Planning & Transportation Commission
Staff Report (ID # 6961)
Report Type:
Action Items
Meeting Date: 5/25/2016
Summary Title:
Continued: Faircourt #3 and #4 Single Story Overlay Rezoning
Title:
Faircourt #3 and #4 Single Story Overlay Rezoning: Request by Jackie
Angelo Geist and Roland Finston on Behalf of the Property Owners of
the Faircourt #3 and #4 Tracts #1921 and #1816 for a Zone Change
from R-1 Single Family Residential (8000) to R-1(8000)(S) Single
Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
per section 15305. Public Hearing Continued from April 27, 2016.
From:
Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Lead Department:
Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
(1) Reopen the continued public hearing to hear from the applicant and interested parties
about a proposed reduction to the Single Story Overlay boundary for Faircourt #3 and
#4 (tracts 1816 and 1921) that excludes six properties fronting on the south side of
Talisman Drive. (The revised ordinance is attached to this report as Attachment A.)
(2) Forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance (Attachment A)
supporting the applicant’s revised request as shown on Attachment B and in
accordance with the applicant’s request (Attachment C).
Background
The staff report for the April 27, 2016 hearing of this item is found at the following link:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52073
On April 27, 2016, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) opened the subject
hearing. The item was continued to May 11, 2016 hearing due to concern over eroding support
for the overlay and the PTC’s desire to get Council input on a similar issue pending in the Royal
Manor SSO. The PTC noted some similarities to the Royal Manor SSO due to last minute erosion
of support, and noted they wanted to meet on this item after Council resumed and finalized
discussion on the Royal Manor SSO application on May 2, 2016.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-3221
P&TC Page 1 of 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department
Page 2
Additionally, Commissioner Waldfogel requested to learn about the status of the existing
CC&Rs; specifically, why these were not enforced or why they had been ignored, enabling
construction of the two story homes that now exist in the tract. As the City is not a party to
such CC&R’s it does not have the legal standing to enforce them. Typically CCR’s vest
enforcement authority with a Homeowners’ Association or elected Design Review Board, but
many single family home tracts have allowed these boards to lapse, which is the case for this
tract.
Following the hearing, the applicants (Ms. Geist and Mr. Finston) noted to staff that, given the
reversal of one owner, they are amenable to and would propose the removal of six properties
fronting the south side of Talisman Drive from the SSO boundary. Several days later, the
applicants sent the attached email (Attachment C) to staff proposing removal of those six
properties from the proposed boundaries.
Minutes of the April 27, 2016 hearing will be available at Commissioners’ places on May 25,
2016.
Summary of Key Issues
Removal of the properties fronting the south side of Talisman Drive reduces the number of
properties within the proposed SSO boundary to 44 properties. The support level of owners for
SSO within the 44-property boundary is 28 owners or 63.6% support, where 60% support is
required.
The key issue is whether the remaining properties still constitute an identifiable single story
development or neighborhood, even after the six properties are removed from the SSO
boundary. Of these six Talisman Drive fronting properties, one is a two-story home, and
another has a significantly modified roofline, and siding modifications that mask key identifying
features the one-story Eichler home. The other four appear to be relatively intact one-story
Eichlers.
Along with a tract boundary, a street is also considered (in PAMC Chapter 18.12) a valid
boundary for an SSO rezone. The percentage of homes that are two story homes within the 44lot boundary is 9%. Therefore, using Talisman Drive as a boundary is acceptable and the
proposal meets all eligibility criteria set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code for SSOs.
Policy Implications
As noted during the April 27, 2016 hearing, the PTC may reduce the originally proposed
boundaries without re-noticing the item.
Attachments:
 Attachment A: Revised Faircourt Ordinance (South Side of Talisman Removed) (DOCX)
 Attachment B: Revised Map without south side Talisman (PDF)
 Attachment C: Email from applicants reduce boundary
(PDF)
P&TC Page 2 of 10
ATTACHMENT A
*NOT YET APPROVED*
Ordinance No. XXXX
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 within the Faircourt #3 and #4 tracts
(Tracts #1816 and 1921) from R-1(8000) to R-1 (8000)(S)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A.
The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearings held
April 27 and May 11, 2016, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth.
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 in that this rezoning is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, and with the particular, stated purpose “to facilitate the creation of a convenient,
attractive and harmonious community,” and will further promote and accomplish the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs; particularly:
o Policy L-4: “Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods; use the zoning
ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.”
o Policy L-5: “Maintain the scale and character of the City.”
o Goal L-3: “Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct
character…” which includes verbiage about how Eichler neighborhoods were
designed so homes may serve as private enclaves.
o Policy L-12: “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging
new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and
adjacent structures.”
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) is hereby amended
by changing the zoning of 44 properties within the tracts known as Faircourt #3 and #4, Tracts
#1816 and #1921 (the “subject property”), from “R-1” (Single-Family Residence) (8,000)” to “R1(8000)(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 44 homes within these tracts
addressed as follows:
 3479-3519 Ross Road (north side of the street);
 North side of Talisman Drive between Ross Road and Evergreen Drive (801-879);
 Arbutus Drive between Talisman Drive and Thornwood Drive (3502-3532);
 Thornwood Drive (821-881);
 3500-3580 Louis Road; and
P&TC Page 3 of 10
1
ATTACHMENT A
*NOT YET APPROVED*

3505 – 3579 Evergreen Drive.
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.
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:
____________________________
Deputy City Attorney
____________________________
City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning &
P&TC Page 4 of 10
2
ATTACHMENT A
*NOT YET APPROVED*
Community Environment
P&TC Page 5 of 10
3
P&TC Page 6 of 10
3633
3625
3617
3611
360
3599
3499
359
35
3539
3465
3455
3445
3435
3425
3415
3405
ATTACHMENT B
756
774
772
N
I
D
4
9
P
8
C
C i t y
A
CI T
Y
E
TO
AL
A
T h e
1
1 6
I
o f
Palo Alto
3623
3631
3634
3626
3618
3615
3610
3632
3624
3627
3616
3611
3619
3608
3603
3600
3630
3624
3616
3606
3641
3631
3613
3605
3632
3649
3639
3615
3612
3604
3607
3599
773
752
757
774
766
781
777
758
7
751
771
Support Level
Proposed Single Story
Combining District
Faircourt Tract
rev. 05/03/16
P&TC Page 7 of 10
3646
3646A
3584
765
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
0'
RRivera, 2016-05-04 14:08:05
SingleStoryOverlay FairCourt Analysis (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb)
3640
782
Christine Drive
776
756
760
an
780
764
783
Ta l i sm
774
790
791
777
PALO
OF
I F OR N
3592
3583
3580
Court
3520
3516
787
512
7
55
788
784
780
3510
Stone Lane
3508
Barro
n Cree
775
788
Signed Petition in support of Single Story Overlay (SSO)
767
SSO Applicants
768
779
Existing Two Story
761 Structure
Proposed Single Story Combining District
(44 lots/parcels)
762
775
L
3588
3582
804
3587
3532
801
3519
3511
3530
3520
3510
3507
3487
3479
3495
3502
842
3475
820
k
3455
Legend
I
3587
Arbutus Avenue
838
834
830
3441
826
3427
3413
3412
781
R
3594
829
Ross Road
787
AL
3593
850
794
T
3590
830
835
3527
3515
829
795
R P O R A
3591
3598
3592
3583
840
3584
Lupine Avenue
821
O
3607
3563
3579
3580
3575
3538
845
844
846
C
880
835
854
839
851
856
3521
871
863
868
838
858
831
879
3585
841
859
855
Thorn
wood
Drive
865
853
877
Evergreen Drive
877
Dry C
reek
868
866
35
51
35
50
3 5 43
862
875
3547
881
3531
864
827
3535
3525
Talisman Drive
3540
3505
Gr ee
r
3530
885
3517
3589
3520
3602
Aspen Way
3596
3580
3568
3536
3524
3509
R
3510
3500
o a
d
3460
3450
Louis R
200'
This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto
P&TC Page 8 of 10
ATTACHMENT C
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
French, Amy
Ellner, Robin ([email protected])
FW: Tracts Faircourt 3 and 4 petiion for SSO; discussed by the Planning and Transportation Commiss
Wednesday, May 04, 2016 8:43:00 AM
I will print below to put in the packet. Please also forward this to the Planning and Transportation
Commission. Thanks Robin.
From: Jackie Geist [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:52 PM
To: French, Amy
Subject: Tracts Faircourt 3 and 4 petiion for SSO; discussed by the Planning and Transportation
Commiss
Dear AmyFollowing the withdrawal of 1 of our original 30 signators less than 24 hours before
our presentation to the Commission of our petition for the Faircourt SSO, we would
like to offer and suggest new facts for their consideration. When presented, the
application had the required 60% approval (since there are CCR's in place against
second stories). The signatures were collected by various neighbors calling on
people they know, about two weeks after written materials were distributed to every
house. There was no pressure applied to the prospective signers by the collectors; if
one spouse didn’t favor the petition, we calmly accepted that as a NO. We feel that
the petition as originally accepted should stand as we followed City guidelines in our
process.
In the event that the Commission receives from the City Council the recommendation
that the time frame for withdrawing a signature in favor of the SSO, which was
submitted in February 2016, to be the cause for negating the application, we propose
the following:
We as co-applicants, would respectfully request the boundary of the overlay as
requested in our original application be modified to exclude the five properties on the
south side of Talisman and the one property on Lupine. Those houses are
somewhat different than the rest of the Tract (44 houses) in that they all back up to
houses that are not Eichlers and have no basis for experiencing any reciprocity
between neighbors, i.e. to give up their ability to put a second story on their house in
exchange for the neighbor accepting the same condition (since those neighbors
would not be part of our SSO).
If the Commission would consider our revised request, the number of homes involved
is now 44. That would bring the approval signatures to 28, making a more than 63%
approval ratio. The one family on the south side of Talisman, Alice and Rich
Stiebel, agree with this modification in our proposal and prefer the SSO be adopted,
even with their home's exclusion.
Obviously we prefer the application to stand as submitted, but are willing to accept
the decision of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission on
P&TC Page 9 of 10
this matter.
Sincerely,
Jackie Angelo Geist
Roland Finston
Co-Applicants for Faircourt 3 and 4 SSO
P&TC Page 10 of 10