HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-15 City Council (24)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
September 15, 1997
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:38~97
REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 840 FOR
REZONING OF 61 LOTS FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 (S) SINGLE STORY OVERLAY
DISTRICT
ME ATI :
This report transmits a March 24, 1997 reque.st from the property owners of Tract 840 for
City approval of a single story overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends 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 draft ordinance, rezouing the 61 Lots in Tract 840 Charleston
Meadows from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay
District.
~Y IMPLLCATION~
The proposed single story overlay complies with the Palo Alt0 Comprehensive Plan and the
Single Story Height- Combining District (S) overlay zone as described in the attached
Planning Commission staff report dated August 27, 1997. The subject application meets all
four of the criteria established by The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay
Zone Guidelines.
CMR:382:97 Page 1 of 3
On July 13, 1992, the City Counciladopted 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 840
of the Charleston Meadows 2 Neighborhood requests application of the single story overlay
zone to the 61 single family parcels contained in Tract 840. Survey results reported in the
letter indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay
zone. On July 21, 1997, the City Council initiated the request and referred it to the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION
On August 27, 1997,. 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. Commissioners
indicated that single ’story overlay provides a better vehicle to resolve potential disputes
among neighbors rather than to force neighbors to resort to lawsuits to settle any future
proposals to construct a second story addition. However, several Commissioners expressed
concerns that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential
iieighborhoods rather than providing a workable mechanism to manage change over time.
Although some Commissioners endorsed the inclusion of well designed second story homes
in residential neighborhoods, the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions for Tract 840 of
the Charleston Meadows neighborhood specifically prohibits second story additions as a
legally binding deed restriction. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are included
in Council Members’ packets. ,.,.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives available to the City Council are to:
1)Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district, or
2)Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for the Tract 840 neighborhood.
There is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from this application.
E
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
CMR:382:97 Page 2 of 3
was made available for public review from August 6 through.27, 1997 and is attached to this
staff report (see Attachment 4).
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Ordinance
Planning Commission staff report (without attachments)
List of Property Owners
Location Map Showing Supporters .and Non-Supporters
EIA
March 24, 1997 request from the property owners of Tract 840 for City
approval of a single story overlay zone
Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1997
TE P :
Phyllis Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Douglas Beetlestone, 4232 Darlington Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306
All Property Owners Shown on Attachment 2
PREPARED BY:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plam~ing and
Commtmity Enviro~ent
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~. ~
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:382:97 Page 3 of 3
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY
COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "CHARLESTON MEADOWS TRACT
840" FROM R-I TO R-I(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
.SECTION I.
A;The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held August 27, 1997, 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.
~Q~_~. -section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map, " is hereby amended by changi_ng.
a Portion of certain property, collectively known as ~"Charleston
Meadows Tract 840" (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 incozporated herein by
reference.
~ The Council finds that this project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
//
//
//
//-//
//
//
//
//
//
////
//
//
//
1
970806 he 0080567
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager .....
Director of Planning~and
Community Environment
Exhibit Date: 8-27-97 File Nos~ 97-ETA-6; 97-ZC-~t Scale: 1" = 400’
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
Chandler Lee DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 27, 1997
Request of Property Owners of Tract 840 for Consideration of
Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Charleston Meadows 2
Neighborhood: 97-ZC-4, 97-EIA-6 ~
Staff recommends approval of the proposed single story overlay zone,, per the attached
ordinance (see Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION .=. , ~ ¯ ~ " ~
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 overlay was applied to the Greenmeadow
neighborhood. On January 21, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 795 of the .Charleston
Meadows neighborhood. The attached letter from the property owners-of Tract 840 of the
Charleston Meadows 2 Neighborhood requests application of the single story, overlay zone
to the 61 single family parcels contained in Tract 840.:Survey results reported in the letter
indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone.
.On July 21, 1997, the City Council initiated the request and referred it to the Planning
Commission, ’-’. , =. ~ . ’ ~
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the
R-1 singie 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.
Information regarding the applicant, owners, assessor’s Parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1
Applicant:
Owner:
Individual Property Owners of 61 Lots - Tract
840 Charleston Meadows
Individual Property Owners of 61 Lots - Tract
840 Charleston Meadows
Palo Alto CA 94306
(See Attachment 2) - -
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:147-37-5 through 77
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Surrounding Land Use:
Single Family Residential
R-1 Single Family Residential
single and Multiple Family Residential
Parcel Size:Varies (5,000 to 10,000 s.f.)
_(see Attachment #5) .~..: ~., ~ .
The project must be determined to be consistent withthe Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance.
The area is designatedfor Single Family Residential use in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed single-story limitation 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.
8-27-97
Page 2
The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows application of this (S) Overlay Zone, where
appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story
character. The City Council, on July 13, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in evaluating
applications for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height Combining
District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed below.
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.
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.
8-27-97
Page 3
Table 2
Site Area (sq.ft.)
-Lot Width
-Lot depth
Floor Area Ratio
-First 5,000 s.f.
-Remaining s.f.
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Setbacks
-Front Yard
-Rear Yard
- Interior Side Yard
- Street Side Yard
R-1 (Existing)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
30 feet*
35%
20
20
6
16
R-I (S) (Proposed)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
17 feet (Single Story)*
,40%
20
20
6
16
* Daylight plane restrictions apply .. . The daylight plane is defined by a point 10 feet in
height along each side lot line and extending upward at a 45 degree angle into the site and
by a point 16 feet in height at the front and rear setback lines and extending 60 degrees.
** For substandard 10ts, special site development regulations apply.
"_HeightandLot Cg..v.grdt ~
As shown in the 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 result of these revisions is the addition of building square footage
allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however, the proposed
lot coverage restrictions allow maximum floor area ratios that equal those allowed under
current R-I zoning if the lot exceeds 7,500 square feet. Table 3 illustrates the net change
in house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is allowable under
current R-1 zoning.
$:WLANWLADIV~I~$R~SRXSOVERLA~.~
8-27-97
Page 4
Table 3
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Comgared With R-I{S[
Lot Size Allowable House Allowable House Net Change
Size with R-1 Size with R-1 (S)
6,000 s.f.2,550 s.f.2,400 s.f.-150 s.f.
> 7,500 s.f.> 3,000 s.f.3,000 s.f.0
Single Story_ Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines establish criteria
for reviewing applications for the (S) Overlay zone. The Guidelines specifically state that
"for neighborhoods that contain and have been dev.eloped 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 840 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 apptication for an (S) oceriay zone map amendment should meet Wi’th ~’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 zbne map amendment request."
The application is accompanied by Signed requests from 48 of the 61 properties within
Tract 840. The applicants contend that 13 people did.not sign and return the request
because of ambivalence concerning the issue. A map of pioperty owners who support
support the application is shown on Attaehrnent 3. Because the neighborhood has been
developed Consistent with a single-story deed restriction, the (S) overlay guidelines
stipulate that this criterion should be treated with a greater degree of flexibility. Therefore,
the 79 % rate of support can be considered overwhelming and meets this criterion.
"An application for an (s) overlay zone mapamendment shouM be accompanied by a map
indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning
request. Boundaries .... shouM define an identifiable neighborhood or development."
8-27~7
Page 5
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 north, Adobe Creek on thesouth, the Blossom Park neighborhood
on the west and the Southern Pacific Railroad on the east.
Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found it to be a coherent neighborhood of
Eichler homes with the exception of the one t~,o-story home located at 4254 Newberry
Court which was built prior .to the remaining Eichler homes. Therefore, ~the second
criterion can be met.
3. Prevailing Single-Story Character
"An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment shouM 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 61 properties included in this application, 60 are currently single-story and one has
an existing second story (4254 Newberry Court Way). With the exception of the two story
building, 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_ s__tpry.- .Imposition of the
(S) overlay reinforces existing deed restrictions which have been exclusively observed with
the above one exception. Therefore, the neighborhood is of a prevailing single .family
character and the third criterion can be met..-
L..an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by
moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be
defined as 7, 000 to 8, 000 square feet. ~
The Tract 840 neighborhood is characterized by a consistent lotting pattern composed of
perpendicular streets and cul de sacs. Thesize of the lots in the area varies across a range
somewhat larger than that defined in the guidelines. Of the 61 lots, 32 are between 6,000
and 7,000 square feet and nine are between 7,000. and 8,000 square feet. Applying the
flexible interpretation described above for defining moderate lot size, 41 of 61 or 66 % of
the lots are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet and can be considered moderate in size.
of the remaining lots, 9 are smaller than 6,030 square feet and 11 are larger than 8,000
square feet. Therefore, the fourth criterion can be met.
The subject application meets all four of the criteria established by The Single Story Height
S:WLA~PLAD~,$RWCSR~.SOVEPJ.A2.PC 8-27-97
Page 6
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines.
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 the Tract 840 neighborhood.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mailed notices were sent to .property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the
projectsite. A copy of the staff report was sent to all property owners within the proposed
zone map amendment area.
EISEALIMPAC~
There is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from this application.
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 August 6 through 27, 1997 andis
attached to this staff report (see Attachment 4).
Following Planning Commission review, the application will be heard by the City Council
for decision at a meeting tentatively scheduled for September i5, 1997.
Attachment 1:Draft Ordinance
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
List of Property Owners
Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters
EIA
March 24, 1997 request from the property owners of Tract 840 for
City approval of a single story overlay zone
Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
8-27-97
Page 7
COURTESY~COPIES:
Phyllis Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Douglas Beetlestone, 4232 Darlington Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306
All Property Owners Shown on Attachment 2
Project Planner: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Division/Department Head Approval:~James E. Gilliland ¯
Acting Chief Planning Official
8-27-97
Page 8
Attachment 3 March 1997
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS RE.QUESTING SINGLE-STORY OVERLA Y ZONE
# ~St.No ....Street ......Name
Kucera, David;
Makler, A; M.,
1 4206 Dadington Ct Ham/
Sellier,
2 4212 Darlington Ct ~.E.H.,W.A.,.T.E.
3 4216 Dadington Ct Carrasco, A.
41 42221Dadington Ct Zeller, A.L. & G
Neels,G & B c/o
6 4228!Dadington Ct Prof. Ditmne
Beetlestone, D.J.
7 4232 Dadingt~n Ct & M.L.
9 4240 Dadingt0n Ct Gu.thrie, R.F.
10 223 Edlee St Wdght, J. S.
!Tiongson, J. C. &
11 226 Edlee St J.S.
12! 229=Edlee St Hoyt, C. C.
13 234Edlee St
Littleboy, I.I. &
Cooper, B.R. &
14 237 Edlee St S.M.
Moo~re, A. &
16 250 Edlee St ¯Mirenda, L.
17 255:Edlee St
18 256 Edlee St
191 257 Edlee St
Sleizer, J. L.
;Reckdahl, Keith &
,Epstein, Becky~* t
McKenney, D. E.
&S.T.
# St.No, Street
20 4242~ Newbemj Ct
Name
Thomas, J. C. &
L.M.
2__~1 4246 Newberry C!.. Crowell, ~.L.
McCoy, Norma
23 4252 Newbem/Ct .....Irons
24 4254 Newberry Ct iSmith, H. G.
26’ 426~2 Ne~wbem/Ct
~Raubenheimer, T.
& F.S.
27 4264 Newbe~.n’y Ct K!.ei.n, j. & P.W.
29 4201 :Park Blvd Amiri, M. & P.
30 4203 Park Bird Polovtzoff, X.B.
31 4207 Park Blvd Milligan, W.L.
32 4217 Park Blvd Egan, P.F.
33 42251 Park BIvd Rich, K.
McDonald, M.B. &
34 4231 Park Blvd IA.
McDonald, M.B. &
35 4237 Park Blvd A.
361 4241 Park Blvd ,Westall, R.J.
Home, Jonathan &
37 4249 Park BIvd Carolyn
38! 4253 Park Blvd Law, L.L. & W.G.
The number in column #1 was assigned to link this list and the signature forms.
New owners include #18, 37, 41
Page 1
March 1997
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS REQUESTING SINGLE-STORY OVERLA Y ZONE
# St.No Street
40 4263 Park Blvd
41i 4269 Park Blvd
42 4273 Park Blvd
43 4277 Park Blvd
44 4285’Park Blvd
46 255W.Chadeston
~48 275 W.Chadeston
49 285 .W.Chadeston
51 225 Whitclem
53 232 Whitclem
55 248 Whitclem
56 254 Whitclem
-57 231 Whitclem Ct.
58 239 Whitclem Ct.
59 245 Whitclem Ct.
60 251 Whitclem Ct
Name
Finander, M.J. &
S.
’Sessions, Kenton
Orbe, M.8.
Catolico, L.8. &
E.C.
Douglas, P. & T.
Whitworth,
!Eugene
Brown, E.A.&
B.P.
Reeds, C.J.
McGilvray, M. C.
&G.T.
London, R. E.
Petillo, D.S.
Sweet, R. G.
otto, Cadin
Stietzel, E.R. &
L.D.
Bibo, R.H. & T.IE.
Nilsson, "K.A.
The number in column #1 was assigned to link this list and the signature forms.
New owners include #18, 37, 41
Page 2
Attachment 4
A NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST TO THE PROPERTY
OWNERS OF TRACT 840---
Here is the tract:
Attachment 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Proje.ct Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
S Overlay - Tract 840 Charleston Meadows
City of Pal¯ Alto - Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal¯ Alto~ CA 94301
So
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Application Number(s):
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
415-329-2441.
Charleston Meadows: generally bounded by
Charleston Road, Adobe Creek, Blossom
Park, and the Union Pacific Railroad.
97-ZC-4; -97-EIA-6 .......’ ~ ......" .......
St Project Sponsor’sName and Address: City of Pal¯ Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal¯ Alto, CA 94.301
o General Plan Designation:Single Family Residential
8. Zoning:R-1 (Single Family Residential)
9. Description of the Project:
Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows 2
Neighborhood.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The neighborhood is exclusively single family and predominately single story in
character. There are 61 single family lots located within the neighborhood. The
neighborhood is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on all four sides.
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 1
11. ¯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\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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
P~e-ct Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111196]Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "N~ 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 shouJd 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, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside
document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page o~.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 a tow-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
b)
c)
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or major infrastructure?
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.
x
X
X
Would the proposal result in or expose people to Potential imp;~ts i~volving:
X
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismicground 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
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
-x
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage.patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?~! 3,7,17 ! !
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111196]Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
c)
d)
e)
f)
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 dr direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or througl~
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate Of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through 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?
Alteration of wetlands in any way?
’ 4,5
3,17
3
3,17
3
3
6,17
,3
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
6,8,9
c)Alter air movement, moisture/or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicl~ trips or traffic congestion? ~ 10
6,8,9
6,8,9
6,8,9
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/11/96]Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigstion
In¢orporatsd
Lass 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 pedestrians 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
X
X
X
X
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: =
a)
b)
c)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals or birds)?
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal Pool)? ’
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
8
8, 16
8
X
x
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future va’lue to the region
and the residents of the State?
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)?
8
3
8
13
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/11/96]Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Signifioant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Loss Than
Significsnt
impact
b)
c)
d)
e)
Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuati.on plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees? -
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES.
government services in any of the follow!ng areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
11,
12,
13
3, 12,
13
3, 12,
13
3, 12
6, 8,
Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in e need for new or altered
8,12
8, 11
8
8
8
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or
Storm drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
12.
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
f) Solid waste disposal?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in s need for new systems st supplies, or
15
15
15
15
15
15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.,,iX
X
X
X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]F;age 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 glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
3 X
X
X
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d)
e)
Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION. Wouldtheprop(~sal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
8
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)
b)
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?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
3
X
x
x
x
X
.X
X
X
X
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12111/96]Page 9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially
Signlfioant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorpotetad
Lass 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)
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 tieri’ng, 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:
~) 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. ....
Authorityi 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. Montere~y Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18.SOURCE REFERENCES
1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1980 - 1995, February 2, 1981 (as amended)
2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49
3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development.
4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic. Technical Background Report, August 1994
5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348, Map Revised September 6, 1989.
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/11/96]Page 10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially
Significant
issues
Potentially
Significant
Unloaa
Mitigation
Incorporated
Leas Than
Significant
Impact
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 1994
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098
Santa Clara Cour~ty Water District,’Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 19B5
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/11/96]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.
(S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\SOVERLA2.EIA)
P:\EIA\SOVERLAY.EIA [12/1119~]Page 12
March 24, 1997
TO:~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Attachment 6
RECEIVED
’ ’"": ~, 1’397City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for Submission to Ci{~ ’: "
Council/Planning Commission/City Council DEPARTMENT Ol= P~NNINO
Property Owners of Tract #840 Ct _ C
Request from Coapplicants of Tract 840 for Application of theSingle-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone to theq’~ - (’ ;
Present R-1 Zoning of the Tract
We request that the zone for Tract 840 be changed from R-I to R-I(S)
We are attachin,q the followin,q documents in support of this application:
A copy of the official deed restriction which limits residences in Tract 840
to one story. 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 they apply for the.overlay
zone than those that do not have the deed restriction. There is only one
two-story house in this Tract. The~’efore this application should be
considered generously. ~
A copy of the information packet which was distributed to all property
owners in the Tract. Included in this packet was a copy of the Single-
Story Guidelines mentioned in paragraph #2 above. 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.
To meet the first overlay guideline request for "Level and Format of ¯
Owner Support"-
,Signed requests for the sin,clle-story overlay zone from the owners of 48 of
the 61 properties in the Tract (78.69%) are attached. A written list of
signers is included. We feel that the 48 signers easily represent
overwhelming SUl:~port for the overlay zone. We are also attaching a list
of the property owners whose signatures we were unable to obtain.
.6.
To meet the second overlay guideline request for "Appropriate
Boundaries and the third guideline request for "Prevailing Single-Story
Character"-
A map showing the boundaries of Tract 840 was part of the packet. The
Tract boundaries were established by the Eichler development in 1951.
The streets involved are Newberry Court, Darlington Court, and parts of
Edlee, Whitclem, Charleston, and Park Boulevard as shown. Again, at
the present time there is only ~)ne two-story house in the Trac.t,
4254 Newberry Court, predating by many years the purchase of the Tract
by Joseph Eichler. Many of the houses have been remodeled in various
ways, but the neighborhood is still a one-story, compatible neighborhood
composed of Eichler homes.
To meet the fourth overlay guideline request for "Moderate Lot Sizes"=
Size of lots were included on each of the signature forms. Forty of the 61
lots are ,between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet showing that most of the
lots are of generally compatible size. There are 9 lots smaller than 6,000
feet and 11 that are larger than 8,000 square feet, and the size of one lot
was undetermined. These calculations are based on the tax
assessor/TRW figures and may or may not be accurate for ii’regularly
shaped lots. -~ ~
Please contact any of the following ifyou heed further information. Also we
would apprecia.te your letting us know the next step in this process.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Klein, 4264 Newberry Court, 493-5345
Dougl~ s Beetlestone,Darlington Court, 493-5409
Carlin Otto, 231 Whitclem, 858-2103
Attachment 7
Sinsle-Storv Heiqht Combininq Distric: (S)
Overlay Zone. Guidelines
The followiDg guidelines are intended to guide City staff
and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone change
requests for application of the Single-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 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 =o 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.
2. Appropriate 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 development.
These boundaries will be recommended to the Planning
Commission and City Council by the City’s Zoning
Administrator.
3.Prevailinq 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 the number of structures rendered
.noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods
currently subject 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
Page i
character, ensurin~ that residents of an area proposed
for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood
preservation and face common home remodelingconstraints.
Moderate Lot Sizes
In order to maintain equitable proper~y development
"rights "~i~hin an (S) overlay area compared to other
si~es within the R-I zQne district, an area proposed
for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be
characterized by moderate.lot sizes with a generally
consis~en~ lo~ting pattern. A moderate io~ size is to
be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet.
1/12/93
Page 2
EXCEP, PT of Draft Planning
Commission Minutes of August 27,
1997.
Attachment 8
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, August 27, 1997 at 7 p.m. in
the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding¯ The audio recording of this meeting had
to be done from the video recording, due to equipment breakdown. Tapes are not clear, so some
inaccuracies may result.
Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt
Commissioner Cassel
Sue Case, Senior Assistant City Attorney
David Docktor, City Planning Arborist
James Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official¯Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner.
.Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
subj,
have one
This is the portion of our agenda where you are allowed to speak to us on any
not specifically covered on the agenda, and you .have five minutes to speak. We
): .Basically, I have submitted a page concerning
the draft minutes of the 0, 1997 hearing on 3009 Middlefield Road. I feel that the minutes
are very fine, and I do say anything other than three corrections that I would ask to be
made before making the ~rat~I have written on the page I handed out, the first one is on
Page 17 at the bottom 0fthe page,18 in the middle of the page. The quotes are fine,
but they were attributed to Dr.the speaker was myself, John Abraham. That is one
correction. The second correction is at the
the city try its hardest to design a project that
has tried its hardest tO meet those limits." In the
corrections. The third correction is on Page 33, Mr.
and the sentence should read, "...that
to meet those limits" rather than "...the city
of accuracy, I am making these
comments in the middle of the first
paragraph where he says, "In taking these data and it looked to me
from some quick calculations that noise barriers of the heights’~ Mr. Pack recommended in his
addendum report the second time around tha.t about eight-and-a-h~r nine feet would be
sufficient." That should read "...may be sufficient." It changes the me-~ng a great deal, so I am
asking that the word "may" be used as it was Used in the actual hearing. ~se are the only
corrections I wish to_ make. They are fine draft minutes, if you would eonsid~g those
changes.
~:IlalI~S~: Thank you for your comments. That completes Oral Communieatioi~
A:lPCMinsSlPC0827.reg P~e4
P__UBLIC HEARING_S_
SINGLE-STORY OVERLAY TRACT 840 - CHARLESTON MEADOWS:
Request of property owners of Tract 840 for consideration of single-family overlay zone
for the Charleston Meadows II Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). File Nos. 97-ZC-4,
97-EIA-6. ’
Are there any staff comments?
Chandler Lee: Yes, this is an application from the property owners of Tract 840 in Charleston
Meadows for a single-story overlay. This proposal is very similar to a proposal you saw late last
year for the neighborhood of Tract 795 just across Charleston Road. On July 21, the council
initiated this request for your review. The neighborhood is almost exclusively Eichler homes.
They are single-story, with one exception. The lot sizes are medium in size, and the
neighborhood provides a coherent boundary which suits the guidelines established for single-story
overlays. The majority of residents in the neighborhood does support this.
Finally, it should be noted that the Tract 840 Subdivision does have a current deed restriction that
limits the size of homes in the area to a single story and that the residents are, in fact, only asking
for the city to help them enforce that single-story standard that is already in existence in their
deed. Basdd on the findings and conditions in the stalfreport, staffrecommends approval of the
single-story overlay.
Any questions of staff?. (None) Then I will open the public hearing.
Phyllis Klein. 4264 Newberry Court. P~!19 Alto: I am here, of course, for the consideration of the
single-story overlay for Tract 840. I have been acting as the coordina.~g property owners’
surveyor for the project. We do have some property owner representatives of Tract 840 here
tonight. I would like to ask them to stand up. (About ten people stood up) I do want to thank
the Planning Commission for considering this request of the property owners of Tract 840,
Charleston Meadows II, for a single-story overlay zoning. I also want to thank the planning
department for the comprehensive report of the project to the City Council and to the Planning
Commission.
Our goal, of course, in making this request, is to keep our neighborhood one in which houses are
-architecturally compatible. The overwhelming majority of the tract, 79% as a matter of fact,
support this request, and we also have had a single-story deed on file at the Santa Clara County
Courthouse in San Jose since 1951, when Joseph Eichler developed this tract. The two-story
home that I think Mr.- Chandler referred to is the only two-story home in the tract, and that was
built in 1925 when that area, of course, was just orchards.
I would like to point out that there is a precedent, as Mr. Chandler did, for the approval of the
single-story overlay zoning in the Walnut Grove neighborhood in 1992, also Green Meadows in
A:IPCMinsSIPC0827.reg
DRAFT
Page 8
1993 and Tract 795 of Charleston Meadows I in January, 1997. We do believe that we have met
all of the guidelines for this zoning request, and we have read the staffreport and are here in
support of those conclusions. We would like the city to help us in enforcing them by granting the
R-1 S overlay zoning. Thank you very much.
~atl3i~)~L]~: Ms. Klein, are you familiar with any ofthe reasoning why the remaining 13
property owners did not support the request?
J~_g~: Yes, I am familiar with some of the reasons. I do not have my working notes with me
wherein I noted them specifically, but some of them did not want to be involved at all. There
were others who could not make up their minds. There were others who did not respond in any
way, and there were a few that thought maybe they might be for a two-story some day.
Commissioner Schmi~t: In looking at your neighborhood and the adjacent neighborhood on
Ruthelma and Edlee and the rest of Whitclem and Wilkie, it looks like that adjacent area was not
developed by Eichler. It contains a mixture of one-story and two-story houses, more of a mixture
of--
M~,i.O.: That is correct. They, of course, do not have the retentive deed. So they are a
different tract entirely.
-- r " : So of the 61 residences here, most of them are Eiehlers. A couple of
them I believe are not, and there is a new house which is not of that same stYle..
That is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: I believe the report describes that as a kind of pocket in the
neighborhood because it is defined by the railroad tracks and the ereek,and then this other
neighborhood, although one of the single-story overlay zones is across Charleston from it.
Yes, that is correct.
~Carlin Otto. 231 Whitclem Cg2,ttt~~: I wanted to point out that in considering this, you
should think about the fact that almost 80% of the people who live there want this. It is in our
deeds, which means that ifI have a neighbor who decides to break their deed, ifI and other
people around me feel firmly that we want the deed followed, I take them to court. This is why
¯ we are asking you to support this and to enforce it for us, because we don’t want to be suing each
other. I have no interest in having to retain a lawyer to sue my neighbors over something that is
really unnecessary. I just think that since it is in the deed, the neighborhood, since we feel, most
of us, that we want to live this way, .this is how we want our tract to look, that this is the kind of
¯ privacy that we want in our homes, this is the look and feel that we have chosen and bought into,
we would like the citY to help us maintain this without having to go to court. I just want to point
out that your helping us by putting this into your Planning Commission process will prevent a
number of lawsuits in our neighborhood. We have already had to once threaten to sue someone,
~lPCMinsSlPC0827.reg
and they backed down and built a nice, one-story home when they found out that the neighbors
felt the way they did. They wanted to build a two-story, and when we came forward and told
them what we intended to do and they could see that the neighborhood felt this way, they then
changed their plans and built a very nice one-story home that fits great with the neighborhood. It
is a nice house, and I would just like to prevent my neighborhood from contention, from
unnecessary legal fees and from bad feelings.
~ner Schmi_~[t: How would you feel flail of the adjacent residences along Ruthelma and
Edlee and Whitdem Drive that are not in your tract all built second stories?
~: That’s fine with me. That’s their neighborhood, and they can do what theywant to do
in their neighborhood. I am concerned about my neighborhood. I guess I call myself lucky. I
bought in the middle of my tract, and I am looking to ensure the kind of living that I care about,
which is single-story living. If I were on the edges, I might feel a little differently. I might be
trying to organize for this and then trying to organize the other tracts also, or I might be thinking
about selling my house and moving further and deeper into the neighborhood that I want to live
in. But I happen not to have that problem, so I do not mind what they do with their homes over
there. There are already a couple of really nice, two-story homes in there which are about six or
seven houses from me. They are nice houses, and they look nice, with sort of a mountainous
effect as they start lower and then they get higher, and then they end up being near El Camino
which is only three blocks away where the height limit is very high. It provides kind of a stacking
or stairway effect. It is nice.
~: Seeing no other speakers, I will now dose the public hearing and remm this
item to the commission.
i n r " : I am looking at the map that was in our packet that showed that the
supporters, even those who are backing .into the othe~ tract, far outnumber the people who did
not respond or who were against this single-story overlay. My feeling is that if this is what the
property owners wish, and since it is a deed restriction, even though it is a 40-year-plus deed
restriction, I am generally in favor of having this. ’
" r : I am, too. This exactly meets all of the criteria that we talked about
when we set up this ordinance some years ago. We set it up exactly for this kind of neighborhood
where you have a long history of single-story homes. You are almost entirely 100% single-story,
and as thingshave more pressure in Palo Alto, in order to preserve the character of your
.neighborhood, I think this is very appropriate for us to do.
~: When the last one was in for the neighborhood across West Charleston, I
remember at least some of us saying at the time, certainly I did at the time, that all things being
equal, I get nervous when I see us rigidly locking in a certain form or character to any of our built
environments. But at the same time, that~ group and this one here have certainly met the letter and
spirit of the ordinance. You have rounded up your neighbors, you have done your work, and for
that reason, I will certainly support you, but I continue to have concerns in our community when a
P~ge 10
DRAFT
rigid historicism, whether it is pre-1940 or whether it is Eichler tracts near Charleston, are
addressed with one perspective and one perspective only. I would like to see more flexibility for
evolution over time, but in this case, you have met the ordinance and you deserve the support.
-- " r ; " : To go back in time, I have been on the Planning Commission when two
of these other three tracts have come in front of us, and in both cases, I wholeheartedly supported
them. To spin offofOwen’s comments, I do not see this as being rigid. Nowhere in here do we
necessarily dictate the type of single-story home that can be built, and if some of us remember,
there is an advantage that we put in when we put this overlay zone in, and that is that people get
an actual 5% additional FAR, which means that they not only get more living space but they have
some flexibility on how to design these homes. So I am happy to see the neighborhood support
for this. I was glad to vote for the last two, and I will be more than happy to vote for this one.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am not going to support this particular change, although I have
supported the others in the past. I think thisis a very small neighborhood. I think it is a
transitional neighborhood. The adjacent neighborhood is not an Eichler neighborhood. To me,
those areas go together. This area also has more smaller lots than many of the other areas that we
have looked at, and actually by changing to R-IS, since the majority of the lots are smaller than
7,000 square feet, they are actually cutting down the amount of square footage that they could
add to the homes. I feel that this particular area is more transitional, and I feel it is appropriate to
continue to allow change. I think some of the areas that we have looked at before are more self-
_contained and less likely to go through that transition. I do not feel it is necessary to create a
single-story overlay zone in all of South Palo Alto. There needs to be some possibility for change
in some areas. I understand that there is a large neighborhood interest in retaining the single-story
overlay. The existing CC&Rs require that, and so far, all of them have remained single-story, and
it sounds like the neighbor.hood has an effective mechanism for keeping it that way as long as the
neighbors are interested, so Palo Alto does not need to change this particular zone and for the
time being, keep this single-story. .’
~: Could I ask staff to clarify how you interpret FAK and lot coverage in
circumstances like this? Vie made the comment that there is a 5% increase allowed in FAR. I
know there is a 5% increase in lot coverage. In single-story, is that essentially the same thing?
~: It is actually a 5% increase in lot coverage, but it is not an increase in FAg. That
means that you can build whatever FAg you have let~ on the ground floor within that single-story.
.~_.Q.T.ID~: ~: I make a motion to accept the staff recommendation and put
the single-story overlay zone in at Tract 840.
~: By Commissioner Bialson
hID.T.ID.!~I.P.ASSF~: ~a~:i:ll~l.i~.~?d~: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those
in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Schmidt voting
no and Commissioner Cassel absent.
D AFT
Page