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

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

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.

https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/48869

City of Palo Alto

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

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

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


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



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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47895


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;


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.


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


(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.


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;


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.


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)

City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff ReportThe 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses...

Documents

Transcript of City of Palo Alto (ID # 6101) City Council Staff ReportThe 66-signature petition shows 17 addresses...