Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-17 City Council (19)City of Palo Alto TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JULY 17, 2000 CMR:314:00 SUBJECT:REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS OF TRACT 883 AND TRACT 909 FOR REZONING FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-I(S) SINGLE STORY OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF THE CHANNING PARK NEIGHBORHOOD RECOMMENDATION This report transmits a March 14, 2000 request from the property owners of Tract 883 and Tract 909 for City Council approval of a single story overlay zone. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and deny the request to rezone a total of 57 lots; 16 homes in Tract 883 and 41 homes in Tract 909 from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story. Overlay District. Planning staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Planning Commission staff report Attachment D), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 57 lots; 16 homes in Tract 883 and 41 homes in Tract 909 (Channing Park I and I) 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 (PANIC Chapter 18.13). The Single Story Height Combining District (S) CMR:314:00 Page 1 of 4 ~ 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 883 and Tract 909 within the Channing Park Neighborhood (Attachment E) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 57 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, two additional property owners have signed the petition in support of the request, increasing the number of supporters from 44 to 46 (ofa total of 57) and resulting in 81 percent of property owners supporting the request (see Attachment D). On April 17, 2000, the City Council initiated the request and referred it to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of the single story overlay. The majority of Commissioners objected to the nature of the overlay district itself rather than the individual request for an overlay in this area. Commissioners stated that the request met all four of the criteria established in the Single Story Combining District (S) Overlay Guidelines (Attachment F). Several Commissioners thought that the overlay zone was the wrong solution to the problem of out-of-scale second story additions and suggested that the City await the results of the Single Family Residential Advisory Group. Commissioners indicated that better solutions should be developed to address the issues of privacy, scale and architectural compatibility that are more sensitive to individual neighborhood situations. 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. A majority of property owners within Tract 883 and Tract 909 who attended the Planning Commission meeting came to support the overlay zone; two spoke in opposition (see Planning Commission minutes, Attachment I). In addition to the letters attached to the Planning Commission staff report, the City has received three letters in support of the overlay (Attachment E, F and G) and one letter in opposition (Attachment H). Following. public testimony, Commissioners made a motion to a~pprove the Negative Declaration and deny the proposed rezoning of 57 homes in Tract 883 and Tract 909. The motion passed, 4-1-0 (Burt opposed, Shink and Cassel absent). Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached (Attachment I). The Planning Department staff recommendation remains to approve both the Negative Declaration and the single story overlay based on the information presented in the Planning ~CMR:314:00 Page 2 of 4 Commission staff report (see Attachment B). Staff continues to believe that there is a demonstrable need for the City to incorporate the single story restriction contained in the deed restrictions of Tract 883 and Tract 909 into the zoning for the area. Staff believes that a single story overlay provides a better vehiclefor resolving potential disputes than forcing neighbors to file lawsuits to stop construction of second story additions. It should be noted that the deed restriction 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 single story overlay is the only tool currently available to the City to address neighborhood concerns about inappropriate second story additions and 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. For these reasons, staff continues to recommend approval of this single-story overlay request. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: Attachment N: Attachment O: Attachment P: Attachment Q: Attachment R: Attachment S: Attachment T: Ordinance Planning Commission staff report (without attachments) Map Showing Tract 883 and Tract 909 and Adjacent Zoning Districts Map Showing Supporters of Proposed Overlay Letter from Mary and John Schaefer, Ann and Jack Hill and Iris and David Kriegler dated June 6, 2000 in support of the overlay Letter from Deborah Soglin dated June 5, 2000 in support of the overlay Letter from Kurt Taylor dated June 14, 2000 in support of the overlay (via e-mail) Letter from Bonnie Johnson dated June 13, 2000 in opposition to the overlay (via e-mail) Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2000 E-mail from Kurt Taylor, dated June 23, 2000 Letter from Mary Schaefer, dated June 22, 2000 List Of Property Owners in support of the overlay district March 14, 2000 Request from property owners Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Guidelines Letter From Mary Schaefer dated April 19, 2000 Letter From Ann and Jack Hill dated April 24, 2000 Letter From Kevin Fisher et al dated March 11, 2000 Letter From Alan Hallberg dated May 30, 2000 E-mail from Alan Hallberg dated June 30, 2000 Negative Declaration CMR:314:00 Page 3 of 4 3 PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G.GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager co:Mary and John Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ann and Jack Hill, 763 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 All Property Owners Shown on Planning Commission staff report (Attachment B) ~CMR:314:00 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A~ ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "CHANNING PARK TRACT 883 AND TRACT 909" 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 June 14, 2000, has recommended that section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and B. The City Council, after due consideration of the recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of certain property, collectively known as Channing Park Tract 883 and Tract 909" (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. // // // // // // // 000526 syn 0090639 5 SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 000526 syn 0090639 g City Palo A1 to File No(s): None at this time Proposal’. Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story O~,erlay i.e., Zone Change from R- 1 to R- 1 (S) d:\GloriaD\ArtworkWlaps\StaffReports\DeSotaSingleStoryOverlay.ai Date: 4/1712000 8 Attachment B" 1PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Chandler Lee DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE:June 14,2000 SUBJECT:Request by Property Owners Property Owners of Tract 883 and Tract 909 for Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for a Portion of the Channing Park Neighborhood. File Nos: 00-ZC-01, 00-EIA-08 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment D), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts; and, Adopt the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A), rezoning a total of 57 lots; 16 homes in Tract 883, and 41 homes in Tract 909 in Channing Park I and II from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The attached letter from property owners in Tracts 883 and 909 (Attachment E) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 57 single family parcels contained in the two tracts. 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 predominantly single-story character. The City Council, on December 14, 1992, adopted guidelines to assist in CtO, of Palo Alto Page evaluating applications for the overlay district. Compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines is discussed in the "Summary of Significant Issues" section of this report. Zoning District Comparison The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). A comparison of the proposed R-1 (S) Zoning District to the existing R-1 Zoning District regulations is provided in Table 1. Table 1 Existing and Proposed Ordinance Requirements Site Area (s.f.) -Lot Width -Lot depth Floor Area Ratio -First 5,000 s.f. -Remaining s.f. R-1 (Existing) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 .30 R- I (S) (Proposed) 6,000 s.f. ** 60 feet 100 feet .45 .30 Maximum Height 30 feet*17 feet (Single Story)* Site Coverage 35%40% Setbacks - From Yard - Rear Yard - Imerior Side Yard - Street Side Yard 20 20 6 16 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: C0’ of Palo Alto 10 Page 2 On July 13, 1992, the overlay was applied to the Walnut Grove neighborhood (181 lots), On April 26, 1993, the overlay was applied to the Green Meadows neighborhood (185 lots), On January 21, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 795 of the Charleston Meadows. neighborhood (96 lots), On September 15, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 840 of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood (61 lots), On November 17, 1997, the overlay was applied to Tract 709 of the Blossom Park neighborhood (16 lots). On November 16, 1998, the overlay was applied to Tract 714 and portions of Tract 4738 in the Barron Park neighborhood (20 lots) and to Tract 1722 and portions of Tract 1977 in the Meadow Park neighborhood (75 lots). Please refer to the map showing existing and proposed S overlay zoning districts (Attachment H). The attached letter from the property owners of Tracts 883 and 909 (Attachment E) requests application of the single story overlay zone to the 57 single family parcels contained in the two tracts. Survey results reported in the letter indicate strong neighborhood support (77 percent) for the application of the single family overlay zone. 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 fo, llowing 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. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Cir. of Palo Alto Page 3 The major issue involved in this application is compliance with the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. In reviewing previous proposals for single story overlays, the Planning Commission previously has supported the preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods but has expressed concerns about limiting future options for home expansion and accommodating architectural innovations and lifestyle changes over time. However, since the project meets all of the criteria established in the S Overlay Guidelines, staffbelieves that the proposal meets the intent of adopted City policy and should be approved. 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 Ro 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. Allowable House Size with R-1 2,550 s.f. 21700 s.f. 2,850 s.f. 3,000 s.f. Allowable House Size with R-1 (S) 2,400 s.f. 2,600 s.f. 2,800 s.f. 3,000 s.f. Net Change -150 s.f. -100 s.f. -50 s.f. -0 s.f. 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 CombJ~ing District (S). The Guidelines specifically state that "for neighborhoods that contain and have been developed consistent City of Palo Alto Page 4 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: 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 44 of the 57 properties (77 percent) within Tracts 883 and 909. In addition, the City has received two letters in support of and one letter in opposition to the overlay zone (See Attachments I, J and K). Four property owners along Alester Avenue have requested that their properties be excluded from the single-story overlay district. These properties are located at 714, 728, 742 and 756 Alester Avenue. Although these properties do not face an eichler neighborhood, they relate to the DeSoto Drive area in the same manner as the properties at 770, 784 and 798 Alester Avenue. Staff recommends that these properties remain in the single-story district, should it be approved. Since all 57 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 77 percent rate of support can be considered overwhelming and the first criterion has been satisfied. 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 a roughly trapezoidal shape that is easily defined by existing street patterns. All homes in the area front on either Channing Avenue, DeSoto Drive or Alester Avenue. Staff conducted a field survey of the area and found the proposed area to be a coherent neighborhood of single story homes with the exception of one two-story home located at 715 DeSoto Drive. Therefore, the second criterion has been satisfied. CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 3. Prevailing Single-Story Character "An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single- story character where the vast majority of existing single homes are single-story... It is desirable that homes be similar in age, design, and character..." Of the 57 properties included in this application, 56 are currently single story (715 DeSoto is the only two-story home within the proposed boundaries). All of the 57 homes have a single story deed restriction. All 57 homes were built by Eichler in the 1950s and only one has been torn down and replaced since then (758 DeSoto Drive) although many of the homes have been extensively remodeled. The Eichler homes are all of a similar age and character. Preservation of the existing scale and character of single family neighborhoods is a fundamental policy of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The remaining 20 homes in Channing Park III (outside the proposed overlay boundary) are of a similar age and character (18 of the 20 are single story structures) but did not receive sufficient property owner support for the overlay (see Attachment G). 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 57 lots, ten are between 6,000 and 7,000 square feet and 30 are between 7,000 and 8,000 square feet. Of the remaining lots, six are between 8,000 and 9,000 square feet, four are between 9,000 and 10,000 square and seven 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 casebecause 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, at such as this neighborhood. Therefore, 40 of the 57 lots (70 percent) can be considered moderate in size. The neighborhood has a consistent lotting pattern that is defined by three streets: Channing, DeSoto and Alester Avenues. Therefore, the fourth criterion can been considered to be satisfied. The subject application generally meets all four of the criteria established by the Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the Planning Commission include recommending to the City Council to: City of Palo Alto Page 14 1) Modify the boundaries of the proposed overlay district; or, 2) Deny the request for a single story overlay zone for Tract 883 and Tract 909 in the Channing Park) Neighborhood. TIMELINE Following Planning Commission review, the application is tentatively scheduled for City Council consideration on July 17, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Negative Declaration has been prepared finding that the project will have no significant impacts. The Negative Declaration was made available for public review from May 25, 2000 to June 14, 2000 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment D). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A:Draft Ordinance. Attachment B:List of Property Owners in support of overlay district. Attachment C:Location Map Showing Supporters and Non-Supporters. Attachment D:Negative Declaration. Attachment E:March 14, 2000 request from the property owners of Tracts 883 and 909 for City approval of a single story overlay zone. Attachment F:Single Story Height Combining District (S) Overlay Zone Guidelines. Attachment G:Map showing existing two story homes within the proposed area and within Channing Park III (Tract 1256). Attachment H:. Map showing existing S overlay zoning districts. Attachment I:. Letter from Mary Schaefer dated April 19, 2000 supporting the request (via e-mail). Attachment I:Letter from Ann and Jack Hill (April 24, 2000) supporting the request (via e-mail). Attachment J:Letter from Kevin Fisher et al dated March 11, 2000 opposing the request. Attachment K:Letter from Alan Hallberg, dated May 30, 2000 supporting the overlay. Ct.ty of Palo Alto Page 7 COURTESY COPIES: Mary and John Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ann and Jack Hill, 763 DeSoto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 All property owners shown on Attachment B Project Planner:Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Supervisor Review:Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Division/Department Head Approval: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page g File No(s): None at this time Proposal,’ Resident’s request that city initiate a zone change to add a Single- Story O£erlay i.e., Zone Change from R-1 to R-I(S) d:\GloriaD~,rtwork\Maps\StaffReports\DeSotaSingleStoryOverlay.ai oo ¢ Date: 4/17/2000 17 18 g The City of Palo A1 to d:\GloriaDVkrtwork\Ma Attachment D De Soto Drive File No(s): None at this time 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,..,:,..:.:,: ~s\StaffReports\De$otaSingleStoryOverla 100’ 200’ 19 20 Attachment .June 6,2000 City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Commissioners; We are attaching our packet, A Neighborhood Request, that we distributed to Channing Park #1,#2, & #3. and a follow up packet, Privacy Protection Bulletin. This is the essential information we shared with our homeowners. Since we have submitted our list, no one has changed their mind. There are many different kinds of neighborhoods in Palo Alto, each with its own dynamics.Some were formed over a long period of time with individual statements, others were tracts, all built at once. Channing Park #1 and #2 were built as an Eichler development in the 50’s. It was Eichler’s unique concept in design and his policy to offer his houses to all, regardless of race or religion,that made it a special place for the new homeowners. We still have some of the original ownersliving among us. In the middle of the night on February 2,1998. we all shared the grief and despair as horrendous flood waters invaded more than 50% of the homes with devastating .consequences. Werealized we were a community and came together to rebuild and repa=r our spirits and our homes.In the two and a half years since that event only 5 homes have been sold and only one was a result of the flood. The homes have evolved and changed in the almost half century. The one thing that has been constant is the post and beam construction and the glorious floor to ceiling windows that bring ourprivate gardens into view from many parts of our home. With one exception, which occurred inthe 70’s, the extensive remodeling has not included a second story. At least 2 homes havealready expanded to over 35% of their lots rather than add on a second story. Some, who have thought of a second story, are amazed at how much square footage is wasted on a stairwell andat the cost of reinforcing the foundation. Design review was not considered as part of this request. In surveying our neighbors, we foundthey liked the modesty of the present silhouettes, they wished to preserve their privacy, but they did not want to give up their right to individuality in accessorizing and adapting their property. We have always had neighborhood get-to-gethers and cherish this special corner of our world.The preservation of our community and also of our privacy has been a respected value. With all the new residents endorsing this request, we feel theirs no economic penalty in maintaining thisone criterii~ We feel we have a unique identity in both our public outreach and our cherishedprivate retreat. Sincerely, ohn 742 De Soto Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303(650) 327-3207 e-mailscha742@earthlink.net av’d Krieg~er763 De Soto Drive 1607 Channing AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 327-7594 (650) 329-0449e-mail ajhill7@aol.com 21 22 January 30. 2000 A NEIGHBORHO__OD REQ_U_E_8_Z_ TO THE EiCHLER PROPERTY OWNERS OF.DE SOTO DRIVE AND ADJOINING EICHLER PROPERTY. OWNERS ON ALESTER. AVENUE, CHANNING AVENUE, NEWELL ROAD, NEWELL PLACE AND LOUISA COURT, IDENTIFIED AS CHANNING PARK 1, 2, & 3 DR. CHANNING AVENUE A number of homeowners Would like to have the City of Palo Alto provide our ne!ghbo.rhood with a S..i.ngle-story zoning "overlay’~. This would cause the ci~ to rejectautomatically any new ~uilding permit application for a two-story hous~ within our Eichler area. It would preserve the Eichler Developments’ original concept and protect each homeowner’s privacy. To obtain this overlay, we need the signatures of an "overwhelming" number of the property owners in this Eichler area. We hope that after reading this letter you will be willing to sign and return the enclosed petition, requesting that the city provide us with this overlay. The overlay will protect us from having large two-story houses built right next to, or near, our homes. This letter explains why we need this overlay. page 1 :Attachment 1 23 Pertinent facts: The covenants and restrictions on all of our Eichler homes in Channing Park #1, #2, & #’3, states: "Item #1. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No building shall beerected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other.than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed one story in height and a private garage for not more than two cars," Mr. Eichler felt that his Eichler homes, with their skyline of flat orgently sloping roofs, should remain one story so that their residents could enjoy the big windows and outdoor patios as much as possible. By preventing second stories, Mr. Eichler’s covenant has contributed to the successful maintenance of the unique character and high quality of life of Eichler neighborhoods. The deed restrictions, along with the expressed wishes of the residents, will allow the city to grant our request for a single story zoning overlay which would protectthe character of our neighborhood. -. Enforcing the deed restriction alone, without the benefit of this collective action to modify the city’s zoning change, raises the possibility of each homeowner having to hire a lawyer and go to court. This has historically prevented action and/or damaged feelings between neighbors. A much better way to ensure the quality of our neighborhood is to have the city add an overlay to the present residential zoning that would limit house construction and remodeling to a single story. The single story overlay gives a 5% bonus of additional floor space to the 35% allowable lot coverage for lots up to 7500 square feet. Over 7500 square feet, the floor area ratio (FAR) is the same allowance as for a two story house Background:, There is an additional, important new reason to seek a single story overlay. We are in a flood zone. This designation requires the raising of the foundation for any major remodel. Any demolition of a house calls for a higher foundation for a new house. A new single-story house, with additional foundation height, does change the neighborhood silhouette. With sensitive design1, a new one-story home can screen any of its elevated patios, but, because of the new elevated foundation, its visual sight lines are closer to the top of thesurrounding fences. Example: a 5 1/2 foot (original) fence next to a 2 foot new house foundation leavesonly 3 1/2 feet of your fence ensuring your privacy from the new elevated floor level. Landscaping,. a 7 foot fence (now allowed with no special permit in Palo Alto) and creative screening can minimize this impact. In addition, one-story new house has a maximum height limitation of 17 feet above ground. The maximum height of our original homes is 12 feel Two-story houses do invade the privacy of their neighbors’ yards, living rooms and bedrooms, block sunshine from neighbors’ yards and windows, block neighbors’ views of surrounding trees and the sky and visually and architecturally clash with the surrounding houses. This will affect the quality of life of their neighbors. A two-story house can have a maximum height of 30 feet,. The new foundation elevation requirements will elevate the first and the second floor which will increase the impact on loss of privacy and to the silhouette of homes in this area. There are 3 existing two-story homes in this Eichler area. One, the original tumQf..lasL page 2 24 century’s house on LouisaCourt and two remodeled Eichlers, one on the comer of Newell Road & Newell Place and one at 715 De Soto Drive. (A remodel has started on 1516Louisa Court but we do not know what is planned.) Consider how these remodeled homes would impact their neighbors with an additional two foot foundation at the base. These 3 existing two story homes do not prevent us from requesting the single story"overlay". As Lisa Grote of the City of Palo Alto Planning Department explained in a letter to the Meadowbrook Park Neighborhood, "What is a Single Story Oyerlay?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 the (S) Overlay Zone, where appropriate, to preserve and maintain single family areas of predominately single-story character. The only potential effect of these revisio.ns is the addition of building square, footage allowed by the increase of 5 percent in lot coverage. In practice, however, lots exceeding 7,500 square feet would be allowed the same floor area as permitted in.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." [ Lot Size 6,000 s.fo 6,500 s.f. 7,000 s.f. 7,500 s.f. Greater than 7,500 s.f. R-t 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.fo 35% ground floor coverage + second floor = 2,850 s.f. 35% ground floor coverage + second floor = 3,000 s.f. R-I zoning applies R-1 Zoning Allowable House Size* If Single Stow 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 35% ground floor coverage = 2,625 square feet (s.f.) R-I zoning applies R-t(S) Zoning Allowable House Size" Single Story Only 40% ground floor cover-age = 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-I zoning applies * 45% of first 5,000 s.f. plus 30% of all square footage in excess of 5,000 s.f. ** 40% of lot area What is a single story_ deed restriction? Most neighborhoods tha,~ have been rezoned to include a single story overlay alsohave a restriction in the deed of trust that limits the height of each home to one story" page 3 25 Carports as well as garages are counted in the allowable square footage. The overlay will not restrict the square footage floor allowance now allowed on our homes on lots over.7500 square feet, it just keeps any expansion to within one story. There will be a redu~on of allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of 50 square feet available in a single story overlayversus a two story house on a lot 7000 square feet, a 100 square feet on a 6500 square foot lot, and a 150 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot. But, if only a remodel is planned, (not a tear down), there is an option of an appeal through the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) of the City of Palo Alto’s.Planning Department. Financially, some feel a two-story house is also likely to affect negatively the values of the one-story houses in the area around it, since a house without a large two-story house nearby is more "desirable". A one-story house in a tract where only one-story houses are allowed, is likely to be more desirable and thus have more value to a buyer who wants a one-story house for the reasons of privacy both in the intedor and the yard of the property.With the single-story overlay, the buyer would know that no one would ever build a large two-story house next door. Successful Neighborhood overlays: The City Managers report to the Palo Alto City Council, September 15, 1997 "On July 13, 1992, the City Council adopted a single story overlay zone (S.) aspart of the Zoning Ordinance (PAMC chapter 18.13). The Single Story Height Combining District (S) modifies the development regulations of R=I single family residential district by limiting the height of structures to 17 feet and on habitable floor and increasing the allowable lot coverage from 35-40 percent" ....... [The Palo Alto Planning] "Commissioners generally agreed with the need for the City of Palo Alto to codify the single story restrictions that is contained in the deed restriction for a tract. Commissioners indicated that single story overlay provides a better vehicle toresolve potential disputes among neighbors rather than to force neighbors to resort to lawsuits to settle any future proposals to construct a second story additions." In 1992 and 1993, Walnut Grove and Greenmeadow Neighborhoods obtained from the City a one-story overlay. In 1997 Charleston Meadow I was granted a one-story overlay,. later another section joined the overlay. The Blossom Park neighborhood has been joined by numerous Barron Park Neighborhoods in establishing single story overlays. Wildwood is presently in the final paperwork process. There have been quite a few inquiries in the last few months. Summary: we~ believe we can obtain this one-story overlay, and thereby, help guarantee the i~:jrfty and the future quality of life of our Eichler neighborhood. Please sign and re’turn the..enclosed petition if you agree that the City of Pato Alto should add this one-story overlayto our current zoning for this island of Eich]er-hOmes. We hope you witt~in in thi. ’s effort. Thank you. 26 page 4 Privacy Protection Bulletin The response has been good to the petition for protecting our privacy by obtaining a single story zoning overlay These are some of the most FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) by our neighbors about the option of a Single-story height combining district. ¯ What about Property 12,ight~?Whichever residential style our neighborhood endorses, our property is still controlled by zoning enforced by the City of Palo Alto. We currently live under thelimitations of the City of Palo Alto’s R-1 zoning. Changing from an R-1 to an R-1 single-story overlay limits a house remodel or replacement only in height, but in most cases, not in size. There is no difference in house size for those with lots 7500 square feet or larger. The primary benefit is the protection of our historical silhouette and theperpetuation of our serene privacy. It is interesting that some of our new neighbors have bought their houses for precisely this reason, they had lived in neighborhoodswith these small lots, but, because there was no two-story limitation, they had no privacy in their yard. Please refer to the chart on page 3 of your packet for details. What iF I buy one oF the larger pieces oF property or combine ~ properties? A lot over 7500 square feet, (there are some up to 14,000 square feet in thisneighborhood), has the same (FAR) Floor Area Ratio allowed for either a one-story or two-story house, so there would be no house size difference in changing to asingle-story overlay zone. Would a single story house occupy too much oF my lot? Attached is a sample, using the lots on Alester, describing the area that could be covered and two (2) of many alternative house placements for a home that covers40% of the lot. There can be many variations to these floor plans and trade offs that apply to alterations of existing properties. V\/hat about the covenant and what is mean’r by the "without ~he change" statement in the second paragraph of ~he signature Form? Covenants are limitations on property described by the developer of the property. If legal (historical racial and ethnic clauses are illegal and these were not part of the covenant of Channing Park 1, 2, & 3) these covenants are only enforceable by private suits. The City of Palo Alto will only enforce its zoning laws. The City of Palo Alto wants the record of a single story covenant so that its approval of a single-story overlay would be consistant with the "historical integrity" of the neighborhood. Once the single-story zoning is accepted by the overwhelming support of the residents, the city becomes the enforcer as it would with any zoning issue. ,Remember, ~ ai_qnature, cantinuea the amb..ience oF our ~reaent nei~ ~i~nin~. you accept the ide~ oT a two-atory house .next to your home. Please use the phone numbers on the cover of your packet and call your neighbor or the city for answers to your particular concerns. Attachment: sheet/tl Alester Lot; set backs, ~2 Alester Lot; new house location 27 30 Attachment F June 5, 2000 To: From: City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Deborah Soglin and Daniel Appelman 757 De Soto Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-322-647 Meeting of June 14, 2000 New Business: Public Hearing. Item #I Single Story Overlay-tract 883 and 909 for De Soto Drive File Nos.00-ZC-01 ;00-EIA-08 We would like to have the following comments added to the record in regard to Agenda Item 1 for the June 14th meeting. We strongly support the request for a single story overlay and are sorry that we cannot say so in person. Unfortunately, the timing of the meeting conflicts with our son’s graduation from Palo Alto High School. We greatly treasure our privacy, and in spite of having the traditional Eichler glass "walls," the houses behind and beside us do not infringe on that privacy. We believe that is because of the careful planning that was used when our Eichler houses were designed. We want to preserve the integrity of our designed neighborhood, and we know that a two-story home built on these tracts would threaten both that integrity and our privacy. It is very upsetting to think that a two-story home built behind our house would offer a full view into the floor to ceiling glass of our master bedroom, living room, dining area, and family room, as well as all of our backyard. The majority of our neighbors support this zoning change that would limit our homes to a single story, We hope that the Planning Commission will also move to support our request, Thank you, Deborah Soglin Daniel Appelman 31 32 Attachment G From:Kurt H. Taylor [kurt@wmtlaw.com] ISent:Wednesday, June 14, 2000 10:41 AM ITo:plan div@city, palo-alto.ca.us ICc:lisa .~ rote@city, palo-alto.ca, us Subject:De’to Drive requested single story overlay request I am unable to attend the hearing this evening, but wanted to let you know my family’s view on this request. My wife, B.J. Olson, and I bought our home at 722 Desoto Drive in 1991; our family now includes daughter Katharine who will start kindergarten at Duveneck in the fall, and our 2 standard poodles. When we purchased the house we very much appreciated the neighborhood feel of this Eichler development, particularly the fact that, although the houses and lots are modest in size (particularly when compared to many of the homes being built elsewhere in Palo Alto), the design of the tract allows for great privacy and particularly the enjoyment of the outdoor patios which are a feature of all the houses in the tract. This sense of privacy would be eradicated if a homeowner chose to build a 2 story home on one of the sites. In addition, the overall feel of the neighborhood is simple and understated. This feeling is enhanced by the style of the homes themselves which have a variety of individual elements tied together by an architectural consistency and the low roof lines common to Eichler designed homes. The overall design of our development is consistent with the current request for an overlay: all of the CC&R’s for the tract provide for a single story home, in keeping with the design of the tract, and all of the homes affected by this request (except one illegally constructed second story addition) are in compliance with the CC&R’s. This requirement also allows for every home to have lots of natural light throughout the day, which a two story home would block We have just completed a renovation of our home in the Eichler style, and look forward to many years of enjoyment of this wonderful and diverse neighborhood. The single story overlay will ensure that our neighborhood will be as pleasant and livable for the future as it has been for the fifty years since it was built. I strongly urge the approval of the request for a Single Story Overlay on Tracts 881 and 909. Thanks for your consideration. Kurt H. Taylor, Esq. Wilson Marshall & Taylor A Professional Corporation 2465 East Bayshore Road, Suite 402 Palo Alto, CA 94303-3205 Tel: 650.424.1799 Fax: 650.424.9769 Cell: 650.619.9717 email: kurt~,wmtlaw.com This email may contain confidential and privileged material intended for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. 33 34 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Scimone, Phil Tuesday, June 13, 2000 8:27 AM Betten, Zariah " FW: Message from Palo Alto Webserver Attachment H ----Original Message--- From: VVWW-server [mailto:www@city.palo-alto.ca.us] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 7:58 PM To: phil_scimone@city.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Message from Palo Alto Webserver The following is a message from the City of Palo Alto Webserver. Do not reply directly. If a response is required, reply to the email address in the body of the message. This Message is Being Sent To ¯ phil scimone@city.palo-alt0.ca.us This Message is Being Sent By ¯ The Subject Of This Message Is ¯ City Contact Form RESPONSE On Mon Jun 12 19:57:17 2000, The following information was submitted in response to an online form: Host: City of Palo.Alto Web Server - Apache name = Bonnie Johnson email = johnsonbca@yahoo.com sendto = Planning Department subject = Against Channing Neighborhood Single Story Overlay comment = I am writing to oppose strongly the petition of some of our neighbors to enforce a "single story overlay" for the entire Channing Park Neighborhood. I cannot be at this Wednesday’s meeting, and I’m sending this message instead. The so-called "Channing Park Neighborhood" is not homogeneous. The lot sizes vary, and the architecture of the houses vary. I cannot speak for this entire neighborhood. Rather, I want to discuss the block that includes 897 Newell, 1515,1525, 1535 Channing.  These lots are among the smallest in the neighborhood, under 7000 sq ft.  They are not only small, but are also "elongated lots."  Because of this shape, the houses sit orthogonal to the street with courtyards on their east and west sides.  There is no room for any logical addition on the ground level as’the petitioners suggest. The siml~le floor plans they use as illustrations of the feasibility of their proposal simply do not work as additions on these lots.  These houses have rather large living rooms and dens. This so-called "public living spa~e" is equivalent to what one would expect to find in houses that are 2500 to 3000 square feet even though the houses are just under 1800.  The natural addition to these houses is to put two bedrooms and a bath on a second story over the existing bedrooms. The petition alleges that a second story addition would invade the privacy of neighbors. However, an addition over the bedroom of one of these houses would logically have windows only on the south and the north. If these windows were 5’ from the floor (consistent with Eichler architecture), the new rooms would look up to the sky, and not down on neighbors. They would have minimal, if any, effect on neighbors’ sunshine or views of trees. A home across from our block illustrates this last point. 1514 had a second story addition to the back wing of the house. The result is a house that looks at least as good as its one-story neighbors. Moreover, it has no windows at all on the west side, and only two small window 5.5’ above the floor on the east side. The result is an attractive addition with no privacy invasion. 35 ,,~y husband and I bought our house in part because itwas a one-story home. We expect to keep the home for the rest of our lives, and having all the space on one floor seemed like a good idea for a future in which we wo.n’t want to climb stairs. We have no current plans to expan.d the house. Three years ago, my mother was becoming increasingly ill and it looked like we would need to care for her in our home. We considered what we might do in this situation. We found there was no way to add on to our home on the ground level. However, with a flat roof over the bedrooms, we saw how we could add a second floor and have room for us while giving my mother and nurse’s aide bedrooms on the ground level. The petition seems to be seeking "privacy" as the only value to be sought in zoning in our area. A blanket zoning law is unnecessary bureaucracy. Palo Alto is a growing metropolitan area. The luxury of one-story enclaves is not consistent with the kind of compassionate growth we now need to bring ourselves to accept. We suggest that we should be asking, instead, how we can maximize the human value of each home. We would like to keep the historical "Eichler look" of our neighborhood. Allowing second story additions over the flat roofs with a provision for high windows can do this. 36 Attachment I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2 -’MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16= June 14, 2000 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Kathy Schmidt, Chair Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair Jon Schink- absent Patrick Burr (?wen Byrd Phyllis Cassel-- absent Bonnie Packer Staff." Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney Amanda dones, Commute Coordinator Amie Glaser, Associate Planner ¯ Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary ~00 to oan Schmidt: I’d like to call the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting for rder. Would the Secretary please call the role? For the record, Commission Cassel and ~issioner Schink are out of town. Commissioner Schink possibly will make it back from a meet~Angeles. The first item on our agenda’N,~ Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Membe-’l’~the public may speak to any item not on the agenda ~ minutes per spei~r~. Those who desire to speak must complete a ~~retary o’f’t.~Commission. The Planning and T~h ht to limit th’e~communications period to 15 minutes. ~ations. We will ~ ~ ~ur ~eext agenda item which is the Consent Calendar. City of Palo Alto Page 1 37 1,~,~CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the ~"~~y a Commission Member. 4 _Ch.ai .r~n~’~idt: We have nothing on that. Next item is Agenda Changes, Additions and 56 Deleti°ns" 7 AGENDA CHANGES, ~IONSAND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 89 i~Tm.s adde~ t.o it.Tp _u~.til.;2 ho~.meeting time.10 ~eve we have notl~here. Unfinished Business. lll2UNFINISHEDBUSINESS. 13 Public Hearings: None ~¯ i~Otherltems:None 7 Chairman Schmidt: Also we have nothing. Then under New Business we have~ public 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: *Single Story Overlay - Tract 883 and 909 for De Soto Drive [File Nos.: 00-ZC-01~ 00- EIA-081." Request of property owners of Tract 883 and Tract 909 for consideration of single story overlay zoning for portions of the Channing Park Neighborhood bordered by Newell Road, Channing Avenue, Alester Avenue and Dana Avenue. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. This project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on July 17, 2000. Chairman Schmidt: Could we have the Staff report on this? Mr. Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner: Yes, thank you all for coming on this warm summer evening. The application before you is for a single story overlay for 57 lots in Tract 883 and 909. They are commonly referred to as Channing Park 1 and 2. The application was received by the City on March .14, 2000. The application does meet all of the four criteria in the guidelines adopted by the Palo Alto City Council. I would like to call your attention to two letters that were delivered to Staff just today. They are at your places. And also to a packet that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Schaefer, Hill and Kriegler submitted that were delivered to your Planning Commission in your packet over the weekend. There is also a letter from Kurt Taylor and a letter from Bonnie Johnson regarding the project. Staff also has received a letter that was in your packet from four property owners on Alester Avenue. Those addresses would be 714, 728, 742 and 756 Alester. Those property owners are in opposition to the project and are requesting to be deleted from the boundaries. Staff has looked at that letter and their request, and based on those four properties sharing common characteristics with the other homes in the area, and because of CiO, of Palo Alto Page 2 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 the identifiable neighborhood that the 57 lots create, Staff is recommending that all 57 lots be included in the application and is recommending approval of the request. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there any questions for Staffat this time? Owen. Commissioner Byrd: There are a couple of maps attached as attachments to the Staff report. Is there one that can be put on the overhead that we can refer to during the public hearing. It will be helpful to know where people live.. Thanks. Chairman Schmidt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: On one of the maps that was attached, I think it was supposed to indicate who were supporters and who were non-supporters. I couldn’t figure it out. Mr. Lee: I also have a map that shows it, ifI could put that on the screen. Thanks. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, Bonnie also has a question. Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the implications of FEMA guidelines in this area. I understand this area is in a flood plane or is it just that it was flooded? Mr. Lee: My understanding is that it is in a flood plane. That’s correct. Commissioner Packer: Now, under FEMA guidelines if there were significant renovation I understand it is possible a remodel would require that the building be raised a certain amount. I wanted to know how that would affect the 30-foot height limit that exists in this zone. Would it prohibit a second story in any event or would that depend on how high the FEMA guidelines would require the foundation to be? Ms. Grote: If it’s a standard R-1 zone and there is a 30-foot height limit, if you need to raise the building because you are in a flood plane you still cannot exceed the 30 foot height limit. That usually doesn’t prevent a second story but it will effect the design of a second story. Now, if it’s a single story overlay and there is a 17-foot height limit then the same holds true. You could not exceed the 17-foot height limit. Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions at this time? Pat. Commissioner Burr: Can you explain this map? Does it mean that everyone within De Soto Drive is not in favor of this or are they not part of the survey? Mr. Lee: No, actually it means that I forgot to put them in red. Basically everybody in the island should be in red also. I have another one that shows that. My apologies. So everyone within the donut circle basically is in support in addition to all of the red lots. Commissioner Burt: Did everyone take a position? CiO, of Palo Alto Page 3 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Lee: My understanding is, as is the case with most of these single story overlays, there was a variety of reasons that people did not support it for those people who did not. They ranged anywhere from being vehemently opposed to it to basically being ambivalent. Commissioner Burt: Does the red mean that all those people were supporters and everyone else declined support? Mr. Lee: That is correct. Commissioner Burr: I see. Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: In our packet there was only one of the copies of the paper of those who are in support would sign. Do you have the rest of the 43? Mr. Lee: Yes, we do. Commissioner Packer: That map doesn’t sh~w 715 De Soto which I believe is already a two- story. Mr. Lee: That is correct, 715 actually is shown in red. It is right above the letter ’d’ in De Soto. It is worth mentioning that both 715 De Soto and 765 De Soto submitted signatures in support of the project just recently. So they were just recently added since the Staff report was prepared. Commissioner Packer: Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: I have a question regarding I think what is referred to as Channing Park 3, the homes on Newell, Newell Place and Louisa. Those residences were polled also but there was not much interest in being included in this? Mr. Lee: That’s correct. My understanding from the co-sponsors of the project was that the proponents looked at all three tracks, Channing Park 1, 2 and 3, and that the folks who tired in Channing Park 3 didn’t have a significant level of support for the proposal. And because of constraints and interest on the part of the folks in Channing Park 1 and 2, they decided to go with just. those two portions of the neighborhood. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Any other questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: On one of the maps does it show which homes either within Channing 1 and 2 or adjacent to it are currently two-story? Mr. Lee: Yes, there basically is only one two-story home and that is 715 De Soto. I do have a map that shows that. Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: Mr. Lee: Yes. Commissioner Burt: Is that the one with the ’X’ in it? What about homes adjacent to these tracts? Mr. Lee: In terms of which have two-story, that I do not know. The applicants probably could shed some light on that. Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, any other questions before we begin the public hearing? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I believe the houses that are along Dana Avenue which back up to the Eichlers on De Soto Drive are in another tract and they are not Eichlers, is that correct? Mr. Lee: They are certainly in a different tract, that’s correct. Commissioner Packer: Yes, and they are not Eichlers. Mr. Lee: I don’t believe so. Commissioner Packer: Okay, thank you. Chairman Schmidt: I would comment that I drove down Dana yesterday and I believe all of those or the vast majority are one story, a ranch style home. Any more questions? Then let’s go to the public part of the public hearing. I believe we have four representatives from the applicant group who would like to make the presentation. You have 15 minutes to do so. Jack Hill, Iris Kriegler, John Schaefer and Mary Schaefer. I would like to give you 15 minutes total. If we have questions we’ll be back to you. Mr. Jack Hill, 763 De Soto .Drive, Palo Alto: Members of the Planning Commission I’m Jack Hill. I live at 763 De Soto Drive. My comments regarding the overlay and some detail is the data package that you have. I’m taking this opportunity to recognize the City’s forward-looking collective foresight and courage in making the single overlay, R-1 S, available to the property owners that are interested in their privacy. It is encouraging to read in the Palo Alto Daily News that other communities like Menlo Park and Los Altos Hills are looking at what you’ve done and they are considering similar ordinances to protect privacy in their neighborhood. We have followed the Planning Commission’s guidelines and put together with our petition for R-1 S zoning and we did this preserve the unique privacy of indoor/outdoor living that has been provided to us in this area by the combined talents of the architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, and that wonderful entrepreneur, Eichler. So it is our intent City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 to preserve this experience for future generations to buy this kind of privacy and enjoy this kind of wonderful living for as many generations as appreciate that type thing. Several Palo Alto communities have been granted R-IS. And we ask that you give us the same consideration. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Now, Iris Kriegler. Mr. Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto: I’m Iris Kriegler. I live at 1607 Channing Avenue right next to the right-hand white, spot there on Channing. Those two, by the way, are rental houses and the owner of one of them said to me that because of his financial matters in owning the house, he couldn’t sign anything like this but he would not oppose it. I need to let you know that. We’ve lived in our house since 1957, 43 years. The importance of privacy, that’s number one. Since the flood, I might say, most of us in the area did not replace the window coverings that look out on our backyards. Would there be a two-story next to me or behind me, I would need to cover up and I would not be able to keep it open for the pleasure of my backyard or the privacy of dressing and undressing in my own bedroom or bathroom. I think that Debbie’s letter to you which you have in your packet speaks to that. They would have full view of the dressing room, the bathroom, the bedroom. There would be no getting away from that at all. So that’s really important to us. I think that’s why we’ve worked so hard to try and get this. As you know, the deeds have a covenant for a single story in them. Mr. Eichler was farsighted in doing that. I also want to say that I do feel that, in talking to some real estate people and in talking to people who are buying in this frenzy of buying in Palo Alto, that having a place to live without two-story homes around you, looking down into your backyard and into your house, is very important. That’s why people have bought in our area or in other Eichler areas, in order to have that privacy. That’s what we are here asking from you today - our privacy. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: We have a question for you Iris. Owen? Okay. John Schaefer. Mr. John Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto: I live in one of the houses on the island there. Indeed, all but one of the houses on the island have supported this. The other folks are so mad at the .City after the flood that they declined to sign but they said they were not opposed to it, they’re just not happy about the whole thing. My wife and I moved here in 1971 after living in a couple of Eichlers down in Green Meadow. We’ve enjoyed the neighborhood very much. As you know, it was built in the 1950’s with a single story character. Our objective really is to preserve that neighborhood character. New owners who have bought since the flood really, have by and large have chosen this area because of its character. They have almost without exclusion supported the single story overlay. There have been about five or six home sales. Oddly enough even despite the flood no one has deliberately left because we were flooded. A separate issue is we are hoping to get the flood issues solved. There has been strong support both from Channing Park 1 and Channing Park 2. I can echo the comment that was made about Channing Park 3, there just doesn’t seem to be at this time that sort of a groundswell of support that we found in City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Channing Park 1 and Channing Park 2. So we appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Mary Schaefer. Mrs. Mary Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto: I’m Mary Schaefer. Ann and Jack Hill came to my house in December and said what about doing a single story overlay, and they’ve run into a little bit of difficulty. I have had a lot of experience with the City Council, never with the Planning Commission, so I went to bat for them. It really has been a remarkable experience. I am amazed at the unanimity of our neighborhood because you must realize that five of our neighbors do not live there. They are absentee landlords. We have able, despite those five which is about 10% of the community, to get 80% endorsement of this single story overlay. We also have gotten all the new neighbors who have come in in the last two years since the flood to endorse the single story overlay. So they are not seeing this as a detriment. They are buying into this community for its special character. Having had the flood there has been extensive remodeling and commitment in this area for years before and after the flood. So that many of the houses have changed but the basic concept of floor to ceiling windows, and [post and beam] construction have been maintained, even on the new house that was constructed after the flood which was a scraper. The new house that was constructed after the flood is probably the catalyst for this request. Because the house was done quite sensitively but we realize with the raised foundation in our flood plane that that did change. The new house is only a single story but we realize that if it had been a two-story, what the impact would have been. So actually it coalesced us. We talked about this at picnics. We’ve had neighborhood picnics over the years. Two years ago with the flood and fight now with this presentation request for your consideration. Dana Street has no two story houses presently overlooking this Eichler area. It is a non-Eichler. They are much larger lots over there than what we have. We do have some extraordinarily large lots but we have a few minimum lots. Most of our lots do not get penalized at per square footage once they have the 40%. If you go to two story you do lose some square footage by putting in the stairwell. This is a modest neighborhood. But some of us really like Eichlers. As my husband said, this is our third Eichler, we were transferred away from We weren’t that restless. We went from one to the next and then were transferred away and were able to buy the one we have in 1970 when we came back into this community. I have a lot of answers here. I’ve brought my whole file for answering any questions you might have on other aspects of this. So I think with that, we’ve enjoyed the coolness of this room. Eichlers are not notoriously very insulated when we face the south and the sun. So I will let you open this up however your next procedure is. Thank you very much for you time. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. I think that’s the end of the presenter group. So if we have questions for any of the proponents of this, why don’t we ask them now. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I suppose if we extend the hearing a little bit you get to stay cooler a little bit longer. Anyone could take a crack at this. There was an article in one of the local papers quite recently about Eichlers and their history and how much folks who choose to live in them Ci.tv of Palo Alto Page 7 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 love the indoor/outdoor and the open design and isn’t it wonderful. Then there was a leading new urbanist architect, Dan Soloman, in there that was highly critical of Eichler design and the neighborhood design. It is a little late for that conversation because the neighborhood already exists. What shook me in the article, both sides, the opponents and proponents of Eichler living, agreed that one of the challenges to Eichlers is that when they were built they weren’t necessarily built to last forever. The question that we have to address as a Commission is, what’s it going to look like 20, 40, 50 years from now? If those structures aren’t going to be there, and they are going to be replaced as that neighborhood evolves, what’s it going to look like. So I’d like to invite your comments on how do you think a single story overlay would affect the evolution of that neighborhood over the really long term. Longer than hopefully any of us will be spending any time in this chamber. I hear you that it serves the privacy needs of current residents but what’s it going to do to the housing stock of Palo Alto in the very long term? And whether it is going to help or hurt our efforts to make sure that there is reinvestment in property so the housing stock is maintained. Mr. John Schaefer: I’ll take a shot at that. First off, I think it’s all a matter of maintenance. I don’t believe it makes any difference whether you’ve got a stucco house or an Eichler, if you keep it up, repair those things that need to be repaired. I don’t know what the useful life of a house is in California. We’re not in an icy climate. We’re not in frost-eating and all that sort of thing. So I think projecting ahead 40 or 50 years is more dependent upon what the City of Palo Alto does in terms of the density of housing within the City. If ultimately the City chooses to move to a higher density sort of a situation then I would expect this issue would be revisited along with all of the other zoning issues in the City. Our house is almost 50 years old and we’d invite you, if we ever get it cleaned up, to come out and have a look at it. It’s in very good shape. It has been remodeled extensively and many of our homes have been remodeled extensively. Some of them haven’t been touched and one of those was the one that was scraped and replaced. Does that answer the question? Commissioner Byrd: You have to come to the mike so you are on the record. Mr. Alan Hallberg, 784 Alester Avenue, Palo Alto: I think it is an interesting question you posed. I think it is actually much broader than the issue of our neighborhood or Eichlers. It has to do with how does zoning change when the community changes. I would imagine there must be some mechanism in the City to, if the circumstances change, to repeal something like this. I don’t imagine these things are frozen for 50 years anything. I would throw that back at you and say what mechanisms exist in the City Government to change zoning regulations when neighborhood evolve as they always do. I think the Eichlers in our neighborhood are in great shape. We’re new residents. I haven’t been here for 30 years, I’ve been here for one year and haven’t even been in our house for six months now. We moved to this neighborhood because of the privacy and the architecture of the Eichlers and the openness and the walls of glass that exist there. We came from a ranch house that we thought was uninteresting architecturally in Menlo Park with homes peering at us from all sides as one after another got built on these lots that were zoned R-2. Little bungalows were ripped down on our street and one big home after another was built. They really spoiled our whole experience there. So that’s why we’re in support of this. Ctty of Palo Alto Page 8 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Chairman Schmidt: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Clifford Barnett, 733 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto: We’ve been there since 1964 and one of the things I would note is that the houses were built during the Korean War. Here we have an Eichler, our Eichler I think was one of the last ones on the block to lose its radiant heating. We’ve replaced the heating, we’ve been through the flood, six inches of water in every room. We’ve done a lot of work on the house and nevertheless we haven’t done any major kinds of things. We’ve expanded here and there and in the kitchen. There was some expansion done before we moved in by the previous owners of the master bedroom. But it all fits together and still is single story and has had a lot of room added to it. It seems to me that if you stop and consider that the houses are nearly 50 years old, I would say, one, that the character of the neighborhood has not changed. Even the one house now that is not an Eichler but is single story, really does fit into the character of the neighborhood. It looks a little bit different but it has a lot of glass and a lot of openness and So on. I admit I don’t live right in back of it as some people do and I think we are all concemed about it. So what I’m saying is I think that over of time it is an advantage to people to move in to an area that is different but basically homogeneous and does preserve that kind of character. I think what we are concerned about is somebody moving in and totally disregarding the character of the neighborhood. Over a period of time I think there can be real changes from the Eichler architecture itself but that still can be single story and be kept in keeping. So I don’t see the overlay as really basically limiting people except for the second story aspect which would really radically change the neighborhood. So there is flexibility built in and if people maintain, I would see that flexibility going on to the point where if people don’t maintain it then there will be a very different kind of issue on the table. Then I would say if the neighborhood deteriorates then I think there would be enough understanding of that for people to desire a change and to come before you or other groups and say, okay we really need a change. This is so binding that we can’t live with this anymore. So far, it has been very successful. I don’t know how many neighborhoods except Professorville that in a sense has really had a character maintained within it for such a long period of time in this area. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie, go ahead. Commissioner Packer: Sir, I didn’t get your name. Mr. Barnett: Clifford Barnett. Commissioner Packer: Thank you Mr. Barnett. My question is, you said you were at 733? Mr. Barnett: That’s correct. Commissioner Packer: So looking at the map it appears that your house back up against one of the ranch houses that would be outside of this single story overlay. Mr. Barnett: That’s correct. Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Packer: Do you have any concems about homes on that street building two- stories and affecting your privacy? 1 2 3 4 Mr. Barnett: Well, it all depends. I’m not rigid about it except that it all depends on what the 5 greenery is and to what extent it would really be harmful with regard to blocking sunlight and so 6 on. As it stands now, if the people don’t respond to saying I’d like to share building a fence with 7 you, but beyond that sometimes the kids are noisy. So with regard to your question in principle I 8 don’t have an issue there because we really are blocked with greenery and as we change our 9 landscaping I am concerned as a matter of fact. To have to spend considerable money because 10 we’re going to have to do some garden work to really make sure and to maintain the screening 11 that’s there. If it was a two-story with nothing blocking it I really would be concerned. But at 12 this point there is nothing I can do about it. I think the issue here is that that neighborhood was there with its type of architecture, it’s style, and we have ours and we’re doing the best we can within that setting to say we would like the overlay for our neighborhood and we’ll learn to adjust to the other. But it would be very hard to do that within the plots where we are really so close to each other. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Do you have a question, Pat? Commissioner Burr: Yes. I’d welcome response from any of the neighborhood representatives. I’ve heard you speak about two principle concerns, privacy and architectural compatibility. If you were to have single story homes in your neighborhood of drastically incompatible architectural style, that was very, different from the Eichler style, how would you feel about that? Which those styles would be allowed in a single story overlay. And if you were to have a two story home that was designed in a very compatible style with recesses on the second story, with second story windows that are somehow either at elevations or opaque materials that are not intrusive, how would you feel about those two alternatives? That’s the real dilemma I have. I’d be very interested in your responses to that. Mr. Hallberg: On the architecture side it’s the privacy issue I think that most people are concerned with here. The way the homes are built when you’re inside your house you are almost outside. Anybody who’s on a second story next to your house is looking in. We all have walls of glass in our master bedroom and living room and everything. So I guess you’ve never been in an Eichler because you wouldn’t ask that second question. Commissioner Burt: I’m sorry, I’ve been in many Eichlers. Mr. Hallberg: I can’t imagine that in our neighborhood that a second story house could be built facing our living room. It would just be a block I guess with no windows or something. I can’t imagine how it could be done. One of the pleasures you get is in your living room all you see is greenery outside. So ifI had to choose between those two I’d rather have somebody build something incompatible architecturally that was one story than somebody building something compatible. Although I think there was only one or two Eichlers ever built that were two story in Portola Valley, in the history of Eichler development. So I doubt if you could build one that would be compatible architecturally. City ofPalo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Hill: Well my comment is in that same general area. A lot has been said about privacy and it’s very important. A matter of aesthetics is also involved. Some people have different ideas about what aesthetics are. I fred it aesthetically pleasing to sit in my patio room and look out through the glass and see trees and a glimpse of the mountains. Of course I can do that because my neighbor’s house is fiat. Eichlers typically have fiat or gently sloping roofs. They are quite low so you don’t really, see the houses, you see some edges of roof lines but mostly you see greenery, you see sky, you see birds, you see the mountains, and it’s aesthetically invigorating. When you think about looking out of a motel room and seeing a two-story brick building or some other slab rising some people may find it aesthetically pleasing. So I would as the Planning Commission to consider aesthetics not only as something that’s pleasing in architectural design but is something that produces a pleasing environment to be inhabitants. With the progress that’s been made in home roofs and in plastic coated roofs that have wonderful lifetimes, incredible resistance to breaking and cracking and leaking, this is a great opportunity to look at that aspect in order to open up for the inhabitants of the City a chance to see the trees and the mountains rather than roofs that were originally designed that way because shakes leak if you don’t make them steep. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Okay, we have a couple of other speakers who would like to speak on this and since we’ve got a couple of other items on the agenda, if it’s okay with the presenters we’ll move on to hear those other speakers. The next speaker is Kevin Fisher to be followed by Lillian Scoyen. Each person has five minutes maximum. Mr. Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m here to represent the opposing point of view. I understand what Iris and Mary are trying to do I’m just not in favor for my house. The map is somewhat misleading. I live at 728 Alester which is just barely in the comer there. I live across the street from the elementary school. So I live across from a school and there is a big parking lot and it’s a wide street so people can come and drop their kids off. It is also a street that’s mixed. It is part Eichler and part non-Eichler. I live two houses in from a non-Eichler which is fight next to 1610 Dana which is off the chart. So I don’t have the same strong opinion about the 17 foot height limit that some of the people on DeSoto have. So I signed up to a one-story house when I moved in because of the CC&Rs. I reaiize I may be restricted in that regard. SO there is already a mechanism in place to limit to one-story houses and may require someone to go to court to stop it but there is a mechanism in place. The neighborhood has remained primarily a one-story. My main concern is the 17-foot height limit. As you know we are in a flood zone. If we have to rebuild we have to move our house up two or three feet so that 17-foot limit effectively becomes about a 14-foot limit if we are three feet off the ground. I have no intention of building a two- story house. I really like my house. I like my Eichler. I’m just not willing to sign up for a 17- foot height limit for all time. So it has me somewhat concerned. For example, the front of my house faces a school. ! could add height there and have very little impact on my neighbors. So this would limit architectural features, a different line, almost anything that goes above 17 feet. I’m sure that ifI came in front of the Council for a variance, I would get it. Normally it is hard to get these things. So it’s my concern that this overlay tool is too crude by limiting it to 17 feet. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 11 47 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32. 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 30 feet is fine. I couldn’t imagine ever going even to 30 feet, but 17 feet seems too restrictive ifI want to stay in this neighborhood for a long time. So ~s I mentioned, I understand the motivation of the people who want to put in a single story overlay. They are afraid of a two-story house going in behind them and I understand that. I wish there were some way to accommodate both points of view here. So that’s why I’ve been forced to say I don’t want to be part of the overlay. I don’t want that restriction. My kids are just starting school, I’ll probably be in the neighborhood for a very long time and who knows what will happen in 20 years. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Thank you. Do you have a question, Owen? Commissioner Byrd: We’ve had a number of these single story overlay applications come before us and usually in the neighborhoods that request them there is a core group of folks who feel very strongly about it and they are very organized and animated and they do the hard work to meet the guidelines requirement to demonstrate "overwhelming support." Usually the folks who don’t want it don’t put in as much time and effort. We’ve raised this on past applications about what exactly "overwhelming support" means and is it evidenced by this map. That map is a crude tool. Did the folks who oppose this effort, was there a vigorous campaign in this neighborhood and did you walk it to explain why you think it’s a bad thing the way they did to explain why it’s a good thing? Mr. Fisher: I don’t have the time to go get my point of view across. I worked on the people who live next to me. Iris and Mary visited me a couple of times. They expressed their point of view and were disappointed when I didn’t want to go along with it. But I have a job, I have two kids, I don’t have time. I’m frustrated I have to be here tonight to defend the status quo when I’ve got two kids at home who are not with their dad right now. Commissioner Byrd: Okay, thanks. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Lillian Scoyen. Ms. Lillian Scoyen, 867 Newell Place, Palo Alto: I wasn’t part of this tonight but I was glad to be here because one of your questions was, what about Channing Park 3? I’ve lived at 867 Newell Place for over 30 years and before that I lived on DeSoto for about 12 years. So my good friends on DeSoto were better organized than we were along Newell. What we’d like to do because of some personal things in the neighborhood and the flood, we’re still all recovering from that, by the way most of the houses are beautifully remodeled and we hope they will last for another 50 years. I hope, in the very near future, that we will be able to be organized. Just my neighbors on Newell Place, I feel that almost all of them will sign the petition and we hope to have 100% in Channing Park 3 very soon. We just weren’t as well organized as they were and haven’t worked the neighborhood yet or made the calls. So I hope we can join them. Thank you. CiO, of Palo Alto Page 12 48 l 2 3 4 5 Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Dana Clark and this is the last speaker I have on this item. Mr. Dana..Clark, 717 DeSoto, Palo Alto: I’m right next to the only two-story house that exists in the neighborhood. I would say at first I was not necessarily opposed to a single story overlay. 6 Primarily because it is nice having single story houses in one neighborhood. However, if you’re 7 the one house that is sitting next to the one two-story house that happens to be on the south side 8 of your house which happens to be the sunny side, then being restricted to a single story restricts 9 my options within the property that I have bought into. When I bought into it our wonderful real 10 estate agent said you can always go up just like the neighbor did here. In fact, the neighbor’s 11 house is on the same size lot as ours which happens to be the smallest lot in the tract. The other 12 thing that kind of disturbs me a little bit here is that we’re all talking about privacy and we have a 13 lot of people remodel their whole house. There is only one wall that is existing that is the same 14 as it was when we moved in. When we remodeled we moved the windows from facing sideways 15 towards the two-story house to facing backwards. Well, we face backwards into an area that 16 now is not part of the proposal. On the proposal that came to our front door they said it is 17 everyone including those people behind you. Well we have two houses behind us. If you look at 18 our lot it is split by two houses. So we have four neighbors, not just two or three. I’ve grown up 19 in Eichlers all my life. I started in an Eichler up in San Rafael when I was a baby. I moved into 20 a two-story Eichler in Portola Valley. Probably one of the only two-story Eichlers with a second 21 story of radiant heat. I’ve owned three Eichlers in Palo Alto. I have not owned anything other 22 than an Eichler. So I’ve had the opportunity to remodel, work within the confines of the 23 Eichlers. There are some challenges in working inside of Eichlers and trying to add second 24 stories on. But by not allowing us to have the flexibility is restricting the property significantly. 25 Unfortunately, due to the layout of our house and the way Eichler set the house on the lot, put the 26 plumbing into our house, for us to remodel, and stay within a single story overlay would require 27 substantial and I mean cutting up the cement foundation to re-lay pipes, to put a house in with a 28 two-story house next to us that gives us the privacy that all the other people in the neighborhood 29 already have. So for us to redo we’d basically have to tear down and start over again. So all I’m 30 asking for is, we already have a CC&R that restricts us to a single story, most of us already 31 appreciate the single story houses in the neighborhood, but why should we restrict any more so 32 than we already are? Let the community work within the bounds that are already provided and 33 not put any more restrictions on us at this point in time. So all I’m asking for is the flexibility in 34 the future. Now, I’m conscientious. I’ve worked on houses, architecture is kind of in the family 35 a little bit, so I’ve had the opportunity to work and remodel Eichlers from day one. IfI was to 36 have the opportunity to add a second story, you can believe me that I would set it up so that it 37 would not infringe on the neighbors. Unlike the house that was put in next to us that is probably 38 too high and does infringe on our property. Another point is that we’ve all been talking about 39 remodeling Eichlers and in one article, I can’t remember where exactly it came from but, it was 40 stated that once you remodel an Eichler it is really not an Eichler anymore. So how much really 41 are the Eichlers that are still there? We all try to keep them as much to the original intent as 42 possible but once you do remodel an Eichler it really is not an Eichler any more, it is really 43 something different. Not any less special. All we’re asking for is let’s stay with what we have in 44 the area. Let’s work within the boundaries that we have already and consider the fact that those 45 houses, like ours that have windows facing backwards are backing into an area that is not part of Ct~ of Palo Alto Page 13 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 this agreement. When this was originally presented to us that was part of the agreement. No once came around to say that this group is no longer in this agreement anymore. Commissioner Burt: You said that if you were to remodel with a second story you would do it in a way that would not intrude on your neighbor’s privacy as the two-story home next door to you has done to you. Very briefly, what sort of architectural tools would you use to add some amount of second story without being intrusive on your neighbors? Mr. Clark: I think for our house particularly, our house is situated such that the front right comer fronts south, the front right comer points out across the street. That’s where I’d put most of the windows, pointing out towards the front as opposed to out towards the back or the sides. The house to the right of us at 719 1 wouldn’t put very many windows, if any over on that side. It’s a north-facing side. It’s a cold side. It is not a light generating side. I’d use skylights. The intent of going up is because the layout of our house lends itself better to going up than to going out. Going out requires significant re-slabing our site. The radiant heat has been redone in our house. The people sometime before us re-grooved the whole house so if we have to go through our slab that means we have to redo the whole heating system and that’s an expensive endeavor for us to go into. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Those are all the speakers that I have. The applicants may have three minutes to summarize before we end the public hearing. Ms. Krie~ler: Excuse me. Mary is going to summarize but you had a question that you were going to ask me that came up here and I couldn’t answer. I just want to say that it is not just that when you remodel it remain like an Eichler. It’s the second story. It’s having single story houses. What’s been happening in Palo Alto, as you are privy to, in what’s being tom down and put up. The house next to mine has just been sold. He is a person who owns several of them. It is rented again. There have been rumors about well, eventually I’m going to tear it down. Then he could build anything there. But if it was just a single story it wouldn’t impinge on the privacy of everyone around it. But if he is allowed to build more than that, there goes everybody’s privacy. I think privacy is the big thing we are talking about here. More than Eichlerism. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Would anyone like to summarize from the applicam group? Ms. Schaefer: I would like’to introduce you to other people in the audience who have not spoken. Would all those from Channing Park 1 and 2 please stand up so they can recognize you? There are people here who are interested in this issue. I’m glad to see them here. We distributed information. We asked people to call. For this meeting, we again reminded them that this was happening and it was time to come in and talk. It is very important that everybody share. We do not want to become an adversarial situation of privately suing. This is precisely why we decided to do the single story overlay. The history of the of the two-story house on De Soto Drive is it was built in the 1970’s when you have a 75% lot occupancy. It was built without anybody’s anticipation. It was a shock when it happened. Although physically, it is not seen that easily from the street and it does upset people more on Louisa Court than it does on it’s two side neighbors. It is interesting we already have the signature of the person who lives behind Mr. Clark for Channing Park 3. So those people are becoming interested in trying to do the single City of Palo Alto Page 14 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 story overlay. I don’t know if we can get 80% there. That, we haven’t tried. I think it is remarkable that we have found in Palo Alto 80% of the people interested in seeing something like this happen. Presently, there are no two-story houses bothering any of this area. The only two-story house is the one next to Mr. Clark that bothers really the two neighbors on Louisa Court. So presently we are not living with the problem. Another reason we want this to come about is because of our flood situation. In that we do see that there will be a changing silhouette but that’s not going to change the idea of the Eichler community. This is something we’ve tried to express in our letters. A lot of us moved to Eichler communities for a particular design feature and a style of life. It was very multi-cultural when things weren’t multi-cultural. One of the criticisms in the newspaper said we went and hid behind our walls. No, we find it very nice to go onto our houses and have our privacy but I would say a lot of us get together with neighborhood parties once a year. It goes both ways. Thank you. Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. I will close the public hearing now and bring this back to the Commission. Are there additional questions for Staff or do you want to begin discussion? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: How is the 17 foot height limit derived? Where did we get that from? Mr. Lee: My understanding is that when the single story overlays were proposed back in the early 1990s there was considerable discussion among the Planning Commissioners and City Council members at the time with input from neighborhoods like this. And that the 17 foot height limit was established at that time and was instituted as part of the zoning code back in, I think, 1992. Ms. Grote: It was seen as a reasonable amount of height for a single story but enough to still allow for an open feeling, vaulted ceilings if someone should choose to design that into a single story. So it is seen as a reasonable height limit. Commissioner Bialson: Is that something that we could change if we did agree to a single story overlay? Could we then say that we wanted a 20 foot? Ms. Grote: That would require a change to the zoning district within the zon!ng ordinance. Chairman Schmidt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I have a question for the City Attorney. Attachment F is the single story height combining district overlay zone guidelines which were adopted by Council in 1993. What is a guideline? How does it vary from code? Does it mean it’s less mechanically applied than finding that are codified? Ms, Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attomey: Yes. Cio, of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Byrd: How less mechanically applied? Ms. Furth: It is a statement of principle. I believe it was basically, I was not here but I understand from the minutes I have checked and the Planners I’m sure can supplement me on this, this is an unusual process in that it requires essentially a neighborhood petition before it proceeds. There were large sections of the City that were potentially eligible for this special kind of zoning. I believe the Council wanted to provide information to the public and the Commissions as to what they thought was an evidence of adequate participation, for example. So these are not things that they are required to abide by in approving or disapproving something but this was an indication to the community from them of what they thought was appropriate. Commissioner Byrd: Typically a rezoning, including the application of an overlay zone, is a legislative act, right? Ms. Furth: That’s correct. Commissioner Byrd: So therefore there is no findings other than the general health, safety and welfare is advanced. Isn’t that right? Ms. Furth: Owen, usually that it’s consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Byrd: And the Comp Plan. So these are sort of pseudo findings for a legislative act but we don’t call them findings because you don’t usually do findings for that kind of act. Ms. Furth: I think that when we talk about them here we are asking you to report to the City Council that you’ve looked at this and it does or doesn’t match up with what they’ve indicated are important criteria for them when making the legislative decision. Commissioner Byrd: Okay. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Perhaps this is a question directly mostly toward Lisa. Our Director of Planning has convened for the last six-plus months the advisory group on residential housing to try to formulate some additional tools and guidelines that would help neighborhoods be able to retain greater compatibility and yet balance that against the needs and wishes of individual homeowners at the same time. What is the status of that group and do you foresee some additional tools emerging from that process that would enable neighborhoods to provide for a greater degree of maintenance of character in their neighborhood than is currently allowed and yet us tools different than the very black and white tool of a single story overlay? Ms. Grote: The advisory committee has been meeting for the past three months. Currently we are now taking the recommendations, the general recommendations, that they gave us at their last meeting which was about two weeks ago and forming those into some potential tools and recommendations to bring back to the advisory committee in July. It would be July 13th that CiO, of Palo Alto Page 16 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 we’d bring back those recommendations to them for their review before it then comes to you for a recommendation to the City Cotmcil. Currently we have explored and are looking at the possibility of increased lot coverage or the potential for increased lot coverage should someone decide to remain on a single story rather than adding a second story. Much like the single story overlay district. So potentially allowing someone to go up to 40% lot coverage to keep all of the allowed, or as much as possible, the allowed floor area on the ground floor. The committee has also looked at a threshold review of some nature, which would potentially require additional review i.f you do add a second story. We would then look at roof form, height, window placement, those kinds of issues. So I do think that there will be other tools to use once the recommendations have been fully fleshed out and it comes before you and the City Council. Commissioner Burt: When would you guess it would come to us and the City Council? Ms, Grote: I would expect it would come to you in late August probably and then to Council sometime in September or early October. That would be my best estimate. Chairman Schmidt: Are there other questions? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I heard that one of the speakers said that when the petition was presented to him it was represented that Channing Park 3 would be included. I believe that is in the packet. There was a map that showed Channing Park 3. So I’m wondering if the homes that were affected that back up to the area that’s now not included in the single story overlay, if they had an opportunity to rethink their position. Mr. Lee: My understanding from the applicants is that each signature form was limited to that portion of Channing Park that applied to their neighborhood. In other words, folks who lived in Channing Park 1 had a piece of paper that specifically said you are signing it for this area. That would apply to Channing Park 2 also. The applicant may have more clarity on that issue. Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions or do you want to begin discussion? Annette would you like to begin? Commissioner Bialson: I’m very hesitant to approve these single story overlays. Especially so in this case where we do have homes that should they want to remodel extensively would have to raise the height of the improvements to three feet or so. I think 14 feet to try to get a home with any sens~ of openness and volume and incorporate a roof would somewhat of a design challenge. I think we’re inadvertently going into design guidelines when we impose that height restriction. I also am uncomfortable with regard to those homes that are not wanting to be included in this overlay, especially those homes on Alester Avenue which are a block of homes essentially that do not share the sense of perhaps neighborhood and community as those on De Soto Drive do. I do have a difficult time with the gentleman who’s home is next to the one two-story house but don’t quite see how we could carve him out of the zone. I suppose I would be most comfortable given the fact that we’ve got a chunk of people on that northwesterly comer that do not want to CiW. of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 be included and remove them from the overlay zone. But at this point in time I think that most of the other homes have evidenced sufficient understanding of what it means to be in an overlay zone. That if they want to be included it is up to them to make the bed they are going to lay in. Chairman Schmidt: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: I think these single story overlay applications, each time, they contain just some of the great themes of land use that we address in this City. One is the issue of change. I think that the sincere opposition, the sincere fear that is expressed, about the change to someone’s long experienced living condition that would be caused by an adjacent second story is very real. I also think that when you actually find yourself living right next to a second story it is not as bad as you think. I live in a single story home in between two very bulky two-story apartment buildings. When we first moved in they looked down on us. The trees have grown up and it’s not so bad. But more important than that is what we’ve continued to see in these applications is an anecdotal but significant difference between the attitudes of very long time residents who t~nd to favor these overlays versus newer residents, dare I say younger residents, who more frequently come in here frequently in the minority and say I don’t think this is such a good thing. They give voice to different reasons for it. One of the issues that wasn’t addressed tonight that we’ve talked about in the past is that these single story overlays will lead over time inevitably to increased lot coverage as people move out and not up. And that is profoundly un- environmental because we’re increasing impermeability and not providing green space in the neighborhoods even though it is private green space. So I have said before on each of these applications that I think the overlay is a bad idea. I wish the Council would remove it from the zoning code but I’ve still voted for the things when they roughly appear to meet the guidelines. One of the reasons I asked the question about the importance of the guidelines tonight is I’m still struggling with what we do with them. The first one around level and format of owner support, I walked precincts in this City for causes and candidates and when you go up to the door and are real insistent about a point of view, it’s not that hard to extract a pledge of support from someone. The interests of folks who want these things leads them to put in a lot more effort than the people who are desperately opposed. This is no fault of the people that rounded up this proposal but I’m not sure that the guideline, the way it is written, gives us a subtle enough snapshot of the actual depth of support in the neighborhood. The appropriate boundaries, okay we’ve got defined tracts. I agree. Prevailing single story character, yes it is predominantly single story character. Moderate lot sizes, there are some larger comer lots but basically they are moderate. So I struggle between my personal profound opposition to this blunt instrument that interferes with evolution over time versus a willingness to respond to the neighborhood and try and apply the guidelines. So I’m really open to hearing whether my fellow Commissioners can see a way out of that tension. Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie, would you like to comment. Commissioner Packer: I’ve been waiting for everyone else to speak first. I struggle with the single story overlay for a lot of the same reasons that Owen expressed. I’m concerned about the policy issues and the policy statements that came from the Comprehensive Plan deal with City of Palo Alto Page 18 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 maintaining character but don’t necessarily deal with maintaining privacy. I don’t know if it’s the goal of zoning to impose privacy on houses. I look across to my neighbor and I wave to her from my kitchen window. We’re all single story but we can look through each other’s windows. It’s just part of living in this city. I only heard from the applicants the concern with privacy and it seems that happily the applicants welcome different kinds of designs in the neighborhood. I saw that remodel, I think it’s 758, it’s very different but it’s there. It’s a single story. No body seems to be opposed to that. I’m struggling with the purpose of the single story overlay. There is nothing in there that says this is important when there is an issue of privacy as opposed to an issue of compatibility and design. On the other hand the applicants have met the guidelines of the guideline The other thing that also bothers me is that I don’t know that the single story overlay is going to accomplish what the people who live on De Soto really want to achieve because there are big holes. The houses along Dana and Newell and in Channing 3 are not going to be subject to this. So the homes that back up to those houses may have a second story being built next to them. Maybe what’s appropriate is to wait a few months until we see what comes out of the committee that’s looking at the single family issue and see if there is some additional help that will come out that committee that will achieve what it is that the applicants would like to see accomplished. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Burt: I concur with Bonnie on a number of the points she made. First to return to the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that are supposed to be overriding our decision-making in ’this regard. Policy L-5 which talks about overwhelming and unacceptable land uses due to their size and scale. So we certainly would have to, whatever guidelines might come out of the residential housing committee recommendations, overwhelming size and scale would be a concern that would have to be addressed. Second, that the new or remodeled structures must be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. So that seems to imply some design compatibility as well as the previously mentioned size and scale compatibility. So I think there are very legitimate concerns that not only this neighborhood but most of the neighborhoods in the City have been addressing. How do we contend with houses that are clearly overwhelming in siz~ and scale, they are out of character with our neighborhoods, that create sudden and significant differences from the traditional design and scale of the neighborhood? I think those are quite legitimate issues that are appropriate for the City to address and for the City to assist the neighborhoods in addressing. I’m hoping that the residential housing committee will come up with some very creative recommendations. That committee includes many representatives of neighborhood groups in the City who have felt very strongly about the compatibility and loss of neighborhood design and character that’s been going on.. So I would like to see those recommendations before making any more approvals of single family overlays. It sounds like we only have a few months to wait before we would at least see the recommendations in those regards. If we don’t get recommendations that would significantly address the concerns of neighborhoods such as this, I would be willing to consider this proposal at that time. In my mind Eichlers do represent a distinct architectural style and deserve a greater sensitivity to incompatible change than many of the other neighborhoods and housing styles in our City. So I think if we are going to, in the future, have approval of single story overlays Eichlers would be at Ci& of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 or near the top of the list of valid candidates for those. But at this time I’d like to await the outcome of the recommendations of the R-1 housing advisory group. Ms. Grote: IfI could interject briefly, this was a Council initiated rezoning request. So I do think that you need to make a recommendation tonight on this particular request and we can forward that on to the Council. But I would not recommend that you not take action or not make a ~ecommendation tonight since this was Council initiated. Commissioner Byrd: It sounds like if you want a recommendation from us we have a couple of ways to go. One is to either recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend that the Council postpone its final decision until these guidelines are prepared and the route this application back to us. Does that meet your need for a recommendation? Ms. Grote: That would, yes. Those are your three options. The fourth would be to somehow modify the proposed area and make one of those three recommendations on the modified proposed area. Chairman Schmidt: I want to make a few comments too. I would associate myself primarily with Owen’s comments that I’ve struggled with each of these as they have come through. I actually voted against a couple of them that I thought were too small or definitely in transition. I struggled with each one. I think that the Commission has brought up a very relevant issue tonight. That we are looking, right now, at recommendations from this R-1 advisory group and that it could be a very timely thing to suggest waiting until we actually have something decided once the group recommendations come through. So if we lean that way I would be happy to support that idea. Owen Commissioner Byrd: Why don’t we see how far our options take us. I’ll put a motion on the floor and because this is a legislative act we have lots of discretion in what we recommend and many of us don’t believe it is a good idea. I’ll move simply that we recommend denial of this application for the reasons that many of us have previously stated. And that be the simple recommendation to Council at this time. Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Bialson: Second. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Discussion? Commissioner Byrd: I don’t think that motion precludes Council from reading the minutes and deciding to hold this one off until the single family home discussion has been completed and then choose to route it back to us. But it is more consistent with the values that animated a lot of the comments that I heard from Commissioners this evening. So I think it would send a more clear message than an alternative motion which would say we hope you send back to us. Chairman Schmidt: Pat. Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burr: I am uncertain about how I would respond to this proposal in the future if it were to return to us after we have had a chance to review it in the context of whatever future R-1 guidelines may emerge. So I would oppose Owen’s motion and instead will support a motion to have it re-routed to us after we have had an opportunity to review the recommendations of the R- 1 housing committee. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Other comments? Commissioner Bialson: I expressed my general unhappiness and tried to figure out some way to carve out those houses and property owners who would not like to be included in this overlay. I think Owen’s approach is the correct one. We need to have something that deals with all of these issues in a more City-wide method rather than the overlay zone. I think it is a process that is too likely to lead to pressures being put on neighbors to go along with things they may not fully appreciate. Chairman Schmidt: Bonnie, comments? Commissioner Packer: I think I’m going to vote on Owen’s motion for the reasons that I stated before and for the reasons that the other Commissioner’s have stated it. I do understand what the applicants want to have happen and I am sympathetic with their concerns. But I am hoping that the recommendations from this R-1 committee will provide better solutions that can be intelligently applied for each lot. Every lot is different, every situation is different and hopefully these guidelines will deal with this problem in a more sensible way. Chairman Schmidt: I will support the motion also. I think in addition to what my colleagues have said and to what the applicant actually has said, that this was done not exactly in haste but it was done rather quickly and that the group, Channing Park 3 on Newell Place and Louisa Court, which is a logical component if this were to be a single story overlay isn’t part of it right now. It would make more sense to me if it were. I hope that we get some additional tools out of the single family recommendations. As Owen noted, I think this is a very blunt instrument to use for blocks of neighborhoods. Owen. Commissioner Byrd: One last ditch attempt to make this unanimous. I think I too would have pref6rred to view this application after those guidelines were prepared. I may still have come out the same way on it but I would have preferred it. I think our charge from the Council is to give them advice under the rubric of the rules that are in place at the time something comes to us. In the world in which we find ourselves tonight, with the rules that we’ve got in place, I don’t think the application makes sense. I would just encourage you to think about why you have a preference to view it under the guidelines, and in the absence of the guidelines which way would you go? If you would support it, vote against the motion. But in that world if you would oppose it, join us. Chairman Schmidt: Yes. Ct~., of Palo Alto Page 21 57 1 Ms. Furth: Just as a point of information. The Council, if you pass this recommendation along 2 to them, may or may not elect to send it back to you. Certainly, they will read all your 3 recommendations and comments but they will have the choice of either acting or asking for 4 further guidance from you. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are we ready for a vote? All in favor of the motion to deny this application which would be denying the negative declaration or should be vote separately on these two items? Ms. Furth: In a recommendation for denial you don’t need to act on the negative declaration. But I suspect that it is a valid negative declaration. Commissioner Byrd: I would incorporate in my motion approval of the negative declaration and then recommendation of denial of the application for the overlay. Chairman Schmidt: Okay. That is what we are voting on then. Approval of the negative declaration and denial of the draft ordinance. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those opposed say no. (no) That passes 4-1, with Commissioner Burt against and Commissioners Cassel and Schink absent tonight. Thank you very much. This goes on to City Council on July 17th. Mr. Lee: That’s correct. Chairman Schmidt: So you will have an opportunity to speak to them at that time. Thank you for all of your input and your interest in this. ~a quick five-minute break before we go on to item number 2. Chairman Sct~,~: I’d like to call the meeting back to order and move on to our next item.Another public he~ 2.*850 Los Trancos Road [Fil’t,~os.: 00-SD-01~ 00-EIA-01I: Review of-an application by Zwick Architects on behalf of t’~ehman family for Site and Design review of the construction of a new residence, garage,"l,w~o barns and a pool cabana on a 12-acre site in the Open Space Zoning District. The total impels surface coverage for the site is proposed to be 15,336 square feet, or 2.93%. Environmen~ssessment: An initial study has been prepared and a Mitigated Nega~on is p-’~sed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project has be~lvely scheduled foY-~l~ublic hearing with the City Council on July 1 O, 2000.~ Chairman Schmidt: Could we have the Staff-- presentation? . ~ CiO~ qf Palo Alto Page 22 Betten, Zariah From:Info, Plandiv Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:17 PM To:Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: Denial of single story overlay for Desoto Drive Attachment J From:Kurt H. Taylor[SMTP:KURT@WMTLAW.COM] Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2000 10:13:50 PM To:Planning Cc:lisa_grote@city.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Denial of single story overlay for Desoto Drive Auto forwarded by a Rule I was surprised to learn that after granting all six previous overlay requests the Planning Commission denied this request. I have several questions: 1. Who was the City attorney present at this meeting and how can I reach that person? 2. Where are the proceedings of the meeting published? 3. Where is the biographical information about the Planning Commission members published? Thank you for your assistance. Kurt H. Taylor Wilson Marshall & Taylor 2465 East Bayshore Road Suite 402 Palo Alto, CA 94303-3205 (650) 424-9700 main (650) 424-9769 fax (650) 424-1799 direct (650) 619-9717 cell 59 6/21/0 0 60 Attachment K June 15,2000 Ms. Lisa GroteChief Planning Official Department of Planning & Community Developement City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Grote; We would like to thank you for the staff work done in support of our request for a single story overlay for Channing Park #1 & #2 which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2000. As you can imagine, we were disappointed in the position that the commission took, and in fact, still cannot understand the basis for their recommendation of denial, since we had met allthe criteria for the zoning overlay. Since we have 80% of the property owners in support of the request, we will be asking the City Council, on July 17, 2000, to give us a final approval. Your continuing staff support will be appreciated. Sincerely; John and~Schaefe~r~’~ 742 De Soto Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 327-3207scha742@ earthlink.net cc: Mr. Edward Gawf, Director of Planning & Community Developement Mr. Chandler Lee, Contract Planner 61 62 March 14, 2000 Attachment L LIST OF CHANNING PARK 1 & 2 IN FAVOR OF SINGLE STORY "OVERLAY" PARCEL STREET STREET NAME NUMBER NUMBER ADDRESS 003 29 005 770 ALESTER AVENUE 003 29 006 784 ALESTER AVENUE 003 29 007 798 ALESTER AVENUE 003 29 008 1629 CHANNING AVENUE 003 29 009 1621 CHANNING AVENUE 003 29 010 1613 CHANNING AVENUE 003 29 011 1607 CHANNING AVENUE 003 29 014 1585 CHANNING AVENUE 003 29 016 718 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 017 722 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 018 726 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 019 730 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 020 734 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 021 738 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 022 742 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 023 746 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 024 750 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 026 758 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 027 762 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 028 763 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 029 761 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 030 759 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 031 757 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 032 755 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 033 753 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 034 751 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 035 749 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 036 747 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 038 743 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 040 739 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 041 737 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 042 735 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 043 733 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 044 731 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 045 729 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 046 727 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 047 725 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 048 723 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 049 721 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 053 713 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 054 711 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 055 709 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 056 707 DE SOTO DRIVE 003 29 057 705 DE SOTO DRIVE CHANNING SQ FT PK 1 OR 2 MILES, JANICE 1 7182 HALLBERG, ALAN & BERNADETTE 1 7182 LA BONTE, EDITH 1 8470 ABBOTT, BOB & CRISTIN I 8075 AMMEN, CHRIS & ADRIENNE 1 7315 HEMRICK, CHRISTINE 1 6742 KR/EGLER, DAVID & IR/S 1 7885 ATKINSON, JOHN & NANCY 1 7125 HILL, WILLIAM & IRENE 2 10375 TAYLOR, KURT & OLSON, BETSH 2 9375 HUNG, ALEX & CHENG, JENNIFER 2 7700 BREWER, R/CHARD & LILLIAN 2 7760 HWANG, WEN-JANG & JENG, DEE FEN 2 7470 LALLY, PHILIP & MARY 2 7470 SCHAEFER, JOHN & MARY 2 7470 SAVAGE, NICHOLAS 2 8190 RISING, R/CHARD 2 10150 FLAMM, DAVID, STEVENSON, MARG.2 10020 OLENDER, HENRY & MARGARET 2 10500 HILL, LOY & ANNIE 2 9900 CHEN, JAIYU 2 7470 LIVINGSTON, JOHN & KORZENNY, S.2 7470 APPLEMAN, DANIEL & SOGLIN DEBBIE 2 7470 CRAMER, R/CHARD & BEVERLY 2 7470 ECONOMOS, EVAN & PAMELA 2 7470 BRYANT, WALTER & MAR!LYN 2 7740 GOSHEN, SHMVEL & SHVLAMIT 2 8200 HOUSTEN, SAMUEL & MARY 2 7500 WINDEN, R/CHARD & ANDREA 2 10000 PORTER, LEONARD 2 7030 CHOU, SYCHI & HWA, VICKY 2 6935 BRADY, ARTHUR 2 7790 BARNETT, CLIFFORD & ZELDA 2 6935 WONG, BRIAN & JO 2 6935 HAYES, EDWARD & MAR/ELLA 2 9600 COPENHAGEN, JOAN 2 15600 MILLMAN, PAUL & JANE 2 1700 ULLMAN, PETER & MARGARET 2 6975 MCCABE, JOHN & LEONA 2 6536 R/SING, LOUISE 2 7040 R/SING, RICHARD & LOUISE 2 6940 SMITH, BIRCHALL 2 7392 JENNEWEIN, JAMES & EMILY 2 6490 VAUGHT, JOHN & VERON/CA 1 7480 New owners are: 003-29-006 Halberg, -020 Hwang, -029 Chen, - 041 Chou. Parcel numbers are used to link this list and the signature forms. Channing Park 1 and Channing Park 2 are comingled by parcel number sequence. Square Footage from Metro Scan 715 De Soto Drive is a two story house & not included in this request. 63 64 Attachment M March 14, 2000 Planning Department Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RECEIVED MAR 1 Oepa~ne~ ot Planning and Community Environment DearSir; We, the owners of homes in Channing Park #1 and #2, 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 & Rs for these Eichler neighborhood properties, which restrict residences to a single story. We have gathered the support of over 75% of our neighbors. Forty four (44) of the fifty six (56) owners have endorsed this change. It should be noted that, due to their lack of timely response, we have not included Channing Park #3. We are submitting to you, the Planning Department, a package of forty four (44) individually signed requests for a change of zoning, a list of these signers with the parcel number,owner, address, location in Channing Park #1 or//2 and lot square footage, a parcel map with the owners who signed the agreement hi-lighted and a copy of the original packet which included information, signature form, real estate map of Channing Park #1, #2, and #3, the Palo Alto Municipal Code covering single-story height District (S) Regulation, and the City guidelinesfor applicants for Overlay Zone, and the follow up question & answerpacket. At the time of our initial meeting about our request for a change to R-1 (S) zoning, we gave proof of the single story limitation to Chandler Lee, a consultant to the Planning Department,with a copy of the original covenants limiting the residences to a single story for Channing Park #1, #2, and #3. We hope, with this information, you will expedite this request. Mary & John Schaefer, 742 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (650) 327-3207 Ann & Jack Hill, 763 De Soto Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (650) 327-7594Iris Kriegler, 1607 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 329-0449 65 66 Attachment N Si~ole-Stoyv Heiaht ~ombini.n~ District Overla~! Zone Guidelines The followiDg guidelines are intended.to guide City staff and decisionmakers in the consideration of zone change requests for application’ of the Single-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 ~hrough more rigorous use of these guidelines. .However, for those neighborhoods that contain and. have been deve!oped consisten~ with a single-story deed restriction, these guidel~nes are to be treated wi~h a great,or degree,of flexibility. !,Le’vel and Format of Owner Suomort An applicationfor an (S’) overlay zone map amendment should .meet with "overwhelming" support by owners of affec~e’d properties. These owners mus~ d~mons~rate, by ~roviding documentation that includes a written !is% of signatures, an understanding that they are co- applicants in a zone map amendment reques.t. Appropriate B~undaries An application for an (S) overlay zone map amendmen~ should be accompanied by a map indicating ~he address location o.f 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 boundarieswill be recommended ~o the Planning Commission and ~City Council by the Cfty’s Zoning Administrator. Prevai!ina-Sinole-Story charac’ter An area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be of a prevailing single-story character where the vast majority of existing homes are single-story, thus limiting the number of structures rendered .noncomplying by the (g) overlay. Neighborhoods currently subject to sihgle-story deed restrictions should be currently developed in a manner consistent with those deed restrictions. Furthermore, it is desirable that ~homes be similar in age, design and Page 67 characser, ensuring ~ha5 residents of an area. proposed for rezoning possess like desires for neighborhood preserva~ion.~,..and face cbmmon home remodeling constraints.~ Moderate Lot Sizes, In order to maintain equitable proper~z development rights "’within .an (S) overlay area: compared to other sites within the R-I zone district, an area proposed for an (S) overlay zone map amendment should be characterized by moderate lot sizes With a generally consistent lotting pattern. A moderate lot size is to be defined as 7,000-8,000 square feet. Page Attachment 0 April 19, 2000 The Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mayor Kniss and Counc=riviembers; Channing Park #1 & #2 were built in the early 1950’s by Joseph Eichler, using a radical new design and with a policy of selling to all comers without regard to race or religion. These homes were all built as single story homes and the original restrictions limit the building to one story in height. In our pursuit to preserve our neighborhood character, it is of primary importance that we respect the wishes of the signers of this single story overlay. Many people have bought these Eichlers homes for their unique post and beam style, expanse of floor to ceiling windows and for the homogeneous and domestic privacy offered by the neighborhood. This is, most likely, why we have had such an overwhelming endorsement by our neighbors for the continuation of a single story envelope on this community. The loss of privacy would surely impact the immediate neighbors negatively. I know one of our newest neighbors bought their house.primarily for the privacy it offered. They had owned a one story in Menlo Park but had two story homes looking down on them. They paid a premium price for this beautiful home. Most of our lots are modest in size but offer us an oasis of privacy. Conventional neighborhoods offer many opportunities to build individually styled homes. They often have larger lots. The houses were built at different times, not all at once. Eichlers were an experiment in living beginning in the ’50s. Our neighborhood was built at one time. This Palo Alto Eichler neighborhood has taken pride in their architectural heritage. Each house was not as unique as in the typical "old" style neighborhood, but the neighborhood was and is inclusive and diverse in its human profile. Most have been remodeled, some extensively, but the essential character has been maintained. ’ I have been impressed at the unanimity of feeling in this neighborhood, especially the support we have received from our 4 newest neighbors who have all joined in this request. We share the neighborhood with many other owners who have lived here for 25 years or more. Many of us went through the devastation of ’98 and have chosen to stay. In the over 2 years since the flood, only 4 of the 57 homes have been sold. This community has come together again and asks you to support their request for a single story overlay. Sincerely; Mary Carey 742 De Soto Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303scha742@earthlink.net 69 70 Attachment P The following letter to councii is for the agenda item Unfinished Business on the "request of property owners of tract 883 and tract 909 for consideration of single story overlay zoning in ’ the Channing Park I and II neighborhood", scheduled for the City Council meeting on Monday, April 24. I am submitting this letter in lieu of making a statement at the meeting of the 24 th. Madam Mayor and Honorable Council members: I stand to represent the overwhelming majority of my neighbors in Channing Park 1 & 2. In their petition for a single story overlay. This community is of similar, but not identical, homes located on modestlY sized lots, occupying a contiguous area with a well defined border which meets the criteria for overlay considera~on. In the almost 50 years that these homes, original Eichlers, have been occupied there has been only one departure from the original concept of a single story house in a mutually private residential area. The genius of architect Frank Loyd Wright created a uniquely American experience in theEichler design for the Mediterranean Climate in Palo Alto, it has provided physical and spiritual comfort for generations of occupants. The recent floods have resulted in many alterations from the original Eichler designs butvirtually all have continued the original concept of bringing the outdoors into the living area, while extended the living area into the outdoors. This has been made possible by carefully orienting the expansive glassed living quarters/patio of each house so that line of sight privacy has been maintained throughout the house and surrounding back yards. This privacy is enhanced through the use of fencing and flat roofed single story building construction. The architecture and siting of the houses has preserved an extraordinary amount of privacy and allows each family to live with virtually the same degree of privacy outside of the house and inside; as befits the mild climate and the wonderful growing season for year around gardening (both flower andvegetable). Consideration of variation should be made on two levels of examination, microscopic andmacroscopic. The microscopic consideration can and has been satisfied within the single story overlay while still preserving our precious and irreplaceable environment as it exists in Channing Park 1 & 2. Macroscopic variation is certainly evident within this City with its diversity of multi unit apartments, condominiums, large areas of two/three story homes and mixtures of the above. This existing mixture of communities permits every personal taste to be Satisfied. Those desiring interpersonal involvement at all times when outside the confines of their living quarters can select from apartments, condos, and multistory home areas that currently exist or reconstruct existing houses totheir needs. It is understandable that within Channing Park I & 2, a community of fifty seven homes, 71 there could be one or more detractors who would like to depart from the current norm and build the equivalent of a watch tower in the form of a two story building, in full recognition of their neighbors expressed wishes to maintain their irreplaceable existing internal/externalprivacy. . It is unfortunate but true that if one (or more) houses are allowed to increase to two storieswithin Channing Park 1 or 2 there are a typically three common property lines for which each neighbors privacy will be completel~de-~tr-oye-d-(l~htandTear)T, exceptduring-that time when they closet themselves within their house. The most sensitive exposure of the existing homes to a two story neighbor is to observation from the rear since there is where the indoor/outdoor interface exists in the form of patio’s, sliding glass doors, glass walls and swimming pools/gardens. In addition to privacy there is a significant negative impact on the view from the living quarters of the existing homes. Flood plane requirements add two feet to the height of newstructures, resulting in a 32 foot height for two story houses. Obstruction of view is significant from such a monolith rising outside one’s patio. In the case of Eichlers, which have large amounts of glass to allow the exterior to become part of the interior living space, the home owners would have to pull curtains as well to obtain privacy even when they are inside their house. Of course those neighbors diagonally situated to the two story house would be almost as severely impacted in the garden areas, raising the affected parties to at least six. .There is essentially no impact on the privacy of properties in front of a two story house because the front yards are completely open to street/sidewalk traffic and the front windows are designed to exclude passing observers. For the above reasons and in defense of one of our most precious commodities (which is in such exceedingly short supply), a place of peace and quiet outside of ones own home, I am making a plea to you for preservation of the irreplaceable environment of our homes which will be forever destroyed by the addition of two story houses anywhere in Channing Park I & 2. Thank you for this opportunity, JackHill 763 De Soto DriveChanning Park 2 72 Attachment Q March 11, 2000 To the City of Palo Alto Planning Department: We have become aware that there has been a petition circulated to impose a one-story overlay in our neighborhood. As our homes on Alester Ave. are not facing a definable Eichler community, and we actually are across the street from Duveneck Elementary School, we would like to be excluded or exempt from this proposed overlay should it be approved. There are 10 homes on Alester Ave., 7 of which are Eichlers. Of these only 3 have signed the overlay petition. With 20- foot rear setbacks, we are in fact 40 feet away from the homes on DeSoto drive, and do not impede their privacy. We are not inherently a part of an Eichler enclave such as DeSoto Dr. As a majority of the homes on this street are opposed to the overlay designation, we would appreciate your removing us from this restriction. Very truly yours, 73 74 Jun 01 O0 03 : 23p Chandler" Lee RICP PHONE NO. : 1 658 649 2214 Mau, Attachment R of Palo Alto Planing Chandler L, cc Ale~er Avenue is dearly in ~he "defined community~ w~. O~o~ of !~. d~lop~nt bu~t a~ ~c ~ ~mc and ~d ~ ~c s~ &ed ~o.~. ~ hsue ofou~ s~ back from our nc~ts is a~ irrel~ant, as it is the s~ ~1 back ~ t~ o~hcr homes in ~c n~hbor~.~ ~r the ~nt. "[~] do ~t i~ on the p~ of[the homca on out that the homeowne. ~ef~ m lure not b~n ~d to g~ t~ open on this doub~ th~ ~uM ~r if askd,~ ~ ~s~ mm~ would ~ a da~s p~o~. Ev=n mo~= ~ is the ~a==t ~ ’~ ~ appr~a= ~ r=m~ us flora this rcs~ction." ~t it is ~r d~r who %,’ is (~= si~ of ~ kt~ o~y? ~ cn~ st~). =hdr cha~ to ~s thdr ~ ~vming. ~r~ Imi~ out 1o a~ m %pt ou~ ~p~ kcaus~ ~ di~. To ~w =~s wo~d~adc ~. C~ th~ d~ op~ ou~ f~ ~ in~ ~mmu~ si~ly bc~.=~ the"didn’t a~"~ ~g a ~t ~in a ndg~ to "opt oue’ m~s ~at a ~h~rh~ v~e effe~i~ly becomes a sae~-~s~¢t vo~. ~m~ ~th ~ O~i~ma~ which re~ on~ ~ a "~fiaable n¢ighh~h~d". Mo~=~, =ha ori~n~ ou~’ ofa ~jori~ d~on. The ~ is o~ous: if oat cou~ ~t ~te i~elfi= ~mngless. They hevo misstated ~he opposlti~m on Ala~ M ~e pro~ ~.~. "[~ imp£~tion is ~al 7 ~e opposed, which is t~. ~ p~ of ~e~er ~a= ~ co~d by the pro~scd o~dina~c iachd~ only 7 homes (the ~csc of~st~ is ou~idc the ofi~ Eic~= d~opm=n0. Th~ the ~e~ers on ~t~ h~ void ~. ~ 7-3. In condusion, any sense ofjustice would aqg’ue against allr~.~fing ~ese h~idu~ m "~e ou~ = i~ ~oaM p~d= th~ ~ &n~ of the single sxo~ o~tlay 6.e. ~ ~igh~r ~not b~ld a ~ond sm~ destto~ my p:i~) ~th~ ~he b~. (i.. I ~o= ~ ¯ s~ond =~). My wife ~d ] m~ hc~ s~dfic~ b~ ~is ~ a ~ighborhood of~ sco~ ~mcs. For ~csc ~caso~, I ~spcc~ rcqms~ that ~u a~pt t~ CI~ M~s tcco~cndatioa and ~ th= ~qucst of ~ ncigh~rs. ’r~ defmi6on of a "neighborhood" du~ Zone guidelines ~ w ~d ~.n~i~ =u~ as "~y.,. ~ See Atnchm~t D in the ~le (ori~n=l nei~rhood C~%) which ~ly ~o~ ~t ~he =ti~ =r~ wu con~i~ 75 76 Attachment S Grote, Lisa Fron~Alan Hallberg [alan@noi’th42.com] Ser~.Friday, June 30, 2000 t0:51 AM To:ed_gawf@city, palo-alto.ca, us Cc:lisa._grote@city.palo-alto.ca, us Subject:Regarding ChandlerPark Overlay Dear Mr. Gawf- I thought you should be aware of the note I have written the City Council regarding the recent denial of our petition for a one story overlay by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Alan Hallberg 784 Alester Avenue We are writing you as a residents of the Channing Park neighborhood whose petition for a single story overlay was recently denied by the Palo Alto Planning Commission (June 14). On July 17th you and your fellow Council Members will be asked to vote on our request. I write not to tell you how strongly I support this overlay (my "yes" vote should do that), I Write to express my concern for the arbitrarymanner in which the Planning Commission rejected our petition, and the statement this makes to the voters of Palo Alto. THE ORDINANCE/GUIDELINES - OUR PETITION First, let me briefly review the facts. As you well know, specific guidelines were provided by the City Council to aid the commission in its decision. I list them in brief, and below each I list the facts as stated in our petition: 1. "OVERWHELMING SUPPORT" -We have 81% of the homeowners in support. 2. APPROPRIATE BOUNDARIES - Our neighborhood is contiguous as viewed on a map. - It was built as one neighborhood by one developer. 3. PREVAILING SINGLE STORY CHARACTER - 56 out of 57 homes (98%) - All homes have a single story deed restriction* - Identical architecture 4. MODERATE SIZE LOTS - 70% fit the definition. *The Guidelines state that they should be more "loosely" applied in cases where a one story deed restriction exists. On this set of facts how could the Planning Commission vote 4-1 against us? I urge you to read their comments, but the essence of their statements is to the effect that they dislike the Ordinance itself and find it too blunt a weapon. In addition they referred to another committee studying the issues of single family housing and "monster homes". If you read the record of Commission discussion before the vote, you will note only two comments actually addressing the merits of our case (two Comissioners stating that we clearly fit within the 77 guidelines). WHAT THE VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEANS EsserLially, the Commission felt that it could ignore an ordinance that it "d~es not like". What does this tell me as a voter?. Well, it says that in Palo Alto, an ordinance is only as valid as the PERSONAL OPINION of the individual members enforcing it. Imagine the Police Department operating where each officer has the discretion to act based on his or her individual opinion of the laws involved and you will see the folly of such a position: (e.g "1 didn’t arrest the rapist because I think the law is too encompassing in its definition"). As Thomas Jefferson once said, "We are a government of laws, not men". To uphold this decision would send a dangerous message to us voters. Perhaps more disturbing is the arbitrary manner in which the Commission managed to blithely ignore the will of over 80% of a neighborhood who sought protection in an ordinance specifically meant for just this situation. I’m no expert on government, but this seems to me to be pretty far from the notion of the government as a "servant of the people". This ordinance may not be perfect, but it’s there and it’s all we have to protect our interests. If the government officials of Palo Alto don’t like it, I suggest that it be turned over by a proper vote of the City Council (rather than simply ignored by the Planning Commission). All of us at the meeting were meant to feel that we had wasted our time in preparing a petition that met the clear guidlines established for just this purpose. In sum, I strongly urge you and your fellow Council members to overturn this vote and support our strongly united neighborhood effort. Sincerely, Alan and Bernadette Hallberg 784 Alester Ave. 650-321-6230 78 Attachment T ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM o o Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Application Number(s): Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of the Project: S Overlay - Tract 883 and Tract 909 in a portion of the Channing Park Neighborhood City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chandler Lee, Contract Planner 415-329-2441 Tract 883 and Tract 909 in a portion of the Channing Park Neighborhood: generally located on both sides of De Soto Drive and along portions of Alester Avenue and Channing Avenue. 00-ZC-01 ; 00-EIA-08 City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Single Family Residential R-1 (Single Family Residential) Consideration of Single Story Overlay Zoning for Tract 883 and Tract 909 in a portion of the Channing Park Neighborhood 10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 1 79 The neighborhood is exclusively single family and predominately single story in character. There are 57 single family lots located within the proposed area. The area is surrounded by single family neighborhoods on all four sides. 1 1. Other public agencies whose approval is required. None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation and Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] 80 Page 2 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,X and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wilt not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Project Planner Date Director of Planning y Environment P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 3 81 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported ¯ by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2)All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3)"Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6)Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 82 P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 4 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) e) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land usesi? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 1 2 1 3 X X X X X 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) b) c) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3 3 3 X X 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? I) Unique geologic or physical features? 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 X X x x x X X x X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Signifioant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act ’ Impact b) c) Exposure of ,people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? 4,5 3,17 X X d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 3 X body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 3,17 X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)3 XChange in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 3 6, 17 3 3 h) j)Alteration of wetlands in any way? X X X X 5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6,8,9 6,8,9 X X x X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?10 84 P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] I ×1 Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact b) c) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 10 10, 11, 12 3, 10 10 10 X X X X x g) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in reduction or interference in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 8, 16 X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?8 X c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak 8 X forest, coastal habitat, etc.}? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?8, 16 X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?8 X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict v~ith adopted energy conservation ~plans?8 X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and 3 X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 8 X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a)Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous 13 ! . X I substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] 85 Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Signifioant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? 11, 12, ’ 13 3, 12, 13 3, 12, 13 3, 12 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels?6, 81 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?14 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) 8,12 8,11 8 X d) e) f) 86 X X X X x X X Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or 8 X storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services?8 X 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas?15 X b) Communications systems?15 X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution 15 X facilities? Sewer or septic tanks?15 X Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?1 5 X Solid waste disposal?1 5 X P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 3 3 3 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potent’ial to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 8 8 8 8 I I X X x X X X X ~X P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] 87 Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Souroes Potentially Significant issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant act Impact c)xDoes the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). In this c~se a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For .effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321 094, .211 51; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998 - 2010, July 20, 1 998 (as amended) 2 City of Palo Alto, Zoning Ordinance, Title 18, Chapter 18.49 3 Planner’s general knowledge of the project and area of proposed development. 4 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Geology and Seismic Technical Background Report, August 1994 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 060348, Map Revised September 6, 1989. P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] 88 Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact 6 City of Palo Alto Standard Conditions of Approval 7 City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department 8 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Existing Setting Memorandum, August 1994 9 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Air Quality Technical Background Report, August 1994 10 City of Palo Alto Transportation Division 11 City of Palo Alto Police Department 12 City of Palo Alto Fire Department 13 City of Palo Alto Fire Department, Hazardous Materials Division 14 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update: Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994 15 City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 16 Fish & Game Code of California, "Chapter 1.5, Endangered Species", Sections 2050 through 2098 17 Santa Clara County Water District, Ordinance 83-2, as amended October 11, 1985 89 P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00]Page 11 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES 4a The proposed zoning change will increase the allowable lot coverage from 35 percent to 40 percent within this neighborhood. This action may result in a slight increase in the amount of impervious surface and, therefore, increase the amount of surface water runoff. However, because the courtyard area of a typical home in this neighborhood is usually partially paved, and the courtyard is the likely location for a building addition, only a small increase in impervious surface will result and only in those homes that elect to extend the coverage on a given lot. Therefore, the increased lot coverage allowance will not have a significant effect on the rate and amount of surface water runoff in the area. Mitigation Measures: None required. (S:\PLAN\PLADIV\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA) P:\EIA\SDESOTO.EIA [5/25/00] 9O Page 1 2