HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-24 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
3
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 CMR:368:01
REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 1371 FOR
REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-1 (S)
SINGLE STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF THE
GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD
RECOMMENDATION
This report transmits a January 10, 2001 request from the property owners of Tract 1371 for
City Council approval of a single story overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council:
Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 56 of
the requested 68 lots in Tract 1371 (Garland Park) from R-1 Single Family
Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
Planning staff recommends that the City Council:
¯ Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 62 of
the requested 68 lots in Tract 1371 (Garland Park) from R-1 Single Family
Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the
Zoning Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.13). The Single Story Height Combining District (S)
modifies the development regulations of the R-1 single family residential district by limiting
the height of structures to 17 feet and one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot
coverage from 35 to 40 percent. The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 1371
CMR:368:01 Page 1 of 5
within the Garland Neighborhood (Planning and Transportation Commission staff report
Attachment B) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 68 single family
parcels shown on the attached map (Attachment C). Survey results reported in the letter
indicate strong neighborhood support for the application of the single family overlay zone.
It should be noted that since the request was submitted, three property owners have changed
their support to opposition resulting in 46 supporters and a 68 percent level of support for the
request (see Attachment E). On July 2, 2001, the City Council initiated the request and
referred it to the Planning and Transportation Commission.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 8, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and
recommended approval of 56 of the 68 lots for a single story overlay. A summary of
significant issues, including the flood zone, is contained in the Planning and Transportation
Commission staff report (Attachment B). A majority of the Commissioners indicated that the
request met all four of the criteria established in the Single Story Combining District (S)
Overlay Guidelines (Planning Commission staff report, Attachment B). Several
Commissioners thought that the purpose of the overlay zone was more appropriately solved
through the proposed regulations for second story additions developed by Planning staff and
the Single Family Residential Advisory Group. Several Commissioners expressed concerns
that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of residential neighborhoods rather
than providing the flexibility needed to manage change over time.
Property owners within Tract 1371 who attended the Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting both supported the overlay zone and spoke in opposition (see Planning
and Transportation Commission minutes Attachment G). Representatives for both the
proponents and opponents were provided time to make a full presentation to the Commission.
Approximately ten speakers provided comments to the Commission. Supporters indicated
that the request met all four criteria for a single story overlay and that City enforcement of
a single story overlay was preferable to neighbors suing each other to enforce the existing
CC&Rs. Opponents indicated that the existing CC&Rs have been an effective instrument for
50 years and City enforcement is not required to maintain the single story character of the
neighborhood.
In addition to the letters attached to the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report,
the City has received letters in support and opposition to the rezoning (Attachment F).
Following public testimony, Commissioners discussed the proposal in the context of the
criteria contained in the guidelines. Commissioners discussed the merits of including the
entire tract within the overlay boundary, deleting only Area #1 or Area #2, as well as
deleting both areas. The majority of the Commissioners believed that deleting both Areas #1
CMR:368:01 Page 2 of 5
and #2 still would result in an identifiable neighborhood while increasing the level of support
to an overwhelming majority. The Commission recommended that the City Council delete
the six homes in Area # 1 and the six homes in Area #2 and approve the proposed rezoning
of 56 of the 68 homes in Tract 1371. The motion passed, 4-3-0 (Holman, Packer and Schmidt
opposed). An excerpt of draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached
(Attachment G).
DISCUSSION
The Planning Division recommendation remains to approve the proposed single story overlay
excluding only the six lots in Area #1 for a total of 62 of the 68 requested lots based on the
information presented in the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report. Staff
continues to believe thatArea #2 should be included within the overlay boundaries. If the six
lots in Area # 1 were removed, the boundaries would retain the basic L configuration and
would not affect either of the two gateways to the neighborhood at either end of Elsinore
Drive. If the six lots in Area #2 were removed, the southern gateway to the neighborhood at
Elsinore Drive would be eliminated. Staff concurs with the project proponents who stated
at the City Council initiation hearing that elimination of the homes at the southern gateway
could adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. If the six lots in Area #1 are
removed, the level of support would increase to 73 percent and a majority (five of nine) of
those owners who formally requested to be deleted from the boundaries would be excluded.
The intent of the single story overlay is to provide a stronger vehicle through zoning for
resolving potential disputes in place of lawsuits to stop construction of second story
additions. It should be noted that the deed restriction (in the form of CC&Rs) is an
agreement among property owners and, therefore, the City has no authority to enforce the
provisions of the deed restriction without the overlay zone. It should also be noted that the
overlay zoning district was adopted by the City expressly for situations such as this where
a neighborhood believes second stories are incompatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood and existing CC&Rs are in place to maintain the single story height limit.
Additional Correspondence
In addition to the letters attached to the Commission staff report, the City has received
additional correspondence from residents in the neighborhood. This correspondence
(Attachment G) express both support and opposition to the overlay zone. One letter (email)
from the resident located in Area 2 requested removal from the overlay zone. This would
result in five of six residents in Area 2 requesting to be removed from the overlay zone.
However, staff has not changed the percentage of level of owner support that had been fixed
at the time that the Council initiated the single story overlay .review. This was to avoid
confusion or concerns about continuing changes in votes by residents during the review
process by Commission and Council.
CMR:368:01 Page 3 of 5
New Single Family Review Process
The proposed single family review process will take effect in Mid-November, 2001. Among
the provisions of the new single family review is an allowance for single story homes to
increase lot coverage from the current 35 percent up to about 41 percent of the lot, depending
on lot size. When this new provision becomes effective, the lot coverage bonus provided by
the R-I(S) overlay district will essentially be eliminated by the new single family
development standard. This issue was raised during public hearings on the single family
review process and Council directed staff to address this issue by re-evaluating the allowed
coverage in the S zone as part of the forthcoming Zoning Ordinance Update.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives available to the City Council include:
1)Modify the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or
2)Deny the rezoning of a total of 56 lots from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S)
Single Story Overlay District.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Ordinance rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-I(S)
Single Story Overlay
Planning and Transportation Commission staff report (with attachments)
Map Showing 68 lots within Tract 1371
Map Showing Areas # 1 and #2
Map Showing Supporters of Proposed Overlay
Correspondence from Neighbors received after the P&TC meeting
Excerpt of Draft Planning and Transportation Commission Minutes of
August 8, 2001
COURTESY COPIES:
All Property Owners Shown on Planning and Transportation Commission staff report
Attachment B
PREPARED BY:
~ Lusardi, Current Plar~irig-Manager
CMR:368:01 Page 4 of 5
REVIEWED BY:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:Emily H~’~son", )ks-~is~ant City M-anager
CMR:368:01 Page 5 of 5
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY
KNOWN AS TRACT 1371 FROM R-I TO R-I(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I.
A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed
hearing held August 8, 2001, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MunicipalCode be
amended as hereinafter set forth; and
B.The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety and
welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning
of a portion of that property known as Tract 1371 (the "subject
property’), from "R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S)
Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this project will
not have a significant environmental effect.
//
//
//
//
//
010712 syn 0090693
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
on the
010918 cl 0090693 2
Proposal: Resident’s request for
Single Story Overlay; zone change
From R-1 to R-I(S).
Amended: January !0,2001
> i
)s\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
O’150’ 30(
|
TEe City
Palo Alto
Attachment C
Alternative Single Story Overlay
Remove Areas 1 and 2
Request to be excluded
~ June 11, 2001
d:\GloriaDVkrtwork\Maps\StaffRep°rts\Elsin°resinglest°ryOverlay’ai
Date:. 8/8/2000
Q’ 150’
Attachment B
PLANNING DIVISION 1
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Chandler Lee DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE: August 8, 2001
SUBJECT:Request by Property Owners Property Owners of Portions of
Tract 1371 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for
a Portion of the Garland Neighborhood. File No: 01-ZC-02
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission)
recommend that the City Council:
Approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 62 of the
requested 68 lots in the Garland neighborhood from-R-1 Single Family Residential
to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District.
At its meeting of July 2,2001, the City Council voted (9-0) to initiate the process for the
single story overlay zone and refer it to the Commission for review and recommendation.
At the City Council meeting, approximately thirty-five residents testified, speaking both
in favor and opposition to the Council’s initiation of the process. Copies of written
comments presented to the Council are contained in Attachment H. The Council also
directed the Commission to review the request in terms of its compliance with the Single
Story Overlay Guidelines, to review the merits of the two alternative boundaries
discussed in the staff report and to make a recommendation based on the City’s adopted
guidelines.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The attached letter from property owners in Tract 1371 (Attachment E) requests
application of the single story overlay zone to 68 single family parcels contained in a
portion of that tract. A list of property owners within the proposed area are contained in
Attachment B
City of Palo AIto Page 1
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of
the R- 1 single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and
one habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent.
The Zoning.Ordinance specifically allows application Of this (S) Overlay Zone, where
appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story
character. The City Council, on December 14, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in
evaluating applications for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed below.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18). A comparison of the proposed R-1 (S) Zoning District to the
existing R-1 Zoning District regulations is provided in Table 1.
Table 1
Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Site Area (s.f.)
-Lot Width
-Lot depth
Floor Area Ratio
-First 5,000 s.f.
-Remainin~ s.f.
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Setbacks
-Front Yard
-Rear Yard
- Interior Side Yard
- Street Side Yard
R-1 (Existing)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
30 feet*
35%
20
20
6
16
R-I (S) (Proposed)
6,000 s.f. **
60 feet
100 feet
.45
.30
17 feet (Single Story)*
40%
20
20
6
16
* Daylight plane restrictions apply. The daylight plane is defined by a point 10 feet in
height along each side lot line and extending upward at a 45-degree angle into the site and
by a point 16 feet in height at the front and rear setback lines and extending 60 degrees
into the site.
** For substandard lots, special site development regulations apply.
BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S) as part of the
Zoning Ordinance and has applied the overlay to several neighborhoods including:
On July 13, 1992, the overlay was applied to the Walnut Grove neighborhood (181 lots),
City of Palo Alto Page 2
On April 26, 1993, the overlay was applied to the Green Meadows neighborhood (185
lots),
On Januar3i 21, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows
neighborhood (96 lots),
On September 15, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 840 of the .Charleston Meadows
neighborhood (61 lots),
On November 17, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 709 of the Blossom Park
neighborhood (16 lots).
On November 16, 1998£ the overlay was applied to Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738
in the Barron Park neighborhood (20 lots) and to Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 in
the Meadow Park neighborhood (75 lots).
On July 17, 2000 the overlay was applied to Tracts 883 and 909 in a portion of the
Channing Park neighborhood (57 lots).
The attached letter from the property owners of Tract 1371 (Attachment E) requests
application of the single story overlay zone to the 68 single family parcels contained in
the two tracts. Survey results indicate strong neighborhood support (68 percent) for the
application of the single family overlay zone. Property owners originally submitted two
requests on July 28, 2000 for both Tract 1371 and Tract 1503. The current request
excludes the 19 lots in Tract 1503 (Blair Court). Due to lack of support in that Tract, this
was removed at the request of the property owners.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a
fundamental policy of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive
Plan contains the following policies in support of the proposed single story overlay:
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or
remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.
The single story overlay is consistent with these policies by restricting the height of
existing single story neighborhoods to conform with existing homes and ensuring that
remodeled homes are consistent in height with neighboring structures.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The major issue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height
Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines regarding neighborhood support. In
reviewing previous proposals for single story overlays, the Planning Commission
previously has supported the preservation of the existing scale and character of single
family neighborhoods but has expressed concerns about limiting future options for home
expansion and accommodating architectural innovations and lifestyle changes over time.
However, since the project meets all of the criteria established in the S Overlay
Guidelines, staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of adopted City policy and
should be approved.
Height and Lot Coverage
The changes to the standard R-1 zoning requirements caused by application of the Single
Story Overlay are the height limit reduction from 30 to 17 feet, the single story restriction
and the expansion of lot coverage from 35 to 40 percent.
The potential effect of these revisions is the addition of building square footage on the
ground floor allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however,
the proposed lot coverage increase allows maximum floor area ratios that equal those
allowed under current R-1 zoning if the lot exceeds 7,500 square feet. Table 2 illustrates
the net change in house size that would result with the (S) overlay compared with what is
allowable under current R-1 zoning.
Table 2
Comparison of Allowable House Size: R-1 Compared With R-I(S,)
Lot Size
6,000 s.f.
6,500 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
7,500 s.f.
>7,500 s.f.
Allowable House Size
with R-1
2,550 s.f.
2,700 s.f.
2,850 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
Allowable House Size
with R-1 (S)
2,400 s.f.
2,600 s.f.
2,800 s.f.
3,000 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
Net Change
-150 s.f.
-100 s.f.
-50 s.f.
-0 s.f.
R-1 zoning applies
Single Story_ Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines
The Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines (Attachment
F), 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 specifically state that "for neighborhoods that contain and have been
developed consistent with a single story deed restriction, these guidelines are to be treated
with a greater degree of flexibility (than neighborhoods without the restriction)." Staff’s
analysis of the subject application is as follows:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1. Level and Format of Owner Support
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should meet with
"overwhelming" support by owners of the affected properties. These owners must
demonstrate, by providing documentation that includes a written list of signatures, an
understanding that they are co-applicants in a zone map amendment request."
The application is accompanied by signed requests from 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. The first
criterion would be satisfied. A map of supporters and non-supporters are shown in
Attachment C.
The City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to review the effects of
deleting one or both of two areas in which a substantial number of property owners have
requested to be removed from the overlay boundary. These two areas and the property
owners requesting to be removed are shown in Attachment D. If the six lots in Area #1
are removed, the level of support would increase to 73 percent. If the six lots in Area #2
are removed, the level of support would increase to 71 percent. If all twelve lots in Areas
#1 and #2 are removed, the level of support would increase to 77 percent.
2. Appropriate Boundaries
"An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be accompanied by a
map indicating the address and location of those owners who are co-applicants for the
zoning request. Boundaries... should define an identifiable neighborhood or
development."
The application is accompanied by a map showing addresses and locations of the co-
applicants. The map indicates an identifiable neighborhood in roughly an "L" 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 Avenue. These locations on North
California Avenue are adjacent to homes that do not share the same character as the
Eichlers and are outside the boundary formed by the majority of homes in this tract.
Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied.
If the six lots in Area #1 are removed, the boundaries would retain the basic "L"
configuration and would not affect either of the two gateways to the neighborhood at
City of Palo Alto Page 5
either end of Elsinore Drive. The deletion of this Area #1 could be considered as an
extension of Blair Court, which was dropped due to lack of support. This would change
the number of lots "backing" to a non-overlay boundary from three lots tO four.
If the six lots in Area #2 are removed, the boundaries would retain the basic "L"
configuration but the southern gateway to the neighborhood at Elsinore Drive would be
eliminated. This would not change the number of lots "backing" to a non-overlay
boundary, keeping it at two lots. Staff concurs with the project proponents who stated at
the City Council heating that elimination of the homes at the southern gateway could
visually affect the character of the neighborhood.
In Area #1, five of the six property owners have requested to be removed from the
overlay zoning. In Area #2, four of the six property owners have requested to be removed
from the overlay zoning. Therefore, staff is recommending that Area #1 be removed from
the single story overlay zoning designation. This removal would reduce the total number
ofiots from 68 to 62 within the overlay zone. However, whether one or both of these
areas is excluded from the boundaries, ’the deed restriction would still apply and second
story additions would be prohibited.
3. Prevailing Single-Story Character
"An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing
single-story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single-story...
It is desirable that homes be similar in age, design, and character..."
All of the 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.
4. Moderate Lot Sizes
"...an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by
moderate lot sizes with a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be
defined as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet."
Of the 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 (90 percent) can be
City of Palo Alto Page 6
considered moderate in size. The neighborhood has a consistent lotting pattern that is
defined by four streets: Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, E1 Cajon Way, 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.
Flood Zone Issues
At the meeting on July 2, 2001, the City Council directed staff to further explain the
implications of rebuilding an existing home that is located within a flood zone. 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. In September, 2000, the project proponents had a City Surveyor measure
the elevation of several properties in the area and all were above the minimum flood plain
elevation. All of the properties in the flood zone have not been surveyed, and these
determinations must be confirmed on a lot by lot basis. Based on the completed surveys,
it is unlikely that any homes in this neighborhood would be more than one foot below the
flood elevation. Since most of the existing homes are ten to 12 feet in height, the 17 foot
height limit would not significantly affect a property owner’s ability to rebuild his or her
home. For example, if a property was one foot below the minimum flood zone elevation
and it was destroyed, a single story home of similar or greater height could be
reconstructed within the 17-foot height limit. If the building pad was one foot below the
flood elevation, the property owner could either increase the pad elevation by one foot or
build a foundation of one foot so that the finished floor was at or above the minimum
flood elevation. If the former method (increased pad elevation) was used, the City would
calculate the building height from the finished grade and a home of up to 17 feet could be
built. If the later method (increased foundation) was used, the City would also calculate
the building height from the finished grade and a home of up to 16 feet could be built.
Regardless, a home of equal or greater height could be built within the 17-foot height
limit in this area of the flood zone.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives available to the Planning Commission include recommending to the City
Council to:
1) Expand or contract the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or,
2)Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for Tract 1371 in the Garland
Neighborhood.
TIMELINE:
Following Planning and Transportation Commission review, the application is tentatively
City of Palo Alto Page 7
scheduled for City Council’s consideration in September.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been found to be exempt from environmental review under provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A:Draft Ordinance
Attachment B:List of Property Owners
Attachment C:Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters
Attachment D:Map showing boundary options.
Attachment E:January 10, 2001 request from the property owners of Tracts
1371 for City approval of a single story overlay zone.
Attachment F:Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone
Guidelines.
Attachment G:CMR:292:01, including letters from property owners submitted
to the City Council.
COURTESY COPIES:
All property owners shown on AttachmentB
Prepared by: Chandler Lee
Reviewed by: John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OFTHE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY
KNOWN AS TRACT 1371 FROM R-I TO R-I(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
fol!ows:
SECTION I.
A. The Planning Commission, after duly noticed
hearing held August 8, 2001, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MunicipalCode be
amended as hereinafter set forth; and
B.The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the
public interest and will promote the public health, safety and
welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the ~Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning
of a portion of that property known as Tract 1371 (the ~subject
property’), from "R-I Single-family Residence" to "R-I(S)
Single-family Residence, Single-Story Height Combining." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this project will
not have a significant environmenta! effect.
//
//
//
//
//
010712 syn 0090693
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
on the
010712 cl 0090693 2
The C~ I y o r
Palo AI to
d :\Gloria D~Artwork\Ma
Proposal: Resident’s request for
Single Story Overlay; zone change
From R-1 to R-I(S).
Amended: January 10,2001
’ : [ :0’150’ 300
~s\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
Attachment B
~ Soo999~?99999999999oooooe999e999ooooo999999
0
~ 0o-
File No(s): Elsinore Drive
~Tract: 1371
io**Proposal: Resident’s request that city
initiate a zone change to add a Single-
Story Overlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1
"J[" h e C i ~ ~ 0 ~to R-I(S)
Palo Alto (as of 06/11/01)
s:\Plan\Pladiv\SiteLocationMaps\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlaySupporters.ai
Attachment C
d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Ma
Attachment C
Alternative Single Story Overlay
Remove Areas 1 and 2
Request to be excluded
[~~ June 1t, 2001
3s\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
150’ 30
Attachment D
Attachment E
January 10, 2001
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Sir:
We, the owners of homes ha Tract 1371, are requesting a change in our zoning from an R-1 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 Tracts 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~with Chandl ¯ _ sultant 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 F
Si~ole-Snorv Height ombinin~ District S~
OverlaV Zone Ouideline~ . .~
The follow~Dg guidelines are intended.to guide City staff
and decisionmakers in the considiration o£ zone change
requests for ’ application of the Single-Sto~! Height
Combining District (S) overlay zone. For neighborhoods in
which there are no single-storY deed restrictions, or where
such restrictions exist yet have not been strict!yadhered
to, applications are to be evaluated through more rigorous
.use of these guidelines. However, for those neighborhoods
that contain and have been developed consistent with ~
single-story dee~ restriction, these guidelines are ~o be
treated~wi~h a greater degree,of flexibi!itY.
!.Leve! and.Format o£ Owner ~uoDort
An applicationfor an (S’) overlay zone map amendment
should ~eet with ,,overwhelming" support by owners of
affected properties. These owners must demonstrate,
..by ~roviding documentation that includes a written
lis~ of signatures, an understanding that they are co-
applicants in a zone map amendment request‘
ADo~oD-riate B~undaries
An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendmen~
shoul~ be accompanied bY a map indicating the address
location of those owners who are co-applicants for the
rezoning request. Boundaries which may correspond
with certain natural or man-made features (i.e.roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, etc.) should
define an identifiable, neighborhood o£ deve!opment.
These boundarieswill be recommended to the planning
Commission and -~ity Council by the C~ty’s zoning
Administrator.
prevai!ino Sinole-Story CharacteK
An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone mad amendment
should be of a prevailing single-story character where
the vas~ 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 de~eloped in a manner consistent
with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it isdesirable that homes be similar in age, design and
Page ~
characuer, ensuring thac residenus of an area proposed
for rezoning possess like desires £or neighborhood
preservation .~o,and. £ace chmmon ..home remodelin~
co~smraints.
Sizes
In order to maintain equitable property deve!Qpmen~
"rights within .an (S) overlay area: compared to other
si~es within ~he ~-i zone district, an area proposed
for an (S) overlay zone map amendmen~ should be
characterized by moderate lot sizes with a ~enerally
consistent lotting pa~tern. Amoderate !or size is to
be defined as 7,000-8,000 square fee~.
Page
Attachment G
8
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
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 in 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 within 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 11,
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 areto 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 def’med 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 Avenue.
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.
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 defined 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 authorizations and 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
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
by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and
adjoining structures.
ALTERNATIVES
The altematives 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 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 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:
G. ED~~W~A~~---
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER
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
REC fVED
JAN 1 8 2001
Depar~ent of Planning and
Commun=~y ~n~mnment
Dear Sir:
We, the owners of homes in Tract 1371, are requesting a change in our zoning from an R-1 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 Tracts 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~--~’~--Chzndle.r~o. "~l ,e., ~.~rlsultant 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
The City 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:\GloriaDkArtwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
Date: 8/8/2000
0’150’ 300’
Attachment C
PF
The City
Palo Alto
PLANNING DI VISION
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: 81812000
Attachment D
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 CMR:361:00
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, Barton 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
Staff recommends 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 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 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
!950s. 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
o
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 properties
within Tracts 137i and 1503. Since then, two owners have added their support and
eight have retracted their support inwriting. 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
overwhelmifig 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.
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 theTract
1371 and 1503 neighborhood.
T1MELINE
If the Council elects to initiate this zoning application, staff recommends that the appiication
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:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
EMILY (~- SO-I’~ -
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
The City
Palo A1 to
PLANNING DI YI~ION
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)
d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
Date: 8/8/2000
300’
FROM : RUSSELL FAX NO. : 6588~31673 ]ul. 31 ~00 gS:49AM P2
Attachment B
July 28. 2000
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Sir:
We, the owners ot homes in Tracts 1503 and 1371, are requesting a change in our zoning from
an R-1 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.
As of this date, we have gathered the support o! 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 tot a change of zoning; a list ot these signers with
the owner’s names, addresses and lot square footage; a parcel map including both tracts 1503
and 13"/1; 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
Oveday Zoning, a map showing the residences included in this application, copies of the CC and
R’s for traots 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 Chand]-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 tnformation, you will expedite this request.
Sincerely,
AI Russell, 981 Elsinors 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 Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto. CA 94303 (650) 656-0804
Edie Gelles, 992 El Cajon Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 858-1820
Attachment C
Sin~!e-StorvHei~ht Combinin~ Distric~ IS)
Qverlay Zone Guidelines
The follow~Dg guidelines are intended to guide City staff
and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone- change
requests for application of the Single-Stop! Height
Combining District (S) overlay zone. For neigbbor~oOds in’ or wherewhich there are no single-story deed restrzctzons,
such restrictions exist yet have not been strict!y adhered
to, applications are to be evaluated through more rigorous
use of these guidelines. However, for those neighborhoods
that contain and have been developed consistent with a
single-story deed restriction, these guidelines are.to be
treated wi~h a greater degree of flexibility.
Level 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 must demonstrate,
.by providing documentation that includes a written
list of signatures, an understanding that they are co-
applicants in a- zone map amendment request.
Appropriate Boundaries
An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendment
should be accompanied by a map indicating the address
location of those owners who are co-applicants for the
rezoning request. Boundaries which may correspond
with certain natural or man-made features (i.e.roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, etc.) should
define an identifiable neighborhood or development.
These boundaries will be recommended to the Planning
Commission and City Council by ~he City’s Zoning
Administrator.
Prevailin~ Sin~le-Stor~ CharacteK
An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment
should be of a prevailing single-story character where
the vast majority of existing homes are single-story,
thus limiting the number of struccures rendered
.noncomplying by the (S) overlay. Neighborhoods
currently .subject to si~le-storY deed restrictions
should be currently developed in a manner consisten~
with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it isdesirable that homes be similar in a~e, design and
~1~/~Page ~
character, ensuring tha~ residents of an area proposed
for rezoning possess like .desires for neighborhood
preservation and face common home remodelin~constraints.
Moderate Lot... Sizes
in order to maintain equitable property development
"rights ~i~hin an (S) overlay area compared to other
sites within the R-I zone district, an area proposed
for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be
characterized by moderate !or sizes with a generally
consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to
be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet.
Page 2
DI~L~RATIO~ OF RESTRICTIONS, COHDITIOk~COVENANTS, CHARGES AND AGREE)4ENTS AFF~r’TIN3 ~HERF.AL P~OPE~TY ~ ASGARLAND PARK
~ICH IS SITUATE IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTOCCUNTY OF SANTA CLA~, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Attachment D
DECLARATI(~ made end dated tha 30th dly of October, 1954, by Vsllay Title Company of Santa
Cllrl County. t oorpo~ation,
t~ltt o£ IIM In the City o£ PiJo Alto, County o£ Sinai Clizl, Stile of C~lifo~nll, Iho~n upon
the ~p entitled, ~Tzlct No. 1371" ~ich laid ~p ell filed for ~ecotd In the office of the
County Re¢o~ of the County of Santa CII~, State.of Cll/£o~ni=, on the 22nd day of ~tobe~,
~p ~lch it delL~lS to sub~ect to ce~tlL~ xelt~LctLonl~ conditions, ove~lntt, Ind Ig~eementl
~, ~, VllZey T/tll Co.any o£ Santa Cli~i County, decllres that the p~ope~ty IhownOn laid ~p Is held I~ Ih111 ~e o~veyed lub~ect to ~estziction=, oheSions, covenants I~ Ig~ee-
1. No lot Ihlll be uled except for =esidential pu=po.es. No building Ihlll be erected, alter-ed. plscld or permitted to remain on any lot other thin one detached single-family dwelling, not
to exceed one Irony in height end ¯ private gar. #a fo~ not more than two l~a,
2. No building shell be erected, pilled or altered on iny lot until the onlt=uctlon plansand Ipecificitioni end I plln Ihowing the location of the itructtt~e hive been approved by tha
e=chitecturel ontzol ommittee al to quality of work~anihip ind materials, harmony of externaldesign mith sxllting Itructu~el, and ii to location ~lth respect to topog=aphy indlfinish grade
elevation. No ftncl or will shill bl erlcted, plicod o= ilterld on any lot heifer to any It~eetthin the ~lnl~Jm building lit beck line uniasa Ilmllarly Ipprovad. ~oprcvii Ihili be la provided
in Pa=lgrlph 13. ,
3, ~he ground floor area of the ~lin It~uctu~e, ex¢lulive of one-lto=y open porchas andgaragal, Ihell be not ~oll than 1200 aquera feet for a onl-lto~y d~elilng.
4. No buildln<j shell be ezectd on iny ~ildi~ plot ~==e~ then 17 f~et to the fzont ~ope~tyline, ~ neaz~ then 6 feet to Iny side lot line, except this the side line ~el~ictlonl do not
=e-=u~LvLs/on of oz/gL~l lots, IS Iho~ upon the =ice=did ~p of th/I lubd/vl=Lon.
6. ~ ~xioul O= offenlive activity shall be ¢l~ied on ~on any Jot, noz Ihlll In~hi~ be
dune the=eon~/ch ~y be o~ blCOll In innoyl~l o~ n~li~l to the neighborhood.
pez~nently.
IN WITNESS ~ER~OF, the undo=signed hal executed end leslld this lnlt~umsnt the dly end ysl=fizlt ebovl ~itten,
VALLEY TITLE COmPANy OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
By E. S. Cqns Vlca-P~llidant
A~knowlldgadt October 30, 1954
Rscordld:Decsmbe: 20,
In Book 303~ of Official Raco=dl, page 357, Raco=der’I File No. 103blB3.
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS,
COVENANTS, CHARGES AND AGREEMENTS AFF~-"TING THE
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS
TRACT 1503
WHICH IS SITUATE IN, THE CITY OF PALO ALTO,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BOOK3166 PAG~ 607
DECLARATION made and dated the 5’th day of May, 1955 by VAlley Title Company of Sant~ Clars County, a corporation.
WHEREAS, Valley Title Company of Santa Clara County, the owner and ~bdivider of a certain L,~ct of lind in the City of Palo Alto, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, shown upon a map entitled, Tract No. 1503 which said Map was filed for record in the oface o~the County Reccrrd~r of
Santa Clar~ County, California, on the 3’rd d~y of May, 1955 in Book 57 ofM~ps, atpa~ 7,
~, Valley Title Company af Santa Clam County, is about to sell property shown on ~sid M~p which it desires to subject to restrictions,
conditions, covenants, and agreements between it and the pufdmsers as heminafl~ set forth:
NOW, THERF.YOI~, Vatl~y Title Company of Santa Clam County, d~lares ~ the prop~ty shdwn on ~id Map is held and shall be conveyed
subjea to restrictions, covenants, and agreements between it and the purchasers of sai~l propm’ry and th~ heirs, successors and assigns, as hm’imRer set
forth.
I. No lot shall be used except for residential pvfpose. No building shall be orated, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one
detached single f~mily dw~Ll;.ng, not ts ~c~,,~ one ~torv ~ ha~ and a private garag~ for not more than two ~rs.
2. No building shah be er~e~, placed or ~It~-ed o-n any I~ until the constriction plans and specifications ~nd a plan showing the location of the
structure l~ve been approved by the architectural control committe~ as to quality af workmanship m~l umteria~, harmony of external design with existing
structures and as to location with respect to topography and f_mish grad~ elevation. No f~mc.e or wall shall be ervcted,.pl~ced or altered on any lot nearer
to my ~¢reet ahanthe minimum building set liack line unless ~ilarly approved. Approval slmll be ~s provided in Paragraph 14.
3. The ground floor area of the main structure, exclusive of one story open porches, and garages, shall not be less th~ 1400 square feet for a one-
story dwelling.
4. No building shall be ere~.d on any building plot nearer tlmn 20 feet to the front stoi line, nor n~rm" th~n 6 feet to any sid~ lot line, exc, ep¢ that
the side line restrictions do not apply to e detached garage located on the rear one-h~lf (I/2) of the lot.
5. No dwelling house shall be erected upon any lol or plot resulting from rv-arrang~nent or rv-subdivisi.ion ofori~n~l lots, as shown upon the
recorded Map of this subdivision.
6. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done ~e~Von which may be or become m annoyance or
nuis~n~ to the neighborhood.
7. No structure era temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, g~rage, barn or othe~ otttbuild’~f shall be used on any lot at any time as a
residence either temporarily or permanently.
g. No fowl or ~uimsls, other than household pets of the usual kind and in a reasonable number, shall be, or be ~ to be, kept or maintained in
9. No trsilexs ar~ to be parked in said tract where they are visible from th~ s’tr~t.
10. No trucks are to be parked on the streel or in the driveways of s~id tract, except delivery trucks or other trucks psrked t~vomrily for the service
ofthe residences.
I I. No commercial signs of any kind, including "for s~le" sig~ are to be displayed on the houses or Iota in said tract
12. No besketbatl standards or other sports apparstus am to be ~ttsched to the fronts of ~esidences in said tra~
13. The ardfite~ru~al control committee is composed ofJ~L. Eichl~r, F..Award Eidfler, and Ric~mrd Eichler. A m~jority of the committee may
designate a representative to act for it. In the event of de~th or r~ignation of any member of the commim~ the r~naining m~nbers shall have fur
authority to designate ~ ~ucc.essor. Neither the members of the ommiRe~nor its ¢iesignated respresentafive ~haLl be entitled to ~ny compemmtinn for
services performed pursuanl to this covenant. A~ any time the then r~ord ~wners era majority of the lees shall have the power through a duly recorded
written mstntrnent to chang~ the membership of the committee or to withdraw from the committee or restore tb it any of its powers md duties.
14. The committees approval or disapproval as requi.red in th~ co~¢aants shall be in writing~ In the ev~t the co~. or it~ d~i~mted
representative, fails to approve or disapprove within 30 days after plane and ~ecifications have been submitted to it, or in any ever, if no suit to enjoin
the constructions has b~.n commenced prior to the completion th~enf, ~pprova[ will not be required and the misted cove~tmts shall be deemed to have
been fully complied with,
15. These ovenmts are to run wit~ the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under ~ for a period oftwent’y.five
years, from the d~te these covcnant~ are r~orded, aRer which time said covemnta shall be automsti~lly extended for m~.~essive periods oft~ years
unless an instrument, signed by a majority, of the then record owners of the lols, Ires beam recorded agreeing to chan~ said covenants in witole or in part.
16. F_.uforcement shall be by proce~lings at law or in ~quity against any pei’son or persons violating or gt~mpting to violate any covenanrs either re
restrain violation or to recover dama~.s.
17. Inwlidation of~my one of these cownants by judgement or cour¢ order shall in no way affect my of the provi~ions which shall reamin m full
force and effect.
The br~ac~ of the foregoia, g restrictions and covenants or my enlry by mason of such broach shall no~ deY~at or ~md~r invalid the lien of any Deed of
Trot on said premises but in the case offorclosure and ,--~|e thereunder, the purchaser sh~ll take title subject to all of~id re~tri~.ions and conditions.
IN WrrNESS TI-~I~OF; the undersigned ha.¢ executed and sealed tlds instrument the.day aud year fLr~¢ above written.
VALLL~ TI’rLE COMPANY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
By: un.re~dable President
By: Claudm Edwards Secretary
(Retyped by Phil Diether from copy obtained from County Recorders Oflqce June 13, 2000.)
Attachment E
PF
Thl City o f
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) "
~. Supporters I Existing 2-Story
House
d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\SiteLocationMaps\ElsinoreSingleStory0vedaySupporters.ai
Revised: 9/5/2000
Cityof 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 staffto 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 Octobert 1, 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
remm this form. If you haven’t signed a form or you would like to change you~
support of, or opposition to, the single story, overlay, please fill out the coupon below
and return it as soon as possible, but no later than October 18, 2000 t~..’.
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.
@tint 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.
The City of
Palo A1 to
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)
Dat~: 8/8/2000
d:\GloriaD\Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
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 parcets 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 r~commendation to the City Council. The City Council is tentatively
scheduled to hold a punic 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
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately singIe-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 what
is allowable 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.
6,500 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 si’.
35% ground floor coverage
+ second floor = 3,000 s.f.
R-1 zoning apphes
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-1 zoning applies.
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
* 45 percent of first 5,000 square feet plus 30 percem 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 orfly
*** 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 Elsinore Drive area provided that all other zoning
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
opportunities 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 Story Overlay " .2q’~
Since 1992, the CitY Council has approved single story overlays in eig~ighborhoods in
Palo Alto. These areas include: 1) The Walnut Grove neighborhood (1N~! 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 1977 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 have 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)
CC:Chandler Lee, Project Planner
Planning Department file
ATTACHMENT F
April 24, 2001 Community Meetin~
CORRESPONDENCE RECEDED
PRIOR JUNE 11, 2001
Ci of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Commttnity Environment
Planning DMsion
GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD
ELSINORE DRIVE
SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY NEIGHBORHOOD
MEETING
APRIL 24, 2001
7:00 PM- 9:00 PM
AGENDA
I.INTRODUCTION - JOKN 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 Plarmer
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD
ELSINORE DRIVE
SINGLE FAMILY OVERLAY
NEIGHBORHOOD
April 24, 2001
ADDRESS
GARLAND NEIGHBORHOOD
ELSINORE DRIVE
SINGLE F~Y OVE~AY
NEIGH~0RH00D
April 24, 2001
NAME ADDRESS PItONEfEM_AIL
Apd123,2001
Mr. John Lusardi
Current Plamfing Mmmger, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton 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 hStS submitted to the Plalming Deparmxent 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 E|sinore Dr.- Mrs. Armstrong is for singte story overlay, Mr. Armstrong is a~nst *
943 El Cajon Way - changed ownerslfip on 1117/2000. The owners are undecided as of this date
968 Elsinore Ct - changed ownership on 1/1012001. Mr. and Mrs. Mamus are ~ a single
story overlay *
974 Elsinore Ct - changed ownership on 91612000. Mr. and Mrs. Payanides are ~ the siagle
story overlay *
*See attacheddocumenm
Sincerely,
Gary Chan
Charlotte Fu
Kathy Leirle
Lea Nilsson
CC: Ed Gawf, Director, Dept. of Planning, City of Palo Alto
~ddress Parcel number Last name Yes/No
003-52-078
003-51-001
’003-52-077
003-51-002
003-52-076
003-51-003
003-52-075
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
003-51-014
003-52-091
003-51-015
~003-51-016
003-52-048
003-51-017
003-52-047
003-51-018
003-52-046
’003-51-0!9
O03-52-045
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
992 Elsinore Drive
)91 EIsinore Drive
]86 Elsinore Drive
]85 Elsinore Drive
]82 Elsinore Drive
]81 Elsinore Drive
t76 Elsinore Drive
)75 Elsinore Drive
a71 Elsinore Drive
]66 Elsinore Drive
9’65 Elsinore Drive
962 Elsinore Drive
961 Elsinore Drive
956 Elsinore Ddve
955 Elsinore Drive
951 Elsinore Drive
950 Elsinore Ddve
945 Elsinore Drive
941 Elsinore Drive
940 Elsinore Drive
935 Elsinore Drive
931 Elsinore Drive
925 Elsinore Drive
924 Elsinore Drive
921 Elsinore Drive
915 Elsinore Drive
914 Elsinore Drive
911 Elsinore Drive
:910 Elsinore Drive
905 Etsinore Drive
904 Elsinore Drive
901 Elsinore Drive
900 Elsinore Drive
974 Elsinore Court
972 Elsinore 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
922 El Cajon Way
926 El Cajon Way
932 El Cajon Way
Schroeder Yes
Willemsen No
Galanis, Trustee Yes
’Sherk Yes
Dies Yes
Russell, Trustee Yes
Lowry No
Mann No
Hu No
Shapiro iYes .......
Harden, Trustee No
Niczyporuk No
Griffiths Yes
::)aniell Yes
Holt Yes
i Nishimura Yes
Fredell Yes
Scarpino Yes
Lamport Yes
Armstrong husband No wife Yes
Rausch Yes
Douglas ’Yes
Bonner No
Edelstein Yes
Gibson Yes
Sedman Yes
Staepelaere Yes
Wang ’No
Jensen No
Walsh, Trustee No
Shaw Yes
Sieloff, Trustee Yes
Leu ~to
Panayides No
Nilsson No
Lierle, Trustee No
Marcus No
Schmidt .Yes
Targ No
Resneck, Trustee Yes
Greenberg Yes
Kunz Yes
’Wood Yes
Plock, Jr. Trustee IYes
Baum, Trustee Yes
Rubinov Yes
McGilvray, Jr.Yes
)36 El Cajon Way
)42 El Cajon Way
)43 El Cajon Way
t46 El Cajon Way
951 El Cajon Way
952 El Cajon Way
)56 El Cajon Way
962 El Cajon Way
966 El Cajon Way
972 El Cajon Way
975 El Cajon Way
976 El Cajon Way
979 El Cajon Way
982 El Cajon Way
985 El Cajon Way
986 El Cajon Way
989 E! Cajon Way
991 El Cajon Way
i003-52-055
003-52-056
003-52-086
003-52-057
003-52-085
003-52-0~8
!003-52-059
003-52-060
003-52-061
003-52-062
003-52-084
003-52-063
003-52-083
003-52-064
003-52-082
003-52-065
003-52-081
003-52-080
Bar
Wheeler, Trustee
Mitz,Olson
Pillsbury, Jr.
Low
White, Trustee
Yatovitz, Trustee
Ghassemi
Bird
Cannon
Hu
Choi
Nakamura
Peek
Oh
Mellick
Li
Skowronski
Yes
’Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
992 El Cajon Way
2276 Greer Road
12290 Greet Road
2304 Greer Road
2316 Greer Road
2328 Greet Road
2370 Greet Road
950 Blair Court
)51 Blair Court
)54 Blair Court
955 Blair Court
958 Blair Court
1959 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
99I Blair Court
003-52-066
003-52-00I
003-52-002
003-52-003
003-52-004
003-52-005
003-52-021
003-52-011
003-52-010
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
003-52-020
003-52-006
Weiss, Trustee
! Ramakrishnan
Carter, Trustee
Weiss
Lewis
Trossman
Freeman
Donnelly
Sorenson
Ager
Tsay
Hu, Trustee
’Diether
Rohlfs
Vallie
Pang, Trustee
Tsuboi
’Berg
Campbell
Norgren
Cottrell, Trustee
Ohan
’Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
’No
No
Yes
Yes
~o
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Jeff&Ann Marcus
968 Elsinore Ct.
Palo Alto, CA 94303-34~0
Phone: 650 424-1833
Fax: 650 424-1830
April 22, 2001
Department of Planning and Community Environment
John Lusardi, Currem 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.
’; We:are not in favor of the ’~Request for single .story overlay".
Jeff and Ann Marcus
STQTION I~DE/TEL NO,
!415282981G
~=~b~b~r~=~"~=~~~=~-ADMIN. OFFIOE
-COLDWB-L-F~ M I DTOI~4 -
- ~:~o~ -658 329 8921-
To: IVlr. Chandler Lee, Planning Dept. Cky of Palo Alto
tiff: r~quest for withdrawal of my signature from pedtion for a sh~g!.e story zoning
iplease print)
I request that my signature be withdrawn from the above mentioned petition.
Planing Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: John Lusardi
Via Hand Deliverg
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 rez.oning for out" properties.
Last summer, a group of neighbors proposed the single story overlay rezonlng 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 Crreer 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
Elsimore 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 help.
Sincerely, ¯
~uwen Wang & Xiaoshuan~ Fu
911 E}sinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA
S Jensen
910 Elsinore Drive,-Palo Alto, CA
Patrick Walsh
905 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA
Gla’dy; LeuC-L~" "
900 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto, CA
Feb 13 01 01: 14p Chandler Lee RICP 4!5 282 9816 p. 4
-Fire No(s):
Pa!o Alto
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-I(S)
?2"~ Supporters
I I
d:\Gloris D~rtw~rk~SlleLocationMaps\ElsinoreSingle8 t°ryOveria¥S uPp°rters’ai
Lusardi, John ,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Albert Hu [alberthu@pacbel[.net]
Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:46 PM
John_Lusardi@city.palo-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 again! 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 time. 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 like to 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 less 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. : 850843[673 Rp~. 28 2@81 05:23PM P1
Albert Russell
Attorney at Law
981 Elsinore Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
Phone (650) 813-1372
Fax (650) 843-1673
April 26, 2OO I
Mr. John Lusardi
Current Planning Manager
City of Pale A_lto Planning Department
250 Eamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, California 94301
RE: Elsinore Drive. FAsinore Court and E1 Cajon Single Story Overlay Requ,e.st
Dear Iokn:
Thank you for forwm-ding to me yesterday the information that you received on April 23, 2001
regarding four pro’eels in our tract.
The first-property listed on the letter from Chart, Fu, Leifle and Nilsson is Ioc~.teti at 940 Elsinore
Drive. The property owner is Armstrong. I have a very strong objection ~o 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 parc~l (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. Armstrong signed
the original petition (the original, is in the possession of the city). And, since we hal to have
BOTH signatures for a supporting vote, the retraction of any supporting vote would ONLY count
as aehange if BOTH parties (husband and wife) signed the withdrawal of tack support for the
overlay.
Again, from the beginning of our contacts with the City of Pale Mto, we have always followed
this rule. Thus, the property at 940 Elsinore 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.
FROM : RUSSELl FAX NO. : E, SO8431E, T3 Apt’. 26 2001 85:23PM P2
There was a great deal of discussion of changes in rules or procedures at the meeting the other
aight (4/4/2001) but this one has been a £i×ed r~le l’ar the last year, If this is not followed, you
may h~ve to comacl, every individual owner (both husband and wife as well as arty other joint
owners) to determine a vote basexl on evet3cone’s individual opinion.
Thus, again, the "yes" vote for 940 Elsinore Drive sh, outd not be changed.
Thank you for your consideration and, if you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
2
Plmming Depmtment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alt6, CA 94301
May 1, 2001
Dear Mr. Lusardi,
As homeowners in tract 1371, we oppose the proposed single-story overlay that would
change our zoning from R-1 to R-l(s).
Neither the original proposal covering 87 propel~es, 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 proposa! proceeds, we .hereby petition you, the Planning
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 Eisinore Court and
Oreer, there m’e 5 opposed and only one in favor.
These six homes are oriented differently both physically, and ideol0gically than the rest of
the neighborhood included in the revised proposal. We request to be excluded.
Thank you very much for your help.
Kathy Lierle
970 Elsinore Court
Jeff & Ann Marcus
968 Elsinore Court
Lea Nilsson
972 Elsinore Court /---,/ ~.,~.
Andy & Nancy Panayides ,...
974 EIsinore Court " i
Ramki Ramakrashnan
2276 Greet Road
MAY 0 2 ZOO1
Department of Planning ano
Community Environment
Palo
ot
Alto
File No(s):
Proposal: Resident’s request that city
initiate a zone change to add a Single-
Story Overlay i.e., Zone Chan.ge from
Rq to R4(S)
d:\GloriaD\Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\EIsinqreSingieSt°ryOveriay’ai
Page I of 2
Lusardi, john .........................................................................................
From:Scott Bortner [sbortner1@home.com]
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:47 PM
To:John.~Lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:Elsinsore neighborhood single story overlay
Dear Mr. Lusazdi:
I am a resident 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 overIay. I have concluded that the existing single story
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.exmtmg CCR 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, etc.
The use of a blanket ban on second stories is relatively crude and ineffective instrument for achievit~g 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 story 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 this additional sqaare footage was given as "sweetener" to get additional homes to
sign onto the petition for a sin~le story overlay. Nonetheless, this increase in footprint will reduce privacy.
My lot is about 7500 square feet and the value 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 home 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 over time (I estimate about 7-10 years) the
proponents of the zoning regulation will 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
zoning regulation is being offered as is, with no room for modification. I feel that a mechanism for a negotiated
solufioa 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 alternative zoning solutions.
Please maintain this letter in confidence, unless I give you permission to disclose it
Sincerely yours,
Scott R. Bortner, Ph.D., JD
925 Elsinore Drive
650-638-6245
5/3/01
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
922 El Cajon Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
2 May 2001
Dear Council Members:
On Monday, 7 May 2001, you will consider a request for application of an R-1 (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 overlay 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 property 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 oveday, in 1996 I drafted a letter proposing that
Garland Park petition for an oveday 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 Ddve. 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 Court. 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.
Garland 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
neighbors have owned their homes for twenty to thirty years. A stable neighborhood,
whereresidents know one another, is a place where concepts like Neighborhood
Watch work effectively..
As the post-war generation ages, it is important that Palo Alto 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 Eichler’ 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 of 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
drive down property values. The house across the street from me sold last year for
209% more than its 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.
1 have tried to stand in a real estate agent’s shoes and examine this application from that perspective. If !
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
Palo Alto City Council
c/o Department of Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pa[o Alto, CA 94301
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:
I’m writing you to register my support for the Elsinore Single Story Overlay. I had planned to come and
tes:~ify in favor 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 EIsinore 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.
Sincerely, j ~
945 EIsinore Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.856.6125
,~i5 CAMSRiDGE AVENUE. SU.TE ~2
PALO ALTO, CA 9-~ 306
650-32i0956 FAX 650.321.4205
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 less than the necessary number to proceed. (Of the 33 homes, 1 i
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 yonfor.your help with this matter.
/
Attachment
Alto
No(s):
Proposal: Resident’s request that city
initiate a zone change to add a Single-
Story Overlay i.e.; Zone Change from
.~
d:\GloriaDVkrtwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSinglest°ryOverlay’ai
Da~e: 81812000
0’150’ 300’
FROM : RUSSELL Mau. 88 2881 02:02PM P2
Mbert RusselI
Attorney at Law
981 Elsinore Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
Phone (550) 813-1372
Fax (650) 843-1673
May S, 2001
Mr. Ed Gawf, Director
Ms. John Lusa~di, Current Planning Manager
City of P’,do Alto PIanning Department
250 H’,~nikon Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
RE: Elsinore Ddve~,Etsinore Court and E1 Cajon .Sin,g.le Story. Overlay Request
Dear Ed and John:
Several of us from our rteig~aborhood would like to me with both of you (and possibly Philip
Woo&k) to see if we can work out a clear timeline for the submission of the overlay request to tb_e
city couucil. We understand that you h&ve a heavy workload right now and that you may need
some additional time to fam~arize yourseIves with the details of the overlay process and
guidetines. ~ addition, we expect that there me a tiumberof specific issues relating to
overlay request which may need additional time to review. We are willing to assist in this
process in any way that would be helpful lo you.
Ple~e call me at 81.3-I372 as soon as possible such that we can schedule a meeting. Late
",fftemoons are available.
Thanks.
Lusardi, Job,,n
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,
Chandler
Lee 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
distributed
to the certain neighbors. When that event failed to garner enough
votes, the proponents
resorted to unethical tactics such as harassing neighbors and threaten
those
who have on-going house remodeling with law suits unless they agree to
vote for the proposal.
I have consultded with quite a few real estate agents and al! of them
think
the existent of such a zoning restriction would decrease the value of
the
property in the neighborhood. Therefore, 1 have sti(I yet to see a real
reason
why the originator of the proposal has in mind. In the mean time, it is
obvious
why we are against such a proposal: no one in his right mind would like
to
see his property value going down and no one in his right mind would
like to
have 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 all 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 sin.qle story overlay for several reasons:
We simply don’t want our rights to be taken away. One of the best things
about owning your own house is that it’s fate is yours to decide! 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 ai’e 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 neigf
Sincerely, ~___.~~~
Dan Harden and Heidi Schwenk
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-1Sfor 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%
@91 Bl~’r Ct, Palo Alto, Ca 94303
917 El Cajon Way
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
650-856-0625
May 22, 2001
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Department
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
13el~rtment of Planning andCernrnuntl~/l~nvlronrnent
My neighbors, the newowners of 943 El Cajon Way, have voted "yes" for the Elsinore Area
single story overlay. Attached is their signed 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
. ~,.~:!ii~::~,iSti~:to reconcile these numbers with you or Mr. Woods at your earliest convenience.
. ::i: ::;ii):’- "}~l~a~e contact me or A1 Russell as soon as possible so we can help you resume finalizing
: ~i. i i. ii"::, i).¯ ,~>:i! :. y_~~ ~ifi~t.on our request."
,
’:: :: " Committee in Favor of Overlay
PROPF-KTY OWNERS (WITH MAILING ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT)
-"
Property Identification
ADDRESS AND ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER LOT SIZE
SIGNATURE FORM
TO:
FROM:
SUBYECT:
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
LrWe 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 Iiraits the height of
structures to a maximum of 17 feet with one habitable floor and increases the allowable Iot 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 1371 property owners.)
All owners of the property have~ below: *_
Signature of property owner: ~~//~,/,"~-’~
Signature of second owner:~,~/~/¢~,,gt,~:~ ~¢j~/
/ /
Additional owners:
*If there are other owners who have not signed, please explain below.
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 Ma’. Lusardi,
I am writing in strong opposition to Etsinore Drive single story overlay proposal under
consideration. I purchased my Eichler home in 1996, and have no i.ntension to add a second story.
However, I was and remain strongly opposed to the overlay 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, at?parently 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 overIay 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
ATTACHXVIENT F
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
AFTER JUNE 11, 2001
917 El Cajon Way"
Palo Alto 94303
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 ofthe three representatives from E1 Cajon Way on the
....... ~-,@::~;i~~:who started the Elsinore area request in May of 2000.
" .i;i i!i.!ii:~-.-.~--.-~~;E1Cajon Way, has 29 properties and 24 of the 29 have voted in favor of the
_ :~.i.~?:[ii:%- ~.:.:.~;i~i!~n~-_slr~’~6i~i!83% of El Cajon Way in support of the overl,a,y. However, we also believe that
II.II-I:I~IL :;!!~iI ’ "~!:!i : i~:!~~fi~&:.~l~’~pa.rt of what we are now calling the "Triple El neighborhood consisting of
i..;:-].-: ’:’. .(: :-::’i@ii~;:?l~i~ii~ve, Elsinore Court, and E1Cajon Way and we hope to see the entire neighbor-
:~ii~ii~..~:6i~ied by an overlay.
’~i~vs from i~ide o~ house and from my outdoor pa~o ar~ are u~-obs~cted by b~ildings.
.=,:That~~;~vhy we invested here 24 years ago, and that’s why we want the protection of the overlay.
.i:.~:.:ii~.:ii:i~i:haqe 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 E1 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 Elsinore 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 I
unfortunately will be out of town that evening.
My wife, Susan, and I purchased our home on EIsinore 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
zH5 CAMBRtDGE AVENUE. SUITE i2
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
650-321.0956 FAX 650-321-4205
SALLY j’. DUDL£Y
901 £L31NOP~E DR.IV£
PALO ALTO. CALIFOi~,N|A 9430,3
J,J.N ! 8 ~001
June 16, 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 neighborhood (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 Palo Alto
We are sending this letter to be enclosed 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 except for the enforcement process. The
method for enforcement virtually guarantees a contentious event which
could have a long-lasting devisive effect on our neighborhood. For 34 years
on this street we andour 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 offthe record that a property situated
in a desirab!e 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 E! 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-mail- 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 the Council 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 ~f 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 .5I% or 66.6%~ I would.hope that the Overlay Zoning issue would be
handled in the same fair manner.
Due to the unfortunate delays in this matter, a lot of passion has grown on
both sides of the ~ssue. 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 Lusardi, 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 E1 Cajon Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-856-7763
Palo Alto City Council
Mr. Ed Gwaf, Director
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Department
250 Hamilton 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 E1 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 living experience. We bought and have
stayed.over 30 years in our home because IT IS an Eichler in an
Eichler neighborhood. The large ceiling-to-floor windows embody
the Eichler/Calffornia hving concept of bringing the outside in.
Eichlers and their surrounding neighborhoods are distinct and
unique to California o~d to Palo Alto. They deserve to be protected
... something all homeowners legally agreed to upon purchasing
their, homes.
We value our "open, garden" environment. Despite a very small lot
(50: by 100.1 and.because, of the. large.windo.w.s,.we enjoy sunshine.
and garden views everywhere. (See attached-page of photos.) We
even have a small poo]~, deck~ and vegetable garden. All. because
THERE ARE NO SECOND STORY HOUSES to block the sunshine.
o 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 ex~j.oy openness AND
privacy. Please do not destroy this delicate balance by opening up
the. possibil~, of two-story building~
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.
Finally, El Cajon Way is itself a little 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 light 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 malntaku the integrity of our valuable and unique
neighborhood and we urge your enthusiastic support for the Single Story
Overlay.
Respectfully submitted,
S~hmidt Schmidt
Palo Aim Sinele Story Overlav 2 Karl ~z JoAnn Schmidt
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.
Pnlo Alto Single ,qmrv Overlay 3 Karl & loAnn ~chmidt
View of side patio, looldng toward Master Bedroom.
Back yard pool and deck.
Palo Alto Single ,qtorv Overlay 4 Karl & .~oAnn Schmidt
June 18, 2001
Mr. Ed Gawf, Director
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Dept.
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Gentlemen:
This letter is to affirm 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 a~d 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
want to lose it. There is also a very real question about the
future value of our home should a two story house be::bu~It
We have lived in our Eichler home for more than 46 years
and feel 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 Iv[r Oawfand Mr. Lusardi,
We are writing to you with regards to the Elsinore neigtiborhood Single Story Overlay petition. My
husband and I are strongly in favor of this petition.
My husband and I moved to an Eichler at 915 Elsinore two years ago 0May 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 wails 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 stroller) and we would like to maintain the look and feel of this
neighborhood.
We believe that this neighborhood fulfills all Palo Alto’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 urthappy 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,.~
Miriam Sedm~Ralph Nyffenegger
9 lffElsinore’Dr.
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 pdvacy.
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; retdeve 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,I./"-~
Dan Harden Heidi Schwenk
Passp_o
MSN Home HotmaH Web Search Shoppin(l ~ People &Chat
H0tmai]® ramki80@hotmail, com
Inbox Compose Address Book Folders Options Messenger Calendar Help
Folder: Inbox
"Pandurangan Ramakrishnan" <ramki80@hotmail.com> Save AddressFrom:
To:johnJusardi@ciW.palo-alto.ca,us Save Address
CC:mmki80 @ hotmail.com Save Address
Subject: Single Stow Overlay Proposal
D~e: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:23:24 -0700
Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
I was extremely disappointed to find that the City of Palo Alto is wasting its
resources in following the divide and conquer 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 Greer Road area of Pa!o Alto.
Will 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 am 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 Greer Road
Paio 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 !}(Move to Selected Folder)
Inbox Compose Address Book Folders Options Messenger Calendar Help
IGet notified when you have new Hotmail or when your friends are online, send instant messages, listen to music and I
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://exelorer.msn.com
Other Links:Special Features:
¯’ "~,~... 6/20/2001http://pv lfd.pav 1 .hotmml.msn.com!cgl-bln/getms=,. curmbox=F000000001 &a=7b47 af435
June 22, 2001
To: John Lusardi and members of City Council
From: Lea Nilsson, Charlotte Fu and Kathy Leilrle
We are outraged andsaddened 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.
Nowl~ere 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.
Please be sure these numbers are corrected.
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 have 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
opportunity to be away with children for the long July 4 weekend. A meeting on July 2
will prevent many homeowners to attend the meeting. We hereby are asking to have the
meetingat 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 your cooperation.
" o 2001
June 25, 2001
Platming Department
City of Palo Alto
¯ 250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
RECEIVED
JUN 2 6 2001
Department ot Planning anOCommunity 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 Elsiaore 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 therefore-in 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 .t-y of us 11 owners out of 19 are opposing the single story
overlay. Against 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.
That& You very much for your help.
Attachment
PF
Palo AI 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-1 to R-I(S)
Date: 8/8/2000
d:\GloriaD\Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
0’150’ 300’
Mr. j~m
Planning Dept.
And
City. Council
Palo Alto California
3ON’N L..~MSTRONG
940 Elsinore Dr.
Palo Alto. CA 94303
650-856
RECE~VE~
JUN 2 6 2001
Oepartme~ of Planning
Community Environment
06125101
! have voted no on ,h~. sb.’@e goT,’ overlay issue fc, Th, E!sinore Drb,,e Area.
d&4de the vote of 940 E~knere Drive in haK so that l~y !/2 vote is covmted a.nd not i_smored as at present.
Thank you.
Iohn L. Armstrong
Attachment C
PF
The City of
Palo A1 to
Proposal: Resident’s request for
Single Story Overlay; zone change
From R-1 to R-I(S).
Amended: January 10, 2001
d:\GloriaD~Artwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlay.ai
Date: 8/8/2000
Attachment D
The Ci:y of
Palo AI to
Alternative Single Story Overlay
Remove Areas 1 and 2
Request to be excluded
~ June!l,2001
d:\GIoriaOXArtwork\Maps\StaffReports\ElsinoreSingleSt°ryOverlay’ai
Date: 8/8/2000
0’ 150’ 3O0
Attachment E
PF
"[be City of
Palo A1 to
pLANNING DIVISION
File No(s): Elsinore Drive
Tract: 1371
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-1 (S)
Supporters (as of 06/11/01)
:\Plan\Pladiv\SiteLocationMaps\ElsinoreSingleStoryOverlaySuppor~ers.ai
Revised: 07117101
150’300
Attachment C
Lusardi, John Attachment F
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Charlotte Fu [Charlotte.Eu@3do.com]
Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:33 PM
’john_lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us’
’Helenzs@aol.com’; ’xsfu@hotmail.com’
Exclude Area #2 from Elsinore Drive Single Story Overlay Rezoni ng
Dear John:
The owner of 904 EIsinore Drive (in Area #2), changed their vote and voted
AGAINST this single story overlay rezoning!
You may or may not know this owner lives in New York, they rented the house
out, they were not well informed and have not been actively involved with
the Single story overlay process. They voted for when the proponent(s)
solicited the vote at the beginning (with 87 houses). They voted "for" at
that time because they do not have any intent to build a second story.
Most of us in area# 2 voted against this proposal, but we never had this
owner’s contact information. A week ago, this owner called her realtor and
her next door (910 Elsinore Drive). Helen and her husband said after they
think it over, found this Single Story overlay is not a good idea. The
market has been changed, they do not have any plans for the 2rid story, but
for the uncertain future, the future owners may be want/able to change
CC&R’s with 51% of the vote and to built 2rid story. So the owner of 904
Elsinore Drive has withdrawn their support, they voted against the single
story overlay.
In area# 2, now among six (6) homes, 5 of us strongly against this single
story overlay rezoning. Please update the number for this change. We know
that the Planning Commissioners recommended to exclude our corner (area #2)
from the rezoning process at next (final) city council meeting. Please do
not against the will of 83% property owners in area #2.
Please include this communication into the next city council meeting
package.
Thank you.
Charlotte Fu
911 EIsinore Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 494-7649 (H)
(650) 385-2455 (W)
..... Original Message .....
From: Helenzs@aol.com [mailto:Helenzs@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:39 PM
To: Charlotte.Fu@3do.com
Subject: Re: FW: EIsinore Drive Rezoning Issue
Dear Charlotte:
It was a pleasure talking with you, too. We sent the following e-mail
(below) to John Lusardi this afternoon. If by some chance he does not
receive it, please bring this e-mail with you to the meeting tomorrow
morning.
Lusardi, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Helenzs@aol.com
Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:38 PM
J ohn_Lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca .us
Single Story Overlay Proposal
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
I sent you an e-mail earlier this afternoon regarding zoning of our house at
904 Elsinore Drive in Palo Alto. I just want to clarify my position, if
necessary. We do not have any current intention of building a second story
on our house, but we are against any rezoning that might affect our right to
do so in the future, or the right of any future buyer of our property. When
we originally voted for the proposal, it was for the 87 houses in the area.
However, no one informed us of the boundary changefor the eighteen houses.
We were not well informed on what the issues were and upon learning the
situation, we hve decided thatif the eighteen houses can be excluded, we
would like our corner of Elsinore to be excluded as well.
Please exclude our section of Elsinore from any rezoning that would preclude
us or future buyers from erecting .a second story.
Sincerely,
Helen Zuckerman and Gary Shaw
Lusardi, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Helenzs@aol.com
Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:58 AM
J ohn_Lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Single Story Overlay Proposal
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
My husband, Gary Shaw, and 1 are the owners of the house at 904 Elsinore Drive in Palo Alto. We are writing this memo
to inform you that we have changed our minds and we have withdrawn our support for the Single Story Overlay Proposal
and request that our property be excluded from this rezoning, along with the other 5 homes at the end of Elsinore Drive
(where it
intersects with Louis).
Thnk you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Helen Zuckerman and Gary Shaw
992 Elsinore Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
September 6, 2001
Mr. John Lusardi
Current Planning Manager, Planning Department
City of Pato Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Mr. Lusardi,
We are writing this letter to request that you immediately remove our support for the Elsinore
Drive Single Story Overlay motion soon to be voted on by the Palo Alto City Council.
Our views have changed because of the material changes in the City ofPalo Alto’s
regulations governing the construction of single story and second story houses - changes
which we view as extremely positive, and as directly influencing our desire to have the
overlay apply to our property.
Given the lot coverage ratio available to us under the new law, we no longer see any
significant advantage to the cumbersome overlay. We also believe that the new laws
governing second story reviews significantly reduce the overall need for an overlay policy
throughout the city.
Despite the withdrawal of our support for the overlay, we have observed, and will continue to
observe, the CC&R’s to which we are subject. We enjoy our neighborhood and have no wish
for a significant change in its character.
A fellow Elsinore Drive resident has informed us that the City will no longer consider our
change in perspective in this process. However, given the significant change in the
regulatory environment governing residential housing in Palo Alto, we urge the City to
consider our changed perspective. We urgently request that we not be disenfranchised, given
the significantly changed development and planning context.
Thank you very much for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to telephone us with any
questions at (650) 493-3221.
Regards,
Scott and Kathy Schroeder \,...~
Cc: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Officia!
Page I ot I
Lusardi, John
From:Boris Yatovitz [ynette@earthlink.net]
Sent:Sunday, September 16, 2001 1:28 PM
To:John _lusardi
Subject: Single Story Overlay for Tract 1371
September 16, 2001
To: Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Re: Single story overlay zoning of Tract 1371, Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court, and E1 Cajon Way
We ask that you vote in favor of the overlay zoning. A positive vote will do no more than put into the
zoning requirements that which already exists in C,C, and R’s. In so doing you will be protecting your
constituents from potential contentious civil lawsuits by neighbors against neighbors should a neighbor
attempt to erect a structure taller than 17 feet as specified in the C,C, and R’s.
While there are other compelling reasons for the overlay zoning to be approved: aesthetics, privacy, etc.,
we deplore the thought of the emotional and economic costs of maintaining our neighborhood without
the protection of an overlay zone.
Please vote in favor of the overlay zone for Tract1371 on September 24th.
Sincerely,
Annette Yatovitz and Boris Yatovitz
956 E1 Cajon Way
9/!6/01
Lusardi, John
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Peeknotes@aol.com
Monday, September 17, 2001 2:38 PM
john_lusardi@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Overlay
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 95301
RE: Overlay for the Elsinore/EI Cajon Neighborhod
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
I strongly object to the Elsinore/EI Cajon Overlay as amended by the
August meeting of the Planning Commission. It does not reflect what the
overwhelming majority of the-residents requested.
The exclusion of the six homes at the entrance of Elsinore Drive and
Louis Road, plus all of Elsinore Court and the two homes on Greer Road
totally defeats the purpose of the Overlay. As amended, it would still allow
monster homes to be built in the neighborhood. This is what we are trying to
avoid in order to preserve the very unique character of the area where we
have lived since 1955.
Reluctantly, and only very reluctantly, I would be willing to accept an
Overlay that excluded only Elsinore Court and the two homes on Greer Road.
Respectfully,
Trueman H. Peek
982 El Cajon Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
RICHAR.D R.
96~ ELSINORE DRIVE
GRIFFITHS ARCHITECT
PALO ALTO CA 9¢303 PHONE 65~-856--o8o4
Sept. 16,2001
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Re: Elsinore Drive, Etsinore Court & E1 Cajon Single Story Overlay Request
Dear Mr. Lusardi and members of the City Council,
I am writing in favor of the overlay. We have lived at this address for over forty years
and have seen many changes in ownership and additions to the homes. Thankfiflly, none
have altered the character of the architecture or of the neighborhood. I hope that you have
all had an opportunity to drive through our area. It is always a joy to us to have younger
families with small children move into the neighborhood.
You have heard the opposition’s arguments that we have the C C & R’s that have worked
free all these years, so why do we need the overlay? Palo Alto has never seen homes
worth half a million dollars, or more, being demolished, to be replaced with out- of- scale
houses that invade the privacy of neighbors to say nothing of our aesthetic values. I’m
sure the proposals of the "Single Family Neighborhood Advisory Group" will help this
situation in many neighborhoods, but it will not be a solution to our concerns, to prevent
future litigation to enforce the C C &R’s.
The other point I wafit to make, is regarding the percentage required for approval. It has
long been established in this country that a two-thirds majority is an overwhelming
majority. There is not a law that can not be passed, defeated or overturned by a
two-thirds majority!
Thank you for considering my/our concerns.
Richard & Joan Griffiths
September 17, 2001
Honorable Sandy Eakins, Mayor
Victor Ojakian, Vice Mayor
Bern Beecham
Jim Burch
Gary Fazzino
Judy Kleinberg
Nancy Lytle
Dena Mossar
Members of the Council, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
SEp 1 8 ZOO1
Council Members,
On Monday, September 24, the Elsinore neighborhood’s fifteen-month odyssey
toward enactment of a single-story overlay will conclude. My wife and I, along
with a majority of our neighbors, ask you to vote for final approval of the zoning
change. This change will, in effect, make one provision of our CC&Rs a part of the
zoning for our neighborhood.
The planning department has recommended the enactment of the overlay for our
neighborhood, with the exclusion of Elsinore Court and two houses on Greer. My
wife and I consider Elsinore Court integral to our neighborhood. We disagree with
the planning department that there is a close association between Blair Court and
Elsinore Court. There is no path between the two courts and the four houses on
Elsinore Court are visible at a glance from Elsinore Drive.
With o~d~ without Elsinore Court, our neighborhood meets the four criteria
specified in the R1-S ordinance. The only criterion over which there is
disagreement is level support. With Elsinore Court, we exceed a two-thirds
majority (68%); without the court, we exceed the arbitrary 70% figure.
A number of our neighbors have been following the evolution of the city’s Single
Family Advisory guidelines. While they and we support these guidelines, these
will not be sufficient to preserve our neighborhood’s ambience. Specifically,
implementation of the guidelines does not prevent the building of a two-story
house or the addition of a second story.
My wife and I have found our neighborhood to be a wonderful place to
raise our three boys, the youngest of whom started at Paly this year. We
believe that the passage of the R1-S overlay is critical to the preservation
of the neighborhood’s friendly, family-oriented atmosphere. I
encourage you to vote for final approval.
Sincerely,
Terry and Kay Gibson
921 Elsinore Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 493-2170 (home)
terry.gibson@sun.corn
kwdgibson@yahoo.com
~/cc: John Lusardi, Planning Department
Teen F. Makowski 950 Elsinore Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel. (650)856-7594 e.mail- TeenFredell(~.aol~0~
September 17, 2001
Mr. John Lusard~, Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Lusardi:
In regard to the Elsinore neighborhood overlay zoning issue I
wish to have this letter included inthe Council packet for the
September 24 meeting.
My desire is to maintain the integrity and appearance of the
defined.neighborhood~ as v~ritten in ouz original proposal. A majority
of the neighborhood wants this. l.do not understand why an
emotional an~ ~ minotity, led by areas estate agent who may
have a vested interest in the issue, is having so muqh influence on the
planning department.
The most pertinent fact of this issue is the zoning change would
assu~e that the city enforcethe existing CCR’s for the Elsinore
neighbo~hood~. Without the zoning change the~ ci~has no obligation
to.inform neighbors of an intende~ second story. We would then have
the prospect . of neighbors suing neighbors to ga~ ~nforcement of the
CCR’s. It is possible that i~the~futu~esomeone-¢ould disregard the
CCR’s ang p~ocee~with building -a second stQry on their house.
The c~ty-determine~ criteria fo~ the request have been met.
There has been.inco~ec~ info~matio~ancfeax disseminated by the
opposition which has inf[uencec~ afe~ home~ owners.who are fearful of
"government intervention."
The ~ concessio~ ~ coulg accept would be ex~clusion of the two
houses on Greet Road. Othen#ise, I believe the neighborhood includes
E~sinore I~,, Elsinore Court, an~ E~ Cajon and should remain in tact.
Carving out a~y sma~ potion, destroys-the integrity of the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Teen F: Makowski
922 El Cajon Way
Palo Alto,CA 94303
18 September 2001
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Council Members:
On Monday, 24 September 2001, you will give final consideration to a neighborhood request for
application of an R-I(S) zoning overlay to the Garland Park Subdivision. My wife and I wholeheartedly
endorse this application.
I last wrote to you about this issue on 2 May 2001, when you reopened consideration of this request.
What I said then remains germane to the issue. We have appended a copy of that letter as a reminder of
what I had to say then.
when the issue reached the Council in July the public comment on it was extensive. One aspect stands
out clearly in our memory. The camp opposed to the overlay accused the proponents of trying to carve up
the neighborhood, dropping lots along the edges in an attempt to increase the percentage level of support
in the center. This allegation was and remains false. Those same opponents petitioned the Planning
Department and requested that their properties be excluded from the overlay.
We are strongly opposed to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that portions of the
neighborhood be excluded from the area covered by the overlay. This is especially true of the entrance to
the neighborhood from Louis Road along Elsinore Drive, where the Commission proposes that six
properties be excluded. In the Council’s discussion in July, Councilwoman Lytle made it clear that it has
long been City policy that neighborhoods ought not be divided along a side lot line. This exclusion makes
use of just such a division.
Once again, we urge you to vote for the R-I(S) zoning overlay application for Garland Park. We thank
you for your patience with the protracted process this application has experienced.
Sincerely yours,
John Baum and Nancy Baum
922 El Cajon Way
Pal0 Alto, CA 94303
2 May 2001
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Council Members:
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 overlay 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 property 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 overlay, 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 Court. 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 overlay. 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.
Garland 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
neighbors have owned their homes for twenty 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 Alto 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 Eichler’ 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 of 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
drive down property values. The house across the street from me sold last year for
209% more than its purchase price in 1993. Annual Coldwell Banker data reported in
the San Francisco Examiner suggest that the expected increase would have been
160%. This sale is not an isolated example.
I have tried to stand in a real estate agent’s shoes and examine this application from that perspective. If
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 overlay 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
September 18, 2001
Mr. John Lusardi
Acting Planning Manager, Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
1 9 2ool
unit~ eneronrnen/
Dear Mr. Lusardi,
We are writing to urgently request that the City Council consider the revised votes of two
Elsinore Drive residents who have changed their votes to oppose the Elsinore Drive area
single story overlay.
Given the significant changes in the City of Palo Alto’s regulations governing the
construction of single story and second story homes, we ask that the City Council explicitly
take into account these revised votes, which together bring the total approval ratio for the
overlay to 64%.
Although we are informed that such late vote changes are not usually recognized, we request
that the City Council consider the material change in regulation and recognize the total
current number of negative votes. The situation with the vote on this overlay policy
occurring during a huge regulation change is unprecedented, and we believe that it warrants
the Council’s utmost flexibility regarding voter opinion.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Regards,
Attachment G
Planning and Transportation Commission
August 8, 2001
Verbatim Minutes
Draft Excerpt
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
Single Story Overlay for Portion of Tract 1371 of Elsinore Drive*: Request by Property
Owners of Portions of Tract 1371 for Consideration of a single story overlay zoning for a
portion of the Garland neighborhood. File No: 01-ZC-02. Environmental Assessment:
Categorically exempt from all provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. John Lusardi, Current Planning Manager: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this
is a request made by residents of the Elsinore neighborhood for the designation of the single
story overlay for 68 lots. The City Council has voted to initiate the process and the Commission
is being asked tonight to make a recommendation to the City Council. A City Council hearing
date has not been set yet. The Commission has received all written correspondence submitted to
date including five new comment letters submitted to the Commission for tonight’s heating.
As discussed in the Staff report there are four criteria in the guidelines that the Commission shall
consider in making a recommendation to the Council. They are 1) Level and format of owner
support; the standard that is used is the term "overwhelming support." 2) Appropriate
boundaries; an overlay zone that would define an identifiable neighborhood. 3) Prevailing single
story character; similar in age design and character. 4) Moderate lot sizes; generally 7,000 to
8,000 square feet with consistent lotting pattern. The Commission Staff report describes the
proposed single story overlay in the context of those four criteria. The issues are development
standards, deed restrictions, and flood zone requirements are also discussed in the Staff report.
The Commission has three options for recommendation to the City Council: 1) recommend that
the overlay zone not be approved for any of the lots within the proposed boundaries; 2)
recommend that the overlay zone be approved for the boundaries submitted by the proponents as
shown in Attachment C of Staff report; and 3) recommend that an overlay zone be approved for
an amended area within the proposed boundaries. The Commission’s recommendation should be
based on the criteria described in the Staff report. Staff is recommending that the Planning and
Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council approve the designation of a single
story overlay zone for the amended boundaries for 62 lots as shown in the Attachment B of your
Staff report. Thank you very much.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Commissioners have any questions of Staff?. Phyllis.
Corranissioner Cassel: Could you explain how the new single family regulations that we have
passed Monday night at City Council will affect overlay zones?
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Well, I’ll begin with an explanation. One of your new
Commissioners may want to add to this. The regulations that were passed Monday night, on first
reading, would not affect a single story district. They were changes that affect R-1 Zones only.
So any changes that were approved Monday night would not affect this single-family overlay or
any existing single family overlays.
Commissioner Cassel: I was looking for something else. What it means is that a single story
overlay zone when you insist that everything be on the first floor, 30% of the site can be covered.
On small lots that means that they will be able to use the total FAR, on S-Overlay Zones those
units that are 6,000 square feet will not be able to use 150 square feet of that, right?
Ms. Grote: That’s correct. If you want to put your entire FAR on the ground floor you can use
the entire FAR on the ground floor and exceed what had been the maximum lot coverage. So in
some cases that would go up to about 42.5% lot coverage. That changed in R-1 Zones only. It
didn’t change single story zones. So single story overlays are still limited to a maximum of 40%
coverage, which means in most cases they wouldn’t get their maximum FAR on a single ground
level. If you want to support that you can certainly make those kinds of comments and we can
incorporate that into the Zoning Ordinance Update, which is what we had talked about on
Monday night with the Council. So then single story overlays would be consistent with R-1
Zones.
Chair Biaison: Let me understand you and make it clear that if we do have a home and an
overlay has been approved they really could not build as much on the first floor as those homes
that are not in an overlay zone as the law stands now. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: That’s correct as it stands now and that’s why we would recommend reviewing that
as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update so that you have a consistent regulation for all single
family zones City-wide.
Commissioner Cassel: Lisa, that’s only for small lots. The average is out at 7,500 square feet.
Ms. Grote: That’s true. It does average out right around 7,000 square feet.
Chair Bialson: We are dealing here with 6,000 to 7,000.
Ms. Grote: In some cases you are, yes.
Chair Bialson: Okay, I appreciate that. Any other questions by Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up. If tonight it is decided to go with a revised boundary
so that some of the homes that were in the original boundary are on the outside they would be in
the R-1 and could expand to the maximum FARunder the R-1 changes that were made Monday
night, right?
Ms. Grote: They could as of the effective date of the ordinance and that is currently anticipated
to be around October 29th.
Commissioner Packer: So the ones on the outside of the boundary could conceivably have a
larger first floor home or could go to a larger FAR than the ones in the overlay.
Ms. Grote: Those outside the boundary would be able to use their full FAR on a single story. It
wouldn’t necessarily by more FAR but it their full FAR.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? No, then why don’t we hear from the applicant. We will
give 10 minutes and I believe that is Dan Rausch.
Mr. Dan Rausch, 935 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: Hello, I’ve lived on Elsinore Drive for about 10
years with my wife and son, Max, who is a student at Jordan Middle School. I’m here tonight
representing the applicants for the R-1 (S) Overlay petition and to talk to you about our
neighborhood. I think it is appropriate at this opening slide to just say a word about
neighborhood. Neighborhood is not just right next door neighbors but it is a neighborhood, it is
an area, a community, which is the way this neighborhood was constructed in the beginning.
Later in the presentation I’ll show you the original boundaries of the tract as it was established.
The tract has really stayed consistent since its establishment. There are a number of supporters
here tonight but because of the vacation time of the year I’m sure that you can appreciate that not
all of us could be here. I would at least like to ask people to acknowledge their support in terms
of the people that I’m speaking for.
Our neighborhood is unique in that it is an Eichler neighborhood that’s really stood the test of
time. I’ll show some better photographs later but this just gives you a quick snapshot, an
introduction in case you have not been through the neighborhood recently. It is very consistent
in its lot patterns and in the homes constructed there. It is 100% single story. It is 100% original
Eichler even though many of them have been revised during the years that have gone by. The
other thing to note is that we are governed, and all of us have signed in our deeds, CC&Rs with a
single story restriction. I would draw your attention to the fact that when the original ordinance
creating the R-1 (S) Overlay Zone was created, the intention is, as stated there in the quote
directly from the guidelines, which is that neighborhoods currently subjected to a single-story
deed restriction should currently be developed in a manner consistent with those deed
restrictions. I think the Council spoke to that in the meeting that we had with them about a
month ago. Our neighborhood was designed and built and a contiguous single story community.
The sighting of the homes respects the privacy and sight lines of the moderate size lots and the
Eichler style construction. Our single-story restriction was put in place at the time the
neighborhood was established and it preserves the low-profile nature of the homes which results
in privacy despite our narrow lots. All of us can enjoy the view of the urban forest that has
grown up around us over the years. Our CC&R term, the very first one in the CC&R document
which you have a copy of in the packet, states no building shall be erected, altered, placed or
permitted to remain on any lot other than a one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed
one-story in height and a private garage, not more than two cars. It’s very clear, not ambiguous.
All of us have signed this as part of the deed restrictions that we undertook when we purchased
our properties. All the residents have voted with their actions over the years to maintain these
restrictions. All modifications made to the homes in the proposed area have adhered to the
single story construction characteristic. The R-1 (S) Zone simply provides a notice of the single
story restriction and avoids litigation as a path to enforce it. No new limitations are imposed
until on Monday night when I was here to watch the passage of the first of many zoning law
updates. We would agree with Staff, we would assume that you would normalize or make the R-
1 (S) floor area ratio the same as R-1. So really what we are saying here is that by passing this
overlay zone, proper notice is presented to new home purchasers and current residents when they
are at the very beginning stage of planning a project so we don’t end up in a lawsuit situation in.
order to enforce the CC&Rs which again is really why the original ordinance was established in
the first place.
Now looking at the new zone requirements we feel that we still need this overlay because the R-
1 Zone as it stands today still does allow two-story construction which in our type of a
neighborhood really doesn’t do much for us with our privacy with the window walls. The
review process is only for adjacent neighbors, not for the neighborhood and so it doesn’t give
sufficient notice to those of us in the neighborhood who are interested in preserving the single
story CC&Rs. The current proposals really do not address the unique characteristics of the
Eichlers and I think that has been stated more than once. I believe this is in fact on your parking
lot list for consideration going forward.
So let’s just quickly comment on the four criteria that were established to help us evaluate
whether applications are reasonable for an R-1 (S) Overlay. Quickly, on to the percent of
support, I would draw your attention to this graphic representation and the quote from the
Planning Department’s report for this meeting which basically concludes that because we have
deed restrictions as allowed and commented specifically on in the guidelines, the 68% rate of
support can be considered as overwhelming and the first criterion has been satisfied. In fact, if
you remove the few people that have not expressed an opinion you will see we are almost three-
quarters. The other thing I would say is that over the year that we have been going through this
process a lot of the support in the Elsinore Tract has not changed by more than about 5%.
Now on to the boundary issue. This is the proposal from the applicants. Let’s be very clear, this
is our proposal and is still our proposal. We are not in favor of modifying our proposal at this
time, If A1 could show us the next chart, this is in keeping with the original construction of the
neighborhood. The original tract is identical to our proposal with one exception being at the top
there, you see four lots that are way around the comer on California Street which really are not
regarded by any of us as part of this neighborhood which is clearly contained with all the homes
facing in our interior streets, not the arterial streets which are Louis and Greer.
I’d like to take you on a little tour of the neighborhood just to give you some sense. I’m sure
some of you have not had a chance to be there. So imagine you are entering the neighborhood
coming off of Louis Road, you are now entering down Elsinore Drive and you start to see the
consistent character of the neighborhood. This is the entrance at Louis, as you go down the
street, look off to the right and you’ll look down the street onto E1 Cajon which is a 10op that
hangs off and again very consistent in its style and character. Further down the street you get a
straight shot view down to Louis after the curve and again you can see the consistent style and
single story construction. Further down the street you’ll look in on Elsinore Court, again similar
in style. Finally to wrap up this short tour is a view looking back into the neighborhood from the
Greet entrance. We feel that these slides will help you get some sense that it is a very consistent
style of neighborhood.
In conclusion, we the applicants have suggested boundaries that are consistent with our tract
boundaries with the exception of the homes on California which Staffhelped us setup in the
initial application and recommended we should take out and we agreed with them. They
remained unchanged since we started the process in July. We believe the boundaries are
consistent with your practice of how you draw boundaries and that the entrances to the
neighborhood are clearly fi:om the arterial streets, Louis and Greer.
Prevailing single story character, just.to repeat one more time, 100% of the homes in the
neighborhood are still the original Eichler construction. Many of them have been modified but
100% of the remodels have respected the single story character of the neighborhood and the low-
profile construction that they represent giving us all a very lovely view of the forest that has
grown up in our neighborhood. This is typical of the construction you’ll see that normally like
all Eichlers tend to be low-profile construction. I think most are less than 10 or 11 feet tall.
Moderate lot size is another criterion and 6t of the 68 lots or 90% are of the small size. I think
that really speaks for itself.
So in closing, we think that we have satisfied the criteria put in place to evaluate these sorts of
application. We hope that you’ll agree with us that our neighborhood consisting of all the
properties looking in on our arterial streets should be consistently zoned as R-1 (S). Thank you
for your time.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions at this time? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Sometimes when people come before us their CC&Rs are running out.
Would you explain how the CC&Rs in your neighborhood work and whether you expect them to
just die on you at some point.
Mr. Rausch: I think that our CC&Rs, like many, were setup to automatically renew. They
started with a 25-year period and then they self renew every 10 years thereafter unless a 51%
vote of the population chooses to amend them. We just renewed one year ago. So we are at the
beginning of a new 10-year term.
Commissioner Cassel: You don’t have to vote to do that? It just automatically renews unless
somebody challenges it?
Mr. Rausch: That’s right.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? We don’t have any questions now. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rausch: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: We have another 10 minute presentation by the opponents. That is going to be
by Kathy Lierle.
Ms. Kathy Lierle, 970 Elsinore Court, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’ve rived on Elsinore Court
since 1975 and I just absolutely love the neighborhood. Thank you for giving me the
oppommity to speak. I realize that you don’t have to at this time and I appreciate your doing so.
The advocates for this ordinance believe that we have a beautiful neighborhood and want to keep
it this way. They believe that the best way to accomplish this is with a single story overlay. The
opponents to the ordinance believe that we have a beautiful neighborhood and we want to keep it
that way. We believe that the best way to accomplish this is with the CC&Rs that have served us
perfectly for the last 46 years.
Three times our neighborhood has been asked to vote on the overlay. Three times the
neighborhood has voted it down failing to give the ordinance the minimum 70% we were told
was needed to proceed. Here we are anyway trying to explain why 32% of us at least oppose this
overlay. In general we agree with the Planning Commissioners who stated in June 2000 when
reviewing another single story overlay that better solutions should be developed to address the
issues of privacy, scale and architectural compatibility that are more sensitive to individual
neighborhood situations. And that the proposed restriction tends to stifle the evolution of
residential neighborhoods rather than provide any flexibility needed to manage change over time.
We firmly believe that there is no need for an overlay. Our neighborhood has CC&Rs, which
every homeowner willing entered into when their home was purchased. The CC&Rs are
thoughtful, useful and enforceable. Unlike the proposed overlay, the CC&Rs give homeowners
the right to collective govern themselves. They provide a process for bringing neighbors
together to problem-solve if needs change over time. Our CC&Rs have been 100% effective for
over 40 years. The overlay would not solve any current problems or add any value. It does not
protect the Eichler, it does not provide design oversight, it does not provide neighborhood
notification, it does not monitor the streetscape, it does not bring neighbors together to solve
problems. It will not even provide the incentive from the 30% since Monday night, and it does
not meet the criteria set by the City.
To quote, "An application for an S Overlay Zone should be with overwhelming support by
owners of the affected properties." On page 3 the Planning Department properly states, survey
results indicate strong neighborhood support, 68%, not overwhelming support. Yet if you look
at the map the entire area outside of E1 Cajon Way does not even have strong support. All of
Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court and Greer combined have only 57% of the residents in favor, 43%
of them are opposed. No overlay application has ever been forwarded to the Planning
Commission with less than 77% support. To approve an application with the largest number of
homeowners being in only 57% support would be a dangerous precedent.
Appropriate boundaries. The City Council asked you to review the merits of the two alternative
boundaries. If the 12 homes in both areas 1 and 2 were excluded the level of support would be
77% which as it was just mentioned, is the lowest percentage that has ever been considered for
an overlay. So it is the most appropriate altemative if we have to proceed with the process.
Since I live in Area I I can speak to that, people living in Area 2 will speak later about their
concems about their own homes. Then they put that Staff is recommending that Area I be
removed from the single story overlay zoning designation. They explained deletion of Area 1
could be considered as an extension of Blair Court, which was dropped due to lack of support.
Blair was originally included as part of our neighborhood and there was so little support they
dropped that area. Not only is Elsinore Court a physical extension of Blair Court we are also
philosophically linked. Elsinore Court is 100% opposed to the overlay. That shows a definite
lack of support. Additionally, our homes all face the same direction. So Blair homes are to the
side of Elsinore Court homes which is not an appropriate division. As Councilwoman Lytei
pointed out, boundaries drawn at the rear of lots is actually the way our Comprehensive Plan
asks us to draw zone boundaries. I brought some pictures to give you an idea of just how
important this is. Boundaries have to be logical. This is my house, this is my neighbor’s house.
There is no logical way to divide these two homes. This is my neighbor’s house as seen from my
living room. We can’t by law get any closer than that. As Councilman Birch pointed out, if you
don’t do it down the back you really would be spoiling a neighborhood. This is the truth. Blair
Court and Elsinore Court are philosophically and physically joined together. We certainly don’t
want to split it.
Moderate size lots, which is defined as 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. Only 14 of the 68 lots meet
this criteria. That’s about 20%. That means 80% don’t meet that criteria.
Prevailing single-story character. This is the only criteria that our neighborhood meets. All of
the properties are single stories. All have a single story deed restriction. All were built by
Eichler. None have been torn down and replaced in 46 years. In other words, all of the
homeowners have honored our CC&Rs and therefore honored their commitments to their
neighbors and to their neighborhood.
As I said at the beginning of this presentation we, the opponents of this single story overlay,
believe that we have a beautiful neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. We believe that
the best way to accomplish this is with the CC&Rs that have served us perfectly for the last 46
years. We have a proven perfect record. We have every intention of keeping it that way.
To recap, the proponents have failed to meet the criteria needed to establish a one-story overlay.
The boundaries are inappropriate, splitting the neighborhood in a manner contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan. There is no overwhelming majority, only 68% of the reduced area drawn
by the proponents, only 57% of all of the homeowners on Elsinore Drive, Elsinore Court and
Greer combined. The lot size criteria is not even close, only about 20% of the lots meets the
actual requirement. The only criteria we meet is the one that compliments the complete
effectiveness of our CC&Rs is hardly a reason to impose a different set of rules. Is there another
way? I attended the community report of the Residential Advisory Committee to the Council.
They offered many creative, practical and constructive ideas. At the meeting they stated that
there are several difficult issues that they have to leave in the parking lot for the time being. One
of those issues was what to do about Eichler neighborhoods, which will change over time. The
question is, will these neighborhoods change for the better? The never-ending, and there is no
sunset clause in the one story overlay in Palo Alto unlike every other community that has them,
the never-ending one story overlay does not guarantee that the neighborhood will change for the
better. It could even have the opposite effect. The CC&Rs are designed to bring neighbors
together. They are reasonable and enforceable. Working together, using our CC&Rs and the
creativity and the constructive ideas available to us through City resources, we can gracefully
meet our obligations to each other and to future generations. We the opponents of the ordinance
believe that we have a beautiful neighborhood and we want to keep it that way. We believe that
the best way to accomplish this is with our CC&Rs that have served us perfectly for the last 46
years and we hope you agree. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Next speaker is Jeff Marcus to be followed by Gray Chan. You have three minutes Mr. Marcus.
Mr. JeffMarcus, 968 Elsinore Court, Palo Alto: I think both sides have made some very good
points here tonight. I guess sometimes it is who you listen to last almost that makes you think-
that gee, sounds pretty good. They both sound pretty good. I would just like to say that as a
homeowner who lives on Elsinore Court, all four of the residents on Elsinore Court are 100%
opposed to the single story overlay. That’s why I would like to say that we agree with the
amended area, which basically leaves us out. I hope that you will respectfully approve the
amended area and go with the City report. I just have moved from another area of Palo Alto
where I just went through this over in the Desoto area. Actually, at that time it was a signature to
approve. I guess it was approved. I lived on Louisa Court and we were not involved in the end
for some reason. In any case, I have seen since the sale of that house many reasons why it is not
a good idea. I think you have heard many of the ideas here tonight so I won’t repeat it. I don’t
think I am going to change anybody’s mind but please take Elsinore Court out and go with the
amended area. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Gray Chan to be followed by Charlotte Fu.
Mr. Gray Chan, Blair Court, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am opposed to this proposal for the
many reasons that I spoke of in my talk last meeting. Tonight I want to remind the City Council
that 70% is after all the guideline for approval of such a proposal. The proponents only have
68% right now. So I believe that there is a lot of reason and foresight and consideration by the
original City Council members who defined the 70% requirement. As a City Council member so
eloquently said at last meeting that when property owner’s rights are at stake it should require an
overwhelming majority for approval. So if this passes it will be the lowest in history and it will
set a very dangerous precedent eroding the distinction between overwhelming majority and
simple majority. So City Council, please don’t bend your own rules. Vote it down. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Charlotte Fu to be followed by Lea Nilsson.
Ms. Charlotte Fu, 911 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: I live on Elsinore Drive at the comer of
Elsinore Drive and Bruce Street. In our comer of six property owners only one person strongly
voted for. One rental property, the owner said that she doesn’t have any intent of building a
second story so she voted for. Four of us are strongly against this proposal because we are
facing Bruce Drive and North California is on the side. All those neighbors, they are not subject
to this single story overlay and we don’t want to have this. We sent a letter to the Planning
Department that we want to be excluded. The original proposal has been sent to the Planning
Department which includes 87 houses and since the support level was never met, not close to
70%, so they took 18 houses out and changed the boundary. That’s the map you have seen.
Actually all the vote has been taken has been based on the 87 houses. If a few proponents can
change the boundary we feel that we should be able to do that too. We don’t want to be
discriminated against. We feel since only 33% voted for in our comer we are not getting any
benefit out of this and we want to be excluded. In the last City Council meeting Area 2 was
marked there in the comer and this time for some reason it is not there. I’m here on behalf of
myself and four other homeowners, who unfommately, cannot be here. They either have young
children or they work very hard and couldn’t make it tonight. So I also speak on behalf of them.
Please take into consideration to exclude our area. We believe that the requirements are not met.
First of all, the support level especially in our comer, only 33% voted for. Also the boundary we
feel is arbitrary and not logical. The lot size, we looked at the requirement and it seems like the
lot which requires 7,000 to 8,000 square feet that would be considered amoderate lot size, but in
our neighborhood more than 70% of the houses are actually less than 7,000 square feet. Most of
our lots are only 6,400 square feet. Mine is a little over 6,000. We believe that the single story
overlay is not the solution to preserve the character of this neighborhood because even if you
have the single story overlay people still can build as they wish. And also can take more square
footage to build the house than if we don’t have the s’.mgle story overlay. I come from a country,.
which has a lot of land restrictions and we have seen a lot of problems. We definitely don’t want
to see this applied to our comer. Thank you for your consideration.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Lea Nilsson to be followed by Leslie Lamport.
Ms. Lea Nilsson, 972 Elsinore Court, Palo Alto: My property is the one highlighted in yellow. I
share side fences with two neighbors. Both of them are Eichlers. Both have the same deed
restrictions. Both are similar in age. On my left I share a 110-foot long fence with the owners of
974 Elsinore Court. On my right-hand side my neighbor at 951 Blair Court I share a much
longer common fence. It is 148 feet long. In other words, I have much more in common with
my neighbor at 951 Blair Court as compared with my neighbor at 974 Elsinore Court. Yet the
neighbor I have most in common, so to speak, has been excluded from the single-story overlay
by their proponents because there wasn’t enough support there. Yet I share a very long fence
with them. I have a hard time explaining to my daughter that his property has many less
restrictions imposed on it than my property may have ifI am included in a single story overlay.
She thinks it is absurd. I am here to speak to you on behalf of five of six owners residing in Area
1, as designated by Staff, specifically all four owners from Elsinore Court and oneowner at 227"6
Greer Road. Owners of all six homes have over the years complied with the CC&Rs. As a
result all remain single story, yet five of the six owners are against a single story overlay. We
are hereby asking you, Planning Commission, to follow Staff’s recommendation and exclude us
from the single story overlay. These are the reasons: A) 83% of us are against the single story
overlay; B) we are a direct extension of Blair Court, we share the exact same lotting pattern; C)
we are all in compliance with the CC&Rs; D) 83% of us believe there is no need for the single
story overlay; E) we are all in a flood zone area. That has very serious implications. Please do
delete Area 1 from the single story overlay. Nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed.
Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Leslie Lamport to be followed by A1 Russell.
Mr. Leslie Lamport, 941 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: I’d just like to correct something the
opposition said when she said that the CC&Rs are working fine. At the City Council meeting a
woman got up and said how she had bought this house intending to build a second story so that
she could have her family come to live with here. Because there were just the CC&Rs she didn’t
know about them. I presume the real estate agent never told her. If there had been the overlay
she would have known. The real estate agent would have had to told her and that disappointment
could have been avoided.
Chair Bialson: Just a second, there is a question from one of the Commissioners.
Commissioner Cassel: Don’t you have to sign the CC&Rs when you buy the house? ¯
Mr. Lamport: You have to sign dozens of papers.
Commissioner Cassel: I just asked if you had to sign the CC&Rs.
Mr. Lamport: I presume I did. I have no recollection of doing it.
Chair Bialson: I can add here from my background. I can tell you that no, the CC&Rs so-caller
run with the land. When you take the deed on you do take on the Mctions on the deed. You
do not need to sign anything.
Commissioner Cassel: You get them but you don’t sign them?
Chair Bialson: You don’t sign. If the representative from the attorney’s office could tell us ifI
am right or wrong.
Ms. Sue Case, Senior Assistant City_ Attorney: I’m not an expert in single family commercial
transactions but it is tree, your title report will tell you that there are CC&Rs. Most people will
note that and maybe read them. There is not any requirement that I’m aware of that you have to
sign specifically saying you’ve read them.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Any more questions? Okay. A1 Russell to be followed
by Joanne Russell.
Mr. A1 Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: I’ll make this quick because I want to follow
your direction not to go through summary of arguments that have already been made. My wife
and I and my daughter are fairly much newcomers to the neighborhood. We have been there
about four and one-half years now. A lot of people have been there many years including my
neighbor who is an original owner from 1955. I wanted to make a couple of quick comments.
When we moved in the neighborhood we moved in because we were looking for a home
temporarily while we were going to build a two-story home in another part of Palo Alto. We
loved the neighborhood so much that we decided not to do that, we wanted to stay. We had
become very much advocates of the character of our neighborhood, of the privacy issues and of
this R-1 (S) Overlay. The real issue is we are not changing anyone’s rights or obligations or
restrictions. All of those are provided for by the CC&Rs. What we are doing is just transferring
basically enforcement from individual lawsuits against each other, which is probably the most
demoralizing situation that could happen in Palo Alto and it has happened, to providing a system
where the City purely can’t approve any design for a two-story. Therefore, anyone who comes
in is on notice, if they have a concern because they will find out immediately even if they
haven’t read their CC&Rs in detail, that they can’t do it. That’s the real issue. A couple of other
comments I wanted to make, I wanted to clarify a couple of things. There have been several
speakers that have talked about the size of the lot, the 7-8,000 square feet, I’ve got to correct that.
Ninety percent of the lots are below the 7-8,000 square foot level. Most of them are in the 6,500
range. So we are 90-95% compliant with the size of the lot. As far as the overwhelming
support, the guidelines from the beginning and the opinions of the Council members from the
beginning have indicated that where there are CC&Rs and deed restriction to one-story that your
obligation and your job is to be flexible in the enforcement of provisions. The 70% has been
used somewhat as a rule of thumb by the Planning Department. It is not a legal requirement. It
is not in the zoning ordinance. It is not in the guidelines. So the flexibility is there. The first
application, which I believe was in 1993, I don’t think that was 70%. We feel very strongly that
our current percentage, and I could actually argue about the numbers down to a single house as
to whether one vote should be a yes or no, but we feel we are definitely have the support. It has
been continuing support and that is not an issue at all. Basically, that’s what the report from the
City to you says. Thank you very much and I hope you’ll support us.
Chair Bialson: Thank you Mr. Russell. There is a question from one of the Commissioners for
you.
Commissioner Schmidt: You mentioned lawsuits. Have there been some or a number of
lawsuits in your neighborhood, to your knowledge?
Mr. Russell: My understanding, and this goes back some years and was west of Alma and south
of Charleston. There are several neighborhoods in there. There was an owner who attempted to
build a two-story home at the end of a cul-de-sac. What is not a single story home and that’s an
R-1 (S) Zone. I can’t identify the property for you. It is a story I heard some months ago.
Commissioner Schmidt: But to your knowledge there haven’t been lawsuits in your
neighborhood?
Mr. Russell: In our neighborhood, no.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Russell: At least not that I am aware of but from what everybody tells me.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thanks.
Chair Bialson: Next is Joanne Russell and I have no other speaker cards. So if anybody wishes
to speak please get one of those cards from the secretary.
Ms. Joarme Russell, 981 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: I just want to emphasize the fact that when
we were at the City Council meeting there were, I believe, two or three City Council members
that spoke to the fact that many speakers at that, opponents to the overlay, gave the Council the
impression that CC&Rs are optional. They are up to the neighbors to negotiate what kind of
second story you can build. There was a lot of misunderstanding about that. They are not
optional and as Judy Kleinberg said, they are the law. You have to follow it. So I just want to
say that we are not violating anybody’s property rights. We are not adding any new restrictions.
We are not taking anything away from anybody. Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Commissioners have any questions of Staff? We have one more
speaker. Mr. Dick Griffiths is our last speaker.
Mr. Richard Griffiths, 961 Elsinore Drive, Palo Alto: Thank you. All I have to say is that there
is not a law in this land that can either be passed or rejected by a two-thirds majority. Thank
you.
Chair Bialson: Thank you for that reminder. Do we have any other speakers? I see no other
cards or speakers so I will close the public hearing and take this matter back to the
Commissioners. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Back to the changes that are happening with the R-1 Zone. If someone
comes in now, presuming we pass the second meeting and there are not problems, once the new
single family regulations are passed and they have CC&Rs on but no overlay zone two things are-
going to happen if they want to put a second story on it. It goes through a review and would that
automatically mean, because it was being reviewed, that the CC&Rs would become apparent and
the second story would be denied? How does that work?
Mr. Lusardi: The CC&Rs would not necessarily become apparent in an application for a second
story. The City is not under any obligation to enforce the CC&Rs. So if they became apparent
we would simply remind the property owner that they have CC&Rs but we would not have an
obligation to enforce them or be required to enforce them.
Commissioner Cassel: So what would happen is the immediate r~eighbors would be notified that
you had an application for a two-story and then they would probably say there are CC&Rs in
place and you need to follow them and that would become part of that negotiation process.
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct.
Chair Bialson: Any other Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the map that is in Attachment D. This may have
been just an oversight on your part but it has ’x’ on the properties that have asked to be excluded
but the ones on E1 Cajon Way that indicate that they are not supporters on Attachment C are not
crossed out on Attachment D. Was that just an oversight or have those properties changed their
position?
Mr. Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner: I can explain that. The first map you see on Attachment
C reflects the vote of the property owners whether they were in support of the overlay or not.
Attachment D merely reflects a written letter that we received from nine of the 12 property
owners shown in the two areas stating specifically that they would like to be excluded from the
overlay.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Bialson: Pat, do you have any questions?
Commissioner Burt: Actually, a couple. The Staff report indicated that where CC&Rs exist
there are lower requirements for definition of overwhelming support. Can you expand on where
that is stated?
Mr. Lee: That is included in the guidelines which are one of your attachments. Basically they
state that if there is a deed restriction or CC&Rs limiting the height of the property to a single
story that the interpretation of the guidelines, each of the four criteria in the guidelines, shall be
treated with a greater level of specificity. My understanding of the history on that is that the
Council recognized that existing single story overlays with CC&Rs should have a greater
propensity to have an overlay applied to it and therefore they specifically wanted to grant greater
flexibility to those properties.
Commissioner Burt: And what is the history, or do you have the numbers, of what percentage
support there had been for past overlays?
Mr. Lee: I happen to have that right in front of me. The City has received eight requests for
overlays up until this one. The percentages are shown on the slide. The only one that is not
shown is Walnut Grove, which was the single story overlay that was included by the Council
when the single story guidelines were adopted. In that particular case, only 64% of the neighbors
were in favor of the overlay and it was approved. All the other numbers are as shown on the
slide.
Chair Bialson: Go ahead, Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: On that list, which of those had CC&Rs?
Mr. Lee: They all do.
Commissioner Packer: Including Walnut Grove?
Mr. Lee: That’s correct.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of questions. There has been a lot of concern about
neighborhoods evolving over time, is there a mechanism that say 20 years from now the single
story overlay could be repealed?
Mr. Lee: Yes, my understanding is that it has not happened to date but my understanding is the
City would follow the same rules that are included in the guidelines before you for repealing a
single story overlay and that the same criteria would apply.
Mr. Lusardi: However, there are no sunset clauses in the City’s single story overlay.
Commissioner Holman: One other point of clarification. It is spelled out here but I want to
make absolutely sure that I have this right, CC&Rs currently limit lot coverage to 35% but a
single story overlay is 40%.
Mr. Lee: That’s correct. And the reason is to compensate for the loss of the second story.
Commissioner Holman: One other question. I believe I understood someone to say that if there
was a two-story house going to be built that the neighbors would be notified. Did I
misunderstand that comment?
Mr. Lusardi: I think that comment was under the new single family review process that they
would be notified. Under the current process they wouldn’t normally be notified, it would be a
simple building permit application.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you.
Chairman Bialson: Any other Commissioners have questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The Staff report under the Moderate Lot Size section quotes the ordinance
as stating a moderate lot size is to be defined as 7-8,000 squdre feet and then the report makes the
case that even though 47 of 68 of these lots are below the 7,000 square feet that a greater degree
of flexibility is appropriate here. I guess my question is, do you know in past overlay areas, has
that level of latitude toward smaller lot sizes existed and the second half of the question is, what
is the basis for going so far as to advocate that when we have over 70% of the lots under size that
it still qualifies?
Mr. Lee: The answer to the first question is yes, in all of the other applications that I am aware
of or that I have worked on which are all except for the first two that greater degree of flexibility
has been applied by the Planning Commission and the Council. So the same rules basically we
are apply consistently with this application as compared with the ones in the past. I think there
are two reasons, one is the flexibility rule having to do with the CC&Rs and the Council’s
willingness to be more flexible in interpreting the guidelines. The second thing is, frankly, lot
sizes all over California in the past 10 years have gotten smaller. A 6,000 square foot lot is
larger today in relative terms than it was 10 or 20 years ago. So I think both of those factors
have been taken into account in this description.
Commissioner Burr: But our ordinance hasn’t changed, correct?
Mr. Lee: That’s true. It is Staff’s interpretation of the ordinance and how that applies to a
particular neighborhood.
Commissioner Burt: Then in the past overlay zones that have had a certain amount of discretion
exercised on the lot sizes, have we had any that have had this amount of discretion beyond the
guidelines?
Mr. Lee: I could not tell you off the top of my head.
Ms. Grote: I would like to interject that the 6-7,000 square foot lot size is actually in the
guidelines rather than the ordinance. So there is flexibility in how we apply it and how the
Council and the Commission would apply it. So it is not an ordinance requirement that they be
between 7,000 and 8,000.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have one other question for Staff. Area 1 primarily on Elsinore
Court, the property owners there predominantly oppose the single story overlay. There is
sympathy for that and eliminating that portion from the single story overlay would of course
raise the percentage of approval. I’d like to know Staff’s opinion about the contextual aspect of
that because four of those properties, the ones on Elsinore Court, do face the court and from a
contextual standpoint how would Staff view eliminating them?
Mr. Lee: There are a couple of considerations. One is just looking at the map itself. You can
see that the properties on Elsinore Court do in fact not face Elsinore Drive as most of the other
lots do. So there is that physical difference. The neighborhood differences as Lea Nilsson said,
is that she identifies with the folks in back of her on Blair Court. So that is kind of a real world,
how you live there, rationale. The third point that was made at the Council hearing a couple of
weeks ago is that when you drive into the neighborhood from either Greer or Louis, the gateways.
to the community come on Elsinore Drive at Louis and at Elsinore and that these six lots really .
aren’t adjacent to that gateway. So when you come into the neighborhood and get the initial
impression of the tree canopies, those six lots really aren’t a part of that.
Mr. Lusardi: I think also the lots that are in Area 1, if they were eliminated, the adjoining lots
that.would remain in the overlay back up to those lots. They are not side by side, so that
dynamic also contributes to recommending removing that area.
Chair Bialson: Michael
Commissioner Griffin: I’d like to know if there is a precedent for manipulating the area of
study? For example, this neighborhood we are talking about excluding Blair Court, Area 1 and
Area 2, what’s been our practice in the past when we’ve studied these issues?
Mr. Lee: There has been precedent for it. I’m guess that out of the six that I’ve worked on I
think two or three have had the boundaries adjusted by the City Council. To my recollection the
Planning Commission has never been asked specifically to perform that function but in this
particular instance the Council did ask you to do that. I think the reason is apparent if you look
at the ’x’ within those two areas. A predominant number of people within those areas are not
only opposed to the overlay but have specifically requested in writing that they be excluded. So
I think that’s the impetus for the Council’s direction to you and yes, that precedent has been set
previously.
Commissioner Cassel: I can remember doing this on some of these issues of trying to exclude
people if it made any sense in the logical boundaries when people were objecting. Some of those
were two-story homes.
Chair Bialson: I can recall doing so also.
Commissioner Griffin: I want to re-ask this point about Area 2. You say that those six lots that
are part of the gateway, you say that they don’t add to the atmosphere, they don’t provide a
contiguous feel for entry into the neighborhood?
Mr. Lee: No, to the contrary. The ones in Area 2 we feel do contribute to that character and do
provide the gateway access to the neighborhood. We feel Area 2 should be included within the
boundaries, whereas Area 1 does not share that characteristic.
Commissioner Griffin: Thank you for that.
Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: As I look at the Attachment C map indicating the support, is it possible to
put that on the screen? The area that is the 960 block and east of there, if you take the line that is
at the rear yard of those homes on E1 Cajon Way and were to extend it, and had a boundary right
there. Or another way to put it is if you were to enlarge Area 1 to include those homes on
Elsinore Drive, as I count it there are 19 homes in that sector and of those 19 only eight support
the overlay. Has there been any consideration toward making the boundary there and then if you
had that as Area 1 and the other as Area 2, you would end up with the remaining area having a
true overwhelming support of 36 out of 43 homes? Any thoughts on that as a revised boundary?,
Mr. Lee: Yes, a couple thoughts. One is when we look at a request from a neighborl’~ood group
as per the guidelines and as per the Council’s request we try and respect the integrity of the
original boundaries that the neighborhood submits. So that’s our starting point. When there are
neighbors who are vociferously opposed then we do look at modifying the boundaries at the
edges but frankly we have never taken more than a few lots out of a boundary that has been
requested by the neighborhood. In this particular example, although your point is well taken, I
think it would not only affect the integrity of the neighborhood as the neighbors have proposed
but it would also affect that gateway coming in from Greer. That is the major reason that we
would probably be disinclined to draw the line there as we would to exclude Area 2 that Michael
mentioned.
Mr. Lusardi: The other point to mention is that then you are getting into the relationship to the
side yards too. We try to prevent that as much as possible. Secondly, just to point out we try to
base this on all four criteria and not just trying to get a higher vote too. So you need to consider
all four criteria in that context.
Commissioner Burr: John, under the current Area 1 exclusion, as I read it, there are three side
yards that would be impacted. Under this possible alternative there would only be two side yards
impacted. Is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: That’s correct but the houses that would remain in under Area 1, their rear yards
are the ones that are adjacent to ones that would go out of the area. So it is the ones that are out
of the area had the side yard adjacent to but not the rear yard.
Chair Bialson: Try that again.
Ms. Grote: In other words, the boundary of the district would be at the rear of those lots that
front Elsinore Drive. So the boundary of the zoning district would be at the rear of the lot.
Chair Bialson: So you are saying it would be the rear of those lots that face onto Elsinore Drive?
Ms. Grote: That’s correct.
Chair Bialson: Is that okay, Pat?
Commissioner Butt: I’m still confused.
Chair Bialson: We’ll talk about it during our discussion. The reference was made by Chandler
to the gateway being affected. Is that issue anywhere addressed in either the guidelines or the
ordinance itself with regard to the overlay zone?
Mr. Lee: Not specifically, no. My personal experience in driving through and around the
neighborhood was that those two gateways, unlike many neighborhoods in Palo Alto, really
create quite an impression of entry. My personal feeling from an urban design standpoint is that
in this neighborhood perhaps more than many those gateway are an important feature, perhaps
unique to this area and a lot of it has to do with the tree canopy.
Chair Bialson: And the tree canopy would not be affected. Those are street trees that we see.
Mr. Lee: Yes, they are existing.
Chair Bialson: So those would not be affected by a second story.
Mr. Lee: No.
Chair Bialson: I understand what you are saying from an urban design point of view but my
understanding was that the overlay zone was directed mainly to privacy issues and neighborhood
compatibility issues. Is that correct?
Mr. Lee: True.
Chair Bialson: Rather than general urban design matters. Just trying to get some clarification on
it. Are there any other questions from Commissioners?
Ms. Grote: IfI could interject, I do think it took into account neighborhood character as well for
a single story.
Chair Bialson: Thank you very much, Lisa. No other questions? Then let’s take this back to the
Commission. Who would like to start the discussion? Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Do you want comments first before you have a motion?
Chair Bialson: Yes, I think that would be a good idea. Let’s clarify our thinking.
Commissioner Cassel: There are a couple of things I’ve noticed in working with single family
review issues that we’ve been working with now City Council. The lot size, the lotting pattern
for this, I worked with most of these overlay zones and most of them pretty well fell in the 7,000
to 8,000 range or higher. What we just did with the passage of the first reading Monday night
was allow the rest of the City to put their allowed FAR on the first floor no matter how large the
lots. So my sense here is that we just changed the policy in the City for what we would allow
and it would not be reasonable then to restrict this area based on the fact that the rules really say
it should be 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. It is clear to me that these units are smaller than 7,000
square feet and the predominance in this normally wouldn’t meet that guideline.
The other is that as far as I can see we don’t change any other rules or regulations of the CC&Rs.
I think that has been explained to us. The only thing we are voting on here is the right for people
to be limited in their ability to go to two stories by the City building permit process. So we
aren’t going to correct any other violations of the CC&Rs. If there are any then the neighbors
still need to go through a consulting approach, discussion approach or a legal approach to correct
that.
Chair Bialson: Thank you, Phyllis. Any other Commissioners? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: The other thing that I had not appreciated in our past reviews of the
overlays were that argument has been made a number of times that the overlay doesn’t do
anything other than provide an easier mechanism to enforce the same requirements as are
imposed by the CC&Rs. One thing I realize had not been discussed is that this ordinance creates
a barrier to some long term, 20 year, removal of these restrictions that is different than the
CC&Rs. Right now CC&Rs could be removed by a majority vote and in essence this would
require a 70% plurality to remove it in the future. It is a consideration, I don’t think it is the
primary one, but it is something that we hadn’t discussed before.
I think that the biggest issue before us is how can we split the baby on this. It’s kind of the
struggle we go through on all of these. We have essentially a choice of somewhat
gerrymandered boundaries to create a overwhelming support or a boundary that is more cohesive
as a neighborhood but that really doesn’t have the overwhelming support that we may think is
necessary. So I am going to be real interested as we move forward in this discussion to hear
whether other Commissioners are interested in a recommendation of the restriction in size that I
was inquiring about earlier that would potentially create an over 80% support area instead of the
68% or so now. I would be interested in a discussion of that.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: One point that I’m thinking about having just gone through a passage of
a parcel tax for school stuff, we need to have two-thirds and it was a lot to get that and we got
76% and felt great. I don’t know where the 70% came from but to me 68% is more than is
required to pass certain taxes in this state. So it doesn’t bother me whether it is 68% or 70%.
Now that we have or almost have the R-1 individual review process which provides relief for
neighborhoods who want to maintain character, here we have a situation where property owners
have both the CC&Rs and the R-1 process that it seems to me if we include in a single-story
overlay property owners who are now opposed, I don’t think they are going to be hurt that much
because in essence they are not getting anything that’s more stringent than the CC&Rs gives
them now or what they would have if the R-1 individual review process were implemented. So it
seems to me if we are trying to gerrymander in order to exclude people who are opposed versus
not gerrymandering and including those people in the overlay I don’t think great harm will be
done to those people who were opposed. It is a little confusing what I’m trying to say. In other
words, the people in Area 2 at the so-called gateway area who are opposed, if they were included
in the single story overlay district the impact would be this. They would have the same
restriction that’s imposed upon them today by the CC&Rs, no second-story except it is more
defined with the single story overlay by a limit of 17 feet. They would have the ability to expand
their FAR by 5% and I think those lot sizes are small so it looks like it would be about the same,
it might not be that different from their maximum FAR if they were under the new R-1
guidelines. Am I wrong on that, Phyllis?
Commissioner Cassel: I think it is the other way around. The smaller units are penalized more
than the larger units. What happens is that on a 6,000 square-foot lot you lose 150 square feet.
The original idea there had to do with it takes about 150 square feet toput up a stairway in a two-
story. So you really wouldn’t lose anything. Then you lose less and less as you go up to the
7,500. So those units that have the S-1 on it and they are small will lose their 150 square feet on
the ground floor. Now that may change over time as we work on the zoning ordinance we can
probably change that and it won’t hopefully be an extended period of time before we get to that..
Commissioner Packer: Okay, then I’ll just go back to my comments. I don’t like to
gerrymander too much because I think the guidelines talk about an identifiable neighborhood as
one of the criteria we need to look at. To me 70% is pretty much seems overwhelming to me
even though it isa little bit lower than the historical percents that we’ve had. That’s where I am
going right now but I would like to hear what other Commissioners say.
Chair Bialson: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think manytimes when we have talked about single story overlay
some of us had said that it is kind of a blunt tool to work with in our zoning. We have said we
are waiting for the new single family zoning or single family review. At least part of that is
coming along in the not too distant future. On the other hand, looking at the criteria for a single
story overlay I think this neighborhood visually is indeed much more cohesive in appe~ance,
completely prevailing single story, I agree with the concept of the gateways, the neighborhood
continuing all the way through from Louis to Greer. I think working with the boundaries and
cutting it off at one or both ends of Elsinore does not make a great deal of sense in that respect,
that is really is a cohesive looking neighborhood. On the other hand we have on a number of
other occasions taken off a few homes where the area did have some logic as it has been
suggested with Area 1. I would agree that these lots fit the moderate lot size. However, I am
somewhat troubled with the overwhelming support. You look at that map and there are a lot of
white spaces there. We do have 68% in the entire area, over 70% if we eliminate Area 1. It is
still a blunt tool when we’ve got some other tools coming along and this neighborhood has
obviously very carefully regarded the existing CC&Rs. Those are just my thoughts at the
moment.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Phyllis you had something?
Commissioner Cassel: I have a question. My alternate map, Attachment C, is dated June 11,
2001. Is there a later map than that? Is that one a different date and later because mine doesn’t
have some of the houses excluded that that one seems to? Am I looking at the wrong map?
Mr.Lee: July 17th.
Ms.Grote: I believe the map that’s on the overhead is the latest one.
Mr.Lee: Attachment C has the complete list of those supporting and those opposed.
Chair Bialson: I would like to give an opportunity to other Commissioners to make comments.
Karen?
Commissioner Holman: I largely agree with comments that Commissioner Packer was stating
and also what Commissioner Schmidt was saying contiguously identifiable neighborhood of the
proposal. While 68% is, it would seem since there is not a number really ascribed to that, a
pretty overwhelming majority. If in fact, Area 1 was removed and there does seem to be some
logic for that and some rationale for that then the approval rating goes up to 73% and surely
would remove that stigma if you would say that might exist at 68%. Pat was looking for
comments about perhaps moving the excluded area to the line drawn there and I think it really
would break up that district or that area. There are no blocks that can be divided up. It is one
contiguous neighborhood so I couldn’t support doing that. It is true that with the new R-1 that
the owners of these properties could, if that were applied to them, cover more of the lots but I
also think it is important to note that they would be able to cover 5% more of the lot than they
would just under the CC&Rs. So I guess those are my comments at this moment.
Chair Bialson: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: We were talking about the broad brush approach or the blunt instrument
approach and I’m reading a letter here from Scott [Bormer] and he makes a couple of good
points that are along those lines. There is no doubt that the R-1 Advisory Committee did in fact
take an approach of individual review trying to be more discretionary in the grading of different
two story houses as opposed to just a blanket prohibition of them. At the same time when we
were on the Committee we were discussing how this was going to work in the homogeneous
Eichler areas. It came very apparent that some of us for sure thought that there remained
problems where you have a homogeneous tract of houses and you have a two story house that
lands in the middle of that homogeneity. There continue to be difficulties that needed to be
addressed. It seems to me that the single story overlay is one of the mediations for that problem.
I’m sympathetic to the arguments made by the people that are opposed to this measure. There
are economic factors that are involved here. I’m a homeowner myself and I certainly am not
anxious for anything to happen to the value of my property or anything that is going to impact
my investment when I turn around one of these years to try to sell it. I do think, however, when
you have a homogeneous neighborhood like this a single story overlay is a legitimate approach
to solving the problem despite the difficulties that still remain.
Chair Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just thought of a question that I had that I forgot to ask earlier. Some of
the smaller lots, I wonder if there would be setback issues if the footprint became larger under
the increased FAR. Had you looked into any of that? I have to confess I know a family that
lived on E1 Cajon, many years ago my son’s best friend lived there, so I have been in the house
and I remember the backyard being just the minimum 20 feet. I just wondered if it is really
possible in some of these 6,000 square foot lots to add the extra 5% without invading the
required setbacks.
Mr. Lee: My understanding is that many Eichlers have an outdoor courtyard patio configuration
that roughly corresponds with that extra 5% and that you could easily cover in that patio area
with enclosed space and basically have no perceptible effect from the neighbors’ vantage point.
Chair Bialson: I’d like to take the oppommity to make some comments. What we are dealing
with here, I agree with Kathy, is a rather blunt instrument. I thilik we have used that term in the.
past. When I look to applying this overlay zone I look to the spirit that was behind the passage
of the ordinance. I believe the Council at that time looked at encouraging neighborhoods to
maintain their compatibility and recognized that by imposing this overlay zone on individuals
they were giving both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage was that they would not
have second stories adjacent to the individuals and furthermore they would also have more
coverage of their lot than would be allowed other homes in the community. The disadvantage
would be that their property rights were being diminished. I think that addition of expanded
coverage of their lot and ability to use the first floor in a greater way than other lots in the
community was a nod in the direction of the fact that yes, we are taking some property rights
away from these individuals. I think now that we have, at least the first reading, an ordinance
that is going to provide that for the rest of the community. What we would hope to do is, at
some point when the zoning ordinance finally addresses this point of having the overlay zones
perhaps once again given some advantage, we will be stymied by just the issue that Bonnie
raised, which is, on a lot of these homes because they are 6-7,000 square-foot lots there may not
be an area of greater coverage that we can give them. So what we are doing here, at least my
impression at this point and I am open to further discussion on it, is taking away some property
rights, not really giving anything in return and in addition affecting an area which seems to have
been able to govern itself dam well for these 45 or so years in a process that everyone agreed to
at the time they bought their lot. So we are coming in at this point and saying that what we are
going to give in exchange for this vote is essentially removing from the neighbors the obligation
to enforce the CC&Rs and we are taking it on the City to enforce the CC&Rs. As I distill this
down that is about all we are doing in this situation. The new ordinance would alert the
neighbors, which is a concern I understand, it wouldn’t previously have had building permits
issued without the neighbors being advised so that they could not enforce their rights under the
CC&Rs. In general, the way I look at this is as we sit here and we talk about what the gateway
should look like from an urban design point of view, we are talking about somebody’s property
rights. I agree with you, the gateway looks lovely the way it is now and as I went around the
community but the property owners there are saying to us please leave us with what we signed
up for, the rights and restrictions that we thought we had. Don’t impose more on us especially
now that you are not giving us any benefit. I’m listening to those arguments at this point. That’s
it for my comments. Pat, do you want to say something?
Commissioner Burt: I guess I would leave to another time and another discussion the merits of
the points you were making. They may be well founded but this is still the ordinance that we
have before us and that the residents of the neighborhood have the right to petition the City to
have adopted even if in the furore there may be changes considered one way or another in the
ordinance. After the last review that we had of an overlay zone on Channing, Council was very
clear that they wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission was not imposing their
judgment of whether we thought it was a good ordinance or a bad ordinance and I think that
would still be the case even though we have had these recent changes based on the R-1
guidelines. To me it goes back to the point again, does it have overwhelming support and does it
meet the other guidelines including the lot size guidelines. If we include all of the area in these
boundaries I’d certainly have to say this is the weakest proposal that we have seen since I have
been on the Commission and as we look at the summary it is the weakest of all those listed on
the summary. So that’s the struggle for me. I think the neighborhood has a right, they went
through the process, the question is where we have sizeable segments that are maybe not the
neighborhood as a whole but we have already dropped Blair Court from this thing, we’ve
gerrymandered one place, they are talking about gerrymandering two other places. If we
consider mining this into essentially this rectangle that I was proposing we create a segment that
does have overwhelming support. I think it would go a long way toward addressing the concerns
of those who are very opposed and meeting the desires of those who are very strongly supportive
of this. I haven’t heard any speakers tonight, I don’t think, from within that block that I was
describing who were vociferous opponents of the proposal. So there is no perfect outcome to
this proposal. We are going to have a problem either way so we are going to have to figure out
where to draw the line.
Chair Bialson: I appreciate your comments, Pat and I think that what I was directing myself to
was essentially limiting the impact by having the overlay on as few homeowners as possible and
those that would feel their in an area with overwhelming support. I may have not indicated that
strongly enough. When you have something such as this ordinance with the issues that I raised
and the fact that we have new R-1 rules that are going into effect you try to limit its impact.
That’s what I am speaking to. Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me try a motion.
MOTION
I’d like to support the Staff recommendations except that I would like to exclude Area 2 as well
as Area 1. In speaking to the motion, I don’t find that we make the overwhelming requirement at
the 68% but I have no problems with it at the 77% of course. I know we don’t meet the
requirements for the 6,000 to 7,000 requirements but I think we just neutralized that issue in ¯
working so hard for the single-family residential issues. I think I’ve only voted in favor of one
single family overlay zone the whole time I’ve been on this Commission and I think I’ve dealt
with all of them but the first two. They are not my favorite things. I think the differences
between this and the new single-family residential are not dramatic but we still don’t know how
it will work. So I think in the area that starts from Greer down Elsinore to the Area 2 is very
consistent in lotting pattern and probably the most consistent layout that we’ve seen since I’ve
looked at one of these. We have consistently excluded areas where there is a very large
predominance of people who are not interested. So I think we do that. These areas do affect the
other segments but they are still under CC&Rs and with the new single family review process
neighbors in a more polite fashion than a legal one can point out to their neighbors that do have
CC&Rs and could be enforced legally. There would be an opportunity to express that to your
neighbor before you find a building half built. So I think I can support this at this time with
those limits.
Chair Bialson: Is there a second? I don’t hear it seconded. Is there an alternate motion that
someone would like to make.
SECOND
Commissioner Griffin: I’ll second the motion.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Kathy?
Commissioner Schmidt: I was going to make an altemate motion but we already have a second.
Chair Bialson: Okay, do you wish to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Griffin: In some ways there is some reluctance here on my part to see this
gateway go away. I think it is an important aspect of the neighborhood but by the same token I’d
rather see this thing progress with as much unanimity as we can achieve in the neighborhood.
I’m concerned about people all being on the same page on this thing. I also think, as I said
before, that single story overlay is an appropriate measure to deal with the situation that these
neighbors are looking at considering the homogenous nature of the housing.
Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any discussion? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will oppose this motion because I would rather see Area 2 included in
order to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. The gateway, the feel, that’s all Elsinore
Drive and is important. When this is finished one of us might make a motion to support Staff’s
recommendation,which would exclude only Area 1. So I would not vote for this motion because
I would like to see Area 2 included.
Chair Bialson: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with what Bonnie is saying. I think after all of our discussions
and Pat reminding us that this indeed what is before us, this is the tool that we have now, this is
what has been proposed, I would support Staff’s current recommendation that eliminates Area 1
but retains Area 2. I have been on the Commission for a number of years and have seen all of
these go through and the first two neighborhoods that we saw were very cohesive and in my
opinion we haven’t had very cohesive looking neighborhoods come through for a long time. To
me, this one does look very cohesive, the homes and the landscape. It is amazing what good
landscaping and nice trees do to tie it all together. Even though this is not my favorite tool I
think it is appropriate here and I would support the Staff recommendation.
Chair Bialson: Anyone else wish to speak to it? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t smell support for my alternative boundaries. I consequently think I
would support the motion although there is a value to the gateway aspect. When we have 67%
opposed within that Area 2 that really seems like an imposition of the will of an adjacent
majority onto this group. I think that we have to be very judicious in the imposition of
restrictions on property rights albeit they have CC&R restrictions. So I am going to support the
motion and hope that we’ll find a majority.
Chair Bialson: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I’ll be opposing the motion because I think that gateway is very
important at Elsinore. While there is certainly sympathy for the degree of support for the overlay
in that area you could make the same argument that if the lack of support was right in the middle
of this would you then eliminate them? I think the same consideration ought to be given whether
they are together and at the entrance. I don’t think you can make a difference there. I don’t
think we’d consider eliminating them if they were right in the middle and in the middle of the
street. I wanted to make two other comments. One is that eliminating Area 1 does raise the level
of support to 73%. If it makes any difference, while we are discussing this now or in the future
that as we talk about taking something away with the single story overlay and what we are taking
away is floor area ratio, I’d like for us all to consider why, and I don’t want to speak for anyone
else or put words in anyone else’s mouth, but what I understand to be the reason that the
applicants have brought this forward is not because of FAR issues or concerns, they brought it
forward because of their neighborhood character concems. So we are not necessarily taking
something away. We are allowing them to have what it is they are trying to retain.
Ct:air Bialson: I’m going to be supporting the motion. I think that I’ve indicated my feelings,
I’ve certainly agree with Pat’s most recent comments especially with regard to the issue of
imposing this on homeowners that have indicated by their appearance here and their votes that
they do not want it on their homes. While we have a wonderful cohesive looking neighborhood
and a gateway right now that goes along with it, we will have an evolution in housing styles
there. While Eichlers are there right now all we are assuring through this is that there will be
single story homes there. I think we are going to be accomplishing that by the new R-1 rules. I
am loath to put into effect yet another law to impose on these people. The CC&Rs have been
working. They have a sort of sunset clause which I think is very important in any regulation and
this law that we are considering, an overlay, does not have that. So I will be supporting the
motion that is on the floor at this time. If there is no one else who has comments I’d like to call
for the vote.
MOTION PASSES
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those against? (nays) That is four in support of the
motion and three opposed. That would be Phyllis Cassel, Pat, myself and Michael Griffith for
and Karen Holman, Bonnie Packer and Kathy Schmidt opposed.
I think that’s all for this matter. Thank you, Staff. Thank you everyone in attendance.