HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-14 City Council (14)14
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JULY 14, 2003 CMR: 340:03
3114 DAVID [03-AP-06]: APPEAL BY LOIS H. MACLEOD OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION (02-IR-95)
FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,
OWNED BY KAMRAN AND PA~SSA NAJMABADI UNDER THE
SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW PROGRAM.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the Single Family Individual
Review application (02-IR-95) for a new two-story single-family residence, thereby
upholding the Director of Planning and Colnmunity Environment’s approval.
BACKGROUND
The project being appealed is a new 3,100 square foot two-story residence that was
~anted Single Family Individual Review (IR) approval on June 3, 2003. PAMC Chapter
18.14.100 requires the City Council determine whether to hear an IR appea! within thirty
days of the day the appeal was filed. Four or more Council members must vote to hear
the appeal for it to be scheduled for a hearing. Prior to the Director’sdecision of June 3,
2003, to approve the project, the following occurred:
The project initially was submitted November 21, 2002 and was reviewed for
zoning compliance by Planning staff and for IR Guideline compliance by Origins,
the City’s architectural consultants. The adjacent neighbors were notified of the
proposal and expressed concern to Planning staff regarding the mass and potential
shading of an adjacent home from the proposed house.
The applicant revised the residence at staff’s suggestion, to minimize the apparent
mass as viewed from the street. The width of the second-story was reduced and
centered above the first floor. Neighbors reviewed the revised plans and again
CMR: 340:03 Page 1 of 7
expressed displeasure with the overall mass of the home and potential shading of
one neighbor’s yard.
The applicant reduced the overall height of the project by 10 inches. The Director
granted preliminary IR approval of the project after this revision to the height
occurred.
A Director’s Hearing was requested by Greg and Yelena Mirsky, who are the
neighbors to the left of the project, to further review the project. At the Director’s
Hearing of May 1, 2003, several neighbors again expressed concern about the size
and mass of the residence in comparison to the homes in the predominately one-
story Eichler neighborhood. Testimony in support of the project was also
provided by other residents in the area.
A solar study prepared by the applicants was submitted at the hearing, to address
the neighbors previous concerns regarding solar orientation. Origins reviewed the
study prior to the final Director’s Hearing of May 15, 2003.
At staff’s request, the applicant revised the roof form to reduce the mass and to
provide the adjacent neighbor (the Mirskys’) with a geater view of the sky from
their kitchen and living room windows.
The Director approved the revised project on June 3, 2003
The appellant, one of the residents opposing the project who spoke at the
Director’s Hearing, submitted an appeal on June 13, 2003.
DISCUSSION
The Director determined that the final proposed project meets all ten of the IR
Guidelines. The appellant has not disputed the project’s compliance with seven of the IR
Guidelines (1, 2, 5, & 7 - 10). The appellant’s concerns are specifically related to
Guidelines #3, #4, and #6, which focus on the mass and scale, and the solar orientation of
the proj ect.
Individual Review Guideline #3 states. "be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood
scale when plannin~ a new two-sto~ home."
The project site is slightly larger than the average lot on the street because of the parcel’s
irregular shape (8,000 square feet rather than 7,000 square feet). The proposed home
would be approximately 1,000 square feet larger than the appellant’s home across the
street and the average homes on the street, which have not been added onto and remain
primarily in their original configuration. However, staff finds the proposed home meets
Guideline #3 because the proposed second-story is set back from the front of the house,
and the second story mass is placed toward the center of the property.
Individual Review Guideline #4 states. "be sensitive to the existing neighborhood hei.~ht
pattern and particularly the height of adiacent houses when planning a second story."
CMR: 340:03 Page 2 of 7
Staff tSnds that the proposed building has been brought down in height to the maximum
extent feasible. The proposed two-story home is taller than the average home on the
street because the neighborhood consists predominately of one-story Eichler homes. The
home, however, has less height than allowed within the flood zone. The highest point of
the home would be 27’-6", which is 2’-6" lower than the maximum allowed height of
homes in the R-1 zone. Also, the applicant did not take advantage of the 6" above the
maximum height permitted for homes in this flood zone. As a result, the structure is
three feet lower than the maximum building height allowed by code.
In order to meet Guideline #4, the applicant used several techniques to reduce the overall
height of the home, as recommended in the IR Guidebook, including using a low roof
pitch and minimizing the second story plate heights (8’-2"). The proposed home also
incorporates one-story elements along the side yard that start at 11’-5" along the left side
property line, to reduce the impact of the two-story element. The applicant has made
significant changes to the proposed home to address neighbors’ concerns.
An additional technique the applicant explored is the use of slab-on-Fade foundation.
This technique could have lowered the home by one foot, but was ruled out for technical
reasons regarding soils conditions (see Administrative Record #12, Letter from Steve
Simpson, Architect), and was not required in order for staff to find compliance with
Guideline 4~04.
Individual Review Guideline #6 states. "respect the solar orientation of the adiacent
neighbor’s houses and yards".
The home meets Guideline #6, in that the home respects the solar orientation of the
neighbors’ houses and yards. Although not required by staff, the applicant submitted a
solar study at the May 1, 2003 Director’s Hearing to address concerns expressed by the
Mirskys’. The study was reviewed by Origins, which determined that the home was
located in the optimal location to reduce the shade impact on the adjacent properties. This
is consistent with IR Guideline #6. At the public hearing of May 1, 2003, the Mirskys’
explained that their concern was more about view impacts than solar impacts. Staff
conducted several site visits and recognized that the Mirskys’ existing view of the sky
could be effected by the new second story. To mitigate this concern, the applicant revised
the roof form by changing the gabled roof forms to hipped forms along the Mirskys’
property line. This would decrease the height of the roof by five feet along that property
line and increase the view of the sky from the Mirskys’ windows. This also reduces the
apparent mass of the home from the front and side yards.
The proposed home meets all of the IR Guidelines. Staff therefore recommends that the
City Council not hear the appeal of the Director’s approval.
CMR: 340:03 Page 3 of 7
RESOURCE IMPACT
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303(a).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Appeal form and letter submitted by Lois MacLeod
Attachment B:Director’s Approval (Findings and Conditions)
Attachment C:Minutes of the Director’s Hearings
Attachment D:Administrative Record (Council Members only)
Gina"La Torra, Planning Tj;chniclan _
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:/d~fEVE EMS~I~~
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "~~ Jd~.t~ ~__~
E~ s-oN
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 340:03 Page 4 of 7
Attachment A
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM TIlE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
To be fried in duplic~ite within 15 days from the date of decision of~a~~ector°of ~’ !:4 ! q -D~i ~’~’~_, ~0
Planning and Co~u~i~ Environment
Application No.
Name
Address
Street
Receipt No.
Phone(
City ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No.
Street Address ~~" ~"p ....../,,~ /~,,,:=
, ./t / ;~’Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ....
Property Owner’s address (if other than appellant)
Street City
Zone District
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated .,
19 whereby the application of
was
(parcel maptsubdivision)
(original applicant)
for a
~-~,,-.~’£,w ,~,~" , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached
(~d/denied)
letter (in duplicate).
Date /< _.~,’,.,~., :: ~__’.~.,-;--;Signature of Appell~t
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied
Remar’ks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
!.Plans (Applicant)By:
2.Labels (Applicant)By:
3.A~l~eal.. Application Forms /\By:
4.Letter ;;(By:.
5.Fee By: ,,
rnaclois
To:
Cc:
Subject:
mailto:gina.latorra@cityofpaloalto.org
gregmir@pacbell.net; isweeney@Stanford.EDU
Director’s Hearing re new single-family two-story house at 3114 David Avenue, Palo Alto
i !ive at 3!11 David Avenue, directly across the street from Ye!ena & Greg Hirsky and two
coors from irene & Michael Sweeney. From previous correspondence you have received from
me concerning the above-referenced contemplated project at 3114 David Avenue, you are
aware than I, too, am not pleased with the prospect of a two-story home being constructed
:~n <:,is small lot located in this small cul-de-sac. It is totally out of keeping with ~he
established nanure of our neighborhood. We all have invested a good deal of money, time
an~ attention to updating our homes and tending to our properties, not only for our own
z,!easure, but for that of our neighbors, as we!l. The Sweeney’s and i have lived in our
~.-~=s h~ for 30+ years and ~he H~r~v’s for a~ least i0 - 12 vears
[: seems <o me that the wheels have been turning more towards getting this building
pro}ec~ under way than to understanding the needs and desires of LONG-time residenEs who
~o not wan[ a two-story house here. i can tell you that the parties desiring to buiid
~h!s house were aware before they purchased the property that neighbors did not wan: a
~wo-s:orv house constructed here. in a conversation in which i was involved, i personally
ie: <hem know exacnly where I would stand on the issue, should i~ be raised. !< was mF
unde=snanding that they frequently had relatives visiting from out of the country an~ ~!s
would nrovide them with a place <o stay. This does not sound to me like a house in which
nhe’.~ necessarily plan to reside themselves.
in any event, please accept this letter as my continuing strong support of the szance of
<~,e Mirsky’s, Sweeney’s, and other concerned parties who have been in contact with you no
oppose :his building project (a one-story home is okay, but not a zwo-story home>. We
:.-~c_~i~ aii appreciate more a~<en~ion being given to OUR investments and not jusZ <o one
fam_!y who warms to negatively impact <he living standards and enjo]~’ment of our nones for
Planning Department,December 10,2002
All three of the fundamental issues addressed by the Palo Alto Planning Department
Guide would indicate that this proposed 2-story house at 3114 David is inappropriate and
should be denied.
1. Privacy: The balcony and windows in the back of the house on the 2nd story look
down into 850 Wintergreen’s back yard. It not only affects privacy in the back yard, but also
the kitchen, livingroom and master bedroom which all look into the back yard through sliders
and windows. If all houses in the neighborhood remained single story as they now are, have been
and were always intended to be; the six foot redwood fences that separate most properties
provide adequate privacy. The privacy issue alone will affect my ability to rent the property as
well as my ability to sell the property in the future. I will not address the privacy issues on the
side yards or in the front of the proposed house.
2. Mass and Scale: A 2-story house, only 40 feet from my house will diminish the
natural environment my property now enjoys. There are no other 2-story buildings in the area
and it does not conform with the neighborhood. It is not compatible with adjacent homes and does
not meet with the predominant neighborhood scale. It will stick out like a sore thumb, not only
from the street that it fronts on, (David), but also even more from my property on the back
side. A second story is not sensitive to the existing neighborhood height pattern whatsoever.
David is a street in a beautiful neighborhood with mature trees and a uniformity of houses that
create a charm, not because of the extravegance or beauty of particular homes but the collective
beauty of all of the homes in this setting. Diminishing the quality of this ambience with an out
of place structure is not fair to the neighborhood in general. Changing the position of windows
or decks, etc. will never change the fact that this structure will be twice as tall as anything else
around it, in the entire neighborhood. A new single story home seems most appropriate.
I hope you will consider the effect that this seemingly self-centered endeavor will have
on the neighbors, both from a personal and financial point of view in regards to the above
mentioned examples.
Dale De Bruin
27850 Canyon Rd.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
3114 DAVID Page 1 of 2
LaTorra, Gina
From:Greg Mirsky [gregmir@pacbell.net]
Sent:Monday, June 16, 2003 9:12 PM
To:gina.latorra@cityofpaloalto .org
Cc:julie.caporgno@cityofpaloalto,org; amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org; Greg Mirsky
Subject:RE:Appeal for Project 02-1R-95:3114 DAVID
Dear Gina!
Please consider this email as a formal request to attach all our letters from December 2002, January 2003,
March 2003 and all our other relevant documents from Director Hearings to the appleal submitted to the City
from our neighbour Lous MacLeod (3111 David Ave.). She appealed on behalf of several neighbours including us,
since we slJll hoping to prevent this two story construction in our neighborhood.
Best regards,
Greg Mirsky
3048 Stelling Drive
P.S. Attached copies of our letters.
..... Original Message .....
From: LaTorra, Gina [mailto:gina.latorra@cityofpaloalto.org]
Sent= Monday, June 09, 2003 1:52 PN
To= ’g reg.mirsky@am.sony.com’
Subject= RE: 3114 DAVID
Greg,
I am writing to inform you of the status of 3114 David. The project was approved with conditions. I have
attached the approval letter for your convenience. A copy of the letter was also mailed to your home.
As discussed, this decision is appeal able. An appeal form, with letter and $100 fee, must be filed at the
Development Center by 4pm on June 13th.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Gina La Torra
Planning Technician
Planning Division
(650) 329-2165
..... Original Message .....
From= LaTorra, Gina
Sent= Monday, June 02, 2003 5:40 PM
To= ’greg.mirsky@am.sony.com’
Subject: FVV: 3114 DAVID
Greg,
Attached is a roof revision for 3114 David. Please review it and let me know your comments
or questions. Thank You,
7/3/2003
Attachment B
City of Alto
Department qf Planning aria
Community Enviornment
June 4, ..OOa
Steve Simpson
603 Jefferson Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94053
Subject:3114 David Avenue, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-95
On June 3, 2003, the Director of Planning and CommuniD Environment conditionally
approved Single Family Individual Review application 02-IR-95 for a new two story
single-family residence at 3114 David Avenue, This approval was Hanted pursuam to the
Palo .Mto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.14, the Palo Alto Single Famil);
_~ndividual Review, C,~idelines. Approval was Hanted after the Director’s Hearings of May
!, 2003 and May ! 5, 2003.
CONI)ITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
Apply for a building permi,~ and meet any, and all conditions of the Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and Building Departments.
The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with development plans
received March 6, 2003, on fiie at the deveiopment center, 285 Hamilton Avenue,
Paio Alto, California.
A cop?, of this approval shall be printed on the blueprints submined for building
permit.
A The roof plan will be revised as such that the gabled roofs in various locations will
become hipped roofs., per the proposed plans received on June ~, "~ =00~,.
The w~’o trees show on the site plan shali be revised to be three 24 gallon Laurus
Nobius (Sweet Bay) with a minimum starting height of 9’-0’:, or similar species as
approved by the Planning Arborist. The Director and Pianning Arborist shalJ
approve the location of the trees prior to a building permit subrnktai.
150 Hazrffdton Avenue
RO. Box 10150
Paio Alto. C_& 94303
650.3292~1
650.329.21~
3 t 14 David
02-IR-95
Page 2
The Director’s decision shall be final June 13, 2003 unless the project applicant or
an owner or occupant of any of the adjacent properties requests review by the CiD~
Council as provided in Chapter 18.14.!00 of the P.~MC.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for CiU’ permits relating to
this approval. In the event that there is an appeal to CiU~ Council, an additional
letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before
the CitT Council°
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call
Gina La Ton-a, Planning Techniciar~ at (650) 329-2i65.
Sincerely,
Julie Caporgno
Manager of Advanced Planning
Kamran and Parissa Najmabadi, 875 Elbridge Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Neighbor notification list
Attachment C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Director’s Hearing
Thursday, May 1, 2003
REGULAR MEETING- 3:O0 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Ms. Julie Caporgno. Advance Planning Manager: I am going to be the Hearing Officer for the
next item, which is 3114 David Avenue.
NEW BUSINESS
3114 David Avenue [02-IR-95]: Request by Steve Simpson Architects on behalf of Kamran
Najmabadi for Single Family Individual Review for a new two-story residence at 3114 David
Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provision of the California
Environmental Quality Act per section 15303. Zone District R-1.
Ms. Caporgno: That project was a request by Steve Simpson Architects on behalf of Kamran
Najmabadi for Single Family Individual Review for a new two-story residence at 3114 David
Avenue. Environmental Assessment for the project was found to be exempt from the provision
of the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15303. The Zone District for the project
is R-1, which is Single Family Residential.
Before I get started I just wanted to go through the process that I am gong to undertake this
afternoon. This is a Director’s Hearing on a Staff approval of an Individual Review project. So
what I am going to do is first ask Staff to describe the criteria that they used for evaluating the
project and summarize how the project meets those criteria that have been established for the
Individual Review program. Then I will ask the applicant or the applicant’s representative if
they would like to give a presentation on the project and how they designed the project and are
attempting to ensure compatibility and privacy which are the two paramount issues regarding the
Individual Review process. Then I would like the person who asked for this hearing today to
identify" the issues that they have with the project. Then I will ask for any comments that the
applicant may have. Then I will open up the public hearing for any other comments.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
My options this afternoon are that I can approve the project. Well, not this aftemoon but
eventually I will make a decision on this project and I can either approve the project as proposed,
approve the project with additional conditions or deny the project. I may continue this item
depending upon the issues that are raised this afternoon to an additional meeting if there are
certain things that I think that could be ironed out in the interim to address some of the issues
that are raised this afternoon. So with that I will turn it over to Staff. If you could explain what
the criteria used were to evaluate the project.
Ms. Amy French: I am now speaking as an advisor to the Staff Member Gina La Torra, who has
advised Gina and actually signed off on the tentative approval which would have served as the
final approval had it not been called up for a Director’s Hearing.
The criteria that was used to review this project was the City’s Individual Review guidelines for
single-family residences. Ms. La Torra reviewed the project with all of those guidelines in mind
and there were some revisions to the project but I will let her go over to say how the applicant
responded to those items. I can say from having reviewed the file and having signed the original
approval that there were many suggestions made by Staff as far as changes to the building.
Some of those changes have been implemented others have not. The architect for the applicant
prepared a letter describing why some of these things were not feasible or desirable and why they
were not going to do them. You may be able to be more specific about what those were.
I know there is some concern, and just for the record I have visited the site and the adjacent
neighbor’s house the Mirsky’s who live to the south of the property. I was able to view the
project site through their kitchen and living room windows and to see what the existing
conditions are. There is some issue as to whether they have minimized the privacy. I think they
have minimized the privacy and we can talk about that with windows and that kind of thing
appropriately placed. But they definitely would be seen from that perspective a two-story
structure where they currently do not see a two-story structure. So whether that was the most
sensitively placed portion of the two-story building is something to discuss and consider in your
role and we are available for questions on that. Gina, would you like to add something on the
guidelines that we went through on this project and what they did as far as changes between the
original submittal and the second?
Ms. Gina La Torra: From the initial submittal we had a meeting with them and we asked them to
change the appearance of the front fa,cade and minimize the mass of it. In the second revision
they brought the second story in and kind of elongated it and reduced the appearance from the
front. There were also a couple of changes resulting from that.
You can actually see on the there is an elevation page that shows the revisions from the
first to the second. We also requested that they step back the garage from the front. So they
have minimized the massing. In the rear they also did some changes here to minimize, they
removed a balcony and again reduced the mass. After that we reviewed the project again and
because this is in a flood zone they were required to raise the height to I believe three feet above
grade or around that and the adjacent neighbors are at grade. They are Eichler-esque style
homes.
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
So we sent back a letter asking them to make some changes. Those were to reduce the height
and similar changes to that. The architect, Steve Simpson, sent back a letter saying why it was
not feasible or a good solution to reduce the height or change the appearance of the house. After
that we had another meeting and they did agree to lower the height, I believe it was about a foot.
Ms. French: Something like that.
Ms. La Torra: So in the final approval they did lower the height that these drawings show. It
was 28.1 and now it is 27.7. These plans show 28.1 and the revision is that it is approved at
27.7.
Ms. French: I don’t know if you are done but adding to that it just occurred to me that one of the
things in the letter is a list of things that could be considered by the applicant, the list of
suggestions that came from Staff,, one of those was to consider relocating some of the second
floor area elsewhere. I think the first floor was one of those suggestions. Anther option would
be elsewhere at the second floor level and I think one of the issues about where that is located is
that there is a neighbor on the opposite side that is concerned about shadow on that property if
the second floor were to be moved on the opposite side of the house. Not shadow studies it says
shadow studies haven’t been submitted for this.
Ms.La Torra: The applicant submitted a shadow study yesterday.
Ms.French: Okay.
Ms.La Torra: So that is on file and I believe that they wanted to discuss that.
Ms. Caporgno: Does that conclude Staff’s comments? The applicant, or the applicant’s
representative, could you step forward?
I think I neglected to mention who I am prior to starting this item. I am Julie Caporgno,
Advance Planning Manager.
Mr. Steve Simpson, Architect: I will give you kind of a quick overview and maybe expand on a
couple of things that Gina and Amy talked about.
What we have now or what was approved is a completely different house than the original
submittal. The floor plan is completely changed and the elevations have completely changed
mainly based on the initial meeting that we had with Staff and the consultant architect, Arnold
from Origins. A few things were discussed. The primary thing we came out of that meeting that
seemed like the most important thing to do was to limit the mass as it appears from the street.
The streetscape was discussed quite a bit. What we had presented before was a fairly wide house
and we did that in order to preserve some backyard. Can I show you this? It is an odd-shaped
lot. It is kind of a jackpot situation here because we have the flood zone and we have a
neighborhood of fairly low-stung houses and an odd-shaped lot.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
As you can see this is the street. We were trying to get some backyard back here. We have a
fairly big side yard but it is triangular and it is not as easily used as a backyard. So we had
stretched the house across this way in order to get a bigger backyard. The result of that is that
the house got wider from the front. So the new design brought the mass of the second floor in
about 25% so we reduced quite a bit off of this on the second floor at the expense of the
backyard. Right now we are up against the 20-foot rear setback in the rear, which really isn’t
desirable. We didn’t present that because of that and because it does have a big impact on how
they will be able to use their yard. That also kind of factors into the comment about relocating
some of the second floor space because if we do that, if we take a bedroom off of here and put it
here then they don’t really have any yard, I mean a very little yard and has a severe impact on the
amount of yard area that they will be able to enjoy. They would basically be at setback. We are
pretty much at minimum setbacks here. The other reason we didn’t go down that path is that it
also can create kind of an awkward floor plan. Right now they have two children, we have two
bedrooms upstairs for the kids sharing one bath and a master bedroom. So all the bedrooms are
upstairs. The only way we could take mass off of the second floor would be to take a bedroom.
We couldn’t really take the bathroom because the other kid’s bedroom would need a bath so we
can take one bedroom. Then we would connect at a bathroom downstairs to service the kid’s
bedroom. So it kind of has a snowball effect there. I think we felt that given that we are over-
conforming in all of the setbacks and the issue really here is not whether it is a two-story house
or not it is just that if we tried to sensitively place it, if it was a one-story house we wouldn’t be
here.
So what we did in the resubmittal is we stepped everything in quite a bit so that the second floor
shown here in the darker area is darker as opposed to lighter. The other thing that came out of
the initial meeting was to change some of the detail to be more in line with the style of the
houses around there and the comment that came mainly from Arnold at that meeting was that we
should incorporate gable roof forms instead of the hip roof forms that we had before because
most of the houses in the neighborhood are gables and we did that.
The balcony was discussed a little bit at the first meeting. We felt that it was a balcony that
could stay in line with the guidelines but just to make things easier we took it off with the new
plan. So the balcony is gone.
The other thing that we have a problem with here is the house is in a flood zone. None of the
houses in the neighborhood conform to the current FEMA requirements. This has to no matter
what we do here. In the last year or so Public Works has tightened their interpretation of the
FEMA requirements such that even what we used to be able to do with a flood zone house.
which was we had to keep the floor level above the flood zone but we could excavate a crawl
space. So say in this case the flood leve! is only about a foot above grade and we would be able
to place the floor level at one foot and one inch, dig down a crawl space and that would work.
Now we can’t have any excavated space under the house. So we have to keep pad level, you
have to create a crawl space for raised wood floor and the floor system. So part of what is
happening here is this house is a foot and one-half higher just because of the new interpretation
of the FEMA requirements with Public Works. Two years ago we could have done this house a
foot and one-half lower.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Caporgno: How large is the site and how large is the house?
Mr. Simpson: Well the square footage we have is 3,177 square feet of total area. That includes
the two-car garage. So we have it down to 2,829. The lot is about 8,000 square feet. So we
conform to all the zoning requirements on that. The footprint on the site right now as we’ve
proposed is about 2,000 square feet on the 8,000 for the lot. Because of the shape of the lot the
front setback eats up a fair amount of the square footage and the wide rear area, you have a bit
rear setback area that takes a lot of lot area in the front setback.
Where we can we have tried to address the concerns that have been addressed to us and things
that we could address. There were some things that were mentioned as suggestions that we felt
that we couldn’t or shouldn’t do. Some of the guidelines, some of the techniques, that are
recommended in the guidelines for mitigating mass are things like dormer windows and lower
plate lines. That I feel tends to work in an area with a different style house, if you can go with a
steeper pitch roof and you can kind of hide the second floor under that you can conceal the
second floor. In this t?qge of neighborhood that style house would be even more out of line here.
Then we are caught with a situation here with a two-story house that as we lower the pitch of the
roof more of the second floor walls become exposed. So we have tried to strike a balance there.
We have a little steeper pitch than the adjacent houses but if we were doing flat roofs here even
more of the second floor wall would be exposed.
Ms. Caporgno: Amy, you mentioned that this is the house, the one off of Stelling that you have
!ooked at.
Ms. French: Yes. That is the house that we viewed the site from.
Ms. Caporgno: That would be most effected as far as visually by the house as proposed.
Mr. Simpson: Yes, and that is where we have stepped this in. We have actually brought the
house in. This shows windows that they have and this is the orientation we are
proposing. Trees here. This is the garage all one story.. There are some small windows here and
here. These are obscure glass. This is the bathroom. This is a very high clearstory window so
this is not a window that looks down. It is a high window in this bedroom just to get some cross
ventilation. We have tried to set the building back a little bit.
Ms. Caporgno: You said that relocating this over on that side the problem with that is that you
lose?
Mr. Simpson: Understand this is another primary outdoor space here. So the more we move
over here then it becomes more of an impact here. We have tried to balance it in the center so
the more we do this the more it impacts this neighbor. The same thing happened here by moving
the mass. We had the mass distributed this way originally. By moving the mass this way it
impacts this neighbor more. So there is really no great solution here for all parties.
Mr. Kamran Najmabadi. Applicant: It will not impact the final result. You would have the same
result.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Simpson: There is no way that we can do this and have this not be visible as a two-story
house. I can tell you from current experience, I am doing a one-story house in Palo Alto right
now that is just as tall as this house. So just the fact that it is a two-story house does not mean it
is going to make a difference because we are doing a one-story house that is 28 feet tall right
now. So a lot of it is configuration and roof pitch.
Ms. Caporgno: Do you have anything that you would like to add?
Mr. Kamran N~mabadi. Applicant: Is this our time to speak?
Ms. Caporgno: You will be able to also comment later but yes if you have any comments that
you would like to make right now you can.
Ms. Parissa Naimabadi, Applicant: Just to continue on the conversation about maybe locating
some of the components of the house elsewhere. We just did a shadow study because it was
requested from the Mersky’s. It was in their appeal letter and we took it verb’ seriously and did a
very comprehensive shadow study. Gina has it. It goes every 45 days for the entire year we
have minimum impact and you can see for yourself. But on the coversheet it says that you have
placed this house at the most optimum location because any movement to either side right, left or
behind would have serious impact on the other neighbors. So this is the best position of the
house so that the impact, the shadow impact, to al! the adjacent properties is minimized. Since
shadow was the primary reason that Mr. and Mrs. Mersky had brought up we felt that we could
not have placed this house elsewhere and the shadow is actually minimal. In fact I think it is
almost zero, you can see by the report.
We also have some rebuttals to the other points that were made. I don’t know if it is appropriate
for us to make them at this point or if you would like us to wait.
Ms. Caporgno: Let’s let the person who requested the Hearing to raise the issues and then you
will have an opportunity to respond to those.
Ms. Najmabadi: Okay. I just want to close by saying that we felt like we have made every effort
with Steve to adhere to the guidelines. We wanted to respond to our neighbors as much as
possible and we have. We have responded directly to our neighbors regarding their concerns
with letters and phone calls. We have met with the neighbors. So we have made a conscious
effort to take all of their concerns into consideration and the result you see is a combination of
our adherence to the guidelines and adherence to the neighborhood look and feel and also
adherence to what we want to get from our home. So we just wanted to strike a balance here.
Mr. Simpson: If I could, just one quick thing. This is not the house that they wanted. This is not
the house that walked into my office saying that they wanted. What they originally wanted was a
different house. So they have come a long way toward the other side here in changing the look
and style of the house. So I think the process is working. It is not like it was a couple of years
ago where it didn’t matter. This is a whole new house that we have done because of the
feedback that we have gotten from Staff and everything. So I think the process is working.
Ci~, of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Naimabadi: I just want to continue on that. We took every item seriously once we got the
recommendations from your City Architect and the Planning Department. We took them
seriously and we made a 100% change in the plan. Also when we heard about the shadow study
we took that seriously and got the best person to do it not only for 9:00 AM to we did
an extensive study. So we have the best intention to make sure that we tried for the
neighborhood.
Ms. Caporgno: If that is all you have at this moment what I would like to do is have the person
who requested the hearing today speak. If you could come up and use the microphone here. I
will open the public hearing now.
Mr. Gre~ Mirskv. 3048 Stellin,o Drive: Okay. For the beginning actually I would like to thank
everybody for setting up this hearing because it was a long way and everybody I know tried their
best effort actually. Specifically thanks to Ms. French and Ms. La Tora that visited our house
and looked at this because it is one story to look at the blueprints and another story to look
through the windows on the house and just really be there.
There is one thing actually that I would like to say. Two years ago when these new guidelines
were accepted and adopted by the City they were adopted to address major concerns that were in
Palo Alto. Then people started building in this pretty much residential neighborhood with a
small these huge houses that pretty much changed the style of Palo Alto. One of
the things that this highlighted that the guidelines tried to presern’e the spirit of Palo Alto, to take
into consideration the neighbor’s requirements and neighbor’s concerns and make sure that Palo
Alto stays Palo Alto from the beginning. Honestly, when this project was submitted actually we
talked to applicants even before it was submitted it became clear that this is exactly why these
guidelines were adopted. This is a single story neighborhood. By neighborhood I don’t mean
the whole Palo Alto Midtown. When I go outside of my house and I look around what I see is
single story Eichters. What I did actually, I am not an architect, but essentially this is a picture.
If you look at this neighborhood this is our area, al! these houses are single story houses. There
is one two story house right here and that’s it everything else is flat Eichlers. Now when this
application was submitted I marked all neighbors who complained to the City, at least all the
neighbors I knew about that complained to the Ci~: that they didn’t like this building that was
twice as high as everything else and second twice as big in area as everything else. All the
houses are between 1,500 and maybe 1,800 square feet. This looks like 3,000-something. There
were some problems with privacy with the first project and the second project and honestly I can
tell you that some of them were addressed. I know the applicant’s did their best trying fo adopt
this and move windows and remove balcony that were concerns from some of the other
neighbors. They made their best effort there is no question about that. Really the point that it
has improved the picture a little bit but it didn’t change the nature of the problem. The nature of
the problem right now I stand in the middle of my window in the middle of my kitchen and I
look there and I see half of the sky. When this house will be built I will see a wal!. This is pretty
much the problem. If you talk to some of the neighbors that came here and actually they also
complained in writing to the City essentially it is the same. They have their own issues with this
construction and they may be different because there were problems with the balcony, this and
that but the bottom line is the same, it doesn’t change anything. The bottom line is when you
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
!4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
build something that is twice as big as everything else k creates problems. So that is why we ask
the City to deny this application. Technically speaking the applicant has like two sides in this
neighborhood. If the other neighbors don’t complain, they have a house fight here, if those
neighbors don’t complain about a two-story house there it might be a place to build this house.
But if you look, I marked everybody who wrote to the City, guess what? It is all adjacent
neighbors. Even people who didn’t write, I talked to them and they are saying yeah, you know,
they are pretty much retired people saying we can write whatever we want but the City is going
to do whatever they want to do. Sorry if it doesn’t sound fight to you but that is unfortunately
the reaction that I get from older people and retired people. That is pretty much it. I have some
copies of the letters. I believe Gina has some of them but just in case if you need to file
something this is from this person. It is essentially comments to all the iterations of the project.
I am sure that I don’t have all of them it is just that several people carbon copied me some of the
letters they sent to the City. I am thankful to them. So that is pretty much the story.
By the way, you mentioned about the shadow study, I am glad that they did it. Unfortunately it
was requested half a year ago and I heard today that it was submitted yesterday so we didn’t have
a chance to look at it. But I know that it really doesn’t change the final effect. We are dealing
with an 8,000 square foot lot. Even if you take it as a single story house as a solution and built
according to the City’s guidelines, I don’t remember the percentage, but you can easily build
3,000 square foot house as a single story in this area. I think it is like 30% or 40% depending on
the guidelines.
Ms. Najmabadi: If it says at single story it is 45% of the first 5,000 and 30% of the additional
square footage.
Mr. Mirskv: So essentially you can build pretty much a similar area in single story with no
problem. Sorry? I know that it is a strange lot but I have seen a lot of strange shaped single
story houses everywhere. So anyway I am not making a recommendation, don’t take me wrong,
I am just trying to solve the immediate problem.
I am pretty much done.
Ms. Capor~no: I do have a question for the architect. Was the possibility ever explored of
building a single story house on this property?
Mr. Simpson: No. It is not their desire. As I mentioned earlier it is very problematic. If you
can just look at that plan and trying to transfer that darker mass onto the site you don’t have a
yard. But it wasn’t and that’s because it would have a huge impact on their yard and their
usability of the property. My understanding is it is not really something we need to review.
Ms. Caporgn0: I am just asking.
Mr. Simpson: I understand but this process is to review two story houses.
Ms. Caporgno: The Individual Review- process does allow this is not a neighborhood where
second stories aren’t prohibited so that would be allowed in this area. I was just curious.
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.,
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Simpson: The reason we didn’t is because of that. I mean it wasn’t really pursued up to any
design work because it was pretty easy to tell initially that it would result in very little yard space
and people want yards. They have a family and you want a yard.
Mr. Naimabadi: This was discussed initially with him. Let me ask you something. The first
it is easy to say that but if you think about it it may not change what you want to see,
frankly. Because you could have a first story building here that you would have the same
complaint. I can guarantee you that because once you have the [freedom] to put a floor plan it
will block something. It really depends
Mr. Simpson: There is no way to get around there is going to be a change here regardless of
what we do there is a change. It is just unfortunate for you that there is going to be a change. It
is fortunate for them they are going to be able to have a new house. They have lived in the
neighborhood for 16 years now right down the street so they are familiar with the neighborhood.
In my experience sometimes screening can be a very good way to handle that. There is no way
that we are going to make this go away but somehow we maybe can make it so you are loo "king
at some nice trees or bushes instead of the house. There is no way that we can put a two story
house on this site and not have it be visible and appear like a two story house. It is going to have
an impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Naimabadi: When all these houses were built, if you took at the plan of our house, all of
them were built pretty much the same way. See what they are doing. They have this area of the
patio to protect privacy. So the next house, the house that we are talking about was built like
this, so there is a huge distance for example between our window-s and the next-door windows.
That was done on purpose essentially during the original construction. This whole neighborhood
essentially was built in such a way so people who were builders in this area thought about this. I
understand that you can build a single story house the same height as a two sto~ but I do believe
that the City probably will complain, not even ask, but the City will complain if you build a
tower in this neighborhood. To make sure that there is huge ceilings and things like that, a clock
tower or something of that nature.
Ms. Capor~no: Is there anything else that any of you would like to add in response?
Ms. Najmabadi: Could we maybe reserv’e it? I thought you said you were going to open it in the
end.
Ms. Caporgno: Yes, well you can speak now or you can wait.
Mr. Simpson: One thing I would say is that the existing house that is there now is as closer or
closer to your property as the one that we are proposing and in fact a lot of what we are
proposing in this area here is set back farther than the existing house.’
Mr. Mirskv: But it is the same height as ours so that is why
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Simpson: I understand but at least as far as the house itself we have moved it in farther than
the existing. The house that is there now comes back into here. There is a garage that sits back
in here. So we are adding the two story but we aren’t bringing anything closer to your house
than there is a structure now.
Mr. Najmabadi: I think he sent us a letter and I think you have a copy of that. All the
dimensions are there and we moved it how far it is from your windows. It is more than the
average homes there. Average homes there are about from wall to wall 12 feet.
Mr. Mirskv: But that doesn’t concern me actually.
Mr. Naimabadi: But on the first floor we are about nine and eight, which is 17 foot. On the
second floor we are from your wall to the second floor is about 24 feet.
Mr. Mirskv: I understand. Like I said, it is not an issue that two feet more or two feet less, half a
foot shorter or half a foot longer. It is not about that. It is when you sit in your kitchen or in
your living room and we have both windows, what do you see right now? There is sky versus
brick wall, I mean not brick wall sorry, but.
Mr. Najmabadi: But that is not normal. If you think that is normal. You mentioned about that
neighbor, if you went through that neighborhood you would see a lot of windows. For example
these windows are on the first floor. They sit in front of each other.
Mr. Mirskv: But we don’t have it now. Here is the issue.
Mr. Najmabadi: I agree. We can figure out something creative. What is wrong with having
some nice trees there? No matter, privacy right, your issue is not even a matter of a shadow
because the shadow study. You are just mentioning you don’t care about that.
Mr. Mirskv: It is a view and we also believe that it even affects the value of our house. Instead
of the sky you will see the walls it will become an apartment complex.
Ms. Naimabadi: I guess what I struggle with is how come the view is not part of the guideline. I
feel that view is not a right for anybody. In front of my house today
Mr. Najmabadi: It is a real estate law.
Ms. Najmabadi: It is a real estate law and we have documentation to show you that legally real
estate taw" you cannot say that my next-door neighbor is blocking my view.
Unknov~ woman-audience: You can in lots of places in California.
Ms. Najmabadi: But not in this area.
Ms. Caporgno: Okay, people.
Cio’ of Palo A lto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Naimabadi: The City Ordinance of Palo Alto does not have a regulation and I don’t have to
tell the Planning Department. I just want to familiarize everybody else.
Mr. Naimabadi: But we want to accommodate you. We are not talking about law here.
Ms. Naimabadi: But it is a fundamental issue because it is not in the guidelines. There must be a
reason that it is not in the guidelines.
Mr. Mirskv: But mass and scale are in the guidelines and shadowing in the guidelines. I can say
shadowing because the view is on the top of everything else.
Ms. Caporgno: I understand. So your issue is the view that you are going to lose when the
house is built on that second story.
What I would like to do now is open the public hearing and allow any of the other people in
audience to speak. I have five cards. Cindy Samos first.
Ms. Cindy Samos. 346 Colorado Avenue. Palo Alto: I am just here in support of [Kevin and
Parissa]. I have seen their plans. I know that they have worked really hard to try to come up
with something. It is not going to please everybody. It sounds like it is a second story issue and
that is one that you are not going to be able to get over. I think it is difficult sometimes for
neighbors. I want to mention that I live on a comer lot and a second story was built, a pre IR
house, directly behind us and I had exactly zero input into it. As a result I appreciate the fact that
the IR process exists so that other folks can have some input into this process. I really think
personally that ifI had their proposed design in place of the one that is currently next to us I
would have been overjoyed because it doesn’t impinge on privacy, it doesn’t have any shadow
impacts.
Unknown woman-audience: Excuse me. May I ask your name?
Ms. Samos: I am supposed to say my name and my address?
Ms. Capor~no: Cindy Samos. I had announced her but yes if you can tell us where you live. I
was going to ask that question.
Ms. Samos: 346 Colorado Avenue.
Ms. Caporgno: You are not in the neighborhood?
Ms. Samos: No, I am not in the immediate neighborhood. I am just somebody who is here to
support their plans. I have seen them. That is basically all I want to say is that I think that they
have gone to great expense between shadow studies and changing plans it is a very expensive
process. I would hate to see that people that can’t afford to go through that process lose their
ability to build a second story because it has become so financially difficult when you tack on all
this additional cost. The shadow study apparently wasn’t even necessaD’ maybe in the first
place. I don’t know. I am just here to support them. Thanks ve~, much.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. The next card I have is from [Bret Carens].
Mr. Brett kerrins. 3280 Clifton Court: Hi. I went to De Anza Elementary School. Some of you
that know the area know that it is no longer there. I used to buy, my ice cream cones at Peer’s
Dairy, which was right there so I am pretty familiar with the area. I live around the corner. One
of the things that I have sometimes heard is that the lots are too small to accommodate a two-
stow home. I don’t think that that is really the case here because if that were the case we
wouldn’t allow any two story homes in Palo Alto and we do allow two stow homes. I think that
we just need to recognize that there will be changes that are made. It is their property and they
should have the right to make changes to their property and view is not an issue in the IR
guidelines. They are trying to follow what the IR guidelines are and I think the appellants are
trying to introduce new criteria and that involves changing the IR process not what is on the tale
right here and now. I think if you view it as an important topic then that needs to go to the IR
group and have the change made there. You can’t make a judgment on something that is not part
of the rules right now. That is all I have to say.
[Unknown man - either appellant or applicant]: I assume mass and scale is still part of the
guidelines.
Mr. Brett Kerrins: I do and that is what the FAR is for and it accommodates the FAR
requirement.
Ms. Caporgno: The next speaker is Ronny [Carens].
Ms. Ronnie Kerrins. 3280 Clifton Court: That’s my husband. I live around the corner. Our
children play together at Seale Park. I am very familiar with the plans here. I just wanted to
make a couple of comments. One is that it has been brought up that possibly they could build a
one-story house. I don’t think that would be possible on this land. You need to be able to have
access to all rooms. It is impossible to put that many rooms down on the bottom floor without
having a sense of hallways and using up excessive FAR in areas where it is not needed. Also in
this day where children are being abducted I think having children’s bedrooms on the second
floor is incredibly important and having parent’s bedrooms on the same floor is also very
important. They have small children that need a yard to play in, a yard to run in. This
neighborhood that we live in has houses that are 40 to 50 years old. Many of them are termite
infested, slab foundations, they were tract homes that were slapped up when there was a big
boom in the population back in the 1950s and 1960s. To say that those houses that exist now are
better than this house that is being built is just ludicrous. Palo Alto prides itself on its custom
homes, on its character and this is a custom home that is going to add character to a
neighborhood that does not have it now. What I hear as the primary complaint is view. I just
want to reiterate again that California law stipulates that there is no right to view. In some
places, Yosemite where maybe somebody, has a cabin and somebody else is trying to build some
ridiculous four story house right in front of it I can see where that would be an issue. But in tract
homes in Palo Alto nobody owns the view and whether you can see my two-story house or not is
not your right one way or the other. Major accommodations have been made. This house is not
anything like the original house that was designed horizontal. When you look at the
CiO’ ofPalo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
streetscape it looks like a one story house with a little bit taller roof. I think the streetscape is
ma~maificent. I think the mass is scaled down. The property has been brought in 25% on both
sides on the second floor. I just don’t see how this house cannot be approved. It follows the
guidelines, in many areas it exceeds the guidelines and just looking at the people who are
appealing it you can see that they are last generation. A new generation is moving into this area.
A new generation of children and it was written in the Palo Alto Weekly just the other day that
across the nation in the 1970s the average square footage of a house was 1,700 square feet and
today the average of a house is 2,700 square feet. Twenty-seven hundred square feet, 3,000
square feet is not an abnormally large lot. In addition I would like to comment that recently at an
IR hearing at the City Council Dena Mossar commented that when they formed the zoning laws
a couple of years ago that they scaled them back as far as they possible could. Basically the?,
made zoning laws to build the smallest possible house that they felt like they could at that time.
This house meets those zoning laws it exceeds those zoning laws. It is well within the daylight
plane. It is a small house on an average size lot in Palo Alto.
Mr. Najmabadi: Can I just add something?
Ms. Caporgno: You will have an opportunity later.
Mr. Najmabadi: No, no I think she said something she didn’t mean to offend anyone. I "know
the context.
Ms. Capor~no: Okay. We need to go on. We are in the middle of a public hearing. I would like
to take the testimony of anyone else who wants to speak. I have two other cards Irene Sweeney
and Lois Mac Leod. So Irene if you could give us your testimony.
Ms. Irene Sweenev: First of all I would like to congratulate you on your very good talk it was
excellent. I would just like to add that I feel that the lots are too small and the houses are too
close together for a two story house to go up in our area. I would like to add also that Los Altos
has large lots and doesn’t like to have two story houses built on their tots. They have one-acre
lots and they turn down people when they want to have just a regular house built. In fact a
person I "know who also "knows Mr. Najmabadi that happened to him. Also a person came to me
the other day and they said that they had just come from Willow Glen in San Jose and he said it
is unbelievable what is happening there. You have a small house, a couple of big houses, small
house, small house, big house and he said Palo Alto is doing exactly the same thing. So I just
don’t think it is right.
I have another question. Why do you insist on building a house on David when you can build
one where lots of people were agreeable on [Elbridge]?
Ms. Najmabadi: I’ll respond to that.
Ms. Caporgno: You will have an opportunity. The final speaker card I have, I don’t know if
anybody else wants to speak is [Lois McCloud].
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Lois Mac Leod. 3111 David Avenue. Palo Alto: Actually the building of this particular
house doesn’t impact my lot. My name is Lois McCloud and I live directly across the street
from the Mersky’s. I am in support of not building the way it is because [too
much noise interference]
Ms. Caporgn0: You are located here?
Ms. Mac Leod: Yes, right down there. No one has said that this. house is not better than the ones
that are there.
Ms. Caporgno: Could you speak up a little bit?
Ms. Mac Leod: No one has said that this house is not better than the ones that are there. Our
houses are 30 or 40 years old. Those lots were made to accommodate the particular houses that
they built on them not to put up two story houses. Maybe we don’t have a right to a view but I
think that if the national bodies had lived in the house where the Mersky’s are I believe that they
would have exactly the same issue. I think they would have the same issue. The reason that the
size and view was not an issue before was because it didn’t need to be an issue. All of the
houses were the same style on the same size lots. Now we have a house wanting to go up that is
actually going to be looking into a number of backyards but specifically impinging on their view
from their house. I wouldn’t like it. I don’t have an issue because I am on the cul-de-sac and I
can see out all of my windows in any direction but I don’t think it is right for them nor the
Sweeney’s nor for whoever lives on Wintergreen.
Mr. Mirskv: We have actually a letter from them. Bad example.
Ms. Mac Leod: I have a letter. I have a couple of letters actually that I have written. I also think
that when people are interested in tearing down a house and putting up a two-story house if you
have a two-story house that you want to build you go out and you look for a lot to build it on.
You don’t try to get a house that size onto a !ot that wasn’t intended for a house that size to begin
with. Maybe I should have brought my
Ms. Caporgno: I don’t want to discuss it. If anybody wants to add any information you can fill
out a card. You have had an opportunity already.
Ms. Mac Leod: Let me explain why I feel that way. Nobody has ever contacted me as a
neighbor whether I had an issue with it or not. I have never heard from the Najmabadi’s by
phone or other. Thank you.
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. Are there any other people who would like to comment? Why don’t
you provide testimony then you can fill out a card afterward and give it to me? Please tell me
your name.
Ms. Ina Mirskv: That was my husband. I just want to mention again that we have four houses
around this property and all of them against this new project, but all
houses that are adjacent to this property are against. There is only one person who was
Cio~ ofgalo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
property. So
but according to architect he also doesn’t want a second floor on that
and everybody else is against it.
[Unknown man - either appellant or applicant]: [unclear]
Ms. Capor,ono: Would you like to fill out a card? You can speak while she fills out the card and
then fill out a card after Mrs. Mersky.
Ms. Elizabeth Won~, 1849 Webster. Palo Alto: I just want to remind everybody, applicant,
appellant and City, that the process deals with zoning and with guidelines not with what we like
and do not like, not about how many people oppose the project, whether it is one or 100. This is
about laws. We live in a City that has laws that have been scrutinized at infinitum and the
project should be judged on whether it conforms with the laws and whether the guidelines have
been met. Thank you.
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. With that I will close the public hearing if there are no further
public speakers. I would like to ask if you have any comments you would like to make in
rebuttal to any of the comments.
Ms. Najmabadi: My name is [Resa] Najmabadi. I am the owner with my husband for 3114
David Avenue. Before going through my response to objections I would like to fist apologize if
you have been offended in any way. We really do not need to do that. We have lived in the
neighborhood. We really love our neighbors and would like to have a great relationship with our
neighbors so the intention was not really offend anybody.
The second item I wanted to mention is that all of you have emphasized the number of complaint
letters about this project. The first time we submitted this plan before any change there were five
letters that were submitted. Out of these five only three were adjacent properties. Then on the
second time around when we submitted our plan there were only two letters that were submitted.
One was from Mr. and Mrs. Mersky and one was from Irene Sweeney. So the point about all of
the adjacent neighbors having complained is not really a correct statement. We have three other
neighbors that have not complained in the second review. We are very happy about that because
we feel like we made some progress in the plan. So the only remaining complaints come from
Mr. and Mrs. Mersky and Irene Sweeney. The second time around we have not received any
letters.
Woman-public speaker: It’s there.
Mr. Mirskv: On Wintergreen actually the neighbors sent letters.
Ms. Naimabadi: That was the first time around.
Mr. Mirskv: No.
Ms. Caporgno: Wait, wait, wait please. Let her finish her comments. Everybody has had an
opportunity to speak.
CiO, qfPalo .4lto Page 15
Ms. Najmabadi: So the second time around and maybe there is a little bit of confusion about
3 when the letters have come but the final plan, the final plan before Amy French’s approval had
4 only two complaint letters. This letter that I am going to read to you is actually a response to
5 those complaints and it could be very well your complaint as well because it seems like it is very
6 common.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
So first and foremost the appellant’s, the Mersky’s, raised two main objections.
These objections are not new at all. They have always been documented in our application prior
to approval. Therefore when our plan was initially approved by Amy French these objections
were all taken into consideration by the Planning Department.
We are here today for the same objections as before and we are obliged to respond to them.
Objection number one reads as follows, "The proposed plan would shadow our home. Our
kitchen and living room windows are located on the side of our house adjacent to this new home
and those windows would receive no light darkening an entire half of our home." This is our
response. The Mersky’s property has the most access to sunlight since it is a comer lot facing
almost east. Also the property has no neighbors on two out of our sides. The Mersky’s property
actually casts a shadow on our property every day of the year instead of the other way around
because it is located to the south of our property. Our shadow study, that was submitted
yesterday, provides more detail on this. The comprehensive shadow study that was completed
indicates that our plan’s shadow impact is minimal year-round if any. The fences at the
Mersky’s property cast a larger shadow at the property than our plan does. Even if they did have
a shadow impact IR guideline number six regarding solar orientation does not have the intention
of proposing zero shading to adjacent properties. This is according to John Northway, advisor to
City Officials, when the guidelines were being crafted and to Judith Wasserman, Committee
Member of Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory, Committee. We allowed an expert
to assess the shadow impact and did not claim anything based on our own assessment.
Neighbors should also allow experts to make this assessment.
The second objection reads as follows, "The proposed new plan would completely block our side
view." In real estate law’, as we mentioned before, owner has air rights, oil and gas rights, water
rights, solid mineral rights and support rights. There are no light or view rights. As you know
no one has any right to light or view unless it has been granted in writing by a raw or subdivision
rule.
Finally I would like to bring up a few additional points that I hope will address some of your
questions even though we have not received any letters. There are other two story homes in the
neighborhood if you define neighborhood as a vicinity. On Stelling Drive where all of you are
located there are three two-story homes, 3072, 3107 and 3110. By the way 3072 is three houses
down from Mrs. Sweeney’s property and four houses down from Mr. Mersky’s property. So to
say that there are no two-story houses in the neighborhood is a false statement. Even if there
were no two-story houses in the neighborhood someone will be the first to construct a two-story
house. For example there is the recent construction of a two-story house on Sycamore Drive,
which is predominantly single story. The IR guidelines applied to two story, houses only and
therefore any objects to a two-story house is irrelevant. Among all the adjacent properties the
Ci0 of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Sweeney’s property shares the smallest boundary with us. According to Judith Wasserman, a
Committee Member of Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Committee neighbors
should have a voice not a veto in what goes on in their immediate vicinity. Guidelines are
subject to interpretations by the professionals hired to do the job like the Planning Department
not by neighbors.
In closing we strongly believe that we have met all the IR guidelines for privacy, mass and scale
and streetscape as documented by our architect Mr. Steve Simpson. We have made every
possible effort to solicit neighbor feedback and to respond directly to their concerns. We have
taken an extra step to provide a shadow study, which was not required nor necessary due to the
orientation of our plan. We hope that from this point on we are not spending our time
responding to such objections. Instead we would like to move forward and start the construction
of our house as soon as possible. Thanks for listening.
Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. I think what I am going to do is when is the next hearing?
Ms. French: Two weeks from today which would be May 15.
Ms. Caporgno: Okay, I think I am going to continue this to the 15a to enable the neighborhood
or anyone from the neighborhood to review the shadow study since you haven’t had an
opportunity to review" that. I would like to go to the site and took at the site myself. So this item
will be continued until that meeting and then subsequent to that meeting I will make my
decision. You have a question?
Woman: I just wanted to make a comment. The houses at 3072 or 3107
Ms. Caporgno: Could you come up to the microphone?
Woman: The houses on Stelling that I think you mentioned.
Ms. Najmabadi: The three two story houses?
Woman: The three two story houses, I "know exactly the houses you are talking about. One of
them I think is on Stelling Court.
Ms. Najmabadi: Yes, part of it is on Stetling Court.
Woman: One of them is right on the comer of the cul-de-sac. That has been there for many,
many years but the two-story part of that is on the side that looks into the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Najmabadi: Yes.
Woman: My point is that it doesn’t impact anybody. If you go down Stelling past the Mersky’s
and past Sweeney’s if you go down that way you come to where the bend is, that particular
house here, I am very familiar with because it was my husband who built it. He did the second
story there. I believe that that house backs up closer to the creek and that the two stories,
Cio, of Palo Alto Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
because it is in the bend it is a different shaped lot than what we are talking about right now. It is
a totally different location.
Ms. Caporgno: I will go out there and look at the area in general as well as the property for this
site as well as adjacent nei~hbors. Thank you.
Mr. Naimabadi: I will not be able to attend this on the 15th I think I have some other
commitments.
Ms. Caporano: I am sorry I can’t hear you.
Mr. Na}mabadi: I will not be able to attend this on the 15th. Can we have this on another day?
Ms. Caporgno: Two weeks later. We have the hearings every two weeks. Would you prefer to
wait a month?
Mr.Naimabadi: No I would like to do it as soon as possible.
Ms.Caporgno: Okay. Then we will have it on the 15th. Thank you all for coming.
Ms.French: That concludes the Director’s Hearing of May 1, 2003.
Cio~ of Palo Alto Page 18