Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0196.093- March 12, 1993 HONORABLE CITY COUN~IL Palo Alto, california 17 GREENMEAOOW NEIGHBORHOOD TRACTS; SINGLE-STORY HE1GHT COMBINING I2.I§.TRICT IS) OVERLAY ZONE MAP AMENDMElIT.... Members of the Council~ Raport in ~ This report ~orwards to Council a Planning Commission recommendation ,n a proposed zone map amend.ment to apply the Single-story Height Combining District (S} regulations to tracts 1310, 1401 and 3074 of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, as well as five properties located within the adjacent Walnut Grove ne" ghborhood alonq East Charleston Road between Adobe creek and Neison Drive {see attached Exhibit ·A~)~ The single-Story Height Combining District (S} regulations modify the site development requlations of the R-l single-family residence district by limiting the heiqht of structures to a maximum of 17 feet and one habitable floor, and incrLasir,g the allow-able lot coverage to 40 percent of lot area. a.ackground Following public testimony on this item at the Febzuary 10, j993 Planning Commissio~ meeting, the Commission unanimously passed a motion recommending approval of the zone map amendment for Greenmeadow I and II (as 'Well as five properties within the adjacent Walnut Grove neighborhood), yet excludin9 those 27 prope~~ies located in Greenmeadow III (see attached Exhibit -A-). Al though recoqnlzing the Greenmeado\o:l' II! area ~s overall conionr,ance with the adopted (S) overlay zone guidelines, the Commission 'Was uncomfortable with the relatively low response rate of GreenmeadQ~ III property o'Wne:t's, to a Green:rneadoW' community Association survey regarding imposition of Q single-story heiqht restriction~ Therefore, upon making their recommendat,ion, the Planning CMR: 196: 93 I , ~-! -. .. ' - ._"~.~._ .... ..-~-_ .•. !I~J p. Commission urged that further outreach ~a solicit more responses from property ovners within Greenmeadow III might prove beneficial to o!;ssisting the Clty Council in ma.king its decision on tj'l_e map amendlTle:.t. ~oalysis: Greenlllli;!adglM III Voting....1..AllLLrevisedl since the February 10, 199) Planning Co~issien hearing, additional &urvey efforts by the Greenmeado~ community Association h~ve produced a 92.6 percent response rate within G-reenmeado...-III demonstrating an increased level of support by property o~ners for a single-story height restrictior~ iT. the neighborhood (see attached revised EXhibit "B"} ~ Out of a total of 27 property owners, 19 were in favor ,70.4 percent), 5 were opposed (18.5 percent), 2 did not participate in the voting (7.4 perce~t), and 1 had no opinion (J.7 percent). ~t~ff RecQmm~ndation Based upon additional survey findings from the Greenmeadow co1Dltunity ~:r...ssociation, staff reco1l'lmerlds that the City Council adopt staff I 5 original recomI!lend~tion to the Planning Commission, to adopt the attached Negative Declaration and approve the Ordinance amendi:nq the zone map for-all properties sho~n in Exhibit -A­ ,"Greel\..meado'ii lleighborhood Tracts!'ll) based upon the f"ollo'W'ing findings: a) The zone map amendment ~ill have environmental impact, as documented Negative Declaration (9J-EIA-2); no siqnificemt in the attached b} The zone map amendment will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it supports the policy to "maintain the general low-density character of existing single-family areas~~ Respectfully submitted~ MICHAEL W~ BILLS Planning Technician ~wa2lvMvu k~ FLEMING ,~-.----r- City Manager CMR: 196:93 p:Io::mt'~cmr '/rit;;ca/z ~dl:,:jl'> KENNETH R. SCHREIBE~ Director of Planning and commuI"'_i ty Er:y ironll1ent 3/11/93 Page 2 ~ , Atta:=hmants: Planninq commission Staff ~eport of 2/5193 Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of 2/10/93 Revised Survey Response Map (Exhibit "S") Lett.ers received from publ ic CC! Planning Commission Joan Revis, president, Greenmeadow Co~unity Association~ ~03 Parks ide Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Louise Herrinq, c/o Greenmeadow community Association, 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Litsie and John Inderqand, c/o Walnut Greve Homeowners' Associati(')n, 336 Ely Place, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Carol Stevens, 193 Ferne AV8nue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Sue al'1d Stan Sucher, 4094 Sen Lomond Drive~ Palo Alto, CA 94306 Ken Crittenden, 342 Parks ide Drive, Palo Altc, CA 94306 Carrol! Rankin, 372 Parks ide Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR:196:93 F:~·e." 3/11/93 Page 3 ~ ~ ! ::. -I 1 I i I ., '1 ~ i i i i oj I i ---~--~----~-----~ Februarj' 50, 1993 PlANNING COMMISSION ~al0 Alto, California Members of the Co~jssl0n: Report in Btlef I' 0. BO' lOtS!) fA~O Hrc.. !:A 94 !.J': Thls staff report addresses a proposed zone ~!P amendment to adopt the Sjngl~~ Story Height Combining District (S) regulations fer tracts 1310, ]401 and 3074 of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, as well as 5 properties located within the adjacent Wa1nut Groye neighborhood alo'"'9 East Charleston Road between Adobe Creek and P4elson Drive (see attached Exhibit "A"). lhe Sing1e-Story Height Combining Dfstrict {51 regolat1ons modify th! site development re9ulations of the R-l single-family residence district by limiti~g the neight of structures to i ~ax1mu. of 17 feet and one habitable floor, and increasin9 the al'o~ahle lot coyerage te 46 percent of lot area. Backgrgund Acting upon i September 16, 1992 request from the Greenrnead~w Cornm~nity .a.SSOciit1on, the City Council, at their November 1&, 1992 m€eti~g, adopted a II"IOtion authar'fling City initiatiol'l of a Si.,gle-stary overloelY zone map amendment for Greenmeadow Gnd referral of the item to the Planning CD~issian for considerati en (see attached staff report (Otf?:500:92)). E.arlier, in July 1992, the City Council nad adopted the Single-Story Height (omb1ning District {S} regulations as part ~f tne lening Ordinance and applied th~m to the Walnut Grove neighborhood, adjacent to Greenmeadow. Then it their December 14, 1992 meetin9 the Counci 1 adopted a set of {5J allerl ay lone !;uidelin!s which are intended to assist City staff and dEcision makers lr1 the considerition of (S) overlay lone map amendment requests. Although the gl.lidelin.es were approved !.ubsequent to the Greenmeadow COlMlunity ASSocliUon's efforts to prepare for this Zone map amendment propo~al, the criteria remain LOseful for analyzing the Association's request. • -- ,'" , , i i I , - o H.e (S) District 9l!idelines cor-tain the fonowing preamble: ~Fo,. neighborhoods in which there are no single-story de~ restrictions, or where such ~estrictions exist yet ndve not been strictly !dhered to, applications are e~ be eva 7uated throlJgtr more r7gor'olJs :J'se vf these gu;de-1fnes. However. for those neighborhoods that contain lnd hue been de't'elaped co."Jsistent ",i!,~ a :5ingie-story deed restrictfon, these guidelines are to be treated with a great~r degree of flexibility." Of t~e 270 properties in the Greenmeadow tracts, 243 are Tocated in Greenmead~w i and II (see attached tXMibit ~A~J whp.re 0 ~one )tory~ covenant restriction is currently in force. The remaining 27 properties, known as Greenmeadow III, cor:tain iii covenant which permits homes to be as iarge a!. ~two·and-one-half stories.-Additionally, the application includes 5 properties within the adjacent W~lnut Gro~~ neighborhood. These parcels have a single·stor)" covenant restriction. These properties are Ute only Walnut Grove sites not current1y subject to the (S) District regwlatio~s. as they were 5pecifical1y exclwded during a pr~vlous application of the {S, overlay. At the tim£. the (O!Tl11iss;o-t"t reconmended excluding Hie Slots, Uley cCnt'i':I'i!r:ted that these parcels would ~re logically fall within the boundaries of a Greenmeadow (5) overiay district, such as that now proposed. 1. Lave) and Format of Owner Sucport "An applfcation for an (S) over1ly zone map amendment shouTd meet ",7th "overwhe7JflJng" support by owners :Jf ~ffectea" properties. These "'MIners /lUst demo-nstrifte. by pro'r'idlng docuJIlent.ufo" tl'rolt indudes a IIIritten 1ist of signatures, an understanding that. they are ca~i.pp!jCiJ:i'lts in a zone map a~ndment request.~ A(cording to a letter dated September 16, 1992 from JoAnn Revis, President of the Greenmeadow Community Association (see attached), nomeowner responses to a neighborhood survey regarding imposition of a si~g'e-story h~ight rest~iction in rireenmeadow indicated strong o,,'erall support (7B.8% in favor. 16.1% opposed). The rate of responsE and le\le1 of sup~ort exhibit£'d by property owners within Gree!'lmeadmll' Ill, where memberst1ip in He Community Association is provided but a sing1e·story co~~nant is not imposed, ~a5 slightly lower (11.4% in favor, 13,8% opposed). Using survey i~fonmation pro\lid~d by the Greenmeadow Community Association, stlff has prepared a survey response map (see attached Exhibit ~B") in order to Visually demonstrate the g-eographic dispersal of Greenmeadow proper-ty owners who favored imposition of a single-story ~eight restrictiJr.. As the Greenrneadow survey was conducted prior to tne formulation of tne (S) overlay zone gUidelines, it was not specifically designed" to solicit owner signatures. f~!verthel!ss, staff feels that the sUr\ley form u5ed adequately c~unicate~ to respondents the {S) o~erlay zone concept and th~ Association's intention to use the sur~ey results to purSUE a zone map amendment request. P;\bill.\grnmd •. pc 1·05-93 Page 1 • , . , <"-. ----------*'- 2. Apgropriate Boundaries -An app7fcaticn far an (5) overlay zone map 8mendment sf1ou1d be accomplnied by I. map indicating the address 1ocatio;; of those ~ne"s who are co-app1 jCiints far the rezoning req~e5t. Bounda.ries which miy correspond wfth certain natlirll1 or man-made features (i .e. roachays, it'lte ........ ys, tract tJound.ries, ttc.) shouTd defil1e an j.:!~ntjh~b7e nefghborhoCld or development. These boundaries tti11 be r-ecommendt:d t;J the P74nf,ing COflflJiss(on and City Councn by the CityJ s ZoM"ng Adm; tJ j s t ra tor, '" After field observitlon, st.ff believes that the Greenmeadaw tract boundaries themselves define a reasonab1y identifiable neighborhood partic~'arly distingu:shed frDm its surroundings by its Eichler architecture. Single­ faMijy homes located o~tside the prcposed boundaries to the south of GreenlTleadow have been designed primarily in a s ing1e-story nnch sty1e. Furthermore 1 severa1 of t~ese homes outside tne proposed boundaries oc~upy corner lots whose $treet orientation lead occupar.ts to identify themselves more with their neiS,-lbors across the street, rather tnan with the Gree!1ll1eado'W neighborhood along the1r rear property 1iTl02S. To the north the Gt-eenmeadow neighborhood is bou,.ded by Adobe Creek; to the w-est ;s low-density multiple fimily housing. a church, and the YWCA along Alma Street; and to the east are tnt Cubberley Community Center and th~ Charleston Shopping Center. Those 5 Walnut Grove properties Which .ere i'xcluded during a previous (S) overlay map amendment are recol!J1lended for inclusion with this map amendment because if left out they wo~ld be the only residential propert;~s located on the south side of East Charleston Road between Alma Street and Hiddleffeld ~oad not design.ted with the (S) overl.y. 3. Ere-vaiTing Sinale-Stan Character '"An irei proposed for an (5) over-1ay zone map amendment shou1d be of i prevliTing sfngle-stQry char-acter where tile vast majortty of exist ing hOJJes are sing?e-stor-y, tf"JS l i !niting the number of struct(Jr-es rendered noncompTyinS by the (5) olierlay. N~ighbor!Jood$ currently subject to sing7e-story deed restr-iet/ons should be cur-rently develQped in a m8nner­ consistent tJ'ith those deed restrictions. furthermore J it 7'S desirab1e that hO/f>es be sfmi1ar in age, design and character, ensun-rrg that residents of an are, proposed for rezoning possess 1i}(e desires for neighborhood preservatfon and face co","on flome remodeling constraints." The Greenmeadow neighborhood is composed exclusi ..... ely of Single-story Eicnler homes constructed from the rnid-195C"s to F.!arly 1960's. Th~refore, imposition of the (5) overlay reinforces f~istin9 deed restrictions in Greenmeadow I and Il, which haVE-been uniFormly obse' d, atld establishes a singl~-story height limitation in Greenmei" III whe, ~ ':l strl.lctures currently exceed such height. Those S prop" es within the adjacent Walnut Grove neighborhood, which are; nc1 uded '11/; t tni s zone map amendme:lt. are de-vel opec' -.1th s ;n91e­ story Burke and Wyatt homes that are consistent with e~isting deed ~stricti:ons, >:\bi l1s\grnmdw.pc 2-05-93 Fage 3 --.--------------------.-------.------~~:-:--:::~ .. 4. Moyer"te tot_~ "'In Drdtr to "'intain eqtJ1tab]~ proper-ty oe).'e-lDpme,lt n"ghts within an (5) over}~'y area comJ'~r'ed tc oth~r sites .,iftUn the R-l zone districL an area proposed for an (5) c";.f'rlay lone map amendment shcIJ7d be cnaract€rized by moderate iot sizes with a gt:f)era7]y consistent letting pdtterlJ. A moderate Jot size is to be defif'1~d as 7,000-3,000 square flet ... The Gre~nmeado" neighborhood (1, II and III) is char~cteriZ€d by a cunsistent lotting pattern composed of numerous cul-d€-s3c streets. Howe~er. the size of lots in the tracts varies acrc~s a considerably greater range than the ~i'!Ioderate'" lot size definition abo .... e, genenlly ranging from 6,000-9,,500 square feet (see attached lot siz.e ta,11,)' sheet). According to data 'Subrn1tted by the Greenmeadaw Community Assoc.iation. the desire on the part of owners for imposition of an (S) Civerlay ap.c.ears to be independ~nt of the size of their property. Those properties within Greenmeadow III, where a slngle-story co~enant is net ~mpQsed, range in size frorn 7,:·CO-S,50C sqt;ar~ feet.. Tab1e 1 below illustrates the net house size change (in square feet) that occurs iiS ii result of imposition of tt'1e {S) overlay, c.ompar-ed to · .... hat is ctJrrent1y allowable under the R-1 floor-area-ratio formula, TABLE 1: Property De .... elopment Poter.tial LOT SIZE CURRENTLY ALLOW!IJ!LE PROPOSED ALLOWA~LE NET C~GE (n') HOUSE SIZE (n ) HOUSE SIZE (F!J (n ) ~---6~0~OO~--~ ___ ---2~,~5~50~--~------~2~,4~O~O------~----~1~50~--~ "]. 500 ~3 ,ooe Same 0 "'Regardless of the outcome of a 40C'; lot co .... erage c.alcuiation under the Single­ Story Height Combining District (S} regwlations, nD property is permitted to be developed beyond the c.urre~t R-l flocr-area-ratio farmwla_ Ther€fore, the property development potential of lots wn~c::!i ha're in Excess of 7,S()O squa.-e feet ;s determined by the floor-~rea-;atio cal-:ulaticr'l (.45 for the first 5,000 square feet of lot area, and _30 for an) portion of lot area in excess of S,OOO square feet). The i:--ea propc5ed for this (5) overlay zone map amendment c1ear1y !lathfies criteria 13 (Prevailing Single-StDry Chuacter). As well, staff feels that the design and results of the Greenmelldow (orr.munitjl Association's sur .... ey demonstrates a level of pr~perty owner ~upport which ~eets criteria #1 (Le~el and F'Jrmat of Owner $IJ??Ol"'t}. Glljen th'l5t the G1-Hf1meadc,'fj 1",e~9hborl'1ood. tan be distinguished from its surroundings by its single-famiTy residential land use and single-story Eichler architecture, it is feTt that the bo~ndaries of this zone !!lap amendment satisfy criteria #2 (Appropriate-Boundaries}, Lastly, although the size of lots wlthin the area proposed for this (S) olJerlaji zone map amer.dment ¥arie$ across a cDnsider~bly greater range than the nmoderate~ P: \b i 1 i s\grnmdw, pc-2-05-93- Page 4 lot size defined in criter'ja .4 (Moderate lot Sizes). ddta indicates that onl~ sma11 net change-s in alioW!able prcperty development will occur as ! result of ir,pos1tfon of t~~ (51 ~~erTay. In particular. the property development ri~hts of OWnel"S witnin G.ree~meadow jIr, wher-e a single-stct'y coven;>f',t 1S not cUl'"rently imposed, will be largely !.maffected, par'ticularly when the lo~t grour.d floor sQuare footage f~r a stairw~ll to a second·story is considered, ~~ff RecoQmendttl~n Staff recolTll1el"lds that the Planning COmmis5 1on recom'fler'ld that the City Courlcil adopt the attached Negati~e DeclaratiO!i and approye the Ordinance amending the lone map based upon the fol1owing f"indir:gs: a) The zone map amendment wi1l have no signiflcant environmental impact, as doci.!m~nted in the attach~d Negath'e Declaration (93-EI4-2) ; b) The zone ma~ amendment will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that it supports t~~ policy to ~maintain the general lo~~density character of existing si~gle-famiIY areas,- Respectfully 'wbmitted, MICHAEL W. BILLS Planning Technician -11,.,,'(r /"i1. ~ __ - NANCl IWlDOX LYTlE Chief Plan~ing Official Atta.chments~ Negative Declara.tion Ordinance and Site location Map {Exl;;bit "ABj Survey Response Map (Exhibit "8") Stoff Roport of II/i2/92 (CMR:500:9?) tl"'eenmeadcw Community Assn. SL1rvey Talley Sheet. submitted at Phoning COI'lll',ission. hearing of 10/28/92 cc: Jean Rev:s, PrE'sident~ Greenme .. dow Ctmaill.inity ASSOCiation. 303 Park,ide Dr;,e, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Louise Herring~ '/0 Greenmead.ow Community Association. 3945 Nel,on Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 lHsie and Jolm Indergand, '/0 Walnut Groye Homeowners' Associatjon, 336 Ely Pl.,e, P.lo Alto, (A 94306 P:\bills\grnmdw.pc 2·05-93 Pige 5 .. .. , , " ------------------~.~.-.~ HNlRONHENTAl DOCUMENTS· CiTY Of PALO ALTO mYJRONMENl AL ASSESSMENT ~ject DelcriptiQn/Title: ZQne mao amendrTl_ent to adoot the Sinole-Storr ~t_ C.ombi'ning Distr1ct (51 regu1atio~wbich modify tj1.L1-ite de"e1oRmeo1 l..uJations {)f the R-! singl_e-fami1y rgs1.a'ence distrtft Q.:t...J..im..1J..inUhe hl#J.Sht structures to a m~iil'lum of 17 f€et ar4~ __ a_9it~Jli_e floDr . .and iD.£rg_~i.n.9. the .. l1owablLlti"c:over-a.ae to 40 percent of l.)t area..:... location/Address: Ar~en~rally bounded by East Charles.ton Raad to t,"-e north. A1ma lli~et to the wt.'::;.t. San Antonio",RoJ_Q. to the south. _and Middlefie1d Road t_ube east (Greenmeadow n_et9.b.Porhood tracts B1Q ... 1....J401. and 3074}. Sponsoring Agency/Appl icant: City o.f~.tQ Al to Address and Telephon!' of Applicant: Department of Planning and CO:Jlffiun"ity Environment. 2.50 Hamilton Avenue PaJ.!L._~_1to. CA 94303 (4-15) "2~·2230 Application for: Zon~ cb~ (e.g., zoning change, subdivision of prope~ty. architectural permit) <oning at Project Location: R·!(6501 & ii-HHll fe~ Recf NOTICE OF e,rERM1NATION 'Jiew, use No. : NIA B3~pd upon review of the project files, t1e undersigned member-of the Planning Department has concluded; iXI Nega"t ive imp.act. Negative Enclosed Declaration: The project has no significant No Environmental Impact Report is required. Dec1aration are: eiwironmelital The reasons for a 1n the atts_<;,hi;!d in] t i a1 study. [i Toe project may have a sign; ficant enviroomental Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. Planning Department Official: --.:zf'l...l-,k) '7/. _'-<" .... '-.t-£? ,---. I" /" K " Planning Director; /f~ The project has been approved. The project has be€n denied. Revised 8/l/79 A:\ElA93D2.NOD impact. An &i:I£'----- D,te: ._1/ ('i/P Date: Dat~~ File No.: 93-ZC-l 93 [r~·2 93·UA·2 Page I • :l I I I E~vrRONMfNTAl DOCUMENTS CITY OF PALO ALTO I. II. I! I. IV. INITfAL STUO'(-t-H Pr-cject Tith/Address: .9..!::W. ,'ado"' ___ .lJ:~ighb9rhood Ltrads 1310. ___ LtD]. ar:d 3074) . P,'oject Description: l.Q[le map amendment to adoot th_e Single-St.ory ~~t (ombini.n.9J!.iltr;ct [51 refJulations. wr.ic~ I!!odifv th€ sj..t'l M ... ~loome:nt re!liLhtiQPS of the R·L .. tirKile .. faflli..l..L...ttiidence d!:s.trict: by 1 imi t ing the height {Jf structures t? a m.§.xirnum ,.,f lUeet and one ~~le fl(lor. c l1 d increasing the ail-owable tot (Rye-rage to 40 percent of 10t area .. Envircnmental Setting: Single-family detached rasidentia1 neighborhood comppsed Qf single-st~1chler nomgs. SurrQundiruL.'and uses include sing1§-and ~~ensity multip1e-fami..1Ltgsident"lal, re)jgious instHutiQns, the Cybberlu cOIIJi'l'H..IOHy ce-ntet". Environmental H.,pact Checklist (ExpTanation of all "'yes· answers are in Section V) 1. Earth. 'Ii, 1 the proposal result ~n: i. Unstable earth conditions or changes in g€oTogic ~ubstructures? b. Disruptions, d;splaceme!lts~ compac- tion v~rcovering of the soil c. Change in topography or 9round so~face re1ief features? d. The destruction, covering or modf­ fication of any unique geologic or Physical features? e. Any ;ncrea5E in ..,ind or water erosicrl of soils, either on or off the site? f. Exposure of peop1e or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? g. Changes in siltation, dep'Dsition, Dr erosior, which may modify the channel of a river or the be~ of a bay or inlet? .... L A:\flA9302.IS 93 -ElA· 2 Page ] * Adapted from App@ndix I. California Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, D,cember 14, 1976. *~ Updated May 1982, June 1933 2. Air. I-lin the proposal result b: a. Substantial air emissions or de­ terioration of ambient air C:l1ality? b. The creation of objectior.csble odon? Co Alteration of air muve:nent, moisture tempe~atvre. or any change in cli~ mate, eHher 10cany or regional? .3. Water. Will the praposa 1 resu It 1 n : a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or th.e rate &f\.o amount of surface water runoff? b. ATterat ions to the courSE: or flow of floed waters? c~ Discharge into surface waters, or in iiny alteration of surface water quality. including but net limited to temp-erattJre, dissol ved oxygen Cl'" turbidity? d. Alter~tio~ of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Exposure of people or property tc water related hazards suer. as fleod­ ing or tidal w~ye? f. Chang-= in t~~ quantit,Y of ground waters, ~ither through direct arlditions or Withdrawals, or through 1 ntercepti.1r;s of art aquifer by cuts or excavat ions? 4_ Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversitj of species, or number of any species of plants (in­ cluding trees, ~hrubs. grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? A: \[jA9301. IS _l_ 93-fr.~,-2 Page 2 .L 2.. _x_ _x_ :;'i .j '-l) .! '''; .. . '":) . , c . .Reduction of th~ numbers of any unique, rare or endangered spe:ies of ~lants? c. d. Introduction of new spEcies of plants ~nto an area, or in a barrifr to the nnrmal replenishment of existing species? Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Ar:!..i.mll Ufe. Wi IT the proposal result; n: a. Change in the diver~ity of species, or of any specles of animals (bfrds, land ardmali including reptiTes, fish and shellfish, benUdc organ~sms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction vf the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of al11mah? C. jntroducticn of new species of animals into an area. or resu1t in .a barrier tc the migi~iition or rove­ ment of animals? d. Dete-rioration 111 existing f"ish or wildlife habltat? 6. liaise. Wili tho: proposal reslJlt ;~: 7. 8. s. Increases in existing nQ'se levels? b. Expcsure of peop~e to s~yere noise level s? light a~d_Gl_are. Will He pro'pCl~al prod~ce new light g1are? land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or p1anned land use of an area? A, \ElA9302. J S 93-flA-2 Page 3 _1_ ... L _L 9. 10. · , . o .E.n~/Natural R!i_~.9"y'!££1. will the proposal result in: a. US~ of substantial amounts of fuel or energy: b. Subshnti al increase 1n demand upon eXisting sources of energ.'l", or require the de¥elopment of new sources or energy? c. Increas! in the rate of ~se of any ~atural resources? d. Substantial d~pletion of any nor.re­ newable natural rpsource? Ri~k of~. Does the proposal in~olye a risk of an explosion or tne rel ease c·f hazardous substances 'in­ cluding. but not 1 il1dted to, oil, pestlcides t chemicals or radiation) in tne event cf an accident or upset? 11. Pooulation/Hou~ing. I. Will the proposal alt~r the location, distribution, density. or g~owth rate of the human population of an area? b. lIill the proposal effect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 12. Tra~5portatian,ICirculation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generoltion of substantial additional ~eh'cu'ar movemsfit? b. fffects on eXisting parking facili­ ties, or demand for new pdrking? c. Alterations to present patterns of Circulation or mo~ement of people and/or goods? d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicycTists or pedestriarts? ~'\EIA9302. IS _1_ _1_ _1_ YES 13. Pub1..iUervices. Will the pr{lposal have an effect upon, or result in a need f{lr new or altered governmental services ir, .any of the fOllowing areas: i. Fire prot~ction7 b, .Pel fee protection7 c. Schools? d. Parks I)r other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, incl udin'g roa.ds? f. Other governmental se~vi,es? 14. Utilities. Will the proposal rlsult in a need for new systems, ~r substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natura1 9<15? b. Cor:rnun i ca t i ens systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or sept;, tank? e. Storm water drainage? f. Sol id wast.e and disposal? 15. Hyman Health. ~ill t~e proposal r~~Jlt in: i. Creatiun of any healt-hazard or potential health haz~rd (ex,1uding menhl health)? b. Exposure of people to pot~ntjal health b.c:zards? A:\EIA9302. IS ". 93·EIA-1 PagE 5 l , i 1 , o lQ. A~sthetJ~i. Wi 11 the proposai resillt in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open t~ the pubTjc, or ~ill the proposal resul tin the creat ien of an aesthetically offensive site open to publ ic vie.".? 17. Rgcreatio!'J. will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing r~creational opportunities? 18. Cultural Btsollrces. a. Will the prop~sal result in the .alterc.tiol1 oriar the destruction of a prehistoric or ~istoric ardaec"ogical site? b. lIill tt'J-e proposal result in ad­ verse physical or aasthetic effects to i prehistoric or historic building, structure; or object? c. Doe~ the proposal halJ'e the potent; al to cause a physical change which would affEct unique cultural values? d. Will the propo.Hl restrict ex~sting rf1igious or sacred uses ~ithir. the pcte~lt i a1 impact area? 19. MaJ~ .. qat..QJ"y' Findlnas of S.t9Di.ficanc'2. a. Does the project have th~ potential to d~grade the quality of the environm~nt. substantlal1y reduce the habitat of a fish or wfldlife species, ca~se a fish or wildlife popUlation to drop below self-sust~;ning levels, tnreaten to eliminate a plant or anfmal ~o~~unity, reduce the numtJer or re5trict the A:\ElA9302.1S range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important e~amples of the major period5 of California history or prehistory? E _1_ _1_ b. Does the project na',e thp. potent; al to achieve short-term, to the dis­ advantlge of long-term, environmental 90 als? (A short-term impact or. th~ environment is one which occurs in i relatlvely brief, definitive period cf time wtlne lcf1g-term impacts '.Jill endure wel] into th€ future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatfvely considerable? (A pro­ ject may impact on two or more separate resources wh~rE the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant., d. ~es the project have enYirOnm2nta1 effects ",-hich wi 11 cause sUbstantial adverse effects on human beings, e!tt:er direct1y or indirectly? Y. Explanati~n of ·yes· answers in environmental checklist. See iilttached. A:\EIA9302.!S 93·EiA-2 Pag€ 7 _1_ o o 3. Water .w. The proposE:{j zone map amendment · .. iil increase l~e anowtlble lot coverage provision in the Greenmeadow neighbDrhood from 35" to <~~ of total site area, which ;nay re$ult in a slight increase in the amount of surfa.ce. water runoff. However, because the courtyard area. of EidJl~r·style nomes is u~uany partially paved {and paving is currently unrestricted in the R-I lone districtJ it is believed that a p{)rtio11 of any additional li'o';ng area constructed due to the 5% lot ccverage increas~ will actually re~1a,e an existing impermeable a~ea. Therefore. the increased lot C{lverage allowance will have a negligib1e impact on the rate ar1d amount of surface water r'Jncff. The Phnnfng Department's Sing'" Faml1y Residential Desiqn ~Ilideljl!.?.:.! is a pllb11c counter docu~nt which st'-Eks to encOl!rage restdents wHhin the R-l lone distrf<:t to limit imper;n~ilble sl!rfaces on their proper-ties_ Overall, the environmental impact of the proposed zone map amendment 5ho~ld be positive because it 'Will t1elp preserve il:nd maintain the existing iaw-density character and singl~-story architecture of the Greenmeadow 11eighborhood. Thus, t~.e zone change will further the achievement of a k.ey pol icy of the Palo Alto Comprehensive i'lin: PoTicy 1-~iintajn the generi7 low-density character of existing sing1e-fami1y areas. A;\E1M302.IS 93-EIA-2 Page " • --.......: , ORDINA..~CE NO. OiillINArJCE OF THB COi .... NCiL OF "T"'H"Z--r;C"'rTY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.03.040 OF THE PALO ALTO M01UCIPAL CODE {THB ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE T.r:lE CLASSIPICATION OF PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY KNOWN AS "GREID."MEADOW NEIGHBORHOOD TRAC1'S ~ FROM R-1 (550) A..'ID R-1 (743) i RESPECTIVELY, TO R-l (650) (S) M"TI R-l \743) (5). RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS. the P!anning Commission, aEter duly noticed public hearing held February 10. 1993, has r:eco:nmenderj that Section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto MunicipaJ. Code be amended as hereinafcer set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council. after due consideration of the recornmendation r finds that the proposed amen~~ent is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety a~d welfare. NOW. THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SSCTION 1. Section 18" 09.040 of the Palo Al to Municipal Code. the -Zonir.g MaP.· is h.e~eby a.u.ended by changing the zoning of certain property, collectiv~ly known as "Greenmeadow Neighborhood Tracts-(the "su.bject property"), from "R_l (650} Single-family Residence I Special Building Site Combining" and "R-l(743) Single­ farr.ily Residence. Special Building Site Combining,' respectively. to "R-l(650) Single-family Residence, Special Building Site Combining, Single-Story Height Combining" and ~R-l ['143) Single­ faInily Residence, Special Building Site Combining, Single-Story Height Combining,· respectiv"ely. The subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. S~CTTQN" .2. Tr~e Council finds that this proj eet will not have a significant enviro~ental effe~t. SHCl'rON 3. This ordinance sha.ll be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. rz,'TRODUCED : FASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTE1'.""TIONS: 1 o A'M"llST: City Cleric APP ROllED AS 1'0 FeRl-!: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 --,-----.-. ------ o APPROVED; Ci ty t4-1.nage r Director of Planning and community ~nvironrnenl tM11bl .... ____ ,_ ))000-----"--,..;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.-' ~.-- - t ' - Survey Response Map • In Favor of Single-Story Heig~t Restriction G~,'..PHI( ATTACH,~EJ\T l,;,rE: 1-25--53 S~[.,L_ f. : TO ST,C.H ';:EPOR I FJ Lf r;o. s ~:--ZC-l; 93 "U,.c..-L I EXHIBIT B ~;QP,Tr, -' :!:~~.~ -":jt" -.":t",: ~; ,"" , , 0 , -" . 'f", ,.,;.' No¥ember 12, 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCil Palo Alto, C.lifcrnia REQUEST OF GREENMEADOW COMMUNITV ASSOCIATION FOR CONSiDERAHON OF SiNGLE STORY OYERlAY lOfliN, Members of the c')u~.cn: Report in Brief Th~s rep~rt tr~nsmits a September 16, 1992 Community Association for City appro~al 01 recom-ended that the City Council initiatE Commis~1Dn cons;deratio~ of a single star) fami1y area iderltifjed on the map i!.ttach&~ initiation of tr.~ zone change wauld result ~rlJund -~quest from the Greenmeado'JII single story oVt!riaj lone. 1t is 1 refer to the Planning .rlay zone for the R-J single tte Septemb€r 16 lttter. City no Cit,Y fees being -charged. On July 13~ 1992, P,e City Council adopted a single story overlay zone lS} as part of the Zoning Drdinance and applle.a the zone to the \IIalnut 'Gro'/€ ~ei9hborhood. Tn! attached' September Hi, 1992 letter from JC11M Re-vis, President of the Gr-eenmeadaw Comm~nity Association, requests application (If the single story o\ler1ay zone to the 270 single family parcels c.o~taim:d in the Greenmeldow neighborhood. SurvEY re:;ul ts r epot"t.;c in th-: ~ Etter indicate strong Mlg'hbornood support for tne imposition of sing1e star), overlay zarling. City initiation of the lone change process is reCOlM1ended ~JE'cau:;e the GreenmeadtYw .As$ot'iat~-oT1 tan not apply for the zone tn;m9c '"itf1oUt written authorization from each property owner. With some property owners expressing opposition to the zone cha!'\ge il.r.d others I'\Ot r.e:i~Gnd;!'\9 to the .6.ssaciatior1's survey, it would not be realistic: to expect the Association to obtain the necessary authorizations and file the lone change (~Quest for all 270 parceTs that should be considerej in the zone change precess. City jniti2t~Dn of t~e zone change means that no fees would be charged. CHR:SOO:92 • o o ,Recomfllendation Staff recClMiends that the Cit,)' C.ouncil adopt iI. motion initiating consideration of a. single story o .... erla.y lone for Tracts 1310, HOi and 3074 Cif the Greenmeadow neighborhood as shawn on the attached map and refer the propos~d zone change to th~ Planning Commission. Resp~ctful1y subffiitted, ~~7P../~~/- KENNET~ R. SCH~EIBER Director of Planning and {~~unity Environment Attachment cc: J.aan Revis, President, Greel'lmeadow Commwnily Assn., 303 Park-side Ori ... e, P~lc Al~a. CA 94306 CMR:500:92 11/12/92 page 2 r~ t , --" .""-.: 'J JtWnll(",I,~'y J03 PARKSIDE DRIVE, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306 Palo Alto City Co~~cil Ci ty .Hp.ll 25.0 Ra.rnil ton Aven\'.e Puo .!lta, c.a. 943',)1 rID [E© ~ ~ ~§!~ 'IP U\l SEP 21 1992 IW 0fF1C£ Of TH.E C!TY MANAGER TELEPHONE [4151494·3157 Septe~ber 16,1992 The Gree~e""do~,' GO.:J.L11,}.nity A~soci~.ticn requests the City lJo~c:i.l's 2Fr,roval of an oyerl!"!;~ in the> lYording of the zcni~3; ordine.nce for Traots 1.310, 1401, ~~rJ.d ],074, to wit: ".All nel;.' constructi on, RS r.,rell as p.d.di ti ons to eXisti:"l..g ~truct1J.res. shrlll be limi tee. to sinf.;le far:dJ~.r hO!:les no mere t"i" .. :.::m O!1€: Etor:~ nor more than 17 ~eet in he:'i.&ht EmC'_ v!i til a Gc,r;:,::§:e or c~.::";Jort for no ~or~ then 2 C'E.:-S.II At it£ June 10th, 1';:~2 i1eet-ins, t~lfo Boc:;.rd O-l Directors of the Gree!" .... ~eedo~,; COl!:..'I_~-.i t~,. Assooi8t:io!1 voteCi 1.1.l".;:\nino'.;,sl.., to r'_ut:'1.orize 2 i''.trvey of Etl1 Green .... ea(:o~" hOl'!'1eowners to c.:,eten'ir.~ '31t))ort for eo rei.:J..uest to the Ci t~,-of ?F.lO Al ~:) fDr ~. E~_n£le s"!;o:,~r overl~~.' for Olli~ 3.-1 zone. All of O'tLr hO:!leE' C'.!'e sin,sle steT,:! ::;":1'_ chlel':!::. All hews cove'":'l..ant restrictione 5_n t:-leir 6..e~d~, which r.x1. ?;i th the lK"1:i. 2!J.E-243 ho~es designate;:: f>,';; Gree'1,ilefl.C'.o1:7 I ::,.n~ II heve !"lone s:tory" =?S ~. cove!1..E'.nt restrictio:'!j t~!Z 27 ;1: r.rea III f.TB ~e!Y,itte(:: "'::':,r coveJ!f'.!'_t to be ft.s lct'£E ~,~ "t'r/O RT'1.f.. one-~1~.lr storie.~Y b1..;t re:1C:::.!1 .:>.t one sto!"""j". In 2Rta .;;.?~he!'eC: fro"'} t>.e ~lJ_rve:, we h'.\;·,,:JO=-.te ser:",.l-p,GeJ~' th.e v·:J"i:.e\"; 0: t:'l~-s€: in Gr€en'Je2.·":~',v I1I 1:;ecE'.u~e c: tr"i~ ~.~ffe:l'e:1.ce in coy-a:m~ .... "lts. ::c~:-. re~it:en:: 2..:.'"2-: !'"on"~::!"e,'3irle:nt o·v:,.€r8 ·,':ere ir'.!cl"'l~~e~1 in t:le ;s't),rve;-. ?_he E'.L""'Vey WSS flo!':.,: by l€ttel~, vri.t:-, :...,allot an,:: ):r-e-,8.:i.C. rett:.rr. ellvelolJe. Infor;"!1":tio:'l 'f~as: i·.1cl~"vleQ in t'!::.e <.T"J.l;; ;,.n::':. .l._·.'~-u!";t :;_ ss,;.e~ of O:lT co::"t'1unit~~ r.e·,YS~2~-:er, t:le ':r~e2"~,o1;",rlar:\:', ::'.nc. the :r.2.tter I,'IE.S di~cu~~ecl ~.t t:'l'3 J"'l.l~· 15th Gcne-r~.l j~ee-tin~ of our As.soci;::>lio_"1. ··:;e receive'; !'e;s:>J:~.se~ fro'~ t'r.5'~ of the 243 ha~,,:,::o~-:Tlers in S-rcer:­ lilf;i:l.C.OV r I ai-'1,';, II. Of' t!1'2:';e l'e2::9o!".ses, 7S.5,; 2.re L"!. f;:::~"'Ol~, 15 •. 3'~ ;&.1'e 0P:1osec, 3. 7'~ /1_?v<::-!'l'J 0,::5::1._~"O;11 ~.!Fl 1. ~J 2re c'-:l_vi{ec. '''.1. t:-"in one h01.l.Sf,h_Dlt. !1'. G-reer .. ml;!nC-:;:.c·, III, "Ie r-eceiver: res·-)C!1ses fro·, 77.e.~ of hOHeo;·mG:".'j, Of the~e 7J..4_'-~ [>rr:: ir. f:?vo!', 2~ . .":;.; a$:?ins~, an(:. 4.P;5 no oJ1iTl~O:1. 0:::'1 e'.rer:r ~_:~.::eet ,'. f;ic,TIificant F..~.5Drj.t~; 0-;: hO':lE:~)';'.':lE"·:3' vote":'_ -i.n f~\IOr or c;le or:.e-stOl":r l:l.l':l.i to.t i. or,. A ~ore (,e­ t~.i lE-{' rm2.1:y~is i::, :?tt."1('ilei~ • . GREENMEADOW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. ---"'--,--------'- o ,':) ';;e beJ ieve that C-!"ecn':.~."~.Jo~,, .1 e: a ":.l .. :1i:;'ll-8 ~'l€;,~):::·or=~:::::,)~~, ::''':-~l~ i":e \'.'2.E .. l "to ret2.in its !Jre=,e~t n,~tu{'e. ';/e :?~-:::,l::l:~~. "the C:8U~C:J.'~ co-:;,t':j:!1~':'~.r'.:; i;i1;ere:=:-:: in ::-:re~:ervir:.:; t!-.:.f: c~,"".:racte::· of ,nr cj.t.~r, :=.2".,' its C:-',"'.2":~.' jistinctive r~eighbor:lc-oo.3. "{e F=,rreci?t~ ti~.e :;':FL'Ccil' ~ recent ~ction for i1c-.lr:n.tt Gr,;:·.,re, ~!l::' ~ote t;:t (,c·~::' ::i::. c'"!'.:'1cer of ::''2S!,'J;lse~ ,""'r'r" f'Fvor,s'·le re"'nC!1""~C" G""""e'~~'e·.>,.::'o··· ro:''-(~€~'~S t~le ':;?_5c.rj1.:ie~ ~iho':'':'l -;'1~;'"'.v;inut 'r~;Gve. ~'·"fll~ ~;;C;);';j ;-~ -t·i~e.t 2..:'l.,]~.!"" .. -3 t:'is o·\I·P1·}.2.,Y l"j.l~. he~.r r:,['"e2el',,~e ottr n€:i.:>:h;~or:'::jo(lts c:1..:,:t2,cte:', C'_>-"1-~ :?· .. roiIJ ':;i<:")':c'l.erst-C''y,r'':r..:,'3 or co;':f1ic'~E' C<;'.~lSe-,-~ '.~~ C:."i:3Cre:)2.r.C'~.'3: :·ec~':eei~. C'r cc"e~l'"::: __ "--";S c'n,' t';-:e zc,~~j.ns OT'-~:'::1<".~1ce. ;l'e urG;€ t e. E CO'.E1C:.1 t:J ""ollc',c' the ·?.:;J,;,,~·,t GTo;,'e :':'f'.;L:-e~'1 e:-. t: P.:.<' ""C' ~ !:o::.'i"ci.veJ.:" on o:,1.!"" re::::l!e"'3~. '".) o·? 2::.:'1:)-L. CO:'l~·!.~.; t:~ :cJ-:--:,e2'~~' of 38.1"1.:)',:. l".!t::e::--:")r 3:;'.2 '.ct 1 F.:+,tc:~ -:c 0: , ! , ;"'»1 *J - ____ ... • ... "'_. __ .~~.~"""'"~..,.c~..........,..o ,.' __ ..... , .1 / OREeN~~E.ADCW COM MUNITl" ASSOCIATJC\i, INc.. COIJIo,ICII.. OF III,:::CI~rSr"r"1"l1'\I[S APEA I!,IIAP Street Mobe Creek~:a.e Ben Lomond Charleston Diablo El Ca,;:>i ta.~ GTe efl..rle aa 0,,' Nelsnn Ilr. nelson Ct. Par1::-si d.e Scrilrr's Avc~ Scri!,?s Ct. st.asta t1aCf::2.y Tio£"2. Ct. Totals I '" II ,: of votes "Briar.lto 00. F8'.!"r!p .\ve. Fern€ Ct. Tot"ls III % of votes TotalS" I,Il,III % of vote'E BALLOT coeur.:; re OHE-ST0RY OY"ERL.~Y G REE!'I"': !EADO \1 I &0 II (243 homes) No !!.! No O!);ni Ot.i 8 0 0 30 5 0 25 1 ' _',J 1 1 0 0 7 1 0 . , ,-2 1 7 1 0 11 5 1 5 0 2 25 < 1 J 12 2 2 7 1 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 10 1 0 171 33 f 75.51 15. 3~ 3. 7':'~ G 3"::I'u',:EADOW IIi (27 b". s) 5 1 l 5 2 0 c 2 0 / 15 :; 1 71. 4,; 23. e'.~ 4.f'.? RE$1c..T;':E OF WHOLE L-:tEA (27:0 hO:1es) 186 38 9 78.8:--; 16 .l:~ 3 . f:5~ --~.--~--- Divid.€d °Einior.. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 1 , -1. ~~--; (.I o o J , , I I j1Wml{"~,/ 303 PAP.KSIDE DRIVE, PAI.o ALTO. CALIFORNIA 94306 TELEPHONE 14151 4943157 ·June JO, lS~;; 2 T:-.e 3card of Directors of the Gree!"l..re:v.uow C,::r:L-::ur:i ty AssociFt-i on h;?s authorizec. the Civic Aff2.irs CO";:::'li-:"tee to suryey t}:e o~"~~rs c: £11 lots in Ur:.i ts I ar..e II 'to ceter:;i.ne su~:rpc:~t for a pro!'losed strenstheninc: of our deed restrictions. Exis-:in~ Cono.itic~1.s, CoV":::n.?.!" .. ts ~:nd :lestrictic:-:.s l.i'~i t C'~~:.:.ses to O):1~ !:'tory. A ,rccecu::..'e 1rno'.~"'r.. ~_s 'zonin~ ove:!'lay I C?..:r~ nD~'" "t:e i-:-_~ler;;er.t€c. t.hrol:t,;h 'the City to r;;:i'!i.i'orce "the l.initG.ti'n. :t sl:':'.=,ly ali,::.:; the letters' s. S~ t (for eing-le story) to the €}:istih,:: P,-l (\.e~ig:­ nation on the zoninG !:t..'"\;"ls. ~:1e 't":,.y!"o.i:!'1';: i~ the zoning ordina.'1ces is ~'ro~osed to ;,ce?a.: "Al} new constructior.:., <:'.S r:ell as .2~dditio."~ to exis::ing structures t sh:?~l be !i:-::i t€~ to si'1:;le f .... .:.:r:il.y ho-:ce~ n,} r:.ore th.(lI.. one story !lor r:~ore tha..~ 17 feet :'n r+ei;,;::-.!t 2..:."1-3 I',ri th a 6ar~,.;~ for no r.1Cre than tt .... o c.?.rs." The Zonin~ ACL-:J.ir~istr2.tor reCJ,'l:_ires t:-i~_'!: :a st2.tement j.:!1dicatinb" Eu"ort cf :'ome o·,.mers bJ; ir..clude~ in the 1 etter requeEting GCtL"'_C ~.l Fc~ion" Plee.~e return the lC",7er -;:O'_rt of this letter "oy ,-Tuly 30t~ in the envelo.J:'e !lrovicle<::, inC!.i cati.!'_& YDtty rcsi tion or: er..foTcinC t~;.e existin,;;, C'.o~eru:'r.t. If you Ere n te::1ant, }le;?_se rOM·.-?rd. this to the~. If you he.ve questions, tele:or.one Ca.rroll :::a..~~i!1J ~e~"'ber of the Oi vic Af'f'::.irs CO~!"_l':1i ttee t 2.t 852-2771. ~O: ~he G.!"'e8:::.:::e<" .. ~o·:,1 COl:-';:lI.Uli ty AS':OC::'2.tlO~ Civic t...fS'?ir!'3 ';o·,-.!.'.1i. ttee I 2.::) in fevor ot enfO!'cin "': t::e cove:t-::::":"VJ.t t,:.,-::Je2.i1S of a zo;ir:...: ~:r-t ~,t:'113 c'lerl?y Since!"'!:l:;, \fed J<..-W ~foV (i :r.~ J I 2-'"1 op,::.o::::eJ. to t~:e cor+ce::rt of e zonin5 overle:" I ha-:e no or::,. nion on E~ .. l "': ;,'.atter o '.;{!.e r--------------------,-,::-;:c:::-:::-n.-;:;o:;;:" { c';er if neec.e::J.) GREENMEADOW COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION. INC. S"h""it+fJ ~r J'18~~~2~-::2:.~;1 AS""':;O::IA-:'IL": .:":::;:':3-1::: .<:C;:;' 1(J/~'J'f:J. Pc. J,~IU·ir. Area S('l. Ft. Yes lJp tc 5999 1 1 60JO -64SiS l' 3 6500 -69S; 7 700-:] -'14SS 44 14 7500,,:-799S 4 17 6 23 5 14 J 5 2 7 p 186 s ') ~, 0: 'letes J .... 1. -- :':L::. ",S':':J~ ;:":CV.e E:.::..l.::" AJ.~:J, "' .... , '" .. :/_"J 7~2.!"(':-~ 2, l~~'-: ?,;ii..:o:: 3-:tl1s Fla."'1...~i:-~,=; .Je?E.rt::.e:::t Cit: .. 0f P~,lD Alto --P:J.l.:; Alto, CA 9,~ . .3,:~1 -, -, -, r 1 l .,., i r ,., _ ,~ ,-, !"' I ---~ ~}:e f'ollcv'i::.j: Fill "-8!"·.~e t':J C8':;_:c~:'.l': ::"C,!:,. ,:>~VE-:1. t::-~:c:.: €2,:"1~e~ t,:.J.ay, cO:lceY'C'!::i.::1':' t:~e VQte~c: of t:::.0ee ::.'::1 t:-.e ~ree"'J.":-e-?,~::·"--III :.Tea \"110 :1.!."'.D. ::r.ot vrevi(;--;.s2~r E'l:-,:,'CE-!3'3€' t~'J.'2 :·.o::e~_v'('::: (In '''~.,,~ti1_5::' O!' not t~e~r f<,.v-o::."ec:' !2~'~;jle ~tO!'.'! c:~ef'~· . .:;-,e_t=_D:·! :..:: t:--:ej.T" are~. I·;:J.:-:ce l·in-­ LO;3,c.=:n A.~ ~'!,O:3 i r::- EuC'sr~_ A:~c":;:'2!;:S !'2.~7 3rl2,Y"':~o"' ~'e!'nE' .::' e r:.: e Ct. 0 __ '" ... ~ Ct. Vote 4t €'-:: .:.e,:, :."£ :- There ,,--:1..22 'bE 1:0 ·..rO~EE t['l .I'ec')::."',~~ .-:"0:0:" "t.}.2:, ~~1"'~.2.:-·0 J "_j-;,, :~":,l4E Jiria.ZTIOOo.. O:le l':;Ji.1.sr; is occu;:,iec ~~ :re2.1t::;:, r:r-,3 t2:-:-ot~-:e!' i_oS o'.\'lle:' b:r s. I='cT't~r i:r" Ir~,,:: ::=.~"l"',~ c~ E·,tS. co'..tlc'. c-e re'JorG. O~ this ~<,:. p. ~r I,J.~:: ~<:2 ~~ :~'S:,-.::':;"':L'C G':'v:':: .~.:..~~:-"~'-':: '~o· .~"c,e-:, Gl'c E::l.~ r;: ::"~.~ :'\., i·.~ ~ :: c ~. ~ •. ~~!. O~'l -~-- , , • February 10,1::-1 Regufar Meei~~~ I City of Palo Alto j AGENDA ITEM NO.3 Greeruneadow Neighborhood (Tracts 1310, 1401, and 3074). Zone map amendrr.ent to apply the Single-Story Height Combining District (5) reguIations to the Greemneadow Neighb, ',hood, This combining district modifies the site development regulations of the R-l sL"gle-famiIy resider,c" district, by limiting the height of structures to a maximum of 17 feet and one habitable floor, and increasing t.'>e allo"'Able lot coverage to 40 percent of lot area, Environmental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to result from thls project a.'ld a negative declaration has be.n prepared FueNos. 93-ZC-l and 93-ElA-2. Michael Bllls--I would like to make a correction to L'1e table in the staff report on page 4. The last ro ....... ~ would ~m to imply that for those lots that have L'1 excess of 7.s00 square feet would, in fact, gain square footage tho :gh imposition of the (5) overlay. which provides for a 40% Jot coverage. That is not the case. The floor area raco that has been in ~.t"f"ect since 1989 woulr' continue to be enforced as the maximum size allowance on any lot and 7,500 square feet would represent the "break·even'" point at whi::h the house size under the (S) overlay and w.der-the current floor-area ratio WOI. b€' the same. So for those rots that are in excess of 7,500 square feet, thE. -.oor az ea ra tio would continue to .act .as the fonnula used for detennin.ing house size. For those of you who have received the corrected tc:.ble, I would like to point out t.."-lat in the left column, the greater than oregual to 7,500, you can ignore the greafer than or equal to because as we k.!1DlV as lots increase in size, the aHowable s11.e February 10, 1993 19 '~, ..... ' o increao;es. This 1s a break-even point and for larger lots you 'would continue to use tlte FARfonl1ula a:; it is cu.rrer.i!y fOTm-..liated. Turning to t.~e tr.ansparency, I would like to point out that in addition to jljghlighting t..'1ose properties where pEople \-" .. ere 1.."1 favor of imposition of the single story height restriction, we have highlighted the location of property O ..... "i\ers Wf1.O were opposed to the height iimit in order to clarify the diHt>rence between those property owners. Those who are not indicated by e~ther of the ~"Olors would be those who did not respond to the survey, were split opirJon wlt.~in a househoid.l or responded a.."1d said t..'l-tey had no opinion on t..he sur"ey. Commissioner Sch.midt-V.,ras the entire subdivision Ilotke:d on this? Ms. Lytle-Yes. PUBUC HEARING OPEN Louise Hening, 3945 Nelson Drive, Palo AIto--Ilive in the Greer .... "T.leadow 5ecfion and I am co-ffiai.."I!lan ci the Ovic Affairs Committee and I am speaking On behalf of the Greenmeadow Association. Our president currently is Dean Clark and our past-president is JoAnn Revis, but neither of the!!'. could be here tonight. For more than a yearJ t.""'e Ch'ic Affairs ConurJttee of Greenmeadow Comm.urjty Association has been working on the matter of adding a single-story height designation to the single family zoning in our neighborhood. During this time we have nored Walnut Grovels progress ir. thls same maner and testified last July at a. Oty Council meeting in support of ilia t neighborhood's request. During tl-Js same period, t."e Board ci lY.l'ectors of Gr~eadow Community Association authorized our Civic Affairs Comn:tittee to survey all homeo'NIlers in Greeruneado',v 1, D; and n to deterntine theIr interest in add.ingzoning for a single-story height li.~t, Details of the balloting a."'l.d the results are dearly sno."vTI in the packet of matenai before you. Eased en the overV',.'helmingly favorable vote, we sent cur request for slr.gle-sto!)· height designation to Gty Cour.di on September 16,1992. ~ey in tun} referred our request to L;e Planning Commission. In preparation for tonight's hearing. members of the Ci'dc Affairs Committee have worked with members of the PlanningCommis.'3ion staff~ and have fou~d them mos~ helpful. \Ve commend t.'em for thelr clear prese:r,tdlon iT'. the report before you this E'vening. Several members of Greer..rneadov'/· are here torught and "'rill be happy to anS1-L,'er any questions any of t.~e COIrllnissioners may have. In condu51on, we request that you accept the staff reco.:nmendation to have City Council a.dop~ the ordinance amending the zone [nap for Greenmeadov .. ~ I, il, an.d III {Tracts 1310; 1401,. an.d 3074) fo make our neighborhood a single-story height combining district. 20 Februaf) 10, 1993 -' -~ ------~---~---.---------------....-.---.. Commissioner Cullen-Have you had any feedback from th..:: peopi.e whv voted no on this proposal? Ms. Herring--A few propl€' ha __ , .. lIrunents on their ballots. One person said he was sick:ind tired cf others telling hi.." what he could do with his property. One person felt that 17 feet was too high and therefore voted no. !t wasn't that he felt the Slllgle-story was '"'Tong., but the j -feef was a!lo~1ng too much obstruction of the sky outside our homes. There WQ..:o a third one who had a comment and said Vie were asking for the \o\,7ong thing, that we should have b.:-,.,. .... r. asking fer 40% and we did not have that phrased in our ballot Th.,. are color. >ns, but there were only 38 negative votes out of the 270 houses. Commissioner Cullen-Did the Assodation hold a meeting of the members to discuss this? Ms. H~Y ... It was discussed at the June quarterly meeting. We also have a monthly paper that come out called the Meadc.1Wlark, and ir was covered. ir. the Juiy and August i .. ues of the paper. The ballots went Qllt the first of June and th~re was a preliminary explana.tion in the June Met1dowli2.rk also. 50. there was a time for questioning at the July genera! meeting; there were CO=.<!lts in the Mwtowhzrk and in the ballot letter that went out there was a te!ephone number that could be called for questions to be answered. I should mention that £rI. the packet of lnatETial before you there is only one copy of a ballot, but we really sent out two ballots because there are diiferen~ CC)venants in Greenmeadow I and II from what there are in Greenmeadow ill. We did not " .. ish to phrase it that you would be strengthening your covenants in Greenrneadow ill because GreenmeadOY.' ill is not smgIe-story covenant Commissioner Ojakiar~.you answered my qu€'S tlon. I was going to ask how your survey was-pr.rased to Greenmea.dow ill properly owners, which looks h.'l.::e 27, because their covenant does show that they could have 2.5. Ms. Herrin8-In Greerun.adow ill we simply a,ked a straight question: Would you Uke to have Q single-star, cnJerlay with a 17 foot heig'lf Umit in your area. We did not say thaf it would be strength.ening your covenant. Commissioner Ojakian-It looks like rour response back from tha t ';'I!as still 71 C;;; in favor. Ms. Herring~Yes, Commissionn Gla;. :::-There are several residents where there W3S no response. Did you individuall) [oHow-up on those houses? February 10,1993 21 ~ .. I , r " . ".,-(. o Ms. Herr...ng-Yes. WE: finaHy ended t:.p ""ith 34 where there vlere no respor.s~ Out of all of the ones who had not responded by August 1, wh.:c..'l-t. \",'a5 the end of the <L.'I1Iloun(ed voting perlod, we foUowed up with a phone 0.11 ill remind them that we would like to receive their vote. Some more came in fo110 .... 1ng the teiephone caJl, but after the initial maiHng and the phone calts; there were still 34 bouses from '(.'I"hich ",,""E' }'lad no vote. Out of those 34, 13 had nonr.esident O1-\-ners and we are findi..-Lg that the no:nresident owners aCC'Oi.l..."1t fO'!' a number of the negative votes as well. Thi'Se are lar.dlords that want to get the largest rent they (:an. COLl"mLssioner Glazier-So it S€elT'.5 likely that if you were to guess what the distnbution of y~ and no votes would De among the people who didn't respond it would be much more against what you're tryL"lg fo impose than. the cur.ent sa,.T.pte that you have stL"'Veyed? In other words, for the people who did not respond, if you were to actually sit on their doorstep until they did give you an answer, they would be more likely to say no we don't agree \'\'lth ttLis, than the Test of the popuhtion that you did actually talk to? Ms. He:ning-I suppose of the 13 that might be the -case, but of the others in the 34, I think they simply didn't obj€cL My feeling is that if you ar~ agaL"!s! something you sJ.>eak up. I would think that the non-votes would fallout pretty close to what the rece.i ved votes came in as. Commissioner Ojakian-It looks like of the non-votes in TrarKs I and II, if I read this correctly. about 5'f" of the households rn that area did not vote. Ms. Herring--There are 243 houses in Greeruneadow I and IT. Commissioner Ojakian-I was loomg at the percentages in the report, which sho\\,-s 78.8% in favor and 16.1 % opposed, so I'm assu.."'nlng there ' .... as about 5% tha~ you didn't hear from. Ms, Herring-Yes. Commissioner Ojilkian-Even if we were to follow along the lines of what Commissioner Glazier was saying.. we would probably end up ,vith about 80% rrL favor a.-.,d abo:.lt20% ~pposed. Ms. Herring-Yes. Actually. cut of all the 270 houses, we had 186 positive votes, which is two-thirds of all houses; regardless of whether or not you count the houses that didn't votE'. CommissioneT Glazier--Quoting from the report it says 88% of the homeowners in Greenmeadow I B.nd II responded, so that means 12% did not in the first batch. ]n 22 February 10, 1993 - the semnd batch" n,8% responded, so 22% didn't re5}XJnd The average is probably around 15% of the residents did no~ respond. Commissione:-Canasclr-I'm try..ng to look at the map and gu€'Ss a~ what proportion of lots are closer to the 6,000 square foot range. Ms. Herring-There's a c1.. on L'1e back of tf..e staff report L'lat gi\-'es the square footage ar.d the vote; of Y€5, .lO, a..'ld no opinion" according to the area of square fee':. Carrou S. Rmki;n.. 372 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto--I s:roke to this issue at the preliminary hearing. In the interes ,f time and .ccur'C)' I would like to read my letter. This is t!.l1"ittm in support of the proposed action io limit residences in the Greenmeadaw nriJlhbarhood to a single story. As a long-lime resident of Palo Alto and GTunmiAl1.vw, I haw always been IlCtivt in our Community Associatum. I was Q member of the Civic Affa irs camm illee that sponsared the prOfJOS"I naw before !IOU and am currently the Vice President of the Board of Dira:tars of the Gru":meadaw Community Association, Inc. I am also an iU'chitectand planner, /r~t now retired from "'Ii-time practice. From this background J want 10 point out An flS!'«t of this issue tiulf may not be immediately app<lrent to all of the participants. Exc'J'f for the incre"," in allowable tot cOfJeTage, t~ zcme map arntrUirrumt win m.rrely retJffirm a llJ1litRtion tlult has been in effect since Gre.tmruz.d!IW was bujit in. 1954/1955. The "CC& R's' (Ccmditions, Covenants and Restriclions) recorded as rt1Jl'ired of the droe1oper, Mr. Eichler, prouided i'r paragraph 1 that: U, No l;ujltiing shill! be erected, Qlt(!"red~ p!aced, or permitted to reTf'flin on any lot other tlum one detache.d singfe-fami:'j dwellingJ not to excee;! one story in height am! Q pn"vate garage for not mare than two ems Thus, when eJlCh and every one of us in GreenmetU!OU1 units one and tu'o SIgned ourde.eds, containing this restriction, we made, in effp.ct, a mutual promise to each other (a covenant) t1uzt we UXlttld not add a second story fo our houses withau: the consent of the other home owners, In the intervening ~'ears there have been sporadic discussjon~ about wh<!tha the restriction should be lifted 10 allau) second stary additions, but the majority opinion has always been in favor of maintaining the sjngle~5!ory charaClet of the J1eighborhood. From time to time those of us wnl.) were conrern.ed about preserving the original architectural concept cf the February 10. 1993 23 o We were CUnEi5!~ntiy advisro that it tL~ our uspot1$(bility and that the Oty W<lUld enforre the Codt" but not the CC.& R'5. We U'e'l'l! thus aware tho.t our re.medy, in the e11f"nt of a violation. would ce Ihro!4gh a tau'5=uit-one of the most divisfve tl:ings thIlt can httppN1 a!;.or.g neighbors. It is also eXpe7l5jr.,'e, nece;sari1y after·the·fact, and the results seldom satisfactory. Bu.! that was our situation until the present time, when: the cover. .. nt can a! !ast be giver. the force of zoning law, ~Vhen aur good neigh.~Jrs in the adjacrnt de;,..lelopment of Walnut Grove petitioned for the zoning" overlay" we immediately took steps to follow Stiit, Encour-aged b-y their success, we are submitting the facts hI th.is letier in support of O'<J.r appiicatio"Z arid for the infOT7tlatioll of those present at the public hearing on the matter. ~Ve nee:! to point ou~, in the even! any Greenmea(ioU' heme aumeTS ar~ in opposition._ that the c.c. & R '5 thcmseives prcroide a means fnr changing the regulations. They were to be in effect for twenty-li.ve years and to extend at< tormllically '"',.for successive pen"ods of ten yMr5 unless a?l instrument signt:d by a majon"fy of the thm ou.7!£rS of the lots has bien recorda: agreeing to chtlnge said covenanfs in whole or in part." ACC01'di"gly, in 1979 a poll was conducted to detmni"e whether the covenants sh.ou.ld be exlended. A sufficient majority agreed to allow them to go into the lIUtamatic rene'"<L'I21 process and j n 1989 there was no effort to mnke a change. 111 1999 there w.11 be another appartunity, ~! it appeilTS from this record and !he poil condu.cled ft:n" the purposes of the curre'if appli(JJtion that again a SUfficient ml4jC1Tity of Greanneaaou.' owners favor limiting the houses to a single story. Speaking tU)1.L'jor myself and far 372 ParJrside Drive, I eJ;r.'1esliy urge your favor(1ble action on the proposed ume mnp amendme~t" Thank you. Evelyn Preston, 3918 Duncan Drive, Palo A1to-I don't thir.k Mr Rankin would consider me his good neighbor becau..<;e I do have a second story_ \Vhile f'm not in Greeruneadow, nevertheless your notice said up to Ch:illeston Road, v.,hich is why I came tonight, although J spoke the last time when Oi.:.r neighborhood was involved dire<:tly. I submiUed rn.-o letters at that time. My feeling is that as far as C.c.& R's go, it might interest you to know that t..'le c.c.& R's from Barron Park do not aIlo\\" people of color. Perhaps we should aU revie\ ... · those. In our neighborhood, WaIn ut Grove., there has. not been an association until re<:entIy when this subject came up, in effect for over 30 years. I've been there stnce 1962" I feel that my city is working against not only my property rights, but my interests. \lve h.1ve just been severely impacted financially, as well as privacy and oLher matters by th.e c'::"""t:K. r am going 24 February 10, 1993 , -. , .. - to invite you all when the U.s.S, ~fisSOUI"l comes do\o','T! Adobe Creek because there certainlv ;c; enough room. v.thHe the City wa: i wcn't use the terrIl in collusion with thi t.."1ere was no help from our repre_ .tatives when man}' peop:e from Greerunt Jaw were very much against this. Needless to say, the neighborhoods are going through change. Change is in the air, b\..:.t I don't like all of '. On the oth.er ha.'1.d,] am ~-1: :ng to abide by the rules of Palo Alto. Tha .... s what I .:-.. ,gned on for when I bought my home here in 1962. The t*~jrle down by the medical cer,ter were very vocal; they didn't want the change in the·,,· neighborhood. Interestingly enough, that wen_ to a dtywide vote. They didn't like it .. I'm sure. I felt sorry for them. On the other hand~ it was a d~;de vote that dedded the issue. I am very mud1 against the Gty euphemistically called an overlay zoneallcnn .. ,g pod<e" of elitism in our dty. Irs a shame that it isn't 1950, but the property values have gone up dramatically arrl' for that reason people are changing the kinds of homes from bungalows to differ""t things. I run through the neighborhoods on the other side "f East Meadow e,'ery day. The streets aren.arrower, the lots are smaller, the houses are closer together. The majority of them through the permit process and whatever other appeals gc on, have second stories done in very good taste, They iU. certainly upg;-ading those neighborhoods. I understand it. I would have liked e\'erything to -stay the same. Maybe if everything stays the same none of us will ever die. It would be wonderful. But the fact is~ this isn~t true and I do not live ... nor did [ sign (''1 for; a condominium !yJ'" of association when I moved here. It's one thing for an .cdation to say, you can't have orgies in your front yard because th.t disturbs your neighbors. I don't speak for Greenrneadow. I do believe that they have had a different !yJ'" of ongoing as...<:Odation. I don't live there;] live across the creeJ.-r happen to know that in my neighborhood it jsn~t a condominium t:' :' 'of asSt .. .Jtion where I K.l"'\ew beforeha....,d there was going to be a hea\y dues, you were go~ng to be assessed" there were common areas; and YOll had to live by the majority rule. I don't think it matters how many people said yes, no, or anythlng else. We ha',-e to follow the laws and the rules of Palo Alto, which J am perfectly willing to do. All of which r don't like, like the eac.;ement on my property, etc. Nevertheless, I don't Sf'e how I have to change from the laws of the whole dry. I think my representativE'S, you people from the last meeting who were ve..')' unaware of the significance of this issue and said, well, I guess we s.lid we were going to have this, and looked to the staff at every ot11er word to tell you what was going on. I was very disappointed in your response, although I think you are thoughtful caring people with a 10: on your plate. On the other hand, I th.ink. that there is a very big distinction here between what a small group would like.not to have in their backyaId, so to speak, and the rules of the City. I think this whole issue i.s gofr.g to get out of hand and posSIbly become adionable at some point. Thanks for ~etting me have my tum. Commissioner Carras('o-lo'\7here do you live in terms of Greeruneado .... ·? Februa~ 10, 1993 25 :L • " - o Ms.. Preston---Across the creek. CoI!t.missioner Carras<:o--The t.-:Jtal FAR is not going to change significantly with what you caJ1 do with two stories. Ms. Preston-I have a h'\.oo--story now and have gone through the permit process in the City of Palo A!to. I have had it for ma.ny years. It isn't that beautiful, but it is tasteJ-..u. I realize t.Iut the City allowed some accesses on some of the school properties~ etc. and citywide rules c."'anged these accesses. I GO r.ot want to look dm ... -n OIl my neighbor's yard. The of'Jy thing I look do\' .. 'n on are old bleach cans. only have the tv.ro-stories on part of my house. I think there ue other an;~5 \1.ithin the legal L'11aginations of the City that can stop second stcries from impacting other people's property. I don't want my S!.l.n cut off. A..s a matter of fact, we .",'ere undl'r water for several months because we Wt:-re at one point un v.'ittin gly one foot into the light plane and the City stopped the process until that wa, corrected. We weren't happy about that, but we abided by it. r do not have a second story all the way through. You oould say that p"'ple oould build up, thi' is California. My feeling is you donrtwant to impz,ct you!' whole property with a home. You would want-to use the yard area. I just &ink this whole process really smacks of elitism and the "not in my backyard'" syndrome, which I believe ... has been very detrimental to Palo Alta, who is supposed to be at the forefront of liberalism. Alison Hyde, 478 Ferne Avenue, Palo AIto--:My address is not cover~ on the map. but I do have an Eichler home in the Green.mead"Jw tract J woul d like to read my piece on behalf of any other young couple who lives in the neighborhood. 26 I Qm writing to protest the proposed zone map arneruiment limitin.g houses in the Greenmeadow f1retl to one story. I realize we signed 12n agreement on closing em our huu..~ to let the neighb",hood association hAve approual pau'a CtJeT major outside remodeling, but we wert told about this.at dosing and signed under duress. I took com/oti in the fact that 430 ,-;dobe, and notably, 419 Ferne, mroe secund stodes, so I u,"Q5 under the impression the GTe~meadow A.5soc!aticn would indeed allow secor'.!l stories to be !P"ll1t. Not if the zoning ciumge forbids it, h<rW""",", ami I ucge you to reject this proposal. 1 have four chUdren. They need their space outside to plaJ. I do ~ot want fo cover mare a/my lot with my house, and given {hat our no:.tse is on. a cul-de­ SlU, and f;.ack-t~back to Q cul-de-sacr Q second 5t~y wo~ld not impiU t my neighbors greatly. It wouid crea.te jobs and real value to add to our lit'ing space this way. Besides, for Q young family in Palo Alto it is for us, and I'm sun muny others. too expensive to buy up. I lurue been told it costs about $100fJOO per bflircom to mo,'e 10 a larger house. We don'l have that. Bu!1ding up is the only ,fl'nanciaf/y feasibfe option. I see this pmp05ll!, then, as bring discriminatory Qgainst young and large families. It a[5(1 slows do-• .DII the process of letting the neighborhood 5htYi Its cheap tract-hou5~ im>lge as it could February 10,1993 • do as eJUh h~me(r..vner o!r.ml,..lise cJumge:..-.; and pasonalizes his property. I bel;""e it also negati",ly impacts th, potential value of each house, and therefore 1'legativd1 impads the prvpe7ty tax base for the City ol Paro Alto. Thnnk you for NI!i17"ing me out. 0ta.~aI", Beech.am--Could staff ple. :>oint out Ms. Hyd€'5 property on thE map. Ms. LytIe---Her property is within tJ'1e 3J.)Q foot radius to.send postcards to inform of the zone change, but the property of Ms. Hyde is not in the area ,\.--here the zone ch."'8€ is being imposed. She is well outiide that aTea. Ms Hyde's neighborhood wa.s Originally calle .. ' Greendell. It might be that she lS begin..11i.ng to develOp a feeling of belonging to Greenmeadow becat.:;se it is \"rit.1tin the gen€Ial .icinity. But the actual Greenmeadow 1, Il, and II tracts are outlined on the map. Ms. Hyde-So J would be able to bul "e-cond 5 tory? Ms. Lytle-Yes. You are not part of L.'Us second story zone amendmeI".t. Ms. Hyde-l still thinl< my comments apply to any other young family that is in the Green.."!\eadow I, n, and n tracts. titsi. Indergand, 336 Ely PI.e<, Palo Alto-I am the president of the Walnut Grove Homeolo'lIle:!'S Association. """e were before you last June w:i:th a request for the Wainut Grove neighborhood (S) overlay zone. Our situation and that of Greeruneadow are so similar that t.1-teyare almost identical. Greenmeadow~ as Walnut Grove. is almost entirely single story homes. Gr-ee:runeadow is almost al.! Eichler; Walnut Grove is mostly Burk & Wyatt, but Burk &< Wyatt and Eichler's look so much alike thBt J thought we had bought an Eichler until som=ne enlightened us SOMe three months after we moved into tho neighborhood. Green:l1€adow has the sa:: :-problems and wond~ful advantages as Walnut Grove in that the backs of alrn05t all the houses are almost entirely glass and they depend on pnvagr for the !<set that all of their neighbor~ . Lo;o have single story homes thaf are alrn-..)St entirely made of glass in the Dack. Everybody has shrubs and tre<:'S that provide pr;'·acy. I think that the overwhelming sentiment for the single ,tory character of the neighborhood i:l Greenmeadow is "ery much LT,. >ame numbers that we came up with in Walnut Grove. I really mge this Commission to glve the same consideration to the Greenmeadow appiication that you gave to ours last June ..... ·hen you recommended to the City CowlC:i1 that they approve an ordinance allo-wmg the (5) overiay zone [or our neighborhood" which the City Council did in July and the (5) overlay zone is now in affect for t.ie \:Valnut Grove neighborhood. We rest a Jot easier because what started this whole thing going was someone's intent to bulle! a 4200 square foot tv.'o-story house and since we also have c.c. &: R 's, we began the proce5s of suing our neighbcr, which I don 7 t think made any of us sl(!ep easier or look upon ourselves or Fehruary 10, 1993 27 ~ : ~--------~~ "'.; ~ our neighbors with greater favor. We are r~ally grateful to tfD5 Commission and the City Council for allovving us not to have to consider SUl!lg anyone else i."l the foreseeable futur€' I \\'ould like to say briefly in answer to Ms_ Preston, sh~ says and has said that this as.'o;ociation of whidl I am president dld not exist until this matter CaITI.2 up. That lsn't true. This association v.'as very active if'. gettU'1.g the City to back eff maicing Charleston Road an expressv..·ay some 20 years abo. \Ve _haven't done a 101 in some 18 yea..--s because there wasn~t a.~ythlng to be done, but the association was alive and well and the prohibitive dues are $5.00 per year. Inddentally. c.c. & R's are valid, except for those sections abol.!t people of coIor~ which was yanked down by federal law some 30 rears ago, I thar.k you viO'ry much. George Ebey, 4027 Scripps Avenuel Palo Alto--I have a prepared statement from my 'Wife and me: As original Greenmeailou1 oumersi W!! W,If lived in. our [jch~er hcrme for m~t,. three deClldes and raised our chi1d rrn here. ~Ve enjoy its oprnnes::--­ inc/udin.g f100r~to-cei1i"g giass windcrws 11."1 doors looking O"'../! in three diredior.s to aur outdoor patio arui our backyard. At the same' time .. our privacy has been prctec.:ted from fC1Ur neighbors (and theirs ,from w:) by i2 f-ix~ foof high fence adorned with s/trubbay. A "",roelous living solution for ali! We slrongly support fJIZ5"'ge of fhe one-story zoning cn""'Uzy endorsed by the OVt;;w,ulming majority of aur Gf"unmeadatu neighbors. Any otha Course of action cauld leJld to a very serious invasicm of prirucy in. Greenmeadrr!1l. Ken Crittenden, 342 Parkside Drive, Palo Alto-My family and I have lived here for 38 years. I would like to read the follmving letter: 28 111m '1:U".1/ much in favor of the zon.e m.ap amendment to adopt the s:nglc-story height combining distn"ct (Sj regu~fior.s, whi\.'h modify the site d~)eJopmt·r!.t regulations of the R-l sing!:!{amily residence di.5trict by limiting the he'ight of structures to II rmu:imum of 17 feet lInd one habaable floor, and increDSing the allowable lot c(lvcr-.lge to 40 perce?lt of lot c.reu for tne geographical area ger.erally bounded by East Charleston Road to the nDrth, Alma Street fa the west, San Antonio Road to the 5:)uth~ and lv1iddlefield Road tc tnc east (Greer!meaciau: Ne'ighborhood Tracts 1310,1401, an.d 3074}, AIl 270 homes in this QreQ a! the present time cla::s(~, as singfe story dwerlings as they aU have d::me sh!ce they were budt (1bout 35 years ago A considerable amount of the charm and lit1abilitJl of this neighborhood re51l.its from its basic architectural integration. If second stories WCi·r added to certain. Februa;-y .0, 199'3 ; r 1 ! - Greenmea.iCfU.I homes, 1 belie1..'e this u'ould ser;(lus!y d.amage the ambiana and pleasant cohesion of aUT community. In additior:., the pri~' c,f homes adjoining a house with R second story would be serious':; invaded; the proplo! in rhe Gteom! story homes would be abl!? to look over the prop>:rty line fences into the yards and dwe/rings aftheir sir.gle story n.eighbors. The fences araur.d Greenm!!adou! homes are an integral part of tr.e origir:u.lli~ct deL't?lapment and wen designed as a def:'nite aid in helping to provi1ie privacy far one', single stury hame and yard, 1 t....(JUld appreciatE your voting in /at1(!1' at this zone mAp ::mendment. Commissioner Glazier-The argument that mat'ly of the speak~rs have made tonight on why second stories should!:>e prolu"bited is that member, of your comnlunity desire'.o protect your privacy. I don't think this is unique to your neighborhood, Anywhere in Palo Alto where homes are '0 close together, anytime someone builds a second story~ pri\'acy could be impacted. U someonp' builds a second story near my house, my privacy L" impacted. My question is, do you think all second stories in Palo Alto should not l>e allowed because t.J,ey may b'pact their neighbor's privacy? Mr. Crittenden-Thars beyond LJ,e scope of this hearIng and beyond my knowledge of Palo Allo and the architecture developed in Palo Alto. I think it wOl!ld have to l>e applied neighborhood by neighborhood, Sybil Rodman,. 401 Creekside 1:' ve, Palo Alt.:>-The reason I thought I would add a post script to the other commen[s. based on Commissioner Glazier'"s comme.."1t., is because I frequent! y drive through the ciclUer development called Fainneadow. It's a large area just to the north of Charl ... ton Road, It has exclusively EiclUer homes built just prior to the Greenmeadow homes. There has been no restriction in that CODU't11.L"1..ity. If you drive down a..'ty of their streets, there are a number of second stories that have been added. They are not architectural1y flattering to the l10mes or tc the community in any way. In fact. it's a very jarrL.'"1g experience. I recommend that before YDU vote on this matteI', if you feel at all negativ,=, toward it you take a tour of FaLomeadow, Commissioner Carrasco--I have a question rOT Mr. Rankin. The last time you oonvinced me Llotat there's enough open space around these setbacks to create a good design. I wou.ld like to hear your answer to the question that Cornmissioner Glazier just asked about second stories. Mr. Rankin-I did want to !espor.d L."1 terms of the fact that it isn't just the privacy that we're trying to address~ but it is also the architectural character. If we go back into the history of Green meadow, when it was developed by~. EicJ-.Jer. aU of the lots were reduced in size in order to create the common fadHty that we have, \, ..... hkh February 1 0, 199~ 29 ---_._. ,- - _ .... -- , _.", '--.~'~' .' is a .)ne-acre park, a s,",1nunlng poot arld a community building. covering about thre€ acres, That t.ltree acres was t.ti;.en out of each individual piece of property. At that time, in the 1954-55 era, the zopjngwas ar:1ended for ~fr. Eichler il.."1d in cooperation Vlrith the City to pennit t:h!s. So we're on ::;lightly smaller lots .than most of the places in Palo Alto. I a...--n on a 6,000 square fMt lot. If on./? of my nE'lghhors b .... tilds a second story, he ,,1Ii11 be looking right into my glass "\"'allln the back. In e:!"..$wer to your question, that is not the only issue here. The other part of.if. is that it was conceived and architecturally it's a cohesive neighborhood. 1t is ali Eichler houses. There have been no second S!ori~ added to tr.em. Most of us want to presen-e the original !:'h.aracter of the neighborhO<>d. Cr.munic;sioner GJazier-A speaJ..::er raised a point about }'oung families. One of the tlungs that this proposal will do is reduce the developroent potential of many of the smalJe!" lots and not allow y01l..."1g families from mov!..."'1g in. In some cases we wi.li be reducing development potential by up to 10%. How do you feel a.bout that? Mr. Rankin-Looking at the results of this, and looking at the map in the staff report, ! did a little homework and looked at the responses. The chart in the report shows that the larger lots will be permitted by the increase in oovelage, from 35% to 40%, the larger lots"\\ill have sufficient allowance to a.dd a bedroom and that bedroom can be added on the ground floor. On a 6/000 square foof lot obviouslr we can't do anything. but if it's. larger lot and a large family, they car. add a bedroom and not have to give up the space-that it takes to get a stairway up to a second floor. Th~y would really come out ahead. Commissioner Carrasco--It seems like uyou want to put that extra bedroom in fr..e way Ekhler's are designed, you would put it on the patio that you nOm1aJly use to look out windows and have tree sHes open. As r do these calculations, if you take the area of the setback front yard at 20-feet. rear yard at 20-feet .. and the side yards, you don't have any more open space other than buildIng setback to setback to setback. I don't mow if that would be the c.."ttaracter of Eic.1Uer. Could you cornrrH.'nt on that? Mr. Rankin-I haven'"! done one architecturally. There haven'f been any remode~s that have gone beyond the 35% limit in Greenmeadow in p.Jrticular. H ~vouJd be a tough problem to solve. There might be some enclosure of S0!r.,c of the panos. The majority of the houses in Greenmeadoware the Jonps & Emmons rll.'Sign LJ,at were not around the centra! patios. There are some places wher-e additions can be made, but the 40% gives a whole lot of lee\' .. ay. Shirley Ea~on, 373 Shasta DrivE', Palo Alto--I live in the GrtO'enmeadow area. I was nof p!anrJng to speak tonight because we thought that the matters that needed to be covered were well covered by the letter written by the co-chairmar. erf the Green..T.eadowCivic Affairs Committee. [am her co-chairman. ] ha\'e li\'ed in Pale 30 Febr"ary 10, 1993 - ~-~ -----~---~---- AI,to for 25 years and in Green..'Tleadow for over 15 years, I would. like to address one oi the things that has not really come through in this meeting. That is, th~ feeTL."1.g of community "'ithin this rteighoorhood. \Vehave 270 homes that ar-e .... ery simllar in ilfCiutecture. We have 270 families who we like to thin . .k of as neighbors and friends. We do not ha ve to belong to the Greeruneado',I\-' A<;sooation if we J!ve in Greeruneadow t U, or m. It is not d condomL'iium association. Membe:sl"":3.p is free-wilL One of the main reasons I see for having the City put in this one-stmy height overlay zone is because we already have it i..."1 our C.C. & Rrs. ]l..fost of us live in this Greeruneadow communitybecaus€ we like t.1,.e oonununity. Vile iike the one­ sfory style. \Ve 00 net want fO have to prevent someone from building a second story by suing them in court, particularly after they h<!ve already started the process of building a second story .. My understanding IS~ if we have thi.s addition to the zonin~ then the zoning of the City of Palo Alto will agree with the Cc. be R'. that are in exist.ence--one story limit Thert if someone, who is a homeo'\o7ler~ ""ishes to build. second story, or a larger footprint, then LO. notifioatiop. proc .. s kicks in. The person applies for a permit and then the neighbo,,; are notified and -Ne c.n have some form of a hearing. I've never done this, so I'm not exactly sure of th.e hearing, but it does prevent a law suit. Believe me, preventing law suits goes a long way to continuing a feeling of community and neighborhood. I think that is really what this application of Greenmeadow Association is about. The fact that we like livi..'1.g there. W"e're not opposed to dl~,ge. l.fy role on the Civic Affairs Committee has l>een to deal with the Cu~lt matter. There are a lot of c!\anges going in there, and the neighborhood has agreed to them. We are not opposed to change, per say. But, if somet.."ing isn~1 broke, don"t fix it! r would like to add one other thing, which goes back to the flIst commen t Some of you talked about the fact that the non-respondents were residents. Ma..'1), of the non-respondents are non-residents. Thjs vote was for property ov.'ll.eIS. A lot of those blanks do not belong to residents. The one on Shasta D: >.'0:, is one that is owned by somebody who lives in Colorado a...,d w:,,<: occupied by a tenant" and is right now in process of being sold to a couple "I)'it:. small dddr'2"n who ""'ill be moving in and living in the house. One is owned by an elderly retired couple who plan to move and their real est~te agent advised them to vote against tJ-oJs i.;,Sue because it would reduce the value of the house. Ar.other is not occupied by the O'Wller; there's a white Jot next to our park and that house.is currently for sale. There's another lot on Nelson Drive that is also for sale. I be!ie\~e l.'h.e other one has since been sold and is occupied. I think you would find that very few of the houses where there were no responses are occupied by the O\o',;'ner. ~fy experience with Greenmeado"~ and Cubbe.rly is that if there is a residpnt who disagrees .. you wiH hear about it. I t:hinJc you cannot Safely assume that t people who did not respond are opposed. I think you can safely aSSll.me that the people who did not .respond are not residents, ar1.d therefore are not part of the feeling of this community~ which is so important, or that they don't care and they should very well have responded with the ~jno optrJon" but did not. February 10,1993 31 1 'I i , I I ~ • ____ , ___ . ~r..;_~_ •. L'"', conclusion, ir. addition to consiciering the architecture, ! hope you will please consider the feeling of the l'leighborhood, the community, because that is really more importar.! than the architecture. Anybody who absolutely has to live i~, a h'lo'o--story' houSE' can go trIough the process ar.d t.~e procedure-s that the City of Palo Alto pro"Vldes. I would suggest that since many of the houses are ..xc-..rpied now by people ""ith small children, includJng m'o on my sl:r~tr that it's not a requ.irement to be able to put a second-story on the house to have a family h""ith small children livE' in the area. Indeed" putting a second story on it might price the house out of reaD1. of somebody who would like fo Eve in our commu!lity, Thank you. PUBUC HEARlNG CLOSED Commissioner Cullen-Mr. Rankin talked about the meLl)od under the C.C. &: R's t.1tat would cha..llge the one-story restriction by it consent of a majority of the residents of the particular area affected by \he c.c. &. R's. Under the proposal that we have before us, which is the overlay (5) zone, is there any avenue for changing? Sa y 15 years from now if the complexion of the community c.hanges~ is there any way in which that (5) overlay zone can be changed? Ms. Case-By the same proce:;s that we're going through right now. Conunissioner Cull~n--\Vhkh is an ame::tdment to the z-Or-..ing map? Ms. Ca.s-e-That's oorre-L't. If the Council adopts this then any homeowners association vote \'\.·oilld be somewhat irrelevant in the future U it was contrary to this. Commissioner Cullen--r'm not anridpating there will be Q::le, but , .. "ould thE' appiication process for such a zone amendment be initiated by majority of the persons affected in U1e zone? Ms. Lytle--l think we could essentially take our gu.ideJinps and reverse them a.'1d apply them to a removal from the district. V·le hadn't really a.'1ca.pated that, but certainly you could apply for a text amendment, one way or the other. Commissioner Ojakian---! want to make sur-e I'm dear on terms of IOf covE':age if we were to go away [rom 5econd stories to the (5' overlay =one. On th_e smaller size iots it would mean a little less building; on the lots in the 7,500 square foot area it would mean a wash; and on the larger lots you would actually come out ahead in terms of square footage. [s th;3t correct? Ms. LytJe--You would come out ahead if you WE're just looking at the lot coverage .. but because the FAR \-\,'111 ah",~ays pre\-'ail as a control. you can't ever get more FAR than you would have even though the lot coverage would ha\'e perrrlitted you to have more. So FAR_ "t',-·iU still control. The break~e\'('n point is the 7r-500 square fool 32 February 1 D, 1993 " -'-{'~-.' .. ' . .;/; -... _. lot a..,d that's it. You have the s.ame FAR to b·~ld, only now It' 5 in a s.ingle-story fermat, rather than a two-story format. Commissioner Ojakian-Is If fair to say that because the bulk of fr.€'$€' lo~, the \rast majority are greater than 6,Q"O square feet, so really we're talking about a design question. Ms. Lyt1~It is more of a desigr. question... Even on th-lfSe lots that are losing, that up to 15<l square re..t, they would in the ~nd·story remodel lose ground lioor space to put a stainvay in, That's why we havlt people approac.~ us now even "vit..i.out the second story overlay; applying for this relief (rom lot coverage; because they see it as an a.dva..""ltage even b the situation where the)' rrught lose a little bit, they're sliD gaining practically <;s.ble space. Commissioner Ojald~So to take it one step further, the ce. & R's aside, if we go to this overlay zone in the area, do people still have a variance process t."ey can go through ifJ fo~ some extraordinary reason they want to add to the house and we as a City said sure. Is there a variance process a"aUable to people? Ms. Lytle-Yes L'terp is C(!mmissi'3Tl-=r Glazie.r--My u..'1derstand is that through the home improvement exception process, people can g.: up to J 50 square fool bonuses that would aUow for stairw'e1ls or a stairway to A second story. Therefore, since they would be ab1e to get that back through the home improvement exception process, we really are back to the sit'.atian where on. 6,000 square foot lot, they would be losing 150 square feet of development potential. Chairman B~cltam--I can hardly imagine that if it were to come to the Commiss:on that we would s&.y for .arl Eichler style house tr.at the de~ign is improved by gh1ng additional square footage to • stalrwell. Co:nmissioner Giotz.ier--But home improvement exceptions don' f com£? to the Corrunission, they go through the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Lytle-For a home improvement exception wp do need to review the project on the basis of neighborhood character. CleaIly we'\o'~ ::>""'lanted relief, in terms of getti..'"1.g access to the second floorsf for things like stairwells. That h; one of the inddenfal increases thilt we~ve permitted. Howeverl I would have to agree that a second floor ::\ iUl Eichler situation is going to be a dlffit..i .. I1t one through the home improvemer '!Xception processJ simply because the fmdings have to do v..;th impro\'emer .. lfl architecture and neighborhood compatibilIty and character. Commissi.oner Glazier-Suppose someone were to tear do'Nn an Eichler and build a modem sry'le horne that had t'vo'Q sforlcs, which would be reasonably consistent February 10,1993 33 - 'With tlc::hler architecture? SomNne who wasn't trying to bt:.Ltd a Cape Cod or Colonial style home. Yvil could in fact ~ui!d, and justify thnmgh the home improvement exception process, a modern styi€' home that "","as-tv,'O stories .. . Ms. Lytle--The hom-:-improvemen t exception process is only a v.lil.able for remodeled-homes, You can.'t tear down a home and apply that process. You could apply for that .. however, through a variance process, You could. make application. Commissione.: Glazier-In tr.e process of your remodeling,. you could sl!hstantialiy change the ardtit~cture to make it not look like Eicl'J'~L Chainnan Beecha.m-I have a question regarcUng Greeruneadow m. I understand there are '27 homf".5 in that sectio~. On the map there are either no votes or an absence of response on 13 of the 27 homes, I come up v{ith 55% as positively ""oting yes. Is that consistent Vvith your understanding of the numbers? M .. LytI,,-We took the percentages from the people who we got L'te responses from. Michael BilIs-I did verify all the numbers and the numbers reHected. in their information are accurate. Commissioner Glaz.ier-V/ould that qualify under our definition of oven-.rhelming support? r think when we said ovoerwhelming support. we mean t of the entire neighlx.-rrhood .. not of .a. selected. sample and in this case since we only surveyed aooul75% of the neighoorhood, that ,till means 45% of the people aren't in favor of thls at thls point. ·We <an't affmnatively say that they are in favor of thls proposal in GreenIJ'l.eadow ill. To me that doesn~t come across as overwhelming support. We talked aoout something in the neighoorhood 0175%, but didn't say that was the golden number a.'1d once you crossed that t:fo.resho!d you had it, nor the reverse-­ that if you didn't get there it wasn't oven"'helrrJng support. To me 5.5% iSIn overwhe!rr-Jng support. Ms. Lytle--Cl.early we left it up to interpretation.. Te-;:hruca.l.ly tl-..is application ,,'as initiated v-riLt..out having to meet those criteria that we laid out because it was rr-.itiated prior to the-adoption of the guidelines by the Council. So te-chnically they didn't fall subject to that. The action before you was initiated by the Council, not w.rough an application, and we didn't require the actual O\-vners' signatures that \'.'1:' , .. --ill require in future zoning actions. J think ...... ·hellier CrT not you consider nus overv.rhelmingr is up for debate tonight and you have latitude. Commissioner Ojakian-·AlI the people in this aft'a, l..'1duding Greenmeadow ill; were noticed for this meeting. Is that corred? Ms. Lytle--That's ('orrect and induding people outside Gree~adow. Februar/10, 1993 ... ~ . " ------ Commi.ssioner Ojak.ian-From reading the staff re-perf, this is an action that was initiated by the City Council, so it technically doesn't faE under the sct of guideLnes th<:t we would normally use if this p .. xcss was to come i.n front of us again "'ith another neighborhood, Ms. L}''"tle--That's coned Commissioner Cullen-l wondoer if there is anybody present from Green:meadow IDr aside from the woman who thought she \ .. ~as in Gr-eenmeadow ill. I'm sharing the u..raeasiness that a couple of my colleagues have e;..pressed, as to the degree of sponsorship of this o,'erlay in the Gr ... nmeadow ill arE •. What if we were to separate out Gr·eenIlleadow ill and give it another more thorough C"anva5sL"l8. \Ve're dependent on the figures that were given to us by the Greenmeadow Association and 1 guess J'm not really romfo!'t.lb!e y,.i'iu.~ taking those figures and then going on from there. PUBUC HEARING REOPENED Shirley Eaton, 373 Shasta Drive, Palo Alto-We senl out 463 postcards. We had a slory in the current issue of the MI?DdCT.vl3rk about tonight's hearing. On the front page of the Ml?Ddaw/ark we had the sc."eduJe and co1endiU' of torugr. ;'5 meeting. We've had continuh . .; stories in the Meadcrwlark ever since this camE about last spring. I myseli made poster.s and put them around the neighborhood Monda)' afternoon announcing Ionight's hearing. The only two people who have come before you to speak against trus l are people who do not live in Greeruneadow t Greeruneadow H, or Greenmeadow m. Anybody from Greeruneadow ill who is not here, is not here because they don't , .... el TI-.ey've had a chance to come arod oppose, ond they are not here. PUBUC HE.W,\C CLOSED Commissioner Ojakian---Ii we are l.l.·l.comi'}ftable v.rim the Green."71ea_Gow ill tract, and Ym not sure rm one of those people whf' lc uncomfortabI('~ maybe we oughf to stipulate soI:1ething tonight in which the sW. .les sure that the people ill that area are well aware of whafs going on~ prior tc ,his matter coming before the Council. Commissitmer CulIen--I would agree ""-ith that. but I think it should be on an inw,idual basis. I don't think you can depend on people reading something that comes in the maiL I personally toss half the stuff that comes in my maiL Or,. they may be out of town. If we're going to do that,. if ought to be by individual contact-_ There aren't that many houses in Greeruneadow ID. Of the 27 we already know that 15 of the contacts are in favor of the matter. February 10, 1993 35 ---i--: -ItJ· }~l~~{.-. '.- Commissioner OjilJdan--Again, I think what ",,'('·re doing is saying to ourselves, let's be fair here because in faci in this prOC"%s tonight, the City Council ha'3 initiated this action a... .... d t.,.-;""at is -enough to 5.ay that we co·..lld go ahead and put this ove"day zone in lh,thout necessarily going through what would be the sttJl1d<:trd set of procedures and r.olling tho~ people to get an accurate number count. Z\fs. Case-Yes, The City COllnLil has the right to adopt whateverI~gisla!ion it sees fit for the benefit of the City, Commissioner OJ wan-So, what we're r-eally talking about is sort of an issue of fairness; to characterize it~ because it isn't a technical issue and that's someth3ng we wot. \d be legally required to do. Chairman Beecham--On Greenmeadow I and Greerur,eadow fir I haven't heard any concern, The information we have before us absolutely supports applying thE' single-story overlay zone to il I have nO' question about that. Regarding GrC'el".meadcw m~ there 15 much more of a problem. Certainly in terms of a percentage of respondents, 72% is quite high; it's close to the 75% we t.llked about as a guideline, whkh is only an approximate number an~·ay. However~ because in Gre€nmeadow ill there was a lower proportion of respofl.5e, ] have a concern about that area. I am prepared to move that we exdude GreenmeadOVl ill toright from havi,'1g a single-story overlay zone, but I would encourage the Greenmeadow Assodation to go out and knock on the doors and help flush out the full ,'ate in that are •. I would expect that by the time thls goe~ to Council in one more monthr that could easily be done. Perhaps having the infonnation at that time will clarify the total number of people in that neighborhood and what they wish to do. MOTION: Chairman Bee'cham-I move Hut the Commissior, adopts the staff recornmendations for Greenrncadaw I and GreenrnE'adow n to support a smgie--story (5) overlay and a negative environmental declaration, excluding GreeruneadJw III, and including the five houses in the Walnut Gro .. ~e area. SECOr...V: Commissioner Glazier, Commissioner Cullen--l would like to S}"I€'ak in approval of the motion. I would particularly like to point out that the reason for holding back on Gre-enmeadow ill at this tirrte is that t.~e guidelines, which were adopted by the City Councit call for t.~e application of the overlay zone amendment to meet \I>.-ith "overv..·helmir.g support by owners (not respondents) of the affected properties." Until",'e gd some indicatior, of that~ I feel we should. hold off including Greenmeadm .. : ill in this particularly overlay zone. OtheTih1.Se I'm perf'2ctly satisfied that GfL"€'nmeadow r 36 February 10, 1993 ~ ; "~{t~·: ..... - ---------_. .. -->~ -' and GreE!nmeado~\r II do have the overv.<helming support of the o ..... ,rners of the property and [think they've done a good job in pursuing thi' very thoroughly. O..aim1an Beecham-It doesn't matter ·<,\,here the O .... 'l1eT of thE' property lives. Any property o'Wner has the same right, regardless of his/her individual residency. Also, a point in fa vor or Greenmeadow m, is ti.at after 2D-30 years they are stili al.l single story residences, and that does say SOUlQiliing. Commissioner Schm: -'t-lsupport what Chainnai1 Beecham said, and \vould add that not only are the eA.,;ting resid~nces single-story, but they indeed have maintained il"..at existing maractr:.>r of the original design where nobod:y has put a Spanish facade or a Tudor facade, which could be done on a Si . .tlgIe-stor', home, and which they could easily have done. I've driven around the neighborhOud and although r didn't look at every single house, [didn't see ar" that stood out as a character that was very different from what \'vas originally '\ ~!'e. It has a very cohesive look to it, Obviously the people who live there hal,": tried to maintain L~at. It would appear that the people have been well-noticed. As r dro.e around there today there were sandwkh boards on several rorners porn ling ou t tonight', meeting in addition to everyth:ng that has been mer.tioned. [am in full ,upport 01 this change to single-story overlay lor Greenmeadow r a..'1d ll. Com.missioner Carrasco--I too sUPfX'rt the motion. I }-...ave one concerJ"1~; however, and that is the issue of setbacks. ! think !hat on the smaller size lots, the FAR goes fro",_ .. thad-. to setback and r think it would destroy trees and take off land><aplng and the d",,.cter of the neighbor. At the 6,000 .euare foot lot, [think there is a break at 7,500 "luare leet, there is enough play -cr diilerena> between setback calculations and FAR in as much as it does not occupy the entire envelope. or the entire setback envelope So while I support it, it's because Greeruneadow t U, and ill do not have that mar.y 6,000 square foot lots. However r would suggest under Condition 4, which talks about moderate size lots, we should clarify that in order to preserve this kind of landscaph-.g-and character tha~ "rI'loderate"· should be detlned as jf more than 10% of the!ots aJ"'e less than 7,000 square feet I ttJnk if~ ;-oing to have an Impact on the character of that neighborhood, given it will be k ,e to lot we. 1 would suggest a friendly amendment that modified Condition 4 t~ ,:,oay thE' nu..-nber be Ie;, than 10%. Ms.. Case-That doesn't relate to the action before you fonight. Commissioner Schmidt--I admire Commissioner Carrasco's persistence in trying to bring that issue up every Single time we talk about small lots. I feel t:-.e design .:an be worked out. We talked about trade-ofls of going to square footage for the stain"rays to get up to the second-floor, etc. many t'..mes tl.X), but I think 'we need to leave it as it is. Februal)' 10, 1993 tI'L 37 ! I • ··"'>fr:" --:~.::'-'~' ~-" ~,~ ,,~,~; ;-~:~-, .-.... -~;;-.~. : 'wL'~'F"·' - ::.fi":', "". ~"?:.;'~-;:./.;' _o..l·II' .. c.' .... _~,_ ... ,II[;....,, __ ,_ J~~ _~ ___ ,~_ Commissioner Glazier.-I would enrourage the pl.'Ople who are here tOnight '· ... ho are supporting this issue, to also in addition to Greeruneadow ill get responses hum the people along Char1(>Ston. There are five hou5:E-S that are techrJ.cally part of Y..lalnut Grove t..;'at we exduded. from vValnut Grove laEt time. There's no response at all frcom any of thos-:o five houses, I would encourage L'"Iem to get responses trom those five houses as wen. Commissioner Ojakia.n--I come out of a neighborhood asscdation an_d I was an officer, so I have a deep appreciation for when neighbors have to get together and try to lobby for tr.ose things they are interested in a5 a group. I am in support of the motion because what we have here is a. sense of corrununHy, as one of the spedker's said. One of the things we do is to add to~ enhanc€'~ or reInforce that by the City ghing recognition to what is really already going en there. 1':n not one to give recognition to this c.c. & R's per say. It's interesting that som~ne commented tonight about how c.c. & R's have been used in the past a.'1d certain aspects of them. I think it's important that the City conJirm ""hat has been a tradition and a characrer L.-,. that area that is an invah.lable one. On the other side of the coin, I'm also a paren~ of four childr~n. Sor I have some appreciation when people are talking about adding to their houses and that diIe:mma, because rYe had to do that myself. I'm also convinced from what the ~taff said that we're really not talking ab'H.lt an impact on the actual si.ze of a hm.15e by impJeme.'1ting this particular overlay zone. \"te~re really talking about a difference in design, so i~s a question of whether you for SOI:le reason with your family would want to slt in a tw\?-story house VErsUS a Single-story house and why somebody would or wouldn't wan! that, r don't think the families are affected by this, In fact, I think that is an area that would be a greaf area to raise famJlies. You have all those various fadlities out there. j can imagine people that I know.at my end of tOl-"w"11 are envioU5 of that area. The other fhi..-.,g we have said~ which is interesting, is that if u.'1der som~~ set of special circurr.stances, there was a. need to do something different ire thal area, there still is a process available to do t: ..... at. That process might not meet y, ... ith the actual privette property O"l-VIlers' c.c. &. R agreements~ but it does meet v.rith what the City makes available, and that is the ability to use a varia."Ke, [think we've covered all of our bases to provide probably the best of all worlds. I und:erstand wha t my fellow Commissioners are saying about Green meadow ill, because r think you're always in a dilenuna over trying to do something that is good for the majo~lty and in the interest of the people ~, .... ho are LTl. an area mthout jeopardi7jng other people's property rights. Ym in s-IJ.ptx'rt of u'le motion and I also encourage a.."1d hope that the people in Greenmeadow who have 'been active in this process ,'\ili go out and get th.e support of those other people so we do have a con.sistent zone in that area. I think that would bE" to the benefit of everybody. 38 February 10,1993 ".:. , 11 ~J :; " MOTION CARRIED: The motion to apply the single-s'ory (S) overlay zone to Greenmeadow I a....,d Greenmeadow IT and the fi.· .. 'e Walnut Grove houses was ca.."1ied unanimously. {To be IOf1l)llrded t:J City CO/mcii ,\&2,," 1,5,1993,] February 10, 1993 39 ·' . Survey Response Map • r!1 ~avQr of Si n~l e-Stor)' Height Restrlctlon G~A?HIC AITt~H~E~r TJ srt.fF F,:FJ;:::,T L SC'.~_E: I EXHIBIT BJ N '\ Ft:brunry 7. 199.1 G:\ r~ 0 S i 1.:'1 P 1m \~) i~ ,~ ~ " ' _~ LiJJ LLi F~~ ( :.l t,.'·~:: • Dear m~mbers of the Pa[o Alto Planning Commission, DEPA:;T,,~.::ri1 OF PL..~~t~;i-.l.G GllY Of PA.LO AVIO I have been a resident of Greenmeado\.v Ill, living at 193 Ferne Ave., Palo Alto since 1965. ! am writing to ask for your favorable consideratioll of a onl! story 'Ci'esignatiol1 or overlay on [he dly zoning maps fOT Greenmeadow Ill, even if it means there WQuid be a lot coverage up to 40%. Currently Greenmeadow III is air one ~!ory. and r would like to see il stay that way. We have ma.l1aged to enhance cur property with a ground floor addition and land~caping without having to resort to a second srory. We couldn't enjoy the same debree of privacy wirh second story homes around us. Greenmeadow HI voted in favor of a one story overJay with 71.4% in favor, 23.8% against and 4.8% wiLh no opinion. I hope you will agree with us and recommend to the city council a one story designa1.ion. Since-rely, 1 ( (I d __ . L M yi( u '1. < u"-.. ' Carol Stevens cc: P.A. City Council Member~ I I \ , 4094 Ben Lomond Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 February 3, 3.993 Planning commission city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Aven~e Palo ~lto, CA 943C1 Dear commissioners: We strongly suport th€ Greenmeadow area application (or a single­ story overlay zone. Dering our 23 year residence in the Green:mea<\ow neiqhoorhoOO, ~e have valued the existing covenents and deed restrictions. Fortunately, the single story rr,triction has ~ot been challenged, but we all have known that there was no city enforcement available for non-compliance. Now is the time to codify the practice that has survived 35 years and engage the City as & partner i-maintaining the single-story character of the Greenmeadow neig~:hood. cc: c~ty Council Planning Departme~t Greenmeadow Civic Affairs ~omroittee • 3 - City of Palo Alec 250 Hamilton Avenue P~lo Alto, CA 94301 372 F,3:~:::ic.:.=- P310 AltQ~ CA TO: The Pl~nning Commission :'.::-i \,-= 9,,3(16 : ;...' __ ' l .. : ,'..l: FEB C 8 1993 .,;r ?,.::,] ~.LiUI -"---,------ RE: Zon~ map amend~e~t tc limit Greenm~ado~ ~el;hbor~cD~ tracts 1310, 1401 ~nd 3074 tc 2 si~~l~ ~tGry. HonGr~ble Members of the Commission: This is ..... ritte-r: ir, su~p;Jrt of th'=! prci,v::::':',j .:.cti,:,:,. to limit re5idenc~s in the Greenroe~eov neighborhoud to a single ~tary. As a long-time resident of Palo Alto and GreenD~aJo¥, I hav~ ~lways been active in o~r Commu~ity ~ssociation. 1 w~s a ~Emb~~ of the CiviC Affairs committee t~at sponsored the proposal now before you and am currently the Vlce President of thE Eoard of Directors of the Greenmeadc~ Co~n~~ity AS5c2iatiG~, Inc. ! a~ also an ar~hitect and plann~r but nnw retired fro~ ful1-tl~~ prac:t ice. From this backgzound I ~~~t to point out an aspect cf this i~E'Je that may not be immediately apparent to all of the p6:ticipant~. Except for the increase i~ allow3ble lot CQVEr~g~, the zone ~~~ amendment will ~erely r~~ffirm a limitat10~ that ha! bee~ in effect s!nce Greenmeado~ ~a3 bui1t i~ 1954/1555. The '·C.C.; R's~ (Con~itions, Covenants and R~5tricticns) !e~0rd~~ aE r~~~ir~~ cf the developer, ~r. Eichler, ~r0vie~~ i~ ~arasra?~ 1. that: .N0 builei~g sh~ll be er~ctEe, altered, pl~cee c'r ~ernitte~ tc remain on 3~y lGt c·t~er than one ~etachea sing:e-£~roily dwellin;, Tlot tc exc2e~ 0ne S~0:y i~ height and a priv~te gara1! f0t ~C~ ~~~s t~an t~c C5~~.~ Thus 1 when each and ev~!y one of U~ i~ Gre~~me2jc~ u~~t~ cne an~ t .... Q signed ollr deeds, cc'nta~r.ir.·~ tr.Es t.:.::trictj'::';i, , .. ;.~ :r,:::d>-::, in eEfect~ a ~:utual promise to ~~C~ oth~l (a coven~nt) t~at we would flot add a second story to G'~= ~OC3~S vlt~ou~ the cons~nt ~~ the oth~r ho~€ o~ner~. In ti'.~ iL'.tervenin3 y..:'ar;i t~lt·t,.:: hC:'~·t: h':'-'n 2p';J!6l~ic ,:i::",,:~.s:::E,::'n-= about .... Mether the restricticn s~a~ld be lift~a to ~110w s~cc·n~ story additioDs b~t the rnajerity opi~ion ha3 alw~y~ b ~n j~ f~vor of maintai~ing the slngl@-~tcry cha~ectel of th~ ~ei~ bcrhose. From ti~c to time those of us ~ho ~~re c0n=ern~d abo~ r'[~3ervin'3 the criginal archlt~ctural C0nc~pt of th~ G:ee::~~~0~w COIT'ITIDI;ity ~M.15 page 1 of 2 :,..;" •. II - ~--~~----------~-------------~~ ~"" ,---.. have appealed to th~ City 0f r31~ Alt~ f~r hefi i~ e~!orcins the C.C. & Po' s. ;~ were consistently advised that it ~as G~: r€Src~sib~lity an-l t~~at the City ~cu!e enfolcE thp CQ~e but ~ot the C.C.& £'s. W~ veze tnu3 aware that out re~eaYI i~ t~~ e~ent of 3 violation, would be thro~gh a lawsuit -ene of the rr;o:t dI~'isiv~ t~ings that can happen among ~eighbo:s. It is elsa ~. ~n5ive, ~~c~sEarlly after-the-fact, and the results seldom sa factory. B~t that ~.5 our situation until t~e prese~t timE, wl~~n the covena~t can at last be given thE fQ.tce clf [zoni:--.g] 1alo'. When our good neighbors !n the adjacent dQvelo~~ent of Wa1nut Crov~ petiticned for the zonin~ ~~verlayr. we imm~diately tD~~ steps to fol1o~ suit. Encouraged by their s~cce55, we are submitting the facts !n this l~tter in Support of 0~! ~ppljc&tion and for the i~for~ation of those present at th~ p~blic hearln3 ~n U:e matter .. We need to point out -in the event ~~y Gzee~meadow home owners are in opposition -that the C.C.& Rls themselves provide a means for changing the regulations. They ~ere to be in effect for tv~nty fiv~ years and to extend 3utomatlcally " ... fOI successive periods of 10 years unless an instrum~nt signed by a majority of the tt~en owner~ of the lot~ has baen recorded agreeing to change said covenants in ~hole or i~ part.~ Accordingly, in 1979 a poll was conducted to determine ~hethe! the covenants should be extended. A suffici~nt majority agreed to 2l1o~ them to go into the automatic renewal process and in 1939 there was no effort to make a change. In 1993 thet~ wi!l b~ another opport~nlty but it appears from this record and the poll conducted for the purpose~ of the current application that ~galn ~ sufficiEnt majority of Greenmeadcw cw~ers favor li~itiDg the pouses to a singl~ story. Spea~ing ~c~ for myself an~ for 372 rErk6ie~ Grlve I earn~st}~ u:rg,= your fiivorable acti0'· on tl:~ ;,:,:'pe·::e:: ZGne rrL5p '::;,~:--l':Lr''''';.:'. TbanK 'yOIJ. Sincerely, ~t1U CaIrol1 S. Rankin GH.15 pag~ 2 of 2 • ~._~_W''''. 1 -"" ,--' - !o:oRrr'berE of the Palo \1to Pl;tr.r.ing Co::':.::::.is:::'i-Jn Palo -'-Ito (,ity Ea11 Palo 'lt~. CA 94301 ;,42 ?9."'!'ksi~e 7r~',''8 ?alD Alto, CA 943)~ Fe~I1Jary 4-, 1993 I aJ:. ve".::'v rr:uot in favor of the Z-:-ne Fe't' ar~:'.€:1cr:te!:t to aC.ct't the Si:r..gle-S,tc::-y Height t,orc'tij";}.r:g J'!istrict" (S) T€gulaticns, ' .... :!1ich-r:-.odify the Bite oevelop!!ler..t regt,.la.tior.:~ of the P-1 E'i~1g1e-:!'amily TE."siee!'.ce district by lL~~ting th~ hei~ht cf struc~=eE to a r.axi~um of 17 feet and one hB'bi ta"ble floor, a.rJ.'~' increasj.ng the all D .... 'able lot c oYe::,ag-e to 40 percent of lot ~rea for the geafTa~~ical a~ea gene~al:y bounaeo by East Che.!'"leston Ptoae to "the no::th, Alma stre!;;t to the west, San Antonio R02d to t:re south, and J.:ic.:'lefl€1c. Roac to tr .. e eae-t (Greenmeadow N"etghbc,~hood Tra;::t.:' 1310, 1~:)i a.'1d 3(74). A.ll 270 hoites in this area at tbe ~'re~e~t ti~e cla!:sify e.e singl(!! story awe} lings as they all ne.ve c.one ~ince t:-_ey we-=e built about 35 years ago. A considera"ble e.mount of the cha~ an':: 1i vabili ty of "trds neighborhood rEsults from i"ts 'basic ard:i tecbrral lntegratj on. If secona sto!'ies ~'e!,e adc:eoo t~ ce:rtai::. GI"een::Jeaa:,~·"" hOI:!es, r ""believe this ""ould serilJusly darr:age the ar'cience ar .. c pleasant cchesion of cur c O!!!!'!1.Ul'li ty . Tn adc"iiion. the privacy of r.orr:es adjoining a house ~'ith a secDnd etory would be se=iously imrac.ec; tr.e peo;::le in the s:eco~d etcry homes 'Would be aole to 100:-:: over the propE'!I't:r line fences into the yares anc dwelli:r:gs of thejr single S'tD:Y n~if'."h·bors. rr}:e fe::.ces a:rc~c G'!?eeI1.lr'.eacow 1"-~IJ:::'ES aTe ar'_ jntef,ral :;;a!'t of tb~ original tra<::: t aeveloprnent a.r!c. ,",'ere dezignec as e. aefini ts aid j.!" .. :':'elping-to nrovic:e "OTi vacy for one's single sto:!':; :hc')I".e a!':-c yare. I would appl"eciate your' vc,t"ing in favor of this Zone I·:ap amend.mer.!t. .:p'-" •