HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-22 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER
JULY 22, 2002
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT.
CMR:353:02
SUBJECT:REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF A PORTION OF TRACT 796
FOR REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-
1 (S) SINGLE STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE GREER PARK
NEIGHBORHOOD (VAN AUKEN CIRCLEAND PORTIONS OF
GREER ROAD AND AMARILLO AVENUE)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft ordinance
(Attachment A), rezoning a total of 58 lots in Tract 796 (Greer Park) from R-1 Single
Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council deny the
request for rezoning a total of 58 lots in Tract 796 (Greer Park) from R-1 Single Family
Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the
Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.13). The Single Story Height Combining District (S)
modifies the development regulations of the R- 1 single family residential district by limiting
the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot
coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 796
within the Greer Park Neighborhood (Planning and Transportation Commission staff report
Attachment E) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 58 single family
parcels shown on the attached map (Attachment C). Survey results reported in the letter
indicate neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone. It should
be noted that since the request was submitted, two property owners have changed their
CMR:353:02 Page 1 of 6
support to opposition resulting in 38 supporters and a 66 percent level of support for the
request (see Attachment E). On February 19, 2002, the City Council initiated the request and
referred it to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
On May 29, 2002, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and recommended
denial of the 58 lots for a single story overlay. A summary of significant issues is contained
in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (Attachment B). A majority of
the Commissioners indicated that the request fell short of meeting all four of the criteria
(particularly lot size) established in the Single Story Combining District (S) Overlay
Guidelines (Planning and Transportation Commission staff report, Attachment F).
Commissioners noted that this request appears to have a lesser percentage of moderate lots in
the 6,000 to 8,000 square foot range and a greater proportion of smaller lots of less than
6,000 square feet. Several Commissioners thought that the purpose of the overlay zone was
more appropriately solved through the existing deed restriction in the CC&Rs and the new
Single Family Individual Review process for second story additions. Several Commissioners
expressed concerns that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential
neighborhoods rather than providing the flexibility needed to manage change over time. Two
of the Commissioners indicated that the request did meet the four criteria and voted to
approve the rezoning.
Of the ten property owners within Tract 796 who spoke at the Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting, some supported the overlay zone and some spoke in opposition (see
Planning and Transportation Commission minutes Attachment G). Supporters indicated that
the request met all four criteria for a single story overlay and that City enforcement of a
single story overlay was preferable to neighbors suing each other to enforce the existing
CC&Rs. Opponents indicated that the existing CC&Rs have been an effective instrument for
50 years and City enforcement is not required to maintain the single story character of the
neighborhood.
In addition to the letters attached to the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report,
the City has received letters in support and opposition to the rezoning (Attachment H).
Following public testimony, Commissioners discussed the proposal in the context of the
criteria contained in the guidelines. Commissioners discussed the merits of including the
entire area within the overlay boundary versus deleting ten lots in the southeastern corner of
the area (Attachment D). The majority of the Commissioners believed that deleting any of the
lots in the southeastern corner would adversely affect the logical boundaries of the
neighborhood. The Commissioners indicated that the boundary, as proposed, results in an
identifiable neighborhood regardless of whether the overlay is applied. After discussion, the
Commission recommended that the City Council deny the proposed rezoning of the 58 homes
in Tract 796. The motion passed, 5-2-0 (Holman and Griffin opposed).
CMR:353:02 Page 2 of 6
The Commission also requested the City Council provide clarification on several issues
affecting future requests for single story overlays. These issues include the following: 1)
flood, plain and height, 2) definition of overwhelming support, 3) definition of moderate lot
size, 4) the process for removal of an overlay, and 5) how to apply the flexibility rule
established in the Overlay Guidelines. These issues are discussed below.
An excerpt of verbatim minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting are
attached (Attachment G).
DISCUSSION
The intent of the single story overlay is to provide a stronger vehicle through zoning for
resolving potential disputes in place of lawsuits to stop construction of second story
additions. The deed restriction (in the form of CC&Rs) is an agreement among property
owners and, therefore, the City has no authority to enforce the provisions of the deed
restriction without the overlay zone. It should also be noted that the overlay zoning district
was adopted by the City expressly for situations such as this, where a neighborhood believes
second stories are incompatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and existing
CC&Rs are in place to maintain the single story height limit.
Staff has summarized the Planning and Transportation Commission’s issues and provided
responses, as follows:
1. Lot Coverage and Height: The Commission noted the discrepancy in the City’s Zoning
Ordinance with respect to the calculation of lot coverage and height in the R~I district
compared with the R- 1 (S) district. The recently amended R- 1 district regulations include an
allowance for single story homes to increase lot coverage from the current 35 percent up to
the amount of coverage needed to obtain the full Floor Area Ratio (FAR) allowed on the site.
The new allowance for lot coverage, however, does not yet apply to the R-1 (S) combining
district. Similarly, in the recently amended R-1 district building height in a flood hazardzone
may be increased one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation,
up to a maximum house height of 33 feet. In the R-1 (S) district, there is no allowance for
additional height of homes in a flood hazard zone. The Commission noted that this
discrepancy should be addressed.
Staff acknowledges these discrepancies andbelieves that the R-1 (S) district rules should be
amended to provide the same lot coverage and height requirements as the R- 1 district. Staff
recommends that these revisions be expedited as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update.
The entire neighborhood is within Flood Zone AE. Areas in this zone have been measured
from 3.5 to 5 feet below the minimum flood level, but each lot varies. Average building pad
CMR:353:02 Page 3 of 6
elevations are approximately four feet below minimum flood level. Most of the existing
homes in the neighborhood are 12 to 14 feet in height. In some cases under existing R-1 (S)
regulations, the 17 foot height limit would affect the ability of property owners to rebuild
their homes. For example, if an existing 14 foot high house was four feet below the
minimum flood zone elevation and it was destroyed, a home of similar height (14 feet plus
four feet above current grade for a total of 18 feet) could not be reconstructed within the 17
foot height limit. If the existing R-1 (S) regulations were modified to be consistent with the
new R- 1 regulations, the 17 foot height limit would be less restrictive in the case of a rebuild.
For example, if the same 14 foot high house was four feet below the minimum flood zone
elevation and it was destroyed, the City would count only two of the four feet towards the
height limit, enabling a new house of up to 15 feet from finished grade. This would
accommodate most any proposal for new construction of a single story home within this
flood zone.
2. Definition of overwhelming support: The Commission noted that the City has an informal
guideline that approximately 70% of property owners constitutes overwhelming support for
an overlay. However, the guidelines specifically provide a greater degree of flexibility for
neighborhoods that are subject to a single story deed restriction. The Commission asked for
clarification of this guideline and how it should be applied in future requests.
Staff believes that the 70 percent rule should continue to be a guideline that is applied
according to the unique characterist.ics of each neighborhood. Staff believes that the intent of
the guidelines is to leave some flexibility for City decision-makers.
3. Moderate lot size: The Commission noted that the guidelines specifically define moderate
lot size as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. In past requests, staff has considered 6,000 to 8,000 as
being moderate if the area is subject to a deed restriction.
The current definition appears to use 7,000 square feet as a minimum for moderate lots sizes
because that is approximately the point at which site coverage and FP~R results in the same
square footage. Staff continues to believe that lots ranging from 6,000 to 8,000 square feet
should be considered moderate if the property owners agree to the minor loss of floor area
and the neighborhood is subject to a deed restriction. AS shown in Attachment B, lots of
approximately 7,000 square feet of less would not be able to use the full FAR while lots of
greater than 7,000 square feet could utilize the full FAR. The intent of the guidelines is to
provide flexibility to those neighborhoods with a deed restriction, and this is specifically
stated in the guidelines and applies to all four criteria. When the R- 1 (S) district regulations
are revised to be compatible with the amended R-1 district, the issue of lot coverage allowed
on smaller lots becomes less important as the maximum floor area becomes the determining
factor.~
CMR:353:02 Page 4 of 6
4. Removal of an overlay: The Commission asked for clarification on the process that would
be used to remove an overlay.
The Zoning Ordinance (Section 18.98.020 et. seq.) specifically provides for initiation of
changes in boundaries of zoning districts in three ways: 1) by application of a property
owner, 2) by a motion of the City Council, or 3) by motion of the Planning and
Transportation Commission. Proposed zone changes then are evaluated by staff, reviewed at
a public hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission with a recommendation to
City Council, and approved or denied at a public hearing by the City Council. Passage of a
zone change requires affirmative votes from a majority of council members.
5. Flexibility Rule: The guidelines specifically state that ".. for those neighborhoods that
contain and have been developed consistent with a single story deed restriction, these
guidelines are to be treated with a greater degree of flexibility." The Commission asked for
clarification as to how to apply the flexibility rule in future requests and asked for more
specificity in the flexibility rule.
Staff continues to believe that each neighborhood should be evaluated according to its unique
characteristics and how those characteristics meet the guidelines. Staff believes that the
intent of the flexibility rule for all four criteria is to provide City Council with the discretion
to apply the guidelines as they best apply to each distinct neighborhood not to establish
numerical standards that would apply to every situation.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives available to the City Council include:
1)Modify the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or
2)Deny the rezoning of a total of 58 lots from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S)
Single Story Overlay District.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Ordinance rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-I(S)
Single Story Overlay
Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (with attachments)
Map Showing 58 lots within Tract 796
Map showing ten lots proposed to be deleted in southeastern comer
Map Showing Supporters of Proposed Overlay
Correspondence from Neighbors received at the P&TC meeting
Excerpt of Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of May
29, 2002
CMR:353:02 Page 5 of 6
Attachment H:Correspondence received since P&TC meeting of May 29, 2002
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
CHANDLER LEE (7-a
Project ~
~.,_
IE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
MANAGER APPROVAL:~’~O~-’~NCITY
Assistant City Manager
All Property Owners Shown on Planning and Transp0rttion Commission staff report
Attachment B
All neighbors submitting correspondence as shown in Attachment F
CMR:353:02 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 .OFTHE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON VAN
AUKEN CIRCLE,AMARILLO AVENUE AND GREER ROAD,
WHICH ARE A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY
KNOWN AS TRACT 796 FROM R-1 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 May 29, 2002, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MunicipalCode 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 Tract 796 the "subject
property"), from "R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S)
Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Attachment "A"
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
environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act
guideline §15305.
//
//
//
//
020513 syn 0091041
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:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
on the
020513 syn 0091041 2
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Chandler Lee
May 29, 2002
DEPARTMENT:Planning
SUBJECT:Request by Property Owners Property Owners of a Portion of
Tract 796 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning in
the Greet Park Neighborhood (Van Auken Circle). File No: 02-
ZC-01
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommend that the City Council:
Approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 58 lots in
the Greer Park neighborhood from R-i Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single
Story Overlay District.
At its meeting of February 19, 2002, the City Council voted to initiate the process for the
single story overlay zone and refer it to the Commission for review and recommendation.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The attached letter from property owners in Tract 796 (Attachment E) requests
application of the single story overlay zone to 58 single family parcels contained in a
portion of that tract. The remainder of the tract is located northeast of the proposed area
between Greer Road and Greer Park. A list of property owners within the proposed area is
contained in Attachment B
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of
the R- 1 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and
one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 .to 40 percent.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows application of this (S) 0veflay Zone, where
appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story
character. The City Council, on December 14, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in
evaluating applications for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed below. This request meets the
four criteria established by the City for applying the overlay zone to single family
neighborhoods.
Criteria
Level of Support
Appropriate Boundaries
Prevailing Single Story Character
Moderate Lot Sizes
Compliance of Application
Strong level of support (signed requests from owners
of 40 of the 58 parcels, or 69 percent).
The application indicates a roughly rectangular
neighborhood, defined by existing street patterns.
All 58 properties are currently single story, similar in
age (1950s) and design (all are Eichler homes).
The lots are generally moderate in size (31 of 58 lots,
or 53 percent are between 6,000 and 8,000 square
feet), and all are in a consistent lotting pattern.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18). A comparison of the proposed R- 1 (S) Zoning District to the
existing R-1 Zoning District regulations is provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
’Site Area (s.£)
-Lot Width
-Lot depth
Floor Area Ratio
-First 5,000 s.£
-Remaining s.f.
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Setbacks
- Front Yard
- Rear Yard
- Interior Side Yard
- Street Side Yard
R-1 (Existing}
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
30 feet*
35%
20
20
6
16
6,000 s.£ **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
17 feet (Single Story)*
40%
20
20
6
16
City of Palo Alto Page 2
* Daylight plane restrictions apply. The daylight plane is defined by a point 10 feet in
height along each side lot line and extending upward at a 45-degree angle into the site and
by a point 16 feet in height at the front and rear setback lines and extending 60 degrees
into the site.
** For substandard lots, special site development regulations apply.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the
Zoning Ordinance and has applied the overlay to several neighborhoods including:
On July 13, 1992, the overlay was applied to the Walnut Grove neighborhood (181 lots),
On April 26, 1993, the overlay was applied to the Green Meadows neighborhood (185
lots),
On January 21, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows
neighborhood (96 lots),
On September 15, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows
neighborhood (61 lots),
On November 17, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 709 of the Blossom Park
neighborhood (16 lots).
On November 16, 1998, the overlay was applied to Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738
in the Barron Park neighborhood (20 lots) and to Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 in
the Meadow Park neighborhood (75 lots).
On July 17, 2000 the overlay was applied to Tracts 883 and 909 in a portion of the
Channing Park neighborhood (57 lots).
On September 24, 2002 the overlay was applied to Tract 1371 in a portion of the Garland
(Elsinore Drive) neighborhood (57 lots).
The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 796 (Attachment E) requests
application of the single story overlay zone to the 58 single family parcels contained in
the tract. Survey results indicate strong neighborhood support (69 percent) for the
application of the single family overlay zone.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a
fundamental policy of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive
Plan contains the following policies in support of the proposed single stow 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.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The major iSsue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines regarding neighborhood support. In
reviewing previous proposals for single stoW 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.
However, since the project meets all of the criteria established in the S Overlay
Guidelines, staffbelieves that the proposal meets the intent of adopted City policy and
should be approved.
At the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002, one property owner spoke regarding
the overlay. Stanley Cole stated that he owned the property at 2808 Greer Road and was
not opposed to the overlay per se but requested that a portion of the area be deleted from
the proposed boundary. Mr. Cole indicated that eight of the 11 property owners in the
eastern corner of the area did not support the overlay and he requested that the eleven lots
be removed from the boundary. Staff believes that the boundary, as proposed with all 58
lots, forms an identifiable neighborhood in a roughly rectangular shape that is easily
defined by existing street patterns. Staff recommends that the Commission discuss Mr.
Cole’s proposal but recommends that the boundary be retained as proposed by the
neighbors with all 58 lots.
Height and Lot Coverage
The changes to the standard R-1 Zoning requirements caused by application of the Single
Story Overlay are the height limit reduction from 30 to 17 feet, the single story restriction
and the expansion of lot coverage 40 percent.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The potential effect of these revisions is the addition of building square footage on the
ground floor allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however,
the proposed lot coverage increase allows maximum floor area ratios that equal those
allowed under current R-1 zoning if the lot exceeds 7,500 square feet. Table 2 illustrates
the net change in house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is
allowable under current R-1 zoning.
Table 2
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S)
Lot Size
6,000 s.f.
6,500 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
7,500 s.£
>7,500 s.f.
Allowable House Size
with R-1
2,550 s.f.
2,700 s.f.
2,850 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
Allowable House Size
with R-1 (S)
2,400 s.f.
2,600 s.f.
2,800 s.f.
3,000 s.£
R-1 zoning applies
Net Change
-150 s.f.
-100 s.f.
-50 s.f.
-0 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
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 F), 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) Staff has been informed by several property owners that all of the 58
homes involved in this application have the same single story deed restriction. All 58 lots
were originally developed with Eichler homes in the 1950s. None of the original homes have
been torn down and replaced. Several homes have been remodeled but still retain the
original Eichler layout.
City staff mailed property owners a letter and questionnaire on December 4, 2001 explaining
the single story overlay and asking for written confirmation of any change in support of, or
opposition to, the proposed overlay. Also, City staff held a neighborhood meeting on
December 20, 2001 to answer residents’ questions about the overlay and poll property
owners to determine if the current number of supporters and opponents of the overlay has
changed. About ten property owners attended the meeting and a majority expressed their
support for the overlay. Staff received eleven ballots in the mail or at the meeting. Of the
eleven ballots, nine affirmed their support and two registered their opposition to the overlay.
As of December 31,2001, the number of supporters remained at 40 and the number who did
not support the overlay remained at 18, resulting in a 69 percent rate of support..
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The application is evaluated using the following criteria:
1. Level and Format of Owner Support
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should meet with
"overwhelming" support by owners of the affected properties. These owners must
demonstrate, by providing documentation that includes a written list of signatures, an
understanding that they are co-applicants in a zone map amendment request."
The application is accompanied by signed requests from 40 of the 58 property owners within
Tract 796 (see Attachment C). Of the 18 owners who did not support the overlay, only two
have submitted their opposition in writing. The remaining 16 chose not to sign the petition
in favor of the overlay and, therefore, are considered not in support. Because all 58 of the
homes within the neighborhood have been developed consistent with a single story deed
restriction, the S overlay guidelines stipulate that this criterion can be treated with a greater
degree of flexibility than neighborhoods without the restriction. Regardless of the deed
restriction, the 69 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first
criterion has been satisfied. The City generally considers a minimum of 70 percent to
constitute overwhelming support for single story overlays. A map of supporters and non-
supporters are shown in Attachment C.
2. Appropriate Boundaries
’’An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a
map indicating the address and location oJ’those owners who are co-applicants for the
zoning request. Boundaries ... should define an identifiable neighborhood or
development."
The application is accompanied by a map showing addresses and locations of the co-
applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood in a roughly rectangular shape
that is easily defined by existing street pattems. All homes in the area front on either Van
Auken Circle, Greer Road or Amarillo Avenue. The lots east of Greer Road are within Tract
796 but are not part of this application. Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied.
3. Prevailing Single-Story Character
"An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing
single-story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single-story...
It is desirable that homes be similar in age, design, and character..."
All of the 58 properties included in this application are currently single story and all of
the 58 homes have a single story deed restriction. All 58 homes were built by Eichler in
the 1950s and none have been torn down and replaced since then. The Eichler homes are
all of a similar age and character. Therefore, the third criterion has been satisfied.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
4. Moderate Lot Sizes
"...an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by
moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be
defined as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet."
Of the 58 lots, 21 are less than 6,000 square feet, 29 are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet
and two are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Of the remaining lots, two are between
8,000 and 9,000 square feet, two are between 9,000 and 10,000 square and two are larger
than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes that it is reasonable to consider the 6,000 to 7,000
square foot lots as moderate in this case, because 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. Therefore, a
majority of the lots (31 of the 58 lots or 53 percent) can be considered moderate in size. The
neighborhood has a consistent lotting pattern that is defined by three streets: Van Auken
Circle, Greer Road, and Amarillo Avenue. Therefore, the fourth criterion can be considered
to be satisfied.
The subject application generally meets all four of the criteria established by the Single
Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Planning Commission include recommending to the City
Council to: ,
1) Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or,
2) Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for Tract 796 in the Greer Park (Van
Auken Circle) Neighborhood.
TIMELINE:
Following Planning and Transportation Commission review, the application is tentatively
scheduled for City Council’s consideration in June.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been found to be exempt from environmental review under provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A:Draft Ordinance
Attachment B:List of Property Owners
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters
Map showing proposed boundary
October 22, 2001 request from the property owners of Tract 796
for City approval of a single story overlay zone.
Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone
Guidelines.
Deed Restriction for Tract 796
Neighborhood letter and questionnaire dated December 4, 2001
Letter from Alan D. Brodie dated May 9, 2002.
Letter from William & Judith Shilstone dated May 16, 2002.
COURTESY COPIES:
All property owners shown on Attachment B
Prepared by: Chandler Lee
Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON VAN
AUKEN CIRCLE,AMARILLO AVENUE AND GREER ROAD,
WHICH ARE A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY
KNOWN AS TRACT 796 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 May 29, 2002, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MunicipalCode 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 Tract 796 the "subject
property"), from ~R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S)
Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Attachment "A"
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
environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act
guideline §15305.
//
//
//
//
020513 syn 0091041
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:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
CommunityEnvironment
on the
020513 syn 0091041 2
File No(s): 02-ZC-01
.~.~,:~ ,Tract: 796
,~ "~Proposal: Zone change to add a Single-
~ 4.*~Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
~,,!~i,,~to R-1 (S)
City o f
Palo Alto ~
~ ~, ~ ,~, o.Single Story Overlay
s:~Plan~PladivkGIS~SiteLocationMaps~VanAuckenCircleSingleSto~OverlayFtat.pdf
Date: 05/02/02
@
0’ 200’ 400’
Attachment B
I-’-0 0 0 0 0 o o ~ o o o o
00o
0 0
0
0
0 ~- 0 0
0 0
o o
oZ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o d d o d d d d
c c c ~~
0 0 0 ~-~-
o 0
o ~"-:"
0 0 0 0
o o
o 0
0
0
h
0Z
0
~l"
~ O~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d o c~o d d d c~d d d d d
ooo
0 I- 0 I--0 F- I--I~l--0
0
0
2~k a. ~ I i~,1~ ~ ~,, ~,’,.:4 ~ ~ I.:,:, ~J~~q//~" L k I UUa I ~ "
¯ ¯~l ~,~ ,.’ ,’ ,’.~F:;I ~ ~, ,.7:;
~.~~ ~,~.~.~ ~ ~:~,~.~.~ , ’..:~~ ~:~:~-~
~~ . ~,.., ~i..
~, ¯.. ~ ~,. ~.:,,..
~ :~, ,, :.: ,.-, .., ,..,,
~~’,..~....,..~ ,~II
~.File No(s):’,] Date: 1/2a/02
~?"" j’. %,~Proposal: Resident’s request that cit7
t:,’~ !i 7,,’:~initiate a zone change to add a Single-
~Sto~ Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
to R-I(S) Amended Janua~ 17, 2002.
o A1 t oPa1
,~ ~ ~verl~ ’~
s:~P~an~P~adiv~G~S~SiteL~cati~nMaps~VanAuckenCirc~eSing~eSt~vedayWithSupp~ersBigF~at~"~
~Attachment C
1889
File No(s): 02-ZC-01~%Tract: 796
~5’° J~ ""~Proposal: Zone change to add a Single-
~. ~, ,,~.y
Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
~’to R-1 (S)
of
Palo A1 to
.N.,.o D,v,s,o~ U Single Story Overlay
s:\Plan\Pladiv\GIS\SiteLocationMaps\VanAuckenCircleSingleStoryOverlayFlat.pdf
22 October, 2001
Planning Department
City Of Palo Alto
250 Hamiiton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
A_.pA?lication for R-1 to R-I(S) Zonin~ Change
We, the owners of homes in Tract 796, hereby request a change in our zoning from R-1 to R-1 (S)
with this application for a single story "overlay". This zoning change will be consistent with the
existing CC & R’s for these Eichler neighborhood properties which restrict residences to a single
story.
As of this date, 69% of the owners out of the fifty-eight (58) desig-nated homes have endorsed this
change,
In support of our request we submit to you the following materials:
1)Individually signed requests from 69% of the home owners requesting a change of zoning.
2)A list of the property owners with their names, addresses, parcel numbers and lot sizes.
3)A parcel map delimiting the neighborhood of the proposed R-I(S) Overlay Zone and thespecific households in favor (green) or opposed (red) to the proposed zoning change.
4)A copy ofthe CC&R’s for tract 796.
5)A copy of the materials provided to each home owner explaining the process and
consequences of the proposed change in our neighborhood zoning.
We have been in contact with Chandler Lee, City Planning Consultant and Joan Taylor, Plarming
Manager and have discussed with them the requirements set forth by the City of Palo Alto to
establish the R’ 1 (S) zoning "overlay". As a result of those conversations we believe that our request
fulty meets the criteria set by the City.
1) We have received an "overwhehning" level of support for the Application.
2) The area of homes covered by the Overlay form a cohesive geographical area,
3) The area of the Overlay is exclusively" Single-Story, of a uniform architectural style
(Eichlers).
4) The homes are all situated on lots of moderate size.
We hope that you will agree that all of the requirements for establishment of an R-I(S) Single Story
Overlay desig-nation have been met and grant our Appli~cation.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter for our neighborhood and we look forward to
your expeditious handling of this request.
Arthur Grantz ~
VAN AUKEN CIRCLE
SINGLE STORY HEIGHT COMBINING
......................................... .........................................
I wish to verify my current support (or opposition) to the proposed single story overlay. I
wish to:
Support a single story overlay for the Van Auken Circle neighborhood.
NOT support a single story overlay for the Van Auken Circle
neighl~orhood.
.(Print name of property owner)
.(Signature of property owner)
.(Address of property Owner)
Please return to:
Chandler Lee, Planning Department, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
Attachment F
Single-Story Height Combining 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 greater degree 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.Prevailin~ 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 degirable 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.
S:~PLANkPLADIV~Single Story Overlays~sguide.doc 01/22/02 7:32 AM
Attachment G
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, CHARGES AND
AGREEMENTS AFFECTING THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS
TRACT NO. 796 GREER PARK
WHICH IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
DECLARATION made and dated the 3rd day of October, 1950 by San Jose Abstract & Title
Insurance Co., a corporation.
WHEREAS, San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance Co., the owner and subdivider of a certain
tract of land in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, shown upon a Map
entitled, "Tract No. 796 Greer Park being portions of Lots 3 & 4, Map of Subdivision No. 5, Seale
Tract within the City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, Calif.", which said Map was filed for Record in
the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on the 2nd day of
October, 1950 in Book 30 of Maps, at page 52.
WHEREAS, San Jose Abstract & Title insurance Co. is about to sell property shown on said
Map which it desires to subject to certain restrictions, conditions, covenants and agreements between it
and the purchasers of said property as hereinafter set forth;
NOW THEREFORE, San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance Co. declares that the property shown
on said Map is held and shall be conveyed subject to restrictions, conditions, covenants and
agreements between it and .the purchasers of said property as hereinafter set forth.
1. No lot shall beused except for resi’dential purposes. 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 than two cars.
2. No building shall be erected, placed, or altered on any lot until the constructions plans and ’
specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by the architectural
control committee as to quality of workmanship and materials, harmony of external design with
existing structures, and as to location with respect to topography and finish grade elevation. No fence
or wall shall be erected, placed or altered on anylot nearer to any street than the minimum building "
setback line unless similarly approved. Approval shall be as provided in paragraph 9.
3. The ground floor area of the main structure, exclusive of one-story open porches and garages, shall
not be less than 1000 square feet for a one-story dwelling.
4. All building setback lines and side line clearances shall be in accordance with the zoning ordinance
of the City of Palo Alto.
-5. No dwelling house shall be erected upon any lot or plot resulting from re-arrangement orre-
subdivision of original lots, as shown upon the recorded Map of this subdivision.
6, No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done
thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood.
7. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other
outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently.
8. No fowl or animals, other than household pets of the usual kind andin a reasonable number, shall
h~ nr he..~nffered to he. kent or maintained in said tract.
9. The architectural control committee is composed of Joseph L. Eichler, Lillian Eichler,
Robert Anshen and San Jose Abstract & Title Insurance Co. A majority of the committee
may designate a representative to act for it. In the event of death or resignation of any
member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a
successor. Neither the members of the committee nor its designated representatives shall
be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. At any
time, the then record owners of a majority of the lots shall have the power through a duly
recorded written instrument to change the membership of the committee or to withdraw
from the committee or restore to it any of its powers and duties.
10. The committee’s approval or disapproval as required in these covenants shall be in
writing. In the event the committee, or its designated representative, fails to approve or
disapprove within 30 days after plans and specifications have been submitted to it, or in
any event, if no suit to enjoin the construction has been commenced prior to the
completion thereof, approval will not be required and the related covenants shall be
deemed to have been fully complied with.
1 l. These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all
persons claiming under them for a period of twenty-five years from the date these
covenants are recorded, after which time said covenants shall be automatically extended
for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then
owners of the lots has been recorded agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in
part.
12. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons
violating or attempting to violate any covenant either to restrain violation or to recover
damages.
13. Invalidation Of any one of these covenants by judgment or court order shall in no wise
affect any of the other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
14. The breach of the foregoing restrictions and covenants or any entry by reason of such
breach shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any Deed of Trust on said promises,
but in the case of foreclosure and sale thereundei’, the purchaser, shall take title subject to
all of said restrictions and conditions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and sealed this instrument
the day and year first above written.
SAN JOSE ABSTRACT & TITLE INSURANCE CO.
By: F. W. Hilton, Vice-President
By: C. J. Clark,.Secretary
Recorded: October 3, 1950
In Book 2067 of Official Records, at page 242.
Recorder’s File No. 668107.
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
December 4, 2001
Attachment H
Dear:Property Owner
Planning Division
Subject:INFORMATION MEETING CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR
A SINGLE STORY ZONE DISTRICT REZONING IN TRACT 796
OF THE VAN AUKEN CIRCLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
This letter is to provide you with an update on the status of the application for Single
Story Height Combining Zone District in the Van Auken Circle neighborhood, to inform
you about a neighborhood meeting about the Single Story Height Combining Zone
District and to ask whether you wish to change your support of, or opposition to, the
proposed Single Story Height Combining Zone District.
On October 22, 2001, the City of Palo Alto received a letter from the owners of portions
of Tract 796 requesting the designation of a Single Story Height Combining Zone District
for the 58 single family parcels contained in the area (see attached map). The letter was
accompanied by signatures from 40 of the 58 property owners. City staff will hold a
neighborhood meeting to clarify information about the Single Story Height Combining
District, answer neighbors’ questions and poll property owners to determine if the current
number of supporters and opponents of the overlay has changed. The results of this
meeting will be brought to the City Council for their review.
What is a Single StolW Overlay ?
The City of Palo Alto adopted a Single Story Height Combining Zone District
(commonlyreferred to as a Single Story Overlay) to allow residents the opportunity to
restrict second story additions for houses in neighborhoods of predominately single story
character. The Single Story Height Combining District modifies the development
regulations of the Single Family (R-l) district by: a) limiting the height of structures to 17
feet and one habitable floor and b) increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40
percent. The Zoning Ordinance specifically allows application of this Overlay, where
appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas ofpredominately single-story
character. The primary effec~ of these revisions, in addition to limiting height and number
of stories, is the addition of building square footage allowed by the increase of five
percent in lot cover~ige.°Inpractice, however, lots exceeding 7,500 square feet wouldbe
allowed the same floor area as permitted in the standard R-1 zone. The following table
illustrates the house size that would be allowed with the overlay compared with what is
allowed if a single story deed restriction is enforced without a single story overlay district.
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-1 Single Story
Overlay
Lot Size
6,000
6,500 s.f.
7,000 s.£
7,500 s.f.
greater than
7,500 s.f.
Standard R-1 Zoning
With Second Floor
35% ground floor coverage
+ second floor =
2,550 square feet (s.f.)
35% ground floor coverage
+ second floor = 2,700 s.f.
35% ground floor coverage
+ second floor = 2,850 s.f.
35% ground floor coverage
+ second floor = 3,000 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
R-1 Zoning
Single Story Deed
Restriction
Enforced**
35% ground floor
coverage = 2,1 O0
square feet (s.f.)
35% ground floor
coverage = 2,275
square feet (s.£)
35% ground floor
coverage = 2,450
square feet (s.f.)
35% ground floor
coverage = 2,625
square feet (s.f.)
R-1 zoning applies
Overlay Zoning
Single Story
Only***
40% ground floor
coverage = 2,400
square feet (s.f.)
40% ground floor
coverage = 2,600
square feet (s.f.)
40% ground floor
coverage = 2,800
square feet (s.£)
40% ground floor
coverage = 3,000
square feet (s.f.)
R-1 zoning applies
*45 percent of first 5,000 square feet plus 30 percent of all square footage in excess of
5,000 square feet for floor area ratio (FAR) up to 35 percent on ground floor with
remainder of floor area on second floor
**35 percent lot coverage only
***40 percent of lot area
What is the effect of the Ci _ty’s new R-1 Zoning Ordinance Provisions?
Effective November 19, 2001, any new two-story house, second story addition or addition
to an existing second story greater than 150 square feet will be subject to an Individual
Review Process. This process is not intended to preclude second story homes, but to address
issues related to privacy, scale and mass, and streetscape. As part of the City’s review of the
R-1 standards, the City now allows full Floor Area Ratio on the ground floor. For lots less
than 7,500 square feet, the lot coyerage could exceed 40% of the current maximum for the
overlay districts. The Council has asked staffto review this provision to allow full FAR for
the overlay districts as well.
What is a single story deed restriction?
Most of the neighborhoods that have been rezoned to include a single story overlay also have
a private restriction in the deed of trust that limits the height of each home to one story.
Typically, the Deed of Trust has a "Sunset Clause" of twenty-five years. That is, the
restriction on first story homes is for twenty-five years and seven year increments thereafter
unless a majority of the property owners choose to eliminate the provision. The Deed of
Trust is a private agreement among propertyowners. The City has no authority to enforce
its provisions. The recourse available to a property owner opposed to construction of a two
story home with such a deed restriction is tO take private legal action.
Ifrezoned to the Overlay, the City will enforce the single story overlay provision by denying
building permits for any proposed two story home.
Vv21at do you think about the single story Overlay?
The City of Palo Alto invites you to attend a meeting to discuss the single story overlay. I
will be at the meeting to answer any questions you may have. In addition, Chandler Lee,
Project Planner, will be present to discuss previous applications. The meeting is
scheduled for December 20, 2000 at 7:00 PM at the Art Center (1313 Newell Road
near Embarcadero Road) in the Auditorium...
Attached is a form that the City will use to measure current support for a single story
overlay for Tract 796 in the Van Auken neighborhood. If you have already signed a
signature form to support or oppose the overlay, you should return this form to
verify your position. If you haven’t signed a form or you would like to change your
support of, or opposition to, the single story overlay, please fill out the ballot as soon
as possible, but no later than December 31, 2001 to: Chandler Lee, Planning
Department, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
You may also hand deliver the form to the meeting on December 20, 2001.
If you have questions about this meeting or the ballot process, please call Chandler Lee at
(650) 329-2441 or (415)282-4446.
Sincerely,
Joan Taylor, Planing Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Location Map’ of Van Auken Circle area (1 page)
Attachment B: Ballot Form
Attachment
2May 2002
Planning Dept.
City of Palo Alto
Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA. 94303
To Whom It May Concern;.
I am writing this letter to petition the city of Palo Alto that my house (998 Van Auken
Circle) not be included in the single story overlay on Van Auken Circle. Additionally this
petition requests the group of ten houses at the south corner of Van Auken & Greer also
be removed from the overlay zone (House numbers 982-998 Van Auken & 2792-2862
Greer).
Presently the residents on Van Auken Circle & parts of Greer road are requesting the city
to place a single story overlay zone covering my property. Although the neighbors do not
have the required 70% approval from the owners.they are close enough (68-69%) that the
measure is moving forward.
The reasons for requesting that the 10 houses at the south corner of Van Auken & Greer
be removed are as follows:
Most (8) of the ’no votes’ come from the block of these 10 houses.
®If this block of houses were removed from the overlay zone the measure would have
an overwhelming majority for the people that want to participate.
This would not restrict the majority from participating in the overlay zone.
The division would make a clean natural divide along street lines. As Lawrence St.
(situated behind the row of houses south of Van Auken Cir.) was not included in the
zone, houses in the proposed exclusion area that border houses outside of the area
would not be at a disadvantage due to neighbors that are not restricted by the zone.
Thank you for considering my petition and I look forward to hearing from you.
Alan D. Brodie
998 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
856.3061 (home)
(408) 563-5689 (work)
Cc: Chandler Lee MAY 0 9 Z00Z
Planning
Environn’~nt
Attachment J
File No(s): 02-ZC-01 ! ’~,t~Date: 05/02/02Tract: 796
Proposal: Zone change to add a Single-
Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
Single Story Overlay
400’
sflPlan~Pladiv~GISkSiteLocationMaps~VanAuckenCircleSingleSto~OverlayFlat.pdf
1889
RM-15
of
Palo A1 to
PLANNING DIVISION
File No(s): 02-ZC-01
Tract: 796
Proposal: Zone change to add a Single-
Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
to R-I(S)
Single Stor, y Overlay
Ten lots proposed .to be deleted
s:\Plan\Pladiv\GIS\SiteLocationMaps\VanAuckenCircleSingleStoryOvedayFlat.pdf
Date: 06/27102
200’ 400’
ATTACHMENT E
Ohlone
Elementary
School
The City of
Palo Alto
PLANNING DIVISION
File No(s):02-ZC.01
Tract: 796
Proposal: Resident’s request that city
initiate a zone change to add a Single-
Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
to R-I(S) Amended May 29, 2002
D ~ ProposalProposedSupportersOverlayas of 05/29/02
s:\P~an\P~adiv\G~s\siteL~cati~nMaps\vanAuckenCirc~esing~est~ry~ver~aywithsupp~rtersBigF~at.pdf
Date: 06/27/02
May-22-02 01:43P s z cole atty 1_650 948 1463 P.01
ATTACHMENT F
I am either a resident, resident owner or owner of the property at the address
listed next to my name below. I have signed this petition to express my views
against the inclusion of my home in that portion of Tract 796 to be included in any
single story overlay rezoning being proposed and or considered by the Planning
and Transportation Commission of Palo Alto or subsequently considered by the
City Council of Palo Alto.
Name (print)Address Signature Date
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
frank Iockfeld [fmlva@pacbell.net]
Tuesday, May 28, 2002 2:55 PM
plandiv_info@city, palo-alto.ca.us
Single Story Overlay for Tract 796
Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission:
~X/e are unable to attend the meeting of May 29, 2002 where this item is
agendized under New Business.
~YJe have signed in support of the Overlay Zoning for two properties,
966 and 970 Van Auken Circle..
~YJe urge the Commission to approve the Overlay and recommend its
approval by the Council.
Sincerely,
Frank & Betty Lockfeld
966 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ph & Fax 858 0877
fmlva@pacbe|l.net
May23,2002
Zariah Betten
Planning Department, City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Upon further consideration, I would like to withdraw my support for
the Van Auken Circle single-story overlay.
Sincerely,
Jo-’r~i Okamoto
934 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-494-2675
City of P@!o a ~-~
Pa!o A!to, CA 94303
05/29/2002 16:49 1-650-494-1B10 TEC-ED PASO ALTO CAL PAGE el
03O
The Pacific .B obehaworai GrouR
Comprehensive Psychiatric Care
28 May 02
Planning. & Transportation Division
City of Palo Alto ~
Civic Center
250 Hamilton
Palo Alto, CA 94301
William E. Cherry, MD
Gregory C~ Sazima, MD-
John R. Stephens, MD
Saul Wasserman, MD
File No:: 02-ZC-OI, Single Story Overlay for Tract 796
Dear Sirs:
My wife and Icontinue to oppose the proposed single story
overlay for Van Auken Circle for the following reasons:
¯ i. We do not consider ourselves to be part of a "Van Auke~
Neighborhood" as we know-no one on Van Auken Circle.
2. A significant amount of the oposition to this proposal
comes from people who live on Greet Road (5 out of 12).
3. The proposal only covers one side of Greer Road. Our
neighbors on the opposite side of the street~are not affected.
4. Given the nature of the homes and properties, adding~a
second story is the .only practical way to increase the amount of
space.
5. In the "Midtown Area" there are already a significant
number of two-story houses, whi.ch makes this proposal seem
arbitrary and capricious.
6. I have grave concerns that such a proposal will have a
negative~impact on the value of my property in the future. If
people all around this area can add a second story, and people
within this small enclave cannot, interest in buying properties
within this area would diminish.
7. Would the City of Palo Alto then not be responsible
to reimburse property owners for any loss of value of the
properties?
8. We have lived in our home for 30 years and are nearing
retirement age~, and do not want to see our-retirement invesment
decrease in value.
2516 Samaritan Drive, Suite G ~ San Jose, California 95124 ~ Phone: 408/358-7030 o Fax: 408/358-7031
In light of the above, we continue to oppose a single story
overlay ona small encl~ve of homes. A~ the very least we
do not want to be included in any such proposal, and a significant
number of ourGreer~Road neighbors apparently also do not wish
to be included.
Thank you~for your consideration.
erely yours,
ohn and Stephal
2742 Grer Road
Palo Alto, CA 4303
)hens
VAN AUKEN CIRCLE
SINGLE STORY HEIGHT COMBINING......................................... ...................
I wish to verify my current support (or opposition) to the proposed single story overlay. I
wish to:
~ Support a single story overlay for the Van Auken Circle neighborhood.
/ NOT support a single story Overlay for the Van Auken Circle
neighborhood.
(Print name of property owner)
(Signature of property owner),
(Address of property Owner)
Please return to:
Chandler Lee, planning Department, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
STANLEY Z. COLE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
26620 St. Francis Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
December 18, 2001
Chandler lee
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Lee:
This is responsive to your letter of December 4, 2001, directed to Property Owner
and concerning the Van Auken Circle neighborhood.
I am a property owner and co-own the property at 2808 Greer Road with my wife.
This address, although not on the Van Auken Circle appears on the map
included in that mailing. We are against designating the Tract as shown on the
map as a Single Story Overlay for reasons as set forth below.
In the letter of December 4, it is stated that the Single Story Overlay is to allow
residents the opportunity to restrict second story additions for houses in
neighborhoods of predominately single story character. Although this may be a
fair description of the Van Auken Circle, it is believed not to apply to some of the
homes along Greer Road.
Specifically as I look out the front window of my home I see the home at the lot
identified as 1098. This lot is almost directly across the street and is a 2 story
home. I can also look down the street to the home at the lot designated 2779
which is also a 2 story home. Thus in looking out my front window 2 of the 4
houses I can see are 2 story homes.
This circumstance suggests to me that Greer Road at least for the lots numbered
2792 through 2882 as well as the lots across the street (including the 2 lots on
which there are presently two 2 story homes) cannot be fairly described as a
neighborhood of predominately single story character.
These circumstances lead me to urge if any restriction on development of
property into two story homes is considered, that these Greer Road properties be
exempt from the grouping. I.know of no reason why a certain section of Tract
796 cannot now be exempt from treatment that may be extended to other
phone 650 941 0887 fax 650 948 1463
sections of this Tract in recognition that at least the pocket of properties along
¯ this segment of Greet Road differs from the rest.
I would further add that the complications that are attached to one story homes in
this neighborhood where it is necessary to build at least above a certain height in
recognition that this is part of a flood zone suggests that development of new
housing in this area will be very slow. A house which .is a single story and is at a
raised height is not as desirable or as aesthetically pleasing as a two story which
includes a raised section compelled by the flood zone requirements. ~ln essence
the flood zone complication suggests that if the Single Story Overlay comes into
existence, housing in this area will be frozen in time. This is not like a Green
Meadow area where the restriction of the flood zone do not apply.
In any event, it is not our intention to prevent the area of the Van Auken Circle
from adopting any restriction it wishes. It is only our interest to see that the one
story restriction is not made to apply to our home on Greer Road where 2 story
homes now exist.
Since our views do not exactly conform to the wording of the form to show
support or objection to the proposal we have set our views out in this letter and
we do hope they can be taken into account.
Sincerely,
Stanley Z.
ATTACHMENT G
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes~
May 29, 2002
EXCERPT
S_Sj~Ie Story Overlay for..~ract 796*: Request by Property Owners of a Portion
of Tract 796 for Consideration of a single story overlay zoning in the Greer Park
Neighborhood, Van Auken Circle. This item is tentatively scheduled for a public
heating with the City Council on July 22, 2002. File Nos. 02-ZC-01.
Mr. Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner: Good evening, good to see you all again. This is
the ninth, single story overlay that the City of Palo Alto has received since 1992. The
request was submitted by 40 of the 58 homes in portions of Tract 796. Staff held a
neighborhood meeting on December 20 of last year to explain the overlay and answer
questions from people in the neighborhood. Subsequent to that date City Council
initiated the rezoning on February 19 of this year. Compared with recent overlay
requests the City has received only a minor amount correspondence all of which is in
front of you this evening. Since the Staff Report was issued Staff has received six items
of correspondence the net result of which is to change the number of homeowners in
support of the overlay from 40 down to 38 and the level of support from 69% to 66%.
Because the request meets all four criteria established in the guidelines adopted by the
City Council Staff is recommending approval of the boundary as proposed subject to the
findings contained in the Staff Report. The project subsequent to your recommendation
is tentatively scheduled for City Council review on July 22. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Lisa.
Ms. Grote: Thank you very much. I did want to just add that a Commissioner had asked
the question about the site coverage that is allowed as part of the single story overlay
versus what is allowed as part of the new individual review process for single story
homes. In the single story overlay the site coverage is limited to 40%. That doesn’t
allow a single story building to quite use all of its allowed FAR. In the new individual
review ordinance changes if you do a single story house you can actually exceed that
40% site coverage in order to use all of the FAR on the single story on the ground floor
so that there is a slight discrepancy there. We do intend as part of the Zoning Ordinance
to rectify that so that single story overlays will in fact get to use all of their FAR on the
ground floor. So that will be consistent.
Chair Burt: So that will apply retroactively to any previously approved single story
overlays?
Ms. Grote: That is correct.
Page 1
Chair Butt: Any other questions by Commissioners before hearing from the public? We
have .a number of members of the public here to speak. Each member is allowed up to
five minutes but since we are late in the evening and have a good number of speakers we
would certainly like to encourage members of the public if you endorse what a previous
speaker has said, please feel free to cite that and we will recognize that.
Our first speaker is Ellyn Segal to be followed by Eddie Wood.
Ms. Ellyn Segal, 998 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: Good evening. I will try to be very
brief. I want to start out by saying that I do agree with the issues. By the way I am the
owner of 998 Van Auken Circle with Allen Brody, my husband. We do agree with issues
of privacy that are important to the neighborhood and we do agree with certain issues of
design concept. What we disagree with is the method to achieve these goals. We do not
believe that a single story overlay is the way to go. There are a number of issues both in
the report and otherwise that we feel still need to be addressed. There is the issue of what
is the question of the vast majority. As Mr. Lee just said the number has changed, now
we are at 66%. The criteria that Mr. Lee referred to, one of the four criterion is 70% and
we are not at that number. A number should be a number for all occasions. The report
by Mr. Lee had to change one of these guidelines. The definition of a mid sized lot had
to be changed. The single story overlay guidelines defines a mid sized lot as 7,000 to
8,000 square feet. In order to get this single story overlay through they had to redefine
this because the lots are so small. Again, are the statistics and the numbers valid for all
guidelines or just for certain of them? According to the original guidelines had they
stayed with the definition of a mid sized lot out of the 58 houses 50 are below definition
of a mid size lot. That in my mind is a vast majority. The report does not give any
credence at all to the impact of the flood zoning restrictions. The entire area is in the
flood zone and as such is required to obey certain guidelines. For instance if there is a
fire and the house is destroyed and needs to be totally rebuilt those guidelines would
certainly be impacted by the single story overlay. This is not addressed at all.in the
report. While sitting the last two and one-half hours listening I actually was very
impressed by Mr. Scherer’s comments on the library. I jotted down some and I am going
paraphrase and quote them the best I can because I think they are very applicable. He
said, Removal from a community of something from its past, the anxiety of what the
replacement will be, what monster might loom, have both sides of the baby and the shift
to a flexible model. These are all very applicable to the library as your panel has voted
on. I think that they are also applicable to homeowners in Palo Alto. What we would
like to do is use the recent tool that has been devised which is the new single story family
individual review process that has only recently been put into effect. We feel that this
process done properly should address the issues that are important to people, privacy,
design, etc. We do not feel that by implementing on top of that a single story overlay
would be beneficial. As such I would request the panel to address one of two issues here.
One would be to deny the overlay due to some of the facts that I previously mentioned
and allow the single story individual review process to do its job. This would be as Mr.
Scherer said a shift to the flexible model. The other would be that if the panel decides
not to do this to consider a petition that has been submitted by myself and my husband to
remove a block of ten homes from the 58 homes that are liSted. Out of these ten homes
Page 2
that are contingent, eight of the ten, or 80%, voted no. As such we would request to be
removed. Thank you.
Chair Butt: Thank you. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Could you show us?
Mr. Lee: I have a graphic here let me show you. If I might through the Chair, the
neighbors who have requested the overlay are in attendance and just handed you their
speaker slip. Normally, we let them go first but I leave that up to you.
The homeowners in opposition to the overlay or who are not in support of the overlay are
shown in white. The homeowners who are in support of the overlay are shown in the
tone. The two homeowners who have changed their vote within the past few days are
shown with an ’x’. They were previously shown as supporting and they are now shown
as non-supporting. The net effect again would be to reduce the number of supporters
from 40 to 38 and the percentage of support from 69% to 66%.
Commissioner Cassel: My question was they said there were ten homeowners, are these
ten homeowners all scattered? I thought there was an outlined area of ten homes that.
were trying to be opted out.
Mr. Lee: The way I read the map up on the wall is there are actually eight homeowners
who are in the bottom right. ¯
Commissioner Cassel: Could she show us which ten she is talking about? Are they
scattered or are they all together?
Ms. Segal: It is this group over here. So it the five houses on Van Auken Circle and the
five houses on Greer, which makes ten of which eight of them have said no.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Okay, thank you. At this time I would like to ask the applicant’s
representative to speak. Erik Whitehom. Good evening.
Mr. Erik Whitehorn, 906 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: Thank you. I came this evening
to represent the application. It has been a nearly two-year process for us in the
neighborhood. I guess more than a year ago nine of us in the neighborhood put together a
letter that we circulated with a body of information to all of our neighbors for them to
consider in entertaining the potential to do the single story overlay for our neighborhood.
The process has really been rather gratifying for me personally because it has allowed me
to sort of have a better understanding of the breadth of my neighbors and their interests.
One of the consequences of that has really been that it seems that everyone in this Van
Auken Circle, Greer and Amarillo neighborhood genuinely values this Eichler look of
our neighborhood and wants to enhance the value of our homes. There really isn’t a
Page 3
mission here to create an Eichler museum. This sort of ambiance of our current Eichler
architecture, which you are all familiar with knowing architecture .yourselves with the
low profiles of the homes and the extensive glass in the rear and sides of our houses and
the fact that these homes are designed to maximize the privacy that we have on relatively
small lots. So we all in the neighborhood genuinely value our houses.
What the discussion has really been sort of evolving around is the understanding that
there needs to be some balance between the right of us as homeowners to build and be
creative with our homes and add value to them and of course the right of each of us to
enjoy the homes that we are currently living in. That has really been the impetus for this
exercise. I think we very strongly believe that the single story overlay provides that
balance and it genuinely serves the purpose in addition of eliminating the threat or all of
us now for the potential for civil litigation in resolving two story development in our
neighborhood. So by trying to take advantage of what the City offers us as a community
to assume the responsibility through planning of restricting two story development
instead of having that burden on us as individual homeowners to move that process
forward. It really represents a preferred solution to a fundamental architectural challenge
of our neighborhood. This has been a discussion where all of the information that we
presented to the homeowners has first passed through Chandler Lee’s office for factual
accuracy and the general content so that we are not trying to represent something that is
not the case. That it is really an effort to say well, we have CC&Rs on these properties,
they represent a level of restriction that is mediated through civil litigation, that is a
reality. We are interested in having the City assume that responsibility so we don’t have
to sue each other. These Eichler homes, this neighborhood, the way the houses are
constructed, there is a reason initially for those CC&Rs, that reason has not changed and
there has been no effort in the history of thi.s neighborhood to change them. That is a
given for our neighborhood.
In going through this exercise we believe we have met the four criteria that are required
by the City to move this overlay forward. It is a succinct geographical boundary. You
have read the Staff Report. This comprehensive neighborhood focusing on Van Auken
Circle, Van Auken Circle, I have lived there for eight years now. We have our
Halloween and Fourth of July parades. We have our May Pole Dance on May Day. It is
a cohesive genuine neighborhood. As far as the reality of the small to moderate lot sizes
one comment earlier about defining moderate in these lot sizes, it might be worth noting
that there are some lots that are technically large. You will see on the lower right-hand
portion of that overhead that those look like large lots. Now originally and I don’t
remember when this happened but there was a creek which was put in a pipe that is at the
back lower right-hand side of all of those lots there. The City allowed those homeowners
to acquire that extra space. However, the original utilities still run through the middle of
those backyards. So there is a utility easement as a result of that. I don’t know what the
impact is on that for all kinds of issues of construction. So even though those 10ts may
appear large they are perhaps functionally less large. Of course the similar architecture
goes without saying. As to the current fluctuation this week of the body of opinion, as of
this evening Chandler tells me we are down to 66%, the City Council I am hoping will
hear your recommendation for this application towards the end of July and those numbers
Page 4
may change between now and then. I do understand that there is a certain leeway in the
consideration of this application as to the number because of the reality of the CC&Rs
that fundamentally restrict two story development in the neighborhood.
The final comment that I wanted to make was in reference to the exclusion petition. This
has been a process ongoing now for two years as I mentioned. Recently some
homeowners have come forward with the idea of changing the boundaries, One home, by
the way, in this area was recently sold. Escrow closed at the end of last year. Those
homeowners have communicated to several of us that they are now in favor of the
overlay but their paperwork is not in and so nothing official has happened. For those
people who are interested in the overlay within this proposed exclusion area it would be
unfair to them. It would also be,perhaps equally unfair to the other members of this
community who had supported this application with the understanding that it was the
community that was going to be addressed by this application. So this exclusion tends to
change that and people have not had a chance to voice their opinions with respect to a
different geographical boundary. I think that is what I needed to say. If you have any
questions I. would be more than happy to answer them for you. Other than that I think
there are other people here who did have a few things to say. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Eddie Wood to be followed by
Stanley Cole.
Mr. Eddie Wood, 986 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: Thanks for your attention. I think
you have the letters already, right? I basically echo the first speaker who is against the
overlay for the reasons already stated. I came to this area about seven or eight years ago.
The reason I haven’t spoken up earlier is I wasn’t aware that there was a process for the
decision. I thought it was set in stone. So after I was recently made aware recently that I
can at least voice my opinion that is what I did. After I did I think two more homeowners
voiced their opinions. Thank you for your attention.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Stanley Cole to be followed by James MacCoun.
Mr. Stanley Z. Cole, 2808 Greer Road, Palo Alto: Good evening. I appeared at the
February meeting of the City Council and my name is mentioned in this most recent
report for that reason. What is lacking in this most recent report is the substance of my
comments so I thought I ought to come tonight and express them to the Planning
Commission. First of allI echo the first speaker’s comments about the overall pattem of
this thing but would point out to the Planning Commission that the border line that we are
being shown up there is in fact arbitrary. The original tract that was created included the
other side of Greer Road that is now excluded. My home is on Greet Road and we look
out and see two two-story houses directly across the way. One is directly across and the
other is two houses to the right of that. We are not in the neighborhood, from our point
of view, where in fact the area is predominantly single story. From our point of view we
are looking at out of four houses we see two two-story houses out in front of our place. I
don’t know that you can use that test when you look at the particular areas. If you look at
that particular zone that has been highlighted which was the reason I appeared at the City
Page 5
Council meeting, I felt that zone could be uniquely set apart and the arbitrary line shifted
somewhat. I see no reason why it can’t be. Most of those people want out. Why should
they be pushed into this kind of a zoning alirangement?
Something tt{at was mentioned at the City Planning meeting and again it has been
mentioned slightly tonigh(is the flood zone problem. That is not an easy problem. That
upsets the whole policy stated in this whole report. The flood zone in this area, my home
if I wanted to rebuild has to be raised five and one-half feet. No other flood zone
applying to any of the other redone single zoned houses in the City of Palo Alto have to
go up more than about two feet. If I build five and one-half feet above my present home
level I am pushed into a place where I am looking into my neighbor’s yards, I am
upsetting the whole neighborhood. I am not a single story house any more as compared
to the predominant area. I don’t even have to go and build the whole house over to get
forced into that kind of position. The flood zone is there for any kind of major
reconstruction. So I think that is something that should be taken into account.
I would point out that the petition that has been submitted with the number of houses, the
66% houses listed, was a petition done with certain facts that are actually attached to the
current repot. They are in Attachment H of the current report. They show that the new
affect of this single story overlay would be to increase the size of the square feet for the
houses built in that single story overlay area. In fact, at the beginning of this report it is
pointed out that in fact you will reduce the sizes of the houses if the property is less than
7,500 feet. The comment on the reduction appears at page five of the report where it
shows in that chart the reductions in the end right-hand,column. The first one is 150 the
second is 100 and so on. Most of the houses and I would say only a few of the houses get
over the 7,500 square foot lot size in this whole tract area. The significant thing here is
that the people who signed the petition were not aware that in fact they were signing for a
reduction in square footage for their own future home if they get a single story overlay. I
must admit I don’t follow exactly the comments that were made earlier about FAR. That
may have a bearing on this but certainly the people who signed petitions didn’t know in
fact what the actual facts really are, which are before you. In Attachment H at the back
of this report they show that these things are at the same sizes or bigger. I will cutoff at
this point and if I can answer any questions I would be pleased to do so.
Chair Burt: I have one-question. I think you alluded to information that was provided the
signers of the petition that wasn’t clear on the allowable square footage. Can you point
us to where that is?
Mr. Cole: Attachment H. If you look at Attachment H it is showing that if a single story
zoned house with the overlay it is going to be 40% or 2,400 square feet. Do you have
Attachment H?
Chair BuT: Yes.
Mr. Cole: The last column is the overlay district.
Page 6
Chair Butt: The table on page two of Attachment H?
Mr. Cole: The column before that is with the single story zone effect, 2,100. This is the
information that was used at the time of the circulation of the petition. The actual facts
are shown on page five of the present report which shows that up to 7,500 there is a
reduction in fact. So I can’t say that the leaders of the petition changed their mind
because of this but I can say that the people who signed did not sign with basic facts
before them. No place has anybody spoken of this flood zone problem of five and one-
half feet. Iam speaking specifically in terms of the flood zone information that came
from the Planning Department. I will give you the name of the person who gave it to me.
He says the highest anybody has to go in any of the present areas that are zoned flood
zone and have been forced into the single story overlay is two and one-half feet: This are
is five or thereabouts.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question for you sir. Sir, were you told by someone in
the Planning Department that should you wish to rebuild your home you would have to
actually raise the first floor level five and one-half feet?
Mr. Cole: Yes. Would you like the name?
Commissioner Bialson: If you do have a name that would be helpful.
Mr. Cole: I believe the name is Steve Emslie.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you, I will direct my questions to that person later. Thank
you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Mr. Cole, that is our Planning Director who happens to be here
tonight. May I ask the speakers to include their addresses when they introduce
themselves. Our next speaker is James MacCoun to be followed by Dan Blachman.
Mr. James MacCoun, 950 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: I am in favor of the overlay and
I am opposed to excluding from the overlay any houses on Van Auken Circle. Now for
those people who oppose the overlay I want to say to them they do not have a legal right
to construct a second story house. There are deed restrictions, which prevent them from
doing so. Even if the City of Palo Alto gives them a building permit for a second story
they will not have the legal right to build a second story. The deed restrictions cover all
of the Van Auken properties. We are all subject to them and we may all mutually and
enforce them. Any resident of our circle can go to court for an injunction to stop building
any time after a permit has been issued even after construction has begun. I am
convinced that a court will stop construction and that this will be upheld through all
levels of appeals. The California appeals court has already considered deed language,
which is virtually identical to the language which is in the deeds for Van Auken Circle.
Where California Court of Appeals has stopped construction permanently on virtually the
Page 7
same language in deeds. So this precise issue has already been litigated and decided by
the California courts, decided in favor of single Stories where they are limited in deed
restrictions. However, if there is a single story overlay this can make these sorts of
¯ lawsuits between neighbors and friends unnecessary. It can minimize the hard feelings
that would result. So for the residents who are opposed to the overlay I ask you to drop
your opposition. For the residents who are asking to be excluded from the overlay I ask
you to drop that as well because even if you are excluded the deed restriction will still
apply. You still will not be permitted to build a second story. For the Planning Division
I ask you, please, submit this to the City Council so it can vote on it. Submit it without
any exclusions from Van Auken Circle. That way, residents will not need to sue each
other in order to preserve this neighborhood that we all agreed to in these deed
restrictions.
Since I am offering v~hat is basically a technical opinion on the enforceability of this law
I think it is fair to give you a bit about my background. I am a California attorney with
15 years experience. I previously worked for one of the world’s largest law firms. I
presently work for one of the world’s largest corporations. I graduated from law school
magna cum laud. I actually graduated with the highest grade in four of my classes. One
of these was the real property class, the very same subject that I have been talking about
with you today. So I want to thank you for listening to my opinions. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: Excuse me, sir, I would like to ask you a question. It appears that
there are some people in the neighborhood who have in fact built two story houses. I am
presuming here that the way that they were able to accomplish that was the fact that they
were never pursued by a lawsuit or an injunction. In other words, they built it and no one
challenged them. Is that fair to say?
Mr. MacCoun: That would be exactly right. In Van Auken Circle there are no single
story houses whatsoever. Not a single one.
Chair Bu~: You mean two-story?
Mr. MacCoun: I’m sorry, exactly. There are no two-story houses in Van Auken Circle
itself, not a single one. Out on Greer there are a couple that I have certainly noticed
myself. I am not advocating any exclusion but if there were to be an exclusion the one
that would make sense would be Greer Road itself but not Van Auken Circle itself
because Van Auken Circle is a self-contained community, all of the houses are single
story. You walk around this circle as we all do, it is a self-contained community, and we
pass each one. They are all single story and it would really be wrong to exclude that part
of the circle which is in white down there from the rest of the circle because it would
create a permanent division dividing residents who are really a very cohesive bunch.
Page 8
Chair Butt: I have one follow up question. One of the previous speakers had alluded to
the far side of Greer being part of the original 796 Tract. Is that all of those properties
along Greer that are part of the Tract?
Mr. MacCoun: Yes, that would be right. Actually that is irrelevant to this issue. They
have the right to take this issue up themselves. They have a right to ask for some single
story overlays. If they are motivated to do so they will go ahead. They simply haven’t
done so up to this point and ft doesn’t foreclose them from doing so but obviously as you
include greater numbers of houses then it is harder to get a consensus. The policies of the
City of Palo Alto do not require the single family overlay to be on a tract-by-tract basis
but instead an identifiable neighborhood basis. If you look at Van Auken Circle itself it
is as clearly an identifiable neighborhood or identifiable community as anyone could find
anywhere. If we were to add Metro Circle and add the Moffett Circle we would be
diluting that community that we have. I happen to see people over on those circles
occasionally but that is quite different. I could rattle off the names of probably half of the
people on the circle as I walk by.
Chair Burt: The relevance of my question had to do with what neighborhood would vote
on the removal of CC&Rs. thank you.
Mr. MacCoun: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Our next speaker is Dan Blachman to be followed by Pancho Chang.
Mr. Dan Blachman, 990 Van Auken Circle, Pal0 Alto: Good evening. Regarding the
proposed single story overlay my self and my wife do not agree with either the letter or
the spirit of this proposed new regulation. We believe that the existing covenants and
restrictions when combined with the City’s brand new singl- family individual review
guidelines will adequately protect the character of our neighborhood. Additionally, after
carefully reading the regulation as it is written we have concluded that the height
restrictions that are specified in the regulation would really prohibit us from adequately
rebuilding our house in the event of a catastrophe. The reason is because of the flood
zone that has been mentioned. Now I also took it upon myself to find out what height we
would have to raise our house to in the event that we rebuilt it. It is a significant height.
It is more than four feet. When you look at a 17-foot maximum height limit you are
starting to encroach on things that I think would be a reasonable design for a home. You
are starting to tell people that they can’t have ceiling heights in excess of ten or 12 feet.
In addition to that the tract slopes from one side to other so the height at which the first
floor would need to be started is different from one side to the other. So this unequally
affects the people in this, eventhough it is fairly small, single story overlay zone. I am
not really in favor necessarily of having some exclusion zone from the single story
overlay. I think really most of the people who mentioned it are not. We are just
frustrated because this has come upon us and we don’t really want it and it seems the
only possible way out. Once this process of developing a single story overlay got started
those of us who were not in favor of it were sort of playing catch up because the people
who were in favor of it made themselves aware of the whole proces.s of enacting it in the
Page 9
course of doing so and the rest of us didn’t even find out about it until the time when
there was someone coming to our door asking us whether we would vote yea or nay. So
we, my wife and I, believe that because of the new proposed individual review guidelines
in addition to the existing CC&Rs that we really wouldn’t have a problem with people
building the kinds of homes that those in favor of this overlay are trying to prevent. I
think that pretty much covers it. I really hope that when you look at that map you kind of
consider to yourself does that look like overwhelming support to you. Not only is it not
overwhelming to me but it seems that it heading in the direction of less support and not
greater support.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Pancho Chang to be followed by Craig Heinselman.
Mr. Pancho Chang, 942 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: Good evening. My wife and I
didn’t sign the petition and don’t support the overlay because we think it goes too far.
Nonetheless we believe that the entire neighborhood should be considered in or out
depending on what the majority feels and how you all interpret the regulation. I believe
the rectangular shape makes sense and if the standards are met I support the Staff
recommendation that the boundary be retained. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Craig Heinselman to be followed by Julie Callan.
Mr. Craig Heinselman, 936 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: My wife and I did not support
the overlay either. We weighed the advantages and disadvantages and found the
disadvantages outweighed the advantages. That having been said we feel also as Pancho
mentioned that it is a cohesive neighborhood and we have to either go one way or the
other we can’t start parceling it up into individual homes that have the overlay and the
next house doesn’t. So we support the Staff recommendation that the boundary be
retained to include all 58 houses.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Julie Callan as our final speaker.
Ms. Julie Callan, 994 Van Auken Circle, Palo Alto: I am in one of the shaded homes in
the area we have been talking about. I just have a brief note to read. I support the single
story overlay because of the relatively small lot sizes in our neighborhood and the large
windows that are part of the Eichler architecture. Two story homes significantly affect
the views and the sense of privacy of the neighbors. By supporting the zoning proposal
the substantial majority of our neighbors are saying that they would choose not to have
two story homes on our circle. If the City enforces this desire of the majority it would
make suits between neighbors unnecessary. I object to the proposal submitted by the
Brodie’s that excludes their home, my home and eight near ours from the plan. I disagree
with the suggestion that these ten homes are distinctly separate from the rest as five of
these homes are part of the continuous Van Auken Circle, which is the primary area of
consideration. Accordingly I would strongly encourage you to include these ten homes in
the single story overlay. Thank you.
Page lO
Chair Butt: Thank you. Just for the record, we have a letter from Ms. Callan as well as
one from Daniel Blachman and Barbara Steward entered into the record. Lisa.
Ms. Grote: Thank you very much. I did want just respond to one of the comments made
about the flood plain concem. That is again as part of the individual review ordinance
changes the Commission and Council did approve additional height when homes are
located in the flood plain which would allow a home to have half of the height that is
needed to meet the flood plain requirement added to the overall height of the house. So if
you need to raise your house by four feet to meet flood plain requirements you could
have an additional two feet in height to compensate for needing to respond to those flood
plain requirements. That is the other element that we will, as part of the Zoning
Ordinance, apply to single story overlays so that it is consistent with the R-1 Ordinance
changes that were made at the end of last year. I did want to clarify that people would
have that additional height to work with.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Just following up on that. If the single story overlay was applied
to this tract as requested and the Zoning Ordinance changes that we are anticipating were
not yet in effect what recourse would a homeowner have if they were doing a major
remodel and the flood plain requirements came into play? Would they have to go
through a variance or a homeowner’s exception process in order to go beyond the 17-foot
height limit?
Ms. Grote: At this point they would be required to meet existing requirements and if they
wanted to apply for a variance they could. They would need to make a case that there is a
unique or unusual situation that would warrant additional height or other modifications.
Commissioner Packer: I have one other question. How high are the current homes there?
I notice that there is a high ceiling with [colestory] skylight features on many of the
homes.
Mr. Lee: The folks who live there could say better than me but in my driving around the
neighborhood my recollection was that they are 12 to 14 feet, in that range.
Chair Butt: Do any members of the public have information on the home heights?
Mr. Whitehom: Generally I think Chandler is about right the heights are 12 to 14 feet.
There are some flat as well as sloped roof designs. So the flat roofs are the 12 and the
sloping ones are 14. There are a number of remodels that have taken place in the
neighborhood where those heights are somewhat higher. I think some of them may be
approaching 16 feet or so. I know my own home has been remodeled and I have a lovely
13-foot high ceiling in a very large master bedroom. Of course that would be entirely
consistent with a single story overlay.
Chair Butt: Did any other member of the public have additional information?
Page 11 ,
Ms. Segal: There are a few homes that have been remodeled on the circle. Those tend to
go higher than the original ones. We actually did ask one of the neighbors who appeared
to have one of the highest ones, as you said the high sloping with the windows, and he
wouldn’t tell us. He said it was supposed to be 17 feet. That was his answer.
Chair Bu~: Thank you. At this time I would like to close the public comment period and
open up to the Commissioners for questions or actions. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I will start with a question for Wynne. Wynne, does this overlay
ordinance allow for variances?
Ms. Furth: There is nothing about this ordinance that disallows or allows variances more
than the general R-1 Zoning would. As Lisa says, you would have to show unique
circumstances and certainly it would be preferable for us to amend the ordinance to carry
out Council’s instructions as far as the Zoning Ordinance Update sooner rather than later.
Commissioner Bialson: I take from your comments that a variance rather than a
homeowners exemption would be required. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: That I should check with Lisa about.
Ms. Grote: If it is a new home a variance isthe applicable exception process. If it is an
addition to an existing home then it is a homeowner exception.
Commissioner Bialson: So if for whatever reason a home was destroyed and they had to
rebuild before we got around to finishing the Zoning Ordinance Update then an
individual would have to get a variance which as I recall the variance rules is extremely
hard to do.
Ms. Grote: There are three findings that have to be made to have an approved variance.
One is that there is a unique circumstance. The second is that there is a hardship on the
site, a physical hardship which prevents you from meeting a standard requirement. The
third is that there is no detrimental effect on your neighbor. Typically they are difficult to
make those findings.. In a flood plain you could conceivably make the case that there is a
unique circumstance and there is an inability to meet the height requirement and still
meet the flood plain requirements.
Commissioner Bialson: I have some more questions but I will hold them for later.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: I will ask a flood plain question. This is hypothetical and I know
it is difficult to forecast but if there were a flood, based on your (Staff collectively)
experience with 1998’s flood it affected entire neighborhoods, right? In other words, I
am thinking you didn’t have the case where one property owner in the middle of the
Page 12
block was adversely affected without affecting other people on either side of them. So I
guess what I am getting at is that eventually you are going to have an entire block face
that is going to come up four feet. They would all be equally impacted or would you not
want to stretch that far?
Ms. Grote: Actually, in the flood plain the amount that a house needs to be raised does
change from lot to lot because it is measured based on what the elevation is and where
the pad is located on the lot. So it is conceivable that some houses would have to be
raised more than others. So it wouldn’t be an across the board exactly equal amount. In
the previous flood damage variances were not required to repair damage to homes. So
we did not have that case.
Commissioner Cassel: I think it is only done when the building actually gets replaced or
major repairs are done. So if you are just repairing from the damage you don’t have to
lift it is my understanding.
Ms. Furth: We do have direction from the Council to amend this ordinance. So our
planning has been directed towards that rather than interim solutions involving variances
or things similar to that. It has been our experience that within a block, and it was
experiences of people during the flood too, that houses sometimes the flooding would hit
a house, skip two and hit another. So we haven’t seen an overall pattern nor have we
seen enormous rebuilding.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Nor did we see any completely destroyed homes. There was
damage but no one home was completely destroyed.
Commissioner Griffin: That is encouraging. Then I have a follow up question. I should
remember this because this is the second one of these single story overlay questions that I
have been involved with. Last summer when we did Elsinor what was the percentage
that we finally netted out? It was less than 70% was it not?
Mr. Lee: It was less than 70%, I want to say 68% and I have it in my file here but it was
roughly 67% to 68% somewhere in there.
Chair Burt: Chandler was that the lowest that we had had of any?
Mr. Lee: That was the lowest of the eight that we had previously except for the first one
where we were kind of struggling with the rules. For those that we have kept track the
Elsinor one was the lowest, that’s correct.
Chair Burt: We had a guideline previously established as to what the threshold was.
What was that guideline and how was that established?
Mr. Lee: Actually the guidelines that are in your Staff.Report outline the four criteria.
They do not spell out in writing the numerical percentage that is looked at in these
situations. I think the reason is that the drafters of the guidelines realized that there are
Page 13
differences among neighborhoods and to set a definitive standard like 70% might not
work in one n~eighborhood and it might in the others. The guidelines do specifically say
that for neighborhoods that are subject to a deed restriction limiting the heights to one
story that the guidelines are somewhat flexible and that you have the discretion to
approve projects that may not have as many votes for example as another neighborhood.
Seventy percent is the unwritten guideline.
Chair Butt: Wynne.
Ms. Furth: That the written guidelines are the guidelines adopted by the Council. They
are the source of those guidelines.
Mr. Lee: And they do not include the 70%.
Ms. Furth: Which have no number.
Chair Burt: I recall seeing in writing in past reports a referenced guideline, isn’t that
correct?
Mr. Lee: The Staff Report specifically says, as I recall, that the Staff has in the past used
70% as an unwritten, guideline as simply a benchmark to use but that.it does vary from
neighborhood to neighborhood.
Chair Burt: So it is a practice but not a Council mandated criteria.
Mr. Lee: It is a procedure that we have developed over time, that’s correct, but it does
not have the force of law..
Chair Burt: Thank you. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question related to the size of the lots. I know in the past
that we have looked at these and said so much of this space is moderate size and if you
add that you really come to an overwhelming number, if you add the 6,000 to 7,000. In
this case by far the majority of these lots do not meet the 7,000 square foot limit. So I am
having problems there. Should we go back to Council and ask them to change this since
6,000 is a fairly standard lot in town and is considered moderate? This clearly doesn’t
meet that guideline. ,
Mr. Lee: You are quite right. The guideline as currently written says 7,000 to 8,000
square feet. That is the written guideline. In my experience over the past five or six
years in reviewing these applications very few of the neighborhoods fell within that
range. It is a pretty narrow range. In all due respect to the drafters of the guidelines I
think that the practical reality in Palo Alto is that a moderate lot size, especially today, is
probably somewhat smaller than that. You are technically correct the window as spelled
out in the guidelines is seven to eight percent in practice we have uses six to eight in all
of the neighborhoods prior to this.
Page 14
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t think I have ever seen one before us with such a large
percentage that didn’t meet the 7,000. Do you have any comparisons?
Mr. Lee: Not off the top of my head. I think you are right that this probably has fewer in
that category than most of other neighborhoods, yes.
Ms. Grote: I think also you might want to consider that the 7,000 was chosen because
that is where roughly the floor area ratio equals the site coverage. So 7,000 to 8,000 is
where that relationship equalizes. I think also that the drafters of the guidelines felt that
if a majority or a great number of people in the neighborhood or a significant number of
people in the neighborhood were willing to accept lower levels of building, lower FAR in
essence, because they were on 6,000 square foot lots that that should be the
neighborhood’s choice. So that 7,000 to 8,000 was chosen because it equalizes that
relationship but that if people in the neighborhood were willing to accept a lesser amount
of FAR they could at least apply and be considered.
Chair Burt: Can I ask a follow up question on that one? Table 2 begins the comparison
at 6,000 square feet and yet on page seven at the top we see that of the 58 lots 21 are less
than 6,000 not just less than 7,000. So we don’t have in Table 2 a comparison of those
lots and their allowable floor area ratios for lots that are below 6,000 square feet. That is
over a third of all lots in the proposed boundary.
Ms. Grote: We would need to do that calculation for you.
Chair Burt: Maybe if you could provide that a little bit later. Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I was just going to comment that I believe that we did have one
single story overlay where the majority of the lots were 6,000 to 7,000. I can’t tell you
which one it was but I think we did in the past have one of those.
Chair Butt: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the history of this ordinance. Why was it
set up to be 17 feet as a maximum height as opposed to saying one story? I think when
you are dealing with this flood plain issue you come up with a dilemma because you have
this arbitrary 17 foot height. Can you shed any light on that? Also as a follow up do we
have any flexibility in applying this? Canwe change it and say it should be a single story
as opposed to 17 feet or we can’t do that because we are referring to an ordinance?
Wynne is shaking her head saying we can’t do that.
Ms. Furth: You described the reason yourself which is that this is a request to change to
an existing zone, the single story overlay, it is complicated by the fact that we are in the
process of amending the single story overlay.
Page 15
Ms. Grote: It does say 17 feet and one habitable floor, currently. So there is that dual
requirement.
Commissioner Packer: Is there a history about it?
Mr. Lee: Frankly’, that predates even my involvement in the single story overlay.
Ms. Grote: I think that the one habitable floor was chosen so that you wouldn’t have
second story with windows that would then look into your neighbor’s yard or into your
neighbor’s living space. So that was the one habitable floor. I think 17 feet is seen
generally as allowing relatively open spaces, high enough ceilings to meet current living
requirements in one floor.
Ms. Furth.: One thing that is interesting about this ordinance is it is clearly and explicitly
tailored to preservation of the character of existing neighborhoods. So I presume the 17
feet was chosen because that was felt to advance that cause. Of course the neighborhoods
that they are trying to preserve are single story neighborhoods. It also is more restrictive
in its definition of single story than the R-1 Zone. Again, this prohibition on spaces that
would not necessarily be counted as second stories, lofts and balconies and such in an R-
1 District.
Chair Butt: Karen and then Phyllis.
Commissioner Holman: If I could only make a conjecture here I would think that
probably the single story overlays have been applied mostly to Eichler and Eichler type
neighborhoods. Those tend to be lower profile situations and that might be why the 17
feet. I don’t know if every single one of the single story overlays is Eichler type
neighborhoods but I would bet it probably is.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. Most of them are Eichler neighborhoods. Most of them are
somewhere between 12 and 15 feet in height..There was some allowance for
modifications or minor changes to that.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: It is my understanding that a height had to be set because
someone built a second story that was very tall. People were expecting a single story
building in their neighborhood and it was habitable on the first floor but the roof was very
tall and looked awkward to them. I believe that is what happened. For that very reason
you need some maximum height if your point is not to have something that is massive.
You just need an arbitrary number but I don’t know that it helps us at this point to go any
farther than that.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Page 16
Commissioner Bialson: I have one more question. I appreciate all the questions that my
fellow-Commissioners have asked because they have gone through some of the ones I
had and I can strike them off. I assume that once we apply this single story overlay to a
location it cannot be removed except by action of the Council. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: The City Council can rezone it at any time with a majority vote of the
Council after public hearings.
Commissioner Bialson: We are removing from the property owners the ability to modify
this restriction. They presently have in the covenants an ability to remove the restriction
at some point in time, every ten years as I recall reading, and what we are doing is taking
that authority from the neighborhood and putting it within the Council. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: That’s correct.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Can I ask one follow up question on that? I believe that on the last single
story overlay that we did on Elsinor it was explained to us that to petition the removal it
would have to meet the same sort of plurality guidelines. Is that correct or not?
Ms. Furth: I don’t believe so. I believe that the Council can implement a zone change at
its own direction whenever it wishes to under the Code. Now in practice they may not
choose to do that but there is nothing in the Code that refers to any of these policies.
Chair Burl!.: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I believe they might be two different things. While the Council
may be able to rezone I have the same memory as Pat that the property owners could
petition to remove the single story overlay and it is a little bit different than the response
of the Council could rezone it. If that is clear. That is my memory anyway, that the
neighbors could remove this by the same process.
Mr. Lee: We have never had that happen but it would be my assumption that a
neighborhood could petition to undo the overlay if you will basically following the same
procedures as they would petition to have the overlay installed.
Ms. Furth: There are two answers to this. The Code itself doesn’t refer to substantial
majorities or any of those things identified in the guidelines. The Code simply says there
is a single story overlay zone and these are its provisions. The unique thing about a
single story overlay zone is that these are initiated by property owners but they are a
group of property owners. So in fact what they are doing is asking the Council to
exercise its power to initiate a zone change. Everybody else that comes before you with a
zone change owns all the property subject to that zone change. Is that making sense? So
if the Council has a policy of, an un-codified policy which is what it has, in other words it
hasn’t adopted an ordinance this is just a statement of the rules it intends to use, if the
Page 17
Council has a policy of not changing these things unless they get a significant number
opposed then that will be the policy. There is nothing in the ordinance that requires any
kind of simple majority.
Chair Burt: Annette and then Kathy.
Commissioner Bialson: As a follow up to that I want to make sure that Commissioners
understand what you are saying and that I understand what you are shying. If Council is
approached by neighbors in the overlay zone and asked to remove the overlay zone from
that particular location they can do so. Is that what you are saying? But they cannot be
compelled to do so because there is a majority that come to them. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: It is a zone like any other. The only way you could really compel its removal
is that everybody has an initiative power. So you get 10% of the population to sign a
petition but that is a little impractical in most cases.
Commissioner Bialson: So we have really removed from the property owners control
over this covenant and given it to the Council? As you say, we can always remove the
Council members.
Ms. Furth: No, no, I was not talking about recall I was talking about initiative which is a
petition to enact a specific zone change which is not unknown in this town. Usually it is
on a larger area of the City. That is correct. This is as some of the applicants said they
have a covenant, the covenant can be modified at certain intervals by a majOrity of those
who are subject to it, those who are subject to it are those in the entire tract not simply
those in any particular portion of that tract. If their request, from those making the
request is that the Council adopt an ordinance which makes that CC&R a condition, a
zoning condition as well. As you have pointed out once the Council makes that decision
it is generally speaking the Council’s decision to unmake it.
Chair Burt: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would Staff briefly describe the process now under the current
individual review if someone in this neighborhood were to propose a two-story house?
What would happen?
Ms. Grote: It would go through our individual review process, which includes
notification to the immediately surrounding neighbors, adjacent neighbors and across the
street. It includes putting up a sign in the front property that explains that they have
applied for the individual review. It includes then a Staff analysis of whether or not the
design meets or the structure meets the individual review standards of which there are ten
having to deal with privacy, streetscape, mass and bulk of the structure. It would also
involve an analysis of the zoning requirements done by Staff as to whether or not the
structure meets the new zoning setbacks, daylight plane requirements and standard
development requirements. It involves a meeting between the applicant and Staff and our
architects going over the individual review standards to ensure that they are met and if
Page 18
they haven’t been met potential ways to meet them. It then involves a decision by the
Director based on a recommendation from that Staff committee as to whether or not the
individual review should be approved. If it is conceptually approved or denied the
neighbors are then notified. There is a potential for a Director’s Hearing upon request by
either the applicant or the affected neighbors. If that Director’s Hearing is requested we
do request that people consider going through a mediation process first in order to resolve
differences prior to getting to the Director’s Hearing. If that mediation process either is
unsuccessful or is waived then it goes directly to the Director’s Hearing whereby he then
makes a decision which is then appealable to the City Council. If the City Council based
on four votes, determines to call it up to them to be heard. If the Council declines to do
that then the Director’s decision holds. If they do want to hear it and call it up then their
decision is final.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you.
Chair Butt: A follow up on that one. Is it Staff’s assumption that if there were a R-1
design review or a single family review in a neighborhood, whether this one or another
one that is for example an Eichler style set of homes, would Staff interpret the guidelines
in a way that would probably make it more restrictive on what would be allowed than
might be allowed in some other neighborhood given the extensive use of glass and the
less privacy in Eichler homes? Is that a likelihood as far as how the standards would be
interpreted?
Ms. Grote: We would be looking carefully at streetscape issues that we would want to
ensure that any addition would be consistent with the existing streetscape. We would
look at those no matter what the original architectural style is, specifically in the
individual review standards we don’t address design or architectural style. We would
rather address privacy, streetscape and mass, which are more general categories. So we
would be looking at those in terms of what is surrounding the site. So ra~ther than
focusing on the Eichler architectural style we would be focusing on those other three
general areas.
Chair Burt: I was actually thinking most of all about the particular privacy issues that are
associated with Eichler designs.
Ms. Grote: We would be looking carefully at privacy which has to do with window
placement, amount of glass, location of the addition, where that is in relationship to other
sites like living space and private outdoor usually backyard space. So we would be
looking at all of that in terms of privacy.
Chair Burt: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin:
Chair Burt: Okay.
I am going to make a motion.
Page 19
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: That we approve the single story overlay for this district.
Chair Bun: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I’ll second it.
Chair Burt: Seconded by Commissioner Holman. Michael, would you like to speak to
your motion?
Commissioner Griffin: These are always difficult issues but I am reminded by the
lengthy discussions that we had during the R-1 Advisory Committee meetings where all
of us were very concerned about what was the ultimate disposition of these Eichler
neighborhoods. Where we were damed concemed about them being impacted by ,
inappropriately sized houses. Consequently I have a large amount of empathy for the
applicants who are looking for protection and for having the City assume the legal status
of helping to enforce these CC&Rs. I agree with the findings that Staff has found on
pages six and seven in the Staff Report relating to the level of owner support even though
it is obviously changing and diminishing but it is to me still is within the range of the
Elsinor findings that we deliberated last summer. Secondly the appropriate boundaries
seem to me to be appropriate. The predominantly single story character of the
neighborhood and the moderate lot sizes even though you can argue that point apparently
a couple of different ways but nevertheless I think that overall it satisfies my concerns.
Chair Burt: Karen, did you want to speak to your second?
Commissioner Holman: Just briefly. I support Michael’s comments but also something
else spoke to me. That was that in the Staff Report it says 40 of the 58 property owners
had signed the application. Now that number is reduced to 38 nevertheless that is 38 of
58 who actively supported it. Including speakers tonight and letters there are only seven,
if I count correctly, who have actively opposed it. That speaks pretty loudly to me. That
is .a very overwhelming majority. I think that kind of majority should be able to
determine the fate of their neighborhood.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I am going to be voting in opposition to that motion. I have
many reasons and I will go through them as quickly as possible. Number one because it
does remove from the owners the ability to allow change and responding to changed
circumstances without having to go to City Council and ask the City Council to be
involved. I think this is a situation in which the property owners bought with a covenant
and we should leave them with that covenant. It allowed for every ten years a review of
the circumstances that people would be facing. I think that is a very important thing to
Page 20
do. The law hates rules in perpetuity and while this can be changed by the City Council I
would rather leave control with the property owners. Now that we have the new R-1
Zoning Ordinance I am very concerned with us saying we will catch up to the overlay
guidelines and deal with the issue of flood zones and deal with the issue of the amount of
space that can be placed on the first floor. I just touch upon that as one of the reasons.
With regard to the size of the lots unlike many other provisions of the guidelines we
finally have some language that includes some numerical values. This neighborhood just
does not meet the 7,000 to 8,000 square foot. If we had a few homes under the 7,000
square foot lot size and those homeowners were in support of the overlay that would be
one thing but here we have 40 that are under the 7,000 square feet and 21 that are under
6,000 square feet. Two of the people who spoke tonight who are proponents of the
overlay zone use the term small lots. I think they acknowledge that they small lots and
not moderate size lots. We have talked frequently tonight about past practice and have
talked about Elsinor and some of the other single family overlay zones that we have
approved. I think we are in a different situation now with the new Zoning Ordinance and
with the flood zone issue. When I look at the 17 foot height maximum I think that yes,
we were referring to Eichlers and that was the reason for them but today we live in a
world where architects seem to like volume and volume often times means some more
height. We still have the single story but we have volume. Things change and if we do
have a rezoning of this property we then have to go back and patch up that work by our
Zoning Ordinance Update. The process seems to be taking a lot longer than we thought it
was going to take. So I would hate to have property owners, especially one who perhaps
had their home destroyed by a fire, living in no man’s land so to speak with regard to
their plans for some period of time. I think that is where they would end up and I am not
willing to balance the desirability of avoiding civil lawsuits between neighbors for the
unknowable aspects of this overlay zone in today’s environment. So everything is a
balance and I find the balance not to be in favor of the overlay zone.
Chair Burt: Bonnie.
AMENDED MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I tend to agree with Annette but I would like to see if I can
propose a substitute motion. My motion would be to ask that this process maybe not start
over but go back to the homeowners with a better description of what they are in for.
What I am really concerned about is that the letter that went to the homeowners did not
address the flood zone issue. I think people should be aware of what would be the FEMA
requirement would be should they remodel either 50% or a certain percent that triggers
the requirement that you go up higher in order to receive your remodeling, even doing
one story. I would say let’s go back to them again with more complete information and
include the flood zone aspect and ask people to consider again whether they would want
to be in the single story overlay. That would be my motion and not to approve this. If
that is possible, let me ask that first.
Mr. Lee.: I think you have a Robert’s Rules of Order question here in terms of the motion
and whether the maker of the motion will accept a substitute.
Page 21
Commissioner Packer: Will the maker of the motion accept a substitute to ask that the
applicant go back to the homeowners with a new letter that explains the consequences
considering the fact that this tract is in a flood zone?
Chair Burt: Bonnie, may I add a recommendation that if that is accepted as a substitute
motion that it also include a category for the lots sizes below 6,000 square feet to clarify
the FAR limits on those lot sizes.
Commissioner Packer: Yes, I would include that in my substitute motion as well.
Chair Butt: Does the maker of the motion accept?
Ms..Grote: If I could interject, I do think that there is about a 500 square foot difference
for 5,000 square foot lots. If you have a 45% FAR on a 5,000 square foot lot maximum
that is about 2,250 square feet. There is a 35% lot coverage requirement, which is about
1,750 feet. That is about a 500 square foot maximum difference between FAR and lot
coverage.
Chair Burt: Which may be significant in the decision-making of homeowners.
Commissioner Cassel: Procedurally in a substitute motion does she not need a second
and then the other one gets dropped?
Chair Burt: No, first it is asked as a friendly amendment and that is what I believe is
occurring here. Then in the absence of the acceptance of the friendly amendment we
would have the opportunity for proposing a substitute motion. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: Yes.
Chair Burt: So, is this accepted as a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Griffin: Does my seconder also get io vote on this?
Chair Butt: She would have to accept it as I understand the rules, yes.
Commissioner Griffin: I accept.
Commissioner Holman: I am not hearing this as a friendly amendment. I am hearing this
as it is a substitute motion.
Chair Bun: Well, procedurally whether you consider it to be consistent with the motion,
procedurally it is being proposed as an amendment.
Ms. Furth: It is really up to the maker and seconder as to whether they wish to accept it.
If they don’t they can say no.
Page 22
Chair Butt: It is friendly if it is accepted.
Ms. Furth: Otherwise you make a substitute motion or you vote on this one.
Commissioner Holman: I am sympathetic but my question would go to Staff. With the
added information about the flood plain and such there should also be information that
traveled with that as to what their options are should the whole neighborhood get flooded.
Commissioner Packer: Karen, it is not flooding that is the issue. FEMA says that if you
are going to do a certain amount of remodeling or reconstruction you have to raise it
higher. You don’t have to have a flood for another 100 years. It has to do with what you
do with your house that triggers the requirement to raise the foundation.
Mr. Lee: If I could interject, that was one of several questions that were discussed at the
neighborhood meeting that Staff held in the neighborhood. We did talk in general terms
about the flood zone and Joan Taylor who was the manager of the single story overlays at
the time answered several questions about the flood zone, again, in general terms because
every lot size was different. Because the application is filed by a set of neighbors and the
City’s procedures call for the neighbors to submit that request I think the Commissioners
may want to take action on the request as proposed in due respect to the neighbors.
Ms. Furth: I think the Zoning Ordinance procedures when you have a Council initiated
proposal ask for the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this. So if it is
acceptable to the Commission it would be good to say on the basis of the outreach
information that you already have recommend that the Council adopt it or not adopt it
and then depending upon what you do then describe the circumstances under which other
actions might be appropriate.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, since my motion is making things very compjicated I will
withdraw my motion and then give the reasons why I will not support Michael’s motion.
It is because I don’t believe that the outreach was complete enough. I understand that at
that meeting, which was during holiday season, only ten people attended. So only ten
people had the benefit of the discussion of the flood zone. I just think homeowners
should have the opportunity to think about this in greater detail. I also think if it goes
back again, if they go through the process again with more information considering the
fact that in 50 years if second stories haven’t been built I don’t think it is something that
we have to rush into unless somebody has some plans to build a second story.
Ms. Furth: You have an issue that there are applications pending.
Commissioner Packer: I didn’t know that. Anyway that is the reason why I would
oppose the motion and also for the reasons that Annette gave.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Page 23
Commissioner Cassel: I am going to oppose it. Every time I do this I get my hand
slapped by City Council. I will use the reason of the lot size. It may be that the owners
want to come back to us and we can get this resolved but because such a significant
portion of these lots are smaller than the 7,000 square feet, it is a significant percentage,
. if you build you are going .to lose a significant amount of square footage at this time.
That will change once we get this ordinance changed and then it will be equal for
everyone. I think that is a much fairer time to do it and the people in the middle won’t be
in limbo. The problem is under the CC&Rs you are kind of limited anyway but the rules
changed in the middle of when you started this process to today. We did the single
family review process in the middle of that and that is why these two scales are different
that you have received. I may be wrong but I think that that’s probably what has
happened. So that where before there was some advantage to going to the single story
overlay zone because you could stay on the first floor and essentially if your homes were
larger than 6,000 square feet you would come out with about the same amount if you
went to a second story. It takes about 150 square feet, which is what Jon Schink used to
explain to us, to get the stairs into the second story. So that is why the 150 square feet
didn’t make a difference. Once you get below 6,000 square feet you are actually losing
square footage that you would actually build on the site. So sin~e we have such a
significant number of lots under 6,000 square feet I think it is probably wise to turn it
down now, get our ordinance changed and then decide if you want to come back. The
single family overlay zone only affects the height of these properties. Several people
spoke to the fact that they wanted to retain the Eichler neighborhood, there are covenants
that include that but you still have to go to court to deal with that. That doesn’t get dealt
with in what we are doing. That only gets dealt with if we have to deal with it if you
come in with a two story home and we start talking about making something compatible.
There is the advantage that we didn’t have and that is if someone comes in and tries to
propose a two story home you will at least get notified at this time so that you can go
them and say I don’t want to do this but I can go to court. One of the other disadvantages
we had in the past is that if someone came in with a second story unit no neighbors got
notified. All of a sudden a second story went up and the neighbors were really surprised.
Here the neighbor had the second story going up and you suddenly realize it and you
have to go to court and it is going to cost them a lot of money. Now you can know that
that is going to happen and you can say to them right up front that this is going to be a
¯ .problem.
Chair Butt: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I also will oppose the motion. Primarily I am concerned about
the level of support in the neighborhood. I also would not as a couple of the neighbors
mentioned I would not cut off a piece of the neighborhood to increase the level of
support. I think the neighborhood is a very attractive cohesive area with nice mature
landscaping. I understand the desire to try to keep it cohesive but as I said I am
concerned about the level of support. I would also share Phyllis’ concerns about lot size.
Additionally I think that through the individual review process I believe that anything
that were approved there would fit into the neighborhood.
Page 24
Chair Burr: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get clarification on yet another thing? The Attachment H
that was referred to previously, the table on the second page of that and then the
¯ information that was provided to the applicants on page five of the Staff Report, it is a
different chart. One has more information in it than the other but I am not seeing that the
information is in conflict and what am I overlooking here?
Mr. Lee: No you are reading the charts correctly. The numbers are consistent the only
difference is that there is a net change column added to the Table 2 on page five and it
was merely for clarification so that we can simplify the difference between the R-1 and
the single story overlay but the numbers are consistent.
Commissioner Holman: All the numbers are there anybody can do the math.
Mr. Lee: That is correct.
Chair Burt: Karen, with the exception of lots smaller than 6,000 square feet. That goes
into my concerns. I have supported the single story overlay applications when I believed
it met the criteria and been willing to oppose it when I thought it did not adequately meet
the criteria. It is often a close call. In this circumstance I am particularly concerned that
we don’t meet even a broadened definition of a moderate lot size where we still have 21
of the homes that are below 6,000 square feet. So even if we had a 6,000 to 8,000 square
foot definition this neighborhood has a sizable percentage of the lots that are below 6,000
and unfortunately it hasn’t been laid clearly for those people’s consideration what would
be the prospective impact of those smaller lots should the CC&Rs no longer exist. I think
that would be very important if the Commission does recommend not approving it at this
time that if there were a reconsideration of it that the flood plain impacts be fully laid out
for them and the 5,000 square foot impact would be fully laid out for consideration. In
addition to the lot size concern I am concerned with the change that has been evolving in
what is the standard for plurality. I think in the five of these that we have considered
since I have been on Commission we had initially been told a number of times that the
70% was the de facto standard. The Elsinor Court was the first time that we had seen it
slip below that and now we are seeing it with the changes tonight go even further below.
It is not an adequately defined line but one of the things is if we are allowing a restriction
on a minority of the residents then I think it needs to be a very strong majority that favors
that, an overwhelming majority. I think that 65% falls below the standard that we had
previously established and even if it is not codified it has been the reference point and
perhaps, we need to codify it. We may need several other aspects of this ordinance that
need to be tightened especially given that we now have R-1 guidelines that may influence
some of those decisions in the future. So for those reasons I also will oppose the motion.
Any other comments?
MOTION FAILS
Page 25
So I will call the vote. All those in favor? (ayes) All opposed? (nays) So we have
Commissioners Griffin and Holman in favor and the balance of the Commission
opposing.
Do we have an alternative motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Bialson: I will make an alternative motion that we not support Staff’s
recommendation to approve the attached draft ordinance rezoning the lots in the Greet
Park neighborhood from R-1 single family to R-1 single story overlay.
Chair Burt: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it.
Chair Burt: Any comments on the motion as seconded by Commissioner Cassel?
Commissioner Cassel: The issues that I hope the City Council will look at are that we
need to work on the flood plain ordinance issue, we need to reconsider what we consider
the guideline for overwhelming support and we need to decide whether we are going to
look at 6,000 square foot lots as moderate size lots. We may want to do that or even
smaller along with the change in this ordinance to allow them to use all of the square
footage onsite.
Chair Butt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. I assume that Staff will report all our concems to
the Council and that the liaison who, will be in attendance that evening will make all the
points that we have raised. Do we know when this is going forward?
Mr. Lee: We have a tentative Council date for July 22.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chair Burt: If I might add to Phyllis’ concerns to Council for future clarification it would
be a wish to get clarification on the process for removal of an overlay and whether the
same sort of plurality is required for the removal. What we may want to do after we vote
on this is to see whether we want to make a Commission request to Council to refer it
back to Staff and ourselves. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Can I get Staff to comment on something else too that might
need clarification for perhaps now but certainly for the future? Page five again of the
Staff Report in about the middle of the page where it is talking about the single story
Page 26
height combining district the fifth line down if you include the headline or the subheading
in the middle of the line it says, "the guidelines state that for neighborhoods that contain
and have been developed consistent with single story deed restrictions," and it talks about
greater flexibility. So could Staff explain what the flexibility is in relation to?
Mr. Lee: My understanding is that the guidelines recognize the fact that neighborhoods
that have the deed restriction currently should be treated with a greater degree of
flexibility than neighborhoods that do not have it. In my interpretation that would mean
that there is a certain amount of flexibility built into the guidelines and if a neighborhood
and the owners in it have already accepted the fact that there is a single story restriction
in their neighborhood they should basically be given credit for that in the City’s
evaluation for institution of the overlay.
Chair Burt: If I might add, my memory of how that was explained to us several years ago
when this first came up and other Commissioners may or may not recall any of this, that
is what brought it from approximately an 80% threshold down to a 70% threshold, not
70% down to 60% or whatever. Now that is not codified, it is open to change but that I
believe was what was explained to us in past years. Lisa.
Ms. Grote: That is most likely accurate. I don’t remember exactly what the numbers
were but again those numbers weren’t intended to be rules or hard and fast in any way
but they were intended to be generalized and to allow flexibility again for those
neighborhoods that have the deed restrictions or the CC&Rs versus those that don’t. So
they were rules of thumb rather than hard and fast.
Chair Burt: Understood. If there are no other comments we will take a vote this.
MOTION PASSED
All in favor? (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That passes five to two with Commissioners
Holman and Griffin opposing.
Alright then would we also like to have the comments or requests that Commissioner
Cassel had made to Staff to be passed along to Council as a request to have this brought
back to Staff and the Commission for additional review and recommendations on the
guidelines for the future?
Commissioner Cassel: We are goingto be doing much of this as part of our Zoning
Ordinance Update and it behooves us to keep moving rapidly and that will just divert us.
Chair Butt: Maybe Staff can comment, should that folded into the poriion of ZOU that
has to do with single-family homes?
Ms. Grote: Yes it should. We had scheduled a July 10 study session with you in order to
start talking, about low-density residential requirements. So this would certainly be on the
list of those items.
Page 27
Chair Butt: I would like to thank the public for participating and I would like to extend
our appreciation for the way in which each side of this issue has respectfully presented
their cases and that they are going to have the additional opportunity to present them to
the final decision-making authority, which is the Council. We hope that this will
continue to be a constructive process for the neighborhood and we appreciate the efforts.
that have been put into it to date. Thank you. That concludes Item Three on our agenda.
Page 28
Mr. S. Betten
Planning Dept.
Box 10250
Palo Alto
CA 94303
ATTACHMENT H
Christopher Whitney
2842 Greer Road
Palo Alto
Ca 94303
Dear Mr. Betten,
We are sending this letter to inform you that we would like to support the single story
overlay.
Yours Faithfully
Christopher Whitney
Tranquilla Whitney
Palo Alto City Council
250 HamiltonAvenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Council Members:12 July, 2002
I am writing to you to express my Support of the Single Story Overlay proposed for the
Van Auken Circle neighborhood. I have worked to promote our Zoning Change
Application from the beginning but due to a long-planned family vacation, I will miss the
City Council Meeting on July 22nd. Several of my neighbors will be speaking before you
on behalf of our Application. I will share with you my Own perspective through this
letter.
In discussing the merits of the Single-Story Overlay with my neighbors, I am gratified to
learn that we all appreciate and value the architecture and ambiance of where we live. It
is a cohesive neighborhood that presents a shared asset that we all enjoy. Many of us,
including myself, have remodeled our homes or made other improvements. We have
made specific architectural choices intended to be compatible with the existing sense of
privacy and community within our neighborhood. Our homes are generally safe from
adjacent, inappropriate development through the City zoning laws. There are also specific
protections for our neighborhood through the deed restrictions defined by legally binding
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C,C&Rs). Unfortunately, the C,C&R provision
that prohibits two-story development in our community is at odds with our current R-1
zoning. Our only recourse to enforce the C,C&Rs is to take our neighbors to court.
Personally, I do not want to sue my neighbors for violation of the C,C&R height
restriction. Others have, and have always prevailed in court. But confidence of success
does not make that course attractive. I would hate for my neighbors to spend a lot of
money and emotional energy on design and permits only to find themselves sued. This is
a potentially corrosive environment for our community. The R-1 (S) zoning, which is
consistent with our C,C&Rs, has been provided to many other Eichler neighborhoods in
Palo Alto. The majority of us in the Van Auken neighborhood are asking that this same
benefit now be provided for us.
I attended and spoke before the Planning Commission during their May 29th hearing of
our Application. I am aware of the concerns raised by the Commission and the basis for
their majority decision not to rec.ommend approval of our Application. Additionally, I am
familiar with the long history of the Single Story Overlay process and know that their
concerns are not new. I think it is fair to say that the majority of the Commissioners do
not approve of the current Single Story Overlay process itself; in particular, the "greater
degree of flexibility" allowed when granting an Overlay to neighborhoods with existing
Single-Story Deed Restrictions.
The Planning Commission’s concerns are at odds with granting the wishes of the vast
majority of home owners in our neighborhood. My neighbors and I are looking to the
City Council to resolve this conflict. Key to this resolution, I believe, is the reality of our
legally binding C,C&R deed restrictions. Many of the objections made by the Planning
Commission become irrelevant when viewed in the context of our existing prohibitions of
two-story development within our neighborhood. I believe these objections are
constructively addressed below:
Planning Commissioners raised concerns about the large number of homes within our
neighborhood with lot sizes of 6,000 sq. ft. or less. These are smaller than the
predominantly "moderate" lot sizes of 7-8,000 sq. ft. required for approval of an
Overlay. This is because the difference between allowable square footage of single
and two-story homes is much larger on these small lots than is the case with lot sizes
closer to 7,500 sq. ft. But for our homes on small lots the reverse is true because of
our C,C&Rs. We will have a real advantage in an R-I(S) zone due to the 40%
allowable FAR compared the 35% FAR for homes in an R-1 zone. That is a greater
than 14% increase and consistent with our C,C&Rs. Changes in our families’ or other
needs in the future may dictate increasing the sizes of our homes. Through approval
of the Overlay the City Council will become an ally in improving our property values
while still maintaining the highly Valued character of our neighborhood.
The Planning Commission also had concerns about what constituted "overwhelming"
approval of the Application. Because of our C,C&Rs, there would be no change in the
single-story restriction, per se, only a change as to the method of enforcement. As of
December 31 st, the last "official" count of support for the Application (at 69%), there
were only two home owners who had written to express their opposition to the
Overlay, whereas 40 of our neighbors had specifically signed their requests for the
Overlay and submitted them to the City. I feel that, among those who actually voted,
there was clearly an "overwhelming" level of support for implementing the Overlay.
Specific to our C,C&Rs, the Planning Commission raised concerns that we would be
giving up our rights ,to change or modify the C,C&Rs with an R-I(S) zoning. This is
not the case. The C,C&Rs specify that, "These covenants are to run with the land and
shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of
twenty-five years from the date these covenants are recorded, after which time said
covenants .shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years unless
an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots has been recorded
agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part." I would request that, should a
majority of us choose to remove the single-story restriction from our C,C&Rs in the
future, the City Council allow the return of R- 1 zoning for our neighborhood.
Specific to the R-1 (S), Commissioners heard testimony expressing concern over the
R-1 (S)17 foot height limit for homes, including ours, in the flood zone. Based upon
survey data from the City, our homes would need to have the foundation raised 3.5 to
4.9 feet in the event of replacement, such as after a fire. The 17 foot limit would not
allow the replacement of some existing homes, whereas the C,C&Rs would. Current,
revised, R-1 zoning allows ½ of the foundation elevation to be added to the height
limit but the equivalent R- 1 (S) revisions have not yet taken effect. When that
eventually does occur, existing homes could be rebuilt. ! would request that City
Council acknowledge this potential problem for the several R-1 (S) neighborhoods
within the flood zone and instruct the Planning Staff to expedite the R-1 (S) revisions
or allow some form of exception for home reconstruction until the R-1 (S) revision is
complete.
A key feature of the Eichler home is the architecture of openness and light that connects
the interior to the outdoors. This ambiance flourishes in the privacy of our smaller lots.
These are special housing areas of international interest and the spirit of their character is
well worth preserving. The Eichler R-1 (S) neighborhoods, with C,C&Rs nearly identical
to ours, have prospered along with the rest of Palo Alto. And they also enjoy the security
of consistent planning decisions, enforced by the City. We seek to maintain the character
of our neighborhood as well as enable our capacity to create improvements to our homes
consistent with our legal obligations. Since the inception of the program, every Eichler
neighborhood that has applied for a Single-Story Overlay has received City Planning
Staff recommendations for approval and the City ~ouncil has approved.
I would hope that now, as this process comes to a conclusion, the City Council can
respond favorably to our majority request and grant us R-1 (S) zoning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Erik A. Whitehorn and Alexi Miller
906 Van Auken Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94303