HomeMy WebLinkAbout0328.092-
~ .
~ , . .
"1':1:.', .,:-
July 9. 1992
HONORABLE CITY CCU~CIL
Palo Alto, California
SINGLE-STOR!. RESlOENTlAL OVERLAY ZONE _~ND ZONE MAP AM[NDME~H
"embers of the Council:
Report in Brjef
Pursuant to i fe-llow-up recofmlcndation made by the Sing1e-Family Subcommittee
in N..,vetP.r.er 1989. staff is proposing a text amendment to establish a Single
Story H!ight (ombin:ng District (5) o¥erlay zone district. When combined with
the R-l or applicable special residential buildiTI9 site tombining district (R
I (650). R-I (743). R-I (929), or R-! (1858)), the (S) overlay will limjt the
neight of structures to a maximum of 17 feet and on€ habitable floor, and
increa~e the al1owab1e lot coverage to 4D percent of lot area.
The proposed zone map amendment re5po~ds to i February 10. 1992 Council
assignment to consider a request b,;t residents of the walnut Grove ne1ghborhond
fDr establishment of i single~story height restriction for tracts lI2a and
1135 ,see attached revised SitE location Map). The height restriction imposed
by tne (S) district overlay is cc~sistent with existing private deed
restrictions for these tracts; however. the (5) cverlay couid be applied to
other residentfal areas w1thin th! City.
P1anning CommisslorL.Action
On June 10, 1992, the Planning Commlssion T"eviewed the attactlec ordinances for
text amendment and zone map amendment. In their discussion of the proposed
text amendment the C.oll111iss;or. expressed support for n,e concept of preserving
the distln~tiye sin91e-st~ry character of certain Polo Alto neighborhoods. An
amendment by the Planning CommIssion failed or. a 2-4·0~1 vote to reduce the
allowab1e lot cc>verage for the (S) o\ierlay lor.e from 40 percent to 38 perc~!'I.t.
After a minor wording change in the ordinance was noted, the (cmmisslon
unanimously passed a motion recorrmending adoption of the (S) overlay zone
di strict,
The Planning Commission's discus-sian regardir,g the proposed zone map amendment
focused pr'imar'l:ly on the appropriateness of the map boundaries. An amendment
CHR:328:92
8
.
t
,
o
.to revise the southern boundary of tne map to includ~ tnose residences Qn tne
, !ast ~1de-of Ely Place failed. The Co:rmission passed an am€ndmf!nt by
unanimous vote to revise the map's nort~ern boundary to Exclude thOSE
properties northeast of Adobe Creek {478. 484, SOD, 510. a~d 520 fnst
Charl!ston}. Wiith this ,11,1,r'J amendment) t~e Planning Commission passed a ;rotion
to adopt the ordinance on a 5·1·0-1 vote.
Staff Recormeno;tation
Staff recoQ!1'f1Iends that the Clt.Y Council adopt the Planning CDrrrr~iss.ion's
recolmlend:ition t,,: 1) appro:,.oe the attached Ne-gative Declaration; 2) adopt the
attached ordinance amending th~ zon;r.g reg~lations to establish the (S}
overlay lC"E ~istrict; and 3) aJopt the attach~d ~rdinance amending tne zone
map.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL W. BIllS
Planning Technician
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
COf'ITlluni ty Envi ronment
Manager
Attachments: Planning C~mmissian Stiff Report dated June 5, 199~
Revised Ordinance and Site Location Map
Letters from pub1ic received at Planning C~iss;on hearing
cc: Planning Commission
LHsie and John Indergano, c/o Walnut Grove l1omeowners' Association, 336
Ely Pl.r.., P,lo Aita, CA 94306
Theodo.re al'1d Frances Jenkins, 3864 Dunc.ar. Place, Palo ,ti,lto~ LA 94306
Evelyn and Oli\ler Preston, 3'918 Qunta;: Place, Palo Alto, tA 943{l6
l3rry and Cynthia Bryant, 3951 Duncan Placer ?a10 Alto, CA 94306
Da~e Vitanye, 826 East ~eadow Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John Ferandi~, 3873 Duncan Place~ Palo Arto, CA 94306
Roberta Rose-nberg, 3 Il E1 jI Pl ace, Palo Alto. {A 94306
l1ary Kyle, 38-56 Duncan Plare, Palo Alto. Cf. 1]~:;v6
CMR:31B:91 7/';/92
Page 2
.::..:-
o
Jun. 5, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSiON
Palo Alto, California
SINGLE-FA/my RESIOfNTlAL OVERLAY ZQ~E MD ZONE MP AMENQMENT
Members of the (ommission:
Projlloct Q~scripti9n
TI1is staff report addre" "''50 the proposed fstabl'fshmsnt in the zoning ordinance
of a new Single-Story Ht ~ht Combining District (S} overlay lone, as well as a
zone change to incorporate the o~erlay for G portion of the Walnut Grove
Neighborhood. When comb1ned witn the R-J or R-l special residenti:iT building
site combining distrlcts, the (S) ~~er1ay zone will limit the r.eight of
struttures to a ma.imum of 11 feet and one habitabie floor~ and incr~ase the
al1cwable lot co~erage to 40 percer.t of ,~t area.
ill.ground
Subsequent to the City Council's adoption of Urgency Ordinance 3806 in ApriJ
1988, a Single-Family Subcommittee was apPOinted for the purpose of conductjng
studies and making recommendations for a comprehensivf revision of the R-l and
RE zoning regulations_ These studies culmlnated in the adoption of new
~;ngle-family rfgulat10Ms in November 1989_ ~s well, the Subcommittee
recolTl!lerlded a nll'mber of folTow-up studiES to address issues relat~d to Pa10
Alto's single-family neigl:barhocds.
One such foHow-up recolM'lendation was to consider establishing a "Sing1e-Story
Restriction/Expanded S;tf Coverage" overlay zone which could be applied to
various neighborhoods throughout the City_ The Subcommittee felt that City
provisions to encoura~e single-story versus two-story development were highly
desirable for the prote~tion of areas with a predominantly single-story
c.haracter, many ~f which are governed by private deed restridions al1ow;ng
only single-story homes. The Subcommittee recommended that an cutreach
program be initiated by the City to determine if any ne-ighborhoods desire the
adoption of such an overlay_
6-5-92
Pag' I
•
"......, , ,
.The outreach program has not yet been co~ducted. Hnwe~~r, the City has
recentlY rect!lved a request f .. orr. the ~a1niJt Gro.e H{,'meowners' Association (see
attach=uj for tne City to adapt restrictions for tra~ts 1128 a~d 1135 in the
Walnut Grove r:eighbornood which are similar to th .. He envisioned for the
"Single-Sf;cry Restricticn/fxpanded Site Coverage~ cver1ay zone. These
restrictions are consistent with existing pri~ate deed restrictions for the~~
tr~cts.
The Sinq1e-Story Height CQJ!1bining Dis.trict (S)
Since the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) provisions ~ere established in
November 1989, the Zoning Administrator has gra~ted a nu~ber of let coverage
exceptions of up to 40 percent of lJt al'"ea. The majority of these exceptions
have been for homes in rleighborhoods, such as the Walnut Grove neighb{)rhood,
where Eichler nr other single-story ar~hitecture predominates. Frequently,
the apprc~al of such an exception applicatton is justified by the desire to
preserve a home's architectural style and/or the single-story char-acter of the
surroundin9 neighborhood.
The proposed Single-Story Height Combining District (5) contain5 i single
story height restriction as well as. an increased lot cov.erage al1owa~lce of 40
percent of lot area. Staff belie:,oEs that the new (5) distric.t will
accommocate the development goa1s demonstrated by resldents in single-story
neighborhoods and at the same time support the P~io Alto Comprehensj'ole Plan
PQlicy to ·maintain the general lOlli-density character of existing single
family areas. II
Zone Map Amendment: The Walnut Grove Neighborhood
The area for wtdch the Si;,gle-Stcry Hl?igt1t Combining District (5) is currently
being proposed is defined by the boundar~e5 of tracts 1128 and 1135 in the
Walnut Grave Neighborhood (see attached fxhibit ~A·); East Charleston Road is
to the north, Adobe Creek is to the east and south, and single-family
properties are to the southwest. The tracts contain approximatel) one tlJndred
R-l(650) and R-l(743) zoned properties ranging In size fro~ 7,000 to B,500
square feet. Nearly all of these properties are de~-eloped ".-ith £ichTer or
Burke and Wyatt tiol.!ses constructed in 1953-·54 to an average size of
appro~imately 1.900 square feet.
The tracts in question are, by ~irtue: of fast ':har:eston Road and the 30-foot
wide flood control easement f~r Adobe Creek, a relatively well-defined
ge{)grClphic area for which to apply tne (5) overlay lone. Furt~ermore. sing1e
family propert~es to the soutnwest of the tracts were developed in the 1960-62
time period with larger homes of distiroctly dHferent arc.hitecture_
Staff Re-cowndatjon
Staff recomme:-nds that the Planning Com'!1iss;on adopt a motion: 1) approlnng
the attached Negative Declarat,on; 2) adopting the attached ordlnance for text
ameniJment; and 3) adopting the attac.hed ordinance for zone map amendment.
f' \fCSfI: \ ...... lnut, mtl
i :
1
I
I
J
I
1
!
o
,.Adopti~n of the ordinance 1S based on the fOllowing f:ndings:
.J
b)
The orciil'lilnce wn, have no .significant en'>ilranfl'lentai impact, as
documented ir the attach~d Negdtive Declaration.
Tne zone change will be in !ccord with the ~ala Alto Comprehensive
Plan in that it supports the polkj t.o ·maintail'l the g.renera.l 10ilf
der.sity character of existing sir.gle-family areas."
Re~pectful1y submitted.
A'I~c#12~
MICHAEL W. SILLS
Planning Technician
NANCY MADDOX LYTLE ~~
Z~ning Administrator
Attachments: iliegath/e Declaration
ihdin81iCes am! Si ... e loeatio" IIap (Exhibit 'A')
January ~!). 1992, letter from the Walnut Gr.a''''e Homeowners'
Association
May 26, 1992, letter a~d surv~y tall~y sheets f~om the
Walnut Grove Homeowners' Association
cc: Walnut Gro¥e Homeownen' Assochtion. Attention litsie Indergand,
President, 335 Ely Pllee, Palo Alto, CA 94306
~. \~S.R:\wal!1ut,1I'Ib
•
':
o
E~vironm~r.tal Documents -(ity rof Palo AHa
ENVIRONMENIt\U~~ESSMENT
Project Oescri.ption/T~tle: proposed ~dGRti~lLOf a single-story overJ_~Ll~
'IIIhich modifies the site developm~l1"L.!:£91Llatio~s {If the R-l or. R-I speci;,:d
r.eside!'1ti.al buildin . .9 ... 2itf!. combining aist.,.~ct_ti.-they pert;in tc the tracts _
identified bel~w.
locil:t1cn/Addjess: Wa1nutJirove Ne~ghbcrhooA.J1racts 1128 & 11351
Spensoring Agency/Appl tCcl~t: City <If Palo .tHo
Address iind TeTephorJe of Appli.cant: ILe..f_~.ttt:'lent of Planning a~d COr.m:iur,it"{
Environment. 25C Hamilton Ave~ue, Palo ~lto, CA 9430i~15' 329·2230
Application for: lone chan~
(e.g_, zoning changE, 5!.lbdiVi.i;iOn of property, arch~tectural review, use
permit)
Zoning at Project Location: R-l (650) ll--.R:li743 1 Fee Receipt No.:
NOTICE Of Of:TERMINATlD~
Based upon review of the project files, tM undersigned memb.er of tt1e Planning
Department has conc1uded:
ill Negative Declar.tion: The project h.s no significant environmer.t.l
;mpact~ No fnvlrcnmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Declaration ire:
in the attacn€d initial stuQy"'"
1:1 The prcject m~y ha~e a significant envtronment~1 lmpact. An
Environmenta1 Impact Rep()rt will be prepared.
Planning Dep.rtment Official: ~.d W. /i:.J!:, ~_~ _____ _
Planning Director: M,,_,f./±{ ~cL';;~___ Date: ~/2£.fq2-
The project has been approved.
The project rlas been d.enied.
Rev;sed 8/1/79 •
£lA/lOU
Date:
Date:
File No.: 92-fTA-14
92-EIA~14
Page 1
,
, n
'I t I
,-
,
-I
J
<i
o
.JfNVIRONMfNTAL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO
INITIAL STUDY' ..
I. Projoct THle/Address, Walnut Grove Neighborhood (Tracts 1128 & l135)
11. Project Description: Proposed adopJjQD...J!D_.sing~e-stQrv overlay zone
which modifies the site d~yelqcment reculations of the R·l or R~!
special residential byQdlng site combining distrtc..us they per!t-:-.~in:--;tC:o:-the above tracts, ____________________ , ________________________ __
11!. Environmental Sett1ng: Sinale-family detached res1dentiil neighborhpod
~ed almo$t exc'us~ ... ely of single-story Eich1er n or Burke and Wyatt
hOllses.
rv. En ... ironment.al Impact Checklist (Explanation of all "yes· answers are in
Section V)
I. Earth. Will the propos. I result in:
i. Unstable earth tonditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compac
tion or overcovering of the soil
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modj
fication of any unique geologic or
Physlcai features]
e~ Any increase in wind or water erasion
of so; 1 s, either on or off the s'ite?
f. Exposure of people O~ ~rop€rty to
geologic hazards such as eartnquake~,
lanas1ides, ~udslides. ground failure
or Similar hazards?
9. Cnanges in siltation; deposition, or
erosion which may modify the channel
of a r!ver or the bed of a bay or
inlet?
,.. Adapted from Appendix I, California Guidelines for implementc:tion of
(EQA, Oecember l~, 1976 .
•• Updated May 198/, June )983
[IACKI 92-EIA-14
Page 1
..L
_1-
EIACKl
?
·. -
o
Air. Will th~ ~roposa1 resu1t in:
a. SUD!itantial air emissions or de
terioration of dmbient air G~allty?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of a1r mO~'ementl moisture
temperature, or any change in cli
mate, either locil1j Dr regional?
3. Water~ Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drair.age
patterns, or the rate and amou~t of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
f1 cod waters?
c, Discharge into surface waters~ or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, inc1IJding but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbicH ty?
d. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground ~aters?
e. Expos'Jre of p-eople or pro?erty to
water related ~azards such as fl~od
ing Dr tidal wave?
f. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either th(~ugh direct
additions or withdrawals, or through
lnterceptions of an aquifer by ~uts
or excavations?
4. Plant life. I'ill th-e proposal result in:
i. Change in the diversity of species. or
number of any specl~s of plants (in
cluding trees, shrubs~ grass, cr~ps,
microfrora and aquatic p1ants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered speci~s
of plants?
--.!.-
92-UA·14
Page 2
•
...
EIACKI
c.
d.
o
Intr~duct1on of ne~ species of
pl ants into an area, or 1n a barri er
to the nOnTI~l reple:1is~'rJ~nt of
~x;sting species?
Reduction in acreage of aJ"',Y
agricu! tural crop?
S. Animal tife. Will tne proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of specias,
or of any sp€cies of animals (birds,
land anfmals including r~ptiles,
fish and shellfisn, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of ~ny
Ynlque~ rare or endanger~d species
of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result ir.
a barrier to the ~;9ration or move·
ment of animals?
d. Deterioration in existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
6. .t!2.i.H .• ill the proposal result in;
7.
8.
i. Increases in existing ~ol$e levels?
b. Exposure of peopl! to severe noise
levels?
~~nd Glare. Will the proposal
produce new lighi glare?
land Use. Wfl1 the proposal result in
a substantlal alteration of tne present
or planned land use of an area?
9. Energy/Natur.l Reso~rce$. Will the
propo~al result in:
iii. Use of .substantial amounts of fuel
or energy:
ill
92-EIA-J4
Page 3
_1_
_x_
[lACK!
iO.
o
b. SUb-stanti.al increase in demand UPO,I
existing sources of energy. or
require the develQP~nt of ne~
sources or energy?
C. Increase in the rate of jJse Qf any
natural resources?
d. Substantial deplet~on of a~J nanre·
newable natural resource?
Ri~k of Upset. Does the pr~posal
in~olve a risk of an explosion or the
release of hazardous substances (in
clud;ng~ but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset?
11. popul ation/HtHJUng.
a. Will the proposal alter the lecation,
distribution? denslty, or grQwth rate
of the human popuiation of an area?
b. Will the proposal effect existi~g
housing. or creatt a demand for
additional housing?
12. Iransportatfoo/Circulat1qn. ~jll the
proposal resu1t in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
Yehicuiar movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facili
ties. or de:1land for new parking?
c. A lterat i ens to present patterns of
circulation Dr movement of people
and/or goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Publ ic .Services. "'ill H.e proposal ha ... 'e
VES
an effect upon, or result in a need for ne~
or a1tered governmental s€r~ices in any of
the following areas:
""I
9,-EIA-14
Page 4
tl ~'I ,
I
I
I
~
'1
I
<,
, ,
;
'1
i
I
I
I
I
ElACKi
14.
o
i. Fir! prctectfun?
b, Police prot~ct1on?
t. Schoo's?
d. Parks or Gth!r rec.reatto:'1al
facilities?
e. Mair;ti!nance of public. facilities,
including roads?
f. Other go ..... ernlTlental ser'otlces?
Utilities. Will the propos.l result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
•• Power or natural gas?
b. ( .ATinuniCCltions systems'?
c. Water?
d, Sewer or septic tank?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid ~aste and disposal?
lS~ Human Healtn_ Will the proposal result
in;
16.
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (e)'c1ud1ng
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potent;.l
healtl'l hazards·~
Aesthetics. Will t~e proposal result
in tne obstruction of an~ scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
pr~posal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive ~!te open to
pub' ic vfe ... ?
L
.L
-L
_x_
, ...
£lACKl
17.
o
~eCr€iltjon. Will the proposCil result
In ~n tmpact upon the q~aliti or Quantity
of existing recreational opportuniti~s?
ill
18. Cultural Res<HJrces.
a. wn 1 the propes a 1 resu 1t in the
alteration Df/Clr the destruction
of a prehistoric or Mistoric
archaeological $;te?
b. Will tne propos.:!l resoJlt in ad
~erse p~ysical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or historic
building. structure; or object?
c. Dce, the proposal have the potenttal
to cause a physical change which
wou1d affect unique cultural .... a1ues?
d. ~ill the proposal restr1ct existing
rel 'fgious or sacred uses Iii; thin the
potential impact area?
19. Mandatort Findings of Signtficance.
a. Does the project nay~ the potential to
degrade the quality of the envir<lnment,
substantially reduce the habitat ~f a
fish or wildlife speCies, cause a fish
or ~;'dlife ~Dpulation to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threiiten to
eliminate a plant or animal communtty.
reduce the number or restrict the
ra~ge of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or elimir.ate important examp1es
of the major periods of California
history or prehi~tory?
b. Does the p)"'oject have the potential
to acnieve short-term, to the dis
ad\lantage {If long-term. €nvirol'1mp.ntal
goals? (A short-term i~pact on the
environment is. one 'Which occurs in a
relati¥ely brief, definitive period
of time whi1e long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
92-ElA-l4
Page 6
'"-~",',",,' .~ , ..
, , <
". ~\.
,
i
i
1
"
!
I
o
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulativel~ considerable? (A pr~
ject may impact on two or more
separate reSQ:,jrces where the impact
Q~ each resource 1S reTatively
small, but where the effect of the
total of tnose impacts on the
environment is significant.)
d. Does the project ha'/e env1 ronmer.tal
~ffects which will c~use subst~ntial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
r,
V. Explanation of ·yes· ans~ers in environmental checklist.
See attached.
[JACK! 92-E1A-J4
Page 7
...
o
3. wat~l.l. 8)' increasing the al1cIWabTe lot co ... erag~ provisions from 35~
to 40% ·of total let area, the project may (ause a n~gllgible ~ncrease in the
arilOunt of s·"rface wat2r runoff. 8ecause pa'ling is c:.Jrrently l.inrestrjct~d in
the R-l zone districts, it is just as likely, however, that the S~ expansion
for allowable lot co~erage wili repiace impermeable surfac~ wit~ permeable
ar~a. Residents in the R-J zone are being encourage by the Palo Alto Planning
Department's Sinale Family Residential Design Guidel1ne . .l. t{l Umit impenreable
surfaces. Therefore, the increas'S-d lot cOI;erage allowance will have a
negligible effect on storm water runoff.
The overall en~iror.mental impact of the project will be positive because tt
will preserv~ and maintain the existing low-density character and single-st~rj
ardlitect(JrE" of the neig~bornood. Thus, the proj~ct will further the
acni~\{e!J\E!nt of a key po1icy of the Palo Alto Cc-mprehens;"'e Pian: Policy 1-
Haintain the genera 1 Tow-density character of existing single-family areu,
Reinsertion of subsection (d) of Section 18,94.100 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Cede, which was irlad~ertentl.Y emitted in the adoption of Ordinance Nc. 4015,
on Ma~ch 11, i991, will have no significant env;ion~ental impact.
[lACKl
, ~-
91-ElA-J4
Page 8
-o
Walnut Grov~ . . Homeowners ASSOciation ________ ~J"")6 Ely Floc.
Palo Alto City Council
City P.all
250 Bam11t~ Avenue
Palo .ut::" Ca 94301
Dear Council Meabers:
P&!o Alto, Califo",i. ~3C5
January 1;, 1992
rile v.slnut Qro","e T:-ian,gh KOlMO'IIITlers' AI!II90Ciation requesu t~ Cfty
C~cilr8 ~on5ideratl~ of ~~ oya~1~1 L~ the the wo~dL~! of the ~o~L~g
ordina~ee3 for tvo tracts, Ira~t 1129 ~~d Tract 1135. vi~ the W~lnut
Grove Triangle, t~ witf
-All n~v construction, al well as additions to existing structures, ebBll
be limited to sin.sle fallily" homes n~ IIC~ th4n one stor'1 nor mora than 17
feet in hi!isht and with e. garage or cllrpOrt for no .ore than 2 oar8~1!
The boundaries of thege tracts are Dixon Place I East Charlutor:. F<08Q., and
Adobe Creek. also includina five houses on East Charleston between Adobe
Creek and Relson Drive. Ve are enclo~ing may! of the tract3 in questian.
T.'le ho...as in the-ilia two tracts IIIrl!! Eichlf!r Or' Burke and Wy!!tt ho~s. with
the exception of one n-ew home built about a year aso~ Moat of the bOlles
are oll!ler occl.IPieQ~ ~th of tM-:se t:.;. ... cts are covered by • COVf!Mnt which
has appeared on the title papers to:-all pr.,pert!~s L""l thi!!!> area since t~
original building. The wording of this co¥enant, III copy of wh1ch is
enclosei. approximates the ~ordL~g of cur requested over13Y.
We have COr.l.:!u=-t~d a .5tlrYey of t.."le tracts in ~uesti:)n te see ii the pr~sent
Olfflers are in favor of e:1fvrcing the t!xlstL":lg covena:-l!:. '1:Jy !IIea,'1S o!' thl.s
o .... !'rl.ey. .~ lIe-re able to cont«ct 66% of t.he resident oll":'".ers. Of those,
74% are in favor. 16~ are opposed, a~ do~'t Cg~.
We are aware of the Cou.."lcil'.s de.s1re to pre~rVe the cM':'"!l~ter of Ot..u-city
and it.! d.istinctive neighborhoo::ls and cDl:rl.!llend its recant actions in this
regard. This addition to' the z.oning ordir..ance lltill preserve the character
of ou: neishborhoo~ and avoid future conrl1et~ bet~een the e1isting
oovenant and the zonL~g o~dinance.
We urge the Council to 8~t po.sitively on this re~uest.
(415) 855-4072
-
..
o J ~~u~\um
Walnut Grove . lliJ
Homeowners' Associati _If""A'-CY-=2:.:cS_19_S,-c2 =0-------
De PAATMENT 01' PLANNING
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Palo Alto, California 94306
To: FalCl Alto Pla!'1."11ng Couissi('otl
Zoning C02miesloner
He: Requ~st for' Overby to ZOf'ling Ordin'!nc~. Tracts 1123 a1.d 11.35
iie have been Q·!vised that the P1Bn~1t'lg: C~:IlllIi3sio:"l :3.1 want b'9l":.k-'J.p
il"ltorttatio.'l to:) s;).bst.antiat.!' th~ re-sults of th~ neig.,.oorh::l:d. sUJ:v-':'j
which ~e s~b~ittej ~ith our re~~e~t.
The ~eig!-Jbo!'"s' ecncern st,U'"ted 1", t!-.e-Spring or 1990 wh=n :I h:l!.lSe va..!
dem~lls~d and the Gw~ers atte~pted to buil~ a 3ry l~~g~ t~o st~cy
MUS-:-. At that-tim"=' "We got .9. li!l!"ge nil'Ub ... r of ~ ... g:1E!tu:"es en a
petitio~, !IS Ii'~ll l!:9 elz.gbh [i:'lan.chi COrltr-i:Ju'::iot'ls, for tM purpoee
of retaining an attorney to .tte~pt to enf~rce th~ res~~icti~~3 whIch
appea. Da the titl~ papera of All o~ t~ss homes. Fortunately, it NSS
not ne.:o·es$i!ry t>3 take thi.!l matter to oourt as th~ owners of t./'!=
propeorty ill quoesti'.>1'l eh.ang;-d their p!I!l:'lS a.:1j built 6 oo":! story house.
RecS!'!ltly t:'"Ie B~ard of D.1r2'ctors or our Ass:)ciatioCi discussed
circul~ting a p~tition and g~ttin, si!~at~ces of thOse ho~~ o~ners in
Cllvor of the ov'!'rhy WI!' are req,uestifli;. J..:r attorney 91dvise;l us that
iii survey 'lfo:Jld b~ preferable since 8 body 8<.lch as tM Pl!!lnt'lir'l.,g
COlnllli38io:} or City Co-..mcil would fi~d it lIIuch easier to ::teal 'With 8
slJU;1le s ... t of numbers t rath~r th3.fl pag"i!'s .sn:j pag~s of Signatures. We
d.id. hOliever, keep our tally 3h~etl!ll Crom th'! .e~vey !ltld are .9ub~i tti~~
co~ies o!' these ~rewith.
At t.;"le" time this 9urvey was taX'!:) e:ich re~:5Io~ c;)n.tacte~ \rI9.S shown e
COp? of the lEtte~ we s"':;l!~e:1uently !I'!n.t to the C:;.ty CO" . .lI",cil a1:i askej
... hl'th~.r be or she was 1~ favor of r=~ue-lJtlnl this overlay. :l.":log c~lU'n.'1
he~dej ? r~~reaents p'!ople ~ho i~dioated they rea~ly did not cere.
L~J specific co~ments are notej in thA nr~~rks~ column.
lie hope thi.s helps to clarify our sur' .. -ay. If you "ave 3ny further
que£tio~s plea.se contact Litsie rnd~rg!l""I1, 335 Ely P19ce t Palo A.lto
94}Q6 415-955-4072.
II;;;' 5-
# Owner : re3arks
I : ' -t--Foot. ____ _
Xtle
---··~-'--~-./::~~-"":~::~~It-:-~~~----~--.~=---------
I _____ ~.-LI-~----~---+--------Ge.-n:any
I ,
._-'--L._~ __ +-__ +-_____ . ________ _
_ 'llSi,;j%!¥' __ J<C11r...9L Po l.2 . ..!tt~, '._
_~}~~2~ __ M~oU~,~~~~~ __
____ ...;, ____ 1. ______ . _____ _
, , i !
_._,~_-.-/ -1------,---...,----------.----------
i ~ ,
pr'3t.~Cll,,-_______ ._ ...... ___ +--',/'-._+ ___ ~I_------_ ,
-----L...-"v''-+---'T'.---t------.---. !
/ I : ~.i._.b."I&---_________ 2.--.: ___ _t__-
'929 SliMr
------------
t ; !" ~M ____ ~~i\l..a:2n ___ ~ ______ ~ ______ .! ___ . __ .__..0' __ , • ____ t __ t':... _______ ... ______ ~. _________ .
3950 Collins -----t--"" i --t----I---.-----.--.
i ,/! I _. I __ ---i-----. ____________ . ___ , __ . ____ _
---: I r(,,~(.( E'; -------f--------------
7£,.J[1 ! --_________ >_ ••
:::~~O~,---( -~:~l ~t'-----·--.J.--l-----:~_"vc--.:
I$',c ~ • ..J -L~·~ C\o)'lf r. ~ j .( \':~_~-=--, .-__ 1 ~ _ r ~
ms
3974
!sez
399B
-
I Ovne-;
___ ,~a~723 ____ LF~.r~.".~'~1~n~ __ __
3§8'F Davidson
DUh:::A!Il P.i..IICE
yea. no , : .r, ----;---' ----j v' i
1 / ----,
I
?
.",-,-
! t'em3rd
I
__ -2'z>905~_2·or""-" ______ _ , [f-__ J___ _ _________ _
---'9~lL1~ __ ~S~M~V~ __ _ L_ ~ l I .;-----------L _____ --:-_______ ' ______ _ , ' ,
_~ __ J!"'o • .,d!jlJ:o'-________ ---i_-",/~--L, --~-J--------l------,,--_. _____ -. ___ ."
___ ,2.~
~~
3951
J)e,vie-, 1 y"" I ;
Sa!!,,". If, ~(l+! ~+-----l---;--------------------\ -\' ~_'-I ___ no_ .~----.-_---------------------.----
::;-;; , ,I) I~· I ~--~-===--=-. 3955
3909 __ .. ----1-______ ~ ______ '
El..Y PLeE
I 1-''''''-----------------------
_-"''L7Z9 ___ -!Xl!I~.!J.1~9 ________ ~ _....!! _________________ _
l ,.. , + ____ 4., ___ ..-_____ 1-_____ J.
363 ' V' -i _="-_---"""'Ox'--___________ -1 ______ --+ _____ . __ ' __ . _ ,-! __ . ,
J?1 Prealey
355 "iller/Whitis 0/.' I
::: ____ --':,,:,~:~:~'_!:'-_-_-_-~_-~::--fj---'":---:---=-j: -~~~=l ==_~ ~~ -~_--_~-~-~-__ _
36:J IOClS_t"l V:r~(:" -f 1
~,','-'---'-----;': --~
.....
,
o
Ovnar , .. nc
.'-"-_--'~"'i"I"I"'."r __________ +_----------~----------.------_. _____ ,.
H.I rr 1:5 em y"/ ~""'---==""'--------+--"-----------.-------
--~ -~---~-----~-. --------_.----
-._-( -~. -.-. _._; ._--------
_="-_-,,,4h~nB/~r:-l_~FlIQ ___ .. __ ~-----:../------;_---------.-. ___ ._
. I r t.r j' 1. t".' .. _------"-----------+------
I
-----, !':'_----_._-.;-
i
__ ~~~~~~~t~h ______________ _+----------~----.~ -------------
_-"''''--_-''""ar,,"..,o'''r ... f _______ -._-f--"c.. ___________ . _______ . ___ . ___ . -_
_ ~~_~Lu~"~d~1n~ _______ ~~-~v-----.~--~--.-------
Lo. ,/ -------If---------.--.----.----.------.. -.. ---t •
_....,,"'-_-"La""nd"'i'-______ --c. ___ ~,,~---_-' _____ '-_________ . __ . __ ._ .....
Her'Zoo:! (~~
_~~_~Lo~·~n ________ . __ _ .(----..,..---l----------.-.--..... .
: I . ! ----
!>atti ,.. I
CARLSON COURT
!
~ __ ~E'Inerney
}B4~ __ ~P~~~ ____ _
~3,,!"'3C!.7 ___ _"'Lu ther
I Owner'
}S35 Ant::!:::!
~ lIIJas;uire
~60 CrSh!UD
}S66 !Ia,t
IB?2 $etu:,itz
3863 C~bb
:::
1/3£'
C:IXON' PLA CE
1 , ..
I
",'
I 0/
./
V
?
':. J" "-",~ ~ J ,
> 1-PSO"·f/$ ('i '/,-.i£..
1 ~r" e "'~f-' .' ,of ',·t r .. "', Cd 4" ...:.!.;-{,
J
, -.------I~-_ __L_ _ _+------
_"=,,,5 __ ->C,,,ry ... ""t.~1 ____ . _______ 1 .L_~ __ _ I_ .L~_~
!.~RLESl'ON
-
'-:
i
.I
I
.j
~!
271 S!ttttO Uf :'
254 B,10
•
\
o
J -
,~",,-,,~~,~
" ,
( i
L
ORDINANCE NO.,~~~~
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO .~LTO
AMENDING TITLE 18 [ZONING] OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL C.'ODE TO ADO THE SINGLE-STORY HEICHT (S)
COMBINING DISTRICT
The council of the city of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
folloW's:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.13 is heret;y added to Title 18
[Z")ni!lg] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follo'llTs:
~a~!:."r :n ;,1,3
i;~l;!;~lI!!,~~ CO!GUlNG
D;S!'lUCT(S) RJro1ll,.ATrONS
U"%li"'O """';iloiil..g_ap dlingiDO:l:l"'" "'AreO'ffithliaFt'hol ~~~;,;~e~1:(,:c,mj,ill~ dist,ria!; shall b"de"i9l'''t.edorl,~
~" ~:;b1,~ .. "¢~l"·S.,,withtn,,p .. rentheses, "following theR"~
!i%'illPP;t;.l:!e:b:i:e'speoia'lr:'isidential lluilding site coml>ining dist..J:!ct
-(R-l'(155Cf)'"a-1 (7,,3), R-l. (ll29) ,or 1<-1 (t8SS)) desi9Mtlon,with
fl)d:cl!.,it ,18 CcljDbinoo. ' ,
."":J~nO.i!:.e,d.""lopael1t regulation.. ¥or "ite .. wl,thi" ~,il~M,~b$lght"cO>Iblnin'1 "d,isi:rlct, tl,e ,following .1t.
1!I1lY~~iir~ .. t~ollsishall apply in lieu of the ~therwis ..
~li<;:abl<i ait ... ,Qeyelop .. ent regu lations of Chapter 18.:12 {R:-l);.
(~)',>Hiii'l'1i~,'l'he ""'xiii .... beight shall be 5.1817 _tars
(~,~~Jit~.~f1;~ :,~eetL., ,as m.e~~,~:red to the peak of the roof. ' '
(b} Hab~t'lillle'floor ,lilllitaUons. There shall be a lillH;
1ii:'<Jt!&,lllillitallleifi90r."Habitable floors inclUde lofte, _,..anin ....
~.':_':'~~il.r areas,',bu~':exclud~ base~nta ..
(el Sit,,'coverag" is regulated as tollovs,
(l)~,ma"imlll!1 buiiclinC; site coverage shalllle forty
pe,,~t: of t.hesite a1"<!il'
1
I
"!
i ,
I
I
i
~IQN 2, The council finds that ~~is projact will have
no significant environmental effect,
~~
commencement of the
adoption.
IN'l'ROOOCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORI!:
This ordinance ahall be
thirty-first day after
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
effective
the date
on
of
the
its
;enior Asst~ City ~ttorney
Director of 'F7i~n~a~n~c~e~---------
2
Director of Planninq and
community Environment
-
o
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCI~L~O~F~TH~E CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO ADD THE SIJiGLE
STORY HEIGHT COMBINING OISTRICT (S) DESIGNATION TO
CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE WALNUT ~ROVE NEIGHBORHOOD
The council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
S2CTIP~ Se.ction 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "'Zoning Mapw, is hereby amended by changinq t e zone
clasBificatio~ of the property located 50utt1easterly of Charleston
Road, generally known as the Walnut GrQve neig-hborhood., and more
particularly shown on Exhi~it -A-, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference, to the "s (Single-story Heiqht Combining)"
zoning classification, concurrent vith the underlying zoning
classification and any other combining zoning district
classification thereof.
SECTION 2. The council finds that this project will have
no &~qnificant environmental effect.
SEC'l'IQN 3 t
commencement of the
adoption,
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES,
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
This ordinance shall be
thirty-first day a!te~
A_PPROVED:
Mayor---
effective
the: date
on
of
tbe
its
~~~~~------------city J(anaqer
Senior Asst, City Attorney
Dired:cr of Finance
:">','-". ~
~-:;:':~ :-f,
Director of Planning and--
Community Environment
; ~, .
PF
SITE LOCATION
Walnut rove
F I
L
L
'::~'."' .. '",,-.
", ~.
" ,;;.
" , -:.,.-
~ r";;r'
"·~~1i.·
• ,
j
j
J
I
I
" .'
~.' .:;--
-
o P ........ ;., (.,.. .... ss.'" .... -::
"Theodore !vi. and Frances C. Jenkins
3864 D'J'lCan Place
Palo Alte" CA 94306
Palo Alto City Planning Cc..mmiso.ion
City Hall
Palo Alto 1 Ca.lifornia 94306
Dear Planning Comrnlssio::1 members;
r-"--"";'"'7-~ -~'~:
'JUN 1 a 1992 Ma.y 27, 1992
Vle've been told that you are considering encoding certain zoning restrictions for the
neighborhood in which we live (\Vahl'.lt Grove). \;Ve wish to make our concero~ and objections
known before any such rest.rictions a.re made. Contrary to those objections already ma.de
by others which are b'l .. <;cd primarily on econoIT,ir. considerations, oJ.:r:s are strictly ethit::<...1 ii:
l1ature.
\\"e ha. ... e perha.ps a naive view of government in this count.ry, government which is ern
powered to protect and promote the welfare of its citiz€'T's. This entails watching over the
rights of its minority opinions as well as those of a majority. Furthennor€ Wr': fed t.hat change
i!l the aa.ture -of t.hings, and should never be restricted without good reason. Particu!a:1y,
cha.nge shouldn't be restricted simply t.o "'ppea.<>e a desire by the majority to maintain the
status quo. If change is t.o be regtllated ou.t, it. s.hould be done only for a good cause. \l/e
ca.n thjnk oi a few examples where such char~ge has beeu reguhted in the past:
1. \Vbere an area. has been designated as an bistoricaJ or architecturally irnpoIta!Jt ;;~te
hy .... qualified non-partisan commission;
2. Where the ecology of an area won't support change;
3. \\rtJ.ere change would result in unacceptable burdens on those living in the area. (as was
done by Prop 13).
\Ve see none of the above r~i'..suns for r~st.ricting ;::hange in these two neighburhoods,
though we would welcome a comrni.s"ion to determine !f we do have any histori_ca\ Dr archi
t.ecturally rl;!deeming qualities. Instead we :iee perhaps an attempt to t.ake a. !egicna.l covenant
of questionable legality and cloak it under the a.u.'ipices of the city chart.er. \\,ha! we rannot
see is why the Planning Commission would entertain such a questionable restriction.
We belie .... e a. gO\'crning b,)dy should avoid th .. appearance of a.bruga.ting their trust .. lid
duties -one ofwhkh is to protect minority opinions: or groups a..g-ains( th~ thrust of a majority
whene .... er possible. Simply for a .group within a city t.i) a.nnounce that t.hl! majority within a
few hbck area gives 't.hem reason to dicrAt.e for that few block area rules wbich are different
from those for the rest of the city as a '.dIDle is contrary to most. of what we understand (.1.
civil government-in this counrry. Specifically \,;e would reiterate that fOT the cit ..... itself tD
impose a. set of laws upon certain subregions within a. civil government which a.re ciiffr.Icnt
Irom those impOS€d UPO[l the rest of ttlf! city .... iihout good and substantia! reasons (and well
documented) is i ntolcrabJe.
,-
-,
•
"
;' ,
page 2 M.y 27, 1992
Tb,o;orefore we ask, what are the good and subst.antia! rea..<.o!Js for the restrictions being
wllsideie:1 here?
'-~.'.'.' ~~.
I
j
i
!
June 10, 19~2
S,..J(b "",', +,"c:l .. t PJq".j • ..,
·~O """';'$'S;'" he' ..... .,
To: city of palo JI.+lto, planning Comrd.ssion
From: Evelyn, Oliver Preston
'JIJ!J 1 Q 1922
3~lS Duncan Place, Palo Alto r CA 94306
Re: Zoning Amendment
In addition to the concern8 included in the attached letter,
there are five (5) points which I believe preclude any
restrictions to city-wice zoning already in place.
.l ~ The Walnut Grove Assaciatio;1 is a recently formed 9 toup
which, during the past 30 years of our horee ownership,
has held no meetings nor made any attempts to commu.nicate
with residents. It remains a one-iss~e (anti-second
stories) or9anization.
2. This -association-has never spoken for any ho~eowner
concerns prior to the second story consideration last
year and was hastily formed to pressure one homeowner
into changing existing ;::ity approved plans foz: a two
story home. Even the latest concern ovpr removal of the
existing foot-bridge over renovated Adobe creek has not
moved this so-called neighborhood organization to work on
a homeowners' consensus to address the divisive issc~ of
a proposed large, bike-path bridge that would heavily
impact adjacent residents.
J. Greenmeadow, ~earby, has had a long ~~d active
neignborhood association with regular meetings, fees and
prohibitions for all residents Que to its communal
facilities, much as a condominiu~ co~munity. This is not
and has ne .. ~er been the situation in Walnut Grove.
L palo Alto, as a city ... nas strict pe!'mit guidelines fer
prQperty renovations, approved Qur--and other nearby-
second story aoditions over the years, and allows second
stories in all other neighborhoocs throughout the city.
5. Arbitrary limitations on homeowner !:ights often lead to a
less desirable neighborhood with more chance of increased
absentee ownership resulting in undermaintained rental
properties. ].., preponderance of rentals can severely
impact any neighbcrhood more than an upgrading by Owiii:r
residents 'With renovations that might inc!l..;de the
occasional second ,story. As evidenced in the most ~ecent
new hamel one story homes need not adhere to the original
open-plan style (environmentally unsound in the '90's),
and can adversely affect the much touted desired ambiance
with outsized (albeit single story) homes.
XI L !Hfln"*--'~ , ... , ..
. -\~\~(
e· t ~'.
-
. .
.::.:_"~c·. __ .. ",.., ______ ..-,,-__ "'-,;,....._
EVE.I.YN R. PR!::STON
;l51a O""'C~N ,.L. ... clr
sept. la, 1991 PAl..(! i<:. TO, CA. ... '0<1
Deer Neighbors:
I am a 28 rear resid~nt of Duncan Pla~e ~nd have chos~n not
to join the proposed R(..l!'ieOWner's Assoc:iatio!'.~ A nurobel: of
residents have echoed ~y own concerns that tha m~in issues
the a9Boclation intends to add~ess are not i~ the best
interest of property owners. This letter is to share the
reasons for this' concern and alert you to possible
consequences of arbitrary action.
1) Single story limits -The palo Alto city code co~tain~
strict guidelines for renodeling and additions and was
arrived at after ~uch discussion and o21iberaticn. A
visit to nearby neighborhoods "1'111 prove that well
design~a homes of land 2 stoties are in keeping with the
increased land vBI~es which add dollars and desirability
to a Palo Alto adaress~
2) Precedence -Thete are 2 nearb.:t' homes--rr,y own included-
with partial second stories, bl1.,ilt to code ana
unchallenged by neighbors at per~it hearings, plus a
large, lovely ne~ house at Duncan and Ely quite different
from the limited 50's size and style of older homes.
3) property values -As a realtor and investment counselor
for the past 9 years, it is my expt::rience that to
restrict individual ,property rights berono existing
citywide codes will greatly r~duce resale value of out
propel'ty. This dO¥fngrading of property values ..,111
immediately affect original and older o,..,'ners ... 'ho may
desire to sell in the neaL-terrn~
4) Legal ccnsegu~nces -Should any current or fut~re owner
decid~ to challenge a single neighborhood rezoning that
restricts property rishts or downgrades land val~es, the
ccst of defending these measures will legally fallon the
associaticn~ i suggest that association members consult
an attorney to ascertain their individual financial
responsibility as well.
r close with a reminder that the value ~f our property is in
the land and not in the structures; restrictive ~easures are
mainly punitive. Change is inevitable" and it \oIOL:ld be
better aesthetically" ethically and econcmically to work
toward accommodating change by honoring irldividual property
rights ~ithin city suidelines~ This is my person~l
understandirlg of a true neighborhood community.
•