HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 177-05DISCUSSION
The issues raised in the appeal letter relate to Single Family Individual Review (IR) guidelines
for privacy and scale.
Privacy
Privacy, per the IR guidelines, is defined as a reasonable expectation that personal activities
conducted within and around one's home will not be subject to casual or involuntary observation
by others.
Policy Statements:
1. Provide a reasonable level of privacy on each single-family lot by reducing the opportunities
for individuals to be casually observed by others when engaging in activities within or around
one's home (see Comprehensive Plan Goal L-3).
2. Acknowledge that complete or absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation.
3. Minimize intrusions on privacy for adjacent houses' primary patio or outdoor living area(s).
4. New construction should recognize the pre-existing privacy situation.
The appellants have raised concerns regarding the privacy screening of the rear balcony and the
glass feature located along the second floor hallway of the proposed house.
There is one balcony located at the rear southeast comer of the house. If the balcony requires
screening to break up the view, the standard requirement is a screen at a minimum height of five
feet with perforations no larger than 3-4" square (a typical lattice screen). This project proposes a
six-foot tall screen with thick (1/2" thick x 2-1/2" wide) horizontal slats, closely spaced together
(1-1/2" on center), to mitigate angled sightlines (see the last page of Attachment E for a photo
example).
The project proposes glass panels along the second floor hallway for a length of nine feet that .
extend from floor to ceiling for a height of eight feet (approximately 72 square feet, including the
wood framing). The glass panels will be frosted at a height of approximately four to six feet to
block views when the hallway is traversed. The location of the hallway is 25 feet away from the
property line and the house directly across from the hallway (956 Boyce) is more than 60 feet
away. To address the privacy concern, the applicant has incorporated two specific treatments to
meet the guidelines: obscured glass and increased setbacks.
Mass and Scale
Mass and scale, per the IR guidelines, is defined as the sense of bulk, size, and shape of a
structure, usually perceived by reference to the surrounding space, nearby structures, and natural
features such as trees.
Policy Statements:
1. Maintain the scale and character of the City. A void land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to their size and scale (adaptation of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-5).
2. Provide a coherent sense of scale that addresses the relationship of various parts of the
environment to each other, to people, and the limits of perception (see Comprehensive Plan -
Policy L-5).
CMR:177:05 Page 2 of 4
Attachment A
APPROVAL NO. 2005-03
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 1012 FOREST AVENUE: INDIVIDUAL REVIEW, 04PLN-00021, (HAYES
GROUP FOR GREG LEE AND LINDA LIU, APPLICANT)
On March 71 2005 1 the City Council upheld the Directorls
approval of the Individual Review application for a new two-story
house I making the following findingsl determination and
declarations:
SECTION 1.
Palo Al to ("City
follows:
Background. The City Council of,the City of
Council") finds l determines I and declares as
A. On September 13 1 2004 1 Hayes Group on behalf of Greg
Lee and Linda Liu l applied for Individual Review of a two story
home ("The Project") .
B. Following staff review and conditional approval on
December 9 1 2004 1 the appellants l Todd and Kathy Reece l requested a
hearing on the project l citing the project/s inconsistency with the
Guidelines related to Privacy and Mass and Scale.
C. The project was reviewed at a Directorls Hearing on
January 6 1 2005 I after which the Manager of Advance Planning
approved the application on behalf of the Director l on January 241
2005. This decision was based upon the information contained in the
file (04PLN-00021) and testimony received during the Directorls
Hearing.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The single-family home
is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines section 15303.
SECTION 3. Individual Review Findings
The project conforms to the R-l district regulations and meets the
standards set forth in the individual review guidelinesl in that:
Privacy: Individual Review Guidelines 1 & 2
Principle: The home design will be sensitive to privacy for both
the proposed house and adjacent neighbors. The placement of
second-story windows and balconies are particularly important
aspects of privacy considerations.
There is one balcony located at the rear southeast corner of the
house. If the balcony requires screening to break up the viewl the
standard requirement is a screen at a minimum height of five feet
1
with perforations no larger than 3-4/1 square (a typical lattice
screen). This project proposes a six-foot tall screen with thick
(1/2/1 thick x.2-1/2/1 wide) horizontal panels, closely spaced
together (1-1/2/1 on center), to mitigate angled sightlinee
(Guideline 2) .
The project proposes glass panels along the second floor hallway
for a length of nine feet that extend from floor to ceiling for a
height of eight feet (approximately 72 square feet, including the
wood framing). The glass panels will be frosted at a height of
approximately four to six feet to block views when the hallway is
traversed. The location of the hallway is 25 feet away from the
property line and the house directly across from the hallway (956
Boyce) is more than 60 feet away. To address the privacy concern,
the applicant has incorporated two specific treatments to meet the
guidelines: obscured glass and increased setbacks (Guideline 1).
Mass and Scale: Individual Review Guidelines 3-7
Principle: The overall massing of new homes and second-story
additions should be compatible with the adjacent houses and the
predominant neighborhood scale. On streets where single story
houses or small two story houses are the predominant block
pattern, a new two-story house or second-story addition may
require some special attention to reduce the massing and
perceived sense of bulk.
The mass and scale of the proposed project has been designed to
minimize the impact of the second floor and creates a responsive
transition to the existing adjacent one-story homes. The second
floor mass is placed closer to the existing two-story home and
has been broken down into smaller components to further respond
to the adjacent single story-story context (Guidelines 3 & 4) .
The second floor mass has been integrated into the roof design to
a significant degree minimizing the overall mass of the home
(Guideline 4). The rooflines are consistent and articulate the
roof into primary and secondary roof forms that further mediate
the scale and proportion of the home (Guideline 7). The front
fa9ade provides visual interest with a garden wall and trellis
feature, as well as, a proportioned arrangement of window
elements (Guideline 5) .
Streetscape: Individual Review Guidelines 8-10
Principle: Neighborhood patterns are defined by existing
setbacks, heights, entry ways and porches, garages, roofs, and
fields of view. The Guidelines expect a neighborhood pattern
based on the community desire to preserve a sense of massing,
scale, and spatial openness within neighborhoods.
The placement of the new house follows the setback pattern of the
street and the massing and height of the home maintain the
neighborhood pattern and fits with the other homes on the street
2
(Guideline 8). The entry way has been integrated into the building
design and is at a pedestrian scale (Guideline 9). The garage
placement is subordinate to the main house and is detached and
located at the rear of the property (Guideline 10).
SECTION 4. Individual Review Approval Granted.
Individual Review Approval is granted for the project by the City
Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.14, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 6 of this Record.
SECTION 5. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in
substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Hayes Group
titled Lee Liu Residence, consisting of seven pages, dated November
8, 2004, and received November 9, 2004. A copy of these plans is
on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development.
The conditions of approval in Section 6 shall be printed on the
cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit
application.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
1. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions
of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building
Departments.
2. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance
with development plans received November 9, 2004, on file
with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto, California.
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.
This Individual Review approval has no expiration.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
3
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1. Those plans prepared by Hayes Group titled "Lee Liu Residence",
consisting of seven pages, dated November 8, 2004, and received
November 9, 2004.
4
1012 Forest Avenue
04PLN-00021
Director's Hearing Decision
Page 2 of3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and Building Departments.
2. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with development
plans dated November 9,2004, on file with the Planning Department, 250
.. Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California,
3. A copy of this approval shall be printed on the first page of the blueprints
submitted for building permit.
, .
This approval is based on plans dated November 9,2004. These plans may have been
revised from the original submittal. Interested parties may wish to review the final plans
on file at the City of Palo Alto Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, prior to the
end of the 10-day appeal period.
The Director's decision shall be final ten calendar days from the postmark date of
this letter. Prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an
owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties may appeal the· decision and
request review by the City Council as provided in Chapter 18.14.100 of the P AMC.
The appeal shall be made in writing and filed with appropriate fees with the
Planning Department within ten ~alendar days after the postmark date of this
letter.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to
this approval. In the event that there is a request for a City Council hearing, the
City Council shall determine whether to hear the appeal within thirty days of the
hearing request. If the City Council declines the request to review the decision, this
approvalshall become effective .upon their decision. If the City Council consents to
hear the appeal, an additionalle~er will be mailed with information regarding the
scheduled hearing date before the City Council.
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachment D
Reece, Todd K [todd.reece@hp.com]
Friday, January 07, 2005 1 :32 PM
Campbell, Clare; Caporgno, Julie
RE: Director's Hearing on 1012 ForestAve remodel
Dear Julie and Clare, thank you for your time and consideration in
yesterday's Director's Hearing regarding 1012 Forest. We feel compelled
to follow-up to try to bring focus to what was another of our typical
wandering conversations with the Lee's and Hayes Group yesterday. There
was little focus on THE subject of our request for hearing, namely the
Mass and Scale of the West elevation of their proposed design, as noted
in our original request attached.
First, too much time was spent on how the design fits with other two
story neighbors, with only street facing pictures and comparisons. That
is NOT the subject. The proposed design is no uglier than other two
story neighbors, and we too would have signed the Lee's petition to
neighbors, if we were only shown the streetscape elevation. Second, too
many streetscape pictures and discussions were had. We're not concerned
with making outsiders like Erica comfortable wandering our neighborhood.
What we as "adjacent houses" will see is the West elevation Wall of
Glass. The Lee's house is part of the Fife subdivision, so we single
story neighbors to the West are the "adjacent houses and predominant
neighborhood scale" that is relevant. The Lee's can look like any other
2 story to their East, .North and South, but to the West, we expect
"special attention" to be "compatible" with OUR neighborhood. Third, we
also spent too much time discussing how flexible the Lee's have been and
all the changes already made. WE DON'T CARE. Remove all the band aids,
let's go back to the original design, and focus on the oozing sore that
has NEVER been addressed since our first letter of Sept 27th, namely,
the West elevation "Wallo' Glass" and the inappropriate share of
windows facing ONLY the 3 adjacent single story neighbors!!
We still are unsure of how serious the City is about enforcing what we
see as a flagrant violation of a VERY clear design guideline, stating
the "massing of .,. second story additions should be compatible with the
ADJACENT houses, and the predominate neighborhood scale." NONE of the
adjacent neighbors see the West elevation as compatible, and as much as
the Lee's may wish otherwise, their adjacent neighbors ARE the single
story bungalows of the Fife subdivision, (not the grand Victorian's
across the street in Crescent ~ark, or the monstrous 2 story remodels
that have chased everyone of our original Forest Avenue neighbors out
of town). If all we're trying to do is to fit the Lee's into a two
story neighborhood, there is no issue. We on Boyce Street, expect the
City to enforce the guideline which states "on streets where single
story houses are the predominate block pattern, a new two-story house or
second-story addition may require some SPECIAL attention to reduce the
massing and perceived sense of bulk". If the City is not going to
enforce the guideline, then change it, and stop setting false
expectations and wasting all our time. New designs are "expected to meet
EACH of the guidelines", not just the Hayes Groups' favorites. As we
wi t'nessed yesterday, the Hayes Group and Lee's will bounce around
discussing all sorts of other guidelines and topics that may be
interesting, but are irrelevant to what we are specifically asking the
City.
As you complete your review process, and as we unfortunately expect to
move to City Council (and broader) review of this topic, there are
several key questions we feel must be addressed. We have been asking
most of these questions for months, but with no DIRECT answers. If we
were on the City Council, after yesterday's Director's Hearing' we would
expect these to be the relevant questions that ALL need to be answered.
1
City Council, and we would like to work with you to allow you to reach
your own conclusion. Please be advised though, that as we said
yesterday, the neighbors are PISSED off! They are not familiar with the
IR process, they feel the city is not doing it's job forcing neighbors
into dueling petitions, and they have a long history of contentious
reviews with little positive outcome. We are ready to waste OUR time in
this process, but we love our neighbors and do not want to drag them in
more than necessary. Going forward, we expect to focus on the single
story Boyce neighbors, as they are the only ones impacted by the West
side elevation, and they all see a personal stake and risk to ensure
they don't get their very own "Wallo' Glass" with the next two story
addition in our remaining Fife subdivision corridor. While we
appreciate the broad support we have gained from neighbors on ALL sides
of the Lee's, we do not think the 2 story home vs. 2 story home
perspective of neighbors (particularly 2 story spec builders like
Bruce!) are as relevant given the single story compatibility focus of
the IR process. Please let's work together to not annoy our neighbors
any worse than has already been done, and let's identify what question
is relevant for what set of neighbors before we go to City Council?
#7) How was the front setback measurement for the 1012 Forest design
calculated? It does not appear to at all reflect the "average" of
neighboring properties? In figuring any "average" we expect that the
City accurately accounts for our 1002 Forest setback. As the zoning
maps reflect, 1002 Forest was originally 962 Boyce, with our 30+ foot
front setback from Boyce. The Forest set-back is indeed our SIDE
setback and should not be part of any "average" ·for 1012 Forest. We've
overlooked the 1012 Forest front set-back up until now, but if there is
no resolution to the "Wallo' Glass" issue, perhaps there are other
issues that the City has not paid enough attention to.
#8) What is the City's position on the privacy "band aids" for the "Wall
0' Glass" and second story deck? The proposal reviewed yesterday may be
appropriate for 2 story to 2 story "casual observation", but for
adjacent single story neighbors on Boyce, we expect the guideline to
"recognize preexisting privacy situation" would preserve the fact that
NONE of the preexisting neighbors have ANY view from above into patios
and bedrooms, casual or not casual. This "preexisting privacy
situation" can be preserved with the proposals we made below in our
Director's Hearing request. As a minimum we expect the entire 3 sided
Wallo' Glass to be opaque (versus a single band of frosted panes), and
a solid wall on the West side of the second story deck (versus any
railed partial solution). The privacy guidelines appear ambiguous, we
presume the intent is for more special attention to pre-existing single
story privacy, and ask for the City's CLEAR position on this before the
City Council review.
Julie, I'm sorry this wasn't shorter, but hopefully this is more focused
and concrete than our wandering discussion with the Hayes Group and
Lee's yesterday. Although we've added detail here for you, we believe
these are 8 simple concrete questions which we'd expect answers for, if
we were City Council members reviewing this design. We have asked most
of these questions countless times in the past several months, but have
received only short hand waving answers. Now is the time for concrete
answers. As noted above #5 is THE CRITICAL question for which we have
received NO answer. Short of a positive answer to #5, we expect all 8 of
these must be resolved before you reach your decision, and as we
presumably head on to the City council. Thanks in advance for your and
Clare's help and consideration. Know that this is not how we would like
to be spending our tax dollars or your time, but we love our home and
neighborhood. Your decision will indeed set.tle whether we remain in Palo
Alto, or whether we flee like all our former Forest neighbors, and leave
two more ugly two story spec houses behind at 1002 Forest and 956 Boyce.
We and our neighbors have high expectations for our City, and we hope
our 29th year is not the last for our neighborhood.
-Todd and
3
Kathy Reece
-----Original Message-----
From: Reece, Todd K
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:16 PM
To: 'Campbell, Clare'
Subject: Request for Director's Hearing on 1012 Forest Ave remodel
Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Department,
Please consider this our written request for a Director's Hearing for
1012 Forest Ave. (Individual Review #04PLN-00021). We certainly are
disappointed that these plans have been conditionally approved.
It is our opinion that the proposed 1012 Forest wall-of glass and the
second story deck looking down onto the previously private bedrooms and
patios of the Forest and Boyce bungalows are not in keeping with the
city's "Mass and Scale" design guidelines, nor are they keeping with the
style and character of the neighborhood. The west side windows cover
over 400 square feet, more than all other sides of the house combined!
We respectfully request that the invasive wall-of-glass windows be
either covered (by extending the front roofline back and down to the
second story floor line), or eliminated. We also request a solid wall
on the west side of the second story deck, or its elimination.
A fundamental principle of your guidelines specifically states that the
"massing of ... second story additions should be compatible with the
adjacent houses, and the predominant neighborhood scale", yet the most
massive and intrusive design features of the proposed home face only the
single story neighbors. .
We expect serious consideration of this matter in the upcoming
Director's Hearing, and we will request a City Council Hearing if
changes are not made .
Ave
4
-Todd Reece
1002 Forest
Kathy Reece
956 Boyce Ave
ARCHITECTURE
& INTERIORS
.... ;
February 28, 2005
City Council Members and City Staff,
City of Palo Alto
Re: 1012 Forest Avenue
HAYESIGROUP
Working with our clients, Greg and Linda, has been a real pleasure. They are extremely
interested in design and want their new home to fit in the neighborhood. They have listened
respectively to the Reece's comments. And over the last 5 months have worked to resolve their
concerns. They have also met with neighbors to present the plans and have obtained support
from 20 (Immediate neighbors) and over 40 additional Palo Alto residents support.
Some background on the project includes: The existing site is 50 x 103 feet. North is towards
Forest Avenue and West is towards Boyce. Currently the existing home is 1 bedroom 813 SF
w/detached garage. The neighborhood consists of new and old two story homes along Forest
and one and two story homes along Boyce, to the West, where the Reece's live.
The Design Goals
-Build their once in a lifetime home consisting of four bedrooms and three baths and continue
living in PA for the rest of their lives. Their new home is 2100 SF (Maintaining a modest size for
the neighborhood overall).
-Work in a style that is a fusion of traditional architectural vocabularies and ideas for modern
living.
-Respond to the context and all of the Individual Review Guidelines including privacy, massing,
scale and streetscape compatibility.
concept
-Continue the rhythm and streetscape of two story homes along Forest and transitioning down to
Boyce while providing privacy and light for both Greg and Linda as well as the Boyce neighbors
by:
-Minimizing setback on East side and maximizing setback on West (Ranging from 12 ft to
over 25 ft at the contested second story hallway window)
-Placing second story mass towards the East side and center of the property and
reducing the plate height to 6'-6" to reduce overall mass.
-Stepping the sloping roof form towards Boyce to break up the mass and respond to the
single story homes.
-Using dormer windows integrated with the' roof forms
-Introduce plan articulation to mitigate massing and privacy impacts and to create
opportunities for interior light and air as well as exterior patios.
2657 SPRING STREET, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063. PHONE: 650-365-0600. FAX: 650-365-0670.
History
-Use high windows and translucent glass (Frosted) to provide privacy while maintaining
light and ventilation
These are all items that are noted as well in the Individual review guidelines as
techniques on appropriate methods to address the principles of Privacy, Mass and Scale.
-Met with Reece's on 9/28/04 to review proposed project. Their concern was PRIVACY in their
rear yard:
1. Master bedroom window privacy.
2. Dormer at West Bedroom window
3. Baicony privacy
4. Second story hallway windows at west side
Greg and Linda asked HG to address their neighbor's concerns without destroying concept.
-Met with Reece's on 10/20104 to review HG modifications to the stated concerns, which were:
1. Reduced Master Bedroom window size to a high clerestory type. (Note this
window is located over 17 feet from PL)
2. Redesigned the second floor plan by moving west side Bedroom to front and
moving bathroom to side, thereby reducing the size of dormer windows. (Over
11.5 feet from the property line.) This did result in a reduced bathroom·
configuration as well as sacrifice for a desired stair volume.
3. Reduced size of rear balcony in order to minimize potential site lines. (No full
height screen yet proposed)
4. Reduced height of second story hallway courtyard windows by two feet reducing
interior ceiling height and introduced translucent glazing to mitigate privacy
concerns.
5. Greg and Linda would still desire vegetation along the fence line in addition to the
above items. The Reece's previously claim of a fungus destroying the vegetation
would need to be evaluated. They assumed this was the cause of some tree
deaths but had not yet had an arborist report or soils test for proper identification
andlor mitigation of a fungus treatment if needed.
Reece's were initially fine with all the proposed changes in mitigating privacy concerns except
they wanted a solid screen on the balcony and did not think the courtyard window frosting would
block views into their yard from further back in the rooms at the corner courtyard windows.
They had agreed at the meeting and reiterated in an email that the concern of the courtyard
window is more of an aesthetic difference than the sightline privacy that they agreed was
resolved with the frosting. They felt the window was "industrial". Later in an email they statEild that
they didn't like the mass and scale of the courtyard window. However they stated "We have
clearly and consistently stated we would prefer the· current East elevation view on a 6 foot
setback from us, instead of the "Wall 0' Glass" (Letter to City 01/07105). This indicates that they do
not have a true concern regarding the stated appeal on Mass and Scale as this would not comply
with any of the Individual review guidelines nor prinCiples of design.
The plan however was revised again to address their concerns and this is where we are today:
1. Horizontal full height slat screen has been added to side of balcony. Clearly
prevents casual or unintentional Viewing.
Neighbor and Palo Alto Resident Supporters of 1012 Forest Avenue New Home Plans -Summary Sheet
The following sixty-two (62) 1012 Forest Avenue neighbors and long-time Palo Alto residents have signed a letter of support for the proposed 1012 Forest home plans. Specifically:
"We have reviewed the proposed plans for 1012 Forest Avenue and have no issues with the home as shown on the plans."
(Signed individual documents attached)
Sincerely, Greg Lee and Linda Liu (Homeowners of 1012 Forest Avenue)
(Bold text below denotes immediate neighbors)
First Name
29 Richard
30 Erika
31 Joshua
32 Paul
33 Lily
34 Mona
35 Jack
36 Chi
37 Mim
38 Doris
39 Lisa
40 Lucille
41 Vera
42 Ronald
43 Robert
44 Carolee
45 Timothy
46 Ying
47 John
48 Gene
49 Eric
50 Roberta
51 Beverly
52 Mary
53 May
54 Christina
55 Margaret
56 Gladys
57 Ron
58 Ronald Jr.
59 Gayle
60 Timur
61 Tal
62 Alice
63 Drew
Page 2 of2
2128/05
'.~
Last Name Signed Date
Schmidt 2123/05
Enos 12115/04
Krefetz 2/22105
Lee 2121/05
Lee 2121/05 ..
Wong 2121/05
Wong 2/21/05
Johnson 2/22105
Daleson Yee 2123/05
Yep 2/23/05
Rhorer 12115/04
Hallen 2/22105
Leung 2121/05
Leung 2122105
Lee 2121/05
Lee 2121/05
Gee 2123/05
Sun 2123/05
McLaughlin. 2123/05
Lee 2/22105
Newhouse 2/16/05
Yee 2123/05
Yee 2/23/05
Wong 2121/05
Quan 2/21/05
Yang 11/14/04
Bellis 2122105
Leu 2121/05
Conway 2/24/05
Conway 2/16/05
Conway 2/22105
Bilur 2126/05
Sagi 2126/05
Mansell 2/26/05
Marin 2/28/05
Address
20 Alannah Court
2110 Columbia
225 Emerson Street
2312 Louis Road
2312 Louis Road
2335 Santa Ana Street
2335 Santa Ana Street
2445 Waverley Street
2469 Waverley Street.
2797 Ross Road
280 Everett
2820 Ross Road
2830 Ross Road
2830 Ross Road
325 Channing Avenue
325 Channing Avenue
3455 Sherman Drive
352 Grant Avenue
40 Alannah Court
412 Ferne Avenue
461 Ferne Avenue
470 Anton Court
59 Gorton Street
670 Marion Avenue
845 Moreno Avenue
877 Forest Avenue
899 Clara Drive
900 Ellsinore Drive
918 Bryant Street
918 Bryant Street
918 Bryant Street
2940 South Court
834 Clark Avenue
1135 Webster Street
731 Lincoln
City
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
Comments
I have been a Palo Alto resident for over 24 years and feel the remodeling plans
are done in good taste and appear rE:asonable.
In fact the plans show an exceptional consideration to neighbors' privacy.
I'm Palo Alto resident for 30 years.
I'm Palo Alto resident for 30 years.
Have b·een a Palo Alto resident for 39 years.
Residence since 1958 (47 years).
I've lived in Palo Alto all my life. In fact I was born here - a native -87 years!
believe the added design would fit nicely in the neighborhood.
I'm a 65 year resident in Palo Alto.
Objections by neighbors at the 11th hour is beyond reason. Objections should
have been done with planning commission, who have since approved the plans. It
is my understanding that plan revisions have been made several times increasing
the cost of the project.
I have resided in Palo Alto for the past 38 years and have found that City Council's
reviews are always fair and hope this decision will support the Planning
Commission's approval.
I am a Palo Alto resident for 56 years.
I've been a resident in Palo Alto for over 50 years.
45 years Palo Alto resident.
WOOD (OR METAL) SLAT SCREEN· HORIZONTAL SIGHTLINE
WOOD (OR METAL) SLAT SCREEN· ANGLED SIGHTLINE (VIEWING DOWN TO LOWER LEVEL)
1012 FOREST AVE. DALCONV GUARDRAIL SCREEN EXHIBIT
~~~------------------------------------
Attachment F
1 Director's Hearing
2 Dept. of Planning & Community Environment
3 Thursday, January 06, 2005
4 3:00PM
5 City Council Conference Room
6 Civic Center, 1s/ Floor
7 250 Hamilton Avenue
8 Palo Alto, California 94301
9
10 Staff:
11 Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
12 Clare Campbell, Associate Planner
13
14 NEWBUSINESS:
15
16 1012 Forest Avenue [04PLN-00021]: Request by Todd and Kathy Reece for a hearing on an
17 Individual Review application by the Hayes Group on behalf of Greg Lee and Linda Liu for
18 Individual Review to allow the construction of a new two-story residence, Zone District R-l,
19 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality act.
20
21 Ms. Julie Caporgno. Advance Planning Manager: Clare, do you have any additional comments
22 that you want to make at this time?
23
24 Clare: There was public input and that was from Kathy and Todd. Other than these two
25 individuals, I did not receive any other public comments from any other neighbors.
26
27 Ms. Caporgno: And I'm assuming here Mr. and Mrs. Reece ...
28
29 Mrs. Kathy Reece: May I say, the other neighbors are really pretty upset that they were not
30 notified of what was going on. Nobody had received any notification.
31
32 Mr. Todd Reece: There was no written notification of the individual review process. So until we
33 went and contacted them, that was the first they'd heard. So we'll comment on that as part of
34 ours. But there was no written notification to any of· the neighbors, including ourselves
35 originally.
36
37 Ms. Caporgno: So Clare, could you just explain, for the record, what the process is as far as the
38 individual review notification.
39 Clare: When the decision is made for the tentative approval letter that was sent out, that is sent to
40 all the adjacent properties, and anyone who's requested a letter or wanted to be updated on the
41 project ....
42
43 Mr. Reece: I think at the start of the individual review process, so when that opening period, I
44 thought that there was going to be a notification out to the neighbors, and that's where it didn't
45 appear that happened.
46
47 Clare: I heard from you folks about that happening, but there was also the notification that's
48 posted at the site, so there was notification to the neighborhood in general about this happening.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1.
2 Mr. Reece: Yes, so there was a posting, but it doesn't look like there was any mailing. And we
3 didn't find out until we ...
4
5 Clare: So on the second notification everybody was noticed. It was the same group that was
6 mailed the first original set of notices.
7
8 Mrs. Reece: No, the original notices never went out.
9
10 Clare: Well, that's the process.
11
12 Ms. Caporgno: And Mr. and Mrs. Reece, will you explain what your issues are and why you
13 requested the hearing.
14
15 Mr. Reece: Okay, so we should go first before the project applicants.
16
17 Ms. Caporgno: Yes, that's I want to do, because you're the ones that have an issue, and then they
18 can respond to that issue.
19
20 Mr. Reece: I first apologize to everybody for us all being here, so let's just assume you'd not be,
21 and also appreciate - I think we've had an ongoing discussion with Greg and Linda through the
22 process. I think they have been real open in terms of trying to address some of the privacy
23 issues, so I think there has been some flexibility. But overall, if we go back to our original
24 concerns, there really hasn't been any significant movement on the key issues that we had. So
25 that was the main reason why we wanted to try and still come back to the individual review
26 process.
27
28 So I think at this point it's a pretty simple request. I think what we got are letter that we had
29 gone ahead and sent into the City, why we're basically appealing the design, is our sense is that
30 the wall of glass, which is a design element on the west side exposure of the house and the
31 second story deck are certainly not in what we see, consistent with the massing scale guidelines
32 that the City set. We're still going through some issues on privacy; we still need to get to the
33 bottom of that as to what exactly is going to be done in terms of opaque glass and things like
34 that. But this west exposure design element faces onto the back yard patio area of three single-
35 story bungalows. So we'll go ahead and show you a layout of that. But basically, that does not
36 appear to be consistent with the scale and mass of the neighboring houses.
37
38 Mrs. Reece: And that being the largest feature of the house, could have faced any of the other
39 three directions without impacting others. And unfortunately, it does make an impact.
40
41 Mr. Reece: This is the only side with single story bungalows, and that large design feature is
42 facing that way. The total exposure of glass on the west side is more than all three other sides of
43 the house combined. So if the design -400 square feet of glass -so that basically is more than
44 the north, south, and east side of the house combined, which in our sense, is not being sensitive
45 to single-story neighbors.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 Mrs. Reece: It looks directly onto a patio, hot tub, and bedrooms of all three of the single-story
2 bungalows, and we have a map and we can show you the layouts.
3 Mr. Reece: And again, there have been design changes, there have been improvements, but with
4 all those changes, the amount of square footage of glass on that west side is still more than all
5 three sides of the house combined.
6 Mrs. Reece: You can please note, our first letter -and there have been five or six in between -
7 we have consistently said that this wall of glass is what upsets us, and it has never been
8 addressed. Nobody has come back. They just go and band-aid other things, but not address the
9 key problems.
10 Ms. Caporgno: Could someone tell me what is the setback between the two ...
11
12 Mr. Reece: This was done trying to look at line of sight issues, so I don't need to go all through
13 issues, but to try and give you a vertical view-and I'm not sure if we got another one that has
14 our properties on it [incoherent] that have the [incoherent]. That would be the same elevation as
15 this other than the trees, as they're placed there, are not really appropriate.
16
17 Mrs. Reece: That's not correct. I've corrected it here.
18
19 Mr. Reece: But this is basically the atrium area, that glass area. And as you can see, this is
20 directly out between the two garages into the bedroom windows of956 Boyce.
21
22 Mrs. Reece: Here's the bedroom, here's the patio, here's the hot tub of this house. The house
23 there [incoherent] right there.
24
25 Mr. Reece: The bedroom in the comer.
26
27 Mrs. Reece: There are also more windows along both sides that don't show in the drawing that
28 look directly into the back yard. /
29
30 Mr. Reece: So basically on both those sides. So again, I think the Lees have been flexible in
31 terms of addressing privacy issues, so being able to put opaque glass in. We still need to get to
32 the bottom of that and say what was the final design proposal. Is privacy basically addressed by
33 way of opaque glass? We're assuming that can be fixed. But again, our key concern at this
34 point is the mass and scale, to be able to have two stories of glass facing into single-story
35 bungalow, single-story bungalow, single-story bungalow. Boyce Avenue is all single-story
36 bungalows.
37
38 Mrs. Reece: And these garages are only ten feet tall. The line of sight from the second story
39 does go directly over them into the bedrooms.
40
41 Mr. Reece: The layout of the neighborhood is that we've had two-story houses marching down
42 Forest Avenue, so basically the Lees is the last down the string of Forest that are now two-story
43 houses. Boyce has remained as a single-story corridor. We've got a set of neighbors that have
44 been in place -we bought this house when it was going to go to a two-story development to keep
45 our privacy at this comer lot. So neighbors along this side have been very careful about wanting
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 to preserve that single-story privacy. And again, this design element does not seem to be in scale
2 or character with the single-story bungalows.
3
4 Mrs. Reece: Please note the pictures you have are only of the second-story houses on the other
5 side. They don't address the single-story houses.
6
7 Mr. Reece: So that is our concern. This atrium design, is it consistent with the mass and scale of
8 the single-story bungalows along Boyce. Absolutely, it's consistent with the monstrosities that
9 are down Forest Avenue, there's no question there.
10
11 Mrs. Reece: But then it should face that way with its larger elements.
12
13 Mr. Reece: So that element could face east, it could face north, it could face south -any side but
14 west. West is the only side with single-story bungalows.
15
16 Mrs. Reece: If you were to flip the house, we'd have no problem, but I hate to do that to the
17 neighbor on the other side.
18
19 Ms. Caporgno: And my understanding is -looking at the file, originally you had some concern
20 about the view but because of the glass that they have inserted in that window, that's not an issue
21 for you anymore. It's just this mass and scale issue.
22
23 Mr. Reece: We don't know the details, so I think privacy has been addressed for the two
24 bedrooms, but we don't know I think the last proposal was for one string of opaque glass, so
25 there's a series of maybe four or five panes high. And our sense would be that all those panes
26 should be opaque, and I'm not sure, I think there may only be one at eye level.
27
28 Mrs. Reece: And that was at eye level for a six-foot tall person. The Lees are not six feet tall and
29 they're planning to have a family. So I think all of those at very least should be opaque glass.
30
31 Mr. Reece: And then the rear deck, the second story deck, I think our proposal had been to put a
32 solid wall across that deck to obstruct the view completely. I think there's a design proposed that
33 would be a railing that would partially obstruct. And if we were all second-story neighbors and
34 we were all looking into each other, that may be appropriate. But to have any open view into a
35 corridor of single-story houses, we don't think just a partially obstructed view, we think a fully
-36 blocked view would be appropriate for a second-story deck. There are no second story decks the
37 rest of the way along Boyce. Our understanding of the last individual review that went to City
38 Council was the fact a neighbor up at the comer of Boyce directly for the same issue of an
39 exposed second-story deck that was eliminated. So we think we're being consistent with other
40 reviews that have been done in the neighborhood regarding the second story into single story
41 properties.
42
43 Mrs~ Reece: And those neighbors would be more than happy to come to City Council.
44
45 Mr. Reece: As a possible suggestion, what we've suggested to the Lees and what we think would
46 be a reasonable alternative would be -this is essentially that atrium area exposed to the west
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1 side, so this face that you see here. It appears that this roofline in the front could be extended
2 back to cover over the atrium, still leaving that atrium as an enclosed area but not having it
3 visibly exposed at the second story out to the west. And our sense is that that would then
4 eliminate down -the amount of glass on this west side would be comparable to the other three
5 'sides of the house. We think that would also be in keeping with the neighborhood to not have
6 that exposed second-story wall of glass. But it does not appear that the Lees and the architects
7 felt that that's an appropriate design ...
8
9 Mrs. Reece: Nobody has ever responded to that idea.
10
11 Mr. Reece: ... for the house. So again, we understand, we expect our neighbors are going to go to
12 second story, we understand that there are going to be windows on houses. But I think it's really
13 the exposed mass of that design element and its openness to the west to our single-story
14 bungalows that we're concerned about.
15
16 Mrs. Reece: We also have a several thousand-dollar telescope that we use in that back yard, and
17 the light off of this window would eliminate ...
18
19 Mr. Reece: Basically it's going to ruin the scene, so we won't be using the telescope anymore.
20
21 Mrs. Reece: The light pollution would be hideous, not to mention no privacy in the bedrooms or
22 hot tub.
23
24 Mr. Reece: So that's the discussion we've gone through with the Lees. This is just the Reeces,
25 the unreasonable Reeces, who are not being flexible. But I think we were fairly shocked as we
26 went around the neighborhood to find that no one else in the neighborhood had been notified. As
27 we talked to the neighbors, we shared the same letter that we have in our appeal, shared that with
28 the neighbors. We've been advised to not share the list with the Lees and with the Hayes Group,
29 but we've got 21 neighbors who have all signed and support that they do not think that, that west
30 facing window is in keeping with the scale, and mass of the neighborhood. And they are very
31 upset. They feel that the City should be taking care of this business. We as neighbors should not
32 need to be taking care of this business.
33
34 Clare: This is a public record.
35
36 Mr. Reece: We've been advised that if you supply it, that's great.
37
38 Mrs. Reece: But it's not from us.
39
40 Mr. Reece: I wasn't sure what the protocol was.
41
42 Mrs. Reece: We've never done anything like this, it's just been what we've been advised.
43
44 Ms. Caporgno: Once you give it to me, then it becomes part of the public record.
45
46 Mrs. Reece: That's fine.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2 Mr. Reece: That's fine, as long as you share it. And then to give you a diagram of ...
3
4 Mrs. Reece: Here where those houses are.
5
6 Mr. Reece: ... where those houses are, we haven't gone that far afield. We've basically gone
7 three or four neighbors away in every direction, so Lee's property is in blue. You see
8 highlighted in yellow, the neighbors who have signed. So 21 properties.
9
10 Mrs. Reece: The properties with X's are unoccupied and under construction at the time. We
11 have every other neighbor ...
12
13 Mr. Reece: And our sense is that we were the only ones upset to start with, but as we went ahead
14 and talked to the neighbors, we are more concerned at this point and I think ...
15
16 Mrs. Reece: There are some neighbors that are horrified and very upset over this.
17
18 Mr. Reece: So we're not sure, we may be reading the guidelines inappropriately in terms of this
19 may be appropriate for mass and scale. If mass and scale is relative to the second story
20 neighbors and we're out in the weeds, great. But I think as we checked in with our neighbors,
21 their sense is the mass and scale is not consistent with the neighbors, and we'd like to either have
22 you help us to get the design changed, or change the guidelines. But one way or another, we'd
23 like to definitely take this to City Council if there isn't any action at the Director's Hearing.
24 We've got enough support from the neighbors that we think it's clear that the guidelines ought to
25 change, or we ought to enforce the guidelines, so that's what we're looking for.
26
27 Mrs. Reece: If the guidelines were different, we wouldn't be here if we didn't think that we were
28 following the guidelines. We wouldn't be wasting everybody's time.
29
30 Ms. Caporgno: Does that conclude your issues, and then I can ask ....
31
32 Mr. Reece: That's the issues, so we would like to have you enforce the guidelines, or tell us that
33 the guidelines ought to change. We indeed still are interested from a privacy perspective about
34 the opaque glass. So that was another piece that was not clearly, concretely defined as to what
35 was the design proposal.
36
37 Mrs. Reece: We still don't know what's proposed and if any of this is enclosed.
38
39 Mr. Reece: So far we've stuck to privacy issues, we've stuck to the issues of the design element
40 and mass and scale, but as we've talked to other neighbors, we haven't even opened the door.
41 We're not sure how the setback for this property was ever established. There's been issues
42 raised about how the front door faces.
43
44 Mrs. Reece: And these have been raised by other neighbors. Carmen is upset that the front door
45 faces her house and not the street. That's the neighbor on the other side. There are concerns by
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1 other neighbors that the setback is not consistent with the other houses on the block, and I would
2 be very interested to understand how that calculation was made.
3
4 Mr. Reece: And there's a first story deck down on the first story that we don't know if that would
5 be additional privacy issues that we haven't really" gone after that.
6
7 Mrs. Reece: Nobody has answered our questions on that one as well, as to how high that first
8 story deck is.
9
10 Mr. Reece: So we certainly would just as soon have the immediate ...
11
12 Mrs. Reece: We'd rather keep it to the wall of glass and the deck, but if this goes further, we'll
13 pursue everything we can.
14
15 Ms. Caporgno: I didn't hear everything you said. I have a hearing loss, so I couldn't hear. The
16 wall of. ..
17
18 Mrs. Reece: We would prefer to just solve the problem ofthe wall of glass and the deck and just
19 let this go away.
20
21 Mr. Reece: With the deck, the second-story deck.
22
23 Mrs. Reece: But if we have to pursue it, we will pursue it in any way we can.
24
25 Mr. Reece: Well, The Weekly has been fairly interested in how the design review process is
26 working. Our sense is we were pretty appalled personally, but from the reaction we've gotten
27 from the neighbors, there is concern about two-story houses moving up Fife, and the neighbors
28 are very interested up Boyce toward Fife, and the neighbors are very interested to see how tightly
29 will these design review guidelines be enforced as there's other development up Boyce.
30
31 Mrs. Reece: Even the neighbors in the second-story house have also signed this. They also are
32 concerned about their privacy issues and how this is being handled.
33
34 Mr. Reece: That was surprising. We actually focused mainly talking to the Boyce neighbors that
35 were single story.
36
37 Mrs. Reece: But the word got out, and people started approaching us, which kind of surprised us.
38
39 Ms. Caporgno: Mr. Lee, Ms. Liu, and Mr. Hayes. I don't know how you want to ...
40
41 Hayes Group Rep: I'll go ahead and try to respond. Thank you for having the meeting.
42 Hopefully we can work things out today. I'd like to talk a little bit about the goals and the
43 concept of how we got to where we are and briefly about the history, what we've gone through
44 already and then at the end show· where we are as of right now, because some things have
45 changed, I think, since you saw it last.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1 Let me start working with Greg on this project. They are very interested in design and with the
2 home fitting in with the neighborhood in the neighborhood context, etc. They've listened to the
3 Reeces over the last 3-1/2 months and have worked hard to try to resolve some of the issues they
4 had, or mitigate some of the impacts. The existing conditions, essentially the site, it's a small,
5 50'x103' lot facing Forest. There's an existing home of about 800 square feet there. The
6 neighborhood down here -and I think Kathy already explained -mostly two-story homes down
7 here, across the street; and as you tum onto Boyce here, this is the west single-family homes, and
8 some two-story homes as you get further down. This is the view along Boyce, so Todd and
9 Kathy'S homes are here and here. This is looking straight across from Greg and Linda's home,
1 0 so there are two-story homes across there. And then this kind of gives you the context of the
11 adjacent three properties that are also two-story homes. This is the Lee's home here. Those
12 homes consist of older homes as you can see, and also new homes that have been built in the last
13 five years and some that are currently under construction.
14
15 The goals were to build their once in a lifetime home. This is where they want to live, where
16 they want to raise their family. Greg has lived here for ten years and he plans on living here just
17 like the Reeces plan on living here for years to come. The new home is small, it's 2100 square
18 feet and there's a single car garage, detached, consistent with the neighborhood vocabulary. We
19 should put it in perspective, it's not a big home. They wanted to work in a style that had some
20 traditional elements but also recognized the fact that this is modem living today, so they wanted
21 to have those vocabularies incorporated and kind of have a fusion style, and I've already said,
22 respond to the context in the neighborhood, individual review guidelines for privacy, massing,
23 scale, and streetscape, and I think that we can show that we've done that.
24 The concept in looking at this elevation -these are all pretty much two-story homes here; as it
25 moves to Boyce it comes to one story -is to keep the two-story rhythm going, pick up on some
26 of the gables that you see in the neighborhood here, and step the house down with the main roof
27 form as it approaches the one-story homes on Boyce as a sensitive way to address that. We
28 made an attempt to keep the home on this side of the property so that morning, etc. would still be
29 able to come up and not start to obscure light and air.
30 The two:-story homes here -so we're essentially on the setback almost on this side -so stepping
31 the roof form down was important, minimizing the setback on this side, increasing the setbacks
32 on this side. Our minimum setback here is about 11 '7" and it varies from 11 '7" to 25.5' feet to
33 17'8", so there's quite a lot of room on this side of the home. Just parenthetically, we've worked
34 with the City to determine the front setback. As far as I know we've met all those requirements
35 for taking the average of the properties. I didn't know that was an issue.
36 We've also reduced the plate height. The second floor plate height is 6'6" and in some cases you
37 get too close to the wall. We can't lower it anymore. So a normal ceiling height is at 8'. Our
38 roofline starts at 6'6" at the highest part and in many cases you can see, is down lower than that
39 where we start to introduce dormer forms. So using those dormer windows on this side of the
40 house in the large roof form was also important to us to reduce the scale and the impact and the
41 massing on the neighborhood, but also on the Reece's property.
42 In plan, we felt it was important to make these articulations so that it creates opportunities for
43 outdoor space, creates opportunities for light and air, but maybe most importantly, it creates
44 opportunities to get shade and shadow·and to break up what otherwise might be a large mass. So
45 when I think of streetscape, when I think of massing, when I think of scale, we're there in my
46 mind. And this has been something that we have talked only briefly about with the Reece's
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1 because their main issues were privacy when we first met. So we did first meet on September
2 28. We reviewed the proposed project, and there are four issues that they had at that time, all
3 relating to privacy. This was the original design before we came to the City in fact. This was the
4 first rev, and that's where we are today. So at this meeting the issues were the master bedroom
5 windows -this is the west elevation obviously, we looked at it with them, the dormer windows
6 here, there was a bedroom here at that time. The balcony back here at the rear of the· house
7 extending perhaps too far this way and allowing folks to look into the yard in that direction; and
8 the second story hallway windows here, this is not an atrium. There's a second floor that comes
9 up to the wall. These are windows in the wall, so we need to get away from "atrium." That
10 starts to convey other ideas, so it's not an atrium. There's a floor that comes in there. Now I can
11 understand where this would be construed perhaps as an atrium because you don't see where the
12 floor is solid and so on. But at the time the issue here was privacy.
13 After the meeting we met with Greg and Linda again and they said -you guys, let's see if we
14 can help resolve these issues with the Reeces before we go into the City. We want you to look at
15 the problems that they've raised and see if we can come to a solution that doesn't destroy the
16 design, because we all are very excited about the direction that we're headed, and these
17 windows, this· courtyard, this is very important to the overall concept. But I want to show that
18 we have made significant changes.
19 We met on October 20; this shows what we changed. Essentially we've highlighted the elements
20 so it makes it clear for you to see. Originally the biggest change was we completely redesigned
21 this area of the home. It was actually the Reece's suggestion which was to maybe flip the
22 bedroom with the bathroom. So we looked at that and came up with a solution that works. The
23 bathroom is not ideal, we've pointed it out to Greg and Linda, they're okay. It does move the
24 bedroom here. The bedroom is probably better than it was. We like that. But reworking that
25 enabled us to reduce the windows that are the closest windows to the Reece's property that are
26 11.5' away to basically clear story windows above the counter in the bathroom, and they were
27 pretty much fine with that modification.
28 The second thing we did was we raised the master bedroom windows up so that they no longer
29 come down to a low sill that would allow casual viewing out those windows. Those become
30 clear story windows as well. These windows are 17' 8" from the property line.
31 And then at the rear balcony we cut the balcony back so that someone couldn't hang over the
32 edge and look into their yard. But you can still turn your head and look the other way or· look
33 [incoherent] the neighbor's yard. And then we also reduced the height of these windows here,
34 the downstairs hallway, the upstairs hallway by about two feet. The dash line was the original,
35 so we pulled the roof form out to kind of help lower those windows. They were 10', they?re now
36 8'. We've pulled them down. On the other side of those windows is the hallway and a hallway
37 laundry area. You can open the doors and get to the laundry equipment that way.
38 So that demonstrates the changes, and we also, by putting the bedroom in the front, addressed
39 one of Arnold's questions, which was maybe we'd put something up here to help articulate that
40 gable mass, so we like the way that worked, too, with the window up there. This also shows the
41 floor line that comes across.
42 While we're here I probably should point out that these are windows in wood sash windows,
43 glass and wood sash windows. So we felt it was important to show what is in fact painted wood
44 versus what is glass. This total dimension is 9', and it's 8' this way above the second floor line.
45 That element is in. We feel it's important that this just read like this -wood and glass, beautiful
46 piece of fenestration.
City of Palo A Ito Page 9
1
2 Mr. Greg Lee: So my comment, just to add onto that, is that math is erroneous from a previous
3 statement made. I talked to Kathy that it's greater than all three of the other sides combined,
4 that's simply not accurate.
5
6 Mr. Reece: So it's 46% of your total, which is ...
7
8. Speaker: No, from your calculation, you didn't read the sides, so you probably calculated ...
9
10 Mr. Reece: I calculated those sides as part of the [incoherent].
11
12 Speaker: From the very start before those sides were done, we calculated that, so ...
13
14 Speaker: It's irrelevant basically.
15
16 Mr. Hayes: So I actually think this calculation was done when these side windows were still in.
17 Those are gone now.
18
19 Speaker: We've modified it since -and again, it's close to 50%, but it's not half the glass is on
20 the west side. If it's 46% ...
21
22 Mr. Hayes: So in terms of windows that are about the same width, is the window on the current
23 home here, which is about 8-1/2' wide. Windows on the home across the street -this is actually
24 directly -business right across from your hot tub, right? This house is right here.
25
26 Speaker: No, it's not across from the hot tub.
27
28 Mr. Hayes: So this is right across the street or pretty close. This is easily greater than ....
29
30 Mr. Reece: It was built in 1896, so we can't complain too much about that one.
31
32 Mr. Hayes: It's a beautiful home. Absolutely. But are we being consistent with what we see in
33 the neighborhood?
34
35 Mr. Reece: Well if we look at the windows only in the single-story houses.
36
37 Speaker: We have 20 square feet of windows facing them.
38
39 Ms. Caporgno: Can you just let Mr. Hayes finish and then you guys will be able to have an
40 opportunity.
41
42 Mr. Hayes: Another example of this windows in series basically, again on a house across the
43 street.
44
45 Mrs. Reece: that's a block away.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1 Mr. Hayes: And this is right across the street from them I think -or across Boyce. They're not
2 clustered together, but put those windows together and that's basically 9' of glass.
3 So we would propose that they accept the mitigated proposal that we have here today. We would
4 also be happy to add landscaping. We haven't talked about that, and that's clearly one of the
5 guidelines, is that we could add landscaping. There are some trees here. That could be enhanced
6 as a screening device. There's a section here as well. This is a sample of the proposed glass. So
7 someone standing in the hallway, they could look out of the translucent glass. You could see the
8 top of the window on this side of the house, but you're not going to be that tall. And this is all
9 frosted. So we don't see that it's an issue in terms of invasion of privacy here any longer,
10 especially if we do any kind of screening here, it kind of vanishes.
11
12 Ms. Caporgno: You had indicated that screening is a possibility. Have you explored what type
13 of screening you might put in?
14
15 Mr. Hayes: The Reeces have mentioned that there's an issue with foliage growing on their
16 property because of a fungus. So we would propose that we'd have some kind of foliage on our
17 side of the property, and we have not addressed exactly what it would be. There's not a whole
18 lot of room ...
19
20 Mrs. Reece: Also, there's a driveway there.
21
22 Mr. Hayes: I was just going to point out, we have a driveway here and there's a planting strip
23 probably of about two feet running down the side.
24
25 Mr. Reece: We've had about 20 trees die-on the three properties across the last ten years from the
26 root nematode, so we're not too convinced that there's great opportunity for large mature trees in
27 that area. So we're going to try. A bamboo was one that we ...
28
29 Mrs. Reece: Unable to get a tree to grow for 15 years back there,and they've had several trees
30 die as well.
31
32 Mr. Hayes: Bamboo is a pretty good ...
33
34 Mr. Greg Lee: Can we finish, we didn't interrupt you when you.
35
36 Mr. Hayes: So the bamboo is a pretty hearty plant and fast growing in terms of a screening
37 element.
38 In conclusion, over the past 3-112 months I think Greg and Linda have been very cooperative in
39 trying to mitigate concerns. It is their home, and I think we have mitigated the perceived impacts
40 that this2100 square-foot home will have. We are 25 feet away, I'd like to keep that in mind as
41 well, to where that glass is, which is greater than a rear yard setback as you know. Greg and
42 Linda have listened, they've been responsive, they've been sensitive to the issues in asking the
43 Hayes Group to redesign on several occasions, and I think they've been reasonable. So I think
44 they've met or have exceeded the reasonableness that was anticipated in the individual review
45 guidelines in terms of massing and scale and that sort of thing. I think we've resolved that as
46 well. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2 Mr. Lee: I think first of all, this is all healthy conversation, so I appreciated all of this, keeping it
3 very professional. It's really important to us. We think we've been pretty -as we can
4 [incoherent] review by responsible is key, and these guys, they're known in the area, high
5 integrity level. We feel we're being very reasonable, which is really the key. We really don't
6 want to cause any huge issues of monstrosities and that kind of thing. We've went around the
7 neighborhood as well randomly. People we've talked to which include neighbors across the
8 street and the side, and we have over 20 people who've signed things that they have no issues,
9 too, so that can go on record as well. You can have that; I have copies. And there are people
. 10 around the neighborhood that we showed the plans to, and there are no issues.
11 I'm a little bit confused because we hear the privacy issue and I see that as the main concern.
12 We hear about preserving the bungalows, that kind of thing. The same thing, but then on the flip
13 side, we hear that as stated in the letters that you guys have, that if they lose the privacy it's like
14 "We will live behind two large profitable spec houses and will be as considerate with secoIid-
15 story placement as at least [incoherent]." That's just a little inconsistent with what the real issue
16 is. Talking about -we're not building a spec house or anything like that. We're trying to build a
17 very custom home that fits into the site and scale of the neighborhood and is respectful for
18 everyone as much as can be; i.e., mitigating and minimizing all issues possible, following the
19 guidelines.
20
21 Ms. Caporgno: Is there anything that you would like to add?
22
23 Ms. Linda Liu: I think they've said it all. Again, the only thing, I think we should stick to was
24 what the individual review guidelines was saying, and I think we've met all requirements. And I
25 think that should be what we're looking at. We are following the City's guidelines; that's what
26 we've done.
27
28 Ms. Caporgno: I have one card from somebody in the audience. I don't know if there's anybody
29 else who wants to speak. And then I will allow both of you to respond or give any kind of
30 closing comments that you might want to.
31 The first one is for Erica Enos, and then Bruce Noblock.
32
33 Ms. Erica Enos: I wanted to say a couple things. I listened to the people who have a problem
34 with the house. First of all, I have a hard time trying to understand how all the neighbors are so
35 upset about a wall of glass that they don't see, because this is on the side of the house that's not
36 in front, it doesn't face Forest, it's on the side of the house. It is so set back that I think that
37 you'd really have to crane your necks. It would be hard to even see this as you walk down the
38 street. Now Beth, you may not think so but again, you're welcome to your opinion. That's my
39 opinion is that how are you going to see this thing because it's set so far back in. The front of
40 the house protrudes in front of it, and it's in the middle ofthe property line. So how is it going to
41 be such a big deal for all the neighbors to see? Maybe they thought that this was going to be in
42 the front of the house, maybe they're confused.
43
44 Mr. Reece: No, they were fine with the design of the front elevation. And I think as Greg and
45 Linda walked around they looked at the front elevation and that was fine.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1 Mrs. Reece: And that's how they got their signature on that petition, if you'll look at the dates,
2 how the neighbors did see the side elevation and how it looked in the yard.
3
4 Ms. Caporgno: I would like you to finish.
5
6 Ms. Enos: I'm not finished.
7
8 Ms. Caporgno: And you will have an opportunity to respond after.
9
10 Ms. Enos: Secondly, they keep talking about the houses on Boyce. Well, Greg and Linda's
11 house is on Forest. It is not on the corner, it's on Forest. So it relates to the houses on Forest-
'12 down the street, up and down the street, across the street. Boyce is around the corner. You don't
13 see that when you look at the house on Forest. So to me, I can understand how little bungalows,
14 but it's not consistent with the houses on Boyce because it's not on Boyce, it's on Forest. So you
15 need to take a look at the consistency next door on either side and across the street. You don't
16 go around the comer in my opinion, and I'm entitled to my opinion.
17 Thirdly, I would presume that with all this, what they consider a big wall of glass, that in order to
18 do the glass you have to do Title 24 cales, and I would presume that.they wouldn't get to the
19 point of having their plans approved unless the Title 24 was adhered to. So this amount of glass
20 doesn't come out from the sky, it's been approved and it's been approved by a government
21 agency. So to say that there's so much glass, I don't understand where they're coming from in
22 that regard.
23 This is a small house. For a new house it's 2100 square feet. And one of the houses that struck
24 me is that to me, this design was on house tours in Palo Alto on several occasions. Everybody
25 who drives by this house feels that it's a real attractive house, and their house mimics, it's a little
26 smaller version of that house. So in terms of design, I don't understand what the problem is. In
27 terms of privacy, ,we don't live in a rural environment. We live in an urban environment and we
28 need to be able to share our open space and our interior space. You can't expect everybody to
29 adhere to your visions of privacy because I'm sure that whatever you do, you impinge on
30 somebody else's privacy, too. So you have to be considerate both ways. We don't live in a rural
31 environment. We live in a city, we live in a big city. So if you go to San Francisco -and I think
32 Palo Alto is a lot closer to San Francisco than Portola Valley is in terms of adhering to the
33 density -there's no setbacks. Here these people are giving them 25 feet. They only have to give
34 them 6'. I don't understand what the problem is. I'm done.
35
36 Mrs. Reece: May I address one thing?
37
38 Ms. Caporgno: You're going to be able to comment after the public testimony.
39
40 Mr. Bruce Noblock: My name is Bruce Noblock. I live at 1032 Forest, which is two houses
41 down from Greg and Linda's house. I wanted to come and speak in support. I've been through
42 the Design Review process. At the time six months ago I was intimately familiar with it. We
43 came and sat here with you and went through the same dialogue. But more importantly, just in
44 speaking in their behalf, Greg and Linda, at least in our case, and we're two houses down, they
45 came and mocked on our doors early on and said they invited comment on their house. In my
46 view, they were very respectful of our opinion. They invited comment, we didn't have any
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1 comment other than we liked the house. But they were open to any kind of comments or
2 suggestions that we had. We didn't have any. The only comment I would have on the whole
3 privacy issue is we went through the same thing and the Design Review guidelines in my mind
4 are set to try to make everybody happy and offsetting windows and casual view -you cannot
5 eliminate casual viewing. There's going to be some casual viewing whether you lean forward or
6 backward. It's very, very difficult. So the only way to eliminate it would be to eliminate
7 second-story windows. The fact that these guys are set back -they've gone in my mind -of
8 course, I don't have to live with it -we've talked about it. They've been proactive. I think
9 they've been sensitive, and they've been trying hard because I've talked to Greg and Linda both,
1 0 about trying to work this out. I support it. We like the house and I hope they can all work this
11 out and everybody can do a win-win situation somehow.
12
13 Ms. Caporgno: Thank you Mr. Noblock. I will allow you two to give a closing statement, and
14 then I'll also afford you the same opportunity.
15
16 Mrs. Reece: One comment about this house being on Forest. Of the four houses that do in fact
17 butt up against their property, three of them are on Boyce. I think that means it does have to
18 relate to those houses, even though it is on Forest. Three out of four, and we are two and three,
19 and the other neighbors are equally upset.
20
21 Ms. Caporgno: Can I ask the two of you, when Mr. Hayes was describing the ch~ges that have
22 been made over time to this, and I was under the impression, or at least he indicated that he
23 didn't know if you were aware of the most recent modifications to the house.
24
25 Mr. Reece: We are familiar with all of them.
26
27 Ms. Caporgno: Okay; so this hasn't changed ...
28
29 Mr. Reece: I think again, they've been very flexible. We had four issues. To start with,
30 bedrooms are well taken care of, but the number one issue was what we're calling the wall of
31 glass.
32
33 Ms. Reece: Please do look back over the letters. We have said from the very beginning that that
34 and the deck are the· things that have upset us the most, and I do thank them for what they've
35 done to the bedroom windows, but it has not addressed what we've been most upset over, and
36 nobody has ever come back on this.
37
38 Mr. Reece: We've come back and said the only answer we see is basically frosting Linda and
39 Greg in, to basically frost it all over, and we didn't think that's a true and attractive design
40 element, but it looks like that's where we're aiming without any further changes, is to mitigate or
41 fix the privacy issues with the second story windows.
42
43 Mrs. Reece: At the very least, I believe everything on that second story should be up, not frosted,
44 I believe opaque glassed. I would very much prefer a roofline going over it with say, a skylight
45 or anything to just preserve the mass and scale issues.
46
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1 perfonnance ofthe designs, scale, massing, privacy, streetscape, I think we've made an argument
2 that this design is consistent with those tools to measure it with. So I think that the notion of
3 doing anything else to this window, it's 25' back, is probably not going to go anywhere at this
4 point, that we feel like we've done as much as we can do and would hope that with the additional
5 introduction of landscape screening that we can completely obscure the Lee's house from the
6 Reece's view.
7
8 Ms. Caporgno: I have one final question for you. The Reeces have mentioned this flipping of the
9 house, and I'm assuming that's something that you've
10 considered and there's a reason why that isn't acceptable.
11
12 Mr. Lee: Two things. One, it's kind of funny or interesting or confusing in that sense that you
13 guys would rather have a 6' setback with the big mass right there, which is okay. And the other
14 thing is that we really prefer the morning sunlight in the kitchen, and that's how we have it
15 designed right now. It's more and more important in your home in the afternoon to have the
16 western sun. Just from a design perspective, again, I don't think the scale is really out of control.
17 I think it's generally reasonable. You can go to the extreme modem houses, and this would pale
18 in comparison, and we do see those in the neighborhood, too. That would pale in comparison.
19 Again, initially for the past three months, it's really been privacy mitigation and minimization,
20 and I think we have addressed that at the glass pane. And Todd even, in his e-mail tome, said
21 for the upstairs laundry and hallway windows, the frosting proposed blocks the direct line of
22 sight, standing in the hallway. But looking at the drawings of the side windows and the atrium
23 have clear lines of sight all the way back. That's the comer extreme lines. So we addressed
24 those issues, too. So we addressed in my mind the privacy issues. And then the design issue in
25 tenns ofthe scale I think is reasonable. That's all.
26
27 Mr. Hayes: I think it still should be noted"that you're seeing an elevation here in the floor plan
28 diagram. This is actually fairly good. If you look at the footprint of this and look at the footprint
29 of the existing one-story horne, it gives you an idea of the scale. This home is small. It's tiny.
30 So when you see the glass you're kind of thinking of a bigger horne in context. You're not
31 picking up the fact -or I'm assuming that -that this is at 6'6" on this side of the house. It's not
32 a typical 8 or 9-foot high plate height, etc. And if you compared footprint of this to the footprint
33 of that, this looks like a little dollhouse in my opinion.
34
35 Mr. Reece: The amount of glass, we have 40 square feet of glass on each of the three bungalows
36 versus over ...
37
38 Mrs. Reece: No, they have 20 square feet on each of the three ...
39
40 Mr. Reece: .. hundreds facing to the west.
41
42 Ms. Caporgno: Thank you.
43
44 Mrs. Reece: On the frosted glass, may I reiterate, the panel that they're proposing to frost is for a
45 person over 6 feet tall. The Lees are not six feet tall. I really think at the very least, much more
46 of that needs to be frosted, all of it at least. If you look at your own diagrams, that doesn't do it.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
EXHIBITS RECEIVED AT THE DIRECTOR'S HEARING
1012 Forest Avenue
Attachment G
There were several items received at the January 6,2005 Director's Hearing. The exhibits follow
this sheet. '
City of Palo Alto
Memorandum
To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department
Re: 1012 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Date: November 14, 2004
We have reviewed the proposed plans for 1012 Forest Avenue and have no
issues with the home as shown on the plans .
. Name: (flE:..6r IAlh YIt;VCj
Address: 1f77 foRESI ~.
tLlo /llil> j cA ~ if 3 Q /.
Signature: elL c~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•
Memorandum
To: City of Palo Alto Planning Department
Re: 1012 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Date:
We have reviewed the proposed plans for 1012 Forest Avenue and have no
issues with the home as shown on the plans. /n ..j"da-7'he j>/ai/ S
ShtJw tih ---'}( c .. ,/,-h'P1A--vL (Ok5id~tv"hA fo /l~1A. /:./YJ !y,'vdi"
Name:r Cit //( f1 C /1//)5
Address:
d/ID ~JL tI h 3//-)
'?IfLtJ ~7Q
Signa~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message Page 1 of2
Campbell, Clare
From: Reece, Todd K [todd.reece@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27,20043:59 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Subject: RE: 1012 Forest remodel
Clare, thanks, Kathy's comments should be to you soon. We actually have a meeting with the Lee's and their architect
tomorrow, so we'll hope for the best, and let you know any news from that. Thanks!
-Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: Campbell, Clare [mailto:clare.campbell@cityofpaloalto.org]
Sent: Monday, September 27,20043:46 PM
To: Reece, Todd K
Cc: Jason Holleb
Subject: RE: 1012 Forest remodel
Thanks for your comments. I will forward your email to the architect for them to review. I have not received a letter from
Kathy yet, I am sure it will come soon.
You will be kept informed of the project status as the review continues.
Thanks,
Clare Campbell
Associate Planner
650-617-3191
2/2812005
-----Original Message-----
From: Reece, Todd K [mailto:todd.reece@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27,20043:32 PM
To: Campbell, Clare
Subject: 1012 Forest remodel
Clare,
I would like to add my comments from 1002 Forest, to reinforce the concerns Kathy has raised in her letter about the impact of
the 1012 Forest remodel on 956 Boyce. To reiterate, we are very distressed over the windows on the West side of the second
story proposed addition to 1012 Forest Ave. They invade the privacy of bedroom windows, hot tub and backyards of three
small bungalows at 1002 Forest, 956 Boyce and 950 Boyce. Houses need windows, but why are over 75% of the large 2nd
story windows facing west? Even the other 2 story monstrosities marching down Forest Ave do not have two story tall 200+
square foot walls of glass staring at each other!
Along Boyce Ave we've preserved a small island of traditional bungalows with our low profile privacy. This is not an
accident, but there are a number of long standing neighbors committed to preserving the character of our neighborhood. When
our neighbor at 956 Boyce was about to sell out to a developer, Kathy and I bought the house, to preserve it and our single
story island of privacy. Neighbors at 944 and 950 and in the Boyce court have been working together to likewise delay the 2
story invasion. It is a losing battle, but I expect the city to respect and help retain the privacy and character of our remaining
single story "open spaces" as long as practical.
As the 2 story monstrosities march toward us, they should respect our privacy, and be forced to look at each other, rather than
spoiling our privacy. Once the privacy of our small Boyce island is invaded, we'll all lose to 2 story monstrosities, and the
Lee's will fmd themselves with new ugly walls of glass staring back in their faces, rather than the open space they are
invading. With Kathy's suggestions, we are not looking for special treatment, just fair treatment on the West side windows. I
:Message
2/28/2005
Page 2 of2
would ask, in addition, however that the city consider the special value of single story "open space corridors" as we have on
Boyce A venue, and give special consideration to protect the privacy we are trying to preserve.
We have lost the fight on Forest Avenue, but along Boyce there is not yet a single two story house peering into our corridor of
small backyards onto which all our bedrooms face. Why should 1012 Forest be allowed to hover over our "park" (especially
when the view from above is of ugly asphalt gravel roofs)? How many windows will the Lee's want on their West side when
oUr bungalows go down and two story monstrosities are staring in their bedroom windows? Let's design for that now with
North and South windows, rather than their West side poaching with huge windows on our small remaining open space.
Special restrictions should apply for the attacking face of2 story houses invading single story "open space".
Of course we "don 't want to punish the Lee's, and the march of 2 story development is inevitable, but we think it is fair for
designs to anticipate 2 story development on all sides, and thus to bias the 1012 Forest window exposure to the more open
North and South facing walls.
There is one other small topic we'll need to resolve with the proposed design for the new garage. The new set back will
expose the back of our 956 Boyce garage that has been directly abutting the existing 1012 Forest garage. The rear wall of this
garage has been inaccessible for repairs since original construction, and is badly rotted. We will need to understand what is
planned or allowable for that wall. I was thinking maybe a 10 foot by 20 foot wall of glass, because we could use the light
(and I'm sure the Lee's would love to share a view of all the great junk in our garage)!! We can decide the best treatment as
their design progresses. .
As Kathy stated in her letter, we have no problems with a two story house going in next door to us; it is our loss of privacy that
is upsetting us. We have been in the neighborhood for 30 years, and had no plans for moving. Ifwe lose our privacy, we will
leave behind two large profitable spec houses, and we'll be as considerate with second story window placement as the Lee's
have been. Anything that can be done to preserve our lifestyle will be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Todd Reece
1002 Forest Ave.
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Reece, Todd K [todd.reece@hp.com]
Tuesday, December 14, 20047:16 PM
Campbell, Clare
Request for Director's Hearing on 1012 Forest Ave remodel
Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Department,
Please consider this our written request for a Director's Hearing for
1012 Forest Ave. (Individual Review #04PLN-00021). We certainly are
disappointed that these plans have been conditionally approved.
It is our opinion that the proposed 1012 Forest wall-of glass and the
second story deck looking down onto the previously private bedrooms and
patios of the Forest and Boyce bungalows are not in keeping with the
city's "Mass and Scale" design guidelines, nor are they keeping with the
style and character of the neighborhood. The west side windows cover
over 409 square feet, more than all other sides .of the house combined!
We respectfully request that the invasive wall-of-glass windows be
either covered (by extending the front roofline back and down to the
second story floor line), or eliminated. We also request a solid wall
on the west side of the second story deck, or its elimination.
A fundamental principle of your guidelines specifically states that the
"massing of ' .. second story additions should be compatible with the
adjacent houses, and the predominant neighborhood scale", yet the most
massive and intrusive design features of the proposed home face only the
single story neighbors.
We expect serious consideration of this matter in the upcoming
Director's Hearing, and we will request a City Council Hearing if
changes are not made .
Ave
1
-Todd Reece
1002 Forest
Kathy Reece
956 Boyce Ave
Campbell, Clare
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Reece, Todd K [todd.reece@hp.com]
Friday, January 07, 2005 1 :32 PM
Campbell, Clare; Caporgno, Julie
RE: Director's Hearing on 1012 Forest.Ave remodel
Dear Julie and Clare, thank you for your time and considerati·on in
yesterday's Director's Hearing regarding 1012 Forest. We feel compelled
to follow-up to try to bring focus to what was another of. our typical
wandering conversations with the Lee's and Hayes Group yesterday. There
was little focus on THE subject of our request for hearing, namely the
Mass and Scale of the West elevation of their proposed design, as noted
in our original request attached.
First, too much time was spent on how the design fits with other two
story neighbors, with only street facing pictures and comparisons. That
is NOT the subject. The proposed design is no uglier than other two
story neighbors, and we too would have signed the Lee's petition to
neighbors, if we were only shown the streetscape elevation. Second, too
many streetscape pictures and discussions were had. We're not concerned
with making outsiders like Erica comfortable wandering our neighborhood.
What we as "adjacent houses" will see is the West elevation Wall of
Glass. The Lee's house is part of the Fife subdivision, so we. single
story neighbors to the West are the "adjacent houses and predominant
neighborhood scale" that is relevant. The Lee's can look like any other
2 story to their East, North and South, but to the West, we expect
"special attention" to be "compatible" with OUR neighborhood. Third, we
also spent too much time discussing how flexible the Lee's have been and
all the changes already made. WE DON'T CARE. Remove all the band aids,
let's go back to the original design, and focus on the oozing sore that
has NEVER been addressed since our first letter of Sept 27th, namely,
the West elevation "Wallo' Glass" and the inappropriate share of
windows facing ONLY the 3 adjacent single story neighbors!!
We still are unsure of how serious the City is about enforcing what we
see as a flagrant violation of a VERY clear design guideline, stating
the "massing of ... second story additions should be compatible with the
ADJACENT houses, and the predominate neighborhood scale." NONE of the
adjacent neighbors see the West elevation as compatible, and as much as
the Lee's may wish otherwise, their adjacent neighbors ARE the single
story bungalows of the Fife subdivision, (not the grand Victorian's
across the street in Crescent Park, or the monstrous 2 story remodels
that have chased everyone of our original Forest Avenue neighbors out
of town). If all we're trying to do is to fit the Lee's into a two
story neighborhood, there is no issue. We on Boyce Street, expect the
City to enforce the guideline which states "on streets where single
story houses are the predominate block pattern, a new two-story house or
second-story addition may require some SPECIAL attention to reduce the
massing and perceived sense of bulk". If the City is not going to
enforce the guideline, then change it, and stop setting false
expectations and wasting all our time. New designs are "expected to meet
EACH of the guidelines", not just the Hayes Groups' favorites. As we
witnessed yesterday, the Hayes Group and Lee's will bounce around
discussing all sorts of other guidelines and topics that may be
interesting, but are irrelevant to what we are specifically asking the
City ..
As you complete your review process, and as we unfortunately expect to
move to City Council (and broader) review of this topic, there are
several key questions we feel must be addressed. We have been asking
most of these questions for months, but with no DIRECT answers. If we
were on the City council, after yesterday's Director's Hearing we would
expect these to be the relevant questions that ALL need to be answered.
1
#1) What is the requirement for mail notification of neighbors for
Individual Review, and what specifically was done in this case? We
believe there was NO mailing of the "Opportunity to Comment". The first
mailing anyone received was notification of the Director's Hearing we
requested.
#2) What is the name for what we have called the "Wallo' Glass"?
"Wallo' Glass" is our.best label, and as we heard yesterday, it's not
an "atrium"? Mr. Hayes' "beautiful fenestration" label yesteroay sure
doesn't work for us. What is IT?? Where. is there anything like it in
our neighborhood? Streetscape windows of 2 story houses are not
relevant. Where are there side facing large 2nd story windows facing
into single story houses. Nobody else has one, so the "Wallo' Glass"
certainly isn't "compatible with the adjacent houses"?
#3) What are the accurate measurements for the square footage of windows
and glass doors on the West side elevation compared to the "adjacent
neighbors"? We've done our calculations, the Lee's have theirs, for
City Council let's have your official assessment if the amount of glass
on the proposed West elevation is "compatible with the adjacent houses".
We consistently calculate there is more glass on the West elevation than
all other sides of the house combined. (Please calculate either 2nd
story only, or 1st plus 2nd story. We have included all 3 sides of the
"Wallo' Glass" as West facing, as we are the ONLY neighbors unlucky
enough to see any of this glass.) However the specific numbers come
out, we do not expect the West elevation to be "compatible with the
adjacent houses", or to demonstrate that there was "special attention to
reduce the massing and perceived sense of bulk" on the West side. If you
need details of the windows and glass door square footage of the
"adjacent houses" we can provide that, but it is about 20 square feet
each on the 3 bungalows.
#4) Given it's clear the Hayes Group and Lee's love their "Wallo'
Glass", why not face it ANY direction other than the ONLY one story
neighbors on the .West? Bless you, Julie for asking yesterday, "why not
flip the design to the East side". We have clearly and consistently
stated we would prefer the current East elevation view on a 6 foot
setback from us, instead of the "Wallo' Glass". You did not get the
full honest answer yesterday, Julie. Morning sunlight is NO factor, all
you got was hand waving yesterday.· (Unfortunately, flipping the "Wall
0' Glass" to the East, just puts it in the face of our dear neighbors
Carmen and Manish at 1022 Forest. They have made it clear in signing our
petition, that they ALSO do not see the "Wallo' Glass" as "compatible",
but we would still be THRILLED with that answer. Instead of moving the
problem, what we'd really like to do is fix it! Don't band aid around
the oozing sore, let's cure it.)
#5) PLEASE!!!! Why not extend the front West roofline back to cover and
enclose the "Wallo' Glass" as we have asked for months??? We have
NEVER even gotten a hand waving answer to this question. If this
question #5 is addressed, ALL the prior questions go away. The Lee's
have their "Wallo Glass" (or whatever it is), they have what we see
would be a beautiful "atrium", and 128 square feet of glass is now
obscured from us (and any other) neighbors. The West side elevation
would be compatible with neighbors, and we could be done with this.
#6) If we can not resolve this with a positive answer to #5, we expect
the city to assess the neighbor signatures we and the Lee's have
provided. Our under~tanding is the Lee's showed only the street side
elevation to neighbors in asking for their support. When we came
through later with our petition and a copy of the West elevation, we got
what we believe is an accurate assessment on THE issue we are raising in
our appeal. Neighbor's feel they were misled by a cursory incomplete
representation from the Lee's, and many of them were dismayed that they
had already signed the Lee's document. We expect that a clear common
representation of the neighbors' sentiments will be important for the
2
City Council, and we would like to work with you to allow you to reach
your own conclusion. Please be advised though, that as we said
yesterday, the neighbors are PISSED off! They are not familiar with the
IR process, they feel the city is not doing it's job forcing neighbors
into dueling petitions, and they have a long history of contentious
reviews with little positive outcome. We are ready to waste OUR time in
this process, but we love our neighbors and do not want to drag them in
more than necessary. Going forward, we expect to focus on the single
story Boyce neighbors, as they are the only ones impacted by the West
side elevation, and they all see a personal stake and risk to ensure
they don't get their very own "Wallo' Glass" with the next two story
addition in our remaining Fife subdivision corridor. While we
appreciate the broad support we have gained from neighbors on ALL sides
of the Lee's, we do not think the 2 story home vs. 2 story home
perspective of neighbors (particularly 2 story spec builders like
Bruce!) are as relevant given the single story compatibility focus of
the IR process. Please let's work together to not annoy our neighbors
any worse than has already been done, and let's identify what question
is relevant for what set of neighbors before we go to City council?
#7) How was the front setback measurement for the 1012 Forest design
calculated? It does not appear to at all reflect the "average" of
neighboring properties? In figuring any "average" we expect that the
City accurately accounts for our 1002 FOrest setback. As the zoning
maps reflect, 1002 Forest was originally 962 Boyce, with our 30+ foot
front setback from Boyce. The Forest set-back is indeed our SIDE
setback and should not be part of any "average" for 1012 Forest. We've
overlooked the 1012 Forest front set-back up until now, but if there is
no resolution to the "Wallo' Glass" issue, perhaps there are other
issues that the City has not paid enough attention to.
#8) What is the City's position on the privacy "band aids" for the "Wall
0' Glass" and second story deck? The proposal reviewed yesterday may be
appropriate for 2 story to 2 story "casual observation", but for
adjacent single story neighbors on Boyce, we expect the guideline to
"recognize preexisting privacy situation" would preserve the fact that
NONE of the preexisting neighbors have ANY view from above into patios
and bedrooms, . casual or not casual. This "preexisting privacy
situation" can be preserved with the proposals we made below in our
Director's Hearing request. As a minimum we expect the entire 3 sided
Wallo' Glass to be opaque (versus a single band of frosted panes), and
a solid wall on the West side of the second story deck (versus any
railed partial solution). The privacy guidelines appear ambiguous, we
presume the intent is for more special attention to pre-existing single
story privacy, and ask for the City's CLEAR position on this before the
City Council review.
Julie, I'm sorry this wasn't shorter, but hopefully this is more focused
and concrete than our wandering discussion with the Hayes Group and
Lee's yesterday. Although we've added detail here for you, we believe
these are 8 simple concrete questions which we'd expect answers for, if
we were City Council members reviewing this design. We have asked most
of these questions countless times in the past several months, but have
received only short hand waving answers. Now is the time for concrete
answers. As noted above #5 is THE CRITICAL question for which we have
received NO answer. Short of a positive answer to #5, we expect all 8 of
these must be resolved before you reach your decision, and as we
presumably head on to the City Council. Thanks in advance for your and
Clare's help and consideration. Know that this is not how we would like
to be spending our tax dollars or your time, but we love our home and
neighborhood. Your decision will indeed settle whether we remain in Palo
Alto, or whether we flee like all our former Forest neighbors, and leave
two more ugly two story spec houses behind at 1002 Forest and 956 Boyce.
We and our neighbors have high expectations for our City, and we hope
our 29th year is not the last for our neighborhood.
-Todd and
3
French, Amy
From:
Sent:
Greg Lee [greg.lee@gmail.com]
Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:41 AM
To:
Cc:
French, Amy; Campbell, Clare; Caporgno, Julie
Ken Hayes; Jason Holleb; Linda Liu
Subject: 1012 Forest Avenue Homeowner Letter
1012 forest ave
letter 02.19.0 ...
Dear Julie, Amy, and Clare,
Please find below and attached a statement letter from Linda and I
sent via email to Palo Alto City Council members on Saturday, February
19, 2005.
This letter is in response to Todd and Kathy Reece's (1002 Forest
Ave/956 Boyce Ave.) formal appeal filed February 7, 2005. Please
include our response statement in your staff report to City Council
for the March 7th meeting.
Once again, the Reece's communicate grossly erroneous information in
their appeal letter as the basis for their argument. For example, the
Reece's continue to flat wrongly state that our "west side windows
cover over 400 square feet, more than all other sides of the house
combined!". We are very saddened that the Reece's rely on reiterating
false information in hopes of gaining City Council attention.
We are confident that the planning department will set the record
straight and inform City Council that our project meets all Palo Alto
Single Family Individual Review Guidelines and complies with the R-1
Zone District regulations for development, as conditioned.
Thanks again for all your help and courteous manner throughout this
entire process.
p.s.-We just saw that the Reece's have put us in the front page of
the Palo Alto Daily News. More erroneous information .... pls.
communicate this to the City Council.
Sincerely,
--Greg and Linda
Letter in text format below (as well as Word document attached) .
=================================================================
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Attn: Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: 1012 Forest Avenue Homeowner Letter
Single Family Individual Review, 04PLN-00021
Dear Council Members:
My wife Linda and I are the homeowners at 1012 Forest Avenue. We are
currently in our 6th month of the individual review process (our
pre-application city mtg was 8/4/04).
Our Single Family Individual Review for our new 2-story residence
1
.. petition .. to our other neighbors:
"The west side windows cover over 400 square feet, more than all other
sides of the house COMBINED!"
This is simply untrue and misrepresented as shock value exaggeration.
We welcome anyone to do the math to confirm this very large error.
Appeals based on false statements by the Reece's to neighbors,
planning department, and city council are misleading, out of context,
and not credible. Surprisingly, the Reece's have compounded the above
blatantly wrong "400 square foot ... " statement by also including it in
their formal appeal letter. Their appeal letter states more than 20
people have signed this "petition", which implies more than 20 people
were mislead to signing a false statement.
On the other hand, Linda and I have gathered over 25 signatures from
neighbors who have no issues with our plans. Linda and I truly
believe our future -2,300SF home is a hugely positive contribution to
the community and fits into the existing neighborhood beautifully. We
hav~ received substantial neighborhood and community support
throughout the 6+ months to-date. Neighbors appeared with us at the
January 6th Director's public hearing to show their support. We also
have strong support and encouragement from other community neighbors
who have been through the Single Family IR process with unreasonable
neighbors. Also, if necessary, we have neighborhood and community
members who are very willing to staunchly support us at a City Council
public hearing as well.
Thank you again for your time. Linda and I apologize for the long
note. Please appreciate it's just been a very disheartening and
unpleasant neighbor experience. Please do not allow one neighbor to
continue to misrepresent the facts, request additional unreasonable
design chahges, and extend this process unnecessarily.
If you have additional questions, Linda and I would welcome the
opportunity to meet you in person to discuss in further detail.
Please feel free to contact us anytime.
I have lived at 1012 Forest Avenue for over ten years. My family has
lived in the Palo Alto/Stanford/Menlo Park area for over forty years.
Linda and I very much look forward to building and living in our
beautiful and modest -2,300SF new home for at least an additional
fdrty years.
p.s. -We have attached this letter in word document format for your
convenience. We have also sent a copy to the planning department for
their records.
Sincerely,
--Greg Lee and Linda Liu
1012 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-323-7050 (h)
650-804-0892 (c)
greg.lee@gmail.com
linda.liu@gmail.com
3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
1012 Forest Avenue
Attachment J
The proposed project of a new single-family residence is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Policy L-12. The proposed residence is designed to be compatible with the existing character of
the residential neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329-2441
Fax: (650) 329-2154
I. INTRODUCTION
A. OVERVIEW OF THE SINGLE
FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES
All new home construction must conform to the requirements of
the Single Family R-l Zone District Regulations (Chapters 18.12
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code). The Zoning Guidebook for the
R-l Property Owner and Builder provides a written summary, with
illustrations, of those regulations. Chapter 18.14 establishes an
Individual Review process. The Single Family Individual Review
Guidelines address second-story issues speCifically related to the
relationship to adjacent properties and neighborhood patterns and
do not apply to single story houses of first story additions. The
Guidelines address the Individual Review Process.
The second-story threshold is not meant to discourage two-story
homes. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that two story homes
have greater potential to significantly affect the privacy of adjacent
homeowners and the perceived sense of neighborhood scale.
The Guidelines do not prescribe a specific architectural style or
design program. Within Palo Alto neighborhoods, there are many
diverse styles and each residential lot presents a unique situation.
The Guidelines acknowledge that change occurs and that
individual homeowners should have the opportunity to build,
expand or remodel to meet their own needs and objectives.
However, such change should respect the adjacent homeowners
and surrounding neighborhood context.
The goals and purposes of the Individual Review process are
as follows:
• Preserve the unique character of Palo Alto neighborhoods.
• Promote new construction that is cornpatible with existing
residential neighborhoods.
• En.courage respect for the surrounding context in which
residential construction and alteration takes place.
• Foster consideration of neighbors' concerns with respect to
privacy, scale and massing, and streetscape, and
• Enable the emergence of new neighborhood design patterns
that reflect awareness of each property's effect upon
neighboring properties.
PALO ALTO SINGLE FMlILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES PAGE 2
B. INTENT OF THE GUIDELINES
These Guidelines and associated changes to the R-l
Single Family zone districts were developed after extensive
discussion by the "Future of Single Family Neighborhoods
Advisory Group," a diverse citizens' group representing a
variety of opinions and Palo Alto neighborhoods. Three
fundamental issues were identified by the AdvisOlY Group
and form the core of the guidelines: privacy, massing and
scale, and streetscape. A definition and policy statements
supporting each of the core issues precedes the applicable
sections of the guidelines.
The goal of the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines
is to ensure that new and remodeled two-story homes
respect their neighbors both functionally and aesthetically.
The Guidelines are intended to help maintain the unique
quality of Palo Alto neighborhoods by providing gUidance for
the sensitive treatment of privacy, massing, and streetscape
issues.
Who should use the Guidelines?
• Homeowners
• Builders, architects, and other design professionals
• Neighborhood residents
• City Staff
--. .,.~~ ----,.--~ .. -------
C. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS APPLICABILITY
These Guidelines apply to the following types of
construction:
• New two-story homes
• New second-story additions to an existing one-
story home.
• EJI.'Pansion of an existing second-stOlY that
exceeds 150 square feet.
The Individual Review process is outlined in AppendL"X A.
Please see associated material regarding the Individual
Review Process, available from the Planning Division, for a
complete explanation.
D. APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES -
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS
New two-story houses are expected to meet each of the Palo
Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. However,
if the owner, architect, or designer believes that the
techniques (possible solutions to address the intent of the
Guidelines) included in this document do not adequately
address the needs of a particular house design, they have
the opportunity as part of the Individual Review Guidelines
Checklist (see Checklist example on pages 21 and 22) to
articulate why the standard does not apply in a particular
context or provide an alternative solution that addresses the
intent of the guidelines.
PALO ALTO SINGLE FMlILY INDMDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES PAGE 3
New second-story additions or second-st01}' expansions greater
than 1 50 square feet to existing second stories will be reviewed
in the context of the magnitude of the proposed changes. As
an exam.pIe, the guideHnes relating to privacy considerations
'would typically be the pri111.ary focus of review for an expansion
to an existing second-st01}'.
The gUidelines do not prescribe a specific architectural
style or design program. Guidelines for new second-story
additions do, however, encourage sensitivity to the existing
style of the house, window patterns and roof forms.
Use of the Illustrations in the Individual Review Design
Guidelines:
• The illustrations provided in the guidelines are
schematic and intended to show the intent of the
Guidelines.
• The illustrations are not intended to dictate a
particular architectural style or design program.
PALO ALTO SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES PAGE 4
III. APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
PROCESS AND FLOWCHART
I. PRELIMINARY MEETING(S) WITH NEIGHBORS
Staff strongly recommends discussing preliminary plans with your
neighbors prior to submitting an application.
2. PRELIMINARY MEETING(S) WITH PLANNING STAFF
Prior to application you should discuss your project with
the City's planning staff. They will answer questions about
zoning regulations and the review process and explain submittal
requirements.
3. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROCESS ApPLICATION
• Notice of an "Opportunity to Comment" will be mailed to
adjacent property owners and site "posted" by applicant within
three days.
-Adjacent properties are those sharing a property line or across
the street
-Plans will be available at Development Center for review.
-Public comment period is 10 calendar days.
4. STAFF REVIEW
• Planning Division staff meets with applicant to discuss review
of the proposal
-Staff 'will have conducted R-I "plancheck," reviewed the
Guidelines checklist and neighbors comments prior to
meeting date.
-Meeting may include City's consultingarchitect(s)
• Director '5 Decision (approval, approval with conditions,
or denial) sent to applicant, adjacent neighbors and those
requesting notification.
-If there is no request for a Director's Hearing (see below),
the decision is final on the II th calendar day after it is
mailed.
5. DIRECTOR'S HEARING
• Hearing can be requested by applicant or adjacent neighbor.
PALO ALTO SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES PAGE 18
--./
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY
BUILDING ENVELOPE: Defined by side yard, front and rear yard daylight plane
and located within the buildable area as defined by the setbacks.
CONTEXT: The interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.
DAYLIGHT PLANE: A height limitation that when combined with the maximum
height limit, defines the building envelope.
DISCRETIONARY ACTION (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW): An action taken by a board
or commission which does not require approval based on meeting a set of
regulations, but rather the exercise of judgement and discretion.
ENVELOPE: The three-dimensional spatial configuration of a building's
volume and mass.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): A measurement expressed as a ratio of the house
size to the lot size which regulates the maximum size of a house and is
intended to limit the bulk and mass of the structure.
FINISHED GRADE: The revised topography that results from proposed
construction, cut or fiIl.
EXISTING GRADE: The grade prior to construction, cut or fill.
LOT COVERAGE: .!\mount of lot area that can be covered by structures,
excluding such features as paving or landscaping.
MASSING: The appearance of heaviness or weight or lack thereof.
MINISTERIAL ACTION (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW): Iri response to a specified set
of rules rather than an exercise of judgement or discretion.
PERMEABLE SURFACE: A surface that aIlows water (liquid) to pass through.
PITCH (ROOF): The slope of a roof, commonly expressed in inches of ve~tical
rise per foot of horizontal run.
SETBACK: The slope of a roof, commonly expressed in inches of vertical rise
per foot of horizontal run.
SETBACK: An area adjacent to each property line that restricts the location of
structures on a property. \Vhen combined, they define the buildable area.
SINGLE STORY HEIGHT COMBINING DISTRICT: A zone district that aIlows
modification to the site development regulations of the R-l zone district to
permit a maximum height of seventeen feet and a maximum building site
coverage of forty percent.
STREETSCAPE: A "streetscape" may he composed of a number of elements
in the front of our homes, the more public domain, including: front yard,
sidewalk, street trees, fences, street, curb, street lights, planting strips, and
driveway, which all contribute to our e~perience as we walk or drive down
the street.
STYLE: A manner of expression characteristic of an individual, a period, a
school or other identifiable group.
ZONING ORDINANCE: Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
PALO ALTO SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES PAGE 21
Attachment L
Chapter 18.14 R-l SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
Sections:
18.14.010
18.14.020
18.14.030
18.14.040
18.14.050
18.14.060
18.14.070
18.14.080
18.14.090
18.14.100
18.14.l10
Applicability of chapter.
Goals and purposes.
Definitions.
Preliminary meeting .withplanning division.
Application for individual review.
Notice.
Comment period.
Staff review.
Optional director's hearing.
Appeal to council.
Guidelines.
18.14.010 Applicability of chapter.
The provisions of this chapter apply to the construction of a new singly developed
two-story structure; the construction of a new second story; or the expansion of an existing·
second story by more than 150 square feet in the R-1 single family residential district. All
second-story additions on a site after November 19,2001 shall be included in calculating whether
an addition is over 150 square feet.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.020 Goals and purposes.
The goals and purposes of this chapter are to:
(a) Preserve the unique character of Palo Alto neighborhoods;
(b) Promote new construction that is compatible with existing residential
neighborhoods;
(c) Encourage respect for the surrounding context in which residential construction
and alteration takes place;
(d) Foster consideration of neighbors' concerns with respect to privacy, scale and
massing, and streetscape; and
( e) Enable the emergence of new neighborhood design patterns that reflect awareness
of each property's effect upon neighboring properties.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001) .
18.14.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be used as herein defined:
(a) "Adjacent properties" means those properties sharing a common boundary with
the subject property, the property or properties located directly across the street, and the next
Palo Alto Municipal Code
. )
1 •
properties located diagonally across the street from the subject property.
(b) "Director" means the director of planning and community environment or his or
her designate.
( c) "Individual review guidelines" means the standards issued by the director to
implement the provisions of this chapter.
(d) "Storyboard" means a visual depiction ofthe proposed project in its setting among
the adjacent properties.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.040 Preliminary meeting with planning staff.
Project applicants are strongly encouraged, before applying for .individual review of a
project, to meet with planning staff to discuss designing a project that promotes the goals of this
chapter and the individual review guidelines, and to discuss the proposed plans with their
neighbors.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.050 Application for individual review.
Applications for individual review shall be made to the director in the form prescribed by
the director, including an individual review checklist, and shall be accompanied by project plans.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.060 Notice.
(a) Notice of the proposed project shall be mailed to the owners and occupants of all
adjacent properties by the city within three business days of the date the application is deemed
complete. Notice shall also be posted, in the form and manner prescribed by the director, at the
site of the proposed project within the same period and for the duration ofthe comment period.
(b) Notice shall include but is not limited to the following: the name of the applicant;
the address of the proposed project; and a description of the project; and information on when
and how comments will be accepted by the city.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.070 Comment period.
The comment period shall be ten calendar days beginning on the third business day after
an application is deemed complete. If notice is mailed or posted on a later date, the comment
period shall begin on the later date. Written comments received by the city during this period
shall be considered as part ofthe staff review.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.080 Staff review.
Upon receipt of a complete application:
(a) The planning division shall review submitted plans for compliance with R-l zone
district regulations.
Palo Alto Municipal Code
(b) The planning division and a consulting architect(s) shall review the application
and comments received during the comment period and evaluate the project under the individual
review guidelines and R -1 single family residential district regulations. A written proposed
director's decision to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny it shall be
prepared. .
(c) The proposed director's decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the
owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person who has made a written request
for notice of the decision. The decision shall be accompanied by notice of the time period within
which any appeal must be filed and the procedure for filing an appeal.
(d) The proposed decision shall become final ten calendar days after it is mailed
unless a written request for hearing is filed with the director by the applicant or by the owner or
occupier of an adjacent property within that time.
( e) The time limits set forth in Section 18.14.080 may be extended upon the written
request ofthe applicant.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.090 Optional hearing with director.
(a) If a timely request for a hearing on a project is received by the city, it shall be
scheduled for the first available director's hearing.
(b) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the project applicant, the owners and
occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person who has made a written request for such
notice. Notice of the hearing shall also be posted at the site in the form required by the director
and shall remain posted up to and including the hearing date.
(c) At the time and place set for hearing the director shall hear evidence for and
against the application or its modification. The hearing shall be open to the public.
(d) The director shall issue a written decision approving, approving with conditions,
or denying the project application within ten days of the hearing. The director's decision shall be
based upon the R-1 district regulations and the individual review guidelines, taking into
consideration the application,.the commentsreceived during the public comment period and the
director's hearing, and such other evidence as the director determines to be relevant. Ifthe project
conforms to the R-1 district regulations and meets the standards set forth in the individual review
guidelines, it shall be approved.
(e) Notice of the director's decision shall be mailed to the project applicant, the
owners and occupants of all adjacent properties, and any person requesting notice of the decision.
(f) The director's decision shall be final ten calendar days after it is mailed unless,
prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an owner or occupant of
any of the adjacent properties requests review by the city council as provided in Section
18.14.100.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.100 Appeal to council.
(a) The project applicant or an owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties
may request that the city council review the director's decision. The request shall be made in
writing in the form prescribed by the director and filed with the city clerk within ten calendar
Palo Alto Municipal·Code
· .~.
days frem the date the directer's decisien is mailed.
(b) The city ceuncil shall determine whether te hear an appeal .of the directer's
decisien within thirty calendar days .or fellewing the filing .of the request, .or at the first regular
ceuncil meeting fellewing the filing .of the request, previded, hewever, the city ceuncil shall hear
the requested appeal .only if feur .or mere .of its members vete in faver .of cenducting a hearing.
( c) Ifthe city ceuncil declines the request te review the decisien, the directer's
decisien sha1,l be final. If the city ceuncil censents te hear an appeal, a hearing shall be scheduled
as seen as practicable.
(d) Netice eftime, place and subject ofthe city ceuncil hearing shall be mailed te the
project applicant, the .owners and .occupants .of all adjacent preperties and any persen who has
previeusly requested netice in writing at least twelve days prior te the hearing.
( e) The city ceuncil review shall be based en the evidentiary recerd befere the
directer.
(f) The city ceuncil shall affirm .or reverse the directer's decisien by a majerity vete
.of these participating.
(g) Netice efthe city ceuncil's decisien shall be mailed te the preject applicant, the
.owners and .occupants .of all adjacent preperties, and any persen requesting netice .of the decisien.
(h) The city ceuncil's decisien shall be final.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
18.14.110 Guidelines.
The directer .of planning and cemmunity envirenment shall issue guidelines te direct staff
and preject applicants in implementing the geals and purpeses and ether previsiens .of this
chapter. Guidelines establishing substantive review standards fer secend stery develepment shall
be presented te the planning and transpertatien cemmissien fer their cemment prier te adoptien
by the directer.
(Ord. 4717 § 2 (part), 2001)
Pale Alte Municipal Cede