HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-21 City Council (14)TO:
CiVy of Polo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
January 21, 1997 CMR:114:97
Request of Property Owners of Tract 795 for Rezoning of 96 Lots
from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay
District
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report transmits a June 18, 1996 request from the property owners of Tract 795 for City
approval of a single story overlay zone. Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council:
Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 4), finding that the proposed
project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and
Adopt the attached ordinance, rezoning the 96 Lots in Charleston Meadows from R-1
Single Family Residential toR-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as .part of the
Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.13) and applied the zone to the Walnut Grove
neighborhood. On April 26, 1993, the zone was applied to the Greenmeadow neighborhood.
The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows
Neighborhood requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 96 single family
parcels contained in Tract 795 (Attachment 5). Survey results reported in the letter indicate
strong neighborhood support for the application of the single story overlay zone.
~ Commission Comments
On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of
the single story overlay. Commissioners generally agreed with the need for the City to codify
the single story restriction that is contained in the deed restrictions of this tract.
CMR:114:97 Page 1 of 8
Commissioners indicated that the single story overlay provides a better vehicle to resolve
potential disputes among neighbors rather than forcing neighbors to resort to lawsuits to
settle any future proposals to construct a second story addition in this single story
neighborhood. However, several Commissioners expressed concerns that the proposed
restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential neighborhoods rather than providing a
workable mechanism to manage change over time. Some Commissioners endorsed the
inclusion of well designed second story homes in residential neighborhoods, but conceded
that the single story overlay was warranted. Charleston Meadows specifically prohibits
second story additions as a legally binding deed restriction.
The vast majority of neighborhood residents who appeared at the meeting supported the
single family overlay zone. Several residents expressed a desire to include the three
additional lots along Park Road between Charleston Road and Carolina Lane (#200
Charleston, 4180 Park, and 231 Carolina). These three homes are all single story and their
inclusion would regnlafize the boundaries of the proposed overlay district. However, the
three homes are not Eichler homes, unlike the other 96 homes, and were not included in the
original tract boundaries established by Joseph Eichler in 1950. The owner .of231 Carolina
indicated his interest in being included in the overlay zone boundaries although the other two
owners were not present.
Should the City Council wish to add these three homes to the proposed boundary, staffwould
need to either: 1) renotice the proposed zone change with the three properties included and
schedule a second round of public hearings prior to consideration of the revised zone change
boundaries or 2) process a second zone change application for the three residences.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance.
_r "
The area is designated for Single Family Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed single-story use is allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. The
uses and site development regulations are consistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan objectives, policies, and programs:
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and
improvements through the review of new development." The area is designated Single
Family Residential and is well suited, for this use. The site is surrounded by similar
and compatible residential uses and forms a coherent pocket of single story
development in this area.
CMR: 114:97 ,’Page 2 of 8
Zoning Ordinance ~.
The application is consistem with all development regulations of the R-1 zoning district.
Compliance of the application with these guidelines is discussed below.
Issues and Analys~i~
The staff analysis for this project relates to zoning compliance and conformance with the
criteria established in the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone
Guidelines.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
Existing: R-1
Proposed: R-1 (S)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential (Single Story Overlay)
Single Family Residential
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18). A comparison of the proposed R-1 (S) Zoning District to the
existing R-1 Zoning District regulations is provided in Table 2.
CMR: 114:97 Page 3 of 8
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Site Area (sq.ft.)
-Lot Width
-Lot depth
Floor Area Ratio
-First 5,000 s.f.
-Remaining s.f.
R-1 (Existing)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
R-I (S) (Proposed)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
30 feet*
35%
.45
¯ .30
Maximum Height 17 feet (Single Story)*
Site Coverage 40%
20
20
6
16
Setbacks
-Front Yard
- Rear Yard
-Interior Side Yard
- Street Side Yard
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.
** For substandard lots, special site development regulatiom apply.
Hei~,ht and Lot Covera
As shown in Table 2, the only changes to the standard R-1 zoning requirements caused by
application of the Single Story Overlay are the height limit reduction from 30 to 17 feet,
the single story restriction and the expansion of lot coverage from 35.to 40 percent.
The only potential results of these revisiom are the reduction of allowable floor area for
lots no larger than 7,500 square feet, and the expanded building footprint allowed by the
increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however, the proposed lot coverage
restrictiom allow maximum floor area ratios that equal those allowed under current R-1
zoning if the lot exceeds 7,5~) square feet. The table below illustrates the net change in
house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is allowable under
current R-1 zoning.
CMR:114:97 Page 4 of 8
Table 2
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S)
Lot Size
6,000 s.f.
.7,000 s.f.
> 7,500 s.f.
Allowable House
Size with R-1
2,550 s.f.
2,850 s.f.
> 3,000 s.f.
Allowable House
Size with R-1 (S)
2,400 s.f.
2,800 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
Net Change
-150 s.f.
- 50 s.f.
0s.f.
Single Story_ Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines establish criteria
for initiating applications for the (S) Overlay zone. The Guidelines specifically state that
"for neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single-story
deed restriction, these guidelines are to be treated with a greater degree of flexibility (than
neighborhoods without the restriction)." Tract 795 has been developed consistent with a
single-story deed restriction. The subject application is evaluated against these criteria as
follows:
1. Level and Format of Owner Support
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should meet with "overwhelming"
support by owners of the affected properties. These owners must demonstrate, by providing
documentation that includes a written list of signatures, an understanding that they are co-
applicants in a zone map amendment request."
The application is accompanied by signed requests from 73 of the 96 properties within
Tract 795. The applicants contend that 19 people did not sign and return the request
because of ambivalence and that only four expressed a possible interest in adding a second
story at some time in the future. A map of property owners who support and do not
support the application is shown on Attachment 3. Because the neighborhood has been
developed consistent with a single-story deed restriction, the (S)overlay guidelines
stipulate ~t Ks criterion should be treated with a greater degree of flexibility, Therefore,
the 76 % rate of support can be considered overwhelming and meets this criterion.
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map
indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning
request. Boundaries... should define an identifiable neighborhood or development."
CMR: 114:97 Page 5 of 8
The application is accompanied by a map showing addresses and locations of the co-
applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood of roughly rectangular shape
that is easily defined by existing street patterns. The neighborhood is generally def’med by
Charleston Road on the southeast, the Caltrain rail line on the northeast, Don Se~ndo
Robles Park on the northwest and by a multiple family neighborhood on the southwest.
Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found it to be a coherent neighborhood of
Eichler homes. There are two sections shown on the attached map that were omitted from
the proposal and prevent the boundaries from being more rectangular in shape. One section
comprises eight homes along Charleston Road (#440-474) of non-Eichler design varying
in height from one to two stories. For urban design reasons, it is preferable to draw zone
boundaries along rear lot lines versus along streets, wherever possible. This allows the
form and character of both sides of the street to be developed in a similar manner when
viewed from the public realm. The architectural design and site layout of these homes are
clearly distinct from the remaining Eichlers in the neighborhood and are justifiably omitted
from the boundaries. The second section comprises three homes along Park Road between
Charleston Road and Carolina Lane (#200 Charleston, 4180 Park, and 231 Carolina). The
architectural design and site layout of these homes are also clearly separate from the
remaining Eichlers in the neighborhood and they are justifiably omitted from the
boundaries. Neither section was included in the original tract laid out by Joseph Eichler
in 1950. 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 96 properties included in this application, 95 are currently single-story and one has
an existing second story (4124 Wilkie Way). Another home has a single story cathedral
ceiling addition currently under construction (254 Tennessee Lane). Homes in this
neighborhood were all built.by Eichler in the early 1950s and feature an indoor/outdoor
floor plan that is well suited to a single story. Imposition of the (S) overlay reinforces
existing deed restrictions which have been exclusively observed with the above two
exceptions. Therefore, the neighborhood is of a prevailing single family character and the
third criterion can be met.
"...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 as7, 000 to 8, 000 square feet."
CMR:114:97 Page 6 of 8
The Charleston Meadows neighborhood is characterized by a consistent lotting pattern
composed of perpendicular streets and cul de sacs. The size of the lots in the area varies
across a range somewhat larger than that defined in the guidelines. The attachedchart
indicates the distribution of lot sizes in the neighborhood. Of the 96 lots, 13 are over 8,000
square feet, 22 are 7,000 to 8,000 square feet, 50 are 6,000 to 7,000 square feet, and 11
are 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. Applying the flexible interpretation described above for
defining moderate lot size, 72 of 96 or 75 % of the lots can be considered moderate in size.
Therefore, the fourth criterion can be met.
The subject application meets all four of the criteria established by The Single Story Height
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the City Council are to:
1)Contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district or consider expansion of
the boundaries. Consideration of expansion of the boundaries requires referral back
to the Planning Commission for public heating and property owner notification; or
2) Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for the Tract 795 neighborhood.
EISCAL IMPACT
The impact to the City resulting from this application is to the contingency hours currently
available in the Planning Division’s 1996-97 Work Program. This assignment has taken
about 40 hours to date of the 573 contingency hours allocated by the City Council in the
1996/97 Work Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL ~
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared
for the project and determined that the project would have a less than significant impact
on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Negative
Declaration was made available for public review from November 20 through December
11, 1996 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment 4).
~OWING_APPRO_V_AL
Should the City Council adopt the attached ordinance and rezone the neighborhood from
R-1 to R-1 (S), the ordinance would return to the Council for a second reading on
February 3, 1997 and become effective 30 days after the second reading.
CMR:114:97 Page 7 of 8
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:
Attachmem 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Rezoning Ordinance
List of Property Owners
Location Map Showing Supporters of the S Overlay
EIA
June 18, 1996 request from the property owners of Tract 795 for City
approval of a single story overlay zone
Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
Chart: Distribution of Lot Sizes for 96 Lots
December 30, 1996 letter from Ronald G. Bushnell
PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CC:All Property Owners Shown on Attachment 2
Property Owner, 200 Charleston, Palo Alto, 94306
Property Owner, 4180 Park, Palo Alto, 94306
Donald Wilson, 231 Carolina, Palo Alto, 94306
Ronald G. Bushnell, Bushnell & Associates, 2055 Grant Road, Suite #200, Los
Altos, CA 94024
CMR: 114:97 Page 8 of ~
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF APORTION OF PROPERTY
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "CHARLESTON MEADOWS TRACT
795" FROM R-I TO R-I(S)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held December ii, 1996, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto "Municipal Code be
amended as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, 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.
.NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
a portion of certain property, collectively known as "Charleston
Meadows Tract 795" (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 this project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIII
I1.II
IIIIIIII
III1
961117 lac 0080412
1
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASS ED :
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS :
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2
961117 la¢ 0080412
CS(H)
Exhibit
Rezoning from R-1 to
eingle etor~ overlay
RM-30
File Noe: 96-ZC-9; 96-EIA-22
400 f~ bOO
1 Ingh = 400
Date: 12-11-96
North
Attachment 2
LIST OF SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY O~RS REQUESTING SINGLE-STORY
OVERLAY ZONE
(The order below follows the tax records by block and lot number. The number used here was
assigned to link this list and the signature forms.)
#Address
1 4133 Park
2 4135 Park
4 4147 Park
5 4153 Park
6 4159 Park
10 4183 Park
11 4187 Park
15 364 Tennessee
16 354 Tennessee
17 344 Tennessee
18 334 Tennessee
19 294 Tennessee
20 284 Tennessee
21 274 Tennessee
23 4 i 18 Park
24 4126 Park
25 4124 Wilkie
28 444 Tennessee
29.454 Tennessee
30 464 Tennessee
33 453 Tennessee
34 443 Tennessee
Name
Jeff Hayes
Selma Herzl, Trustee
Agnes Kirkeby
William & Ernestine Chester
Lucile and J’.H. Craven
Selma Herzl, Trustee
Som & Anna Wan
William & Diana Levdar
Peter Borden
Richard & Mildred Davis
Robert & Mary Noyes
Edwin & Nancy Fox
Robert & Maxine Harrison
Jeanne M. Fergnson
Igor & Idna Neymaa
Mafilyn Edwardson
Ladofis CordelFFlorence Keller
Comments
new owner
is also 244 Tennessee
Fred & Made Schill
Ad Berman/Robin Winston
Doffs M. Watson
Philip & Florence LaRiviere
Richard & Mildred Davis
35 433 Tennessee
36 4144 Wilkie
37 4154 Wilkie
38 4164 Wilkie
39 4174 Wilkie
40 422 Carolina
41 442 Carolina
42 452 Carolina
43 462 Carolina
44 470 Carolina
45 471 Carolina
47 451 Carolina
48 441 Carolina
49 431 Carolina
50 421 Carolina
51 381 Carolina
52 371 Carolina
53 361 Carolina
54 351 Carolina
55 341 Carolina
56 331 Carolina
57 291 C~olina
58 281
59 271
62 240
63 250
65 280
66 290
Carlos & Jaequeline Feder
Inez Brennan
Ralph Eseola
William & Ann Robinson
Hedda Sehatzki
Dorothy Jackson/Evelyn Hodgdon
Dwight & Robin Clark
Doris Shewbridge
Jeanne Low
William & Teresa Stanton
Charles & Nancy Spangler
Setsuko Okada
Joseph & Judy Nalman
Anne Hessing
John Sessons
Donald & Leatriee Wiokert
Hazel Eiekworth
Marshall & Edith Carriek
David Perlmutter/Kathleen Murren
Pedro Rump
George & Mary Roberts
Javad & Di~a Adle
Carolina
Carolina
W. Charleston
W. Charleston
W. Charleston
W. Charleston
Marc & Toshiko Bookman
J.H. & Phyllis Rokita
Fr~in & Jean Olmsted
Lewis & Theda Sapudar
Glen & Simone Anderson
Mary Martinson
new owners
67
69
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
85
86
90
91
92
93
94
95
"96
300 W. Charleston
350 W. Charleston
370 W. Charleston
4149 Wilkie
4155 Wilkie
4161 Willde
4175 Willde
362 Carolina
352 Carolina
342 Carolina
332 Carolina
292 Carolina
282 Carolina
272 Carolina
4176 Park
4166 Park
273 Tennessee
283 Tennessee
293 Tennessee
333 Tennessee
343 Tennessee
353 Tennessee
363 Tennessee
Steven Jeske
Russell & Betty Risser
Bennett & Treeila Perera
Madlyn Kratt
Philip Smaller
Edgar Poe
Alexander Ross
Norman Hart
Roland Lowe
Michael & Elizabeth Fitting Keller
Seliehi & Fumiko Yokoyama
John & Marion Bracken
Ruth Cdss
Ruth Cross
J.C. & Janet Hagen
Krzysztof& Marta Kozak
Helen Van Dyke
Olga Van Deinse
Anne Houghteling
Margie Nemeik-Crtm
Timothy Learmont/Mark Stein
David & Paula Collins
Laurent Vignaud
330 W. Charleston
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WHO DID NOT SIGN REQUESTING SINGLE STORY
OVERLAY ZONE
3 4137 Park
7 4163 Park
8 4169 Park
9 4173 Park
12 4195 Park
13 4133 Willde
14 4139 Wilkie
22 254 Tennessee
26 4134 Wilkie
27 434 Tennessee
31 473 Tennessee
32 463 Tennessee
46 461 Carolina
60 251 Carolina
61 241 Carolina
64 270 W. Charleston
68 340 W. Charleston
70 360 W. Charleston
72 4193 WilkJe
84 252 Carolina
87 4154 Park
88 253 Tennessee
89 4144 Park
Victor Scheinman
Lawrence & Kathleen Mone
Tess Vanscoy
Edda Feely
Bonny Pettegrew
Adeline Gill & Leslie Donahue
Joan Holtzman
Sein, Win & Pansy
Adeline Gill & Leslie Donahue
Carolyn & Michael Rowen
George & Marilyn Haupert
Edward & Masako Kanazawa
¯ Alfred & Joan Kahler
Eugene & Ruth Whitworth
Roland Fechner
Mark & Hyewin Choi
Arthur & Dorothy Robinson
John Barton& Lydia Tan
John & Leslie Sweeny
Adolph & Ruth Pfefferbaum
George & Karen Wong
Joan Rondell
Kevin Moore
in Korea for 3
years - no
response
new owners
Attachment 3
PF
cs(H)
RM -30
File No ,: 96-ZC-9; 96-ETA-22
0 400 f~800 ft
Scale: 1 Inch = 400 ft
EXHIBIT
Attachment 4
ENVIRONMENTAL C ECKLIST FORM
o
w
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:~
Project Location:
Applicatio~ Number(s):
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of the Project:
S Overlay- Charleston Meadows
City of Palo Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
415-329-2441
Charleston Meadows: generally bounded by
Charleston Road, Alma Street, Robles Park,
and El Camino Real in Palo Alto, CA
96-ZC-9; 96-EIA-22
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Single Family Residential
R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The neighborhood.is exclusively single family and predominately single story in
.character. There are 96 single family lots located within the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on three sides
(northeast, northwest, and southeast) and by a multiple family neighborhood on
the southwest.
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/I 1/96]Page 1
11.Other public age;~: 71=.s whose approval is required. Nr ~.
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 anti
Circulation
Biological Resources Aesthetics
Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Hazards Recreation
Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Utilities and Service
Systems
P;\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
.prepared.
I find that the proposed project-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
Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment
// //
Date
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1 ) 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).
2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-
referenced).
5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or’negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zon.ing ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should
be cited in the discussion.
7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 4
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including ~ low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?.
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
4
4
4
4
4
4
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
! I
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources JSources Potentially
Significant
Isauos
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact N°IImpact
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
4,5 X
c)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?
3,17 X
d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body or wetland?
3 X
e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
3,17 X
f)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?
3 X
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has
contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
3
6,17
X
X
i)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?X
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?3
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 6,8,9exiting or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?6,8,9
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
X
X
X
X
!
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
8ignifioant
Issues
Potentially
Significsnt
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 parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrian~ or bicyclists?
f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
10
10,
11,
12
3, 10
10
10
3
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,8
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?8, 16
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in:
8,16
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
3
c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
8
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/11/96]Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sourcs8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11,
12,
13
3,12,
13
3, 12,
13
3,12
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?8, 12
b) Police protection?8, 11
c) Schools?8
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 8
storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?8
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result =n a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
c)
15
15
15
Power or natural gas?
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? .
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
Solid waste disposal?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
d)15 X
e)15 X
f)15 X
P:\EIA\soVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact IImpact
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
3
3
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
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)
X
d)Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
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 (c) (3) (D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects~that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 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\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Loss Than
Significant
¯ Impact
6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval
7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department
8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994
9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994
10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division
11 City of Palo Alto Police Department
12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department
13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division
!4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994
! 5 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111196]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
Eichler-style home 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.
(p:\eia\SOVERLAY.EIA)
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 12
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Attachment 5
June 18, 1996
City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for Submission to Cit~£ounci~ati~
Commission/City Council
Property Owners of Tract 795
Request from Coapplicants of Tract 795 for Application of the Single-Story
Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone to the Present R-1 Zoning of the
Tract
We request that the zone for Tract 795 be changed from R-1 to R-1 (S).
We are attaching the following documents in support of this application:
1.A copy of the official deed restriction which limits residences in
tract 795 to one story. Also attached is a more readable typed copy
of the same document.
Section one of the document limits residences to one story in
height.
A copy of the Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay
Zone Guidelines prepared by the City of Palo Alto.
The introduction to these guidelines says that neighborhoods that
have a single-story restriction and that have been developed
consistent with that restriction are to be treated with a greater
degree of flexibility when theyapply for the overlay zone than those
that do not have the deed restriction.
There is only one two-story house in this zone (4124 Willde).
Therefore this application should be considered generously.
A copy of the information packet which was distributed to all
property owners in the tract. These packets were hand delivered to
all property owners living in the tract. Absentee owners were sent
the same information by mail. At least one of the several signature
collectors spoke to almost all of the property owners in the tract.
Follow up flyers were distributed to everyone who did not respond
to the first packet. Thus a serious effort was made to contact every
owner.
-2-
To meet the first overlay guideline request for "Level and Format
of Owner Support"-- ,.
Signed requests for the single-story overlay zone from the owners
of 73 of the 96 properties in the tract are attached. A written list of
signers is included. We are also attaching a list of the property
owners whose signatures we were unable to obtain.
We feel that the 73 signers easily represent "overwhelming"
support for the overlay zone.
To meetthe second overlay guideline request for "Appi’opriate
Boundaries’, and the third guideline request for "Prevailing Single-
Story Character"--
A map showing the boundaries of tract 795 is attached. The tract
boundaries were established by the Eichler development which took
place in 1950. The streets involved are Carolina, Tennessee, and-
parts of Charleston, Wilkie and Park as shown.
Again, at the present time them is only one two-story house in the
tract. Many of the houses have been remodeled in various ways,
but the neighborhood is still a one-story, compatible neighborhood
composed of Eichier homes.
6.To meet the overlay guideline request for "Moderate Lot Sizes"--
A chart showing the number of lots of various sizes in the tract is
included. Seventy-two of the 96 lots are between 6,000 and 8,000
square feet showing that most of the lots are of generally
compatible size. There are 11 lots smaller than 6,000 feet and 13
that are larger than 8,000 square feet. (These calculations are
based on the tax assessor/TRW figures and may or may not be
accurate for irregularly shaped lots.)
Please contact any of the following ifyou need further information. Also we
would appreciate your letting us know the next step inthis process. We hope that
the overlay will free neighbors from any need to take legal action against their
neighbors who may start to build 2-story houses.
Sincerely,
-3-
Milly Da~s, 344 Tennessee, 493-2428
Florence La_Rivicre, 453 Tennessee, 493-
5540
1ean Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston, 493-3468
Marilyn Edwardson, 4126 Park, 493-8864
Attachment 6
Sinqle-Story Heiqht Combininq District (S)
Overlay Zone Guidelines
The following guidelines are intended to guide City staff
and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone change
requests for application of the Single-Story Height
Combining District (S) overlay zone. For neighborhoods in
which there are no single-story deed restrictions, or where
such restrictions exist yet have not been strictly adhered
to, applications are to’be evaluated through more rigorous
use of these guidelines. However, for those neighborhoods
that contain and have been developed consistent with a
single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are to be
treated with a greater degree of flexibility.
i.Level and Format of Owner Support
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.
~riate Boundaries
An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment
should be accompanied by a map indicating the address
location of those owners who are co-applicants for the
rezoning request. Boundaries which may correspond
with certain natural or man-made features (i..e.
roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, etc.) should
define an identifiable neighborhood or dev41opment.
These boundaries will be recommended to the Planning
Commission and City Council by.the City’s Zoning
Administrator.
Prevailin Sinqle-Stor~ Character
An areaproposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment
should be of a prevailing single-story character where
the vast majority of existing homes are single-story,
thus limiting the number of structures rendered
noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods
currently subject to single-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
a: sguide, doc
character, ensuring that residents of an area proposed
for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood
preservation and face common home remodeling
constraints.
Moderate Lot Sizes
In order to maintain equitable p~operty 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 amendment should be
characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally
consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to
be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet.
ILKIE WAY
-; .-Sheet2 Chart 4 :Attachment 7
Distribution of Sizes for 96 Lots
8000-0VER
~ 7000-7999
o
.N
U) 6000-6999
5000-5999
20 30 40 50
Number of Lots
Page 1
Attachment 8BUSHNELL & ASSOCIATE[.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTAIqTS
2055 GRANT ROAD, SUITE #200
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA 94024
December 30, 1996
Lisa Grote
Zoning Administrator
City of Paio Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Ms. Grote,
I am writing in regards to the proposed single-story overlay zone map amendment for Tract 795
(Charleston Meadows Neighborhood). I have held a Power of Attorney pertaining to the
properties located at 251 Carolina, within the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood, and 255 West
Charleston, directly across the street from the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood, for over a
year. During that time the property tax records have reported the mailing addresses for both
properties to be 2055 Grant Road, Suite #200, Los Altos, CA 94024.
The property at 251 Carolina was the recipient of rental tenants who destroyed the property. As
a result, the property was cited for multiple code violations and was "red tagged" by the City
resulting in the disconnection of all utilities to the property, and the requirement that the property
is to be repaired to current code with respect to electrical and many other aspects of the house.
We have been working with the City of Palo Alto in attempts to repair/remodel the property in
a manner that would be best for the neighborhood and the property owner. Construction to the
property needed to bring the house to the current City requirements amounts to almost $100,000.
This remodeling, however, does not address many of the problems inherent to the poor design
and unsafe materials/workmanship of this Eichier design home including structural support
inadequacies. The’ property owners decided that-due to the exorbitant cost of
repairing/remodeling the house at 251 Carolina, they would just leave it in itscurrent state until
they could obtain the funds to demolish the current home and build a new.home which would
meet current safety, architectural, and design standards. I personally had agreed with the City
code enforcement personnel that I would "clean up the mess" at 251 Carolina, and they agreed
to enforce the City code pertaining to 241 Carolina which is also an extreme eyesore. As a
result, I purchased the property at 251 Carolina since the owners refused to do anything with the
property in the near term. My purchase was primarily a result of the immediate need for
improvement of the property, and I have been working with Planning Department personnel
pertaining to the zoning requirements for the property.
I was never informed of the proposed single-story overlay zone map amendment by Planning
Department personnel or from required mailing notification. We were in the stages of finalizing
the plans on a two story residence at 251 Carolina which meets all the current zoning
requirements and has been discussed with Planning Department personnel. I was quite upset to
find in the mail box of the property at 251 Carolina, the Planning Commission Agenda and
Planning Commission: " xf’f Report reporting that on Decem[ .~ 11, 1996, without any prior
notification, the Pl~g Commission convened on the issue of the proposed single-story overlay
zone amendment and recommended that the City Council approve the draft ordinance.
Both properties on the border of the proposed single-story overlay zone located at 241 Carolina
and 251 Carolina are in terrible condition and need to be rebuilt. In their current state they are
an eyesore and a.severe detriment to the neighborhood. I am willing to build a new home at 251
Carolina which will enhance the neighborhood, and I have attempted for months to contact the
owner of 241 Carolina, as has the City, in an attempt to do whatever it takes, including
purchasing his home if needed, to get that property brought up to the caliber required of such a
nice neighborhood.
I therefore respectfully request that you entertain the idea of either excluding the properties
located at 241 Carolina and 251 Carolina from the proposed single-story overlay zone amendment
or allow the grandfathering of theses two properties in such a manner that they may be rebuilt
in a manner that does not require keeping the properties as Eichler design homes. The Eichler
design is of a nature that years of neglect, results in a house that is at best, an extreme fire hazard
to other properties located nearby. I have discussed this matter with multiple parties within the
City and with Chandler Lee, Who all suggested that I immediately write to you regarding this
issue. I would appreciate your prompt response to this matter, since I am anxious to bring the
property located at 251 Carolina within all the legal requirements of the City of Palo Alto as soon
as possible.
Please feel free to contact me or Jean Peixotto, my assistant, at (415) 962-9700. Our FAX
number is (415) 962-9705. I appreciate your assistance with this matter.
Very truly yours,
Ronald G. Bushnell, CPA
RGB:jp