HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-10 City Council (4)City of Palo Alto
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 10, 2003 CMR: 151:03
1849 WEBSTER STREET [02-IR-55]: APPEAL BY LAWRENCE
AND JEANNE AUFMUTH, 627 SEALE AVENUE, DON AND
CAROL MULLEN, 618 TENNYSON AVENUE, WALTER AND
AMANDA MOK, 639 SEALE AVENUE, PETER DANNER, 604
TENNYSON AVENUE, AND MICHAEL BRAUN, 1828 WEBSTER
STREET, OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COM-MUNITY
ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL
OF AN EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,
OWNED BY ELIZABETH AND JAIME WONG, 1849 WEBSTER
STREET, UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
PROGRAM.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal by Lawrence and
Jeanne Aufmuth, 627 Seale Avenue, Don and Carol Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue;
Walter and Amanda Mok, 639 Seale Avenue, Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue, and
Michael Braun, 1828 Webster Street, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and
Community Environment’s approval of the application for a second story addition and a
substantial remodel of an existing one story single family residence, owned by Elizabeth
and Jaime Wong, 1849 Webster Street.
BACKGROUND
The project is a second story addition and a substantial remodel of an existing one-story
single-family residence on a 20,000 square foot lot in the R-1 zone district. This lot is
larger then neighboring lots so a larger home is proposed, but the expanded house would
not exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 6,000 square feet pursuant to section
18.12.050(I) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The proposed floor area would
be 5,895 square feet, comprised of a 3,426 square foot expansion of the first floor, 2,147
square feet at the second floor, plus 322 square feet of covered second story balcony. The
existing garage would be demolished and replaced with a detached 422 square foot two-
CMR:151:03 Page 1 of 9
car garage. The neighborhood contains a variety of housing styles and a mix of single
story and two-story homes. The residence would be 25 feet, 2 inches tall, which is less
than the 30-foot maximum allowed in the R-1 zone district.
Second story additions are reviewed under the City’s Single Family Individual Review
(IR) Guidelines for compatibility with existing development, with a focus on privacy,
scale, massing, and streetscape. Prior to tentative approval of the application, adjacent
neighbors submitted letters raising concerns about massing, privacy of second story
windows and balconies, and solar shading. During the initial project review, staff
required the rear balcony to be modified with the inclusion of a half wall to increase the
privacy for the neighbor at 639 Scale Avenue. Based on detailed plan review, evaluation
of an aerial photograph, and site visits, it was staff’s conclusion that the applicant had
appropriately addressed concerns raised by the neighbors. On July 29, 2002, the
Manager of Current Planning (as designated by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment) tentatively approved the IR application.
The adjacent neighbors, concerned about privacy, massing, and solar shading, submitted
letters on August 2, 2002 requesting a Director’s Hearing in accordance with IR
procedures. Staff offered voluntary mediation to the applicant and the neighbors with the
goal of reaching an agreement prior to a Director’s Hearing. Mediation sessions between
the neighbors and the applicant were held on August 29, 2002 and September 19, 2002.
The mediation sessions did not result in an agreement and a Director’s Hearing was held
on November 21, 2002. To consider written material submitted by the adjacent neighbors
at the hearing and to accommodate neighbor’s schedules, the Hearing Officer continued
the item to the meeting of December 19, 2002. After reviewing the application and the
additional materials, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the
application on December 26, 2002.
On January 9, 2003, the following adjacent neighbors
Director’s decision:
Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth, 627 Seale Avenue
Don and Carol Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue
Walter and Amanda Mok, 639 Seale Avenue
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue
Michael Braun, 1828 Webster Street
submitted an appeal to the
DISCUSSION
The appellants’ concerns are specifically related to Guideline #1 (second-story window
placement), Guideline #2 (second-story balconies and decks), Guidelines #’s 3 and 4
(scale and height of second story additions), Guideline # 6 (sunlight orientation of new
homes and additions), Guideline #7 (roof profiles) and Guideline #9 (entry design). They
also asserted that the floor area ratio was calculated incorrectly; even using the
appellant’s methodology, the project does not exceed permitted FAR.
CMR:151:03 Page 2 of 9
Individual Review Guideline #1
Individual Review Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy
between properties." This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows,
but rather to respect the loss of privacy on adjacent sites.
The original project plans had three second-story bedroom windows on the right
elevation that would have been quite intrusive to the neighbor at 627 Seale Avenue if the
side had minimum setbacks. In this case, there is an approximately 14-foot right side
setback. To further address the appellants’ concerns, the applicants revised their plans by
eliminating two of the windows and replacing these with one clerestory window with a
sill height of six feet. The third window, located in the master bath, remained in place
and was changed to a window with obscure glass.
The proposed clerestory window will be located six feet above the floor. This location
creates a viewing angle that prevents a direct line of site and casual observance into the
adjacent neighbor’s yard.
The second story windows facing the left property line are 55 feet away from the
property line and 125 feet away from the neighboring residence. These setback distances
are sufficient to provide an appropriate level of privacy for single family dwellings in the
R-1 district.
Individual Review Guideline #2
Individual Review Guideline #2 states, "locate second story balconies or decks to
minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties." The guideline was not intended
to eliminate these architectural features but rather to be a guide for the homeowner or
architect to minimize their impacts.
The original project plans included two balconies: a large balcony with a wrought iron
railing on the rear elevation and a small one at the front left elevation by the master bath.
The small balcony overlooks the street and is also visible from 604 Tennyson, the
property to the left of the project. Because it is 89 feet from the small balcony to the
residence at 604 Tennyson, staff concluded that the balcony was acceptable as proposed.
The rear balcony did, in the opinion of staff, require modification because of the
proximity of the rear yard at 639 Seale Avenue. Techniques were discussed at the initial
review meeting to reduce the privacy loss caused by the balcony. It was ageed that the
proposed iron railing would be replaced by a stucco planter 36 inches high, similar to a
half wall, across the front of the balcony. This half wall would reduce the privacy
impacts on the rear neighbor to an acceptable level. The planter would also afford the
opportunity for the applicant to plant small shrubs or flowering plants to further reduce
the privacy impacts.
CMR:151:03 Page 3 of 9
Also proposed is a second story balcony off the master bath in the upper left corner of the
front elevation. Views from this balcony will be to the front of the property and to the
northwest. A distance of 89 feet from the edge of the balcony to the main residence
mitigates privacy impacts to the neighbor at 604 Tennyson Avenue.The existing
redwood tree in the rear yard of this neighbor also enhances privacy.
Individual Review Guideline #3 and #4
Individual Review Guideline #3 states, "be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood
scale when planning a new two-story house or addition."
Individual Review Guideline #4 states, °~be sensitive to the existing neighborhood height
pattern and particularly the height of adjacent houses when planning a second story
addition."
The project is set on a 20,000 square foot lot; the adjacent parcels range from 7,500 to
15,000 square feet. The project’s front setback of approximately 70 feet (where only 20
feet is required) reduces the visual mass and scale of the project as viewed from Webster
Street. The side and rear setbacks are also greater than the minimum requirements of the
R-1 zone district. The minimum side setback is six feet. The proposed second story
addition on the right side is stepped back behind the first story. The distance from the
side property line to the wall of the second story element is twenty feet. This distance is
equal to the required rear setback in the R-1 zone district and is 14 feet greater then the
minimum. The left side yard setback for the second story is approximately 14 feet, eight
feet geater the minimum. The minimum required rear setback for the second story is 20
feet. The wall of the second story is located approximately 31 feet away from the rear
property line.
Individual Review Guideline #6
Individual Review Guideline #6 states, "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent
neighbors’ houses and yards." This guideline was not intended to prevent any shadow
from being cast over an adjacent neighbor’s yard but rather to minimize the shadow on an
adjacent property, and to maintain solar access on the site.
The following findings enable staff to recommend a finding of consistency with this
Guideline:
At a proposed height of 25 feet, 2 inches, the building is 4 feet, 10 inches lower then
the permitted maximum height.
The City’s consulting architect, Origins Design Network, completed a solar study for
the project, analyzing the shadow impacts on adjacent properties. This study indicates
that during the summer months when the sun is at its highest elevation, the building
CMR:151:03 Page 4 of 9
would not cast any shadows on adjoining properties between 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.
After 3:00 P.M. shadows would be cast on the rear yard of 627 Seale Avenue.
Increased shadowing will occur in the winter months of November, December and
January from 9:00 A.M - 4:00 P.M. At this time of year, when the sun is lower in the
sky, the adjacent property owners will experience longer shadows in the early
morning and again in the late afternoon. The shadow of the proposed addition at this
time of year will fall on the rear yards of 618 and 626 Tennyson Avenue in the early
morning and on the rear yard of 639 Seale Avenue in the late afternoon. The adjacent
properties will not experience any solar shading for many months of the year and,
when they are shaded, it is only for the early morning and late afternoon.
An adjacent neighbor at 618 Tennyson Avenue submitted an additional solar study. This
study is more detailed and includes the shading impacts between the hours of 5:00 A.M.
- 7:00 P.M. during the summer and 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. for the winter. The results of
this solar study are similar to the solar study prepared by Origin Design Network. Both
studies indicate that the adjacent properties will have minimal solar shading for many
months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only during the early morning and late
afternoon.
The applicant has proposed a second story addition with a maximum height of 25 feet, 2
inches to minimize the shadow that would be experienced by the adjacent property
owners. The height limitation for this property is 30 feet and the proposed height of the
new residence is less then the maximum allowable. The proposed height of the building
and generous setbacks will reduce the shadow that would otherwise be cast on the
adjacent properties if the residence were built to the parameters allowed by the zoning
regulations.
RESOURCE 1MPACT
As noted by staff at the December 16, 2002 City Council study session, the IR
application fee does not cover the cost of staff time to review an IR project. If the City
Council decides to hear the appeal, additional staff time will be expended.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This recommendation does not represent changes to any existing City policies. The
Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of
the IR Guidelines. The proposal is to replace a small house on an exceptionally large lot
with a larger house which is still in scale with the neighborhood. It is a substantial
change in the development on the lot, but it results in development that is more, not less,
similar in scale when the size of the lot is taken into consideration.
In conversations with staff, the appellants have expressed concern about staff
methodology in reviewing the plans. These concerns are as follows:
CMR:151:03 Page 5 of 9
Massin~
A goal of the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines (Guidelines) is to reduce the
visual mass of a new or remodeled residence. The overall massing of new homes and
second story additions should be compatible with the adjacent houses and the
predominant neighborhood scale. The Guidelines define "massing" 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.
As stated earlier, the subject property is 20,000 square feet and is larger then than the
adjacent lots. Staff does believe that the applicant was successful in meeting.the intent of
Guideline #3 to reduce mass because the generous yard setbacks and distances between
the subject structure and neighboring structures is great enough to provide sufficient
"surrounding space" to minimize the mass reference to adjacent structures.
Floor Area Ratio Calculation
The applicant and staff calculated Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for this project in its usual
fashion, excluding Second story balconies that are not substantially enclosed from the
calculation. The appellants have questioned this method of calculation, which is
presently under review. However, in this case, the house meets the FAR limit even when
the covered second-story balcony is included. The floor area total results in a proposed
house size of 5,573 square feet. Adding the 322 square feet of covered balcony into the
total floor area of the balcony into the total results in a proposed house size of 5,895
square feet, 105 square feet less then the maximum house size of 6,000 square feet.
While the FAR provides a maximum limit for building size, the evaluation of the project
by the staff and the Director was based upon the actual proposed design of the building,
not its FAR.
Application Materials
Applications for Individual Review are made in the form prescribed by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment. While the city has a standard submitta! list, it
tries to tailor the submittal to the application to avoid unnecessary expense for the
applicant. As part of the review process, staff reviews aerial photographs and conducts
site visits to evaluate a project’s potential impact on adjacent structure(s). In this case, for
example, one of the submittal requirements is "Outline of all adjacent buildings and
structures." The purpose of this requirement is to enable staff to evaluate any negative
impacts on adjacent neighbors. The materials submitted by the applicant show the
location of adjacent structures within 30 feet from the property line. Staff used the aerial
photograph and the material submitted by the applicant to determine that the distances
between the project and structures greater then 30 feet was large enough to minimize
potential privacy and massing impacts.
CMR:151:03 Page 6 of 9
Project Description
The project does demolish more than half of the existing structure, expands the wound
floor, and adds a second story. It does retain elements of the original house and was
described by the applicant, and advertised as a second story addition. The same review
standards are applied in either case. (Single story homes are exempt from the IR process.)
The purpose of the guidelines is to minimize the impacts of second stories. Since all
neighbors had actual notice of the applicants’ plans, they were not prejudiced by the
description of the project as a second story addition.
Solar Shading
The solar study prepared by Origins Design Network depicts the shadows cast by the
project on December 22 (winter solstice and the shortest day of the year) and June 21
(summer solstice and the longest day of the year). Using these two days as the basis for a
solar study illustrates the point when the shadows cast by the project will be at their
longest and at their shortest though out the entire year. Shadows cast by the project on
any other day of the year will fall somewhere between these two extremes. As stated
earlier in this report, the adjacent properties will not experience any solar shading for
many months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only for the early morning and
late afternoon.
While staff believes that the solar studies provided sufficient information to make a
decision on this point, as part of the continuing review of the IR process, it will bring the
subject of solar studies before the Architectural Review Board for its recommendation.
Staff will update the City Council on solar studies during the City Council’s next update
of the IR process
Tree Impact of Garage
The applicant submitted two arborist reports, prepared by S.P McClenahan Co., dated
April 30, 2002 and November 6, 2002. These reports evaluate the project’s impacts and
recommend protection measures for Coast Redwoods located in the rear of the subject
property and on neighboring properties. The City Planning Arborist met the applicants’
arborist on the site to review the trees, independently evaluated the reports and agreed
that the protection measures described in the reports are adequate to protect the trees. The
Director’s decision includes conditions of approval recommend by the City Arborist to
address tree impacts prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Property Line Verification
The Building Division will require setback verification and a boundary survey before
issuance of a building permit. Again, staff tries to keep expenses to the minimum needed
to provide adequate information for a decision on the design of the building. A condition
of approval was also added to the Director’s approval requiring that a full boundary
survey be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. There is apparently a disagreement between neighbors about the location of a
CMR:151:03 Page 7 of 9
fence. This is not a matter that can be resolved by the City through this review process or
any other. Disputes concerning the location of fences are a civil matter.
Hearing Notice Posting
The IR ordinance requires a notice of the Directors’ Hearing to be posted at the site in the
form required by Director and remain posted up to and including the hearing date. The
origin!l posting indicating that an IR application had been submitted for review is still
posted on the site. Staff failed to replace the original notice with an updated notice for the
Directors’ Hearing. However, all property owners within 300 feet of the project,
including the appellants, received a mailed notice. Staff has modified review procedures
to ensure future requests for a Directors’ Hearing, on any IR application, will be posted
on the subject site.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303(a).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Approval letter with conditions, dated December 26, 2002.
Attachment B:Appeal letters from adjacent neighbors
Attachment C:Arborist Reports
Attachment D:Solar study by Origins Design Network for the City (Council Members
only)
Attachment E: Solar study by Sustainable By Design for the Appellants (Council
Members only)
Attachment F: Plans (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY:~ordan, AICP, Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
STEVE ;LIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMI
Assistant City Manager
CMR:151:03 Page 8 of 9
co:Jaime and Elizabeth Wong, 1849 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth, 627 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Don and Carol Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Walter and Amanda Mok, 639 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Michael Braun, 1828 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:151:03 Page 9 of 9
December 26, 2002
Attachment A
City of Palo Atto
Department qfi Planning an~
Community! Enviornment
Stephen Pogue, AIA
175 Avila Street
San Francisco, CA 941,~_~
Subject:1849 Webster Street, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-55
Pianmng Die.ion
On December 26, 2002, the Director of Planning and CommuniD~ Environment
conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review application 02-IR-55. This
approval was ~anted pursuant to the Palo A!to Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.14
and the .Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. The approved project is a
second story addition to an existing one-stoo~ residence.
The project site is 20,000 square feet. Existing on the site is a 3.212 square foot one story
single family residence and a 480 square foot detached garage. The maximum allowable
Floor Area for the site is 6,750 square feet. However, section !8.12.050(i) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) limits the maximum allowable house size to 6000 square
feet. The house as proposed is 5,565 square feet, 435 square fee~ less then the allowed
maximum. The detached garage is 417 square feet. The total proposed square footage for
the site is 5,982 square feet. The basement is not included in the calculation of allowable
floor area.
The adjacent property owners are concerned this project wilt impact their properties.
Their concerns are specifically related to Guideline #1 (Second-story window placement),
Guideline #2 (Second-story balconies and decks), Guideline ’-’".~,~ (The scale of new homes
and additions), and Guideline # 6 (Sunlight orientation of new homes and additions).
Objections have also been raised by adjacent propertT owners concerning the accuracy of
the topo~aphic map submitted by the applicant, disageement on the location of the
property boundaries between the subject propem%y and adjoining neighbors, and contention
concerning potential impacts on protected redwood trees located on adjacem properties.
These issues are not applicable or germane to the Individual Review process and are more
appropriately addressed during the normal review of a building permit. Conditions have
been added to this approval that these issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of staff
prior to the issuance of a building permit
The subject property is much larger then adjacent properties. The lot is 100 feet wide and
200 feet deep. Due to the depth of the lot, seven properties share boundaries with the
subject parcel. The existing house is located predominantly in the rear half of the lot with
a street setback of approximately 70 feet and a rear setback of approximately 23 feet. The
lef~ side setback is 15’-8" and the right side setback is 14’-6". The project wi!l increase
the rear setback to approximately 28 ’-9", other setbacks wil! remain the same.
proposed setbacks exceed those required in the R-1 zone district.
~0 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10~0
P~io Alto. CA 9~03
650.329.2’_~ii
650.329.21~
1849 Webster Street
December 26, 2002
Page 2
Staff and the City’s consulting architect have confirmed the project to be in conformance
with the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. Staffused the applicant’s
project plans and other submittal material as well as aerial photogaphs and site visits to
make this determination. The following information has been provided to explain staff s
recommendation for the approval of this application.
Second-story Window Placement
Individual Review Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy
between properties". This ~m.tideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows,
but rather to "minimize" the toss of privacy on adjacent sites. The Guidelines define
privacy 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". It should
be ac -knowledged and understood that absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation in an
urban setting. It is only expected that privacy intrusions attributed to new development
are to be minimized and that applicants make a good faith effort to do so when desi~fing
a project.
Privacy impacts from second story windows may be exasperated on smaller lots with
minimum setbacks. It has been an accepted practice and interpretation of Guideline #1
that increased setbacks can minimize and mitigate privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors.
The second story windows are located 20 feet from the right side property line. The
original project plans received on July 17, 2002 did feature three second-story bedroom
windows on the right elevation that could have been a privacy impact to an adjacent
property if the side setbacks had been smaller. However, it was staffs interpretation that
this impact was reduced and mitigated by the large right side setback. To address an
adjacent neighbor’s concern that these windows could still have a negative impact on
their privacy, the applicant submitted revised plans, received on November 6, 2002,
eliminating two of the windows and replacing these w-ith one clerestory- v~qmdow with a
sill height of six feet. The third window, located in the master bath, remained in place
and was changed to a window with obscure glass.
The likelihood of anyone loo ~king out the clerestory window is minimal and does not
provide the oppommity for casual observance of the neigahbors rear yards. A tall person
would have to be standing at the window and loo "king down to view the adjacent rear
yards.
The second story windows facing the left property line are 55 feet away- from the property
line and 125 feet away from the neighboring residence. These setback distances, in effect,
will mitigate the privacy impacts.
Second-story Balconies
Individual Review Guideline #2 states, "locate second story balconies or decks to
minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties." The purpose of the guideline is
to minimize the privacy impacts of second sto~, decks. The guideline was not intended to
1849 Webster Street
December 26, 2002
Page 3
prevent construction of balconies. Increase of privacy is suggested in this guideline.
Methods include installing screening devices such as trellises or awnings, incorporating
architectural elements such as enc!osing walls, or locating the balcony in a location to
avoid direct sight lines to neighbor’s main windows or patio areas. The original project
plans included a balcony with a wrought iron railing on the rear elevation. During the
initial review with the applicant and their architect, it was a~eed that this could decrease
the privacy of the rear properties and techniques were discussed to decrease the privacy
loss caused by the balcony on the neighboring propert), to the northwest. It was proposed
and ageed on for the iron railing to be removed and replaced by a stucco planter that
would perform similar to a half wall across the front of the balcony. The function of this
half wall would minimize the privacy impacts of the rear neighbor. The planter would
also afford the oppommi~; for the applicant to plant small shrubs or flowering plants to
further reduce the privacy impacts.
There is also a proposed second story balcony off of the master bath in the upper left
comer of the front elevation. The views from this balcony will be to the front of the
property and to the northwest. Privacy impacts to the neighbor at 604 Tennyson Avenue
are mitigated by a distance of 89 feet from the edge of the balcony to the main residence
and the privacy inducing benefits of the existing redwood tree in the rear yard of this
neighbor.
Mass and Scale
Individual Review Guideline #3 states, "be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood
scale when planning a new- two-story house or addition. Eve~~ application submitted as
part of the Individual Review Process has required staff to make an individual assessment
of a project’s relationship to the predominant neighborhood mass and scale. Each
application has a tmique, existing situation that can be attributed to varying lot sizes,
setbacks, building heights, and lot configuration. As noted, the subject project is 20,000
square feet. A large house on a large lot with generous setbacks in and of itself is less of
a mass and scale issue from a visual standpoint then that which occurs when a relatively
large house is constructed on a small lot with minimum setbacks.
The visual impact of a projects relative mass and scale can be mitigated and minimized in
a number of ways. The Individual Review g~aidelines offer some techniques to reduce
impacts of a projects mass and scale on the neighboring properties, such as reduced
building heights and increased setbacks. The proposed project is a second story addition
to an existing single story structure. The location of the structure will remain the same.
The existing front setback of approximately 70 feet (where only 20 feet is required) will
minimize the visual mass and scale impacts as they relate to the streetscape. The side and
rear setbacks are also geater then the minimums. The minimum side setback in the R-1
zone district is six feet. The proposed second story addition on the right side is stepped
back behind the first story. The distance from the side property line to the wall of the
second story element is twenb feet. This distance is equal to the required rear setback in
the R-1 zone district and is 14 ~eater then the minimum. The left side yard setback for
the second sto~~ is approximately 14 feet, eight feet ueater the minimum. The minimum
1849 Webster Street
December 26, 2002
Page 4
required rear setback for the second story is 20 feet. The wall of the second story is
located approximately 31 feet away from the rear property line.
Sunlight Orientation
Individual Review-Guideline #6 states, "respect the solar orientation of the adjacent
neighbors’ houses and yards." This ~deline was not intended to prevent any shadow
from being cast over an adjacent neighbor’s yard but rather to minimize the shadow on an
adjacent property, and to maintain solar access on the site. Two separate solar studies
have been completed depicting the solar shading resulting from the construction of the
proposed addition.
The City’s consulting architect, Origins Desig~ Network, completed the first study. This
study depicts the project impacts for both the winter and summer solstice (June 22 and
November 2), days of the year where the shadows would be at their least, and ~eatest
extent. During the summer months when the sun is at its highest elevation, the shadows
cast by the addition would be entirely on the subject site through the hours of 9:00 A.M. -
3:00 P.M. After 3:00 P.M. shadows would be cast on the rear yard of 627 Seale Avenue.
Increased shadowing will occur in the winter months of November, December and
January. At this time of year, when the sun is lower in the sky, the adjacent property
owners will experience longer shadows in the early morning and again in the late
afternoon. This additional shadow will only be experienced at certain times of the day.
The shadow of the proposed addition at this time of year will fall on the rear yards of 618
and 626 Tennyson in the early morning and on the rear yard of 639 Seale in the late
afternoon. The adjacent properties will not experience any solar shading for many
months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only for the early morning and late
afternoon.
An adjacent neighbor submitted a second solar study analyzing the projects shading
impacts for both the winter and summer months. This study is more detailed and includes
the shading impacts between the hours of 5:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. during the summer and
7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. for the summer. Early in the morning during the summer the
shadows will be cast on the rear yard of 618 Tennyson Avenue. By 9:00 A.M. these
shadows will have shortened and will fall predominantly on the subject propert3;.
Shadows will not be cast off the property until 4:00 P.M when the rear of the yard to the
east will be shadowed. During the winter when the shadows are longer, portions of the
rear yard of the property at 618 Tennyson Avenue will be shadowed from 7:00 A.M.-
Noon. Shadows will remain on the subject site until 2:00 P.M. when the rear yard at 639
Seale Avenue will receive some shadowing until 5:00 P.M. This study, while more
detailed, still indicates that the adjacent properties will have minimal solar shading for
many months of the year and, when they are shaded, it is only during the early morning
and late afternoon.
The applicant has proposed a second sto~ addition with a maximum height of 25’-2" to
minimize the shadow that would be experienced by the adjacent property owners. The
height limitation for this property is 30 feet and the proposed height of the new residence
1849 Webster Street
December 26, 2002
Page 5
is less then the maximum allowable. The proposed height of the building and large
setbacks v,411 reduce the shadow that would otherwise be cast on the adjacent properties if
the residence were built to the parameters allowed by the zoning regulations.
CONI)ITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
Planning
The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans dated
November 6, 2002, except as modified by these conditions of approval.
A copy of this approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building
permit.
o Final plans submitted for building permit must conform to all building and zoning
regmlations.
The building permit plans shall include a table listing the percent enclosed of each
covered exterior porch, breezeway, portico, and other similar features. Any area
in excess of 50% enclosed and covered shall be added to the calculation of goss
floor area.
5.The floor plans submitted for building permit shall be dimensioned.
6.A boundary survey shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Arborist
A revised Arborist condition report and Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall address
the following issues:
Revise the report to reference by number all re~o~lated trees (street trees and
protected trees, which may be impacted by the project).
Revise the report to reflect accurate tree diameter and extend of canopy drip
line of all Regulated Trees.
For the new- driveway extension foundation and garage floor, provide
recommendations to minimize negative effects from ~ading, base material
and wearing surface.
For protection of rega~lated trees during the course of demolition, construction
and cleanup phase.
1849 Webster S~ree~
September !9, 2002
Page 6
The site plan shall include the follov~ing information:
o All information from Condition # 7 from the TTP (tree reference number,
accurate diameter, canopy spread, etc.).
o Tree protection zone (TPZ) for each tree as referenced in the CiD’ ofPato ,aAto
Tree Technical Manual shall be show~n as a bold dashed line.
o Include the following notes speci .fTing:
For re~tlated trees: "Protected trees-contact with the project arborist is
required before working in the area. See sheet "
To ensure protection of major roots greater then two inches, the garage
foundation shall spec~ pier and grade beam construction. The beam shall
not require grade cuts more than 4-inches below existing grade. ,amy soils
report submitted shall be reviewed and approved by the Building
Inspections Division.
Grading for garage floor material shall not exceed 4-inches cut below
existing grade.
o Plan set shall provide a Tree Preservation Sheet containing the follov~d_ng:
The revised arborist’s Condition Report and TPP including lang-uage
requiring monthly monitoring inspection summaries faxed to the Planning
Arborist at 650-329-2154.
The Ci~ of Yalo Alto Tree Technical Manual shall be on the job site at all
times.
The Director’s decision shall be final ten calendar days from December 30, 2002, 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 Chapter
18.14.100 of the PA_MC.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this
approval. In the event that there is an appeal to Cit).’ Council, an additional letter wdll be
mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before the Ci~~ Council.
Should you have an?, questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call
Christopher A. Riordan, Planner. at (650) 329-2149.
Sincerely,
Amy French
Manager of Current Planning
Jaime & Elizabeth Wong
Lawrence & Hillary Le~5~
Walter Mok
Peter Darmer
1849 Webster Street
December 26, 2002
Page 7
Ronald Howard
Thomas & Elinor Ovenshine
Don & Caro! Mullen
Leslie & Judith Denend
Alec & Minta Hsu
Newton & Adeline
Michael & Leslie Braun
Carol Harrington
CP&R Services
Attachment B
To:
From:
Palo Alto City Council
Lawrence and Jeanne Auftnuth
627 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Appeal of Planning Director’ s Decision
1849 Webster Street
Single family Individual review
02-IR-55
Date: January 7, 2003
We seek your review of the Planning Director’s Decision in the above referenced matter.
Though we believe that the specific project should be rejected for its failure to minimally
comply with the Palo Alto Single Family Review Guidelines, we believe that this project
offers the City Council the opportunity to make significant and substantive
contributions to the Single Family Review Process.
The record is well developed as to why this specific project fails to minimally meet the
Guidelines and our Presentations address many of these issues.
More importantly, the record details significant unanswered Review Process Issues,
which, by default, have been fleshed out by the Applicant’s behavior and the Planning
Department’s passive acquiescence. We attach our origina! Presentation to the Director’s
Hearing which details 8 of those Process Issues. Our Supplemental Presentation (copy
also attached) addresses an additional process issue--the ability of the Planning
Department and the Applicant to constantly change the plans during the Hearing process
so that the neighbors can never catch up!
You began your work with the Ordinance (PAMC section 18.!4.010 .et. seq.), which we
al! know emerged from many hours of debate. You now have the opportunity to fill in
all the gaps and set the definitive direction. Though our bias is clear from our
Presentations, we implore you to hear this case even if it is your ultimate decision to fred
against us on all points. You owe it to yourselves and the people of the City of Palo Alto
to ordain either that the Single Family Review Guidelines will be left to check the box
applicant self-policing or that the Single Family Review Guidelines will have real
meaning for this community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth
Presentation
Of
Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth
(627 Seale Avenue)
To
DIRECTORgS HEARING~1849 WEBSTER STREET
November 7, 2002," 3.00 PM
I.Introduction
Lawrence and Jeanne Aufrnuth ("Aufrnuths") reside at 627 Scale Avenue ("Aufi’nuths’
Home"). The rear property line of Aufmuths’ Home abuts the back half of the eastern
side yard of the property located at 1849 Webster Street. The Aufmuths have resided at
627 Scale since 1984. Their home was the first home built in the Scale tract, having been
built by Pedro De Lemos for his sister and her family. Through several different owners,
its architectural integrity has been preserved and all additions have been carefully
desi~maed to fit the site and blend with the original structure. Thus, the immediate
neigdabor is proof positive that one can fully use the available land in with a single story
structure that maintains the architectural integrity of a well designed home. The existing
home at 1849 Webster Street is a Steadman designed home, and fits well into its heritage
surroundings and with careful planning could achieve the same result.
This Presentation is being submitted at the above referenced Director’s Hearing in
opposition to the two story residence proposed to be built on the 1849 Webster Street
property (the project is hereinafter referred to as "1849 Webster").
II.History of Proceedings
The Notice of"Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street", originally dated June 21, 2003
("First Notice"), was received by Aufmuths on Monday or Tuesday June 24 or 25. That
Notice gave until Monday July 1 to file any objections and indicated that 1849 Webster
was "a new two-story single family residence." With July 4 falling mid-week, the
weekend preceding July 4 week was a major holiday weekend for many. Thus, any
objections had to be timely addressed in a space of four business days. The Aufmuths
filed a written objection to 1849 Webster, a copy of which is attached and incorporated
herein.
The lot at 1849 Webster Street is 20,000 sq. ft., being 100 feet wide along Webster Street
and 200 feet deep. There are seven contiguous properties, five of the owners of which
have expressed written opposition to 1849 Webster, and all of whom participated in the
first round of mediation regarding 1849 Webster. Those expressing opposition were
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue, who has lived in his home for more than thirty
years, Lawrence and Hillary Levy, 1875 Webster Street, Amanda and Walter Mok, 639
Scale Avenue, and Carol and Don Mullen, 618 Tennyson Avenue. Copies of those
written protests are attached hereto and incorporated herein. Of the other two contiguous
homeowners, one has been out of the country during substantially all of the process (flag
lot accessible from Tennyson Avenue) and the other has remained uninvolved as their lot
is visually protected from 1849 Webster by redwood trees and their own garage on the
rear of their lot.
A second Notice of"Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street", dated July 9, 2002
("Second Notice") was received by the Aufmuths stating that 1849 Webster had now
become "a second story addition to an existing single-story, single family residence."
Comments were invited but no deadline was given as to when the comment period
terminated for this Second Notice and there was no indication as to whether the First
Notice was now null and void, superseded, or suspended. At the very least, the different
Notices raise questions as to what is 1849 Webster--a "new" house or an "addition"?
A neighborhood meeting of some of the home owners opposing 1849 Webster and Chris
Riordan from the Palo Alto Planning Department was held on July 25 ("Neighborhood
Meeting"). Revised plans for 1849 Webster were submitted on July 17 and on Jul’: 29
the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the revised
plans.
On August 2, 2002, Aufrnuths requested a Director’s Hearing as provided by Chapter
18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC"). Two mediation sessions were held
(August 29 and September 19). The issues surrounding 1849 Webster remain
unresolved. The matter of approval for 1849 Webster is now before the Planning Director
for decision.
HI. Applicable Law
The law applicable to 1849 Webster was adopted effective November 19, 2001 and is the
outgrowth of substantial public debate about and criticism of monster homes. The issues
associated with such homes continue to be at the forefront of public debate--Menlo Park
is considering an ordinance similar to Palo Alto’s (but more restrictive as to daylight
plane); see "Super-sizing the American Home", San Jose Mercury, October 20, 2002,
page 1 P, which prominently pictures a Palo Alto pink "monster house". PAMC 18.14 is
au~m~nented by the "Palo Alto Single Family Individual review Guidelines"
("Guidelines"), prepared by the City of Palo Alto Planning Division, pursuant to the
authority ofPAMC 18.14.110.
PAMC Chapter 18.14.090 states that the director shall hear evidence for and against the
application. This presentation is in opposition to 1849 Webster. The director’s decision
is to take into consideration the comments received during the public comment period
and the director’s hearing (i.e., this presentation), and such other evidence as the director
determines to be relevant. An appeal from the director’s decision is discretionary with
the City Council and is based solely on the record presented at the director’s hearing.
Thus, this presentation will address a!! issues with respect to 1849 Webster in an effort to
convince the director to deny the application, and to establish the record for any appeal to
the City Council that mig.ht follow the director’s decision.
IV. Importance of this Hearing
This hearing presents the Director with an ideal opportunity to address significant
unanswered questions with respect to the process for approval under the new ordinance
3
and the Guidelines, correct what appear to be debilitating deficiencies, and in the specific
case of 1849 Webster, to address all of the fundamental questions generated by proposing
a super-size home in one of the oldest, most architecturally diverse neighborhoods of
substantially smaller homes in Palo Alto. The Guidelines make this point rather
empathically: "two-story homes have greater potential to significantly affect the
privacy of adjacent homeowners and the perceived sense of neighborhood scale."
(Emphasis added)
PAMC
0
0
18.14.020 clearly spells out the goals that the director is to achieve:
Preserve the unique character of the Seale, Webster, Tennyson neighborhood;
Promote new construction on 1849 Webster that is compatible with the
contiguous neighbors;
Respect the surrounding context of the contiguous homeowners;
Foster consideration of the neighbors concerns with respect to privacy and scale
and massing; and
Enable designs that reflect awareness of each propert)~’s effect upon the
neighbors.
PAMC 18.14 has changed the rules for two story design approval. PAMC 18.14 has
brought the neighbors into the process, has ordained that the impact on their homes and
yards must now be considered, and has given the neighbors rights to object, opportunities
to be heard and presumably listened to. PAMC 18.14 has set the Planning Department
off into uncharted waters and 1849 Webster offers an opportunity to chart the course for
others to follow. This hearing offers an opportunity to address some fundamental process
issues and must also address the meaning and application of the Guidelines to a specific
project in a specific neighbor hood. We will address first the process issues and then the
specifics of the Guidelines.
We respectfully request the director to address the following process issues, or if
unwilling to do so, to so state in the written decision [PAMC 18.14.090(d)], so that the
matters can be addressed by the City Council. The process issues are presented in the
order of the process and not necessarily in the order of importance.
1)Notice: The timelines of mailing correct notices should be addressed. It
seems inappropriate to send a notice likely to arrive before what is
traditionally a long and generally used summer holiday--July 4. There should
be clearer guidelines to insure that affected parties have a reasonable
opportunity to view the plans, collect their thoughts, prepare written
comments and submit them. If a corrected Notice is sent, it should be clear
what it is correcting, why, what impact this has on comments already
submitted, and whether it extends the comment period. The Notice should
include a copy of the Guidelines and an affirmative statement as to who
will enforce the Guidelines.
4
Pre-notice Neighbor Contact: The whole focus of PAMC 18.14 is neighbor
involvement. The first neighbor contact should not be the Notice from the
Planning Department or the presumed visual notice that might occur by
happening onto the ’~otice" posted in the plantings in front of the project.
Appendix A of the Guidelines "strongly recommends discussing preliminary
plans" with the neighbors. The Guidelines should be modified to require
that the applicant contact all contiguous neighbors prior to submitting an
application and that this be attested to under penalty of perjury by the
applicant. If the applicant is unwilling to contact the neighbors in advance, or
where there is no evidence that the applicant has had any contact with the
neighbors with respect to the project, the review time/comment period should
be doubled or even tripled.
3)Plan Review: Copies of the plans should be available to any contiguous
neighbors who request them. Forcing them to be viewed at the
Development Center during Development Center business hours forces people
to take time off work on little notice, hopefully arrive in a non-busy time, fred
the plans available and review them in a relatively cramped environment. If a
f’ast review raises questions they wish to have their own expert address, the
logistics are repeated for the hired professional. The copying costs could
easily be shared by the party requesting the plansJbut more truly should be
part of the application process. The architects copyright could be protected by
proper stamping of each page, making copies other than to scale, or a host of
other methods.
4)Surveys: When an applicant’s plans show on their face that they are
proposing moving existing fences to claim purported new survey boundaries,
the applicant should be required to provided a notarized written consent
from the affected property owners, or alternatively, provide an
independent complete boundary survey by a licensed engineer, provide
copies to the affected neighbors and notice that they are claiming property not
obvious from the existing fences--which in this case date some thirty years.
Enforcement: The Planning Department must once and for all make clear
who is responsible for enforcing PANIC 18.14 and the Guidelines. This
early on became a major issue of discussion among the neighbors opposing
1849 Webster. At the Neighborhood Meeting, Mr. Riordan stated
unequivocally that it was not the Planning Department’s job to enforce the
Guidelines, it was the neighbors. At a subsequent Mediation, he stated the
opposite. The Notice should unequivocally state whose job it is to enforce the
Guidelines.
6)City Affirmative Enforcement: If the Planning Department is the body to
enforce PAMC 18.14 and the Guidelines, then affirmative action must be
undertaken, none of which was done with respect to 1849 Webster. For
example, when a neighbor complains about si~nificant invasion of privacy, a
Planning Department site visit should be required. When daylight plane,
shading, and solar orientation issues are raised, the applicant should be
required to obtain a shading study similar to the studies referenced later
herein. When protected trees are left offplans, the arborist should be brought
in or a new arborist report should be required. When mass and scale issues
are raised, story poles should be required and the Planning department
should view the site with them in place. When it is clear that buildings on
adjacent properties have been left off site plans, they should be required to be
redrawn and the notice/comment period restarted once the plans are available.
When no Storyboard is prepared as part of the plans (as was the case with
1849 Webster) it should be required and the notice/comment period restarted.
When a project pushes the envelope on square footage and maxes out on the
FAR and is loaded with balconies, external stairways, walk~,ays, etc., the
FAR should be required to be verified by an independent consultant. If
the FAR is based on aggressive interpretations of unclear rules, it should be so
stated and a forum for resolving rule ambiguities established.
PAMC 18.14.110 is unequivocal in stating that the Guidelines were issued to
"direct" (to make certain; to insure; to give authoritative instructions to) staff
and applicants in implementing the goals and purposes of the ordinance. The
Guidelines themselves state that their goal is "to ensure" that 1849 Webster
respects its neighbors both functionally and aesthetically. Nothing in the
entire process of 1849 Webster has evidenced that staff has made any efforts
to fulfill these mandates. On the contrary, the distinct impression is of an
attitude of passive acquiescence to the entire ordinance. The director should
issue a mandate demanding tighter adherence to the Guidelines.
7)Mandatory Site Visit: The entire focus of PAMC 18.14 and the Guidelines is
the neighborhood and the neighbors who inhabit it. For the Planning
Department to rely on a check-the-box form completed by the applicant or the
applicants hired professionals (See Appendix B to Guidelines) as the sole
enforcement mechanism suggest that the Planning Department has
surrendered its responsibility. Once there are objections, the Planning
Department should be required to visit the site and view the project from
the neighbors’ perspective.
.8)Neighbors’ Future Enforcement: There were changes made to the original
plans in response to the neighbors opposition which we believe were required
by the Planning Department. Additional changes are being made and will
probably be presented at the director’s hearing. As these changes are made to
comply with the guidelines and are for the neighbors’ benefit, what future
enforcement remedies are available to the neighbors? Should not the
changes be spelled out in a fmal approval document, related to the Guidelines
by number or generally, expressed to be for the benefit of the neighbors and in
a public document or recorded form so they could be enforced in the future?
This would prevent changes post f’mal permit issuance that could all but
nullify the original approval--changes that could later be processed without
any neighbor involvement.
VI. Guideline Issues
We believe that 1849 Webster fails to meet significant minimum requirements of the
Guidelines. As noted in Paragraph V.6. above, we believe the Guidelines are not mere
platitudes, but are authoritative instructions to be followed by the Planning Department to
insure that our privacy is maintained and that the massing of 1849 Webster is compatible
with our home and those of our neighbors. We have the following specific objections to
1849 Webster. We have presented them in the order of the Guidelines and not
necessarily in order of importance.
Privacy Guidelines #1 and #2 address the fundamental issue of privacy.
"The Guidelines expect that" 1849 Webster "will be sensitive to privacy for ...
the adjacent neighbors." Staffwas supposed to "provide a reasonable level of
privacy" for our home ’by reducing the oppommities for individuals to be
casually observed by others when engaging in activities within or around" our
home and to minimize intrusions on" our "primary patio and outdoor living areas.
The original plans violated these principles with abandon, a fact that would have
been readily obvious had an accurate site plan been prepared showing the location
of our home, garden, patio, hot tub and other outdoor living areas. Minor window
changes were made, presumably in response to our objections, changes which we
viewed for the first time at the first mediation. On November 3 we were shown a
further revision in drawing form ("11/3 Drawing"), but are uncertain whether this
is the current plan that is before the director for decision.
1)Guideline # 1: The privacy concerns we originally addressed are repeated
here. If the 11/3 Drawing is now the planmtwo windowsml obscure glass
and 1 clerestory--it is an improvement. However, without some enforcement
mechanism as described in item V. 8. above, insuring that there will never be
¯ changes in the window sizes, locations and glass without our consent, we are
left with no remedy for furore window changes that would impinge our
privacy.
2)Guideline # 2: The second story rear balcony of the proposed structure
remains of concern to us as it continues to provide direct sight lines into our
hot tub, patio, garden and hammock. Eliminating the balcony or recessing it
to make it impossible to look into our property would resolve this issue.
Mass and Scale Guidelines #3 through #7 are designed to insure that "the
overall massing" of t 849 Webster is "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," 1849 Webster "may require
some special attention to reduce the massing and perceived sense of bulk." The
7
largest single failure of the Planning Department in the review and approval
of 1849 Webster is the failure to address the mass and scale of 1849 Webster.
One would have though that upon being presented with 1849 Webster, someone
in Planning would have brou~t some of the "special attention" called for in the
Guidelines. Planning persormel must be familiar with the "predominant block
pattern" of the adjacent homes (or with a short walk could have made themselves
familiar). Every objecting neighbor has challenged 1849 Webster’s mass and
scale which should also have been a call for the special attention required by
the Guidelines, but none has been evidenced in any part of this process. The
Planning Department’s specia! attention can best be summed up in Chris
Riordan’s words as quoted in the Palo Alto Weekly: "It’s a big !or, which allows
for bigger homes." We have attached a before-and-after visual portrayal of the
imposing mass and scale that we will endure for the rest of our days at Seale
Avenue if 1849 Webster is approved. (Note: The attached photos assume that the
11/3 Drawing is the plan up for approval--the plan as approved is even more
massive, visua!ly intrusive, and lacking in any architectural detail--basically a
BIG BLANK WALL.) The daytime image ~aphically how 1849 Webster will
be in our faces for life as our entire outdoor living area is oriented toward this
view. At nighttime, 1849 Webster will serve as a beacon to illuminate the
contiguous neiglabors which is as much an invasion of privacy as people peering
out the overabundant windows.
3)Guidelines # 3 and 4: These Guidelines raise the fundamental question as
to why this home has to be two-story and if it is going to be two-story,
why such a large second story, and why is the second story not centered
in the middle of the lot? The lot is so large that the entire 6000 sq. ft. can be
accommodated in a single story design--"incorporating a height that is
consistent with the neigaaborhood patterns" (Guideline 4) and "reduce plate
height of second-story walls by "clipping" ceilings to allow typical ceiling
height without increasing plate height" (Guideline 4). This would avoid all
neigahbor involvement, would permit the preservation of the character of the
neighborhood, and could lead to a geater preselwation of the Steadman
designed home presently in place. Though the Guidelines state that "the
second-story threshold is not meant to discourage two-story homes", this is
the one instance where a little discouragement is certainly appropriate. There
is no reason a two story home needs to built or why the second story
needs to be as big as proposed--this is SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FEET
FOR TWO PEOPLE!! This is a three bedroom home where the surrounding
homes are less than half this size, contain far more livable space and in the
case of the Aufmuths, do so in a single story! If 1849 Webster has to be two-
story, why not make the second story significantly smaller? Why not put it in
the center of the lot? The courtyard/pool area the home is designed to
surround is completely in shade year round--see shade studies attached--so
placing the home squarely on the lot seems practical. If the applicant must
have 6000 sq. ft., put much more on the pound floor, "place the second sto~’
4)
toward the center of the property" (Guideline 3) and "set the second story
back from the front of the house" (Guideline 3).
Guideline # 6: We reiterate the complete and utter disregard of Guideline
# 6. Our entire outdoor use of our property is focused on our patio, hot tub
area, hammock and large garden. Our perimeter fence is lined with several
varieties of red raspberries, blackberries, boysenberries, black raspberries, and
yellow raspberries, which we have carefully and patiently cultivated for over
17 years and enjoyed every year. Our raised beds provide fresh produce from
March though November. Our five variety apple tree makes for pies, sauce,
tarte tartin and picked-from-the-tree eaters. Our orange tree thrives in the
winter sun, producing great juice daily in the late winter and early spring. A
substantial amount of our normal sunlight will be eliminated year round by
this structure--see the shading studies provided courtesy of the Mullens and
attached hereto. Our summer patio evenings will end around 4:30 in the
afternoon as our sun disappears for the day,. 1849 Webster will materially
adversely impact our use of our property and the splendid gardens we have
carefully cultivated and enjoyed over the 18 years we have lived here. We fai!
to understand how the City of Palo Alto could believe that the proposed
structure "respects the solar orientation of our house and yard" (Guideline 6).
There is no justification for destroying our use of our home so the
applicant can build a THREE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT SECOND-
STORY, a second story that need not be built at all (the lot is big enough
to accommodate the structure on one-story), or need not be built that big in
that place on that huge lot. This is also a clear example of why the Planning
department should require a shading study be done by the applicant as a
precondition to submitting an application.
Guideline # 7: We remain opposed to the proposed roof lines, though the
11/3 Drawing did soften the pointed roof at one end. We are also concerned
about the color of the tiles, the different roof materials, and the stucco, each of
which could easily exacerbate an already questionable design. The City
should require "old" color tiles as opposed to the "new red" and non-glaring
soft stucco.
6)Guideline # 9: The entrance way, and front faqade looks as though the
applicant wandered the neighborhood or the architectural magazines and
selected numerous features that are then cobbled together into a hodgepodge
of features that cannot be considered "desirable elements" (Guideline 9).
Based on the objections detailed herein, we request that the Director reject the plans for
1849 Webster and address the process issues we have raised.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth.
9
Re: Proposed plans for 1849 Webster St.
I must voice strenuous objection to several features of the residence planned
for 1849 Webster Street. Since I recog-nize that beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, I will try to refrain from aesthetic pronouncements and simply
address the three points outlined in your Review Guidelines sent June 21.
1. Privacy. The privacy of our back yard would be immediately impaired by a
balcony off the second-story master bath, which directly overloo "ks our raised
back terrace, a feature that doesn’t appear on the current site plan. It would
also be seriously impacted by the replacement of a fence along the entire
length of our back property line with the destruction of its existing screening,
including a row of maturing Catalina cherry trees, clematis vines and other
vegetation. This is apparently for the sake of realignment. Over the past 32
years, the two prior owners of 1849 Webster saw no reason to question the
alignment of that fence.
2. Mass and Scale. While the !or is large and the building set well back from
the street, the side elevations overwhelm the adjacent properties, most
notably the neighbors at 1875 Webster, who happen to have a pool on that
side of their back yard. We would be forced to look at a massive blank
overhang (for the sake of two walk-in closets) flanked by two faux columns. It
is only a matter of time before someone decided to add windows to that
overhang, because the master bedroom will tack light and cross ventilation.
3. Streetscape. The existing building is a single-story Stedman home with
shingle roof that nestles comfortably beneath a deciduous oak. This would be
replaced by an overweight building of mixed styles (witness the two wrought
iron railings on the second story balconies) and dubious architectural merit. It
is certainly not compatible with the current structure, nor those on either side
of it. It is, frankly, pretentious. What is that circular vestibule if not
pretentious?
For the past 12 years, my family and I have suffered the continual disruption
of noise, dirt, traffic, and visual pollution from the replacement of every
house in our proximity: 568 Tennyson, 595 Tennyson, 611 Tennyson, 619
Tennyson, 1755 Webster, 1800 Webster, 1828 Webster. Many of these
replacement homes are clearly out of keeping with your three review
guidelines: ~t is time to say no to this cycle of ostentation.
Sincerely,
Peter Danner
604 Tennyson Ave.
875 V4ebster S~reet
Palo Alto, CA S4301
Fax: 650 32~J 1112
June 30, 2002,
Christopher Riordan
City of Palo Alto
Department ofPIanning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: 1849 Webster Street
Dear Mr. Riordan:
We own the Webster Street house next to 1849 Webster Street and are writing
in response to the request for feedback on the proposed renovation of this
property,. Following an initial discussion with the Wongs about the project, we
have some questions regarding hove to accomplish the various goals given the
large size of the proposed home.
In particular, the development has a potential impact in the following areas:
I. The general mass of the house---it wilt, we believe, be the largest home in
the immediate vicinity;
2. The impact on neighborhood privacy and placement and treatment of second
floor windows--the proposed second sto~’ will overlook our backyard, pool and
back bedrooms; and
3. The overall neighborhood compatibility of the design--this is difficult to
determine from the drawings but the existing home has a definite character and
u~lg~, that has been s gnmcant to this area.
Please let us know if we can provide further information.
Thank you very much,
erely,
Hilla~- B~ok .
Dear Mr. Riordan:
This is the comment of Don and Carol Mutlen,
618 Tennyson Avenue, on the proposed addition to the house by our new
neighbors at 1849 Webster.
We have reviewed the submitted designs in the Development Center, and we
have the following objections to the plan:
1 ) The topo map is inaccurate, certainly with regard to our property, in
several ways. It does not show all affected structures in neighboring yards,
such as our rear patio and gazebo.
2) The proposed house is quite massive and obtrusive in design. It is within a
phone booth’s size of the absolute limit for house size in Palo Alto. The lot at
1 849 Webster is much larger the neighboring lots, but this large lot will not
provide an adequate buffer for the light and privacy of the neighboring houses,
because this proposed expansion is all sited at the rear of the lot.
Because this expansion would be two stories in height, this 6000 sq. ft: house
will be as intrusive as if were built on a flag lot of 12,000 square feet. It is
nearly triple the size of the existing house, has second-floor porches, and a
large pop-out bay which essentially extend the house.
3) The materials and the patchwork design will make it look even more out of
scale than it is. The house is presently dark red brick with a shake roof. It is
Category 4 on the City’s Register of Historic Homes. The new design is no
recognizable style; it seems to call for painted stucco and red tile, and
incorporates detailing from disparate and unconnected styles.
4) The open porches on the second storey look directly into the neighbor’s
yards, including ours, and the master bedroom suite is situated directly across
from our bedroom’s bay window so that it will affect our privacy in the fall,
winter and early spring, when our deciduous trees go bare. Like most houses
in this neighborhood, we developed our patios and garden in the rear for
privacy.
S) The design shows a large second-floor bay which is detailed as if for
windows, but is indicated on the plans to be a closet. However, it also shows
a separate dressing room with closets.
We are concerned about the possibility that this plan would be approved in
concept, and then revised after the permit was granted, so that the closet in
the large bay will become windows that will look directly into ours. Is there a
mechanism for insuring that this does not happen?
6) The plans call for moving the fence a foot into our yard. This would remove
established plantings as well.
However, there is no survey filed with the plans to substantiate their claim that
this fence is not on the property line. The fence was rebuilt in 1990 by the
Sterns, who were the previous owners of 1849 Webster.
The Sterns believed they were building it on the property line, and we believe
that it is on the property line. We ask the City of Palo Alto not to grant 1849
Webster a permit for the new fence, unless they can produce a survey to show
that this fence is on their property. (The fence cannot be "moved" as the
plans state; it would have to be rebuilt.)
7) This design violates almost all of Palo Alto’s guidelines with respect to
privacy, streetscape, and massing. Because the other lots on the street are
smaller, there can never be other houses like it. It wouldn’t fit in today, and it
won’t fit in at any time in the future.
There ought to have been a prior meeting with the neighbors on this
development, and we ask that the plans be sent back to the architect with the
requirement that the owners hold such a meeting.
Thank you.
Don and Carol Mullen
Tel: 650 325-4312
Fax: 650 329-1 906
e-mail: carolmullen@earthlink.net
Christopher Pdordan
Via fax
July; 1, 2002
Re: Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street
Dear Mr. Riordan:
The undersigned own and reside at 627 Seate A.venue. Our home backs onto the above
referenced property along the entire length of or rear property line (75 feet). We have
reviewed the proposed plans for 1849 Webster Street as well as the Palo Alto Single
Fanaily individual Review Guidelines for two stow homes ("Guidelines"). We
understand that "new txvo-story houses are expected to meet each of the" Guidelines. We
believe the proposed plans fail seven of the Guidelines. We wish to object to the
proposed plans on the basis set forth below.
Guideline # 1. Our rear bathroom window, the glass parted double doors to our hot tub
from our bathroom, the main glass parted double doors from our family room. the
windows and glass parted door from our bedroom and the window from our ~)ffice s~udio
are all in direct sight lines of the second stow windows of the proposed structure. The
Topo Survey does not identify most of these details of our property. Our entire patio,
hammock, garden and living space are or will become the only areas capable of being
viewed from the second story windows (and the rear balcony") of the structure. It is
difficult to imagine a desig-n that would create a ~eater disrespect for the privacy and use
of our property,.
Ere were required to set back 20 feet from our property line. Why is this structure not
required to set back 20 feet from the san~e property line? Why isn’t this entire second
stow section moved to the center of the lot where it will be less intrusive on all
contiguous property owners? \~y permit a dog run so close to our property line when
minimal investigation would reveal that the rear portion of our property is used year
round? Wouldn’t the dog run be better centered at the rear of the property?
Guideline # 2. The second stow rear balcony of the proposed structure creates direct sight
lines into our hot tub, patio, garden and hammock. It exacerbates the invasion of privacy
described in violation of Guideline # 1. At a minimum, we suggest that the rear balcony;
be recessed into the structure so as to avoid sight lines into our property.
_o J_u~_l,2002 ...................
Guideline # 3. The cubicle mass of the proposed structure, particularly when viewed from
our home, is totally insensitive to the predominant neighborhood scale. There is no
balance be~;een the existing single stoO, structure hugging a lot dwarfed by beautiful,
stately redwood trees and the box-like quasi office building/high rise hotel structure that
is proposed. The plans clearly show heritage redwood and oak trees. Why presem, e
heritage trees if their view is eliminated for contiguous homeowners?
Guideline # 4. The massive structure is totally out of character with the neighborhood
height pattern, particularly our single stoo, Pedro de Lemos home which will be
overwhelmed by this structure.
Guideline # 5. As best we can tell from the plans, the f<cade facing our entire 75 foot
property line is void of all visual interest, contains no visual focal points and does nothing
to compliment design or enhance the residential scale of the property. In fact, from our
vantage, it appears more like an office building than a residence.
Guideline # 6. The complete and utter disregard of Guideline # 6 is most offensive to us.
Our entire outdoor use of our properU; is focused on our patio, hot tub area, hanunock and
large garden. Substantially all of our normal sunlight will be eliminated year round by
this structure, thereby materially destroying our use of our property and the splendid
gardens we have carefully cultivated and enjoyed over the 18 years we have lived here.
We do not understand how the City of Palo Alto could countenance such an intrusion on
our normal light plane or support the blocking of all mid-afternoon and later sunlight to
our property. The plans do not indicate any daylight plane analysis along 9ur property.
We request that a shadow study be performed and that the results of this study be
shared with us. ~
Guideline # 7. We find nothing in the proposed desig-n that makes any effort to mediate
the structure’s scale and proportions. On the contraD,, the box-like desig-n accentuates the
massiveness and scale of the building.
We also wish to strongly object to the manner in which this desig-n has been postured for
approval. No effort has been made by the owners to contact us to discuss their plans, our
desig-n concerns, or ways to ameliorate the dramatic and significant incursion this
buildino= will have on our properw.
July 1, v00v
We can be contacted as indicated on this letter. We welcome members of the planning
department onto our property to view and asses the damage that the proposed structure
will inflict on our continued enjo?~ent of our properb~. We strongly encourage denial of
this application.
Cordially,’,
]eam~e and Lair),,-Aufmuth
Carol and Don Mulle~, 618 Tennyson Avenue
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue
Hilary and Lawrence Le~T, 1875 Webster S:eet
~ 0(D --
Aufmuth Residence with 11/3 Drawing of
Proposed 1849 Webster superimposed
as seen from Aufmuth patio
SED
Aufmuth Residence with 11/3 Drawing of
Proposed 1849 Webster superimposed
as seen from Aufmuth summer dining view
Aufmuth Residence with 11/3 Drawing of
Proposed 1849 Webster superimposed
as seen at night from Autmutn patio
32ft. I -
WONG - AUFMUTH
Line of sight calculation of the house height relative to the fence.
This dia~am shows the field of view from a 6 ft. tall person standing 20 feet away from
the fence. The line of sight of the roof is 9.6 feet above a 6 feet fence, as measured at the
fence. All the super-positioned photo~aphs from Aufmuths’ residence are based on this
scale.
Let us point out several assumptions used in the original drawing by Stephen ¯
1. The fence is 7 feet tall.
2. The person is 6 feet tall
3. The highest point of the roof is 25 feet above the pound which is 24 feet above
the zero reference level which is 1 foot above the pound.
4. The roof line of the first floor is 11 feet and 4 inch. above the g-round.
11/3 Drawing of Proposed 1849 Webster
superimposed as seen from rear of Mok
Residence
Peter Danner’s yard at 604 Tennyson Ave. in opposition to proposed new construction at
1849 Webster Street.
Cnmnnter Granhic by ~Zalter Y. Mak. tel. 650 .~1 8380.
Of
Lawrence and Jeanne A ufmuth
(627 Seale Avenue)
To
DIRECTOR’S HEARING---1849 WEBSTER STREET
November 21, 2002; Delivered into the Record
I.Introduction
A Director’s Hearing was held on November 7, 2002 regarding 1849 Webster Street.
The Aufmuths submitted a written Presentation ("Aufi:nuths’ Presentation"). After the
Public Comment period was closed and during the rebuttal period, the Director’s Hearing
was continued to November 21, 2002. Due to prior schedule conflicts, neither of the
Aufrnuths can attend the continued hearing. This Supplemental Presentation is intended
to respond to several issues raised at the Hearing, and is intended to become part of the
record.
I.Veraci~
At the Director’s Hearing, one of the neighbors entered into evidence a challenge to the
Applicant’s veracity, and questioned the legitimacy of seven letters the Applicant had
addressed to neighbors and then entered into the record as evidence of neighbor
endorsement of 1849 Webster. I believe his spoken words describing these activities
were similar to his written words: "sleazy tactic .... inaccurate and offensive."
Curiously, the letters the Applicant offered into the record to "support" her application
were so deceptively drafted that she can now waffle as to their importmsuggesting a wily
craftiness if not outright mendacity. Even more curiously, the people to whom the letters
were addressed are all outliers, people least impacted or not impacted by 1849 Webster.
As further evidence of prevarication if not outright mendacity, we offer the following
early history of these proceedings. Shortly before we received the Initia! Notice, we were
invited to a "brunch" at the Wongs--an event out of character for them and us. We
attended. Nothing about plans, construction, etc. was mentioned--to us and to most of
the neighbors in attendance. In subsequent discussions with Chris Riordan on the subject
of prior neighbor involvement in the 1849 Webster process, Chris indicated that the
Applicant had told him she had met with all the neighbors--leaving him with the
impression, if not the actual recollection, that she had discussed 1849 Webster with all
the neighbors. He was quite surprised when we recounted the brunch story--but
apparently not put on his guard for future misleading or inaccurate representations from
the Applicant.
We offer this anecdote not in further character assignation of the Applicant, but to
reconfm-n two points we made in our presentation and to raise and additional one. They
are as follows:
1.It is imperative that the Planning Department require prior contact with the
neighbors--See Aufrnuths’ Presentation, Para~aph V.2.
2.It is imperative that the City establish an enforceable procedure where by the
conditions imposed on 1849 Webster are memorialized in a perpetually
enforceable manner so that the neighbors have some we recourse when the
owner decides to "modify" the structure. Like the speaker at the Director’s
hearing, we do no trust anything the Applicant says. See Aufrnuths’ Presentation,
Paragraph V.8.
o At the Hearing, the Applicant offered into evidence a "pretty-in-pink" poster on
which she graphically laid out how all homes surrounding 1849 Webster were two
story (but the Aufmuths). The Hearing Director states she "was impressed".
However, it was immediately obvious to the Aufmuths that the Levy’s home--
pictured in pink--and one of her most immediate contiguous neighbors to 1849
Webster--is not two story and should not have been "pretty-in-pink." We can
only characterize this as a "sleazy tactic, inaccurate and offensive". ’How many
others are not truly two story, or if two story, are of limited square footage (Peter
Darmer’sm700 sq. ft.), constructed many years ago (Peter Danner’s--more than
thirty years old) and not subject to the Guidelines? How often is the Planning
Department going to just take the Applicant’s word for everything? And
why does the Planning Department continue appear to accept everything the
Applicant says or presents when the file is replete with evidence of
prevarication and immediately after a documented challenge to the
Applicant’s veracity.?
II.NO NEW PLANS
A new set of plans were introduced at the Director’s Hearing. In addition to the Process
Issues raised in Aufmuths’ Presentation, we ask how often can the plans be changed?
Are another set of plans to be introduced at the continued hearing? What has happened
to this review process, or for that matter, elemental due process? We start with a set
of plans that are reviewed by the Planning Department, objected to by the neighbors, and
a hearing is requested and properly noticed. We arrive at the Hearing to fred the hearing
room walls adorned with new plans that only the Applicant and Chris Riordan have seen-
and a decision is to be made on the new plans? The Hearing gets continued and who
knows what will show up as the plans to be discussed at that continuance. None of the
objecting neighbors will know, because (a) they are not privy" to what’s going on until
they arrive and (b) none of them can make the continued hearing date!
We strongly urge the Director to continue the hearing until the neighbors can be present,
or at the least close the hearing with no new plans and no further rebuttals. The decision
should be on the plans as originally approved. If they are unacceptable, send the
Applicant back to Go. Submit new plans, properly Notice the neighbors, and let them
object if that is their will.
If the Director is unwilling to make a decision on the plans as approved (legally can this
be done?), then at least announce that the decision is on a set of plans that none of the
objecting parties have had a chance to review, have not been approved (and thus not
objected to or subject to a hearing) and that the Applicant and the Planning Department
-can extemporaneously change the substance of the hearing without notice so as to thwart
or nullify the neighbors’ involvement and input!
IH.Objections to New Plans
We have reviewed the third set of plans dated November 5, 2002. The fundamental
failure of 1849 Webster remains intact. The proposed second story of 2147 square feet
is not compatible with the neighborhood. If there is one fundamental policy
underlying the Guidelines it is just this--compatibility with the neighborhood. 1849
Webster eviscerates this policy!
IV.Conclusion
Based on the objections detailed herein and in Aufmuths’ Presentation, we request that
the Director reject all the plans for 1849 Webster, require the Applicant to start over,
and address the process issues we have raised.
In an admiral display of honesty, architect Steve Pogue, while rebutting comments
from the opposition, admitted that he could understand the Aufmuths’ and Moks’
objections to 1849 Webster. This from the Applicant’s spokesperson!! If only the
Planning Department could be as forthright!
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth.
Michael A. Braun
Janua~ 8,2003
To the City Council:
I reside at and own 1828 Webster St. and wish to join the appeal of the Planning
Directorls determination regarding new construction at 1849 Webster Street.
While I respect the owners1 right to develop this property, I feel that the rights of
a far larger number of adjoining property owners will be infringed if this project is
allowed to proceed. These rights involve such issues as privacy, adverse solar
impact, jeopardy to mature trees, and overwhelming mass and scale at the rear
half of the lot.
The owners of 1849 Webster have violated our trust and that of other neighbors
by filing letters indicating we did not object to this project when we specifically
told them that we did. They solicited us to write letters of support. We refused
and they then wrote letters indicating our support.
No matter what the plans say, we have no faith that this project will be
constructed in a manner consistent with the City’s guidelines.
Respectfully submitted,
1828 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
voice 415.329.9048 fax 415.328.7315 email: mabpa@aol.com
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Carol Joyce Mullen
Re: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision
! 849 Webster Street
Single Family Individuai Review, 02-IR-55
Date: January, 8, 2003
Caro! Mullen, joining with Don Mullen, Peter Danner, Walter and Amanda Mok, Michael Braun, Lawrence and
Jeanne Aufmuth to ask for your review of the Planning Director’s Decision of January 26, 2002, mailed on
January 30,2002.
I support the arguments for hearing our appeal Nven by our neighbors, and by my husband. In addition, t would
like to address some of the public policy issues raised by Steve Emslie in our meeting with him on January 8,
..00~. Only the City. Council has the authorib.’ to address these.
Two issues I think need the City Council’s attention;
1) Mr. Emslie told us that the ordinance was not intended by the committee drafting it to create a burden upon
applicants, and therefore the Department has adopted a policy of not demanding that all of the required
documents be submitted. I believe that he is sincere in his fear that the ordinance would be revoked because of
outcry, among developers if it were to be enforced. His fear may be justified, but I am as’king the Council to
address the unintended consequences of passing an ordinance which Staff believe is not intended to be enforced.
I think it leads inevitably to abuse, and opens the door to outright corruption. I do not think there is any benefit,
and much to lose, by retaining this ordinance unless it is applied impartially.
2) Palo Alto is a community to the appellants, but it is only a commodity to many. As other communities move
to protect themselves fi’om exploitation for profit, Palo Alto has become an easier target. No one can be sure
that one of these intrusive constructions will not spoil what he or she has enjoyed for many years.
The developer community is united,, vocal, and used the term "property rights" as if we in the community had
none they need respect. I believe that the Planning Department would be willing to protect established uses and
values, but only with the support of the Cib’ Council.
We were told that we should want to tear down our houses to build similar "statements." We who have lived
here many years cannot reasonably rebuild our houses and gardens to adapt to these overwhelming new projects.
Nor do we wish to. My home is not my tinancial statement.
The builders and their architects could easily adapt to existing uses and conditions during construction, but
have no incentive at present to do so. We ask the City Council to see that the Single Family Review Ordinance
provides such incentive.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Carol Mullen
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Don Barry Mullen
Re: Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision
1849 Webster Street
Single Family Individual Review
02-IR-55
Date: January 8, 2003
Respectfully submitted by Don Mu!len, joining with Larry and Jeanne Aufmuth to ask for your review of the
Planning Director’s Decision of January 26, 2002, mailed on January 30,2002.
This project was approved in spite of its noncompliance with the Palo Alto Single Family Review Guidelines,
and in spite of violations of Palo Alto’s Building Code.
Grounds for the City Council to hear our appeal:
1. Under the terms of the Hearing Director’s finding, exemption from considerations of context, mass
or invasion of privacy will be granted to any owner with a larger lot.
2. The Planner attended the mediation sessions, and violated California State law by placing his notes of
the mediation sessions to the General Public. My wife spoke to this violation of confidentiality at the
second Director’s Hearing, and received no response.
3. Planning Department is unwilling to enforce the requirements of the Ordinance with respect to
documentation : a) The applicant refused to provide the site plan showing the neighbor’s affected
structures. The Planning Department allowed the application to go forward through mediation, two
Director’s Hearings, and final approval without this information, and therefore without consideration of
context or compatibility, b) The Planning Department did not, and could not, verify the applicant’s
assertions with regard to the F.A.R., because the applicant was also not required to comply with the
ordinance with respect to dimensioned floor plans.
We ask the City Council to take this into consideration through the appeal process. If this ordinance is
to be nullified, we believe that it is the City Council’s prerogative, and should not be delegated to Staff.
Thank you for your consideration.
To: Director of Planning, City of Palo Alto.
Subject ¯ Appeal against 1849 Webster St, Review Approva!
Date: Jan. 8. 2003
We have lived at 639 Seale since 1984. The rear yard of 1849 Webster shares a common fence with our
back yard. On our property, at or near that fence line are three very large, beautiful redwood trees. We
prize these trees, and have spent a great deal of money over the years, caring for them and having them
pruned. The largest tree is over four feet in diameter. I would be happy to show you a photograph from the
rear and from the street of our trees.
The present Wong carport is screened from our house by the shrubbery, and does not threaten these trees.
If the Wongs would build their new garage in the sahae place as the existing carport, it would not threaten
our trees. In fact, there is only one place on their 20,000 sq. ft. lot where they should not put that garage;
and that is where they want to build it, right over the root crown of our redwood trees.
The plans and site survey submitted by the Wongs did not show the true location of our trees. It has taken a
six-month concerted effort by me and by my neighbors to get the Planning Department to visit the site, and
see that this is indeed a dangerous place to put that garage. We never received a direct reply to our letter of
protest concerning these trees.
The location of the trees was questioned by the architect and the Planning Department refused to verify
with a site visit. The size of the trees was questioned by the architect, and the Planning Department refused
to verify.
Finally, after intervention by Canopy, by direct appeal to the project arborist to correct his records, by
direct notice to the project engineer that his site plan was inaccurate, and after bringing this issue to t~vo
Director’s Hearings, the Planning Department’s arborist has drawn a set of restrictions to protect those
trees. However, the restrictions involve not cutting any root over 2 inches. Nothing in the approval by the
Planning Department provides any enforcement for this recommendation.
The applicant has "known from the beginning that this is the worst place to put this garage - two feet from
the rear property line. At a meeting with Steve Pogue, the project architect, he waved away the problem:
" We’ll call in our arborist; he’ll bless the roots, and then we’ll cut them."
We have no reason to believe that the architect or the contractor will abide by the ci~; arboristls
recommendations. To do that, they would probably have to abandon their plans when the5; fred our very
large roots where they dig the foundations for the garage. Is it reasonable for the City to approve plans
which threaten my trees, and do not call for a stop to construction in the event (very likely) that roots over
two inches in diameter in the path of construction? Is it even likely that the applicants, who have tried to
deny the trees’ size and location, will not simply damage the trees by their construction? Doesn’t the
of Palo Alto, so famous for its urban forest, have a responsibili~, to these trees, and to my family’s
property?
Almost any other legal location on the lot would not threaten any protected trees. The applicant has man?’
options for parking. We have only one way to protect our trees. We ask the Ci~, of Palo Alto to hear our
appeal from this reckless approval by the Planning Department.
We also will show you a photograph of our redwoods, with the architect% rendering of the house, to show
you how intrusive this new construction will be upon our garden. Ever?¢hing you see will be brand-new
construction. It is huge, and should at least be centered on the large lot. It should not be allowed to spread
out, 70 feet across the lot, and 110 from front to back. That footprint would only be tolerable in a one-story
house. A two-stor?, house should be more compact.
By the way, this house will affect two streetscapes. It is so large it will be seen from Seale as well as
Webster.
Thank you,
Walter and Amanda Mok
January 8, 2003
The undersigned joins the appeal of the Director’s determination regarding new
construction at 1849 Webster Street. V~nnile I respect the owners’ right to develop this
properly, I feel that the rights of a far larger number of adjoining property owners will
be infringed if this project is allowed to proceed. These rights involve such issues as
privacy, adverse solar impact, jeopardy to mature trees, and overwhelming mass and
scale at the rear half of the lot.
With regard to the Director’s specific decision that the privacy impact to 604
Tennyson is mitigated by, the distance of a balcony to the house, the determination
fails to take into account a large terrace where my wife and I have entertained for
many years.
Peter K. Danner
604 Tennyson Ave.
Attachment C
CONDiTiON REPORT TO ~NCLUDE
GUIDELINES FOR
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTEGT~ON
Submitted To:
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
175 Avila Street
Paio Alto, CA 94!23
Project Location:
Elizabeth Wong
!849 Webster Street
Paio Alto, Caiifornia
Submitted By:
S. P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC.
James M. McClenahan, President
Registered Consulting Arborist #249
American Society of Consulting Arborists
April 30, 2002
@Copyright S. P. McClenahan Co., Inc., 2002
JAMES M. MCCLENAHAN
DAVID F. MOORE
JOHN H, McCLSNAHAN S.P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC.
ARBORICULTURISTS
SINCE 1 9 1 !
CONTRACTORS LIC. .=65 134 ’i
# I ARASTRADERO ROAD. PORTO~-A VALLEY, CA 94028
TELEPHONE (650) 326-87B 1
FAX (650) 854- 1267
GARY FARMSTRONG
GENEK. PEGLOW
MIGUELA, BERUMEN
April 30, 2002
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
175 Avila Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
RE:Elizabeth Wong
1849 Webster Street
Paio Alto, CA
Assi_clnment
As requested, I inspected significant trees to determine present condition, impact
of proposed site improvements and provide recommendations for tree
preservation. No root crown inspection or plant tissue analysis was performed as
part of this tree survey.
Background
. The site is a flat residential parcel with existing residence and detached garage.
Proposed improvements include modification of existing residence, demo.lition
and construction of new garage, and swimming pool installation. Two Coast
redwoods are located at rear of site on westerly and northerly fenceiine, and a
Valley oak is located at residence frontage. The Valley oak was recently
fertilized. Root crown restoration and foliar canopy pruning were accomplished
within the last two years.
Methodolo_qv
in determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which
include:
Rate of growth over several seasons;
Structural decays or weaknesses;
Presence of disease or insects; and
Life expectancy.
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 2 April 30, 2002
The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life
Expectancy is submitted for your information.
0- 5 Years =Poor
5 -10 Years =Poor to Fair
10 -15 Years =Fair
15 -20 Years =Fair to Good
20 + Years =Good
Summary
The proposed modification of residence entry will not significantly impact
environment of the Valley oak. Existing driveway encroaches to the root crowns
of both Coast redwoods, and garage is within 15 feet on southerly side of the
Coast redwood at the easterly fenceline. Demolition of garage and new
construction at 35 feet from trunk will not impact tree environment. At the time of .. < ..~-
_this survey, ~driveway. improvements had not been finalized. Should~:: :;’::. ’:7).. ¯-existing surface be retained, no impact to tree environments wil! result from /
improvements. The use of porous pavers (i.e. turf pavers) would result in 7
increased lateral root environment. Likewise. should a non-porous surface be ~_ ~.-,
selected, an aer___~ation systerTL_O_f.f horizontaj_oLv.e_rtj_c_ALd_#_si~ would enhance tree :
environments. Adoption of Preservation Guidelines wilt ensure a favorable ~
prognosis for all tree surveyed.
Tree Description/Observation
#1:Valley oak (Quercus lobate)
56.4" D.S.H. (diameter standard height)
Height: 50’ Spread: 55’
Condition: Fair
Location: Residence frontage
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and foiler canopy has been recently pruned. The
exaggerated trunk lean has been braced with two steel post supports. Old
wounds exhibit closure with minimal decay observed. Root crown excavation is
restored at natural grade. Proposed entry to residence will encroach no closer
than within 17 feet east of trunk. No other encroachment beyond existing
residence footprint will occur. No impact to buttress roots will occur and impact to
lateral root environment is less than 5 percent.
Prognosis for continued health is considered favorable.
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 3 April 30, 2002
#2: Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
34.4" D.S.H.
Height: 85’ Spread: 38’
Condition: Fair to Good
Location: Westerly fenceline
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Tree structure is
sound with no visible signs of decay. Existing pavement encroaches to root
crown. No impact to tree environment will result from improvements. However,
should existing driveway be replaced with porous pavers or aerated hardscape,
increased lateral root environment will result.
Prognosis is most favorable.
#2: Coast redwood
29.1" D.S.H.
Height: 75’ Spread: 25’
Condition: Fair to Good
Location: Rear fenceline
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Tree structure ~s
sound with no visible signs of decay. Heading cuts have reduced driveway and
garage overhang. Existing driveway encroaches to within 1 foot of root crown.
No impact to tree environment will result from improvements. However, should
existing driveway be replaced with porous pavers or aerated hardscape,
increased lateral root environment will result. Garage demolition and
reconstruction is well beyond tree environment and will provide no impact.
Prognosis is most favorable.
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 5 April 30, 2002
Root Pruning (if necessary)
During and upon completion of any trenchinglgrading operation within a tree’s
drip line, should any roots greater than one inch (1") in diameter be damaged,
broken or severed, root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed
roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to
minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line within twenty-four (24) hours.
Fertilization
A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended
with applications in spring and summer for those trees to be impacted by
construction.
Such fertilization will serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset
shock!stress as related to construction and/or environmental factors, encourage
vigor, alleviate soil compaction and compensate for any encroachment of natural
feeding root areas.
Inception of this fertilizing program is recommended prior to the initiation of
construction activity.
Irrigation
A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for the Coast redwood trees
and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the
period of May 1st through October 31st. Irrigation is to be applied at or about the
’drip line’ in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of
water for each inch in trunk diameter.
Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, ’soaker’ or permeable hose.
When using ’soaker’ or permeable hoses, water is to be run at low pressure,
avoiding runofflpuddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soil to
feeder root depths.
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 6 April 30, 2002
Inspection
Periodic inspections by a quafified Arborist are recommended during
construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading
operations.
Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess
and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan and to provide
recommendations for any additional care or treatment.
All written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of
the Arborist and may not be dupficated, used or disclosed without written consent
of the Arborist.
We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation
COlqcerns.
Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these
concerns, kindly contact our office at any time.
Very truly yours,
S. P. MdCI CO., INC.
JMMc: pm
By:Ji President
R istered Consulting Arborist #249
~fnerican Society of Consulting Arborists
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 4 April 30, 2002
TREE PRESERVATION GUiDELiNES
Tree Preservation And Protection P~an
In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we recognize that injury to
trees as a result of construction include mechanical injuries to trunks, roots and
branches, and injury as a result of changes that occur in the growing
environment.
To minimize these injuries, we recommend grading operations encroach no
closer than five times the trunk diameter, (i.e. 30" diameter tree x 5=150"
distance). At this distance, buttress!anchoring roots would be preserved and
minimal injury to the functional root area would be anticipated. Should
encroachment within the area become necessary, hand digging is mandatory.
Barricades
Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barricades should be installed
around all trees in the construction area. Si×-foot height, chain link fences are to
be mounted in concrete supports at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences
shall enclose the entire area under the drip line of the trees or as close to the drip
line area as practical. These barricades will be placed around individual trees
and/or groups of trees as the existing environment dictates.
The temporary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from
mechanical injuries, will inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or debris
within the sensitive ’drip line’ areas and will prevent soil compaction from
increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or
equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around
the tree canopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place
until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in
the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. Designated
areas beyond the drip lines of any trees should be provided for construction
materials and on site parking.
FROM :FAX NO. :Nov. 86 2882 81:3!PM P2
CONDITION REPORT TO ~NCLUDE
GUIDELINES FOR
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION
Submitted To:
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
175 Avila Street
Palo Alto, CA 94123
Project Location:
Elizabeth Wong
849 Webster Street
Palo A~to, California
Submitted By:
S. P. tVIcCLENAHAN CO., INC.
James M. McClenahan, President
Registered Consulting Arborist #249
American Society of Consulting Arborists
November 6, 2002
@Copyright 8. P. McQlenahan Co., Inc., 2002
S.P, McCLENAHAN CO., INC.
ARBORICULTURISTS
~IN{~:E ’[ 91 1
T~E~ONE (650] ~-87B 1
November 6, 2002
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
175 Avila Street
San Franc sco, CA 94123
RE:Elizabeth Wong
1849 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA
Assiqnment
As requested, this is an addendum to the survey of Apd! 30, 2002 regarding
significant on site trees to determine present condition, impact of proposed site
improvements and provide recommendations for tree preservation. Impacts and
recommendations for trees located on neighboring properties are also included in
this survey.
Backqround
The site is a flat residential parcel with existing residence and detached garage.
Proposed improvements include modification of existing residence, demolition of
garage and construction of new garage, and swimming pool installation. Two
Coast redwoods are located at rear of site on westedy and northerly fenceline,
and a Valley oak is located at residence frontage. The Valley oak was recently
fertilized. Root Grown restoration and foliar canopy pruning were accomplished
within the last two years, Three Coast redwoods and a California pepper located
on westerly neighboring properties and 2 Coast redwoods are located on
northerly neighboring property adjacent to proposed garage construction.
Nlethodoloqv
No root crown inspection or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of this
tree survey.
In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which
include:
Rate of growth over several seaBons;
Structural decays or weaknesses;
Presence of disease or ins{~cts; and
Life expectancy.
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 2 November 6, 2002
The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life
Expectancy is submitted for your information,
0- 5 Years =Poor
5 - 10 Years =Poorto Fair
10 -15 Years =Fair
15 -20 Years =Fair to Good
20 + Years =Good
Surnman/
The proposed modification of residence entry will not significantly impact
environment of the Valley oak. Existing ddveway encroaches to the root crowns
of both Coast redwoods, and garage is within 15 feet on eastedy side of the
Coast redwood at the westerly fence!ine. Demolition of garage and new
construction at 35 feet from trunk will not impact tree environment. Existing
asphalted ddveway will not be modified and no impact to trees on easterly
neighboring properties will result from site improvements. Pruning back of
neighboring Pepper tree and Butterfly bush to provide driveway clearance will not
adversely impact tree health. Proposed demolition of existing garage and
construction of new garage will encroach within the tree protection zone (21 feet
from trunk) of 2 Coast redwoods on northerly neighboring property. Proposed
demolition of carport and slab will increase potential lateral root area for 30-inch
diameter Redwood on northerly side. Proposed garage and new pavement will
encroach to within 3 feet of adjacent 20-inch diameter Redwood on northerly
side. Excavation of garage footing on northerly side must be accomplished by
hand excavation to required depth when within 21 feet of trunk, No roots greater
than 1 inch in diameter may be severed without prior inspection of the Site
Arbodst. Aeration of slab floor in proposed garage is not necessary to ensure
continued tree vitality.
FROM ;FAX NO. ;Nov, 86 2882 81:32PM P5
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 3 November 6, 2002
T.ree DescriiotionlObservation
#1 : Valley oak (Quercus lobate)
56.4" DSH (diameter standard height)
Height: 50’ Spread: 55’
Condition: Fair
Location: Residence frontage
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and foiler canopy has been recently pruned. The
exaggerated trunk I~an has been braced with two steel po~t supports. Old
wounds exhibit closure with minimal decay observed. Root crown excavation is
restored at natural grade. Proposed entry to residence will encroach no closer
than within 17 feet east of trunk, No other encroachment beyond existing
residence footprint will occur, No impact to buttress roots will occur and impact to
lateral root environment is less than 5 percent.
#2’Coast redwood (Sequoia ~emperviren:~)
34,4" DSH
Height: 85’ Spread: 38’
Condition: Fair to Good
Location: Westerly fenceline
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality. Tree structure is
sound with no visible signs of decay. Existing pavement encroaches to root
crown. No impact to tree environment will result from improvements. With
retention of existing driveway, no impact to tree environment is expected.
FROM :FAX NO. :Nov. 86 2882 81:32PM P6
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 4 November 6, 2002
#3:Coast redwood
29.t" DSH,
Height: 75’ Spread: 25’
Condition: Fair to Good
Location: Rear fenceline
Observation:
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal vitality, Tree structure is
sound with no visible signs of decay. Heading cuts have reduced driveway and
garage overhang. Existing ddveway encroaches to within 1 foot of root crown.
No impact to tree environment will result from improvements. Garage demolition
and reconstruction is well beyond tree environment and will provide no impact to
existing tree environment.
Conclusion
No impact to trees on westerly neighbor’s property will result from proposed site
improvements. However, tree protection fencing is required to enclose dripline
area of California pepper at 6 inches from edge of driveway, Three Coast
redwoods on easterly neighbors and 2 site Redwoods shall be fenced. Grade
blocks may be utilized to allow fence erection on paved surface and should allow
for continued at driveway access,
Demolition of storage shed, potting area and aggregate slabs must be
accomplished prior to installation of tree protection fencing. At that time, fencing
shall be installed to enclose dripline area at 2 feet from existing property line
fence. Fencing of the Valley oak should enclose dripline area. Four Sycamores in
City easement shall be fenced between edge of sidewalk and street curbing,
Installation of tree protection fencing and adoption of additional Preservation
Guidelines will allow enhancement of tree conditions and prolong life expectancy,
FROM ;FAX NO. ;Nov. 06 2082 01:32PM P?
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention; Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 5 November 6, 2002
TREE PRESERVATION GUiDELiNES
Tree Preservation And Protection Plan
In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we recognize that injury to
trees as a result of construction include mechanical injudes to trunks, roots and
branches, and injury as a result of changes that occur in the growing
environment,
To minimize these injuries and comply with the City of Pale Alto Tree Technieat
Manual, we recommend gradingtexcavation operations encroach no closer than
ten times the trunk diameter, (i,e, 30" diameter tree x 10=300° distance), At this
distance, buttress/anchoring roots would be preserved and minimal injury to the
functional root area would be anticipated. Should encraachment within the area
become necessary, hand digging is mandatory.
Barricades
Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barrioad~s should be installed
around all trees in the construction area. Six4oot high, chain link fences are to
be mounted on 2-inch diameter stakes driven 2 feet into the ground at no more
than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall 6nclose the entire area under the drip line
of the trees or as close to the drip line area as practical. These barricades will be
placed around individual trees andlor groups of trees as the existing environment
dictates.
The temporary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from
mechanical injuries, will inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or debris
within the sensitive ’ddp line’ areas and will prevent soil compaction from
increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or
equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around
the tree ~anopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place
until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in
the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. Designated
areas beyond the drip lines of any trees should be provided for construction
materials and on site parking.
FROM :FAX NO. :Nov. 86 2882 01:32PM P8
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 6 November 6, 2002
Root Pruning (if necessary)
During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree’s
drip line, should any roots greater than one inch (1") in diameter be damaged,
broken or severed, root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed
roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arbodst to
minimize root deterioration beyolld the soil line within ~wenty-four (24) hours.
Fertilization
A program of fertilization by means of deep root soil injection is recommended
with applications in spring and summer for those trees to be impacted by
construction,
Such fertilization wilt serve to stimulate feeder root development, offset
shock/stress as related to construction and/or environmental factors, encourage
vigor, alleviate soil compaction and compensate for any encroachment of natural
feeding root areas.
Inception of this fertilizing program is recommended prior to the initiation of
construction activity.
Irrigation
A supplemental irrigation program is recommended for the Coast redwood trees
and should be accomplished at regular three to four week intervals during the
period of May 1st through October 31~t. Irrigation is to be applied at or about the
’drip line’ in an amount sufficient to supply approximately fifteen (15) gallons of
water for each inch in trunk diameter,
Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, ’soaker’ or permeable hose.
When using ’soaker’ or permeable hoses, water is to be run at low pressure,
avoiding runoff/puddling, allowing the needed moisture to penetrate the soi! to
feeder root depths,
FROM :FAX NO. ;Nov. 86 2882 81:~PM P9
Steve Pogue Associates
Attention: Mr. Steve Pogue
Page 7 November 6, 2002
Inspection
Periodic inspections by a qualified Arborist are recommended during
construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading
operations.
Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess
and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan and to provide
recommendations for any additional care or treatment.
Aft written materia! appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of
the Arborist and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed wifhout written consent
of the Arborist.
We thank you for this opportunity to be of assistance in your tree preservation
concerns,
Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these
concerns, kindly contact our office at any time.
Very truly yours,
JMMc: pm
Fax:
Re~gistered Consulting Arborist #249
A~erican Society of Consulting Arborists
Steve Pogue
Elizabeth Wong