Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-02 City Council (5)TO: CRy Ma ager s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 2, 2003 CMR:298:03 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SANTA CLARA COUNTY TEXT FOR THE STANFORD OPEN SPACE/ FIELD RESEARCH (OS~) ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE 2000 STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City Council recommend to the County Board of Supervisors adoption of the proposed Open Space~ield Research (OS/F) Zoning District text with the following comments regarding its application: o Ensure protection of future trail viewshed within the OS/F district. o Regulate fencing o Require notification of the District 5 representative on the County Planning Commission when OS/F projects are considered by the ASA Committee; and o Ensure protection ofviewsheds including undeveloped sites on lower elevations BACKGROUND At several meetings in 2002, the P&TC discussed the proposed Stanford Open Space~ield 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 of 2000. On both July 1 and December 2, 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 County Planning Commission. On February 26, the P&TC reviewed a revised version of the ordinance (see Attachment A). On March 3, 2003 the Council was sent an information report summarizing that meeting. Subsequently, the County Planning Commission discussed the OS/F zoning at two meetings prior to taking its fin!l action on April 3. At the February 26 P&TC meeting, staff explained that the revised OS/F ordinance text addresses many of the issues raised by the P&TC at previous meetings on this topic. Many of these revisions had been made as a result of the County Planning Commission review of the draft ordinance and recommended modifications. Staff supported the CMR:298:03 Page 1 of 4 revisions as proposed and did not recommend inclusion of the following four additional changes recommended previously by the P&TC for the reasons cited; Limiting utility extensions to Stanford uses only; these are allowed uses in the Community Plan Requiring open space dedication for any development in the OS/DF district; the Community Plan calls for open space dedication only for clustered development. , Ensuring fences do not impede wildlife; neither the City’s Comprehensive Plan Open Space criteria or Open Space Zoning District identify restrictions for wildlife migration. o Prohibiting relocation of caretaker residences; field research uses are impermanent resulting in relocation when uses change. In addition, regulations related to visual and environmental protection were added to the zoning text. County staff was in attendance at the P&TC meeting to respond to questions from the Commission regarding the changes to the zoning text and to explain the viewshed analysis undertaken by the County, which in general identifies highly visible areas where development in the OS/F zoning district should be restricted. The P&TC commended the County on the considerable progress that had been made in revising the proposed OS/F ordinance text. The Commission directed staff to forward to the County Planning Commission its support for the revised ordinance with the following three additiona! comments: 1) Amend the OS/F zoning ordinance when the Stanford C-1 and S-1 trails are established to protect the trail viewshed within the OS/F district. 2) Rega~late fencing through the ASA process to minimize impacts to wildlife migration while respecting the needs of agricultura! leaseholders and acknowledging Stanford’s need to protect research equipment. 3)Notify the District 5 representative on the County Planning Commission when the ASA Committee considers OS/F projects. Subsequently, a letter from the P&TC was sent to the County Planning Commission supporting the revised ordinance with the aforementioned modifications. DISCUSSION The County Planning Commission continued its discussion of the Open Space/Field Research Zoning District text at meetings in March and April. As a result of those discussions, ~vo revisions were made to the proposed OS/F text. The proposed zoning text was changed to require County Planning Commission review instead of ASA Committee revie~v for the following: o Projects found by the ASA Committee to b_ave significant environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Projects over 1,000 square feet in bulk or over 35 feet in height that are determined to be in an area of high visibility. CMR:298:03 Page 2 of 4 These changes recommended by the County Planning Commission are considered by staff to strengthen the ordinance and provide additional opportunity for public review for these types of projects. Staff supports the changes and considers them consistent with the focus of the P&TC comments. Attachment B consists of the draft ordinances for the OS~ zoning that will be presented to the Board of Supervisors, incorporating the County Planning Commission revisions. Prior to the April 3 County Planning Commission meeting, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) sent a letter to the County expressing its concern regarding the OS/F ordinance provisions for viewshed protection. These concerns were based on "visibility rating" maps provided as part of the County’s viewshed analysis. MROSD stated that "level, undeveloped lands visible along major roads such as those lands southwest of the intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway" although given a low visibility rating on the maps should be protected, and the Planning Commission should retain control of their review. Staff concurs with MROSD’s depiction of this area as an important viewshed corridor; however, staff also understands that the viewshed map is considered by County staff to be only an illustrative tool to identify general areas at higher elevations where development is not encouraged. This map does not determine a visibility rating for individual sites nor does it have the same legal authority as a zoning or General Plan map. The site characteristics and site design of each proposed project in the OSiF zoning district will be individually reviewed and its visibility rating will be determined at the time a project is proposed; this site specific analysis will determine its actual visibility rating. Staff does suggest that in its letter to the County the City emphasize the importance of viewshed protection for undeveloped areas along Foothill Expressway in order to underscore that area’s viewshed significance. A draft letter from the City to the Board is attached (Attachment C). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Staff Report to Planning & Transportation Commission Attachment B: Draft Ordinance Text for OS~ District Draft Letter Boar ,upervls~Attachment C:to Boargcof--~upm ~rs PREPARED BY: Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Chief Planning Official CMR:298:03 Page 3 of 4 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager cc:Tim Heffington, Planning Office, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Charles Carter, Planning Office, Stanford University CMR:298:03 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Julie Capor~o-no Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT:Planning February 26, 2003 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 County Planning 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 Supervisors 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 County Planning Commission. These letters are included as Attachment A. In both letters forwarded to the County, the City recolnmended 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: Incorporate a height restriction in conformance with the Community 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. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Limit height and design of fences to ensure migration of wildlife. Require an open space dedication for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict the open space dedication to the OSiF district. Specifically identify applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City’s Open Space Zoning District regulations and Comprehensive Plan Open Space Deve!opment Criteria. Allow caretaker’s residences only as non-conforming uses, prohibiting their expansion and allowing only for repair and maintenance, and not allowing 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 County. 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 to 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 Commission continued the item to December 5. At its December 5th meeting, the County Planning Commission requested County staff to address several County 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, County staff conducted a viewshed analysis of the OS/FR zoning district and developed supplemental ASA findings for the restricted range of allowable uses within this zoning district. At its February 5th meeting, the County Planning Commission continued the OS/F item for one month to al!ow adequate time for additional public review of the staff-recommended 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 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 greater 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. City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 impervious 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 impervious 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 use. The County Planning Commission 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. , 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 environmental 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, design and paint reflectivity would also be addressed in the ASA findings. The County 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. o Specifically identify the intensity of development, the range of uses, and type of development that could occur in the district. The P&TC recommended that the OSiF text incorporate the GUP restrictions, standards and 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 Com~ssion review of structures of 1000 square feet or more. County staff recommended 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 County Planning Commission, County 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. County staff considers that elements in the Palo Alto Open Space Zoning district are already included in other sections of the County Zoning Ordinance. The County’s approach to developing the OS/F zoning district has been to avoid repeating all applicable City of Palo Alto Page 3 Planting Ccr~ssi cn Febrmry 6, 2~3 Item #4 File: 8214=00o00o01Z 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 2003. Applicant: Location: Property Address: Gen. Plan Designation: Current Zoning: Property Size: Present Land Use: Supervisorial District: Williamson Act: Staff report prepared: Prepared by: Approved by: 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 January 28, 2003 Tim Heffington, Planner Ann Draper, Planning Director Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item PROJECT / PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION This zoning ordinance amendment creates a new zoning desig~nation of"Open Space and Field Research," also identified as "OS/F." 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 hearing will address consistency with use of a prior CEQA document. Reasons for Actions Concerning Proposal As described in Chapter 5.75 of the March 1, 2003 Revised County Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall make a formal written recommendation regarding a zoning amendment proposal prior to a Board hearing. The ordinance further states that findings of consistency with state law, the zoning ordinance, and the genera! 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 (!) the supplemental recommended findings and (2) recently compiled viewshed analysis data for revision of the current draft of the Stanford OSFF 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 zoning ordinance are now available for review. A one month continuance would allow adequate time for public review and Planning Commission consideration of the following items contained within this staff report: Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 2 (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. 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 Hearing, 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) Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 3 SECTION 1 Planning Commission Requests From December Hearing Request # 1 Look at ways to minimize impact associated with commercial antennas and utility infrastructure. Response: Staff developed supplemental ASA findings that address environmental impacts (See ASA discussion). o Staff also refers Commissioners to the proposed zoning amendment, (Exhibit C5)§2.50.020, Notes 10, 11, and 12. 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 visual resources within this zoning district Staff has therefore taken the following actions to provide greater protection and adequate analysis of potential impacts to visual resources: 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). o 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 Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 4 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 OSiF zoning district, to the OS/F district. 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: o Staff incorporated supplemental ASA findings that address road compatibility with the predominantly natural/rural setting of the zoning district and encourage minimizing 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. ~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. o 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. Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 Page 5 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: o Staff provided a rationale for incorporation of relevant Palo Alto Open Space District concepts within the County ASA required findings (See Section 2, Rationale, Pa!o 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. 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 OSiF viewshed) 2) Exhibit E2 Architectural and Site Approval (ASA) Discussion (Reviews general concepts of County ASA process, and describes the perspectives of Stanford and some community 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 background of previously proposed open space dedication options, and explains current revision recommendation) SECTION 3 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~ 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 6 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-high to hi.~h visibility, or of environmental si2nificance, as determined by the County or *~’° c~;~ ~ ........:~...... v ...................district. IIl. 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): !. pro change proposed. 2. No chattge proposed 2a. No change proposed Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 7 2b.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 s%m-nents utilized in the OS/F viewshed analysis (Junipero Serra Blvd., Stanford Avenue, Page Mill Expressway, Arastradero Road, 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 OS/F viewshed analysis. Development has been sited to minimize the need for grading 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 ~vhere 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 light 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. 2d.No change proposed. (New finding) 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 an area of: (1) no visibility, (2) low visibility, or (3) medium visibility. For 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. 2f.Lighting has been designed and placed to minimize upward glow, provide high beam efficiency, and glare and spill control. 2g.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. 2h.Existing trees with a circumference of 37.7 inches, measured 4.5 feet above ground level, have been preserved and integrated into site design and native vegetation has been preserved to the extent possible. 2i. For any proposed building project located in an oak woodland area as identified in the Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ,#~ Page 8 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 ! 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 segments utilized in the OS/F viewshed analysis. V.Recommended Revision to Caretaker Residence Note Revision ReviseNote !3 (Exhibit C5, §2.50.020, Table 2.50-1) as follows: 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 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. VI. Siting and Structure Size Recommendations Provide 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, grading 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 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 9 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 Secretary 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 / Not Recommended for Consideration G1 G2 G3 200 Foot Elevation Map Ridgeline Buffer Map Cumulative Viewshed Analysis Map Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #~ Page 10 EXHIBIT Planning Commission Hearing FebruaD" 6, 2003 Item ~ Page 11 Stanford Community Plan 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 designation 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; therefore, 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 AGBo 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, regulations, 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 natura! appearance of the foothill setting; c. grazing and other agricultural u~,es; 34 Chapter 2 - Land Use recreational activities which are consistent with protection of environmental resources (e.g., not construction or operation of a new golf course) and with appropriate policies regarding foothill access; specialized 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, spedalized facilities or installations 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-LU 29 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 standards in each zoning district. o Restrict caretaker’s residences The P&TC also discussed Stanford’s request for caretaker’s residences and recolnmended allowing the existing use as non-conforming and allowing repair and maintenance if required but not permitting any relocation or expansion of the use. County 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 Planning 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 OS/F 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. o Ensure fences do not impede migration of wildlife The proposed zoning text incorporates language that requires that fences be designed to minimize visual impacts to the natural setting, consistent with the existing County rega.llations for fences in rural districts. There is no specific provision in the ordinance that addresses migration of wildlife. 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, Planning Office, Stanford University, 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305- 6115 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Letters from City Council to County, dated September 18 and December 3, 2002. - Dec. 3 letter is available upon request. Attachment B: County of Santa Clara Planning Commission Staff Report http ://‘~vw.sccp~anning.~r~/p~a~ming/c~nten~Meetin~sA~‘2endas/StaffRep~rts/Item4Fi~e8214 _0203.pdf City of Palo Alto Page 4 Prepared by:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 ATTACHMENT A September 18, 2002 Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission County of Santa Clara County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 SUBJECT:City Council Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text This letter is to forward to the Board of Supervisors/County Planning Commission the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the proposed Stanford University Community Plan Open Space/Field Research (OS/R) Zoning District text that will be reviewed by the County Planning Commission at its October 3rd meeting. The proposed text was placed on the Council’s consent calendar of July 1st. The Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the Planning Commission after its careful review and deliberation. The Palo Alto Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning district text at four separate meetings. At one of those meetings staff from the County Planning office provided an overview of the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit and the interrelationship of the proposed zoning district. As a result of the discussion, the Planning Commission forwarded a letter to the County Planning Commission on May 30, 2002. That letter is attached and forms the basis for the City Council comments to the County. In general, the allowed uses and development standards for the OS~ Zoning District are considered consistent with the implementation direction of the Stanford Community Plan; however, the city has some concerns related to the proposed zoning that are highlighted below. The ordinance needs more clarity; 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. Specifically the zoning district should include criteria for findings that address the following: Regulate access to sites City of Palo Alto Page 6 Regulate the location, size, capacity and number ofutilities to ensure minimal environmental impacts Regulate trails and roads to either iimit or prohibit paving or other impervious surfaces Provide development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, sitting and orientation sufficient to ensure environmental compatibility but allow flexibility in design review Identify the intensity and range of uses and type of development that could occur in the area Ensure that fences do not impede the migration of wildlife by limiting height and requiring an open design 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 recommends that the County use as a model the City’s Open Space Zoning District for developing standards of review. The City developed these standards for land that is substantially similar to the Stanford OS/R area, which allow maximum development of two stories with 25-foot elevations. Attached to this letter are the pertinent sections related to the Open Space District from the City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.71 (18.7!.140 Special Regulations). These regulations address geological and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access, grading, and soil erosion. The City also recommends 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 County. 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 an open space requirement for non-clustered development and that for both clustered and non-clustered projects the open space component is not allowed to be transferred to the yet-to-be-established Special Conservation areas, which already prohibit development. The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of its recommendations. The City also requests that any revisions to the proposed text be forwarded to both our Planning Commission and City Council Sincerely, Vic Ojakian Mayor Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Page 7 Land Designations ¯ % Campus Residential - Low Density Campus Residential - Moderate Density Academic Campus Public School Campus Open Space Open Space and Field Research Special Conservation Academic Growth Boundary sca~~Figure 2.21:30,000 N 05 Stanford University Community Plan Adopted Decem~r 2000 EXHIBIT C Exhibit C3 contains the following materials: Exhibit C 1 : Exhibit C2: Exhibit C3: Exhibit C4: Exhibit C5: Enactment Ordinance Rezoning Ordinance Zoning Map Parcels to Be Rezoned Current Draft Zoning Amendment Text Planning Commission Hearing February" 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT C1 Planning Commission Hearing FebruaD’ 6, 2003 Item 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 This ordinance amends the text of Chapter 2.50 of the Santa Clara County 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 recommendation 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 County 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 // shown in Exhibit I of this ordinance. PASSED AND ADOI~ED 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 FebruaD’ 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item 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 OS/F Summary This ordinance amends the Official Zoning Maps of the County of Santa Clara Zoning Ordinance, as referenced in Section 2-3 and 2-4, Appendix I of the County Ordinance Code, by chano~ng 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 designation. [County File #8214-00-00-01Z] THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Rezoning of certain Stanford University 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 A1, A1-20s, and A1-20s-sr to OS/F. (List of Parcels) from 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: 1."OS/F, Open Space/Field Research" Zoning District and regulations 2.Map of Parcels to be Rezoned 3.List of Parcels to be Rezoned Planning Commission Hearing February." 6, 2003 Item #~ EXHIBIT Co3 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~ 6, 2003 Item Academic Growth Boundary Open Space and Field Research - Affected Parcels [Z~Open Space and Field Research (Lands to be Rezoned) I~ Other Land Use Designations Campus Residential - Low Density Campus Residential - Moderate Density Academic Campus Public School Campus Open Space Special Conservation ¯ November,, 2002 ¯Planning Commission Meeting EXHIBIT C.4 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~" 6, 2003 Item 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 14216041 14216070 14216071 14216072 14216076 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT Co5 Planning Commission Hearing Febmar2,.* 6, 2003 Item CHAPTER 2°50 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS (DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPA CE AND FIELD RESEARCH 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 A1 "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 agricultural uses, and provides opportunities through the use permit process for other uses 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 Services district, also known as the RS district, is to allow specific and necessary highway uses and services within clusters at appropriate locations necessary to serve 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 the 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. Planning February. 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~ lands outside the Academic Growth Boundary. Allowable uses include utilities, low intensity agriculture, limited agricultural research, field research and Stanford field studies, limited outdoor recreational activities, Commission Hearing 6. 2003 Item ~ recreational trails, environmental restoration, limited ancillary 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. "S"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. "U"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. Supplemental regnlations for the establishment and conduct of a use are referenced in the "Supplemental Regnlations" column of the table. Use classifications not listed in the table are prohibited in the special purpose base districts. 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 ZONING Supplemental A1 RS os,q~~ Regulations Adult Uses IJ --§ 4.10.020 Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS Q Permitted by Right S SpecialPermit (Ch 5.60) A ASA(Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES Agriculture Agricultural AccessoD’ Structures & Uses Agricultural Employee Housing Short Term Long Term Agricultural Equipment Sales & Services Agricultural Processing Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Agricultural Research Agricultural Sales Limited General Farmers’ Markets Agriculturally Related Entertainment & Commercial Uses Antennas-Commercial Minor Major Auction Houses Automotive Sales & Services Limited Repair General Repair Sales & Rentals Service Stations ZONING RS OS/F Supplemental Regulations [][]A § 4.20.020; Note 1 (OS/F) U ~- U -~ [] []A A A A U - U - Note 1, Note 2 (OSFF), § 4.10.030 § 4.10.030 § 4.10.030 Note 1 (OSFF) § 4.40.110 (Signs), Note 1, Note 2 (OSFF) § 4.40.1 i0, Note I, Note 2 (os/F) U U § 4.10.050 A A A U U A U -- Planning Commission Hearing February., 6, 2003 Item Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS ~! Permitted by Right S SpeciaIPermit (Ch 5.60) A ASA(Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES ZONING RS OS~ Supplemental RegulationsA1 Storage U -- Washing U -- Banks U -- Bed & Breakfast Inns U U -§ 4.10.060 Billboards L!-- Broadcasting U -- Business Services LI -- Butcheries IJ -- Caretaker Residence IJ U A Note 13 (OS/F) Camps & Retreats --- Cemeteries U -- Churches (See "Religious Institutions") Clubs-Private & Nonprofit IJ -- Colleges & Vocational Schools LI -- Community Care Limited [][]-§ 4.10.090, Note 3 Expanded IJ IJ -§ 4.10.090 Corporation Yards IJ -- Dairies IJ -- Domestic Animals [][]- Feed Lots IJ -- Field Research [][][]Note I(OS/F) Food & Beverage Sales U U -Note 4 (RS) Funeral & Cremation Services IJ -- Golf Courses & Country Clubs~U --§ 4.10.140(B); Note 5 (OS/F) Golf Driving Ranges !U --§ 4.10.150(B) Health & Fitness Clubs U -- Helipads U --§ 4.10.160 Planning Commission Hearing February, 6. 2003 Item ~ Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS [] Permitted by Right S SpecialPermit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES ZONING RS OS/FA1 Historic Structure-Use Conversion I~S -§ 4.10.170 Home Occupations General [][]-§4.10.180 Expanded S S -§ 4.10.180 Hospitals & Clinics U -- Hotels & Motels U U - Kennels U --§ 4.10.200 Laboratories & Testing Services U -- Laundries-Commercial U -- Livestock Auction Yards U --94.10.210 Machine~’ & Equipment Services Limited U -- General U -- Maintenance & Repair Services U -- Manufactured-Home Sales & Rentals U -- Manufacturing Limited General Intensive U U U U U U U U Massage Establishments Note 6 Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries Note 7 Museums Mushroom Farms 94.10.220 Nonprofit Institutions Supplemental Regulations Nurseries Retail Wholesale Offices Oil and Gas Extraction Parking Services & Facilities Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item ~ Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS [] Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) IJ Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES Personal Services: All Petroleum Products Distribution Poultry & Egg Farms Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Facilities Reception Facilities Recreation- Commercial Recreational Playgrounds & Sports Fields Recreational Vehicle Parks Recycling Facilities Collection Facilities-Consumer Recycling Recycling! Processing Facilities- Consumer Waste Concrete, Asphalt, & Soil Recycling Composting & Wood Recycling Hazardous Materials ReLigious Institutions Residential Single-Family Two-Family Multi-Family Residential Accessory Structures & Uses Residential-Communal Institutional Restaurants and Bars Retail Sales & Services General Outdoor Sales & Storage Rodeos & Equestrian Events ZONING RS OS/FA1 IJ --§ 4.10.240 IJ --§ 4.10.250 IJ --§ 4.10.260 IJ IJ -§ 4.10.280 Supplemental Regulations Note 1, Note 8 Note 9 § 4.20.020 tl !.!-Note 4 (RS) Planning Commission Hearing Februaw 6, 2003 Item Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS I[~ Permitted by Right $SpecialPermit (Oh 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) kl Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES Rooming Houses, Fraternities, & Sororities Schools Secondary Dwellings Sport Shooting Stables-Commercial Stanford Specialized Facilities & 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 Mining Utilities Minor Major Veterinary Clinics & Hospitals Warehousing & Storage Indoor Outdoor Well-Drilling Operations Wholesaling & Distribution Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ~ ZONING A1 RS OS/F Supplemental Regulations Note 11 Note 12 S S -§ 4.10.340 IJ --§ 4.10.360 --A Note 10 (OSFF) Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS [] Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA(Ch5.40) [J Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USES Wind Energy Conversion Systems- Commercial Wineries Limited General Expanded-Receptiord Special Events Facilities ZONING A1 RS OS/F Supplemental Regulations tJ kl -§ 4.10.390 NOTES: 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. Within the OSiF district, the nature of agricultural processing is limited to low intensity processing and a~m-icultural sales activities are limited to those that would not significantly impact local transportation patterns. (e.g. Activities such as packaging products for off-site shipping and allowing limited on-site purchase of a~m-icultural 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.) Facilities qualifying as "Large-Family Day-Care Homes," serving between 7 and 12 persons, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County Ordinance Code. In Roadside Services (RS) districts, general retail sales uses must be limited 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. The existing Stanford University 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. Within the OS/F district, the composting facility., is limited to servicing Stanford University purposes, and is not intended to serve other communities or jurisdictions, Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, and new secondary 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 10. 11. 12. 13. Includes structures or facilities that require a remote setting, including but not limited to facilities for astronomical or atmospheric research. Such structures or facilities shall require isolation from sources of interference (such as noise, vibration, electroma~maetic fields, or similar impediments). 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 structures shall be restored to pre-disturbance condition. Within the OS/F 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. 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 caretaker residences. Consistent with other provisions of this ordinance, the existing structures 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 5,000 sq. ft.20 acres 160 acres~ For building ] 3,750 sq. ft. site i With lot size Ch. 3.10 combining districts Setbacks (feet) Front Side Side, Exterior (corner lot) Rear Scenic road 1 acre ASA NA NA 25-’30 ASA 5:30 ASA 102 30 ASA Planning Commission Hearing Februaw 6. 2003 Item ~-30 ASA 1002 100 ASA TABLE 2.50-2 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS: PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A1 RS OS/F !See §4.20.110, Setback Exceptions ASAExceptions Maximum height Feet Stories Accessory buildings 352 35 ASA 2-"2 ASA See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards NOTES: 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 Planning Commission for a nonresidential cluster, subject to a cluster permit, as provided for in § 5.45. Minimum lot area, subject to a cluster permit, shall be determined by the slope density formula as described for the 20s combining district in § 3.10.040. 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: Where a lot abuts on a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the ultimate road right of way; Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be measured 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 At district shall be determined by the ASA committee, subject to the following limitations: 1.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 2.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. Planning Commission Hearing February 6. 2003 Item §2.50.040 Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS~ District 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 service 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. 2.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: ao No 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 only 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. Co 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. Project design incorporates clustering concepts where appropriate, both individually and cumulatively (in relation to other projects), to provide a means for reducing the amount of improvements required for development, to conserve natural features, and/or 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 property. Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item Co e.Additional criteria contained within use regulations and notes of §2.50.020 shall apply. 3.Fences. Fences shall be of a design 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 intentiona! 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, El Camino Real, Alpine Road, and dedicated public trails. 2.The project recreates or improves desigu 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 Februa~’ 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT D Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION (effective March 1.2003)EXCERPTS FROM Chapter 5.45 OF THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 5.45.050 (Excerpts) Permanent dedication of open space. In order to ensure that open space preserved through 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 Midpeninsula 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 preserve 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 OS/F 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 shall 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 contig-uous to the development area and may be located in either the Open Space/Field Research district or the Special Conservation district. (A proposed revision for the underlined text is contained within the staff report, Section 3, Sutnmarv of Staff Recommendations.) Cluster development proposals may be arranged in more than one cluster 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 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~" 6, 2003 Item sites, significant stands of mature trees, and riparian areas. Furthermore, 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 configuration 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 February 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT E (Section 2 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 FebruaD’ 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT E. 1 Planning Commission Hearing February. 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, staffis 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 ridgetine 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-ridgetine" 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 (Exhibit F) utilized a GIS program to analyze the view of the OS/F district as seen from major roads surrounding the OSFF 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 Planning Commission Heating February, 6, 2003 Item corridor maps (Exhibit F). The individual viewshed analyses were made from the following roadways: E1 Camino Real (from San Mateo County border to Page Mil! 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 t~vo 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 "averaging" 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 low visibility in the same manner. "Gray areas" 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. Planning Commission Hearing Februaw 6, 2003 Item 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 Eo2 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item 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 ofviewshed 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 has 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, etc.) 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 vievvshed 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 EXHIBITS Eo3 & Eo4 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~’ 6, 2003 Item ~,~ Exhibit E3 Palo Alto Open Space District Findings Discussion The Palo Alto Open Space Zoning District allows residential and selected colmnercial 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) provide 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 EXHIBIT F (Viewshed Analysis Maps) FI: F2: F3: F4: F5: F6: FT: Sand Hill Road/Alpine Road Corridor Junipero Serra Blvd. Stanford Avenue Interstate 280 Arastradero Road Page Mill Road Aggregate Viewshed Analysis Map Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT F. 1 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Sand Hill RoacL/Alpine Road Corridor Sand Hill Rd. Alpine Rd. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 1===~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY MI=D|UM VISIBILITY RANGE ~ NOT VISIBLE HIGH VISIBILITY 1.250 2,500 5,000 Feet I I ~I EXHIBIT F.2 Planning Commission Hearing FebruaW 6, 2003 Item Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Junipero Serra Blvd. from San Mateo County Border to Page Mill Rd. 2 Junipero Serra Blvd. A LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) ~ Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY RANGEVISIBILITYr~ NOT VISIBLE HIGH VISIBILITY 1.250 2,500 5,000 Feet I I I I EXHIBIT Fo3 Planning Commission Hearing February 6. 2003 Item Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Stanford Ave. from Alma St. to Junipero Serra Blvd, A Stanford Ave. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS f=====~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY RANGEVISIBILITYr--] NOT VISIBLE 0 1,250 2.500 I ~I HIGH VISIBILITY 5.000 Feet EXHIBIT Fo4 Planning Commission Hearing February. 6. 2003 Item Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Interstate 280 - San Mateo County Boundary to Arastradero Blvd. Interstate 280 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY RANGEVISIBILITY I---] NOT VISIBLE 0 1.250 2,500 I i I ~ HIGH VISIBILITY 5,000 Feet I EXHIBIT Fo5 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item ,#4 Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Arastradero Rd. from Page Mill Rd. to Alpine Rd. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY RANGEVISIBILITY~ NOT VISIBLE HIGHVISIBILITY 1.250 2.500 5,000 Feet i I l I EXHIBIT F.6 Planning Commission Hearing February. 6, 2003 Item #4 Open Space/Field Research Viewshed Analysis Page Mill Rd. from Arastradero Rd. to El Camino Real Page Mill Rd. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ~ Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW VISIBILITY RANGEVISIBILITY[----1 NOT VISIBLE 1,250 2.500 5,000 Feet ~I ~I EXHIBIT F.7 Planning Commission Hearing February" 6, 2003 Item 2,500 --LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -- O Open Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation #P, JtFT LOW __ VISIBILITY RANGE-- HIGHVISIBII,JTY VISIBIUTYO NOT VISIBLE G1 G2 G3 EXHIBIT 200 Foot Elevation Map Ridgeline Buffer Map Cumulative Viewshed Analysis Map G Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item EXHIBIT Go 1 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4 200 Foot Demonstration for Stanford Open Space and Field Research Lands ~Academic Growth Boundary 200 ft. Elevation Boundary ~Open Space and Field Research I Special Conservation ~Open Space/Field Research Below 200 ft. i~ ~ Feet 0 500 1,000 2,000 EXHIBIT G.2 Planning Commission Hearing February 6, 2003 Item #4. Open Space/Field Research Ridgeline Analysis Legend ! r-- LAND USE DESIGNATIONS --"q ~Open Space and Field Research 100-Foot Buffer ~ (Area of Analysis)From RidgeNnes Special Conservation EXHIBIT Go3 Planning Commission Hearing Februa~" 6, 2003 Item LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -- D ©pen Space and Field Research (Area of Analysis) Special Conservation LOW __ VISIBILITY RANGE -- H~GHVISIBILITYVISIBlUTYD NOT VISIBLE Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. NS- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 2.50 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO OPEN SPACE AND FIELD RESEARCH ZONING Summary This ordinance repeals and reenacts Chapter 2.50 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I of the County of Santa Clara 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 recommendation to enact zoning applicable to Stanford University lands having the "Open Space/Field Research" General Plan 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 County of Santa Clara, Appendix I &the County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code, is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Chapter 2.50 Special Purpose Base Districts Sections § 2.50.010 § 2.50.020 § 2.50.030 § 2.50.040 Purposes Use Regulations Development Standards Review Authority., Special Criteria, Viewshed Analysis, 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 A1 "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 catego~’ but are necessa~’ 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 agricultural uses. and provides opportunities through the use permit process for other uses 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 Services district, also known as the RS district, is to allow specific and necessa~: highway uses and services within clusters at appropriate locations necessa~ to serve 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 the 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 and 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 Boundao~’. Allowable uses include utilities, low intensity agriculture, limited agricultural research, field research, and Stanford field studies, limited outdoor recreational activities, recreational trails, environmental restoration, limited ancillary 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 § 2.50.040. § 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. 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. Supplemental 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. Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS []Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING S u p plem en ta 1 A1 RS OS/F Regulations Adult Uses U --§ 4.10.020 Agriculture []~![]Note 1 (OS/F) []~[~A § 4.20.020; Note 2 (OS/F) S ---- U ---- Agricultural AccessoD’ Structures & Uses Agricultural Employee Housing Short Term Long Term Agricultural Equipment Sales & Services Agricultural Processing Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Agricultural Research Agricultural Sales Limited General Farmers’ Markets Agriculturally Related Entertainment & Commercial Uses Antennas -Commercial Minor Major Auction Houses Automotive Sales & Services Limited Repair General Repair Sales & Rentals Service Stations Storage Washing Banks U U -’ U U -§ 4.10.050 A A A U U A U -- U _m § 4.10.030; Note 2, Note 3 (OSiF) § 4.10.030 § 4.10.030 § 4.40.110 (Signs); Note 2, Note 3 (OS/F) § 4.40.110; Note 2, Note 3 (OSiF) Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS []Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) L/Use PermitJ ASA (Ch 5,65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental A1 RS OS/F Regulations Bed & Breakfast Inns L![J -§ 4.10.060 Billboards LI -- Broadcasting LI -- Business Services IJ -- Butcheries IJ -- Camps & Retreats --- Caretaker Residences IJ IJ A Note 4 (OS/F) Cemeteries [J -- Churches (See "Religious Institutions")- Clubs-Private & Nonprofit [J -- Colleges & Vocational Schools LI -- Community Care Limited [][]-§ 4.10.090; Note 5 Expanded [J tJ -§ 4.t0.090 Corporation Yards [J -- Dairies tJ -- Domestic Animals [][]- Feed Lots IJ -- Field Research [][][]Note 2 (OS/F) Food & Beverage Sales LI IJ -Note 6 (RS) Food Preparation & Cat~ring Services [J -- Funeral & Cremation Services I.J -- Golf Courses & Count~’ Clubs [J --§ 4.10.140(B) Note 7 (OS/F) Golf Driving Ranges LI --§ 4,10.150(B) Health & Fitness Clubs LI -- Helipads tJ --§ 4.10.160 Historic Structure-Use Conversion A ,6,-§ 4.10.170 Home Occupations General [][]-§ 4.10.180 Expanded S ~-§ 4.10.180 Hospitals & Clinics U -- Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING A1 RS OS/F Hotels & Motels U U - Kennels U --§ 4.10.200 Laboratories & Testing Services U -- Laundries-Commercial U -- Livestock Auction Yards U --§4.10.210 MachineD’ & Equipment Services Limited U -- General U -- Maintenance & Repair Services U -- Manufactured-Home Sales & Rentals U -- Manufacturing Limited General Intensive U U U U U U U U Massage Establishments Note 8 Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries Note 9 Museums Mushroom Farms §4.10.220 Nonprofit Institutions Nurseries Retail U -- Wholesale U -- Offices O -- Oil and Gas Extraction U -- Parking Services & Facilities U -- Personal Services: All U -- Petroleum Products Distribution U -- Poult~’ & Egg Farms U --§ 4.10.240 Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft Facilities U --§ 4.!0.250 Reception Facilities U --§ 4.10.260 Recreation -Commercial U -- Recreational Playgrounds & Sports Fields U -- [~Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted Supplemental Regulations Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS []Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Ch 5.60) ,6,ASA (Ch 5.40) U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental A1 RS OS/F Regulations 0 U -§ 4.10.280Recreational Vehicle Parks Recycling Facilities Collection Facilities-Consumer Recycling Recyclin~ Processing Facilities-Consumer Waste Concrete, Asphalt, & Soil Recycling Composting & Wood Recycling Hazardous Materials Religious Institutions Residential Single-Family Two-Family Multi-Family Residential AccessoD’ Structures & Uses Residential-Communal Institutional Restaurants and Bars Retail Sales & Services General Outdoor Sales & Storage Rodeos & Equestrian Events Rooming Houses, Fraternities, & Sororities Schools SecondaD’ Dwellings Sport Shooting Stables-Commercial Stanford Specialized Facilities and Installations Studios-Arts & Crafts Surface Mining Swim & Tennis Clubs Taxidermy Temporal" Residences / Construction Theaters U R _ Note 2, Note 10 (OS!F) U U - U - U -- R R - Note 11 § 4.20.020 Note 6 (RS) § 4.10.340; Note 11 § 4.10.360 Note 12 (OSiF) U -- U -- U -- U -- U -- Table 2.50-1 USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS []Permitted by Right S Special Permit (Oh 5.60) A ASA (Ch 5.40) LI Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40) -Not Permitted USE CLASSIFICATIONS ZONING Supplemental RS OS/F Regulations Timber Harvest Operations -Commercial Truck & Railroad Terminals Truck Sales & Services Repair Sales Storage Underground Mining Utilities Minor Major Veterina~’ Clinics & Hospitals Warehousing & Storage Indoor Outdoor Well-Drilling Operations Wholesaling & Distribution Wind Energy Conversion Systems-Commercial Wineries Limited General Expanded-Reception/Special Events Facilities A1 Note 13, Note 14 (OS/F) Note 13, Note 14 (OS/F) § 4.10.390 A NOTES: Within the OS/F district, tree farm operations that grow trees in containers or in the ground are consistent with the "Agriculture" use classification. Within the OS/F district, structures ancillaD’ to any’ allowed use or activity are permitted subject to the requirements of ASA (chapter 5.40 and § 2.50.040(B))o Within the OS!F district, agricultural processing is limited to low intensit)’ processing and agricultural sales activities that would not significantly impact local transportation patterns. For example, 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 exceed the intensity allowed in this district. Prior to establishment of any use or activity, the Planning Office must determine that such use or activity is of low intensity and consistent with the General Use Permit requirements for the OS/F district. 9. 10. 11. !2. t3. 14. Within the OS/F district, caretaker’s residences, as defined in § 2.10.030, are allowed as follows: A cumulative total of five caretaker’s residences is allowed to the extent they are consistent with all provisions of the Stanford General Use Permit and the zoning ordinance. This cumulative total includes all legal existing residential structures within the OS~ district, including any that may be legal nonconforming uses. Any existing legal nonconforming caretaker’s residences that existed on December 12, 2000 and have not been subsequently abandoned may continue to be utilized as caretaker residences. Stanford University bears the burden of establishing that any existing structure and use is legal or legal nonconforming. Consistent with all other provisions of the zoning ordinance, any legal structure that has been converted to a caretaker’s residence may be relocated, replaced, or modified, so long as there is no cumulative increase in the overall square footage of all residential structures. Caretaker’s residences are subject to ASA (chapter 5.40 and § 2.50.040 (B)). Cumulative building area (square footage and building footprint) for the five caretaker’s residences shall not exceed the total square footage of documented building area for al! legal or legal nonconforming residential structures that existed in the OS/F district on December 12, 2000. Facilities qualifying as "’Large-Family Day-Care Homes," serving between 7 and 12 persons, are subject to an administrative permit, per the provisions of Division B24 of the County, Ordinance Code. In Roadside Services (RS) districts, general retail sales uses must be limited in scale and ancillary., to a permitted use that is primarily oriented toward serving the needs of the motoring public, consistent with the General Plan. The existing Stanford University Golf Course may be modified or reconfigured within its boundaries as they existed on December 12, 2000, but the Golf Course footprint may not be expanded. Modification or replacement of the Golf Course clubhouse or ancillaU support facilities is permitted if consistent with all applicable provisions of the Community.’ Plan, General Use Permit, and the zoning ordinance. Massage establishments shall comply with the provisions of Division B22 of the County’ Ordinance Code. Medicinal marijuana dispensaries shall comply with the provisions of Division B26 of the County, Ordinance Code. Within the OS/F district, composting facilities are limited to those servicing Stanford University purposes, and no other communities, jurisdictions or uses (e.g., Stanford shopping center). Single-family dwellings, including certain additions, and new secondau’ dwellings, may’ be subject to the building site approval provisions of §§ C12-300 through C12-399 of the County’ Ordinance Code. Within the OS/F district, Stanford specialized facilities and installations are limited to those structures or facilities that require a remote setting, including but not limited to facilities for astronomical or atmospheric research. Only those structures or facilities that require isolation from sources of interference (such as noise, vibration, electromagnetic fields, or similar impediments) are allowed. Within the OS/F district, existing utilities may be replaced if there is no increase in size or scale of aboveground structures. Aboveground disturbance resulting from the maintenance or replacement of such structures shall be restored to pre-disturbance condition. Within the OS/F district, new utilities may be constructed that serve either Stanford or other lands if such facilities reasonably’ minimize degradation to the natural environment and maintain the predominantly natural appearance of the foothill setting. // // // // P~oe R of 1 ~ §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 Minimum lot area For lot creation For building site With lot size combining districts Setbacks (feet) Front: Side Side, Exterior (corner lot) Rear Scenic road Exceptions Maximum height Feet Stories Accessory buildings NOTES: 1. A1 RS O S/F [Reserved] 5,000 sq. ft.20 acres 160 acres~ 3,750 sq. ft.1 acre ASA Ch. 3.!0 NA NA 252 30 ASA 52 30 ASA 102 30 ASA 252 30 ASA 1002 100 ASA See § 4.20.110, Setback Exceptions 352 35 ASA 22 2 ASA See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards Within the OS/F district, the optional clustering provision may be exercised (chapter 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 Planning Commission for a nonresidential cluster subdivision subject to a cluster permit (chapter 5.45). Minimum lot area for the cluster shall be determined by the slope density formula as described for the -20s combining district in § 3.10.040 except that the reference in § 3.10.040 to density,, relative to land area per dwelling unit, shall not apply in the OS/F district. 2.For non-residential uses, see subsection C of this section. B.Measurements. of measurement: The standards shown in Table 2.50-2 are subject to the following rules 1.Where a lot abuts a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the ultimate road right of way; (see "setback" definition in §6.10.030) 2.Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the property line unless otherwise specified; and 3. Height shall be measured according to the provisions of Article 6, Definitions. P~ oe q of 1 ~ Co 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: I.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 Nonresidential uses adjacent tO any’ residentially developed property shal! 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 Review Authority, Special Criteria, Viewshed Analysis, and Development Standards for the OS/F District No Permitted Activities and Criteria. The following activities, which do not involve permanent structures, are permitted by right. 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 service roads and student field trips. Development of trails is allowed, subject to all county requirements, including but not limited to the grading ordinance (division C12, chapter III of the ordinance code). Bo Open Space and Field Research Viewshed Analysis and Methodology. All uses or development activity subject to ASA must first be evaluated using the Open Space and Field Research Viewshed Analysis (O$/F viewshed analysis). Methodology guiding use of this analysis is described herein. The OS/F viewshed analysis requires use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) software, copyrighted by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). A similar version of software or shareware that provides equivalent results may be substituted for the ESRI program. Consistent with other provisions of this chapter, ArcGIS, Version 8.2 (or subsequent versions as that software may be revised) and the spatial analyst extension for that software shall be used as described in the following paragraphs. Paper maps may be produced as illustrative tools for project evaluation; however, the methodology described in this subsection, rather than any paper map, must be used to determine project-specific visibility. Along the viewshed corridors identified below, observation points shal! be established within a range of 100- to 250-foot intervals. Utilizing current topographic data available from the U.S. Geological Survey or an equally verifiable public source, the software program that is utilized for viewshed analysis establishes the total number of times a given pixel (i.e., zone of observation) within the district would be visible from individual viewshed corridors. Based on the total number of times each pixel is visible, an aggregate value for observation frequency is established. This frequency is then used to designate visibility zones that are, in descending order: (1) high, (2) medium-high, (3) medium, or (4) low. Areas that are never visible are identified as "no-visibility" areas. Viewshed Corridors 1. Junipero Serra Blvd. (from San Mateo Count?’ border to Page Mi!l Road) 2. Page Mill Expressway (from Junipero Serra to Arastradero) 3. Arastradero Road (from Page Mill Road to Alpine Road; and from Page Mill Road to Deer Creek Road) 4. Alpine Road/Sand Hill Road corridor (from Arastradero Road to Arboretum). 5. Interstate 280 (from Sand Hill Road to Arastradero Road) 6. Stanford Avenue approach to "the Stanford Dish Trail" access 7. Palm Drive (from Arboretum to the end of "the Stanford oval.") Because the software model does not account for existing ground features (e.g., trees, rocks, minute topographic detail) or for constructed features (e.g., buildings, structures, infrastructure), project-specific site analysis may be used to verify or revise site-specific visibility ratings. Project-specific analysis may include but is not limited to: additional information shown on the site plan or other documents (e.g., contour lines) that is available and relevant photographs of the project site from viewshed corridor placement of site-specific indicators of project bulk (length, width, height) and dimension (e.g., story poles, ground staking) site visits and/or assessments of visibility from viewshed corridors by County planning staff Based on the results of the project-specific analysis, it may be determined that the project location visibility would be obscured. In such instances, the project’s visibility designation may be revised downward for the purpose of determining the appropriate review authority (e.g., a high visibility zone could be revised, relative to a specific project, to become a medium-high zone). Conversely, if any component of a proposed project in a zone of medium-high, medium, low, or no visibility would be within the line of sight of the next higher visibility zone, the project will be determined to be within the higher visibility zone (e.g., projects in a medium-high zone could be determined to be in a high visibility zone). Based on the visibility designation determined through use of the OS/F viewshed analysis described in this subsection, the appropriate review authority shall be determined pursuant to §2.50.040(C). Review Authority. 1. ASA Authority. The ASA committee is the approving authority for all uses subject to ASA in the OS/F district except as otherwise provided in this section and within Chapter 5.40. P~oell ~f 15 2. Planning Commission Authority. The Planning Commission is the approving authority for all uses subject to ASA in the OS/F district that meet either of the following criteria: The project involves construction of (i) a building or structure that equals or exceeds 1,000 square feet or (ii) a tower, antenna or other structure that exceeds 35 feet in height from grade and the Planning Office determines, through use of the OS/F viewshed analysis (§ 2.50.040(B)), that a project component would be located partially or wholly within a high visibility zone or is of a height that would be within the line-of-sight of a high visibility zone from a viewshed corridor utilized in the OS/F viewshed analysis; or b.The project has one or more potentially significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels. 3. Required Findings and Criteria Applicable to All Uses. Any use subject to review by the Secretary of ASA, the ASA Committee or the Planning Commission shall comply with all of the following findings and criteria, in addition to the standard ASA findings of §5.40.040: ao The project requires a remote, natural setting and cannot feasibly be located within the Academic Growth Boundary (e.g., avoidance of interference from electromagnetic or vibration sources can only be achieved in the proposed location). No Project design and location afford reasonable protection to environmental resources of the OS/F district, including aesthetic resources. Specifically, views of the district from the viewshed corridors utilized in the OS/F viewshed analysis (§2.50.040(B) have been protected. c.All of the following criteria are met, unless the project applicant provides compelling evidence that compliance is infeasible: ii. iii. The development has been sited to blend with or utilize the local terrain to minimize visibility of development from viewshed corridors utilized for the OS/F viewshed analysis. The development has been sited to minimize the need for grading and additional landscaping, and any proposed landscaping or grading minimizes the view of the project from the viewshed corridors utilized in the OS/F viewshed analysis. The need for additional impervious surface has been minimized. The development incorporates appropriate design and color selection to blend with the surrounding predominantly natural and rural setting. Color selection provides minimal light reflectivity. In cases where the approval authority identifies color or material as a concern, colors and materials will be submitted do eo ho and approved by the designated approval authority prior to issuance of a building permit. V°If necessary, and where feasible, mitigation measures have been established that reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels. If all of the project’s environmental impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, the project may only be approved if the approving authority finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Project design incorporates clustering concepts where appropriate, both individually and cumulatively (in relation to other projects), to reduce the amount of improvements required for development, conserve natural features, or facilitate a more aesthetic and efficient use of open space. Where appropriate and to the extent allowed by law, permanent dedication of open space has been required as a condition of approval to mitigate project impacts. Unless the applicant can demonstrate that the development must be located in medium-high or high visibility zone as identified in the OS/F viewshed analysis (§2.50.040(B)), the development shall be located as follows: (1) first preference: no visibility zone, (2) second preference: low visibility zone, (3) third preference: medium visibility zone, or (4) fourth preference (discouraged): medium-high visibility zone. For any development proposed to be located in a medium-high to high visibility zone, appropriate mitigation measures have been established to mitigate viewshed impacts. The project is consistent with all criteria in § 2.50.020, including the notes to Table 2.50-1. Lighting has been designed and placed to minimize upward glow, provide high beam efficiency, and provide glare and spill control. Project desi~ and siting minimize the need for new access roads, and any new 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 the OS/F district. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.7 inches, measured 4.5 feet above ground level, have been preserved and integrated 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 Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Stanford Community Plan and 2002 General Use Permit, mitigation and monitoring measures have been established .that provide for creation and maintenance of 1.5 acres of replacement habitat for every ! 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. Eo Special Allowance for Replacement of Existing Legal Structures Notwithstanding § 4.50.020, reconstruction of any existing legal structures or facilities following their destruction by a natural disaster, accident, or intentional act of a party other than the owner or a lessee is permitted in the OS/F district ifal! of the following criteria are met: The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is environmentally superior to the previous use (e.g., moves project from riparian corridor) and does not increase impacts to visual resources as viewed from the viewshed corridors utilized in the OS!F viewshed analysis. 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 the use. The project may be relocated if the proposed location is environmentally superior and the previous location is restored or rehabilitated to standards determined by the Count5’ (e.g., previously disturbed riparian corridor location is revegetated with native grasses). 4.There is no increase in floor area. 5.The reconstruction complies with all current building codes and standards. 6.Architecture and Site Approval (ASA) is obtained. Structural Size Limits and Siting Requirements. Structures shall be consistent with restrictions set forth in the Stanford General Use Permit. For structures of 1,000 square feet or more, site design shall minimize visibility of structures from viewshed corridors utilized for the OS/F viewshed analysis (§2.50.040(B)) to the extent feasible. // // F.Supplemental Provisions. Fences. Fences must be of a design 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 the construction or replacement of fences in the OS/F district. 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: ABSTAIN: Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Phyllis A. Perez, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Lizanne Reynolds, Deputy County Counsel ORDINANCE NO. NS - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AMENDING SECTION 5.45.050 OF THE REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO CLUSTER PERMITS Summarz This ordinance amends Section 5.45.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I of ~e County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code related to cluster permits. This ordinance implements t_he Stanford Community Plan, in particular, the Land Use policies and implementation recommendation 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: Section 5.45.050 of the Article 5, Chapter 5.45 of the Revised Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I of the County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code, is . amended to read as follows (deletions are shown w~th o,-~,~,,, ~,, additions are underlined): §5.45.050 Standards and Findings General Plan Conformance and Residential Density. The cluster development shall conform with the applicable goals, policies, and requirements of the general plan, in particular the applicable land use designation, and with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. The proposed density of development (total number of dwelling units or lots) shall not exceed and may be reduced from the maximum density allowed under the applicable general plan land use designation and zoning district, unless the application includes additional dwelling units allowed in accordance with the density bonus regulations as provided in Section 4.20.030. Cluster developments within a city’s urban service area shall conform to the density permitted by the applicable city’s general plan. General Residential Development Standards. The general development standards of the applicable base and combining zoning districts shall apply, including parking, with the exception of minimum lot size, yard and setback requ.irements, and lot coverage limitations, if any, which may be modified through the duster permit in accordance with any applicable governing policies of the general plan. 1of 4 Santa Clara County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5:45: Cluster Permit Parcel Configuration. The configuration of lots intended for residential development shall conform with the purposes of this ordinance and with any applicable goals and policies of the general plan. The location of such lots shall be based upon the consideration and balancing of such factors as topography and efficiency of access, preservation of viable and useable open space, need for secondary access, geologic hazards and constraints, suitability of development sites for sanitary waste water treatment and disposal, visual impacts, and conservation Of natural resources and landscape features, among other factors which may be pertinent to the subject parcel. STREAM CORRIDOR STEEP SLOPES INDIVIDUAL PARCELS Open Space Preservation. Open space prese~J~ti~h~’slpart of a cluster subdivision shall conform with the specific provisions of the applicable general plan land use .designation and zoning district. In generhl, the following provisions shall apply: Permanent dedication of open space. In order to ensure that open space preserved through 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 Midpeninsula 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 arid appropriate to preserve 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. Urban clusters. In cluster developments within urban service areas, the amount of open space shall be adequate for the recreational needs and leisure use of the residents of the cluster deveIopment. Such open space shall be held in public ownership or in common private ownership by the owners of the lots or units within the cluster development. Landscaping shall be required as 2 of 4 appropriate within any disturbed areas or within those areas adjacent to public streets. Additional internal landscaping requirements may be imposed as necessary and appropriate. Rural clusters. In rural cluster developments, permanently preserved open space shatt be privately owned and maintained unless ownership is conveyed ¯ to a public agency willing and able to accept ownership and management responsibilities. Nonresidential dusters, 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 OS/F regulations in Chapter 2.50. "Development area," for the p .urposes of this provision, shallinclude all land proposed for structures, roads, pro-king areas, associated landscaping and other types of develo.pment. 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 feasibIe. Defined development areas shall 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 contiguous to the development area and-may but must be located within ei~sger-the Open ¯ Space!Field Research district cr ~hc Special Ce,n.~.r,’aficn ~s~,ct. This dedicated o~3en space shall be located in a medium-high or high visibility zone ¯ as determined through.use of the OS/F viewshed analysis (,~2.50.040~)), or an area of environmental significance, as determined by the County. Cluster development proposals may be arranged in more than one cluster 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 Iand 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 fncorpprate those noteworthy and most valuable natural features of the 1and, such as rock outcroppings, historic or archeological sites, significant stands of mature trees, and riparian areas..Furthermore, 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, and habitat preservation and wildlife corridors. The configuration of open .space shall be reasonabl~’ based on the ¯ appropriate consideration of access requirements and standards, geologic hazards, and other forms of development constraints which may be present. 3of4 Sant~ Claxa County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5.45: Cluster Permit Eo Circulation and Roads. Vehicular circulation shall conform with the county’s applicable road development standards. In hillside areas with significant slopes, mad and driveway locations and designs shall minimize the need for grading and earthwork to the maximum extem possible, in accordance with-the provisions of the County Grading Ordinance (Division C12-400 et seq of County Ordinance Code). Adequate non-vehicular circulation, including trails, paths, sidewalks, and equestrian paths shall also be provided as appropriate to the urban or rura~ setting, and in accordance with any adopted plans and design guidelines. 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: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Blanca Alvarado, Chairperson Board of Supervisors Phyllis A. Perez, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: co v 4 of 4 Attachment C Board Of Supervisors County of Santa Clara County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Text Dear Chair Alvarado, This letter forvvards to the Board of Supervisors the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the revised Stanford University Communitv Plan Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District text anticipated to be reviewed by the Board in early June. The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the ordinance text at several meetings last year, and both the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission have sent previous letters to the County regarding the proposed text. Most recently, the City’s Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the revised ordinance at its February 26th meeting and forwarded comments to your Planning Commission on March 3, 2003. Staff from the County Planning Office attended two Planning and Transportation Commission meetings and very ably responded to a variety of questions at both meetings. This was very helpful in enabling the Planning and Transportation Commission to better understand the various aspects of the proposed ordinance, particularly the viewshed analysis undertaken by County staff to identify areas where development in the OS/F should be restricted. The City commends the County on the considerable progress that has been made in revising the proposed OS/F ordinance text. The City is particularly grateful to the County Planning Commission for its thoughtful review of the draft ordinance and for recommending modifications to the ordinance text that addressed many of Palo Alto’s original concerns. As a result, the City supports the revised ordinance as currently proposed by County staff. The City does request, however, that the Board also consider the following issues regarding implementation of the OS!F zoning: Board of Supervisors County of Santa Clara June ~.~, 2003 Page 2 of 2 1.Protecting trail viewshed within the OS/F district when the Stanford C-1 and S-! trails are established. 2.Regulating fencing in the OSFF district to minimize impacts to wildlife migration while respecting the needs of agricultural leaseholders and acknowledging Stanford’s need to protect research equipment. 3. Notifying the District 5 representative on the County Planning Commission when the ASA Committee considers OS/F projects. 4.Ensuring that viewsheds in areas at lower elevations such as undeveloped areas along Foothill Expressway are protected. The City of Palo Alto appreciates both the opportunity to review and comment on the OS/F zoning text and the Board’s consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Dena Mossar Mayor, City of Palo Alto