The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-07-02 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:¯ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 2, 2001 CMR:292:01 REQUEST OF TRACT 1371 (ELSINORE DRIVE) PROPERTY OWNERS FOR CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE STORY OVERLAY ZONING IN A PORTION OF THE GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT IN BRIEF A majority of the property owners of Tract 1371 have requested City approval of a single story overlay zone in their portion of the Garland neighborhood. The City adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part.of the Zoning Ordinance in 1992 and has since applied the overlay to eight areas in the Walnut Grove, Green Meadows, Charleston Meadows, Blossom Park, Barron Park, Meadow Park and Channing Park neighborhoods. In the previous eight requests from neighbors, the City Council has initiated the zone change process for subsequent review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. This request from portions of Tract 1371 generally meets the four criteria established by the City for applying the overlay zone to single family neighborhoods. Survey results reported in the letter indicate majority neighborhood support (46 of 68 parcels, or 68 percent) for the application of the single family overlay zone. The proposed boundaries are logical and define an identifiable neighborhood. The homes within the proposed boundary are similar in age (1950s), design (all are Eichler homes) and character (all 68 homes are currently single story). The lots within the neighborhood are generally moderate iia size (70 percent are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet). Consequently, staff recommends that the Council refer consideration of a single story overlay zone to the Planning and Transportation Commission. CMR:292:01 Page 1 of 7 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council initiate and refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of a single story overlay for the 68 parcels requested in the R-1 single family area in portions of Tracts 1371, with an alternative to consider reducing the area to 56 parcels. The alternative would be to remove twelve of the 68 parcels from the proposed single story overlay boundary. Six of the lots are located at the east end of Elsinore Court and six are located at the south end of Elsinore Drive (see Attachment C). Staff would normally respect the original boundary submitted by the property owners. However, in this case the request has been unusually controversial, has resulted in the need for two neighborhood meetings to verify changing levels of support, and is subject to written requests from twelve property owners specifically to be excluded from the boundaries. The exclusion of these twelve lots could remove nine of the twelve owners who wish to be excluded from the boundaries and would increase the level of support from 68 percent to 77 percent. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review the proposed boundary as well as the alternative to reduce the overlay by twelve parcels: BACKGROUND On July 28, 2000, the City of Palo Alto received a letter from property owners of portions of Tract 1371 and portions of Tract 1503 requesting the designation of a single story overlay zone for the 87 single family parcels contained in the area (see attached map). The letter was accompanied by signatures of 67 of the 87 property owners. Between that date and the City Council meeting, the number of supporters was reduced to 55 of 87 owners (63 percent.) On September 18, 2000, the City Council reviewed the neighbors’ request and directed staff to report back on the neighbors’ support for a single story overlay. To this end, City staff mailed property owners a letter and questionnaire on September 29, 2000 (Attachment A) 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 October 11, 2000 to answer residents’ questions about the overlay and determine if there was "overwhelming support" for the overlay. The City has generally considered a minimum of 70 percent to constitute overwhelming support for single story overlays. Since the neighborhood meeting, several owners changed their support. As of October 27, 2000, 58 owners were in support and 29 did not support the proposed overlay, resulting in a 67 percent rate of support. Because the level of support was less than the 70 percent that the City generally considers a minimum to constitute overwhelming support, the property owners resubmitted their request to exclude the 19 lots on and adjacent to Blair Court in Tract 1503. The attached letter from property owners in Tract 1371 modifies the previous request to include only the 68 lots wit~n Tract 1371. CMR:292:01 Page 2 of 7 Since the second request was received, staff conducted a second neighborhood meeting on April 24, 2001 to provide an update on the status of the proposed overlay. After the meeting, staff received letters from proponents and opponents clarifying support for the overlay and, in some cases, requesting to be excluded form the proposed overlay boundary. As of June ~ 1, 2001, 46 property owners are in support and 22 are not in support of the single story overlay resulting in a 68 percent level of support. Staff has used the June 11, 2001 date for determining final determination of support or opposition. Subsequent to this date, staff continues to receive letters of position by residents. Should the Council decide to initiate the overlay process, staff will attempt to justify any new changes. Copies of all letters received by staff are included in the packet for Council’s review. DISCUSSION At the first neighborhood meeting, approximately 50 residents attended and at the second approximately 27 attended. A majority of the Elsinore Drive area property owners who attended the meetings were in support of the single story overlay but a significant number were also opposed. The majority of the property owners in attendance supported the single story overlay as an effective mechanism to preserve the character of existing single family neighborhoods and the privacy that a single story home provides. Supporters also maintained that property values appeared to be equal to or greater than similar neighborhoods without an overlay. Also, supporters maintained that the proposed overlay would provide an effective mechanism to enforce the single story provision that is already provided in deed restrictions in the neighborhood without forcing neighbors to resort to lawsuits. Those who expressed opposition to the overlay felt that construction of a second story should be an individual owner’s decision and that there should be a more flexible way to allow property owners to add on to their homes in a manner that respects the localized circumstances of neighboring properties. They believed that an overlay would decrease the value of property and that the existing "Declaration of Restrictions, Conditions, Covenants, Charges and Agreements" (deed restrictions) provided adequate legal protection to property owners. Staff also shared with the attendees information on the activities of the Single Family Neighborhood Compatibility Advisory Group. Based on the neighborhood meetings and the percentage of property owners now in support within Tract 1371 (68 percent), staff has found that there is majority (68 percent) support for a single story overlay in the Elsinore Drive, and overwhelming support (77 percent) if the boundary is modified by excluding twelve lots. In previous requests for single story overlays, staff has used 70 percent as a general guideline to determine overwhelming support from property owners. Now that the overlay requested is limited to Tract 1371, staff recommends that the City Council consider the initiation of the neighbors’ request for three reasons: 1) the number of supporters has increased and decreased several times since the original request CMR:292:01 Page 3 of 7 was submitted; however, at this point, is slightly less than the 70 percent guideline; 2) the Single Story Overlay Guidelines specifically state that the criteria for level of owner support can be treated with a greater degree of flexibility for neighborhoods with an existing deed restriction limiting homes to a single story (the entire Elsinore neighborhood, Tracts 1371 and 1503, is subject to such a deed restriction); and 3) if two areas that together contain nine of the 12 property owners who wish to be excluded from the boundary were excluded, the level of support would be 77 percent. This level of support is similar to other areas approved by the Council for a single story overlay. Application of Overlay Zone Guidelines The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on December 14, 1992 (See attachment to CMR:361:00, attachment D), establish criteria to guide City staff and decision makers in 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)." All of the 68 homes involved in this application have a single story deed restriction. All 68 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. The subject application is evaluated using the following criteria: 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 property. The application is accompanied by signed requests from 49 of the 68 properties within Tracts 1371. Since the request was received, three owners have changed their support to opposition resulting in 46 supporters and a 68 percent level of support. Because all 68 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. Because of the deed restriction, the 68 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first criterion has been satisfied. If the twelve lots are removed, the level of support would increase to 77 percent. Appropriate Boundaries: An application for an S overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning request. Boundaries should define an identifiable neighborhood. CMR:292:01 Page 4 of 7 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 patterns. All homes in the area front on either Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, E1 Cajon Way, or Greer Road. Four lots in Tract 1371 have been excluded because of their location on North California Avenfle. These locations on North California Avenue are adjacent to homes that do not share the same character as the Eichlers and are outside the rectangular boundary formed by the majority of homes in these two tracts. Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied. o 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 68 properties included in this application are currently single story and all of the 68 homes have a single story deed restriction. All 68 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. Moderate Lot Sizes: An area proposed for an S overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes (7,000 to 8,000 square feet) with a generally consistent lotting pattern. Of the 68 lots, 47 are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet and 14 are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Of the remaining lots, two are between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet, four are between 9,000 and 10,000 square and one is larger than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes that it is reasonable to consider the 6,000 to 8,000 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, 61 of the 68 lots (70 percent) can be considered moderate in size. The neighborhood has a consistent lotting pattern that is def’med by four streets: Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, E1 Cajon Way, and Greer Road. Therefore, the fourth criterion can be considered to be satisfied. The single story overlay would restrict building heights to 17 feet. Therefore, a secondary consideration of this area is that some of these lots are located in a flood zone. The flood map indicates that the northern half of the neighborhood (approximately north of E1 Cajon Way) is within Flood Zone AH. Typically, areas in this zone are 1 to 3 feet below the minimum flood level, but each lot varies. Staff’s CMR:292:01 Page 5 of 7 understanding is that some residents had a surveyor who found that a sample of lots were either above the flood level or 6 to 9 inches below the flood level. This could effect a property owner wishing to do improvements to their house. However, without individual surveys, staff is not able to verify how much each house would be impacted by the height restriction within the overlay zone. The subject application generally meets all four of the criteria established by the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. City initiation of the zone change process is necessary because the neighborhood created by Tract 1371 cannot apply for the zone change without written authorization from each property owner. With some property owners expressing opposition to the zone change and others not responding to the neighborhood survey, it would not be realistic to expect the neighborhood to obtain the necessary authorizationsand file the zone change request for all 68 parcels. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to initiate the zone change process if the overlay application is to be considered. RESOURCE IMPACT Ifthe City initiates the requested zone change, fees normally associated with a zone change application would not be charged. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation in this staff report is consistent with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goal L-3, Policy L-12, which calls for preserving the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjoining structures. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1) 2) Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or Deny the request to initiate consideration of a single story overlay zone for the Tract 1371 neighborhood. T1MELINE If the Council elects to initiate this zoning application, staff recommends that the application be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission at a public hearing in August. Following Commission review, the application will return to the City Council for a public hearing. CMR:292:01 Page 6 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Should the City Council initiate review of this application, an environmental assessment will be conducted and will accompany the staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission. ATTACHMENTS A. Request from property owners of Tract 1371 dated January 10, 2001 B. Map of proposed S Overlay, amended January 10, 2001 C. Map of twelve owners wishing to be removed and consideration as alternative boundaries D. City Manager’s Report dated September 18, 2000 (CMR:361:00) E. Letter from John Lusardi to Property Owners in the Elsinore Drive area, dated September 29, 2000 F. Letters from residents and community PREPARED BY: Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER AI HARRISON Assistant City Manager A1 Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Philip Diether 959 Blair Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Lea Nilsson, 972 Elsinore Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 CMR:292:01 Page 7 of 7 Attachment A January 10, 2001 Planning Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Sir: We, the owners of homes in Tract 1371, are requesting a change in our zoning from an R-I to an 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 structure. As of this date, we have gathered the support of 72% of our neighbors. Forty-Nine (49) of the sixty- eight (68) owners have endorsed this request. Our original request (dated 7/28/2000) included a request to include both Tra.cts 1371 and 1503. The request for the second tract is no longer included as the support in that Tract has decreased substantially since our original request. At the request of the City, a community meeting regarding the overlay issue was held at the Palo Alto Arts Center on Middlefield Road on October 11, 2000. The great majority of those in attendance at that meeting supported the overlay. In conjunction with the meeting, the city conducted a neighborhood poll to determine the level of support for the overlay request. As indicated above, after the conclusion of that poll, the level of support for the overlay .in Tract 1371 clearly exceeds 70%! We have previously submitted to you, the City of Palo Alto Planning Department, the following: individually signed requests for a change of zoning; a list of these signers with the owner’s names, addresses and lot square footage; a parcel map covering tract 1371; and a-copy of a packet of information which has been provided to each property owner (which includes a listing of areas within the City of Palo Alto which have obtained the R-1S Overlay Zoning, a map showing the residences included in this application, copies of the CC and R’s for tract 1371, the signature form, a question and answer section regarding single story overlays, and an additional section defining and describing the single story overlay zone). We have been in cont~-~cith Ch~nrll ,er 1.~o" C-,~rtsultant to the Planning Department, and have informed him of the covenants limiting the residences to a single story for Tract 1371. We hope, with this information, you will expedite this request. Stewart Plock, 917 E1 Cajon, Palo Alto, CA (650) 856-0625 A1 Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 813-1372 Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-1242 Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-0804 Edie Gelles, 992 E1 Cajon Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 858-1820 Teen Makowski, 950 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA (650) 856-7594 Attachment B PF The Cily of" Palo A1 to Attachment B Proposal: Resident’s request for Single Story Overlay; zone change From R-1 to R-I(S). Amended: January 10, 2001 d:\Gloria D~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai Date: 81812000 150’ 300’ Attachment C PF The City of Palo A1 to Attachment C Alternative Single Story Overlay Remove Areas 1 and 2 Request to be excluded [~~ June 11, 2001 d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai Date: 8/8/2000 150’ 300’ Attachment D City of City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 CMR:361:00 SUBJECT:REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF PORTIONS OF TRACTS 1371 AND 1503 FOR CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE STORY OVERLAY ZONING IN THE GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT IN BRIEF A majority of the property owners of Tract 1371 and Tract 1503 have requested City approval of a single story overlay zone in their portion of the Garland neighborhood. The City adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the Zoning Ordinance in 1992 and has since applied the overlay to eight areas in the Walnut Grove, Green Meadows, Charleston Meadows, Blossom Park, Barron Park, Meadow Park and Channing Park neighborhoods. In the previous eight requests from neighbors, the City Council has initiated the zone change process for subsequent review by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. This request from portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 generally meets the four criteria .established by the City for applying the overlay zone to single family neighborhoods. Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support (67 of 87 parcels, or 77 percent) for the application of the single family overlay zone. Since then, two owners have added their support and eight have retracted their support in writing. As of August 31, 2000, 61 owners (70 percent) were in support of the proposed overlay. The proposed boundaries are logical and define an identifiable neighborhood. The homes within the proposed boundary are similar in age (1950s), design (all are Eichler homes) and character (86 of 87 homes are currently single story). The lots within the neighborhood are generally moderate in size (79 percent are between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet). Consequently, staff recommends that the. Council refer consideration of a single story overlay zone .to the Planning and Transportation Commission. CMR:361:00 Page 1 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council initiate and refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of a single story overlay zone for the R-1 single family area in portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 as shown on the attached map (Attachment A). BACKGROUND On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the Zoning Ordinance and applied the overlay to the Walnut Grove neighborhood (181 lots). Subsequently, the overlay zone has been applied as follows: Date Tract Neighborhood No. Lots April 26, 1993 Green Meadows 185 January 21, 1997 795 Charleston Meadows 96 September 15, 1997 840 Charleston Meadows 61 November 17, 1997 709 Blossom Park 16 November 16, 1998 714 and portions Barron Park 20 of 4738 November 16, 1998 1722 and portions Meadow Park 75 of 1977 July 17, 2000 Channing Park I and II 57 The attached letter from the property owners of Tracts 1371 (19 lots) and 1503 (68 lots) (Attachment B) requests application of the single story overlay zone to 87 of the 95 single family parcels contained in these two tracts. DISCUSSION Application of Overlay zone Guidelines The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on December 14, 1992 (Attachment C), establish criteria to guide City staffand decision makers in 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)." All of the 87 homes involved in this application have a single story deed restriction (Attachment D). All 87 lots were originally developed with Eichler homes in the 1950s. None of the original homes have been tom down and replaced. Several homes have been remodeled but still retain the original Eichler layout. The subject application is evaluated using the following criteria: CMR:361:00 Page 2 of 6 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 property. The application is accompanied by signed requests from 67 of the 87 properffes within Tracts 1371 and 1503. Since then, two owners have added their support and eight have retracted their support in writing. As of August 31, 2000, 61 owners (70 percent) were in support of the proposed overlay (Attachment E). Because all 87 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 70 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first criterion has been satisfied. Appropriate Boundaries: An application for an S overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the zoning request. Boundaries should define an identifiable neighborhood. 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 patterns. All homes in the area front on either Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, E1 Cajon Way, Blair Court or Greer Road. Four lots in Tract 1371 have been excluded because of their location on North California Avenue and four lots in Tract 1503 have been excluded because of their location on Oregon Expressway. These locations on North California Avenue and Oregon Expressway are adjacent to homes that do not share the same character as the Eichlers and are outside the rectangular boundary formed by the majority of homes in these two tracts. Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied. o Prevailing Single Story Character: An area proposed for an S overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single story. It is desirable that homes be similar in age, design, and character. Of the 87 properties included in this application, 86 are currently single story (951 Blair Court is the only two story home within the proposed boundaries). All of the 87 homes have a single story deed restriction. All 87 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. CMR:361:00 Page 3 of 6 Moderate Lot Sizes: An area proposed for an S overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes (7,000 to 8,000 square feet) with a generally consistent lotting pattern. Of the 87 lots, 47 are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet and 22 are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Of the remaining lots, ten are between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet, six 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, 69 of the 87 lots (79 percent) can be considered moderate in size. The neighborhood has a consistent lotting pattern that is defined by five streets: Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, E1 Cajon Way, Blair Court and Greer Road. 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. City initiation of the zone change process is recommended because the neighborhood created by Tracts 1371 and 1503 cannot apply for the zone change without written authorization from each property owner. With some property owners expressing opposition to the zone change and others not responding to the neighborhood survey, it would not be realistic to expect the neighborhood to obtain the necessary authorizations and file the zone change request for all 87 parcels. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to initiate the zone change process if the overlay application is to be considered. Flood Zone Considerations Portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 are located within the 100-year flood zone. At its July 17, 2000 meeting, Council directed staffto research methods of taking into account increases in house heights resulting from flood requirements. This direction was in conjunction with action on the single story overlay for the De Soto Drive neighborhood. Staff is continuing to research this issue and will prepare an analysis and recommendation prior to final action on this request for a single story overlay which is tentatively scheduled for November 2000. RESOURCE IMPACT If the City initiates the requested zone change, fees normally associated with a zone change application would not be charged. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendation in this staff report is consistent with Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goal L-3, Policy L-12, which calls for preserving the character of residential neighborhoods CMR:361:00 Page 4 of 6 by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjoining structures. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1)Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or 2)Deny the request to initiate consideration of a single story overlay zone for the Tract 1371 and 1503 neighborhood. TIMELINE If the Council elects to initiate this zoning application, staff recommends that the application be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission at a public hearing in October. Following Commission review, the application will return to the City Council for a public- hearing before the end of the year. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Should the City Council initiate review of this application, an environmental assessment will be conducted and will accompany the staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission. ATTACHMENTS A.Location Map B.July 28, 2000 request from the property owners of portions of Tracts 1371 and 1503 for City approval of a single story overlay zone C.Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines D.Copy of tract deed restriction E.Map of supporters in the area PREPARED BY:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EDWARD GAWF~ Director of Planning and Community Environment EMILY ~soN - Assistant City Manager CMR:361:00 Page 5 of 6 CC:A1 Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Philip Diether 959 Blair Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Lea Nilsson, 972 Elsinore Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 CMR:361:00 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A PF The City of Palo A1 to File No(s): Proposal: Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-I to R-I(S) d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai Date: 8/8/2000 FROM : RUSSELL FAX NO, : GSBS~316"T3 ~ul. 31 2000 08:~9AM P2 Attachment B July 28, 2000 Planning Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Sir: We, the owners o! homes in Tracts 1503 and 1371, are requesting a change in our zoning from an R-1 to an R-I (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, we have gathered the support ot 77% of our neighbors. Sixty-seven (67) of the eighty-seven (87) owners have endorsed this change. We are submitting to you, the City of Palo Alto Planning Department, the following: a package of Sixty seven (67) individually signed requests for a change of zoning; a list of these signers with the owner’s names, addresses and lot square footage; a parcel map includirlg both tracts 1503 and 1371; and a copy of a packet of information which has been provided to each property owner (which includes a listing of areas within the City of Palo Alto which have obtained the R-1S Overlay Zoning, a map showing the residences included in this application, copies of the CC and R’s for tracts 1503 and 1371, the signature form, a question and answer section regarding single story overlays, and an additional section defining and describing the single story overlay zone). We have been in contact with Chandl-er-Lee, Consultant to the Planning Department, and have informed him of the covenants limiting the residences to a single story for Tracts 1503 and 1371. We hope, with this ~nformation, you will expedite this request. Sincerely, AI Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 813-137 ~.,~ Philip Diether, 959 Blair Court. Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-6092 Marcia Edelstein, 924 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto. CA 94303 (650) 856-1242 Richard G, riffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto. CA 94303 (650) 856-0804 Edie Gelles, 992 El Cajon Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 858-1820 Attachment C snorv .~=~oht Comb!nine Distri¢~ Overlay Zone Guidelines The follow~Dg guidelines are intended to guide City staff and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone- change requests for application of ~he Single-Ston! Height Combining Distric~ (S) overlay zone. For neighbor~oeds in which ~here are no single-story deed restrictions, or where such restrictions exist yet have not been stricn!y adhered to, applications are to be evaluated ~hrough more rigorous use of these guidelines. However, for ~hose neighborhoods tha~ contain and have been developed consistant with m single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are-to be treated with a greater degree of flexibility. Leve! and Format of Owner SUDDOr~ An application for an (S)overlay zone map amendment should meet with ,,overwhelming" support by owners of ¯ affected properties. These owners mu~st demonstrate, ~ by providing documentation tha~ includes a written list of signatures, an understanding that they are co- applicants in a zone map amendmen~ request. Appropriate Boundaries An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a map indicating the address location of those owners who are co-app!icants 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 %he Planning Commission and City Council by the City’s Zoning Administrator. prevailin~ Sin~le-Stor~ ChmracteK ~n area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing homes are single-story, thus limiting the number of structures rendered .noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods currently .subject to single-storY deed restrictions should be currently developed in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it isdesirable that homes be similar in age, design and ~I~/~ ~age ~ character, ensuring that residents of an area propesed for rezoning possess like .desires for neighborhood preservation and face common home remodelingconstraints. Moderate Lot Sizes .In order to maintain equitable proper~y development rights ~i~hin an (S) overlay area compared to other sites within ~he R-i zone district, an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate !or size is ~o be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet. ~I~I~3 Page 2 D~LARATION OF RESTRICTIOh~, COHDITIO~S COVENANTS,CHARGES AND AGREEN£HT5 AFFW’TIN3 THEREAL PROPERTY ~ ASGARLAND PARK ~IC~H IS SITUATE IN THE CITY OF PAiD ALTO CC(~NTY OF SANTA CL~, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Attachment D DECLARATZ0N Nde Ir~d dated thi 30th day of October, 19~4. by Valley Title Co.piny of C~i~i County, I ~S, Vllley Title Co.any of Sinai Cla~i County, the owner and lubdiv/de~ 19~, Ln Book’~ o£ ~ps, It page 15. ~HEREAS, Villey Title Coa\o|ny of Senti Clirs County, il about to sell property shown-on slid which it deliria to subject to ce=tlin reltrLctions, conditions, covenlnta, and Igree~intl between~it ind the pu~chele=l of Iiid p=operty ii he=einsfter let forth: K~, THEREFORe, Villey Title Co~osny of Sinai Clira County, declire= this the prope=ty shown 1. No lot ehll! be used except for =e=idential pu=po.el. No building =hll! be erected, ilte:- ed, placid oz pe:~tted to =amain on any lot other thin one detached single-family dwelling, not to exceed one ltOry in height and i p~ivlti gi~. #e for not ~e thin two cite. ~ - 2. No building shill be elected, pilled or ilte~ed on any lot until the construction p!enlind specifications end i plin showLn9 the lo¢ltlon of the ltrUctu~e hive been Ipproved by the Ln P~zlgriph 13. 3, The ground floor Ires of the ~tn structure, exclusive of one-ltOry open porchel andgi=eges, shill be not less thin 1200 equlrl feet for s one-Irony dwelZtng. 4. No building shill be e=ected on any building plot nes=e~ than 17 f~et to the front p~operty line, nor nil=e~ thin 6 feet ~o Iny side lot line, except that the side line =el~lctionl do notapply to i detached pc=age located on the =ear one-hill (Z/2) of thi lot. 5. No dwelling house ehsl~ be erected upon lny lot or plot resulting fro= rearrange=ant or=e-subdivision of o:Lgin~l Zotl, II shown upon the rico:did k~p of thil eubdivlsion. 6. No noxious o= offensive Iot/vlty shill be carried on upon iny Jot, nor shill enythl~ be done thereon whLch Bay be or become In ennoyince or n~lan¢l to the neighborhood. other outbuilding Ihlil be uied on any lot et iny ti~i is s =llidlnce either tll~Oo=irlly or Bo NO fo~l or inL~ll~ other thin household pets of the usual kind end In I =ellonibll numbs=.Ihell be, or be luffe=ed to be, kept or ~lintiinid Ln llid 9. Residents owRLng cz hiving p~ck-up tzuckl on the property herein described IBJlt pazk sil~ 10. No d~ellln9 shill be erected or placed on any lot hivin~ a width of less thin ~9 feetIt the minimum building setback line nor Ihlll any dwelling be erected or pieced on any lot hivingin Ires Of less thin 6000 squire flit. tl. F.lse~aentl for instillation Ind ~ilntenance of ut!lLtles snd d=llnlge=tse=ved I1 sho~n on the =ecorded plot ind over the rear five feet of each lot. 12. The I=ch£tectuzsl control co=~ttee Ls composed of Joseph L. Elchle=, Edward P. E~chle~and Richard L. F.tchll~. f I~jOrlty of the o~t~tle ~y designate a ~ep~esentatLve to lot fo= Zn the even~ of deith O~ =es~gnltlon o£ any me~e= of the co.tree the ~e~/nlng ~e~l=l shill hive full =utho=2ty to designate I Successor. NeLthe= the me~e~t o£ the co.tree o~ Lit designated recorded ~lttln tnl~u=ent to ¢hlnge the ~e=shLp of the o~ee o~ to wLthd~l~ f~o~ the Ipp=OVe within 30 dlyl Iftl~ pllnl Id specifications hive been sub~tt~ to it, oz In any event, 1£ no suit to enjoin the onlt~uctionl hal been o~en¢ld p~lo= to the o~letion thereof, 14. ~eme ovenlnt= lie to run ~th the ~ I~ Ihill be bL~L~ on mll p=~tle= ~ of 10 Villi un~tll in Inlt=u=lnt ILgn~ by I ~]o:tty of the then o~ers of the )Otl hll Dean 16. Znvl/LdltLon O£ any one of Shell ovenlnts by Judgment o~ court o~de= Ihill In no way The b~elch a£ the foregoing =eat=lotions a~ covenants o~ any entry by ~elson Of such Ions I~ o~/tLonl, ZN ~ITNESS ~HER~OF, the ends=signed his executed Ind sealed this lnlt~u=ent the diy Ind year VALLEY TZTLE C~4~PANy OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY By E. S. Glnl Vlce-P=sltdent Acknowledged~October 30, 1954 Rl¢o~dld=~ce~e~ 20, 19~ In Book 3037 of ~ficisl Reco=dl, page 357. Reco=de~ File No. 103b183. DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, CHARGES AND AGI~EEMENT~ AFFECtinG THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT 1503 WHICH IS SITUATE IN, THE CITY OY PALO ALTO, COUNTY OF S.~CI’A CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOOK3166 PAGE 607 DECLARATION msde and dated the 5’~h d~y of May, 1955 by VAlley Title Company of S~ta Clam Cotmty, a corporation. WHEREAS, Valley Title Company of Santa Clara County, the owner ~nd mabdivider of a certain tract of land in the City of Palo Alto, Colmty of Santa Clara, State of California, shown upon a map entitled, Tract No. 1503 which said Map wa~ flied for re~ord in the of Bc~ of the County Recorder of Santa Clara Couaty, California, on the 3’rd chy of May, 19.~5 in Book 57 of Iv~s, at page 7. WHEREAS, Valley Title Company of Santa Clara County, is abom to adl property ~owa on ~sid Map which it desir~ to aubj~-t to re.C.ri~tions, c.onditioas, ¢ov~ants, and agreements betw~-n it and the pu~chasecs as h~’eiaaftcr s~ forth: NOW, THEKEFORE, Valley Title Company of Santa Clara County, declares tim the property shO~n o~ said Map is held and shall b¢ conveyed sabject to restrictions, covenants, and agreements between it and the purchasem of said property and thou heirs, suc.cassors and assigns, as h~inafter set forth. 1. No lot shall be used except for residential purpose. No building shall be er~’Ced, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached stogie f~mily dw~Ll;.ng, not tn excs~d on~ gtorv i~ height and a private garage for not more than two ~.~ra. 2. No building shall be ercct~.t, places1 or alt~’ed ~-n any 1~ tmtil the ~onstru~tion plato and specifications ~ud a plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by the architectural ~ontrol committee as to quality af workma~hip and materials, harmony of external design with existing s~,uctures and as to location with r~-pect to topography and fmish l~ada elevation. No f~ace or wall shall be e~oaed,..~laccd or altered on any lot nearer to any street ahan the minimum building net back-line units ~ailarly approved. Approval shall b¢ as provided in Paragraph 14. 3. The ground floor area of the main strum’are, exclusive of one story opca porches, and gerald, shall ant be less ~ 1400 squar~ feet for a one- story dwelling. 4. No building shall be erected on any building plot seen= than 20 fee to the firaat street line, nor nearer than 6 fee¢ m any sid~ l~t line, exoept that the side Line restrictions do not apply to a detached garage located on the rear one-half (1/2) ofthe lot. 5. No dwelling house shall be erected upon any lol or plot resulting f~am r~.uraagemmt or re~subdivisiion ofo~l lott, as shown t~on the recorded Map of this subdivision. 6. No noxious or offensive activity, shall he carried on u~oa any lot, nor shall anything be dane fl~ercon which may be or beome an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 7. No structure era temporary character, trailer, basement, teat, shack, garage, barn or other outbuildmt shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either tem~rarily or permanently. 8. No fowl or animals, other than household pets of the usual kind and in 9. No trailers are to be parked in said tract where they are visible from the streW. I0. No trucks are to be parked ~n the street or ia the driwways of said tract, ~c.ept deliveey tm~ks or other trtr.~ parked te~aorarily for the service of the re.sidmces. 11. No coraraercial signs of any kind, including "for sale" sig~ are to be dis-played oa the houses or lots in said trag 12. No basketball standards or other sports apparatus are to he attached to the fro~ts of xesidences in said tract 13. The arc.hkeettual ~ontrol committe~ is composed ofJ.L. Eic.hle~, F.dward Eidder, and Richard Eichler. A majority of the committee may designate a representative to aa for it. in the event of death or resignation af any member ofthe ,ommi~ the remaining members shall have f~II authority to designat~ a successor. Neither the members oftl~¢ ¢ommiR~’aor its d~ignate¢i res’pr~smtativ~ shall be entitled to ~my campeasation for services performed pursuant to this covenant. At any time the then r~ord dWners of a majority of the lots shall hav~ the power through a duly re~.~rded written instrument to change the memb~rskip of the committee or to withdraw from the r.ommitia¢ or rastor~ t~ it any of its powerg and d,dties. 14. The =~mmitte~’s approval or disapproval as rt~quh’ed in the~ covenants shall be in writing. Ia the ev~t the c.ommitta¢, or its d~il~ated repr)~ntative, fails to approve or disapprove withi,~ 30 days after pleas and s’p~:ificatio~ have been submitted to it, or in any ~at, if no ~it to enjom the constructions has b~en commenced prior to the completion thm’enf, approval will not be required and the r~lat~I covenants shall he deemed to have been tally complied with. 15. These covenants are to run wkh the land and shaL~ be binding on all parties and all persons olaiming under them for a period of twenty-five years, ~om the date these cove.ants are recorded, after which time said ¢ovemnta shall be a~omaticaLly extended for sur~assiva im’iods of tea years unless an in-qrta~ent, signed by a majority, of the then r~,ord owens of the lots, has been re~:orded agr~iag to l~m~¢ mid c~veaanes in whole or in part. 16. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in ~luity against any p~soa or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants either to restrain violation or to recover damages. t 7. Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgement or for=e and effect. The breach of the forego~g restrictions and coven,sis or any entry by reason of such bre~ch shall not de.f~at or r~nder invalid the lien of any De~d of Trust on said premises but in the case offo~losare and ,--~le thereunder, the purchaser shall take title aubjea.ta all of saki rt~a-iv.ia~s and conditions. IN WITNESS THER.EOFI the undersigned ha; executed, and sealed this iastnun~t the day and year f~t above written. VALLEY T1TLE COMPANY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY By: un.readabl¢PresidentBy: Claudia Edward~Sec~e~ry (Retyped by Phil Die,her from copy obtained from County Kecorders Office June 13, 2000.) Attachment E PF City or Palo Alto File No(s): Proposal: Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-I to R-I(S) " E Supporters I Existing 2-Story House d:\GlodaD~Artwork\Maps\SiteLocationMaps\ElsinoreSingleStoryOvedaySupporters.ai IL-=Ased: 9/5/2000 0’ 150’ 300’ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Attachment E September 29, 2000 Planning Division Dear:Property Owners Subject:INFORMATION MEETING CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ZONING IN TRACTS 1371 AND 1503 OF THE ELSINORE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD, PALO ALTO I am writing this letter to provide you with an update on the status of the single story overlay zone in the Elsinore Drive neighborhood, to inform you about a neighborhood meeting to answer questions about the of a single story overlay and to ask whether you wish to change your support of, opposition to, the proposed single story overlay. On July 28, 2000, the City of Palo Alto received a letter from the property owners of portions of Tract 1371 and portions of Tract 1503 requesting the designation of a single story overlay zone for the 87 single family parcels contained in the area (see attached map). The letter was accompanied by signatures from 67 of the 87 property owners. Since then, three property owners have added their support and 16 have retracted their support in writing. As of September 28, 2000, 54 owners (62 percent) were in support of the proposed overlay. On September 18, the City Council postponed a decision on whether to initiate the rezoning request. The City Council directed City staff to hold a neighborhood meeting to clarify information about the overlay, 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 back to the City Council for their review. What is a Single Story_. Overlay ? The City of Palo Alto adopted a Single Story Overlay to help residents’ single-story houses in those neighborhoods that are of predominately single story character. The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential 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. A letter (dated September 1, 2000) previously mailed to you described the overlay in greater detail. 250 Hamilton Avenue RO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax What 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 about the single story overlay. In addition, Chandler Lee, Project Planner, will be present to discuss previous applications. The meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2000 at 7:00 PM at the Arts Center (Newell Road near Embarcadero Road). The meeting room is in the Art Center (1313 Newell Road), next to the main library, to the right of the lobby. If you have questions about this meeting please call Chandler Lee at (650) 329-2441 or 415-282-4446. In addition, I have attached a coupon that the City will use to measure current support for a single story overlay for Tracts 1371 and 1503 in the Elsinore Drive neighborhood. If you have already signed a signature form to support or oppose the overlay, you need not return this form. If you haven’t signed a form or you would like to change your support of~ or opposition to, the single story overlav~ please fill out the coupon below and return it as soon as possible, but no later than October 18, 2000 to: Chandler Lee, Planning Department, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303. You may also hand deliver the form to the meeting on October 11, 2000. Sincerely, g Manager ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Location Map of Elsinore Drive area (1 page) 2 I wish to change my current support (or opposition) to the proposed single story overlay. I now wish to: Support a single story overlay for the Elsinore Drive neighborhood. NOT support a single story overlay for the Elsinore Drive 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. 3 M.o The City of Palo A1 to PLANNING DIVISION d :\GloriaD~Artwork\Ma File No(s): 9~9\ Proposal: Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story Oveday i.e., Zone Change from R-1 to R-I(S) Date: 8/812000 0’ ? 300’ )s\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai Cityof Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environnwnt September 1, 2000 Planning Division Dear~Property Owners Subject:INFORMATION CONCERNING THE STATUS OF ZONING IN TRACTS 1371 AND 1503 IN THE ELSINORE DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD, PALO ALTO I am writing this letter to provide you with an update on the status of the proposedsingle story overlay zone in the Elsinore Drive area and to answer questions that have been raised by property owners in your neighborhood. On July 28, 2000, the City of Palo Alto received a letter from the property owners of portions of Tract 1371 and portions of Tract 1503 requesting the designation of a single story overlay zone for the 87 single family parcels contained in the area. The letter was accompanied by signatures of 67 of the 87 property owners. Since then, two owners have added their support and eight have retracted their support in writing. As of August 31, 2000, 61 owners (70 percent) were in support of the proposed overlay. On September 18, the City Council is tentatively scheduled to initiate the rezoning review process. On October 11, 2000 the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a public hearing to approve or deny the rezoning on November 13, 2000. The October 11, 2000 Planning Commission hearing and the November 13, 2000 City Council hearing both provide oppommities for residents to submit written and/or oral testimony. Because the action is adopted by City ordinance, the ordinance requires a first and second reading and does not become effective until 31 days following the second reading of the ordinance. The following information outlines the single story overlay and its implications for property owners. What is a Single Story_ Overlay ? The City of Palo Alto adopted a Single Story Overlay to help residents prevent second story additions for houses in neighborhoods of predominately single story character. The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential 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 (S) Overlay Zone, where 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story character. The primary effect 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 coverage. In practice, however, lots exceeding 7,500 square feet would be 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 (S) overlay compared with whist is a!lowable under standard R- 1 zoning and what is allowed if a single story deed restriction is enforced without a single story overlay district. Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S) Lot Size 6,000 s.f. 7,000 s.f. 7,500 s.f. greater than 7,500 s.f. R-1 Zoning Allowable House Size* Second Floor Allowed 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.£ 35% ground floor coverage + second floor = 3,000 s.f. R-1 Zoning Allowable House Size If Single Story Deed Restriction Enforced** 35% ground floor coverage = 2,100 square feet (s.f.) 35% ground floor coverage = 2,275 square feet (s.f.) 35% ground floor coverage = 2,450 square feet (s.f.) 35% ground floor coverage = 2,625 square feet (s.f.) R-I (S) Zoning Allowable House Size*** 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.f.) 40% ground floor coverage = 3,000 square feet (s.f.) R-1 zoning applies R-1 zoning applies.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 a single story deed restriction? Most of the neighborhoods that have been rezoned to include a single story overlay also have 2 a private restriction in the deed of trust that limits the height of each home to one story. All 87 homes in Tract 1503 and 1371 have been developed with such a deed restriction. The deed restriction is a private agreement among property owners and, therefore, the City has no authority to enforce the provisions of the deed restriction. Therefore, a two story home currently can be built on any lot in the EIsinore Drive area provided that all other zo .r0ng requirements are met. The only recourse available to a property owner opposed to construction of a two story home where such a deed restriction applies is to file a lawsuit against his or her neighbor. If rezoned to the Single Story Overlay property owners are provided with several oppommities unavailable to those without the overlay: 1) the City will enforce the single story overlay provision by denying building permits for any proposed two story home; 2) neighbors understand that the single story limit is in place; and 3) neighbors need not resort to lawsuits to enforce the single story provision. Other Neighborhoods that have a Single Stow Ov~[!a¥ " Since 1992, the City Counci! has approved single story overlays in eiglit n~ighborhoods in Palo Alto. These areas include: 1) The Walnut Grove neighborhood (!:Iil lots), 2) the Green Meadows neighborhood (185 lots), 3) Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood (96 lots), 4) Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood (61 lots), 5) Tract 709 of the Blossom Park Neighborhood (16 lots), 6) Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738 in the Barron Park Neighborhood (20 lots), 7) Tract 1722 and portions of Tract !977 in the Meadow Park neighborhood (75 lots), and 8) Tracts 883 and Tract 909 in the De Soto Drive area of Channing Park I and II. Do yOU have questions about the single story_ overlay? If you Nave additional questions about the single story overlay, please feel free to call Chandler Lee, Project Planner, at 650-329-2441 or 415-282-4446. Sincerely, Lisa Grote Chief Planning Official Attachments: Attachment A:Map of Tract 1371 and Tract 1503 in the Elsinore Drive area (1 page) Attachment B: Request for City Approval of a Single Story Overlay Zone (1 page) Chandler Lee, Project Planner Planning Department file ATTACHMENT F April 24, 2001 Community Meeting CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED PRIOR JUNE 11, 2001 City. of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Cornmul~ity Environment Planning Division GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ELSINORE DRIVE SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING APRIL 24, 2001 7:00 PM- 9:00 PM AGENDA I.INTRODUCTION - JOHN LUSARDI II.SCHEDULE III.REVISED BOUNDARIES IV.NEXT STEPS DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS Department of Planning and Community Environment John Lusardi, 329-2561 Current Planning Manager Phillip Woods, 329-2230 Senior Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154. fax GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ELSINORE DRIVE / - / SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD ApriI 24, 2001 NAME ADDRESS PHONEIEIVLAIL GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD ELSINORE DRIVE SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD April 24, 2001 ADDRESS PI-IONErEMAIL Apd123,2001 Ms. John Lusardi Current Plam~ing Manager, City of Palo Alto 250 tLamilton Ave P.O. 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Lusardi, We submit the attached list of 87 owners and their respective positions on the single story overlay. The former lists submitted to the Planning Department have been generated by the proponents of the proposition. They are incorrect and skewed in favor of the proponents. The 4 changes we have found,, and submit to you, are as follows: 940 Elsinore Dr.- Mrs. Amlstrong is for single story overtay, Mr. Armstrong is ~ * 943 El Cajon Way - changed ownership on 11/7/2000. The owners are undecided as of this date 968 Elsinore Ct - changed ownership on 1/10/2001. MS. and Mrs. Marcus are ~ a single story overlay * 974 Elsinore Ct - changed ownership on 9/6/2000. MS. and Mrs. Payanides are ~ the single story overlay * *See attacheddoctm~ents Sincerely, Gary Chan Charlotte Fu Kathy Leirle Lea Nilsson CO: Ed Gawf, Director, Dept. of Planning, City of Palo Alto kddress )92 Elsinore Drive )91 Elsinore Drive )86 Elsinore Drive )85 Elsinore Drive 982 Elsinore Drive 981 Elsinore Drive }76 Elsinore Drive 975 Elsinore Drive )71 Elsinore Drive 966 Elsinore Drive 965 Elsinore Drive 962 Elsinore D’dve 961 Elsinore Drive 956 Elsinore Ddve 955 Elsinore Drive 951 Elsinore Drive 950 Elsinore Drive 945 Elsin’ore Drive 1941 Etsinore Drive 940 Elsinore Drive 935 Elsinore Drive 931 Elsinore Drive lParcelnumber 003-52-078 003-51-001 O03-52-O77 003-51-002 003-52-076 003-51-003 ~003-52-0Y5 ~003-51-004 003-51-005 003-52-070 003-51-006 003-52-069 003-51-007 003-52-068 003-51-008 003-51-009 003-52-067 003-51-010 003-51-011 003-52-079 003-51-012 ,003-51-013 Last name Yes/No Schroeder Yes iWiilemsen No Galanis, Trustee Yes Sherk Yes Dies Yes Russell, Trustee Yes Lowry No Mann No Hu No Shapiro Yes Harden, Trustee .....No .... Niczyporuk No Griffiths Yes Daniell Yes Holt Yes Nishimura Yes Fredell Yes Scarpino Yes Lamport Yes Armstrong husband N~ wife Yes Rausch Yes Douglas Yes 925 924 921 915 914 911 910 905 Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive Elsinore Drive 904 Elsinore Drive 901 EIsinore Drive 900 Elsinore Drive 974 Elsinore Court 972 EIsinore Court 970 Elsinore Court 968 Elsinore Court ,903 El Cajon Way 906 El Cajon Way 907 El Cajon Way 912 El Cajon Way 913 El Cajon Way 916 El Cajon Way 917 El Cajon Way 1922 El Cajon Way 926 El Cajon Way 932 El Cajon Way 003-51-014 003-52-091 003-51-015 003-51-016 003-52-048 003-51-017 003-52-047 003-51-018 003-52-~46 003-51-019 003-52-045 003-52-074 003-52-073 ;003-52-072 003-52-071 003-52-090 003-52-049 003-52-089 003-52-050 003-52-088 003-52-098 003-52-087 003-52-052 003-52-053 003-52-054 Bonner No ~Edelstein Yes Gibson Yes Sedman Yes Staepelaere Yes Wang No Jensen No Walsh, Trustee No ~Shaw Yes Sieloff, Trustee Yes Leu No Panayides No Nilsson No Lierle, Trustee No Marcus No Schmidt .Yes Targ ’No Resneck, Trustee Yes Greenberg Yes Kunz Yes Wood Yes Plock, Jr. Truste~Yes Baum, Trustee Yes Rubinov "’Yes McGilvray, Jr.Yes )36 El Cajon Way 342 El Cajon Way )43 El Cajon Way ~)46 El Cajon Way 351 El Cajon Way 352 El Cajon Way 956 El Cajon Way 962 E! Cajon Way 966 El Cajon Way 972 El Cajon Way 975 El Cajon Way 976 El Cajon Way 003-52-055 O03-52-056 003-52-086 003-52-057 003-52-085 003-52-058 003-52-059 003-52-060 003-52-061’" 003-52-062 003-52-084 003-52-063 Bar Wheeler, Trustee Mitz,Olson Pillsbury, Jr. Lovy White, Trustee .Yatovitz, Trustee Ghassemi Bird Cannon Hu Choi Yes Yes ...................... [Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 979 El Cajon Way 982 El Cajon Way 985 El Cajon Way 986 El Cajon Way 989 Et Cajon Way 991 El Cajon Way 992 El Cajon Way 2276 Greer Road 2290 Greet Road 2304 Greer Road 2316 Greet Road 2328 Greer Road 2370 Greer Road 950 Blair Court 951 Blair Court 954 Blair Court 955 Blair Court 958 Blair Court 959 Blair Court 962 Blair Court 966 Blair Court 970 Blair Court 974 Blair Court 978 BLair Court ~81 Blair Court 984 Blair Court 990 Blair Court 991 Blair Court 003-52-083 003-52-064 003-52-082 003-52-065 003-52-081 003-52-080 003-52-066 003-52-001 003-52-002 003-52-003 003-52-OO4 003-52-005 003-52-021 003-52-011 i003-52-010 003-52-012 003-52-009 003-52-013 003-52-008 003-52-014 003-52-015 003-52-016 003-52-017 003-52-018 003-52-007 003-52-019 003-52-020Ioo3-52-o06 Nakamura Peek Oh Mellick Li Skowronski Weiss, Trustee Ramakrishnan i Carter, Trustee Weiss Lewis Trossman Freeman Donnelly ~Sorenson Ager Tsay Hu, Trustee " Diether Rohlfs Vallie i Pang, Trustee Tsuboi Berg Campbell Norgren Cottrell, Trustee Chart Yes Yes No Yes No ~O Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Jeff&Ann Marcus 968 Elsinore Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303-3410 Phone: 650 424-1833 Fax: 650 424-1830 April 22, 2001 Department of Planning and Community Environment John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager We are new owners of the property located at 968 Elsinore Ct. Our property-closed escrow on March 15,2001. I would like to make sure that our preference in the "Request for a single story overlay" is properly recorded as NO for our property. ¯ Weare not in favor of the "Request for single .story overlay". ¯Sincerely,/’~" Jeff and Ann Marcus MODE = MEI’IORY TRI~SMISSIOH FILE STH NO. COMM. RBBR NO.STATION NAblE/TEL NO, !415282981G PAGES DURATION x~~=~.,=~m-~~,P~=-PJ]MIN. OFFICE -COLDWELL-P~q blIDTO~4 - - ~:~’,P~ -658 328 8921- To: Ivir. Chandler Lee, Planning Dept. City of Palo Alto tier: request for withdrawal of my signature from petition for a single story zoning My name is (please print) I request that my signature be withdrawn from the above mentioned petition. Plani_n_g Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Paio Alto, CA 94301 Atm: John Lusardi Via Hand Deliver5, Date: April 25, 2001 Re: Request to be Excluded from the Elsinore Neighborhood Rezoning Dear Mr. Lusardi: We are homeowners of Elsinore Drive in Palo Alto. We are requesting to be excluded from the single story overlay rezoning for out" properties. Last summer, a group of neighbors proposed the single story overlay rezoning in tracts 1503 and 1371 on total 87 properties. The original proposal has never gained enough support. In January 2001, 6 neighbors requested a boundary change to exclude Blair Court and a part of Greer Road for its rezoning proposal. The rezoning request has been extremely upsetting and disturbing to us. We are AGAINST this proposal. We are on the end of Elsinore Drive. There are six (6) property owners. Four (4) of us are against this rezoning proposal. Therefore, 67% voted against and only 33% voted for this single story overlay. The support for the single story overlay at our end of the Elsinore Drive is 33%. We are hereby requesting to be excluded from the rezoning proposal. A map with revised boundary is enclosed for your attention. Thank you very much for your heip. Pa~trick @alsh - 905 Elsinore Drive, Palo Mto, CA Gla’dy; LeuC-L-" - 900 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA File No(s):RevL~-d: 1126/0t Proposali Resident’s request, that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1 to R-’~ (S) 150’ 300’ d:\GlodaD~Artwork~Sl~eLoca~ionMaps\ElsinoreSingleS toryOveflaYS uPp°rter&ai Lusardi John .............. ’ From: Sent: To: Subject: Albert Hu [alberthu@pacbell.net] Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:46 PM John_Lusardi@city.pato-alto.ca.us Single-Story Overlay Dear Mr. Lusardi, I am writing this to you because some people in the Elsinore/EI Cajon area try to add the Single-Story Overlay to that neighborhood againt after failed the attempt last year. This time they want to exclude one section of the neighborhood from voting because more oppositions voted against them last t me. Personally I think this a very dirty trick, can people keep reducing the area until they are sure thay have substantial majority in favor of what they want? Should this be considerd majority tyranny? Besides, they are not even the majority, majority are the citizenry of Palo Alto. I don’t live in 975 El Cajon Way, I own the property with my brothers. We bought the property for the benefit of my mother, she lives there. One day, she will be gone and I liketo move there myself if I can work out a deal with my brothers. We have no intention to build a second story on that property, not now, not after I and my wife move there for retirement. So why am I opposing this Single-Story Overlay proposal? Becuase I don’t like the idea of imposing one’s own desire on others! Current CCRs already have restriction on building a second story which make anyone want to try think twice. I urge you not to grant any consession to this group of ask passing the zoning change with ~ess than a great majority of the vote. As we all are very busy with our life, mine has a lot to do with performing community services, I really don’t want to spend too much time on issues like this, fighting off other’s attempt to imposing their will on me. If this is played fair and square and the decision is to change the zoning, I will.accept that, otherwise let’s not to try it again and again and get on with our life. Sincerely, Albert Hu FROM : RUSSELL FAX NO. : 650843i673 Apr. 26 2001 05:23PM Albert Russell Attorney at Law 981 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, California 94303 Phone (650) 81.3-1372 Fax (650) 843-1673 April 26,2001 Mr. John Lusardi Current Planning Manager City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Polo Alto, California 94301 RE: Elsinore Dive. Elsinore Court and E1 Cajon Single Story Overlay Reque,st, Dear John: Thank you for forwarding to me yesterday the information that you received on April 23,200I regarding four parcels in our tract, The first-property listed on the letter from Chan, Fu, Loire and Nilsson is bcateet at 940 Elsinore Drive. The property owner is Armstrong. I have a ve~ strong objection to this item being listed as "husband No, wife Yes" - in other words a split vote. From the very beginning of this process, we were told by the City that, where there was more than one owner on a parcel (e.g. husband and wife), BOTH signatures had to be obtained in order to qualify that parcel as supporting the single story overlay. On the property at 940 Elsinore Drive, both Mr. and Mrs. Annstrong signed the original petition (the original, is in the possession of the city). And, since we had to have BOTH signatures for a supporting vote, the retraction of any supporting vote would ONLY count as achange if BOTH parties (husband and wife) signed the withdrawa! of theix support for the overlay. Again, from the beginning of our contacts with the City of PaIo Alto, we have always followed this rule. Thus, the property at 940 EIsinore Drive has been and SHOULD CONTINUE to be counted as a "YES" vote in support of the overlay since only one signature (Mr. Armstrong) has been submitted to you. I FROM : RUSSELL FAX NO. : 6508431623 Apt, 26 2001 05:23PM P2 There was a great deal of discussion of changes in rules or procedures at the meeting the other night (4/4/2001) but this one has been a £i×ed rule r~,r the last year, If this is not followed, you may h~ve te contac[, every individual owner (both husband and wife as well as any ether joinf owners) to determine a vote basexl on everyone’s individual opinion. Thus, again, the "yes" vote for 940 Elsinore Drive should nol: be changed. Thank you for your consideration and, if you have any questions, please contact: me. Very truly yours, 2 Plann_ing Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pa!o _Alt0, CA 94301 May l, Dear Mr. Lusardi, As homeowners in tract 1371, we oppose the proposed single-story overlay that would change ore" zoning fi’om R-1 to K-l(s). Neither the original proposal covering 87 properties, nor the revised proposal excluding 19 of those properties, meets the level of support that other single-story overlays have needed in order to pass. For this reason, we urge the Planning Department to recommend against any farther action on this proposal, so that the City can put this matter (and our neighborhood) to rest. However, in the event that this proposal proceeds, we.hereby petition you, the Plamaing Department, to exclude Elsinore Court and the two homes on Greer from the overlay area. Counting the votes of the current owners, there is not one household on Elsinore Court that supports the overlay. Counting the six homes together on Elsinore Court and Greer, there are 5 opposed and only one in favor. These six homes are oriented differently both physically and ideologically than the rest of the neighborhood included in the revised proposal. We request to be excluded. Thank you very much for your help. Jeff & Ann Marcus 968 Elsinore Court Lea Nilsson 972 Elsinore Court MAY 0 2 ZO0t [3~Partrnent of Planning eno ~omrnunity Envttonrnent .,.. ,~ initiate a zone change to add a Single-~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ 0’, 150 30~ d:kGIoriaD~orkkMapskStaffRepo~skEIsin°reSingleSt°~Oveday’a Page 1 of 2 Lusardi, John From:Scott Bortner [sbo~tner~@home.com] Sent:V~/ednesday, May 02, 2001 To:john_Lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us Subject:EIsinsore neighborhood single stor~ overlay Dear Mr. Lusardi: I am a residmt of 925 Elsinore Drive in Palo Alto. I moved into my house in August of 2000. I have lived in Palo Alto for 10 years. As you are probably aware, a petition has been circulated to add a single story overlay zone. After heavy lobbying by both sides I have decided that I oppose a single story overlay. I have conciuded that the existing single covenants are a more flexible and equitable mechanism for dealing with the issues surrounding the inevitable evolution of the neighborhood. Also. alternative solutions may exist that have not been explored. My reasons are as follows. The.existing CCR’s permit private law suits between neighborhood members. Given the current composition of the nei~borhood, such a lawsuit would be a virtual certainty. Thus anyone seeking to build a second story would be forced to negotiate an "acceptable" second story, e.g., relatively large setback, offset window, strategic trees, eic. The use of a blanket ban on second stories is relatively crude and ineffective instrument for achievihg the desired goals of the proponents. I can only guess what such goals are, but I assume that are the preservation of privacy and the desire to maintain a neighborhood of uniform appearance. These goals can be better achieved by alternative mechanisms. For example, detailed guidelines as to window placement on second stories and increasing the front setback of a second stoD’ could achieve the desired results. Also, modifying the "footprint" size of a home with a second story could achieve the desired results. I am concerned about the increase in footprint size given to 5000 square foot lots. Presumably ~is additional square footage was given as "sweetener" to get additional homes to sign on to the petition for a single story overlay. Nonetheless, this increase in footprint will reduce privacy. My lot is about 7500 square feet and the ~alue of my home would be adversely affected by the additional square footage given to home footprints on smaller lots. In essence, many house in my neighborhood will be given additional rights, whereas my property will not be given such an advantage. Since land prices are all determined by comparison with nearby land, I can only assume my property will experience a relative decline in value. As a recent horae purchaser, I am not in a position to be as magnanimous as someone who has experienced a several hundred percent increase in home value. I am also uncertain of the legality of such a measure because the measure appears to constitute a de facto uncompensated taking. 4. ’ The composition of the neighborhood is changing. My observations suggest that long time residents like the status quo and thus favor the new zoning restriction, whereas newer residents are not enamored with the proposed restriction. Thus the general trend among residents is away from desirability of a single story zone. Thus by implementing the proposed zoning regulation it is likely that o~er time (I estimate about 7-!0 years) the proponents of the zoning regulation wil! be in the minority. This shifting demogaphics is the obvious reason for the current urgency to get a zone now while the 70% level can still be reached. Having witnessed the destruction and disarray caused by California’s Prop 13, I am extremely wary of implementing any system .through a transient supermajority that can be locked into place by a minority in the future. Given the potential for changes in housing preferences in the future (and decaying 50 year old Eichlers), inflexible regulations are potentially troublesome. 5.I am also uncomfortable with the mechanism by which the zoning regulation has been promulgated. The new Page 2 of 2 zonkng regulation is being offered as is, with no room for modification. I feel that a mechanism for a negotiated solutior~ should be created. As I have noted above, many alternative mechanisms could be created for addressing he perceived risks of the status quo; however, the city could offer, but has not offered aIternative zoning solutions. Please maintain this letter in confidence, unless I give you pen’nission to disclose it Sincerely yours, Scott R. Bortrter, Ph.D., 925 Elsinore Drive 650-638-6245 5/3/01 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Council Members: 922 El Cajon Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 2 May 2001 On Monday, 7 May 2001, you will consider a request for application of an R-I(S) zoning overlay to the Garland Park Subdivision. My wife and I wholeheartedly endorse this application. My family and I have owned and lived in the Eichler home at 922 El Cajon Way in this subdivision since March 1971. We have been pleased to be part of a stable neighborhood where residents know and care about their neighbors. My interest in the oveday began in 1993, when the property on Louis Road behind ours was sold to a builder-developer who then built the largest house Palo Alto zoning laws would permit. This construction " led me to review of the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R’s) which are an agreed-to part of the properbj deeds in our subdivision. Among other things, these CC&R~s explicitly prohibit adding a second story to any of the houses. I began to wonder how many of my neighbors had read this document and what legal value it had to prevent the repetition of what had happened behind us from happening next door or across the street. In 1995, I learned about the concept of the single story oveday, and its application elsewhere in Palo Alto. Stimulated by the news of the Charleston Meadows overlay, in 1996 I drafted a letter proposing that Garland Park petition for an overlay and shared it with some neighbors. We talked about developing a petition, but other responsibilities intervened and action was delayed. On Labor Day weekend in 1997, the Gibsons hosted a neighborhood potluck at their newly acquired home at 921 Elsinore Drive. At that gathering, more neighbors showed support for a single story overlay for Garland Park. Early last year, several neighbors began the formal process of preparing an application for the single story overlay. They found overwhelming support for the idea, both in our subdivision, and in an adjacent development on Blair CourL As a result, a pair of applications was filed, one for each subdivision. Once it was clear that the idea had support, two residents with interests in real estate sales, one from each of the developments, began a campaign to oppose the application. Through selective use of information they persuaded some initial supporters to join them in opposition to the oveday. The impact on the Blair Court development was so marked that the proponents there decided to withdraw their co- pending application. Here are some of the reasons for my continued support for the overlay. Gadand Park is a stable neighborhood. From my front yard I can see four homes which were purchased by the current residents from Joe Eichler in 1955. Other near neighl3ors have owned their homes for twenb! to thirty years. A stable neighborhood, where residents know one another, is a place where concepts like Neighborhood Watch work effectively.. As the post-war generation ages, it is important that Palo A~to retain physically accessible homes as part of our community housing mix. The single-story homes in our neighborhood offer greater accessibility than do the two-story houses being built elsewhere in town. Opponents to the zoning overlay have claimed that one ’could not replace an Eichler with an Eichle¢ today. They allege that ’one can no longer install floor to ceiling windows,’ A remodeling project underway next door refutes this claim. Using plans approved by the Planning Department, the owners are extending the living room. A wall that was originally constructed entirely 6f wood is being partially replaced with floor to ceiling windows. A house with the look and-feel of an Eichler can be built today. Opponents to the zoning overlay have claimed that it (or the threat of its imposition) will ddve down property values. The house across the street from me sold last year for 209% more thanits purchase price in 1993. Annual Coldwell Banker data reported in the San Frandsco Examiner suggest that the expected increase would have been 160%. This sale is not an isolated example. I have tried to stand in a rea! estate agent’s shoes and examine this application from that perspective. If I were an agent, I would probably do all I could to increase the likelihood that property would change hands frequently in my town. I would find particularly attractive a climate where I could sell a client’s property to a builder-developer, who, in turn would replace the house on the property with a larger, more expensive one which i could sell for him, thereby gaining two commissions in one year. I might vigorously oppose any zoning changes that would hinder me from this goal. The application of a single story oveday to Garland Park would provide such a hindrance to an additional 68 Palo Alto lots. hope this letter has helped you to understand the reasons for my support for the overlay. Sincerely yours, John Baum MIXED MEDIA April 25 2001 Polo Alto City Council c/o Department of Planning 250 Hamilton Avenue Polo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: I’m writing you to register my support for the Elsinore Single Story Overlay. I hod planned to come and testify in ~avor of this zone change at the May 7th council meeting but because of a work obligation I unfortunately will be out of town that evening. My wife, Susan, and I purchased our home on Elsinore five years ago. One of the things that sold us on the house was the lovely Eichler neighborhood. My Wife grew up in Polo Alto, 1 nearby, and we both have fond memories of the days when Eichler-living was the essence of Polo Alto. We are happy that our children are experiencing some of what we did growing up here. As home owners and business owners in Polo Alto, Susan and I core deeply about the future of this town. We understand change is a constant. However, we are not happy seeing human-scaled homes torn down and replaced with bloated McMansions. We don’t want to see that happen in our neighborhood. We urge you to please pass this zone change. Sincerely, ~ , 945 EIsinore Drive Polo Alto, CA 94303 650.856.6125 /-i5 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE !2 PALO ALTO, CA 9’~3Ob 650-32 i-0956 FAX 650-321-~205 May 4, 2001 Mr. John Lusardi Current Planning Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Lusardi, We, the undersigned homeowners on Elsinore Drive hereby request that Elsinore Drive be e~eluded from the revised petition to rezone our neighborhood to a single story overlay. The records you presented at the neighborhood meeting indicate that support on Elsinore Drive is iess than the necessary number to proceed. (Of the 33 homes, 11 homes have shown no support.) In addition, one family is divided on the issue, making the total opposed 35%. A map showing the exclusion is attached. ...... Thank you-for-.y.our help with this matter. Attachment PF Palo Alto File No(s): Proposal: Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story Overiay i.e,; Zone Change from .~ Date: 8/8/2000 d:\GloriaD\Artw0rk\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay’ai FROM : RUSSELL FAX NO. : 6508431673 Maw.@8 2@81 02:02PM P2 Albert RusselI Attorney at Law 981 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, California 94303 Phone (650) 813-1372 Fax (650) 843-1673 ~ay 8, ’2001 Mr. Ed Gawf, Dh’ector Mr. John Lasardi, Current Planing Manager City of P’0.1o Alto PIanNng Department 250 Hamitton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: Etsinore Drive, Etsin.ore Court and E1 Cajon Single Story. Overlay Request Dear Ed and John: Several of us from our neighborhood would like to me with both of you (and possibly Philip Woods) to see if we can work out a clear timeline for the submission of the overlay request to the city council. Wc understand that you have a heavy workload right now and that you may need some additional time to familiarize yourselves with the details of the overlay process and guidefines. In addition, we expect that there m’e a ~mmber of specific issues relating to tl~is overlay request which may need additional time to review. We are wi!ling to assist in this process in any way that would be helpful to you. Please call me at 813-I372 as soon as possible such that we can schedule a meeting. Late ¯ ,ffternoons are available. Thanks. Lusardi John .......... From: Sent: To: Subject: Suwen [suwen@relgyro.Stanford.EDU] Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:20 PM john_lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us Elsinore Drive Rezoning Issue Dear Mr: Lusardi, I’m writing to show my concerns over the proposed single story overlay zone in the neighborhood of Elsinore Drive. The way the proponents have been handling this has been quite disturbing.This in combination with the very biased support from Chandler Lee has turned into a neighbors against neighbors event. From the start, there was a deadline for collecting the votes for the proposal.When the proponent couldn’t get enough votes before the deadline, ChandlerLee delayed the deadline until the proponents could barely get enough votes.But when some of the neighbors learned the consequences of the proposal and withdrew their votes, Chandler Lee considered them to be too late and jammed the proposal into the city for review. When the proposal failed the review, Chandler Lee sponsored an event to try to solicit more votes. The invitation of the event was selectively distributedto the certain neighbors. When that event failed to garner enough votes, the proponentsresorted to unethical tactics such as harassing neighbors and threaten thosewho have on-going house remodeling with law suits unless they agree to vote for the proposal. 1 have consultded with quite a few real estate agents and all of them thinkthe existent of such a zoning restriction woutd decrease the value of theproperty in the neighborhood. Therefore, 1 have still yet to see a real reasonwhy the originator of the proposat has in mind. In the mean time, it is obvious why we are against such a proposal: no one in his right mind wouid like tosee his property value going down and no one in his right mind would like tohave other people controlling his life. Also, I’m especially concerned that why people would vote against paying extra dollars a month to repair the storm drain and in the mean time would be so over zealous. about controlling other people’s property. Would a flooded neighborhood With mud al! over the street look more pretty than a few well styled two story houses? Thanks for you concern. Sincerely Suwen Wang a resident of Elsinore neighborhood Dan Harden 965 Elsinore Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Lusardi, We are writing to you about the contentious single story overlay issue on Elsinore Drive. We purchased our house in 1991, and we love our Eichler. We have remodeled extensively, and have NO intention of ever adding a second story. BUT, we are stronqly opposed to the sinqle story overlay for several reasons: We -’- ’"-=~.’~,a~,~n away. One of tha ~’"~o,l,piy don’t want our ,,~, ~,o to be ~ "~,~o~ ,, ,,,,~,~ about owning your own house is that it’s fate is yours to decider Having this overlay is like living in a Co-Op. We do not want the Value of our house to go down because of this restriction. We have spoken to over a dozen realtors and the vast majority said it would be detrimental to the value and ultimate sale-ability of our house. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. We don’t need another restriction on our neighborhood. We are already in a flood zone, and an overlay presents many ridiculous height restrictions in the case of a total rebuild. Specifically, code states that floor level must be 6 feet above grade and the overlay limits the house height to 17 feet. That means you need to build everything within a very tight 11 feet margin, which forces you to build an inefficient, high maintenance flat roof. This also seriously limits one’s architectural freedom. Furthermore, wouldn’t anyone, especially with a family, opt for two stories if they did have to rebuild? Especially if they have a tiny 60 x 120 lot? We are also appalled that the proponents for the overlay are attempting to amend the overlay boundary by removing the Blair Court section, apparently because of the high vote count against the overlay on that street (this was done without even asking the Blair residents!). This sneaky act alone should make the whole thing null and void. Thank you for considering this matter from our perspective. Please put a swift end to this injustice that is tearing our lovely neigh ~art. Sincerely, ~-~/ Dan Harden and Heidi Schwe John Lusardi Current Planning Manager City of Palo Alto Dear Mr. Lusardi,May 14, 2001 I am a homeowner on 991 Blair Ct and I strongly oppose the single story overlay proposal R-1S for the following reasons: a. It does not make any sense. Putting a single story limitation is too drastic and serves no purpose. b. It would limit my right to develop my property to its full potential. c. Proponents argue that limiting the height of buildings will protect privacy. I believe privacy will be taken care by conforming to existing building codes. d. It does not solve the "monster house" issue; single stories can be ugly as well. e. There has been no comprehensive study done concerning the long-term impact of such height restriction, such as potential problems when rebuilding in a flood zone. f. It sets a bad precedence for a small group of people to decide the fate of tracts by passing zoning laws, which limit the rights of other homeowners. The City of Palo Alto should initiate such zoning regulations. An alternative plan, such as a Palo Alto Building Review Board, would make a lot more sense, be citywide, and be enforced fairly. In short, there is no problem begging to be solved and this proposal solves nothing anyway. Please stop this nonsense once and for all. Proponents are using unfair tactics to divide and conquer, pick and choose. Initially, they enlisted both tracts 1371 and 1503. When they saw that tract 1503 did not have the numbers to make the cut, they dropped it to make the numbers work in their favor. They should be refuted based on the initial application. Thank You. Sincerely~ 991 Bl~{r CI, Paio Alto, Ca 94303 917 El Cajon -~Vay Palo ARo, Ca 94303 650-856-0625 May22,2001 Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Department Dear Mr. Lusardi: My neighbors, the newowners of 943 Et Cajon Way, have voted "yes" for the Elsinore Area single story overlay. Attached is their sigrted form for your files on our overlay request. Our group spoke with City Council last evening. According to our numbers, we now have :.,~76% yes of the property owners who voted, and 69% overall, in favor of the request. We ! (i~,;~iSiito reconcile these numbers with you or Mr. Woods at your earliest convenience. ::!~!6~e contact me or A1 Russell as soon as possible so we can help you resume finalizing ):-".yo~ rfipbrt on our request. ,~3~. v(art F. Plock, Jr. Committee in Favor of Overlay OWNERS (WITH MAILING ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT) Property Identification ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR’S PARCEL, NUMBER LOT SIZE SIGNATURE FORM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto Zoning Administrator/Planning Commission/City Council Home Owner(s) in Tract 1371, City of Palo Alto (EXCLUDING LOTS 1, 2, 3 and 4) Request from Coapplicant of Tract 1371, City of Palo Alto, for Application of the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone to the Present R- I Zoning of the Tract I!We request that the zone for Tract 1371, City of Palo Alto, be changed from R-1 to R-1 (S). I understand that the "Single Story Height Combining District (S)" zoning overlay limits the height of structures to a maximum of 17 feet with one habitable floor and increases the allowable lot coverage to 40% with a possible additional 5% for covered patios and overhangs. Otherwise the present R-i zoning is not changed. It is also my understanding that the City of Palo Alto will initiate this zone change without charge to me if there is "overwhelming support" for this overlay as shown by the signatures of property owners. (Without the change, Tract 1371’s existing deed covenant prohibiting second stories will remain in effect with enforcement the responsibility of the other Tract 13"/1 property owners.) All owners of the property have si~d below:g~ Additional owners: * If there are other owners.who have not signed, please explain below. Mcr~ 24, 200I From: Marek A. Niczyporuk 962 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, CA94303 tel 650-494-9932 fax 650-856-3392 Subject: Elsinore Drive single-story overlay proposal Dear Iv5". Lusardi, I am writing in strong.opposition to Elsinore Drive single story overlay proposal under consideration. [ purchased my Eichler home in I996, and have no intension to add a second story. However, I was and remain strongly opposed to the overiay proposal. I was opposed to the merits of this zoning change first time this issue came up, and I expressed this intent in a letter to your predecessor, Chandler Lee. At that time, apparently enough owners shared my skepticism for this proposal, and I assumed that this issue was decided against the zoning change. I am appalled to find out that supporters of the overlay are trying to alter the overlay boundary by removing the Blair Court area, effectively picking and discarding votes against this proposal in order to force the passage of the overlay. I urge you in strongest terms not to allow such unethical tactics. Thank you for your efforts and consideration, Sincerely, Marek A. Niczyporuk 962 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTACHMENT F CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 11, 2001 917 El Cajon Way Palo Alto 94303 June 14, 2001 Mr. Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA Dear Ed and John: I am writing to you today in strong support for the Elsinore Area Single Story Overlay ~request in process. I have been one of the three representatives from E1 Cajon Way on the -i!~)~t~.who started the Elsinore area request in May of 2000. .:i O~:~[;E1 Cajon Way, has 29 properties and 24 of the 29 have voted in favor of the !i. ;!:iequ~.s.lt~!?iSr ;83% of El Cajon Way in support of the overl,a,y. However, we also believe that :.=-.our:gtreet.N;part. ._ of what we are now calhn~, the Tnple El neighborhood cons~stang of -:!i:~: ?ElsinS~i~ve, Elsinore Court, and E1 Cajon Way and we hope to see the entire neighbor- Th~.:vi.e.ws from inside our house and from my outdoor patio areas are un-obstructed by buildings. .:~at;s..~ hy we invested here 24 years ago, and that’s why we want the protection Of the overlay. I.have spoken with most of my immediate neighbors and none of them look forward to having to sue a neighbor to halt a violation of our deed restriction regarding single stories. And that’s why I have comitted over a year of my time working on getting the overlay passed. If I were able to attend the July 2 Council meeting, I would also be telling Mayor Eakins and the other Council members that, through all of this debate on the overlay, our Triple El neighborhood has really taken shape. People have gotten to know each other, new people have been welcomed, and we celebrated Memorial Day with our first Block Party in a decade, with 125 residents attending including 35 children and youth. And we had those in favor and those opposed to the overlay sharing food and stories together and forming community. Please include this letter in the packet for the Council and thanks for getting back on track with our request. MIXED MEDIA June 14, 2001 Mr. Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Gawf and Lusardi: I’m writing you to register my support for the EIsinore Single Story Overlay. I had planned to come and testify in favor of this zone change at the July 2nd council meeting but because of a work obligation unfortunately will be out of town that evening. My wife, Susan, and I purchased our home on Elsinore five years ago. One of the things that sold us on the house was the lovely Eichler neighborhood. My wife grew up in Palo Alto, I nearby, and we both have fond memories of the days when Eichler-living was the essence of Palo Alto. We are happy that our children are experiencing some of what we did growing up here. As home owners and business owners in Palo Alto, Susan and I care deeply about the future of this town. We understand change is a constant. However, we are not happy seeing human-scaled homes torn down and replaced with bloated McMansions. We don’t want to see that happen in our neighborhood. We urge you to please pass this zone change. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.856.6125 ~15 CAMIbR!DGE AVENUE, SUIT i2 PALO ALTO, CA 9-~ 306 650-321.0956 FAX 650.321.4205 SALLY [. DUDLEY 9Ol £LSINORE DRIVE PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 94303 June16,2001 Mr. Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gentlemen: 956 E1 Cajon Way Palo Alto, CA 94303-3408 This letter is in regard to the Single Story Overlay Zone petition by the Elsinore and E1 Cajon neighbor.hood (tract 1371) to be put before the Palo Alto City Council on July 2. We bought our home in 1975 in large part because of the historic design aesthetic of the neighborhood. Over the years, we and our neighbors have remodeled and expanded our homes without having to exceed the original single story height, maintaining the Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired architectural feel of this area. In the past few years a number of Palo Alto neighborhoods have lost their special appeal due to older houses being razed and replaced by much larger houses that do not blend well with the surrounding houses. We feel this is destroying one of the things that makes Palo Alto special. It is important to protect the essence of our neighborhood by limiting the height of buildings in this residential area when the majority of homeowners agree. Please pass the Single Story Overlay Zone for tract 1371, and help us keep our neighborhood intact for us and for Palo Alto. Sincerely, Boris I. Yatovitz Annette T. Yatovitz 17 June 2001 TO: Planning Department, City of Pa!o Alto We are sending this letter ~: be encIosed in the information packet for the July 2nd Council meeting. We are property owners in the tract (1371) currently requesting an overlay to replace our CC&R restrictions. We heartily endorse the CC&R’s excep! for the enforcement process. The method for enforcement virtually guarantees a contentious event which could have a long.-lasting derisive effect onour neighborhood. For 34 years on this street we and our children have enjoyed the casual friendliness among neighbors. We’ve watched kids born and raised and new young families move in, attracted by our location and the quiet beauty of our streets. It is with sadness that we see the likelihood of the neighborhood being torn apart by neighbor’s legal pursuits to enforce the CC&R’s. Like many others, we had concerns about property values; our house represents the bulk of financial assets. That prompted us to approach several local realtors who assured us off the record that a property situated in a desirable location, in good condition, and priced appropriately for the market retains its value. Indeed, properties in overlay neighborhoods have not suffered as a result of their overlay designation. Of course, a potential buyer may desire a house where a second story can be built. But there are also potential buyers who seek a property which guarantees them privacy, use of a backyard out of neighbors’ viewing, and pleasure offered by views of trees and sky. I would urge one and all involved in the overlay decision to take a few minutes to drive or walk the length of Elsinore and E1 Cajon; you will fred yourselves viewing peaceful curving streets under a canopy of handsome city-maintained trees, a route with no harsh disruptive architecture. This is a treasure of a neighborhood. We urge you to assure preservation of this very special place by endorsing the overlay request. Marcia and Jack Edelstein 924 Elsinore Drive (telephone 856-1242) Teen F. Makowski 950 Elsinore Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel. (650)856-7594 e.rnail. TeenFredell@,aol.com June 17, 2001 Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Gawf and Mr. Lusardi: Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the long awaited July 2 Council meeting at which time the Elsinore neighborhood Overlay.Zoning issue will be discussed~ I will be in Europe. However, I want to submit my input to the matter and wish to have this letter included in theCouncil packet for the meeting..To many of us the most critical reason for having the zoning change is to assure that the city will enforce the existing.CCR’s.for the Elsinore.neighborhood. Without the zoning change we are stuck with the prospect of neighbors suing neighbors to gain enforcement of the CCR’s. It is quite likely that in the future there would be someone who would disregard the CCR’s and go ahead and build a second story on their house. I have already heard people in the opposition camp state that they see nothing wrong with putting a Cape Cod house or whatever kind of second story they choose into this neighborhood. They have no concern about the character or architecture of the current houses. They also have no concern about their ’ neighbor’sprivacy, visual space or light. They care only about themselves. .There has been incorrect information disseminated by the opposition leading people to believe that a second story will automatically enhance the value of a house and that any restrictions will reduce the value of their property. This is untrue. We have had several houses recently sold or listed for over one million dollars in this rather modest neighborhood. The value depends on location, condition, and the amenities that are with a particular house. The suggestion of carving out some selected houses Qf. the tract to not be covered by the.Overlay Zoning, is a ludicrous idea. If those houses are exempt from the Overlay Zoning.then, we haven’t accomplished the purpose, which is to have stronger enforcement of the CCR’s. and to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Also, I believe that in every other area of public domain, support for an issue is determined by either a majority (51%) or a two-thirds vote by the people. And people who are apathetic and don’tvote do not automatically get counted as .a "no" vote. The votes are counted on the basis of a majority of those who do vote, either.51% or 66.6%~ I would.hope that the Overlay Zoning issue would be handled in the same fair manner. Due tothe unfortunate delays in this matter, a lot of passion has grown on both sides of the issue. I do hope that the Planning Department, the Council and the Planning.Commission will proceed in a timely manner. Thank you all for your efforts to resolve this issue. Sincerely, June 18, 2001 Mr, Ed Gawf,-Director Mr. John Lus~fdi, Current Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue ’~ Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Neville and Christina Holt 955 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Re: Single Story Overlay Petition Dear Mr. Gawf and Mr. Lusardi The houses of Elsinore Drive and El Cajon constitute an attractive community of single story Eichler homes. As 20 year residents in this attractive community we are concerned at the prospect of uncontrolled growth that would permit the addition or building of two story dwellings in this neighborhood. The intrusion into the privacy of existing single story homes that would result from such additions is unacceptable to us. We also believe that the whole aesthetic of this attractive neighborhood would be severely diminished. Accordingly, .we ask that the council support the petition for the Single Story overlay. Very truly yours, Neville and Christina Holt Karl and JoAnn Schmidt 903 El Cajon Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-856-7763 Palo Alto City Council Mr. Ed Gwaf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department 250 Ha_milton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Council Members, Mr. Gwaf, and Mr. Lusardi: We are strongly IN FAVOR of the Elsinore Area Single Story Overlay Zone petition as submitted to the Planning Department and presented during the last neighborhood meeting in May, 2001. We live at 903 El Cajon Way. We moved from the Midwest over 30 years .ago. We bought our home, added one bedroom to it, raised our family here, and have maintained the architectural integrity of the house. We urge your support of the Single Story Overlay Zone petition because: Eichlers offer a unique hying experience. We bought and have stayed.over 30 years in our home because IT IS an Eichler in an Eichler neighborhood. The large ceiling-m-floor windows embody the Eichler/Califo_mia living concept of bringing the outside in. Eichlers and their surrounding neighborhoods are distinct and unique to California and to Pa!o Alto. They deserve to be protected ... something all homeowners legally agreed to upon purchasing theM. homes. We value our "open, garden" environment. Despite a very small lot (50: by. 1.00.~ and.because of the. large wkndo.ws,.we enjoy, sunshine and garden views everywhere. (See attached page of photos.) We ev.en have a small pool,, deck~ an~4 vegetable, garden.. All. because THERE ARE NO SECOND STORY HOUSES to block the sunshine. We value our privacy in this open environment. Well-maintained because THERE ARE NO SECOND STORY WINDOWS looking down on our lot, our neighbors and we enjoy openness AND privacy. Please do not destroy this delicate balance by opening up the. possibility of ~o-story bnildings. o Our neighborhoods are under attack. Our little area - Elsinore Drive and El Cajon Way - is an architectural oasis quickly being surrounded by the ~Taco Bells" and other two story "monster homes on small lots" so beneficial to developers and realtors, but destructive to the appearance and character of an existing neighborhood. We value cohesiveness within neighborhoods, while promoting diversity and affordability within the city. There is no lack of high priced construction benefiting developers throughout Palo Alto. However, there is a lack of attractive, moderate housing being maintained and protected within our city. We believe you have a responsibility to draw some lines and maintain the distinctiveness and affordability of neighborhoods such as ours. So Finally, E1 Cajon Way is itself a httle oasis within the neighborhood -- a U-shaped street with nine of thirteen lots the same small size as ours. A two-story house on any one of the lots would destroy the hght planes, privacy, ambience and integrity not only of its immediate neighbor but of all adjacent lots, and should not be allowed. We appreciate the fact that due to your elective office or job you are called upon to make decisions that affect people’s perception of their "property rights". In this instance, we believe that the right thing to do is to protect and maintain the integrity of our valuable and unique neighborhood and we urge your enthusiastic support for the Single Story Overlay. Respectfully submitted, ~14~Ann Schmidt Palo Alto Single Smrv Overlav 2 ’ Karl & JoAnn Sehmidt Karl and JoAnn Schmidt Residence 903 E1 Cajon Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-856-7763 Front view of 903 E1 Cajon Way. Note large city trees offer shaded front yard while single story homes to side and back provide plenty of blue sky. View of side patio with morning sun from Master Bedroom. Pala Alta Single Stnrv Overlay 3 Karl & JnAnn Sehmidt View of side patio, looking toward Master Bedroom. Back yard pool and deck. Polo Alto Single Story Overlay 4 Karl & .loAnn Schmidt June 18, 2001 On~ent Mr. Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Dept. 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Gentlemen: This letter is to iffirm our strong support for the Single Story Overlay Petition for the Elsinore/El Cajon area. We believe very firmly that the neighborhood should remain as single story structures and not have any large two story houses to change the nature a~d make up of the area covered in the petition. We feel that our privacy would be seriously compromised by these monster houses. We value this privacy greatly and do not wam.t to lose it. There is also a very real question about the future value of our home should a two story house We have lived in our Eichler home for more than 46 years and fee! that it has a very unique quality which is recognized worldwide. This uniqueness and privacy would be destroyed if the overlay is not approved. The opposition to this petition comes from members of the real estate industry which has little concern for keeping the neighborhood as it is. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T~an H. Peek 982 El Cajon Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 June 18, 2001 Mr. Ed Gawf, Director Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr Gawfand Mr. Lusardi, We are writing to you with regards to the Elsinore neighborhood Single Story Overlay petition. My husband and I are strongly in favor of this petition. My husband and I movedto an Eichler at 915 Elsinore two years ago (May 1999) to raise a family. We have had two children since moving here. Our house is on a small lot and most of the exterior walls are windows. Our house is very private and green. We do not see any of the neighbor’s homes (we don’t even have curtains on our big windows!) and the trees that fill all of our yards make the house seem like it is in a small lush forest. Not only is our home a lovely place to live but also the whole neighborhood is really very special. We have really grown to love this neighborhood. We walk the children around the neighborhood every day (many times in the s~oller) and we would like to maintain the look and feel of this neighborhood. We believe that this neighborhood fulfills all Palo Atto’s criteria for a single-family overlay. This petition has allowed us to meet most everyone in the neighborhood and the vast majority is really excited about this petition. We heard that you are considering a compromise proposal that would slice out some areas that contained some of the opposing voters. We don’t believe the commission should slice and dice up the neighborhood based on some clusters. The majority of the homeowners are strongly in favor of the overlay including us and families that happen to be next to a cluster shouldn’t be penalized because of their proximity to a cluster. We would be very unhappy if the planning commission were to slice and dice up our neighborhood of Eichlers and exempt our neighbors. This defeats the purpose of the single story overlay petition. We would like to continue to raise our children in such a wonderful neighborhood and urge you to support the single story overlay for the entire Elsinore tract. / Regards,, " Miri~rn Sedm~ ,~ Ralph Nyffenegger 91-5" ElsinordDr./ Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dan Harden & Heidi Schwenk 965 Elsinore Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-3412 650.424.0169 June 20,2001 Mr. Ed Gawf Director City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: Tract 1371, Elsinore Dr, Elsinore Ct, and El Cajon - Single Story Overlay Zoning Request Dear Mr. Gawf: It has been brought to our attention that the Armstrong property at 940 Elsinore Drive, has a split vote (husband - No, wife - Yes) in the household. We would like to take this opportunity to use this case as an example of what this Zoning Request has done to our once quiet, friendly neighborhood. Both of us feel uncomfortable in our neighborhood because of what a few homeowners feel is necessary to retain their home’s appearance and privacy. Our neighbor who used to come over and chat with Dan, myself, or our sons Walker (9) and Conner (4) when he would see us at home; take care of each other’s homes when away on vacations; retrieve each others newspapers while away on weekend trips, no longer even says "hello" when greeted. We are deeply saddened by the effect that this process has taken on our long time friendships with fellow neighbors. The Planning Department should be aware of this behavior in our neighborhood that is a direct result of the zoning request. This social dimension is perhaps the greatest loss in this case. We want the old neighborhood. Very truly yours, Dan Harden Heidi Schwenk Hotmail Folder: Inbox * "~, ..... P~o~ ~MSN Home Hotmail Web Search ShoDi~in~ ~ People & Chat ~~ H ot rn a i l ® ramki80 @hotmail.com Inbox Compose Address Book Folders Options Messenger Folder: Inbox Calendar Help From: To:john_lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us Save Address CC:rarnki80 @ hotmail.corn Save Address Subject: Single Story Overlay Proposal Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:23:24 -0700 Reply Reply All Forward Delete Dear Mr. Lusardi: "Pandurangan Ramakrishnan" <ramki80@hotmail.com> Save Address Previous Next Close I was extremely disappointed to find that the City of Palo Alto is wasting its resources in following the divide and conqn/er rule. The cause of this concern is to do with the new proposal from the proponents of Single story overlay for the Elsinore and the Greet Road area of Palo Alto. Wil! this continue until the proponents find enough number of houses that support this ordinance to get the majority of votes? This is absurd and ridiculous. This only shows how undemocratic the proponents have become to get their idea accepted one way or the other. I would like my house to be removed from the list as well. Houses across from my house, houses on my side of the Greer Road (excepting mine and the one next to me on the right side) can buid two story homes, while I ~m stuck with it though the ordinance failed to get majority. This is not fair and I would like you to inform the proponents that they are becoming more undemocratic to keep shrinking the list until they count enough houses that support their opinion. If you have any questions, please fee! free to contact me at the numbers given below. ~Regards,~Pandurangan Ramakrishnan "Ramki .... 2276 Greet Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 H: 650-856-2212 W: 408-382-7353 Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com. Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous MoveTo tl(Move to Selected Folder) Inbox Compose Address Book Folders Options Messenger Calendar IGet notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are online, send instant messages, listen to music and more. Try the new browsing software from Microsoft that makes it easy to get more from the Web. Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://exDlorer.msn.com Other Links:Special Features: Help http://pvl fd.pav 1.hotrnail.rnsn.comJcgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001 &a=Tb47af435... 6/20/2001 June 22, 2001 To: John Lusardi and members of City Council From: Lea Nilssor~ Charlotte Fu and Kathy Leilrle We are outraged and-saddened at another attempt by the proponents to distort the extent of support to the proposition. Specifically, Mr. A1 Russell effort, to nullify the vote of Mr. John Armstrong, residing at 940 Elsinore Drive. Mr. John Armstrong followed, to the letter, the instructions given to all homeowners in a letter dated September 29, 2000, which indicated that any property owner had the right to change their vote until October 18,2000. Nowhere is it indicated that both husband and wife are requested to vote in unison. Please count Mrs. Armstrong letter as a yes and Mr. Armstrong vote as a no. This means that the proponents have 46.5 votes which constitutes 68% and opponents have 21.5 votes which constitutes 32%. RECEIVED This is clearly not an overwhelming majority.JUN ?~ ?. ZOO1 Please be sure these numbers are corrected.Oepar’ffnent of Planning anOCommunity Environment June 25, 2001 TO: John Lusardi, City Clerk, city council From: Lea Nilsson, Kathy Leirle and Charlotte Fu Ref: request for single story overlay We lave received numerous telephone calls from the homeowners, who oppose the single story overlay, informing us that they would like to have the City Council Meeting scheduled for July 2, be postponed to a later date. Many oft them are taking the oppommity to be away with ckildren for the long July 4 weekend. A meeting on July 2 will prevent many homeowners to attend the meetingi We hereby are asking to have the meeting at City Council regarding the single story overlay postponed to a later day in order to allow the participation of many concerned owners in the neighborhood. Thanks for yo.ur cooperation. June 25, 2001 Planning Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Ako, Ca 94301 RECEIVED JU~ ~ 6 ZOO1 Department of Planning ancl Community Environment Ref: request to be excluded from the single story overlay in the Elsinore Neighborhood. Dear Mr. Lusardi, We are hereby requesting that the 19 homes as indicated on the enclosed map and consisting of the following addresses, be removed from the single story overlay. 2290 Greer Rd, 2276 Greer Rd, 992 Elsinore Drive, 986 Elsinore Dr, 982 Elsinore Dr., 976 Elsinore Dr, 974 Elsinore Ct, 972 Elsinore Ct, 970 Elsinore Ct, 968 Elsinore Ct. 966 Elsinore Dr, 962 Elsinore Dr, 991 Elsinore Dr, 985 Elsinore Dr, 981 Elsinore Dr, 975 Elsinore Dr, 971 Elsinore Dr. 961 Elsinore Dr. 1.All of us are located in a flood zone area and thereforein case of a need to rebuild, as a result of fire or flood, we are subject to considerably more restrictive developmental building codes, than owners in a non-flood zone are. 2.An overwhelming majori .ty of us 11 owners out of 19 are opposing the single story overlay. ~gainst 58%, in support only 42%. Given the request of the proponents for an amended boundary, that would exclude 19 homes, we hope that same consideration for exclusion will be given to us. We consist of an equal number of Eichlers (19), with an identical configuration and an overwhelming majority of 58% who oppose a single story overlay. Thank You very much for your help. Attachment Palo Alto File No(s): 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) DaLe: 8/8/2000 d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOveriay.ai 0’150’ 300’ 06/25/01 T h,,~ ,. voted no thea~l,~,~ ,,,,~r!o,,i~,.,,~forTheE!si~oreDrb..,eArea. Mv~;~,fe~,aa,,,,*-~-,~ Please the vote of 940 E!sNore Drive ~ haK~o