Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-03 City Council (3)City of PaSo A to Manager’s Rep r TO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: MARCH 3, 2003 CMR:185:03 PLANNING AND TtL~NSPORTATION CONEVIISSION REVIEW AND COMMENT ON TH~ PROPOSED SANTA CLARA COUNTY DISTRICT TEXT REVISIONS FOR THE STANFORD OPEN SPACE/FIELD RESEARCH (OS/F) ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE 2000 STANFORD COS~MUNITY PLAN This is an information report and no Council action is required. BACKGROUND At several meetings in 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) discussed the proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District (OS/F) that was prepared by the County of Santa Clara to implement the Stanford Community Plan adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in December 2000. On both July 1 and December 2, the City Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the PTC as stated in letters sent to both the County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning Commission. On December 5, 2002 Councilmember Burch, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Packer and staff attended the County Planning Commission meeting on the OS/F item. At that meeting the County Planning Commission requested County staff to address seven issues which axe described in the attached PTC staff report. These recommendations were initiated by County Planning Commissioner Tan, who represents District 5 which includes Palo Alto. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the PTC meeting, staff explained that the revised ordinance addresses many of the issues raised by the PTC at previous meetings on this topic. Staff supports the revisions as proposed and did not recommend inclusion of four additional changes recommended previously by the PTC for the following reasons" CMR:185:03 Page 1 of 3 Limiting utility extensions to Stanford uses only. The adopted Community Plan allows for utility infrastructure under the allowable uses of the OS/F designation, which by definition in the County zoning ordinance allows commercial facilities. The Board of Supervisors specifically allowed for revenue~generating commercial utilities in this area. Require Open space dedication in exchange for any development in the OS/F district. The Community Plan obliquely calls for dedication of open space only when development is clustered. The Board incorporated reference to the County Hillsides Zoning District as the model for developing the OS/F Zoning District; the Hillsides Zoning District requires open space dedication only for clustered development. Ensure fences do not impede migation of wildlife. The City recommended that the County use the City’s Comprehensive Plan Open Space criteria and Open Space Zoning District as models for developing standards of review for the OS/F zoning district. Neither of these identify restrictions for wildlife rnigation. Prohibit relocation of caretaker residences. The field research uses are impermanent; this may necessitate relocation of caretaker facilities when uses change. In addition, the relocation of these residences would be subject to regulations related to visual and environmental protection now incorporated in the proposed text. County staff was in attendance at the PTC meeting to respond to questions from the PTC regarding the changes to the zoning text and to explain the view shed analysis undertaken by the County, described in the attached County staff report, which identifies areas where development in the OS/F zoning district should be restricted. One speaker provided testimony and expressed concern regarding the Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) process for review of projects that exceed the standards allowed by right. The PTC commended the County on the considerable progress that had been made in revising the proposed OS/F ordinance text. The PTC directed staff to forward to the County Planning Commission its support for the revised ordinance with the following three additional comments: 1) Amend the OS/F zoning ordinance as trails are identified by the County and Stanford to include the trails as protected view sheds within the OS/F district. 2) Regulate fencing through the ASA process to minimize impacts to wildlife migation while respecting the needs of ag~cultural leaseholders and acknowledging Stanford’s need to protect research equipment. 3)Notify the District 5 representative on the County Planning Commission when OS/F projects are considered by the ASA Committee. CMR:185:03 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Staff Report to Planning Commission, including attachments PREPARED BY: Ju!~a~or~,no, A,d~a~e Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: STEVE EMSLIE ~’ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager co:Tim Heffington, Planner, Count), of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, Planning Office, County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110-17050 Charles Carter, Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305-6115 CMR: 185:03 Page 3 of 3 PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: PLAI\~-ING & TtLA~NSPORTATION COMMISSION Julie Caporg-no DEP.a~RTMENT: Advance Planning Manager Planning AGENDA DATE: SUVBJECT: February 26, _00~ Review and comment on the Revisions to the Proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council support the revisions to the Open Space/Field Research (OS!F) Zoning District prepared by County staff and forward to the Count)7 Plalming Commission and Board of Supervisors a recommendation that the Board approve the text as proposed. BACKGROUND At several meetings in 2002, the P&TC discussed the proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District (OS/F) that was prepared by the County.. of Santa Clara to implement the Stanford Community Plan adopted by the County Board of Super~’isors in December of 2000. On both July 1 and December 2, 2002, the City Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the P&TC as stated in letters sent to both the County Board of Supervisors and the Count?., Planning Commission. These letters are included as Attachment A. In both letters forwarded to the Count),, the City recommended that the Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District text further limit development allowed under the proposed zoning district by requiring specific findings for those projects that require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). Specifically, the following zoning text changes were recommended: City of Palo Alto Page 1 Incorporate a height restriction in confomaance with the Conm~unity Plan limiting structures in general to below the 200-foot elevation. Identify specific measures to regulate site access. Regulate the extension of utilities on site to Stanford uses. Limit height and design of fences to ensure ruination of wildlife. Require an open space dedication for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict the open space dedication to the OS!F district. Specifically identi~’ applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City’s Open Space Zoning District regulations and Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development Criteria. Allow caretaker’s residences only as non-conforming uses, prohibiting their expansion and allowing only for repair and maintenance, and not al!owing for their relocation. The P&TC also recommended that the ordinance text incorporate the General Use Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire within a ten-year timeframe or can change on application by the Count?,. The P&TC supported an open space requirement for both clustered and non-clustered projects with the open space component not allowed transferred to the yet-to-be-established Special Conservation Area, which will prohibit development. The County Planning Commission was originally scheduled t9 make a recommendation on the zoning text in June; however, as a result of the numerous comments received related to the proposed zoning text, the County Planning Conm~ssion continued the item to December 5. At its December 5th meeting, the Count), Planning Commission requested County staff to address several Count), Commission concerns regarding the proposed zoning text; the Commission continued the item to early February to allow staff adequate time to respond. In response to their Commission’s issues, Count)’ staff conducted a viewshed analysis of the OS/FR zoning district and developed supplemental ASA findings for the restricted range of a!lowable uses within this zoning district. At its February 5th meeting, the Count?, Planning Commission continued the OS/F item for one month to allow adequate time for additional public review of the staff-reconnnended changes. DISCUSSION The following discussion identifies the issues raised by the PT&C at previous meetings and summarizes how the modified zoning text responds to each issue. Actual zoning text language and a more detailed analysis of the changes are included in Attachment B. o Restrict development in the foothills to below 200 feet The P&TC supported limiting development in general to below the 200-foot elevation unless City of Palo Alto Page 2 sufficient justification and reasonable findings can be made through a separate permit process. Based on County Planning Commission direction, the OS/FR text was revised by County staff to provide ~eater protection and analysis of potential impacts to visual resources by requiring findings that address areas of high visibility, including additional development standards requiring new siting considerations, and allowing development only in areas of lowest visibility unless there is compelling justification for placement in areas of higher visibility. o Regulate access to sites and limit paving or other impervious surfaces The P&TC recommended that access criteria should be established for ASA findings and that impera,ious surfaces be either limited or prohibited. The County Planning Commission requested that impacts associated with roads be addressed including road access and impervious cover. In response, County staff incorporated supplemental ASA findings that address road compatibility with the predominantly natural/rural setting of the zoning district and encourage minimizing impera;ious cover. o Regulate the extension of utilities The P&TC recommended that the location, size, capacity and number of utilities should be regulated, that utilities on site should be limited to serving only Stanford uses and that commercial antennas should not be considered a permitted us~. The County Planning Corrmaission requested County staff to identify ways to minimize impacts associated with commercial antennas and utility infrastructure. In response, County staff developed supplemental ASA findings that address environmental impacts and recommended revisions to the zoning text to target areas of lower visibility for development of utility infrastructure. o Provide development standards to limit discretion but allow some flexibility. P&TC considered the ASA process contingent upon the development of tight standards for review; therefore, the P&TC requested the inclusion of specific development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, siting and orientation to ensure enviromnental compatibility. The County staff revised the ordinance to include the application of ASA findings. Generally, the. findings focus on the protection of environmental and visual resources. Color, desig-n and paint reflectivity would also be addressed in the ASA findings. The Count), staff considers that the proposed ASA findings coupled with the viewshed analysis and zoning text revisions provide sufficiently stringent standards to ensure viewshed and environmental protection. Specifically identify the intensity of development, the range of uses, and bff0e of development that could occur in the district. The P&TC recorrm~ended that the OS!F text incorporate the GUP restrictions, standards and City of Palo Alto Page 3 conditions since the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and should not be dependent on new use permit restrictions. The County Planning Commission requested that the County staff explore an option for providing Planning Commission review of structures of 1000 square feet or more. County staffrecommended restricting structures of 1000 feet or more to areas outside of medium-high to high visibility as determined by the County viewshed analysis unless specific circumstances allow an ASA waiver. At the request of the Count), Planning Commission, Coun~ staff did explore use of Palo Alto’s Open Space District findings for the OS/F District and incorporated some standards related to impervious surface considerations and tree and habitat protection similar to those of Palo Alto. Count?’ staff considers that elements in the Palo Alto Open Space Zoning district are already included in other sections of the Count), Zoning Ordinance. The County’s approach to developing the OS/F zoning district has been to avoid repeating all applicable standards in each zoning district. ~ Restrict caretaker’s residences The P&TC also discussed Stanford’s request for caretaker’s residences and recommended allowing the existing use as non-conforming and allowing repair and maintenance if required but not permitting any relocation or expansion of the use. Count?, staff has proposed that a cumulative total of five caretaker residences be allowed. Any legal structures that have been converted to caretaker use will then be considered an allowed use under the definition of caretaker residence. Any legal structures that have been converted to caretaker use will be considered legal, nonconforming uses and may be relocated, replaced or modified provided that there is no increase in overall square footage. o Prohibit transfer of open space to other districts/require dedication for development At the direction of the County Pla~ming Commission, County staff modified the draft ordinance to delete the allowance for open space dedication within Special Conservation Areas and restrict open space dedication to the OSFF district consistent with the position of the P&TC. Currently the ordinance requires the dedication of open space only when development is clustered; the P&TC supported dedication of open space for non-clustered as well as clustered development. ~Ensure fences do not impede mi~ation of wildlife The proposed zoning text incorporates language that requires that fences be desig-ned to minimize visual impacts to the natural setting, consistent with the existing Count)~ regulations for fences in rural districts. There is no specific provision in the ordinance that addresses ruination of wildlife. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In conclusion, staff considers the proposed zoning text overall implements the direction of the Community Plan and General Use Permit. COURTESY COPIES: Tim Heffington, Planner, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency, Planning Office, County Government Center, East Wing, "7th Floor, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110-17050 Charles Carter, Plamaing Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305- 6115 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Letters from Cib~ Council to County, dated September 18 and December 3, 2002. Attachment B:Count),of Santa Clara Planning Commission Staff Report ,;¯,¯ ~/ ¯,, " ~ ~k~,endas/StaffRe orts,"Item4FileS~14ht~:i~www.sccplanmng.org@anmn-, content~Meenn~s~ ~,P . 0203.pdf Prepared by:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote,Chief Planning Official Paoe 5City of Palo Alto ~ Attachment A Septemb:r 1 B, 2002 Board of Supe~,lso~s/Pimnning Commission Coun~~ of Santa Clara 7~ CoumD’ Government Center, East Wing, Floor 7 0 West H~d~g S~e~i SUBJECT:Ci~’ Council Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text This letter is to for-ward to the Board of Supemdsors/Couniy Planning Commission the Ciw of Pa]o .~Jto’s comments on the nroposed Stamord Umverm : CommuniD~ Plan Open Space,~ield Research (OS/Z) Zoning District tex-t that wil! be reviewed by the CounD, Planning Cormmission a: its October 3rd meeting. The proposed te~ was placed on the Council’s consent calendar Of July 1s~. The Council unanimottsly supported the noskion endorsed by the Planning Commission after its careful review and deliberation. The Palo .Q~0 Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning district text at four senarate meetings~ At one of those meetings staff from the County Planning office or~vided an ove~dew of the Stanford ComrnuniD’ Plan and General Use Permit and the interr, elationship of the proposed zoning district..As a result of the discussion, the Planning Con.mission forwarded a letter tothe CounD~ Planning Commission on May 30, 2002. That letter is attached and forms the basis for the Cib~ Counci! comments to the CounT. In ~_eneral. the allowed uses and development standards ~%r the OSfR Zoning District are considered conis"c~nt wKh th~ imnlementaion ~rec.~on of the Stanford Comrnunkv Plan: however, the cib’ has some conce__rns related to ¢=he proposed zoning tha~ are highlighted be!ow. The ordinance neeas mor~ daily; stracture ant definition ~or projects tha~ .... "Sit~ A~provalsm_ndards al!oweo- b?, ,ngh: and re~mre Archkecmr~ and ~ ~ (ASA). 250 H~ ,-~!ton Aveenue RO. Box !~250 Paio .~lto, CA 9a~03 650.3292~! 650.329 2154 fax Pa~e 2 of 3 Le~er to Board oi Supe~,~sors,~lanmng Commission September 18,200~_ The City recommends thmt sneciI%c fmdinzs are re~quired for those projects similar Co the process established in the Counw Hillside Zoning Dis~ct for uses pe_mu~-~e~ subject to secminZ a special peru-lit. Speci,_Scaliy the zoning distich-should include criteria for £udkngs tha~ address the followinz: The Cin~ recommends that the Counb~ use as a model the CfW’s Open Space Zoning Disnict’for developLng stmndards of review. The City dewloped these standards for land inat is substantially shnilar to the Stanford OSiR area, which allow maximum development of two stories ~dth 25-foot devadons. .&tracheal to t]is letter are the pertinent sections related to the Open Space Dis~ct from the City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter ! g.?i (18.71 .t40 Special P~e=o~tlati0ns). These reg-ulations address geolozical and soils investiga-don, landscaping; i%ncing, tree removal; access, ~adin[, and soil erosion. The City also recommends tMt the ordin~mce text incorporate the Oeneral Use Penmit restrictions, s*~mcL~ds and conditions sin~e the ,use pe~-mit will expire within ~ ten-Te~ timefrarne ~r can chan~e on apptica~on by the Count’. ~en ~ither of these occurs, the zoning should contLnue to dictate parameters for future enddement and should not o~y be dependent on fne new use permit r~s~ictions. Tne Cib~ also r~.~.om_m~.nds an open space n.qu~.m~.m zor non-ct~tered d~ donm~m and that fo~ bo~i clustered ~d non-d~t~r~d projects th~ open spac~ component is not .. ....~p~c.ml Conse~,adon ~eas. whichilowed to be ~fe~ed to the v~t-to-be-esta~hsnea ~ ~ ’ ". - already pro~bit developm~n:. December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission County of Santa Clara County Government Center, East Wing, 7th F!oor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 SUBJECT:City Council Review of Proposed Stanford Open Space/!=ield Research Zoning District Text This letter is tO forward to the Board of Supervisors!County Planning Commission the City of Palo A_ko’s comments on the County staff revisions to the proposed Stanford University Community Plan Open Space~ield Research (OS/R) Zoning District text that will be reviewed by the County Planning Commission at its December 5th meeting. Both the City’ s Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council previously commented on the zoning text last summer. The Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the revisions to the proposed zoning district text on November 20, 2002. The proposed revisions to the text were placed on the Council’ s consent calendar of December 2rid. The Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the Planning Commission after careful review and deliberation. Based on the limited changes made to the zoning text, most of the comments made in the City’s previous letters are reiterated. The City restates that the ordinance needs more structure and definition for projects that exceed the standards allowed by right and require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). The City recommends that specific findings are required for those projects similar to the process established in the County Hillside Zoning District for uses permitted subject to securing a special permit. As previously recommended, the City’s Open Space Zoning District could be used as a model for developing standards of review. In addition, as suggested by the Planning Commission at its recent meeting on the OSft=, the City’s Open Space Development Criteria found in the Comprehensive Plan could also be used as a model. The City developed both the standards and criteria for land that is substantially similar to the Stanford OS/R area. Attached to this letter are the pertinent sections related to the Open Space District from the Ciu"s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.71 (18.71.140 Special Regulations). The pertinent regulations address geologica! and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access, ~ading, and soi! erosion The Open Space Development Criteria from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are also attached. Specifically the zoning district should include criteria for findings that address the following: P.O. Box 10°-50 Palo_Alto, C_% 9&303 ~15. 329. 2477 415.328.3631 Pax Board of Supervisors/PlanrLing Commission County of Santa Clara December 3, 2002 Page 2 Regulate access to sites. Regulate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal environmental impacts and limit the utilities to serving only Stanford University. Regulate trails and roads to either limit or prohibit paving or other imper~,ious surfaces. Require an open space dedication for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict the open space dedication to the OS!K district. Ensure that fences do not impede the ruination of wildlifeby limiting height and requiring an open desig-n. Prohibit development above the 200 foot elevation unless sufficient justification and reasonable findings can be made through a separate permit process involving an advertised public hearing. The City also continues to recommend that the ordinance text incorporate the General Use Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire within a ten-year timeframe or can Change on application by the Count),. When either of these occurs, the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and should not only be dependent on the new use permit restrictions. The City also recommends that the text also cross- reference relevant sections of the Community Plan when applicable. The City also considered the recent request by Stanford University to amend the OS/t= zoning district text to allow a limited number of caretaker’s residences to oversee livestock within the zoning district. The City recommends allowing the existing caretaker’s residences only as non- conforming uses and allowing repair and maintenance if required, but not permitting any relocation or expansion of the use. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of its recommendations. The proposed zoning text is an important issue for the City since the Open Space/Field Research Zoning District is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and located in an environmentally sensitive area. The City continues to request any further revisions to the proposed text be forwarded to both our Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, VICTOR O JA_KL%N Mayor Attachments: Policy N-7, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Excerpt Palo ,Qto Municipal Code 18.7!.!40 "P~OGRA~ ?,’-6: As part of the desi~n revi~u, process for proposed development in the Open Space zone dLstrict that exceeds 6,500 sq~re feet, req~re that "sto~, pomp" be erected with out~ning tape dep~ng the bu~ing ~ ~ca~n, balk a~ he~ht to a~ in assess~g the potential v~uaI impacts of the proposed project. PoHc] N-7: _3all development in the foothill portion of the Plamaing .&rea (i.e., above Jmaipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following eriterla: i Embracing lhe rX~ew Century N-5 (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.71.080 Maximum building coverage.// The maximum imper~do~us area and building coverage sha!l be 3.5 percent; provided that where a portion or a subdivision vdth cl~tered lots of less than ten acir~.s in size comains an area rendered undevelopable by an 0p~n space restriction, the im~l~rvious covera_~e which would other~dse be allotted to this undevelopable area shall be// . transferred to those lots within the subdivision on which development will b/@ermitted in a pr~o.portional manner, based on lot size. ¯ (Ord. ~,345 § 18, 1982: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.71.090 Front yard... ~ Front yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 meters (thirty fee~ (Ord. ~048 (part), 1978) . //¯ 18.71.100 T Side yards. ,~ ,/~Side yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 met~,rsS, tNrtT feet).(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978). / " /18.71.110 Rear yards./ . Rear yards shall be a minimumof 9/dl meters(thirty feet). Chapter 20.08 of this code shad(be followed for the purpose of determining legal setback requirements./ (Ord. 4016 § 47, !99!)./ 18.71.120 Auto!mobile. Four c~ces shall be required for each dwelling unit, one of which shall be covered partdr)g. S" much spaces shall not be located in any required front or side yard. (Ord. 3048/art), 1978)’ 18.7~130 Building height limit. // Buildings shall not.exceed two stories, or 7.6 meters (twenD--five feet). (/Of& 3048 (pat’S). 1978) 18.71.140 Special regulations. (a) Geolo~cal Soils Investigation and Report. AI! applications for site and desi~ approval shall be accompanied by a combined in-depth geolo=~c and soils investigation and report prepared by a registered geologist certified by the sta~e of California as an en~eering geologist, and by a licensed civil engineer qualified in soil mechanics. Such report shall be based on surface, subsurface, and laboratory investigations and examinations and shall fully and clearly present: (1)All pertinent data, interpretations, and evaluations; (2)The si=cmfificance of the data, interpretations, and evaluations ~ith respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended land uses, and with respect to the effect upon future geolo~cal processes both on and offthe site; (3) R.ecommendations for an), additional investigations-that should be made. All costs and expenses incurred as a result of the requbements of this section, including the costs and expense of an independent review of the material submitted under this chapter by qualified persons retained by the city, shall be borne by the applicant. This requirement may be waived by the cib’ engineer for structures in Group M occupancy, as defined in the Uniform Building Code, accessory facilities and landscaping where such improvements, in his opinion, would pose no potential hazard to life or properb, on the subject or surrounding properties. (b) Landscaping. The existing natural vegetation and land formations shall remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be necessary for a specific use allowed in this chapter through the .site and desi~m~ approval procedure. Reduction or elimination of fire hazards ~411 be required where heavy concentrations of flammable vegetation occur. Landscaping as may be necessary and required shall be consistent v~dth the purpose of this chapter. (c) Fencing Restriction. No barbed wdre, or similar fencing having a cutting edge, may be installed except: (1) To protect a vegetative communib~ or wdldlife habitat until it is fully established, subject to the imposition of reasonable time limits throu=~h site and desi~n review pursuant to Chapter 18.82; and (2) To enclose utilib~ facilities, including, but not limited to, water or sewage pumps; storage tanks; and wells. (d) Tree Kemoval. iKernoval of live trees shall be permitted as provided in Title 8. (e) Access to P~emote Areas. Koads, tracks; driveways, trails, or runways for automobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles or-other wheeled vehicles shall not be developed except upon the securing of site and desig~n approval..No such approval shall be =~anted except upon finding that the purpose for which the roads, tracks, driveways, ~rails, or runways are proposed is essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the desig~n and location of the proposed roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways will be compatible ~4th the terrain. The use of al! roads, trac~, driveways, trails, or runways existing at the time of the adoption of this chapter which are nonconfo_rming or have been established without proper approvals shall be terminated and shall be returned to natural terrain unless given approval in accordance with the regulations set forth in this chapter. (f) Grading. _No ~ading for which a ~ading permit is required shall be authorized except upon the securing of site and desig-n approval. No such approval shall be ~anted except upon a finding that the purpose for which the ~ading is proposed is essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the design, scope, and location of the grading proposed will be compatible with adjacent areas and vii! result in the least disturbance of the terrain and natural land features. All ~ading for which no permits or approvals are required shall be subject to the provisions set forth in this chapter. (g) Soil Erosion and Land Management. No site and design plan shall be approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment control measures in accordance v~ith any adopted procedures., technical standards., and specifications of the planning commission. No approval ~dll be granted unless all needed erosion control measures have been completed or substantially provided for in accordance v~ith said standards and specifications. The applicant shall bear the final responsibility, for the installation and consWaction of all required.erosion torer!! measures according to the provisions of said standards and specifications. (h) Subdi~dsion. AJl divisions of land into four or more parcels shall be designed on the cluster principle and shall be designed to minimize roads; to minimize cut, fi!!, and grading operations; to locate development in less rather than more conspicuous areas; and to achieve the purpose of this chapter. (i) Substandard Lots. Any parcel of land not meeting the area or dimension requirements of this chapter is a lav~ful building site if such parcel was a lawful building siie on July 5, 1972. All other requirements of this chapter shall apply to any such parcel. (Ord. 3583 §§ 14, 15.. 1984; Ord. 3340 § 4: 1982; Ord. 3048 (part).. 1978) ./" Chapter 18.72 AC.AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION ~ DISTRICT REGULATIONS ~/Sections:~18.72.010 Specific purposes.~18.72.020 AppiicabiliW ofre_~ulafions. ~ 18.72.030 Permittedudes. ~ ~ 18.72.040 Conditional uses. /- 18.72.050 Site development relations. 18.72.060 Partdng and loa~g.. 18.72.070 Specialreq/~j~ments. 18.72.010 Specific.p)rfposes, . The AC a~~rmit agricultural and compatible uses o~roperta~ essentially in its natura!, (O~art), !978)..72.020 Applicability ofreeulations. County of Santa Clara Attachment B STAFF REPORT Planning Commission February 6, 2003 Item #4 File: 8214:00-00-01Z Stanford University Open Space/Field Research Zoning Amendment Continued public hearing to consider revised zoning text amendment to establish a new zoning designation (Open Space and Field Research) for lands with this land use designation under the General Plan (2000 Stanford University Community Plan). Staff Recommendation: Accept public comment, provide direction to staff if necessary, and continue hearing until March _00~. Applicant: Location: Property Address: Gem Plan Designation: Current Zoning: Property, Size: Present Land Use: Supervisorial District: Williamson Act: Santa Clara County Stanford University All lands within the Open Space/Field Research Land Use designation of the 2000 Stanford University Community Plan Stanford University Community Plan: Open Space/Field Research A1, A1-20s, A1-20s-sr Approximately 1843 acres Open Space/Field Research #5 No Staff report prepared: Prepared by: Approved by: January 28, 2003 ..~._ . Tim Heffington, Planne! } r~ ]~.,~ ~ ~.nn Draper, Planning Director ~ Planning Commission Hearing Februa~’ 6, .00. Item #4 PROJECT / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION This zoning ordinance amendment creates a new zoning designation of "Open Space and Field Research," also identified as "OS~." This amendment also rezones certain Stanford lands, consistent with the adopted land use map of the Stanford Community Plan. Zoning combining districts will not be affected. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS : It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for the proposed OS/F zoning district for a period of one month, to March 6, 2003. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION Staff is proposing other options for this zoning ordinance, based on Planning Commission requests and direction provided to staff during the December 2002 Planning Commission hearing. Staff anticipates that Commissioners and other jurisdictions may require additional time to consider the new information provided in this staff report. Reasons for Actions Concerning Environmental Determination No environmental determination will be required at this February meeting. The staff report for this item at the next Planning Commission heanng will address consistencywith use of a prior CEQA document. Reasons for Actions Concerning Proposal As described in Chapter 5.75 of the March i, 2003 Revised County Zoning Ordinance, the Plannin2 Commission shall make a formal written recommendation regarding a zoning amendment proposa~ prior to a Board hearing. The ordinance further states that findings of consistency with state law, the zoning ordinance, and the general plan land use designations are required. The proposed text amendment and rezoning implement policies from the adopted 2000 Stanford Community Plan. The allowable uses and activities are generally described in that plan and have been incorporated into the ordinance. In response to requests by the Planning Commission, staff conducted a viewshed analysis of the Open Space and Field Research zoning district (described within this staff report). Additionally, staff developed supplemental required ASA findings for the restricted range of allowable uses within this zoning district. Staff is recommending use of (1) the supplemental recommended findings and (2) recently compiled viewshed analysis data for revision of the current draft of the Stanford OS/F Zoning Amendment. These tools will provide a revised ordinance and a means for staff implementation of the policy recommendations adopted by the Board of Supervisors for this zoning district. The viewshed analysis (described in Exhibit E) and associated recommendations for change to the zonin2 ordinance are now available for review. A one month continuance would allow adequate time f~r public review and Planning Commission consideration of the following items contained within this staff report: (1) staff responses to Planning Commission requests (2) rationale for responses and recommended changes (3) the summary of staff-recommended revisions (4) Planning Commission selection from staff-recommended options for revisions to the previously proposed zoning amendment. Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item .~ Page 2 BACKGROUND Policy Context/History The policy background for this amendment is contained within the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit. A discussion of those policy documents is contained in previous staff reports and will not be repeated here. Those reports are listed for background reference as follows: February 7, 2002 Planning Commission Workshop Information Item March 7, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item #4 November 7, 2002 Planning Commission Heating, Agenda Item #1 December 5, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing, Agenda Item # 4 The public review and input process for this proposed zoning amendment began at the February 2002 Planning Commission workshop. At subsequent Planning Commission hearings additional public input was considered. Three options for the amendment were presented to the Planning Commission. Planning Commissioners directed staff to provide proposed options for revision in February 2003. The Planning Commission also requested staff to address seven topic areas. Also, as addressed during the December 5, 2002 staff report, and updated within this report, staff proposes revisions to the ordinance that address Stanford’s request for caretaker residences within this zoning district. To provide for efficient review of staff recommendations, reference to policy documents, and discussion of rationale for new recommendations, staff has organized this staff report as follows: Section 1 Planning Commission Requests From December Hearing (Summarizes Planning Commission requests and generally describes staff responses to these requests) Section 2 Exhibits and Rationale For Staff Recommendations (Provides background for the individual revision recommendations contained in Section 3. Also provides maps, background documents, and reference documents) Section 3 Summary of Staff Recommendations (Provides Planning Commission opportunity to accept, or reject and provide guidance for individual changes to the December 5 Draft Zoning Ordinance) SECTION 1 Planning Commission Requests From December Hearing Request # 1 Look at ways to minimize impact associated with commercial antennas and utility infrastructure. Response: o Staff developed supplemental ASA findings that address environmental impacts (See ASA discussion). Staff also refers Commissioners to the proposed zoning amendment, (Exhibit C5)§2.50.020, Notes 10, 11, and 12. Planning Commission Hearing Page 3 February. 6, 2003 Item ~ Staff also conducted a viewshed analysis (See Section 2, Discussion of Rationale, Viewshed Analysis) that identifies areas of low to high visibility. Staff-recommended zoning amendment revisions (See Section 3,Staff Summary of Recommendations) will augment the viewshed analysis. The revisions and the analysis will collectively allow County staff to target areas of lower visibility for appropriate Stanford development (including utility infrastructure). If Stanford provides compelling reasons for development to occur within areas of higher visibility, staff may approve appropriate development within these locations, subject to justification of need by Stanford (See Section 2, Rationale Discussion, Viewshed Analysis and Section 3, Summary of Staff Recommendations). Request # 2 Consider an elevation threshold, such as the 200-foot elevation, for staff approval of development. Development of land above such a threshold may involve Planning Commission review or another option. Response: Staff recognizes that this request reflects two Planning Commission values: 1) implementation of Community Plan policy direction for protection of visual resources 2) responsiveness to community concern related to level of discretionary review and consistent standards for protection of visua! resources within this zoning district Staff has therefore taken the following actions to provide ~eater protection and adequate analysis of potential impacts to visual resources: o Staff developed supplemental required findings that address areas of high visibility. (See Section 2, ASA discussion; Section 3, Staff Summary). Staff developed additional development standards requiring new siting considerations (See Section 3, Staff Summary, Structural Size Limits and Siting discussion). . Staff conducted an extensive viewshed analysis that identifies low-to-high visibility zones within this zoning district (See viewshed discussion). Staff-recommended revisions (Section 3) encourages placement of development in areas of the lowest visibility and requires compelling justification for placement in areas of higher visibility. Request # 3 Explore an option for providing Planning Commission review for structures of 1000 square feet or more. Response: o Staff developed supplemental ASA findings (See Section 2, ASA discussion) and additional development standards that address siting of structures (See Section 3, Structural Size Limits and Siting discussion). Staff conducted an extensive viewshed analysis that identifies low-to-high visibility zones within this zoning district as a companion reference for the required ASA findings (See viewshed discussion). Request # 4 Delete allowance for open space dedication within Special Conservation Areas (SCAs) and restrict open space dedication required, subject tO development within the OS/F zoning district, to the OS/F district. Planning Commission Hearing Febmar?’ 6. 2003 Item #4 Page 4 Response: The reference to open space dedication is referred to in the OS/F ordinance, but the actual text is contained within the County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5.45. Staff therefore developed proposed revisions to Chapter 5.45 of the County Zoning Ordinance (See Section 2, Open Space Discussion, and Section 3, Summary of Staff Recommendations). Request # 5 Discuss impacts associated with roads and provide general discussion of road access, impacts, impervious cover, and County review process for roads and access. Response: Staff incorporated supplemental ASA findings that address road compatib.il!ty.with the predominantly natural/rural setting of the zoning district and encourage rmnlrmzlng impervious cover (See Section 2, ASA discussion). Staff reiterates that, as part of any applicant’s building site application, access requirements are reviewed during staff evaluation of the application. Referrals to other County departments serve to verify Stanford adherence to road standards of these other County departments. Planning staff and staff from these other County departments will continue to review access requirements, including roads, for any proposed development within the OS/F district. o Staff consulted with the following County departments regarding standards related to this topic: Fire Marshal’s Office, Land Development, and Engineering (LDE), Roads and Airports (R&A), Zoning Administrator, Land Development Coordinator, Secretary, of ASA. The Standards that would be applied to any application for any building site approval depend on the scope and nature of the project. LDE and R&A have road standard guideline references that are currently being used. The Fire Marshal is currently revising County road requirements to improve emergency vehicle access. If the Planning Commission wishes to obtain further detailed information, staff suggests that a Planning Commission request for a workshop on this topic could be jointly accommodated by Planning, LDE, R&A, and Fire Marshal office staff. Request # 6 Address paint reflectivity. Response: Staff addressed color, design, and reflectivity through supplemental ASA findings that would be required of each development project. (See Section 2, Rationale, ASA discussion). Request # 7 Explore incorporation of selected, appropriate Palo Alto Open Space Zoning District findings into County-required findings for this district, and determine best means for viewshed protection. Response: ~ Staff provided a rationale for incorporation of relevant Palo Alto Open Space District concepts within the County ASA required findings (See Section 2, Rationale, Palo Alto discussion). Staff reiterates that many elements addressed within the Palo Alto Open Space ordinance (grading, tree protection, etc.) are addressed through other sections of the County Zoning Ordinance and other policy documents such as the Grading Ordinance. Planning Commission Hearing Page 5 February. 6, 2003 Item #4 SECTION 2 Discussion of Rationale (Attached to this staff report as Exhibit E. Contents are listed below). The discussions within Exhibit E provide information that frames Section 3, Summary of Staff Recommendations. 1) Exhibit E1 Viewshed Protection (Provides discussion of methods considered, and the final method chosen for protection of the OS/F viewshed) 2) Exhibit E2 Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) Discussion (Reviews ~eneral concepts of County ASA process, and describes the perspectives of Stanford and some corn~unity representatives that must be balanced through implementation of Board policy) 3) Exhibit E3 Palo Alto Open Space Zoning District Findings Discussion (Generally describes the difference in applicability of Palo Alto Open Space District and Stanford OS/F District findings) 4) Exhibit E4 Open Space Discussion. (Provides brief backgound of previously proposed open space dedication options, and explains current revision recommendation) SECTION 3 Summary of Staff Recommendations Based on the rationale outlined within Section 2 (Exhibit E), staff recommends that the zoning amendment (Exhibit C5) be revised as follows. Recommended revisions are separated by topic areas so that Planning Commission recommendation of individual options may be directed towards staff: I.Viewshed Map Recommendation (a) Recommend Board adoption of the electronic data that was used for GIS viewshed analysis. Paper maps will be provided as illustrative exhibits only. (See Section 2, Rationale Discussion, Viewshed Analysis. This discussion describes rationale for adoption of electronic data in lieu of paper maps. Also, staff-recommended text revisions to this zoning amendment refer to the viewshed data analysis results.) (b) Utilize the required supplemental ASA findings (identified in Section 3, Summary of Staff Recommendations, ASA Findings) for protection of these high visibility areas. II. Open Space Dedication Recommendation Recommend the following revision (below) to Chapter 5.45 of the County Zoning Ordinance (See Exhibit D). This proposed revision removes the previously staff-proposed OS/F zoning district revision that would allow Stanford to permanently dedicate easements outside of the OS/F district. (See Section 3, Rationale, Open Space. See also Exhibit D, Zoning Ordinance Revision Excerpt, Item 4: Nonresidential Clusters) Revised Language: Such open space is not required to be contiguous to the development area and may but shall be located within eith~ the Open Space/Field Research district. This dedicated open space shall be located in an area of medium-hi2h to high visibility, or of environmental si2nificance~ as determined bv the County. or ~’~ ~"°~;~ r-, ........ ~ dirtier. Planning Commission Hearing Page 6 February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 III. ASA Findings Revision Recommendations (All staff-proposed ASA findings (below) recommended by the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the Zoning Amendment text, §2.50.040.B.2. See Exhibit C5) These new ASA findings encourage allowable uses to be located in areas of lower visibility. However, development may be located within areas of medium-high to high visibility, consistent with Community Plan policies, subject to compelling justification by Stanford. Proposed ASA Revisions §2.50.040 Revise the current ASA required findings as follows (See Exhibit C5, §2.50.040.B.2 for comparison): 1. No change proposecL 2. No change proposed No change proposed Project design and location afford reasonable protection to environmental and visual resources of the district, as provided for within the required findings of this §2.50.040. Specifically, protection of views of the district from road segments utilized in the OSFF viewshed analysis (Junipero Serra Blvd., Stanford Avenue, Page Mill Expressway, Arastradero R~ad, Alpine Road!Sand Hill Road Corridor, and Interstate 280) is provided. 2c.Unless the project proponent provides compelling rationale that the following criteria would prevent Stanford’s ability to achieve efficiency of service for an allowable use within this district, the following criteria shall be applied to any development proposal: Development has been sited to blend with and!or utilize the local terrain to minimize visibility of development from road segments utilized for the OSFF viewshed analysis. Development has been sited to minimize the need for Fading and/or additional landscaping. However, any necessary landscaping and!or grading minimizes view of the development from OS/F viewshed analysis road segments. Efficiency of design and subsequent grading and landscaping minimize the need for additional impervious surface. Large expanses of impervious cover shall be avoided where the County deems an alternative feasible. . All development, including commercial utilities, antennas, and/or infrastructure, incorporates appropriate design and color selection to blend with the surrounding predominantly natural and rural setting. Color selection provides minimal ligJat reflectivity. In cases where the ASA Committee identifies color as an issue, colors/materials must be approved by the ASA Committee prior to issuance of a building permit. If necessary, additional project-specific mitigation measures have been established that reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels. No change proposed. (Newfindin~ Unless it can be demonstrated that the development must be located in an area of medium-high to high visibility, as identified by the adopted OS/F viewshed analysis data, the development shall be located, in ascending order of preference, within Planning Commission Hearing Page 7 February 6, 2003 Item #4 2f. 2g. 2h. 2i. an area of: {1) no visibility, {2) low visibility, or {3) medium visibility. Por development proposed to be located in an area of medium-high to high visibility, as described in this §2.50.040 ., appropriate mitigation measures have been established. Lighting has been designed and placed to minimize upward glow, provide high beam efficiency, and glare and spill control. Access roads are designed, surfaced, and will be maintained in a manner that ensures continued compatibility with the predominantly natural setting and rural character of this district. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.7 inches, measured 4.5 feet above ground level, have been preserved and integated into site design and native vegetation has been preserved to the extent possible. For any proposed building project located in an oak woodland area as identified in the Community Plan/General Use Permit Environmental Impact Report, mitigation and monitoring measures have been established that provide for creation and maintenance of 1.5 acres of replacement habitat for every, 1 acre that is lost. These mitigation and monitoring requirements may be waived if the County has approved a Campus- wide/Foothills vegetation plan for Stanford that addresses mitigation and monitoring for such trees and vegetation. 3. No change proposed. IV. Recommendation for Revision to §2.50.040.C, Special Allowance for Replacement of Legally Existing Structures (Exhibit C5) Revise C.1 of this section as follows: The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is environmentally superior (e.g. moves project away from riparian corridor) to the previous use and does not increase impacts to visual resources as viewed from road seg-ments utilized in the OSYF viewshed analysis. V.Recommended Revision to Caretaker Residence Note Revision Revise Note 13 (Exhibit C5, §2.50.020, Table 2.50-1) as follows: Within the OS~ district, caretakers’ residences, as defined in §2.10.030, are allowed as follows. A cumulative total of five caretaker residences is allowed, consistent with the provisions of the Stanford General Use Permit. Existing legal, nonconforming residences, as they existed on December 12, 2000, may be utilized as caretaker residences. Stanford University bears the burden of evidence to determine any existing structure is legal or legal non-conforming. Consistent with other provisions of this ordinance, the legal structures that have been converted to this caretaker use may be relocated, replaced, or modified, provided that there is no increase in overall square footage. Caretaker residences are subject to ASA (Chapter 5.40 and §2.50.040 (B). Cumulative building area for these five structures shall not exceed the documented building area for residences that exist as legal nonconforming uses as of December 12, 2000. This cumulative total of the five caretaker residences structures includes all legal nonconforming uses existing within the two land use designations of Open Space and Field Research and Special Conservation Areas. Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item #4 Page 8 VL Siting and Structure Size Recommendations ?rovide the following additional language to §2.50.040 as a new Item D: D. Structural Size Limits and Siting Requirements. Structures shall be consistent with restrictions set forth in the Stanford General Use Permit. For structures of 1000 square feet or more, ~ading shall be encouraged to prevent or soften visibility of structures from road segments utilized for the OS/F viewshed analysis. Such structures should generally be located outside of, and building height should not intrude into, areas of medium-high to high visibility, as identified in the adopted OS/F viewshed analysis data. This requirement may be waived by the ASA Committee if it is demonstrated that a location of medium-high to high visibility is required to achieve the allowable use for which the development is proposed. It must first be demonstrated by the applicant that such development could not be located in an area of non-visibility, low visibility, or medium visibility as specified in required findings of §2.50.040. ACTIONS FOLLOWING PROPOSAL The Secretaw of the Planning Commission shall make a formal written recommendation regarding the zoning amendment to the Board of Supervisors, in compliance with Section 65855 of the California Government Code. EXHIBITS A B C D E F G Community. Plan Land Use Excerpt Land Use Map Zoning Amendment Exhibits C 1 Enactment Ordinance C2 Rezoning Ordinance C3 Zoning Map (proposed zoning designations) C4 Parcels To Be Rezoned C5 Current Draft OS/F Zoning Amendment Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance Excerpt from Chapter 5.45, Cluster Permit Discussion of Rationale (See Section 2 of Staff Report) Viewshed Analysis Maps Exhibits for Reference I Not Recommended for Consideration G1 200 Foot Elevation Map Ridgeline Buffer Map Cumulative Viewshed Analysis Map Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Page 9 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 10 Stanford Community Plan ! t SCP-LU 23 The Open Space and Field Research designation applies to undeveloped lands outside the Academic Growth Boundary. These lands are important for their environmental resources and for their role in creating an open space setting for the campus and the region. They also serve as a resource for field research and research- related activities dependent on the undeveloped foothill environment. SCP-LU 24 Lands within the Open Space and Field Research designation are not eligible for uses other than those permitted under the policies of this land use desig-nation except through a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation of the property. If any lands are proposed for a land designation which is intended to be applied only to lands within the Academic Growth Boundary, the proposed amendment must include a modification of the AGB. Proposals to modify the AGB must be in accordance with the applicable policies governing its amendment contained within the Growth and Development Chapter; tahere£ore, no such General Plan amendment may be considered within 25 years of approval of the Community Plan and cumulative development of at least 17.3 million square feet within the AGB. SCP-LU 25 This designation does not include lands in which special biological resources or hazards exist and which are inappropriate for development under County, State, or Federal laws, Kegulations, or policies (see Special Conservation Areas designation). SCP-LU 26 Allowable land uses within the Open Space and Field Research designation include: a. field study activities; b.-utility infrastructure in keeping with the predominantly natural appearance of the foothill setting; c. grazing and other agricultural u~es; 34 do e= Chapter 2 - Land Use recreational activities which are consistent with protection of environmental resources (e.g., not construction or operation of a n¢~ golf course) and with appropriate policies regarding foothill access; special.ized facilities and installations that by their nature require a remote or natural setting, such as astronomical or other antennae installations or structures accessory to field study activities; and, f. environmental restoration. SCP-LU 27 No permanent buildings or structures are allowed, other than utility infrastructure and a limited number of small, specialized facilities or insta!lations that support permitted or existing activities, or require a remote, natural setting and cannot be feasibly located within the AGB. SCP-LU 28 Existing non-conforming uses within this designation, such as the golf course, may continue indefinitely. Remodeling or reconstruction of existing facilities after a natural disaster may be allowed, but no further expansion is permitted. Modification of the configuration of the golf course generally within its existing boundaries is permitted. SCP-LU29 Allowable development shall be clustered as feasible, primarily in areas with low environmental sensitivity, to preserve expanses of open space, environmentally sensitive areas, and scenic vistas. SCP-LU(i) 4 Enact and apply appropriate zoning consistent with the allowable uses and development policies of this designation. Incorporate the clustering model of the County’s Hillsides General Plan designation and Hillside zoning district in the development standards for this new zoning district. 35 EXHIBIT B Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 Campus Residential - Low Density. Camous Residenda! - Mcde,~te Densi~ A~demic Campus Public School Campus Open Space Open Space and Field Research Special Conservation Academic Gro,~#.h Boundary Figure 2.2 EXHIBIT C Exhibit C3 contains the following materials: Exhibit CI: Exhibit C2: Exhibit Exhibit C4: Exhibit C5: Enactment Ordinance Rezoning Ordinance Zoning Map Parcels to Be Rezoned Current Draft Zoning Amendment Text Planning Commission Hearing Februar)’ 6, 2003 ltem #4 EXHIBIT CI Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 ORDINANCE NO. NS - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AMENDING CHAPTER 2.50 OF THE REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ESTABLISH THE "OS/F, OPEN SPACE/FIELD RESEARCH" ZONING DISTRICT Summary This ordinance amends the text of Chapter 2.50 of the Santa Clara Count~T Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I of the County Ordinance Code, to establish the "OS/F, Open Space/Field Research" Zoning District. This ordinance implements the Stanford Community Plan, in particular, the Land Use policies and implementation recomr~endation to enact zoning districts and regulations applicable to Stanford University lands having the "Open Space/Field Research" Land Use designation. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 2.50 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Count, of Santa Clara, Appendix I of the Ordinance Code, is hereby amended to enact the "OS/F, Open Space/Field Research" Zoning District and regulations thereof, as // // // // // // // Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 // shown in Exhibit 1 of this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on by the following vote: AYES" Supervisors NOES: ABSENT: Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Phyllis Perez, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel Planning Commission Hearing February’ 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBIT C2 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 ORDINANCE NO. NS - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AMENDING SECTION 2-3 AND 2-4 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS TO REZONE CERTAIN PARCELS HEREIN IDENTIFIED FROM A1, A1-20s, and A1-20s-sr TO OSFF Summary This ordinance amends the Official Zoning Maps of the Coun~ of Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, as referenced in Section 2-3 and 2-4, Appendix I of the County Ordinance Code, by changing the zoning desig-nations of the subject parcels from "AI," "A1-20s," and "A1-20s-sr" to "OS/F, Open Space/Field Research," in conformance with their applicable Stanford Community Plan Land Use desig-nation. [County File #8214-00-00-01Z] THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLAILa~ ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1" Rezoning of certain Stanford Universi~ parcels from A1, A1- 20s, and A1-20s-sr. The official zoning maps maintained pursuant to Section 2-3 and 2-4 of Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I of the Ordinance Code of the County of Santa Clara, are hereby amended to change the zoning of those parcels // // // /,/ // // // Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item ~ // depicted in Exhibit 2 (Map of Parcels) and identified in Exhibit 3 from A1, A1-20s, and A1-20s-sr to OS/F. (List of Parcels) PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson, Board of Supervisors Phyllis Perez, Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel Exhibits to this Ordinance: "OS/F, Open Space/Field Research" Zoning District and regulations Map of Parcels to be Rezoned List of Parcels to be Rezoned Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBIT Co3 Planning Commission Hearing Februap,.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Aff, e~u~’d P 2-r c.e.~s ~/ ~.’,, ,4 (L.a,,’r’~s :a be. P.ezone-d) EXHIBIT C.4 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 ASSESSOR PARCEL LIST FOR REZONING The parcels listed below, as contained within the Stanford Community Plan Land Use designation of Open Space and Field Research (OS/F), shall be rezoned from current zoning classifications of A1, A1-20-s, and A1-20s-sr to OS/F. 14206001 14212003 14212004 14212005 14213001 14213007 14213008 14214015 14214016 14215007 14216036 !4216041 14216070 14216071 14216072 14216076 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~’ 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBI I Co5 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 CHAPTER 2.50 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS (DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPACE AND FIELD R ESEAR CH ZONING AMENDMENT) Sections § 2.50.010 § 2.50.020 § 2.50.030 § 2.50.040 Purposes Use Regulations Development Standards Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS/F District § 2.50.010 Purposes The purpose of this chapter is to define allowable uses and property development standards for the special purpose base districts, which include the At ~’General Use," RS ~’Roadside Services," and OS/F "Open Space and Field Research" districts. The overall purposes of the special purpose base districts are to provide for uses that do not fit neatly into the rural, residential, commercial, or industrial category but are necessary, to implement the general plan. The specific purposes of each of the special purpose base districts are described below. A A1 General Use. The purpose of the General Use district, also known as the A1 district, is to provide a flexible base zoning district that allows general residential and a~ricultural uses, and provides opportunities through the use permit process for other u~es and developments that are appropriate for a particular location, consistent with the objectives, goals and policies of the general plan. RS Roadside Services. The purpose of the Roadside Ser¥ices district, also known as the RS district, is to allow specific and necessary" highway uses and services within clusters at appropriate locations necessary to ser~,e the motoring public. Such uses shall be located a sufficient distance from other RS districts to prevent strip commercial development and protect the existing scenic features, landscape and open space character along certain scenic roads. Scenic amenities shall be enhanced by choice of construction materials, landscaping, site planning and development in such a manner that the scenic value at ti~e location of the development and the scenic view from said highways shall not be compromised. This district is meant to apply, to all parcels designated Roadside Services in the general plan. OS/F Open Space and Field Research. The purpose of the Open Space Field Research district, also ~known as the OS/F district is to implement the December 2000 Stanford University Community Plan (General Plan) policies for the Open Space and Field Research Land Use designation. This zoning district is established to maintain the open space character of those Stanford University OS/F lands outside the Academic Growth Boundary. Allowable uses include utilities, low intensity agriculture, limited Planning Commission Hearing Februa~0 6. 2003 Item #~ agricultural research, field research and Stanford field studies, limited outdoor recreational activities, recreational trails, environmental restoration, limited anci!lary facilities, and Stanford University specialized facilities and installations, such as astronomical or related facilities. Criteria and standards governing activities not defined within the Standard use classification tables are addressed in Section 2.50.040 of this chapter. § 2.50.020 Use Regulations The following table, Table 2.50-1, specifies the allowable land uses for the special purpose base districts, listed by use classification as defined in Chapter 2.10. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations as follows: "R"designates use classifications that are permitted by right. designates use classifications permitted with a special permit, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.60, Special Permit. "A"designates use classifications permitted with architecture and site approval, subject tO the provisions of Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. designates use classifications permitted with a use permit, and architecture and site approval, subject to the provisions of Chapter 5.65, Use Permit, and Chapter 5.40, Architecture and Site Approval. "-" designates use classifications that are not allowed. Supplementa! regulations for the establishment and conduct of a use are referenced in the "Supplemental Regulations" column of the table. Use classifications not listed in the table are prohibited in the special purpose base districts. Ptanning Commission Hearing Februau’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS [] Permitted by Right $Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, _5.40) Not Permitted USES I ZONING Supplemental !’ ~A1 RS OS/F I,.!Regulations Adult Uses U --I § 4.10.020 Agriculture ~"~~I~[] Agricultural Accessory Structures &[~1 ~’~A § 4.20.020; Note 1 Uses (OS?F) Agricultural Employee Housing Short Term $-- Long Term U -- Agricultural Equipment Sales &U -- Services Agricultural Processing Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Agricultural Agricultural Limited General Research Sales m -A Agriculturally Related Entertainment & Commercial Uses Antennas -Commercial Minor Major Auction Houses Automotive Sales & Services Limited Repair A A A Note 1, Note 2 (OS/F), § 4.10.030 § 4.10.030 § 4.10.030 Note 1 (OSiF) § 4.40.!10 (Sig-ns), Note 1, Note 2 (OS/F) § 4.40.110, Note 1, Note 2 (OSiF) Farmers’ Markets U U - U U -§ 4. t0.050 A A A U U A U -- Planning Commission Hearing Februau 6, 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECL~ PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS S A U Permitted by Right Special Permit (Ch 5.60) ASA (Ch 5.40) Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) Not Permitted USES ZONING A1 RS OS/F Supplemental Regulations General Repair Sales & Rentals Service Stations Storage Washing Banks Bed & Breakfast Inns Billboards Broadcasting Business Services Butcheries Caretaker Residence Camps & Retreats Cemeteries Churches (See "Religious Institutions") Clubs-Private & Nonprofit Colleges & Vocational Schools Community Care Limited Expanded Corporation Yards Dairies Domestic Animals Feed Lots Field Research Food & Beverage Sales U n U - U U U - U - U - UU § 4.10.060 U - U - U - U - U U Note 13 (OS/F) U - U - U - [][]-§ 4.!0.090, Note 3 U O -i §4.10.090 u -- U - _~~~Note 1 (©S/F) U U -Note 4 (RS) Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS [] Permitted by Right $Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) IJ Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, _5.40) Not Permitted USES Food Preparation & Catering Services Funeral & Cremation Services Golf Courses & Country Clubs A1 ZONING RS OS/F Supplemental Regulations I.I --§ 4.10.140(B); Note 5 Golf Driving Ranges I.I --§ 4.10.150(B) Health & Fitness Clubs LI -- Helipads I.I --§ 4.10.160 Historic Structure-Use Conversion $S -§ 4.10.170 Home Occupations General [[~1~-§ 4. t 0.180 Expanded $8 -§ 4.10.180 Hospitals & Clinics I.I -- Hotels & Motels L!U - Kennels LI --§ 4.10.200 Laboratories & Testing Services LI -- Laundries-Commercial LI -- Livestock Auction Yards LI --I §4.10.210 Machinery & Equipment Services Limited tJ -- General IJ --i ..... Maintenance & Repair Services I.I -- Manufactured-Home Sales &I.I -- Rentals Manufacturing Limited General Intensive Planning Commission Hearing February 6. 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS USES [] Permitted by Right $Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) IJ Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, _5.40) Not Permitted ZONING , A1 RS OS/F,,, U -- Supplemental Regulations Massage Establishments .Note 6 Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries Note 7 Museums Mushroom Farms §4.10.220 Nonprofit Institutions Nurseries Retail O -- Wholesale U -- Offices U -- Oil and Gas Extraction U -- Parking Services & Facilities U -- Personal Services: All U -- Petroleum Products Distribution U -- Poultry & Egg Farms U --§ 4.10.240 Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft U --§ 4.10.250 Facilities Reception Facilities U --§ 4.10.260 Recreation-Commercial U -- Recreational Playgrounds & Sports U -- Fields Recreational Vehicle Parks U U -§ 4.10.280 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS USES Recycling Facilities Collection Facilities- Consumer Recycling Recycling/=, Processing Facilities- Consumer Waste Concrete, Asphalt, & Soil Recycling Composting & Wood Recycling Hazardous Materials ! A1 RS Religious Institutions Residential Single-Family Two-Family Multi-Family U - U - U - ~ Permitted by Right $Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, _5.40) Not Permitted ZONING OS/F Supplemental Regulations Note 1, Note 8 Note 9 Residential Accessory Structures &§ 4.20.020 Uses . Residential-Communal U -- Institutional Restaurants and Bars U U - Retail Sales & Services General . U U -Note 4 (RS) Outdoor Sales & Storage U -- Rodeos & Equestrian Events U -- Rooming Houses, Fraternities, &U -- Sororities Schools U -- Secondary Dwellings $$-§ 4.10.340 Sport Shooting U -- Stables-Commercial U --§ 4.10.360 Stanford Specialized Facilities &--A Note 10 (OS/F) Planning Commission Hearing February’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS USES Permitted by Right Installations Studios-Arts & Crafts Surface Mining Swim & Tennis Clubs Taxidermy Temporary Residences / Construction Theaters Timber Harvest Operations -Commercial Truck & Railroad Terminals Truck Sales & Services Repair Sales Storage Underground Utilities Minor Major Mining Veterinary Clinics & Hospitals Warehousing & Storage Indoor Outdoor Well-Drilling Operations Wholesaling & Distribution Wind Energy Conversion Systems -Commercial A1 A U ZONING RS OS/F Special Permit (Oh 5,60) ASA (Ch 5.40) Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) Not Permitted !Supplemental I Regulations A A A U U A Note 11 Note !2 § 4.10.390 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS ~ Permitted by Right $Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) tJ Use Permit/’ ASA (Ch 5.65, _5.40) Not Permitted USES ZONING A1 RS OS/F I Supplemental Regulations Wineries Limited General Expanded-Reception/ Special Events Facilities NOTES: I.Within the OSiF district structures ancillary,, to any allowed use or activity are permitted subject to ASA (Chapter 5.40 and Section 2.50.040 (B)). Prior to establishment of any structure, a determination by the Planning Office is required to ensure consistency with the General Use Permit development requirements for this district. 2.Within the OSiF district, the nature of agricultural processing is limited to low intensity processing and a~,ricultura! sales activities are limited to those that would not significantly impact local transportation p~tterns. (e.g. Activities such as packaging products for off-site shipping and allowing limited on-site purchase of agricultural commodities are consistent with allowable uses for this district. Activities such as a canning operation, or establishing a commercial outlet for sale of multiple agricultural commodities would be of an intensity that is inconsistent with the purposes for this district.) 3.Facilities qualifying as "Large-Family Day-Care Homes," serving between 7 and !2 persons, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. 4.In Roadside Services (RS) districts, general retail sales uses must be llmited in scale and directly related to a permitted motel, hotel, RV park, service station or restaurant, and must be primarily oriented toward serving the needs of the motoring public. 5.The existing Stanford UniversW Golf Course may be modified or reconfigured within its existing boundaries as of December 12, 2000, but may not be expanded. Modification or replacement of the clubhouse or similar structure is permitted subject to applicable provisions of the Community Plan and General Use Permit. 6.Massage establishments shall comply with the provisions of Division B22 of the County’ Ordinance Code. 7.Medicinal marijuana dispensaries shall comply with the provisions of Division B26 of the County Ordinance Code. i8.Within the OS/F district, the composting facility is limited to se~,icing Stanford University, purposes, and is not intended to serve other communities or jurisdictions. i 9.Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, and new secondaw dwellings, may be subject to the ’building site approval provisions of Division C12-300-399 of the County Ordinance Code. Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 10.Includes structures or facilities that require a remote setting, including but not limited to facilities for astronomical or atmospheric research. Such structures or facilities shalt require isolation from sources of interference (such as noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields, or similar impediments). 11.Within the OS/F district, existing utilities may be replaced provided there is no increase in size or scale of aboveground structures. Above ground disturbance resulting from the maintenance or replacement of such smactures shall be restored to pre-disturbance condition. 12.Within the OS~ district, new utilities may be constructed that serve either Stanford or other lands provided that such facilities reasonably minimize degradation to the natural environment and maintain the predominantly natural appearance of the foothill setting. 13.Within the OS/F district, caretakers’ residences, as defined in §2.10.030, are allowed as follows. A cumulative total of five caretaker residences is allowed consistent with the provisions of the Stanford General Use Permit. Existing legal, nonconforming residences, as they existed on December 12, 2000, may be utilized as ci~retaker residences. Consistent with other provisions of this ordinance, the existing str~ctures may be relocated, replaced, or modified, provided-that .there is no increase in overall square footage. Caretaker residences are subject to ASA (Chapter 5.40 and §2.50.040 (B)). §2.50.030 Development Standards A.Standards. Table 2.50-2 establishes property development and subdivision standards for special-purpose base districts. TABLE 2.50-2 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A1 RS OS/F , Minimum lot area For lot creation For building site With lot size combining districts 5,000 sq.20 acres 160 acres~ ft. 3,750 sq.1 acre ASA Ch. 3.10 NA NA Setbacks (feet) Front Side Side, Exterior (corner lot) Rear Planning Commission Hearing Februar5.’ 6. 2003 ttern #4 30 ASA 30 ASA 30 ASA 30 ASA TABLE 2.50-2 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STAND.MtDS A1 RS OS/F Scenic road seel002 i00 ASA Exceptions §4.20. ! 10, Setback Exceptions ASA Maximum height Feet Stories Accessory buildings 35~-35 ASA 2 ASA See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards NOTES: 1.Stanford may exercise the optional clustering provision, subject to § 5.45 (Cluster Permit) to establish a lot of less than 160 acres. Minimum parcel size may be reduced to a minimum of two acres by the Ptanning Commission for a nonresidential cluster, subject to a cluster permit, as provided for in § 5.45. Minimum lot area, subiect to a cluster permit, shall be determined by the slope density formula as described for the 20s combining district in § 3. I0.040. The reference in § 3.10.040 to density, relative to land area per dwelling unit. shall not apply to the OS/F district. 2.For non-residential uses, see subsection C of this section. Measurements. The standards shown in Table 2.50-2 are subject to the following rules of measurement: 1.Where a lot abuts on a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the ultimate road right of way; 2.Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shai1 be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be mea._sured according to the provisions of Article 6, Definitions. A1 District-Standards for Nonresidential Uses. Setbacks and height limits for nonresidential and multi-family residential uses in the A1 district shall be determined by the ASA committee, subject to the following limitations: Nonresidential uses adjacent to any residentially developed property may be required to provide a minimum front yard setback equal to that of the adjacent residential use; and Planning Commission Hearing Februar3’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Nonresidential uses adjacent to any residentially developed property shall be required to provide a minimum side and rear yard setback equal to one-half the height of the building closest to the setback, or 5 feet, whichever is greater. §2.50.040 Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS/F District No Permitted Activities and Criteria. The following activities, that do not entail permanent structures, are permitted. 1.Environmental restoration: Activities include science-based management focused on active protection of the immediate environment or return of that environment to a pre-disturbance condition. Limited outdoor recreational activities: Activities include those that are consistent with protection of environmental resources and do not require a building, grading, or other permit. Examples include hiking and jogging on existing se~’ice roads and student field trips. Development of trails is allowed, subject to standard land use approval requirements (e.g. grading permit requirements of County. Ordinance No. NS-1203.35, §6, 3). Development Criteria, Findings, and Limitations. ASA Authority. The ASA committee shall have the authority, to review and prescribe standards and size limitations for all uses subject to ASA, including parking or any road or road connection that is deemed necessary, to accommodate uses allowed within Article 2, Chapter 2.50. ASA Findings and Criteria Applicable to All Uses. Any use subject to ASA shall comply with the following findings and criteria, in addition to standard ASA findings of Section 5.40.040: The project requires a remote, natural setting and cannot be feasibly located within the AGB (e.g.: avoidance of interference from electromagnetic or vibration sources can o.nly be achieved in this setting). Project design and location afford reasonable protection to visual resources of the district and to views of the district from Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Interstate 280, E1 Camino Real, and Alpine Road, and dedicated public trails. Project design and location afford reasonable protection to environmental resources. If necessary, mitigation measures have been established that reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels. d.Project design incorporates clustering concepts where appropriate, both individually and cumulatively (in relation to other projects), to provide a means Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item #4 for reducing the amount of improvements required for development, to conserve natural features, anctJor to facilitate the provision of more aesthetic and efficient use of open space. Permanent dedication of open space will be required, where appropriate, to mitigate project impacts. Any such dedication will not be an unconstitutional taking of private propertT. 3. e.Additional criteria contained within use regulations and notes of §2.50.020 shall apply. Fences. Fences shall be of a desig-n compatible with the intent of the district to minimize visual impacts to the natural setting. The regulations for fences in rural districts (§4.20.050.B) shall apply to construction or replacement of fences. Special Allowance for Replacement of Legally Existing Structures Reconstruction of any legally existing facilities following destruction by a natural disaster, accident, or intentional act of a party other than the owner or a lessee is permitted, provided there is no increase in floor area, subject to current building codes and standards, Architecture and Site Approval (ASA), and the criteria listed below. Notwithstanding provisions of 4.50.020, the following allowances for replacement of existing structures apply: The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is environmentally superior (e.g. moves project away from riparian corridor) to the previous use and results in equivalent or reduced impact to visual resources as viewed from Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Interstate 280, E1 Camino Real, Alpine Road, and dedicated public trails. The project recreates or improves design and landscaping features (but does not increase total area of landscaping features) in a manner that is environmentally superior to the previous design and landscaping associated with this use. The project may be relocated provided the proposed location results in an environmentally superior project and the previous location is restored or rehabilitated subject to standards (e.g. previous riparian corridor location is revegetated with native grasses) determined by the County. Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item ~ IT D Planning Commission Hearing FebruaD’ 6, 2003 Item #4 cOUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION (effective March 1, 2003)EXCERPTS FROM Chapter 5.45 OF THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 5.45.050 (Excerpts) 1.Permanent dedication of open space. In order to ensure that open space preserved throuzh the cluster development will be permanent, dedication of development rights to the County of Santa Clara shall be required through recorded open space easements. Dedication of such development rights may also be made to more than one public agency, such as the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority or Midpeninsuta Regional Open Space District, in conjunction with the county, if such agency is a willing participant. Open space easements shall regulate the future use of the open space, and, where necessary and appropriate to preselwe the natural resources of the area or to effectuate required environmental mitigations or conditions of approval, shall specify the land owner’ s and management and maintenance obligations. Nonresidential clusters. On the lands of Stanford University, clustering of lands zoned OS/F for nonresidential development shall be allowed provided the creation of new parcels serves to facilitate uses provided for under the OSiF regulations. "Development area," for the purposes of this provision, shall include all land proposed for structures, roads, parking areas, associated landscaping and other types of development. A cluster permit is required for the division of land into lots of less than 160 acres. A cluster arrangement of structures shall achieve economy of land use and efficiency of access, while avoiding or minimizing impact to the natural environment to the extent feasible. Defined development areas shal! include no more than 10% of the total land area subject to the land division, with at least 90% of the remaining land area preserved in permanent open space by means of dedication of development rights which prevents future subdivision of such lands. Such open space area is not required to be conti~uous to the development area and may be located in either the Open Space/Field Research district or the Special Conservation district. (A pror)osed revision ~Cor the underlined text is contained within the stq~f report, Section 3, Summa~3, qf Stqff Recommendations. ) Cluster development proposals may be arranged in more than one duster provided that the multiple cluster arrangement achieves economy of land use and efficiency of access intended by this ordinance and the applicable provisions of the Stanford Community Plan land use designation. Configuration of open space. To the maximum extent possible, balancing the various goals and objectives of the general plan and zoning ordinance for public health, safety, and welfare, the configuration of open space shall incorporate those noteworthy and most valuable natural features of the land, such as rock outcroppings, historic or archeological sites, significant Planning Commission .Hearing Febnaau 6, 2003 Item #4 stands of mature trees, and riparian areas, tturthermore, the open space shall be generally configured as large, contiguous areas capable of serving the various purposes of such open space, including but not limited to recreation and trails, agriculture, viewshed protection, limited outdoor recreation activities, field research activities, environmental restoration, and habitat preservation and wildlife corridors. The confi~ation of open space shall be reasonably based on the appropriate consideration of access requirements and standards, geologic hazards, and other forms of development constraints which may be present. Planning Commission Hearing Februar).’ 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBIT E (Section~. ~ Discussion of Rationale) El: E2: E3: E4: Viewshed Analysis Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) Discussion Palo Alto Open Space District Discussion Open Space and Special Conservation Area Discussion Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6. 2003 Item #4 EXHIBIT E. 1 Planning Commission Hearing Februau 6, 2003 Item Viewshed Protection The Planning Commission requested staff consider different ways to evaluate the viewshed of the OS/F District. Three options were explored and are described below. a) Elevation Based Approach. An idea for this approach is to set an elevation threshold, such as the 200-foot elevation generally referred to in the Stanford Community Plan, and require different levels of review above and below this threshold. This approach was previously discussed by the Planning Commission and a map showing the 200-foot elevation is provided as Exhibit G1. Staff is not recommending this approach because some of the areas which are over 200 feet are not actually visible from surrounding roads (because there are higher land forms in front of the locations). Also, this approach might impede Stanford’s ability to locate an ancillary/accessory structure adjacent to an allowable/primary use. Instead of employing the Elevation Based Approach, staff is recommending the alternative approach described in paragraph C, below. b) Ridgeline Based Approach. Staff conducted additional research of open space/viewshed!ridgeline protection ordinances. One practice used to protect a viewshed is to describe and/or designate "ridgelines" as areas to be protected, subject to certain restrictions. This method is appropriately being utilized by the City of Danville, for example. To explore use of this model for the Stanford OS/F Zoning District, staff developed a ridgeline map (Exhibit G2) and considered employing it for viewshed protection. A center ridgeline was identified. A 100-foot buffer was established below both sides of the ridgeline (resulting in a 200-foot buffer). Based on this ridgeline buffer map, approximately 775 acres of the 1843-acre OS/F zoning district is contained within a ridgeline buffer zone. Staff determined that, for the Stanford foothills, use of this map would not be recommended because, while the map does identify ridgelines, many of those identified buffer areas are not actually areas of high visibility. Conversely, some "non- rid~_eline" areas are highly visible. The ridgeline protection approach, therefore, did not address the Board intent for viewshed protection. Staff sought a more appropriate technique to implement Board policy. c) Viewshed Analysis. Staff conducted a viewshed analysis based on geographic information system (GIS) data. The basis for this analysis is explained in the following paragraphs. Staff believes that this a more comprehensive viewshed protection tool. The viewshed analysis map ~xhibit F) utilized a GIS program to analyzethe view of the OS/F district as seen from major roads surrounding the OS~ district. Observation points were established at 250-foot intervals along major roads that afford views of the OS/F district. The GIS program, using the topographic data of the surrounding landscape, identified when areas of the OS/F district would be visible from these locations. Based on the total number of times a given point was visible from the selected roadway, a relative value for observation frequency was established. The frequency of observation for the visible areas was then rated as low, moderate, medium-high, or high visibility. These areas are depicted on the attached individual corridor maps (Exhibit F). The individual viewshed analyses were made from the following roadways: E1 Camino Real (from San Marco County border to Page Mill Road) Page Mill Expressway (from E1 Camino Real to Arastradero) Arastradero Road (from Page Mill Road to Alpine Road) Alpine Road!Sand Hill Road corridor (from Arastradero Road to Arboretum). Interstate 280 (from San Mateo County boundary to Arastradero Road) Stanford Avenue approach to ~the Dish Trail" access Staff considered two ways of collating the data from the individual maps to establish overall visibility values for the district. One approach, the cumulative analysis, averaged values from each of the six individual corridor analyses (Exhibit F). Use of this "averaNng" technique, however did not reflect the actual observer experience of foothills visibility. For example, when one compares the single corridor analysis from 1-280 to the cumulative map, one sees areas of high visibility on the Interstate 280 map, but those areas are ’°averaged out" in the cumulative map. This approach is therefore not recommended. Staff developed a second recommended option through use of an "aggregate map" (Exhibit F.7). This map collates the areas of high visibility from each individual corridor and inclusively indicates these areas of high visibility. The collation of visible areas is then collected for areas of medium- high, moderate, and !ow visibility in the same manner. "Gray arei~s" .on the map indicate areas that could not be seen from any of these observation points. Staff therefore recommends that development be directed to these areas, and allowed in areas of higher visibility only if sufficient justification of need can be made. The viewshed analysis map, while considering actual topography and line of sight, does not take into account existing ground features (trees, structures) or distance from observation points (and thus the actual ability of the observer to see areas considered "highly visible"). Nonetheless, staff believes that the GIS aggregate map provides a higher degree of accuracy regarding actual viewshed than use of an elevation approach, ridgeline designation, or "cumulative viewshed map." Staff therefore recommends that this OS/F Viewshed Map be utilized. To avoid misinterpretation of the individual or aggregate viewshed maps, which only provide graphic representations of the viewshed analysis, staff recommends that the electronic data, rather than a paper version of the map, be adopted. The technology for viewshed analysis will continue to evolve, so the current illustrative maps should not be the means of actual "visibility analysis." Instead, the electronic data that was used to create the illustrative map, and any subsequent refinements to that data, should be utilized for initial evaluation of site visibility. Staff-initiated on- site verification or on-site correction of this GIS viewshed analysis will continue to be a necessary tool for determination of actual visibility of a specific site. The maps used for this analysis will be retained as illustrative tools for staff reference, and should be updated as technology, time, and available resources allow. Once the viewshed analysis was completed, staff considered how best to utilize the data. As shown in the revised language of the ordinance, staff recommends that standards direct development towards the "gray areas" (non-visible areas) and the low to moderate visibility areas. In order to develop in the medium-high to high visibility areas, Stanford will need to demonstrate compelling reasons that these higher visibility areas are necessary for successful implementation of Stanford’s allowable uses for this district. Staff reiterates however, that "field research" is an allowable use, and Stanford has clearly communicated that there will be instances in which high visibility areas are necessary for allowable uses EXHIBIT o2 Planning Commission Hearing February 6. 2005 Item #4 2) Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) Discussion In framing the language revisions, staff has considered the perspective of many community members and of Stanford. Some community members seek to maximize viewshed and environmental protection for the foothills, if not elimination of most possible uses. Stanford seeks to maximize future options for field research and other allowable uses for this district. Through Board adoption of the Community Plan, the County recognized both the community value of viewshed protection and Stanford’s need for flexibility in planning future academic, research, and infrastructure support within the foothills. There is a potential conflict between the community interests and Stanford’s stated needs for this area. Stanford has stated that some areas of high visibility (such as ridgelines) may be preferred locations for certain development (e.g. antennas). Some community members seek to eliminate the use of these same areas of high visibility. Staff has endeavored to balance the interests of the community, the stated needs of the landowner and the policy direction of the Board of Supervisors through the language of the existing ordinance and the recommended revisions contained within the staff report. Staff recognizes that there may be future instances in which Stanford research or other allowable uses require unique conditions that cannot be foreseen at this time (e.g. specific and highly visible location, no grading surrounding a structure, use of a highly reflective paint color). Staff l~as therefore provided language within the recommended supplemental ASA findings that protects the visual resource, and provides for the equally important ability for Stanford to implement allowable uses. Based on Planning Commission direction, staff has proposed that Stanford demonstrate the need to place development in areas of medium-high to high visibility in order to obtain ASA approval. Community members suggested that a threshold for development (structure size, elevation threshold, ~tc.) could be used to elevate review of development applications to the Planning Commission level, instead of the ASA Committee level. Staff recommends that instead, the Planning Commission consider the new supplemental ASA findings, combined with the viewshed analysis, and with zoning text revisions related to development and siting standards. These stronger standards provide more stringent standards for ASA review. Planning Commission Hearing. February 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBITS Eo3 & Eo4 Planning Commission Hearing February’ 6, 2003 Item #4 Exhibit E3 Palo Alto Open Space District Findings Discussion The Palo Alto Open Space Zoning District allows residential and selected commercial uses that are not allowable uses within the OS/F district. Therefore, the nature of the Stanford OS/F and the Palo Alto Open Space districts differ. Additionally, the County approach to the County Zoning Ordinance Revision has been to simplify the ordinance. Elements included in the Palo Alto ordinance required findings are addressed in other sections of the County ordinance. The County does not repeat standards in each zoning district. The County grading ordinance, Tree Preservation Ordinance, and numerous provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance (Article 4: Supplemental Regulations and Standards, Article 5: Procedures and Administration, Article 6: Definitions) pro~vide additional guidance for Planning Office approval of any County applicant, including Stanford University. Some standards related to impervious surface considerations and tree and habitat protection, similar to those of Palo Alto, have been inserted into the proposed required findings for the OS/F district. Exhibit E4 Open Space When the concepts of the Open Space and Field Research and Special Conservation General Plan designations and zoning were discussed, some members of the environmental community expressed the opinion that this approach did not provide enough protection for sensitive areas, particularly habitat areas. Based upon this advocacy and Community Plan encouragement of habitat protection and establishment of easements, staff proposed that open space easements be allowed to be located in Special Conservation Areas (SCA’s). If there is a desire not to allow such easement locations, this can be accommodated. (See Section 3, Staff Summary of Recommendations) Planning Commission Hearing Februaw 6, 2003 Item #4 . .~. EXHIBI I (Viewshed Analysis Maps) FI: F2: F3: F4: F5: F6: FT: Sand Hill Road/Alpine Road Comdor Junipero Serra Blvd. Stanford Avenue Interstate 280 A_rastradero Road Page Mill Road Aggregate Viewshed Analysis Map F Planning Commission Hearing FebruaD’ 6, 2003 Item #4 EXHIBI F. 1 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6.2003 Item #4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conse,wation VISIBILITY’RANGE T-~NOTWSIBLE HIGH VISIBI~TY EXHIBI I F.2 Planning Commission Hearing February’ 6, 2003 Item #’4 Open SpacelFieid Research Viewshed Analysis Junipero Serra Blvd. from San Mateo County Border toPage Mii[-Rd. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS - ~ Open Space and Fe~d Resesrch (:Area of Anal:¢sis) Soecial ConseFvation V]SiB1LTTYRANGE ~NOTWStBLE HIGH EXHIBI I Fo3 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~’ 6, ~.00_ Item #4 Open SpacelField Research \~ ": ,~shed Analysis Stanford Ave. 5-om Aima St. to Junipero Serra Blvd .... LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Fieid Research Special Conservation EXHIBI I F.4 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research~==J (Area of Anaiysis) :~:;:_~:, Special Conservation LOW VISIBiLiT’YRANGE [--"]NOTVISIBLE HIGH VISIBIUTY. EXHIBIT F.5 Planning Commission Hearing February 6. 200.~ Item #4 Space/Field Research Viewsl~ed Analysis LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research (.Area of Analysis) :- ~!~::~ SDeciaI Conse.,wation HIGH VISIBILITY. EXHIBI I F.6 Planning Commission Hearing FebruaD’ 6. 2003 Item #4 Page Mil] Rd. from A~stradero Rd. to Ei Camino Rea! LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~Open Space and Field Research (Area of Anaiysis) :::~i~ Special Consewation VISIBILITY RANGE ~ NOT VISIBLE HIGH VISIBILITY EXHIBI I F.7 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #a LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Open Space and Fieid Research (Area of Anaiysis) S~eciai Conservation EXHIBI I G G1 G2 G3 200 Foot Elevation Map Ridgeline Buffer Map Cumulative Viewshed Analysis Map EXHIBI I G.1 Planning Commission Hearing February.’ 6, 2003 Item #..at 200 Foot Demonst~t~on for Stanford Open Space and Field Research Lands EXHIBI I Go2 Planning Commission Hearing Februao’ 6, 2003 Item #4 From Ridgeiines LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ ~Open Space and Field Research (Area of Anaiysis) ~ Special Conse,~’a+Jon EXHIBIT Go3 Planning Commission Hearing Febnaars.’ 6, 2003 Item #4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Fieid Research ,.o,; __ VIStBI~ RANGE -’---~,s~rr~ ~ ~rea of Analysis) Soec~a! Consewation