The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-10-12 City Council (2)of Palo Alto Manager’ Summary Repor TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 4 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:OCTOBER 12, 2004 CMR: 442:04 SUBJECT:REQUEST BY ALEX KANELLAKOS ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON ALLEN COURT, TRACT # 1137, FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-I(S) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH SINGLE STORY OVERLAY. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. RECOMMENDATION Although the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommends Council deny the rezoning of Tract 1137, staff recommends the Council approve the rezoning by adopting the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone Tract 1137 to R-1 (S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay District. As an alternative, based upon the P&TC recommendation, Council can adopt the attached draft record of land use action (Attachment B) to deny the overlay request. DISCUSSION The property owners in Tract 1137 request application of the single story overlay zone to 22 single family parcels contained within that tract. Deed restrictions established in 1953 restrict development on these parcels to one story in height. The subject application meets three of the four of the evaluation criteria established by the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. The application does not meet the moderate lot size criterion. The table below summarizes the project’s compliance with the guidelines. CMR:442:04 Page 1 of 4 Summary of Guideline Criteria and Compliance Criteria Compliance of Application Level of Support Strong level of support with 14 of the 22 lots (64%) supporting the request. Appropriate Boundaries Prevailing Single Story Character Moderate Lot Sizes (7,000 - 8,000 s.f.) The application indicates a rectangular neighborhood, as defined by the existing street pattern. Twenty-one properties are currently single story, built in the 1950s and are Eichler design homes. The breakdown of the lot sizes is as follows: Less than 7,000 s.f.: 6 lots (27.2%) Between 7,000-8,000 s.f.: 8 lots (36.4%) Greater than 8,000 s.f.: 8 lots (36.4%) COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the public heating held on Wednesday, September 29, 2004, the P&TC voted 5-2 to deny staff’s recommendation of approval. Staff based its recommendation on two main factors: 1.The Council-adopted single story guidelines provide for a greater degree of flexibility in the evaluation of neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single story deed restriction, such as this neighborhood. 2.The pending code changes to the Single Story Height Combining District include the deletion of the moderate lot size criterion. The Commissioners expressed concern regarding the following issues: 1.The level of support (64%) is not "overwhelming" in this application. In the five previous overlay approvals the level of owner support has shifted from a high of 80% to a low of 69%. 2.The percentage of absentee property owners is 25%, which seems high compared to previous overlay requests. 3. The moderate lot size guideline is only met by 36% of the lots and the variation in lot sizes is significant enough that it should not be overlooked. 4. Due to the size and shape of the lots, many homeowners may have a difficult time developing their properties to take advantage of their available floor area. The previous overlay approvals were located in areas containing larger lots than those on Allen Court. CMR:442:04 Page 2 of 4 o A significant portion of the area adjacent to Allen Court has higher density residential use, along with existing multiple-story structures. The Single Family Individual Review (IR) program addresses privacy and neighborhood compatibility for new two story homes and second story additions. With the IR program in place, many of the concerns raised by supporters of this overlay would be addressed. The P&TC also discussed the specific overlay guidelines and the thresholds that have been used to evaluate previous applications. Several Commissioners expressed concern about the proposed R-I(S) code changes going to Council on October 4, 2004, and suggested further Commission discussion was needed. Of the seven speakers for this item, four spoke in support of the project, citing their desire to maintain the neighborhood character and the compliance with the existing deed restrictions. Instead of going through civil lawsuits, the residents request the City’s imposition of the overlay to avoid this legal process. The three speakers opposed to overlay were concerned about the potential negative impacts the overlay could have on their property values, as well as the added limitations that homeowners would have for future site development. They also voiced concern about the level of support from the neighborhood, suggesting that the support vote of the existing two-story residence should not be included, and that the property owner of three lots should have just one vote instead of three. ALTERNATIVES The Council may find the boundaries of the proposed overlay district should be expanded, which requires re-noticing of the public hearing, or contracted, which would not require re-noticing. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ’EVE E] ;LIE Director of Planning and Community ~, MILY HARRIS Assistant City Manager CMR:442:04 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance for Approval with Attached Location Map B. Draft Record of Land Use Action for Denial C. Location Map with Levels of Support and Opposition Noted D. Applicant Submittal E. Comprehensive Plan Implications F. Zoning Ordinance Compliance G. Background/Project Description H. Single Story Height Combining District (S) Zone Guidelines I. Summary of Single Story Height Combining Rezoning J. Pending Code Changes to the (S) Overlay K. Deed Restrictions for Tract 1137 L. Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report without Attachments dated September 29, 2004 M. Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes of September 29, 2004 COURTESY COPIES Allen Court residents CMR:442:04 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ;dVIENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON ALLEN COURT, A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT i137 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 hearing held September 29, 2004, 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 that property known as Allen Court Tract 1137 (the "subject property"), from "R-! Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S) Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The subject property is shown on the map labeled Attachment attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this project is a minor alteration to land use limitation exemption from environmenta! review under California Environmental Quality Act guideline section 15305. // // // // 040922 syn 8~0096 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Special Counsel Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment on the 040922 syn 0091041 2 ACTION NO. 2004-08 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR TRACT 1137 (ALLEN COURT): ZONE CHANGE 04-ZC-07 (ALEX KANELLAKOS,APPLICANT) At its meeting of [Date],2004, the Council of the City of Palo Alto denied the request for a Zone Change to rezone 22 parcels to R-I(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as fol!ows: A. On April 15, 2004, Alex Kanellakos, representing the property owners of Tract 1137 (Allen Court), applied for a Zone Change to rezone 22 parcels from R-I Single Family Residential to R-I(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay ("The Project"). B. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the project on September 29, 2004 and voted 5-2 to deny staff’s recommendation to recommend approva! the rezoning of Allen Court. The Commission’s actions are contained in CMR: 442:04 with attachments. SECTION 2.Zone Chanqe Denied. Zone Change No. 04-ZC- 07 is denied for the rezoning of Tract 1137 (Allen Court) from R-I Single Family Residentia! to R-I(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Planning and APPROVED AS TO FORM: Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney Attachment C Pa!o Alto "- L Allen Court Single Story Overlay This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment D Alex Kanellakos Architectural Control Committee Member Tract # 1137 Midfair 790 Allen Court Palo Alto, CA 94303-4110 Ms Amy C. French, AICP Current Planning Manager Planning Division 250 Hamilton Ave. PaloAlto, CA 94301 RECEIVED API 15 200 Department of Planning & Community Environment Dear Amy: I am officially representing an overwhelming majority of homeowners from the Tract # 1137 Midfair subdivision. Today, April 15, 2004, we are submitting the application for a permanent zone change from R1 to Rl(s). All pertinent sections are included for the application in accordance with a zone change to Rl(s) from R1 compliant to the January 22, 2002 S-district Guidelines, Attachment C, Single-Story Height Combining District (S) Zone guidelines. The committee and the homeowners wish to have this process moving along expeditiously. I spoke with Beth and Roland in the Planning Department. Beth has indicated that the zone change may take several months and that the city will pay the fee. Roland has agreed to print out the notification labels to the surrounding areas, and the environmental impact was determined to be non applicable. Please let me know if I missed an3rthing. Alex Kanellakos Lot No 4 650 493-1211 CC to Architectural Control Committee Members: Ray Witt Lot No 14 Steven Greenbaum Lot No 6 Development Review Application CitT of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton _Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2441 plandiv.info@cityofpaloalto.org 64- Z(_. Applicant Request Architectural Review Historic Review Design Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Comprehensive Plan Amendment Protected Tree Removal Home Improvement Exception Property Location Temporary Use Permit Individual Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Site and Design ~ Zone Change r----]Subdivision Parcel Map Address of Subject Property: Zone District:Assessor’s Parcel Number; Requested Action Description of requested actign: -~’ O~ ~j~ ~_ Fee(s): $ Receipt # ¯ Job Ledger # " Histodc Category(if applicable): Address: NOTE:APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified_ of....Meetings, Hearings or action taken. State: ~.--A zip: Prooertv Owner . ,NOTE:APPLICANT& PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted Name: A/~A-~ "k/~/1 ~/~.. ~::~(’ mailing listE_mail:in order~~to be. notified~~of Meetings,~o.Headngs~o~or ~ction taken. Address: ~ ~ ~//~’~ C~ ~Phone:~ ~ IZ I hereby certify that I am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing policy stated. Signature of Owner:Date: O Action (office use oray)Taken ~Architectural Review Board [-’---’]Historic Resources Board Planning Commission City Council Planning Manager Director of Planning Your Next Step E~Apply to the Building Inspection Division (or other originating Department) for your Permit. ~Findings and Conditions are attached The project must comptv with the requirements of_ALL applicable Cirv Codes and Ordinances SECTION 1 - Level of Co-Applicant Owner Support 1 We, the undersigned majority of homeowners from the Mayfair Tract 1137 are applying for a zone change from R1 to the R1 (S) in accordance with the January 22, 2002 S-district Guidelines, Attachment C, Single- Story Height Combining District (S) Zone guidelines. NAME LOT NO.DATE 3 l’lffRoss R4: N~cy J. ~;on 793 ~en Ct.: Bog~ Ue~ 789 ~ Ct.: M~o6e S. A~ 785 ~en Ct.: C~mpher D. Chafe ~d J~e K. Hol~ ~" 781 Allen Ct.: John G. Sessoms; 16 Allen Ct.: John J. Tumminaro and Amanda L. Tumminaro t5 773 Allen Ct.: Perry D. Marl 769 ~len Ct.: ~y ~d ~ro~y Wi~ 765 ARen 761 ~en C~: C~t C~ ~d N~ey Ke~ebrock SECTION 1 - Level of Co-Applicant Owner Support 2 11 762 Allen Ct.: Stuart A. Bait Trust 10 766 Allen Ct.: YousifK. Kharaka and Pamela E. Kharaka 770 Allen Ct.: Gregory A. Howell and Dana L. Howell 774 Allen Ct.: Achim W. Weidemann and Alie Nguyen-Weidemann 778 Allen Ct.: N~ho~as . Zirpolo-and Susan E. Peek 782 Alie~Ct.: Steve Gr~enbaum and Sally~mu~l 7 790 Allen Ct.: Alex Kanellakos 794 Allen Ct.: John G. Sessoms 3152 Ross. Rd.: Johnny Yau and Kiu Chow 3162 Ross Rd.: Robin D. Stavisky Section 2 - Boundary Definitions, Map of Tract 1137 Mid.fair The map below indicates the address and location of the residents that are co-applicants for the rezoning request. City of Palo Alto This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Section 3 - Prevailing Single-Story Character Our tract of 22 Eichlers, called 1137 Midfair, is currently zoned as residential R1. This is the most common zoning for residential neighborhoods. A single story overlay zone, called RI(S), is similar but prohibits second story homes. Our tract is currently subject to single story restrictions pursuant to the Declarations of Restrictions, Conditions, Covenants, Charges, and Agreements (CC&Rs). Paragraph 1, clearly states, "No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single-family dwelling, not to exceed one story in height and a private garage for not more thau two cars." By changhag our zoning to RI(S) the City of Palo Alto would enforce the single story restriction by denying permits for two-story houses. Thus residents, and the Architectural Control Committee, would be relieved of the burden of enforcing the two story restriction of the CC&Rs. This would be much simpler for all concerned. In addition, the RI(S) zoning increases the size of allowed single story houses from the current 35% lot coverage to 40% coverage, allowing for greater expansion. The majority of homeowners who have signed the petition also request that the zone change be made PERMANENT. In addition to a single story overlay that preserves the character of the neighborhood, there are several precedents cited herein as attachments. Several articles supporting decisions to grant RI(S) overlay are included for perusal. Many similar actions in Palo Alto and several neighboring Eiehler communities, as well as the Crreenmeadow tract nearby, have two-story overlays. Therefore, to avoid the stress brought on by such imposing homes and the burden that the Arehitectta~ Control Committee and the residents must incur to oppose such developments, we are applying for the zone change. A zone change to R1 (S) will add value to the real property and increase the home resale value. We want to avoid privacy intrusion through imposing second stories. We also wish to preclude a domino effect or Monster Homes in our neighborhood, thereby changing the harmony and character of the architectural environment. Examples on the outlying community of current and proposed sites for "Monster" developments such as those on Ross Road are included in this section. Please see the attached petition. The petition will accompany the application for this zone change. The CC&Rs require a majority of homeowners to sign a petition to change or abolish the current restrictions. The attached petition has a majority of signatures for the zone change. We therefore strongly believe and recommend approval of the zone change from R1 to a permanent RI(S) for the 22 real properties known as Tract 1137 Midfair. We also request that the zone change be processed in an efficient and timely manner. Your support on this matter is greatly appreciated. If you need details or want to talk, call me at 650 493-12!1. Copies of the CC&Rs are included for reference. Section 3 (supplement photos) Low level homes on quiet, peaceful Allen Court My Home on Allen Court Converted huge duplex with Spanish Tile (Ross Road) Section 3 (supplemem photos) New Stucco Home with many imposing windows (Ross Road) Site of New 3800 sf Monster home (Ross Road) Incompatible Spanish filed home next to Rancher (Ross Road) Section 3 - Attachments _.Eichler Network: Neighborhood-Protection Roundup Page 1 of 3 Fall 2001 Not Wanting to Grow Up, Eichler Neighborhoods Rise Above Second-story Intrusions Around the Bay Area, a growing number of Eichler developments, working through local governments, are taking legal action to block or restrict second-story additions, a building trend which many of them feel negatively impacts their neighborhoods and, in particular, adjacent property owners. It Is a movement that would have seemed unimaginable a decade ago. But a combination of rising home values, the desire for more living space, and the increasing number of ’monster homes’ has produced an emerging consensus that the privacy rights of individuals and the architectural value of 3oe Elchler’s developments at times can outweigh a homeowner’s right to home expansion. "Elchler homes are simply not designed to be next to two-story houses," one critic of additions succinctly put it to us recently, "and I don~t want my neighbors Ioo~ into my back windows." Proponents of second-story restrictions like that one, as well as their opponents, frequently say that It all comes down to the concet: who has the final say over property rights, a battle that has been ongoing in freedom-loving America perhaps since the founding of republic. Those opposed feel that they have the right to make changes to their home as they see fit, without the approval of their neighbors, and that adding second-stories increases the value of their home. Those in favor of restrictions, whether an outright ban or a review of proposed additions by a local committee, argue that Elchler neighborhoods, which typically feature single-story structures with expansive glass, are being ruined by Imposing second-story additions. Most claim that these additions invade the privacy of neighbors decrease home values, and alter the distinctive archltectu character of the neighborhood. Over the past decade, nine neighborhoods in Palo Alto -- Including the Eichler developments of Greenmeadow, Channing Park, Garla Park, El Centro Gardens, Walnut Grove, and Charleston Gardens -- have voted in favor of having what Is termed a ’single-story ovei put In place. This special zone designation, first adopted in !992, prohibits the construction of second stories where the underlying zoning would otherwise allow it. Overlay zoning was adopted by the Pal~) Alto City Council In ~.992 as a way for developments as small as a few dozen homes to control the character, size, and scale their neighborhoods. It has been enthusiastically pursued by homeowners who, prior t. recaiving the special zoning, had no way to protest a second-story addition going up n. door to them, except by private lawsuit, a costly process. In Charleston Meadows, Eichler owners MIIIle Davis, Jean Olmsted, and Florence LaRivf were spurred into action In 1996 after hearing of a neighbor who planned a second-stc addition. They gathered the support of 79 percent of the homeowners, more than enot to convince the city council that the overlay zone was needed. Last year, the first-ever teardown occurred in the neighborhood, and the same activists again came together t( establish an architectural review committee to monitor remodels and additions. Eichler Network: Neighborhood Protection Roundup Page 2 of 3 El Centro Gardens is a tiny Palo Alto subdivision of 16 homes on a unique, cross-shaped site plan included In Eichler’s 1950 ’Subdivi: of the Year’ award. In :1998, a local developer there purchased a rundown Eichler at the entrance of the cross. Certatn that the hom~ would be torn down, ten-year resident Alison Collln feared that "something huge and hideous with Greek columns" would take its ph Determined to prevent that from happening -- "We went to great lengths to find a house with privacy," Collin said -- she rallied the other owners and persuaded the city council to put an overlay zone in place to prevent future second-story construction. While the developer did build a large, single-story home at the teardown site before the zoning was put In place, Collin felt that the of the neighborhood toned down the building plans in favor of a more modest structure. Not all municipalities are as receptive to restricting second-story additions as Palo Alto. In nearby Sunnyvale, the 54 residents of th~ Eichler development of Fairorchard woke up one day last year to discover that a neighbor had demolished his Etchler and was buildh ’monster home’ that loomed above the neighbors. Bill Gaugler, who lived nearby, felt that the demolition and new structure violated only the homeowners association’s conditions, covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) but also city ordinances about line-of-sight restrictions. Gaugler circulated a petition through the neighborhood and found that 38 out of the 54 were in agreement that second-story additions should be banned. "Every kind of obstacle that could be placed in our way was," Gaugler said. After much effort by concerned homeowners, the council recently passed an ordinance that restricted second-stories in the neighborhood, but set it to automatically expire in seven years. The ruling can be challenged at any time during that period, requiring proponents to be on guard. Homeowners will be notified in the sixth year that the ordinance will expire, and at that point the fight will likely be triggered once again. To make things even more difficult, the council imposed a fee that, when divided among the Fairorchard neighborhood, amounted to $78 per household. Most residents were willing to participate, but Gaugler said Fa~mn:hard ~monster h~me’ that started.__ that one told him, "It’s one thing to sign the petition, but it’s another thing to give you money to just throw away." According to Gaugler, he and several other residents of the tract made up the difference. Gaugler also makes no bones about who he thinks are the forces be the opposition, asserting that the city council had pressure put on It by outside developers who saw their interests threatened. In Cupertino, second-story opponents won a victory of a different sort this year. After more than three years of effort by residents o Fairgrove, the city zoned the Eichler subdivision of 220 as ’Rl-e -- Eichler Single Family,’ a unique status created especially for the threatened tract. Alarmed by an increasing number of ’monster homes’ being built just outside the subdivision, a committee of five volunteers surveyed the neighborhood and found that 77 to 80 percent favored preserving the character of the neighborhood and privacy. Armed with those results, the committee went first to the city planning commission and then the city council. "The oppositic was not very organized though they were very vocal," indicated committee member Nancy Burnett, whose group used a nelghborho newsletter to spread the word about what they wanted to do. The eventual result was that Cupertino created the special zoning and a set of voluntary guidelines, described in the publication Fairgrove: Eicher Design Handbook. The handbook Incorporates specific requirements regarding roof slope, entry features, front yard setback, height of exterior walls, and the nature of side and rear-yard facing second floor windows. does not ban second-story additions but requires that plans for them be reviewed. It also offers recommendations about how to keep remodels In the Elchler design spirit. North of Palo Alto, activists In other subdivisions without second-story restrictions are start to organize. Tn the San Mateo Highlands, home of neady 800 Eichlers, there is growing concern among owners over an increasing number of second-story additions that are ’ underway or planned. Several residents there have formed what they call a ’Quality of Ufe Committee’ that is exploring ways to work with the county and maintain the character of neighborhood. Fab~jrove’s Elchler Design Ham:lbo~k. In Marin, Pete Martin, the neighborhood association president of one section of the sprawli~ Eichler development of Terra Linda, Is attending hearings on revising the city’s general plat with hopes of eventually getting second-story limits In place. Martin believes, as he polntec out, that "the growing awareness of the value of the Eichler heritage" will add weight to efforts. Eichler Network: Neighborhood-Protection Roundup Page 1 of 2 C~ok|~’? ~~o~ Sale Service Team Fall 2002 Creative Solutions Hopeful As Neighborhoods Continue to Heat Up Over New ’Monster Homes’ Concern continues to mount in Eichler neighborhoods over Eichlers being torn down and replaced with ’monster homes,’ and remodels and additions that infringe on homeowner privacy. As gressroots groups pull together, neighborhood battles emerge between those who feel that "it’s my house and z can do whatever I want" and the growing number.of homeowners who want to maintain the Eichler style of their neighborhood and their privacy. Nonetheless, in some cases, creative solutions are being found. In the Highlands development of San Mateo, where more than 700 homes comprise the largest contiguous Eichler subdivision, a growing number of second-story additions and the neighborhood’s first-ever ’monster home’ has some homeowners consulting with San Mateo County planners on ways to implement a design-review process. Calling themselves the ’Quality of Life’ committee, and headed by Highlands Community Association President Cliff Donley and residents 3ames Goodman and Nancy Woods, the group’s ef were strengthened after a neighborhood survey revealed deep support for preserving the character of the development and protecti privacy. Forty-six percent of Highlands households recently responded to a survey mailed to all Highlands homes. Eighty-six percent of thos~ who replied agreed that they "would like to see the existing look and character of the...neighborhood maintained"; 80 percent claim they want Input when a neighbor’s remodel affects their view, privacy, sunlight, or drainage; and 68 percent desired to have input c the "architectural compatibility" of a neighbor’s remodel. When questioned on whether or not second-story additions should be ban~ 56 percent wanted to prohibit them. Following the survey, the Qualtty of Ufe committee drafted a set of Eichler-speclfic design review guidelines, drawing from guideline previously created in Cupertino and other neighborhoods. The committee plans to work closely with the county, and continue to see Input from Highlands’ residents as they finalize their proposals. Things are stirring in Southern California as well. In the Balboa Highlands subdivision In Granada Hills, Eichler owners Adrlene Blond and 3aime Flores have enlisted the support of two-thirds of the !00 owners for a Los Angeles County "Historic Preservation Overlay Zone" (HPOZ), designed to protect the Elchler neighborhood from teardowns and radical remodels. "There is a growing feeling that we need to protect the wonderful Eichler heritage so many of us cherish," Blondo pointed out recent "Our unique neighborhood here Is Increasingly used for television and film production simply because of the Elchler style. As a result many homeowners have been restoring their houses, and now even some pretty badly rundown Elchlers, following restoration, have become tour-worthy." l:mplementatlon of an HPOZ in Balboa Highlands would entail a five-person board carefully reviewing signlflca exterior alterations to neighborhood homes. It would Include three residents of the new HPOZ, Including a licensed architect appoint by the Cultural Heritage Commission. In San Rafael’s Lucas Valley development, the Architectural Review Committee recently was strengthened through updated CC&R’s : were revised by the homeowners association and approved by more than two-thirds of Its residents. "We had weekly meetings for s months, and based our new guidelines on accepted standards of the community as well as those already in use In Matin County," sa the committee’s Frank LaHorgue. County officials will now only review applications for building permits in Lucas Valley in conjuncttor E~ichler Network: Neighborhooa-Protection Roundup -Page 2 of 2 with the Archtte~ural Review Committee, a move which allows the commiRee stronger representation than in the past. The eme~ence of second-sto~y addttion~ (above) and their l~act’s first ’monster home’ (right) led a San Hateo Highlands group to form their "Quality of Life’ committe~ No~e Eichters dwarfed in each photo. Phob~: 3a<:k Le~ritan. The Eichler Network will continue to update the Neighborhood Roundup on a regular basis. If you have news of action taken to prot~ homes in your Eichler communlb/, please email us at Roundup@eichlernetwork.com. Top. of ~ The Eichter Net’ info@eichternetwork Will Terra Linda ,’,,,oratonum endure:, Fired-up Matin Eichlers trigger halt to second-story additions A s each new episode of second-story ad- ditions places yet another wrinkle on the face of Bay Area Eichler developments, the fuse of opposition tied to the invasion of homeowner privacy and views, as well as Eichler neighborhood design integrity, pho~.o= Dav~ Toerge ¯ Great big rtmnker.’ The most h~tIy debated top- --:. ics in Terra Linda are a pair of new two-sto~ additions. The Los Raposas one looms above. This was the ir ~ that recently accom- panied the emergence of two prominent new second-story additions in Marin’s Terra Linda that have fired up the more than 1,200 Eichler and Alliance-builder owners, even prompting two separate lawsuits against the ones responsible for the building.Angry and frustrated, as many as 200 -.Terra Linda residents - most of them Eich- ler owners - appeared before San Rafael’s city council and planning department sev- . erai times Ns summer to lobby against the two additions and promote a ban on them. The city responded to the concerned crowds and charged proceedings by enact- ing a temporary ban on second-story resi- dential building in Terra LiMa’s Eichler and Alliance subdivisions, allowing their city council and planning department an oppor- tunity to study the issues and make recom- mendations on what has become perhaps themost hotly debated conl~oversy in town. "When you ~et a large crowd of people coming into cit3 council chambers, andat the same lime you present a petition and survey from 350 homeowners with 94 per- cent of them objecting to two-stories, people listen," pointed out Cliff Meneken. Meneken is an Eichler owner and a co- ordinator for the ’Preservation Committee,’ a sub-committee of the Santa Margarit~ Neighborhood Association, which repre- sents most of Terra Linda’s Eichlers.-Continued o~i pa~e L Continued from front page The homeowner survey Men’ken and 20 other fellow committee volun- teers assembled came together as con- struction began on the additions, one on an Eichler on Los Raposas Road, the other on an Alliance home on nearby Wisteria Way. Meneken and many other neighbors contend that the cit3’ did not exercise proper public notice procedure or ap- ply the required neighborhood compat- ibility review guidelines, and that Eichler and Alliance original CC&R’s (Declaration of Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions) were ig-noreck "I believe that the city council tman- imously ordered the moratorium not only because of the reaction of the com- mtmity, but also as a reaction to the plan- ran= deparmaent s way of approving the projects," said Meneken. "In a sense, the city council may have attempted to ex- tricate themselves from the scenario by ting through the moratorium." The interim moratorium, initially introduced in late August for a 45-day period, had little effect on the two addi- tions that were in progress. They con- tinued to go up, unimpeded by the ban and sustained neighborhood outcry. "This thing is a great big hunker," pointed out Claudette Ferriter, who for z~0 years has owned the Eic.hler next door on Las Raposas. "It’s so outra- geous, and it overpowers the neighbor- hood. Why does ithave to be so high?" The addition next door also overlooks the community pool. The dimensions of the two additions are what disturb most of the Terra Linda neighborsl Over the previous 30 years, five other two-story additions have prer ceded these.two, but none has had the same overwhelming presence. ’~lt’s a blight in the commtmity," said Meneken. ’~Even people that don’t mind second-stories think that these two are disgusting. If they were of good designs, done in a more limited way, and less conspicuous, people would have been Terra Linda’s two-story tiff Continued,from page 11 less agitated about it all." The growing problem next door was what fueled Ferrier’s agitation, as well as her lawsuit. "I felt very alone for some time objecting to this thing, and I was told by the planning department time and time again that there was nothing I could do," lamented Ferriter. "My neighbors are all very happy ~o see the suit, and they’re supportive. But I’d just like to have some privacy back. This eyesore looks right down on our pa- rio. There are windows, balcony, and a deck. No longer can we see the open space we voted and paid for." At the heart of each of the lawsuits are the CC&R’s, which were recorded on vir- tually all of the Eichler and Alliance sub- divisions at the lime they were constructed and sold in the 1950s and ’60s. According to a typical Terra Linda Eichler CC&R document, no building was to "exceed one story in height." To enforce this and other provisions of the CC&R’s, Joe Eichler and his two sons, Ned and Richard, presided self-appointed as the orig-inal architectural control commit- tee, which had provisions for leadersh., assignment and covenants that "ran with the land and shall be binding on all parties..." Meneken, on behalf of the Santa Mar- garita Neighborhood Association, re- quested an advisory opinion on the valid- ity of Terra Linda’s CC&R’s from the law f’wm of Abbey, Weitzenberger, Hoffman, Warren & Emery, based in Santa Rosa. After analyzing the documents, attorney Barbara Zimmerman offered a report in support of the enforceability of Eichler’s original CC&R’s. "It is my opinion that the Terra Linda photo: ;David Tt:~rge Neighborhood compatMIity. WiiI San Rafael’ s City Council permanently ban additions like this one? Declarations are enforceable equitable ser- vitudes [restrictions]," wrote Zimmerman, whose .firm specializes in land use and zon- ing regulations, "including the building height restriction and the requirement of architectural comrnittee review contained therein." Following extension of the interim moratorium from 45 days to ten months, Community Development Director Bob Brown announced in a well-attended and raucous public meeting in September that he and his staff would continue-to study the single-family home design review pro- cess and its guidelines, and the preserva- tion of Eichler and Alliance homes. Brown also planned to meet with local .members of the American Institute of Ar- chitects before making his own recommen- dations to the city council. While Meneken remains guarded about Brown’s claim of objectivity, he is hope- ful that the strong opposition to second- story additions..will convince the city that either a permanent ban or single-story over- lay protection are in order. "We are going to put pressure on the city to make sure that their process repre- sents the will of the community," he said. The interim second-story moratorium remains in effect through July 30,"2004. Green li.clht anticipated Council approval final hurdle for Terra Linda two-story ban Eichler communities evers,where are eye- ing Terra Linda and its t~ending perma- nent ban on Eichler second-story additions. If the San Rafaet City Council recom- mends in favor of the ban, as the city’s planning department and community de- velopment director have already done, the decision will likely turn Terra Linda’s Eicher and Alliance-builder neighborhoods into single-story overlay zones. The City Council will vote February 2. For the past several months, a quickly formed Terra Linda Neighborhood Pres- ervation Committee, drawn from the 1,230 Eichler and Alliance homeowners, has con- ducted a vocal and seemingly well-orches- trated movement to oppose two recently erected second-story additions. One is in the Terra Linda Eichler community, the other in a nearby Alliance development. Even though the critics’ strong opposi- tion against the two additions in progress has not blocked their construction, the committee’s strong outcry and unified at- tendance at key public meetings has led to an interim moratorium on second-stories. Bob Brown, Community Development Director, announced in November in re- sponse to the protests of the two additions, that he felt that "the cleanest solution [to the Terra Linda situation] is a single-stoty overlay." In December, the planning com- mission unanimously followed suit. "The mounting concern over second- story additions was quite evident at the De- cember meeting," said Catherine Munson, a highly regarded Marin realtor and veteran Eichler Homes staffer who has been notice- ably vocal at the public meetings in oppo- sition to second-story additions. "It was a pleasure to witness the proceedings because of the thoughtful and intelligent conside: ation Nven to this complex problem." Over the months, the Preservation Cor~ mittee also has elicited backing from oth~ key fi=m.~res in the Eichler communitie. including Eichler author Paul Adamson. ’!No amount of skillful design can tigate the jump in scale of a two-story :tition in an otherwise uniformly single- ry context," Adamson wrote to devel- nent director Brown, Adamson is also racticing Bay Area architect. alo Alto has more homes built visionary dev,elo0er Joseph Ei¢lil~i’ ~ any otlier city, so no surprise that of geo- finally neighborhoods City’s llistoric Resources Board ~ recognition. city’s Hifitoric Resources B6ard voted’:’ unatdmously dnead~y tb nbtninaie two Palo neigliboi’h~)ods -- Green ~10c~tted at the foot of and ibcated off Alma Road -- gister of ¯ ~ ifi~ve i~ more symbolic .than ’,~ince: it. doesn’t a homeown, to remodel,’ However, complainihg. ’ ~i.,very important honor, a 6f!~!eommunity 16fide;’ said presidetit of the Frat~cis which said~ entation fr6/h.~omeone state Office Preservation. But she that her neighborhood hasi covenants wrfiten into ihe. ship deeds thht alr~hdy can be done to the homes’ historic architecture. "There is a strong appreciation’in the neighborhood for atchlteetd~ai history," Ellson ~aid White stud the,honorar~ |ion is different from th~ posed historic nance of several years ,tiled homeown~t~ afidi community l~ec~mSe it ed what cotddb~ Clea~l, Section 4 - Moderate Lot Sizes The R1 (S) requirement for moderate lot size in met with the generally large lot sizes over 7000 square feet, thereby allowing for expansion to 40% coverage of the lot in accordance with current City of Palo Alto single family home coverage code requirements. Already, four residents have expanded their homes using these single story guidelines, and were approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Another residence is planning a single story expansion and two new single story homes are being designed mad will soon be constructed. The owners wish to maintain the character and architectural harmonious environmentally friendly surroundings of the neighborhood. We need to protect our investments and commitments to the single story character, and therefore wish that this zone change from K1 to R1 (s) be adopted of-fieially, and as soon as possible. Attachment E Allen Court Single Story Overlay Comprehensive Plan Implications The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a fundamental policy of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan contains the following policies in support of the proposed single story overlay: Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The single story overlay is consistent with these policies by restricting the height of existing single story neighborhoods to conform with existing homes and ensuring that remodeled homes are consistent in height with neighboring structures. Allen Court Single Story Overlay Attachment F Zonin~ Ordinance Compliance As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, there has been a change suggested to the Single Story Height Combining District (S) relating to the lot coverage calculation. The pending change proposed is to make the site coverage calculation the same as it is for other single story R-1 development in Palo Alto. City Council is tentatively scheduled to review and decide on this code update on October 4, 2004. 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 Existin~ and Proposed Ordinance Requirements Site Area (s.f.) -Lot Width -Lot depth Floor Area Ratio (FAR) -First 5,000 s.f. -Remaining s.f. Maximum Height Site Coverage -One story residence -Two story residence 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* -Same as FAR -35% Average 20 feet 6 feet 16 feet R-I (S) (Proposed) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet 45% 30% 17 feet (Single Story)* -40%*** -Not Applicable Average 20 feet 6 feet 16 feet * 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 rear setback lines and extending 60 degrees into the site. ** For substandard lots, special site development regulations apply. *** There is pending code change to change the calculation for site coverage to the same as the FAR calculation. This change will make the R-1 (S) consistent with other one story development in the R-1 zone. Allen Court Single Story Overlay Attachment G BACKGROUND/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The current 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 allowing 40% lot coverage. The attached letter from property owners in Tract 1137 (Attachment D) requests application of the single story overlay zone to 22 single family parcels contained .in that tract. This tract has existing deed restrictions that were established in 1953 that restrict, in amongst other things, development to no more than one story in height (Attachment K). Allen Court is located in the Midtown neighborhood and has R-1 Single Family zoning to the west and southwest of the street and RM- 15 Low Density Multiple Family zoning to the east and southeast. The majority of the properties involved in this request are situated on Allen Court, a cul-de-sac. Of the 22 lots, four are fronting Ross Road. Ross Road is characterized by a mix of new two story and existing one story single family residences. Three of the four lots fronting Ross Road are not in support of the Single Story Overlay request. One property, 3152 Ross Road, filed for Individual Single Family Review (IR) in December 2003. Due to neighbor input against his two story project and the threatened lawsuit (based upon violating the deed restrictions), the home owner requested the review of his IR application be put on hold pending the outcome of this overlay request. It is staff’ s understanding that regardless of the outcome of this overlay request, the property owner does not intend to pursue a two story home. On Allen Court there is one existing two story residence. The home owner of this property is in favor of the Single Story Overlay being placed on her street. Attachment H Single-Story Height Combinin~ District (S) Zone Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to guide City staff and decision-makers in the consideration of zone change requests for application of the Single-Story (S) Height Combining District (overlay) (S) 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 geater degee of flexibility. 1.Level and Format of Owner Support An application for a Single story 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 a Single story 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.Prevaitin~ Single-Story Character An area proposed for a Single story overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing homes are single- story, thus limiting the number of structures rendered noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods currently subject to single-story deed restrictions should be currently developed in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that homes be similar in age, design and character, ensuring that residents of an area proposed for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodeling constraints. 4.Moderate Lot Sizes In order to maintain equitable property development rights within a Single story overlay area compared to other sites within the R-1 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. Attachment I Summary of Single Story Height Combining Rezoning Single Story Overlay Neighborhood Walnut Grove* Green Meadows Charleston Meadows 1 Charleston Meadows 2 Blossom Park Barron Park Meadow Park Date 07/1992 04/1993 01/1997 09/1997 11/1997 11/1998 11/1998 # of parcels 181 243 96 61 16 20 75 Level of support % Single story at time of application 74% 79% 76% 79% 79% 80% 69% - 79% (boundaries adjusted) 77% 68 - 73% (boundaries adjusted) 69% not noted 100% 99% 98% 89% 9O% 97% Existing Deed Restrictions? yes yes yes yes no yes % Lots of Moderate size not noted not noted 75% 66% 53% 45% 7O% Channing Park 01/2000 57 98%yes 70% Garland .- Elsinore 09/2001 68 100%yes 90% Drive Van Auken Circle 09/2002 58 100%yes 53% Allen Court Pending 22 64%95%Yes 36% * Council adopted (S) overlay zone on July 13, 1992 with Ordinance #4101, which is same as existing PAMC 18.13. The Ordinance was adopted in conjunction with the 1 st application for overlay by Walnut Grove neighborhood (also approved 7/13/92). Subsequent Guidelines for applications were approved in December 1992 which introduced the review criteria of "overwhelming support" by owners, "appropriate boundaries", "vast majority of existing homes are single story" for "prevailing single story character", and "characterized by moderate lot sizes" (defined as 7000-8000 sf). No percentages for terminology were included in the adopted guidelines. Attachment J PENDING CODE CHA~GES - SCHEDULED FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OCTOBER 4, 2004 18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District (a)Applicability of District The single-story height combining district may be combined with the R-1 single-family residence district or with any R-1 subdistrict. Where so combined, the regulations established by this Section shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by Section 18.12.040. All applicable provisions of that section shall otherwise ~overn development in the combining district. (b)Site Development Regulations For sites within the single-story height combining district, the following site development regulations shall apply in lieu of the otherwise applicable site development regulations of Section 18.12.040: (1) (2) The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the roofl provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum buildin~ height of 20 feet. There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors include lofts, mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space above the first floor in excess of five feet (5’) from the floor to the roof’above. .,Application for a Single Story (S) Combinin~ District (1)Application to create or remove a single-story overlay district may be made by an owner of record of property located in the sinule-storv overlay district to be created or removed. (2)Application shall be made to the zonino~ administrator on a form prescribed bv the zonina administrator, and shall contain all of the following: (A)A written statement settin~ forth the reasons for the application and all facts relied upon by the applicant in support thereof. (B) A map of the district to be created or removed that includes the address location of those owners whose properties are subject to the zoning request. Boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made features (including, but not limited to roadways, waterways tract boundaries and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood or development. For creation of a single-story overlay district, the area shall be of a prevailing single sto~3, character, such that a minimum of 80% of existing homes within the boundaries are single story_: (C) A list of sign~atures evidencin~ support by: (i) 70% ofinclu.ded properties: or .(ii) 60% of included properties where all included properties are subiect to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a sin_~le sto~_,, whether or not such restrictions have been enforced. "Included properties" means all those properties inside the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The written statement or statementsaccompanvin~ the signatures must state that the si~ner is indicatin~ support for a zone map amendment that affects his or her property. One si m~ature is pertained for each included property:, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property. (D) A fee. as prescribed by the municipal fee schedule, no part of which shall be returnable to the applicant; and (1~) Such additional infom~ation as the zonin~ administrator may deem pertinent and essential to the application. An application for creation or removal ofa sin~le-storv (S) overlay district made in accordance with this subsection (c) shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.98. Allen Court Single Story Overlay Attachment K Allen Court Single Story Overlay Attachment K any lot, nor shall ang~hlng be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 6. No structure-of a ±emporary character, trailer, basement, ~ento shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding shall be used on any Io~ at any time as a residence either temporarily or perma-. nentlyo 7. No fowl or animals, other ’than household pets of the usual kind and in a reasqnable number, shall be, or suffered to be, kept or maintained, in-said tract. 8." The architec~u~a! control committee is composed of Joseph L, Eichler, John Harlow an~ San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance Co. AmaJority of the committee may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation df any memO. er’of the co~t~%e the remaining meters shell, have full authority to nate a successor. Neither the ~ers of the co~i%~e nor" its desi-gna%e~presen~ative shal! be ~itled 1o any co~ensation for. se~ices performed p~suant 1o these covenents. At any ~4 the~.record, owners. ~f a ~ozit? 0£-.the lots sh~ll have the p~er %~oUgh a duly rgcorded written instr~n%’, to chang~ the me~ersh~p o~ the co~t%ee or ~%o with~aw fro~-.the cool,tee or restore %o i1 any of i~ powers .~d duffs..- ~. 9. The co~%t~%’s approval or disapp~val’-as re~ired in ¯these .~ovenants shall be in ~iting. .-In ~he ev~nZ .the or its ~e~ign~ted representative, fails to a~rove or disapprove within- 30 d~ys afar ~plans and.specifications -have’.been submitted to it; oZ in any e~ent, if no suit to enjoh .%~ construc~ions, . has helen ~b~nced prior to %he co~letion th~of,’ approve! will tn~t ~ re~ired and the related covenants ~!~..be deemed been .£~ly co,lied with. ~ - [.-" ... ’~0. TheSe covenants are ~0 run wi%:~ lh~ lanO and shall be ,. bind~g on al!-.pa)ties -and all" persons-.~’~g ~er thdm for .a" -.-period o£ twenty-fig, yeers ~rpm the date these’ covenants .are " recorded, after which ~-saic covenan%.~ shall b~ automatically ex~ended ~or successive ceriods of. i0 ye~.unless an instr~n% signed by a ~jori~y o£ the ih~.n owners o£-thd iO%s has been recorded agree~g ’%b chenge sai~. aovehan%s ~’whole or in part. ".against any pe~on or persons violat~g ora~tempting to viol~te any’ c~enant either-io ~strain violation o~ to?Iecover..da~gss. ¯ . ..12~ -Invalidation of any ons of &hese covenahqs by judg~a~ or co~ order shall ~ no wise affect any of ~he provisions which shall remain in ful! force.and ef~ec%. .. . The breach off the foregoing /es%ric~ions and. covenants or any entry by reason of such brea~h sh~lnot defeat or ~nder-invaiid the lien of anv ~ed off ~rust-on s.aid presses ~u~ ~ the case of ~oreclosure and .sale %hereunder, the purchaser shal! take subject 1o all of said restrictions and con~tions. ~ IN WITNHSS WHHP~OF,the undersigned has executed and sealedthis ~nstrument the day and. year first above ~it~en.~.~ ~ . . . S~ ~SE A~T~-& T~ ~S~C£ ~. Allen Court Single Story Overlay By A. V. Wildb!o0d~" Vice-President Attachment K . By G. E. Campbell, Asst. Sec.retary Askldg:Jui’y t4, 1953 By A. V. Wildblood and G. E. Campbe~, Vice-President and ~sistant Secretary respectively, before R. L. King, Notary Public £n and ~or the County of Santa Clara, State ofCalifornia. Recorded:-..July 14,. [953 ~n ~ook.2683 o£ Official Records, page 202.. Attachment L PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Clare Campbell Associate Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: September 29, 2004 [04-ZC-07] Request by Alex Kanellakos on behalf of the property owners on Allen Court, Tract # 1137, for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-I(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) that would rezone Tract 1137 from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES The first key issue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines regarding neighborhood support. The application has support from 64% of the residents in the proposed overlay area (See Attachment C). In reviewing previous proposals for single story, overlays, the Planning Commission previously has supported the preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods but has expressed concerns about limiting future options for home expansion and accommodating architectural innovations and lifestyle changes over time. Attachment I shows the level of neighborhood support for the 10 previously approved single story overlays. The second key issue is the compliance with the criterion regarding moderate lot size. The guideline states that the neighborhood should be characterized by moderate lot sizes and moderate lot size is defined as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. There are eight lots (36%) that City of Palo Alto Page 1 fall within this range, the remaining lots are both larger and smaller in size. It should be noted, with regard to this criterion, that the pending code changes to the R-1 (S) include the recommendation to delete this moderate lot size requirement (Attachment J). The single story guidelines provide for a greater degree of flexibility for neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent with a single story deed restriction, such as this neighborhood. With this in mind, combined with the recommendation to delete the lot size criterion, staff recommends approval of the overlay. Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines (guidelines), adopted by the City Council on December 14, 1992 (Attachment H), established criteria to guide the consideration of zone change requests for application of the Single Story Height Combining District (S). The Guidelines 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]." This flexibility was directed by City Council as detailed in the December 10, 1992 staff report (CMR:555:92). The subject application meets three of the four of the criteria established by the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. Attachment B describes in more detail the project’s guideline compliance. Summary of Guideline Criteria and Compliance Criteria Level of Support Appropriate Boundaries Prevailing Single Story Character Moderate Lot Sizes (7,000 - 8,000 s.f.) Compliance of Application Strong level of support with 14 of the 22 lots (64%) supporting the request. The application indicates a rectangular neighborhood, as defined by the existing street pattern. Twenty-one properties are currently single story, built in the 1950s and are Eichler design homes. The breakdown of the lot sizes is as follows: Less than 7,000 s.f.: 6 lots (27.2%) Between 7,000-8,000 s.f.: 8 lots (36.4%) Greater than 8,000 s.f.: 8 lots (36.4%) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION After receipt of the rezoning request, staff sent out an informational memo to the affected property owners explaining the single story overlay and how the overlay would affect the City of Palo Alto Page 2 development potential of their properties. In order to confirm the positions of the property owners, staff also included a questionnaire asking for written confirmation of any change in support of, or opposition to, the proposed overlay. All property owners responded to the staff initiated poll. There were eight votes of opposition (36%) and 14 votes of support (64%). Please refer to Attachment B for more information. Staff invited the property owners to communicate any and all concerns regarding the overlay implications and the process itself. Staff received phone calls and emails with questions and statements of support/non-support of the overlay from the property owners. Although staff offered participation in a neighborhood meeting, no interest was shown for this venue. The communications via phone and group emails were sufficient in answering the neighborhood’s concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project has been found to be exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives available to the Planning and Transportation Commission include recommending to the City Council to: 1) Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or, 2) Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for Tract 1137. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Draft Ordinance with Attached Location Map Findings/Criteria Location Map with Levels of Support and Opposition Noted Applicant Submittal Comprehensive Plan Implications Zoning Ordinance Compliance Background/Project Description Single Story Height Combining District (S)Zone Guidelines Summary of Single Story Height Combining Rezoning Pending Code Changes to the (S) Overlay Deed Restrictions for Tract 1137 Property Owner Listing COURTESY COPIES: All property owners shown on Attachment L City of Palo Alto Page 3 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Clare Campbell, Associate Pla~ Amy French, Manager of Current Plannin~ Department/Division Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 4 Attachment ~!~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes September 29, 2004 DRAFT EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearings. Allen Court Single-Story Overlay Rezoning - [04-ZC-07] Request by Alex Kanellakos on behalf of the property owners on Allen Court, a portion of Tract # 1137, for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-I(S) Single Family Residential with Single-Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. SR Weblink: http://www.citvofpaloalto.orgicityagenda?publish/planning-transportation- meetin~s/3775.pdf Ms. Clare Campbell Associate Planner: Good evening. The project before you tonight is a request for a rezoning for 22 R-1 Single Family zoned parcels to include the single story height combining district overlay. The property owners on Allen Court have indicated with overwhelming support of 64% for the single story overlay. The City Council on December 14, ! 992 adopted four guidelines to assist evaluating applications for the overlay district. In brief the four guidelines are: overwhelming support from property owners; an appropriate boundary for the area; an existing prevailing single story neighborhood character and; moderate lot sizes. This request meets the first three of the four criteria established by the Council. The fourth guideline states that the neighborhood should be characterized by moderate lot sizes, which has been defined as lots 7,000 to 8,000 square feet in area. There are eight lots, that is 36%, that fall within this moderate lot size range. The remaining lots are both larger and smaller in size. It should be noted with regard to this criterion that there are pending code changes to the R-I(S) that include recommendation to delete this moderate lot size requirement. The Council adopted guidelines provide for a greater degree of flexibility for review for neighborhoods that contain and that have been developed consistent with a single story deed restriction such as this neighborhood on Allen Court. With this in mind and combined with the recommendation to delete the lot size criterion Staff recommends approval of the proposed overlay. This concludes Staff’s presentation. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Do we have any clarifying questions of Staff that we want to ask at this time? The application was filed by Alex Kanellakos and would you like to please come forward. You can have 15 minutes to make a presentation if you need it. Mr. Alex Kanellakos, Applicant. 790 Allen Court. Palo Alto: Our Allen Court is a small court off of Ross Road which is predominantly all Eichlers, 100% Eichlers. We are wishing to file the R-1 (S) overlay so that we can maintain the character of the architectural control of the neighborhood. Our lot is comprised of 22 homes of which there is an overwhelming majority. In addition to the overwhelming majority there have been other opposing individuals within the lot, which is a minority ef 36%. They have also taken their own independent poles and have City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 claimed that people have switched their mind and everything about whether they support it or not. We have request that an official count be taken through the Planning Commission and that has been done in writing. So I am proposing that these numbers be used to determine the future of this decision. Of course I am in support of it. I am also in part one of the Architectural Control Committee members for the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the architectural control of this lot which was put into effect by Joseph Eichler upon the construction of the homes and then also cited on probably ten or 15 other cases prior to this case and enforced. One of the problems that we have with this enforcement is that it is through civil action and that any and all people that oppose any deviation from the restrictions would have to immediately invoke civil action to actually sue someone to stop them from building for instance a two-story home. I would like to read if you haven’t already studied the application package to you so that it goes into the record and that everyone understands why we are doing this. Has anyone not read the package here? The recommendations from the City Council? Chair Cassel: You can go ahead with the presentation. Mr. Kanellakos: Okay. On April 15, 2004 1 submitted an application for the permanent zone change from R-1 to R-1 (S). The sections were included with the application in accordance with the zone change R-1 (S) to R-1 compliant which was the January 22, 2002 S District guidelines, Attachment C, Single Story Height Combining District Zone Guidelines. The committee and the homeowners also wish that this process be moved along expeditiously. This is a small court of 22 homeowners and several other tracts within Palo Alto have shown precedence such as the Green Meadow tract in successfully putting on this overlay and preserving not only the equity in our homes but the privacy which we bought our homes in the first place. I spoke with Beth and Roland in the Planning Department and Beth has indicated that the zone change may take several months due to delays and other situations one of which was my own not being in town. It has now gone on like I say since April 15. We did our own survey of which we had an original I think 18 or approximately 16 of 22 originally supporting the overlay. When the official count was made through Clare Campbell’s department in writing two of the people had switched their minds to be opposed. So in that case there is still 64% supporting the request. As part of the criteria we want the Council and the Commission to strongly take into account Covenants, Codes and Restrictions that are on these properties that everyone who had bought a property is well aware of and understand that it is only a majority that is required to change these codes. These codes are not going to be changed because the majority has through petition and record in the County decided not to make the changes. The reasons that I had put in the package of the 22 Eichlers they are all now R-1 the most common zoning. Our overlay we would like to make R-1 (S) to prohibit second story homes. Our tract is current subject to the single story restrictions as I stated earlier pursuant to the declarations and restrictions, covenants, codes, conditions, charges and amendments and agreements. Paragraph one clearly states that no building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed one story in height and a private garage of not more than two cars. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 2 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Now by changing the zoning to R-I(S) the City of Palo Alto would enforce the single story restriction by denying these permits for two story homes thus the residents, a majority of us, and the Architectural Control Committee itself would be relieved of the burden of enforcing the two story restriction of these CC&Rs. This would be much simpler for all concerned. In addition the R-1 (S) zoning increases the sizes of the allowed single story houses from the current 35% to 40% coverage allowing for greater expansion for those that have large lots. The majority of homeowners that have signed the petition and those that don’t have large lots as a matter of fact, the majority of the homeowners have signed the petition and the zone change we wish to be made permanent. In addition to the single story overlay that preserves the character of the neighborhood there are several precedents set in here as attachments, several articles supporting the decisions to grant R-I(S) overlays in the past are included for perusal, similar actions in Palo Alto and several neighboring Eichler communities as well as the Green Meadow tract nearby have two story overlays. Therefore to avoid stress brought on by such imposing homes and burden of the Architectural Control Committee and the residents must incur to oppose such developments we are applying for this zone change. The zone change will add value to the real property as it has over 35% to 40% instantly in the Green Meadow tract. The homes there sell for 35% to 40% more. That is one of the reasons but the main reason in my case is to avoid the privacy .intrusion brought by the second story homes. Many of the second story homes that are going in in the neighborhood right now are stretching the limits and are also imposing on the privacy of the homes there by actually decreasing the value of the homes for which they are next to. We also wish to preclude a domino effect of monster homes in our neighborhood therefore changing the harmonious environment, the quiet environment, and the character of the architectural environment of which Joe Eichler himself envisioned. Examples on the outlying community of current proposed sites for these monster developments such as those on Ross Road are also included in this section. Please see the attached petition and you probably have read the documentation that Clare has validated this position with the exception of two that switched their vote. We therefore strongly believe and recommend that the approval of the zone change from R-1 to R-1 (S) be made permanent for the 22 real properties known as Tract 1137 Midfair and we also request that the zone change be processed in an efficient and timely manner. Your support on this matter is greatly appreciated. If you need details or want to talk to me my number is listed here for you to call. In general there is a lot of precedent information here that I don’t want to read through because it entails probably more than 15 minutes but there are no two story homes except in one case which was done probably in the early 1950s or 1960s and was done without permits. That means that there is an overwhelming majority that meet the three criteria and the one criterion, which is going to be imposed on the new restrictions, is also met in majority. I also request that my proposal and request for this zone change be made exactly as it is without restrictions, without boundaries cut outside of that square thereby making us again resort to the CC&Rs and civil actions of which there is one already pending and possibly two. Someone might argue that they are facing Ross Road and that there are neighbors that have big homes across the street well that is outside of our tract. If they have a home next door that comprises 25% of their neighbor and that home that happens to be next door is only one. Someone might argue that they are far in the back and that no one will notice ifI build a two-story home. Well, that debate can be taken at a later date. This is something that we can’t go back and forth on and take new polls like people City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 3 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 have tried to do and tried to say well, what if we change the CC&Rs. We are not going to do that. The majority has already expressed that they don’t want to change the CC&Rs they want them left originally as written and enforced since 1954. The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and there have been many precedents. We want to maintain the scale and character of the City, the land uses overwhelming and are not acceptable to their size and scale. We also want to preserve the residual character and encourage new remodeled structures compatible of which there already have been four homes on the court, which have expanded outward with plans submitted to the Architectural Control Committee. If this were not adopted for instance those four people would be very upset because those four people expanded outwards, submitted their plans and were compliant to the two-story restriction. Also, it doesn’t make sense structurally because Eichlers don’t like to have two stories on with al! the new earthquake codes. In addition if someone were to bulldoze and put one up without any control whatsoever it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. It would be like you drive into a neighborhood and you see something very incompatible, ! don’t know how to say it any other way except maybe as the facet of a diamond where you have a huge flaw in one of the faces. You can see that this is an H-shaped cul-de-sac and all the houses are laid out nicely. When you drive in it is very quiet, the birds can fly at a nice level, there are no over impending shadows coming over, it is near the Baylands and we get a lot of wildlife coming in, the trees are big and there is a lot of room for the kids to play. There are a lot of kids that play in this neighborhood some of which the parents are here and the grandparents. With more bigger houses that would increase the traffic and make for a much less harmonious environment and would also again cause strife and civil discontent, police calls and who knows what else. So this is the reason why we are requesting this. We want to maintain the character and the value and the peacefulness of this neighborhood. There seem to be many more compelling arguments than I made that the Planning Commission has made so ! would ask that each of you take those into consideration when you recommend this for acceptance as the Planning Commission has here. There is no environmental impact here if approved. Less paperwork and it appears as though that may be all I really have to say about this. There is an overwhelming support, the boundaries are met, it is a small lot it shouldn’t take a lot of paperwork to get this through we hope. I don’t know if it was true that when there were 5,300 homes in the last overlay in Green Meadow that was passed. This is much smaller, we are a small tract and we are not affecting the other surrounding areas. We don’t expect that boundary to expand. I don’t see anyone here from the neighboring community. I certainly don’t want it to shrink in my application. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. If anyone would like to speak, I have four more cards, if anyone else would like to speak that I don’t have a card for would you please come up and fill out a card with Zariah and turn it into her. I have four cards now each person will have five minutes. You do not need to use all five minutes unless you need them. The first person is Ray Witt. The second person will be Steve Greenbaum. Mr. Ray Witt. 769 Allen Court. Palo Alto: I own and live in one of the lots in the subject subdivision. That subdivision has sometimes been called Eichler breeding pens. I am in favor. I have lived there for almost 50 years and I have seen a lot of generations of kids playing in there and that’s why I make that remark. I am in favor of the overlay. I am in favor of the two-story prohibition that is contained in our CC&Rs and I occupy the live threatening position of being on the Architectural Control Committee. Thank you. City of Pa!o Alto September 29, 2004 Page 4 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: I am sorry someone has a question for you Mr. Witt. I am not sorry they have a question but just a moment please. Vice Chair Packer: Mr. Witt, you say you have lived there for almost 50 years. Do you have any knowledge or remember what the circumstances were when the second story was built on that one property that has the two stories in the back? Mr. Witt: I don’t recall. I knew the people that built the two story. There was not an orgawized neighborhood concern at the time but I can’t give you any details but there was not argument, there was no promotion of it. It just happened. Vice Chair Packer: Thank you. Chair Cassel: Steve Greenbaum to be followed by Patrick Barry. Mr. Steve Greenbaum. 782 Allen Court, Palo Alto: Hi I live and own 782 Allen Court. I have lived there for about 16 years. I am for the overlay. My main concern is the privacy issue. Our court is I think really nice in that the houses are laid out in such a way that you really don’t see your neighbor’s houses. It is one of these really clever Eichler layouts. We have floor to ceiling windows. You can’t really cover the windows because they go all the way up and all the way down so it would be very difficult to recover from that. There has been a long standing CC&R restriction on two story so it shouldn’t be a surprise to people who move in and then find out they can’t build two stories. It wasn’t a secret before. As far as value I know that is an argument against that it lowers the values but I am a real estate agent and I can tell you that other Eichlers in places with the overlay do not at all suffer any value degradation and possibly have an enhancement. So I don’t think that is a very good argument. There have been various polls on both sides of the issue that come up with lots of different numbers. So I think any informal poll has to be discounted. We had more people then finally came out, the other side had more people, we don’t quite understand how this works but I think it depends on how you ask the question and peoples’ reaction to telling you something you want to hear when one of your neighbors comes up to you and asks you about this thing. That is my basic position. I don’t want to do it if a lot of people don’t want it done but it looks like most people do. I think it is a good thing. The court was designed with single story in mind that is why it was put in the CC&Rs. It is a very nice court as it is I would like to maintain the privacy the way it is. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Patrick Barry to be followed by Nick Konstan. Mr. Patrick Barry, 2591 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: Hi I am speaking for Amanda and John Tumminaro who are at 777 Allen Court. John is out of town and Amanda asked me to come speak for her so I hope you don’t mind. I do live in Palo Alto on Ramona Street. The Tumminaro’s have lived on Allen Court for about six years. Chair Cassel: You should give us your name and your address. Mr. Barry: Patrick Barry, 2591 Ramona Street. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 5 of 27 Chair Cassel: Thank you. 1 2 3 4 Mr. Barry_: The Tumminaro’s oppose the overlay as do a number of other folks on the court. 5 This is obviously a really important issue. It is important to a lot of people. I have spent a lot of 6 time on the court. The Tumminaro’s are my close friends, my kids play there, and we have spent 7 many, many hours on the court. People are really apparently really up in arms about this. I think 8 mostly because they perceive it as an economic issue. This kind of an overlay is a big issue to 9 people because they perceive that it affects their single largest in most cases largest asset and the 10 value of that asset. People are really concerned about how this is going to affect the value of 11 their homes. I suppose reasonable people could differ as to one real estate agent saying it is not !2 going to affect the value of your property by putting this restriction on it. I don’t know. To me it 13 seems actually counter-intuitive that more restrictions like this would actually increase the value 14 of your home. I think some of the lots on the property are really small and a lot of these people 15 have nowhere else to go. Some have a bunch of kids and a very small lot and nowhere else to 16 go. So it is not possible to move out because of easements and that sort of thing. That is the big 17 picture. I think in this particular case there are four guidelines that the Commission uses when 18 evaluating a case like this and I think three of them are pretty much not in dispute. One of them 19 the Staff recommended be ignored I understand it is because there is some pending changes. So 20 we don’t have to spend time on that but the guideline regarding overwhelming support I think is 21 really important here because actually 64% to 36% if that is in fact the number doesn’t seem like 22 overwhelming support to me. As I look at the precedents that the Staff cites in their Attachment 23 I this would be the lowest margin by a fair bit of any of the overlays that have been previously 24 approved, by a fair margin. So to me it doesn’t look like overwhelming support and this would 25 be actually on the aggressive side in terms of consent to something like this, which is a really 26 significant issue. So not only does it not seem like 64% is overwhelming I think there is a 27 substantial question of fact about the constitution of that 64% because I think in this case there 28 has been a lot of back and forth about who approved it, who didn’t, when did they approve it and 29 I think there is a real question of fact on a couple of points. One there is this two-story property 30 in the parcel already, apparently that person approved it. I don’t know if it is fair to count their 31 vote in such a close case when they already have a two-story building. This is an important 32 economic issue. I think it would be important to show at least some kind of an offering with 33 regard to standing. Do all these people own their properties? Do we know that? Are they on the 34 deed? Not in every case, I think. When it is this close I think you really have to look into 35 whether these votes should count because two or three votes takes it out of overwhelming 36 support into roughly 50-50. It is just very close. Another question is if one person owns more 37 than one property in the area does that person get multiple votes or just one vote? How does that 38 work? I don’t know but again this is a really close case. Of the items Staff cites in their 39 Attachment this would be the closest case that the Commission has decided. So I think you 40 really ought to think about how these votes were tallied. I think it is just an important issue. 41 There is a substantial question of fact here. There hasn’t been a neighborhood meeting on this. 42 There hasn’t been a meeting of the entire neighborhood to discuss it. I am not sure if all the 43 people have all the right facts in front of them. I think at the very least the Commission should 44 recommend that the Staff work with the homeowners to have an informational meeting where 45 people can really have a discussion about this. Again, it is a really important economic issue and 46 to take people’s rights away when the vote is so close it just seems very aggressive in a City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 6 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 64%/36% vote when there is a substantial question of fact as to the constitution of those votes. So I would urge the Commission to not be aggressive here, to think very carefully about approving the overlay without really digging into how this vote was taken and whether the standard was met in this case. It is just too important. Thank you for your time. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Nick, and you can pronounce your last name, to be followed by John Sessoms. Mr. Nick Konstan, 770 Allen Court, Palo Alto: A couple of things to add. The amount of people this overwhelming majority issue it seems that the people that are for, the parties that are for the overlay, had solicited people in the neighborhood and acquired their votes. Upon my own gathering of information and of votes I found ten people to be against the overlay, two people are going to rescind their vote that had already voted on there, one of them my neighbor who felt that she had been pressured into it by the other party saying that everybody is doing it so you have to do it too. Another thing is one owner on that property owns three houses so he gets three votes? So he has three houses here, Mr. Sessions, one, two, three so they are counting three into one. So if two people owned all the other property and I owned one I would have no fights? How does this work? So the main thing is the overwhelming majority. There hasn’t’been any issue of anybody wanting to build any houses. I mean there really is no issue nobody has wanted to go forth and put a second story it has just been all verbal and wanting to do it. So a new count needs to be made where the parties that are against this second story thing they have to know the facts, they have to know the issues of what is at hand. I know it is a big problem in Palo Alto when people are putting up these so-called monster homes looking into the yards but you can see most of these lots here if after a second story additions with the angles you won’t even be intrusive into the other neighbor’s yards. Now where I live right there on the comer, it would be the lower right comer, I have condominiums right behind my house. So I mean they are totally intrusive into my yard. So a second story would almost be necessary to allow me to have privacy in my comer fight there. Now I just purchased my house three weeks ago so I kind of jumped right into the middle of the fire here. Everybody needs to slow down and have another recount. I have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven people saying no overlay. Okay? But that includes 789 Allen Court, which already has a two story so how can they say no when they already have it? That about ends it for me here. I just think before any decisions are made that things need to slow down a little bit and both parties need to get together and have a clear understanding before things are set into law. Chair Cassel: Just a minute we have a question for you. Commissioner Griffin: Good evening. I am interested in your response to how you felt about the deed restriction when you purchased your house. You say you are a recent buyer of your property, three weeks. When you went through the paperwork did this particular aspect of the CC&Rs was it meaningful for you for example? Mr. Konstan: I believe the CC&Rs are throughout Palo Alto. Isn’t the CC&R the Citizens Review Committee, is that what it stands for? No? Can you explain the CC&R as it pertains to this court to me? City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 7 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: I will have that explained a little later. Thanks. Commissioner Burt: I think the question that Commissioner Griffin was asking is what was your awareness of your CC&Rs when you purchased? Mr. Konstan: I didn’t have any awareness of it. I just knew that we could put a second story but it had to be up for review from the neighborhood, correct? Commissioner Burt: Yes, those are our Individual Review guidelines. So your realtor did not notify you of CC&Rs to your knowledge? Mr. Konstan: I didn’t use a realtor. I didn’t need to go through one. It is no problem for dealing with the neighborhood and satisfying my neighbors not to be obtrusive into their property. That is just a normal kind of neighborly thing that should be. Chair Cassel: I think you answered the question for us very nicely. Thank you. John Sessoms followed by Joy Ogawa and that is the last card I have. Mr. John Sessoms, 421 Caroline Lane. Palo Alto: I own three houses in the cul-de-sac. I own the one that is most affected by the attorney who got a set of plans approved by the City of Palo Alto because the City of Palo Alto will approve any set of plans that meets City of Palo Alto standards. They will not enforce our CC&Rs and therefore it is the duty of the neighbors to enforce the CC&Rs. I basically obtained an attorney who has written a letter. That letter cost me $1,200 the lawsuit will cost me approximately $200,000 to take his building to the dump. Nonetheless I will do it. But the thing is I really would like to inform you what the costs of litigation are in this city. It is $325 an hour and it is very, very expensive. The problem we have is the City will not support the CC&Rs so therefore I am joining the group that says the CC&Rs say no two story house. It is our job to enforce it. I am probably the only guy with enough money to enforce it and that isn’t really fair to the other people in the neighborhood. This architect bought the property, said nothing, drew his plans up, submitted them to the City, said nothing in March a year ago and then he gets his house plans totally approved and the only time we found out about it is the last meeting of the Planning Commission and even that meeting he says that he was not going to withdraw his thing he is going to build a one story house and none of us came to the meeting unfortunately. He said don’t come I am taking my plans away and then we get there and I appealed it when the City approved it. With that appeal he now shows up and says we just never got around to taking our plans off the counter. You can talk to Clare a lot about what happened and how he did it. He almost got a building permit and according to Clare he can still go down and get a building permit to build a two-story house. It is my job to take the two-story house to the dump and it costs me $200,000 probably to do that. I need some support from the City to stop people who are funded by China to do this. This is a Chinese family that bought the corner up there, a Chinese family has bought the other corner and they both want to build monster homes on them. The architect has the one up on the corner. He claims he is going to get the other one if he can get this one built. That is where we stand. We need some help to stop the monster homes from sort of coming in. These are not small homes. Now, since then he submitted a one story plan which the elects and the Architectural Control Committee have completely approved, there are not objections to his one story plan. It does include a 40% build City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 8 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3! 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 out which does require the overlay to be approved because currently the law is 35%. So we have done everything we can do we need your help. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Mr. Sessoms: Does anybody have any questions? Chair Cassel: I don’t see any questions..Thank you. Mr. Sessoms: The two-story house that currently exists is less than 500 square feet. It is over the back bedrooms and I think they probably just have too many kids. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joy Ogawa. I have no more cards that will be the end. Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: I don’t live anywhere near here but I happen to go to the Director’s Heating in June and I happen to hear the ending of the Director’s Hearing meeting on this. What struck me was basically there were a lot of neighbors there who were very upset or very opposed to this two story. It was very clear. There are these deed restrictions, right? But the City doesn’t see those deed restrictions. The City sees it as they just have an application for a two story house and they are going to review it the way they review a two story house and they will approve it or not and whatever. What happens first of all is the City gets put into a position where they have a lot of neighbors being not very happy with them. I don’t know what Clare’s interaction has been but I think she has probably had to deal with a lot of the neighbors on both sides. This has not been a simple Individual Review it has probably cost the City a fair amount of dollars and Staff time a lot more than probably the application costs for something that really ultimately there is a deed restriction on and someone in this case is willing to take them to court to sue to enforce that. Observing all this has pointed out to me the value of having single story overlay and that is it puts upfront everybody on notice that there are these deed restrictions and it says in the deed restriction if you can get the.majority of the owners to agree to change that covenant then you can change that restriction. So what it does is then if you have a single story overlay it basically puts the burden on the person who wants a two story house outside of the deed restriction to go out and get the majority of the owners so that they can come to the City and say we now have a majority of people who are willing to change this covenant and now the City can take out that overlay. But the terms of the covenant are very clear. They need a majority of the owners to change that restriction. So this argument to me about 64% or whatever the number it seems to me it really should be the people who want the two story need to demonstrate that they have 50%. At that point they can change the deed restriction. So it seems to me that the single story overlay actually serves everybody. It puts owners like a previous speaker who just purchased a property and doesn’t seem to understand that there was a deed restriction or what that deed restriction actually means. It helps that person realize that if they go ahead and try to build a two-story home that they are very likely to get sued. It has taken me awhile to understand the whole single story overlay concept but in a situation where there are existing deed restrictions it kind of seems to me that the City is doing a service to everybody by putting in a single story overlay. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. I have one more card from Amanda Tumminaro. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 9 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Amanda Tumminaro, 777 Allen Court. Palo Alto: Thanks. Pat spoke on behalf of my husband and I but I just felt like I really needed to come up here. Chair Cassel: Please give your name and address. Ms. Tumminaro: Sure. 777 Allen Court. I am not going to throw a bunch of numbers at you. I just want you to know that it is a really nice neighborhood and it is actually, aside from all the tension that you hear, it is a very friendly neighborhood. I have three children that I am raising there. It is wonderful. As my kids are getting bigger my house is shrinking. I know that the overlays in Green Meadow and other places those homes are significantly larger. My home is 1,100 square feet. Everyone gets bigger, my house gets smaller. I want to know that down the road I have some options. We did buy the home about three years ago I knew of the CC&R. My understanding of the CC&R is that the City does not actually recognize or enforce the CC&R. It would have to be our neighbors who fight us back on it. I am not for monster homes. I love my privacy as well. We wouldn’t do anything to our property without going through the Architectural Review Board for our court. We respect that. Our neighborhood is friendly and we all sort of have that same idea, Because I am against the overlay of course people perceive that I have some big plan to build a home and I certainly don’t right now. But who knows? Down the road I might and I need those options for my family. I am young, this is the biggest investment that I have. It is also down the road if we choose to move I do feel like it is a big red flag when you are telling someone and trying to sell your home. I think it does take away some of it. If you look at the tract here all the homes around us are big. I have a big home in my backyard that overlooks mine. They are going up all over the City you know that. I need to know that I will be able to resell my home and make some money just as investment. This is what we do. This is all I have. I don’t plan on leaving at this point. We love it there. We want to stay there and we really want to keep the peace. We would love to see - it was also gone about in a really misunderstanding for everyone. Nothing was ever clear. There was no meeting. It was people going door-to-door knocking, influencing, giving their opinions, sort of stating the facts, getting a signature and leaving. It could have been handled much better. My husband and I certainly didn’t want to take on the responsibility of putting up this big neighborhood meeting seeing that there are so many conflicting views but it could have been handled in a much better way and made clearer for all of us. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Thank you. I am going to close the public hearing. If someone has a question that’s fine but you spoke once sir. Vice Chair Packer: I have a question of Amanda. Chair Cassel: Okay. Amanda, Bonnie has a question and then I will explain the process for everyone. Vice Chair Packer: Amanda, is it your understanding based on the map that is in the Staff Report that those who are against it are accurately reflected here or is there any other information you might have? City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 10 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Tumminaro: Well no, there are only two of us right now that are here opposing the overlay and there are the highlighted ones that had voted with Clare and went through that whole process. I do know of other neighbors who as I have approached them, people are also getting really sick of hearing about it and people knocking on their doors. Some have just said I have voted I’m done. You try to explain but here is what is really happening. Sorne of these people have 5,300 square foot lots that can’t go out any more. I don’t know if they really know the limitations that are being set right here~ It was not made clear from the very beginning. So I do think that there are some people out there that might have some questions and might not have all the information. Chair Cassel: Thank you very much. Now let me explain the process. We have a public hearing each person got a chance to speak for five minutes and the applicant for 15 minutes. We closed the public hearing. If the Commissioners want to speak to anyone else in the audience we can reopen it if a question comes up. Then the Commissioners here will ask questions of Staff, try to clarify some questions that you have brought up in the audience and then we will discuss amongst ourselves how we would like to resolve this issue. So the next thing is I think Staff will want to respond to some questions that were raised. Three that I know of are how the vote was done, what CC&Rs are and there are some size comparisons of what you can do with a lot whether you have a single story overlay or you don’t. Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Planning Official: Thank you Chair Cassel. Yes, I think our City Attorney will want to weigh in a little bit on Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions but generally those are private agreements. The City does not enforce CC&Rs. They do differ from neighborhood to neighborhood. Some neighborhoods don’t have CC&Rs others do. When there are CC&Rs sometimes it is for the number of stories, sometimes it is for other physical aspects of the property and how you can develop it. Again, the City does not enforce CC&Rs because they are private. Chair Cassel: Would you explain what CC&Rs are? Ms. Grote: CC&Rs are Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions that is what C-C-&-R stands for. Again they are private agreements. We did send a letter of explanation when this application was made to all of the property owners and the addresses within the area explaining what a single story overlay is. We did send a ballot to all of the property owners to register either support or opposition. We did offer several times to have a neighborhood meeting. That offer was not taken up so we did not have the neighborhood meeting because there wasn’t interest expressed in that. So we did follow the established process that evolved over the years particularly in the last couple of years as a result of other single story overlays where there was some discussion and dispute and disagreement about if votes had changed or not. So we did one official poll and that is what we based the map that you see overhead on. Chair Cassel: That poll was done by the City. Ms. Grote: That is correct, yes. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 11 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: The size comparison for what you can do on a lot if you have this overlay and if you did not ignoring the CC&Rs. Ms. Grote: Right. Currently it does limit the height to 17 feet as opposed to 30 feet so it is one habitable floor although you can still have a basement. It does currently limit your lot coverage to 40% however there is a recommendation that has come before you is going to the Council actually on Monday night to allow the full floor area ratio, FAR, the full square footage that would otherwise be allowed on the site to be on the ground floor. So in other words you are not losing square footage by having a single story overlay. You can build your entire floor area allotment on the ground floor just like you can in the R-1 District that does not have a single story overlay. So it would be equal to what is or the same as what is in place for R-1 Districts in general. Chair Cassel: Unless there were setback problems. Ms. Grote: That is true which is the case for all R-1 Districts. Chair Cassel: Okay, thank you. Ms. Grote: Most of the time you can get your full FAR within your buildable lot area. Chair Cassel: Did you want to say anything, Dan? Okay. Other questions from other Commissioners? Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for the attorney. With regard to this tract here it is a rectangular tract. Does this Commission have to accept the entire tract? Could we natter away at the edges and create an overlay zone that is contiguous but would not maybe include those parcels that don’t wish it? Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to Ci_ty Attorneys: This is a legislative act and you do have discretion to adjust the boundaries as long as you have some rational basis for distinguishing the boundaries and distinguishing the restricted properties from the unrestricted properties. Commissioner Lippert: So we could make a jog in and out on that block there and have maybe those parcels that wish to support the overlay they could be in the overlay zone and ones that are not could be out. Mr. Sodergren: As long as you had a rational land use reason for distinguishing the property and that reason probably should relate to the unique characteristics of the real property. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. One other question. With regard to this being an Eichler zone Eichlers coming up on being over 50 years old. Are there implications with regards to historic preservation and maybe historic preservation being the proper approach and categorizing them as a Category I or Category II structure and therefore the additions or renovations of these would have to be done in a different manner. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 12 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Grote: Age is one of the criteria for historic consideration. At this point Eichlers, some neighborhoods have been suggested for an historic designation. This is not one of them. There are several factors that you have to look at as well as age. You need to look at the integrity of the architecture of each of the buildings, perhaps other additions, other things that have gone on on the sites and then evaluate overall areas. This is not one of those areas that has been suggested as a potential for historic designation so we have not done that analysis. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: First, one of the speakers asserted that there were perhaps two voters who many have changed their minds. Does Staff have any input on that? Ms. Campbell: In the original application we had the list of everyone who supported the original request. Then when I sent out the poll to confirm everyone’s position on that and I sent it out with that memo in that response two people had changed their position. Commissioner Burt: But that is reflected in the 64%. Ms. Campbell: Right. Commissioner Burt: Then I think that the assertion tonight was that there were possibly two others. Ms. Campbell: In addition to that poll? Commissioner Burt: Yes. So have you had any input on that? Ms. Campbell: I have not. I have been in communication with various neighbors on this street who have been holding, there have been a lot of group email conversations discussing what has been going on. Basically I understand some people are trying to determine how people are standing on the position. So I don’t know how many times. This is the first I have heard that there has been numerous polling or questioning of how people stand on the position. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Then, Lisa, I am trying to recall whether on any of the previous single story overlays that we have addressed, the six or so since I have been on the Commission, has there been an occasion where we had a single property owner that owned multiple residences and in this case has about 15% of the voting rights? Ms. Grote: There have been and each property has a vote. So if there is a property owner that owns three properties they get three votes because each property has a vote. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Then for the City Attorney we have some prospective changes that have yet to go before Council that may or may not change the criteria for single story overlays. The Staff Report alluded to those as reasons to support this proposal and those are draft proposals that I understand Council hasn’t yet reviewed nor approved. Is there any legal standing for or a basis that we should be using those draft proposals as part of our decision- City of Palo Alto September 2.9, 2004 Page 13 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 making or for that matter are we in legal jeopardy if we do use unapproved changes as a basis for our findings? Mr. Sodergren: It may be helpful just to give you a little background on at least my understanding of how the single story overlay guidelines evolved. You may want to correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that these guidelines that were adopted by resolution of the Council and I don’t know exactly the year, 1992, they are not codified in the Zoning Ordinance and they are meant to be guidelines for you to take into consideration. This is a legislative act, it is a zoning amendment so you have discretion to apply any facts you deem relevant and you are not limited to the guidelines. They are simply guidelines at this point. Under the new Zoning Ordinance amendments that are being proposed we turned those guidelines and we codified them. What they are going to be in the new ordinance are application submittal requirements. So in other words those will be the requirements that an applicant must meet before they have a valid application. So they will no longer be guidelines. At that point in time you will still have as you do now full discretion to take into account whatever factors you deem relevant but that is the distinction. Right now they are simply guidelines to guide you in your consideration and in the new ordinance they are going to be appl!cation submittal requirements. Chair Cassel: Pat, I think Annette had a follow up to that one. Commissioner Bialson: Actually I had a follow up to the question before. Lisa, are you saying then that we have had previous applications where we had one owner with multiple properties in the area? Could you cite me to which ones those were? Ms. Grote: I can’t give you the exact site. I could follow up with you later on that but I don’t have the exact site but there are other cases where there were multiple properties owned by one person. Commissioner Bialson: I recall same families but I don’t recall having one property owner own three of them. I am sorry, it is my memory and your memory. Thank you. Chair Cassel: Pat, did you have another question before we move on to Bonnie? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I would just like to concur with Annette I don’t recall that. It may very well have occurred but I don’t have that recollection in the last six years. I will just leave it at that. Ms. Grote: If they were family members rather than the same person that may be the case. If they had been the same person they would have had multiple votes. Each property gets a vote regardless of who owns it. Chair Cassel: Let me clarify that. That’s each property owner and not the person renting the property. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 14 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Grote: That is correct. Chair Cassel: So you could get a vote, talk to neighbors and they don’t own the property and they could go one way or the other and it would not have affected the vote. Commissioner Burt: The concern that I think may exist here is that this has not been an aspect of the guidelines that had been previously vetted and what would be the ramifications of a single owner having 15% of the voting rights or an even higher percentage of the supermajority needed. In any event my other question is in response to one of the audience members had spoken under the understanding that the 51% of the residents or homeowners I should say could vote to remove the CC&Rs or to remove the single story overlay. I remember at our last discussion on this as we were looking toward prospective changes I thought I asked that specific question. Even though right now 51% could remove a CC&R I thought the answer of Staffwas that once the single story overlay is enacted it would require a super majority to remove the single story overlay. So we would have a fundamental change from a simple majority that could remove a CC&R to suddenly by the City endorsing this process through the overlay zone it would create a requirement of a supermajority to remove what essentially was a simple majority on a CC&R under their original covenants. Ms. Grote: That is correct because what we had said and what we had discussed is that the process used to put on the single story overlay onto an area or to apply it is the same process that would be used to remove it. So yes. Chair Cassel: Bonnie, you have a question? Vice Chair Packer: Yes, I have a question about making sure that all the people who are the actual property owners were notified because I understand that in addition to the properties that are owned by the person who owns three properties there are other properties which are rented and so the homeowners don’t live there. What I am asking is did the polls go out to the addresses where those property owners actually live and that is not on Allen Court and did you get a response either yea or nay from each and every one of the property owners on that polling? Ms. Campbell: When I put together the letter to send out I verified the property owners through the County records that we have here available on our GIS system. So that is the data that I used to mail the information and the poll to the property owners. Every property owner responded to me, they returned the ballot and there were five properties that indicate a different mailing address than the Allen Court address. So I know that there are five properties that have absentee owners but I did get a response for all 22 lots. Everyone responded. Vice Chair Packer: Thank you. Chair Cassel: Michael, do you have a question? Commissioner Griffin: To carry on with that, Clare, you got back a group of ballots and you tabulated those ballots and then we are looking here at a petition. Now is this a City provided document or does the petition come from the applicant for example? City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 15 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Campbell: The petition that was submitted with the application was something that was put together I think by the applicant. They put that form together. What I had done is I had actually used a similar form that was used for a previous poll that was taken for Van Auken Circle. So I just basically used that same format that was a City generated poll that was sent out to the property owners. That is not in the packet. I have it as a separate document. It is in my file folder if you want to look at it. Commissioner Griffin: And you have answered this question before but I am going to ask it again. The 64% is based on the ballots that you received or is it based on the petition that the applicant submitted? Ms. Campbell: It is based on the response that I received from the City sent out poll. Commissioner Griffin: From your ballots. Ms. Campbell: From my ballots, yes. Commissioner Griffin: Not on this petition that we see here in the Staff Report. Ms. Campbell: Correct. Initially I did get some remarks from several property owners that they weren’t really sure if it was an accurate representation of the votes on the street. So I definitely need to have a confirmation of the position of everyone on the street. That’s why the poll was sent out. Commissioner Griffin: Lisa, you made the comment that you offered to hold a community meeting and those offers were rebuffed. To whom did you address yourself with that invitation. Ms. Campbell: Basically what I had done in my initial letter I sent out this informational memo describing what the process was and offering myself to answer questions as they arose from the property owners. Then what I stated was that if a meeting was necessary for the neighborhood that we would put one together. Then in several communications through email, there were multiple email communications, and it was through mass email there was some discussion about a neighborhood block party being put together and I would participate in that gathering to offer information about the process. So that was how that was coordinated and basically nothing was ever established as far as a formal community meeting. Commissioner Griffin: So you were never requested by any of the dissenters for example to hold and to sponsor a community meeting on the subject. Ms. Campbell: That is correct. Chair Cassel: Thank you, Michael. Annette. Commissioner Bialson: First I would like one of the members of the public if you don’t mind. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 16 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Cassel: Is it okay with the rest of the Commission? Okay. Which one did you want to speak to? Commissioner Bialson: This nice lady here who is coming up. Commissioner Holman: Excuse me, just a procedure question. I think you closed the public hearing so do you not need to reopen it to ask a question? Chair Cassel: I will probably open but I was asking for consent. I was asking if everyone was agreeable to that. Commissioner Bialson: Were you contacted about the possibility of having a neighborhood meeting? Ms. Tumminaro: My husband has been in email correspondence with Clare and with the group. It is my understanding and my husband’s, like I said before, we did not want to take on this meeting because it was our understanding Clare in your email it said that you would attend a meeting if we held it. But there was never one offered by the City that the City would hold it. So we would have to organize it and Clare would come. That was our understanding so that’s why we never went further on that. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, thank you. Clare, can you tell me, you said you offered yourself as available to answer questions. Were there any questions that were asked that maybe more than one property owner had that may have indicated to you that they didn’t quite understand when they were voting yes or no? Ms. Campbell: There were a few questions asking about the zoning regulations like some of them were, I have to think about what they were specifically. I think some questions were asking about the difference in the lot coverage versus the floor area because it was kind of complicated to explain that with the text in the letter. The issues that were raised I couldn’t tell you what they were specifically but they were very minor. There were no red flags in my mind at least that showed me that these folks are absolutely confused about what is going on. I came away with the understanding that they seemed to understand what the process was and what was happening. Commissioner Bialson: Did any individual contact you more than once with questions? Ms. Campbell: Not more than, we were having the dialogue the same question. That is what it was. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. No more questions right now. Chair Cassel: Thank you. Karen, do you have any questions? Commissioner Holman: Yes. There is this question about one owner and three lots has come up a few times and I am a little confused as to why it has. Could Staff clarify why it is that each City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 17 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 property, each parcel, has one vote? It would seem to me like owning shares in a company. You are not limited because you are one owner you are allowed to represent the number of shares that you have. So can Staff clarify why that is and why that is a procedure that is followed by the City? Ms. Grote: It is primarily because each property can be affected by whether or not there is a two-story house next to it. So the thinking behind the original concept was that if each property has the potential for being affected the owner of that property then votes. So one property one vote. Commissioner Holman: That would be consistent with what other communities do in any kind of situation? Ms. Grote: I don’t know. We have not called other communities to see how they apply their single story overlays. I don’t know. Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then Staff looks at Attachment F. I don’t know if this has caused any confusion or not but I believe there is an error here under site coverage. I think that the one story residence information under existing and proposed might be transposed. I don’t know if that has caused any confusion in the past but I think it potentially could. Ms. Grote: I believe this is correct. Under site coverage a one-story residence in an R-! zone their site coverage if it is a single story can be the same as the floor area allowed on the site. If it is a two story it is 35%. If existing in the R-I(S) overlay if it is a single story you get 40% coverage and two story is not applicable since you can’t have a second floor. So that 40% is what is currently proposed to be changed for the (S) overlay and it would then read the same as the R-1 block which same as the floor area ratio. So that 40% under the R-I(S) proposed would actually change. Maybe that is what you are finding confusing is that it says R-1 (S) proposed. This is the proposed application as it stands today. The proposed change is to increase that 40% to be equal to the FAR. I understand why you are finding that confusing. Commissioner Holman: I do see it now in the footnote but when I read the table it was confusing to me. Chair Casse!: Karen, Michael has a follow up. Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Griffin: Clare, on the same table that we are looking at where you say that the 40% will change to read same as FAR in the R-1 column. Will this increase or decrease the site coverage from 40%? In other words, is this going to bump up the effective lot coverage to some other percentage, for example? Ms. Grote: It will and it will be similar to the single family R-1 District and it goes to about 42% to 43 or 44% for coverage. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 18 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Griffin: Thank you. Chair Cassel: Go ahead. Commissioner Bialson: So there would be no advantage given to people who have the overlay zone put on. They are just going to get what everybody else gets in R-1. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Chai’r Cassel: Go ahead, Karen. Commissioner Holman: Just to follow up on that I think for clarification when this goes to Council I think it is confusing so if it is under proposed I think make it what proposed is in the table. Ms. Grote: We can clarify that. Commissioner Holman: I think would be a little clearer. When is this going to Council? Is this going to be part of what goes to Council on Monday? Ms. Grote: The proposed changes for the single story overlay in general will go to Council on Monday. This particular application is on October 12. Commissioner Holman: Yes, I was asking about when the single story overlay would be going to Council. Ms. Grote: That goes on Monday night as part of the low-density changes. Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of clarification comments but I will save those for later. Chair Cassel: Pat, you had another question? Commissioner Burt: Yes, actually two. First, maybe Staff can clarify, under our R-1 review guidelines for second story additions we have streetscape and privacy as two of the guidelines. So in a neighborhood that is overwhelmingly single story and Eichler home styles can the Staff comment on whether the restrictions on a two story addition in that sort of neighborhood would by nature be more restrictive than in another neighborhood that did not have the overwhelmingly single story characteristic and the Eichler features that exist in a neighborhood like this? So basically would the R-1 guidelines be sensitive to the context in which an addition is being reviewed? Ms. Grote: Yes they would be sensitive to the context. I don’t know that they would be more restrictive but what you might end up with is slightly different roof forms for instance than you might find in another type of neighborhood. You might find lower height for the second floor City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 19 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 plate. You might find different design characteristic but it wouldn’t be more restrictive it would just be potentially different kinds of responses, design responses. Commissioner Burr: Well, if you have Eichler homes with floor to ceiling windows and we have a privacy requirement under R-1 guidelines wouldn’t by nature in order to respond to the R-1 guidelines you would have to be more limiting on the adjacent addition than if someone was in a home that had very limited window coverage on the side of their house? Ms. Grote: I think you might find a slightly different shape window. You might find more clearstories, those kinds of restrictions. It doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have windows but you might find them placed in a different location, they might be a different size, they might be a different shape, that kind of restriction. Commissioner Burt: Finally, two of the speakers talked about the bordering properties outside of this zone one a condominium complex and someone else mentioned a large home. Can Staff comment on the bordering areas? In different times that has been a consideration. Like on Channing Park I recall that that was a contiguous neighborhood where everything contained within those streets was part of the overlay zone whereas here we have lots at the back. Ms. Grote: Clare was pointing out on the map that it is surrounded by many two-story structures. That the street itself is surrounded by two story structures and there are some apartments. Those are existing conditions so there would potentially be some impact from those existing two story structures on these houses on Allen Court. I think the intent of the overlay here is to have some internal consistency and one-story structures on Allen Court and they are not necessarily trying to protect the apartments next door but they are trying to have some internal consistency. Commissioner Burr: I wasn’t meaning that it was to protect apartments. I am recalling in several of our previous discussions on overlays that when we look at whether the existing privacy that the homes in the overlay zone have it is not just the homes that reside in the overlay zone that affect that it is the bordering homes as well. I don’t think we have that overhead map if that is something that could be circulated or posted that might be informative. Ms. Grote: We will put it up on the overhead. Chair Cassel: Are there other questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have I think one for the City Attorney’s Office. Is it possible that since this is going to the Council on Monday that if the Commission so desired could this application be conditionally approved pending acceptance of the proposed single story overlay language that is going to be codified should they approve it? Could we conditionally approve this pending approval by Council of the proposed zoning change? If you follow" that. Mr. Soderg-ren: Certainly you can have a conditional recommendation but just keep in mind this is a zoning ordinance amendment and the new restrictions as I mentioned previously those are application submittal requirements. So the application in this case has already been filed. So City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 20 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 those new standards really wouldn’t apply to this application even if you did condition until the new requirements came into place. Chair Cassel: Would you please sit down, sir? Thank you. Mr. Soder~en: I suppose you could deny this request and have it refiled under the new submittal requirements but that is the distinction because those are going to be formal application requirements. Chair Cassel: Just a minute Karen, maybe the question is this. Let me see ifI can clarify that. What we are recommending today if this passes next week at City Council it still has another reading. I was going to say would they be then bound by the new decisions on voting? Ms. Grote: They will have a first reading Monday night a second reading probably two weeks later and then there is usually a 30-day period before it becomes effective. So this application will have been acted on by then. Mr. Sodergren: Again, I think it is important to point out that what you have before you tonight are simply guidelines and both the Planning Commission and the Council have broad discretion as far as applying those guidelines and you are not limited by those guidelines. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I just want to confirm my understanding of what you said. The law or lack of law that is applicable to this application is that which exists at the time that they made the application and anything that happens subsequent we are not bound to apply and neither is City Council. Mr. Sodergr. en: Right. I suppose that after the Council looks at the new proposed regulations and they have further thoughts they again can apply whatever facts they deem relevant to this application. Because it is a legislative act you are not bound by specific considerations even the guidelines. You have wide discretion. Chair Cassel: Karen, do you have another question? Commissioner Holman: Yes, this goes along with that because what I was looking for was some guidance about there are a couple of concerns that I have with this. In reading this I was in a bit of a quandary too. I am in support of single story overlays but I am uncomfortable with a couple of aspects of this. One is that the lot sizes, understanding that these are guidelines, there are a fair number of the lots that don’t conform to the guidelines and the percentage is a bit low. So I wasn’t supposing that or my question wasn’t meaning that there should be a new application or that this application be considered differently I was wondering if this application, I would feel more comfortable with this application if the Council approved what is going to be in the zoning code or what is being proposed for the zoning code. Do you follow what I am saying? City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 21 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3! 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Sodergren: Yes. In that case one option would be to continue this hearing to a date certain after the Council considers the new Zoning Ordinance amendments if you feel that would be helpful. I think that would be the option if you want to take their consideration into account in making this decision. Chair Cassel: Are there any other questions? Then we should bring this back and discuss it amongst ourselves. No, we are not changing the agenda. Comments that people want to make, Annette? Commissioner Bialson: Do you want comments or a motion? Chair Cassel: Either. MOTION Commissioner Bialson: I would like to make a motion that we not approve the attached draft ordinance and I can give you the reasons why but I would like to see if I have a second. SECOND Commissioner Lippert: I will second that. Chair Cassel: Lee, will second that. Commissioner Bialson: I am sure others will add on to this and I think it is evident from the questions that we are uncomfortable with whether or not this particular project would meet not only the words but the intent of guidelines. I agree that we have a situation here where we have a very low number of people approving of the imposition of an overlay. In addition we have some lots that do not qualify as moderate size. The requirement, going back to my first point, was that the guideline called for overwhelming support and I don’t think a bare whether you consider it 61% or 63 %, I have tried different figures including in the second story property, not including it in, including in some of the properties that wish to be removed and so forth and so on. What we basically come down is a situation where we have property that does not meet those two guidelines plus is an unusual situation in that some of the properties are surrounded by two story sometimes three stories. I think one of the properties that I looked at in trying to see through their backyard was backing on to a three story. So we are not sort of embedded in an R- 1 neighborhood but we are on the border of a neighborhood. When we take away property rights as we are doing here I think we should tread very lightly. We are taking away property rights not just with regard to expansion on their lot but also the ability to remove the overlay or second story prohibition. I was very much affected by the fact that here we have CC&Rs that allow removal with a simple majority and we are going to change it into a legislative act, which makes it very difficult to remove the overlay. Let me just take a quick look at my notes. In addition I see us migrating, if you look at Attachment I which shows a list of previous single story overlays we seem to be going in the direction of being more liberal with our application of single story overlays and that is not the direction I think we should go because we have attempted to answer the concern of neighbors with regard to monster homes through our new R-1 regulations and City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 22 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 those have not yet been absorbed and appreciated by the community. I would like to see those be given a chance. I will leave it to my seconder to add on any other provisions because I took notes in very small handwriting and I can’t read it now. Commissioner Lippert: Thank you Commissioner Bialson. I agree with all the points that you made and in addition to that I did some very quick calculations on the two corner lots and found that if we did impose a single story overlay that in fact if the property owners on those corner lots wanted to max out and justhave a one story house it would all fit within the setback lines. That in fact I come up with a rough calculation of they will be allowed to have 3,045 square feet but truth.of the matter is that not taking into account the radius on the cornerthey can only build 3,000 square feet of house as a single story house. If you do take into account the radius they are really screwed. Chair Cassel: Other comments? Pat. Commissioner Burr: Well, I support the reasons that have been stated by the maker and the seconder. I have been concerned as we have gone from what was an 80% supermajority requirement without deed restrictions and something less than that which had been previously discussed over the years as below 80% a minimum of 70% and that was never codified and it has been slipping and we are having a creep in the criteria. Certainly none have come before us that have approached this 64%. We also have had none that have only had 36% of a moderate lot size. Ironically even though Staffsaid that that’s an acceptable level that happens to be the same exact supermajority that doesn’t comply with the lot size requirement as what Staffis saying is a supermajority that is acceptable for the level of support. In addition we have discussed several times even though the R-1 guidelines do not provide a single story overlay protection they have created new protections for homeowners that didn’t exist before. I believe that those protections would be significant in an Eichler style neighborhood. They require a streetscape compatibility and privacy concerns and I respect that Eichler homes demand more respect for both the streetscape and the privacy than a more eclectic neighborhood would. I would support that interpretation of the R-1 guidelines as it pertains to Eichler homes. Then finally the other two points are the bordering areas, in this neighborhood it is different from other proposals that we have had in that much of this neighborhood does not have rear yard protection currently from privacy encroachments. So it already is a neighborhood that has the boundaries are the street boundary of the neighborhood and the backyard boundaries create a circumstance of less single story protection than other overlay zones that we have previously reviewed. Then finally this is not really part of our present criteria but I think after we close this discussion since this is going to the Council and Commissioner Bialson I think was not able to attend our meeting on single story overlay proposed criteria I had raised this issue on the removal criteria and I think it is an important overlooked element that needs to be addressed before Council. Chair Cassel: Bonnie. Vice Chair Packer: I agree I am going to support the motion for all the reasons that have been expressed by Annette and Lee and Pat. I also want to underscore Pat’s concern which I share with him about the proposal that is going before City Council on codifying the single story overlay process and the reduction to 60% in areas where there are CC&Rs and the difficulty in City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 23 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 removing the overlay. I think those are some things that I hope we can rethink. In addition to the reasons my colleagues have expressed I was also somewhat concerned that this particular neighborhood does have a high percentage of homes in which the property owners are not living in there right now. So the sense of not ownership in the sense of real property rights but in the sense of neighborhood ownership on the street probably doesn’t exist to the same extent that we have seen in some of the other applications that have been before us. So the sense of commitment one way or another to a particular position on this issue I don’t think is as strong so I am a little bit concerned that the polling took place in the absence of a meeting where ideas could be discussed amongst the neighbors. So I am a little bit nervous about that as well so to me the 64% is a weak 64% even if we were going to look at absolute numbers. So in addition to the reasons of my colleagues that is another reason why I will support the motion. Chair Cassel: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Well, I am going to register a protest vote here. I will not be supporting the motion despite the fact that I am listening to colleagues and do agree with the comments about the 64% being weak and the percentage on the lots of moderate size. That being said, when I go over to that neighborhood and I look at those low rise Eichlers I feel that I am looking at an endangered species and it really makes me emotional to think of what is going to happen to vast tracks of suburban housing in this community on the south side of town that are going to be heavily impacted by two story houses. If I lived in that neighborhood I would share sentiments with the applicants. I am listening to what Pat says about the IR process needing to be more sensitive to protecting the privacy of Eichler neighborhoods. I don’t know what those are and whether we are in fact providing Eichler neighborhoods with a greater amount of sensitivity than we are in mixed neighborhoods. I think that it is perhaps a good idea that we pursue that and I also think that owners of Eichler properties in Palo Alto ought to be paying attention to what is going on here and believing some of the material that was appended to the Staff Report here talking about the incompatibility of two story structures in an Eichler neighborhood. Thanks. Chair Cassel: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have heard several things that cause me concern this evening. Several of the comments that have been made to me I hear as arguments against single story overlays in general. I don’t think that is what is intended because we have supported single story overlays and we have a proposal going to the City Council but I am concerned and kind of confused by some of the comments made this evening. Some of those have to do with FAR and two story development behind and property owners not being present and some of the properties being rentals. I am not picking on anyone these are points that have caused me some concern and the reason is because the have been part of the discussion for instance about property owners being different than the residents. We can’t treat developers any different than property owners who are building homes. Developers certainly don’t have the commitment to the community that property owners do that are going to live in the homes but we can’t treat people differently. So I just think some things just seem like out of place with this discussion. I continue to be concerned about something that I have stated in the past and that is that we don’t have a standard application for the single story overlays. I think this leads to a lot of consternation in the neighborhoods so I hope should Council proceed with the change of the single story overlays City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 24 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 being in the zoning that the City Staff comes up with and maybe the Commission would like to review that but comes up with a standard application form so we don’t have different information going out at different points in time and people changing their minds because they got this piece of information from one person and this piece of information from another neighbor. As I stated earlier I am conflicted on this. We can’t rely on another thing that I have been concerned about h.earing is I appreciate very much that Individual Review should be more mindful of presence of a second story addition or a new two story home being proposed in an Eichler type neighborhood. That isn’t something that is part of the guidelines. I didn’t hear from Staff that that would be a great consideration. Maybe it will more than I have been aware but I have seen some pretty jarring impacts in Eichler neighborhoods. I am conflicted on this as I stated earlier and my best outcome for this would be to continue this to a date certain or uncertain but as soon as possible after the Council has made its decision because I would feel most comfortable having clearer standards because I feel like there is enough discrepancy between the guidelines and what is being proposed here to vote for it as it is but I also cannot support the motion that is before us because it is not the outcome I think we should be.looking at or that I am most comfortable with. Chair Cassel: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I would just like to clarify in response to Commission Member Holman’s concern that the decision here tonight in any way reflects a predilection against single story overlays. I have supported the overwhelming majority of single story overlays that have come to the Commission while I have been on. We had one that was a little over four and a half years ago in Channing Park that was a controversial one because the Commission under its composition at that time voted against it, I believe I was the lone supporter of that single story overlay. Several of the Commissioners at that time voiced concerns over the ordinance itself. Council was clear in their direction back to the Commission that the Commission’s obligation was to review it according to the guidelines that are in it and I believe that the Commission has done so. I believe that that is the basis for what we are doing. We have lent our support since then. We have approved single story overlays that crept below the previous approval thresholds, this Commission has, and so I don’t think there is a predilection against single story overlays. I just wanted to get that on the record. Chair Cassel: Lee. Commissioner Lippert: I have a quick question for Staff. With regard to the parcels with addresses 793,781,777, 778,782 and 794 they are all the ones that are facing Allen Court and the circle those would be considered corner lots as well, correct? Ms. Grote: No, they probably would not be considered corner lots. Those are unusually shaped because of the unusual shape of the street but they are not really corner lots. Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Chair Cassel: Karen. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 25 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: One really quick comment. I want to be really clear ifI wasn’t earlier. I am not saying that I think that the Commission is opposed to single story overlays I am just saying that because I know the Commission is in support of them I have been surprised at some of the points that have been made. That was all I was trying to say. I hope that clarifies. MOTION PASSED (5-2-0-0, Commissioners Griffin and Holman voted no) Chair Cassel: It is my turn for comments. I think that the standard has been that each property gets a vote and sometimes it is owned by more than one person and we use that in other votes in the City that have come up under new legislation from the state. I don’t like overlay zones so this becomes a difficult one. This is a very small neighborhood however these were intended to be on larger neighborhoods. Two story homes are not always offensive and can be a great attraction. Homes need to be renovated after a period of time and they need major renovation after a period of time. They can be done as single story and they can be done as two story homes. The question really is do we meet the guidelines that are set before us and whether or not this percentage equals a reasonable percentage for the vote. I think this is where it exists because we voted and sent to City Council something that said if you have CC&Rs then you can have a 60% vote. That was our recommendation. We also voted to ignore the lot sizes because it just wasn’t working and City Council was voting projects, which didn’t meet the lot lines. So I would vote against them because for just this reason it doesn’t work particularly on a small site. I will vote against this tonight on the grounds that there are homes in this neighborhood that will have a great deal of difficulty building with these shapes and these lots as my rationale. I will be voting with the motion, sorry. Okay? Thank you. Are we ready to vote? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? (nays) That votes passes with five yeses and two nays with Michael Griffin and Karen Holman voting no. Thank you. Let’s redo the motion? Vice Chair Packer: All I said was I thought we would want to make it clear that the summary of our motion is that we denied the application to create a single story overlay on this tract. Chair Cassel: This will go to City Council for their input on October 12. Thank you very much. Go ahead. Mr. Kanellakos: Well, we are working here on an application that is subjected to the guidelines that are in place which are guidelines, they are not codes, they are not in law such as the pending code that will be in law as far as I am understanding from the Planning Commission Division Staff Report for the recommendation of the approval of the overlay that the moderate lot size would be eliminated so future people that put in requests similar exactly to this will be considered and mine will not be. That seems prejudicial in my opinion and also does not seem democratic in that we were given leniency with the 60% rule because we have CC&Rs in place. No one is going to build a two-story home. They have all said we may have plans in the future. I may want to do that too someday. In that case we go ahead and we reverse the R-I(S) overlay City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 26 of 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 if that is the case if the majority wants to do that. They can also reverse the CC&Rs. But that is not the case. I don’t want to build a two-story home. I want my home to be private. I have lived there 18 years. Nick has lived there three weeks, she has lived there three years. That is okay. They know that the CC&Rs exist. I again, understand your recommendation but I ask that it be considered with the codes for the moderate lot size restriction elimination for the City Council. I also would resubmit this on that basis in the future. In addition I would also state the fact that many of the reasons put forward seem to be not absolutely correct such as the five people have rental homes. Five out of 22 that is 25%. The conformity is there. You have to walk down inside the cul-de-sac to see what we are talking about. I have huge glass walls, two of the people that oppose me are right against me. So I ask that the whole section be taken into consideration for the overlay and that the City Council override your recommendation based upon the future that will include the new restrictions that will be put into code. Otherwise I will have no option except to go ahead and resubmit under the new code and possibly you could face civil implications by rejecting this because of the precedents that occur. So I ask that you please reconsider. Do you have any questions? I am talking about the fact that the CC&Rs exist and that someone will be having to sue someone. Chair Cassel: Go ahead. Commissioner Burt: I would like to clarify. First you stated something that the City Attorney and the City Staff confirmed which is that if the overlay zone were adopted it could not be repealed by a simple majority unlike the CC&Rs. Mr. Kanellakos: Is that what is pending? Commissioner Burt: No that is both existing and what would occur if Council were to support the changes that Staff had recommended. The other important point is that the City Council has not even considered these changes yet. The City Council is the decision-making authority on it and in the absence of those changes the existing guidelines are the ones that we are obliged by law to follow. Mr. Kanellakos: Would it make sense for me to wait for those new guidelines to be in place as hopefully codes so that I can withdraw this immediately? Chair Cassel: This is going to go before City Council two weeks from now. I would advise you to go to City Council in two weeks. Commissioner Burt: Staff, after the Council makes whatever decision they do on it then you may want to confer with Staff on what would be an appropriate step if any. Chair Cassel: Okay. So go ahead and see what happens on October 12. Thanks. City of Palo Alto September 29, 2004 Page 27 of 27