Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-10-05 City Council (24)City of Palo Alto TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER,DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 5, 1998 CMR:378:98 REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 1722 AND PORTIONS OF TRACT 1977 FOR REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 (S)SINGLE-STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE MEADOW PARK UNIT 5 NEIGHBORHOOD RECOMMENDATION This report transmits a June 9, 1998 request from the property owners of Tracts 1722 and 1977 for City approval of a single-story overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Planning Commission staff report Attachment D), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 106 lots (72 homes in Tract 1722 and 33 homes in Tract 1977, excluding 3943 Grove Avenue, in addition to the one lot located at 729 Charleston Road) from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single-Story Overlay District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted, a single-story overlay zone (S) as part of the Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.13). The Single-Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable, above-ground floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The attached letter from property owners in Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 of the Meadow Park Neighborhood (Planning CMR:378:98 Page 1 of 4 ¯ Commission staff report Attachment E) requests application of the single-story overlay zone to the 106 single, family parcels contained in Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 (Attachment C), plus the one lot located at 729 Charleston Road, for a total of 107 lots. Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single-story overlay zone (Attachment D). On September 22, 1997, the City Council referred the request to the Planning. Commission. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On August 26, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the single-story overlay with modifications. A summary of significant issues is contained in the .Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B). Commissioners generally agreed with the need for the City to codify the single-story restriction that is contained in the deed restrictions of Tract 1722. Commissioners indicated that a single-story overlay provides a better vehicle for resolving potential disputes than forcing neighbors to file lawsuits to stop construction of second-story additions. However, several Commissioners expressed concerns that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential neighborhoods rather than providing the flexibility needed to manage change over time. It should be noted that the deed restriction is an agreement among property owners and, therefore, the City has no authority to enforce the provisions of the deed restriction without the overlay zone. Several property owners within Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 as well as owners outside the proposed boundaries spoke in support of the overlay zone and four spoke in opposition (see Planning Commission minutes Attachment K). One owner in opposition (Sue-Yia Cheng) indicated that she had prepared plans for a second story for her property at 3940 Bibbits Drive. This property owner requested that her property be left out of the Single-Story Overlay District. Another property owner (Larry Bruguera. at 817 Gailen Avenue) also stated his opposition. Both owners are shown in the attached request as not supporting the overlay, Two other property owners (Bob Evans at 812 Gailen Avenue and Marylene Delbourg-Delphis at 3943 Grove Avenue) indicated that they were confused when signing the request and have subsequently changed their vote and are now opposed to the overlay (See Attachment D showing the effect of this change on supportin the area). Planning Commissioners supported the request of Ms. Delbourg-Delphis and recommended that her lot at 3943 Grove Avenue be excluded from the proposed S Overlay district. Removal of that property would maintain the coherent boundaries of the requested area. Planning Commissioners also recommended that any property with a building permit application submitted on or prior to August 26, 1998 should be excluded. Staff has researched all building permit applications submitted since June 1, 1998 and found only one ’ application within the proposed boundaries. Staff has confirmed that Sue-Yia Cheng had submitted building permit plans for a second story for her property at 3940 Bibbits Drive (on July 2, 1998) prior to the Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 1998. Staff does not CMR:378:98 Page 2 of 4 support the exclusion of this home for four reasons: 1) the single-story deed restriction was in placefor all homes in Tract 1977 when Ms. Cheng submitted her building permit plans for a second-story addition, 2) neighbors in the area have threatened to file a lawsuit to enforce the existing single-story deed restriction if the City does not adopt the overlay zoning, 3) exclusion of this one parcel would create a hole within an otherwise coherent, rectangular area, and 4) exclusion of this parcel may establish a precedent for other homeowners within areas subject to a single-story deed restriction to submit plans for second story additions in violation of the deed restriction. Staff has received one letter in support of the overlay (Attachment F), three letters in opposition to the overlay (Attachments G, H, and I) and a letter in opposition to the existing deed restriction (Attachment J). The Planning Commission voted tO approve the rezoning of 105 homes in Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 (excluding 3943 Grove Avenue and 3940 Bibbits Drive while adding 729 Charleston Road) from R-1 to R-1 (S), 6-1-0 (Cassel opposed). An excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment K) ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1)Reinstate the two lots that were recommended for removal by the Planning Commission or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; 2)Deny the request to initiate consideration of a single-story overlay zone for the Tract 1722 and 1977 neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS A: B: C: D: E: F: G: Ordinance Planning Commission staff report (with attachments) Map Showing Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 and Adjacent Zoning Districts (original request) Map Showing Supporters of Proposed Overlay (as modified) Map Showing two lots recommended to be excluded by Planning Commission Letter from Frits Levenbach dated August 19, 1998 in support of the Single-Story Overlay Letter from Bo Crane dated August 20, 1998 in opposition to the Single-Story Overlay Letter fromNicky Wu and Sue-¥ia Cheng dated August 22, 1998 in opposition to the Single-story Overlay CMR:378:98 Page 3 of 4 J: K." Letter from Gary Furman dated August 22, 1998 in opposition to the Single-Story Overlay Letter from "A Group of Victims" dated September 2, 1998 in opposition to the existing Deed Restriction Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of August 26, 1998 COURTESY COPIES: Cathy Swan, 3939 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Abby Boyd, 3998 Bibbits Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mary Campbell, 3946 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Sol Solk, 784 Gailen Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Louise Doolittle, 716 Gailen Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Robert Weiss, 3916 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Greenmeadow Community Assn., Walt Hays, President, 355 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 All Property Owners Shown on Planning Commission staff report Attachment B PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: t.,.c.~g~-~..~-z,-¢~.-~,~---~ ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning a~d Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~.. ~.t ~.~_ ~._~=~__ kEMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:378:98 Page 4 of 4 Attachmen ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO 7LMENDING SECTION 18.08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS ~MEADOW PARK TRACT 1722 AND A PORTION OF TKACT 1977" FROM R-I TO R-I (S) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. A.The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing held August 26, 1998, has recommended that section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and B.The City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the.zoning of a portion of certain property, collectively known as "Meadow Park Tract 1722 and a Portion of Tract 1977" ~(the "subject property"), from "R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S) Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ~ The Council finds that this project will not have a significant envirorrmental effect. // // // // // // II .11 II II II 980810 iao 0090008 $-~ This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-firstday after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment 980810 la¢ 0090008 PF Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 Exhibit "A \ PF PC-2711 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 7-6-98 PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4; 98-EIA-12 Scale: I" = 400’ North Attachment B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Chandler Lee DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: August 26, 1998 Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood: 98-ZC-4, 98-EIA-12 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment D), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and Adopt the attached dratI ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 106 Lots; 72 homes in Tract 1722 and 34 homes of 54 homes in Tract 1977 Meadow Park in. addition to the one lot located at 729 Charleston Road from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. Staff supports the inclusion of this additional home as it is within the rectangular boundaries of the area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 of the Meadow Park neighborhood requests the designation of a single story overlay zone for the 106 single family parcels contained in the area. Survey results reported, in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone. On July 6, 1998, the City Council initiated the request and referred it to the Planning Commission. The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows application of this (S) Overlay Zone, where appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story character. The City Council, on July 13, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in evaluating applications for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed below. Zoning Ordinance Compliance Zone Designation: Existing: R-1 Single Family Residential Proposed: R-1 (S)Single Family Residential (Single Story Overlay) Use Category.:Single Family Residential The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). A comparison of the proposed R-1 (S) Zoning District to the existing R-1 Zoning District regulations is provided in Table 1. "8-26-98 S:WLAN~PLADIV~PCSR\SOVERLA4.PC Page 2 Table 1 Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirement~ Site Area (s.f.) -Lot Width -Lot depth Floor Area Ratio -First 5,000 s.f. -Remaining s.f. Maximum Height Site Coverage Setbacks - Front Yard - Rear Yard - Interior Side Yard - Street Side Yard R-1 (Existing) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 .30 30 feet* 35% 20 20 6 16 R-I (S) (Proposed) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 .30 17 feet (Single Story)* 40% 20 20 6 16 * Daylight plane restrictions apply. The daylight plane is defined by a point 10 feet in height along each side lot line and extending upward at a 45 degree angle into the site and by a point 16 feet in height at the front and rear setback lines and extending 60 degrees into the site. ** For substandard lots, special site development regulations apply, BACKGROUND On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the Zoning Ordinance and applied the overlay to the Walnut Grove neighborhood (181 lots). On April 26, 1993, the overlay was applied to the Green Meadows neighborhood (185 lots). On January 21, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood (96 lots). On September 15, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood (61 lots). On November 17, 1997, the ’overlay was applied to Tract 709 of the Blossom Park neighborhood (16 lots). Please refer to the map showing existing S overlay zoning districts (Attachment H). S:~LAN~LADIV~CSR\SOVERLA4.PC 8-26-98 Page 3 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. Ordinance. SUMMARY, OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The major issue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. In reviewing previous proposals for single story overlays, the Planning Commission expressed some concerns about limiting future options for home expansion and accommodating architectural innovations and lifestyle changes over time. However, since the project meets all of the criteria established in the S Overlay Guidelines and a majority of the homes (68 percent or 72 homes) have an existing deed restriction that limits the height of homes, staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of adopted City policy and should be approved. Height and Lot Coverage_ The only changes to the Standard R-1 zoning requirements caused by application of the Single Story Overlay are the height limit reduction from 30 to 17 feet, the single story restriction and the expansion of lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The 0nly potential effect of these revisions is the addition of building square footage allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however, the proposed lot coverage restrictions allow maximum floor area ratios that equal those allowed under current R-1 zoning if the lot exceeds 7,500 square feet. Table 2 illustrates the net change in house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is allowable under current R21 zoning. Table 2 _Comparison of Allowable House Size:. R-I Compared With R-I(~ Lot Size Allowable House Size with R-1 Allowable House Size with R-1. (S) 2,400 s.f. 3,000 s.f. Net Change -150 s.f. .0 S:WLAN~PLADIVWCSR\SOVERLA4.PC 8-26-98 Page 4 Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines establish criteria for reviewing applications for the (S) Overlay zone. The Guidelines specifically state that "for neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are to be treated with a greater degree of flexibility (than neighborhoods without the restriction)." All 72 homes in Tract 1722 but none of the homes in Tract 1977 have been developed with such a deed restriction. Overall, a majority of the homes (72 of 106 parcels or 68 percent) in the subject area have been developed in accordance with a single-story deed restriction. This particular deed restriction limits the height of residences to "one story in height." The subject application is evaluated against these criteria as follows: 1.. Level and Format of Owner Support "An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should meet with "overwhelming" support by owners.of the affected properties. These owners must demonstrate, by providing documentation that includes a written list of signatures, an understanding that they are co- applicants in a zone map amendment request." The application is accompanied by signed requests from 83 of the 106 properties (79 percent) within Tracts 1722 and 1977. A majority of the homes (72) within the neighborhood have been developed in accordance with a single story deed restriction. The (S) overlay guidelines stipulate that when existing development is consistent with a single- story deed restriction, the level of support in the neighborhood can be more flexible than if no such deed restriction exists. Therefore, the 79 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first criterion can be met. 2. Appropriate.Boundaries "An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning request. Boundaries... should define an identifiable neighborhood or development." The application is accompanied by a map showing addresses and locations of the co- applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood of trapezoidal shape that is easily defined by existing street patterns and Adobe Creek. The neighborhood is generally defined by Charleston Road on the south, Adobe Creek on the north, the residential S:WLANWLADIVWCSR\SOVERLA4.PC 8-26-98 Page 5 neighborhood on the west, and the commercial buildings on Fabian Way .on the east. There are four lots fronting on Charleston Road (723,725,727, and 729 Charleston Road) which are not part of the original tract and, therefore, are not included in the request. It should be noted, however, that the owner of 729 Charleston is in support of the overlay and would like to be included within the project boundaries. Staff supports the inclusion of this additional home as it is within the rectangular boundaries of the area. One of the other 3 homes is a 2-story structure and not compatible with the single-story overlay. One home owner does not want to be included in the overlay district and one could not be found. Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found it to be a coherent neighborhood of mostly single story homes with the exception of 3 two-story homes located at 3949 and 3955 Bibbits Drive and 785 Gailen Avenue. Therefore, the second criterion can be met. 3. Prevailing Single-Story Character "An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single-story... It is desirable that homes, be similar in age, design, and character..." Of the 106 properties included in this application, 106 are currently single-story and three have an existing second story (3949 and 3955 Bibbits Drive and 785 Gailen Avenue) (See Attachment G showing existing two story homes within 300 feet of the area). Homes in this neighborhood were.all built by Eichler or Brown and Kaufman in the early 1950s. With the exception of the 3, two story buildings, homes in this neighborhood all feature an indoor/outdoor floor plan that is well suited to a single story. Imposition of the (S) overlay reinforces existing deed restrictions for the 72 homes in Tract 1722 and reinforces the exclusively existing single story configuration of the remaining homes in Tract 1977 that do not have a deed restriction. Therefore, the neighborhood is of a prevailing single family character and the third criterion can be met. 4. Moderate Lot Sizes "...an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be defined as 7, 000 to 8, 000 square feet. " Of the 106 lots, 43 are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet and 31 are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Applying the flexible interpretation of moderate lot size for homes with a deed restriction described above, 74 of 106 or 70% of the lots are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet and can be considered moderate in size. Of the remaining lots, six are smaller than 6,000 square feet and 26 are larger than.8,000 square feet. The neighborhood has a generally consistent lotting pattern that is defined by a grid of public streets and cul- 8-26-98 Page 6 S:WLANWLADIVWCSR\SOVERLA4.PC de-sacs. Therefore, the fourth criterion can be met. The subject application meets all four of the criteria established by The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Giaidelines. ALTERNATIVES .~ The alternatives available to the Planning Commission include recommending to the City Council to: 1) Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district, or 2) Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 (Meadow Park) neighborhood. TIMELINE Following Planning Commission review, the application will be heard by the City Council for decision at a meeting tentatively scheduled for October 5, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Negative Declaration has been prepared finding that the project will have no significant impacts. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from August 6 through August 26, 1998 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment D). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A:Draft Ordinance Attachment B:List of Property Owners Attachment C:Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters Attachment D:Negative Declaration Attachment E:June 9, 1998 request from the property owners of Tract 1722 and 1977 for City approval of a single story overlay zone Attachment F:Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines Attachment G:Map showing existing two story homes within 300 feet of the area Attachment H:Map showing existing S overlay zoning districts S APLAN~PLADIVWCSR\SOVERLA4 .pC 8-26-98 Page 7 COURTESY COPIES: Cathy Swan, 3939 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Abby Boyd, 3998 Bibbits Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mary Campbell, 3946 Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Sol Solk, 784 Gailen Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Louise Doolittle, 716 Gailen Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Robert Weiss; 3916 .Louis Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 All Property Owners Shown on Attachment 2 Project Planner:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Lisa Grote, Zoning Ad~l~stratg~/’~Supervisor Review: Division/Department Head Approval:~/’ ’//~_/’~,~ ~ Eric Rid, Jr., Chief Planning Official S:kPLAN~PLADIVkPCSR\SOVERLA4.PC 8-26-98 Page 8 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS ~MEADOW PARK TRACT 1722 AND A PORTION OF TKACT 1977" FROM R-I TO R-I (S) The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows : .SECTION i. A.The Planning Commission,’ after duly noticed public hearing held August 26, 1998~ has recommended that section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter .set forth; and B.The City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare~ T~. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of certain property, collectively known as "Meadow Park Tract 1722 and a Portion of Tract 1977" (the "subject property"), from "R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S) Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. ~ The Council finds that this.project will not have a significant environmental effect. II II II II II II II II II, II II 980810 iao 0090008 SECTION, 3, thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: This ordinance shall be effective on the APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment 2 980810 !~ 0090008 Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 3893 Attachment A PC-2711 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4; 98-EIA-12 Attachment B List of property owners requesting single story overlay zone St.# 760 762 764 765 766 770 771 772 774 778 791 784 790 795 8O4 805 811 812 823 3901 3907 3919 3924 3925 3930 3936 3943 3948 3949 3951 3955 3961 3974 3979 3980 3986 3991 3997 3998 3896 3909 3915 3916 3921 3924 3928 3934 3939 3945 3946 Street Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Gailen Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Bibbits Lores Louis Louis Louis Louis Louis Lores Louis. Louis Louis Louis Name Gill, Mildred Trustee Beltrami, Deigo and Mary Bialek, Richard and Joan Moulden, William and Virginia Coe, Andrew and Elizabeth Brauthal, Frank and Margot Mitoma, Chozo and Fusaye Loo, Claudia Robinson, Jane Wilson, Gregory M. Trustee Finney, Robert and Nancy Solk, Sol and Sylvia Trustee Ostrom, Ernest and Mary Trustee Burroughs, Henrietta Johnson, Margery Slack, Keith and Helen Trustee Greving, Warren and Janice Evans, Robert and Schmalstieg Heike Oliver, Ruth Trustee Mikula, Marvene McColloch, Jordan Trustee Bogart, Louis and Beverly Black, Graham Ryan, Kevin and Irene Walstra, Robbe and Freda Oison, Francis and Dorothy Pierre, Miller and Bettye Rooney, Donald Dietrich, Paul and Katherine Brletich, Frank and Violet Grimsrud, Gregory P and Sandra Grignon, Rex Skoog, Madeleine Spiegel, Louis and Judith Sanders, Williams and Gary Rich, Alan and Frazier Rebecca Brennan-Marquez, Thomas and Terese Lindblad, Erik and Annelisese Powars, Abby D’Esopo, Denato A. Garratt, Ronald Vierra, Robert and Veronica Weiss, Robert and Pearl Trustee Pankonin, Robert and Mary Ford, Noreen and Boram, Daniel Young, Peter Man., Richard and Willrich, Christine Swan, James R and Catherine Lyman, Louise Campbell, David and Mary ¯ Lotsize 3920.4 74O5.2 12632 6969.6 10,454 6969.6 6969.6 8276.4 7840.8 6098.4 6969.6 6098.4 6098.4 6098.6 10454.4 7405.2 6969.6 6969.6 8712 16988 8276.4 7405.2 6098.4 7405.2 6098.4 6098.4 7405.2 7840.8 6969.6 8712 6969.6 6098.4 6098.4 6098.4 6098.4 6534 6534 9147.6 6534 6969.6 7405.2 7405.2 5227.2 7405.2 6534 6534 4792 6534 7405.2 4356 737 Charleston 743 Charleston 757 Charleston 787 Charleston 3888 Grove 3890 Grove 3900 Grove 3903 Grove 3904 Grove 3907 Grove 3911 Grove 3912 Grove 3915 Grove 3918 Grove 3919 Grove 3923 Grove 3927 Grove 3931 Grove 3935 Grove 3939 Grove 3940 Grove 3943 Grove 716 Gailen 717 Gailen 722 Gailen 728 Gailen 731 Gailen 734 Gailen 740 Gailen 743 Gailen 746 Gailen 751 Gailen 759 Gailen * 729 Charleston Wright, Sarah Sonderquist, Alvin and Helen Gong, Herbert and Funabiki Thompson, Edward Trustee Mitchell, Lawrence and Joani Macmillian, Lawrie and Cathleen Frank, William and Marl Freytag, Dietrich and Gloria Shearer, Daniel and Beverly Trustee Meyerson, Daniel and Jean Baeuerlen,Villars: Trustee Bauerlen Family Parker, John and Janet Herbst, Richard Cox, Dennis and June Trustee Toulson, Christopher and Quik Marka Mcmahon Michael and Terry Trustee Chou, and Timothy and L. S. Trustee Pickering Joseph and Helen Grande, Vincent and Patricia Trustee Essabhoy, Esmail and Sophie Hastings, Allen and Faith Trustee Delbourg-Delphis, Marylene Doolittle, James and Louise Chan, Andrew and Amy Levenbach, Fritis Hofmayer, Betty Trustee Seubold, Frank and Linda Sovak, Ronald and and Carol Trustee Norman, SD and Ava E Taskovich, Eugene Hornby, lone Taskovich, Lina Rutledge, Bruce and Helen Williams, Priscilla 6098.4 6098.4 6098.4 6969.6 8,712 8,712 7,840 7,840 7,405 7,840 7,840 7,405 9,147 7,405 7,405 11,761 10,454 10,890 6,969 8,276 7,405 9,583 7,840 7 890 ¯ 8 276 9 583 8 276 7 405 8 712 8 600 7,840 8,600 8,276 N/A * Priscilla Williams’ home is not part of the tract but she is in favor of the overlay. Her home is adjacent to both. tracts. List of property owners who did not request for single story overlay 752 Gailen 711 Gailen 3930 Grove 751 Charleston 3973 Bibbits 779 Gailen 785 Gailen 796 Gailen 3985 Bibbits 3927 Louis 3940 Louis 3992 Bibbits 731 Charleston 3930 Louis 817 Gailen 3913 Bibbits 795 Charleston 3908 Grove Herzl, Selma Trustee 6,969 Kulgein, Norman and Nina 8,120 David, Paul and Sheila 7,405 Woodward, K T 6098.4 Ranes, Herman and Christine Trustee 6098.4 Lisha, Zaki and Ruth 6969.6 Gupta, Anil; Roberts, Geraldine 6969.6 Yeh Hwa-Young and Diana 7405.2 Yu Tsai-Hsian and Meng .6534 Lin Hung and Tsai Meei-Shiang 10019 Milone, Vincent M and Pauline D 5662.8 John and Irene Sampson 6969.6 Song Lu, Zhang Yi 6969.6 Carey, Charles and Dorothy 5227.2 Bruguera Lawrence and Noguchi, Sharon 6969.6 Pedersen, Jan and Grace Wang 7405.2 Barry, Thomas 6969.6 Murray, Carol and William " 7,405 3931 763 3924 3937 3940 Bibbits Charleston Grove Bibbits Bibbits Mueller, Frank and Miriam Fischer, Micheal Sanford, Jon and Patana Labrada, Elena and Steel, Samuel Wu Nicky Ho Keung and Wu-Cheng Sue 7450.2 6098.4 7,405 7,405 6098.4 ~acnment C PF Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 90¢ Graphic Attachment to Staff Report PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4 98-EIA-12 PC-2711 Legend Tract 1772 & 1977 Owners in support of overlay Scale: 1" = 400’ North Attachment D ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1.Project Title:S Overlay - Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 - Meadow Park Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 =Contact Person and Phone Number:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner 415-329-2441 = Project Location:Tract 17.22 and portions of Tract 1977 Meadow Park: generally bounded by Charleston Road to the south, Adobe Creek to the north, residential lots to thewest and commercial properties to the east 5.Application Number(s):98-ZC-4; 98-EiA-1 2 o Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of the Project: Single Family Residential R-1 (Single Family Residential) Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1 977 of the Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood: 98-ZC-4, 98-EIA-12 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 1 11. The neighborhood is exclusively single family and predominately single story in character. There are 106 single family lots located within the neighborhood. The neighborhood is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on three sides. Other public agencies, whose approval is required. None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning,Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance P.’\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAYhave a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon tl~e proposed project. X Pro~’~Plgnner Director of Planning & Community Environment Date P.’\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is re.quired for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an is required. 4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level {mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Refer.ence to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 1.LAND USE AND PLANNING. ,Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) e) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vici.nity7 Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 2 1 3 3 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a~ b) c) Cumulat{vel¥ exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ’ h) Expansive soils? I)Unique geologic or physical features? Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Signif oant aot Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 3,7,X rate and amount of surface runoff?17 b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 4,5 X such as flooding? c)3,17 XDischarge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X body-or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or thecourse or direction of water 3,17 X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)3 XChange in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?3 X h) Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of 6, 17 X reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? I}Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 3 X otherwise avaiJable for public water supplies? .j)Alteration of wetlands in any way?3 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate.any air quality standard or contribute to an 6,8,9 X exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9 X c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9 X any change in climate? P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 1Less Than ~ NoSignificant! Impact Impact d) Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?10 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 10 curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby 10, uses?11, 12 d) Insufficieqt parking capacity on-site or off-site?3, t0 e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?10 f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 10 transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?3 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: a) Endar~gered, threatened or rare species.or their habitats 8, 16 (including but not limited to Plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? X X X X X X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak,8 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian end vernal pool)?8, 16 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss.of availability of a known mineral 8 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact a) b) c) d) e) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 13 11, 12, 13 3, 1 2, 13 3, 1 2, 13 3,12 a) Increase in existing noise levels?6, 8, 14 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? 14 d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 8,12 8,11 8 8 e) Other governmental services? 12. substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 8 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or X X X X X X X x X X X X 15 X 15 X 15 X 15 X P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page .8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Souroes Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical.resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physicalchange which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98] 15 15 15 3 3 3 8 8 8 8 X X X X X X X X X X X 3 X X Page 9 X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impaat c)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ether directly or indirectly? X X 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the ¯mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 2~082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); LeonOfff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended) 2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report,August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348, Map Revised September 6, t 989. P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitig ation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval 7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1 994 10 City of PaloAIto Transportation Division 11 City of Palo Alto Police Department 12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department 13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1 985 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4a The proposed zoning change will increase the allowable lot coverage from 35 percent to 40 percent within this neighborhood. This action may result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface and, therefore, increase the amount of surface water runoff. However, because the courtyard area of a typical home in this neighborhood is usually partially paved, and the courtyard is the likely location for a building addition, only a small increase in impervious surface will result and only in those homes tha~ elect to extend the coverage on a given lot. Therefore, the increased lot coverage allowance will not have a significant effect on the late and amount of surface water runoff in the area. Mitigation Measures: None required. (S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA) P:\EIA\SOVERLA4.EIA [7/22/98]Page 11 G~phic A~hment Bate: 7-6-98 I F~~-E~S~N: 1" = 400’to S~ff Repo~ ’ PF Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 PC-2711 Legend Tract 1772, & 1977 Owners in support of overlay June 1998 R E C I~.,TvI~, D JUN 0 91998 To: City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for Submission to City Council/Plarmi~partmen Commission/City Council - . ’ ........~somrnun~ty Environme~. From: Property Owner of Meadowpark Unit #5, Tract 1722 and portion of Tract 1977 Subject: Request from Coapplicants of Meadowpark Unit #5, Tract 1722 and a portion of Tract 1977 for Application of the Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone to the Present R-1 Zoning Tract We request that the zone for Meadowpark Unit #5, Tract 1722 and a portion of Tract 1977 be changed from R-1 to R-I(S). There are a total of 106 residences in this request. A. Composition of included Tracts Tract 1722 includes Bibbits Drive, a portion of Louis from Charleston to Adobe Creek, the first 8 .houses on Charleston, and 23 houses on Gailen and Gailen Court. All these homes were built by Brown and Kaufman and Eichler in the 1950s. There are 72 homes which have a deed of trust limiting the homes to one story. The 34 houses of the adjacent Tract 1977, composed of Eichler homes on Gailen and Grove are also included. These homes are a portion of larger tract that includes a church and apartments (zoned R-2) and a culdesac of two story homes. These Eichler homes in this tract were built in the 1950s, have never had a deed restriction and are all one story. Together these homes from the 2 tracts form a natural neighborhood sharing backyards, streets and cohesive architecture. They are bot~nded by Charleston Road, Adobe Creek, and industrial area of Fabian Way and Grove Street. B. Level and Format of Owner Support. To meet the overlay guideline request, signed requests for the single story overlay Zone for Tract 1722 and Tract 1977 owners of 83 of 106 properties of the tracts signed for the request of the zoning change. This is 79% of the homeowners. At least one of the signature collectors spoke and distributed information to almost all the property owners in the tract. Follow up visits and flyers were distributed to everyone who did not respond to the initial visit/information. Absentee owners were contacted when possible. A serious effort was made to contact every property owner. A list of signers are attached. We feel that this large number of signatures represents an overwhelming support for the overlay zone. We have also attached a list of property owners whose signatures we were unable to obtain. C. App’ropria.te B0unda.ries Together these 2 tracts form a distinct neighborhood roughly rectangular shaped that is easily defined by existing street patterns. These homes share backyard, streets and cohesive architecture. The neighborhoods are bounded by Charleston Road on the south, Grove Street on the west, Adobe Creek on the north, and the industrial area of Fabian Way on the east. , A map showing the boundaries of Tract 1722 and Tract 1977 is attached. The homes in these tracts are very similar in lots size and design. The tract boundaries were established by the developers Eichler and Brown and Kaufman in the 1950’s. D. Prevailing Single-Story Character There are only three houses out of 106, in the 2-tract neighborhood, which have single room second story additions classifying them as two story homes. All of the homes were built in the 1950s by either Eichler or Brown and Kaufman. The tract that does not have the deed restriction is composed entirely of Eichler homes and does not have any two-story homes. We feel that the list of signers shows overwhelming support for the R1 to RI(S) overlay zone. Therefore the application should be considered generously E. Moderate Lot Size Size of lots is included on the include list of property owners. 70% of the lots are between 6,000 and 8,000 showing most of the lots are generally compatible size. There are 6% smaller than 6,000sq feet and 24% that are larger than 8,000sq feet. Most all lots are consistent with the moderate lot size except for those found on culdesacs and comers which are larger. These calculations are based on the tax assessor/TRW figures and may or may not be accurate for irregularly shaped lots. F: Documents attached in support of this application: First set includes all information about the deed restriction. There is a copy of the official deed restriction which limits residences in Tract 1722 to onestory. The deed was amended in 1985 and the single story deed restriction was re-instated in December of 1997. A copy of this is inclosed as well as a sample of the Signature Form for Deed Restriction. " Second set is a copy of the two different zoning request signature forms. Signed request for the single-story overlay zone is attached. A written list all of the signers is included. We are also attaching a list of the property owners whose signatures we were unable to obtain. The written list of all property owners includes information about all the lots sizes. Third set is a map showing the boundaries of Tract 1722 and the portion of 1977 that is included in this request. The yellow and green colors denote property owners who are requesting the overlay zone. The orange lot outside the tract represents the owner who is adjacent to both tracts and wishes to be included in this request Sincerely Cathy Swan, 3939 Louis Road, Abby Boyd, 3~98 Bibbit~, 493-5: Mary Campbell, 3946 Louis Road, 493-2634 Sol Solk, 748 Gailen ise and James Doollitle, 716 Gailen ’ Robert Weiss, 3916 Louis Attachment F Sin=!e-Storv Heiaht Combinin~ Distric~ (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines The followiDg guidelines are intended to guide City staff and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone change requests for application of the Single-Stow! Height Combining District (S) overlay zone. For neighborhoods in which there are no single-story deed restrictions, or where such restrictions exist yet have not been strictly adhered to, applications are to be evaluated through more rigorous use of these guidelines. However, for those neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are to be treated with a greater.degree of flexibility. I.Level and Format of Owner Supmort An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should meet with "overwhelming" support by owners of affected properties. These owners must demonstrate, by providing documentation, that includes a written list of @ignatures, an understanding that they are co- applicants in a zone map amendment request. AooroDriate Boundaries An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address location of those owners who are co-applicants for the rezoning request. Boundaries which may correspond with certain natura! or man-made features (i.e. roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, etc.) should define an identifiable neighborhood or development. These boundaries will be recommended to the Plannfng Commission and City Council by the. City’s Zoning Administrator. 3.Prevailin~ Sinqle-Stor¥ Character An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map-amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing homes are single-story, thus limiting the number of structures rendered .noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods currently subject to sihgle-story deed restrictions should be currently deve!oped in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and 1/12/93 Page 1 charac=er, ensuring ~ha~ residents of an area proposed for rezoning, possess like desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodeling constraints. Moderate Lot Sizes In order to maintain equitable propertZ development rights within an (S) overlay area compared to other sites within the K-I zone district, an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet. 1/12/93 Page 2 PF Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 3B90 Attachment GM PF \ Graphic Attachment to Staff Report PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4; 98-EIA-12 PC-271 Legend Tract 1772 & 1977 Two-stow homes Scale: 1" = 400’ ~acnment H Project:: Tract 1722 & 1977 PF Exis’dng (S) Distdcts PF(D) PF CS(H) Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Scale 1"=1000" North PF Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 Attachment C PC-27 ] 1 Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 7-6-98 PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4; 98-EIA-12 Scale: 1" = 400’ North Project: Tract 1722 & 1977 PF Graphic Attachment to Staff Report PF(D) File #: 98-ZC-4; 98-E~-12 3832 3838 I 38~0 f 3893 39~0 Attachment D PC-2711 Legend Tract 1772 & 1977 Owners in support of overlay Scale: 1" = 400’ PF Project:: Tract 1722 & 1977 ~ PF(D) Attachment :~: ~1 -arleston n PC-2711. Legend Tract 1772 & ~ 977 Necommend~d for exclusion by Planning. .~om~lSSlO~ Attachment F August 19! i998 Planning Commission City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Single-story Overlay Zoning for Meadow Park Tracts 1722 and 1977 As residents of Tract 1977, we regret that we are unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 1998. However, we wish to voice our support for preserving the historic and esthetic nature of the Eichler neighborhood, comparable to Greenmeadow and other Eichler communities. We strongly oppose the proliferation of full-lot "dream homes" as contrary to the spirit of the community beyond the one jarring and disruptive two-story exception built on Gailen Avenue several years ago. We feel the unique esthetics of the architect-designed Eichlers are worth maintaining, as a fundamental component of Palo Alto’s character. MoreoveD the single-story overlay zoning would protect the privacy of the Eichler/ homeowners, especially vulnerable due to the glassed, open plan of the Eichler style, from second-story neighbors’ eyes. ~est your favorable consideration of the zoning to the City Council. Frits Le ~nbach 722 Gai Avenue Attachment G August 20, 1998 Jonathan Schink Chair, Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: charleston Meadows Dear Mr. Schink .... My wife and I own the house at 220 West Charleston Road, on the corner of Park and West Charleston. Our house is not an Eichler and is not included in the single-story zoning. We think that the idea that the Eichler group want tO lasso us into their zoning is outrageous. A few years ago, we were approached by a member of this group and asked if we voluntarily wanted to be included. We were told that the Eichler homes already had a single-story limitation in their CC&R’s but many of the Eichler residents were concerned about perpetual enforcement of that restriction.. This member said that many of the Eichler residents felt there was increased property value in being an Eichler enclave, that people who bought Eichlers felt good about being surrounded by other Eichlers with their distinctive rooflines. Another major point was that the Eichler lifestyle is based on high-ceiling living and family rooms exposed by large glass walls to rear yards. The Eichler Company built single-stories in order to preserve that lifestyle and also conditioned it in the CC&R’s. Our house, however, is not an Eichler. Our house was built in 1933 back when Charleston Meadows was still being farmed and irrigated by ditches. I have enclosed an August 1950 map of Charleston Meadows which shows the property where my house is as belonging to Lee G. Johnson with the words: "NOT PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION." Those words should be just as valid in 1998 as in 1950: NOT PART OF THIS SUBDMSION! A 5/21/97 report to the Historic Resources Board concerned our property states that our "residence in its scale and style, does not support the historic character of its neighborhood district, nor does it contribute to the surrounding neighborhood grouping of modern residences." In other words, not only legally but architecturally: NOT PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION! The parcel which belonged to Johnson was later divided into three lots, two of which face Park Boulevard. These properties are not Eichlers, are not part of the Eichler CC&R’s. If you set aside the argument, that the Eichler people have no business enforcing their CC&R’s on non- Eichler subdivision houses, the other reason for the restriction to preserve the privacy of the rear facing family rooms does not apply because the three "Johnson-lot" houses gaze across the Eichler rear yards. But concerns about loss of privacy between one and two-stories goes on all the time. Concern about the effect that two-stories on the "Johnson-lot" houses might have on the two properties of Block 5, lots 11 & 12 of the Charleston Meadows subdivision should not spill over into a zoning ordinance .attractive to Eichler owners as a way of getting approval. Our houses are NOT Eichlers, our roofiines are not fiat, our exterior wall glass areas are not huge. On behalf of our property at 220 West Charleston, the house was built in 1933, the windows are small. The 5121197 report states: "THIS IS THE OLDEST DWELLING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMPOSED OF EICHLER STYLE MODERN STRUCTURES AND RANCH DWELLINGS.,’ In 1950, Johnson chose not to sell to the Developers of Charleston Meadows. Fifty years later the Residents of Charleston Meadows want to take over these properties by osmosis! Can someone really make the arugment that the Eichler residents on Wilkie Way and Tennesse Street need to have their Eichler neighbor preserved by restricting the 3 houses on Park Boulevard to single-stories! The 3 properties border Charleston Meadows. They are no._At smack in the middle. Our property is on a busy street, on a comer and closer to the Railroad Tracks and the Clanging Signals than any of the Eichler homes. We did not buy our house with this CC&R covenant--We do no_At want to be bound by it. The 1933 house is small, the bedrooms are less than 100 square feet. If and when the time comes that the house needs to grow, we want to be governed by the same rules equitably applied to the whole City. WE DON,T WANT TO BE SWALLOWED UP THE EICHLERS JUST BECAUSE THEY NEIGHBOR US AND OUTNUMBER US! Owners of Charleston Meadows Block 5 lot 12 on West Charleston and Block 5 lot 11 on Carolina Lane knew when they purchased that the "Johnson-lot" houses were NOT Eiehlers and were NOT part of the Eicher CC&R’s. This is the current situation of our properties’ relative values. If this attempt to expand Eieher restrictions to non-Eiehler houses were successful, these two Eichler houses would gain INCREASED VALUE and our 1933 house would LOSE VALUE! We have a small, cramped, tiny-bedroom, narrow living room, no family room, no den, hall-like kitchen, view-less house. Our living room room faces the side of our neighbor’s garage about 15’ feet away. There was always the possibility of expansion which we have been unable to pursue, but that possibility should not be taken from us because we’re surrounded by 96 Eiehler properties. I don’t know how the other two "Johnson-lot" property owners feel about this but even if they were to side with the 96 Eichlers for reasons of their own, that would only then make 98 property owners. We want to be included with the rest of the City of Palo Alto’s rules by which we purchased our house! Very truly yours, Bo~arane~~’~ 220 West Charleston Road Encl: Charleston Meadows map, Staff Report 5/21/97 CC:Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Historic Resources Board TO: Staff Report Item No. II. 4 Historic Resources Board FROM: AGENDA DATE: Barbara Judy, Preservation Architect, Interim Historic Program May 21, 1997 SUBJECT:220 W. Charleston: Application for Historic Merit Evaluation of a single family residence constructed prior to 1940 in the R-1 Zone District (File No. 97-HRB-104.) REOUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Historic Resources Board is requested to assign a historic merit designation to 220 W. Charleston. Under the City of Palo Alto’s Interim Historic Program, properties may be assigned a historic designation of Structure Without Historic Merit, Contributing Residence, or Historic Landmark Residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends assigning a designation of STRUCTURE WITHOUT HISTORIC MERIT to this residence. Architectural Description: Date of Initial Construction: 1933 This is a vemacular one-story structure located on a comer lot in the Charleston Meadows neighborhood. The lot is characterized by overgrown foliage. The residence consists of a single- story, simple structure with gabled roof with extended front slope, and no defined entry. The walls are finished with dropped wood siding terminating at a concrete foundation. This is the oldest dwelling in a neighborhood, composed of Eichler style modem structures and ran~ Criteria for Historic Designation: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 220 W. Charleston fails to satisfy anyof Criterions 1 through 5, as _the desi of this residence is so unadorned that it does not contribute a period quality to its neighborhood or d~ Categorization: Under the City ofPalo Alto’s Criteria for Evaluating the Significance of Historic Resources, 220 W. Charleston best fits the category of NO HISTORIC MERIT. Staff concluded that the residence, in its scale and style, does not support the historic character of its , nor~d~ ~tmding neighb~grouping oT-mbdem residences, No evidence exists that the site has a.past history of association with hi-storic people, events, ~cti~’ties, or archeological resources. It is staffs judgment that 220 W. Charleston is so architecturally modest in its features that it is not recognizable as historic in the Palo Alto neighborhood and district context. Therefore, staff concluded that the standards for designation as a PROPERTY WITH HISTORIC MERIT are not met. COURTESY.COPY:Owner: K. Harrison and R. Crane, 220 W. Charleston, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Applicant: Harrison Design, 43 Homer Lane, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Prepared. By:Barbara Judy Reviewed By:yt , " ’ fPlanning Official VIEW OF 220 W. CHARLESTON Attachment H To:Planning Commission Planning Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: Property owner of Meadowpark Unit #5, Tract 1722 and portion of Tract 1977 Subject: 98-ZC-4, 98-EIA-12 Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood Date : Aug 22, 1998 Dear Planning Commission Members, We would like to assert the following view points concerning the subject single story overlay zoning request : First of all, the current proposal strongly interferes with an individual’s freedom of choice as a property owner and thus must be given substantial consideration and thought. Grounded in the founding principles of general property laws, an individual has certain rights regarding to his/her legally owned property. These rights r~nges from deciding the color of the paint to making improvements to the physical structure for various reasons including investment and upgrading the quality of living. These fights not only enhance the reason for purchasing the home instead of renting, but also define the broader principle of individual freedom that upon which the US Constitution is based. Current assessment to the subject request by the Planning Department was based on the fact that 72 out of the 106 homes in the said area already has an existing deed restrictionthat limits the height of homes and thus similar restriction should be imposed on the entire area, However, individual deeds are meant to apply to individual houses.’ When purchasing a house, both parties (seller and buyer) have some amount of bargaining power to enable them to tailor the contract according to the result of private negotiations. To apply identical restrictions found in other deeds to all houses in the area not only undermines the purpose of having individual deeds, but also distorts the intention of the original parties in the selling transaction. Furthermore, as turnovers of the houses arise, this exact limitation on the freedom of choice will extend to the prospective subsequent buyers of the home. This restriction will severely affect both the resale value of the home and the fight of the next homeowner with regard to the decision of the style of his/her own home. In the current situation, is the proponent’s reason substantial enough to impose this kind of limitation on the involuntary parties? This is the question that one must consider and explore carefully before making the decision that will interfere with the most basic freedom that one has as a home owner. Page I Moreover, even if the proponent’s reason is strong enough to persuade the city council to dedicate this area as an One-Story-Zone, the 21% that did not sign the petition should be entitled to some kind of compensation. According to the Ta "ldng Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot take without due compensation as the individual home owners’ rights have been violated and the government certainly cannot force people to live at homes that they cannot make changes to. In addition, the investment value of the property will also decrease accordingly as explained in more details below: From a long term perspective and based upon the above mentioned reasons, the government shall provide appropriate compensation to these minority home owners, the method and amount of which should be given careful considerations to. In the short run, beside from the home owners who did not sign the petition, specific considerations should be given to those home owners who have already made substantial investments in terms of both time and money to restructure their current homes to two-story house, as well illustrated in the case of our house. After all of our effort to comply with all the necessary procedures and existing ordinances, we are currently in the stage of waiting for our building permit to be issued by the city government. If the current Single Story Overlay proposal is approved by the City Council, then does that mean that our effort and investment (along with the effort and investment made by all other home owners who may have similar projects in the pipeline) have gone to waste? Is this a fair result to us, who are not just opponents of the proposal but also innocent victims that will suffer actual damages from an affirmative decision in favor of the proponents? In this case, the best recommended solution may be for the City Council to state that the restrictions of prohibiting two- story will take effect attgr the completion of the current pipelin_e projects which were already submitted to the City for processing. In other words, regardless of the final decision, the City should at least allow the home owners with on going projects to proceed and finish instead of stopping the projects all together. Therefore before making this decision, the council should consider primarily that appropriate compensation for not only the minority that are not willing to petition for the restricted zone proposal, but also the home owners who currently have projects going on with the houses. Also, considerations are due regarding to the source of the compensation. Page 2 Thirdly, according to the sunmm~’ stated in the Staff Report, in reviewing previous proposals for sinOe story overlays, issues addressing future options for home expansion, accommodation for architectural innovation and potential future changes in lifestyle are important considerations. With respect to the current proposal, these considerations should still be essential to the final decision ma -ldng process and should not be abandoned as these considerations are substantial arguments for the opponents of the proposal. Abandoning these considerations from the procedure may portra3, the Planning Commission as being one-sided as it is ignoring the needs and wishes of the minority home owners. And a decision made without concerning these vital issues is not fair and will be hard to accept. In addition, from a financial perspective, restricting the area as an One Story-Zone also limits the growth potential of the area primarily in terms of the resale value of the houses. This is a very important restriction to those who may want to make improvements to their property for investment purposes. In sum, the decision relating the current proposal is not a fight one. It concerns many complex issues including the interference of individual freedom of choice, governmental compensation, impact of current pipeline projects, and investment value of the area. Hence, please give due consideration regarding to each of the issues listed above and consider the potential consequences and the effects for both the short and the long run from the standpoint of the opponent i’esidents. Thank you very much for your attention and lime. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely yours, Nicky. Wu & Sue-Yia Cheng 3940 Bibbits Drive, Tel 8561788 Page 3 Attachment J Brenda Davis Santa Clara County Recoder, Record Department State of California, County of Santa Clara Re: Document # 13979113 Dear Brenda,September 2, 1998 Amendment of Declaration of Restrictions~ Conditions~ _Covenants, Chan~es and A~reements We are a group of property owners who disagree the subject amendment in Tract No. 1722, Meadowpark Unit #5 for the following reasons: 1. The said amendment is not properly filed It should be filed under CC & R and linked to our Deed just like the amendment made in 1985. So that when we run the Property Report, we can see the changes. We are very sure no one in this tract aware of the amendment until we got the ,Staff Report in August last months Please also beware that there are a few new owners bought their houses in this tract early this year. They were not told of this restriction when they bought their houses. 2. The said amendment was not properly processed According to West’s ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, civil code, section 1091 to 1456, volume 8; in section 1355: Amendment of declaration, it says: (b)l The proposed amendment has been distributed to all owners of separate interests in the common interest development by first-class mail postage prepaid or personal delivery not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days prior to any approval being solicited. No one was informed about the intent of the amendment until they came to our houses and gave us the form for signatures. If you look at document 13979113, most of the signatures they got were in April or MaY 1997 which was very far away they approached us in July and August. (b)3 The amendment has been recorded in each county in which a portion of the common interest development is located. A copy of any amendment adopted pursuant to tliis subdivision shall be distributed by first-class mail postage or personal delivery to all the owners of separate interest immediately upon its recordation. We did not receive a copy of the amendment when it was recorded. Even by the time we attended the Public Hearing in Palo Alto City on August 26, 1998. They failed to give us a copy. We asked for a copy after the meeting, but fail to give us as of to date. We since=~£~y request you to delete this record from the county because it was not processed and filed properly. And our tract should Not be included in the One Story Overlay Zone. Yours sincerely, from A Group of Victims. CC: Elaine Goodman .....Palo Alto Daily News Owen Byrd .............Palo Alto Planning Commission Chairman Attachment K MEETINGS ARE C..~LECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 August 26, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chairman Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel Jon Schink Patrick Butt Staff: Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official Amy French, Planner Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Jim Gilliland, Assist. Planning Official Fred Herman, Chief Building Official ..~~..COM.MUNICA TIONS: Members of the public may speak to any item not on the ag,enda with a limitatio~ee minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker ~s request card available t’mm~e secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the right to lirn_it the oral commun~od to 15 minutes. A,G, EN, DA. CHAN_G_ .ES, ADD. ITIO~~. D DELETIONS: The agenda may have additional items " a_d.d~d t° it?p t~ 7~ ~urs pri°r t~ m~.eting i~ ~_enda that was P0s~terday and is available here tonight for the member; o.f the public_that re_ceived an earlier version. The"f~em on our agenda tonight is s. Is there anyone in speak to an item not on the agenda? Then I will close oral Communications. We will move to~hanges, Cir. of Palo Alto ~Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 *Tract 1722 and .Portions of Tract 1977 of the Meadow Park Neighborhood .(File Nos.: 98-ZC-4, 98-EIA-12): Request by Property Owners of Tract 1722 and Portions of Tract 1977 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Meadow Park Unit #5 Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. This item is tentatively scheduled to be heard at a City Council public hearing on October 5, 1998. Chairman Byrd: That brings us to New Items Number 3 which is a public hearing on Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 of the Meadow Park Neighborhood. Would staff like to introduce this item please. Eric Riel, Jr.. Chief Planning Official: Chandler Lee is going to make the presentation for Staff. Chandler Lee. Contract Planner: Thank you all for coming¯ We received the request from the property owners in the Meadow Park neighborhood back in June. The City Council reviewed the request and initiated the project for your review and subsequent City Council review. The City received the application from the neighbors in June. The City Council initiated the (S) Overlay Zone for your consideration last month. There are 106 lots in the application in the Meadow Park. neighborhood as contained in the staff report. The proposal meets all four of the criteria established by the City for establishing single story overlay zones, as I understand it there is at least one letter before you and maybe several others both pro and con to the project¯ Based on the discussion and analysis in the staff report, Staff is recommending approval of the single story overlay as it applies to the neighborhood before you subject to the negative declaration and the conditions contained in the staff.report. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners have any questions for Staff on this item? "on r Beec a : This" is regarding the letters we received. One if from Gary Forman, at 4180 Park Boulevard, .and he is concerned that’s what’s being done may affect his property. I don’t see how but if Staff could clarify that, I’d like to know now. r]~L_I,~: My understanding is no, it does not affect property values. When the City established the criteria for the single story overlay we looked at the existing R-1 zoning and we looked at the effect it would have with the single StOry overlay¯ There is a table in your staff report which compares what a property owner can do on various size lots giventhe R-1 zoning compared to R-1 (S) zoning. It is our interpretation that there would no substantial economic effect. .C,.ommissioner Beecham: This is a little different than that. In the letter Mr. Forman mentions that parcels marked "not part of the subdivision," and I’m not sure where the parcels are, could be affected by tonights decision. I assumed they could not be affected. ]~.d,,~: If they are not in the area then they wouldnot be affected by the decision, that’s correct. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ~2 .1.3 Commissioner Beecham: And that would also pertain to the house at 220 W. Charleston? Mr. Lee: That’s correct, it’s outside the boundary of the overlay. Chairman Byrd: Any other questions of staff?. Seeing none I would like to open up the public hearing. For those who are new to our Commission Hearings, if you would like to speak to this item, please fill out one of these white’cards that are available from the Secretary. I will call your names in order and have up to five minutes to speak to item. We are in this room tonight because of the historic incentive conversation that comes next and it’s a study session so we wanted informality; and the fact that the Council Chambers are t~nder construction. As you just saw you have to speak loudly so that we can all hear you and at the same time speak into the mike so that your comments can be transcribed for the record. The first speaker is Samuel Steel, to be followed by Larry Mitchell. Samuel Steel. 3937 Bibbits. Palo Alt0: Council, neighbors I came tonight to voice my opposition to the measure. If based on what you’ve heard so far, that development is coming in buying up these lots and building large houses, is the concern then I agree with the measure. There should be some limitation on that. However, that has already been done by the limitations of the square footage per the lot size. Adding a second floor actually reduces the amount of square footage in a house because of the way the second story square footage is calculated into the overall size of the house. Secondly, Palo Alto is a green city. We are trying to preserve what little yard we have by adding a second story, within reason to the surrounding neighborhood, so that it doesn’t stick out and yet preserve the yard. This area is no longer a retirement community. There are families that are moving in with children and they need extra space. By limiting the size of the house and the yard together it places a real restriction on them. Thirdly, I received no notification .that the Deed had been changed in December which I found out this afternoon, based on this application before the Committee tonight. They did come by and they did petition to see if I wasin agreement this. I said Icouldn’t be because I was already planning on building a second story similar to two that are already on our block. They said that that Was consistent and neighbors could approve it on an individual basis. Well maybe that should be written into the Deed now ir~tead of relying on someone else to change it later. !7.~: Thank you Mr. Steel. _C__o.II~issioner Cased: Can i fred out where he lives? Mr, Steel: 3937 Bibbits. Does Staff have any comment on the noticing issue that was raised? r]h~lI.j.~: My undersuanding is that there are several neighborhood in Palo Alto that have a single story overlay deed restriction as part of their subdivision CC&Rs. My understanding is that a simple majority vote can change that covenant at the request of the owners. It is basically a matter to be City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 decided among the neighbors and that the City is not pari-y to that. So it is not subject to the usual noticing requirements that we have. My understanding was that the (S) Overlay was instituted using that majorityvote, it was changed usin.g that majority vote, and then it was re-instituted back in 1997 and recorded with the County Assessors Office. .C_~: But what we have before.us tonight is the overlay in the zoning code which is different from the deed restricti6ia contained in the CC&Rs. ]g_L_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~: That is correct. We did mail notices to people within 300 feet of the project area as you see on your map. Larry Mitchell to be followed by Cathy Swan. Larry. Mitchell. 3888 Grove Avenue, palo Alto: According to the site location I am the last northwest house. I bought an adobe on Grove Avenue. My house is an Eichler. I’d like to say I am in favor of the one story overlay. I would like to voice my strong objection to two story edifice being erected on my block or in my neighborhood, changing the sun and how it shines on our block. I have three children going to school, I see no reason why a second story has to be added to these homes. There is no reason. We have remodeled our Eichler extensively. We’ve lived there for four years. You can add out UP to 35% of your lot size. Many of these homes are only 1650 square feet meaning that if you have a lot that is 8000 square feet you can add on another couple of hundred square feet -- an extra bathroom, an extra bedroom, etc. The yard sizes, well we have streets for yards as well. This area that we’re talking about, because I live there, does not have a lot of traffic.- My kids play outin the street. It’s not like they are on Charleston Avenue, they are on Grove and Gailen. So these areas do not get a lot of traffic. Many times when you do a second story overlay you destroy the integrity of the Eichler design. Please, this is one of the few enclaves in Palo Alto, if not in Northern California right now that we have. The other one is on Bunker Hill Drive in San Mateo, there are some in Marin County. We don’t have many of these left. Sunnyvale is rapidly taking these homes and tearing them down and building tudor and victorians. I don’t want this in my neighborhood. My house is appreciated. It will appreciate more if speculators come in and they can buy my property. Why would I not want to have my property value going up? I want to stay in this neighborhood. I want the school system to flourish. I want to maintain the way these other areas have been as well. If we’re the buffer zone between Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto.as far as north of Oregon Expressway or Lorna Verde where you have other styles of homes. One quick trip down Wavereley or Bryant, north of East Meadow, will show you what a hodge-podge of houses could be -- ranch styles, two story southwestern mauve and all kinds of stucco all over the place, victorian next to them. I can’t see that happening in my neighborhood. I moved to Palo Alto from Sunnyvale because I like the style of the Eichlers andI don’t want to see that destroyed. Thank you very much. .~: Thank you. Cathy Swan to be foliowed b~ Mary Ostrom. City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Cathy Swan, 3939 Louis Road. Palo Alto: Hi, I’m Cathy Swan. I’.ve been a resident in Palo Alto now for 35 years. This, is the only house I’ve lived in since I’ve been married and I raised both my children, they also went to Palo Alto schools. I am one of the people in the neighborhood who went around to my neighbors asking for this overlay. I feel personally very strongly about it mainly because of a privacy issue which hasn’t been mentioned. I will go on to say this is why I got involved. We have lots of windows, I live in a Broud & Kaufman, the same thing is true with the Eichlers. We have lots of windows, we do not have curtains and one of the reasons for that is that we do not have anyone with a two story house looking in our backyards or side yards. People in nearby neighborhoods that have had people come in, and they are mainly speculative builders, build two story houses and they do have people looking right there. So I would like to say, going around to my neighbors, I did not go to everybody, getting together with the people who did go around we found there was overwhelming support for the one story overlay. This area, incase you don’t know, is an area although it is comprised of two tracts, is basically one area surrounded by a creek, Charleston, Gailen, Grove and in Fabian an industrial area on the other side, but is really a separate area from the surrounding area. All of these homes are basically single story. Three of them have added on, in most cases over the garage, another room. There are less two story houses in our area than in surrounding areas. We felt that we would like to do this mainly because of privacy. We felt that we met all the criteria that was asked for the single story overlay and we think we also have overwhelming approval. So hopefully, we can get that approval from you too. Thank you. ~: Thank you Ms. Swan. The next speaker is Mary Ostrom to be followed by Bob Evans. Mary Ostrom. 790 Gailen Avenue. Palo ARo: I’m Mary Ostrom and I live at 790 Gailen Avenue where I’ve lived for the last 32 years. My childrenhave gone through Palo Alto schools. Someday I’ll be moving on to some other place, who knows, but I want to be sure my property values are protected. I live in a very vulnerable spot, right next to the house on the comer that was sold two years ago to a realtor. The realtor had a contractor come in and go through this house and put it in some shape for a rental. The contractor came over frequently and borrowed pieces of equipment from me. He was pointing out that this house would be tom down in a couple of years and replaced with a lovely big house.. I certainly see this as impinging on my property values, in a neighborhood that really is very f’me the waY it is with single story homes, lots of neighborliness, lots of greenery and a very pleasant area to live in. Whoever spoke about what’s happening in other parts of town is so right.. I think it is very distressing to go down Ross and see all the ups and downs of that neighborhood. I think it is shocking in what we have become accustomed, to in a very charming, pastoral, pleasant Palo Alto, to see this happening. Thank you. a.~: Thank you ,very much. Bob Evans to be followed by Paul Grimsrud. b v s 2 a" e ve ue P 1 1 : When I went and reviewed the City documents that were available for display earlier this week I didn’t see anything in the documents that it recognized that the City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. 42 43 CC&R thing even existed.. In’ fact, the document I was shown showed that it had been rescinded back in 1985. If somebody c6uld verify that the City doesn’t have that information or does have that information it would be nice. Are you guys familiar with that? Lisa Grote, Zoning Adtrlinistrator: We have that. Mr. Evans: Okay, because whe~ia I was looking for that yesterday it wasn’t there. There were several things that occurred in the acquisition of the signatures. In fact you’ll see medown there as "in favor" and I’m not..There was several different passes that took place to acquire the signatures, and Iknow of neighbors who were als6 listed as "in favor" that are not. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an overwhelming majority in favor of it. When it first came around we were told that we could get a variance or something like that to go and get the second story and I found that kind of hard to believe. The second time somebody came around to gather more signatures which I then guess created the City’s document and the City’s version of what is about to transpire. They came around and basically said the first thing passed and you can only have one story, now don’t you want to expand out? Now I go ahead and I look at this document and it’s like, no the City is saying here I’m in favor of going one story. That isn’t the case. So we probably need to cross me off the list and if the City was interested in finding out how the rest of it came about or whatever, or somehow doing some other pamphlet that gets mailed to everybody to see if they truly are in favor, I think that would be wise because of just that confusion alone. Now I don’t share the same confidence in the investment type of thing that everybody else may, that their housing values will stay the same. There is a reason people are ripping them down in Sunnyvale. I think it’s pretty anti-neighborhood and very pro-retirement to accept such a measure and put it into the laws of Palo Alto. Primarily, as much as I think it’s nice that kids can play in the street, I’d like to see them not have to and I’d like to see them play on the grass. So going out and saying it’s just a size relationship issue isn’t really the point. I think there’s a lot more to family. Crime goes up, you want to have more yard, more house, so that your kids have some place to play. So that they are not out on the streets and going out and doing something else because the house is small. That’s about all I have to say. .~: Thank you Mr. Evans. Paul Grimsrud to be followed by Marylene Delbourg- Delphis. Paul Grimsrud. 3955 Bibbits. Palo Alto: My name is Paul Grimsrud, I live at 3955 Bibbits Drive and I’ve been there since 1973.. I’m also listed as someone that supports the measure and in a sense I do but I’m on the borderline or wavering. I’m for it for many of the reasons.people have said, it’s alarming to see these two story "taco bell" houses going up all over in South Palo Alto. I don’t think that would be an attribute for our neighborhood. Also, our houses are difficult, I’m one of those three people that built second story additions over the garage. I feel I did a reasonable job trying to have it blend in. I’m glad Cathy says I’m not intruding on her privacy, although when we first built it I’m sure she wasn’t too happy about it. She’s a good friend by the way. It is difficult to make those second story additions look good. A lot of them that are just north of us, I wouldn’t say the three that are in our City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 ,4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 area, really are eyesores - maybe 50% or more. I’d say maybe 30% really blend in quite well and are reasonable. I also am concerned about the privacy issue. There are a lot of them that are in that 50% category where they do intrude on neighbors privacy and I think that’s something that we should be concerned about. I think in general it is worthwhile to preserve the character of the neighborhood. I’m not sure that a heavy-handed measure like this is required to do that. Now, on the other side of the issue, our area is prone to flooding. In fact the whole.area of Palo Alto is prone to flooding. When you increase impermeable surface, the flash flooding amount if very sensitive to that. There are a few houses on the intersection of Gailen and Bibbits that were probably within an inch or two of having their ground floor flooded. This is an issue not just for our street, I notice in the Comprehensive Plans for the whole City, there is a big push for more density of housing/more housing. I think a negative declaration on the flooding issue is not correct. There are with some expansion of square foot that that will very likely increase the probability of flooding in the area. I’m not sure that this isn’t necessarily an overwhelming majority. I hate to restrict, it is a tendency to be an older generation versus younger generation thing, the younger people that maybe have different needs from ours from building second story additions if they are well designed and fit in the neighborhood. So I guess it is similar to the historic preservation thing, you need to put a stop to some really bad stuff but maybe there is more of a comprise way of slowing down unsightly development. I guess that’s basically it. Overall I’d like to stop the alarming trend of huge houses in our area so I support this measure, but in the long run I feel like something less stringent should be done about it. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you sir. Marylene Delbourg-Delphis to be followed by Larry Hammons. ~arylene DelbourgLDelphis. 3943 Grove. Palo..Alto: My name is Marylene Delbourg-Delphis. I’m French, sorry for my accent. I’m among the peoplewho signed in favor but I did not understand what was asked of me. Actually iia Europe, generally speaking, when you say "one story" it means one story above ground floor. So as it is I see this in the document, I’m not in favor of the measure. One story for me is the possibility to have, in fact, according to you two stories. Also I would like to mention that I did not receive any record for this public hearing. I happened to find this document in my mail on Saturday only, so I’m a little shocked by the very short notice. Regarding the proposal here., I didn’t see anything in the deed saying that I was obliged to stay with one story. So my concern is that it changes the value of the property that I’ve bought. Also I understand the concern about privacy, everybody want to have privacy. If the privacy of somebody necessarily contrary to my own freedom. If I buy a house it is also to have some freedom with it. So I don’t quite understand. If people want more privacy maybe they should have a bigger lot somewhere else. I would agree with this Eichler characteristic. I bought an Eichler on purpose but if this tract is mostly Eichler maybe we could be more constructive and not simply restrictive. Then ask that this area be something like an historical landmark with criteria. Right now we have a limitation of our rights by not being able to have a second story and what if we had some measures to insure that the value of our property is going to follow the rest of property values in Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto Page 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 If I sell my property people might be upset not being able to add a story. So I would not let my daughter play in the street because I’m on Charleston. Charleston is very dangerous and maybe there is some measure that could be taken to make sure that cars don’t drive too fast. They drive extremely fast there. If this area is supposed to be an Eichler landmark, make sure that Charleston is not used by absolutely everybody. I would agree with some limitation with the style of the new houses but then this is not a question for the Planning Commission, this is maybe a question for architectural design in the area. Maybe we should protest to not let taco bell style homes be built, but between this and the limitation on the number of stories for a house there is a line that is a little bizarre to me. So I am against the measure. .~,J~t~I~a~LB.Y~: Thank you. Larry Hammons to be followed by Sol Solk. Please restate your name and address. Larry_ Hammons. 725 E. Charleston Road, Palo Alto: My name is Larry Hammons 725 E. Charleston. According to this map I’m excluded but the reasons I have don’t exclude me. I talked to two people, one bringing the petition around and then another one that I called to try to get more information on why it was being proposed. Both parties essentially told me that there were several reasons. When they got through describing their reasons to me there was only one. That was an imagined loss of privacy. I’ve got some other more tangible reasons for not supporting this measure. I have travelled a lot and lived in a lot of places in the United States and I’ve never seen neighborhoods improve without raising the average value of all the homes. When you put two story .homes in a neighborhood it tends to raise the value of the properties and those single story homes tend to rise in the same proportion. As a result if this is passed then the City and the County are going to lose taxes as those houses turn over and are re-valued. It would be to the advantage as I see it, not the disadvantage, of all the homeowners to have the neighborhood improved. I think there are some caution to be used in some of the previous words about having houses with their second story designed in some character similarity. That is a qualitative issue and not whether there is a second story or not. People in this area, as you all know, unless you get a precipitous rise in your income you can’t afford to sell your house and buy another one~ Ifyou sell your house here, you can’t even makethe down payment probably on an upgrade in some other community you might envision in your mind. So if you are not retired and you are still working and want to put some value in your house, you would increase your equity either by sweat equity or payment to contractors, you can increase the value of your house by adding a second story. You can also do it by expanding a little bit if you’re willing to sacrifice some of your space on the lot. So people should not be denied the ability to increase the value and livability of their house by expanding it. I may be unique in this feeling but I’m going to lay it out anyway. I think there is an ethical issue involved here. We see it throughout our society right now. People decide they, want to do something, eliminate the cars because they kill kids, or whatever other idea mightdevelop and get popular among some people, and those persons go out and impose that will on other people. There are some ethical issues here and it’s not just an issue of having democracy and a majority rule the City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Board needs to think about the other. This proposed law was not on the books when we bought our houses. We’ve lived in ~ur house for 18 years. We have often thought that we would expand it to a second story in keeping -with the style of the house we have. I would consider it very much a disadvantage to not be able to do that because some other folks did not want their house built up into a second story. The last point I have is the flooding issue. What happens when you have your house flood? Well you try to get your personal possessions into another location. When that occurs if you don’t have a second story, you’d be wishing you had one. If you do have a second story, you are going to take your expensive books and your wife’s jewelry and whatever else you have in the house that is personal property and what you can’t haul off in the car, you move upstairs -- the couches, the antiques that Aunt Martha gave you and things like that. So it’s not a complete disadvantage to have a’second story from a very practical concern of this being in a flood zone. So those are my reasons. .Chairman Byrd: Thank you Mr. Hammons. The next speaker is Sol Solk to be followed by Sue Yia Cheng. Sol Solk. 784 Gailen Avenue. Pal0 Alto: My name is Solk, I live at 784 Gailen Avenue. I’ve been there for about 35-40 years, I can’t remember. There is certainly a lot of diverse comments tonight. I’d like to tell you thatI’m one of the guys that went around to sign these people up and I want to tell you that I gave them the straight answers. That’s the majority of the signings through Palo Alto. I didn’t go down to other neighborhoods that weren’t covered under this, naturally. So I think you have a very good count. As far as the looks are concerned, across the street from me a two story house was built without notification to anybody in our neighborhood. It’s been up there for about five or six years. If you were to look at it, it probably looks better than these cracker-boxes that they put over the garages. This one has 19 windows by actual count facing across the street at me. Nineteen windows. When they put their, lights on it’s like thi~ huge Christmas tree that lights up the neighborhood. It’s very objectionable but it was built. I think it is too tall. I know that all of the things that they were supposed to do were never done, driveways and so forth and so on. It really is an awful, awful looking thing. It is the only one in our neighborhood and it really looks so different and so unusual in an Eichler neighborhood. I happen to be .an Eichler-lover myself. As far as the privacy is concerned, the two stories take away your privacy there is not two ways about it. People say, here tonight, that if you really construct them well and you design them well and so forth and so on, that this will go away. It doesn’t go away. As far as building upwards and getting more backyard, how do you do that? I mean, you can’t do it. Your lot size is a certain size and that’s it. You can build up but it’s completely different, changes the entire neighborhood. As far as traffic is concerned, the one lady who complained about the traffic lives on the corner of Grove and Charleston, and that is a very, very busy corner because Charleston is really a speedway. So there is nothing much that we can do for that lady. We wish she lived further in, down the block, where it’s fairly quiet. I think this overlay is much needed. We raised our family there, we like the place, we’ ve made a lot of improvement, it’s very good looking. I think Palo Alto should protect the few remaining Eichler tracts that are left by going for this overlay. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 -39 40 41 42 43 Chfiirman Byrd: Thank you Mr. Solk. The next speaker is Sue Yia Cheng to be followed by Heike Schmalsteig. ~ Ms. Sue Yia Cheng, 3940 Bibbits Drive. Palo Alto: My name is Sue Yia Cheng. I’m a homeowner on Bibbits Drive. I’m one of the people who didn’t want to sign the form for the single story overlay zone. I bought the house on Bibbits Drive in 1992, six years ago, based on the understanding that there were no restrictions on th6 stories. The house was very old, the previous owner did not do upgrades; no renovation.at all. So we bought our house with growing kids with the plan that in the future, sometime, we would be expanding out house to a two story to accommodate the space required for growing kids as well as fof the elder that I need to take care of. So that was always the plan. It’s been six years and we finally decide we need to do something on our house. It has continued to deteriorate, we didn’t really fix a lot of stuff but we want to improve our livability by. adding one more story. Last year some neighbors came by asking us our opinions and sign a form to restrict it to a one story zone. We did not agree with that and we did not sign it. Coming March 1998, this year, we really want to start with our project plan. So we check with out title company to make sure there were no restrictions there. We checked with the City to make sure the zoning is still right. So we checked with all of them and everything looked right, not restrictions from the title company, and it’s still a two story zone from the City. So we went ahead to work with the architect and signed a contract. We made a significant investment. We submitted a plan to the City already. Next, in August came the City report just two days ago. Then we read the report and there are two points I’d like mention here. With the site coverage change by imposing the overlay zone, in fact, as opposed to doing a two .story we actually lose 150 square feet based on a 6000 square foot lot; as well as we’ll be losing 800 square feet of yard space. As I mentioned we have growing kids, we do need all the yard space. We like "green city" that’s one of the reasons we choose to stay in Palo Alto. The other thing that came as a big surprise is the Attachment E. If you look at Section 5 it mentions there was a deed restriction amendment done in December 1997. As a property homeowner wewere not notified at all that there was a restriction added that restricted to one story. Remember I mentioned my project plans started in March 1998 and this change was imposed in December 1997. Had i known that the p!an would have been changed or different. So again, as a property owner it was part of my deed. The deed restriction has been amended and Ihaven’t received any notification. The other thing that I’d like to mention is that I do understand when the neighbor approached me asking for single story zone, some of the major reasons is this whole privacy issue and the mega- house next door. I truly believe there are other ways to compromise or alternatives to deal with this issue. But not restricting the whole neighborhood to a one story zone. One where people have a different plan or the freedom and right to choose their home style and different needs to accommodate their family. So my proposal and recommendation to the City is that since we are. part of property homeowner, we were not aware of the deed restriction amendment at all, I think not from a legal perspective, from the communication perspective, people need to be informed. Everybody is impacted by the restriction of a one story zone needs to be properly informed. City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 I read the City report and on page 4, one of the recommendation reasons from the City Planning Department is because 72 have been added with the restriction in December 1997. So that was the primary reason why the City recommended to approve this zone. If it is not properly communicated and understood by each one then. it’s very misleading and mis-communicated. That was the grounds for the City to agree with the proposal. I highly recommend the City to reconsider that.as a reason. That’s it. Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. A question from a Commissioner, Ms. Cheng. Commissioner Butt: What is your lot size? ~: My lot size was listed as 6098. Commissioner Burt: 6098, so you calculated that you’d lose 150 square feet. That is on the report. That was calculated by the City. Commissioner..Burt: Thank you, Commissioner Cassel: Are you on the portion of Bibbits Avenue that parallels Fabian Way? ~: Yes. Again, I’d like to point out that there was a mistake on the map, showing me as a supported house. Commissioner Cassel: No. I’m not but it shows yes. !2ommissioner Beecham: That Map C does show that you support. The map shows that I am in support but I am not. Let me point out which page~ _C_.o._n~issioner Beecham: It’s Attachment C. ~: Yes, it is. The 3940 Bibbits was not showing as unsupport, but was showing as supported " .Commissioner...Burt: That’s Attachment C that shows you as support. Yes, but I am not. I’m listed as the owners who are in support. .~:]l~i~:l]l~!~B2t~: Okay, thank you very much. Heike Sehmalsteig to be followed by Priscilla Willams. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Heike Schmalsteig. 812 Gailen Avenue. Palo Alto: We moved there two years ago, bought what we could afford at the time, ~not too big a house, a fixer-upper and we’ve put a lot of work into it. For the future we sort of had in the back of our minds that we might build a second story just because there aren’t that many rooms. Now a days there is a larger need for home offices to occupy some of the space in your home for work which probably was not the case 30 or 40 years ago. So that restricts us somewhat. Our yard size is also not that large that we would have the possibility to enlarge our house much more thiin it is right now. So that was something that we had in mind. I don’t like all the taco bell style houses in Palo Alto either, but I think something second story can be done sensibly. I agree it probably doesn’t solve the privacy issue but I would like, if I have children, more space. I don’t want to restrict the" yard space. I’d like to keep the little that we have. I was also under the impression that the overlay zone had already passed and that we were signing something - a sort of compromise - that would let us enlarge our house on the first story level. So I am also on the list of being in favor of the overlay zone which I am not. We did sign it, but again I was apparently under the wrong impression. If I have a choice to either move out, to move somewhere else which as the property values rise is very hard, or to stay in the area, I’d like to stay in the neighborhood. I like the neighborhood. We just moved in a couple of years ago with other newcomers, we organized block parties to get to know our fellow neighbors, to see who is living there and get closer. So I def’mitely like the neighborhood, it’s quiet and I would like to stay there. That’s all I have to say. .~: Thank you. Priscilla Williams to be followed by Mary Campbell. Priscilla Williams. 729 E. Charleston. Palo Alto: I’ve been in my home since 1992. I have two children, 20 and 23, so they don’t play in the yard but I have concerns. I’m one of the people that want to keep the homes one story. I have concerns about looking out my window at the side of someone’s house. I have concerns about losing the Sunlight and losingthe privacy in my yard and in my home. I’d like to ask, there is a restriction on business use of the home, and it seems to m~ that if we keep that restriction we should be allowed to have a one story restriction. In other words, people should be willing to have a day-care next to them, or a car repair shop,, because that restricts peoples use of the their home. It restricts their income. Yet we have on our books what I think is a good law that you have to consider traffic impact of a home business, an eye-sore, noise so that people can’t have any sort of business in their home. It seems to. me this is discriminatory to say that you can restrict a persons use of their home but you can’t restrict someone from putting a second story on ~ their house. It seems almost to be an economic discrimination. So I am in favor of one story houses and I think our freedoms are already restricted about the use of our house, so I don’t see that as a good argument. Thank you. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Mary Campbell to be followed by Larry Bruguera. Mary_ Campbell. 3946 Louis Road. Palo Alto: My name is Mary Campbell, I live at 3946 Louis Road, I’ve lived there 40 years. I .was one of the people who went around to get signatures and I did explain to the people that I talked to what they were getting into. One of the things, privacy was a City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 great factor and nobody can tell me you are going to have privacy when somebody can look down into your yard. When you live in an Eichler, Broud & Kaufman house, there are windows everywhere. You’re not going to tell me, unless you keep your blinds closed or your drapery closed all the time, that you’re going to have any privacy. You’re not going to have any privacy in your yard, you know that, and not even in your house. The price of the houses, my son was visiting her from Houston a few months ago, on the corner of Louis Road up near California, I’m not sure just now because there are so many houses that have gone up on Louis Road, he went in just to look. Now he doesn’t live here because he can’t afford to live in Palo Alto: He went in that house and it was something like $800,000. The houses where we live are not priced at that. Palo Alto needs houses that the average person can live’ in. About the deed restriction. I moved in that house for 40 years ago and there was a deed restriction then. It was taken off a few years back and I didn’t even know it was taken off, but it was. I was never notified or knew anything about it. We simply went back and had it put back on. Even though you are talking about retirement, we still live even though we retired. I moved there when I was young, I’m still there. We have some right too. I know that people buying houses feel that they have rights. Everybody has some and it’s a difference of opinion. We have an overwhelming majority of people who want this done for whatever reason. All of them probably have different reasons, the same way that the people who say no have various reasons. We have a majority. We have met the criteria that you set forth. Now the other thing about privacy that goes beyond just privacy -- I can walk and lo0k out any window of my house and I can see the sky. If houses are built two stories I’m going to my window and I’m going to look at a wail. There’s no two ways about it. When you’re talking about restrictions and people should be able to do what they want with their houses -- that’s true. But they have rules like the last speaker just-said. There are all kinds of rules of things we can’t do and can do in Palo Alto or anywhere else.. So that is not a valid argument that you can’t make rule. They make them all the time~ We live by them. Thank you. .~aaJI:lIl~_,l~: Thank you Larry .Bruguera to be followed by Milaine Bales which is the last card that I have. Larry_ Bru_maera. 817 Gailen Avenue, Palo. AI~: I’m Larry Bruguera and I’m here to state my opposition to a blanket single story prohibition, to prohibit second story houses. I believe that the neighborhood should be kept in its current character and that the Planning Co~ssion is working on that type of an issue, ’and it’s important for us to have that. I don’t believe we should have obtrusive second story houses. I don’t think we should be able to have tear-downs and two story huge houses put in there. I do think that people with growing families or elders that they want to add into their house and may need to be able to live in the neighborhood and continue, and want to live in the neighborhood, be able to do that. I think this kind of prohibition probably should be made on a temporary basis and there should be a sunset clause in it. So that when the Planning Commission gets it together to control the type of development that’s going on in Palo Alto then that kind of reasonable mechanism for control of the type of building that’s going on now can be undertaken. That’s City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 .2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39- 4O 41 42 43 primarily my point of view. Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much.The final speaker, Milaine Bales. Milaine Bales. 3859 Corrina Way. Palo Alto: My husband and I are one of the houses that are about 300 feet away from this proposed ordinance. Although that wasn’t particularly clear from some of the information that we saw.. Iri fact, we came in still uncertain whether our home was going to be affected or not. I’ve actually only lived in Palo Alto for five years so I’m a newcomer here. I absolutely love it. I moved to the Bay Area to be with this guy who has been here a long, long time. We bought our first home almost three’years ago. At the time, we looked in Mountain View, we looked in Menlo Park, we looked in some of the east bay cities, we looked as far south as San Jose. Why did we do all of that looking? Not because we really wanted to live in any of those communities but because home prices in Palo Alto were already quite high in comparison to other Bay Area cities, and we wanted to get into a house as soon as possible. We did all of that looking only to come back and decide that’s okay, we’ll save for another year if that’s what we have to do to get into Palo Alto and get into this community, and get our kids the school system eventually (no kids yet). I’m absolutely and completely opposed to putting this ordinance in place. We live in a nearly 50 year old Broud & Kaufman home. We actually live in one of the largest lots on Corrina Way. If you took a look at it, we’re lucky, we’re in one of the largest lots. But I come from the mid-west and where I grew up that lot is basically the size of a postage stamp. I’m an avid gardener and I have done a tremendous amount of landscaping in all of the yard that we do have. Someday when we choose to raise a family, and someday when my mother-in-law needs to come and live with us, should we choose to remain in our.home, we’re going to have do something. As a gardener and somebody who values my green space and doesn’t want my kids and dogs playing in the street, I’m not going to support something that doesn’t allow me to have the option of going up if that’s what I need. Do I like the way a lot of thesesecond story additions look? Absolutely not. But can I say that my next door neighbor has a second story addition? Yes I can. Does it infringe on my privacy? No, because she used some common sense and had a good architect when she put up her addition. We absolutely are very lucky because we can still walk out into our yard, acknowledge that there is a second story at the house next door but it is not in any way obtrusive. So I think that we could accomplish some or answer some of the objections by simply looking at ways to limit growth that do not equal just putting this blanket policy in place that says nobody can go into a second story addition. The one last thing that I’d like to close with is, for those of you who are concerned about privacy, I have an easy rather inexpensive solution for you -- plant some trees on your perimeter and you’ll have privacy. Thanks. ~: Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this item? Sir, please fill out a white card. Come forward and address us and give us your name and address and when you are finished please fill out a white card and give it to the clerk. R0ben We~.,s. 3916 Louis Road. Palo Alto.: My name is Robert Weiss, I live at 3916 Louis Road. It is one of the 5500 square foot lots. I have four houses flanking mine and I am unalterably opposed to City of~Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 having a two story house next to me. It would probably cause me to leave the area. Now one of the things that I love about outhouse, that we’ve lived in since 1984, is that I believe that the Eichler architecture is unique in this county. It is a beautiful architecture and all of the modifications that I’ve made to the house are in concert with the Eichler concept. We live outdoors and I just can’t imagine a two story house on any one of my three sides~ and we have as I say, two houses on one side and one in the back and one on the other side. This would essentially destroy the house and I would just have to move out. There would be absolutely no privacy. All of our windows face the lots where two story houses could possibly be built if this restriction were not placed. When I bought the house there was a restriction against two story houses. That’s something I love. There is a house next door to us that is in terrible shape. I understand that the woman who bought it, bought specifically so that she could raise it and put in a two story. She’s done this before in other neighborhoods. This is a frightening thought to me. I need protection. Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no other speakers we will now close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission. Do the Commissioners have any additional questions of Staff at this point? Commissioner Beecham: I’ve got several questions. One, let me clarify, on the maps it is tract 1722 that currently has the restriction, that is to the west of Louis Road? The maps we have don’t define the tract numbers for us. ~[r.d~: Yes. Commissioner Beecham: That’s correct. So essentially all the houses ..... .C]lldl:l~lalL,~_Y~: I’m going to have to - I’m sorry, because the public hearing is closed and we have to follow our procedure or the.City Attorney will ydll at me, I want also to ask Staff that if you’re answering these questions to either return to the mike or bring it over to you for the purpose of the record. Bern, other questions? -- er e : Can you clarify the answer to that? d i "t i So tell me the question, I’ll answer them one by one. ee : The question is, in the maps we have which Side has the current deed restriction? ~: Excuse me ma’am, before you speak, I’m sorry to have to play such gate-keeper but if you could please give your name and address for the record, and then.speak into the microphone as you answer the questions that will help us preserve the record. ~: Abby Boyd, 3998 Bibbits Drive. If you look on the map you see a diagonal line that goes from house 731 on Charleston to house 765. City of Palo Alto Page 16 .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 .30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 .~dlaJzl~Lt~: Which attachment are you referring to? ~: Attachment A. See this line right here, the diagonal line? See the three white lots? The houses toward GM over here, those all have a deed restriction. I can explain that deed restriction process if you want. Commissioner Beecham: ThanI~you. Another question, you were.pointing out those three houses on Charleston. I was wondering .why they were not included in this process. Ms. Boyd: They were built at a different time. They were not Eichlers and Broud & Kaufman. One of the people, Priscilla Williams, has requested to be in the tract. She’s 729 and the other people don’t want to be. This person who spoke .is not in the tract. - r.]~.L_]=~: Just to summarize, those three homes are not in the original tract. Commissioner Beecham: okay¯ s]~!~_L~: Nor is this one over here on the comer. ~,d~: Other questions? Commissioner Bee¢l~am: I got one more and then I’m done. I believe in our report it states that for single family overlay zones site coverage is allowed to go from the current 35 % site coverage to 40 % site coverage, is that correct? That’s correct. Commissioner Beecham: Do~s Staff happen to have a table -- actually I’ve made one up if Staff. doesn’t have it -- to show us for roughly the different sizes of lots we have here how much square footage they gain or lose in terms of total FAR. If you’re a small lot you will lose a little bit of square footage, that’s what we heard here tonight. If you’re over 7500 square feet, you gain square footage by being in the overlay zone. I wondered if Staff could clarify that. ]~7.~,~: Yes, there is a Table 2 in the staff report at the bottom of page 4 which summarizes the effect of both lot coverage and floor area ratio for different size lots. You’re exactly right, for a 6000 square foot lot the net effect of the single story overlay is to deduct roughly 150 square feet of allowable building space. As. the lot size increases you basically net out at zero and the net effect is the same. " e c " : To further clarify that the general residential R-1 FAR still applies. You do not ever get more than is allowed for your lot size whether it is one or two stories.. ]~,,~: That is exactly right. City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10. 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17- 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Chairman Byrd: Are there other questions of Staff?. Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: I have a question with regard to some of these two story homes that are already existing should there be some sort of earthquake, fire or some other sort of event and the homes have to be re-built after they are destroyed, will they build be allowed to re-build the second story they now have or would they be restricted to single story? Mr. Lee: My understanding, subject to the City Attorney’s approval, is that if in fact you have an existing two story home and it burns down and it is essentially not your fault, you can improve to that existing condition. ’ Commissioner Bialson: If it’s not your fault? Mr. Lee: If it’s an act of God. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: Staff, is there any mechanism for people who are alr.eady in the permit approval process, like we had within the historic regs to grandfather in certain applicants? Ms. Grote: It would depend on what form the City Council approves the ordinance in. They do have the option of grandfathering in people who are in the pipeline. They have the option of not doing that as well. .Commissioner Burt: One other question Lisa, the R-1 (S) zoning, is that a zoning mechanism we had previously established? Yes, we have about four existing single story overlays currently. -cO.l~lJ~fig.I/,.~_~: Has there been any discussion about modifications to it to make the change essentially neutral for those who are in the smaller lot sizes so thatthey don’t suffer any FAR penalties from coming under that? ~: To date there.have not been discussions about changing the regulation. I think originally when this was created it was thought that the lot sizes it would best apply to would be those in the 7- 8000 square foot range because you wouldn’t lose floor area. The smaller lots it wouldn’t be as applicable to them or it wouldn’t be as useful a tool for them. .~,h~I~II~B2L~: Lisa, I want to follow up on Pat’s first question because the way I read Attachment A which is the proposed ordinance, is there is no reference to grandfathering. So for the public’s use, how does it work? Until the time that the Council adopts it, if you go in and make an application tomorrow because the Council hasn’t yet adopted it, can you still build a second story? City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 -29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 That would be my understanding. Right. That it would be in place at the time. Chairman Byrd: Wynne, would you shed light on this? Wynne Furth. Senior Assistant Ci_ty Attorney: Practice varies from city to city and practice varies with the type of application as well. In order to be sure that you can pull a permit you need to be ready to pull the permit not simi~ly apply for it at the time that an ordinance becomes effective. Of course an ordinance doesn’t become effective at the time the City Council adopts it, there is a delay period. One should not count on being able to pull a permit unless you certainly at least have a completed application, accepted as corriplete on file, and even then if you are in the pipeline you probably want to bring that to the attention of the City before the ordinance was adopted. Nobody has a right to build on a building permit until it is issued and the City generally doesn’t have the power to issue a building permit that is not in conformity with the laws in effect at the time it is issued. So if you want to be sure of having grandfathering you need to say so. Chairman Byrd: Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Schink. Commissioner Schink: I just want to make sure that I understand how we are applying the lot coverage rules. Under the current rules 35 % is the base and then you are allowed an additional 5 % for porches, overhangs, and so forth. Under this ordinance we would go to 40 % plus another 5 % for porches and overhangs? That’s correct. Commissioner Schink: Okay. ~.,h~: Other questions? Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt: Does Staff know if many people in the other single story overlay zones have built out to the 40 % lot coverage? Has there been much activity? ~: We have not done that r~search but I would estimate that there has not been an usually large amount of activity in those areas. Commissioner Schmidt: I believe that once the single story overlay is in place one c~ot apply for a variance to do a second story. That there is no way you could put a second story on. That is correct.. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Beecham. Commissioner Beechant: Have there been other people that Staff has heard from in opposition to this that did not talk tonight? What I wonder is that there are a number of people that did not support it City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 and I’m trying to get a feel for, among those people,, how much more opposition is there than what we’ve heard tonight here. Ms. Grote: To my knowledge the people who spoke tonight are those that are opposed and those that are shown on the map are those that are opposed. There is not additional opposition. Commissioner Beecham: WhatTm saying is those that did not request. Ms. Grote: That’s true, and Chandler may-have more detail on that. Mr. Lee: When the neighbors contacted each other to find out whether they were in support or not there were varying responses, is what I understand. Some were adamantly opposed, some were ambivalent, some were out of town and couldn’t be contacted and simply were unavailable to sign it, and it was all of those reasons together. Commissioner Beecham: So we don’t quite know how many more aside from those who talked tonight actually oppose this process? Ms. Boyd: To my knowledge there aren’t’ any. When we tared to the different people in the tract most people were really ambivalent. Sometimes one person of a husband and wife would be for it and the other was against it. Some people were new to the neighborhood and simply weren’t aware of the issues and didn’t want to get involved. Some families were in disarray. So no I don’t believe that there, are people in opposition other than the ones that spoke. Commissioner Beecham: Thank you. Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: I’d like a little history on how the deed restriction against second stories was placed then removed then back in place. Was it a majority vote? Can you give me something about the history of that? Ms. Boyd: Just talking about the part past this diagonal line toward 101 the other part does not have a deed restriction and never did. .~]l~:l]l~l~..Y~: Ms. B0yd, I want you to answer Commissioner Bialson’s question but at the same time, we are looking at a zone change here which is a separate issues from deed restrictions. So if you could keep this brief I’d be grateful. ~i Absolutely. I will. We had .one, it was amended in 1985 with a simple majority vote and recorded, times have changed and we decided to amend it back to the original. We did that in December of 1997. City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37’ 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Please the public hearing is closed to I’ve got to restrict it to the speaker here. Commis_sioneLBJa~n: I would like some detail about how. you amended it. Ms. Boyd: I can show you the thing the filed and the form we had people fill out. We have some additional signatures beyond this. This is also what it cost. I believe somebody has a copy of the original deed restriction, I don’t~have that here. Thank you, this is the original one back in 80 something. That’s the original, then it was amended in 1985, then we re-amended it in 1997. There has to be a majority vote. There has to be 10 years in between these different amendments. There is a lot of confusion among people who don’t realize that these two things are absolutely separate. They are blaming you for things that have nothing to do with what you are doing but are simply a change in the deed restriction which really has nothing to do with what you are doing. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you very much. Are there other questions? Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: We have an Attachment B in tonights packet. The list of those who requested notes. Do we have a copy of what it was they signed on to? This is it? Thank you. a~h~l~!LILw~: Other questions of Staff? Seeing none, I want tothank Staff. I want to open up discussion on the subject among the Commission. Who would like to go first? Commissioner Beecham. Commissioner Beecham: I’ve got to say this is the strongest, most controversial turnout we’ve had yet on one of these single story overlay zones. I’m happy to see all of you here I wish there was more consensus. Let me start.by saying that I strongly support the request for the overlay zonel It is based on a number of reasons. One is that about two-thirds of the properties are under a deed restriction. I think that we do need to seriously consider that even though as Owen has pointed out, this is a zoning issue here. I think those civil covenants that you are under really do have some weight and the City should at least lean in the direction of supporting those. Another big question, for those of you who do oppose this, it is taking rights away from you, you lose flexibility, and by my estimate the three or four of you who are concerned the most, and whose lots are about 6900 square feet, you’ll lose around 100 plus or minus square feet of buildable space, and that’s an extra .. bedroom basically. That’s not insignificant. For the lady who is on the corner of Charleston and Grove, you are over 7000 square feet so at least there is no square footage loss for you: You lose flexibility in having a second floor, but it’s not a square footage issue for you. I think based on the covenants that are in. place, the still broad support - it has dropped by a few percent from the Staff calculated 79% to about 76%, that’s still quite strong support, therefore I do think this is appropriate for this neighborhood. I was carefully watching who is where on the map and so on to see if there is some small parcel that might be cut out, as we done in the past when it was appropriate, unless some other Commissioner has seen something I haven’t seen, I did not fred any appropriate cut out to make that still pays attention to the current deed restrictions but yet takes a group of people that doesn’t City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 -13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 want to be involved and say okay, these people could be properly separate. I don’t see that possibility here which on the other~hand says that the boundaries do seem appropriate. So that is my take on it at this point. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Bialson: I just want to speak to the issue that Bern just raised. We did have one individual, the person at 3943 Charleston, who is against this overlay being put on their property. They are one lot next to the three that are not going to be included. That site does sort of stick out of the overlay and would be very easy to remove from the properties that would be subject to this, I just want the Commission to look at that possibility of removing, that lot since we do have the homeowner here objecting to the overlay. I may have some more comments after I finish reviewing this material. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Cassel: I’m the one that traditionally votes against overlay zones. I don’t consider this a strong showing of majority support. This is supposed to be an overwhelmingly strong support. I’ve been trying to note, I can’t tell you how strong the people are who couldn’t come. Some of these people are ill, I happen to know that, and I don’t have any idea -- I didn’t talk to them. There is quite a bit of scattering. What is interesting is much of the scattering of the opposition comes in the area where people have the single family overlay zone and there is much less where there isn’t a single family overlay zone. The other part is the area that has the single family overlay zone is not of a consistent type. There are two different styles on one side of Louis than on the other. As I Walked the neighborhood, I’m very impressed with how well these houses are kept. It is very attractive. Much more so than the average single family overlay zone that we’ve seen. One of my basic concerns in single family overlay zones is that it doesn!t encourage people to maintain their units. That for me has been observed by single family overlay zones that have had deed restriction. This does not show in this neighbor:hood. These homes are well cared for and they are very attractive and very interesting landscaping. It was a real pleasure to walk through the neighborhood. For those of you who will vote yes, if you end up in the majority I certainly think you should take the house out at the comer of Charleston and Grove. It meets the others. In fact, almost every other house down the road on Charleston opposes it. If you do th.e numbers. Enough people oppose it in the Gailen/Bibbits area on the end near GM that it is hard to say that’s an overwhelming majority if you add in the houses that already have two stories. I tend to vote against these because the people who identify themselves as "green." I never thought of doing that although Ilook for those issues. Ilike to see ~ more backyard in efficient one story houses. I come from an area where we don’t havefences and we do have two story houses. So I would never have dreamt Of going nude in a pool in the backyard, ever. I always had curtains. It never dawned on me not to. I think the issue in favor of single family overlay zones for Eichlers is that we tend to use our backyards because the weather is warmer, as an extra room or family room. So I have mixed feelings about it. It’s not just Eichler neighborhoods it’s all neighborhoods. We have six-foot fences in our backyards which is something I am not used to. If you want privacy from your neighbor you put up bushes but it would just be terribly impolite to put up a fence taller than your waist. I will oppose this on the grounds that I don’t think we have a City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 preponderance of the neighbors in favor of it. Chairman Byrd: Please, the Commission gave the public the respect of listening to its corrtfiaents and would ask the same now while the Commission speaks. Commissioner Schink. Commissioner Schink: Well, I agree with all the comments that Bern made in the introduction and I’d just like to add a few to sup~iort my perspective. Two-thirds of the homes currently are covered by a deed restriction. The problem with a deed restriction is that if you want to enforce that deed restriction you have to sue your neighbor. It’s not something that is a nice thing to have to do. Your neighbor wants to put up a second stor~, you want to stop them, you have to initiate a lawsuit for deed restriction. The better way to go is to have the rules clear in the zoning ordinance and that’s what will happen if the City Council passes this. So I would support the zone change for two-thirds of this. area for that reason. Interestingly the balance of Gailen and Grove and even parts of Gailen that are covered by the deed restriction includes some of the best Eichlers that are left in the community. Eichlers that really deserve to be kept in their current form. So I think that given that and given the special style of those homes it is appropriate to try to preserve them with a single story overlay. Finally, we sit here and look at are we really taking something away and how do we find the balance. I don’t really see a true loss in property rights in this situation. On the smaller lots, as Bern pointed out, some of the property owners will have 150 square feet of buildable area less, to work with. But the reality is when you want to do two stories you use almost 150 square feet in building the stairs and adding the second hallway and so forth upstairs. So the loss of efficiency in the plan is just about equal. When we talked about this originally we worked up formulas which came out pretty even. So from a buildable area, what you get to live in, in the end, you’re really not losing much. The question then becomes is it fair to ask these people to lose. part of their backyard in exchange for providing additional privacy .and maintaining a certain style in that neighborhood. I think that given the majority opinion, the dominant architectural style, that’s an acceptable trade off. So I’ll be supporting the staff proposal. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Burt. Commissioner Burt: I have just a couple of concerns. One is that I’d like to see that if folks were already in the process of going through the permit process that we consider whether to recommend to Council that they be grandfathered in. That may be just one or two folks. Second, we might want to look more carefully at what portion of the residents on Charleston oppose the overlay and whether that constitutes a group that should be excluded. It looks from Phyllis’ map here that there is perhaps amajority of those on Charleston who oppose. So it is certainly not an overwhelming majority in support. I’ve very sympathetic toward neighborhood compatibility concerns and retention of neighborhood character. So I’ve been fairly persuaded by what Jon has just said but at the same time I’m uncertain whether in these various considerations for overlays whether the neighborhood is adequately looking at other ways to address the problem. City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17’ 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 First whether the problem is clearly understood by all those .who are considering it. In the survey that people signed on to, the problem wasn’t really stated well. People were given choices on how to resolve the problem but there didn’t seem to be a lot of clarity on what it was they were trying to solve. We heard concerns about privacy loss, concerns about daylight plane, concerns about design compatibility and I suspect there are concerns about massing on a second story. I would certainly like to see in the future before neighborhoods make this kind of proposal that they really try to go through a thorough exploration of how tO address the problems that they perceive and what are the least restrictive ways to resolve those problems. In the net though, I think that with the exceptions of those who are already in the permit process and perhaps I’d like to hear fellow Commissioners comments on whether the Charleston residents should be reconsidered for the boundaries for the zone. Aside from those two I’m probably leaning toward supporting the overlay because of the reasons that Jon stated. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Schmidt. Commissioner Schmidt: I think this one is a bit difficult. I also have been one who is generally against the single story overlay because I think it inhibits reasonable transition and reasonable change. We have in the past approved a couple of areas for the single story overlay that, in my opinion, were a lot more transitional looking. There were a lot more two story homes already there and a lot more looking like they were in need of change. This neighborhood, several people have commented, is a very attractive, very well maintained, very predominantly single story. However we have heard both sides of the argument tonight. It is interesting that most of the general things that we are talking about in terms of maintaining character and appropriateness and many of those things came up in this discussion tonight. They are really difficult questions to answer throughout the City. I think however, in this neighborhood it may well be appropriate to preserve the character by ¯ applying the single story over!ay hereeven though there are some people who are not in favor of it. I think that property owners arestill able to add square footage. The design Of the homes makes them much more indoor/outdoor homes and even though I too would like to preserve green open space, I think thedesign of these homes takes advantage of the whole site. Whereas two story houses have a much more of an indoor and outdoor separation. It is still possible in a single story zone that someone can build a one story taco bell house next to you that you may not like the design of. That if one of the houses is not~ well maintained a developer can still buy it and tear it down and build something that you don’t like. So that privilege is still available to people there. So the couple of things that I would agree with here is that I think it would be reasonable to allow, if the one speaker tonight is indeed in the permitprocess and has plans into the City, I think would be appropriate to allow that to continue and allow that homeowner to build the second story. If indeed there are a majority of people against this on Charleston that might be something to consider although that does ¯ impact the people on the backside of their lots. So I think it might be appropriate to leave off the one on the comer of Grove and Charleston but not all of the others. Commissioner Beecham. City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Beecham: I’d like to make a motion. Before I do that let me address a few of the comments that came up.~ There were concerns certainly on the parcel that several have mentioned 3943 Grove. That parcel, the owner on the right hand side who is here tonight, is not part of this issue in the end, indicates that he would not support a single story overlay so one might presume that will two ~tories at some point. To the left of the parcel, at 3943, across the street at Grove and Charleston according to our map there already is. a second story house. Commissioner Cassel: That appears to be an apartment complex there. Commissioner Beecham: So based on’those two items I would exclude the parcel 3943 from the single story overlay zone even though there is no loss in square footage on that parcel if. one chooses to expand. Question for Staff: if that house now is excluded from the overlay zone, in the future could that property owner come in and ask to be included so they could have more site coverage? I presume they could actually. Ms. Grote: It would essentially be a zone change application for one lot. Technically they could do that. It would be a long process but they could do it. Commissioner Beecham: Also on Grove there were three other houses indicated as not supporting this. Those owners did not come tonight. Those parcels are all about 7500 square feet or a few feet shy of that. So under the single story overlay zone there would be no loss of square footage on those three houses on Grove. The houses on Charleston going back toward the east, as you get beyond 729 those are all included, there are two more there that did not support this. They are included under the current deed restrictions. So for that reason I would still include them in this process because they do have neighbors both on either side as well as behind. So based on that and what was said earlier, I move that we approve staff recommendation, that we make parcels 1722 and 1977 single story overlay zone with the exception of the parcel at 3943 Grove. Commissioner Schink: Second. Commissioner Beechara: One more item. Also to exclude any house that currently has a.permit submitted. ~: I need a reference to make that. Commissioner Beechatn: And negative declaration. Commissioner Schink: Second. C.,]I~I~aL]~ff~: Do you want to speak to your motion? - :.-- : ",_ -’--. e_ --_-ee, - : ,_ : I’m done. City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10’ 11 12 13 14 15, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Commissioner Bialson: I just wanted to speak in general to the issue and now specifically to the motion. I think these two tracts have got to be dealt with separately, tract 1722 and tract 1977. I think the staff report speaks to a requirement that there be overwhelming support from owners. Then modifies the need for overwhelming support with the comment that a deed restriction exists. The deed restriction existed, was removed then put back on by, from what I can count in this packet before me, not an overwhelming majority of the individuals in tract 1722. So without going into that, I think the fact that you have intract 1977 no deed restriction, homes on Grove that back to multi unit dwellings and other commercial type establishments, while one of the speakers here at 3888 Grove spoke in favor of the overlay zone being applied, those individuals on Grove onthe side that back to the those properties on Ensign Way and Charleston Court would not affect the homes on the other side of Grove. There would be some affect on the adjacent neighbors but they’ve never had a deed restriction, they are being brought into this and I think what we should look at is not including those people on that side of Grove. I think the entire staff report went to pains with the deed restriction. These are properties that never had deed restriction. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Bialson, to clarify you are referring to the strip of homes on the west side of Grove Avenue. Commissioner Bialson: Yes. Chairman Byrd: 3888 through 3940. Commissioner Bialson: Exactly. Chairman Byrd: Other comments? I’m sorry the public hearing is closed. ~: I understand but there is a ntis.understanding. Chairman Byrd: I’m sorry sir. The public hearing is closed. There is no other way to run a meeting. Commissioner Beecham Conmaissioner Beecham: To respond to Annette, there are six parcels out of these 34 who are not supporting. I may have missed my count but certainly we have one person here tonight, again the three parcels on Grove there is nobody here tonight opposing this and there is no loss of FAR. Even if you leave it at six people opposed, still more than 80% of 34 parcels approve this request. If you say of those that aren’t here, and .they don’t lose square footage, it is potentially 90% either support or neutral on this. I think that is certainly enough support to go ahead even with this tract. Other comments on the motion? Commissioner Burt. ~: I’d like to revisit the Charleston issue. If we look at the lots from 723 out to 795. The strip of lots that I think are 15 lots, four of which are not proposed to be covered within the overlay zone. Out of the 15 lots four are excluded, and additional five if Phyllis’ map is correct .... City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Comrt!issioner Cassel: No, only three are excluded. Commissioner Butt: That’s not what I’m saying. In addition the four are excluded, the apartment house on the comer there on Grove, that group of three, and then five others: 3943, 731,751,763 and 795 are all opposed. So nine of the 15 lots on Charleston are either excluded or opposed to the inclusion. That seems to me that group, if we are looking for overwhelming support along Charleston, we don’t even have majority support of either participation or majority support. Basically we don’t have overwhelming support for along Charleston there. We have 9 of 15 that’are either outside of the proposed overlay or who oppose it. Commissioner Beecham: Let me do some different numbers on this with a little different take. From 729 to the west is already excluded from consideration. So going to the east you’ve got 10 parcels¯ Of those 10, three have declined to support, seven support it and I didn’t count up to see how many oppose out of those three. So there are three parcels we are talking about that are now supporting this. Commissioner Burt: Phyllis has four. Commissioner Cassel: I don’t know exactly. I’m trying to be accurate. Commissioner Beecham: So we have 70% support. The thing about those houses is they back onto other houses in the tract and I think that’s critical. Also across the street from those they are all single family homes. So it still makes it very consistent. I understand that you are trying to optimize so people get what they want but I think in this case the result is still they should be single story overlay there. Chairman Byrd: Commission.er Schinl~. ¯ si er " : Just briefly, I recognize that on those lots the rear end of the lot butts up against those who would be included. I think that the intrusion and the lack of privacy is greatest where we have small side yard setbacks and less so where we have greater backyard setbacks. Commissioner Beecham: I just have one final comment on my part. For the three houses that have " not supported it, they are not here tonight. They are not expressing to us tonight any opposition to this. Commissioner Schink. i i. -er c " : Well I wanted to go back to a point that Pat made earlier that I think is an .important point and deserves some discussion. He raised the question in looking at this, is this the right way to solve the problem from a bad design or bad home in a particular neighborhood. I think we can all agree that it’s a very difficult question figuring out what the right solution is to that. The City has been grappling with it for years and we are a long ways from finding the answer to how to City of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 eliminate bad houses. One of the often talked about alternatives is some kind of design review or specific neighborhood rule. We are again, a long ways from either one of those alternatives. The most likely and nearest alternative might be design review and I would say, as a professional who does this sort of thing and somebody who has spent 10 years on the Architectural Review Board, this single story overlay is much less restrictive than imposing on folks design review. So to get at the answer to your question, I think this is the least restrictive approach. That’s one of the reasons that I’m supporting it at this time. Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Bialson. ,Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate Commissioner Burt’s comments and observations about those homes along Charleston Road. Because those homes do butt on to the rear of the homes that would be subject to an overlay zone, and in addition are subject to the deed restriction, I couldn’t support excluding those from an overlay. I still have strong feelings about the homes on Grove Avenue but I wanted to bring that up and indicate that I’m not sway.ed by Commissioner Bun’s point with regard to those homes on Charleston. Chairman Byrd:. Kathy. Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with Annette too. I think the other neighborhoods that have come before us also have been identified by tract. These are two clean tracts and I think that it is not a good idea for us to try slice and dice it in another Way. I would stick with it as it is proposed versus even changing the one on the corner but that is at least more logical than trying to figure out something other than this list for the tract. I think the tract is a reasonable basis and the road and the creek are good boundaries. Commissioner Cassel. Commissioner Cassel: I wanted to make a comment on the size of the lots so that we are consistent from one area to another area and from one issue to another issue. This definition of a moderate size lot calls 7-8000 square feet a moderate size lot. Then lumps the 6-7000 square foot lots in with it. I actually agree the 6-7000 square feet lots are moderate size lots. I have no objection to lumping them together. I just want us ~to be aware that we did that. We called them moderate size lots so that when someone comes in and calls a 5-6000 square foot lot sub-standard, someone remembers that 6-8000 is moderate, and then what does 5-6000 mean? -In my mind that become "small" and not sub’standard in terms of our long-range planning. We just recognized that 6-7000 was moderate in doing this. .C.~: Other comments on the motion? Then I’ll have the last crack at it. I have expressed reluctance in the past, as Phyllis has, on the single story overlays. Part of my concern is with the code itself and not its specific application to different neighborhoods. I’m very concerned that the code’s reference to "overwhelming support by the owners," turns into zoning by opinion poll. Tonight I’ve heard some conversation about let’s include this lot or exclude this lot, because someone City of Pal0 Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3i 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 supports it or opposes it. I don’t think we should be making legislative zoning decisions on that fine a grain. Having said that’I do see the logic in the one corner lot at 3943 Charleston so I think that makes sense. In general, the comment that Commissioner Schmidt made about the single story overlays impeding natural evolution of neighborhoods over time, I think is a valid concern. I’m also very sympathetic to the younger families that move in to the neighborhood and have limits on how they can build out and want to create space for their children. Finally, I heard some suggestions tonight from some of the speakers in opposition to the overlay, about other ways to address some of the problems. I think Pat is right that you need a careful, definition of the problems up front. I live in a single story house that is between two very large two story massive apartment buildings. When we bought four years ago, we had next to lao privacy coming through either side yard. Careful planting and maintenance of landscape has created privacy. So I do think there are ways to do it that can allow a person who wants to have their property evolve, let that property evolve while still protecting the privacy of the neighbors. It can be done. Having said that, I think the Commissions task it is to apply the zoning and the zoning as the staff report makes clear is met in this case. The zoning, in my view, unfortunately includes this reference to "overwhelming support of the neighborhood," and you’ve demonstrated that. So we need to respect that. So I will reluctantly support the motion. Although I think as a community we need, over time, to revisit this issue of the single story overlay zone and whether or not it meets our long term needs. With that, Bern will you restate the motion because there has been some nuances to it other than the straight staff recommendation. ]E[D_TJ.Q~ Commissioner Beecham: I move staff recommendation including the negative declaration for environmental impacts and so on, with two changes. One that houses currently having submitted permit applications be excluded and also the parcel at 3943 Grove be excluded. Commissioner Sghink: Second. MOTION PASSES: .C, dl~l:l~u_]~!~: All those in favor? (ayes) 1 vote with Commissioner Cassel in opposition. Commissioner Schink: Can I ask for a point of clarification? Opposed? (no)That passes on a 6- Sure. Commissioner Schink: By current application are you referring to this date, today? or is your recommendation that this recommendation is going forward to the Council so that they take the idea as current at the time they hear this? Commissioner Beecham: To me it is today to preclude the possibility that someone could suddenly take plans and go and get a new permit. .Cd31iiI~13]~: Let’s take a short break before we move onto our next item. This will go to City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 Council on October 5th. Other Items. None.. Thank you all for coming.We will take a five minute break. N~ UNFINISHES BUSINESS .’ ~Public Hearings: , 4.. ~ Study Session with all interested parties relative to the Preparation of Incentives and Benefits for ~e proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance. - Chairman’Bxrd; I want to call this hearing back to order and move us on to our next item. Unfinished Bu~ness, a continuation of a study session regarding preparation of incentives for the proposed Histor~Preservation Ordinance. Would Staff like to re-introduce the item and perhaps give us comments from~ff who weren’t here at our first session. .\Eric Riel. Jr.. Chief PlahaTi.’ng Official: Be happy to Mr. Chairman. On August 12 this particular. item was discussed and a s~stantial amount of information was provided to the Commission. Essentially what we are look~ for from the Commission is additional input in the continuation of working on the worksheet ma.triy~whieh you’ll note is in two different sizes. The larger was included in the packet and the largest size ~ an attachment. They are identical; it is just for ease of use. B, ased upon the comments that were ]x(,ovided at the last meeting, staff made some format changes. I 11 just go over briefly some changes tI~ we incorporated on the matrix. We included relevant Comp Plan criteria on each of the individi~ items. On page 2, and I apologize that there are not page numbers on it, we separated the catego~.’es subdivision and zoning district into two different categories where they were.previously noted a~ne. On the third page on the bottom, again I’m referring to the larger matr’.~, we "ms~rted setbac~s~and daylight plane categories. On the last page we inserted two sdctions, technica.1 assistance and guida~a~e with a subsection architectural advice. Thensection 10, non-conforming uses_or the allowance of nb~onforming uses. As I indicated, what we ar~ for from the Commissi~ this evening is additional input. We do not expect a recommendatio~on of this issue this ~ning. We expect a continuation of this discussion to go to the Sept~ing as well as probably the second meeting in September. Westill are on trac~f the timeline that we ~ provided in the previous report. One of th~ things that was ~ meeting was a repo~ from other cities regarding incentive programs. What I~plement that list~th a newhandout to give you this evening that inclu~ere we’ve received in~rmation. So you’ve received a couple of cities~s is a complete pacl~e. This includes the information that was provided~et several requests from the general public in terms of what ince~o one package. "~e do have obviously several Staff member~ questions came up’m ter~r~ of the ’ building code so Fred Here questions. If we cohl~ I’d like to talk about that issue first. I~ate that. We do have otheY,,~taffmembers, Lisa Grote, Jim Gilliland, Amy French and Virginia Warheit here to answer any ~,stions. City of Palo Alto Pbg~ 30