HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-02 City Council (9)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
9
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 2, 2002 CM-R:469:02
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ~VIEW
AND COUNT ON THE PROPOSED SANTA CLARA COUNTY
DISTRICT TEXT REVISIONS FOR THE STANFORD OPEN
SPACE/ FIELD ~SEARCH (OS/F) ZONING DISTRICT TO
IMPLEMENT THE 2000 STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council forward to the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors a request
to modify the proposed Open Space/Field Research (OS/F) Zoning District text to limit
development allowed under the proposed zoning district and to require specific findings
for those projects that require Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). Specifically, the
following zoning text changes are 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.
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 OS/F district.
Specifically identify applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City’s Open
Space Zoning District regulations and Comprehensive Plan Open Space Development
Criteria.
Allow caretaker’s residences only as non-conforming uses, prohibiting their
expansion and allowing only for repair and maintenance, and not allowing for their
relocation.
CMR:469:02 Page 1 of 6
BACKGROUND
At several meetings last spring, 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 July 1 the City Council unanimously supported
the position endorsed by the P&TC as stated in a letter sent to both the County Board of
Supervisors and the P&TC.
The Council’s letter recommended that the ordinance needed further structure and
definition for projects that exceed the standards allowed by right and requiring
Architectural and Site Approval (ASA). Specifically, the Council suggested to the
County that the zoning district should include criteria for ASA 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 allowing 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 Council recommended that the County use the City’s Open Space Zoning District as
a model for developing standards of review. The Council 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 Council supported an open space requirement for non-clustered
development; 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 Area,
which will prohibit development.
CMR:469:02 Page 2 of 6
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 November 7. This was to enable County staff to review and respond to the received
comments and to also modify the format of the text for consistency with the County’s
recent format revision of the County Zoning Ordinance.
At the November 7 County Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued
the item to December 5 at the request of interested parties, including the City of Palo
Alto, to allow them an opportunity to review and comment on the staff revisions to the
text. In addition, Stanford University, in a letter dated November 5, 2002 (Attachment
C), requested that the OS/F zone district be amended to allow a limited number of
caretaker’s residences to oversee livestock within the zoning district, since agriculture
uses are allowed by right under the OS/F. These dwellings would be subject to ASA and
provide a demonstrated need.
DISCUSSION
On November 20, the P&TC discussed the County staff revisions to the proposed OS/F
text and the change proposed by Stanford University. The P&TC compared the
recommendations made by the City on the OS/F zoning district and the changes proposed
by the County staff. The P&TC felt that County staff did not address the City’s concerns
and that the responses did not reflect a serious attempt to consider the City issues. The
P&TC stated that the items that the City raised should have complete and thorough
responses, even if ultimately the County staff did not support the City’s position. The
P&TC strongly supported the positions described in the Council’s September letter to the
County and recommended reiterating these statements to the County Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission.
The following discussion identifies the issues raised in the letter from City Council, how
the modified zoning text responds to each issue and specific P&TC comments.
o Regulate the access to sites
There were no changes to the text related to site access. The County considers that
access to sites will be dealt with during building site approval review if applicable.
County staff has concluded that many of the uses allowed under the proposed district
would have limited Stanford or public access. If access from any County road occurs, the
County Roads and Airports road standards would apply. The P&TC reiterated that site
access criteria should be established for ASA findings.
o Regulate the location and size of utilities so that environmental impacts are minimized
The County did not incorporate language that addressed extension of utilities within the
area other than that utility structures would be subject to ASA findings. The P&TC
reiterated that the.location, size, capacity and number of utilities should be regulated and
that utilities on site should be limited to serving only Stanford uses. The P&TC also
CMR:469:02 Page 3 of 6
recommended that commercial antennas should not be considered a permitted use,
because the OS/F Zoning District was designated in the Community Plan to provide
facilities for field study activities only.
o Regulate trails to limit paving or other impervious surfaces and limit paving that
would increase impervious surface
No standards are proposed for pedestrian use of the Stanford internal roads; however,
County staff has stated that at the time of individual project review, road standards from
the County Roads and Airports division would be applied where appropriate. County
Parks Department regulations for trail design would be applied if a trail on Stanford land
implemented part of the Countywide Trails Master Plan. County staff has also stated that
at the time of individual project review, a cumulative and project-specific evaluation of
paving associated with building site approval would be completed. The P&TC reiterated
the City’s’ previous position that impervious surfaces should be either limited or
prohibited.
o Provide development standards to limit discretion but allow some flexibility.
The County revised the ordinance to include the application of ASA findings. Generally,
the findings focus on the protection of visual and environmental resources. The County
als0 added a provision that a development application should demonstrate that the
proposal could not feasibly serve the same purpose with equal efficiency if it was located
within the Academic Growth Boundary. The City requested the inclusion of specific
development standards addressing architecture, color, materials, siting and orientation to
ensure environmental compatibility; the P&TC reiterated that more specific development
standards should be identified. The P&TC considered the ASA process contingent upon
the development of tight standards for review. If detailed findings are not incorporated in
the ordinance, the P&TC considered the ASA not the appropriate decision-making
process and the County Planning Commission should review the projects.
~Specifically identify the intensity of development, the range of uses, and type of
development that could occur in the district
There were no additional changes made to the text related to restricting the intensity of
uses. Under its existing General Use Permit (GUP), Stanford is allowed to develop up to
a total of 15,000 square feet in the OS/F district. To establish additional square footage
within this district, Stanford would be required to modify or obtain a new General Use
Permit (GUP). The P&TC continues to recommend that the OS/F 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. In addition, the P&TC recommended that the new zoning text cross
reference the Community Plan where applicable.
The allowable uses established in the Community Plan were identified in the revision of
the OS/F Zoning Ordinance; however, the P&TC thought the use classifications and
activities should be better defined. The P&TC also discussed Stanford’s request for
CMR:469:02 Page 4 of 6
caretaker’s residences, and recommended allowing the existing use as non-conforming
and allowing repair and maintenance if required, but not permitting any relocation or
expansion of the use.
o Prohibit transfer of open space to other districts
County staff did not incorporate this option, and the P&TC reiterated its support for
incorporating it.
Provide a mechanism that calls for dedication of open space in exchange for any
development
The County staff did not incorporate this option. Currently the ordinance requires the
dedication of open space only when development is clustered; the P&TC strongly
supported dedication of open space for non-clustered as well as clustered development.
~ Model the OS/F Zoning District after the City’s Open Space Zoning District
The County staff did not incorporate this option. The County indicated that the OS/F
district is more restrictive regarding allowable uses than the Palo Alto Open Space
District or other rural districts and that the setback and density standards that might be
appropriate for other districts or other jurisdictions are not appropriate for the limited
nature of uses allowed within the OS~ district. The City’s letter suggested using the
’~special regulations" that address geological and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing,
tree removal, access, gading and soil erosion in the OS/F District text as a model and not
the district development standards. The P&TC suggests the County use either the district
text as a model or the City’s Open Space Development Criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan.
~Ensure fences do not impede migation 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
regulations for fences in rural districts. The P&TC reiterated the previous City position
since the proposed language does not address specifically mi~ation of wildlife.
¢ Restrict development in the foothills to below 200 feet
Although the Community Plan recommends that future ~owth and development should
be encouraged to be placed below 200 feet, County staff did not incorporate language in
the zoning ordinance text to reflect this direction. The P&TC strongly supported the
City’s position regarding limiting development in general to below the 200-foot
elevation, particularly since it is called out in the Community Plan. Development should
be restricted unless sufficient justification and reasonable findings can be made through a
separate permit process involving an advertised public hearing.
In conclusion, the P&TC considers the proposed zoning text to be an important concern
for the City since the land is within the City’s sphere of influence. The P&TC would like
CMR:469:02 Page 5 of 6
to review an ordinance that effectively implements the Community Plan and General Use
Plan. The P&TC also expressed concerns about limited City representation at the County
level for Stanford issues, since Commissioner Tan has a conflict with Stanford projects.
The P&TC recommended that the Council discuss with Supervisor Kniss at its regularly
scheduled meeting how best to ensure that the City’s interests are represented to the
County. The P&TC also suggested sending a representative from the P&TC and/or City
Council to the County hearings on the OS/F zoning.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment B: Draft Letter from City Council to County Board of Supervisors
Attachment C: Letter to County Planning Commission from Stanford University,
November 5, 2002
dCJ~lie Caporg~i A~ance l~annin~, Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
LISA GROTE
Chief Planning Official
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
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
CMR:469:02 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Julie Caporgno DEPARTMENT:Planning
Advance Planning Manager
DATE:November 20, 2002
SUBJECT:Stanford Universi~ Communi~ Plan Open Space/Field Research
Zoning District
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reviews the proposed text changes and
directs staff to forward to the Council a recommendation suggesting the following
changes to the proposed text:
o Incorporate a height limiting structures to below the 200-foot elevation restriction in
conformance with the Community Plan
o Identify specific measures to regulate site access
o Regulate the extension of utilities on site
o Limit height and design of fences to ensure migration of wildlife
o Require an open space for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict
the open space dedication to the OS/F district.
o Specifically identify applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City’s Open
Space Zoning District regulations.
BACKGROUND:
At several meetings last spring the Planning and Transportation Commission discussed
the proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District 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 May 8th the Commission sent a
letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission forwarding comments on the
proposed text. In the letter, the Commission also requested review of any revisions to the
proposed text prepared to address the issues raised by the Commission. On July 1st the
City Council unanimously supported the position endorsed by the Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto Page 1
as stated in a separate letter sent to both the County Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors. Both letters are attached to this staff report (see Attachment A).
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 November 7th. This was to enable County staff to review and respond to the received
comments and to also modify the format of the text for consistency with the County’s
recent format revision of the County Zoning Ordinance. At the November 7~ County
Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued the item to December 5th at the
request of interested parties including the City of Palo Alto to allow them an opportunity
to review and comment on the staff revisions to the text.
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion identifies the issues raised in the letters from the Planning
Commission and City Council and how the modified zoning text responds to the issue.
The County staff proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research zoning ordinance text (3
Options) and a County White paper addressing issues raised by the public during the
initial review of the text are attached as Attachment D.
o Regulate the access to sites
There were no changes to the text related to site access. The County considers that access
to sites is proposed to be dealt with during a building site approval review if applicable.
County staff has concluded that many of the uses allowed under the proposed district
would have limited Stanford or public access. If access from any County road occurs, the
County Roads and Airports road standards would apply.
Regulate the location and size of utilities so that environmental impacts are
minimized
The County did not incorporate language that addressed extension of utilities within the
area other than utility structures would be subject to Architectural and Site approval
(ASA) findings.
Regulate trails to limit paving or other impervious surfaces and limit paving that
would increase impervious surface
No standards are proposed for pedestrian use of the Stanford internal roads; however,
County staff has stated that at the time of individual project review, road standards from
the County Roads and Airports division would be applied where appropriate, within the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
district. County Parks Department regulations for trail design would be applied if a trail
on Stanford land were for implementation of the Countywide Trails Master Plan.
County staff has also stated that at the time of individual project review a cumulative and
project-specific evaluation of paving associated with building site approval would be
completed.
o Provide development standards to limit discretion but allow some flexibility.
Development standards are proposed to be addressed through the application of ASA
findings that have been added to the revised ordinance. These findings are specifically
identified in Section 2.50.040 of the proposed open space/field research zoning district
text that is attached to this report. Generally, the findings focus on the protection of
visual and environmental resources. The County has also added a provision that a
development application should also demonstrate that the proposal could feasibly serve
the same purpose with equal efficiency if it was located within the Academic Growth
Boundary.
Specifically identify the intensity of development, the range of uses, and type of
development that could occur in the district
There were no additional changes made to the text related to restricting the intensity and
range of uses. County staff considers the GUP as the tool through which the County has
already regulated development intensity within the proposed district. Once a total of
15,000 square feet of development is utilized, Stanford would not be allowed any
additional development within the OS/F district. To establish additional square footage
within this district, Stanford would be required to modify or obtain a new GUP and a
public process would be required for this to occur.
The allowable uses established in the Community Plan have been further clarified in the
current revision of the OS/F Zoning Ordinance. Use classifications and activities are
defined within the proposed OS/F zoning amendment and/or the draft revised County
Zoning Ordinance.
o Prohibit transfer of open space to other districts
County staff did not incorporate this option.
o Provide a mechanism that calls for dedication of open space in exchange for
development
County staff did not incorporate this option.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Model the OS/F Zoning District after the City’s Open Space Zoning District
The County contends that the OSiF district is more restrictive regarding allowable uses
than the Palo Alto Open Space District or other rural districts and that the setback and
density standards that might be appropriate for other districts or other jurisdictions are not
appropriate for the limited nature of uses allowed within the OS/F district. The
recommendations from the City were to consider applicable "special regulations" that
address geological and soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access,
grading and soil erosion in addition to setback standards.
o Ensure fences do not impede migration of wildlife
The zoning text incorporates language that requires that fences be designed to minimize
visual impacts to the natural setting and consistent with the existing County regulations
for fences in rural districts. The proposed language does not address specifically
migration of wildlife.
o Restrict development in the foothills to below 200 feet
Although the Community Plan recommends that future growth and development should
be encouraged to be placed below 200 feet, County staff did not incorporate language in
the zoning ordinance text to reflect this direction. Instead County staff has identified
three options of zoning that identifies variations of a clustering model.
o Incorporate cluster model requirements
County staff has identified three options of zoning text for incorporation of a clustering
concept based on the Hillside zoning district model but adapted to a different range of
uses.
CONCLUSION:
Staff considers that the revisions to the Open Space/Field Research Zoning district text
are substantive improvements over the previous language and address several of the
issues raised by the City; however, many of the concerns raised by the Planning
Commission and City Council were not addressed in these revisions. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission reviews the proposed text changes and directs staff to
forward to the Council a recommendation suggesting the following changes to the
proposed text:
o Incorporate a height limiting structures to below the 200-foot elevation restriction in
conformance with the Community Plan
o Identify specific measures to regulate site access
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Regulate the extension of utilities on site
Limit height and design of fences to ensure migration of wildlife
Require an open space for both non-clustered and clustered development and restrict
the open space dedication to the OS/F district.
Specifically identify applicable regulations for ASA review similar to the City’s Open
Space Zoning District regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Letters to Santa Clara County Planning Commission from Mayor Ojakian
and Chairman Burt of the Planning and Transportation Commission
Attachment B:Materials submitted by County Planning Office
Attachment C:Excerpt of the Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of May
22, 2002.
Attachment D: County White Paper.
COURTESY COPIES:
Tim Heffington, County of Santa Clara
David Neuman, Associate Vice-Provost of Planning/University Architect,Stanford
University
Herb Borock
Denise Dade, Committee for Green Foothills
Nonette Hanko, Midpeninsula
Edie Keating
Bill Phillips, Stanford Management Company
Jean Snyder, Stanford Management Company
Ann Draper, Planning Director, County of Santa Clara Planning Office, County
Government Center, East Wing 7th Floor, 70 West Hedding Street
Mike Carlson, Office of the Board of Supervisors, 70 West Hedding Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110
Prepared by:Julie Caporgno, Advance Plannin2 Manager
Department!Division Head Approval~,,~,(j~Gr~ ,~ief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
_C_._i_ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment R
September 18, 2002
Planng~g Division
Board of Supervisors~lanning Commission
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
S~JECT:City Council Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field Research
Zoning District Text
This letter is to forward to the Board of Supervisors/County Piarming Commission the
City ofPalo Alto’s comments on the proposed Stanford University Community Plan
Open SpaceYField Research (OSFR) Zoning District text that will be reviewed by the
County Planning Commission at its October 3ra meeting. The proposed text was placed
on the Council’s consent calendar of July !st. The Council unanimously supported the
position endorsed by the Planning Commission after its careful review and deliberation.
The Palo Ako 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/R 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).
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2 ~.~!4!
650.329.2154 fax
Page 2 of 3
Letter to Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission
September 18, 2002
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
Regulate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minima!
environmental impacts
Regulate trails and roads to either limit 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 thxough a separate permit process involving an
advertised punic 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 1and
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 Spa.ce District from
the City’s Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.71 (18.71.140 Special Regnalations). 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 wiI1 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.
Page 3 of 3
Letter to Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission
September 18, 2002
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 Oj aldan
Mayor
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachment
May30,2002
Planning Division
Planning Commission
County of Santa Clara
County Government Center, East Wing, 7th Floor
70 West Hedding Street
8an Jose, CA 95110
SUBJECT:Planning Commission Review of proposed Stanford Open Space/Field
Research Zoning District Text
Dear Cha~:
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) Zonin.~ District text that will be reviewed by the
County Planning Commission at its June 6~’ meeting. These comments are a!so being
forwarded to our City CounciI 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 20t~, the item was f~rst discussed and continued by the
Commission because the Commissioners had severa! 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 Genera! 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 Heffm~on and Gary Rudholra from
the County Planning office attended our meeting. TJaey provided a very thorough
overview of the Stanford Community Plan and Genera! Use Permit and the
interrelationship of the proposed zoning district. The Commission is very appreciative of
the excelIent presentation and fNou~tf-ul responses to the Commission’s comments
provided by your staff.
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Palo .a!to, CA 94303
650.329.244!
650.329.2!54 fax
Page 2
Letter .to County Planning Commission
May 30, 2002
On May 22nd and May 29~, 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 s~a.ndards al!owed 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 DisNct 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 skes
Reguiate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal
environ_mental k_m_pacts
Re~malate 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 timiting 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 punic 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 deve!oped these standards
for land thai 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 Plmnting Commission
May 3 O, 2002
Attached 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. 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 within a ten-
year timeframe or can ct~ange on application by the County. When either of these occurs,
the zoning should continue to dictate parameters for fature 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 gateful 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 Burr
Chairman
Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission
¯ n or
18.71.070-~
ceiving
Chapter.
(Ord.
Ord. 3861
Ord. 3536 §
with site development regulations for
and occupancy by the same use;
that any such .remodeling, improve-
or replacement shall not add a ldtehen
in increased floor area, number of
units, height, Iength or any other in-
the size of the improvement without
with the standards set forth in See-
~1.060(h) and applying for and
conditional use permit pursuant to
.90.
§2, 1994: Ord. 4016 § 37, 1991:
3, 1989: Ord. 3683 § 8, 1986:
1984: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.070
Minimum area shall be forty thousand
four hundred square meters (ten
aCTeS) o
(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 shall
those lots within.the subdi~
velopment will be permitted
manner based on lot size.
(Ord. 3345 § 18, 1982:
1978)
building coverage.
area-and build*
3.5 percent; provided
a subdivision with
an ten’ acres in size
by an
impervious cover-
be allotted to this
transferred to
on which de-
a proportional
3o48 (part),
"18.71.09.0 Front yard.
Front yards shall be a minimum
ters (thirty feet)..
(Ord. 3048 (part), i978)
18.7i.100 Side yards.
Side yards .shall be a minimum of
ters (thirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978).
18.71.110 Rear yards. "
Rear yards shall be a minimum of 9.1
ters (thirty feet).
~. 3048 (part), 1978)
115 Special setbacks.
e~e_ applicable, setback lines imposed by
a specPal, setback map pursuant to Chapter
20.08 of Us code shall be followed for the
purpose of 5etermining legal setback require-
ments, NN(Ord. 4016 § 47,~91).
\18.71.120 Autombl~ile.
Four car spaces shaltNbe required for each
dwelling unit, one of wlu~, shall be covered
parking. Such spaces shall’l~.xot be located in
any required front or side yard.~ .
(Oral. 3048 (part),. 1978)
18.71.130 ’Buildin~height "hmiL
Buildings shall not exceed two st0n~, or
7.6 meters (twenty-five feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.140 Special regulatiom,
(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-
fied 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-
tory investigations and examinations and shall
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 of the
intended land uses, and with respect to the ef-
fect upon future geological processes both on
and off the site;
(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 the
material submitted under this chapter by quail-
18-134
fled persons remineA, by the city, sh~ be
borne by the applicant.
This requirement may.be waived by the city
on. ginccr for structures in Group M o~cupancy,
as defined in the Uniform Building Code, ac-
ccsso~ facilities and landscaping where such
improvements, in his opinion, would pose no
potential hazm:d to hfe or property on the
subject or surrounding properties.
(b) Landscaping. The existing natural
vegetation and land formations shall remainin
a natural state unless modification is found to
be necessmy for a specific use allowed in this
chapter through the site and design approval
procedure. ReduCtion or ehmination .of. fire
hazards will be rcqui.red where heavy concen-
trations of flammable vegetaffon occur. Land-
scaping, as may be necessary and required
shall be consistent with .the purpose of this
ch.apter.
(c) Fencing Restriction. No-barbed wire,
or similar fencing having. a cutting edge, may
be installed except:
(1) To protec~ a vegetative community or
wildhfe, habitat until it is fully established,
subject to the. imposition of reasonable time
limits through site m~d design review pursuant
[o Ciiaptcr 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 Of live trees
shall be permimed as provided in Title 8.
(e) Access to Remote Areas. Roads,
tracks, driveways, trails, or runways for auto-
mobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles or other
wheeled vehicles shall not be developed ex-
Cept upon the securing of site and design ap-
proval. No such approval shall be granted
except upo.n finding that the pro-pose for which
the roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways
~e proposed is essential for the establishment
or maintenance of a use which is expressly
permiued in this chapter and that the design
and location of the proposed roads, tracks,
driveways, trails, or runwayswiiI be compati-
ble with the te~ain.
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
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
approvN. No such approvalshall be granted
excep~ 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 th~ least distur-
bance of-the terrain and natural land features.
All grading for which no permits o.r approvals.
are requixed.shaI1 be subject to the provisions.
set forth in this chapter.
(g) Soil Erosion and Land Management.
No site and design pIan shall be. approved an-
less it includes soit erosioi~ 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 pmyided for in accordance
with said standards and specifications. The
applicant shall bear the final respo.nsibility fo~
the insta!lation and construction 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 shaI1 b.e designed on the
cluster principle and shall be designed to
minimize roads; to minimize cut, fill, and
grading operations; to locate development in
less rather than mdre conspicuous areas; and
to achieve the purpose of this chapter.
(i) Substandard Lots. Any parce! of land
not meeting the area or dimension require-
ments of this chapter is a lawful building site
18-135
18.72.010
if such parcel was a lawful budding 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; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
Chapter 18.72
AGRICL~TURAL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Specific purposes.
Applieabihty of regulations.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Site development regulations.
¯ Parking and loading.
Special requirements.
18.72.010
The.AC a
intended to
uses on property
retention essenti~
landscaped state.
(Oral. 3048 (part),
18.72.020 Applicabil~, of regulations.
The specific regulationg~of this chapter and
the additional regulations ~es-
tablished by Chapters to 18.99, inclu-
sive, shall apply to all agricultural
conservation districts.
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
conservation district is
and compatible
for preservation and
its natural, farmed, or
18.72.030 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be in the
AC agricultural conservation dstrict~
(a) A~ricultural use, excepting th~onduct
and m~intenance of hog farms;
(b) Residential use, and accessory\~build-
ings and uses customarily incidental tripper-
mitred dwellings; provided, however, ~that
such .permitted dweliings shal! be for the ~x-
clusive us6 of the owner or owners,.or Iess~. e
or lessor of land upon which permitted agri’~.
cultural use is conducted, and the residence
’
~er members of the same family and bo
tilde employees of
~e) S~e of a~c~ pmduc~ produced
on ~e pm~ses; provide, ~at no pe~ent
co~erci~ s~c~e for ~e s~e or process-
~g o~a~culm~ produc~ sh~ be pe~ed;
(d) ~obfie homes (m~ufac~ed ho~g)
on pe~ent foundations. ’S~ Section
18.88.14~.
(~ a2~ ~ ~, ~98~; @d.. 3~8 ~m),
1978) ~ . .
~e foHo~g .uses may be condifion~y
~ow~ ~ ~ AC a~cul~N conse~afion
dis~c~ subject~to issu~ce of a condi~on~
use ~t ~ accord wi~ Chapmr 18.90:
(a) ~N e~,. including bo=ding
ke~els; ~ " ¯
~) ~oor rec~afion se~ices;
of ufi5~ se~ces to ~neighborhood, but ex-
cluding business office, cons~cfion or stor-
age y~, m~ten~ee f~es,or
" co~orafion y~; i97~d9)~@
(d) Cememfes.
(~d ~l~R ~ 11
1978)
18.72.050 Site developmeht regulations.
The following site developn~ent regulations
Shall apply in the AC agricultur~ conservation
district; provided, that more. rest~ctive regula- ¯
tions may be recommended by l~,e architec-
tural review boardand approv~ by the
director of planning and commu.ni~ environ-
ment, pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of\the Palo
Alto Municipal Code: . \ -
(a) SiteArea..The minimum site ar~e,a sha!l
be twenty thousand .two hundred third-four
square meters (five acres).
(b) Site Width. The minimum site wtidth
sha!l be 76.2 meters (two hundred fifty feet}~
(c) Site Depth. The minimum site dep~
sha!! be 76.2 meters (two hundred fifty feet). \
(d) Front Yard. The minimum front yard\
shall be 9.2 meters (thirty feet). ~t
18-136
Attachment B
STAFF REPORT
Planning Commission
November 7, 2002
Item #1
File: 821
Stanford University Community Plan Open Space~ield
Research Zoning District
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:
Forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the proposed
ordinance contained in Option 3 (of 3 separate text options) and the corresponding
zoning map.
Applicant:
Location:
Property Address:
Gen. Plan Designation:
Current Zoning:
Property Size:
Present Land Use:
Supervisorial District:
Williamson Act:
Santa Clara County Planning Office
Stanford University
Land Use Planning Office, 655 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305-6115
(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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Staff report prepared:
Prepared by:
Approved by:
October 25, 2002
Tim Heffington, Planner
Michael Lopez, Land Development Coordinator
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
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 lands on Stanford
campus, consistent with the adopted land use map of the Stanford Community Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Actions Concerning Environmental Determination
Forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to fred that the zoning district
is consistent with use of a prior CEQA document and is within the scope of the EIR prepared for
the Stanford Community Plan (CP) and General Use Permit (GUP), adopted December 2000.
Actions Concerning Proposal
Forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Option 3 zoning
amendment language and to adopt the zoning map rezoning certain Stanford lands.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION
Reasons for Actions Concerning Environmental Determination
The Stanford Community Plan (CP), a General Plan Amendment adopted by the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors in December 2060, established development policies and an
implementation recommendation for the County to "enact and apply appropriate zoning
consistent with the allowable uses and development policies of this designation" (Exhibit A).
This plan also contains the adopted land use map (Exhibit B) depicting lands of this designation.
The CEQA document (EIR) for the CP and General Use Permit (GUP), also adopted by the
Board in December 2000, recognized this General Plan land use designation of Open Space and
Field Research. Creation of this district merely implements an action identified within that
General Plan Amendment (GPA) for lands also identified within that GPA. No new effects
would occur and no new EIR mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, this zoning
district is consistent with use of a prior CEQA document.
Reasons for Actions Concerning Proposal
As described in Chapter 5.70 of the County Zoning Ordinance (or in Chapter 5.75 of the August
2002 Draft of the Revised 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
general plan land use designations are required.
The proposed text amendment and rezoning implement policies from the adopted 2000 Stanford
Community Plan. The allowable uses and activities are generally described in that plan and have
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
been incorporated into the ordinance. The model for the optional clustering mode! for the
Hillside district (a rural residential district) has been adapted to apply to this (nonresidential
district) special purpose base district.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7. 2002 Item #1
BACKGROL~D
Policy Context!History
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted the Stanford University Community Plan
and General Use Permit, and certified the associated EIR on December 12, 2000. The
Community Plan provides strategies, policies, and implementation recommendations that guide
future use and development of Stanford lands. The Land Use chapter policies and land use map
of the Community Plan provide clear guidance for implementation of the OS/F District (Exhibits
A and B).
Prior to adoption of the CP, the Board of Supervisors considered many options for the foothills
region of Stanford University. The Board considered but rejected mandatory open space
dedication within the Stanford foothills. The Board restricted the range of allowable uses for this
district (Exhibit A).
The General Use Permit (GUP) was also adopted by the Board during December of 2000. The
GUP will remain in place for a minimum of 10 years and is subject to provisions of the zoning
ordinance. No additional use permits (other than for housing) may be approved for the life of this
GUP. The GUP stipulates that no development is allowed within the "Foothills" development
district, which encompasses the lands of the OS/F district, with the following exception: A total
of 15,000 square feet of development (maximum individual structure size of 5,000 square feet)
may be approved subject to a corresponding decrease in square footage elsewhere within
Stanford development districts.
Comments from the community and other jurisdictions have suggested that density and floor
area ratio requirements should be incorporated into the OS/F zoning ordinance. Those standards
generally apply to districts where residential, commercial, an~or industrial uses are allowable.
This type of development is not allowable within this district. To provide flexibility for
placement of allowable structures (e.g. tool storage, agricultural support, remote field research
structure) throughout the district, the staff opinion is that the proposed required ASA findings are
a more appropriate tool for establishing standards within this district than use of uniform zoning
standards. With the GUP requirements as background, the Planning Office drafted and has
altered the proposed zoning ordinance for this district.
Planning staff first informed the Planning Commission during a February 2002 workshop that
the proposed zoning text was being drafted to implement the General Plan policy. An initial draft
of proposed text for this district was placed on the County web site, and a March Planning
Commission hearing was held to hear public comment on the proposed text. At that hearing, the
Commission requested that staff consider alternatives for the clustering language. At this
November 7 hearing, staff is providing three options for consideration, and recommends Option
3 (See exhibits C1, C2, C3, and comparison matrix: C4).
Following the March Planning Commission meeting, this zoning amendment item was continued
until November 7, 2002 and the initial draft language from that meeting has remained on the web
site for public review. Subsequent to that March meeting, the following actions have occurred:
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
Public comments regarding the OS/F district have been received and have been previously
forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Written comments and verbal comments regarding the OS/F district have been received from
neighboring jurisdictions and have been forwarded to the Planning Commission.
At the request of the City of Palo Alto, a staff presentation was made to the City of Pato Alto
Planning and Transportation Commission to explain the implementation of the Community
Plan and General Use Permit and the provisions of the (earlier draft version of the) OS~
district.
The fn-st major revision process for the entire County zoning ordinance (since 1937) has
continued to progress.
The previous draft of the OS/F zoning ordinance, written in the (1937) "old style" format has
been revised to be compatible with the revised format of the zoning ordinance. In addition,
the OS/F ordinance reference to the clustering option (previously included within the OS/F
proposed ordinance) has been placed in Chapter 5.45 of the draft revised ordinance, Cluster
.Permits. Exhibit D contains the applicable excerpt for ’°nonresidential clusters" that will be
considered in the OS/F district.
Subsequent consideration of the revised County zoning ordinance revision by Planning
Office staff has reveated that certain uses not previously considered to be allowable (within
the OS/F district) should indeed be considered as allowable uses (e.g. antennas, agricultural
sales).
The substance of the zoning ordinance text has been modified to:
create new required Architectural and Site Approval Committee/Secretary findings for
proposals within this district (relative to clustering, preservation of visual resources, and
environmental considerations).
o allow uses that were previously not considered to be allowed (e.g. antennas, agricultural
sales)
modify the optional 90/10 split for open space dedication!development to apply to the
entire land area instead of the "project area" (or building envelope) as previously worded
in the draft ordinance
Planning Office staff members have met with Stanford Planning Office staff to clarify the
"ground-truthing" intent of the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) for this zoning district
and the nature of the changes to the zoning district text. The (generally) northern boundary
for this district is the Academic Growth Boundary (Exhibit B). Clarifications for that
boundary include the following:
Where the AGB generally aligns residential property below Junipero Serra Boulevard,
the AGB was intended to align those residential property boundaries
Planning Commission Heating
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
o Where the AGB aligns the Lathrop Development District (near the Carnegie site), the
area surrounding the Golf Club house (and the structure itself) will be split between two
zoning districts.
To address the similar nature of comments that have been presented to the County by the
community and neighboring jurisdictions, the Planning Office has posted a "white paper" on
the web site to address the broader concepts common among those comments. This
information has recently been shared with neighboring jurisdictions as well as the Stanford
University Community Resource Group and Stanford University (Exhibit E).
In summary, the key points regarding this ordinance follow:
1)Planning Office staff members have provided three options for Planning Commission
consideration. The three options provide alternative applications of the clustering model
as that model applies to the restricted uses for this district (Exhibit C4 compares options).
Staff recommends Option 3.
Within all three options, uses and activities are restricted to those outlined in the
Community Plan (Exhibit A), and some clarification of those policies is appropriately
provided within the ordinance (Exhibit C1, C2, and recommended C3).
3)All structures must be ancillary to allowed uses or activities, and must undergo the ASA
process.
4)For any project not requiring subdivision, ASA findings are required to conclude that
clustering concepts have been applied to development and cumulative development.
(*Note: Stanford is not required to subdivide for development activity, so this
requirement for a ~clustering concept" finding ensures clustering of development,
without subdivision, where appropriate.)
5)If Stanford should ever choose to subdivide OS~ parcels, the minimum new lot size
would be ! 60 acres. Alternatively, subject to an optional cluster permit, this minimum lot
size could be waived by the Planning Commission down to a two-acre minimum.
Permanent dedication of open space could be required for project approval, only if: (a)
ASA review concluded that substantial impacts requiring mitigation were associated with
the project or (b) a cluster permit were to be required for subdivision of an existing parcel
to less than 160 acres.
Alternative open space dedication mechanism considered but not incorporated:
The GUP requires that for any square foot of development in the OS/F district, a square foot of
development must be removed from GUP-allowable totals elsewhere on Stanford campus. The
option of requiring mandatory open space dedication (that would not constitute an
unconstitutional taking) each time Stanford applied for a project was considered.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
This potential mechanism for mandatory open space dedication was rejected because it would
likely result in small increments of dedication as small projects were approved. The resulting
cumbersome process of open space dedication would not provide a level of benefit that would
justify the time and expense associated with achieving such dedication.
STEPS FOLLOWING ACTION
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
Planning Commission Heating
November 7, 2002 Item #1
EXHIBITS
A Community Plan Land Use Excerpt
B Land Use Map
C
C1
C2
C3
Zoning Amendment Option 1
Zoning Amendment Option 2
A:Enactment Ordinance
B:Rezoning Ordinance
Exhibit 1: Zoning Amendment (Option 3)
Exhibit 2: Zoning Map (proposed zoning designations)
Exhibit 3: Parcels To Be Rezoned
D
C4 Options Comparison
Draft Revised Zoning Ordinance Excerpt from Chapter 5.45, Cluster Permit
E White Paper
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #I
EXHIBIT
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7. 2002 Item #1
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 a~nd 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
contafned within the Growth and Development Chapter; therefore, no such Ge_neraJ
Plan amendment may be considered within 25 years of approval of the Community
Plan and cumulative development of at least 17.3 milhon square feet within the AGB.
SCP-LU 25
This designation does not include lands in which special biological resources or
hazards exist and which are inappropriate for development under County, State, or
Federal laws, 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
do
eo
Chapter 2 - Land Use
recreational activities which are consistent with protection of environmental
resources (e.g., not construction or operation of a n~.~ golf course) and with
appropriate policies regarding foothill access;
specialized facilities and installations that by their nature require a remote or
natural setting, such as astronomica! or other antennae installations or structures
accessory to field study activities; and,
f. environmental restoration.
$CP-LU 27
No permanent buildings or structures are allowed, other than utility infrastructure
and a limited number of small, specialized facilities or installations that support
permitted or existing activities, or require a remote, natural setting and cannot be
feasibly located within the AGB.
$CP-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.
$CP-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.
S CP-L U(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
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Land Use 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
soa~e ~Figure 2.2
1:30.000 No o. ~
Stanford University Community Plan Adopted Decem~r 2000
EXHIBIT C
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
EXHIBIT C 1
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #I
CHAPTER 2.50 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
(OPTION 1 OF 3)
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 oppommities 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.
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,
recreational trails, environmental restoration, limited ancillary facilities, and Stanford
University specialized facilities and installations, such as astronomical or related
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #I
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 fight.
"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 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
USES
Adult Uses
Agriculture
Agricultural Accessory Structures &
Uses
~[~ Permitted by Right
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA (Ch 5.40)
LI Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
ZONING
OS/F
Supplemental
RegulationsA1 RS
U --§ 4.10.020
[][] []§ 4.20.020; Note 1 (OS/F)
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
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
Bed & Breakfast Inns
ZONING
RS OS/F
~! Permitted by Right
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA(Ch5.40)
U Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
f Supplemental
Regulations
A A A
U -
U -
Note 1, Note 2 (OS~),
§ 4.10.030
§ 4.10.030
§ 4.10.030
Note 1 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110 (Signs), Note 1,
Note 2 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110, Note 1, Note 2
(os/~)
U
U § 4.10.050
A A A
U U A
U --
§ 4.10.060
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7. 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
[Ill 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
RS OS/F
Supplemental
RegulationsA1
Billboards IJ --
Broadcasting IJ --
Business Services IJ --
Butcheries IJ --
Camps & Retreats !---
Cemeteries IJ --
Churches (See "Religious Institutions")
Clubs-Private & Nonprofit IJ --
Colleges & Vocational Schools IJ --
Community Care
Limited [][]-§ 4.10.090, Note 3
Expanded IJ IJ -§ 4.10.090
Corporation Yards IJ --
Dairies IJ --
Domestic Animals [][]-
Feed Lots LI --
Field Research [][][]Note 1 (OS/F)
Food & Beverage Sales LI LI -Note 4 (RS)
Food Preparation & Catering Services IJ --
Funeral & Cremation Services IJ --
Golf Courses & Country Clubs IJ --§ 4.t0.140(B); Note 5
(os/F)
Golf Driving Ranges IJ --§ 4.10.150(B)
Health & Fitness Clubs IJ --
Helipads IJ --§ 4.10.160
Historic Structure-Use Conversion S 8 -§ 4.10.170
Home Occupations
General [][]-§ 4.10.180
Expanded $$-§ 4.10.180
Hospitals & Clinics IJ --
Hotels & Motels IJ U -
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
~l 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
ZONING
RS OS/F
USES
Kennels
Laboratories & Testing Services
Laundries-Commercial
Livestock Auction Yards
Machinery & Equipment Services
Limited
General
Maintenance & Repair Services
Manufactured-Home Sales & Rentals
Manufacturing
Limited
General
Intensive
Massage Establishments
Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries
Museums
Mushroom Farms
Nonprofit Institutions
Nurseries
A1
U --§ 4.10.200
U m m
U --§4.!0.2t0
U --
U --
U m -
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Supplemental
Regulations
Note 6
Note 7
§4.10.220
Retail U --
Wholesale U --
Offices U --
Oil and Gas Extraction U --
Parking Services & Facilities U --
Personal Services: All U --
Petroleum Products Distribution U --
Poultry & Egg Farms U --§ 4.10.240
Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft U --§ 4.10.250
Facilities
Reception Facilities U --§ 4.10.260
Recreation-Commercial U --
Planning Commission Heating
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
~1~ 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
USES
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 Accessor2,." Structures & Uses
Residential-Communal Institutional
Restaurants and Bars
Retail Sales & Services
General
Outdoor Sales & Storage
Rodeos & Equestrian Events
Rooming Houses, Fraternities, &
Sororities
Schools
Secondary Dwellings
Sport Shooting
Stables-Commercial
Stanford Specialized Facilities &
Installations
Studios-Arts & Crafts
ZONING
RS OS/FA1
IJ IJ -§ 4.10.280
Supplemental
Regulations
Note 1, Note 8
Note 9
§ 4.20.020
I.I IJ -Note 4 (RS)
$$-§ 4.10.340
13 --§ 4.10.360
--A Note 10 (OS/F)
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
USES
A
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
Wind Energy Conversion Systems-
Commercial
Wineries
Limited
General
Expanded-Reception/Special Events
Facilities
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
Permitted by Right
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
ASA (Ch 5.40)
Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
Not Permitted
iSupplemental
, Regulations
Note 11
Note 12
§ 4.10.390
NOTES:
Within the OS/F district structures anciIIary to any allowed use or activity are permitted subject to the
ASA process (Article 5, Chapter 5.40 & Article 2, Chapter 2.50). Prior to establishment of any structure,
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
a determination by the Planning Office is required to ensure consistency with the General Use Permit
development requirements for this district.
Within the OS/F district, the nature of agricultural processing is limited to low intensity processing and
agricultural 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 agricultural commodities are consistent with allowable uses for this district. Activities such as
a canning operation, or establishing a commercial outlet for sale of muttiple 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.
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, 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 C 12-300-399 of the County Ordinance Code.
Includes structures or facilities that require a remote setting, including but not limited to facilities for
astronomical or atmospheric research. Such structures or facilities require isolation from sources of
interference (such as noise, vibration, electromagnetic 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 shal! 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.
§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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
TABLE 2.50-2
SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS:
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A1 RS OS/F
Minimum lot area
For lot creation
For building site
With lot size combining
districts
5,000 sq. ft.20 acres 20 -160 acres~
3,750 sq. ft.1 acre ASA
Ch. 3.10 NA NA
Setbacks (feet)
Front
Side
Side, Exterior (comer lot)
Rear
Scenic road
Exceptions
25,-30 ASA
5"30 ASA
10’-30 ASA
25"30 ASA
100~-t 00 ASA
§4.20.110, Setback Exceptions ASA
Maximum height
Feet 35-"35 ASA
Stories 2,-2 ASA
Accessory buildings See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards
NOTES:
Minimum lot area 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 for density, relative to land area per dwelling unit, shall
not apply to the OS/F district. 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.
2. For non-residential uses, see subsection C of this section.
Measurements. The standards shown in Table 2,50-2 are subject to the following rules
of measurement:
1.Where a lot abuts on a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the
ultimate road right of way;
2.Setbacks from all property lines not abutting a street shall be measured from the
property line unless otherwise specified; and
3. Height shall be measured according to the provisions of Article 6, Definitions.
AlDistrict-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:
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #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.
§2.50.040 Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS/F District
Permitted Activities and Criteria. The following activities that do not entail structures
of a permanent nature are permitted by right.
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 Ordinance No. NS-
1203.35, §6, 3).
Development Criteria, Findings, and Limitations.
ASA Authority. The ASA commi~ee shall have the authority to review, prescribe,
and modify 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 fmdings
of Section 5.40.040:
The project requires a remote, natural setting and cannot be feasibly located
within the AGB (e.g.: avoidance of interference from electromagnetic or vibration
sources can 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, Alpine Road, and dedicated public trails.
Project design and location afford reasonable protection to environmental
resources. If necessary, mitigation measures have been established that reduce
environmental impact to less than significant levels.
d. Criteria contained within Notes 1, 8, 9, and 10 (§2.50.020) shall apply.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Co
New Utilities Criteria. New utilities are allowed, provided that no other location is
available that will achieve equal efficiency and effectiveness of service, and that the
required structure is of a design that is compatible with open space and does not
degrade the environment.
Fences. Fences shall be of an open design compatible with the intent of the district to
minimize visual impacts to the natural setting.
Special Allowance for Replacement of Legally Existing Structures. Notwithstanding
the provisions of Chapter 4.50.020, reconstruction of any legally existing facilities
following destruction by a natural disaster, accident, or intentional act of a party other
than the owner or a lessee is permitted, provided there is no increase in floor area, subject
to current building codes and standards, Architecture and Site Approval (ASA), and the
criteria listed below:
The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is
environmentally superior (e.g. moves project away from riparian corridor) to the
previous use and results in equivalent or reduced impact to visual resources as viewed
from Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Interstate 280, E1 Camino Real,
Alpine Road, and the Countywide Trails Master Plan C 1 and S 1 trail alignments.
The project recreates or improves design and landscaping features (but does not
increase total area of landscaping features) in a manner that is environmentally
superior to the previous design and landscaping associated with this use.
The project may be relocated provided the proposed location results in an
environmentally superior project and the previous location is restored or rehabilitated
subject to standards (e.g. previous riparian corridor location is revegetated with native
grasses) determined by the County.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
EXHIBIT
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
CHAPTER 2.50 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
(OPTION 2 OF 3)
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~ 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 Gene/al 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.
No 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.
OS/F Open Space and Field Research. The purpose of the Open Space Field Research
district, also known as the OS/F district is to implement the December 2000 Stanford
University Community Plan (General Plan) policies for the Open Space and Field
Research Land Use designation. This zoning district is established to maintain the open
space character of those Stanford University OS/F lands outside the Academic Growth
Boundary. Allowable uses include utilities, low intensity agriculture, limited 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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
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 reg-ulations 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
S Special Permit (Oh 5.60)
A ASA(Ch 5.40)
U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
USES
Adult Uses
Agriculture
Agricultural Accessory Structures &
Uses
ZONING
RS OS/F
Supplemental
RegulationsA1
U --§ 4.10.020
[][] []§ 4.20.020;Note 1 (OS/F)
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # !
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
I~ 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
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
Bed & Breakfast Inns
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
U n n
U --
Supplemental
Regulations
Note 1, Note 2 (OS/F),
§ 4.10.030
§ 4.10.030
§ 4.10.030
Note 1 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110 (Signs), Note 1,
Note 2 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110, Note 1, Note 2
(OS,~F)
U U -
U U -§ 4.10.050
A A A
U U A
U --
§ 4.10.060
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
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
USES ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
Supplemental
Regulations
Billboards El --
Broadcasting El --
Business Services El --
Butcheries El --
Camps & Retreats ---
Cemeteries El --
Churches (See "Religious Institutions")
Clubs-Private & Nonprofit El --
Colleges & Vocational Schools El --
Community Care
Limited [][]-§ 4.10.090, Note 3
Expanded El El -§ 4.10.090
Corporation Yards El --
Dairies El --
Domestic Animals [][]-
Feed Lots El --
Field Research [][][]Note 1 (OS/F)
Food & Beverage Sales El El -Note 4 (RS)
Food Preparation & Catering Services El --
Funeral & Cremation Services El --
Golf Courses & Count~’ Clubs El --§ 4.10.140(B); Note 5
(os )
Golf Driving Ranges El --§ 4.10.15003)
Health & Fitness Clubs El --
Helipads El --§ 4.10.160
Historic Structure-Use Conversion S $-§ 4.10.170
Home Occupations
General [][]-§ 4.10.180
Expanded $$-§ 4.10.180
Hospitals & Clinics El --
Hotels & Motels El El -
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
[] Permitted by Right
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA (Ch5.40)
IJ Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
USES
Kennels
Laboratories & Testing Services
Laundries-Commercial
Livestock Auction Yards
Machinery & Equipment Services
Limited
Genera!
Maintenance & Repair Services
Manufactured-Home Sales & Rentals
Manufacturing
Limited
General
Intensive
Massage Establishments
Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries
Museums
Mushroom Farms
Nonprofit Institutions
Nurseries
Supplemental
Regulations
LI --§ 4.!0.200
LI --§4.10.2!0
Note 6
Note 7
§4.I0.220
Retail IJ --
Wholesale IJ --
Offices IJ --
Oil and Gas Extraction IJ --
Parking Services & Facilities LI --
Personal Services: All IJ --
Petroleum Products Distribution U --
Poultry & Egg Farms 0 --§ 4.!0.240
Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft LI --§ 4.10.250
Facilities
Reception Facilities LI --§ 4.10.260
Recreation-Commercial 0 --
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #I
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
Permitted by Right
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
ASA (Ch 5.40)
Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
Not Permitted
USES
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
Rooming Houses, Fraternities, &
Sororities
Schools
Secondary Dwellings
Sport Shooting
Stables- Commercial
Stanford Specialized Facilities &
Installations
Studios-Arts & Crafts
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
Supplemental
Regulations
IJ O -§ 4.10.280
Note 1, Note 8
Note 9
§ 4.20.020
tl IJ -Note 4 (RS)
$$-§ 4.10.340
IJ --§ 4.10.360
--A Note 10 (OS/F)
tJ N -
Planning Commission Heating
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
USES
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
Wind Energ3’ Conversion Systems-
Commercial
Wineries
Limited
General
Expanded-Reception! Special Events
Facilities
A1 RS
Permitted by Right
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
ASA (Ch 5.40)
Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
Not Permitted
ZONING
OS/F
U m
U -
U -
U -
A A A Note 11
U U A Note 12
U w w
U --
U --
U --
U U -§ 4.10.390
Supplemental
Regulations
NOTES:
1.Within the OS/F district structures ancillary to any allowed use or activity are permitted subject to the
ASA process (Article 5, Chapter 5.40 & Article 2, Chapter 2.50). Prior to establishment of any structure,
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
a determination by the Planning Office is required to ensure consistency with the General Use Permit
development requirements for this district.
Within the OS/F district, the nature of agricultural processing is limited to low intensity processing and
agricultural 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 agricultural commodities are consistent with allowable uses for this district. Activities such as
a canning operation, or establishing a commercial outlet for sale of multiple agricultural commodities
would be of an intensity that is inconsistent with the purposes for this district.)
Facilities qualifying as "Large-Family Day-Care Homes," sewing 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.
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, 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.
Includes structures or facilities that require a remote setting, including but not limited to facilities for
astronomical or atmospheric research. Such structures or facilities require isolation from sources of
interference (such as noise, vibration, electromagnetic 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
sU’uctures 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.
§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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # I
TABLE 2.50-2
SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS:
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For lot creation
For building site
With lot size combining
districts
A1 RS OS/F
5,000 sq. ft.20 acres 160 acres
3,750 sq. ft.1 acre ASA
Ch. 3.10 NA NA
Setbacks (feet)
Front
Side
Side, Exterior (comer lot)
Rear
Scenic road
Exceptions
Maximum height
Feet
Stories
Accessory buildings
251 30 ASA
51 30 ASA
101 30 ASA
251 30 ASA
1001 100 ASA
See §4.20.110, Setback Exceptions ASA
351 35 ASA
2!2 ASA
See Chapter 4.20, Supplemental Development Standards
NOTES:
1. 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:
o
Where a lot abuts on a road, setbacks from that road shall be measured from the
ultimate road fight 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 A1 district shall be determined by
the ASA committee, subject to the following limitations:
Nonresidential uses adjacent to any residentially developed property may be required to
provide a minimum front yard setback equa! to that of the adjacent residential use; and
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
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.
§2.50.040 Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS/F District
Permitted Activities and Criteria. The following activities that do not entail structures
of a permanent nature 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 Ordinance No. NS-
1203.35, §6, 3).
Development Criteria, Findings, and Limitations.
ASA Authorit3’. 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 the ASA
process shall comply with the following findings and criteria, in addition to standard
ASA findings of Section 5.40.040:
a.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.
c.Project design and location afford reasonable protection to environmental
resources. If necessary, mitigation measures have been established that reduce
environmental impact 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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Co
use of open space. Permanent dedication of open space will be required, where
appropriate, to mitigate project impacts. Any such dedication would not be an
unconstitutional taking of private property.
e. Criteria contained within Notes 1, 8, 9, and 10 (§2.50.020) shall apply.
New Utilities Criteria. New utilities are allowed, provided that no other location is
available that will achieve equal efficiency and effectiveness of service, and that the
required structure is of a design that is compatible with open space and does not
degrade the environment.
Fences. Fences shall be of 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
intentional act of a party other than the owner or a lessee is permitted, provided there is
no increase in floor area, subject to current building codes and standards, Architecture
and Site Approval (ASA), and the criteria listed below. Notwithstanding provisions of
4.50.020, the following allowances for replacement of existing structures apply:
The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is
environmentally superior (e.g. moves project away from riparian corridor) to the
previous use and results in equivalent or reduced impact to visual resources as viewed
from Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Interstate 280, E1 Camino Real,
Alpine Road, and the Countywide Trails Master Plan C 1 and S 1 trail aligmnents.
2.The project recreates or improves design and landscaping features (but does not
increase total area of landscaping features) in a mariner 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 Heating
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
EXHIBIT C3
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Exhibit C3 contains the following materials:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Enactment Ordinance
Rezoning Ordinance
Exhibit 1: Staff-Recommended OS/F Zoning Amendment Text, Option 3
Exhibit 2: Proposed Zoning Map
Exhibit 3: List of Parcels to be Rezoned
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
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
Tl-tis 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 desig-nation.
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
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
shown in Exhibit 1 of this ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California on by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors
NOES:
ABSENT:
Donald F. Gage, 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
November 7. 2002 Item #1
EXHIBIT C3oB
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
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
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 changing the zoning designations 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
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
//
//
depicted in Exhibit 2 (Map of Parcels) and identified in Exhibit 3 (List of Parcels) from
A1, A1-20s, and A1-20s-sr to OS/F.
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:
Donald F. Gage, Chairperson,
Board of Supervisors
Phyllis Perez, Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Lizarme 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
November 7, 2002 Item #1
EXHIBIT i
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
CHAPTER 2.50 SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
(OPTION 3 OF 3)
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,
cornrnercial, 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.
No RS Roadside Services. The purpose of the Roadside Services district, also known as
the RS district, is to allow specific and necessary highxvay 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 parcel.s designated Roadside
Services in the general plan.
OS/F Open Space and Field Research. The purpose of the Open Space Field Research
district, also known as the OS~ district is to implement the December 2000 Stanford
University Community Plan (General Plan) policies for the Open Space and Field
Research Land Use designation. This zoning district is established to maintain the open
space character of those Stanford University OS/F lands outside the Academic Growth
Boundary. Allowable uses include utilities, low intensity agriculture, limited 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
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
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 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
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA (Ch 5.40)
U Use Permit! ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
USES
Adult Uses
Agriculture
Agricultural Accessory Structures &
Uses
ZONING
RS OS/F
Supplemental
RegulationsA1
U --§ 4.10.020
[][] A § 4.20.020; Note 1 (OS/F)
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
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
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
Bed & Breakfast Inns
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
U m n
U ~-
[] [] A
A A A
Supplemental
Regulations
Note 1, Note 2 (OS/F),
§ 4.!0.030
§ 4.10.030
§ 4.10.030
Note 1 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110 (Signs), Note 1,
Note 2 (OS/F)
§ 4.40.110, Note 1, Note 2
(osn:)
U U -
U U -§ 4.10.050
A A A
U U A
U --
§ 4.10.060
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item # 1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
Permitted by Right
Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
ASA (Ch 5.40)
Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
Not Permitted
USES ZONING
RS OS/F
Supplemental
RegulationsA1
Billboards IJ --
Broadcasting IJ --
Business Services 1/--
Butcheries IJ --
Camps & Retreats ---
Cemeteries IJ --
Churches (See "Religious Institutions")
Clubs-Private & Nonprofit IJ --
Colleges & Vocational Schools LI --
Community Care
Limited [][]-§ 4.10.090, Note 3
Expanded 13 ld -§ 4.10.090
Corporation Yards IJ --
Dairies IJ --
Domestic Animals [][]-
Feed Lots IJ --
Field Research [][][]Note 1 (OS/F)
Food & Beverage Sales LI LI -Note 4 (RS)
Food Preparation & Catering Services IJ --
Funeral & Cremation Sen’ices IJ --
Golf Courses & Country. Clubs LI --§ 4.10.140(B); Note 5
(OS/F)
Golf Driving Ranges IJ --§ 4.10.150(B)
Health & Fitness Clubs IJ --
Helipads O --§ 4.10.160
Historic Structure-Use Conversion $$-§ 4.10.170
Home Occupations
General [][]-§ 4.10.180
Expanded S S -§ 4.10.180
Hospitals & Clinics IJ --
Hotels & Motels IJ IJ -
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
[] Permitted by Right
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA(Ch5.40)
El Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
ZONING
A1 RS OS/F
USES
Kennels
Laboratories & Testing Services
Laundries- Commercial
Livestock Auction Yards
Machinery & Equipment Services
Limited
General
Maintenance & Repair Services
Manufactured-Home Sales & Rentals
Manufacturing
Limited
General
Intensive
Massage Establishments
Medicinal Marijuana Dispensaries
Museums
Mushroom Farms
Nonprofit Institutions
Nurseries
Supplemental
Regulations
El --§ 4.10.200
El --m
El m m
IJ --84.10.210
El m m
El --_
El --m
El ----
Note 6
Note 7
84.10.220
Retail El --
Wholesale El --
Offices El --
Oil and Gas Extraction El --
Parking Services & Facilities El --
Personal Services: All El --
Petroleum Products Distribution El --
Poultry & Egg Farms El --§ 4.10.240
Radio-Controlled Model Aircraft El --§ 4. ! 0.250
Facilities
Reception Facilities El --§ 4.10.260
Recreation-Commercial El --
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #i
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
USES
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
l
~l Permitted by Right
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA(Ch5.40)
U Use Permit/ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
ZONING
OS/FA1 RS
IJ [J -§ 4.10.280
Supplemental
Regulations
Note 1, Note 8
Note 9
Residential Accessor.v Structures & Uses il []§ 4.20.020
Residential-Communal Institutional
Restaurants and Bars
Retail Sales & Services
General I IJ IJ -Note 4 (RS)
Outdoor Sales & Storage O --
Rodeos & Equestrian Events 0 --
Rooming Houses, Fraternities, &i tJ --
Sororities
Schools U --
Secondary Dwellings S S -§ 4.10.340
Sport Shooting LI --
Stables-Commercial IJ --§ 4.!0.360
Stanford Specialized Facilities &--A Note 10 (OS~)
Installations
Studios-Arts & Crafts tJ --
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Table 2.50-1
USES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS
USES
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
Wind Ener~’ Conversion Systems-
Commercial
Wineries
Limited
General
Expanded-Reception/Special Events
Facilities
A1
i~ Permitted by Right
$Special Permit (Ch 5.60)
A ASA (Ch 5.40)
U Use Permit~ ASA (Ch 5.65, 5.40)
-Not Permitted
ZONING
RS OS/F
U
U
U
U
A A A Note 11
U U A Note 12
U m m
U m -
U --
U --
U --
U U -§ 4.10.390
A
U
Supplemental
Regulations
NOTES:
I.Within the OS/F district structures ancillary to any allowed use or activity are permitted subject to the
ASA process (Article 5, Chapter 5.40 & Article 2, Chapter 2.50). Prior to establishment of any structure,
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
7.
8.
9.
11.
12.
a determination by the Planning Office is required to ensure consistency with the General Use Permit
development requirements for this district.
Within the OS/F district, the nature of agricultural processing is limited to low intensity processing and
agricultural sales activities are limited to those that would not significantly impact local transportation
pattems. (e.g. Activities such as packaging products for off-site shipping and allowing limited on-site
purchase of agricultura! 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.
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, 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.
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, electromagnetic 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.
§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 OSfF
Minimum lot area
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7. 2002 Item #1
TABLE 2.50-2
SPECIAL PURPOSE BASE DISTRICTS:
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
For lot creation
For building site
With lot size combining
districts
A1 RS OS/F
5,000 sq. ft.20 acres !60 acres1
3,750 sq. ft.1 acre ASA
Ch. 3.10 NA NA
Setbacks (feet)
Front
Side
Side, Exterior (comer tot
Rear
Scenic road
25"30 ASA
5z 30 ASA
10:30 ASA
25’-30 ASA
!00-’100 ASA
Exceptions
Maximum height
Feet
Stories
Accesso~ buildings
I See §4.20.110, Setback Exceptions ASA
35-’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 dislrict 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.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
A1 District-Standards for Nonresidential Uses. Setbacks and height limits for.
nonresidential and multi-family residential uses in the A1 district shall be determined by
the ASA committee, subject to the following limitations:
Nonresidential uses adjacent to any residentially developed property may be required to
provide a minimum front yard setback equal to that of the adjacent residential use; and
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.
§2.50.040 Special Criteria and Development Standards for the OS/F 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 the ASA
process shall comply with the following findings and criteria, in addition to standard
ASA findings of Section 5.40.040:
a.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, E! Camino Real, and Alpine Road, and dedicated public
trails.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7. 2002 Item #1
c.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.
e.Additional criteria contained within use regulations and notes of §2.50.020 shall
apply.
Fenees. 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
intentional act of a party other than the owner or a lessee is permitted, provided there is
no increase in floor area, subject to current building codes and standards, Architecture
and Site Approval (ASA), and the criteria listed below. Notwithstanding provisions of
4.50.020, the following allowances for replacement of existing structures apply:
The project replicates, reduces, or provides a modified building footprint that is
environmentally superior (e.g. moves project away from riparian corridor) to the
previous use and results in equivalent or reduced impact to visual resources as viewed
from Junipero Serra Boulevard, Page Mill Road, Interstate 280, E1 Camino Real,
Alpine Road, and dedicated public trails.
2.The project recreates or improves design and landscaping features (but does not
increase total area of landscaping features) in a manner that is environmentally
superior to the previous design and landscaping associated with this use.
The project may be relocated provided the proposed location results in an
environmentally superior project and the previous location is restored or rehabilitated
subject to standards (e.g. previous riparian corridor location is revegetated with native
grasses) determined by the County.
Planning Commission Hearing
November 7, 2002 Item #1
EXHIBIT 2
Planning Commission Heating
November 7, 2002 Item #1
Academic Growth Boundary
Open Space and Field Research -
Affected Parcels
~Qpen Space and Field Research
(Lands to be Rezoned)
r~ Other Land Use Designations
__ Campus Residential - Low Density
Campus Residential - Moderate Density
~ Academic Campus
Public School
Campus Open Space
Special Conservation
¯ November 7, 2002 ¯
Planning Commission Meeting
Revised Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 2.50: Special Purpose Base District (Stanford Open Space/Field Research Zoning District), Option Comparison: November 7
Planning Commission Draft
OPEN SPACE FIELD RESEARCH ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON of Options 1 - 3
Provision
Allowable uses
and activities
LOT SIZE
SLOPE
DENSITY
FORMULA
CLUSTERING
OPTION
REQU~D
FINDING for
CLUSTERING
CONCEPT
PERMANENT
DEDICATION
OF OPEN
SPACE
Option 1
Options 1-3 are identical
with regard to allowable
uses and activities
20 - 160 acres
OR clustering option allows
Planning Commission
determination of lot size
required for new parcel
creation
optional 90/10 split required
to waive parcel size
No required "clustering
concept" ASA finding
required only if clustering
option is exercised
Option 2
Options 1-3 are
identical with regard
to allowable uses and
activities
160 acre minimum
no slope density
formula N/A
no option for 90/10
split (see required
ASA finding for
clustering "concept")
required "clustering
concept" ASA
finding
where appropriate,
permanent open
space dedication
may be required
Option 3
Options 1-3 are identical with
regard to allowable uses and
activities
160 acre minimum
OR clustering option allows
Planning Commission
determination of lot size
required for clustering and to
subdivide to create a parcel
smaller than 160 acres
optional 90/10 split required
to waive parcel size
required "clustering" ASA
finding
90/10 split required if
clustering option is exercised
also, where appropriate,
permanent open space
dedication may be required
Revised Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 5.45: Cluster Permit Excerpts for Stanford OSiF District, November 7 Planning Commission Draft
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 ReNona! 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 subj ect 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 be located in either the Open
Space/Field Research district or the Special Conservation district.
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 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, agxiculture, 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.
Attachment C
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
May 22, 2002
EXCERPT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Other Items:
Report from Planning and Transportation Commission Sub-Committee on the
Stanford Open Space/Field Research (continued from May 15 special meeting).
Chair Burt: Yes?
Commissioner Cassel: I have a conflict with this item so I must step out. If you would
let me know when you are done. I have to state the conflict and that is that I work with
Stanford.
Chair Burt: So this item has been continued from out May 15 meeting. It is a follow up
to both a previous Staff presentation and then a presentation by the County Planning
Staff. The Sub-Committee of Comrnissioners Packer and Holman, would you like to
begin the discussion by presenting some of the items that you had discussed in your Sub-
Committee?
Commissioner Packer: I just want to say that we are working off of this draft letter that
the two people from the County who came on May 1 and addressed the concerns that
were raised at the previous meeting and were outlined in the April 22 letter. They were
outlined in the April 22 letter and they came and addressed the concerns that were
outlined to them in an April 22 letter.
We thought that the letter should reflect an appreciation for them coming and speaking to
us on those issues. In general, on many of the issues, which are in bullets in this letter,
they said they would try and address in the form of creating criteria for findings for the
various types of uses that would come forward to them under the different provisions of
the Zoning Code. So we want the letter to stress that we hope that the criteria in those
findings do adequately address these concerns and that we would have the opportunity to
respond to their draft proposed findings to see if they do so because we want to come
back to them and make sure. Karen, do you want to go through some of the specific
items to make sure that they cover those in their findings?
Commissioner Holman: Sure. I would like to thank Staff also for doing this summary
for us and capturing the essence of our discussion.
Page 1
The second bullet I believe is where we had out first comments. The second bullet being,
"To regulate the location and size of the utilities so that environmental impacts are
minimized." We had some discussion, and welcome of course other Commissioners to
chime in on this, we had some discussion about including the capacity of utilities and also
the number of utilities. Not because we can predict or anticipate what those are going to
be but when they are looking at what their findings are going to be that they consider
those aspects as well. Additionally, the third bullet was, "Regulate trails to limit paving
or other impervious surfaces." We talked about adding roads to that as well. Basically
we were considering should paving even be allowed or should there be some requirement
or some finding to allow paving. The fourth bullet, "Provide development standards
sufficient to limit discretion but allow flexibility and design review." We wanted that
design review to include environmental compatibility for instance color, materials and
architecture. I think siting and orientation were other criteria. The next item was,
"Identify specifically the range of uses." We also would like them to consider the
intensity of the uses and type of development. The last bullet that is here is, "Restrict the
impact of fences." What we would really like to see or what we had a fair amount of
discussion about was that fences not impede the migation of wildlife and the design of
fences be open so as not to impede that migation. Also in the meeting when the
representatives came, they spoke of fences being allowed to six to eight feet in height.
One consideration was for instance deer, I don’t know if deer can jump, they probably
can jump a six-foot fence but I don’t have that expertise but I doubt seriously that they
could jump an eight-foot fence. That should be looked at, limiting the height of fences.
Also we wanted to add a bullet, which was to specifically not allow development above
the 200-foot limit. The GUP mentions generally not allowed above 200 feet and we want
to make it a specific not above 200 feet. Then I think the last comment that I had that we
discussed was the last paragraph. The last part of that paragraph says, "For clustered
projects the open space component is not allowed to be transferred to the yet-to-be
established conservation areas which already prohibits development." We agree with that
but would also like to add that open space dedication for non-clustered development
should also be a requirement. The reason for that is that it could actually encourage non-
clustered development and there are advantages of course to clustered developed, fewer
roads, less access, fewer corridors for humans to be going across and fewer impacts
overall on the environment. As Bonnie said too, we look forward to seeing the findings.
Other Commissioners may have comments as well.
Chair Burr: Before we wade into the other questions and comments we do have one
public speaker. So I would like to allow him to speak. Herb Borock.
Mr. Herb Borock. P.O. Box 632. Palo Alto: There are some things in the letter that are
weaker than the recommendations that were in the Staff Report you received on March
20. One of them is that in regard to open space dedication. In the March 20 Staff Report
it reads in the recomrnendation that I agee with that it should be contiguous to the
developable area. That has been dropped from the letter and I believe that should be put
back in.
Page 2
I also support the two additional items that Commissioner Holman mentioned about the
200 foot elevation and the required open space for non-clustered development as welt. A
second place where the draft letter is weaker than the recommendation in the March 20
Staff Report is in regard to development regulations as specifically called out such things
as floor area and setbacks and height. I had recommending go further and that is to use
the site development regulations for height and number of stories and setbacks that are in
Pato Alto’s Open Space Zone District which to me are appropriate for Palo Alto and are
more restrictive than the comparable Hillside regulations. They are just different,
Hillside zoning is a 35-foot height and Open Space Zoning is 25 foot heist. In Hillside
it is three stories and in Palo Atto’s Open Space it is two stories. Also I am surprised that
the Planning and Transportation Commission would be sending a letter to the County
Planning Commission. This Commission like all Boards and Commissions is advisory to
the City Council and I believe it is the City Council which has one more meeting at least
before the County Planning Commission meeting that should be making statements on
behalf of the City. I understand that the meeting next week may be cancelled. There was
ori~nally supposed to be a meeting of the City Council for I believe it was SOFA II but
there is certainly a meeting on the Monday of June 3 before the June 6 Planning
Commission meeting of the County. So I would ask you to recommend to the Council
that they act. The Hillside Zoning also has a minimum lot size of 160 acres that is also
not in here. If you give me a moment to go back to my letter for your March 20 meeting
and see if there is anything else. There was a question of how much be dedicated. I
recommended 90%. There is also slope density that for different slopes that you would
have different density. Simitian’s original idea that the slope of the land would indicate
how much development would be allowed. To also incorporate language from the
Hillside Zone District in terms of economy and length of roads and driveways due to the
proximity of buildings and facilities. Building and facilities shall be built in the most
logical, least disruptive sites conforming to the natural contours with large proportions of
the remaining developable area left in the natural condition and the dedicated open space
part shall be left in a natural condition. Also to incorporate, I believe it may actually be
in the letter without specifying the amounts that is to incorporate the limits that are in the
General Use Permit, the 15,000 overall square foot and the 5,000 per parcel. That is
mentioned in general without actually mentioning the numbers. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. I would like to reopen the topic to Commissioners for either
discussion or questions of Staff.
Commissioner Griffin: To pick up on one of Herb’s comments, in fact, is it appropriate
for the Planning Commission to be contacting a Commission on a different jurisdictional
level? That is a question.
Chair Burr: Do you have any comments on that? Julie or Lisa?
Ms. Lisa Grote, ChiefPlannin~ Official: Thank you. In the letter the beginning sentence
is that these are the comments from the Planning Commission to the County Plam~ing
Commission so it does indicate in there that you are not speaking for the entire City, you
are speaking as a Planning Commission. We can also add that your comments are being
Page 3
forwarded to our own City Council for their consideration at a later date but prior to when
the County Board of Supervisors takes final action on this. So by the time the Board of
Supervisors is prepared to take action our City Council will have reviewed your
comments, formulated their own comments and sent those officially to the County Board.
So at this point it is Commission comments to another Commission.
Ms. Julie Caporg-no. Advance Planning Manager: The Board is anticipating hearing the
item in September so there would be time for the Council to review your comments and
comment and send those comments back to the Board of Supervisors. But there isn’t
time for us to send your comments to the City Council and get those to the County
Planning Commission. So we felt it would be appropriate for the County Planning
Commission at least to understand the City’s Planning Commission’s comments on this
proposal.
Chair Burt: Kathy, did you have a question on that?
Commissioner Schmidt: That explained the timing issue I was wondering about.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: So could we recommend that that language, the language that
Lisa just used in explaining, be included with the letter to the County Planning
Commission? I think that would be helpful.
Chair Butt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to take up a little bit about what Herb said about our
own Open Space District. I don’t remember that we raised that with the County people
specifically. I wonder if we could recommend that there be findings that whatever
development there is is consistent with or doesn’t have any greater impact on the
environment than a development that could be done under our Open Space District or
something to that effect. I know that they were comparing their own Hillside Zoning and
found that it wasn’t applicable because it allows these big things to be built there. It had
nothing to do with the uses that would be allowed in the Stanford Open Space District.
Ms. Wvnne Furth. Senior Assistant CiW Attorney: I don’t "know what I am telegraphing
here. If you want to suggest to the County that these are a good set of standards and that
they shouldn’t allow an?thing that wouldn’t be allowed under those standards that is
certainly an approach you could take. When you talk about things like no less
environmentally intense, once again you are back in this land where you are trying to do
very complicated calculations for no really clear result.
Chair Burt: So we could recommend that given that this land is in the Palo Alto sphere of
influence or predominantly, is it wholly or predominantly?
Ms. Grote: I believe it is predominantly.
Page 4
Ms. Furth: If it is in Santa Clara County, then it is going to be ours.
Chair Burt: Not everything in the County is within our sphere of influence but I believe
that these lands are wholly within our sphere of influence. Is it then well founded to
expect that for those County lands within the Palo Alto sphere of influence the County
should have guidelines that respect and abide by the City Open Space and Hillside
Guidelines? Is that a reasonable request? Does our sphere of influence imply that we
have that right?
Ms. Grote: I think that you might want to be specific about which standards you would
like to have applied such as height and/or number of stories. I don’t think you would
want the uses to be similar because we allow residential uses, we allow stables, we allow
uses that I don’t think are consistent with what we want in the Field Research District for
the County. So you probably want to be specific about which standards you want to
reference or include.
Chair Burt: Okay, other than height and number of stories, are there others that come to
mind that you would recommend that we include? If you want to take a moment that
would be fine
Ms. Grote: Yes, let me look at that.
Chair Burr: Wyrme, did you have something else?
Ms. Furth: Julie may have more information on this. It varies a geat deal from county to
county how much deference that county gives to the pre-zoning of a city is sphere of
influence area. Los Angeles County is probably the worst case and other counties are
quite similar. There was just a lawsuit last week that came down in which San Bernadino
County changed its provisions in its Comp Plan which had provided that they would
honor the pre-zoning of cities and their spheres to say that no, they wouldn’t and they had
done that on a negative declaration and the court said that’s a big change. Stanford is a
bit unique because Santa Clara County’s general approach is to say that development
takes place in cities. So they don’t have such a need for extensive compatibility rules
because generally they have urbanization taking place in cities. You can probably
articulate your case by pointing out that the City worked to develop these standards for
land that is substantially similar to and surrounding these lands and that is a good reason
to think that they would be appropriate here.
Ms. Grote: There are, under Special Regulations, items that you might want to reference.
Geological soils investigations and reports. Also landscaping, existing natural vegetation
and land formations shall remain in a natural state unless modification is found to be
necessary for a specific use. Fencing restrictions, no barbed wire, similar fencing may be
installed except to protect a vegetative community or wildlife habitat until it is fully
established. It has some provisions here to enclose utility facilities but limited to water or
sewage pumps. I know that was a concern that some of the Sub-Committee had
Page 5
mentioned. Access to remote areas, roads, tracks, driveways, trails for automobiles,
trucks, businesses or motorcycles shall not be developed except upon the securing of site
and design approval or a similar process. So you probably would want to reference those
as well. Those are under Special Regulations. It also talks about soil erosion and
management and grading and minimizing grading.
Chair Burt: Does the Commission concur that they would like to have those standards
referenced in our letter?
Commissioner Bialson: So we are going to reference those standards as well as building
construction standards in terms of the envelope that is acceptable?
Ms. Grote: As far as height limits I heard you mention two stories and 25 feet in height.
I also heard you mention anything below the 200 foot limit which is not in our standards.
Chair Burt: Good. I think that is a real constructive addition. Any others? Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I just want to comment about that 200 foot limit. I don’t know
if this applies or not but there is a solar observatory out in that area. An architecture firm
that I used to work for designed that and I know it is one of two facilities in the world that
were built. There is a sister one in the Soviet Union somewhere. It may be above 200
feet in order to function. I don’t know, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know what the elevations
are out there.
Chair Burt: This is on new construction.
Commissioner Schmidt: I know. I realize it is on new construction. I am just saying
maybe there is some other observatory kind of thing that would be in the Field Research
category that would need an elevation higher than 200 feet. I am just mentioning it, I
don’t know if it even applies to what is there.
Chair Burr: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Picking up on what Kathy said I think ~ve need to have some
provision for review of these standards being imposed on them because there are items
such as solar observatories, etc. So I don’t think the Commission is looking for a
complete prohibition but perhaps we need to state something that allows uniquely sited
and functioning purposes such as the solar observatory, to be sited. I don’t know how we
would do that though.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I ~vould imagine that the zoning code has room for application for
variances, for example. If Stanford is going to build something that didn’t fit whatever
was set out, xvhatever the final Zoning Ordinance requires, there would be a way for them
to do it. I think what we are asking for is that these are issues that we would hope that the
Page 6
findings that would have to be made for any structures that would be included, e.g., does
this development respect the ridge line, is it below 200 feet. Then they would have some
procedures if this ASA group that would be reviewing it has procedures to allow for
some exceptions that if Stanford needed to make its case then a public hearing or
whatever happens. There would be an opportunity for the rare exceptions to be
considered.
Chair Burt: I think Wynne has one comment on it.
Ms. Furth: You could certainly add to your statement here that you understand that there
may be cases in which the particular requirements of a research facility make it desirable
to deviate from these standards and in those cases you believe it should be after an
advertised public hearing process. That would address it. I would feel a little
uncomfortable relying on variances because there aren’t a whole lot of constraints in the
property itself here.
Chair Burt: So what would you recommend we rely upon?
Ms. Furth: They can come up with a permit or a special design review or a permit
process. I am sure they have a number. I understand that the notion would be that it
shouldn’t be done unless there is something about this particular research function that
needs to be situated in violation of these standards and that there should be a public
hearing process so that it is a well discussed issue.
Chair Burt: Then it be mitigated as much as possible in that event.
Ms. Furth: That sounds fine.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Go ahead.
Commissioner Packer: I just want to say that I understood from when they described
their procedures of their ASA, what does that stand for again?
Chair Burt: Architectural Site Approval.
Commissioner Packer: That everything that comes before them is done through notice
and a public hearing. I want to be sure that we understand that in the document that we
get and review that we can see that and what that process is. If they are going to be
making, if the Zoning Code is general and wants to be flexible and they are going to look
at each project on a case by case basis subject to making findings then the hearing
process is really important.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Page 7
Commissioner Holman: I like the language that Wyrme used and I would certainly
require that therebe the public notice aspect to it. I am wondering if also, I don’t want to
beat a dog here but we are trying to keep development below the 200 foot because the
GUP just says ~generally below," so if you want to keep it below 200 feet could there
also be language added, and I will probably need your help with this Wynne, that states
unless no other feasible location. So it doesn’t have to be in this particular siting for such
a research project.
Ms. Furth: What is it that the Commission wants to convey here? That you don’t want
them putting these facilities up there just because it is a nice place to have it but you don’t
want to keep them from putting in research facilities that are appropriate in this area that
need to be above 200 feet. Is that about right?
Chair Burt: I might characterize it as that would be located above 200 feet as a last
resort, in essence, not a first resort.
Ms. Furth: So then really there is no other feasible way. That the activity is appropriate
for the location and there is no other feasible way to carry it out.
Chair Burt: Do the other Commissioners agee with that standard though? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a little bit of a problem with that. I think that is a very
high bar for people to cross or jump over. So I don’t feel comfortable with that.
Chair Burt: What alternative bar would you suggest?
Commissioner Bialson: I don’t want to word-smith here but that there be good cause
shown that this is an appropriate location. Something like that but not suitable for any
other location seems to me to almost have them doing too much justification for a
specific location.
Chair Burr: One of the concepts we have been going through has been that above 200
feet is a generally inappropriate location and it would have to be a significant justification
to break that.
Commissioner Bialson: A significant justification or something like that but not that it’s
the only place it could be. That seems too high.
Chair Burt: Lisa.
Ms. Grote: Would you recommend then that the County make findings that would
address that issue as part of their ASA approval? That the findings that they are going to
develop would include, if a project is proposed above the 200 foot level that they make
this finding that the use appropriate for that location, that there isn’t any other place to
put that use and have it function.
Page 8
Commissioner Bialson: How about no reasonable other location? Some sort of modifier
there. I see Wynne nodding.
Ms. Furth: I think you are concerned that people would be doing this enormous amount
of research to demonstrate that there was no other place when actually you could figure
out pretty fast that the requirements of this. I think that Lisa can come up with something
which conveys this notion that they shouldn’t really be putting things up there but if there
is research, legitimate research, that is appropriate to allow on that site and it takes going
over 200 feet and they have picked the least bothersome location or they have tried to
reduce the impacts by siting it in particular ways that minimize the disruption of the
ridgeline or the view that is okay.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Just one last little thing here. I do support your more restrictive
language, Wynne, and Pat’s notion that it be absolutely last resort. I am really not
comfortable with language such as, "good reason" or "just cause" because anybody can
make that argument for anything. I am not comfortable with that general a terminology.
Chair Burt: I guess I would like to see a high bar, maybe not something that is
completely prohibitive but quite a high bar.
Ms. Furth: Since we are ~vriting a letter not an ordinance you can say that. That you
believe that generally speaking there shouldn’t be any development over 200 feet and you
seriously considered recommending that there be none under any circumstances but you
acknowledge this is a research facility and that there may be circumstances under which
relatively unobtrusive facilities that are appropriate to the area need to be located above
that level. In those cases you think there should be a public hearing process where that
can be demonstrated. If you say it needs to be located under 200 feet by implication you
are saying it can’t go anywhere else.
Chair Burt: That seem reasonable to me. Okay? Great, that is a consensus of the
Commission. Any other items or aspects? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: We forgot to discuss this. It is my fault, I didn’t raise this in our
little committee. This is a sentence that came from the April 22 letter when it said that
the Commission questioned whether an administrative process such as the Architectural
and Site Approval process was the appropriate mechanism for development review, etc.
Are we still questioning that or do we feel that we got enough of an explanation of how
their process works? How do the Commissioners feel? That might have been back in
March but is that still the feeling that we have? To me, it seems that they explained what
they were doing and they had a hearing process and as long as it is a well noticed hearing
process it seemed appropriate to me.
Ms. Capor~ono: I included that in the letter because I don’t know if you recall at the May
1 meeting at the conclusion you really didn’t have any comments and I volunteered to
Page 9
just kind of pull something together. You hadn’t really made any comments one way or
the other so I incorporated that. I assume that there would be things that you would want
to delete and maybe expand upon as you have. So we can delete that easily.
Chair Burt: So how does the Commission feel? Did the County Planning Staff
adequately address our concerns about the ASA approval process?
Commissioner Holman: Given that we have added conditions and regulations, yes.
Chair Burt: Anyone else?
Commissioner Griffin: I wasn’t here for that March meeting when that topic came up but
in reading the minutes it was pretty clear that we were all expressing a certain concern
that was fundamentally a Staff driven function down there with just one representative
from the Planning Commission, is that right?
Ms. Caporgno: It is one Planning Commissioner and four Staff I believe.
Commissioner Packer: But they hold public hearings.
Ms. Capora-no: It is noticed and they hold a hearing.
Chair Burt: Then their recommendation then goes to?
Ms. Caporgno: My understanding is that is the decision unless it is appealed and if it is
appealed then it would go to the Planning Commission I believe.
Chair Burt: So how do we feel about that process? Do we consider it to be adequate to
address our concerns?
Commissioner Griffin: Do we really have sufficient leverage to change that? What if we
said we weren’t happy with the way that was setup? Are we really in a position?
Chair Burt: Are there alternatives?
Commissioner Griffin: Right.
Chair Burt: Does Staff have any comments? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I just look at the political wisdom of questioning in too much
detail their processes which we can’t change. So unless we were willing to explain why
we are not happy with their system, looking at it, if we have a problem with it we can’t
force it to go to any particular decision, we can force it to go to a full Commission
hearing. I think we should let that be and just not send them a letter where we seem to be
perhaps picking apart too much of their processes.
Page 10
Chair Burt: So your point is that given a concern with a particular outcome can be
appealed to the full Planning Commission and can it be appealed beyond that? Its final
decision-making body is the County Planning Commission. So given that process, are
we comfortable with accepting their established ASA approval process?
Commissioner Griffin: My question was do we have an alternative? I haven’t had an
answer to that one yet.
Chair Burt: Does Staff have any comments on if we didn’t like this process what
alternative might there be?
Ms. Grote: I think you would be making that comment and they would consider it. I
don’t know if they would change their processes to accommodate a comment like that
whether it is coming from the Commission or anyone else.
Commissioner Griffin: So if we have no leverage then there is no use in pursuing it.
Ms. Furth: If you consider the fact that our City does not send all these issues to a citizen
appointed commission it probably further weakens the argument. I think your original
concern also was very much involved with the situation where you had very vague
standards and you may have addressed a lot of those concerns. The hardest thing is when
you have a staff instructed to make decisions with no standards to apply. It is very
wobbly.
Chair Burt: Okay. So in that case are we comfortable with the reading of that sentence?
Great. Any other comments?
Commissioner Packer: I just want to make sure that the letter really emphasizes the fact
that we are looking forward to seeing their findings and that we want to review those.
Just as they explained that they would develop these findings in their presentation on
May 1. So it is not only that we support the inclusions that we are looking forward to
seeing what their product looks like.
Ms. Grote: That would include review of their standards and findings then.
Commissioner Packer: I mean the criteria.
Chair Burt: Criteria for the findings. Okay. Great. Thank you. A final question. I will
be able to see the final version of the letter? Will the Commission be able to see it before
I am asked to sign it or do time constraints interfere?
Ms. Capora-no: I can get it to the full Commission or if you just want to review it. You
are going to have to sig~ it anyway.
Chair Burt: I think it would be ~eat to circulate it to the Commission in case they have
any final input on it. Is that proper legally?
Page 11
Ms. Caporgno: We will have to then come back and you will have to discuss it in a
meeting once again. So you could look at it singularly.
Ms. Furth: We can send it to the Chairman for his review. We can send it to the Sub-
Committee which is properly constituted or you can bring it back to the Commission at a
meeting.
Chair Burt: And from a time standpoint do we have time to send it to the Sub-Committee
and then bring it back to the Commission? When do you have to have it in?
Ms. Capor~o: Right now my understanding is that they are intending to discuss this the
first week in June. So we would need to get it down to them next week if at all possible
to be included in their packets. So there probably isn’t much time. I don’t know if I will
be able to get this turned around and you to be able to review" it next week. It would be
very tight. Why don’t I see how quickly I can get this done and then I can call Chair Burt
and find out how you want to deal with it. We can maybe put it on the agenda, just
continue it, and we can discuss what was changed if in fact we decide to hear it.
Chair Burt: Continue it to the May 29 meeting? That sounds good. Thank you. That
concludes Item 1.
Page 12
Attachment D
STANFORD UNIVERSITY OPEN SPACE AND FIELD RESEARCH ZONING
DISTRICT WHITE PAPER
The "Summary" section below contains a bulleted summary/overview of key points
regarding the development of the Stanford University Open Space / Field Research
zoning district. A "Question and Answer" section addresses key questions regarding the
OS/F Zoning Amendment.
Key Abbreviations:
CP (Stanford Community Plan, a General Plan Amendment)
EIR (Environmental Impact Report)
GUP (General Use Permit, the use permit that prescribes specific conditions for Stanford
University land use and development activities)
OS/F (Open Space and Field Research zoning district)
SECTION ONE: SUMMARY
Background Policy and Requirements for OS/F District 0)ecember 2000 Board of
Supervisor Actions and Policy Guidelines)
adopted General Plan (Stanford Community Plan) land use desi~ation of Open
Space~ield Research (OS/F) for a certain Stanford lands within the Stanford
foothills
adopted a General Use Permit that established development (square footage) limits
~vithin the Stanford OS/F land use designation for the life of this General Use Permit
(10 years)
. established specific policy and implementation recommendations for development of
the OS/F district (Stanford Community Plan policies)
established a range of restricted allowable uses and activities for the district and, by
omission, excluded uses such as residential development
Governing Documents for the OS/F District
~The County General Plan (including the Stanford Community Plan)
~The Zoning Ordinance (undergoing revision) including the current draft Stanford
University OS/F zoning ordinance
o The 2000 Stanford University General Use Permit
o Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~am (from 2000 Stanford CP/GUP EIR)
Planning Office Actions Between December 2000 and November 2002
o Drafted zoning ordinance language and allowed public review and comment
~Provided opportunity for review and comment to the Stanford Community Resource
Group
.Reviewed and considered jurisdictional and community comments
~Revised ordinance to incorporate comments as appropriate
~Revised ordinance to make it compatible with (new format) of newly revised County
Zoning Ordinance (for all County zoning districts)
End of SUMMARY section. Section 2 provides "question and answer" topics.
Santa Clara County Planning Office White Paper for Stanford University Open Space and Field Research Zoning
District. October 30, 2002 Page 1 of 4
SECTION TWO: "QUESTION AND ANSWER" TOPICS
The following general comments are paraphrased to represent questions that have been
asked by community members and jurisdictions regarding the Stanford OS/F zoning
ordinance. Italicized text indicates a general question and plain text indicates the County
response.
Whv don’t you:
regulate the intensity of use and access to sites in the zoning ordinance in addition
to the GUP, and/or permanently limit development to 15, 000 square feet?
Intensity standards are applicable to commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The
nature of allowable uses within this district is more restrictive than uses allowed within
other zoning districts.
The GUP is the tool through which the County has regulated development intensity. Once
a total of 15,000 square feet of development is utilized, Stanford is not allowed any
additional development within the OS/F district. To establish additional square footage
within this district, Stanford would be required to modify or obtain a new GUP. A
discretionary (public) process would be required for this to occur. (Also see ASA
discussion.)
The Board policy direction described in the Community Plan did not include permanent
restriction of development to the 15,000 square foot limit.
Access to sites will be dealt with during a building site approva! review if applicable.
Many uses described would have limited Stanford or public access. If access from any
County road will occur, the County Roads and Airports road standards would apply.
regulate the location and size of utilities so that environmental intpacts are
minimized
See ASA discussion.
regulate trails to lintitpaving or other intpervious surfaces and limitpaving that
would increase hnpervious surface?
If a trail on Stanford land is for implementation of the Countywide Trails Master Plan,
the "Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines" will be
applied by the County Parks Department.
Currently, Stanford allows public use of some of its internal roads as pedestrian trails.
Consistent with other County zoning districts, no standards are prescribed for these roads
through the zoning ordinance. At the time of individual project review, road standards
from the County Roads and Airports division are applied as appropriate.
Consistent with other zoning districts, individual project review will provide for
cumulative and project-specific evaluation of paving associated with building site
Santa Clara County Planning Office \Vhite Paper for Stanford University Open Space and Field Research Zoning
District. October 30, 2002 Page 2 of 4
approval. New paving or impervious cover would have to be consistent with allowable
uses and activities within the district.
provide development standards to limit discretion but allow some flexibility?
Height restrictions and setbacks are generally applied to districts where more intensive
development and/or residential use are allowed. Due to the restricted nature of uses
within this district, it is more appropriate that limits be established subject to
discretionary review of the individual project application (See ASA discussion).
specifically identify the range of uses attd type of development that could occur in
the district?
The allowable uses are established in the Community Plan, and further clarified in the
current revision of the OS/F Zoning Ordinance. Use classifications and activities are
defined within the proposed OS/-F zoning amendment and/or the draft revised County
Zoning Ordinance.
~ prohibit transfer of open space to other districts?
The allowance for dedication of Special Conservation Area land is based on an
implementation recommendation within the Open Space chapter (Chapter 5) of the CP
that recommends the county "Require easements as appropriate in Special Conservation
areas. Locate easements in areas which serve critical habitat needs." The protections for
those areas are subject to the General Plan designations and future zoning. Staffwill
include this provision within the zoning ordinance and the Planning Commission may
either (a) forward the recommendation to the Board, (b) direct staffto remove this
provision, or (c) request Board direction regarding this policy.
provide a mechanisnt that calls for dedication of open space in exchange for
development?
Staff considered this and, given the limited amount of development allowed, rejected this
option. It would be necessary that any open space dedication not constitute an
unconstitutional taking of private property. Recognizing current development limits of
15,000 square feet, only a small amount of open space could reasonably be required of
Stanford. The cumbersome and expensive process required to dedicate small increments
of land would not provide a level of benefit that would justify the level of staff, Planning
Commission, and Board of Supelwisor oversight required for such dedication. Staffwill
report this consideration to the Planning Commission.
ASA DISCUSSION
o provide more oversight attd higher level (than the ASA Committee) discretionar3,
review over Stanford projects ?
o prescribe development standards through the zoning ordinance instead of allowing
ASA establishment of standards?
Santa Clara County Planning Office White Paper for Stanford University Open Space and Field Research Zoning
District. October 30, 2002 Page 3 of 4
New OS/F-required ASA findings have been added to the revised ordinance. Generally,
the nature of these findings requires increased attention to visual resources and
environmental compatibility. Proposed development applications should also demonstrate
that the proposal could not feasibly serve the same purpose with equal efficiency if
located within the Academic Growth Boundary.
The ASA process is the standard mechanism used according to a three-party agreement
between the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and Santa Clara County for certain
Stanford development projects. It is appropriate that this mechanism also be used within
the OS/F district.
The County Zoning ordinance provides required findings, and the OS~ district provides
additional required findings for Stanford University proposals
Required findings for ASA will guide Stanford in choosing a size and location that
minimize impact to visual or environmental resources. The County intends to maintain
flexibility for providing utilities that serve "other lands" if that is a local/regional solution
to an identified need.
model this ordinance after another open space district model, such as the City of
Palo Alto model?
The OS~ district is more restrictive regarding allowable uses than the Palo Alto Open
Space District or other rural districts. The same setback and density standards that might
be appropriate for other districts or other jurisdictions are not appropriate for the limited
nature of uses allo~ved within the OS/F district.
o apply the Board recontmendation that development in the foothills should be
restricted to below 200feet?
The Board provided, within the Growth and Development chapter of the Stanford CP, a
general recommendation that future gowth and development should be encouraged to be
placed below 200 feet. This "general recommendation" was not incorporated as policy
guidance for the OS/F district. If it were a policy guideline, of the approximate 1843
acres contained within the OS~ district, only 188 acres (approximately 10.2% of the
district -- below 200 feet) would be available for development.
o incorporate the clustering model requirements of the Hillside zoning district?
Within the Hillside zoning district, there is an optional (not mandatory) provision for
clustering of development. This clustering concept is appropriate for residential
development. Because residential development is not an allowable use for this district,
the model must be adapted to a different range of uses. Staffwitl offer three options of
zoning language to provide variations of this optional clustering model for Planning
Commission consideration.
END of White Paper
Santa Clara County Planning Office \x&ite Paper for Stanford University Open Space and Field Research Zoning
District. October 30, 2002 Page 4 of 4
Attachment
December 2, 2002
Board of Supervisors~lanning 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 County staff revisions to 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 December 5th meeting. Both the City’s Planning and
Transportation Commission and the City Council previously commented on the zoning text last
summer. The Planning and Transportation Commission discussed the revisions to the proposed
zoning district text on November 20, 2002. The proposed revisions to the text were placed on
the Council’s consent calendar of December 2nd. The Council unanimously supported the
position endorsed by the Planning Commission after careful review and deliberation.
Based on the limited changes made to the zoning text, most of the comments made in the City’s
previous letters are reiterated. The City restates that the ordinance needs more structure and
definition for projects that exceed the standards allowed by fight and require Architectural and
Site Approval (ASA). The City recommends that specific findings are required for those
projects similar to the process established in the County Hillside Zoning District for uses
permitted subject to securing a special permit.
As previously recommended, the City’s Open Space Zoning District could be used as a model
for developing standards of review. In addition, as suggested by the Planning Commission at its
recent meeting on the OS/F, the City’s Open Space Development Criteria found in the
Comprehensive Plan could also be used as a model. The City developed both the standards and
criteria for land that is substantially similar to the Stanford OS/R area. Attached to this letter are
the pertinent sections related to the Open Space District from the City’s Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.71 (18.71.140 Special Regulations). The pertinent regulations address geological and
soils investigation, landscaping, fencing, tree removal, access, grading, and soil erosion The
Open Space Development Criteria from the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are also attached.
Specifically the zoning district should include criteria for findings that address the following:
Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission
County of Santa Clara
December 2, 2002
Page 2
Regulate access to sites.
Regulate the location, size, capacity and number of utilities to ensure minimal environmental
impacts and limit the utilities to serving only Stanford University.
Regulate trails and roads to either limit or prohibit paving or other impervious surfaces.
Require an open space dedication for both non-clustered and clustered development and
restrict the open space dedication to the OS/F district.
Ensure that fences do not impede the migation 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 penNt process involving an advertised
public hearing.
The City also continues to recommend that the ordinance text incorporate the General Use
Permit restrictions, standards and conditions since the use permit will expire within a ten-year
timeframe or can change on application by the 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 that the text also cross- reference
relevant sections of the Community Plan when applicable.
The City also considered the recent request by Stanford University to amend the OS/F zoning
district text to allow a limited number of caretaker’s residences to oversee livestock within the
zoning district. The City recommends allowing the existing caretaker’s residences only as non-
conforming uses and allowing repair and maintenance if required, but not permitting any
relocation or expansion of the use.
The City of Palo Alto appreciates your consideration of its recommendations. The proposed
zoning text is an important issue for the City since the Open Space/Field Research Zoning
District is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and located in an environmentally sensitive area.
The City continues to request any further revisions to the proposed text be forwarded to both our
Planning Commission and City Council.
Sincerely,
VICTOR OJAKIAN
Mayor
Attachments:Policy N-7, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Excerpt Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.71.140
PeO~M N-6:
As part of the design review process for proposed development in the Open
Space zone district that exceeds 6,500 square feet, require that "story polos"
be erected with outlining tape depicting the building’s location, bulk and height
to aid in assessing the potential visual impacts of the proposed project.
POL~Crt N-7:
All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above
Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria:
so it is hidden from view.
2.Development should be located away from.hilltops and designed to not
extend above the nearest ridge line.
3.Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts onpri-
vacy and views of neighboring propertie~.
and reduce fragmentation of natural habitats.
5.Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography.
Building lines should follow the lines of the terrain;:ahd trees and bushes
should appear nata~ral from a distance.
6.Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured4.5 feet above
the ground level, shouldbe preserved and integrated into the site design.
Existing vegetation should be retainedas much as possible.
7o Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for ge6technicaI stability- and to
enable the development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is gen-
erally discouraged and should neverbe distributed wi~ the driplines of
existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large,
flat expanses of impervious surfaces should be avoided.
9. Buildings should use naturalmaterials and earthtone or subdued colors.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation.
Immediately adjacent to structures, Fn:e retardant plants should be used
as a fire prevention technique.
11. Exterior hghting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is
not directly" visible from off-site.
12. Access roads shoul~be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard
curb, g-utter, and concrete sidewalk are usuallyinconsistent with the foot-
hills environment.)
13.For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in
general conformance with Palo Atto’s Open Space 13istriet regulations.
_:rnbracing the New Centu~y
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.080 Maximum building coverage.
The maximum impervious area and building coverage shall be 3.5 percent;
provided that where a portion of a subdivision with clustered lots of less than in
size contains an area rendered undevelopable by an open space restriction, the
coverage which would otherwise be allotted to this undevelopable area shall
transferred to those lots within the subdivision on which development willb~
in a proportiona! manner bas~ed on lot size. /" .
(Ord. 3345 § 18, 1982: Ord. ~048 (part), 1978)
/
18.71.090 Front yard.
. Front yards sha!l be a minimum of 9.1 meters (thirty fee~.
(Ord..~048 (part), 1978)
18.71.100 Side yards.
Side yards shall be a minimum of 9.1 meters~fiirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
//
18.71.110. Rear yards. //
Rear yards shal! be a minimum of 9/’i meters(thirty feet).
(Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
18.71,115 Special setbae
Where applicable, setback/lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to
Chapter 20.08 of this code shal’tibe followed for the purpose of determining legal setback
requirements.//
(Ord. 4016 § 47, 1991).
18.71.120
Four car
covered
(Ord. 3048
shall be required for each dwelling unit, one of which shal! be
Such spaces shall not be located in any required front or side yard.
1978)
Building height limit.
Buildings shall not exceed two stories, or 7.6 meters (twenty-five feet).
3048 (part), 1978)
18.71.140 Special regulations.
(a) Geological Soils Investigation and Report. Al! applications for site and
design approval shall be accompanied by a combined in-depth geologic and soils
investigation and report prepared by a registered geologist certified by the state of
California as an engineering geologist, and by a licensed civil engineer qualified in soil
mechanics. Such report shall be based on surface, subsurface, and laboratory
investigations and examinations and shall fully and clearly present:
(1)All pertinent data, interpretations, and evaluations;
(2)The significance of the data, interpretations, and evaluations with respect
to the actual development or implementation of the intended land uses, and with respect
to the effect upon future geological processes both on and off the site;
(3) Recommendations for any additional investigations that should be made.
All costs and expenses incurred as a result of the requirements of this section, including
the costs and expense of an independent review of the material submitted under this
chapter by qualified 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 Code, accessory facilities and landscaping
where such improvements, in his opinion, would pose no potential hazard to life or
property on the subject or surrounding properties.
(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 concentrations of fiammable
vegetation occur. Landscaping 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 of live trees shall be permitted as provided in
Title 8.
(e) Access to Remote Areas. Roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways for
automobiles, trucks, buses, or motorcycles or other wheeled vehicles shall not be
developed except upon the securing of site and design approval. No such approval shall
be granted except upon finding that the purpose for which the roads, tracks, driveways,
trails, or runways are proposed is essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use
which is expressly permitted in this chapter and that the design and location of the
proposed roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways will be compatible with the terrain.
The use of all roads, tracks, driveways, trails, or runways existing at the time of
the adoption of this chapter which are nonconforming or have been established without
proper approvals shall be terminated and shall be returned to natural terrain unless given
approval in accordance with the regulations set forth in this chapter.
(f) Grading. No grading for which a grading permit is required shall be
authorized except upon the securing of site and design approval. No such approval shall
be granted except upon a finding that the purpose for which the grading is proposed is
essential for the establishment or maintenance of a use which is expressly permitted in
this chapter and that the design, scope, and location of the grading proposed will be
compatible with adjacent areas and will result in the least disturbance of the terrain and
natural land features. All grading for which no permits or approvals are required shal! be
subject to the provisions set forth in this chapter.
(g) Soil Erosion and Land Management. No site and design plan shall be
approved unless it includes soil erosion and sediment contro! measures in accordance
with any adopted procedures, technical standards, and specifications of the planning
commission. No approval will be granted unless all needed erosion control measures have
been completed or substantially provided for in accordance with said standards and
specifications. The applicant shall bear the final responsibility for the installation and
construction of all required erosion control measures according to the provisions of said
standards and specifications.
(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 than more
conspicuous areas; and to achieve the propose of this chapter.
(i) Substandard Lots. Any parcel of land not meeting the area or dimension
requirements of this chapter is a lawful building site if such parcel was a lawTul building
site on July 5, 1972. All other requirements of this chapter shall apply to any such parcel.
(Ord. 3583 §§ !4, 15, 1984; Ord. 3340 § 4, 1982; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978)
’Chapter 18.72 AC AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION
DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.72.010 Specific purposes.
18.72.020 Applicability of regulations.
18.72.030 Permitted uses.
18.72.040 Conditional uses.
18.72.050 Site development relations.
18.72.060 Parking and loa~g.
18.72.070
Specia~@~ments.
18.72.010 Specific p)~poses.
The AC a~~o ermit agricultural.and
compatible us~~on essentially in its
natur@
(O~art), 19_7_8)
.72.020 Applicability of regulations.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
U.,NIVE].~!TY ARCHITECT,, PL-~’<NEq~; OFFICE
Attachment C
November 5, 2002
Dennis Chiu, Chair and
Plamaing Commissioners
Cotmty of Santa Clara
CounD~ Gover, maent Center
70 West Hedding Sn-eet
San Jose, CA 95110
RE: S{’.omford UniversiD Open Space/Field Research District
Dear Commissioners:
This letter describes onr concerns regarding the st.:f-recommended version of the Open
Space/Field Researcti District zoning regulations (Option 3 of 3). A slgnificm~t pmtion Of
Stanford lands will be governed by these regulations. However, an extremely limited amount of
development is pertained within this area. It is therefore important that Stanford retain the
ability tO manage tt~is area to the fullest reasonable extent within the framework established by
the Stanford University CommuniU Plan.
We appreciate the opportunity" we had to meet and discuss these regulations with Ms. Draper and
Planning O~ce staff2 As a result of that meeting, many of our prexdous concerns with the
regulations have been resolved. However, a few outstanding issues remain.
1.Specialized facilities a**d installations.
The Stanford University Community Plan, Policy LU 26, adopted by the Board of Supervisors,
establishes allowable uses within the Open Space and Field Resem-ch designation. Those uses
include:
[S]pecialized tScilities o~qd installations tha~ by their nature require
a remote or natural setting, such as astronomica! or other antennae
installations or suucmres accessory to field study activities
The proposed OSiF Dis)flct regulations add the lbllowing Jm~guage to those uses: "Such
stn~ctures or ~hcilities shall require isolation [rom sources of interference (such as noise;
vibration, etecuomagnetic fidds, or similar impediments).’: This language is more restrictive
than that approved by the Board.
Implementation reco~mnendation LU(i)4 requires the County to enact "kppropriate zoning
consistent with the allowable uses and development policies" of the OS,CF designation. The
language added by these zo~ng regulations is not consistent with the allowable uses in the
Communi*,y Plan. For exampte, a specialized facilib, might consist of a biological observation
snueture tha, requires a remote or natural se~ting to evaluate the behavior of a pa’ticular species
residing in the foothills environment. That su’ucture does ~mt require isolation Kom any
particular sources of interference other than concentrated development; it wouId be allowed
under the Conm~unib’ Ptan, but not trader the OSiF regulations for Specialized facilities as
currently drafted.
At a meeting wi’th Counb~ Counsel ~d Planning Staff on November 5, 2002, Stanford
representatives ~ere told that such facilities wou~d be consi&red structures a~citla~ ~o the
allowed Field Stu~{>, use as indicaged in Iable 2. 50-7 and t!~e clar{~,ing note #7, and tht~ ailowed
in the OSiF subject to ASA.
Recommendation: No change to current language assuming that the Ph’mnh~g Cmrmfission
concurs wi~h stafYs’ ~terpretation.
2.Operator,)"oreman residence.for the protection of animals.
The OS!F regulations Mlow agriculture as a maImr of fight. The deh_ni*ion of agnicMmre
includes the rNsing of animals, livestock farming~ grazi.{~ and ranching. Ag zones gaditionally
have allm-ved residences associated wi,d~ the a~icuilt~rai operations.
Stanford has severa! lessees of lmad within the OSfF designation that keep an~ats. In order m
provide reasonable safety for ~ese animals, it is necessaD’ ~at either the lessee or an employee
live on the property’. Such a presence also deters vandaiis~n and other mischief common with
unoccupied land.
AgTcicultura! accessmT structures and uses are permilted as a matter of right in the OS!F Dis~ct,
including those structm’es and uses ancillaw to and supporting onsite ag~q_cultm’al operations]
Ahhough a dwelling for the lessee or an employee undotFotedly would suppor~ onsite agricultural
operations, incIuding those involving mgrna!s, it is not clear that this type of structure would be
considered an accessory,’ structure and use.
On Novcmber 5, 2002, County staff agreed that dwellings %r operators or caretakers were
desirable and necessaU for security purposes and has proposed that a limited number of
caretakers residences be allowed subject to ASA and a demonsn’aied need.
~ Under the OSiF District regulations, all structures m~cillary to any allowed use or activi> are subject, to tb, e ASA
process.
Recommendation: Include as an ASA permitted use ~’Caretakers Residence!’ defined as "a
dwelIing occupied by a person(s) whose primary job is caring for arNnals or livestock or
property used for any pertained use."
3.Domestic AMmats.
Domestic animals are inteuat to mmU of Stan%rd’s agricultural leases, where they act as
wor~ng animals. Dogs act as security and help round up other grazing animals. Cats help
manage rodent populations. ~ad several lessees cm-e for horses, tt is inconsistent m allow
agricultural uses in the OS/F District, yet not allow domestic animals when they participate to
such a large degree in ag~cultural life.
In our discussions with staf*; we were ~sured that animals kept on a~icuttura! leases as integra!
components of {he agricultural acfivib’ (e,g. ~azing horses, herd~g dogs) would be considered
as part. of the allowed agriculmrN use and not as domestic animals.
Recommendation: No change to current language assuming that the Plamaing Commission
concurs wi~h staffs’ interpretation.
4.New parcel c~eation.
In all -20s combining districts, the creation of new parcels is regulated by a slope density
formt~la, which resutts in a range of potential parcel sizes fi’om 20-160 acres. These pm-cel sizes
may be waived through the approval of a cluster permit, ha OS!F District Option l, Stanford
must adhere to the slope density formula used in -20s comNnhag districts, and obtain a cluster
permit to waive the parcel size resulting from application of that slope density formula.
In staff-reconmaended Option 3, however, Stanford must obtain a cluster permit to establish a lot
size of iess than !60 acres. This policy runs counter to the County’s desire to cluster
development. It ensures only that structm’es wilt be spread sporadically tba’oughout the OS,q2
District on large, 160~acre parcels. Instead, Option I still would require S~anford to create
parcels of a substantial size, yet would enable Stanford to locate new structures somewhat closer
to existing structures per the required ASA clustering finding.
Recommendation: Adopt the new pm’cel creation policy established ha Option 1.
5.Man datoO, ASA finding regarding mitigation measures.
The ASA Commiuee is required to make the fo!lowing ?mding under fl~.e new OS/F regulations:
Project desi~a and location afi~rd reasonable protection to
environmental resources. ~/necessc~o’. m:[~gc~[~c)~ mffasz~es ~,~ ~.
sign~fk’an~ levels,
This finding ~eady limits the County’s discretion with regm’ds to project approvals. Under
CEQA, an agency must incorporate, h~,o a project all. feasibte mitigation measm’es and project
alternatives, which will avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project, tf
signitfcan~ effects remain axC~er al! feasible mitigation measures and alternatives have been
incorporated into fine project, the agency still may appmYe the project if it finds that specific
economic, legal, socia!, tectmologicat or other benefits of the project ou’~weigh its unavoidable
adverse envh, oamenta! effects.
The efi~ct of the proposed ASA finding would be to prevent the Commission or the Board from
approving a project with unavoidable si~ificm~i hnpacts, even if it found ~at there were
compelling reasons to do so. In CEQA, the Le~slatu~e expressly reserved to ~e CounD~ ~e
autihority and discretion to approve such a project if it adopts a statement of oven~iding
considerations explainhn_g wh?." the benefits of the project outweigh its adverse environmental
effects. The County should not surrender its discretion to make ttaese decisions after balancing
the competing considerations in favor of a rigdd rute that woMd apply to no other govenv-nental
entry in the State.
Recommendation: Replace the italicized por5on of the ASA finding above wida ~he fc~l!owing
words added to the end oft he first sentence: "and the requirements ofCEQA haYe been
satisfied."
Tha~ you for ta-~ng ~e rime to consider Stanford’s concerns regarding the O S/!: Dis~ict zoning
regulations.
Sincere];;.
DaYid J. Ne,~m~an
Universi~~ Architect,/Associate Vice Provost
co:Arm Draper
Tim He~ngton
Michele Napier
Debra Zumwalt