City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff ReportThe 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses...
Transcript of City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff ReportThe 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses...
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 83 Homes Within the Los ArbolesTract by Amending the Zoning Map to Rezone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A).
Executive Summary Los Arboles homeowners have requested rezoning 83 homes from Single Family Residential (R-1) and a related sub-district referred to as R-1 (7,000) to the Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay zone (i.e. R-1-S and R-1(7,000)-S). The Los Arboles proposal meets the eligibility criteria to initiate a standard1 SSO district rezone application. This report forwards the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)’s recommendation and report providing background clarifying the proposal’s eligibility, SSO rezone process, and consequences of single story rezoning. Attachment B is a map showing the Los Arboles tract boundary and the boundary of the requested Los Arboles SSO zone, which includes all but two properties within the 85-lot tract. The omitted properties are two corner lots fronting Ross Road (a one-story Eichler home and a two-story stucco home). The 83 Eichler homes within the proposed SSO boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 homes facing Ames Avenue from 700 to 788 Ames, and eight homes on Middlefield (3287-3333). Currently, 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive are both zoned R-1, which requires lots to be 6,000 square feet (sf) to meet the minimum lot size. The other properties are zoned R-1(7000), where the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf.
1 A standard SSO district involves no changes to the text of PAMC Chapter 18.12.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background The City Council adopted the Single Story Overlay (SS0) zone as a standard zone district in 1992; modifying it once in 2005. On June 29, 2015, Council took related action on the Single Story Overlay process (Agenda item #22 ‘Consideration of Capping the Fee for Establishment of Single Story Overlay Districts and Referral of a Policy Discussion Regarding Single Story Overlay Districts and Alternative Neighborhood Protections.’) After discussion, Council directed staff to continue the past practice of treating Single Story Overlay District (SSO) requests as re-zonings initiated by the Planning & Transportation Commission so that no fee would be required, and to return with an Ordinance updating the Municipal Code to reflect this change. Also, Council decided that, through the Comprehensive Plan Update, the City will explore giving neighborhoods opportunities to institute overlays. To request a SSO, signatures are required from 70% of the included properties2. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property. Within a SSO district, existing two story homes, homes with lofts or mezzanines, and homes exceeding maximum height of 17 are considered non-complying facilities subject to the regulations of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.70. Single story homes are not subject to the Individual Review application process. At the writing of this report, the City has received and the PTC has reviewed two SSO applications (Los Arboles and Greer Park North), which are shown on the map, Attachment C along with the City’s existing single story overlays. The Council is scheduled to consider the Greer Park North SSO proposal (another one-story Eichler tract of 72 homes) before the end of the year. A third SSO application (Royal Manor) is scheduled to be submitted at the end of October and has not yet been scheduled for consideration by the PTC and the City Council. The City’s zoning regulations related to zoning changes are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. On September 30, 2015, the PTC determined the proposed application is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The PTC meeting minutes and staff reports of September 9 and 30, 2015 are attached to this report. They can also be viewed on the city’s website at this link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48869 PAMC Chapter 18.80 states that a property owner can file an SSO request (in accordance with PAMC Section 18.12.100). It also requires mailing of hearing notices to property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the property to be rezoned, as well as the property to be rezoned. The PTC recommended that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from
2 Sixty percent (60%) is required where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
R-1 to R-1-S (and from R-1(7000) to R-1(7000)-S) by adopting the attached draft ordinance.
Discussion Existing Conditions
Los Arboles neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family residences of a similar age (1959-60), design and character (Eichler homes);
95% of the 83 homes within the proposed SSO boundary are original single-story Eichler homes;
The four two-story homes within the proposed boundary are original one-story Eichler homes with small second floor additions;
One of the one-story homes in the neighborhood has recently been sold. There are no two-story home applications filed with the City within the proposed SSO boundary.
The proposed SSO boundary’s original Eichler homes face both sides of the main streets - Holly Oak Drive, Ames Avenue, Cork Oak Way - or they face Middlefield as a large group (of eight homes). The proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is two properties short of an entire, original Eichler homes tract. The exclusion of the two corner properties from the SSO boundary is logical because only one of the two excluded corner properties is developed with a one-story Eichler home (3366 Ross Road, which has its entry facing Ross Road), and the other is 795 Ames Avenue, a non-Eichler, two-story stucco home. These property owners had asked the SSO applicant to exclude their properties from the SSO boundaries. Staff and the PTC concurred with the applicant’s logic for excluding these corner lots from the overlay boundary. Eighty percent (80%) of 83 property owners within the proposed SSO boundary reportedly support the application filed on June 30, 2015. Thus the Los Arboles SSO rezone application meets the established criteria set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.12 for a SSO combining district initiation. The requisite signatures were gathered and the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for initiation of a Single Story Overlay Rezoning, more specifically:
80% of property owners (66 of 83 owners) within the proposed boundary (83 of the 85 homes within Tract 2396) support the proposal. This support level is 10% more than the 70% support level required for initiation. The applicants conducted an initial survey in September 2014 ‘to gauge support,’ and distributed a second letter prior to gathering signatures on the attached petition in May and June. These materials were submitted to the City and staff reviewed the petition and outreach materials, to ensure the proposal reflects the requisite level of support. Copies of the applicants’ outreach efforts are included with application materials.
95% of the homes within the proposed SSO boundary are single-story homes, where the requirement to initiate a SSO is 80% of homes as single story within the SSO boundary.
The proposed SSO boundary is appropriate, as all are the original Eichler homes - none have been torn down and replaced since 1960; only four homes have second stories, which were constructed as compatible additions in the 1970’s. Two Ross Road fronting
City of Palo Alto Page 4
homes within the tract are excluded from the proposed boundary for appropriate reasons noted in the applicant’s letter.
The lot sizes within the boundary range from 6,700 square feet (sf) to 10,000 sf, and the home sizes range from 1,650 sf to 2,850 sf. The majority of lots within the proposed SSO boundary are moderately sized (7,000-8,000 sf). A moderate lot size allows for a larger home footprint than a minimum lot size. Lot size is no longer a requirement for SSO initiation as noted earlier in this report.
Outreach Efforts The applicants conducted neighborhood outreach in three phases: (1) an initial survey in September 2014, (2) a second outreach letter, and (3) gathering of signatures from the neighbors within the SSO boundary on a petition. There was also a neighborhood annual block party where, according to the applicant, “a lively and overwhelmingly positive discussion” took place regarding the SSO proposal. The 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses have no signatures of support: Owners of property on Ames (716 and 764), Middlefield (3321), Cork Oak Way (3393, 3404, 3412, 3415, 3444, 3452), and Holly Oak Drive (712, 715, 720, 744, 784, 785, 786, 788) did not sign the petition. The percentage of homeowners not providing signatures on the petition is 20% (17 of 83 homes). The applicant states that six of the non-responding homeowners (7%) stated they are not supportive, and that 11 of these homeowners (13%) remain undecided or unreachable. Two of the four two-story homeowners (788 Ames Avenue and 3373 Cork Oak Way) signed the petition in favor of the rezoning proposal. The other two, two-story homeowners (788 and 785 Holly Oak Drive) did not sign the petition. Staff sent individual hearing notices to all affected property owners and residents of the homes within the proposed overlay boundary, as well as to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed overlay boundary. Because the City has not had an SSO request in a number of years, Staff also sent an informational memo to affected property owners to explain the SSO process and how an adopted overlay would affect their properties’ development potential. The memo also invited the property owners to communicate any and all concerns regarding the overlay implications and the process itself, and alerted the owners about the PTC hearing date.
Policy Implications The proposed SSO is supportable as a standard SSO, and is in accordance with Council direction regarding rezoning of properties to SSO without requiring application fees to process the applications. Additional SSO applications are on file or pending filing. While the proposed overlay zone would limit future construction to one story and 17 feet in height in the subject neighborhood, it does not ensure the retention of Eichler-designed homes. New homes would not be evaluated for architectural or neighborhood compatibility or potential privacy impacts, as they would not be subject to the Individual Review process or another discretionary review process.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Resource Impact Based on recent Council policy, application for a SSO is not subject to any fees. Other than non-cost recovered staff time used to process these applications and budgeted printing/mailing costs, no additional resources were expended.
Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (Class 5: Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance with SSO boundary map embedded (PDF)
Attachment B: Map of Los Arboles Proposed Overlay District (PDF)
Attachment C: Existing plus Proposed Single Story Overlays (PDF)
Attachment D: Planning & Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Minutes September 30, 2015 (PDF)
Attachment E: Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report September 30, 2015 without attachments (DOC)
Attachment F: Planning & Transportation Commission Excerpt Minutes 9/9/15 (PDF)
Attachment G: PTC Staff Report September 9, 2015 without attachments (DOC)
NOT YET APPROVED
150922 jb 0131489
Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and
District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the classification of certain properties on Ames Avenue, Holly Oak Drive, Cork Oak Way, and Middlefield Road, a portion of
that property known as Los Arboles, Tract #2396, from R-1(7,000) to R-1(7,000)-S, and the properties at 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive from R-1 to R-1(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.
A. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearing held September 30, 2015, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and
B. The City Council, after due consideration of this recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundary) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of a portion of that property known as Los Arboles, Tract #2396 (the “subject property”), from “R-1 Single-Family Residence” and “R-1 (7,000)” to “R-1-S and R-1 (7,000)-S Single-Family Residential, Single-Story Height Combining.” The subject property is shown on the map labeled ‘Exhibit A’ attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The properties within the Single Story Overlay boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 Eichler homes facing Ames Avenue (from 700 to 788 Ames), and eight homes fronting on Middlefield (3287-3333). Two homes on Holly Oak Drive are zoned R-1 (767 and 771); the remainder of homes within the boundary are zoned R-1(7,000). The proposed SSO boundary does not include two corner properties in the original tract fronting Ross Road (795 Ames Avenue and 3366 Ross Road).
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.
ATTACHMENT A
NOT YET APPROVED
150922 jb 0131489
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its
adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment
NOT YET APPROVED
150824 jb 0131484
EXHIBIT A
P&TC Packet Page 13 of 50
R-1
RM-15
R-1(S)
RM-15
PC-3405
R-1
PC-3
R-1(
R-1
R-1(S)
sen
Ct
Av
alon Co u r t
F l owe r s Lane
Mackall Way
Lom
a Ve
rde
Aven
ue
Cowper Street
Wel
lsbu
ry W
ay
La
Road
St C
laire
Driv
e
Alge
r Driv
e
Asht
on A
venu
e
St Michael Drive
St Michael Drive
e
Cow
per C
ourt
Ashton Court
Murdoch Drive
Cowpe r S t r e e t
Mur
doch
Ct
St Michael Court
T
yne
Cour
t
al i
sman
Lom
Alle
n C
ourt
Ros
s C
ourt
Loma Verde Pl
Am
es A
ven u
e
Ric
hard
son
Co u
rt
Hol
ly O
ak D
rive
Am
es A
venu
e
Co r k Oak Way
Middlefield Road
Am
es A
v enu
e
Ross Road
Rorke Way
Ro r k e Wa y
Sto
ne L
ane
Toyo
n P
lace
Torr
eya
Cou
rt
Thor
nwoo
d D
riv
Talis
man
Driv
Court
Ste
rn A
venu
e
Stelling Drive
Ross Road
David Avenue Mu r r ay Way
Stellin
g Driv
Ste
lling
Ct
Manches ter Cour t
Cou
rt
Middlefield Road
Chr
istin
e D
rive
B arr
on C
r eek
Dry Cree
046 6A0 2 22 232
242
84272
262
52
507
02 332
364
352
340
322
314
555
543
531
519
3345
3347
3325
3321
3315
3317
3311556
3349
3351
3373
3365
3357
3349
3341
3322
3324
3326
3320
3316
3314
3312
3317
3325
3333
520
500
3310
3396495
470
34963494
3492
3488507
4813484
3480
3476461
471
3416
3412
34043408
3400
3432
3436
3440
3444
3428
488
476
3420
3424
497
3498
53
525
515
580
568
556
544
532
520
508
490489
481
480
567
555
543
531
519
3511
3391
3465
3443
3450
3456
3468 34
74
3453
3454
3463
3462
3473
3481 34
89 3497
3425
3433 34
41
3449
345734
48
3434
3424
3417
3409
550
570
590
510
530
3328
3381
3377
3373
3363
3361
3359
3357
3367
33653355
3381
3341
3343
3339
3329
3337
525
537
549
5613340
3336
513
3344
3348
3352
585
597
573
3330
3444
3438
3433
3432
3426
3420
3423
610
640
630
620
3414
650
3431 34
4134
42
3428
660
670
680
6093360
3364619
629
639
649
659
669
679
689
699
3396
3388
3368
3374
3376
3370
3372
3484
3471
3530
3510
3500
3498
3491
3501
3519
3537
3555
3481
609
3540
3530
3520
3510
3480
3486
3492
619
3505
728
714
710
3505
3 475
3475
A
723
767
765
727
725
705
707
715
717
719
3470
3456
3451
3461
3549
701
3072
3073
3065
33
29
757
810
818 3078
3081
783
789
777
3024
3030
3090
3112
789
785782
788
776
770
781
777
795
3061
30483114
842
34
826
3093
3067
3061
3055
3049
3054
3060
3066
3072
3090
316131
55
3149
3135
3121 31
25
3109
3091
3093
3087
797
793
3162
794
3152
3084
3094
3098
3102
3106
50
869
865
3187
3193
3110
3168
3151
3165
3177
3185 831
8373186
3180
3174
3147
3146
3145
3150
3164
3177
3163
3116
3264
838
850
844
3250
3248
851
3175
3191
53
31523158
3175
31253129
3135
3103
3128
3126
3124 31
443132
3122
3097 3101
3107
31283134
3140
3122
164
3060
3080
490 8070
3151
20 130
3094
3191560
570
3171
3181
540 3170 3180
3190
3191
3205
3181
3171
520
3161
580
592
586
3140
3128
3114
3100
3115
3101
3156
559
533
527
521
3141
3131
31213111
3146
3136
595
3146
3083
3089
3097
662
652640
654650
622620
626
598
620
622
3045
618
616
635
617
3135
3123
3127
3131
3102
3139
3143
3149
3155
3138
3142
3114
3120
3126 31
32
3108
3112
3108
684
621
645
624
628
626
655
634
654
644
674
664
3090
3080
630
3103
3109
3121
3145
3133 681
665
645
3130
3116
3120
674
685
3146
3156
3164
3154
3182
685
675
665
3070
728
739-749
725-735
3085
3101
3065
3069
3073
3077
3064
3109
3121
695
687
671
690
678
666
658663
650
3210
3200
688
684680
668
679
667
655
643
631
3300
619
607
591
579
567
3233
3221
3290
710
718
726
3205
715
719
723
711 710702
3389
3391
620
632
608
592
580
568
3353
656
3190
773
758
76476
9
765
770
774
778
782
786
762761
766
790
3170
3163
3175
3191
734
737
734
731
727
742
750
759
751
3163-3169
3155-3159
747
775
725-733
3333
3416
724
716
708
700
3373
3452
3391
3444
3387
3385
3380
3372
3316 33
24
3332 33
40
3348
3356
3364
3378
3380
3384
3386
3388
3390
3392
3308680
714
718
722
726
730
734
738
731
754
750
744
730 720
716
3360
3350
727
723
719
715
711
3301
3305
3297
3291
3287
735
743
739
747
751
707
3321
3311
3385
339333
73
3367
771
785788
786
758
712 708
3370
3380
784
782
770
3355
3412
3408
732
3430
3404
3512
3510
756
721
751
750
767
761
755
795
787
781
775
762
768
774
780
771
775
779
3431
3451
3443
3435
3439
3427
3423
3419
3415
3411
764
794
3376
842
839
3475
838
3455
834
830
3441
3427
826
822
3413
3401
818
814
772
780
3366
788
3370 33
74
789
735
755
784
780
750
746
3340
3294
3292
3290
787
785
783
779
781
775
742
759
755
763
767
771
3242
3240
3254
3264
3274
3280
3236
815
3178
3190
3196
3211
3195 801
3174
3178
3180
3184
785
3188
3194
3195
788
323032
28792
754
828
820
812
8043231 32
61
808
814
820
827
821
813
832
826
835
843
3221
758
778
821
809
3232
803
3171
-31
75
3187
-31
91
3179
-31
83
834
840
828 807
811
815
819
810
816
804 3377
806
810
3387
875
879
827
831
823
887 88
3
891
895
817
823
829
811
3345
795
826
820
814
808
3337
890
894
858
852
859
853
847
841
835
3270
3284
3292
836
844
852 845
839
833
827
856
850
844
838
832
772
759
3510
348734
79
3495
3507
3511
3530
3520
801
3519
3532
804
82
845
835
3521
3515
3527 829
3502
352035
16
787
783
784
780
788
774
821
3508
3575
840
83
855
868
866
859
871
846
850
854
858
862
864
829
841
835
865 863868
856 851
844
838
853
749
751
753755
757
759 761
763765767
769 771 773
3148
3150
3152
315831
60 3162 31
6631
6831
7031
7231
74
3520
788
3465
776
3412
3111
3113
3115
3117
3119
730732
736740
795
R-1
R-1 (7000)
R-1
This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
LegendCity Jurisdictional LimitsExisting Single Story Combining DistrictProposed Single Story Combining District (Los Arboles Tract # 2396)Tract #5371 Adjacent to Proposed Single Story Combining DistrictExisting Two Story Structures on PropertyZone Districts
abc Zone District Labels
0' 400'
Prop
osed
Sin
gle
Stor
yC
ombi
ning
Dis
trict
Los A
rbol
es T
ract
# 2
396
CIT
Y
OF PALO
ALTOIN
CO R P O R A
T
ED
CAL I FORN I A
P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f
AP
RI
L1 6
18
94
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-08-25 14:05:12SingleStoryOverlay LosArbolesTract2396 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb)
ATTACHMENT B
Embarcadero
El Camino Real
Univer
sity
Orego
n
Page
Mill
Alma
Aras
trade
ro
E Meadow
Foothill
Middlefield
San
Anto
nio
R-1(S)
R-1 (S)
R-1(S)R-1(S)
R-1(S)
R-1(S)
R-1 (S)
R-1(8000)(S)
R-1(7000)(S)
R-1(8000)(S)
Wal
lis C
t
Donald Drive
Encin
a Gra
nde
Drive
Cere
za D
rive
Los R
obles
Ave
nue
Villa Vera
Verdosa DriveCampana DriveSolana Drive
Georgia Ave
Ynigo Way
Driscoll Ct
ngArthu r '
Maybell Way
May
bell A
venu
e
Frandon Ct
Flor
ales D
rive
Georg
ia Av
enueAmaranta Avenue
Amar
anta
Ct
Ki
sCourt
Terman Drive
Baker Avenue
Vista
Ave
nue
Wisteria Ln
Pena Ct
Coulombe DriveCherry Oaks Pl
Pomona Avenue
Aras
trade
ro R
oad
Abel Avenue
Clemo Avenue
Villa
Rea
l
El Camino Way
Curtn
er A
venu
eVe
ntur
a Ave
nue
Mac
lane
Emerson Street
Ventura Ct
Park Boulevard
Mag
nolia
Dr S
outh
El Camino Real
Cypress Lane
Glenbro
okD
Fairm
ede
Aven
ueAr
astra
dero
Roa
dIrven
Cou
rt
Los Palos CirLos
PalosPl
May
bell A
venu
e
Alta Mesa Ave
Kelly Way
Los Palos AvenueSuzanne Drive
Suzanne Drive
r ive
El Camino Real
Suzanne CtLorabelle Ct
McKellar Lane
El Cam
ino Way Ja
mes R
oad
Mac
lane
Second StreetWilkie Way
Camino Ct
Wes
t Mea
dow
Drive
Thain Way
Barclay
CtVict
oria P
lace
Interdale Way
Wes
t Cha
rlesto
n Roa
d
Tenne
ssee
LaneWilkie Way
Carolin
a Lan
e
Tenne
ssee
Lane
Park Boulevard
Wilk
ie Ct
Daven
port
Way
Alma Street
Roosev
Monro
e Driv
e
Wilkie W
ay
Whitclem Pl
Whit
clem D
rive
Duluth
Circle
Edlee A
venu
e
Dinah's
Cou
rt
Cesano C
ourt
Monro
e Driv
e
Miller Avenue
Whitclem Wy
Whitclem Ct
Fern
e Ave
nue
Ben Lo
mond D
rive
Fairfi
eld C
ourt
Fern
e Ave
nue
Ponce Drive
Hemlock
Cou
rt
Ferne Court
Alma Street
Monroe
Driv
e
San
Anton
io Av
enue
NitaAvenue
Ruthelma Avenue
Darling
ton C
t
Charle
ston R
oad
LundyLa
ne
Newbe
rry C
t
Park Boulevard
George Hood Ln
Alma Street
elt Circle
LinderoDrive Wright Place
Starr King Ci rcle
Shasta
Driv
e
Mackay Drive
Diablo
Court
Scripps Avenue
Scripp
s Cou
rt
Nelson Drive
Tioga
Cou
rt
Creeks
ide D
rive
Green
meado
w Way
Ben Lo
mond D
rive
Parks
ide D
rive
Dixon Place
Ely Plac
e
Dake Avenue
Ferne Avenue
San Antonio Court (Private)
Christo
pherCo
urt
Calcat
erraP
lace
Ely Plac
e
Ely Place
Adobe Place
Nelson Court
ByronStreet
Keat
s Cou
rt
Middlefield Road
Duncan Place
Carlson Court
Duncan P lace
Mumford Place
Charleston Road
San
Anto
nio
Aven
ue
East
Mea
dow
Drive
Emerson Street
CourtBryant Street
RooseveltCircle
RamonaStreet
CarlsonCircle
RedwoodCircle
South
Leghorn Street
Montrose Avenue
Map lew
ood
Charleston Ct
Charleston Road
Seminole Way
Sutherland Drive
Nelson Drive
El Capitan Place
Fabian Street
Loma V
erde
Ave
nue
Bryson Avenue
Midtown Court
Cowper Street
Gary C
ourt
Waverley StreetSouth CourtBryant StreetRamona Street
Alma Street
Coastl
and D
rive
Colorado AvenueByron Street
Middlefield Road
Gaspar Court
Moren
o Ave
nue
Coastland Drive
El Car
melo A
venu
e
RosewoodD
Campe
sino A
venu
e
Dymon
d Ct
Martin
sen C
t
Ramona Street
Bryant Street
Towle
Way
Towle Place
Well
sbur
y Ct
Ava
lonCourt
FlowersLane
Mackall Way
Loma Verde Avenue
KiplingStreet
Cowper Street
South Court
Waverley StreetEl Ver
ano A
venu
e
Well
sbur
y Way
La
Middlefield Road
St C
laire
Driv
e
Alger Drive
Ashton Avenue
St Michael DriveSt Michael Drive
Maureen Avenue
Cowper Court
Rambow Drive
East Meadow Drive
Ashton Court
Murdoch DriveCowper Street
Murdo
ch C
t
St Michael Court
MayCourt
Mayvie
w Ave
nue
Middlefield Road
Ensign WayBibbits Drive
Gailen C
tGailen Avenue
Grove Avenue
San
Anto
nio
A ven
ue
Com
mer
cial
St re
et
Indu
stria
l Ave
nue
Bib
bits
Driv
e
Charleston Road
Fabi
an W
ay
T
East Meadow Drive
Grove Avenue
Christ
ine D
rive
Corina W
ay
Ross Road
Cor
ina
Way
Loui
s R
oad
Nat
han
Way
Transport Street
Ortega C
ourt
East Meadow Drive
yneCourt
al isman
Loma Verde Avenue
Allen C
ourt
Ross C
ourt
Loma Verde Pl
Ames A
venu
eRich
ards
on C
ourt
Holly O
ak D
rive
Ames A
venu
e
CorkOakWay
Middlefield Road
Ames Ct
Ames A
venu
e
Ross Road
Rorke Way
RorkeWay
Stone L
ane
Toyo
n Plac
e Torre
ya C
ourt
Lupine Avenue
Thornwood Drive
Driftwoo
dDrive
Talis
man D
rive
Arbutus AvenueRoss Road
Louis Road
Aspen
Way
Evergreen Drive
East Meadow Drive
Corporation W
ayElwell
Cou
rt
Janice Way
East Meadow Circle
East Meadow Circle
GreerRoad
Bayshore Freeway
rive
Ellswor
th Plac
e
San C
arlos
Cou
rt
Winterg
reen W
ay
Sutter Ave
nue
Sutter
Ave
nue
Clara D
rive
Price Court
Stern A
venu
e
Colorado Avenue
Randers Ct
Ross Road
Sycamore Drive
Sevyson Ct
Stelling DriveRoss Road
David Avenue
MurrayWay
Stelling DriveStellin
g Ct
ManchesterCourt
Kenn
eth
Driv
e
Thomas Drive
GreerRoad
Stockton Place
Vernon TerraceLouis Road
Janic
e Way
Thomas DriveKenneth Drive
Loma Verde Avenue
Cl i f tonCourt
Elb
ridge
Way
Clara Drive
Bautist
aCourt
Stockton Place
Morris Drive
Maddux Drive
Piers C
t
Louis Road
Moraga
Ct
Old
Pag
e M
i ll R
o ad
Deer Creek Road
Coyote Hi l l Road
Hillview
Avenue
Porter Drive Hillview Avenue
Hanov
er S
treet
Foothill Expressway
tradero Road
Miranda Avenue
Stan
ford
Ave
nue
Amherst Street
Columbia StreetBowdoin Street
Dartmouth Street
Hanover Street
Colleg
e Av
enue
Califo
rnia
Aven
ue Hanover Street
Ramos Way (Private)
Page
Mill
Road
Hansen Way
Hanover Street
Old
Arastradero Road
Miranda Avenue
Mockingbi rd
Lane
Trace
Road
Mesa AvenueOak
Hill
A ven
u e
Ma n
uela
Ave
nue
Miranda A
venue
Lagu
na C
t
Barro
n Av
enue
Josin
a Av
enue
Kend
all A
venu
e
Tippawingo St
Julie Ct
Mat
ader
o Av
enue
Ilima
Way
Ilima
Cour
t
Lagu
na O
aks P
l
Carlitos CtLa CalleLaguna Avenue
ElCer r it
Para
dise
Way
Roble R
idge (Private)
LaMataWay
Chim
alus D
rive
Mat
ader
o Av
enue
oRoad
Paul
Aven
ue
Kend
all A
venu
e
Whitsell Avenue
Barro
n Av
enue
Los R
obles
Ave
nue
Laguna Way
Shaun
aLane
La P
ara
Aven
ue
San
Jude
Ave
nue
El Centro Street
Tim
lott
La Je
nnife
r Way
Mag
nolia
Dr N
orth
La Donna Avenue
LosRoblesAvenue
Rinc
Manzana Lane
onCircle
MesaCourt
Cro
sby
Pl
Georgia Avenue
Hubbartt Drive
Willm
ar Drive
Donald Drive
Arastradero Road
Foothill ExpresswayM
iranda Avenue
La P
ara
Aven
ue
San
Jude
Ave
nue
Magnolia Drive
Milit
ary W
ay
Arbol Drive
Orme Street
Fern
ando
Ave
nue
Mat
ader
o Av
enue
Lam
bert
Aven
ue
Hans
en W
ay
El Camino Real
Mar
garit
a Av
enue
Mat
ader
o Av
enue
Wilto
n Av
enue
Oxford
Ave
nue
Harvard Street
Califo
rnia
Aven
ue
Wellesley StreetPrinceton StreetOberlin Street
Cornell Street
Cam
bridg
e Av
enue
Colleg
e Av
enueWilliams Street
Yale Street
Staunton Court
Oxford
Ave
nue
El Camino Real
Church
ill Ave
nue
Park Boulevard
Park
Ave
nue
Escobita Avenue
Church
ill Ave
nue
Sequoia Avenue
Mariposa Avenue
Castilleja Avenue
Miramonte Avenue
Madrono Avenue
Portola Avenue
Manza
nita A
venu
e
Colerid
ge A
venu
eLe
land
Aven
ueSt
anfo
rd A
venu
eBirch Street
Ash Street
Lowell
Ave
nue
Alma Street
Tenn
yson
Ave
nue
Grant
Ave
nue
Sher
idan
Aven
ue
Jaca
rand
a La
ne
El Camino Real
Sher
man
Ave
nue
Ash Street
Page
Mill
Road
Mimosa Lane
Ches
tnut
Ave
nue
Porta
ge A
venu
e
Pepp
er A
venu
eOliv
e Av
enue
Acac
ia Av
enue
Emerson Street
Park Boulevard
Orinda Street
Birch Street
Ash Street
Page
Mill
Road
Ash Street
Park Boulevard
Colleg
e Av
enue
Cambr
idge
Aven
ue
New M
ayfie
ld La
ne
Birch Street
Califo
rnia
Aven
ue
Park Boulevard
Nogal Lane
Rincon
ada A
venu
eSan
ta Rita
Ave
nue
Park Boulevard
Seale
Avenu
e
Was
hingto
n Ave
nue
Santa
Rita A
venu
e
WaverleyStree
Bryant Street
High Street
Emerson Street
Colorado AvenueStreet
Emerson Street
Ramona Street
Bryant Street
South Court
El Dor
ado A
venu
eAlma Street
Alma Street
HighStreet
t
Emerson
Wav
erley
Oak
s
Was
hingto
n Ave
nue
Bryant Street
South Court
Waverley Street
Emerson StreetNevad
a Ave
nue
North
Cali
forn
ia Av
enue
Santa
Rita A
venu
e
Ramona Street
High Street
North
Cali
forn
ia Av
enue
Orego
n Exp
ress
way
Marion
Ave
nue
Ramona Street
Colorado Avenue
Waverley Street
Kipling Street
South Court
Cowper StreetAnto
n Cou
rt
Nevad
a Ave
nue
Tasso Street
Tasso Street
Orego
n Ave
nue
Marion Pl
Webster Street
Middlefield Road
Ross Road
War
ren W
ay
El Cajon Way
Embarcadero Road
Pri m
rose
Way
Iris
Wa y
Tulip Lane
Tulip Lane
Garlan
d Driv
e
Louis Road
Gre
er R
oad
MortonStree
t
Gre
er R
oad
Hamilton Avenue
Hilb
ar L
ane
Alannah Ct
Edge
Rhod
es D
rive
Marshall Drive
Fieldin
Moren
o Ave
nue
Ma
rshal
l Driv
e
Dennis
Driv
e
Agnes Way
Orego
n Ave
nueBlai
r Cou
rt
Santa Ana Street
Elsin
ore D
riveElsinore CourtEl Cajon Way
Greer RoadCalifor
nia A
venu
e
gDrive
Colorado Avenue
Sycamore Drive
Amarillo
Ave
nue
Van AukenCi rc le
Bruce Drive
Colonia
l Lan
e
Moren
o Ave
nue
Celia D
rive
Burnham Way
Greer Road
Indian Drive
Elmdale Pl
C
Tanland Drive
Moren
o Ave
nue
Amarillo
Ave
nue
West Bayshore Road
Sandra Place
Clara DriveColorado Avenue
Greer Road
Colorado Avenue
Simkins Court
Otterson CtHiggins PlaceLawrence Lane
Maddux Drive
Genevieve Ct
MetroCircle
MoffettCircle
Greer Road
East Bayshore Road
ardina
lWay
Santa Catalina Street
Arrowhe
adWay
Aztec Way
Chabot Terrace
Orego
n Ave
nue
Carmel Drive
SierraCourt
St Francis
Drive
West Bayshore RoadTanland Drive
East Bayshore Road
wood Dr i ve Edgewood Drive
WildwoodLane
Ivy Lane
East Bayshore Road
St F
r anc
i s D
r ive
Wi ld
woo
d La
ne Watson Court
Laura Lane
San
dalw
ood
Ct
O'Brine Lane (Private)
Faber Place
Embarcadero Road
Geng R
oad
Embarcadero Way
Homer
Ave
nue
Lane 8 West
e 7 West
Lane 7 East
Embarcadero Road
na Avenue
Urban Lane
enue
High Street
Emerson Street
Chann
ing A
venu
e
Alma Street
Alma Street
E
ne 11 W
Lane
21
Gilman Street
Univer
sity A
venu
e
Lane
30
t
Tasso Street
Cowper Street
Avenu
e
r Street
Evere
tt Cou
rtLy
tton A
venu
e
Byron Street
eetlefield Road
Church
ill Ave
nue
Lowell
Ave
nue
Seale
Avenu
e
Tenn
yson
Ave
nue
Melville
Ave
nue
Cowper Street
Tasso Street
Webster Street
Byron Street
North
Califor
nia A
venu
e
Colerid
ge A
venu
e
Waverley StreetBryant Street
Emerson Street
Kellog
g Ave
nue
Alma Street
Kingsle
y Ave
nue
Portal
Plac
e
Ross Road
Orego
n Ave
nue
Garlan
d Driv
e
Lane A WestLane B West
Lane B East
Lane D West
Lane 59 East Whit
man C
ourt
Kellog
g Ave
nue
Embarcadero Road
Kingsle
y Ave
nue
Linco
ln Ave
nue
Addiso
n Ave
nue
Linco
ln Ave
nue
Fore
st Ave
nue
Downing Lane
Homer
Ave
nue
Lane D East
Lane 39
Lane 56
Hamilto
n Ave
nue
Webster Street
Waverley Street
Kipling Street
Bryant StreetRamona Street Add
ison A
venu
e
Scott Street
Byron Street
eneca Street
Lytto
n Ave
nue
Guinda StreetFulton Street
Middlefield Road
Fore
st Ave
nue
Webster Street
Kellog
g Ave
nue
Middlefield Road
Byron Street
Webster StreetCowper Street
Tasso Street
Cowper Street
Addiso
n Ave
nue
Linco
ln Ave
nue
Boy c
e A
venu
e
Fore
st Ave
nue
Hamilto
n A
Homer
Ave
nueGuinda Street
Middlefield RoadCha
nning
Ave
nue
Channing Avenue
Add
ison
Ave
n ue
Linc
oln
Ave n
ue
Regent Pl
Guinda Street
Linco
ln Ave
nue
Fulton Street
Mel
ville
Ave
nue
Byron StreetKing
sley A
venu
eMelv
ille A
venu
e
Forest AvenueFore
Somerset Pl
Pitman AvenueFife Avenue
Forest Avenue
Lin
Colerid
ge A
venu
eLo
well A
venu
e
Fulton StreetCowper Street Tenn
yson
Ave
nue
Seale
Avenu
e
Northa
mpton D
rive
Wes
t Gre
enwich
Pl
Middlefield Road Newell RoadGuinda Street
East G
reen
wich P
l
Southa
mpton D
rive
Webster Street
Kir b
y P l
Kent Place
Tevis Pl
Martin Avenue
Cen
ter D
rive
Har
riet S
tree t
Wilson Street
Cedar S
treet
Harker Avenue
Greenwood Avenue
Hut
c hi n
s on
A ve n
u e
Channing Avenue
Hopkins Avenue
Embarcadero Road
Ashby DriveDana Avenue
Pitman AvenueArcadia Place
Louisa Court
Newell Pl
Sha
ron
Ct
Erst
wild
Cou
rt
Wa l
ter H
ays
Dr iv
e
Walnut Drive
New
ell R
oad
Parkinson AvenuePine Street
Mark Twain Street
Louis RoadBarbara Drive
Prim
rose
Way
Iris Way
Embarcadero RoadWalter Hays DriveLois Lane
Jordan Pl
Lois Lane
Hea
ther
Lan
e
Bret Harte Street
Stanley Way
De Soto DriveDe S
oto
Drive
Ales
ter A
venu
e
Walter Hays Drive
Channing Avenue
Iris Way
Dana Avenue
Hamilton AvenueNewe
ll Roa
dKings Lane
Jeffe
rson
Driv
e
Jackso
nDr iv
e
Patri
cia L
ane
Mad
ison
Way
Addiso
n Ave
nue
Chann
ing A
venu
e
Waverley Street
Tenn
yson
Ave
nue
Seale
Aven
ue
Middlefield Road
Byron StreetWebster Street
Marion
Ave
nue
Sedro Lane
Peral Lane
McG
regor Way
Monro
e Driv
e
Silva Avenue
Silva C
ourt
Miller C
ourt
Briarwood Way
Drisc
oll P
lace
Community Lane
Court
Madeline Ct
o C
t
David
Ct
Green Ct
Oregon Expressway
Orego
n Exp
ressw
ay
Sheridan Avenue
Page
Mill
Road
Page
Mill
Road
Foothill Expressway Miranda AvenueFoothill Expressway
Cerrito W
ay
Emerson Street
Miranda Avenue
0 E
Orego
n Exp
ress
way
Jaco
b's C
t
CalTrain ROW
CalTrain ROW
CalTrain ROW
CalTrain ROW
Waverley Street
Kipling Street
Hil lview
Avenue
Lane 66
reet
et
Wes
t Cha
rlesto
n Roa
d
Bayshore Freeway
Bayshore Freeway
Bayshore Freeway
West Bayshore Road
East Bayshore Road
East Bayshore Road
East Bayshore Road
West Bayshore Road
East Bayshore Road
Bayshore Freeway
Bayshore Freeway
West Bayshore Road
Bayshore Freeway
Bayshore Freeway
Lane 66
La Selva Drive
Grove Ct
Stan
ford
Ave
nue
Olmst
ead
Road
Serra St re
et
Olms tead
Road
Phi l l ips Road
El Dor
ado A
venu
e
Clara Driv
e
Bellview Dr
Homer
Ave
nue
La Calle
SAN
AN
TON
IO A
V EN
UE
Matadero Ave
Colorado Pl
Los R
obles
Ave
nue
Timlott Ct
Vista Villa
Lane
La Donna Avenue
Cass Way
Kenneth Drive
Fabi
an W
ay
Page
Mill
Road
Middlefield RoadChrist
ine D
rive
Louis Road
Charlesto
Bayshore Freeway
Bayshore Freeway
Chim
alus D
rive
Hanov
er S
treet
Commuity Lane
Greenwood Avenue
Harker Avenue
Parkinson Avenue
Avenue
Maplewood Pl
Macka
y Driv
e
Alma Village Circle
Alma Village Lane
M a t a d e r o C r e e k
C harl es
to n S lou g h
M a ta d er o C r e ek
Matadero Creek
Barr on Cre ek
B ar ro n C r e ek
B a r ro n C r e e k
Adob
e Cre ek
A d obe C re e k
Adob
e Cr
eek
A d o b e C re e k
A d obe C re e k
Emily Renzel Wetlands
Adobe Creek
Coast CaseForebay
Adobe Creek
eek
Deer Creek
Matadero Cre
ek
Matadero Creek
Adobe Creek
Dry Creek
Dry Creek
Creek
This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
LegendCity Jurisdictional LimitsZoned for Single-Family Residential UseExisting Single Story Combining DistrictsProposed Single Story Combining District (Los Arboles Tract # 2396)Proposed Single Story Combining District (Greek Park N Tract #796)Tract (Torraya Ct.) Adjacent to Proposed Single Story Combining District
0' 2500'
Existing and ProposedSingle Story
Combining Districts
CIT
Y
OF PALO
ALTOIN
CO R P O R A
T
ED
CAL I FORN I A
P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f
AP
RI
L1 6
18
94
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2015-08-25 16:51:04SingleStoryOverlay ProposedSSO LA2396 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb)
ATTACHMENT C
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2
September 30, 2015 3 4
EXCERPT 5 6
Public Hearing7 8
1. Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property9 Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 and R-1(7000) Single Family 10 Residential to R-1(S) and R-1(7000S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. 11 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. 12 For more information, contact Amy French at [email protected] Continued from 13 September 9, 2015 14
15 Chair Tanaka: So let’s move on to the first item so this is the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay. Does staff16 have a presentation?17
18 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, so we last visited with you on the 9th of September and we did19 have a public hearing at that time. We had comments from the public at that time. We have confirmed20 the noticing was proper for this meeting and so we go ahead and pick up the hearing where we last left21 off with the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay and I believe the applicant is here tonight.22
23 Chair Tanaka: Does the applicant want to speak on the topic again? No? Ok. Yeah, don’t feel obligated24 to. Ok, so ok so… does anyone on the Commission have any questions or comments further on this topic25 or does anyone want to make a Motion?26
27 Commissioner Alcheck: Did we make a Motion last time to push…28
29 Chair Tanaka: I wasn’t here.30
31 MOTION32
33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I wish I had the language, but I think the Motion I will make is that the34 Commission recommend that the City Council approve the draft ordinance to rezone the 83 homes within35 the Los Arboles neighborhood from R-1 single family residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000-S)36 single family residential with single story overlay district.37
38 SECOND39
40 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Second.41
42 Chair Tanaka: Ok, does the maker of the Motion want to speak on the Motion?43
44 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I think we covered this.45
46 Chair Tanaka: Does the seconder want to speak?47
48 Acting Vice-Chair Downing: Nope. Thank you.49
50 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does anyone have any deliberation or should we take a vote?51
52
ATTACHMENT D
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Commissioner Alcheck: Actually I think it’s probably worth mentioning that the Commission didn’t hear 1 from anybody at least we didn’t receive any emails and there weren’t any updates to this conversation or 2 to this discussion and I think that’s I think we had pushed it out because of a notice element and there 3 were no additional information providers during that period of time. 4 5 Chair Tanaka: Let me just ask staff a quick question. So I assume that there was silence; no one 6 objected there were no other issues that came up? 7 8 Ms. French: Correct. We advertised in our newspaper again and we did not hear anything back from any 9 of the neighbors one way or the other. 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Ok. 12 13 Ms. French: In the intervening time. 14 15 VOTE 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Ok, great. So does the Commission want to deliberate or does anyone have comments on 18 this Motion before we take a vote? Ok, so let’s take a vote then; so all in favor raise your hands. All not 19 in favor raise your hands. And I abstain mainly because I wasn’t really as involved in the conversation. 20 Thank you. So let’s close this item. 21 22 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Chair Tanaka abstained, Vice-Chair Fine and Commissioner Rosenblum 23 absent) 24 25
Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Acting Vice-chair Downing to 26 approve staff’s recommendation for a Zone Change for the Los Arboles Single Story Overlay. 27 Approved unanimously with Chair Tanaka abstaining, Vice-chair Fine and Commissioner Rosenblum 28 absent. (4-0-1-2) 29
City of Palo Alto (ID # 6141) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/30/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning
Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hear from the public and recommend that City Council approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone 83 homes within the Los Arboles neighborhood (Tract #2396) from R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)-S, Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay (SSO) District.
Executive Summary The PTC conducted a hearing on September 9, 2015, and continued the hearing to September 30, 2015, by unanimous vote, to ensure the code-required publication of the hearing notice was accomplished. The newspaper publication of the September 9, 2015 hearing had appeared less than 12 days prior to the hearing per Zoning Code Chapter 18.80 notification requirements. Publication for this meeting was provided in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 18th consistent with local requirements. Three speakers expressed support for the Single Story Overlay proposal, including one of the co-applicants. The PTC members found the proposed boundary to be acceptable, and discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of a Single Story Overlay, including the house size and market appeal of single story homes. The PTC acknowledged that a one story home is allowed additional lot coverage equivalent to the maximum Floor Area Ratio, and that basements do not count as a second floor thereby allowing any new one story home additional living area. Since the PTC did not expand the boundary of the area to be rezoned, no additional addresses received notice of the September 30, 2015 public hearing.
ATTACHMENT E
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The attached September 9, 2015 staff report (Attachment B), including attachments, provides background and discussion. Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: P&TC Staff Report w/attachments from 9/09/15 ID#5974 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 September 9, 2015 3
4 EXCERPT 5
6
Public Hearing7 8
Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: *Quasi-Judicial Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the9 Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to10 R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the11 California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305. For more information, contact Amy French at12 [email protected]
14 Acting Chair Fine: Our next item is Item Number 3, the Los Arboles Single-Story Overlay. This is a quasi-15 judicial matter evaluating a zone change from R-1 Single Family to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with16 Single-Story Overlay. Let’s start with any disclosures. So I should disclose that I have family friends in17 this neighborhood and I was recently at their house in their backyard swimming in their pool and they18 complained that if there were second story houses people would be able to see me swimming in their19 pool.20
21 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: You know I should also just clarify for the record that this is22 actually a legislative matter. So it is always helpful to have those types of disclosures.23
24 Acting Chair Fine: Could you explain (interrupted)25
26 Ms. Silver: Yeah, so a legislative matter is a typically thought of as a rezoning or a zone change that27 applies broadly to several different properties whereas a quasi-judicial matter which requires disclosures28 is something that’s applied to one.29
30 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. And I believe (interrupted)31
32 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Yeah, we need a minute or two just to set up.33
34 Acting Chair Fine: Sure. Should we take a quick few minutes break?35
36 The Commission took a break37
38 Acting Chair Fine: Alright, let’s get back to the meeting. We are on Item 3, the Los Arboles Single-Story39 Overlay and this is the first application since Council recently decided to waive fees for these types of40 applications. With regard to this application we as a Commission can recommend it to Council,41 recommend denying it, or recommend expanding or contracting the boundaries. However, tonight we’re42 just going to be discussing, asking questions, hearing from the public and staff, and we’ll make the vote43 on this on the 30th.44
45 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Ok, thank you for taking a break so that I can set up. I’m Amy46 French, Chief Planning Official. I’m working with multiple single-story overlay applicants throughout town47 so this is the first of several that you will be seeing. The purpose of a single-story overlay is to preserve48 and maintain single family living areas of predominantly single-story character. It’s required for initiation49 that 80 percent of the homes be within the boundary be single-story. Here’s a map showing the in green50 the proposed single-story overlay for Los Arboles and next to it is Torreya Court, also a proposal, and51 then farther over to the left is Allen Court, also that’s an approved and for many years approved and52 successful single-story overly, also an Eichler neighborhood.53
ATTACHMENT F
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 Here are the boundaries of the Los Arboles proposal. The tract includes all but two of the, the single-2 story overlay boundary includes all but two of the homes in the tract. The two homes excluded from the 3 boundary are fronting Ross Road at the top of the screen, on the corner of Ames and Ross. So the 4 neighborhood is single family single-story Eichler homes built in the 1959-1960 range. The zoning is both 5 R-1 and R-1 7,000. As I mentioned two of the homes of the original tract are excluded from the 6 boundary proposal and within the boundary 95 percent of the homes are one stories. The two-story 7 homes in the boundary have second floor additions that are compatible with the Eichler style and there 8 are no two-story applications on file with the City. They’re moderate lot sizes and moderate lot sizes of 9 course allow larger first floor footprints. The reasons that the Ross Road lots were excluded were stated 10 in the application and staff thinks they’re reasonable. 11 So once a single-story overlay is approved by Council the result is that new construction cannot be placed 12 on properties within the single-story boundary that are 17 feet, over 17 feet or more than one habitable 13 floor. Two-story homes are not allowed, new two-story homes, but the existing two-story homes may 14 remain. So what happens is we then call those two-story homes or homes over 17 feet non-complying 15 facilities, legal non-complying facilities and they’re subject to the regulations in our non-complying 16 facilities chapter. 17 18 What the single-story overlay does not do is require design review for any one-story replacement homes. 19 We aren’t reviewing for privacy or design compatibility. It’s simply a building permit. We also in the 20 building permit process do not provide notices about building permits of one-story homes. 21 22 The applicants had several phases of outreach. They did discuss this at their annual block party. They 23 conducted a couple of surveys or a survey and an outreach letter and then they gathered the signatures. 24 They met all the requirements of the chapter for rezoning and we met the requirements about the 25 mailing of notices. We also exceeded our requirements by providing courtesy notices, providing some 26 detail about what happens when you become a single-story overlay. One thing that did not happen is we 27 did not successfully meet the 12 day timeframe for publication in the newspaper. It was a six day 28 publication and that’s the reason why we request continuance to the 30th of September. 29 30 As noted in the report there’s 80 percent support, 66 of the 83 owners. That exceeds the 70 percent 31 level by 10 percent. And there is some other data about when there are no signatures associated with an 32 address and there’s some facts up here. 33 34 So the discretion of the Planning Commission as mentioned is to either accept the boundary as a position 35 and continue the hearing to the 30th to ensure that all who would like to speak to this matter can be 36 heard, another alternative is to suggest expanding or contracting the boundaries. If it’s contracting the 37 boundaries there’s no additional notice. If it’s expanding the boundaries then additional notice to a larger 38 radius would be required. And then of course there’s the deny option. In any case, continuance is the 39 option tonight. We’re looking towards November or December for the Council hearing. 40 41 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. Do we have any, do we have a presentation from the applicant or 42 is it via speaker cards? 43 44 Ms. French: The applicant, there are two applicants, co-applicants. One of them is not able to be here 45 tonight. I believe Sherilyn was planning to attend. I’m not sure. 46 47 Phillip Bednarz: I’m Sherri’s husband. 48 49 Ms. French: Oh, got it. 50 51 Mr. Bednarz: I can just speak during the normal hearing comments. 52 53 Acting Chair Fine: Do you want to lead off for us, sir? 54 55 Mr. Bednarz: Yeah, sure. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. 2 3 Ms. French: I think it’s 10 minutes, isn’t it? Or five? 4 5 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, five minutes. 6 7 Mr. Bednarz: Alright, thanks for the opportunity to speak to the Commission. My name is Phillip Bednarz 8 and along with a number of my neighbors I am representing Los Arboles neighborhood of original Eichler 9 homes. So last fall at our annual block party our homeowners came together and shared an interest in 10 protecting what we see as an increasingly rare neighborhood. So we’re here to ask you to initiate an 11 ordinance to change our zoning from R-1 to R-1(S). It is what the vast majority of our neighborhood 12 firmly wants. Protection of privacy, sorry, protection of privacy, sunlight, and views, the overall 13 neighborhood aesthetic, and the sense of community is what Los Arboles homeowners want. 14 15 Our application has the backing of more than 80 percent of homeowners. It is enthusiastically supported 16 by owners from all ages and backgrounds from our newest arrivals to those who bought from Eichler 17 himself. So thoughtfully planned Eichler neighborhoods where homes are constructed to allow nature in 18 and situated to maintain homeowner privacy were very forward thinking. Eichler communities are an 19 important part of Palo Alto’s heritage and a key appeal of Palo Alto today. They are an important part of 20 the California modern architecture legacy and should be protected. So we ask for your leadership and 21 support in initiating this ordinance. 22 23 In neighborhoods like ours where residents are willing to dedicate so much of their own time to 24 protecting this legacy we ask for your support by initiating an ordinance to change our zoning from R-1 to 25 R-1(S). Again, it’s what the vast majority of our neighborhood firmly wants. So thank you for your time. 26 27 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you very much. And I believe we do have speaker cards. 28 29 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: Yes, we have first Bonnie Borton followed by Richard Willits. 30 31 Bonnie Borton: My name is Bonnie Borton and I’m here to ask that you grant our Los Arboles 32 neighborhood a single-story overlay protection. My late husband and I bought our Los Arboles Eichler 33 home from Al Eichler in February of either 1959 or 1960, I can’t remember which. We raised our son, 34 Dan, and our daughter, Suzie, in the four bedroom single-story Eichler that I still live in today. It was 35 and still is a wonderful and vibrant neighborhood, I kid you not. Children ride bikes and residents of all 36 ages can safely walk there in the evenings and we do. Neighbors look out for each other. Many of us 37 have grandchildren and great grandchildren, not yet, just grandchild, who join the block party annually 38 that takes place in late September to play with some of our newer residents and we do have a turnover. 39 We’re very much a community. 40 41 When some of the neighbors started talking about the single-story overlay I just want to be supportive. I 42 really feel it’s important that our houses remain single-story. I sat in my kitchen this afternoon before I 43 came here and I looked out to the left and I could see trees and sky. I looked straight ahead and I have 44 a skylight over the front door. I can see the sky above and sometimes I see a plane go over and at night 45 it’s especially nice because it’s dark and you can just see the light going across the sky. It’s just a, it’s a 46 wonderful home and I feel it is so important that it remains single-story. We have several story homes 47 that were added on to before any of us had sense enough to understand that these homes really were 48 meant to be single-story so that we could all get the inside and the outside together. 49 50 I’d run out of space here for what I want to say. Anyway, many of us thought we already… this is 51 important. Many of us already thought we had a single-story overlay after signatures were collected in 52 1990 and I remember being one who went out and collected them so I don’t know what happened, but 53 we don’t have it apparently. So I beg you please to help us make this change and we thank you for your 54 time and consideration. 55 56
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So next is Richard Willits. He’s our last speaker card. 1 2 Richard Willits: Good evening, my name is Richard Willits. I am with a group of folks. We’ve been 3 working with Amy for a long time to bring this about and we’re very happy to see our first single-story 4 overlay application coming through. It’s been a pleasure working with the Planning staff in general. 5 They’ve been very efficient and knowledgeable and straightforward in every way that we’ve dealt with 6 them. And so I want to thank them for all the work that they’ve done on this. 7 8 I also wanted to let this Commission know I’m sure you’ve all read some of the notes that there were a 9 number of different Council meetings that we addressed with regard to particularly with regard to what 10 was the stumbling block for many of us and was for this particular application for over a year and that is 11 the imposition of the fee. My understanding was at that time that the fee would be not only eliminated 12 for a standard single-story overlay by the referral of the process to this Commission, but also that the 13 language in the code which I’m not a lawyer, but I think it looks pretty poorly written that actually 14 imposes the fee would be struck. And I think that was a Motion of the Council. So my concern comes up 15 because in the notes for tonight’s session with regard to the follow on application for Torreya Court it 16 also mentions a fee. And I just want to make it clear that this fee for this process, which is essentially a 17 political process, really throws sand in the works from the standpoint of the people who are trying to get 18 it done. 19 20 Torreya Court I happen to know because I was involved with it was a group of people that within a week 21 had basically 80% of their signatures ready. They were, when they heard about it they said yes, we’ve 22 got to do this. They’ve got no Eichler’s that have been changed. They did have an unusual situation that 23 they had a number of I would call them two stories as built by Joe Eichler. If you looks at the lines of 24 sight of privacy in those houses they were planned so that they do not disturb the other houses and what 25 this neighborhood really wanted was for everything to remain the way it is which is the way that they’ve 26 kept it and that’s what they want. My understanding is that they’re going through the process of trying 27 to figure out how to go now that they’re not firmly and fully attached to the Los Arboles application and 28 therefore they don’t meet the less than how do we put this? They have more than 20 percent of the 29 houses are already two stories, but they my feeling is they should not be considered not complying 30 because they were built that way. But in any case my understanding from the meeting from the two 31 Motions that were passed at the City Council meeting was that that law that verbiage in the law that said 32 that a fee could be applied for this process was to be struck and that I would hope that would be the 33 case for all single-story overlays that go forward. And thank you for your support of this one. 34 35 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I believe that’s it from our public speakers. Thank you so much. Sure. 36 37 Ms. French: Sure, yes let me please address that last comment about the fees. As you will see in our 38 next item we are including that in our administrative or policy changes. It’s actually considered a new 39 policy, but it was one that the Council espoused during this hearing when they were discussing the fee. 40 So that will be removed and it is not applicable to the Torreya Court proposal. We have not charged 41 them a fee or told them that it’s a hang up for them. The hang up as you rightly noted was that they do 42 have nine homes and that kicks them to 30 percent. And so some of those nonconforming would be 43 nonconforming homes, homeowners are concerned about that status. 44 45 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you so much. Let’s open it up to questions, Commissioner Gardias. 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I’d like just to get more clarification on 48 the options that we have tonight. If you could just put them on the board specifically that’s district that’s 49 next to, let’s see if I can read this, Torreya Court. 50 51 Ms. French: Mmmm hmmm. 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: That’s adjusted to, adjacent to this proposed addition. What are our options on 54 inclusion of this one in today’s vote if we’re going to approve this overlay? 55 56
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Ms. French: What your option would be would be to suggest that the boundary be expanded to, for Los 1 Arboles to include the Torreya Court and therefore we would have to broaden our notice and modify the 2 project description which is simply the Los Arboles to be a broader neighborhood. 3 4 Commissioner Gardias: And we would have to continue through (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. French: Yes. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: Through September 30th, I don’t know if there is anybody from that neighborhood 9 tonight? No? Ok so we were only talking about this one. Thank you. 10 11 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Michael. 12 13 Commissioner Michael: I want to thank the neighbors for coming out and speaking about the qualities of 14 the neighborhood that you love and want to preserve. To the extent that there appears to be 66 of the 15 83 homes in support of the proposal is there any questions that should be asked regarding the numbers? 16 The tally, is this in any way something that we should analyze or verify? 17 18 Ms. French: My impression reading the materials that were submitted was that the outreach statements 19 that were made on that petition were sufficient and the signatures that appear there when I compared 20 them to the file of addresses, owners it seems that those people are the same (interrupted) 21 22 Commissioner Michael: Ok. 23 24 Ms. French: As far as that goes. Did I get to the question? 25 26 Commissioner Michael: Well pretty much. So since you didn’t get 83 out of 83 and 17 people weren’t 27 counted in the 66 is anybody in the 17 here tonight that has a different point of view? It appears not so 28 that may be worthy of noting. 29 30 So it, I guess those are my only questions for the movement. Oh, on the boundary if, if you drew a 31 different boundary would that affect the 70 percent support? If you or is there a large group of people 32 immediately outside the proposed boundary who would like not to have this restriction? 33 34 Ms. French: I will address that, through the Chair, the homes on the screen that are fronting Ross Road 35 that are within the tract above the red line the one to the left is a two-story stucco home and so that 36 would be then one more point, percentage point. So instead of four out of 83 homes it would be 5 out of 37 85 homes as far as number, percentages of two-story homes. I believe they still meet the entry 38 requirement of 20 homes so I mean 20, 20 percent, maximum 20 percent two-story homes. The home 39 to the right is an Eichler one-story so I’m not sure if a negative signature there how that would tip the 40 balance. I don’t think it would though. 41 42 Acting Chair Fine: Any other questions? Acting Vice-Chair. 43 44 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: I think given our purview this seems like a no brainer to me, which is the 45 boundary seems sufficient. There’s a large enough number of people to qualify. They’ve well exceeded 46 even if the people that were not found all oppose they’re still above the limit. There was an error in not 47 providing sufficient public notice, but I suppose we’ll get back to that at the right time and hopefully this 48 will be fast. So I’d just say we have lots of items we go round and round on for hours. I think this is one 49 where I don’t know if we all want to make a statement or we could make a Motion to say go to the next, 50 but I don’t see any issues here. 51 52 Acting Chair Fine: Commissioner Alcheck. 53 54
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just going to follow the lead here and make questions and comments sort of 1 together if that’s alright? So just for clarity here does the staff feel that this will because I read what you 2 wrote and I heard what you said; this is not necessary, this isn’t really preserving Eichler homes, right? 3 4 Ms. French: That’s correct. It’s not necessarily preserving, yes. That is a true statement. Remodels can 5 happen to the existing homes. The existing homes could be torn down and replacement one-story 6 homes could be constructed after a single-story overlay is approved. 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: And three of the four two-story homes are Eichler two-story homes? Is that 9 correct? 10 11 Ms. French: They’re Eichler one-story homes with second floor compatible Eichler additions, so in the 12 Seventies so those additions came at a later date. Whether Eichler designed them or not they’re small 13 additions. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok well, so let me just I’ll make my comment now. I completely understand the 16 love affair. I myself am partial to midcentury modern architecture and I’ve been in some exceptionally 17 well maintained Eichler homes in Palo Alto and also in Sunnyvale, but I just I want to highlight but that 18 said this doesn’t preserve your Eichler home or your neighbor’s Eichler home. Only a neighbor with the 19 interest, motivation, and passion to maintain their Eichler home will maintain their Eichler home and I 20 think that’s an important consideration here. 21 22 I think that you’re out of the three, out of the four homes that are two stories I imagine a scenario where 23 their home burns down in some awful event and they can’t rebuild exactly what they had before with 24 their insurance premium or coverage. And that seems sort of unjust for that individual so I’m not sure 25 how we could remedy that situation. I don’t, I don’t love that portion of this. 26 27 I also am not really persuaded I just hope for the record, for general discussion I’m not really persuaded 28 by this notion that two-story homes that comply with our single family zoning code in some ways ruin 29 daylight or interaction with nature or affect our interaction with the urban canopy or our visuals in 30 general because our process for single family homes that are two stories is really deliberate. There’s an 31 individual review process for any proposed two-story home in the City in which they evaluate context and 32 setback and what do you call it when the second story is set even farther back? So there’s a real effort 33 to preserve that sensibility that sense of openness and light and I just don’t, I don’t think I think if we 34 accept the premise that somehow single family preserves these things and we’re also saying at the same 35 time that our two-story neighborhoods are somehow destroying that and I don’t love that. 36 37 That said I think it does enhance privacy and I also think this is exactly the sort of action that my vision 38 of local government supports. I mean this is a community that is essentially voted in unison according to 39 the parameters we’ve set up. They’ve met that standard and I think they’re entirely entitled to pursue 40 this application and I would support their vision for their neighborhood because that’s what I think, that’s 41 exactly what I think local government should be doing. I’m just clarifying because I know I see the 42 Eichler preservation movement here and I don’t know if this accomplishes all of your goals. 43 44 And then I’d also like to throw out there this idea, this notion because this will have a significant impact. 45 I know we’ve done this in other areas of the City, but not while I was on Commission. I wonder if this is 46 something we should consider or recommend considering doing under a time constraint; for example, 47 limiting second story development for five or seven years, revisiting the topic at that date to see if the 48 same level of consensus exists. Again I don’t want to ruffle the community’s feathers, but I’m just our 49 community is on the precipice of a dramatic change just as the entire country is. There’s going to be a 50 tremendous likely to be tremendous change in the ownership profile of residences in California as our 51 population grows and continues to change and this is a very permanent affect. And so I sort of wonder if 52 there should be some automatic opportunity to revisit it, check with the community to see if they still feel 53 that same way or I don’t know. I’m just throwing that out there, but I would support this process. I just 54 want to clarify I don’t know if what you’re asking us tonight is to expand the boundary because you’ve 55
City of Palo Alto Page 7
gotten that request and if in that case if you haven’t that’s not how I would, I would just move this along 1 the way that it’s already been presented and then I guess review it on the second go round. That’s it. 2 3 Ms. French: Through the Chair, yes, we are recommending moving forward as has been requested by the 4 Los Arboles applicant. To the other points I would just say a basement is a possibility for a new one-5 story home (interrupted) 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: This is non-flood zone? 8 9 Ms. French: Not a flood zone. And the other thing is if there was a desire by 70 percent of those in the 10 single-story boundary five years from now, seven years from now, those 70 percent could come forward 11 with a proposal to undo the single-story overlay. So that’s the out if you will. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 14 15 Acting Chair Fine: Any other questions? 16 17 Commissioner Michael: Amy if I could just follow up one of the things that I’ve always wondered about is 18 since the requirement to create the single-story overlay is 70 percent why is the requirement to move 19 back to the unrestricted R-1 not 30 percent? 20 21 Ms. French: Well, you’ve got me there. I don’t know the history on why that’s the case. That is what the 22 code says. 23 24 Commissioner Michael: Ok, because it seems to me that well anyway, just it’s not for us to answer 25 tonight, but just to maybe create a record that we’re thinking if that’s the case. When I was growing up 26 here one of my good friends, very large family I think six or maybe seven kids, lost track we were lived in 27 the Crescent Park neighborhood at that time and they had a large house to a lot of kids. And when the 28 kids grew up and many of them moved away and actually the father passed away so the widow, Daryl 29 Carrie, moved to Torreya Court. And she’s an absolutely wonderful gracious lady and she loved living in 30 Torreya Court, but she moved there because her family size had contracted naturally as the kids grew up. 31 And it would not have been possible for the Carrie family to live in Torreya Court with their full family, but 32 only after they got smaller. So one of the things I just wanted to be sensitive to is that and I think that 33 the overwhelming support of the 66-78 homeowners will compel us to go forward and be successful so 34 that’s a maybe a wonderful thing, but it I think it inadvertently has the effect of excluding large families 35 in the sense of the Carries moved there when they had a smaller family, couldn’t have fit there if the 36 whole family and a 2,600 sf house was going to be the largest in this neighborhood. So that exclusionary 37 quality is probably an unintended consequence. 38 39 Also the census data for Palo Alto suggests that there’s demographic changes in who lives in Palo Alto 40 from when Eichler was building and now some of the groups that are more have larger percentages in 41 Palo Alto tend to favor multigenerational households. And you’re also probably inadvertently excluding 42 multigenerational households from living in your neighborhood. That’s probably ok. 43 44 And the thing that always baffles me and again I don’t know that this would be a positive opportunity for 45 anybody who lives in the proposed area is that by so enthusiastically supporting a single-story overlay in 46 some ways its contrary to the economic self-interest which when you cap potential square footage 47 because the construction cost of additional square footage is much less than the value in Palo Alto. So 48 let’s say you had 1,000 square feet second story it would cost you $500 a square feet, sf to build, but it’s 49 worth $1,000 a sf to a buyer you just lopped off a half a million dollars off your home value. So I take 50 that as the really very enthusiastic sincerity of the neighborhood in wanting to constrain your economic 51 value. So it looks like you will triumph and these are just questions that I’ve had about the wisdom of 52 the statutory scheme and I think that the architectural values, the neighborhood values, the nature, the 53 indoor/outdoor living, all of this stuff, the privacy, these are wonderful things, but there are some major 54 factors, changes imminent in Palo Alto as elsewhere and some of these things are maybe not as simple 55 as they first appear. 56
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1 Acting Chair Fine: Thank you. I think I’ve just got a few comments and then I think we can move on to 2 the next item. I really appreciate you all coming out. It’s really good to hear from all of you and as 3 Commissioner Alcheck said I think it is a really nice example of neighbors coming together and being 4 unanimous on something. It’s been pretty rare nowadays so that’s really great. 5 6 A few questions and then just one comment, so one question is about expanding the boundary; you 7 mentioned additional notifications. Just hypothetically what if we expanded the boundary to double it 8 and some way the vote didn’t carry. I mean would there have to be a new petitioning? How does that 9 work? 10 11 Ms. French: Right, I guess doubling if that’s a, that’s a formula I mean when you talk about maybe 12 including Torreya Court that’s kind of more of a specific so I’m just going to use that. So you would need 13 to notice the Torreya Court neighborhood. Likely they already received notice that it was the Los Arboles 14 tract that was going forward. Then we would go 600 feet from that neighborhood so it would go across 15 Middlefield and over and around and so include more folks in the radius. And we would revise the 16 project description so that’s the first part of that (interrupted) 17 18 Acting Chair Fine: But would they I mean so let’s say we included Torreya Court and went all the way up 19 to Ross and maybe even across Loma Verde. I know there’s some second story homes there. Would 20 there be a new petition required if (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. French: Yes, yes there would be. 23 24 Acting Chair Fine: Ok, so we’d start from scratch? 25 26 Ms. French: So basically yes, we do have the petition for Torreya Court already submitted. It was just 27 the fact that there were too many two-story homes that they couldn’t be on their own a single-story 28 overlay as a standard single-story overlay. But yes, if we expanded the single-story overlay boundary 29 associated with Los Arboles I’m not sure I mean if you wanted to go all the way up to a street let’s say it 30 just isn’t as (interrupted) 31 32 Acting Chair Fine: Right, I just wanted to kind of figure out the process and the operations for noticing 33 and the re-petitioning. Great, thank you. 34 35 Ms. French: Yes, we would have to have them sign (interrupted) 36 37 Acting Chair Fine: And then kind of to build on Commissioner Michael’s comment about changing families 38 and removing building potential and the value that you have, land is very valuable in Palo Alto. There’s 39 pretty much nowhere else to build so the logical thing is to build up actually, right? And so this is actually 40 restricting that. And I think it would be helpful for staff, for the Council, and for future commissions to in 41 some way record what building potential has been taken off the market when we do something like this. 42 Maybe it’s 80 households, 1,000 feet per household, that’s 80,000 sf of building space. I’ve heard in a lot 43 of different forums here and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee from Council that like we really need to 44 understand what is our building potential, what is our capacity, what we’ve already built, this is a very 45 clear and concise area where we are going to essentially be rezoning a spot and essentially taking out 46 building potential. I think it would be helpful to measure that with each of these applications. I think 47 that’s it for my comments, but it sounds like there’s one more. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I want to clarify a few things. You said lot sizes varied from 6700 to 10,000. So 50 let’s let me I just want to clarify a few things. So a 10,000 square foot lot in Palo Alto you’re allowable 51 floor area is in the range of 3,800 sf. That means the largest home you can build on a 10,000 square 52 foot lot is 3,800 sf, doesn’t matter if you stack it two stories or one-story. So I think it’s dangerous to 53 suggest that any one of these home owners has lost any buildable square footage. What the result is 54 that they will have less potential landscaping, but not that they’ll have a smaller home. 55 56
City of Palo Alto Page 9
And I don’t not to just respond to you, but I think there’s a vast majority Baby Boomers have taken over 1 the sixties, seventies, and eighties and by and large they all like one-story homes. And so the notion that 2 this would be unappealing to maybe multigenerational families I also think is a dangerous assumption 3 because you can build an almost 4,000 square foot home which is your max. There is no scenario where 4 you can build more than that as one-story an example I’m giving you and that example works its way 5 down to smaller lots. And so I think the additional I’m just going to throw this out there, I don’t know if 6 everybody realizes it, but the fact that these are not flood zone properties let’s assume you’re maxed out 7 at 4,000 sf if you build a 2,000 square foot first story and a 2,000 square foot second story the maximum 8 basement you can build is based on the footprint of your first story, which means you could theoretically 9 build a basement that’s 2,000 sf which would then put you in the 6,000 square foot property range. It’s 10 enormous. If you build a 4,000 square foot first floor you can in theory build a 4,000 square foot 11 basement, which puts you in the 8,000 square foot range. Now not all square feet are equal in value. 12 Basements are not typically the same value as a first story, but I just want to suggest that just because 13 we’re limiting the development to a single-story does not mean that we’re limiting value. And I mention 14 that because I live in a neighborhood where there’s a lot of construction going on and a lot of the homes 15 are one-story and they’re huge and those are I think some of these homes are spec homes and I think 16 those decisions are based on this idea that right now a one-story home is appealing to a broader market 17 because of the fact that it’s appealing to multi-generational users. So I just I want to suggest that. 18 19 I also want to say one other thing which is there’s no incentive to increase the boundary. Number one it 20 might dilute the voting strength of this community and number two their decision does not affect their 21 neighbor, neighboring streets. Unlike allow me for a minute the example of the overnight parking ban in 22 Crescent Park, which when one block decides what to do with their street parking the parkers move to 23 the next block and that decision did affect the individuals who didn’t get to vote on whether that parking 24 restriction would’ve applied to them. So in that case I would have supported broadening the community 25 vote. In this case I think expanding it would actually harm these, harm the result because the goal here 26 is for them to determine their own future and so I wouldn’t support expanding it specifically for that 27 reason. 28 29 And then my last question actually for staff is how small can the applicant be? Can it be like one street? 30 Is there, do we have a limit? So if for example the street next door decided hey, we really like what’s 31 going on over there, it’s encouraging and preserving the Eichler homes and we want to jump in on that 32 can they do it as a group of four or is there a minimum size? I’m not familiar with that. 33 34 Ms. French: There is no minimum size. I just put up the on the screen the Allen Court which is 20 35 something so that’s a fairly small distinct neighborhood, but I don’t think down the road if there was 36 another if there’s a desire to expand this single-story overlay to include additional homes that that could 37 be processed just like this one is to say… 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, just wanted to check. So in theory like three homes could to it for their three 40 homes? 41 42 Ms. French: I think that it has to be logical enough with logical boundaries such as a tract or streets or… 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, got it. 45 46 Ms. French: We have had a situation in the past where there was a portion of a neighborhood and it was 47 odd. It was they had kind of drawn it around the support level and I don’t think we’re after that. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 50 51 Ms. French: To make the numbers we really want it to be a logical defined by waterways or streets or 52 tracts or something that makes sense. 53 54 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 55 56
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Acting Chair Fine: Seems like we have one last comment. Let’s try to wrap this up and move into the 1 next items. 2 3 Commissioner Downing: Sure, so thank you everyone for coming out. I just really appreciate seeing the 4 community here. There’s one other comment that I just wanted to make in terms of just making sure 5 that there’s a full view of the implications of this action. So the one other comment I wanted to make to 6 that is if you incentivize first floor and people want to build out their first floor and they want them to be 7 bigger you’re taking over more of your lot area, because you’re going to expand the house horizontally 8 rather than vertically. The one issue that you might find by doing this is that you may not have all that 9 much space left if you ever wanted to add a secondary dwelling unit, if you ever wanted to add a space 10 for a caretaker or an elderly parent or maybe you want to move in you want to let your kids get the main 11 house. You may not have the ability in doing that because you the house itself needs to comply with 12 setbacks, the secondary unit needs to comply with setbacks, and you also need to find two extra parking 13 spaces on your property. So just consider that. You’re all spry right now, but you may want other things 14 in the future. So just think about that so long as you have that in mind, you’re happy with the tradeoffs 15 you’re making, by all means. 16 17 Acting Chair Fine: Well, thank you all for showing up unfortunately we can’t vote on this tonight, but it 18 will be back on September 30th. 19 20 Ms. French: You need to make a Motion. 21 22 Mr. Lait: You need to make a Motion to continue to September 30th. 23 24 MOTION, SECOND, VOTE 25 26 Acting Chair Fine: I move to continue this item to September 30th, second by Commissioner Michael. 27 Should we take a vote? All in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you so much. 28 29 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 30 31
Commission Action: Commission heard public testimony, provided comments. Motion by Acting 32 Chair Fine, seconded by Commissioner Michael to continue this item to meeting of September 30, 33 2015. Motion passed unanimously (6-0-1, Chair Tanaka absent) 34
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5974) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/9/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay Rezoning
Title: Los Arboles Single Story Overlay: Request by Rebecca Thompson on Behalf of the Property Owners of the Los Arboles Tract #2396 for a Zone Change from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15305.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hear from the public (who received notice cards) and discuss the proposed Single Story Overlay rezoning, and continue the hearing to September 30, 2015 to allow newspaper publication of the hearing prior to making a recommendation to City Council to approve the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A) to rezone 83 homes within the Los Arboles neighborhood (Tract #2396) from R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)-S, Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay (SSO) District.
Executive Summary Los Arboles homeowners (80% of 83 homeowners), represented by Rebecca Thompson and Sherilyn Tye, request rezoning of 83 homes from R-1 and R-1 (7,000) to the R-1-S and R-1(7,000)-S, Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay zone. The Los Arboles proposal meets the eligibility criteria to initiate a standard1 SSO district rezone application. This report forwards the proposal and provides discussion intended to clarify the proposal’s eligibility, SSO rezone process and consequences of an R-1-S rezoning. Attachment B is a map showing the Los Arboles tract boundary and the boundary of the requested Los Arboles SSO, which includes all but two properties within the 85-lot tract. The omitted properties are two corner lots fronting Ross Road (a one-story Eichler home and a two-
1 A standard SSO district involves no changes to the text of PAMC Chapter 18.12.
ATTACHMENT G
City of Palo Alto Page 2
story stucco home). The 83 Eichler homes within the proposed SSO boundary include all homes fronting on Holly Oak Drive and Cork Oak Way, 11 homes facing Ames Avenue from 700 to 788 Ames, and eight homes on Middlefield (3287-3333). Currently, 767 and 771 Holly Oak Drive are both zoned R-1, which requires lots to be 6,000 square feet (sf) to meet the minimum lot size. The remaining properties are currently zoned R-1(7000), where the minimum lot size is 7,000 sf.
Background Single Story Overlays
Council adopted the Single Story Overlay zone as a standard zone district in 1992.
In 2005, Council updated the Zoning Code to eliminate the ‘moderate lot size’ requirement for a single story overlay.
On June 29, 2015, Council set policy to waive the fees for standard SSO applications. Required Level of Support Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.12.100 states the following: “For creating a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have been enforced. For the removal of a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by 70% of included properties, whether or not deed restrictions intended to limit the building height to single story apply. “Included properties” means all those properties inside the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or removed. The written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state that the signer is indicating support for a zone map amendment that affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property.” Existing SSOs A map of the existing single story overlays within Palo Alto was contained with the June 29, 2015 Council report (ID #5907) that discussed the fee waiver; the report is viewable at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47895. Attachment G to this report shows all existing SSOs and proposed/pending SSOs. Pending SSOs Attachment G to this report is a map showing all existing and pending SSOs. The PTC is tentatively scheduled to review the Greer Park North SSO proposal (another one-story Eichler tract of 72 homes) in October. PTC Purview on a SSO Rezoning
City of Palo Alto Page 3
PAMC Chapter 18.80 provides regulations for the rezoning process. PAMC Section 18.80.035 states ‘SSO applications are considered in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80 and can be made by a property owner within the district in accordance with PAMC 18.12.100. PAMC 18.80.060 requires mailing of hearing notices to property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the property to be rezoned, as well as the property to be rezoned. Recommendation Options and Timeline The PTC purview is to review and recommend Council action on any rezone application. The alternative recommendations available to the PTC include these: (1) expand or contract the boundaries of the overlay district, or (2) deny the request for a SSO. No additional notice is required to contract the boundaries. Once an Ordinance containing the PTC recommendation is made, staff has no more than 30 days to forward the PTC’s formal recommendation to Council. The draft ordinance, which may be modified in accordance with PTC recommendation(s) during the PTC hearing, would accompany a report to Council for public hearing and action. If the PTC does not support the request, the PTC is still required (within a reasonable time following the close of the public hearing) to render a formal decision on the rezone request in accordance with PAMC 18.80.070 (f), based upon prepared findings and determinations with respect to the application. Draft Ordinance Staff has prepared the attached ordinance to rezone the property. The City’s rezoning regulations are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.80. The PTC is asked to determine that the rezone application is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning Code) and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, per PAMC Section 18.80.070 (e), ‘Action by Commission’. The PTC is asked to recommend that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from R-1 to R-1-S (and from R-1(7000) to R-1(7000)-S) by adopting the attached draft ordinance.
Discussion Los Arboles Tract/Proposed SSO Existing Conditions
Los Arboles neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family residences of a similar age (1959-60), design and character (Eichler homes);
95% of the 83 homes within the proposed SSO boundary are original single-story Eichler homes;
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The four two-story homes within the proposed boundary are original one-story Eichler homes with small second floor additions;
One of the one-story homes in the neighborhood has recently been sold. Staff has not obtained information about the new homeowner and has not reached out to the new homeowner. There are no two-story home applications filed with the City within the proposed SSO boundary.
Proposed Boundary The proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is two properties short of an entire, original Eichler homes tract. Two corner properties in the original Eichler tract are not included in the proposed SSO boundary SSO. One is developed with a one-story Eichler home, 3366 Ross Road, which has its entry facing Ross Road. The other excluded corner property is 795 Ames Avenue, a non-Eichler, two-story stucco home. The boundary’s original Eichler homes face both sides of the main streets - Holly Oak Drive, Ames Avenue, Cork Oak Way - or they face Middlefield as a large group (of eight homes). The proposed SSO boundary does not include the 30 homes in the adjacent tract, Torreya Court (Tract #5371), which has too many two story homes to be eligible alone for rezoning to SSO. The Los Arboles SSO applicant stated that they were interested in moving forward quickly with Los Arboles SSO, and were concerned that homeowners in the Torreya Court tract were having issues with the proposal (mostly, the consequences of a SSO rendering the two story Eichler homes as noncomplying facilities) to the extent these concerns might delay the process for the Los Arboles SSO. Attachment F shows the proposed Los Arboles Tract next to the Torreya Court Tract. Los Arboles SSO Submittal On June 30, 2015, the applicant (co-applicants) submitted information containing the SSO rezone proposal materials. The co-applicants are Rebecca Thompson of 754 Holly Oak Drive, and Sherilyn Tye, of 731 Holly Oak Drive. They represent 80% of 83 property owners within the proposed SSO boundary located within Los Arboles Tract 2396. The applicant paid no application fees, given Council direction that staff waive SSO rezoning application fees. This application has the support of 66 (80%) of the 83 homeowners within the proposed SSO boundary, where a lesser minimum (70%) of tract homeowners is required. Initiation Requirements The Los Arboles SSO rezone application meets the established criteria set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.12 for a SSO combining district initiation. The requisite signatures were gathered and the proposal meets or exceeds the minimum qualifications for initiation of a Single Story Overlay Rezoning.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
80% of property owners (66 of 83 owners) within the proposed boundary (83 of the 85 homes within Tract 2396) support the proposal. This support level is 10% more than the 70% support level required for initiation. The applicants conducted an initial survey in September 2014 ‘to gauge support’, and distributed a second letter prior to gathering signatures on the attached petition in May and June. These materials were submitted to the City and staff reviewed the petition and outreach materials, to ensure the proposal reflects the requisite level of support. Copies of the applicants’ outreach efforts are included with application materials (Attachment C.)
95% of the homes within the proposed SSO boundary are single-story homes, where the requirement to initiate a SSO is 80% of homes as single story within the SSO boundary.
The proposed SSO boundary is appropriate, as all are the original Eichler homes - none have been torn down and replaced since 1960; only four homes have second stories, which were constructed as compatible additions in the 1970’s. Two Ross Road fronting homes within the tract are excluded from the proposed boundary for appropriate reasons noted in the applicant’s letter.
The lot sizes within the boundary range from 6,700 square feet (sf) to 10,000 sf, and the home sizes range from 1,650 sf to 2,850 sf. The majority of lots within the proposed SSO boundary are moderately sized (7,000-8,000 sf). A moderate lot size allows for a larger home footprint than a minimum lot size. Lot size is no longer a requirement for SSO initiation as noted earlier in this report.
Neighborhood Values The June 30, 2015 application letter (contained in Attachment C) conveys the neighborhood values expressed by the supporters of this rezoning. These include privacy, livability, neighborhood diversity (generationally, ethnically and culturally), and appreciation of the neighborhood’s unique design and character. The letter also states the reasons for the application, provides information about the mid-century homes and subdivision design, and expresses concern about the lack of sensitivity to scale and compatibility with existing homes conveyed by new homes developed elsewhere. Finally, the letter requests that the application be processed and approved as soon as possible. SSO Regulations PAMC Section 18.12.010 (provided within Attachment H) sets forth the purposes of the (S) combining district and R-1 district. Briefly, the purpose of a Single-Story Combining District (S) is to modify the site development regulations of the R-1 single-family residence district, to preserve and maintain single-family living areas of predominantly single-story character. An area proposed for a single story combining district should be of a prevailing single story character, thus limiting the number of structures rendered non-complying by the (S) combining district. Site Development Regulations The Single Story Overlay process and development regulations are set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.12, Single Family Residence District Section 18.12.100
City of Palo Alto Page 6
(Attachment H). New homes within a SSO district are restricted to a maximum building height of 17 feet and one ‘habitable’ floor. In a special flood hazard area, the maximum building height may be 20 feet pursuant to a specific formula (1/2 of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation). The code text states, “habit-able floors include lofts, mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space above the first floor in excess of five feet (5') from the floor to the roof above.” Noncomplying Facilities Within a SSO district, existing two story homes, homes with basements or mezzanines, and homes exceeding maximum height of 17 are considered non-complying facilities subject to the regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70. The SSO does not mandate any design review for one-story replacement homes, so continued privacy and design compatibility are not assured for new homes within a SSO boundary. Protection of Eichler Homes and Compatibility of New One Story Homes The recent batch of SSO proposals are for Eichler neighborhoods. However, imposition of SSO zoning does not ensure replacement one-story homes would be compatible with the neighborhood’s Eichler style homes, nor address existing privacy conditions of adjacent homes, since no discretionary review is involved. Only zoning compliance review is required for one-story home construction, in conjunction with a building permit, and no notices are distributed. Single-Story Overlay Level of Support and Outreach Applicant’s Outreach Efforts The applicants conducted neighborhood outreach in three phases: (1) an initial survey in September 2014, (2) a second outreach letter, and (3) gathering of signatures from the neighbors within the SSO boundary on a petition. There was also a neighborhood annual block party where the SSO proposal was discussed. According to the applicant, the purpose of the September 2014 survey was “to gauge interest in preventing construction of additional two story houses in the neighborhood.” The applicant’s second outreach letter provided a link to the City’s webpage containing the code conveying the SSO process, purposes and limitations. Further Verification and Notices The SSO process regulations do not require the City to further verify homeowner support via postcard mailing. Staff reviewed the applicant’s outreach letters and petition and, due to the 80% level of support for the SSO proposal, staff felt it unnecessary to verify this level of support prior to public hearing at the PTC meeting. The code simply requires notification of the PTC public hearing (per PAMC Chapter 18.180); notice cards have been sent to all property owners and residents of the homes within the proposed overlay boundary, as well as to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed overlay boundary, to meet the notice requirements.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Staff’s Informational Memo The informational memorandum staff mailed on August 24, 2015 provided clarifications on the limitations of Single Story Overlays (Attachment E). Petition Signatures The petition of 66 signatures gathered in May and June shows that 17 addresses have no signatures of support: Owners of property on Ames (716 and 764), Middlefield (3321), Cork Oak Way (3393, 3404, 3412, 3415, 3444, 3452), and Holly Oak Drive (712, 715, 720, 744, 784, 785, 786, 788) did not sign the petition. The percentage of homeowners not providing signatures on the petition is 20% (17 of 83 homes). The applicant states that six of the non-responding homeowners (7%) stated they are not supportive, and that 11 of these homeowners (13%) remain undecided or unreachable. Two of the four two-story homeowners (788 Ames Avenue and 3373 Cork Oak Way) signed the petition in favor of the rezoning proposal. The other two, two-story homeowners (788 and 785 Holly Oak Drive) did not sign the petition. Boundary of the Los Arboles SSO The reason the Ross Road homes were excluded from the Los Arboles SSO boundary, as stated in the application, is that the property owners requested to be excluded from the boundaries of the proposed SSO, and these properties are geographically located such that their exclusion is logical. The history and reasons the Torreya Court tract is not included in the Los Arboles SSO boundary request at this time are provided below. Adjacent Tract, Torreya Court On the same day the Los Arboles proposal was filed with the City, a representative of the adjacent Torreya Court tract dropped off a SSO proposal for the adjacent Eichler neighborhood, Torreya Court. Attachment D is a map submitted by the applicant of the Torreya Court proposal. The Los Arboles SSO narrative recognizes the Torreya Court SSO proposal, and states, “Planning staff might want to process the two applications together.” However, staff did not accept the application for the Torreya Court SSO proposal, because it does not meet the initiation criteria (too many two-story homes), and because the two story home owners have contacted staff regarding their concerns that their homes would become non-complying facilities. The Torreya Court tract (Tract #5371) has nine two-story, original Eichler homes within the boundaries, which represents 30% of the 30 homes. The percentage of single story homes on the court (70%) is less than the 80% minimum criteria to initiate rezoning (per PAMC 18.12.100 (2)(B)). Several of the nine two-story homeowners are concerned about the fact that their homes would become ‘non-complying facilities’ subject to regulations of PAMC Chapter 18.70, following the SSO rezoning. These homeowners have been meeting to discuss their concerns;
City of Palo Alto Page 8
they are considering resubmitting an application to modify the text of Chapter 18.12 to allow rebuilding of the two story homes. Such a proposal would not be considered a ‘standard’ SSO zone, and would be subject to payment of application fees. Meanwhile, the Los Arboles applicants told staff the Los Arboles neighborhood does not wish to delay the rezoning process for Los Arboles SSO. As shown on the attached maps, the Torreya Court and Los Arboles neighborhoods are adjacent to each other, and staff has no concerns about merging the neighborhoods into one SSO boundary, if the PTC directs this. An expansion of the boundary would require re-noticing, but this is not an issue. If the PTC wants to expand the boundaries of the SSO, the description of the boundary would be revised for notices to be published and mailed to a radius of 600 feet from the expanded boundary. Staff would be able to meet deadlines for sending notices of an expanded SSO boundary prior to the September 30, 2015 hearing.
Public Notice Notice cards were sent to property owners and residents within the proposed Los Arboles SSO boundary and to property owners and residents within a 600 foot radius of the boundary. Staff also mailed out an outreach letter on August 24, 2015 to property owners within the proposed SSO boundary (Attachment X). The newspaper publication requirement was not met for the September 9, 2015 hearing of this item, so the PTC is asked to continue the hearing to a date certain: the PTC meeting of September 30, 2015. A newspaper notice will be placed to meet the code requirements for publication for September 30, 2015.
Policy Implications The proposed SSO is supportable as a standard SSO, and is in accordance with Council direction regarding rezoning of properties to SSO without requiring application fees to process the applications. Additional SSO applications are on file or pending filing. With a SSO on file, home buyers in the subject neighborhood may be less likely to risk proposing a two story home.
Resource Impact The Single Story Overlay process is free for applicants so there have been three proposals submitted within a month’s time and staff is discussing a fourth proposal with a potential applicant. There is no cost recovery for the processing these applications.
Timeline The PTC is asked to continue the hearing to September 30, 2015 to allow newspaper publication of the hearing for PTC recommendation on the application. The tentative date for Council consideration of the proposed SSO is November 9, 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance (DOCX)
Attachment B: Applicant submittal, Boundary of proposed Single Story Overlay (PDF)
Attachment C: Los Arboles Applicant Submittal (PDF)
Attachment D: Torreya Court Single Story Overlay proposal (PDF)
Attachment E: Staff Informational Memo (DOCX)
Attachment F: City generated map showing location of 2 story homes (PDF)
Attachment G: Existing plus proposed SSOs (PDF)
Attachment H: Chapter 18.12 R-1/SSO purpose excerpted (DOCX)