HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-16 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 16, 1998 CMR:432:98
REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 714 AND
PORTIONS OF TRACT 4738 AND PARCEL MAP 7721 FOR
REZONiNG FROM R-1 SINGLE FAM~Y RESIDENTIAL TO
R-1 (S) SINGLE STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A
PORTION OF THE BARRON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
RECOMMENDATION
This report transmits a July -15, 1998 request from the property owners of Tracts 714 and
portioris of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721 for~2ity Council approval of a single story
overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Deny the.Negative Declaration and the request to rezone a total of 20 lots (16 homes
in Tract 714, two homes in Tract 4738 and 2 homes in Parcel Map 7721) from R-1
Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District, based on the
following findings: 1) that the project boundaries are too small and do not represent
an identifiable neighborhood, 2) that the area features a range of lot sizes and is not
characterized by moderate lot.sizes or a consistent lotting pattern, and 3) that the
homes are not subject to a deed restriction limiting homes to a single story.
Planning staff recommends that the City Council:
Appr6ve the attached Negative Declaration (Planning Commission staff report
Attachment D), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant
environmental impacts, and
o Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 20 lots; 16
homes in Tract 714, two homes in Tract 4738 and two homes in Parcel Map 7721
CMR:432:98 Page 1 of 4
Barron Park 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 floor and increasing the allowable lot
coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 714
and portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721 within the Barron Park Neighborhood
(Planning Commission staff report Attachment E) requests application of the single story
overlay zone to the 20 single family parcels shown on the attached map (Attachment C).
Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support for the application
of the single family overlay zone (Attachment D). On September 22, 1997, the City Council
initiated the request and referred it to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 14, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of the
single story overlay. A summary of significant issues is contained in the Planning
Commission staff report (Attachment B). The majority of Commissioners objected to the
proposal based on concerns that the proposed project differs from previous proposals for
single story overlay zones in several respects. The current application contains fewer homes
than five of the six previous proposals and, if adopted, would result in a small area isolated
from other overlay zones. Some Commissioners expressed concerns about the irregular
shape of the proposed boundaries and questioned whether the area constituted an identifiable
neighborhood. Several Commissioners thought that the overlay zone was the wrong solution
to solve the p_roblem of out-of-scale second stbry additions and suggested that the City
reexamine the means by which second story additions are reviewed. Commissioners also
noted that the 20 homes proposed for the overlay are not subject to a single story deed
restriction, unlike previous applications for the single story overlay.
Those Commissioners who supported the project suggested that the proposal met with
overwhelming support among property owners in the area, that the boundaries were
appropriate and defined a coherent neighborhood, that the area has a prevailing single story
character, and that the range of lot sizes did not interfere with the integrity of the proposal.
These Commissioners also noted that the single story overlay is the only tool currently
available to the City to address neighborhood concerns about inappropriate second story
additions and that the overlay zoning district was adopted by the City expressly for situations
such as this, where a neighborhood believes second stories are incompatible with the existing
character of the neighborhood. The Commissioners noted that the overlay zone provides a
onstructive tool for property owners to improve and expand their homes over time using the
increased lot coverage provided by the R-1 (S) zoning district.
CMR:432:98 Page 2 of 4
A majority of property owners within Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map
7721 came to support the overlay zone; two property owners spoke in opposition. Another
property owner was only opposed to including the four lots along E1 Centro Street within
the overlay district (see Planning Commission minutes Attachment I).
In addition to the letters attached to the Planning Commission staff report, the City has
received four letters in support of the overlay (Attachment E, F, G and H) and no letters in
opposition.
Following public testimony, Commissioners made a motion to approve the proposed overlay
zone excluding the four lots along E1 Centro Street and possibly the lot at 840 Timlott, in the
event that the owner had reversed her support. The motion failed, 3-4-0 (Bialson, Schmidt,
Cassel and Byrd opposed).
The Planning Commission then made a motion to deny the rezoning of 20 homes in Tract
714 and portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map 7721 fi’om R-1 to R-I (S) based on the
following findings: 1) that the project boundaries are too small and do. not represent an
identifiable neighborhood, 2) that the area features a range of lot sizes and is not
characterized by moderate lot sizes or a consistent lotting pattern, and, 3) that the homes are
not subjdct to a deed restriction limiting homes to a single story, 4-3-0 (Burt, Schink and
Beecham opposed).
Minutes. of the Planning Commission meeting are attached (_Attachment I).
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the City Council include:
1)Modify the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or
2)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 20 lots; 16 homes in Tract 714, two homes in Tract 4738 and 2
homes in Parcel Map 7721 ~om R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single
Story Overlay District.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Ordinance
Planning Commission staff report (with attachments)
Map Showing Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel Map "
7721 and Adjacent Zoning Districts
Map Showing Supporters of Proposed Overlay
CMR:432:98 Page 3 of 4
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Letter from Joan Marx dated October 8, 1998 in support of the overlay
Letter from John Price dated October 8, 1998 in support of the overlay
Letter from Thomas and Jane Marshbum dated October 11, 1998 in
support of the overlay
Letter from Susan and Knud Knudsen dated October 13, 1998 in
support of the overlay
Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of October 14,- 1998
COURTESY COPIES:
Knud Knudsen, 835 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Alison Collin, 828 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Will Beckett, Barron Park Association, 3000 Hanover Street, MS 20BQ, PO Box 10301,
Palo Alto, CA 94303
All Property Owners Shown on Planning Commission staff report Attachment B
PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community .Environment
.CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~’~./~f} .t, x_~(-’~
Assistant City Manager
CMR:432:98 Page 4 of 4
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 KNOW AS ~’BARRON PARK TRACT 714,
PORTIONS OF TRACT 4738 AND PARCEL MAP 7721" FROM
R-I TO R-I(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held October 14, 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
recomm@ndation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
~. 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, tollective~y known as ~Barron Park
Tract 714, portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel. Map 7721" (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 ~ncorporated 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
II
981105 la¢ 0090022 1
SECTION 3, This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:7LPPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AT TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
981105 he 0090022 2
Project: Tract 714
Project: Parcel Map7721
Project: Tract 4738
Graphic At%achment
to Staff Report
Legend
Proposed overlay
district
Date: 9-22-98 File #: 98-ZC-8; 98-EIA-19 Scale: 1" = 400’
North
Attachment B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Chandler Lee
October 14, 1998
DEPARTMENT:Planning
SUBJECT:Request by Property Owners of Tract 714 and portions of Tract
4738 and Parcel Map 7721 for Consideration of Single Story
Overlay Zoning for a Portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood:
98-ZC-8, 98-EIA-19
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council:
Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment D), fmding that the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and,
o Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 20 lots; 16
homes in Tract 714, and two homes in Tract 4738 and two homes in Parcel Map
7721 Barron Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story
Overlay District.
PROJECT .DESCRIFrlON
The attached letter from property owners in Tracts 714 and portions of Tract 4738 and Parcel
Map 7721 (Attachment B) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 20
single family parcels contained in the two tracts.
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 December 14, 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
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.
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Site Area (s.f.)
-Lot Width
-Lot depth
Floor Area Ratio
-First 5,000 s.f.
-Remaining s.f.
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
R-1 (Existing)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
30 feet*
35%
R-I (S) (Proposed)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
17 feet (Single Story)*
40%
Setbacks
- Front Yard
- Rear Yard
- Interior Side Yard
- Street Side Yard
20
20
6
16
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.
S:LPLANLPLADBAPCSR\SOVERLA5.PC
10-14-98
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the
Zoning Ordinance and has applied the overlay to several neighborhoods including:
¯On July 13, 1992, the overlay was applied 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).
A request from homeowners in Meadow Park is currently being reviewed by the City (106
lots).
Please refer to the map showing existing and proposed S overlay zoning districts
(Attachment H). The attached letter from the property owners of Tracts 714 and portions of
Tract 4738 Parcel Map 7721 (Attac~hment B) requests application of the single story overlay
zone to the 20 single family parcels contained in the three tracts. Survey results reported in
the letter indicate strong neighborhood support (80 percent) for the application of the single
family overlay zone. It should be noted that the current application includes fewer homes
than five of the six previous proposals for single story overlay districts in other
neighborhoods. This is discussed in greater detail below. Survey results reported in the letter
indicate strong neighborhood support (80 percent) for the application of the single family
overlay zone.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a
fundamental policy of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan
contains the following policies in support of the proposed single story overlay:
10-14-98
Page 3S:kPLANkPLADIV~PCSR\SOVERLA5.PC
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.
The single story overlay is consistent with these policies by restricting the height of
existing single story neighborhoods to conform with existing homes and ensuring that
remodeled homes are consistent in height with neighboring structures.
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 previously has expressed 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, staff believes that the proposal meets the intent
of adopted City policy and should be approved.
Height and Lot Coverage
The 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 p~rcent.
The potential effect of these revisions is the addition of building square footage on the
ground floor allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however,
the proposed lot coverage increase allows 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 R-1 zoning.
10-14-98
Page 4
S:kPLANkPLADIVLPCSR\SOVERLA5.PC
Table 2
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S)
Lot Size Allowable House
Size with R-1
Allowable House
Size with R~I (S)
2,400 s.f.
> 3,000 s.f.
Net Change
-150 s.f.
0
Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines (Attachment C),
establish criteria to guide City staff and decision makers in the consideration of zone change
requests for application of the Single Story Height Combining District (S). 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)." Staff’s analysis of the subject
application is 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 16 of the 20 properties (80 percent)
within Tracts 714 and 4738 and Parcel Map 7721. In addition, the City has received two
letters in opposition to the overlay zone (See Attachments J and K). The residents opposed
to the overlay are concerned about the manner in which information was received regarding
the overlay and the process used to evaluate the proposal. Because none of the homes within
the neighborhood have been developed in accordance with a single story deed restriction, the
S Overlay Guidelines stipulate that this criterion should be met with overwhelming support.
The 80 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first criterion has
been satisfied.
2. Appropriate Boundaries
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accon~anied by a map
indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning
S :~PLANkPLADIVkPCSR\SOVERLA5.PC
10-14-98
Page 5
request. Boundaries ... should define an identifiable neighborhood or development. "
The application is accompanied by a map indicating addresses and locations of the co-
applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood in an "L" shape that is easily
defined by existing street patterns. Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied.
It should be noted that the current application includes fewer homes than five of the six
previous proposals. The Walnut Grove neighborhood proposal consists of 181 lots, the Green
Meadows neighborhood 185 lots, Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood 96
lots, Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood 61 lots, Tract 709 of the Blossom
Park neighborhood 16 lots, and the request from homeowners in Meadow Park that is
currently being reviewed by the City 106 lots. The difference between the current application
(20 lots) and the smallest of the above (16 lots) is that the subject boundaries are isolated
from other single story overlay districts whereas Tract 709 is contiguous to other single story
districts. Standing alone, the subject area would represent by far the smallest single story
overlay district in the City.
It also should be noted that there are many homes to the southwest of the area that are in
favor of the S overlay but cannot meet the fourth criterion for such an overlay because the
average lot size in the area is 10,000 square feet.
Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found the proposed area to be a coherent
neighb_orh0od of mostly single story homes with the exception of 2 two-story homes
located at 3800 E1 Centro Street and 821 La Jennifer Way. 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 20 properties included in this application, 18 are currently single story. None of the
20 homes have a single story deed restriction. The 16 homes in Tract 714 were all built by
Eichler in the 1950s while the two homes in Tract 4738 and the two homes in Parcel Map
7721 were not built by Eichler but are ranch style homes of a similar age and character. All
20 homes within the proposed overlay district are in good condition and 18 of the 20 homes
appear to contribute to the ranch style, single story character of the arem Preservation of the
existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a fundamental policy of the
S:LPLANLPLADIV3PCSR\SOVERLA5.PC
10-14-98
Page 6
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The remainder of the homes in Tract 4738 (outside the
proposed overlay boundary) are of a similar age and character and are single story structures
but did not receive property owner support for the overlay (see Attachment G). Therefore,
the third criterion has been satisfied.
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 Z 000 to 8, 000 square feet."
Of the 20 lots, none are less than 6,000 square feet, five are between 6,000 and 7,000 square
feet and four are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Thus, only four of 20 or 20 percent
of the lots are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet and can be considered moderate in size.
Of the remaining lots, five are between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet and six are larger than
10,000 square feet. Although this neighborhood is not subject to a deed restriction, staff
believes that it is reasonable to .consider the 6,000 to 7,000 square foot lots as moderate in
this case because:
1) the 7,000 to 8,000 square foot criterion poses a very narrow definition of lot size in a
neighborhood with a range of lot sizes such as this;
2) the four criteria established by the City are guidelines, not requirements, and provide the
Planning Commission and City Council witfi the flexibility to approve proposals, such as
this, that do not technically meet every criterion but that meet the intent of the guidelines;
and,
3) the character, of neighborhoods featuring lots smaller than 7,000 .square feet could,
arguably, be more adversely impacted by a series of second story additions than by the
physical constraints posed by the single story overlay (e.g., a 6,000 square foot lot with a
single story overlay would be allowed only 150 square foot less in floor area than a lot
without the single story limit).
The neighborhood has a lotting pattern that is defined by two cul-de-sacs, although the lots
vary in size. Although the subject application does not technically meet the fourth criterion,
staff believes that the intent of this criterion has been met.
The subject application generally meets all four of the criteria established by the Single Story
Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines, although consistency with the
moderate lot size criterion is a matter of interpretation. Because the four criteria established
10-14-98
S:WLAN~LADIV’tPCSR\SOVERLA5.PC Page 7
by the City are guidelines that provide flexibility to approve proposals such as this and
because staff believes that the intent of the guidelines has been met, staff is recommending
approval of the request for the single story overlay.
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 714 and portions of Tract
4738 and Parcel Map 7721 (Barron Park) neighborhood.
TIMELINE
Following Planning Commission review, the application is tentatively scheduled for City
Council consideration on November 16, 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 September 23 through October 14, 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:July 15, 1998 request from the property owners of Tracts 714 and
4738 and Parcel Map 7721 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 the proposed area and
within 300 feet of the proposed overlay district
Attachment H:Map showing existing S overlay zoning districts
Attachment I:Letter from Harold McGee and Sharon Long (May 28, 1998)
supporting the request
10-14-98
S:kPLANLPLADIV~PCSR\SOVERLA5.PC Page 8
Attachment J.
Attachment K.
Letter from Peter Neal (June 28, 1998) opposing the request
Letter from Rodney Snyder (September 28, 1998) opposing the request
COURTESY COPIES:
Knud Knudson, 835 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Alison Collin, 828 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Will Beckett, Barron Park Association, 3000 Hanover Street, MS 20BQ, PO Box 10301, Palo
Alto, CA 94303
All property owners shown on Attachment B
Project Planner:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Supervisor Review:Lisa Grote, Zoning A~n’~str~oi
Division/Department Head Approval: i’~’,,,ff~/~ (/~4//,,/~m ~
Er" Ri,.,, or., Csl{ief Planning Official
10-14-98
Page 9
S:LPLAN~LADIV~PC SR\SOVERLA5.PC
Attachment
follows:
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 KNOW AS "BARRON PARK TRACT 714 AND
PORTIONS OF TRACT 4738%FROM R-I TO R-I(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
.SECTION i.
A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held October 14, 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 !. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municip{1
Code, the "Zoning Map~" is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
a portion of certain property, collectizely known as "Barron Park
Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738" (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.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that ~his project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
980908 la¢ 0090022 1
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AT TO FORM:
Senior Asst..City Attorney
Maydr
City Manager
Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
980908 lac 0090022 2
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
File #: 98-ZC-8; 98-EIA-19 Scale: 1" = 400’
Attachment B
Item 3b
PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 714 AND PART OF TRACT 4738
Address
813 La Jennifer
819 La Jennifer
Mailing adrs:
118 Manor Ave
821 La Jennifer
821 La Jennifer
835 La Jennifer
841 La Jennifer
838 La Jennifer
834 La Jennifer
828 La Jennifer
820 La Jennifer
814 La Jennifer
808 La Jennifer
3780-EI Centro
3790 E1 Centro
3800 E1 Centro
3806 E1 Centro
3858 Timlott
3860 Timlott
840 Timlott
848 San Jude
Name
Richard & Diane Hill
Tom & Mary Hamilton
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Hank & Alice Chezar
Joe & Ann Fletcher
Knud Knudsen
Price Living Trust
Harold McGhee & Sharon Long
Sue Hamister
Henry & Alison Collin
Thomas & Jane Marshburn
Daniel Levitin
Boardman & Cathy Rising
Bruce Jaffe & Zhenhua Wang
Fiona St. John
Paul Morrell
Murray Einarson & al.
Ken Powell & Rona Foster
Scott & Vickie Perry
Loyce Stanley
Hannes & Karin Ruescher
Lot
size
sq. Ft
7350
8575
8575
7350
10500
10500
10500
10500
7350
8575
8575
7350
6346
6260
6260
6346
12100
86OO
6800
13500
Signed
Petition
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Attachment C
Project: Tract 714
Project: Parcel Map 7721
Project: Tract 4738
PF
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: 9-22-98
Legend
i Tract 714, 4738 &
Parcel Map 7721
Supporters within
proposed area
Supporters outside
proposed area
Scale: 1" = 400’
North
Attachment D
ENVIRONMENTA] CHECI IST FORM
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
S Overlay - Tract 714 and portions of Tract
4738 in a portion of the Barron Park
Neighborhood
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
o Contact Person and Phone Number:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
415-329-2441
Project Location:
Application Number(s)’
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address’
Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738 in a
portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood:
generally located on both sides-of La Jennifer
Way and along portions of El Centra Street
and Timlott Lane - ¯
98-ZC=8; 98-EIA-19
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamitton Avenue-
Palo Alto, CA 94301
General Plan Designation:
Zoning"
Single Family -Residential~
R-1 (Sir~gle F~n~ily Residen:tial
9. Description of the Project: -
Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for Tract714 and portions of Tract 4738 in
a portion of the Barron Park Neighborhood
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 1
11.
The neighborhood is exclusively single family and predominately single story in
character. There £re 20 single family lots located within the proposed area. The
area is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on all four 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
Population and
Housing
Geological Problems
Water
-Air Quality
Transportation and
Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
¯ Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]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 prep.ared.
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 MAY have 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 the proposed project.
X
Proj~’ct PI~ n n;~tr
Director of Planning ~& Community Environment
Date
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
A brief explanation is required 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).
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.
"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 EIR
is required.
"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).
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. -
Lead agencies are encouraged to Jhcorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where app#opriate, 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\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 4
1 . LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)
c)
d)
e)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
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)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an a~ea either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major-infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
1
1
3
3
3
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:=
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?
Subsidence of the land?
4
4
4
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
g)4 X
h) Expansive soils?4 X
I) Unique geologic or physical features?4 X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changesinabsorptionrates, drainagepatterns, orthe 3,7,i X I Irate and amount of surface runoff?17
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 5
Issues and Supporting-Information Sources SOLIrC~S Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 4,5 X
such as flooding?
c)3,17 X
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Discharge 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?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
Change 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?
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality throQgh infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
j) -Alteration of wetlands in any way?
3
3,17
3
6,17
3
5., AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
6,8,9
6,8,9
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b)
c)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment))?
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parkir~g capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?g)
7.
a)
b)
c)
10
10,
11,
12
3,10
10
10
3
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in:
8,16
Locally desig-nated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
8
8
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8,16
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
d)
e)
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?
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oi!,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
13
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitig ation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Impact
b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
¯grass or trees?
11,
12,
13
3,12,
13
3,12,
13
3,12
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?6, 8,
14
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 14
11. 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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
12.
8,12
8,11
8
8
8
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
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?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
15
15
15
15
15
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
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 glarre?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 8 X
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 8 X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?3 X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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?
a)
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitig atlon
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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,
either directly or indirectly?
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. ldentify earlier analyses and state where the~ 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 ~uch effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier ahalysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effect~ 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, 21082.1, 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
2
3
4
5
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended)
City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 ........
Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. . ......
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348, Map Revised September 6, 1989.
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 10
Issues and Supporting Infor¢nation Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994
City of PalO Alto Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto Police Department
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August ! 994
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
Fish & Game Code of California~ "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 11
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 that elect
to extend the coverage on a given lot. Therefore, the increased lot coverage allowance will not have a
significant effect on the rate and amount of surface water runoff in the area.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
(S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\SOVERLA5.EIA)
P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/23/98]Page 12
July 15,1998 ~
TO:City of Palo Alto
Attachment E
RECE!’VRD
jUL 1998
...... Dep~ment c~Zoning A~znzstraro~oz~ ~~.~zon
to City Council/Planning Co~ision/City Council
FROM:Property Owners of Tract 714 and of part of Tract 4738
SUBJECT:Request from Coapplicants of Tract 714 and of part of
Tract 4738 for Application of the Single-Story Height
Combining District (S) to the Present R-I Zoning of our
Properties
We request that the zone for Tract 714 and part of
Tract 4738 be changed from R-I to R-I (S)
We are attaching the following documents in support of
this application:
A copy of the Single-Story Height Combining
District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is part of
the first Request, Information and Signature Form
packet mentioned in item 2.
A copy of the three Request, Information, Update
and Signature Form packets which were distributed
to all property owners in Tract 714 and
surrounding area.
Distribution was followed by in-person and
telephone surveys..
We have_surveyed the area bounded by E1 Centro,
the we~t Side of Timlott, San Jude, Laguna and
Barron.
Thus a serious effort was made to create a larger
area of "overwhelming" support.
2a,A map showing the area where we have contacted
property owners. The owners of the properties that
are cross hatched have shown their support for~
this initiative by signing the signature form.
3a.
3b.
3C.
To meet the first overlay request for "Level and
Format of Owner Support":
Signed requests for the single-story overlay zone
from the owners of 16 of the 20 properties in area
for which we are seeking the overlay.
A written list of all property owners in this
area.
A map showing the area for which we are seeking
the Single-Story Zoning Overlay.
4a.
o
Again the owners of the properties that are cross
hatched have shown their support for this
initiative by signing the signature form.
Thus 16 out of 20 or 80% of property owners
support the initiative.
We feel that this easily represents "overwhelming"
support for the Single-Story Overlay Zone.
To meet the" second overlay guideline request for
appropriate boundaries" and the third guideline
request for "Prevailing Single-Story Character":
The map, item 3c, of the area for which we are
seeking the Single-Story Zoning Overlay shows that
the area contains all of Tract 714.
We have included four properties on Timlott.
Two of those share backyard fences with Tract 714
and the other two complete a contiguous area to
Timlott Court and Timlott Lane.
We feel that streets even more than tract
boundaries define a neighborhood.
There are only two tw0-story houses in the area
for which we are seeking the Single-Story Zoning
Overlay: 3800 E1 Centro Ave. and 821 La Jennifer
Way.
To meet the overlay guideline request for
"Moderate Lot Sizes":
Five lots are between 6000 and 7000 square feet
Four lots are between 7000 and 8000 square feet
Five lots are between 8000 and 9000 square feet
Four lots are between I0000 and II000 square feet
Two lots are between .12000 and 13500 square feet
Please contact us if you need further information.
Also we would appreciate your letting us know the next
step in this process°
Sincerely,
Knud Knudsen, 835 La Jennifer, CA94306
Alison Collin, 828 La Jennifer, CA94306
858-0948
856-3891
Item 2a
Area where we have contacted property owners:
Owners of the properties that are cross hatched have
shown their support for the single-story overlay by
signing the signature form.
Existing two story houses are marked with a "2"
LA CALLE
TIMLOTT CT.
Item 3b
PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 714 AND PART OF TRACT 4738
Address
813 La Jennifer
819 La Jennifer
Mailing adrs:
118 Manor Ave
821 La Jennifer
821 La Jennifer
835 La Jennifer
841 La Jennifer
838 La Jennifer
834 La Jennifer
828 La Jennifer
820 La Jennifer
814 La Jennifer
808 La Jennifer
3780°EI Centro
3790 E1 Centro
3800 E1 Centro
3806 E1 Centro
3858 Timlott
3860 Timlott
840 Timlott
848 San Jude
Name
Richard & Diane Hill
Tom & Mary Hamilton
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Hank & Alice Chezar
Joe & Ann Fletcher
Knud Knudsen
Price Living Trust
McGhee & Sharon LongHarold
Sue Hamister
Henry & Alison Collin
Thomas & Jane Marshburn
Daniel Levitin
Boardman & Cathy Rising
Bruce Jaffe & Zhenhua Wang
Fiona St. John
Paul Morrell
Murray Einarson & al.
Ken Powell & Rona Foster
Scott & Vickie Perry
Loyce Stanley
Hannes & Karin Ruescher
Lot
size
sq. Ft
7350
8575
8575
7350
10500
10500
10500
10500
7350
8575
8575
7350
6346
6260
6260
6346
12100
8600
6800
13500
Signed
Petition
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Item 3c
Area for which we are seeking the single story zoning overlay:
Owners of the properties that are cross hatched have
shown their support for the single-story overlay by
signing the signature form.
TR. N~- 714
.J
:0
I"iMLOTT CT.
Attachment F
Sin~!e-Storv Height Combinin~ District
-_lay Zone Guidelines
The fo!lowiDg guidelines are intended to guide City staff
and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone change
requests for application of the Sing!e-Sto~ 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 ~o 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, ~hese guidelines are to be
~reated with a greater degree of flexibility.
1.Level and Format of Owner SUDDOrt
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 signatures, an understanding that they are co-
applicants in a zone map amendment request.
.Appropriate Boundaries
An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendmant
should be accompanied by a map indicating rhea-address
location of those owners who are co-applicants for the
rezoning request. Boundaries which may correspond
with certain natural or man-made features (i.e.
roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, etc.) should
define an identifiable neighborhood or development.
These boundaries will be recommended ~o the Planning
Commission and City Council by the City’s Zoning
Administrator.
~.revailin~ Sinqle-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 homes are single-story,
thus limiting ~he number of structures rendered
noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods
currently subjec~ to sihgle-story deed restrictions
should be currently, developed in a manner consistent
with those deed restrictions. Furthermore~ it is
desirable that homes be similar in age, design and
!/12/93
Page i
o
character,_ ensuring that residents of an area proposed
~or rezoning possess !_6_ desires for neighborhood
prese-~-vation and face common home remodelinc
co~strain~s.
Moderate Lot Sizes
in order to maintain equitable property development
-rights within an (S) overlay area compared to other
sites within the R-i zone district, an area proposed
for an (S) overlay zone map amendmen£ should be
characterized by moderate !or sizes with a generally
consistent lo~ing pattern. A moderate !or size is to
be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet.
1/12/93
Page 2
Attachment G
Proje~: Tra~ 714, 4738 &
Parcel Map 7721
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: 9-22-98 File #: 98-ZC-8; 98-EIA-19
I Illl1I
Legend
Proposed overlay
district
Two-story homes
Scale: 1" = 400’
North
Attachment H
Residential Zones
with
Single Story Overlays
~"~--Attachment I
May 28, 1998
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Street
Palo Alto CA 94301
To the Planning Department:
We are home owners in Palo Alto, and our house is located at 838 La Jennifer Way, in the
Barron Park area. We are presently on a six-month work assignment overseas, which is why
this letter is being sent to you from afar. We wish to join our neighbors on La Jennifer Way to
express concern about possible plans to construct a two story house on the property located at
808 La Jennifer.
All of the houses on this small cul-de-sac were built by Joseph Eichler around 1951. The self-
effacing ranch-style homes, now largely hidden by trees and shrubs, have come to form a
distinctive neighborhood in which vegetation and homes intermingle and no house looms over
all others. The placement of a large two story structure on a prominent corner in the middle of
this neighborhood would be entirely at odds with its character and scale. A nearby example of
such a disparity is the house at the southwest corner of Barron and E1 Centro.
Several years ago, our growing family faced the need for a larger house. Not wanting to expand
in a way that would alter the the neighborhood character that first attracted us to La Jennifer
Way sixteen years ago, we made a determined effort to maintain the one-story Eichler style in
our remodeled house. With the support of our neighbors and the guidance of the Planning
Department, which granted permission for exceptions on two set-backs, we and our architect
were able to add three new rooms and greatly expand two others, while retaining abundant front
and back yard space on our odd shaped lot.
Our experience demonstrates that it is possible to build a large house in our neighborhood in a
style that harmonizes with the neighborhood. We ask that that the Planning Commission take
whatever steps it can to assure that new construction on La Jennifer Way enhance the
neighborhood’s character, and not damage it.
Thank you for considering our views,
Harold J. McGee and Sharon R. Long
83 8 La Jennifer Way "
Palo Alto CA 94306
Dear Palo Alto Zoning Administrator:
I was recently approached by neighbors from La Jennifer Way,
requesting my support in petitioning a change of zoning in our
neighborhood. They wish to request a Single-Story Height Overlay for
their street and adjoining neighbors.
I want to go on record that I am adamantly opposed to any rezoning of
my property at 3880 E1 Centro. Further, I assume that if the city
considered any such action, public hearings would be held. And legal
recourse would be an option for any affected homeowners.
I can understand why the residents of La Jennifer Way may want to
preserve the nature of their street. It is a homogeneous street of similar
houses. Other houses in this neighborhood are extremely eclectic, and
truthfully many of the older ones might benefit by being replaced by
modem two-story homes.
Sincerely,
Peter Neal
3880 E1 Centro
Palo Alto,CA 94306
831 Timlott Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto
Planning Division
P. O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
September 28,1998
To Whom It May Concern:
As longtime property owners in the Barron Park section of Palo Alto,
my wife and I completely and totally oppose the recent application
from various property owners for a single-story overlay on La
Jenriifer Way.
My neighbor, Loyce Stanley @ 840 Timlott Lane, is one of .the
property owners who signed the single-story overlay application;.
and the only property owner that I’ve talked to about this matter.
She tells, me that she did not fully understand what she was asked to
sign...and had no idea that she would be giving up herright to add a
second story to her home in the future.
I believe my neighbors who support banning second S~ories on their
homes are misinformed and misguided. Obviously they do not even
understand the economics of what they are asking. But I do have
faith that your department will make the right decision and oppose
this application.
Sincerely,
Attachment C
PF
PF
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: 9-22-98 File #: 98-ZC-8; 98-EIA-19 Scale: 1" = 400’
A
Attael~ment o
PF
PF
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: 9-22-98 File #: 98-ZC-8; 98-EIA-19 Scale: 1" = 400’
A
Attachment E
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Attachment F
10/8Lc)8
Members of the Planning Commission
John and Rosalie Price, 841 La Jennifer Way, Pa!o Alto
October 14 Hearing on Single-Story Overlay Zoning
OCT 0 8 1998
Please accept these comments analyzing the pros and cons of the single-story
overlay as it relates to Barron Park, and more specifically to La Jennifer Way.
Those opposed to the overlay consist of basically two gronps: first, a small
minority of existing homeowners on La Jennifer Way, and second, local
deve!opers.
The minority homeowners" opposition to the overlay may be summarized as
either a fear that their property may sell for less, or a desire to keep their own
options open in case they need to add floor area to their house by bu.ilding up.
Local developers are also opposed to the overlay because it restricts their
options. For equal floor areas, a two-story house ’will take up less lot space, and
the cost to build a two-storv house is less than a single-story house. So the
developer makes more profit on a two-story home. This is obviously a big
motivation behind the construction of two-story houses.
Those in favor of the overlay consist of an overwhelming majority of the
homeowners on La Jennifer Way, together with many nearby homeowners. The
majority homeowners" support for the overlay may be summarized as follows:
We feel no need to remodel or tear down and rebuild a two-stoD’ home on our
property. If we need to expand our homes, we feel that building out. not up, will
adequately meet our needs.
Also, we will feel secure (now- and in the future) in "knowing that our next-door
neighbors will not be able to build two-story houses, potentially creating loss of
privacy and loss of direct sunlight. We also are aware that two-story homes change
the visua! appeal of the street. They stick out, and disrupt the harmony of the
environment.
We realize that when the time comes to sell our homes, we are potentially
excluding those buyers who might want to tear down the existing structure and
build a two-story home. But in contrast, our homes will be more attractive to
buyers looking for assurance that nobodv will be able to build two-stoD’ monster
homes next door to them.
Whatever the overall effect on selling price, we are willing to accept a potential
monetary loss as well worth incurring, when balanced against all the benefits of a
single-st’ory neighborhood.
Finally a personal note: We have lived in Barron Park since !963. and on La
Jennifer Wav for the last32 years. We feltwhen we came to Barron Park that we
were living in a forest, a beautiful panoply of trees whose canopies spanned the
streets and homes and provided welcome shade in summer. The older tree canopies
often extend way over the houses, with spreads up to 70 feet or even more. Two-
story homes could not be built next to these trees without destruction of part of the
trees" structure, violating their beauty and viability.
We need the overlay to help prevent this from happening. We must never be
confused into thinking that bigger is always better, or that the size and cost of our
homes can ever be a measure of the tru_e value of our neighborhood.
Attachment G
October 11, 1998
Planning Commission
City of Palo Mto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To the Planning Commission:
We are the homeowners of 820 La Jennifer Way, which is lot 98 of tract 714. We
are writing you concerning the proposed one story overlay zoning change for
our neighborhood. We strongly support the one story overlay and request that
the planning commission and the city council approve the proposal.
We purchased our home on La Jennifer Way in 1992 because the street is very
private and quiet. The neighboring houses are not visible from most windows in
the house and also from the backyard. We greatly value the serenity and peace
that comes from viewing the natural landscape of trees and sky when we return
home from the many stresses of living in our hectic community.
The previous owners of our home expanded it to approximately 2400 square feet.
by extending the single story .with a design in keeping with the original Eichter
home. The size is quite adequate for our family of four.
We feelthat two story homes are particularly inappropriate for our street due to
the unusual lot pla.cements and shapes causing side yards to border neighboring
backyards.
We are grateful that the city offers the one story overlay as a tool that we can use
to preserve the quality of our neighborhood and in particular our privacy. We
again urge you to approve this proposed one story overlay.
Jane Marshburn and Thomas Marshburn
820 La Jennifer Way
Palo Mto, CA 94306
Attachment H
October 13,1998
Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
OCT 15 1998
To the Planning Commission:
We bought our property on’835 La Jennifer Way in 1995 and are
therefore among those who fairly recently joined the La Jennifer
neighborhood. ’
We had been looking at many properties in a number of areas
without finding anything that we liked that we could also afford.
We then stumbled across this property on La Jennifer in the most
beautiful, quiet and very private setting, and we immediately
knew that we wanted to live there.
The house was small, dark and in desperate need of repairs. The
price was high and we had to offer significantly above asking to
prevail over eight other bidders. "
Repairs and upgrading were and are still being done, and we feel
satisfaction and pride that our little old house with its
beautiful redwood ceilings is not being hauled off to a landfill
while lots of resources are being spent on its replacement.
What to us.justifies spending a ~ot of money and effort on an old
smal! house is its unique setting and its integration of the
indoors with the lush green outdoors.
However had adjacent houses been two stories overlooking ours we
would not have chosen to live here.
We thank the City for giving us the very valuable help of
Chandler Lee in preparing the application for the Single Story
Zoning Overlay, and we hope that you wil! grant us the protection
of the Single Story Overlay so that we wil! be able to preserve
the beautiful serenity of this uniaue cu!-de-sac which is so
important to us. -
Susan and Knud Knudsen
835 La Jennifer Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
EXCERPT of the Palo Alto Planning Commission minutes of 10/14/98
Attachment I
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
October 14, 1998
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Session called to order at 3:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel (absent)
Jon Schink
Patrick Burr
Staff:
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Jim Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Wynne Furth, Senior Attorney
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
George White, Planning Manager
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Amy French, Associate Planner
Ch’M.rman Byrd: I’d like to call this regular meeting of the Palo Alto Planning Commission to
or.clerT",~uld the Secretary please call the roll. Six present.
The first iten~ our agenda is Oral Communications this is the portion of our meeting where
members ~ the p,~c may speak to a0. item that is not on our agenda forup to three minutes perspeaker. Do we hav’b,~nyone who wishes to address us in Oral Communications? Seeing none
we will move to Agend~hanges, Additions and Deletions. Again seeing none we will then
move to Unfims" hed BusinesS. ,,.The item is a public hearing on Discussion and Recommendation
of Inc.entiv.es. mad Benefits of the’Xl~(~posed Historic Preservation Ordinance. Would Staff like to
intr°?e_ .this it_e_m- ........ ~
Mr. Eric ~g Official: Sta’~K~,ecommends the Planning Commission complete its
review o~ves and benefits for "in~,ertion in the Proposed Permanent Historic
Preservati~rovide a finalized~commended list of incentives which are
reference in Attachment C in your packet. The Plannin"g,,Qommission has discussed this particular
issue on five separate occasions~ in a Public ~g format, and the remaining three
in a Study~n. from the ge.nera_~blic as well as other interested
partie~t was ~e f’trst_ma, trix that _~ prepared by Staff and was
essentially a working "~nt B "m your packet"is,~ssentially a summary of
those..Staff__rev.ised i~ormat of the matrix
and e this matrix
go f you will
look one,
two a
listing of the Planning Commission and Staff s discussion/interaction on options ava" le.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
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
Commissione.r Schmidt: I move that this item be continued until the regular Planning Commission
meeting of October 28, 1998.
Chairman By,rd:, Second? Motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All
those in favor? (ayes) Opposed? That carries 7-0.
The next item on our agenda is the single story overlay for tract 714, 4738- La Jennifer Way.
Would Staff like to introduce this time please.
Chandler Lee., Contract Planner: Yes, this is a request by the owners of tract 714, tract 4738 and
parcel map 7721 for a single story overlay. Your Commission has seen several requests for
similar single story overlays in the recent past. This particular application is somewhat different
from the previous districts in several manners. One is that there is a smaller number of lots in
particular request. There is 20 in this particular application. Secondly, there are a fewer number
of moderate lots as called for in the guidelines before you. Thirdly, there are no deed restrictions
limiting the existing height of the homes in the area. Because the guidelines that are included in
the packet are in fact guidelines and not regulations, Staff believe that the intent of the guidelines
can be met and is recommending approval of the project. Alison Collin from the neighborhood
is here representing the supporters of the project. In addition there are three letters from
neighbors before you this evening. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Are there any questions for Staff. Commissioner Beecham.
Commissioner Beecham: From Staff’s point of view what are the detriments of a having an
overlay gone this small.
Mr. Lee: I’m not sure there are any detriments per se, I think justfrom a technical standpoint
if you look at the map in the back of the Staff report it shows where the other districts are and
they tend to kind of cluster into neighborhoods. This would kind of be out. by itself if you can
visualize that map. We have an overhead if that will help. It is not necessarily a detriment but
it would be different from the other projects that we’ve seen up till this point.
Commissioner Beecham: Would it cause any difficulties in Staff following these or insuring that
you monitor it correctly?
Mr. Lee: No there wouldn’t it really would simply be a matter of amending the zoning map
which we have at the counter all the time and it would very clearly state that those 20 homes, or
whatever the ultimate number is, are subject to those regulations.
Chairman By.rd: Other questions for Staff?. Commissioner Cassel.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question that is not straight on. I’m not sure that you can answer
it but I want to lay the question out. Do you know when it was decided that homes could have
an FAR of approximately 4.5 but a site coverage of .35? What the history is of that?
City of Palo Alto Page 52
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
Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: I believe that was part of the 1987 through 1989 study
of the zoning regulations and update of those regulations.
Commissioner Cassel: What was the purpose because it forces people to go up and use the second
story if they want to use all of their FAR?
Ms. Grote: Well, I think the site coverage was to try and determine what a reasonable amount
of impervious surface is although it doesn’t count impervious landscaping, but it was to limit the
building coverage on the site so it didn’t appear to be over-built. I don’t know the complete
history of that.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff?. Seeing none, I would then like to open the public
hearing. We have five minutes per speaker and-as Staff introduced the first speaker is Alison
Collin who will represent the neighborhood, to be followed by Jessica Bernhardt. Please re-state
your name and address for the record.
Ms. Alison Collin, 828 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto: Good evening. My name is Alison Collin
a Barron Park resident of 18 years and a resident of La Jennifer Way for 12. Together with
Knudsen signatory in the single story application. I represent the neighbors that are in favor of
applying the single story overlay to these areas and some of our neighbors have come to support
me. Would those who support the application please stand up? Thank you, These tracts are
jewels set in the very heart of Barron Park. They are characterized by cul-de-sacs of low profile,
unobtrusive single story homes of similar age and architectural appearance. Tract 714 being
composed of.early eichlers and _tract 7438 containing low ranch homes. Mature trees, many of
them magnificent specimens, dominate the landscape both as street trees and within the individual
lots. To come home after a day working in an urban environment where one is only too aware
of buildings, walls and people, to return to our tranquil neighborhood and eat one’s evening meal
outside in complete privacy and surrounded by trees who’s full beauty we can see more than just
a few of the highest branches over the top of a high roof line, this represents the quality of life
we wish to retain and is the reason for our application of the single story overlay. We have met
all the City guidelines required to comply with the story height limit combining district as per
Staff report. We feel most strongly that approval of the overlay in this neighborhood will be in
accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, I refer to policies L-5 and L-12, and instrumental
in the preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods. There was
overwhelming support for the overlay in the neighborhood and also from an adjacent cul-de-sac,
La Calle Court which you can see on the map, however we were advised to exclude this cul-de-
sac from our application as their larger lot sizes were outside the City guidelines. I should like
to say a few words on the way the information was distributed to our neighbors and signatures
collected. Under the guidance of Chandler Lee, Knud Knudsen, a resident of La Jennifer,
prepared a printed information package. This included an introductory letter, a map showing the
appropriate area, a copy of Chapter 1813 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, single story height
combining district guidelines, the telephone numbers of Mr. Knudsen and myself for any queries,
and a signature sheet. The letter advised people to read the information and if in agreement to
mail or deliver the signature sheet to Mr. Knudsen. Wherever possible we delivered by hand and
City of Palo Alto Page 53
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
spoke to the homeowners. Where this was not practical the information was mailed. Two
homeowners that I approached were entirely against any regulations and refused to accept the
package even for information purposes. These are in cul-de-sac areas that were not included in
this application as it turns out. Two follow up letters were sent at later dates with progress
reports. But these were not sent to anyone who had been opposed to the overlay on first contact. ¯
Those who were initially undecided did receive them. There was no pressure put on anyone to
agree to overlay but people we knew to be undecided were contacted just before we submitted the
request to Council, and advised of the approaching deadline in order that their signatures could
be included if they wished. I know that this Commission has already heard many representations
from applications in other overlay areas the benefits of single story dwellings. Of course the same
points such as privacy, feelings of light and space apply to. these tracts but rather than take up
valuable time reiterating them I should like to point out some of the features that are special to our
tracts. I see I have sum up light, I understood I had 15 minutes to present this.
Chairman Byrd: I will grant extra time. It is true that we have a rule for applicants that allow
for extra time. Technically the City is the applicant here.
Ms. Collin: I’m sorry I had not realized that. La Jennifer way is a very unusual shape. As you
can see from the map it resembles something of a cloverleaf. Depending on its position, each
house occupies a very different site within its lot. Perhaps Chandler, you could help me point this
out on the overhead. For example I live in lot 99 on the map. Our house is quite close to the
road while our neighbor’s house in lot 100 is situated at the end of a long driveway and is very
close to her boundary with La Calle Court. Almost like a flag lot and that is
around the whole cul-de-sac, that patterning.. The front of her house is very close to the front of
ours which faces away from the road. On lot 98 the house runs parallel to Carlitos Court and a
good deal of that lies behind our house. This imaginative design of cul-de-sac is well suited to
single story homes with low roof lines, we love it. It is hard to see how any two story houses or
extensions could be constructed without causing loss of privacy to the immediate neighbors. Some
of the houses would be vulnerable to being entirely, boxed in. The lots 96, 99, 104 and 107
project into the cul-de-sac and any two story buildings on those spots would be extremely
dominant. In Timlott Court past the 165 is already a flag lot. Many of the homes have already
been extended and modernized keeping the single story level. Yet on observation it is hard to tell
which these houses are because they have so well maintained the integrity of the low profile
neighborhood. When these people have endeavored to keep the look that we so love it would be
unfortunate indeed if this character was now lost. We should not equate single story with second
class. With the overlay in place there is very little difference in the size of house that could be
constructed on a moderately sized lot. And no reason for a single story house to be any less well
appointed than a two story. We just ask that it blend in with the existing neighborhood. We feel
that by applying the single story overlay developers and prospective purchasers would know ahead
of time exactly where they stand, the size of house or extension that they could build on a
particular lot. This can only benefit all. Palo Alto’s wonder single family neighborhoods along
with the excellent schools are among her best resources. The reason why so many families are
desperate to move here and willing to extend themselves fmancially in order to do so. Many other
cities have houses, lots of them. Palo Alto has homes and neighborhoods exemplified by these
City of Palo Alto Page 54
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
tracts. Please let us do whatever we can to keep this advantage. Thank you for listening to our
application.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Jessica Bernhardt to be followed by
Sharon Long.
Ms. Jessica Bernhardt, 875 La Para Avenue, Palo Alto: I am speaking for myself and also my
husband who was unable to attend, so that’s two voters. I live in Barron Park at 875 La Para
Avenue, and I own two houses. I also own 879. I am very strongly opposed to this overlay. I
believe that Palo Alto is already over zoned. I believe that this is a distinct infringement on our
property rights. I think that one of the nice things about America is the original idea that a home
is one’s castle, that one can do what one likes. I am very disturbed by the trend to building
housing developments where there are all kinds of rules about not only that fact that you have the
rules in common but what color you can paint the house, how long you can keep a wreath on the
door, and everything else. Single family homes in California especially are disappearing along
with people’s personal rights to choose to do what they want with their property. In regard to
some of the issues raised by them about the trees. Palo Alto has some very strong tree heritage
rules about preservation of those trees which I have carefully investigated due to some other things
I’m thinking of doing on my property. Very large trees, you have to build around them. I know
other people have. Maybe you build up a two story house but you be careful about those houses.
Another issue I feel about it is that if it really bothers you in this thing, you should do what I do.
The reason why I bought the other house is I was worried about this happening. I believe that’s
the way you deal with it. I bought it. -Now I realize not everybody can afford to do that but
nobody says you have to live there. I have lived in Barron Park for over 13 years and I think
that’s the way to deal with the issue about how it should be. That’s our main po’.mt .is that we
think it infringes on our property rights. I’m very w~rried living only a couple of blocks away
that somebody will decide to extend it to my neighborhood. I think one of the beauties of Barron
Park is that it is not a bunch of identical eichler houses. The fact that it’s a wonderful collection
of eclectic houses, small, large, one story, two story, even some three and four story. That’s
what makes that neighborhood interesting. Very few houses look like one another. Even the new
houses are two stories that are going up. Very few look like one another. I think that various
developers have gotten the message that we don’t like it. Some of them have also gotten the
message about don’t look in other people’s yards. There’s a house that James Witt, the developer,
has built on Los Robles .while it isn’t the most attractive house from the front one of the
interesting things that he’s done, and it’s currently for sale so you can go inside and take a look
at it if you want to see what I mean, is that he built the upstairs such that you can’t look out of
any windows to the right and left towards the next door neighbor. You cannot look into the
neighbor’s backyard. So it is possible to build a nice, fancy, two story, four bedroom, three bath
house without impinging on the neighbors. I think he did a very good design on the inside even
if I’m not too crazy about the outside of that house. You Should go take a look at it. It is
possible. I hope that you keep in mind that I think it is time to preserve some more property
rights. I believe at this point you practically need a permit to hang a picture in Palo Alto and it
is getting ridiculous. If these people don’t want to extend their houses to second stories that’s
wonderful but they shouldn’t have the right to keep other people who own their property from
City of Palo Alto Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2-2
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
doing so. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much.Sharon Long to be followed by Bruce Jaffe.
Ms. Sharon Long, 838 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto: My name is Sharon Long, my husband
Harold McGee and I are 16 year residents of Barron Park. I was going to speak about three items
but for five minutes I am just going to speak about the first two and the third is implicit. I read
something in the newspaper article about this that I really liked which is about the concept of
neighborhood evolution and managing that. I think that is a great concept. It is not only desirable
but it is essential. I wanted to make a point about evolution. You could define it as a change over
time that results in improvement or optimization with respect to some stated goal. Neighborhood
evolution might be a highly charged issue so I would like to illustrate it with something that comes
from a completely different area to show the point that there are multiple ways to evolve
successfully, many paths to successful evolution. The example comes from engineering, it’s from
bridge design. The goal of a bridge is clear you carry a load over a span. How bridges evolve
and get better is a bigger over a larger span but that has happened over time not by the emergence
of one single superior design. These two great bridges, Sydney Harbor and Golden Gate, are only
26 inches different in length but chose completely different greatly evolved designs, the one bow
design versus the suspension. You make a choice according to many factors one of which is
aesthetics. So now this example taken from such a different area is only to make the point that
there is more than one way to evolve. I think the same is true for neighborhoods. What’s our
goal in Palo Alto? It’s to have vibrant neighborhoods with valuable houses that attract people to
come and be contributing citizens in our community. There are several good ways to evolve value
in neighborhoods and houses. One is obviously the construction of a large size house with many
square feet and a large number of rooms. Another, not the only other one but the one we’re
talking about, is one that has a certain neighborhood feel, a vista, low roofs and lots of trees. So
what’s the hitch? If they’re both good why doesn’t the natural selection of suburbia produce both
naturally? I think there are a couple of reasons. One is thatboth of these can yield long-term
value but one of them, only one, the large house is favored in addition by short term economics.
There are several reasons shown at the bottom. One is that the profit on construction and sale and
development for a larger house is much more clear in the short term. The second is that the large
house value is autonomous to the house, it comes with the unit whereas for neighborhood the
value is only with the aggregate. The final is that a really nice, beautiful two story house can be
built in six to twelve months but a neighborhood with a vista of low roofs and trees takes 30 years
and can be destroyed by a short term change of an inappropriate obtrusive structure. So we, on
our street, believe in evolution, we’re not dinosaurs and we want to evolve. I have one picture
to conclude with which is our example. I’ve got to .get that out. This shows our street. This is
a view from here looking towards the end. When my husband and I wanted to extend our house
in 1993 it was apparent from our position that the construction of a two story house would have
so greatly changed the vista of the neighborhood that it was just inappropriate. So we petitioned
to the City, again this was 1993, for exceptions to the setbacks because we wanted to keep the
eichler feel, keep the one story low profile feel, true not only of the eichlers on our street but also
of. the adjacent ranch style single story homes on the other streets. In order to do this we, of
course as you know it is expensive to apply for an extension, it takes a lot of time, but we went
City of Palo Alto ....Page 56
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
to that trouble and here is the petition that we circulated to our neighbors in support of our request
for the exception. You’ 11 see what we have here is stated that the single story expansion would
maintain a symmetrical and even vista at the end of the street and that the single story is a
prominent feature here. I see my yellow light is on and I’m at the end. Just to say this isn’t
something we thought up on the short term. This petition dates from 1993. The very large
majority of the people who are on the street, most of whom are here tonight, signed it at that time.
We’ve all felt this way for a long time. So we really believe in the concept of evolution. We
think that diverse neighborhoods and diverse features are important because different people look
for different things in neighborhoods. This is something that really can only be preserved by the
community. So I’ll thank you for your attention. I’ll stop there.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Bruce Jaffe to be followed by James Witt.
Mr. Bruce Jaffe, 3780 E1 Centro, Palo Alto: Hi, I’m Bruce Jaffe, I represent myself and my
wife. Although I’m not in opposition to a one story overlay for the La Jennifer homes I cannot
support if for the four houses on E1 Centro that are included in the tract. Three out of the four
of us have not signed the petition for the single story overlay. E1 Centro is a very diverse street,
only including four eichlers and then a number of one and two story homes. So although I
support the La Jennifer homes I do not support E1 Centro and hope you will not pass this petition
for rezoning ours and will change it to reflect just the homes of those, since it is a small area now,
I think it can be squeezed four more homes for the three out of four of us that don’t really want
it and we can move on. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. James Witt to be followed by Susan Knudsen.
Mr. James Witt, 722.Chimalus, Palo Alto: Hi I’m James Witt, 925 Ridge.
I’m probably the catalyst for the petition and then I’m a developer and I bought one of the lots,
808 La Jennifer. So I w.ant to just say right off the bat I am designing a one story house and
hopefully that will take any pressure off the neighbors inight feel in terms of .urgency. I just want
to go through some specific things and mention them and sort of throw them out for your benefit.
With regard to meeting your criteria I think there are some important distinctions here that
separate this from some of the other one story overlays. Most important is that it is not in the
deed restriction. There is no height restriction in the deeds. So when people bought these houses,
or buy them, they are under the impression that they can add a second floor onto their house.
They are not similar. In fact the houses on Timlott are completely different. So if it were just
the eichlers it would be similar but Timlott is conventional homes. A lot of them are not moderate
size and some of the biggest people pushing for this have the quite large lots. So of course they
are okay with one story because they have 8-12,000 foot. The people with the 7,000 and 8,000
foot lots are the ones that are really going to get hurt by this. In the design of the one story versus
the two story I experienced about a 20% increase in the cost, I covered up more of the yard, I had
a problem with flexibility design, light, long hallways. It is just not as nice as the house would
have been. I’ve done a lot of houses in Barron Park, I don’t consider any of them to be monsters.
We do things for privacy that are much more on target than one story versus two story. That’s
the problem here, this tool of a one story overlay is being used to address the privacy issues and
City of Palo Alto Page 57
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
the size issues -- it’s not the right tool. So what we do is we take windows out of the second floor
on the sides, we use glass block, we plant trees, plant trees on the site, plant trees on the
neighbor’s site, adjust the mass of the second floor, these kinds of things. None of which are
being addressed with this one story overlay. The house that I’m going to tear down is an eichler,
it’s a dog. It has a slab, there is no furnace, there is no place to put the ducts, there’s no seismic
reinforcement, it is totally unsafe in a earthquake. If I went to add on to the house it is virtually
impossible. After January it will be virtually impossible to add on to these homes. People have
done it in the past but that’s under the old rules. Those rules don’t allow you to just add on to
an eichler and leave the rest of it alone. You have to go back and seismically upgrade it which
is almost impossible. They are energy inefficient, there is no crawl space under the floor, there
is no attic space to run the ducts, slabs are cracked, radiant heat is leaking, the front door to this
house is around the back of house, you can’t even fmd it from the street. So what do you do with
that? Remodelling wasn’t in the cards for this house. Granted there are some nice houses there
and that’s why I liked the neighborhood. So I’m going to do the one story thing but I think this
is the wrong tool. for the problem. I think if anything looks like spot zoning, that’s it. So anyway
I want to point out I have no financial connection to what happens here with regard to this one
story overlay. It is not going to affect me financially one way or the other. I’m speaking because
what I feel is right or wrong and nothing more. Let’s see if I’ve missed anything. There are two
points I Want to make also in that one of the people that voted for this has already got a two story.
So his vote needs to be thrown out. Another person that voted for it is 80 years old and has no
clue what she’s signed. So here vote ought to be thrown out which puts you under the threshold
of 80 %. Two- out and you are under the 80 % threshold so you need to consider that. Do you
have the letter from what’s his name on Timlott that mentions the 80 year old lady had no clue?
You don’t have his letter? He’s the one that talked to his neighbor and she said I signed what?
I had no idea I was signing something said I couldn’t put a second floor on my house. He asked
why she would do something that would devalue her property. She didn’t have a clue. Anyway
it is food for thought. Thank you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Our final speaker is Susan Knudsen. If there is anyone
else who wishes to speak, please fill out a card now otherwise this will be our fmal speaker.
Ms. Susan Knudsen, 835 La Jennifer Way, Palo Alto: My husband and I bought our home at 835
three years ago after an intensive search. As you are now well aware it is an eichler. Previously
we had rejected eichlers, we always thought they were rather strangely designed. When we saw
this home in this location it didn’t matter that it was old eichler. We wanted to live in this place,
in this quiet tree-lined cul-de-sac. We paid a lot of money to do so and we did it with the full
knowledge that we would spend more money to bring this old and poorly maintained home up to
the standard that we desired. This house had been rented for 14 years before we bought it and
at least one of the other bidders had slated it as a tear down. We value the place, the
neighborhood as part of our home. It is a refuge in our busy professional lives. We value the
quiet, privacy and sense of community that comes with the neighborhood. We sought out this
kind of place. I am confident that at any time there will be other busY professional people seeking
this kind of place to live in. I must emphasize here that if our home had been overlooked by a
two story residence we would not have purchased it. I urge you to remember that there is much
City of Palo Alto Page 58
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
more to the concept of value than the selling price of the property. My husband and I, and I
believe our neighbors, are not reactionary or preservationist. Most of us have made some
modification to our homes. We have done so with the intention of making the minimum impact
on our mutual ,environment. We have worked with thoughtful and creative architects and
managed, for the most part, to enhance our living space without having to add second stories.
A majority of the families in the neighborhood are in agreement that we do not want new two
story homes or addition to homes changing the character of where we live. We present our
petition to you in the only way that we can legitimately express our majority opinion. We ask that
you recognize and honor our wishes. We ask that you support our single story petition. Thank
you.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no further speakers, I will now close the public
hearing and bring this discussion back to the Commission. Do Commissioners have any
additional questions for Staff or speakers at this time? Bern? Any additional questions before we
begin our discussion?
Commissioner Burt: When we’ve gone through these single story overlays, what have been the
criteria for setting the boundaries within which we determine a plurality or the overwhelming
support?
Ms. Grote:~ Again, these are_ guidelines that we’ve used but if there is a deed restriction in place
we’ve used a general 75% or greater would be overwhelming support. If there is no deed
restriction in place we’ve said 80% or greater would be overwhelming support. Again, those are
guidelines rather than strict boundaries.
Commissioner Burt: So that is the ~lef’mition of the plurality required but how do we determine
what’s the geographic boundary in which we take that vote? -
Ms. Grote: Again, as a guideline werve said it needs to be an identifiable neighborhood and we
have not def’med it beyond that. We have not said it needs to be a tract or an area of a certain
number of homes o~ lots. So I think generally if it is def’med by.streets that would suffice, and
it’s got a similar architectural style to it, and it could be def’med as a neighborhood. I did also
want to mention that the letter that was referred to, by the second to the last speaker, is in your
packet. I think it is the second to the last letter.
Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Schmidt.
Commissioner Schmidt: Question for Staff. We’ve just talked about these things being guidelines
rather than specific requirements. Is that also tree for the lot size recommendation? So that we
say characterized by a medium sized lots but since that’s guideline it could be larger lots, smaller
lots, etc.
Mr. Lee: Yes, that is my understanding that every def’mition in the guideline is subject to some
flexibility. That’s correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 59
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
Commissioner Beecham: On the same subject, a question on lot size. The Staff report says there
are five lots between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. Looking at the map I am assuming that the four lots
on E1 Centro are between 6 and 7,000. Would that be correct?
Mr. Lee: There actually is an inventory in the packet here and bear with me while I fred it.
Chairman Byrd: Attachment B.
Mr. Lee: Right. The four lots on E1 Centro are roughly 62-6300.
Chairman Byrd: Other questions for Staff?.
Commissioner Burt: Yes. This letter that asserts that Lloyd Stanly who had signed the petition
is not in support of the petition, it’s a second hand assertion. Has there been any ability to
determine whether that is a changed position or accurately portrayed here?
Mr. Lee: We have a signed petition from the owner of the home and have not had any either
verbal or written communications to the contrary.
Commissioner Burt: We’ve now had two consecutive overlay applications where we’ve had
disputes where folks who either signed it have retracted their support or in this case someone else
claiming that this person has retracted support. I~ seems like this is becoming a problematic
pattern that somehow we need to be able to have a better sense whether we have achieved that
80% or that 75 % whichever the requirement is. Are there any thoughts on how we might do that
differently in the future?
Mr. Lee: One of the purposes of these hearings, as you know, is to try and shake out those
issues. In the previous instance that you mentioned the people who did change their mind came
forward at the public hearing and submitted either a written or an oral comment to that effect.
Absent that second input I’m not sure there’s a whole lot else we can do.
Commissioner Beecham: In that regard, I understand from one of the speakers tonight that you
assisted with writing up some type of presentation that went along with the petition to be signed
so that people could read the Staff’s words so to speak. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: Not exactly. What I try and do with every neighborhood that comes forward is to share
with them the information that presented by previous neighborhoods. The signature form that has
been used by all neighborhoods, to my knowledge, is exactly the same and that is because we
share with them the petition of the prior applicants.
Commissioner Beecham: That form, does it include a description of what the intent is?
Mr. Lee: Yes it does.
City of Palo Alto Page 60
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
Commissioner Beecham: Thank you.
Commissioner Butt: Is that attached in our packets?
Mr. Lee: We do have it available here to pass out if you’d like.
Commissioner Schmidt: The applicant I believe it is stated in the report here that for example the
people on La Calle were also in support of this concept. They have larger lots so that they were
not included in the proposal. My general question is why wasn’t this addressing a larger area,
that there are additional on Timlott that are not included, and there are lots on Carlitos and E1
Centro that are also small lots. It looks like from the information we have that most of them are
one story. This is a very small group of houses and I understand the beauty of the particular
street.
Mr. Lee: That was exactly my reaction when I received the initial inquiry from the neighborhood
and I encouraged the applicants to look beyond the original proposal which was just on L Jennifer
Way to see in fact whether there was support beyond that individual street. There is another map
in your packet which shows the support and the number of stories in that neighborhood. In
discussion with the applicant we looked at the pattern that the supporters on a geographical basis
would make and it did not, in our opinion form a coherent neighborhood. So there were several
issues. One was whether there was a coherent pattern_ of support which we believe there was not.
And two, what the lot sizes were, and three the existing pattern of two story homes. So the areas
that were not included in the subject application did not meet one of those three criteria and the
neighbors felt that it was not in their best interest to include them.
Commissioner Schink: Could Staff comment on their opinion whether this application would be
harmed much by the elimination of the four houses on E1 Centro?
Mr. Lee: It would not change the basic rectangular or L-shape of the proposal. It would not
change the overwhelming support of the proposal. It would not affect materially the percentage
of single story homes in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schink: Maybe I can ask the question a different way. Why were they included
if three of the four didn’t want to be in there?
Mr. Lee: The original tract is basically defined along E1 Centro so that was the original thinking.
Chairman Byrd: Seeing no further questions, why don’t we open up a discussion. We have a
Staff recommendation in front of us in support of the application. Would anyone like to offer first
thoughts. Commissioner Cassel.
Commissioner Cassel: Actually I wanted to ask a question of Planning Commissioners that I
asked of Staff. I’d be interested to know why it is we allow more floor area ration, what the
arguments were because I was not involved in that discussion, to allow more floor area ratio for
City of Palo Alto Page 61
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
the building itself than for site coverage. So that we in essence tell people that if they want to use
all of the floor area ratio they must use the second story.
Commissioner Schink: My recollection of sort of weighing those two issues when we went
through the single family rewrite is that there was very little attention paid to lot coverage. All
of the focus was on FAR and FAR was reduced quite dramatically. I don’t think people really,
at the time, gave it a lot of thought that suddenly the FAR was coming as close to the lot coverage
as it was. So I don’t think that there was any balancing that was considered. It was just totally
separate issues. This lot coverage figure has been pretty much the same for as long as I can
remember, a good 20 years.
Commissioner Casse!: In terms of discussion, one of the things I’ve noticed is that we’re more
and more covering area with a single family overlay zone and in order to allow people to use the
rest of their FAR, essentially the rest of it or most of it because Jon’s calculations say that if you
went up you lose !50 square feet anyway in the staircase, that what we are doing is forcing people
to go up. In making the two numbers different we’ve lost the ability in any place in town to
electively use all of our FAR. We’re forcing people to want to go to overlay zones to allow
themselves to stay on the first floor. It’s sort of a backwards way of thinking of what we’ve been
doing but I feel a real dichotomy. This neighborhood, I’m just using this neighborhood as an
example or any neighborhood, gets a single family overlay zone everyone must stay to a single
family overlay zone. But if you’re in another single family residential neighborhood that doesn’t
have any overlay zone and you want to use all of your FAR you can’t and stay on the first floor.
Today with the land prices so high you want to use all of your FAR. So you are essentially forced
into using it on the second floor._ So here we are.really getting angry about second stories and not
really saying but it is permissible to use a single story. I’m finding a real dichotomy. It’s not an
issue we are going to resolve tonight but it’s something I think we need to think about as we
approach the zoning issue. If this is really so important that people stay on the first floor then not
only people in single overlay zones but others ought to be electively able to do it. I just sense that
one of the things we were looking at was if energy efficiency and some of those issues, but Jon
said they weren’t thinking about that. It is of course unfair to put Jon on the spot for having
looked up what he said that many years ago. I have other issues on this and some other people
want to talk.
Chairman Byrd: Perhaps a reaction to the Staff recommendation if we’re that far along.
Commissioner Schink: I was just going to say that one of the nice things about us having to do
these single story overlay reviews is that we have done a number of them so our positions are all
pretty well staked out here. We all know where everyone is coming from so let me cut to the
chase and I’ll get the real issue in front of the Commission and then maybe we can argue over the
specific facts of this application. So I would like to move the Staff recommendation but modify
it by eliminating 3780 E1 Centr0, 3790 E1 Centro, 3800 E1 Centro, 3806 E1 Centro.
Chairman Byrd: Is there a second?
City of Palo Alto - Page 62
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
Commissioner Beecham: Second.
Chairman Byrd: Discussion on the motion? The maker.
Commissioner Schink: I think the arguments that the applicants have made for this application
are obviously compelling. It is a neighborhood that is well suited to a single story overlay that
the character is best protected by doing so. But in keeping with our tradition of not forcing this
upon people I think it is hard to apply those rules to the four homes on E1 Centro where there isn’t
consensus. It is easy for us to just move the sort of the line of demarkation in one set of lots. I
think we get better consensus and still accomplish what we are trying to accomplish.
Chairman Byrd: Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I f’md this a very difficult proposal. I wasn’t comfortable in previous
applications that have come before us but felt that because there was a pre-existing deed restriction
that it was an identifiable neighborhood and a large neighborhood. Privacy was a large concern.
Homes behind the homes that were moving the application were included so that someone behind
those homes could not build a second story. Those are rather compelling. What I have here
seems to be somewhat gerrymandered, sort of "neighborhood." As I drove through that
neighborhood I was struck by the fact that the only homes that seemed to constitute a
neighborhood are on La Jennifer Way. Timlott does not seem to bear very much relation to those
homes on La Jennifer. It seems to me that before we take away from these people on La Jennifer
the right to build a second story we consider whether due process has been done. I think this goes
to one of the questions that was asked about well, is the process sufficient for people who may
have changed their minds or mis-understood what was being don~. The City was not involved
with this process and it is much easier for me to see us going into-an overlay when people are
acquiring homes subject to a deed restriction. That doesn’t exist here. We can have this problem
of the people on La Jennifer who are uncomfortable about the possibility of second story homes
resolve the issue by having some sort of cross-covenants in their deeds. They are a very small
number of homes and I think that this can be handled in that fashion. I don’t think it is something
that needs the City involvement. I fear for the precedent that we are setting here-. I think this is
too small a neighborhood. It is one that, should they want to have the deed restriction, they can
impose it.
Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Schmidt.
.Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with much of what Annette has said. I think La Jennifer Way
is a lovely street. I am very impressed with what various neighbors have done to maintain the
character there. I appreciate very much the attitude and the wonderful description of value versus
take the buck now, short term versus the long term value. But I think a couple of issue have come
up here that indicate indeed that, as one of you said, this was the only way we could legitimately
present our wishes, single story overlay, and the developer who is going to build there who says
this is the wrong tool for the problem. I think that’s true. It seems like the goal was to end up
with a one story house on that one particular lot. That’s the problem right now. It seems like that
City of Palo Alto Page 63
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
particular problem is being solved. I agree with Annette’s comments about the neighborhood as
presented looks gerrymandered. If we cut off the ones on E1 Centro that don’t want to be part of
it, it still part of La Jennifer, part of Timlott and in my opinion it is very small. It doesn’t really
represent a neighborhood as many of the other single story overlays that have come before us.
I think also Phyllis brought up a very good issue, how do we deal with this in an appropriate way
to allow greater build-out for single story to help as an incentive for an area so that you didn’t
have to resort to single story overlay. As I drove around Barron Park, much of it is single story
but there are two stories. I still feel that many neighborhoods are transitional neighborhoods.
That things change, that things can be updated if people are sensitive as I would hope they would
be, and they aren’t necessarily, but that we will continue to have good looking neighborhoods
without applying single story overlay in much of Palo Alto. It’s still this question of what’s an
appropriate design to fit into a neighborhood to be considerate and we don’t really know how to
solve that problem other than people solving those problems right now. As I said, I really
appreciate that particular street. I think going to vote against putting a single story overlay on it.
Chairman Byrd: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I share some of the concerns that have been expressed especially regarding
the lots on Timlott, that I think a stronger case can be made for the homes on La Jennifer being
a small but identifiable neighborhood with overwhelming support within La Jennifer if we exclude
the E1 Centro lots. I would like to propose an amendment to the motion in that the lot on Timlott,
840 Timlott, that there seems to be a question as to whether that property owner supports
inclusion in the overlay. That if Staff should determine .........
[Section missing on the tape]
Commissioner Cassel: [in process] .... things around them, ways of living. There maybe
something we need to do in terms of how we design some of these homes and how we handle that
is certainly an issue that we’ve talked about and we’re going to be talking about more. I’m also
concerned about comments about 80 year old’s. All of us hope to be 80 and most of us who get
to be 80 will be quite alert. Some of us at 40 are not. Age is not related to our dementia or
dementia is not related to our age it is related to our health and our good luck. Because someone
is 80 they may have difficulty, it’s not because of their age and understanding. As we work with
people we must understand that most 80 and 90 year old’s have the ability to understand as well
as you and I. I will be voting against the motion.
Chairman By.rd: They’ve had a turn and have another. Bern, go.
Commissioner. Beecham: I’ve not had a turn yet. Let me say first off that I do truly enjoy
Phyllis’ points of view and fresh points of view that are otherwise are not represented well here
on the Planning Commission, even though she is wrong on this issue. Let me address a few
points just going down a short list here. One, there was a comment made about taking away
rights on Timlott. As far as we know by signatures on the petition rights are being voluntarily
surrendered to the community by those on Timlott who are in fact involved in this consideration
City of Palo Alto Page 64
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
tonight. I think Pat’s amendment to the motion is appropriate if this one person at 840 does
decide that it’s not right for them then it is appropriate that they be’let out it. I think Jon was
right in looking at the four lots on E1 Centro. They are generally smaller lots. They are more
impacted. Fortunately if we do go through with this tonight and they are excluded that will not
have that much impact on the neighborhood of La Jennifer. Certainly the gateway is a little bit
affected as you come in but on one side you’ve got Mr. Witt and his development at 808 which
will be single story and he’s not the resident there. The property at 813 may be affected some
time in the future but I think that’s an appropriate accommodation to maybe move us forward.
Mr. Witt also mentioned this is the wrong tool for doing things such as apparently he’s done on
one of his houses out there. We’ve talked about that up here ourselves and unfortunately we have
no right tool. One tool that has been discussed and other places have is design review. We don’t
have that. There is no tool by which we can .insure that other developers may be as thoughtful
in this regard as Mr. Witt has been. On the boundaries, I think the boundaries as drawn by the
group coming in here tonight and as proposed by the Staff is appropriate, winding down La
Je,rmifer and over and picking up a portion of Timlott. It may not be as clean as we ordinarily
might like to see but it certainly is a definable neighborhood for La Jennifer. Even though it is
small I know you guys think you are a neighborhood. That ought to be the defmition, I think.
Another comment is, as we talked about already, there has been concern on what people really
understand is really going on as they get the petition and sign it. I was glad to hear tonight that
Staff has worked with you m developing what you took around. I would urge Staff to go further
in the next neighborhood and actually write-up or present a summary that is to be attached to the
petition to say here is what is going to happen, here is what’s given up, here is what your rights
are that you are f0rgomg. So that as other groups get it there won’t be any question about at least
the information they had. They may not have thought about it. They may sign it under duress
or not reading it but we can’t help that. At least we will have taken every possible _step to insure
that what they get is representing what may happen. ~ do believe in this case you have probably
done that. One other thing I’d add, and this getting a little bit out of the area before us tonight,
the Staff had recommended to this group that the neighborhood on [La Cow] not be included
because the houses are too large. Just as we’ve said for this location that these are guidelines we
are looking at for moderate sized lots, I’d be curious, I don’t know what the Commission would
do and I don’t know what the Council would do, but I’d be interested to entertain an application
even from larger lots if they are of a consistent mind, and the other-criteria are generally met;~
even though their lots are not what we call moderate I think that may warrant coming in here and
requesting a single story overlay if that is what they desire. So with all that said, I will support
the motion.. ........
Commissioner Bials0n: I know I’ve already had a chance to speak but this is in response to
comments made by my fellow Commissioners. I only want to touch on two issues that are of
concern to me here that I haven’t already spoken about, some of them I already have but I want
to expand on them. Number one is due process. I don’t ~ you achieve that by having
neighbors go around presenting proposals to other neighbors. I think there is a pressure there,
subtle or not so subtle, that does not allow people to enunciate their true feelings or to give the
proposal enough weight m their consideration. I feel strongly that while it is nice that Mr. Lee
assisted that does not rise to the level of due process in this situation. I think we need to be aware
City of Palo Alto Page 65
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
of that and nothing in this proposal that is before us meets the requirements of guideline number
four. We do not have moderate lot sizes. We definitely do not have generally consistent lotting
pattern. I think what this was intended to go towards in terms of having overlays applied on
properties that with a typical grid pattern where privacy was a large issue especially with eichlers
and you don’t have that here. I think it’s in appropriate for the City to impose this sort of burden
on people who may, a few months from now, fred themselves in a situation where they might not
feel as they do now with their neighbors sitting next to them as they appear before us because of
other factors being brought to their consideration. It might be a situation where some damage has
occurred to their home and in redeveloping that home they find that they could perhaps have less
impact on their neighbors, assure themselves privacy through some other means other than having
a maintenance of their eichler type home. One of our speakers here spoke about evolution and
allowing that to occur. I think that’s what we need to do. We can’t freeze-frame certain housing
in this community.
Commissioner Burt: I want to take one more cut at it. I share a lot of Annette’s and Phyllis’
concerns about our whole overlay process. First the due process aspects in the last two overlays
that we’ve considered. Second, the issue of essentially penalizing folks who would like to have
full build out of their FAR and would like to do so on a single floor without having to have an
overlay zone in order to be allowed to do that. However, in this circumstance I think that what
we have is essentially all of these properties that we are now including in the boundary being in
support except for Mr. Witt’s property and he’s going to build a single story home, a new
structure that presumable would be for a long while. So I’m inclined to allow these people to
decide for themselves what they want for their neighborhood. If some of the other speakers and
some of the other letters had great concerns that an overlay zone could be imposed upon them on
nearby properties in the future, I would be supportive of those people from having this imposed
upon them. Since we have a near unanimous agreement that this is what these people want for
themselves I’m inclined of letting them decide for their cul-de-sac what they’d like. The
properties that we now have included, I think all now are defined as the moderate size lots. They
have a certain shape, they are generally pie-shaped lots, there is a similarity. It’s a community
that has a similarity to it that I think meets the criteria on number four.
Commissioner Schink: Well, I just have to add one more point of view. As we’ve gone around
and talked the opinion that I don’t think has been emphasized enough here is that we are giving
this neighborhood another tool to better develop their property in a way that is compatible with
the other homes in the neighborhood. It is not so much an issue of taking away the second story
as it is giving them more lot coverage so that when they do decide to remodel or add on to their
homes they have a tool that works better with their particular neighborhood. So I think we need
to put the emphasis on this as something positive as opposed to taking away the second story.
Commissioner Beecham: Since you are looking around, one more time. To me, whenever people
come in here and they voluntarily want to basically down-zone or restrict their future abilities for
something that they believe is valuable to them, and in a way that is not going to detriment the
City in any other way, I just don’t know how we can say no to that.
City of Palo Alto Page 66
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
Chairman Byrd: One of the risks of going last, and it is last, is when the headcount is as it
appears to be. I have voted for every single story overlay that has come before us since we’ve
been on this Commission. While at the same time expressing my displeasure at a policy level with
the way that this zone is written and administered. I think it is a sledgehammer when we need
a scalpel, but I don’t think it is my role to take that out on the applicants for any given overlay
if they can meet the guidelines. I favor the City, at a policy level, going back and taking a fresh
look at this tool and perhaps getting rid of it. That’s a policy level discussion that needs to come
later. What we have before us is a specific application. So then I turn to the guidelines and while
they don’t rise to the level of findings they are intended to structure my thinking about this
application. As I work my way through these guidelines on the first one there have been questions
raised about the level and format of owner support; on the second one on appropriate boundaries
I do have concerns about the small size of this overlay and it being an island and not really a
neighborhood unto itself. It is an island within a larger neighborhood as opposed to a
neighborhood unto itself. I agree that there probably is prevailing single story character within
the identified by the proposed overlay zone but I do not fred that these are in fact moderate lot
sizes for the reasons expressed by Annette. So solely and narrowly on the merits of this
application and not inspired by my general reluctance to continue use this tool, I’m not able to
support the Staff recommendation for this overlay. For that reason I will not be supporting the
motion.
Commissioner Schink: A procedural question. If this fails on a 4-3 vote it still goes to the
Council just on a 4-3 vote, right? That the Planning Commission failed to pass it.
Chairman Byrd: I think technically if the motion fails we need an alternate motion which is to
recommend denial of the Staff recommendation. Staff can advise me on that. I can either call for
a vote on the mo~ion.
Ms. Furth: Why don’t you start there while we look up the answer to your other question.
.Chairman Byrd: Why don’t we vote on the motion that’s before us. We have a motion before
us which is the Staff recommendation as modified by removal of 840 Timlott and the four lots on
E1 Centro. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nos)
That motion fails on a 4-3 vote. The ayes were Commissioners Schink, Burt and Beecham with
the nos being Commissioner Cassel, Schmidt, Byrd, and Bialson. Do I have an alternative
motion?
Commissioner Schink: I would move that we report and we forward this application to the City
Council reflecting the negative vote that was just taken and our discussion.
Ms. Furth: I think we found the right Code section. It says that you will forward your
recommendation to the City Council along with your findings that are the basis for your
recommendation which would suggest to me that you should make another motion if you have a
different recommendation.
City of Palo Alto Page 67
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
Chairman Byrd: So I need a motion that recommends denial of the Staff recommendation and the
basis for that. Since we don’t have f’mdings here, they are just guidelines for the underling basis.
Ms. Furth: I think it means the basis for your decision.
Chairman Byrd: Annette or Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I will recommend denial of this based on the fact that the application
does not meet the guidelines as Owen just elaborated in his description that there is a question
about overwhelming support of neighbors, the application does not seem to have appropriate
boundaries and that it is not characterized by moderate lot sizes.
Chairman Byrd: Do I have a second?
Commissioner Bialson: I second, and I would ask that we modify the motion by also sighting the
fact that these are not generally consistent lotting patterns that we f’md in the applicants.
Commissioner Schmidt: That’s acceptable.
Chairman _BYrd: You want to also modify the motion to include other comments that have been
made in support of the motion through our discussion in case in review of the notes Staff fmds
otherrationale that was expressed to deny the Staff recommendation?
Yes, and we might mention that there we no original deed restrictionsCommissioner Schmidt:
on this.
Commissioner Bialson:I would agree certainly that we sight toall the discussion that held.
Chairman Byrd: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor? (ayes)
Opposed? (nos) That passes on a 4-3 vote with Commissioner Bialson, Schmidt, Byrd and Cassel
voting ayes; and Commissioner Beecham, Burt and Schink voting no. Staff when will this item
go to Council?
Ms. Grote: This will go to Council on November 16th.
Chairman .. Byrd : Very good, that concludes this item. Thank you all very much for coming
tonight. I would like now to move on on our agenda to do the housekeeping and then come back
~ric. The next item is Reports From Committees, seeing none. We have Reports
From 0ffic~ ~f the Comp Plan Implementation Plan.
Mr. Riel: Staff is requesting that item~tober 28th hearing.
discussion?
All those infavor? (ayes) Opposed? That leaves us with having to returnxcr~c.
City of Palo Alto Page 68