HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-01 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
6
TO: ¯HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JULY 1, 2002 CMR:318:02
SUBJECT:REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SANTA CLARA
COUNTY DISTRICT TEXT FOR THE STANFORD OPEN SPACE/
FIELD RESEARCH (OS/F) ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT
THE 2000 STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council
forward to the County Board of Supervisors a request to modify the proposed Open
Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District text to address projects that exceed the
standards allowed by right, and therefore require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA),
and require specific findings for those projects.
BACKGROUND
In December of 2000, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved the
Stanford University Community Plan that provided policy direction for development of
unincorporated Stanford lands .within Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence. The Stanford
Community Plan designated approximately 2,200 acres of undeveloped foothill lands for
Open Space and Field Research (OS/FR) and outlined allowable uses and development
policies under this designation. This area is outside the Stanford Academic Growth
Boundary that demarcates the urbanized campus proper from areas planned for low-
intensity uses. Lands designated Open Space and Field Research in the Community Plan
are considered important for their environmental resources and their open space
character. They also provide an area.for field research and research-related activities that.
are dependent on the undeveloped foothill environment.
The Community Plan included an implementation recommendation calling for the future
enactment and application of appropriate, zoning consistent with the OS/FR land use
designation. In response to that direction, the County prepared text for the Open
Space/Field Research Zoning District (OS/F) for incorporation into the .County Zoning
CMR:318:02 Page 1 of 3
Regulations. As directed in the Community Plan, this text is modeled on the existing
County Hillside Zoning District that regulates development within mountainous areas of
the County and establishes a clustering permit requirement for residential development.
Staff reviewed the proposed text and prepared a staff report to the Planning. and
Transportation Commission (Attachment A) that was discussed by the Commission at
four separate meetings in March and May. County Planning staff attended one of those
meetings and provided an overview of the Stanford Community Plan and General Use
Permit and their interrelationship to the proposed zoning district. The Commission
forwarded its comments on the proposed zoning district text in a letter (Attachment B) to
the County Planning Commission on May 30, 2002.
DISCUSSION
The Commission considered the ordinance to be in need of greater clarity, structure and
definition for projects that exceed the standards allowed by right and therefore require
Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). The Commission recommended that specific
findings be 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 Commission suggested that the zoning district should include criteria for
findings that address the following:
¯Regulate access to sites.
¯Regulate the location, size,-capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal
environmental impacts.
¯Regulate trails and roads to either limit or prohibit paving or other impervious
surfaces.
¯Provide development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, siting 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 heating.
The Commission recommended that the County use as a model the City’s Open Space
Zoning District for developing standards of review. The City developed the Open Space.
standards for land that is substantially similar to the Stanford OS/R area; the standards
allow a maximum development of two stories with 25-foot heights.
CMR:318:02 Page 2of 3
The Commission 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. When either of these ¯occurs,
the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and should not be
dependent on the new use permit restrictions.
The Commission also recommended 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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment B: Letter from Palo Alto Planning and
County Planning Commission
Transportation
.li~aporgno A~~:e Planning Manager
Commission to
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
LISA GROTE
Chief Planning Official
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Tim Heffington, Plhnn’er, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources
Agency, Planning Office, County Government Center, East Wing, 7t~ Floor, 70
West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110-17050
CMR:318:02 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Julie Caporgno DEPARTMENT:Planning
Advance Planning Manager
DATE:March 20, 2002
SUBJECT:Stanford University Community Plan Open Space/Field
Research Zoning District
In December of 2000 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved the Stanford
University Community Plan that provided policy direction for development of
.unincorporated Stanford lands within Palo Alto’s Sphere of Influence. The Stanford
Cormaaunity Plan designated approximately 2,200 acres of undeveloped foothill lands for
Open Space and Field Research (OS/FR) and outlined allowable uses and development
policies under this designation. This area is outside the Stanford Academic Growth
Boundary that demarcates the urbanized campus proper from areas planned for low-
intensity uses. Lands designated Open Space and Field Research in the Community Plan
are considered important for their environmental resources and their open space
character. They also provide an area for field research and research-related activities that
are dependent on the undeveloped foothill environment.
The Community Plan includedan implementation recommendation calling for the future
enactment and application of appropriate zoning consistent with the OS!FR land use
designation. In response to that direction, the County has prepared text for the Open
Space/Field Research Zoning District (OS/F) for incorporation into the County Zoning
Regulations. This text is modeled on the existing County Hillside Zoning District that
regulates development within mountainous areas of the County and establishing a
clustering permit requirement for residential development. The proposed text is to be
reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and comments forwarded to
the City Council for their review on April 1, 2002. Attached for the Commission review
is the complete packet prepared by County staff fo~ the County Planning Commission
meeting on the rezoning proposal. It includes the County staff report and three exhibits.
Exhibit A delineates the area proposed for the OS/R Zoning District. Exhibit B consists
of the applicable section from the Stanford Community Plan describing the policy
City of Palo Alto Page 1
direction for lands designated Open Space and Field Research. Exhibit C is the proposed
OS/R Zoning District text itself.
Staff has reviewed the proposed language and con~iders the allowed uses and
development standards for the OS/R Zoning District generally consistent with the OS/FR
land use designation and the implementation direction of the Community Plan. The uses
allowed under the proposed zoning district incli~de agriculture, utilities and field study or
recreational activities. Actual development would be restricted to-ancillary building to
support these uses. Staff does recommend; however, modifying the ordinance as follows.
Specific development standards should be established in the ordinance for projects that
exceed the standards allowed by. right and require Architectural and Site Approval
~ASA). These standards should address height limits, building coverage and floor area
restrictions. Staff recommends that the. ordinance require that specific findings be made
in order, for ASA approval similar to the process established in the Hillside Zoning
District for uses permitted subject to securing a special permit. Although clustering for
the types of uses allowed in the OS/F Zoning District may be limited since the field
research buildings could require isolation and!or proximity to a particular field research
area, if clustering does occur; the open space component should be contiguous to the
development area and not allowed to be transferred to the yet-to-be-established Special
Conservation area which already prohibits development.
The draft language was discussed by the County Planning Commission at its March 7,
2002 meeting. The item was continued to April 4, 2002 when it is anticipated that the
Commission will make a recon’nnendation on the proposed text to the Board of
Supervisors. City staff requested that County staff attend Palo Alto".s Planning and
Transportation Commission meeting on March 20, 2002 to respond to Commission
questions and clarify any issues regarding the proposed zoning text; however, the County
declined to attend.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A. -County Staff Report to County Planning Commission
COURTESY COPIES:
Tim Heffington, Planner, County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency,
Planning Office, County Government Center, East Wing, 7t~ Floor,
70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA 95110-17050
Prepared By:Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
Reviewed By:Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Department/Division Head Approval:
te, ChiefPlanning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Sent By: SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNINS; 6u~ z~ u]u~ ; ~,--,u-u~ ~, ....... ~ , ~ ~
PROJECT I PROPOSAL DESCRItrrION
The 2000 Stanford Community Plan created an "Open Space/Field Research’: land use
designation for unincorporated Santa Clara County Stanford University l~ds outside the AcaderaJc
Growth Boundary. Specifically, this Commtmity Plan recommended enac .fment of appropriate
zoning, consistent with the allowable uses and development policies of thd~ OS/F land use
designation. The proposed zoning district language, to be incorporated int~ the County Z~ning
Regulations, is attached as Exlfibit C.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Actions Concerning Environmental Determination
No environmental a~tion is requested, as the Planning Commission may r~ceive public comment
and continue to April 4, 2002, when acticrn will be requested.¯
Actions Concerning Proposal
At this mee~Sng, the!Planning Commission is being a~ked to hold a public ~earing to provide and
receive comment or~ the proposed zoning text. The item wotdd then be continued to April 4, 2002.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Reasons for Actions Concerning Environmental Determination
N/A .~.
Reasons for Actions Concerning Proposal
The County Plannin.g Office intention is to provide adequate opportunity ~r the public to review
and comment on the zoning district text prior to a Planning Commission r~commendation to the
Board of Supervisors. In addition to posting the zoning district text on thd County web site in -
February, the Stanford Community Resource Group has been provided w!th draft text. Staff is
endeavoring, through the web site posting, the Planning Commission heat~’, g, and Community
Resource Group member discussion, to provide additional time for the ger~eral public to review the
zoning district text. This proposal will be placed on the Commission’s A~I, 2002 meeting age:nda
for consideration and formal recommendation to the Board of Supervisor.
BACKGROUND
Policy Context/History
The Santa Clara Co.unty Board of Supervisors adopted the Stanford Umv~ers~ty Commumty Plan
and General Use Pc.trait, and certified the associated EIR on December 12, 2000.The Community
Plan provides strategies, policies, and implementation recommendafigns ~at guide future use and
development of Stratford lands. The Land Use chapter of the Community plan outlines policies that
_provide clear guidmme for implementation of the OS/FDistrict (Exhibit ~). The surrounding
Stanford land use designations, and the affected parcels are shown on the httached map (Exhibit I3),
The proposed text for enactment of this district is also attached (Exhibit .~.. o During the February 7
Planning Commission Hearing
March 7, 20ff2 Item #4
9ANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING;408 288 9198 ;Mar’-15-02 11:41AM;Page
Planning Commissibn Workshop, staff provided a proposed schedule for .implementation of this
zoning district to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D). The actions outli~d in that memorandtmt
were completed, and. staff now requests that this schedule be followed.
STEPS FOLLOWJ_NG ACTION
Post final draft of zoning district t~xt to the County Planning Office web S!te, and provide the final
draft for Planning Commission recommehdation during the April 4, 2002.’]aearing.
EXI-IIBITS
A. Map depicting the area affected by the Community Plan OS/F land u~ designation
B. Community Plan Land Use Chapter policy statements related to the O~3en Space/Field Research
land use designation
D. February 7 Memorandum to Planning Commission
Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District Proposed Text
Planning Commission Hearing
March 7, 2002 Item #4
Sent By~ SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNTNG; 4,08 288 9198 Mar’-15-0~
EXHIBIT
11 ;42AM;Page 5
Pl~nnlng Cvrn.~ssion
M~rch "/, 2002
SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING;408 288 9198 ;11:42AM;Page 7Sent By;
N
Mar-15-02
~i
0 ~.25 0°5 I .~I ,I I k~$~.
¯stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District
--=---- Academic Growth B~undary Other Land Use Designations i
Development Districts
Open Space and Field Research
(Affected Parcels)
r-~Academic Campus
Campus Open Space
Campus Residehtial - Low Density!
~Campus Residential -
Moderate Density
~ Public Schoo~
~ Special Cor,~ervation
EXHIBIT A
sen~: ~y’-
EXHIBIT B
Planning Commission Hem’ing
March 7, 2002 Item
Sent By:SANTA CLARA COUNTY PLANNING;
Stanford Community Plan
4.08 288 9198 ;Mar’-15-02 11:43AM;Page 11
$ CP-LU 23 ~ "
The Open Space and Field Research desigrmtion applies to u~develo.ped lands
outside the Academic Growth Boundary. These lands are i~portant for their
environmentalresources and for their~role in creating an ope~ space setting for ~e
campus ahd ~he region. They also ser4e as a resource for fieI~ research and res,.arch-
related activities dependent on the undeveloped foothill environment.
SCP-LU 24 ~
omer. than those permitted under the polities of this land ~ designation except
through a General Plan amendment to change the land use d~signafion of the
property. If any lands are proposed for a land designation w~aich is intended to be
applied only to lands within the Academic Growth Bounda~, the proposed
amendment must include a modifichtion of the AGB. Propo’.~ls to modify the AGB
must .be in ac.c:ordance with the applicable policies governin!!its amendment
contained within the Growth and Development Chapter; therefore, no such General
Plan amendment may be considered within 25 years of apprdval of the Community
Plan and cumulative development of at least 17.3 million squ~re feet within the AGB.
SCP-LU 25 ~.
ThLs designation does not include lands in which special biological resources or
..haz.ard,s.exist and .w~ch are inappropriate for development ~’der County, State; or
teaera~ rows, .~egulations, or policies (see Special Conservafiq~ Areas designation).
SCP-LU26 ~
Allowable land uses within the Open Space and Field ResearCh designation include:
a. field studyl activities; ~
b. uf!!ity inffdstructure in keeping with the predominantly ~tural appearance of the
foothill setiinN
c. grazing ani~ other agricultu_ral uses;
34
.~ Chapter 2 - Land Use
recreatior~al activities which are consistent with proted-io~, of envfi:onmenfal
resourcesi(e.g., not construc’tion or opera,on of a new go~ course) and withappropria:te policies regarding foothill access;
specializett facilities and installations that by their nature ~equire a remote or
natural ~tting, such as astronomical or other antennae ~.~. tailations or structures
acc~soryto field study activities;, and, .¯
e.nvironm~ntal restoration.
SC, P-LU 27
No permanefit buildings or structures are allowed) other tha~ utihty infrastruct~are
and a limited:number of small, specialized facilities or installhtions that support
permitted or existing activities, or. require a remote, natural s~tting and cannot be
feasibly located within the AGB.
SCP-LU 28 :
Existing nonq:, onforming uses within this designation, such ~.the golf course, may
continue ind,.finitely. Remodeling or reconstruction of exist[hg facilities after a
natural disast.er may be allowed, l~ut no further expansion is .~rmitted. Modification
of the configuration of the golf course generally within its ex’.~ting boundaries is
permitted.
SCP-LU 29
Allowable development shall be clustered as feasible, primar~y in areas with low
environmental sensitivity, to preserve expanses of open space, environmentally
sensitive areas, and scenic vistas.
SC.P-LLI(i) 4
Enact and app’. ly appropriate zoning consistent with the allo~able uses a~d
degelopment policies of ti~ designation. Incorporate the cl~:.~,.tering model of ~eCounty’s Hillsides General Plar~ designatlon and Hillside zo~g district in the
development Standards for this new zoning district.
35
EXHIBIT
Planning Commission Heating
March 7, 2002 Item #4
~-xHr5 IT q
DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS/F) DISTRICT TEXT
2/8/02
ARTICLE 12. REGULATIONS FOR
OPEN SPACE AND FIELD RESEARCH (OS/F) DISTRICT
¯ Sec. 12-1¯ Purpose.
The purpose of this district is to implement the policies of the Open
Space and FieldResearch Land Use desigflation of the 2000 Stanford
Community Plan as those policies apply to Stanford University lands
outside the Academic Growth Boundary. This district is further intended
to maintain the open space character of these 1ands and to provide for
celXainuniversity-related activities that are dependent on the
undeveloped foothill environment. These uses include certain utilities,
low-intensity agriculture, limited field study activities, limited
recreational activities, and environmental restoration hxvolving science-
based management activities focused on active protection of the
irmnediate environment or return of that environment to a pre-
disturbance condition, and limited ancillary facilities.
For purposes of this article, the Academic Growth Boundary is the
boundary line adopted within the 2000 Stanford. Colrn-nunity Plan (a
portion of the County General Plan) that separates the urbanized campus
area from the undeveloped portions of the foothill lands.
Uses allowed in this zoning district shall be compatible with current
land use policies authorized by the County of Santa Clara, including but
not limited to the 2000 Stanford University Community Plan and General
Use Permit as those documents are amended.
See. 12-2. Uses permitted by right.
The following uses are permitted by right.
(1)Agric~dture (as that term is defined in Article 3, § 3.3), including
grazing, that is generally of a low intensity, consistent with the
intent of this district.
(2)Agric.uitztral accessory ~tses (as that term is defined in Article 3, §
3.3), subject to all app!icable limitations described throughout
Article 12, and protective fences, consistent with the provisions of
Article 42, § 5.6 that are of an open design compatible with the
intent of this open space district.
(3)FieM study and educational such as biological, archeological,
geological, or atmospheric studies and student field trips.
Page 1 of 6
DRAFT STANFORD ,OPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS/F) DISTRICT TEXT
- 2/8/02
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Environmental restoration involving science-based management
activities focused on active protection of the immediate
environment or return of that environment to a pro-disturbance
condition.
Existing utilities and the use, replacement, maintenance, and
repair thereof, provided that there is no increase in size or scale of
aboveground structures.
Low-intensity recreational activitiesthat.are consistent with the
protection of environmental resources and do not require a
building, grading, or other permit (for example, hiking and
jogging on existing service roads and existing connections to
service roads, and student field trips).
Existing golf course generaIly within its boundaries as those
boundaries existed on December 12, 2000. Reconfiguration of the
Stanford Golf Course within its boundaries as those boundaries
existed on December 12, 2000 is permitted
Ancilla~y structur.es, limited to a total of three in number, beyond
those structures existing as of December 12, 2000, required for
direct support of field study, environmental restoration, Iimited
low-impact recreational activities, or. low-intensity agriculture.
Structures shall not individually exceed 120 square feet in area
and 16 feet in ridge height and are subject to all requirements of
Article 12, excepting § 12-3. Ancillary structures that exceed
these limits shall require Architecture and Site Approval (ASA)
(see § 12-3). Any new structures are subject to square footage
requirements specified for the Foothills Development District
within the current General Use Permit.
See. 12-3.Uses permitted ~ubjeet to architecture and site
approval.
The following uses are permitted subject to securing Architecture and
Site Approval (ASA) as provided in Chapter 5.40 of Appendix IV;
Revised Zoning, of this code,
(2)
Facilities ancillary to field study, agriculture, recreation, and
environmental restoration, which entail construction of structures
that exceed the standards identified in § 12-2.
Outdoor recreational-activitibs and ancillq~y structures, not
permitted under § 12-2 that are developed and operated in a
manner that is in keeping with the character of the natural
environment and are consistent with protection and enhancement
Page 2 of 6
DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS!F) DISTRICT TEXT
2/8/02
(4)
(5)
of natural resources. Development of recreational trails is
allowed, provided that such development meets these criteria.
Incompatible recreational uses (including but not limited to new
goIf courses, driving ranges, ball fields, telmis courts, swimming
pools, cormrtmlity recreation centers, or similar facilities) are not
permitted.
Utilities O~ew or expanded) other than those permitted under
§ 12-2 (5) areallowed where structures and construction activities
would be consistent with policies withh~ the 2000 Stanford
Community Plan and current General Plan, as they are amended.
Such utilities will be compatible with and ~iot degrade the natural
enviro~ament. Utilities may be located in this zoning district that
serve either lands of Stanford University or 6ther lands.
Specialized facilities and installations that by their nature require
a remote or natural setting, such as astronomical or other
antennae installations.
Reconstruction or replacement of nonconforming uses subject to
Architecture and Site Approval, asspecified in § 12-5.
Sec, 12-4. Uses permitted subject to the General Use Permit.
(This Section 12-4 text under review)
Uses consistent with the intent and purpose of the Community Plan
and this zoning district are allowed pursuant to the Gene?al Use Permit.
Sec. 12-5.Nonconforming.uses,
Legal nonconforming uses may continue as provided in Article 38
and this § 12-5.
Remodeling or reconstruction of facilities following a natural disaster,
accident, or intentional act of a party other than the owner or a lessee is
permitted, subject to current building codes and standards, provided that
the resulting structure does not exceed any physical dimension (length,
width, or height) of the previously existing structure and that the
resulting landscaping does not exceed the area previously landscaped.
Any such remodeling or reconstruction shall require Architecture and
Site Approval (ASA). Unless otherwise specified through ASA,
reconstruction or replacement of such facilities will replicate or reduce
the existing building footprint in the same location.
Page 3 of 6
DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS/F) DISTRICT TEXT
2/8/02
See. 12-6. Development regulations.
(1)Building size. No structure or development may exceed limits set
under cut-rent land use policy and regulatory documents, including
but not limited to the 2000 Stanford Colrmaunity Plan and the
General Use Permit as they may be amdnded.
(2) Height and setbacks. No height limitations or setbacks are
. specified other than those set forth in § 12-2 (8). The ASA
committee shatl have the authority to prescribe appropriate height
limits and setbacks to promote quality design, and to assure
adequate buffering and compatibility with adjacent land use and
development. Siting of buildings and structures shall confmTn
with the requirements of this zoning ~!istrict.and the various site~
design requirements in the adopted ASA guidelines. "
New road or road connection standards. The ASA.committee
shall have the authority to review and prescribe standards and size
limitations for any road or road connection that is deemed
necessary to accommodate uses allowed within Article 12.
Sec. 12-7. Location of development.
To the extent feasible, all development shall’ be located in areas of low
envirmmaental sensitivity and shall preserve expanses of open space,
enviromnentally sensitive areas, and scenic vistas. Al! roads, parking
areas, structures, and other types of development sha!l be designed and
located to minimize disruption to the natural environment and to scenic
vistas. The approving authority for any development application in this
district shall find that the proposed project meets these requirements
prior to approving the project.
See. 12-8.Parcel creation for new leaseholds.
The area of any newly Created parcel shall meet the following criteria:
Where the average slope is in excess of 50 percent, the land area per
parcel shall be a minimum of 160 acres, Where the .average slope is
below 50 percent, the following formula will be Used to determine gross
acreage, except that the minimum size of newly created parcels shall be
20 acres.
S=.00229 x IL
A
Page 4 of 6
DRAFT STANFORD OPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS/F)DISTRICT TEXT2/8/02
A = 1/.0609375-(.00109375)(S)
Where: "S" is the average slope of the parcel in percent
"I" is the contour interval in feet
"L" is the combined length in contour lines in scale feet,
"A" is the gross area in acres of the parcel or lot as applicable
See. 12-9.Clustering of development.
The minimum parcel size requirements in Section 12-8 may be
waived by the Pla.nning Commission if development is clustered
pursuant to this section. Any application opting-to, propose clustered
development within this zoning district shall identify a "project area"
which includes both an area proposed for dCvelopmet_lt ("development
area") and an area proposed for open space ("open space area").
(1)Developtnent area. The development area, which shall include
all land proposed for structures, roads, parking areas,
associated landscaping, and other types of development, shall
comprise no more than 10 percent of the project area.
(2)Open space area. The open space area shall comprise no less
than 90 percent of the project area. The open space area ~s not
required to be contiguous to the development area and may be
located in either the Open Space/Field Research zoning district
or the Special Conservation zoning district. At the time of
project approval, binding restrictions shall be placed on the
land within the open space area to ensure that it is maintained
in its undeveloped state for a period of time that equals, at a
minimum, the length of time in which the associated
development is present. The following activities may occur in
an open space area:
a.Agriculture (as that term is defined in Article 3, § 3.3)
that is generally of a low intensity, consistent with the
intent of this district.
bo Limited outdoor recreational activities which entail
minimal support structures, subject to restrictions
contained in Article 12, where such structures may not
feasibly be located within the defined project area and are
necessary to acco~m-nodate activities such as hiking,
wildlife viewing, and/or similar n0n-intrusive activities.
Development of trails consistent with the criteria of this
district is permitted.
Page 5 of 6
DRAFT STANFORDOPEN SPACE/FIELD
RESEARCH (OS/F) DISTRICT TEXT
2/8/02
Utilities, if no other location is available that will achieve
equal efficiency and effectiveness of service, provided
that ~he requLred structui’e is of a design that is compatible
with open space,
Environmental restoration involving science-based
management activities focused on active protection of the
immediate environment or return of that environment to a
pre-disturbance condition and minimal support structures,
subject to resta’ietions contained in Article 12, where such
structures may not feasibly be located within the defined
project area and are necessary for dh’ect suppol~ of these
activities.
Page 6 of 6
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment B
May 30, 2002
Planning Division
Planning Commission
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
SUBJECT:Planning Commission Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field
Research Zoning District Text
Dear Chair:
This letter is to forward to the County Planning Commission the City of Palo Alto
Planning Commission 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 June 6tt~ meeting. These comments are also being
forwarded to our City Council for its consideration. It is anticipated that the Council will
review our comments, develop an official City position and forward its recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors prior to the Board’s action on this item in September.
The Palo Alto Planning Commission has discussed the proposed zoning district text at
four meetings. On March 20th, the item was first discussed and continued by the
Commission because the Commissioners had several questions regarding the proposed
zoning district that City staff was unable to answer. Subsequently staff sent a letter on
April 22nd to the County requesting County staff attend a meeting with the Commission
to explain the purpose and structure of the rezoning in the context of the adopted Stanford
Community Plan and General Use Permit and to address the main issues of concern
raised by the Commission.
In response to the City request, on May 1st both Tim Heffmgton and Gary Rudholm from
the County Planning office attended our meeting. They provided a very thorough
overview of the Stanford Community Plan and General Use Permit and the
interrelationship of the proposed zoning district. The Commission is very appreciative of
the excellent presentation and thoughtful responses to the Commission’s comments
provided by your staff.
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
Page 2
Letter .to County Planning Commission
May 30, 2002
On May 22nd and May 29th, the Commissioners further discussed the proposed zoning
district text and worked with staff in preparing this letter. In general, the Commission
considers the allowed uses and development standards for the OS/R Zoning District to be
consistent with the implementation direction of the Stanford Community Plan. The
Commission did, .however, have some concerns related to the proposed Zoning that I have
highlighted below.
The Commission considered the ordinance to need more clarity, structure and definition
for projects that exceed the standards allowed by right and require Architectural and Site
Approval (ASA) and recommended that specific findings be 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 Commission suggested
that the zoning district should include-criteria for findings that address the .following:
¯Regulate access to sites
¯Regulate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal
environmental impacts
¯Regulate trails and roads to either limit.or prohibit paving or other impervious
surfaces
¯Provide development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, siting 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 Commission 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.2 stories with 25 foot elevations.
Page 3
Letter to County Planning Commission
May 30,2002
Attached are the pertinent sections related to the .Open Space District from the City’ s
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.71 (18.71.140 Special Regulations). These regulations
address geological and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access,.
grading, and soil erosion. This process would include an advertised public hearing for
any proposed project.
The Commission also recommends that the. ordinance, text incorporate the General Use
Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire witNn a ten-
year timeframe.or can change on application bythe County. When either of these occurs,
the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for future entitlement and is not
dependent on the new use permit restrictions.
The Commission 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.
Again, the Commission appreciates your consideration of the Palo Alto Planning
Commission recommendations and is grateful for your Planning staff’s willingness to
attend our meeting and provide helpful insight regarding the derivation of the proposed
Open Space/Field Research text. The Commission looks forward to reviewing any
revisions to the proposed text that address the issues raised in this letter.
Sincerely,
Patrick Burt
Chairman
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
18.71.070-
~omply with slte development regulations for
c~ntinual use and occupancy by the same use;
provided that any such remodeling, improve-
me~ or replacement sh~dl not add a kitchen
nor ~sult in increased floor area~number of
dwe!l~ng units, height, length or any other in-
crease~n the size of the improvement without
¯ complying with the standards set forth in Sec-
tion: 18.~1.060(h) and applying for and .re-
ceiving ~conditional use p~rm~t pursuant.to
Chapter.l~.90. ¯ . . " .
(Ord. 4225~2, 1994: Ord. 4016 § 37, 1991:
Ord. 3861 3, 1989: Ord. 3683 § 8, 1986:
Ord. 3536 §1984: Ord. 3048 (part), i978)
18.71.070 ’
Minimum area shall be forty thousand
four hundred square meters (ten
acres).
(Ord. 3048 (part),
18.71.080
The maximum "
ing coverage shall
that where a portion
clustered lots of
contains an area
open space restriction,
age which would
undevelopable area
those lots within-the.
velopment will be permitted
manner based on lot size.
(Ord. 3345 3 18, 1982:
1978)
building coverage.
area. and build-
3.5 percent; provided
a subdivision with
ten acres in size
by an
impervious cover-
be allotted to this
~e transferred to
on on which de-
a proportional
3048 (part),
’18.71.090 Front yard.
.Front yards shall be a minimum
ters (thirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.7i.100 Side yards.
Side yards ,shall be a minimum of
ters (thirty fee0.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978).
18.71.110 Rear yards.
Rear yards shall be a minimum-of 9.1
ters (thirty_feet).
N~d. 3048 (part), 1978) .
18.’~1.115 sPecial setbacks. "
W~re applicable, setback lines imposed by
a special, setback map pursuant to Chapter
20~08 of’ti~s code shall be followed for the
purpose of it¢~ermining legal setback require-
ments. ~ -
.(Ord.;40!6 § 47,~1).
Four car spaces sha~be required for each
dwelling unit, one of wh~’~ shall be covered
parking~-Such spaces shall’h~t be located in
~my required froht or side yard.~ .
Buildings shall no~-exceed two ston’~, or
~s (twenty-five feet).
(Ord. 3048 (pro’t), 1978)
18.71.140 Special regulations.
(a) Geological Soils Investigation.and Re-
port. All applications for site and design ap-
proval shall be accompanied by a combined
in-depth geologic.and soils investigation and
report prepared, by a registered geologist certi-
. fled by the state of California as an engineer-
ing geologist, and by a licensed civil-engineer
qualified in soil mechanics. Such report shall
be based on surface, subsurface, and labora-
toryinvestigations and examinations andshall
fully and clearly present:
(1) All pertinent data, interpretations, and
evaluations;
(2) The Significance of. the data, interpre-
tations, and evaluations with respect to the
actual development or implementation ofthe
intended land uses, .and with respect to the ef-
fect upon future geological processes both on
and off the site;
me-(3) Recommendations for any additional
investigations that should be made. All costs
and expenses incurred as a result of the re-
quirements of this section, including the costs
and expense of an independent review of th~
material submitted under this chapter by ..quali-
18-134
fled persons retained, by the city, shall be
borne by the applicant.
This requirement may .be waived by the city
engineer for structures in Group M occupancy,
as defined in the Uniform Building Cede, ac-
cessory facilities.and landscaping where such
improvements, in his opinion, would pose no
potential hazard to life or property on the
subject or surrounding properties.
(b) Landscaping, The existing natural
vegetation and land formations shall remain in.
a natural state unless modification is found to
be necessary for a specific use allowed in this
chapter through the site and design approval
procedure.. ReduCtion or elimination of fire
hazards will be required where heavy concen-
trations of flammable, vegetation occur. Land-
scaping as may be necessary and required
shall be consistent with .the purpose of this
chapter.
(c) Fencing Restriction. No .barbed wire,
or similar fencing ’having¯ a cutting edge, may
be installed except:
(1) To protect, a vegetative community or
wildlife habitat until it is fully established,
subject to the. imposition of reasonable time
limits through site and design review pursuant
to Chapter 18.82; and
(2) To enclose utility facilities, including,
but not limited to, water .or sewage pumps,.
storage tanks, and wells.
(d) Tree Removal. Removal ~f live trees
shall be permitted as provided in Title. 8.
(e) Access to Remote Areas. Roads,
tracks, driveways, .trails, Or runways for auto-
mobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles o~ other
wheeled vehicles shall not be developed ex-
Cept upon the securing of site and design ap-
proval. No such approvalshall be granted
except upon-finding that the purpose for which
the roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways
are proposed is essential for the establishment
or maintenance of a use which is ..expressly
permitted in this chapter and that the design
and location Of the proposed roads, tracks,
driveways, trails; or runways’will be compati-
ble with the terrain.
18.71.140
The use of all roads, tracks, driveways,
trails, or runways existing at the time of the
adoption of this chapter which are noncon-
forming or have been established, without
proper approvals shall be terminated and shall
be returned to natural terrain unless given apt
proval in accordance with the regulations set
forth in this chapter. ~
. (f) Grading. No grading for which a
¯ grading permit is required. Shall be authorized
except upon the securing of site and design
approva!.. No such approval shall be granted
except upon a finding .that the purpos.e for
which the grading is proposed is essential for
the establishment .or maintenance of a use
which is expressly permitted in this chapter
and that the design, .scope, and location of the
grading proposed will be compatible with ad-
jacent areas and will result in the least distur-
.bance ofthe terrain and natural land features.’
All grading for which no permits o.r approvals.
are required, shall be subject to the .provisions
set forth in this chapter.
(g) Soil Erosion and Land Management.
No site and design plan shall be. approved un-
less it includes soil erosion and sediment con-.
trol measures in accordance with any’adopted
_procedures, technical standards, and specifi-
cations of the planning commission..No ap-
proval will be granted unless all needed
erosion Control measures have been completed
or substantially proyidedfor in accordance
. .with said standards and specifications: .The
applicant shall- bear the final respo.nsibility fo~
the installation and cons.traction of all required
erosion control measures, according to the
provisions of said standards and specifica-
tions.
(h) Subdivision. All divisions of land into
four or more parcels shall be designed on the
cluster principle and shall be designed to
minimize roads; to minimize cut, fill~ and
grading operations; to locate development in
less rather thma more conspicuous areas; and
to achieve the purpose of this chapter.
(i) Substandai’d Lots.Any parcel of land
not meeting the area or .dimension require-
ments of this chapter is a lawful .building site
18-135
18.72.010
ff such parcel was a lawful building site on.
July 5, 1972. All other requirements, of this
chapter shall apply to any such parcel.
(Ord. 3583 §§ 14, 15, 1984; Ord. 3340 § 4,
1982; Oral. 3048 (part), 1978)
Chapter 18.72
AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
on
ing
(d)
on
18.8~
(Ord.
1978)
members of the same family and bona
of the aforementioned;
Sale of agricultural products produced¯
premises; provided, that no.permanent
smacture for the sale or process-
products shall be permitted;
homes (manufactured housing)
foundations. ’See Section
§ 11, 1981; Ord.. 3048 (par0,
Specific purposes.
Applicability of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Site development regulations.
¯ Parking and loading.
Special requirements.
18.72.010 S
The. AC
intended to
uses on property
retention
landscaped state.
(Ord. 3048 (part),
conservation district is
and compatible
for preservation and
its natural, farmed, or
18.72.020
The specific re
the ..additional regulations
tablished by Chapters
sive, shall ¯apply to all
conservation districts.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) "
agricultural
18.72.040
The
allowed in
district, sut
use permit in
(a) Animal
kennels;
(b)
(c) Utility
of utility services
cluding business
age yards,
corporation yards;
(d) Cemeteries.
(Ord. 3108§ 11,
1978)of regulations.
of this chapter and
es-18.72.050 Site
¯ The following siteto 18.99, inclu-shall apply in the AC
18.72.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses shah be in the
AC agricultural conservation
(a) . Agricultural use,conduct
and maintenance of hog farms;
(b) Residential use, and access~
ings and uses customarily incidental per-
mitted dwellings; provided, however,
such permitted dwellings shall be for the
clusive use of the owner or owners,.or ies,,
or lessor of land upon which permitted a
cultural use is conducted, and the residence
.uses may be conditionally
AC agricultural conservation
to issuance.of a conditional
with Chapter 18.90:
including boarding and
services;
essential to provision
neighborhood, but ex-
construction or stor-
facilities, or
1979:3048 (part),
district; provided, that
tions may be recommended by
rural review boardand
director of planning and
ment, pursuant to Chapter 16.48
Alto Municipal Code:
(a) SiteArea..The minimum site
be twenty thousand ,two
square meters (five acres).
(b) Site Width. The minimum site
shall be 76.2 meters (two hundred fifty
(e) Site Depth. The minimum site
regulations
conservation
regula-
architec-
by the
environ-
Palo
dth
shall be 76.2 meters (two hundred fifty feet).
(d) Front Yard. The minimum front
shall be 9.2 meters (thirty feet).
18-136