Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-17 City Council (28)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 17, 1997 CMR:469:97 REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 709 FOR REZONING OF 19 LOTS FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.TO R-1 (S)SINGLE STORY OVERLAYDISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS This report transmits a Jurle 2, 1997 request from the property owners of Tract 709 for City approval of a single story overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 4), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning 16 of the 19 lots in Tract 709 Blossom Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. __. _~ PROJECT.DESCRIPTION On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.13). The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Neighborhood (Planning Commission staff report Attachment 5) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 19 single family parcels contained in Tract 709 (Attachment C). Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong CMR:469:97 Page 1 of 3 neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone (Attachment D). On September 22, 1997, the City Council initiated the request and referred it to the Planning Commission. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT,, ISSUES On October 29, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the single story overlay with modifications. 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 a single story overlay provides a better vehicle for resolving potential disputes than forcing neighbors to file lawsuits to stop construction of second story additions. However, several Commissioners expressed concerns that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential neighborhoods rather than providing the flexibility needed to manage change over time. Several property owners within Tract 709 came to support the overlay zone and one owner spoke in opposition (see Planning Commission minutes, Attachment G). The owner in oppgsition indicated that his property at 4247 Ruthelma Avenue is surrounded by five pre- existing two story homes within and adjacent to Tract 709. The existing two story homes are shown on the attached map (Attachment E) and are located at 4243 and 4255 Ruthelma Avenue (within Tract 709) as well as 4261 Ruthelma Avenue, 260 Edlee Avenue, and 4254 Newberry Court (all outside Tract 709). The property owner requested that his property, be left out of the Single Story Overlay District. Planning Commissioners supported his request and recommended that the three lots at 4243, 4247, and 4255 Ruthelma Avenue be excluded from the proposed S Overlay district. A letter from the owner of 4247 Ruthelma Avenue requesting to be omitted from the S overlay district, is attached (Attachment F). COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission voted to approve the rezoning of 16 of the 19 homes along ¯ Ruthelma Avenue from R-1 to R-1 (S), 5-1-1 (Cassel opposed, Byrd absent). Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment G). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Ordinance Planning Commission staff report (with attachments) Map Showing Tract 709 and Adjacent Zoning Districts Map Showing Supporters of Tract 709 Overlay Map Showing Existing Two Story Homes Letter from Yi-Tse Seth Wu dated October 29, 1997 Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of October 29, 1997 CMR:469:97 Page 2 of 3 t COURTESY COPIES: Forest Carroll, 4239 Ruthelma Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 All Property Owners Shown on Planning Commission staff report Attachment 2 PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVALS. ff~ EMIL"~HARR~S ON " Assistant City Manager CMR:469:97 ~=Page 3 of 3 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TOCHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "BLOSSOM PARK UNIT 1 TRACT 709" 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 October 29, 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. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of certain property, collectively known as "Blossom Park Unit 1 Tract 709" (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. // // // // // // // // II II II II II II II 1 970922 lac 0080589 SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 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 on the 2 970922 lae 0080589 ,< CS(H) Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 9-22-97 Attachment B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 3 TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: Chandler Lee October 29, 1997 DEPARTMENT: Plarming SUBJECT:Request of Property Owners of Tract 709 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for the Blossom Park Neighborhood: 97-ZC-11, 97-EIA-23 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment 4), fmding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and 2. Adopt of the attached draftordinance (Attachment 1), rezoning the 19 Lots in Tract 709 Blossom Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Fanu’ly Residential, Single Story Overlay District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 709 of the Blossom Park neighb.prhood~_ requests the designation of a single story overlay zone to the 19 single family parcels contained in Tract 709. Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone. On September 22, 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 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows application of this (S) Overlay Zone, where appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominat.ely single-story character. The City Council, on July 13, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in evaluating applic.ations for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed below. Zoning Ordinance Cornpliance Zone Designation: Existing: R-1 Proposed: R-1 (S) Use Category.: 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 1. Table 1 Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements Site Area (s.f.) -Lot Width -Lot depth Floor Area Ratio -First 5,000 s.f. -Remaining s.f. Maximum Height Site Coverage R-1 (Existing) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 30 feet* 35% R-1 (S) (Proposed) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 .30 17 feet (Single Story)* 40% S: \PLAN \PLADIV \PCSR\PCSR\SOVERLA5 .PC 10-29-97 Page 2 Setbacks - Front Yard - Rear Yard - Interior Side Yard - Street Side Yard R-1 (Existing) 20 20 6 16 R-I (S) (Proposed) 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 regulations apply. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The major issue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. In reviewing previous proposals for single story overlays, the Planning Commission expressed some concerns about limiting future options for home expansion and accommodating architecturalinnovations and lifestyle changes over time. However, since the project meets all of the criteria established on the S Overlay Guidelines and the tract has an existing deed restriction that limits the height of homes, staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of adopted City policy and should be approved. Height and Lot Coverage The only changes to the standard R-1 zoning requirements caused by application of the Single Story Overlay are the height limit reduction from 30 to 17 feet, the single story restriction and the expansion of lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent. _~ _ ,~.~ The only potential effect of these revisions is the addition of building square footage allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however, the proposed lot coverage restrictions allow maximum floor area ratios that equal those allowed under current R-1 zoning if the lot exceeds 7,500 square feet. Table 2 illustrates the net change in house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is allowable under current R- 1 zoning. S: \PLAN \PLADIV\PCSR\PCSR\SOVERL~ .PC 10-29-97 Page 3 Table 2 Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S) Lot Size Allowable House Size with R-1 Allowable House Size with R-1 (S) 2,400 s.f. 3,000 s:.f.... Net Change -150 s.f. 0 Single Story. Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines ’ The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines establish criteria for reviewing applications for the (S) Overlay zone. The Guidelines specifically State that "for neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are to be treated with a greater degree of flexibility (than neighborhoods without the restriction)." Tract 709 has been developed consistent with a single-story deed restriction. This particular deed restriction limits the height of residences to one and one half stories. 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 15 of the 19 properties within Tract 709. The applicants contend that 2 people did not sign the application, o ~ne~home was -vacant and one owner did not reply. A map of the property owners who 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 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. S:\PLAN\PLADIV\PCSR\PCSR\SOVERLA3 .PC 10-29-97 Page 4 2. Appropriate Boundaries "An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning request. Boundaries... should define an identifiable neighborhood or development." The application is accompanied by a map showing addresses and locations of the co- applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood of trapezoidal shape that is easily defined by existing street patterns. The neighborhood is generally defined by all lots with front or side yards facing Ruthelma Avenue except for the four lots closest tO Edlee Avenue. - Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found it to be a coherent neighborhood of mostly single story homes with the exception of 2 two-story homes located at 4243 and 4255 Ruthelma Avenue. Therefore, the second criterion can be met. 3. Prevailing Single-Story Character "An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single-story... It is desirable that homes be similar in age, design, and character... " Of the 19 properties included in this application, 17 are currently single-story and two have an existing.second story (4242 and 4255 Ruthelma Avenue). With the exception of the 2, two story buildings, homes in this neighborhood were all built 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. 4. Moderate Lot Sizes "...an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be defined as 7, 000 to 8, 000 square feet." The Tract 709 neighborhood is. characterized by a consistent lotting pattern composed of a single street. The size of the lots in the area varies across a range somewhat larger than that defined in the guidelines. Of the 19 lots; six are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet and four are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Applying the flexible interpretation S :\PLANWLAD1V\PCSR\PCSR\S OVERLA.3 .PC 10-29-97 Page 5 described above for defining moderate lot size, 10 of 19 or 53 % of the lots are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet and can be considered moderate in size. Of the remaining lots, four are smaller than 6,000 square feet and five 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 Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The project is consistent with the Palo -Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RESOURCE IMPACTS There- is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from this application. ALTERNATIVES The altematives 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 709 neighborhood. Following Planning Commission review, the application will be heard by the City Council for decision at a meeting tentatively scheduled for November 17, 1997. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Negative Declaration has been prepared finding that the project will have no significant impacts. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from October 8 through 29, 1997 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment 4). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance. List of Property Owners Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters Negative Declaration June 2, 1997 request from the property owners of Tract 840 for City approval of a single story overlay zone S: \PLAN\PLADIV \PCSR\PCSR\SOVERLA3 .PC 10-29-97 Page 6 Attachment 6:Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines COURTESY COPIES: Forrest Carroll, 4239 Ruthelma Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 All Property Owners Shown on Attachment 2 Project Planner: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Reviewed by: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Division/Department Head Approval: Eric Jr. Chief Planning 10-29-97 Page 7 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 "BLOSSOM PARK UNIT 1 TRACT 709"-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 October 29, 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. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of certain property, collectively known as "Blossom Park Unit 1 Tract 709" (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. II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 970922 lac 0080589 1 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 2 970922 lac 0080589 @a~hic ~achment I~ate: 9-22-97 ~le #: 97-ZC-11, 97-gI~-23 Scale: l" = ~00’ to Staff Repo~I’ PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 709 Name Street Address Lot Size sq. feet Sivyer, Pastner L.P. 4202 Ruthelma mailing 2101 Princeton St., Palo Alto 94306-1326 6781 Lopez, Albert and Edna Komeda, Todao and Recko Lofgren, Milton Mizusaki, Sam Pliam, Nathan McGuire, Richard and Kathleen Cerini, Marjory Evans, Dorothea L. & Kaute 4208 Ruthelma 5838 4214 Ruthelma 6252 4220 Ruthelma 5936 4230 Ruthelma 6516 4238 Ruthelma 7073 4244 Ruthelma 7631 4250 Ruthelma 8339 4256 Ruthelma 9474 mailing 4187 Maybell Way, Palo Alto 94306-3820 He Shu, D. &Chen, Zheng Luce, Henry Wu, Yi Tze. 295 W Charleston 5587 4255 Ruthelma 9496 4247 Ruthelma 8695 mailing 2758 Randers Court, Palo Alto 94306-3929 Ford, Delbert & Verna Carroll, Forest and Mazie Hedrick, Caroline Hirota~ Jim and Amy Igoudin, Lea and Alia Huang, Yi-Te & Ho Mi 4243 Ruthelma 8195 4239 Ruthelma 7859 4235 Ruthelma.7378 4229 Ruthelma 6970 4221 Ruthelma 6561 4215 Ruthelma 6153 mailing P.O. Box 390900, Mountain View Signed ,Petition Hung, Pochiang and Hsiuping 4205 Ruthelma 5995 IV"L~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Lead Agency Name a~d°Ad-dress: 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 7.General Plan Designation: 8.Zoning: 9.Description of the Project: Consideration of Single Story Overlay Neighborhood. 10. S Overlay - Tract 709 Blossom Park City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chandler Lee, Contract Planner 415-329-2441 Tract 709 - Blossom Park: generally bounded by Charleston Road, Edlee Avenue, Charleston Meadows, and single family lots on Duluth Circle and Hood Lane 97-ZC-11 ; 97-EIA-23 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Single Family Residential R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning for Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The neighborhood is exclusively single family and predominately single story in character. There are 19. single family lots located within the neighborhood. The P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 1 neighborhood is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on all four sides. 1 1. 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 atleast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project 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 Project Planner Date / " Director of Planning & Community Environment Date P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]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 © (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 or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]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 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 topographyor 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 Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X X P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b) c) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 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? 4,5 3,17 X X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X - body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3,17 X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)3 XChange in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aq, uifer 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? 3 6,17 3Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Alteration of wetlands in any way? X X 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposa!: . a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 6,8,9 Xexiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,8,9 X c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause 6,8,9 X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors?6,8,9 X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 110 ,[ I IX I P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impac~ b) c) d) 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? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 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 X X X X X X 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species ortheir habitats 8, 16 X(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 8 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?8, 16 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?8 -X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 8 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous 13 I I X I substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Source8 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Leas 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? 11, 12, 13 3, 12, 13 3,12 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of. people to severe noise levels? 6, 8, 14 1 1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? 8,12 8, 11 8 8 e) Other governmental services?8 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X X x X a) Power or natural gas?15 X b) Communications systems?15 X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 15 X facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks?15 X e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?15 X- f) Solid waste disposal?15 X P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 8 .Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 3 3 3 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 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? 8 8 8 X X 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increasethedemandforneighborhoodorregionalparks 8 I"’ i I or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?3 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)X ~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 ~lisadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sour(:es Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact Impact c)xDoes 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 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 © (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; Sundstrorn v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v, Monterey Board o~- 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: Ge~logy and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348, Map Revised September 6, 1989. P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 10 " Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significent Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significent 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 County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985 P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 11 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4a The proposed zoning change will increase the allowable lot coverage from 35 percent to 40 percent within this neighborhood. This action may result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface and, therefore, increase the amount of surface water runoff. However, because the courtyard area of a typical home in this neighborhood is usually partially paved, and the courtyard is the likely location for a building addition, only a small increase in impervious surface will result and only in those homes that elect to extend the coverage on a given lot. Therefore, the increased lot coverage allowance will not have a significant effect on the rate and amount of surface water runoff in the area. Mitigation Measures: None required. (S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA) P:\EIA\SOVERLA3.EIA [9/22/97]Page 12 June 2,1997 TO: FROM: JUN O6 1997 Oep~.rlrncnt ot Ptann~ng and City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator for Sul:~f~J~5’~ ~v~l[~uncil/ Planning Commission/City Council Property Owners of Tract 709 Blossom Park Unit No. 1 SUBJECT:Request from Coapplicants of Tract 709 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 709 be changed from R-1 to R-1 (S) We are attaching the following documents in support of this application: A copy of the official deed restriction which limits residences in Tract 709 to one and one-half stories in height. The deed restrictions continue in force for successive periods of ten years each unless a majority of the owners vote to change said covenants (see page 2 of the Declaration of Restrictions).. A copy of the Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines prepared by the City of Palo AIt’o. There are only ~ two story houses in this zone ( z-/.Z ~ 5 / ~--,~P zi~. ~ Ruthelma). o A copy of the "Neighborhood Request to the Property Owners of Tract 709" which was distributed to all property owners in the Tract. Absentee owners were sent the same information by mail. Follow up flyers were distributed to everyone who did not respond to the first contact. 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 single-story overlay zone from the owners of ~ of the 19 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 ~ signers easily represent "overwhelming" support for the overlay zone. -2- 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 709 is attached. The Tract.boundaries were established in 1950. The streets involved are all of the houses on Ruthelma except for the four next to Edlee Street, and one house on the corner of Charleston. The neighborhood is still almost completely one-story houses in a compatible neighborhood of similar architectural style homes. To meet the overlay guideline request for "Moderate Lot Sizes" - (t~ of the 19 lots are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet showing that most of the lots are of generally compatible size. There are ~ lots smaller than 6,000 square feet and ~ that are larger than 8,000 square feet. Please contact me if you need further information. Also we would appreciate your letting us know the next step in this 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, Forest Carroll, 4239 Ruthelma, 493-5309 Attachment Single-Story Height Combininc Districz 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-Stop! 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 amendmelt should meet with "overwhelming" support by owners of affected properties. These owners must demonstrate, bZ providing documentation that includes a written list of signatures, an understanding that they are co- applicants in a zone map amendment request. 2. Aoorooriate 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.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 homes are single-story, thus limiting the number of structures rendered .noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods currently subject to sihgle-story deed restrictions should be currently deve!oped in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and Page 1 o character, ensuring ~hat residents of an area proposed for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodeling constraints. Moderate LOt S..izes In order to maintain equitable property development rights "within an (S) overlay area compared to other sites within the R-I zone district, an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map 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. Page 2 Attachment C PC -2565 cs(m Attachment D Legend Tract 709 Boundary Supporters of Overlay Did not respond to survey ~ Opponents of Overlay Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Scale :["=250’ N Legend Tract 709 Boundary Existing 2 story structures Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Attachment E Scale 1"=250’ Attachment F October 29, 1997 Yi-Tze Seth Wu (Property Owner in Tract 709 Blossom Park Unit No. 1 2758 Randers Court Palo Alto, CA 94303-3929585 Day Tel: Home Fax/Tel: Attention: Mr. Eric Riel, Jr.,Email: Chief Planning Official, for Submission to Planning Commission and the City Council 650 424-5199 650 324-9978 Seth.Wu@corp.variari.com City of Palo Alto 250. Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 CORRECTING LETTER DATED OCTOBER 25, ,1997 URGENT -AGENDA ITEM FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 29, 1997 Objection to Application Nos. 97-ZC-11, 97-EIA-23 (for Applying Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone to the Present R-1 Zoning of Tract 709, Blossom Park Neighborhood) Dear Mr. Eric Pdel and Voting Members, We object to the application and the city staff’s recommendation to approve the adoption of any Ordinance to rezone the 19 lots in Tract 709 Blossom Park from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Family Residential Story Overlay District. 1.Requirement of Moderate Lot Sizes is Not Met. It is stated that "... 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 709 Blossom Park neighborhood of 19 Lots is not characterized by "moderate lot sizes." A moderate lot is defined as 7,000 to 8,000 square.feet. Only a small minority of the lots in Tract 709 are moderate sized. Of 19’ lots; only four, about 21%, are moderate lot sizes. The majority of the lots, about 53% are smaller than moderate sized and 26% are larger. Accordingly, the requirement that the neighborhood be characterized by moderate lot sizes is not met. To suggest otherwise would be to strain the language above beyond credibility. The zoning guidelines should be complied with and to redefine a mixed neighborhood of "mostly small lot sizes" as being a neighborhood of "mostly moderate lot sizes" or redefine "not characterized by moderate lot sizes" as being "characterized by moderate lot sizes" is to belie the integrity of the rules and the rule making process. Sw:Palo Alto Tract 709.doc 1 Number of yes votes. It is disingenuous for the application to include the ’yes’ votes of two lots owners who have already irrevocably voted "No" by already having constructed second stories on their property. There are three such lot owners with second stories - Nos. 4243, 4255, and 4261 on.. Ruthelma. Such lot owners must be counted as having already firmly voted "No" by their actions cast in concrete which speak much more strongly than any words. The application should be recast as having 12 -1-3 owners who agreed to sign the petition, not 15, out of the 19 Lot Owners. While there is a majority, it is not the "overwhelming support" stated in the application. We request that the Planning Commission and the City Council either to: 1. Deny the request for a single story overly zone for the Tract 709 neighborhood; Contract the boundaries Of the proposed overlay district to exclude the contiguous Lots 4261 Ruthelma, 4255 Ruthelma, 4247 Ruthelma, and 4243 Ruthelma (referred to herein as "Lots 4261.4255, 4247 and 4243") - (Lot 4261 has a second story - [omitted by Applicant and by the Planning Commission’s staffl no such lot number is listed on Applicant’s list of property_ owners that signed or did not sign the petition, .Lot .4255 of 9496 square feet, already has second story, Lot 4247 of 8695 square feet is of undersigned petitioners, and Lot 4243 of 8195 square feet, already has second story); or Contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district to exclude the 8695 square feet Lot 4247 Ruthelma of undersigned petitioner which is bordered on both sides by three p, vo double story houses. We urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district to exclude the 8695 square feet Lot of 4247 Ruthelma of undersigned petitioner which is bordered on both sides by three ~ double story houses on 4261 Ruthelma Avenue~ 4255 Rutheima Avenue and 4243 Ruthelma Avenue. Thank you for your courtesy and kindness in helping us amicably resolve this serious disagreement..Please feel free to call me at 650 424-5199 if you have any questions, need any additional information, or would like to discuss anything. Respectfully submitted, Sw:Palo Alto Tract 709.do¢ EXCERP~ of draft minutes of the Palo Plannin~ ~’ommission meeting of October .: . :1997.Attachment G The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, October 29, 1997 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and Schmidt None StaffPresent:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment O~OMMUNICATIONS Chairman’N~hink: This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral communications. If there is a melter of the public who wishes to address us on an item which is not specifically overe a you ave Elaine Meyer, 609 King’~_v Avenue, Palo Alto: I am here as a member of the University South Neighbort~oods Group. We~ve made a statement about the reaction of our organization to the Peninsula Creamery project. It, s follows: "After almost a year of meetings and detailed discussions with Mr. Rapp and his’~, the University South Neighborhoods Group cannot support the proposed Peninsula Cream’~project prior to its consideration within the CAP If Mr. Rapp elects to proceed w.it~ an alte.mative’l~p~ect which is not a PC, the project should conform to current zoning regulations, and we trust t~ity review processes (the Planning Commission, the ARB, an EIR, et~ that the p’M~ct is tasteful and environmentally favorable. We regret the timing of Mr~se we appreciate’t!~sincerity of his desire to produce a building that will serve ~d well, and we also a’l~eciate the good faith eff°rt he has made in exchanging ideas with us t0 that. end’. ~- However, we do not belie~ven Pn’marily bye_ timing of a business opportunity when tha~n_g and community in~. In the CAP, we now have a co~ acceptance or rej~on of the Creamery project. The CAP process is our opportunity to help developers conform to a community that the citizens desire. A:lPCMinsSIpe1029.drf Page 2 10-29-97 PUBLIC HEARINGS SINGLE-STORY OVERLAY: TRACT 709 (BLOSSOM PARK): Consideration of a Single-Story Overlay Zone for Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Neighborhood. Environmental Assessment: A negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ZC-11, 97-EIA-24. Chairman Schink: All commissioners, with the exception of Owen Byrd, are now present. Can we have staff comments on Agenda Item 3? Mr. Lee: Yes, this is a request from property owners of Tract 709 in the Blossom Park Neighborhood for a single-story overlay zoning. Your commission had reviewed and approved a similar request from neighbors in the Charleston Meadows District directly adjacent to this particular neighborhood with the conditions enclosed in the staff report. Staffis recommending approval of the project. Chairman Schink: Are there question for stat~. (None) I will now open the public hearing. Steve Jeske, 300 West Charleston Road, Palo Alto: My home is not inside the tract, but is right cross the street. I am in the R-I(S) area that you see. I am directly across the street from one of the subject houses, and I look at an angle across the street at one of tile other houses, the two at the end of Ruthelma on West Charleston. I am in favor of this project. I hope you approve it. I think the fact that their neighborhood, like mine, had a deed restriction, ought to contribute to the fact, as well as the fact that most oftl~e houses in there have been conforming to that deed restriction. This will formalize and legalize the de facto status and prevent neighbors from having to sue other neighbors, should one want to exceed that condition, covenant and restriction. I hope you approve it. Thank you. Forrest Carroll, 4239 Ruthelma, Palo Alto: I live right in the center of this tract. I am an original owner, having been there since 1950. The information that you have in front of you shows that we have a large majority of the homeowners approving this particular zone change. As the gentleman so kindly mentioned, we have an R-I(S) in back of us between us and Alma Street, and also across Charleston. We have the deed restriction that he mentioned that maintained the height at one-and-a-half stories, although I am not sure how they arrived at that back in 1950, but they did. We ask the city’s help in enforcing this restriction, limiting it to single-story residences. In limiting the height and size of houses in this area, you contribute quite a bit tO providing low-cost housing for new owners. These homes would sell in the vicinity of $340,000 to $350,000. It is not uncommon for a developer to come in and buy one at that price, knock it down, and build a two-story, five-bedroom, three-ba~h home and sell it for $750,000 or $800,000. So I think we contribute a lot. I think that most of the neighbors are in agreement that this is what we would like to have, and we thank you for considering it. Commissioner Beecham: I understand there are two houses in that tract now that are two stories. A:lPCMins8lpe1029.drf Page 22 10-29-97 Mr. Carroll: Right. Commissioner Beecham: Can you give me any background on when those were built and how that happened? Mr. Carroll: About 25 to 30 years ago for the one, and the other was probably ten years ago, although the owner is still working on it! .Commissioner Beecham: For those two houses, were the restrictions not enforced? Mr, Carroll: No, they were not. Seth Wu, 2758 Randers Court, Palo Alto.: Honorable commissioners and honorable staff members, I and my wife lived at Ruthelma Avenue for ten years, and we still have our house there. I am staying at my father’s house in Midtown Palo Alto, and at the moment, we are renting our house there on Ruthelma. I submitted a letter to Mr. Eric Riel, and subsequently, I noted that there are some additional corrections tldat I should make to that letter. That letter was for Mr. Eric Riel and for submission to the Planning Commissionand the City Council. I am here to oppose to some degree the S overlay restriction with various alternative approaches. First, it is stated that "an area proposed for an A overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is defined to be 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. The Tract 709 Blossom Park Neighborhood of 19 lots is not characterized by moderate lot sizes. Only a small minority of lots in Tract 709 are moderate sized. Of 19 lots, only four, about 21%, are moderate lot sizes, between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. The majority of the lots, about 53%, are smaller than moderate size lots, and 26% are larger. So this requirement that is characterized by moderate lot size is not met. To say that "mostly smal! lot sizes" as being a neighborhood of"mostly moderate lot sizes" or to redefine "not characterized by moderate lot sizes" as being "characterized by moderate lot sizes" is to belie the integrity of the guidelines and the rulemaking process. Number of Yes Votes. It is indicated that there is overwhelming support of the applicant and that 15 of 19 lot owners support it. The applicants counted the two lot owners that had double stories. In fact, there are not two lot owners that have double stories. There are three, two of which are completely completed, .and perhaps one next to me is still working on his. On the uppermost portion of the viewgraph, that corner towards the arrow of the site location of Tract 709, that is a single 10t. The next one over is a fully built, two-story home. With the next one over, the neighbor has been working on it and has a second story. My home is the next one. Then the next one beyond me has two stories. I am in between these two-story homes, and there are three of them. Behind my lot offofNewberry is another two-story home. I feel that it is unfair to count those lot holders who have already built second stories as approving of a single- story overlay. They have already voted in concrete. The application should be recast as having A:lPCMins8lpe1029.drf Page 23 10 -29 -97 perhaps 12 owners who have signed the petition, not 15. While there is a majority, it is not the overwhelming support stated in the application. We would suggest some consideration that the Planning Commission and the City Council deny the request for the single-story overlay zone as written. We propose possibly to contract the requested single-story overlay zone so that it would exclude the contiguous lots of 4261, which is already a two-story home, 4255 which is already a two-story home, our lot 4247, and the next lot, 4243, which is already a two-story home. These two-story homes, I am not sure about 4261, are all in excess of 2,000 square feet. I had forgotten that there was a third two-story home, so I went out this evening. I do not see 4261 as listed. It is the third house listed within that shaded area. Or alternatively, we urge that since these preexisting two-story homes have already voted in concrete to make one exclusion on 4247. I am being hemmed in on both sides and behind me with two-story homes, and I feel it is rather unfair. These are large lots, between 8,000 to over 9;000 square feet. Thank you. Commissioner Ojakian: I would like to ask Mr. Carroll a question. It was alluded to a few minutes ago that we do have two houses that are two stories. One you said happened awhile back, and the other was ten years ago, but you do have CC&Rs that prohibit that’from happening? Did no one choose to challenge that at the time? Mr. Carroll: No, no one challenged it, and I don’t know why. I was not aware of it. I might add that the two-story house that Mr. Wu says is behind him hasbeen there since about 1900. It belonged to the orchard owner who lived there. Commissioner Ojakian: Is it that nobody challenged them because it is a difficult thing to do? Or nobody chose to challenge it? Mr. Carroll: I cannot answer for other people. To challenge someone, you have to take them to court, as you know. We may end up. paying thousands of dollars in fees and lose the case, for all I know. That’s the chance you take. Commissioner Schmidt: I am sure you are aware that the area adjacent to you on Park and Darlington and Newberry is now an R-1 area with a single-family overlay. We recently approved that. However, the rest of the area on Edlee, Whitclem, etc. is not. Did you make any effort to talk with other people about making this a larger area? Mr. Carroll: I thought it would be presumptive of us to interfere with their area. I don’t feel that that was our prerogative at all. So the answer to that is no, we did not. Commissioner Schmidt: So you do not mind if there is a patchwork around you of some areas with two-story houses, and you have one block of one-story houses. A:lPCMinsSlpc1029,dff Page 24 10-29-97 Mr. Carroll: I cannot control that. They have to control it themselves, as they are different tracts. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other questions, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Any questions for staff?. Commissioner Beecham: Can staff show us on the map where these are located? Mr. Lee: The two-story homes that were mentioned by the previous speaker include the second one from the corner. It is a two-story home, but it is not included in the tract in question. The lot next to it is a two-story building also. The speaker lives at 4247, the lot next door, and there is a two-story home on both sides, as he said, and a two-story in back of him, but in fact, the two two-story buildings are these two parcels, and there are only two within the tract in question. .Commissioner Schmidt: In the single-story overlay definition, when that was put together, was there ever consideration for a minimum tract size? Mr. Lee: There is no such definition in the guidelines. ’ Commissioner Schmidt: I know there is nothing in there, but I was wondering if there had been any discussion.on that. Mr. Schreiber..: I have no recollection as to whether that was discussed or not. .Commissioner Schmidt: So there might be a tract of even three or four houses that could come forth at some point saying, we want a single-story overlay. Mr. Lee: Theoreticaliy, yes. I think one of the arguments for this particular case is that it is an entire tract, and even though it has only 19 lots, it is a coherent, rectangular, cohesive piece. Mr. Schreiber: Of course, there is nothing that ties the commission’s action or city action to the original boundaries of the tract. It is an area. So the commission may wish to consider whether you want to recommend the single-story overlay for the area along the street except for the two lots that have two-story houses and the one lot in the middle. Thatis certainly an option to you. You are not bound by the tract boundaries, Commissioner Cassel: I would like some explanation of this moderate lot size. We do indeed have a definition of moderate lot size, and I had that question before I came in tonight. This does not seem to meet that. Mr. Lee: Yes, the guidelines specify Specifically 7,000 to 8,000 square feet as a moderate lot size. They do, however, have a specific provision for a liberal interpretation of that definition if you are in an area that is subject to a current deed restriction. Staffs interpretation of those two factors is that seven to eight can be flexible if, in fact, the deed restriction does apply, anc~ that is how we A:lPCMinsSIpc1029.drf Page 25 10-29-97 interpret it. Commissioner Cassel: Will you review for me how small the smallest size lots are? Mr Lee: Yes, there is a list of lot sizes in your staffreport, and I believe the smallest lot size in this neighborhood is 5,587 square feet. It goes up to 9,400 square feet. Chairman Schink: Are there other questions for staff?. Commissioner Beecham: This is not a question, but it is kind ofa followup on the issue about lot sizes being an issue here, and in a way, I think maybe it is not. We are concerned about some lots being too small, and the owners of those lots that are small agree with the proposal in front of us tonight. So by their own acknowledgment, they are supporting that. The issue we have, I think, is at the other end of the tract where we have the one homeowner bound in by two two-story houses. MOTION: Commissioner Oiakian: I move that we accept the staffrecommendation which is to approve the attached negative declaration finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and adopt the attached dra~ ordinance rezoning the 19 lots in Tract 709 Blossom Park from R-1 Single-Family Residential to R-I(S) Single-Family Residential, Single-Story Overlay District. SECOND: By Chairman Schink Commissioner Ojakian: Since I have been on the Planning Commission, I think this is the third or fourth single-family overlay zone. In my case, I voted for the prior three, and Bern made some comments earlier about the support from the neighborhood. That is sufficient enough for me to feel that we should go ahead and adopt this particular overlay zone. Commissioner Beecham: I do have a concern for the one homeowner here who is surrounded by the two-story houses. I am not sure yet as to what to do, and I would like some more discussion here. On the one hand, I presume you are bound by your de_ed restrictions, which says that you cannot build a two-story house. The enforcement of that regtriction is by the neighbors. That is an onerous thing for neighbors to do, and I can easily imagine that even though the neighbors may not want a two-story house to be built, it is not worth the effort of alienating one person, as well as the cost of going to court. So it is a poor enforcement mechanism for something that is a restriction on your deed. But I do not know which way to go. I am not sure it is appropriate to bind this one homeowner in when he is not going to benefit at all from this, since his neighbors on three sides already have two stories. I would like to hear more from my colleagues on this. Commissioner Bialson: I am not going to necessarily sway people by thiS, but I find it unfair to include someone who has an objection that is as well grounded as Mr. Wu’s objection, and who is surrounded by two-story homes in this singlE-story overlay requirement. While there is a deed A:lPCMinsSIpe1029.drf Page 26 1 O-2%97 restriction, there are lots of restrictions in our deeds that are not being enforced by neighbors. There have been a lot of changes over the 30 to 40 years since these deed restrictions were put in, and I think the neighbors have indicated by their lack of enforcement as to just how important it was for them. I don’t think it harms any of the neighbors to not extend the overlay request to the lot of someone who is here and who is objecting and who has good grounds for objecting. So I am going to oppose the motion. Commissioner Beecham: Let me ask another question of staffthat might help to assess this better. On Edlee Avenue at the end of Ruthelma, what are the houses like in that area? Mr. Lee: When I took a field trip down there, the only two-story buildings that I could see were the ones shown on the map. There actually is one other as you proceed farther down on Edlee, however, there are several two-story homes farther away from this particular tract. Commissioner Beecham: But in no case otherwise adjoining the tract except for those. So in this area, there are four two-story homes, all of which basically surround the one speaker tonight. Mr. Lee: Yes, immediately adjacent. That is correct. ,Commissioner Beecham: And other than those four, there are no others adjacent to this tract down the Edlee Avenue area? Mr. Lee: Not on the Edlee side. That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: Would you remind me if there is a way within a single-story overlay to apply for a variance to do a second story? Is there any way to be able to build a second story? Ms. Grote: No, you cannot apply for a variance to build a second story. We would have to rescind or rezone, taking away the overlay. Ms. Cauble: I think you could apply it, but I don’t know how it could be granted. It is a regulation that is no different from the height limit. I do not know how it could possibly be approved. Chairman Schink: (bad tape - inaudible question) Ms.~. Cauble: I do not want to give a legal opinion on the existing situation, but certainly, one issue that would come into play would be the fact that two other circumstances had been allowed to occur without a challenge. So I am sure that would be an issue in any future litigation that would have to be evaluated. A deed restriction is a private matter between the owners of the subject property, and you are right, it.does not involve the city. It is between those owners. Chairman Schink: So part of the reason why we do this is s.o that we do not put neighbors in a A:IPCMinsSIpe1029.drf Page 27 10-29-97 position where they have to sue one another to enforce what is a recorded understanding. Commissioner Beecham: From the city’s point of view, would it complicate matters to exempt the three parcels at the end of that tract? Mr. Schreiber: No, and if you look at the map on the other end ofCharieston III, the lots on that side were not a part of the S overlay. This would be a similar situation. Commissioner Beecham: Based on that discussion, I would make a stlbstitute motion which would exclude these three parcels. Part of the reason for doing that certainly is that the one homeowner is already surrounded by two two-story houses, and I think the impact on the rest of the tract would be minimal if it were developed as a two-story house in the future. Itis across the street and not adjoining any other single-story home, and the rest of the tract would maintain its identity. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: So I move that we approve the S overlay, exempting the three homes which consist of Lots 17, 18 and 19. Chairman Schink: Do you accept that, Vic? (Yes) And as the seconder, I also accept it. Commissioner Schmidt: When we previously looked at the neighboring tract and approved the single-story overlay zone, I personally felt that in looking at the larger neighborhood, it was more of a transitional area that had both one- and two-story homes, and that it was a small portion. It seemed less logical than the other projects that have come before us to put in a single-story overlay on a small portion. I still am somewhat troubled about this area bounded by Charleston, Alma, Wilkie Way and the creek. In my opinion, it is still is more of a mixed neighborhood where people have begun building second stories. I will, however, support the motion because it does add to the single-story overlay that we already did, and it is across from another single-story overlay. I would hope that in the future, if we continue to see single-story overlays, that we do not get small blocks with 19 houses in them. It seems like an odd way to go about looking at zoning in the city. Here is a two-story block, and here is a one-story block. It seems like we should be looking at the bigger picture. So I hope that when other projects come before us, that some thought is .put into contacting neighboring tracts if we do have a small tract, trying to look at the bigger picture. Commissioner Cassel: I missed the discussion on the l~st=single-story overlay that we had. For the one before that when we discussed this issue, I voted for it with great regret. I still have great regret over these single-story overlay zones. I know we have a serious problem in town with the way some of the development is going, and I know we have discussed that as a plan, and we will continue to do so, but I think people are going to have some severe problems in the future as to what they are going to do with their lots. Their h.ouses need major repairs, and they make A:lPCMinsSlpe1029.drf Page 28 10-29-97 decisions on how to proceed with their development. I think many people are going to be very sorry that they are tied into a single-story overlay zone. It sounds so simple when facing it today, but it is not necessarily so simple tomorrow when you need a place to go that is going to cost you $600,000 so that you do not go into a standard nursing home, and you cannot get that money out of your house. So this is not as simple an issue as it looks. I think we need to continue to look at what we are going to do in our design guidelines and whether we are going to have them and how restrictive they are going to be, etc. in order to deal with these issues of people staring down into other people’s back yards or houses that appear extremely bulky because they have a 13-foot-high room that gives bulk but no usable space, making everything seem very large. So I am going to vote against the motion just on principle. I think we should not be doing these willy nilly everywhere. I think we will be very sorry in the long run. Chairman Schink: I want to make one point clear. By imposing this S overlay and exempting Lots 17, 18 and 19, we are not in any way amending the deed restrictions for this tract, so people should not assume we are doing anything to affect their deed, and they may have some recourse under their deed restrictions. Ms. Cauble: That is correct. Chairman Schink: Before voting on this, I have one little personal comment tonight. One of the real pleasures of being on the Planning Commission in a small town like Palo Alto~ having grown up here, is that once in awhile, we get an opportunity to go way back in our past. One of the neighbors in this application was my old baseball coach in Babe Ruth Baseball, and I have not seen him in 25 years. He gave a lot to me when I was growing up, and it gives us a lot once in awhile, sitting up here, to run into people that we have not seen in a long time. It makes me feel good, and it makes me feel good about this job. It is good to see Mr. Lofgren, and I appreciate what he did for me when I was growing up. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioner Byrd absent. Commissioner Beecham: I would like to say thank you to Mr. Carroll and to all of the others who have worked to bring your tract together. We really appreciate seeing a neighborhood working together like this. Mr. Schreiber: This item is scheduled for the November 17th City Council meeting. Discussion followed abou~ upcoming Comprehensive Plan hearings at the City Council and who would attend from the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. A:lPCMinsSIpc1029.dff Page 29 10-29-97