difficult for houses of some quality to get about 120 points. Getting the remaining 30 that would
13 make up the difference is a challenge. Also, my recollection and I shouldn't really state it but the
14 amount of total points that you can get after you do all the tradeoffs, etc. is in fact a range, is in
15 the low 200s if I am recalling correctly. Commissioner Lippert do you have an explicit memory?
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: I don't have an explicit memory but what happens is you are building a
18 house and even though you are adding additional square footage you are not necessarily
19 increasing the carbon footprint significantly. So you have diminishing return on every single
20 square foot that you are adding to that 12,000 square feet. That is one of the reasons why it is so
21 difficult in the LEED process to make the -it is easy to make the leap from say LEED Silver to
22 LEED Gold but it is increasingly difficult to make the leap from Gold to Platinum.
23
24 What I think you are saying here is reasonable in terms of what we are trying to accomplish hcre
25 which is with the increase of the physical footprint we are trying to reduce the carbon footprint.
26 Chances are individuals that are building a 12,000 square foot house are interested in a couple of
27 different things one of which is energy reduction for instance. So inherently they are going to be
28 looking at ways for reducing energy consumption, building maintenance, which are really the
29 majority of the most important elements that are necessary in ternlS of reducing the building
30 lifecyc\e cost. So I think people are either drinking the Kool-Aid and accepting that they are in it
31 for green building, or they are just trying to meet the requirements of the Green Building
32 Ordinance so they can build a larger building.
33
34 <;;hair Garber: Planning Director, you had a comment?
35
36 Mr.:wmiams: Yes, I did. I do think that Commissioner Keller's characterization is correct that
37 the reality is that is highly unlikely somebody is going to come in on the nose at 150 so
38 effectively they are going to get the additional square footage. So I think that sort of is your
39 policy question betore you. You could say ten percent above that number or something like that.
40 The Chambers house that you saw sometime ago came in on the green building thing a like 175
41 or 176 points or something like that. So it can be done if somebody wants to do it. They didn't
42 have to go that high but they wanted. So alleast having some bump up above that would be
43 helpful because otherwise I think to get just a few points above will not be particularly
44 meaningful.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
Page 30
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that makes sense. I agree with it just being one point in retrospect I
3 think that is too close. Did you have some sort of formula or threshold in mind?
4
S Commissioner Keller: I am going to suggest something very simple and maybe it is too simple.
6 I am going to suggest is for every additional percent that you go you need that many percent
7 more points in the baseline. So if you want 30 percent more FAR in your maximum house size
8 then you have to get 30 percent more than the baseline points and it is very simple that way.
9 Unless you have a better one.
10
11 Vice-Chair Tuma: My sense is that when you get above the numbers that we require each point
12 gets extremely difficult to get. I am getting some nods from Staff on that. Let me try and
13 alternative, again in keeping it simple why don't we simply say if tbey exceed the minimum
14 requirement by ten percent then they get the bonus.
IS
16 Commissioner Keller: Well, what is interesting to me about the formula I gave, first of all 176 is
17 not quite 30 percent it is about 25 percent more than 150. It is one-sixth more than that. So if
18 you think about that 176 is about one-sixth more than 150. What is interesting to me is in some
19 sense it is nice to have the more you do the more you get rather than a fixed thing is the way I am
20 thinking about it. This way if you can exceed it a little bit you get a little bit. If you exceed it a
21 lot you get more. Perhaps the formula based on 176 points if you will is you get two percent
22 FAR for one percent increase in points up to 30 percent FAR increase.
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I think that makes it too difficult to achieve. Let's come back to this one and
2S so what else is on your list.
26
27 CommissionerK~l1~r: The other things on my list are a question for Staff. To what extent are
28 subdivisions discretionary? So if somebody comes to us with a subdivision map for one these
29 Kaiser Cement Corporation spaces can we say no we don't think it is an appropriate place for a
30 subdivision that up there in the hills you just can't do it?
31
32 Mr. Williams: I will let our City Attorney add to this but ifthere were a subdivision of any of
33 those three large properties here you can be sure that a very full and extensive and lengthy
34 Environmental Impact Report will accompany that. So I think the basis of what could happen
3 S out there on those properties under a subdivision is going to be defined pretty strictly through the
36 Environmental Impact review process that goes along with a subdivision. There is going to be a
37 lot of discretion in terms of saying that in order to minimize the impacts here lots have to be such
38 and such a size, home sites should be located in these particular areas that maybe aren't
39 particularly visible. There is a lot. My guess is we would have a five to ten year subdivision
40 process for one of those sites.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So let me suggest the following things. These are
43 taken from Herb Borock's comments and I think they should be added to the Staff Report or the
44 CMR that goes to the Council. One is a map of the Open Space District keyed to the parcel
45 numbers so they can figure out better what is going on. Second is some description that Mr.
46 Borock referred to in terms of the history of subdivisions. In particular some discllssion of the
Page 31
I 1978 ones and indicate where they are on the map. Third, adding to the ehart the existing house
2 size. I think that is a useful addition to the discussion. Fourth, if there can be some discussion of
3 the potential impacts of subdivision of large lots. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
4 District potential for land swaps and the golf course I think those the Council would be interested
5 in. I would encourage those to be added to the Staff Report.
6
7 Chair Garber: Let me just ask Staff, is existing house sizes achievable?
8
9 Mr. Williams: No it is not. There are some that we have. We have county information,
10 Assessor's Office, which we have found has been highly inaccurate and then others we don't
II even have that information for. So it is not readily available.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Let me suggest that to the extent that you have this infonnation providing
14 it would be appropriate. To the extent that it is onerous or not easily available then don't include
IS it but I am not sure if that is a eomment or if that should be added to the motion. [assume it
16 should just be a comment. Okay.
17
[8 So to resolve this issue. Do you want me to come back later or address your ten percent issue?
19
20 Vice-Chair Tuma: Are you done with your potential friendly amendments or amendments to the
21 motion?
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Yes, basically the two issues that are pending are the issue of 25 percent
24 versus 30 percent and the issue of the sliding scale versus step function.
25
26 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I think I can address both of those with one and I am not amending my
27 own motion but let's just talk about this. What I think in order to sort of create a sliding scale,
28 get rid of the automatic amount of the bonus and just say for each point that you exceed the
29 threshold you get one percent additional max house size.
30
31 CQmmissioner Keller: If you are making that as an amendment I would support it.
32
33 Vice-Chllir Tuma: That is different than what you were talking about. I want to make sure you
34 understand what I am proposing here.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So for everyone percent above .....
37
38 Vice-Chair Tuma: No, listen very carefully. For each point by which you exceed the
39 requirement you then get one percentage point increase in the maximum house size.
40
41 CQmmissioner Keller: With a cap or without a cap?
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Without a cap.
44
45 Chair Garber: You will be limited by the number of points you can achieve obviously.
46
Page 32
1 Commissioner Keller: Okay, let me think about that and I will cogitate.
2
3 Yice-Chair Tuma: Yes, let's give other Commissioners an opportunity to talk. So none of that
4 has been accepted as a friendly amendment at this point.
5
6 Chair Garber: Just to reiterate the things that you are proposing Commissioner Keller are that
7 number one the maximum house size never exceeds the FAR and then you also had a proposal
8 for the 30 percent versus 25 percent conversation about BIG points and then the subdivisions, the
9 items that would be added to the CMR that would go to the Council.
10
II Commissioner Keller: There was one other which I think was accepted and that was only if
12 basements are included in FAR then they are also included in the maximum house size.
13
14 (;hair Garber: Okay.
15
16 Vice-Cha,irTuma: Point of clarification there as well, Chair Garber. I believe the last of those
17 issues dealing with subdivisions and that data wasn't ol1hed as a friendly amendment but rather
18 just as a request or comment.
19
20 Chair Garber: Comments to be added to the CMR. Yes, got you. I believe we are at
21 Commissioner Martinez.
22
23 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I actually like the first part of Vice-Chair Tuma's motion
24 that we don't have a maximum house size. I believe that the best stewards of the Open Space
25 District spoke to us tonight and care as mueh about this part of the city as anyone. However,
26 having said that I feel that this 12,000 square fool upper limit on the larger parcels isn't a
27 reasonable size house. It is inflated and could grow to be 15,000 square feet. I think it
28 completely misses what we are trying to achieve with this discussion and that is preservation of
29 the district, preservation of open space, of our natural habitats, migration, views. I appreciate its
30 attempt to give the property owners something back but I don't think it is addressing what the
31 real problem is.
32
33 I would be happy if we sent to the Council a recommendation of no maximum house size. With
34 that send a statement that says we are looking for the preservation of the district as it is and it can
35 be enhanced with a historical preservation of the kinds of structures, the kinds ofhomes, and the
36 kinds of uses that exist there now. By forwarding an unreasonable house size we are proposing
37 that we go forth in the future with a dramatic change to the district. I really can't support that.
38 Thank you.
39
40 Chair Garber: Thank you. Let me just ask you, I want to be very careful about presupposing
41 what may be a large house size to anyone of us versus anyone else. Presumably in the scenario
42 where there is a max house size or let's not even put it in those temls, but in a scenario where
43 you are looking at a house that is 12,000 square feet or more, just say that was allowed for some
44 reason, the opportunity for the discretionary review to occur and the findings that have already
45 been set forth in the zoning presumably would have a lot to say about how that house is actually
46 designed, built, and whether it could be approved at that size or not. My only point to that is I
Page 33
I wouldn't want to base a decision on max house size based on some preference that may be up to
2 the applicant to define as opposed to one of us. Commissioner Martinez.
3
4 !:Qmmissioner Martinez: I sort of agree with that to a point. I don't have as complete
5 confidence in Site and Design Review and our ability to alter the size of a house through our
6 review process. I agree that there are siting issues that we can recommend and there will
7 probably be opposition to why they can't do that in a kind of a give and take and compromise,
8 and sort ofa result that really doesn't give us those kinds of tools to control views and site
9 location and size of the house especially that we would like to see. I just don't see that we have
10 those kinds of powers to do that.
II
12 Chair Garber: So if I am understanding you you would not support the motion as it is currently
13 stated with a preference and an 'if statement. So let me just ask you then in the case where you
14 have described that your preference would be that we recommend to the Council that there be no
15 maximum house size is the maximum house size then defined by default as the FAR that is
16 achievable on any particular property?
17
18 Commissioner Martinez: No because I believe those are at the upper end unreasonable lack of
19 limits, in can put it that way. Instead I believe we should focus on design elements,
20 preservation of views, preservation of migration, limits on fences, heights, whatever the design
21 requirements are, location on a large lot that is out of view. Design elements that can actually
22 allow the applicant to build a house that really meets the Open Space District goals rather than
23 really proceeding in a way without those kinds of goals as our sort of policies and programs. I
24 believe that there is less interest by the people living in this area now to build these kinds of
25 houses. Of course I am concerned about future generations and what happens with. that. I think
26 we can put better controls without giving the message that a 12,000 or a ] 5,000 square foot
27 house is sort of the model that we are purporting to see built and accepting to see built in this
28 area. I would rather not send that message.
29
30 Chair Garber: So forgive me I am still sort of parsing your statements here. Currently in the
31 Zoning Ordinance there are the open space review criteria of which there are ]2 in addition to
32 the other A through P paragraphs here, which I think address a number of the concerns that you
33 have described, the sort of design elements.
34
35 Commissioner Martinez: Yes they do.
36
37 Chair Garber: So are you thinking that in your proposal, which you have not offered as a
38 substitute motion here, but if you were that what you would be doing is suggesting that there be
39 no max house size but that we add additional criteria or tighten the open space review criteria to
40 extent greater than what is currently defined here.
41
42 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, if that is possible.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay. So if that is the case then let me ask you if you are actually proposing a
45 substitute motion or if you are floating that to see if there is any support for it.
46
Page 34
1 Commissioner Martinez: Well, neither but I thought I would want to bring the conversation baek
2 to Vice-Chair Tuma's original first part of that motion that we recommend no maximum house
3 size and try to develop a discussion and a consensus of how we can go forward with thai idea.
4
5 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
6
7 Mr. Williams: Two points. One is the Council had that recommendation before. The Council
8 has asked you for a recommendation that if there is a house size what should it be. So I am
9 afraid that having that motion go to the Council will be back to you again with something. I
10 would really prefer not to do that. Secondly, the recommendation of the Commission if adopted
II as proposed is that there not be a maximum house size but then the backup is if there is one this
12 is it. I did want to emphasize that the first part of the recommendation is the key clement, and
13 then recognizing that you have asked us to give you a number herc is a suggestion.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
16
17 Vi~:Chair Tuma: Perhaps when I made my motion I should have read into the record, pregnant
18 pause, we really, really mean it. I appreciate what Commissioner Martinez is proposing here.
19 While I spoke in a moment of levity before I do in fact believe that that is the right
20 recommendation. However, the reality is that the current direction that is from Council says that
21 if there is going to be one give us some guidance. So I think we would be remiss in not doing
22 that knowing yes the makeup of the current Council is different from that Council that gave us
23 direction. Perhaps the makeup of the current Council would be such that they would follow our
24 core recommendation if this were to be our recommendation, but as proposed. In fact the current
25 Council may just say you know, based on all the discussion and things that we have had
26 maximum house size doesn't make sense. So that is a possible outcome here, I think to simply
27 go back to Council without a recommendation that in the event there is a maximum house size
28 imposed we would be remiss in our duties because what we could wind up with is well, they said
29 that there is really no recommendation from the Planning Commission so we will just do our
30 own thing. They would eertainly be within their rights to do that. What I was trying to do was
3 I outline something so there was a fair balance between the competing interests and something that
32 could be palatable and move forward.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Can I just respond briefly?
35
36 Chair Garber: Yes, please.
37
38 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that but I would add to our recommendation of no
39 maximum house size why we are recommending that. Then I would add ifthat isn't acceptable
40 why we are recommending 12,000 square feet.
41
42 Vice-Chair Tuma: Please do.
43
44 Commissioner Martinez: No, it is your motion. Why are you recommending no maximum
45 house size?
46
Page 35
I Vice-Chair Tuma: I thought I had addressed that in the comment section. I would be happy to
2 sort of reiterate my thinking on that but the comments that I made following the motion to me
3 were that in essence through the lengthy process that we have had over the last few years we
4 have addressed the issues that I think were initially of concern in this process, and that those
5 issues have been addressed through a combination of the use of FAR, sliding scale, and
6 permeable surface, the ten percent grade on basements, a whole host of things that were put into
7 place awhile ago. So the reason for not having a maximum house size is that essentially the
8 issues have already been addressed and that it is simply not necessary. Beyond that I don't know
9 that have much more to offer.
10
I I Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I think what is missing here is in the past five or six years that I have
14 been on this Commission we have seen a number of residences that have come through in the
15 Open Space District, and the process for Site and Design Review does work. We have had
16 projects come through where as a body we have been virtually unanimous in terms of our
17 recommendations in ternlS of denying and approving projects. Most of us have seen it the same
18 way through the criteria based review not necessarily on hard and fast numbers. Those really
19 have not been the relevant issues. It has really been ones of siting, the appropriate siting, the
20 appropriate access, where the house was located in relationship to the site and to the neighbors.
21 Our recommendations have also gone forward not only with either our support as a group in
22 terms of approving or denying but also the neighbors support as well.
23
24 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, anything else?
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: I asked the question how many applications have come through in the
27 Open Space District. I was told in the last five years two. So we don't really have a great
28 history of Site and Design Review in this area. I have no history at all so I can't disagree with
29 your conclusions. I feel that we have before us in other measures other considerations about
30 green building and carbon footprint and preservation of open space and in this one I feel like we
31 are kind of punting. We are saying 12,000 plus 15,000 you can have it. Everybody will be
32 happy and ease closed. I don't think we are addressing the policies and programs of the
33 Comprehensive Plan for open space preservation, views, habitat preservation, ete. I feel first of
34 all that for the first part of the point, no recommendation that we don't have a mad rush, we don't
35 have a history of this overdevelopment of this area. We have a history of fairly good
36 stewardship of the Open Space District. We currently have sort of a purpose to develop
37 sustainable environments that we are choosing to ignore for the sake ofa kind of expediency.
38 am not sort of understanding why we are taking that posture.
39
40 Chair Garber: Forgive me, Commissioner Martinez. I am still struggling to understand sort of
41 where you are coming from because 1 don't think that anything that any of the Commissioners
42 here have stated this evening or to date are trying to find ways to exclude that. I think that there
43 is significant language in the existing zoning, which addresses all of those issues. Although
44 there have only been two issues that have come before the Commission over the last X number
45 of years they have supported the process to achieve the results that you are looking for thus far.
46 There is this one aberrant example that occurred more than ten years ago which for some reason
Page 36
I that simply do not understand they did fail us. It is not dear to me if that is language or a
2 discretionary review that went wrong or a decision by the Planning and Transportation
3 Commission that was overridden by Councilor what. I really don't know. I think to date there
4 is some significant evidence that the requirements of the ordinance as it is currently written have
5 worked and they are trying to do many of the things that you are speaking about. So I don't
6 think or at least I am not sensing that the sorts ofthings that you are looking for or asking for are
7 being undermined by the proposed motions that have been made thus far. Does the maker or
8 seconder have any comments? Commissioner Lippert.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: To give some illustrative value to the reviews, there probably have been
II half a dozen reviews but it has really been centered on maybe four properties. The first property
12 where the review failed or we came back with some feedback as a denial was where the property
13 owner was speculating on a piece ofland, he was actually putting in a bid on it and wanted to
14 know whether it was acceptable to develop the property as such. It was actually placing an
15 Italianate villa on the ridge of the property. We felt that that was not appropriate because it
16 would be highly visible, Even though the property owner really wanted the views and the look
17 of an Italianate villa we found that something that was a little more discreet was appropriate, We
18 didn't outright deny him because it was a preliminary review of the Site and Design Review not
19 one where it was up and down and it would be forwarded to Council.
20
21 The other one focused around the Goldman properties at the end of Los Trancos Road, In that
22 there was a design that was previously approved for those properties, One of the buildings was
23 actually built and the other one was not completed when the property owner passed away, It was
24 subsequently acquired by John Chambers and his family, Those were approved but there were
25 also significant concessions that were made by the Chambers in developing those properties
26 reinforcing landscaping in the open space, particularly in Arastradero Preserve, establishing hard
27 fast boundaries on the property that could not be penetrated hy people going through the
28 preserve, and then also ceding to not being actually developed as a concession so that he could
29 enjoy the development on those properties which had been previously approved and the
30 approvals had expired. That was the only thing that had occurred.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma,
33
34 Vice-Chair Tuma: One other issue that Commissioner Martinez brought up which I wanted to
35 reassure him on is that I don't in any way want this to be seen as a direction or statement to the
36 public that what we want to see is a bunch of 12,000 or 15,000 square foot houses up there, To
37 me in order to get through Site and Design Review that would have to be an extraordinary house
38 in terms of meeting all the issues, the screening issues, energy impacts, and those sorts of things.
39 Under the right set of circumstances I could see that being reasonable, I am simply not prepared
40 to make a sort of value judgment about how big someone's house should or shouldn't be, I am
41 prepared to weigh in on the impacts to the environment, the visual field, and all the rest of those
42 things. I think that the mechanisms that we have in place afford us the opportunity to do that
43 without having to make a sort of a judgment about what size someone's house should be, or how
44 many friends they should have, or any of that sort of discussion. But this isn't a call for lots of
45 12,000 or bigger square foot houses but rather a maximum number that is achievable if you are
46 able to meet the criteria that are set out there. So I just want to make sure that that was clear in
Page 37
I tenus of at least my intent in moving this forward, [would also venture to say based on the
2 feedback and the discussions that we have had with the community that lives out there that that
3 would not be a desired result for the folks who live there to see the entire hillside dotted with
4 12,000 or plus square fool houses, My impression,
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: A final point,
7
8 Chair Garber: Yes, please,
9
10 Commissioner Martinez: Both Commissioner Lippert and Vice-Chair Tuma really underscore
II my point why we don't need a maximum house size because we do have tools and the policies
12 and programs to try to prevent that without sending a message to the community that we think a
13 12,000 or 15,000 square foot house is appropriate, Tbank you, I am done,
14
15 Chair Garber: All right, that comes to me and then we will go to Fineberg and then Keller,
16
17 I would like to potentially propose a friendly amendment to either the primary intent of no max
18 house size andlor the secondary part of the motion if the no max house size is accepted then
19 consider these, which would modify Commissioner Keller's amendment regarding FAR always
20 being larger than the max house size, That is because the other end of the scale, the very small
21 properties given the FAR calculation result in some fairly small allowable house sizes, My
22 preference here would be for the properties that are at the low end of the scale which start
23 essentially at one aere and go up that they be allowed to build up to 8,000 square feet regardless
24 of the FAR that they generate until the FAR equals that maximum house size at 8,000, which is
25 around four plus acres or so ifI am recalling correctly, 4.2 or thereabout. In comparison to
26 instanee the R-l or the RE zones, R-1 you are allowed to build up to 6,000 if your site is large
27 enough to accomplish that and that is on a site that is significantly smaller than the one acre size
28 that is being presented here in the open space, Does Staff have any thoughts regarding that
29 suggestion? What I am suggesting is that any property in the as District be allowed to build a
30 house of at least 8,000 square feet.
31
32 Mr, Williams: lfmy look doesn't say it, I think that for these lots that is very, very,,,,,,,
33
34 Chair Garber: That is too large, I see it down here, Where is the cutoff then? It is right there at
35 line 55,
36
37 Mr, Williams: Right.
38
39 Chair Garber: I see it. I retract my statement, I am misreading the chart here. So never mind,
40 We will go to Fineberg,
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to start with what I think is going to be my easiest
43 question for the maker of the motion, Could you repeat your third point? It was between the 30
44 percent bonus and deferring the recommendation on basements.
45
Page 38
I Vice-Chair Tuma: The point after the 30 percent bonus was in order to get the bonus the
2 applicant would be required to submit to a preliminary review by the PTC. Is that the one?
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes, thank you. I guess the best way to sum up my questions and what
5 I am thinking is this is a psychotic choice to face. On the one hand, if one looks at the goals of
6 the Open Space District, and I will get detailed in a second, looking at the policies in our
7 Comprehensive Plan, looking at Title 18 the definitions of purposes of the Open Space District,
8 if one is addressing the issue of limiting house size to achieve those goals then a meaningful
9 limit that yields those goals would be a good thing. But if we are having a proposed limit that is
10 expensive, contorted, complicated, hard to administer, hard to enforce, and won't come into play
II much then J don't see the purpose of having a limit. So then I flip to okay, no limit.
12
13 Now let me get specific. I look at Chapter 18 of our Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the
14 Open Space, and I will read this verbatim. "One, protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
15 Two, protect and preserve open space land and limited and valuable resources. Three, permit the
16 reasonable use of open space land while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent
17 open space characteristics to ensure its continued availability for the following as agricultural
18 land, scenic land, recreational land, conservation or natural resource land for the containment of
19 urban sprawl and the structuring of urban development and for the retention of land in its natural
20 or near natural state, and to protect life and property in the community from hazards of fire,
21 flood, and seismic activity. Four, coordinate and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and
22 city open space plans."
23
24 The phrase in there, 'the retention of land in its natural or near natural state' to me if I was asked
25 to interpret what that means it does not include many large houses. I am going to purposely not
26 define what large means for a moment. That directs us, that is in our Municipal Code, that tells
27 us it should be kept in its natural state, it should be maintained as scenic land, and we are to
28 contain urban sprawl. That means you don't build housing development up there. Now housing
29 is an allowed use and there are considerable limits now with the FAR, with a lot of the natural
30 elements, where you can build, what the setbacks are, what the slopes are. So we have a number
3 I of significant, we look at the chart that Staff made and if we were to look at a 12,000 foot limit,
32 so there are 79 total properties on this list, and properties 36 through 79 so that is about the
33 bottom half of the list already get less than 12,000 square feet based on the floor area cap. So a
34 12,000 square foot limit would only apply to properties one to 35. Jflet's say the owners are
35 inclined to want larger homes and they are inclined to spend the money to build according to the
36 BIG rating system then if the popped up to 15,600 that would mean that properties 15 through 35
37 would stilI be capped by their maximum floor area ratio. So this whole discussion would only
38 apply to properties one through 14. Properties one to five 1 don't think we understand yet how to
39 handle because if those got subdivided are we handing people with half a million acres the right
40 to build a bunch of 12,000 and \5,000 square foot homes on a subdivided lot? I have not heard
41 that Staff has said they are comfortable knowing how to handle that. So let's say we rule out
42 those four top properties. So we are talking about developing measuring criteria for
43 implementing maximum house size that would apply to house numbers five through 13. That is
44 kind of ridiculous. So I just don't see the meaning of this whole conversation tonight.
45
Page 39
I Why don't we just stay with where we are? That brings me back to the first part but then that
2 doesn't achieve the goals oflet's not turn it into suburbia up in the hills. It also doesn't achieve
3 the goals of limiting, if there is common agreement that more concrete is bad and more energy
4 usage and more people, if all those bad things the bigger it is worse then a limit is a good thing.
5 But we have those limits and the second half of the motion doesn't get us anything more. When
6 I say the second half of the motion I mean the four parts with the 12,000 max and then the bonus.
7 I concur with the motion to defer consideration on basements. We don't have enough
8 information and that is going to get thoroughly vetted when we look at the whole city.
9
10 I have grave, grave concerns about implementing a process where there is zoning based on third
11 party criteria that are developed, the BIG rating system. It is developed to encourage sustainable
12 growth, to reduce greenhouse gases it is meant so we build environmentally sound parcels. It is
13 not meant as a mechanism to cap house size. It is not meant as a mechanism to -why is one
14 percent of green points worth one percent of house size? There is no linkage. It is so random I
15 can't go there on it. What happens if BIG ceases to exist? What happens if their limits -I don't
16 know. What is the next best thing? Twenty years ago it was save the whales and now it is the
17 big system. What happens if ten years from now it is something we don't foresee and all of a
18 sudden we have these entitlements based on some measurement that we don't control and just
19 don't know where it is going to go. So I don't think it is prudent basing zoning and house sizes
20 on something that has nothing to do with zoning and house sizes.
21
22 I also think that as the second part of the motion with the limits is stated it is going to be difficult
23 to administer. It is going to be expensive on the parcels where it comes up both for the applicant
24 and for Staff time. It is going to create, as Staff indicated in their Staff Reports, uncertainty. It is
25 going to require us if any of these big parcels come back and want to subdivide we are going to
26 have to create some processes that simply don't exist today. Enforcement, continued
27 enforcement, if somebody plants a green roofwe are going to require them to continue to water it
28 and how are we going to know whether they are and what are we going to do if they don't? We
29 are going to take back some of their house size? We are going to fine them? How do we enforce
30 it? We don't have those mechanisms in place. We are doing that so we can regulate the house
31 size often parcels. So I don't think the limit, unless somebody can help me and give me a way
32 to see through this I don't see how the limits as proposed give us anything that is the intention of
33 what Council wants us to get to and it creates all kinds of thorny sticky-wickets. Given those
34 two choices I am not sure I've said would actually advocate for this but I would rather see no
35 house size limit than the limits as we have been discussing them.
36
37 Chl!irGarber: Commissioner Tuma.
38
39 Vice-Chair Tuma: At the risk of sounding psychotic let me try to address a few of the concerns
40 that you have raised. First of all, I think you were concerned that this didn't apply to 15 through
41 35 because of the potential for a bonus. I think quite to the contrary. I think this does apply to
42 those because it does create the need to go above and beyond in order to get that bonus. So I
43 wouldn't quibble with the fact that under or around seven acres, I think the cutoff is between 35
44 and 36 this doesn't put any additional restriction and I think that's appropriate, above that though
45 it does put additional restriction. It requires to go above and beyond and to achieve the
46 additional points. The point system I think does in fact bear a relationship to the goal that we are
Page 40
I trying to achieve, which is that one of the big stated goals through this process has been to try to
2 make larger homes less impactful from an environmental perspective and that is exactly what the
3 BIG scale addresses. I believe through discussions with Planning Director my understanding is
4 that in order to come up with the BIG numbers here is an exercise for the applicant that is
5 measured in sort of a handful of thousand dollars, $5,000, something like that in order to do that.
6 So if you could weight in on that. I would interpret that in the context of building say a 10,000
7 or 12,000 square foot home and the attending cost, a handful of thousand dollars, $5,000,
8 wouldn't necessarily be onerous in that process. Could you illuminate this both in terms of what
9 the impact to Staff would be as well as the costs associated with this for the applicant?
10
II Mr. Williams: Well, the initial impacts for Staff are verifying the big compliance and we do that
12 regardless. So regardless of what the number is. For the applicant the cost of the verification
13 whether it is done directly from the Build It Green organization or if Staff does it, and we are
14 moving into a period where we have one person who can do Green Point Rating on our Staff and
15 we expect that we will have more and more of that as time goes by. So in either event it is not
16 more than a few thousand dollars to do that. I think what the biggest cost is the cost of achieving
17 those extra points. That is much bigger cost of putting in systems to do that and also then there
18 are some post certification costs that are probably higher when you achieve those greater points
19 to verify the mechanical systems or operating as they are supposed to and that kind of thing. So
20 those are the costs that I think are significant. The costs of verifying compliance are not
21 significant. Cost of enforcement and how we enforce is a good question but I think that the vast
22 majority of what is done through the Green Building Verification process is something that is
23 going to stay in place for quite some time. So it is not like putting in a hose and then you pull it
24 out the day after the final inspection occurs. There is some gray area in there as far as how will
25 we achieve over time the enforcement of those and be sure that ten or 20 years from now they
26 are still operating that way. We can take things on as code enforcement but we probably will not
27 know unless somebody tells us that something has changed.
28
29 Vice-Chi!!rTuma: Thank you. Just to address one final concern that Commissioner Fineberg
30 had raised which is what if BIG goes away. We have that problem on a larger scale across the
31 city and we have sort of already committed several other components of how we measure and
32 what we require to that. So it is a valid concem. I think that it is something that if it does go
. 33 away we are going to have to figure out how to deal with that, but we already have that problem.
34 We already have the problem of if BIG just goes away or gets swallowed by a whale that we
35 saved how do we deal with that? I think the answer is yes, you are right we have to deal with
36 that but we already have that problem. So I don't think by tying it to that standard which is
37 specifically one of the reasons I had proposed that created any larger of a problem. We would
38 still have to deal with that if we knew it was going away.
39
40 Chair Garber: Actually Commissioner Lippert wanted to respond and then we will come back to
4 I Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Lippert.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: I want to say that I remember back in the 1970s, I think it was 1974
44 when the State of California implemented smog regulations and testing of automobiles to reduce
45 air pollution in urban areas. Subsequently in addition to that what they did was they
46 implemented things like no lead in gasoline, and later on went to even higher standards for
Page 41
I reducing smog. I think the standards are always going to change to achieve certain goals. They
2 are going to be refined over time. What is important here in the open space more than anything
3 is not necessarily the size of a house in terms of its overall building footprint but what is
4 important is that the impacts that it has are minimized and comply within our regulations in
5 terms of Site and Design Review and reducing the earbon footprint of the property so to speak.
6 think that there are a great number of incentives here. I think that what Vice-Chair Tuma has
7 done with his motion that I think is beautifully crafted is that if we have to have limitations in
8 tenns of the footprint or the floor area or the size of the house it is actually tied to performance
9 criteria rather than the impacts that we have already addressed in the development regulations
10 and the discretionary review that the project goes through.
1 1
12 ChairGarber: Commissioner Fineherg.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: A question for Staff. For the places where we already have Build It
15 Green in our codes and entitlements, I shouldn't say codes and entitlements, in our zoning code
16 are there places where there are entitlements that are set by BIG limits, BIG rating numbers, or
17 are they all for achieving reducing carbon footprints and building green?
18
19 Mr. Williams: The green building requirements we have are in a chapter of the zoning code.
20 They are not in any other chapters. They just apply to all development basically for the purpose
21 of reducing carbon footprint of development.
22
23 Commissiol)~:rFineberg: So this would be the first place where there is something seen as an
24 entitlement.
25
26 Mr. Williams: Well, it is but remember again that we already have a sliding scale as part of that.
27 As the house gets bigger the number of points you have to get gets bigger.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: But you don't gel a bigger house if you have points.
30
31 Mr. WiIli!lm~: No.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: It is that the bigger it is the more points you have to achieve to get that
34 house.
35
36 Mr. Williams: Right.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: So there is a distinction between your house can get bigger because of
39 points.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma had a comment here.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: I might beg to differ with the Planning Director on that, in that in order to
44 build the house, in order to get the entitlement to build a house you have to achieve these points.
45 So in fact to be entitled to build the house you have to -so that concept already exists. In other
46 words you can't build the house if you don't hit those numbers. So effectively that gives you the
Page 42
I entitlement to build the house. Today if you don't hit those numbers you are not entitled to
2 build. Am I correct about that?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Well that is correct. I am just saying that that is a uniformity that is across all
5 development.
6
7 Chair Garber: Does that help you at all, Commissioner Fineberg?
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: It does. Also, Commissioner Lippert had a point that I wanted to
10 follow up on. It is escaping me at the moment so I will come back to it.
II
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller I think it is back to you.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first let me say that I was the one who made the motion
15 and voted in favor awhile ago for this to come back to us precisely because r thought we should
16 discuss it. That doesn'l necessarily mean that al the time [ fult that we should have a maximum
17 house size but [ thought when this went to the Council originally when we reviewed it last year
18 we hadn't vetted the issue of maximum house size appropriately, and I thought it was important
19 for this to come back to us.
20
21 With respect to the comment about the Council having made arbitrary decisions with respect to
22 zoning rules let me assure you from my perspective that those arbitrary decisions are not
23 necessarily limited to the Open Space District. Living as I do adjacent to Adobe Creek with a
24 concrete wall behind my house separating me from the creek the reason for applying the Santa
25 Clara Valley Water District's restrictions on building adjacent to the creek, the reason the
26 Council said they decided to apply that to a channelized creek instead of merely to a natural
27 riparian corridor is because, I will not say who said it, but one of the Council Members said we
28 would like to return that channelized creek to its naturalized state and we wouldn't want the
29 property values of the adjacent houses to go up from the increased development and thereby
30 make it harder for us to buy those properties. So I am not sure if that is nearly as arbitrary as
31 what you think may have happened here but sometimes decisions like that happen.
32
33 Thirdly, I pointed out earlier that the six -three vote by the Council to reeommend a maximum
34 house size be considered by the Planning Commission for recommendation back to the Council I
35 said that of the six-three vote of the continuing members of the Council is a three-two vote but I
36 neglected to point out that one additional Council Member who I assume would be in favor of
37 this voted for it on the Commission. So effectively you have a four-two vote continuing forward
38 unless you ean convince other noses to ehange their mind. If you get one additional vote on the
39 Council Ii'om a newly elected Council Member you will have maximwn house size imposed. So
40 let me just give that as sort of background.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, interesting background although I think we should not be
43 trying to handicap the likelihood of a motion being successful or no!. We should be voting on
44 the merits of the issue before us.
45
46 Commissioner Keller: Thank you and J am proceeding to that now. Thank you.
Page 43
I
2 So the first thing is I realize the irony that more BIG points means you have a bigger house, but
3 it is a bigger house that is also greener, as Commissioner Lippert whispered to me. I also
4 understand that our current ordinance refers to a particular version of the Build It Green
5 checklist. Do we have to actually modify our ordinance when Build It Green comes out with a
6 new check list?
7
8 Mr. Williams: It is actually a resolution and we do modify that if that happens or if we were to
9 go to a different kind of rating system.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: I once had a secretary who had the concept of a tickle file. So I would
12 suggest that when Build It Green makes changes to their checklist or we go to that that we also
13 revisit the open space point issue because if we are imposing something with respect to Build It
14 Green there it is going to affect this. So we should look at both of them at the same time when
15 we do that and notice it appropriately so that if we have to make changes at that time to the green
16 point rating system that we notice not only that section of the Zoning Ordinance but also this
17 section of the Zoning Ordinance.
18
19 So I also agree with the sentiment expressed by others, as I mentioned earlier, that basements
20 were addressed by Council action appropriately and that we should come back with basements
21 when the whole city addresses basements.
22
23 Also, as a way of comment, there was a comment made by one of the members oflhe public
24 with respect to the number of friends and guests. For the record, I actually attended a large
25 gathering at Mr. Lehmann's house for an organization that we belong to. That was not in the
26 bouse it was actually in a big tent in the yard outside. So just by way of disclosure.
27
28 So two things. One is simple and that is in order to get the Build It Green bonus you actually
29 have to go through the commissioning and verification process. In other words, you are
30 committing to actual make sure that everything works. I am not sure that our current ordinance
31 the way it works is that you actually have to make sure that everything is commissioned and gets
32 verified at the end. .
33
34 Qhair Garber: If! may?
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
37
38 Chair Garber: The LEED criteria requires commissioning. Build It Green does not, however the
39 inspection that occurs that the City will do to determine that the items that were included in the
40 BIG checklist are in fact present in the field will be done, but that is actually different. That is
41 not actually commissioning. There will be no testing of the HV AC units and things of that sort
42 but it is simply to make sure that the items exist that have been itemized. So it is a subtle
43 distinction, which actually has an impact on dollars, etc., for your information.
44
Page 44
1 Commissioner K"IIi,'!: I appreeiate that but what I am wondering is if they are getting a
2 maximum house size bonus for putting these measures into effeet is there some way that we can
3 not merely ensure that they are in plaee but that they are actually operating?
4
5 Chair Garber: Again, the BIG isn't organized quite that way. The LEEO, if you were to impose
6 LEEO, it does have commissioning criteria. Commissioner Lippert.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that the commissioning happens in LEEO after the
9 building is complete. The reason why it occurs afterwards is that there is no way to sort of
10 certify or substantiate that a building is in fact LEEO Gold or Platinum unit thc building is
11 operational. Once it is operational it may not be achievable. You may not be able to get
12 Platinum. You may not be able to get Gold. You can't go back and undo the building. The only
13 way you are going to know that is by building it and having it operate.
14
15 Chair Garber: That said, however, I believe that relative to the Build It Green scale the building
16 inspectors are going through training to be able to make the evaluations that the requirements
17 that the checklists arc requiring that occur at the time of building submission are in fact executed
18 in the field.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: I realize that LEEO requires a post commissioning process and that Build
21 It Green does not require a post commissioning process. I am wondering whether it makes sense
22 to have some post commissioning requirement process to make sure it actually works according
23 to the requirement in order to get the extra square footage.
24
25 Chair Garber: I would say that to do so would be asking for process and additional steps that are
26 beyond what is required in the ordinance right now. However, the ordinance does require that
27 the building inspectors, it is a certification, I forget exactly what it is, but they do actually have to
28 sign off on the things that are on the cheeklist. So there is a reporting back and a policing of it if
29 you will that is built into the ordinance as it stands.
30
31 Mr. Williams: I think we used the word verification.
32
33 Chair Garber: Verification, thank you.
34
35 Cormnissioner Keller: So let me not suggest that the ordinance be changed to reflect this but
36 make some sort of item or note that when the Green Building Ordinance comes back to us and
37 we revisit the Build It Green points and whatever that we also revisit the issue of veriiication in
38 paIticular for this but not at this time make any fUlther changes.
39
40 I actually will go for, if Vice-Chair T uma wishes to still offer it, I will go with his one point for
41 one percent additional FAR without a particular cap. That comes out to me to be one and a half
42 percent if you will under the current scheme, one and a half percent additional points sorry.
43 One point gives you essentially -what I had talked about if you will is each point gives you
44 essentially one and a half percent earlier. If it is one percent/one percent and this is one point
45 gives you one percent, which is better than J had talked about. So I think that that one point of
46 additional···· what I am understanding the offer and I will request that you make this amendment
Page 45
I is that over and above required level for Build It Green green point points that every additional
2 one point above that allows you to exceed the FAR of maximum house size of 12,000 up to the
3 FAR limit by one percent.
4
5 Vice-Chair Tuma: Very slight wording misstep I think you made in there. You said up to the
6 maximum FAR house size and 1 think you didn't mean to have the word FAR in there. It is just
7 up to the maximum house size and then subject to FAR.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I mean is that earlier you can't exceed FAR.
10
II Mr. Williams: It is up to the maximum FAR not maximum house size. So you can exceed the
12 12,000 up to the maximum FAR at a one to one basis.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Right. So I am saying you can go above 12,000 but for each additional
15 BIG point you can go one percent above 12,000 with the overall cap being the FAR square
16 footage that you are allowed.
17
18 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right. Based on our earlier conversation I had intended to modifY the motion
19 to reflect that for each additional point over the then current requirement for BIG the applieant
20 would be entitled to one percent of additional maximum house size. In large part because of the
21 issue that you had raised was that it does seem likely that basically by meeting it you would get
22 the bonus and it didn't really bear a relationship to a percentage. So I think that was a good
23 productive discussion.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I agree but we are still in any event always limited by the maximum
26 FAR.
27
28 Vice-Chair Tum!!: That is correct. I think Commissioner Lippert has to decide whether he wants
29 to agree to the amendment.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make sure I understand it. So it is one percent for each
32 point you are over the 120 points.
33
34 Yit;e-Chair Tuma: Currently it is 150 but the way that I proposed it is if that number changes so
35 does the requirement. So we are not sticking at 150 it is whatever the then current BIG
36 requirement is.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, got it. So in other words if we upped it to 200 one point/one
39 percent.
40
41 Vice-Chair Tuma: That is exactly right. It is supposed to slide up as and when the requirement
42 slides up.
43
44 Commissiol1er Lippert: Okay, I have no problem accepting that.
45
46 1;:ommissioner Keller: Okay, thank you.
Page 46
I
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and Martinez let me just ask you if either of you have
3 additional comments or questions. Commissioner Fineberg.
4
5 CQlIlmissioner Fineberg: Thank you, I do and that is why my light was on. I am struggling still
6 to understand why we are talking about reducing carbon footprint, reducing impacts of big
7 houses as measured by the Build It Green measurements. I agree that those are laudable goals
8 but I am not getting the linkage between the Build It Green objectives and what I understood to
9 be the objectives of reducing house size in the foothills, in the open space specifically, in the
10 private open space.
II
12 When I look at the Comprehensive Plan it talks about, let's look at Policy N-J, "Manage existing
13 public open space areas and encourage the management of private space areas in a manner that
14 meets habitat protection goals, public safety concerns, and low impact recreation needs." So the
15 Build It Green reductions of impacts don't reduce the impacts at all in the open space area
16 regarding habitat protection or public safety concerns. When you look at Policy N-3, protect·
17 sensitive plant species, resources from the impacts of development. Build It Green doesn't
18 protect sensitive plan species. When you look at Policy N-4, preserve the foothill areas
19 predominantly open space. Bigger houses have bigger impacts even if they are beautifully
20 designed and one follows every zoning rule, every criteria we have, it is going to have bigger
21 impacts on the open space. So why do we then violate N-4 say build a bigger house because you
22 are reducing greenhouse gases, or reducing whatever it is that Build It Green is measuring.
23 Policy N-4 specifically says that preserving the foothills as predominantly open space applies to
24 private land in the foothill areas.
25
26 Look at Policy N-7, our open space development criteria. There are 13 of them. Nothing in
27 Build It Green addresses the criteria things like it shouldn't be visually intrusive from the public
28 roadway or public parklands. Build It Green isn't a measurement system that yields that. So if
29 we are trying to reduce impact in the foothills having a Build It Green measurement system,
30 which is a great system, but it is not intended to address impacts of development in foothills. It
3 I is apples and oranges not yielding why we are even thinking about limiting house size. So it
32 may be a futile effort but I would like to offer a friendly amendment that we go the first part of
33 the maker's motions and simply say no size limit with a pregnant pause, we really mean it.
34
35 Chair Garber: Well, with that let me ask the maker if he would accept that friendly amendment.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Before I sort of state a decision on that I want again to try to address the
38 concerns that Commissioner Fineberg was raising because I think they are valid concerns,
39 particularly as these projects relate to the Comprehensive Plan. That is the very thing, all of
40 those Comprehensive Plan provisions that you mentioned are applicable, but that is the very
41 thing that the Site and Design Review process is intended to address. So those are very
42 important components of the Comprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to the Open Space
43 District however we do have the Site and Design Review process to address those. So really
44 what this does is sort of takes me back to agrecing with my own motion about the first part of it
45 but recognizing the reality that we really are sort of obliged to put something forward as a
46 secondary. The reason I say we are obliged to, obviously we could choose not to, but if we do
Page 47
I that we again run the risk of without anything before Council they don't have the benefit of what
2 would the recommendation be, reason, discussion, and all the rest of that. So I think having that
3 there as the backup is appropriate. So I agree with you that those issues need to be addressed.
4 When you get through Site and Design Review and you deal with the issues that you raise from
5 the Comprehensive Plan I think possibly the one set of issues that have been highlighted in the
6 Staff Report tonight that remain is the impacts of energy and water use. I think that is where
7 BIG comes in and helps address those types of issues. So if there is anything left after Site and
8 Design, if there is anything left after all of the other safeguards that have already been put in
9 place I think that is what is left. I think that if that is not covered and I don't agree, I think it has
10 been covered, but if it is not covered then perhaps that is where BIG comes in and deals with
II those energy efficiency and water use issues that are left at that point in the process.
12
13 Chair Garber: So I am not hearing an acceptance or not but it sounds like we want some
14 discussion before we get there.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: No, that being said I would not be inclined to accept the friendly amendment.
17
18 Chair Garber: Let's deal with this then. The friendly amendment has died but let me ask if the
19 Commissioner would like to make a substitute motion.
20
21 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I would like to make a substitute motion that the motion be that the
24 Commission puts forward a recommendation to Council that there be no new size limits
25 imposed. If Staff might be able to help me craft the wording that the existing limitations as
26 covered in floor area ratio, Site and Design Review, existing topography or site conditions
27 currently provide adequate maximum house size limits.
28
29 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
30
31 Mr. Williams: I am not sure. The topography one doesn't quite fit. Certainly the Site and
32 Design and the other regulations that have recently been adopted in and of themselves are
33 enough. It isn't that they impose maximum house size limits themselves but that they provide
34 the tools to assess maximum house size.
35
36 hQmmissioner Fineberg: I think I found the word I was struggling with it is site conditions. I
37 am thinking for instance let's say you have a one acre parcel that is at a 60 degree angle for its
38 entire one acre. Those conditions will define, they add to the definition of what can built on the
39 site. So the site conditions add to the existing limitations.
40
41 Mr. Williams: yes, that is fine. It is part of Site and Design but that is certainly relevant.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so with our without that I am neutral.
44
45 Chair Garber: Is there a second to the motion? Would you repeat it?
46
Page 48
I Commissioner Fineberg: The motion was that the Commission put forward a recommendation
2 to Council that there be no new size limitations and subject to wordsmithing that the
3 Commission feels that the size limits that exist currently as defined by a combination of
4 maximum floor area square footage, site conditions, help me out there were a couple of other
5 things that I said before.
6
7 Chair Garber: Well, it is the existing regulations.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: Site and Design Review and existing regulations currently set adequate
I 0 limits on size.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
13
14 SECOND
15
16 Commi§sioner Martinez: I seeond it.
17
18 Chair Garber: We have a second. Let's vote. All those in favor. Excuse me is there some
19 discussion? I have lights from Keller and Lippert previously would you like to speak to this
20 now? Commissioner Lippert.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: First of aliI will just say that I am not going to support the substitute
23 motion. I think that we are not doing the task that the Council had asked us to do. I think that in
24 the minutes they can read that we really, really mean it. But we have been asked to flush out a
25 maximum house size and to give them a number. They can have that discussion as to whether
26 they accept our number or it should be greater or smaller but we have given our rationale as to
27 how to achieve those numbers.
28
29 I think that by just going in with a motion that says no house size we are just going to be
30 spinning our wheels and it is going to be baek before us again.
31
32 Chair Garber: Anyone else? Commissioner Keller.
33
34 (::ommissiolleLKeller: So I think that the consideration is that a maximum house size in this case
35 is far from an entitlement because of the Site and Design proeess. I think that while there may be
36 some redundancy between these other processes and the maximum house size we were directed
37 to give them information about that, In particular it really affects the largest parcels and the
38 largest size houses, and therefore the original motion on the floor for which the substitute motion
39 is replacing basically only affects large parcels and does basically indicate that it sort of like
40 saying, you have got to be kidding. It is not an entitlement because they have to meet all the
41 other regulations. So 1 think it is worthwhile. I will not support the substitute motion and I will
42 support the original motion.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
45
Page 49
I Vice-Chair Tuma: I am concerned and I would implore Commissioner Fineberg to withdraw the
2 substitute motion. My concern is one of credibility with Council in the sense that they didn't
3 specifically say to us you must recommend maximum house size. What they said to us was if we
4 were to adopt a maximum house size what do you think that should be. So I don't think by sort
5 of going with the underlying motion as stated that in any way we are capitulating on the topic of
6 whether there should be a maximum house size or not. I think if we were to vote for the
7 underlying motion we would all be saying unanimously that in fact we think that is the right way
8 to go, but we would at the same time be giving Council what they had requested which was
9 guidance on what the right number should be if in fact they were to make the decision to impose
lOa maximum house size. So I don't think it is seen as somehow giving up what we believe in or
II what we think the right result should be here but rather it is a way of reiterating what we believe
12 in but at the same time being responsive to the request from the ultimate decision-making body.
13 So enough said.
14
IS Chair Garber: I would not be supporting the substitute motion for all the various reasons that
16 have been iterated. Commissioner Martinez.
17
18 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, since our motion is going down the tubes I have a question to
19 Curtis. If we are proposing a maximum house size of 15,000 square feet, the number that you
20 could achieve with these BIG points, what would the number of BIG points, the threshold, have
21 to be? Would it rise from ISO or would it remain at ISO?
22
23 Mr. Williams: Ifit were the 15,000 then that's 3,000.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, could you employ your math, please?
26
27 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So that is 15,000.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: Excuse me that is not the question I was asking.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Fifteen thousand is 25 percent more.
32
33 Mr. Williams: It is 25 percent.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: I'm sorry, it is one-third more.
36
37 Mr. Williams: No.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Fifteen thousand is 25 percent more than 12,000 and there fore you would
40 need 175 points.
41 Mr. Williams: Right, 25 more points.
42
43 Commissioner Martinez: That is not the question I am asking though. I am asking if we were
44 building a 12,000 square foot house we would have to achieve ISO points.
45
46 Mr. Williams: Right.
Page 50
I
2 Commissioner Martinez: If the maximum were 15,000 would we still have to achieve, .. ?
3
4 Mr. Williams: Today?
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: Yes.
7
8 Mr. Williams: Yes you would still have to achieve 150 points.
9
10 Commissioner Martinez: So it doesn't matter whether it is 10,000 or 15, or 16.
II
12 Mr.Williams: Right. The maximum today under our criteria is 150 points and you achieve that
13 once you get to, I think we showed about an 8,000 square foot house. Anything over about an
14 8,000 square foot house today you have to do 150 points.
15
16 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you. Therefore I would like to enter a friendly
17 amendment to the original motion.
18
19 Chair Garber: Actually, we have the action of the substitute motion we have to deal with first.
20
21 Commissioner Martinez: We have to vote on that first?
22
23 Chair Garber: Unless you withdraw it or you relinquish your second.
24
25 Commissioner Martinez: 1\0.
26
27 Chair Garber: Otherwise we need to vote on the substitute.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I'll wait.
30
31 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tuma were you asking to speak?
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: No.
34
35 MOTION }'AILS (2-4-0-0, Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg in favor)
36
37 ChairJJarber: Then let's vote on the substitute motion. Those in favor of supporting the
38 substitute motion say aye. (ayes) Those opposed? (nays) That motion fails four to two with
39 Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg voting yea and Commissioners Garber, Tuma, Keller, and
40 Lippert voting nay.
41
42 Okay, so we are back to the primary motion and Commissioner Tuma you had comments.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: It was Commissioner Martinez.
45
46 Chair Garber: I am sorry. Commissioner Martinez.
Page 51
I
2 CommissiQner Martinez: I would like to offer the friendly amendment that we reduce the
3 maximum house size to 10,000 square feet with the bonuses to be applied from that point.
4
5 Chair Garber: The maker of the motion, Commissioner Tuma.
6
7 Yic;c-Chair Tuma: Any thoughts on why?
8
9 Coml1lissioner Martinez: I feel that a 12,000 square foot house is a kind of precedent that is not
10 really the direction that the City really wants to go with rating a green building environment. r
II think it is umeasonably large as a base. I don't think that .... not that I can say that 10,000 is a
12 magic number. I don't think there is really a substantial base to argue that that's the right
13 number. I feel that we would better serve the Open Spacc District if we reduced that number.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: I think that is an interesting and intriguing idea particularly since we no
18 longer have any cap you just simply have to get more BIG points. So I think that that is
19 interesting. Before when we had a particular threshold cap it was harder but at this point it is not
20 as much of a problem.
21
22 Chair Garbe!: Commissioner Fineberg.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: That would apply to four additional homes. It reminds me of an old
25 adage from Churchill. Why don't we reduce it to nine or eight? These are decisions without any
26 criteria. [s there justification for why 12 is good or ten is better? Then is eight better? Is six
27 better? If smaller is better then six. So why is ten better than 12? What are we basing the
28 decision on? I am not sure if we are trying to protect the habitat, protect view sheds, protect
29 open space, why are we even creating a limit? I am still stuck. I don't see where adding four
30 houses and ten is better than using the -if we label our columns it is the sixth column, the FAR
31 square footage. Substantively no difference.
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, I will just go ahead and say while I appreciate the sentiment I think Ijust
34 want to keep it as is stated because I am not convinced. The trouble is when we get into these
35 discussions about it should be a little bit up or a little bit down to me we are treading close to and
36 I am not at all comfortable with this idea about we should somehow decide what is right in tenus
37 of you get into a value judgment. So I am not going to accept the friendly amendment.
38
39 Ch!!ir Garber: Would the Commissioner like to tum his friendly amendment into a substitute
40 motion and/or a fom1al amendment?
41
42 CommiSJliQner Martinez: No, thank you.
43
44 MOTION PASSED (4-2-0-0, Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg opposed)
45
Page 52
I Chair Garber: Additional discussion on the primary motion. I am seeing none. Shall we vote?
2 All those in favor of the motion as amended say aye. (ayes) Those that are opposed say nay.
3 (nays) The motion passes with Commissioners Garber, Tuma, Keller, and Lippert voting yea
4 and Commissioners Martinez and Fineberg voting nay.
5
6 I will close the public hearing and note that it is 10:50. I would like to thank the members of the
7 public that have attended for their patience. We will see you shortly presumably at the Couneil
8 hearing. I don't know when that is however. Do we know has this been agendized on the
9 Council?
10
II Mr. Williams: No it hasn't. By the way, what we will do, we didn't have an ordinance prepared
12 for this, and we don't have to come back with it. I have talked with the City Attorney I think we
13 can just go ahead. Since your primary motion was not go there we will develop an ordinance as
14 backup for the Council but your motion will be as you stated it and then if they want to go they
15 will have an ordinance in front of them to impose the maximum house size if they want to. But
16 we don't need to come back you have given us all the details of that.
17
18 Chair Garber: All right folks it has been a long haul. Thank you again.
19
Page 53
CORRESPONDENCE
OS Zone District Revisions
ATT ACHMENT G
Staff received comment letters from the residents of the Open Space zone district and
from two open space advocacy organizations. The letters from the residents were
unsupportive of the. addition of a Maximum House Size regulation and added basement
regulations.
Page 1 of 1
Betten, Zariah
From: Mark Conroe [mark@presidlodp,com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18,20105:08 PM
To: paposna@yahoogroups,com; Campbell, Clare
SubJect: OS hearing, Thursday, January 18th, 2010
Dear Clare,
As has been expressed by many of owners in the OS District, our family is also concerned about the process and results thereof
related to changes adopted and being considered for adoption in the OS District. Our family has owned our property in the OS
District for nearly 20 years, Therefore, it is disturbing to have a significant diminution of our property rights recently passed
without a clear description of the problem(s) being addressed and without the concerns of the as property owners taken into
consideration. Having partiCipated in the community meetings with Planning Staff, members of the Planning Commission, and
members of the public over the past year or two, I found these meetings to have been fair-minded and well-organized by
Planning Staff. The disconnect appears to have taken place at the pol1tlcallevel: the Planning Commission and City Council
appear to be making decisions which are not in line with Planning Staff recommendations and/or don't answer the questions
raised by those most impacted by adopted changes (the owners in the OS District).
We agree with the thoughts expressed by many of the other as owners regarding the process: while on the surface if appears
like due process, in reality It appears that the Commission and Council have another unspoken agenda, All along, the
questions raised by the os District owners remain unanswered: at the most basic level, what problem is the City trying to
address? Preventing large homes? EnVironmental/energy concerns? Runoff? Visual impacts? In each case, there appears
that a blunt instrument Is being applied to issues which deserve and require more finesse (and understanding). We think the
OS owners are,in general, willing to address specific issues in a balanced manner. We would like the opportunity to creatively
address all issues which impact the City at large and the as owners specifically.
As you know, PAPaS have elected to boycott tonight's meeting to send the message that we think the process is broken and
discriminatory. We hope the process can be more balanced, fair and based on facts,
Sincerely,
Mark Conroe
575 los Trancos Road
3/3/2010
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Vince [sharkstan@earlhlink.netj
Thursday, February 18,20103:18 PM
Campbell, Clare; WIlliams, Curlis; Planning Commission; City Mgr
FW: Feb 18 Community Meeting #2
To whom it may concern,
I will not be attending the community meeting February 18, 2010 as I believe that the City of
Palo Alto Is not acting in good faith nor does It appear that the city has any interest In working
with property owners. I will stand with my neighbors in boycotting the meeting.
As a citizen of Palo Alto I am distressed that the City does not and Is not protecting the interest
of a minority group of citizens. Reducing property volues, reducing property tax thus reducing
income revenues for schools, fire and police protection.
Regards
Vincent Wood
31105 Page Mill Rd.
1
COMMITTEE FOR
GREEN fOOTHilLS
Pebruary 18, 2010
Curtis Wtlliams
City of Palo Alto
Dear Curtis;
The Commiuee for Green Foothills makes the foUowing suggestions regnrding house size IJmltations, following
up 011 our letter of September 22 from last yeat and later dlscussions.
Direction from City Council. The Council directed U,. Planning and'Trnnsportation Commission to provide
the Council with options on house size limits. They did not request the recommendations focul on whelM' size limils
should be placed, but mlher to give them limit options •. Accordingly. recommendation. that foclIsed primarily on
whether limits should be placed and only secondarily on what limits should be placed would conU'adic.! Council
direction. Individuals alld groups that for their own part oppose any limits arc free to predominantly emphasize tllst
point on their own if they wish.
Lim,,, should provide 1\ range of options. Tlte Council sent tile issue back to the l'lanning Commission when
the COlltlcil was considering whether to enact staff's (non-preferred) alt_alive recommendations of limits of 8,000 to
12,000 sqUat. feet depending on parcel size. Re.turning to the City Council with those slime proposed limits is not
providing .. range of options allY greatcc than what they had in front of thtm in September. A better plaMing process
should give the Council its requeRted tange of options, with dlffering reasons for choosing differing options, and a
preferred recommendation from the PJanning Commission and possibly another from staff.
An opdon to Urn It aU/most suuc(ures on the patcelshould be included for consideration. House size
limits Ibot applied only to a main structure could be evaded. parti~lIy but not completely, by increasing thc size of
accessoly SItlICturCS. This iss"e should be explained to the City Council, with options given as to hQw to handle the
iSSue. The optiotl •• re: I. ignore it, on the reasoning that only limited amount of bulk could be added to other
SI.<Ucnttes as • practical mattet; 2. cove.r all struc",r •• with • total .floor limit to eliminate the potential ovation;
recogni~ing that the floor limit for some parcels may be more resttictive than Floor-Area ratios; or 3. blend tlle two
concepts with sop ... te limits on accessory ~tructures, particularly on second residences. TIle Committee for Green
Poothills favors option 2, with exceptions for agriculturc-rclated structures where ~griculture i. ptltcticed.
Rccommehdations should describe reason. for house size limits. TIle Council's initial direction to provide
limit options should be fleshed out by staff and the Planning Conunlsoion to include reasons for doing so. Staff h.,
mentioned severol possibilities in dle Febtuary 12 email fromC!.re Campbell. We support those recommendations,
and ~ddition.lIy suggcgt the following be presented to the City Council as it reasons it could choose to either include
or reject as re;l,ons to Unlit size:
• No langer fits the category of a single family residence_ This would recognize that. designation of
• single family home is not infinitely flexible when it cOmes to sIze As. practic.l matter, structures over
• certain size will u,uaUy be staffed,either full time or part time. and nOl occupied by • single family,
• House size is a proxy formuluplc envil6nmental f!ICtors. Energy use, carbon footprint, direct and
indirect disturbance to natural envkonments, demand for emergency services, construction impaclS,
U'affic, water usc, and other effeclS .U tend to increase with building size. A theoretical effort to limit
each impact sepacateiy would be too cumbersome, possibly mOlc restrictive in cermln aspects that size
limits, and still f~il to control some cnvironmen~.1 effects. TIlis Seems to coincide someWhal with the
staff reasoning in the February 12 email, but attelllplli to spell out the proxy function more broadly.
COMMlTl'E~ FOl
GRUM POO~lillLS )921 "E. Bayshore Road 650.968. 7243 ~ info@GreenFooth1l1s.org
Palo Alto. CA 9430J 650,968.8431 IAl< ww;!.Gr¢onFoothiHe.Ofg:
Committee for Green Foothills
February 18, 2010
Page 2 of 3
• Reasonable accommodation to homeowner interests, A size limit would be chosen that would be
sufficient to accommodate a large family, guests, and occasional large parties. The limit would allow a
very high quality of life and enable landowners to add significantly to the economic value of their parcel
compared to a small residence.
• Equity. House shoe limit in the Rl Districts is 6,000 square feet. While those parcels are much smaller
than foothill parcels, floor"area ratios are not the only reason for house size limits. If they were, FAR
could substitute entirely for house size limits. The City may instead determine that 6,000 square feet
constitutes the limit of what can still be fairly described as a single-family residence, that other reasons
described above justify the 6,000 foot limi~ and that it should be applied equaliy throughout Palo Alto.
Suggested range of options and preferred alternative. Given all the above, Committee for Green Foothills
recommends that staff and the Planning Commission provide the following range of options for house size limits:
1. Simple Equity with Flatlands. This proposal would assume the same size limits should apply in the
foothills as in the flatlands: 6,000 square feet.
2. Modified Expanded Limits, with Incentives. This is the proposal that we submitted last
September. Let owners have larger homes than in the f1ad.nds and larger still in the bigger parcels.
Set upper limits based on the assumption that owners will use an incentive system for "green" building
construction. We suggest 4,600 feet limit with a 2,000 foot expanded limit for green building on 10
acres or Jess; a 5,600 limit with 2,000 foot green building bonus On 15 acres or less; and 6,600 limit
with 2,000 foot bonus on more than 15 acres.
3. Staff proposal. The staff proposal was an 8,000 foot limit for 10 acres or less; 10,000 feet for 15
acres or less; and 12,000 feet for more than 15 acres. We will leave to staff to describe how limits as
high as these serve any of the reasons for limiting house size.
We recommend Option 2 above, so that house size limits range nom 6,600 feet to 8,600 feet in the
foothills jf owners make use of green building incentives. Even the strictest limits would still be ten percent
larger than the Rl district. We recommend the limit be applied to all non-.gricultural structures. Altern.tively, we
recommend that any limit the City Council chooses consist of an upper limit if the applicant meets certain green
building standards above minimum requlred standards, and a lower limit if the applicant only meets minimum
standards.
Recommendation for alternative compliance to intention behind house size limits. While we believe it
would be too difficult to develop broad regulatory standards that control every environmental impact regulated by
house size, it may be helpful to give applicants an alternative: aliow them to submit an application that does not meet
the size limits for their parcel but in every aspect they can describe, exceeds the environmental performance that could
be achieved through size limits. The proposal would be approved or denied by a discretionary decision of a body like
the Planning Commission. The idea is that an exceptional proposal for environmental quality might give a better
outcome for the applicant and the community.
Recommendations for is.ues raised by some landowner •. In the course of various meetings, some
landowners have raised environmental issues that deserve recognition and further attention by the City:
Basement issue. in the rest of the City. If basements are causing environmental problems elsewhere, they
should also be addressed in the other parts of the City as weli, and not just the foothills.
Light pollution of the night sky. Anything that reduces light poliution in the night sky would benefit
people throughout the City. In addition to better regulation to cut off direct lighting from leaving people's property,
Palo Alto could emulate the computer-controlled streetlight demonstration study by San Jose. "Smart" LED lights
can be programmed to be less bright later in the night after most traffic h .. cleared from streets, so less light poliution
Committee for Green Foothills
February-IS, 2010
Page 3 of3
from the flatland would reach up into the foothills, and everyone could see the stars_ Dark sky benefits to wildlife and
people h.ve also been documented in studies. More infoon.tion about the San Jose project is at
http://sanjoseca.gov Itranlij>ortation /streeWghtdell1o.asp .
Fencing that impedes wildlife movement. One landowner stated that high fences in the foothills ace
impeding wildlife movement. Committee for Green Foothills is aware of this issue in other jurisdictions. It could be
worth further investigation in Palo Alto.
We believe the recommendations above will help move the City fONlard, and follow the letter and spirit of City
Council direction.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely>
Brian A. Schmidt
Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County
" RIIlIIGIUil OpenSpace MldpenHlsula RegIOnal open ~p.le D.strict
February 18, 2010
Ms. Clare Campbell
City of Palo Alto
Re: Conslderetion of a Maximum House Size end Basement Limitations
Dear Ms, Campbell:
The Midpenlnsula Regional Open Space Dlslrlct (MROSD) would like to thank you for the
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed Maximum House Size and Basement
Limitations for the City of Palo Alto's Open Space Zona District. MROSD has previously
provided comments on revisions to the Open Space Zone Dlslr/clthat has resulted in the
proposed Maximum House Size and Basement Limitations.
Maximum House Size
Reducing building footprints by Instituting a maximum house size limit within the Open Space
Zone District (OSO) provides the City with a unique opportunity to preserve community
aesthetics, protect the natural environment and encQurage sustainable growth. Large homes
often require more natural resources to build, operete, and maIntain. Withoutlmplementa!lon of
green building techniques. larger homes consume mora energy, especlelly those havIng a
complex geometry requiring longer runs for ductlng and piping which can result in energy loss
during conveyance of wann or cool air or hot water. The increased footpnnt of larger homes
results In addlUonallmpermeable surface within the OSO. Stormwater that encounters
Impermeable surfaces can pick up pollutants and Increase in velocity as it flows toward
penneable surfaces and natul'l:ll drainage channels. Increasad run off and velocity can result In
pollution of surface waters, downstream flooding, erosion of stream ohannel banks, and less
available water for groUndwater rech<lrge. By Instituting a maximum hou6e sl~, and
encouraging the use of permeable surfaces surrounding these homas, potential negative
Impaots can be reduced.
To further reduce environmental impacts, the MROSD recommands that basements be included
when .:;:alculating the maximum house slza. By InclUding basements In the calculation the City
will be promoilng new homes with smaller footprints that raqulre fewer resources to heat and
cool. Selling a maximum housa size eliminates competitive building for the sake of .building by
preventing new construction that emphaSizes .. outdoing" an earlier projact based on sheer size
alone and Instaad encourages builders to compete In design, .construction materials, and
craftsmanship of the homes resulting in more effJclent, sustainable. and desirable homes.
Houses within tha Open Space Zone District should fit the scale <lnd character of the
surroundings, not detract from them. The 080 is dominated by roiling hillsides. natural
vegetation and eXpansive views. Homas within the OSD should be well crafted end tastefully
sized to prevent negative visual Impacts within the 080. New houses or additions should not be
massive or "overbuilt". Excessively large homes located in the wildland urban interface (where
humans and their development meet or Intermix with wildland fuel) requira more fire resistant
construction techniques and may require a larger area of vegetation modification to prolectthe
Ms, Clare Campbell
Conslderatlon of a Maximum House Size and Basement limitations
February 18, 2010
home, resulting in a larger area of disturbance to native vegetation. Larger areas of ground
disturbance are subject to invasion by weed species and can result in a reduction in acreage of
native vegetallve communities and disruption to wildlife habitat.
Larger building footprints also result in less available area within the parcel for homeowners to
Implement defensible space. Property owners should be able to maintain up to 100 feet of
defensible space contained within their own parcel when their homes are located adjacent to
natural vegetallve communities. Larger housing footprints require a greater fireflghtlng effort, as
therers more surface area exposed to wildfire flames and firebrands. Implementing a maximum
house size, especially one that includes basement square footage, will result in less above
ground surface area of homes that is exposed to wildland fire.
MROSD is supportive of the City's desire to implement a maximum house size as it directly
addresses the purpose and intent of the OSD which is identified as "agricultural land, scenic
land, recreation land, conservation or natural resource land, containment of urban sprawl, and
retention of land in its natural state: Setting maximum house size limits coupled with the City's
maximum impervious coverage limits accommodates residential land use that avoids sprawl
and the construction of overbuilt homes while maximizing retention of the land in its natural state
within the OSD,
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input regarding the zoning ordinance update. If
you have any questions, please contact Julie Andersen, Resource Planner I, by calling (650)
691·1200.
Sincerely,
-:£~$~
Planning Manager
cc: Stephen E. Abbors, General Manager
MROSD Board of Directors
City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioners
Page 1 ofl
Betten, Zarlah
From: bluestonehome [blueslonehome@earthlink,netj
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:20 PM
To: Campbell, Clare; Williams, Curtis
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Feb 18 Community Meeting #2
Curtis Williams and Clare Campbell:
We will not be attending the community meeting tonight, February 18, 2010. We will stand with our
neighbors in boycotting the meeting. Our purpose in boycotting the meeting is to make a clear statement
to the Planning Commission and the City Council that the recommendations to come from the process are
not endorsed by the homeowners.
It appears that some Council members may have gotten the impression that because homeowners took
time and showed up at community meetings -that the property owners substantially contributed to the
Commission's recommendation. That has not been the case and as homeowners in the District, we do not
support the rezoning which has already been enacted,
We do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations the staff have made to date, nor the
changes already enacted to the zoning regulations regarding Maximum House Size. The proposed
restrictions on basements are not being imposed on other areas of the City, and are in fact discriminatory.
It puzzles us that the City is not encouraging basements, but rather discouraging their use, particularly in
the Open Space District. There is no finding of fact that a basement creates a problem. Basements
generally reduce the above-grade mass of a structure and can lead to a reduction in the overall visual
impact of the structure. If carbon footprint issues are a factor, we urge you to apply these measures to all
building throughout Palo Alto, so that you do not discriminate against a minority of 80 property owners in
the Open Space District.
As citizens of Palo Alto and residents of the Open Space District lor 20 years, we are distressed that the
City does not and is not protecting the interest 01 a group of citizens, albeit a minority. The City appears to
be spending significant effort and tax dollars -in the form of Staff and Council time -on a solution looking
for a problem. We have been confused about the problem to be addressed by the zoning changes. We
believe that parcels in the district are so diverse in size, topography, landscaping, and visibility, and we
should rely, as previously done, on the Site and Design Review process to determine which developments
make sense on specific properties, rather than attempting to legislate this.
We would look forward to a future meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to address our
grievances with the process and proposed discriminatory actions.
Please add these comments to the public record.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Roskos
Scott Selover
4020 Page Mill Road
313/2010
Betten, Zarlah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
cathy cartmell [cathy@cartmelltam.com]
Thursday, February 18. 2010 10:28 AM
Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare
Planning Commission
feb 18 community meeting
To whom it may concern,
I will not be attending the community meeting February 18, 2010. I will stand with my neighbors
in boycotting the meeting.
That while the staff is very nice, the meetings provided by the staff for community Input, seem
only to serve the objective of downzonlng the residential properties abutting the open space
without a clear ond coherent reason. The City has demonstroted that the opinions of the property
owners count for nothing. The City staff comes to the meeting and says this is what we intend to
do. The residents object. The city writes up a report on what they intend to do and that they
have discussed it with the property owners. The conclUsions drawn by the staff have never
reflected the opinions of the Property owners, except on a few very minor points, Curtis Williams
pointed out that yes they have made concessions to the Property owners, the residential properties
abutting the open space are now allowed to have garbage enclosures woo hoolll, that Is after a
design review, permit and fees. To me this is ridiculous after reducing our development rights by
50% that 'in exchange' we are allowed garbage enclosure. In addition the Planning Commission and
the City Council is not aware of what the residents said or what has been discussed at the
meetings. What is the purpose of a 'working group'?
A maximum house sin is already addressed with the extremely restrictive
FAR(3.5'Yo) and does not require any additional regulations. I am concerned about the definition of
FAR and Maximum House Size as some have suggested that Maximum House Size supercedes FAR
and includes all buildings and not just the main house as we have been publicly told. What is the
definition of FAR and Maximum House Size?
Basements should not be a special issue for the Residential Properties abutting the Open Space,
though we do not in general have ground water issues, or cloSe neighbor issues, etc. But if it is
being decided on carbon foot print issues this is something that must in all fairness be applfed to
all building in Palo Alto, not just a minority of 80 property owners.
I keep hearing the revision in the zoning ordinance waslls to fix some 'loop hole' In the regulations
regarding impervious material (that technologically advanced materials created a situation where
property owners can build larger, this is a false premise as gravel was always allowed and not
counted as Impervious coverage). This supposed 'loop hole' was 'fixed' 3 years ago at the very
beginning of this process. So, If Impervious surface area is not the reason what is the purpose of
the additional regulation? What is the greater good being served by down zoning our property?
Visibility?
Visibility issues are addressed over and over in the existing regulations.
1
As a citizen of Palo Alto I am distressed that the City does not and is not protecting the interest
of a minority group of citizens. Reducing property values, reducing property tax thus reducing
income revenues for schools, fire and police protection.
cathy cartmell
2
Betten, Zariah
From: Inmaculada del Castillo [inmaculada_del_castlllo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:24 AM
To: Planning Commission; Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare
SubJect: Planning Department meeting on Thurday Feb 18
Regarding today's meeting,
I am boycotting the Planning Department meeting due to the fact that the recommendations that
the staff Is going to present does not have Into consideration the Property Owner
views. Moreover, it seems that on the regular bases our views, the Property Owner,
Pagel of 1
are being Ignored, and we protest your Implication that you have listened to our views and are representing
them.
We, my husband and I, do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations
the staff have made to date nor the changes already enacted to the zoning regulations.
It seams that we, the Property Owners of the Palo Alto Open Space, has being singled out
and are being dlscrlmlna.ted with draconian laws that pretend to be green. While in reality
If Palo Alto City Hall desired to have green laws the burden of the laws should distributed
equally between all Palo Alto residents. The recommendations that at this moment the
staff have made will not seriously Impact the environment. If you wanted to make any Impact,
then try applying these same recommendations across the entire city of Palo Alto, and you would
find an overwhelming opposition to your proposals.
We call for you to be honest in saying that the property owners are highly opposed to your proposed changes.
Inmaculada and dave
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
3/3/2010
Page I of I
Betten, Zarlah
From: David Hopkins [dtfopkins12@hotmail.comj
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 201010:15 PM
To: Williams, Curtis
Cc: Jan Terry; bluestonehome@earthlink.net; ken@scoltda.com; pingem@yahoo.com; blllierry@sbcglobal.net;
mark@presidiodp.com; losqatcsl@aol.com; lawlnvesl@mac.com; losqatclea@aol.com; tony@cartmelllam.com;
stluclw@yahoo.com; Vernon Altman; sharksfan@earthllnk.net; al@nerds.com; dulitz@gmail.com;
katle@alcorn.tv; amazing_grace41 @hotmail.com: fkirkman@earthllnk.net; medlaproJect@igc.org; Campbell,
Oare; plannlngcommisslon@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Your meeting with reSidents of the Open Space Residential District
Dear Mr. Williams -
I understand that the residents of the OS Residential district have been Invited to yet another community
meeting tomorrow to discuss the City's plans to downzone our district. I know that you have heard from a
number of our neighbors about the frustrations we have after attending numerous meetings, repeatedly asking
for an explanation for why our properties should be subjected to legal restrictions that do not apply to any other
reSidential areas of Palo Alto, and receiving answers that don't justify this form of discrimination. We do not
see merit In attending any further meetings with your staff and members of the community who do not bear
any consequences of the proposed actions to downzone our properties. Therefore, we will not attend any
further such meetings. We do look forward to meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to
address our grievances with the process and proposed discriminatory actions.
Sincerely,
David and Rosemary Hopkins
Hotmali: Powerful Free emali with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
3/3/2010
Betten, Zarlah
From:
Sent:
To:
Co:
Subject:
Hello,
Sharon Luciw [stluclw@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8;49 PM
Planning Commission
Williams, Curtis; Campbell, Clare
Planning Commission Community Meeting for the Open Space Residential District 01 Palo
Alto set for Feb 18th.
I do not plan on attending the community meeting on Thursday, February 18, 2010 because of
past reports made by the staff, in which they state: the property owners of the Palo Alto Open
Space Residential District have had cooperative and productive meetings with the staff and have
agreed to the outcomes of the meetings and recommendations of the staff.
An example of not being a cooperotive atmosphere was when the gentleman representing green
space responded to me in a threatening tone after I suggested all properties should be allowed to
have a second unit, not just those 3 acres or more. In so many words he said, in this case he
would not allow ANY properties to have a second unit. I was quite taken aback by this response.
I didn't know he had more say in the outcome of the meeting than the property owners.
I do not agree with any of the outcomes and recommendations the staff have made to date nor
the changes already enacted to the zoning regulations. As I have stated in two of the public
meetings -one with the commission and one with the city council, it appears there is a solution
looking for a problem.
In regards to the maximum house size, basement restrictions and the changes enacted by the city
council regarding second units being restricted to 10 acres or more, many of the statements made
by the city council appear to come from personal opinions and not from research data, based on
the comprehensive plan, or on the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Regarding the council's decision on the second units, It was base on the idea staff would be hired
and they did not want to increase traffic on the roads. Where is the traffic study report of the
area? No one sited an environmental impact report either. If an owner chooses to hire a house
keeper, not having second unit probably is not going to prevent this staff from being hired. In
fact, it will have more of an impact on the environment by having the staff commute to the
property on a daily basis.
Visitors from all over the world drive on Page Mill Road in the hills to see the views of valley and
travel to the ocean along the scenic highways of the area. I know this because they ask for
directions to the nearest gas station and it is quite obvious they are not from this country.
Additionally, the Open Space groups encourage people to visit and hike in the open space. In fact,
1
the area across the road from my property now has street signs on the hiking trails to guide
people along the way and they have made improvements to the pathways to encourage more
visitors. In a sense the green and open space organizations are encouraging more traffic to the
area.
In order to understand if a change creates the Intended outcome, you need to makes changes one
or two at a time. Adding maximum house size to the recent addition of FAR to 'prevent mega
homes' will not allow the city to see clearly which, if any of the changes have produced the
desired result. I also want to add that 'preventing mega homes' from being built In the Open
Space Residential District doesn't appear to be a part of the city's comprehensive plan.
As some of my neighbors have pointed out to me, restricting or preventing basements could have a
negative impact on the environment by forcing property owners to store items off site, which will
Increase traffic in the area. Basements can be use to reduce heating and cooling needs for the
home and I believe this needs to be taken into consideration.
The changes Palo Alto has and is trying to enact for my property, puzzles me.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Sharon Luciw
2