Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-09-08 City Council (6)
TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR: 408:03 DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 3280 CLIFTON COURT [02-IR-82]: RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF TO DENY REQUEST FOR HEARING OF APPEAL BY JULIAN GOMEZ AND CHERYL TOMPKINS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE INDIVIDUAL REVIEW APPLICATION (02-IR-82) FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, OWNED BY RONNI AND BRET KERRINS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council decline to hear the appeal of Single Family Individual Review application 02-IR-82, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval. Four or more affirmative votes by Council Members are needed to set the matter for hearing. If Council chooses to hear this appeal, it will be agendized for October 20, 2003. BACKGROUND The existing single story residence would be demolished and replaced with a 2,556 square feet house including an attached one-car garage on a 6,020 square feet site. The neighborhood contains a variety of housing styles and a mix of single story and two-story homes. The proposed residence would be 28’-9" tall, where 31’-6" is allowed. Two story residences and 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. The application was submitted on September 27, 2002. Prior to neighbor notification of the application, the adjacent neighbor (Mr. Gomez and Ms. Tompkins) at 3288 Clifton Court, located on the left (north, east) side of the subject property, submitted an e-mail (Attachment C #6) that raised concerns about privacy and solar shading. During the comment period and prior to the tentative approval of the application, Mr. Gomez and Ms. Tompkins submitted another letter (Attachment C #8) that raised issues regarding the project’s compliance with IR Guidelines 1 through 6. Staff reviewed these letters and met with Mr. Gomez to go over the project plans and discuss his concerns. The applicants submitted CMR:408:03 Page 1 of 6 responses to the appellant’s letters on October 2, 2002 and October 21, 2002. (Attachment C #7 and # 9) Seven months later in May 2003, the applicant submitted complete plans which met all the zoning ordinance regulations. The Manager of Current Planning tentatively approved the application, but a request for a Director’s Hearing was submitted by the appellant who had continued concerns, primarily about privacy and solar shading. The Director’s hearing was held on July 17, 2003. At the Director’s Hearing there were two speakers, in addition to Mr. Gomez, that opposed the project. These two speakers do not live in the same neighborhood as the subject property. There were thirteen speakers, including the applicants and their architect, that spoke in favor of the project. Five of these speakers are neighbors that live on Clifton Court. The application was approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on July 31, 2003. The appellant requested mediation, which is not required by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.14. Staff arranged and held a discussion session with Mr. Gomez, Mr. and Mrs. Kerrins, and the City’s IR consulting architect, Arnold Mammarella of Origins Design Network. An agreement could not be reached and Mr. Gomez and Ms. Tompkins submitted their appeal the following day. DISCUSSION The Director of Planning and Community Environment determined that the project meets all ten of the IR Guidelines. Guideline #1 and Guideline # 6 are the primary IR Guideline issues raised by the appellant. The Director has concluded that the application meets Guidelines #1 and #6 for the following reasons: Individual Review Guideline #1: "Place second-stow windows to respect privacy between properties." This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows, but rather to minimize the loss of privacy on adjacent sites. The proposed residence meets Guideline #1 in that the second story windows have been placed to respect privacy between properties. The approved plans include five second floor windows facing the right side of the appellant’s residence. The following points demonstrate how windows have been located and sized with respect to privacy: The windows that have been proposed for the second floor facing the appellant’s residence were intentionally chosen to be small 2’x2’ windows to limit views of the appellant’s property. The proposed window locations have been staggered so that they would not be located directly across from the windows of the appellant’ s home. The windows would be placed high in the wall, 54" rather than a typical 30"sill height to prevent casual observation of the appellant’s property. An individual would need to stand CMR:408:03 Page 2 of 6 very close (approximately within one foot) to the window to have a view down and over into the appellant’s two first floor windows or yard. To prevent the likelihood of anyone being able to stand at the windows to look down at the side of the appellant’S house, the plan has been designed so that the three windows in the master bedroom and the one window in bedroom #1 would be placed high in the bed wall of each of these rooms. There would be no other wall to locate a bed in these rooms. This means that no one would be able to observe the appellant’s yard or windows through these windows unless they stand on the bed, place their face close to the glass, and look down. Even if the occupants choose not to place the bed on this wall, these windows would not provide the opportunity for casual observance of the neighbors’ windows or rear yard. The window proposed in the master bedroom closet would be stained glass, preventing any views of the appellant’s property. The applicants have proposed a side yard setback of eight feet on the first floor and eleven and a half feet on the second floor for the side of the house that would face the appellant’s property. These setbacks are greater than the minimum six-foot setback required by the R-1 zoning regulations. The greater setbacks would result in windows that would be further away from the appellant’s property. There is a row of mature cherry trees along the side of the appellant’s house that would prevent any views of the appellant’s two side yard windows for many months of the year. Individual Review Guideline #6: "Respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbor’s houses and yards." This guideline was not intended to prevent any shadow from being cast over an adjacent neighbor’s house or yard but rather to minimize the shadow on an adjacent property, and to maintain solar access on the site. The proposed residence meets Guideline #6, in that the home does respect the solar orientation of the neighbors’ house and yard. The project’s design minimizes the shadow on neighboring properties by incorporating the following measures: The proposed building height would be 2’9" lower than the maximum height allowed, even though the house must be elevated three feet off the ground to comply with flood zone requirements. Hipped roofs are proposed at the side of the residence facing the appellant rather than gables that would be taller and create a larger expanse of second floor wall surface. The lower hipped roofs would allow for greater sun exposure to the adjacent property for a greater portion of the day. The house is proposed to be two feet further away from the appellant’s property, resulting in setbacks of eight feet at the first floor and eleven feet six inches at the second floor, where only six feet is required. Due to the unusual shape of the lot, much of the house has an even CMR:408:03 Page 3 of 6 greater setback from the appellant’s property. The greater setback would allow greater solar access for the appellant. The second floor would be stepped two to six feet back from the first floor. This design breaks up the wall mass, moves the second floor away form the appellant’s property, reduces the overall bulk and mass of the structure, and provides for greater solar access. ¯There are no proposed daylight plane encroachments at the side of the house adjacent to the appellant’s home. Although not required, a shading analysis, performed by a solar expert, was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City’s consulting architect (Attachment D).. The analysis explains that the side of the appellant’s house and their service side yard would be shaded by the proposed residence in the afternoon during the winter solstice. It would not be shaded in the morning or at noon during the winter solstice or at any time of the day during the summer solstice. Due to these factors, and the fact that the appellant’s home is already shaded in the afternoons during the winter months, the analysis concluded that the proposed residence would have a very minimal shading impact on the appellant’s home. Visits to the site and photographs (Attachment C #9) confirm that the appellant’s home currently experiences substantial shading in the afternoon during the winter solstice from existing structures and landscaping. ¯The mass and high point of the proposed residence would be oriented to the center of the lot to avoid shadows on the appellant’s property. In summary the proposed residence has been sited and designed such that it reduces the amount of shading that would otherwise be experienced if the residence were constructed to the allowable zoning limits. 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. The appellant’s letter of appeal discusses five issues that do not address the proposed house design and its compliance with Individual Review standards. They are discussed here to provide additional background information to the council. Issue 1 The appellant believes that the plans submitted for review were improperly prepared and did not accurately show all pertinent information. The plans accurately show the boundary of the subject property and the side of the appellant’s home that faces the subject property. The locations of the windows in the wall of the appellant’s home have also been accurately shown on the plans. The fact that the plans do not show the appellant’s patio that is on the far side of the house and yard and not adjacent to the applicant’s property is not necessary for the purposes of the IR review and it is therefore not necessary for that patio to be shown on the plans. Staff does CMR:408:03 Page 4 of 6 not require the entire footprint of adjacent houses to be shown on the plans. The wall and site area that face the applicants property are accurately drawn. Issue 2 The appellant has stated that the ordinance calls fo~ mediation with a mediator. Chapter 18.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require mediation. The original Guidelines adopted by the Director did provide for mediation and staff did arrange a discussion session with the appellant, the applicant, the City’s consulting architect, and City staff, but unfortunately no consensus was reached. Issue 3 Mr. Gomez has interpreted the City’s Municipal Code definition of gross floor area to include porches, trellised areas, and cantilevered bay windows. Chapter 18.04.030(65) of the Palo alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not require these areas to be calculated as floor area. This project complies with all zoning regulations. The condition of approval regarding the trellised area was included to clarify the fact that the trellis is not a carport and does not count as floor area because it does not meet the definition for covered parking (PAMC 18.04.030(41). Issue 4 Staff conducted a discussion session to provide the applicant and the appellant the opportunity to reach a resolution to the issues raised by the appellant and avoid an appeal to City Council. This discussion session was in place of mediation that was formerly offered by the City. In order to encourage dialogue between the parties, just as in standard mediation, what was said in the session was to remain confidential. Mr. Gomez alleged in his appeal letter that during the discussion session the City’s consulting architect showed a privacy intrusion. The City’s consulting architect has reviewed this application and has advised staff that it complies with all ten of the IR Guidelines, including Guideline #1 related to privacy. Issue 5 The appellant’s letter requests that the City Council hear this item to discuss problems with the IR process. This is not a basis for granting an appeal of an Individual Review decision. A discussion of the overall IR process and any perceived problems will take place late in 2003 as part of the annual IR review. 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 any change to existing City policies. The Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of the Individual Review Guidelines. CMR:408:03 Page 5 of 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is exempt from the provisions of the Section 15303(a). California Environmental Quality Act per ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Adjacent neighbor letter of appeal Attachment B: Applicant’s letter of response Attachment C: Solar analysis Attachment D: Minutes from July 17, 2003 Director’s heating Attachment E: Single Family Individual Review Co Chairs letter Attachment F: Administrative Record (Council Members only) Attachment G: Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: - (_..d~2-,~,-~ RUSS REICH, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT Director of P1 .ann~g and Co~nity Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAI~- ......... ~. ~,,_.,,..~kd ) . EMIL~SON " Assistant City Manager cc:Bret and Ronni Kerrins Julian Gomez and Cheryl Tompkins Janet Chuang Parissa Najmabadi Carroll Harrington Alie Beeves Don Mullen Marlene Kerrins Robert Kerrins Annette Ashton Cindy Samos Sahara Lirone Carol Mullen Elizabeth Wong Marsha Deslavriers Adjacent neighbor mailing list CMR:408:03 Page 6 of 6 CITY OF PALO ALTO Attachment A Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR To be filed in duplicate within ten day~ from date of decision of Zoning Administrator App,~tion No. 03" ,-A~" i 0 Receipt No. ;.’?"--.~ ,."oqq ~ ~ Street C~Zip LOCATION OF PROPERTY-: Assessor’s Parcel No. Street Address "~ m¢’~" 0 C [~-1C,3r-~ ~ ~ ~- Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) Street. - ¯ Zone District City Zip The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated whereby the application of ~ ~ " ~ (variance/use permit) (originaJ applicant) (auproveoiden~ed) for a hereby appealed::f~r the ~ reasons state6 in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date ~! "?") ~, "~ Signature of Appellant PbkNNING COMMISSION RECOMlv1ENDATION TO THE CI I-~Y, COUNCIL: Date Approved Denied Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1..Plans 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.Letter 5.Fee To: From: Re: Palo Alto City Council Juhan Gomez Cheryl Tompkins Appeal of Hanning Director’s Decision 3280 Chfton Ct Single family individual review 02-IR-82 Date: 8/7/03 We ask for your review of the Planning Director’s decision of 7/31/03. This project was approved in spite of si~cant departures from process requirements and city ordinances. The submitted plans were improperly prepared. They do not show required lot lines, affected structures, patios, recreation areas, etc. They had seriously incorrect (i.e. >15% error) plots and data for our house. During review, we requested mediation as provided for by the Individual Review ordinance. This was denied by the planning department. After Mayor Mossar intervened, the department partially reversed themselves and offered a facilitated discussion, but not until after the Director’s Hearing. The ordinance calls for mediation with a mediator to take place before the Director’s Hearing. The proposed house is too large according to the local zoning. Some areas of the house were excluded from the square footage calculations, despite being required by section 18.04.030(65) of the Municipal Code. The Director’s letter of 7/31/03 specifies that one of these areas is to be renamed on the plans, presumably to justify its exclusion from the calculation. The city’s consulting architect showed a privacy intrusion, in that approximately half of our back yard is overviewed by a proposed upstairs window. In a recent case on Webster St, where a proposed window overlooked the neighbor’s back yard, a mitigation was ordered for the window. We see no reason why we can’t receive a likewise mitigation for the same problem. In addition to the above problems, our expefence has been that there are still a number~,l problems with the Individual Review process. We request that you hear this case so that we can discuss those problems with you, and help make the situation better for Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted by Julian Gomez and Cheryl Tompkins Attachment B page 102-1R-82, Response to Gomez letter & IR Summary Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct. August 20,2003 To: Members of the Palo Alto City Council Re: Response to Gomez letter dated 8/7103 & Summary of 02-1R-82 On August 8, 2003 our neighbor Mr. Gomez submitted a letter requesting a City Council appeal of our approved plans for a new two-story home based on the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. In that letter Mr. Gomez made some statements we wish to clarify. Additionally we have added a short summary of our process. Paragraph two: plans improperly prepared Mr. Gomez has complained that the footprint of his house on our plans is incorrect. Our response: Our architect hand measured the entire right side of Mr. Gomez’ property (the side closest to us) with his approval. She retrieved the rest of the footprint of his house from city records, which are obtained from aerial photographs. This is standard procedure as documented in the IR Guideline reference material. Mr. Gomez has conceded the "hand measured" portion of his property is correct and any errors would be on the other side of his property. Therefore any errors are insignificant in the evaluation of the effects of our purposed home on his property. Paragraph three: mediation Mr. Gomez asserts he has been denied his right to mediation with a mediator. Our response: We did participate in a city-sponsored mediation session with Mr. Gomez on August 6, 2003. Execution of mediation is not a determining factor in assessing compliance with the IR Guidelines. The Guidelines specifically state that mediation is an option, and therefore it is neither a right nor a requirement. In addition, the level of meditation is not defined. Nowhere in the IR Guidelines does it say a trained mediator must conduct the session. Mr. Gomez has received the same due process and attention as other neighbors and in fact we have afforded him additional opportunities to state his case beyond what is required by the IR Guidelines. Paragraph four: purposed home is too large Mr. Gomez claims our front recessed porch and second parking space are wrongly not included in the FAR. 02-1R-82, Response to Gomez letter & IR Summary page 2 Our response: FAR is not an IR Guideline issue and therefore is not open for debate at this appeal. But to set the record straight, the zoning ordinance (18.04.030(65)) Mr. Gomez claims supports his assumptions defines many different types of structures including commercial, R-E and R-1 zones. In section "d" which discusses R-I zoned properties it states, "Recessed porches located on the first floor shall be excluded from ,qross floor are__.~a" (18.04.030(65)~. Mr. Gomez also claims our parking area is a carport and he objects to the Director’s decision that this area be renamed as a "parking space". Our architect had wrongly labeled the parking area a "carport" even though it does not fit that definition. Because the space is not covered (a condition of approval by the planning department - letters dated 5/12/03 & 7/31/03) the area in question is most certainly a parking space and not a carport and therefore should not be counted in the FAR. Paragraph five: privacy intrusion Mr. Gomez claims the city’s consulting architect pointed out a privacy intrusion. Our response: The sketches drawn by the city’s consulting architect (Mr. Mammarella) during mediation diagramed potential views from the second floor, left, rear bedroom window over the top of Mr. Gomez’ house to the patio on the other side of his property. The diagram indicated that if an averaged height person’s face was at the glass of the window, this person might be able to see the tops of people’s heads in the patio on the other side of Mr. Gomez’ property. If one were to step just one foot back from the window, the raised windowsill and Mr. Gomez’ own roof sufficiently decreased the angle of vision so that nothing in the patio could be seen. It was also pointed out that this window is on a bed wall and therefore a person would be unable to stand within 6 feet of the glass making views of his patio impossible. Mr. Gomez’ conclusion that "The city’s consulting architect showed a pdvacy intrusion, in that approximately half of our backyard is overviewed by a purposed windoH/’ is his personal opinion and not supported by the facts. No such statement was made and to the contrary, inferences were clear that views from this window were extremely limited and this window did not constitute a privacy issue. Paragraph five: request for mitigation Mr. Gomez has requested mitigation from the intrusion of this same window, implying none has been made to this point. Our response: We would like to point out the mitigation efforts we have already made regarding our windows: 1. Smaller second floor windows mitigating large direct views 2. Maximally offset windows mitigating direct views 02-1R-82, Response to Gomez letter & IR Summary page 3 3. Heightened second floor window sills mitigating downward views 4. Floor plans that cause all side bedroom windows to be bed walls forcing one to stand well back from the glass mitigating trajectories: downward and direct views 5.Decreased the window surface &rea on the Gomez side mitigating total viewing area What Mr. Gomez is truly requesting is total elimination of all windows on that side of the house (see Gomez letters dated 10/22/02 and 7/17/03), which is not mitigation but rather a VETO. Paragraph six: hear the case to review the process problems with guidelines Mr. Gomez is suggesting the City Council open our case for review as an avenue to discuss process problems within the IR program. Our response: Our home meets and exceeds the IR Guidelines and should be evaluated based on the Guidelines. If Mr. Gomez wishes to address issues regarding how the process was implemented there are appropriate channels through the City Planning Department, the City Managers Office, and yearly evaluations of the process by the IR committee co- chairs. To open a perfectly legal case to review the process is a misuse of the process. Summary of Our IR Process, 02-1R-82 We submitted our plans to the IR process nearly one year ago (Sept. 27, 2002). We have spent nearly $10,000, approximately 1/3rd of our total architecture costs on this process. Over 30 neighbors as well as the IR committee co-chairs (Carroll Harrington, Annette Ashton and John Northway) have expressed approval of our plans. Only one neighbor, Mr. Gomez continues to make complaints despite mounds of documentation proving we meet the IR Guidelines. This has created much turmoil within an ordinarily quiet and friendly cul-de-sac. We have now reached the final appeal. We can only hope that you, as City Council members, will put a final seal of approval on our plans so that we may move forward with our home and our neighborhood may begin to heal. IR Issues: There have been three IR Guideline issues raised by Mr. Gomez over the last year: privacy (Guideline # 1), existing height pattern of adjacent neighbors (#4) and solar (# 6). All have been addressed in full: Privacy: It has been well documented that we will not have any direct views onto the Gomez property and even casual viewing will be very limited. Height pattern: Our eaves match our neighbor’s eaves on both sides. Three of our five adjacent neighbors have two-story homes, and our height is nearly three feet below the maximum allowed even though we have to build three feet above grade due to FEMA regulations. 02-1R-82, Response to Gomez letter & IR Summary page 4 Solar: Mr. Gomez has admitted his daughter’s room (his primary concern) is already in shadow in the winter afternoons due to local trees. He is now requesting a photonic solar study to measure the luminal difference and potential decrease in candlepower asserting our new home might increase the density of the existing shadows. The Planning department has stated this is unnecessary. In addition, we have a shadow evaluation performed by a solar expert that states we would only cast minimal shadows to the Gomez garage (non-living areas) during the late winter afternoons and therefore a complete, formal solar study was not warranted. ~ " " Non-IR Issues: Mr. Gomez has continued to raise non-IR issues throughout this process. Although we prefer not to lend legitimacy to these complaints by addressing them, considering the recent climate of evaluation we have felt compelled to present rebuttals. All complaints, IR related or not, have been addressed and found to be either non-existent or already mitigated in full. See "Attachment A" for a sample list of Non-IR issues raised and addressed thus far. Conclusion We have designed this home using the IR Guidelines as our model with a resulting home that is respectful of a//our neighbors, blends well with the surroundings, adds character to the community, and meets most of our performance needs. These are the ultimate goals of the IR Guidelines and they have been met. After reviewing the file, we hope that you too will conclude that Mr. Gomez does not have sufficient grounds for an appeal. We are pleading with you to NOT call this item from the Consent Calendar on September 8th. In closing, we would like to quote the words of Mr. Owen Byrd, Esq. with his statements regarding the recent David Ct. project because they are so very apropos in this situation as well, "Declining to hear the appeal of this approval is justified by a fair application of the Guidelines and provides a perfect opportunity to communicate to the community that the power of the Guidelines will not be misused." Thank you, Bret and Ronni Kerrins 02-1R-82, Response to Gomez letter & IR Summary page 5 Attachment A Non-IR Issues Gomez house not 2-stories Plans do not look like they meet FEMA regulation Noisemaking areas ten feet away Downstairs windows with direct views & sitting room bay window too large Gomez 2nd floor window looks onto our upper balcony No windows needed on Gomez side due to North side of house & no sun there Design is out of character with spec house across the street Full scale vs. owner renovated vs. developer built spec house Winter shade will kill cherry trees Make 2nd floor asymmetrical to the right, away from Gomez Our solar evaluation is not a formal solar study and therefore invalid Did not discuss plans Will decrease value of Gomez property Responses Gomez eaves are 20+ feet high We purposely designed the house to look shorter than it is, and it’s 2’9" below the max All rooms on that side are bedrooms, greater than required setbacks (1st floor is >14’ from neighbor, 2nd floor > 17.5’) Only 2 windows downstairs maximally offset: non-operable glass block = no view & box seat = decreased view His views of our living space are not grounds for him to complain, house maximally twisted on lot to decrease view, out-swing doors, side latticework added East side, receives morning light, windows are for more than sunlight Nice compliment Only one house on this street is a spec house, all 5 existing 2-stories are larger than our proposal, and 3 are over 93% of their available FAR Winter shade will improve fruit production Other asymmetrical houses on street were pre-IR, violates many IR Guidelines for opposite neighbor, forces unnecessary intrusions on others, we respect all neighbors, impossible to get same performance from our house It is a solar evaluation by a solar expert that concludes formal solar study not warranted 3 public displays of plans, all questions answered, all neighbors treated equally, had 11 months of comments via IR process Bringing our property to the level of the Gomez property, a new home can only increase his value Dear City Council Members, The following petition represents all of the households on Clifton Ct. excluding our one appellant, the four households of closest proximity behind us on Loma Verde Ave. and the houses on Stockton Place that look onto Clifton Ct. It includes essentially everyone in our immediate neighborhood except 3288 Clifton Ct. ,Highlighted areas represent households in favor of our plans: Dear City Council Membem: Page 1 of 2 We the undemigned are requesting that you DO NOT pull 3280 Clifton Ct. (02-1R-82) from the Consent Calendar on September 8, 2003. We approve of the design that has been deemed compliant with the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines by both the Palo Alto City Planning Department and the IR Committee co-chairpersons. Please allow the Ken’ins to proceed with the construction of their home. Signature Print Name Address 16 17 19 Page 2 of 2 21 We the undersigned are requesting that you DO NOT pull 3280 Clifton Ct. (02-1R-82) from the Consent Calendar on September 8, 2003. We approve of the design that has been deemed compliant with the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines by both the Palo Alto City Planning Department and the IR Committee co-chairpersons. Please allow the Kerrins to proceed with the construction of their home. Signature Address 29 a2 a8 Print Name Ronni Kerrins From:Dowsett/Tilmans [rochden@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Tuesday, September 02, 2003 9:52 PM To:Ronni Kerdns Subject:Re: Petition Hi Ronni, Please include my name on the petition. I am the sole owner of that house. Denise Dowser 3292 Clifton Ct Palo Alto, CA. 94303. Best wishes! Denise We support your plans with no hesitation. Ronni Kerrins <rkerrins@sbcglobaL net> wrote: Hi Denise and Rochelle, Well, we are finally almost there. Julian appealed our plans to the City Council and they are suppose to address it next Monday, September 8th. It will be on the Consent Calendar which means, if they leave it there, it will most likely be approved without discussion. If they "pull" it from the Consent Calendar, there will be a short discussion and then the City Council will vote as to whether they want to hear the case in full at a later date. If they do#t want to hear it, then the "approval" from the planning department stands. Bret and I are passing around a petition to all the neighbors that says: We the undersigned are requesting that you DO NOT pull 3280 Clifton Ct. (02-1R-82) from the Consent Calendar on September 8, 2003. We approve of the design that has been deemed compliant with the Single Family Individual Review Guidelines by both the Palo Alto City Planning Department and the IR Committee co-chairpersons. Please allow the Kerr~ns to proceed with the construction of their home. So far we have most everyone on our street, those on Stockton Place that border Clilton Ct, and the four houses in closest proximity behind us on Loma Verde. In order to get it to the City Council on time, we must turn it in by tomorrow. Could we include you two on the list as owners of 3293 Clifton Ct? If so, please send me back an email stating your full names and something like you want your names to be included. On the petition we~,e asked everyone to put their names and address. Thanks, and hope everything is going well with you all. Looking forward to get’dng together soon... Ronni 9/2/2003 Attachment C Bret & Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303 6 July 2003 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kerrins, As requested, here is a letter summarizing my analysis of the potential shading impact of your proposed house at 3280 Clifton Ct. on the neighboring house at 3288 Clifton Ct. This analysis is not a formal solar shading study, but is based upon a brief shading analysis I performed using the architectural drawings and photographs provided by you and your architect. I am limiting my analysis--based on the guidelines of the City of Palo Alto--to the shading impact at 9:00am, 12:00 noon, and 3:00pro on the summer (21 June)and winter (21 December) solstices. Summer Solstice On 21 June, your proposed house will not shade the neighboring house at all at 9:00am, 12:00 noon, or 3:00pm. Winter Solstice On 21 December, your proposed house will not shade the neighboring house at all at 9:00am or 12:00 noon. At 3:00pm, your proposed house will partially shade the neighboring house, but the impact is mitigated by two factors: 1.The neighboring house would receive some shading anyway by your current house and the trees located between the two houses. 2.The area of the neighbor’ s house that would experience additional shading by your proposed house would mostly be the garage. Synopsis Of the six times in question (three on each of the two solstices), on five of them your proposed house will have no ~hading impact on the neighboring house. The only time when shading is incrementally increased is at 3:00pm on 21 December, and this is a time when some shading would otherwise occur due to existing structures and landscaping elements. I therefore conclude that your proposed house has a very minimal shading impact on the neighboring house. Sincerely, Christopher Gronbeck Sustainable By Design 3631 Bagley Avenue North Seattle, WA 98103 206-925-9290 (phone) 206-372-4747 (mobile) 877-684-0797 (fax) christopher @ sus design, corn Statement of Qualifications Christopher Gronbeck is the proprietor of Sustainable By Design, a Seattle consulting firm that performs graphic design, software development, educational writing, and solar engineering services. Christopher has a B.Sci. degree from Stanford University where he studied solar energy engineering and international development. He was co-founder of the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology, Washington, D.C., and has developed several dozen software tools for renewable energy education and building analysis. He specializes in sun angle and solar shading calculations for architects and home builders. Attachment D 1 2 3 4 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 Director’s Hearing Wednesday, July 17, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING - 3:O0 PM City Council Conference Room Civic Center," Ist Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Staff." Amy French, Current Planning Manager (hearing officer) Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager (hearing officer) Steve Emslie, Planning Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects CONTINUED BUSINESS 3280 Clifton Court [02-IR-82]: Application for Janet Chuang on behalf of Brett and Ronni Kerrins for Single Family Individual Review on the construction of a new two- story residence to be located at 3280 Clifton Court. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. Ms. Julie Capormao, Advance Planning Manager: I’m going to start the Director’s Hearing now. We were waiting for the project manager for the first item. I am sure he will join us shortly and we can begin. This is the Director’s Hearing for the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment for July 17, 2003. My name is Julie Caporgno, Advance Planning Manager. I will be conducting this hearing for the first item on the agenda. Amy French, the Current Planning Manager, will be hearing the second item on the agenda. The third item on the agenda, 539 Alma Street, 03-CUP-33, is being continued at the applicant’s request to date certain... Staff: Yes, to date certain - It would be the first meeting in August which would be August 7th I believe. 35 Ms. Caporffno: Okay. And I wanted to explain a little bit what will transpire today. This 36 is a public meeting and is being recorded. 37 3280 Clifton Court [02-IR-82]: The hearing on this first item which is an individual 38 review item, will be conducted by the following procedure: I will open the hearing by 39 introducing the item and then ask staff for any additional comments. I will then ask the 40 person who has requested the director’s hearing for any testimony they may have to 41 explain why they have requested this hearing. I will then ask the applicant if they would 42 like to respond to the issues that were raised by the person requesting the heating. Then I 43 will open the public hearing for public testimony. I’m asking that all of you try to reserve 44 your comments to around five minutes because there are a lot of you who are providing City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- J~ly 17, 2003 Page 1 testimony. And I would also like you not to repeat what other people have said. So you can just say, "I agree with the previous presenter." At any time during the hearing I can ask questions for clarification of the speaker, and at the conclusion of the public testimony the applicant will be given another oppommity to respond to the testimony. At the conclusion of the testimony I’ll close the public hearing or continue the item. The decision for this item will be posted in the downtown library ten working days from the date the public hearing is closed, and I have ten working days in which to make my decision regarding the item. If anyone wishes to receive a written copy of that decision, please fill out a card on the table and submit it to me. And if you wish to appeal any item, the appeal must be filed within ten days of my decision, and you can contact the Planning Department regarding the fee or any other questions regarding the appeal process. If you challenge the land use decision in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Palo Alto. 15 The individual review item on the agenda today is 3280 Clifton Court [02-IR-82]. It’s a 16 request for a Director’s Hearing by Julian Gomez and Shirley Thompkins for an 17 application by Janet Chuang on behalf of Brett and Ronni Kerrins for Single Family 18 Individual Review for the construction of a new two-story residence to be located at 3280 19 Clifton Court. The Environmental Assessment, the project was found to be exempt from 20 the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15303, 21 and the zoning district for the project is R1. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Staff, are there any additional comments that you would like to make regarding the project? Russ Reich, Associate Planner: I would just like to add that today I received a number of letters in support of the application. A total of five letters came in today supporting the application for the construction of this new house. Ms. Caporgno: And those I don’t have in the administrative records. Russ Reich: Those came in today, so you don’t have those. Ms. Caporgno: And as I said before, I’m going to take this a little bit out of order and have the person, Mr. Gomez, or Ms. Thompkins, if you would like to give testimony now as to your reasons why you feel that you have concerns regarding this individual review item. Please feel free to come up here and address me. Thank you. Mr. Gomez: I have a prepared statement. I’ll give you a copy of that when I’m done. Ms. Caporgno: Pardon? Mr. Gomez: I have a prepared statement which I’ll give you the copy of when I’m done. Ms. Caporgno: Okay. And if you could state your name and address. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 1 Mr. Gomez: Julien Gomez, 3288 Clifton Court, Palo Alto. My statement to the Director 2 today about the project at 3280 Clifton Court. We’re not opposed in principal to having a 3 new house next door, and we have never said anything different. We have objections to 4 this design because it impacts our house’s value and livability. The ordinance requires 5 that these objections be addressed. Since the Kerrins have refused to talk to us, we have 6 to go through the City. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 We are specifically objecting to this design on the basis of guidelines - privacy, solar orientation, and mass and scaling. I want to emphasize that despite what is explicitly stated in the ordinance and which is explicitly recommended by Planning Department staff, we were frozen out of the design process. All questions about the house design were ignored, and want to emphasize that it’s not that they neglected speaking to us, they refused to speak to us. The representations in their letters that was filed that you have are untruthful. And in fact, when they showed the plans to the neighborhood they did so only when we weren’t present, in one case, not bringing the plans out to our block party until we had departed for another function. Also, the Kerrins claim repeatedly in the different letters that I said I would do anything to block construction. This statement is totally a fabrication. I never said anything like that. The statement has nothing to do with me, and it’s totally incorrect as to my position on the project. 20 I’m also going to note for the record that I requested mediation as provided for in the 21 ordinance, and the Planning Department denied it. Some issues with the design of the 22 house - the site plan which I believe Russ has, does not show lot lines, it doesn’t show 23 outside recreation areas as required. And as for the drawings of my house, my house has 24 never had that profile in its history. I don’t know what else is missing from these plans, 25 but from the outside it appears that the design is improper. The impact on the value of 26 our house, according to the appraiser who appraised our house just a few years ago, our 27 house’s value would be negatively impacted by the loss of privacy and sunlight. 28 One issue I want to focus on, solar orientation. Their house is to the southwest of us at 29 the most. In the original letter I stated the house is to the south. The Kerrins claim the 30 house is to the west. First off, I’ll note that the sun sets across the street from Clifton 31 Court, so west is across the street. Second, using a GPS I obtained a rough bearing of 32 213 from my house to their house. And then finally I used a compass, obtained a bearing 33 of 202 magnetic which is 217 true. Southwest is 225. So their house is actually south of 34 southwest of us. So we can approximate this by southwest. What it means is that their 35 house is between us and the afternoon sun no matter what time of year it is. Because of 36 the house geometries, my daughter’s bedroom can see the sun only during the afternoons. 37 Right now at the height of summer there’s no problem. But the problem is during winter 38 when the sun is much lower and the trees have no leaves for six months. I have here an 39 image I want to show. The horizontal blue line is the current roof line, and the angled 40 blue line is the approximate track of the sun during the winter months. And you’ll note 41 that the sun will be blocked by a two-story house. Russ Reich told me that he had 42 recommended a solar study. This seems to be the only way to settle how much light the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 house will receive from the proposed design. I think this has to be done before we sentence my daughter to having no sunlight for half a year at a time. In terms of loss of privacy, we definitely identified a privacy problem. In this file that Russ has there are a bunch of carefully staged photos which are alleged to represent view angles from their second story. Since they don’t have a second story, then the photos don’t show the view angles. What they do show is that they have no compunctions about taking pictures of our living areas when they feel like it. This includes the set that he took of my daughter while she was playing in her room while standing on his roof. All of these pictures were taken with no warning, no explanation. I ask anyone here how they’d like to be in a situation where they fmd the guy next door standing on the roof taldng pictures of his little girl. The Planning Department’s answer to this issue was to pull the shade. Since she has to have a light on during winter, that means she would have to have the shade pulled round the clock for six months at a time. That doesn’t strike me as fair or healthy. Why even have a privacy policy if the answer is just to pull down the shade? ~ 6 I want to point out the reason her bedroom is on the first floor. When we renovated our ~ 7 house in ’94 we didn’t build the second floor all the way back. This was at the request of "18 the people living in 3280, prior to them, who didn’t want second story windows "19 overlooking their back yard, which means it was exactly the situation that we have now, 20 except in the other direction. When we did that house renovation in ’94 we made sure to 21 talk to every single neighbor. We talked to the people on the left, the right, the back to 22 make sure that they had input in terms of how our house would be designed. 23 From this we were able to determine some alternatives, and these are some possibilities 24 that I want to suggest to alleviate the problem here. I don’t know if any alternative 25 designs were discussed because as I said, we were frozen out of the design process. An 26 obvious one would be an asymmetric design so the highest part of the house is further 27 south. That way it wouldn’t cast any shadow lines to the north and there wouldn’t be any 28 privacy issues because the view angles would be shallower. I want to provide some more 29 pictures here. If you can leaf through those pictures, the first one is our house. And as 30 you can see, it’s got an asymmetric design. The bulk of the house is on the south side of 3 ~the lot. This was done specifically so as not to cast shadows on the Abbott’s house to the 32 north. Other examples are 3248 Clifton Court, 3232 Clifton Court, which is where 33 Ken-ins parents live, 3224 Clifton Court, Clifton Court and Stockton, the intersection 34 down there; and 933 Loma Verde which is one of the two houses directly behind 3280. 35 So these examples are not intended to show a prevalence in the neighborhood but only to 36 show that they are examples that provide designing the house so that it can be more 37 accommodating of the people next door. All of these houses are very close to 3280, 38 they’re within 150 yards. 39 Besides an alternative design as a method to alleviate the problem, there are mitigation 40 methods, and again, I don’t know if any of these have been explored. The first obvious 4~mitigation in terms of privacy is to elirrdnate the windows on the north side of the house. 42 Since they’re on the side opposite the sun, then they won’t lose much. In one of the City of Palo Alto Page 4 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 letters the Kerrins talk about the aesthetics of having light in the room, which is true. Counterbalancing that are the aesthetics from the other direction which is a negative aesthetic of having windows glaring down at you when you’re trying to play in the back yard. In terms of eliminating windows, there’s precedent for that. The house directly across the street (picture). This is the house directly across the street. You can see it has no windows on the second story looking down into #3208. They were in there originally. They built to remove them at the request of the people living at 3208 who didn’t want those windows looking down into their back yard. Another possibility for mitigation would be to provide high, fast-growing trees that block the site lines into our back yard. So as I said, I don’t know if any of these possibilities - alternative designs or mitigation possibilities have been explored because we have been frozen out of the process. I fmd it sad that they’re spending so much time writing poison pen letters and testifying at different City hearings but refuse to take ten minutes to talk to us. Had they’d talked to us in the beginning a year ago, this whole process could have been avoided. 17 So in summary, we have property rights, too, as the ordinance recognizes these property 18 rights. As noted, this design has errors and does not address the serious sunlight and 19 privacy issues. It needs to have the proper engineering, including a solar study, to see 20 what changes or mitigations need to be made. 21 Ms. Caporgno: Does Ms. Hopkins want to... Mr. & Mrs. Kerrins, both of you would like 22 to speak now. Whichever would like to speak first. 23 Ms. Kerrins: Can we [incoherent] the way [incoherent] attacked? 24 Ms. Caporgno: Yes. 25 Ms. Kerrins: We have a presentation as well. Janet Chuang is our architect. Actually, we 26 have a three-part presentation. Janet’s going to start, Brett will be next, and I’ll finish it 27 up. 28 Janet Chuang, Architect for the project: I would like to address the guideline 29 considerations that we incorporated were into our project from the beginning. I just 30 wanted to say that this is actually the second time I’ve gone through the SF-IR process. 31 Ms. Caporgno: Can you hear her? 32 Staff: No. 33 Ms. Chuang: Sorry. This is actually the second time that I’ve gone through the SF-IR 34 process, so I was familiar enough to start as my very first task, meeting with the Planning 35 Department to go over the guidelines and go over the specifics of the Kerrins’ site. That 36 was the first action I did on this job. My second task was to take photos of the 37’neighborhood to familiarize myself with the context of what was there and also the scale City of Palo Alto Page 5 Director’s Hearing - July 17, 2003 of what was there. Actually, while I was taking photos on that very first day on the job, I met the neighbors at 3288, 3214, and 3208 Clifton Court, the left and across the street neighbors. I introduced myself as the Kerrins’ architect and explained that we were beginning this process of design. After the start with the planners to review the guidelines I had three additional meetings with the planner people before, or submitting a formal application. Also, before submitting the formal application, the homeowners displayed their drawings during the Fourth of July block party, inviting any comments from the neighbors. Every time we met they were always raving about how everybody loved the drawings. Therefore, when we submitted our application, we felt confident that we had met the IR guidelines, actually so much so that I would like to use the guidelines as my presentation. 12 Guideline #1 - second story window placement in regard to privacy. Actually, our site 13 plan looks pretty much exactly like this diagram. We managed to get our windows, the 14 upstairs window and the sitting room window look on the wall, blank wall, between the 15 two windows at 3288. The master bedroom windows, again, look on the wall between - 16 there’s absolutely no way this house could shift and not meet the wall in between the 17 neighbor’s windows. Actually, when I started this project~ again, because of my previous 18 experience with the IR process, I actually had in mind two conflicting facts: 1) that the 19 City planner and consulting architect would not accept a windowless side wall because of 20 the visual impact of a blank wall. And 2) that the neighbors could then raise objections 21 about privacy if we had windows in the side walls. So I started this design by explaining 22 to the homeowners that our bedrooms had to face the front and the rear of the house, I 23 knew that, so that we did not have to have the egress windows which are required by 24 code for bedrooms, so that we would not have to have them on the side walls. But I also 25 explained to them that we did have to have windows on the side walls. So I was pleased 26 that in our design we were able to draw the narrow line between these two conflicting 27 facts and the two conflicting parties. 28 In addition to managing our windows facing the blank walls of the neighbor’s house, we 29 also used the additional recommendation to use clear story windows. All our windows 30 on the sides are small windows. Also, the walk-in closet window which even though it 31 faces a blank wall, is arguably the one closest to a neighboring window. That is a stained 32 glass window so you can’t see through it. And then our ground floor windows, even 33 though they’re not covered by the guidelines, we chose to make the kitchen window glass 34 block. Again, it can’t be seen through. And the sitting room window is a window seat. 35 So for the most part your back is to the window, not to mention there’s a fence and a tree 36 in front of there as well. 37 When I met the planner and the consulting architect over these windows, they were just 38 pleased that I didn’t have a blank wall, and they were pleased that of our own volition we 39 had designed the second-story windows as high windows. And privacy in the ISO- 40 planner and the consulting architect at that meeting was clearly respected in our design. 41 However, when the neighbors at 3288 still brought up privacy as an issue for them, even 42 though the planner could not see anywhere where we were not meeting privacy 43 guidelines, he recommended that we remove any doubt by making the window wall at the 44 rear bedroom clearly a bed wall. The window wall at the master bedroom was already City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 6 1 2 3 4 clearly a bed wall. The bed had to sit against that wall. So we rearranged the second floor so that we moved the closet onto the only other blank wall and made that the clear bed wall. So anybody looking out that window would have to stand 6-7 feet away from that window and would.only see sky. That was privacy guideline #1. Privacy Guideline #2 - Again, when the homeowners came to me.at the beginning of the project showing me their wish list that they wanted a balcony off their master bedroom so that they could keep an eye on their kids - originally I tried very hard to discourage them from that desire until we came up with a design solution of locating the master bedroom at the front of the house with the balcony at the front of their house where it could not possibly overlook decks, patios, or main windows. Again, when I met with the planner, the consulting architect, over this balcony, they did not have any privacy issues with it. Their only comment was how well it looked on the front elevation. Again, when the neighbor at 3288 pointed out that one could theoretically go out onto the balcony and by looking back, one could see into their small second story side window if one wanted to. Even though the guidelines - this window is not considered a main or sensitive window, again, our planner recommended that we remove any doubt by adding latticework onto the sides of our balconies, so that we could not look to the sides. In addition, we chose to swing our balcony doors out so that again, the door would serve to block any views when they’re going out onto the balcony to call their kids home for dinner. So that’s the balcony privacy issue. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Guideline #3 - The scale of the house. Actually our house looks - we have used this guideline so much that our house looks disturbingly like this. We used the horizontal front porch with the horizontal railing to emphasize the lower level. We used the smaller second story elements to draw the eye into smaller parts of the house. We’ve used the wings offthe second story just like they show in this picture. We’ve used the first floor roof covering up the mass of the second story. We’ve set back the second story, from the ground. Actually, I think our house meets the guideline a little better than this picture because this picture shows the side walls actually stacking on top of each other; our side walls stack in - step back even more. Also, I’d like to point out that our proposed two- story design will be the smallest two-story home in the neighborhood, smaller than the two-story home next door at 3288, it’s smaller than the two two-story homes across the street. Guideline #4 - The height. Again, we were challenged from the beginning of the project with the knowledge that we would be required by the new flood zone regulations to lift any new structure in this location three feet above grade. We were concerned with how we would be able to meet the height and scale guidelines with this additional requirement. I have been very excited with the French porch idea where you step down onto the front porch from the front door. In addition, we’ve lowered the cave at the front porch so that they line up with the neighborhood. So you can best see that on our story board which we have submitted with our original application, but you can see our cave lines. Even though our house has to be three feet above grade, we’ve managed to get our cave lines to match the neighborhood scale. Everyone has complimented us on this solution to guideline #4. And even the neighbors at 3288 have commented on how we City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 were able to match our eaves to the neighborhood scale while still fulfilling the flood zone requirements. When the homeowners requested several times that I lift the eave on the porch so that ¯ they would not have to see the bottom of it when they look our their living room window, I had refused, just because of this guideline. I did not want to conflict with this guideline. 6 Then in addition to that, by hipping the roof, we have located the highest poim of the house at the very center of the house. The furthest point away from all the neighbors, I’ll 8 come back to that when we come to the sunlight issues, but you can barely see it, the 9 highest point of the house. 10 11 12 I’d also - And then but not least, just to add more onto it. We’ve massed the bulk of our second story towards the back of the house, again, keeping it away from sight as you can see on the story board. 13 Guideline #5 - I’ll just very quickly go through this, as it hasn’t been a big issue. From 14 to side, nobody has brought that up as an issue. I think we’ve designed plenty of visual 15 interest in human scale with our front porch and the stonework and the columns and the 16 guardrails and the trellises. We’ve repeated those elements on the second level to tie the 17 whole fagade together. And actually, during my meeting with the City’s architectural 18 consultant, he was so taken with this image that he expressed the wish that it occurred 19 more often on the house. And though the planner said that this was not a comment within 20 IR guidelines, we were so enthusiastic to satisfy everyone that we added the square gable 21 with this to the rear of the house. And so the whole house ties together. 22 And I’d like to point om our custom windows which I think is overkill. Bm again, it adds 23 visual imerest and the homeowners wanted that. 24 Guideline #6 - Sunlight orientation. Our house is located right at the cemer of the lot, 25 deliberately so that it would not affect either neighbor. The tallest part of the house is 26 right in the cemer of the house. We’ve created the roofline so the tallest point is in the 27 cemer so it would have the furthest to go to affect anyone. We’ve used pit and shed roofs 28 at the sides to minimize sunlight obstruction. Actually, an earlier design had the rear 29 bedroom with a gable window facing the side which made more sense structurally for 30 vaulting the ceiling, and it looked better. However, in the imerest of being completely 31 sensitive to solar orientation, we changed that to a hip and turned the gable to the rear. 32 We have greater than required setbacks on both sides to minimize shadows to our 33 neighbors. We have not milized allowable dormer or architectural feature intrusions imo 34 the daylight plane. All of this thinking and consideration for sunlight orientation to our 35 neighbors was done in the design process before we submitted the application. When the 36 planner received commems from the neighbors at 3288 concerning sunlight and shading 37 issues, he came for a site visit to review the plausibility of these concerns. Since our 38 project is to the west of the neighbor in question, and since there are trees that cast 39 shadows on the neighbor in question in the afternoon, and since we had incorporated 40 everything the guidelines recommended in respect to sunlight orientation, the planner did 41 not feel that our project would have a significant impact on shading. However, again on City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 8 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 the recommendation from Planning to remove any doubt, the owners have gone through the expense of obtaining expert analysis from a shading consultant. So you can read from the expert and not take it from us that the only time the proposed house will cast shade on 3288 will be in the winter only, in the late afternoon only, she said mostly on the garage which is shaded by an existing 50-foot pine tree anyway, an evergreen. And the owners also have pictures. I’ll go quickly through the rest of the guidelines. Roof profiles #7 Just like the guidelines say, we have incorporated a constant roof throughout. We have deliberately broken up the roof into primary and secondary roof forms with wings just like in the picture. Our roof slope is consistent with the craftsman style of architecture. The planning staff was satisfied with the roof lines. Again, however, when the City’s architectural consultant recommended that the roof would be improved - not required, but improved - by further articulation over the study, we went ahead and incorporated the suggestion. The roofing material is asphalt composition which is the roofmg material of all but three other houses in the neighborhood. And I would also like to point out that although it’s not required anywhere in this guideline, we were further sensitive to the neighborhood context in our choice of stucco for the exterior finish which is the primary exterior fmish of the neighborhood. Guideline #8 - Setbacks and overall composition. Our front setback is greater than the street average. It’s greater than 3288. We have greater than required side setbacks, greater than the majority of the neighboring houses, similar to - the house is actually narrower than the house on it presently and it’s narrower than the bulk of the neighborhood, especially - well, in the cul-de-sac. Guideline #9 - Entry features. We’ve incorporated the low-eaved human scale porch. The porch is further scaled down by the columns and railings and stonework. All the detail that’s going in there, I don’t think there are any more elements we could have used to make it more human-scaled. Guideline #10 - Garages and driveways. Even though the neighborhood has an eclectic array of attached garages set toward the front of the property and some garages set back which allows us quite frankly to design as we wish and still say we are consistent with neighborhood context, we have chosen to be sensitive to the planning staff and to architectural preferences and have pushed our garage halfway back on our house to minimize its appearance on the street. It’s also only a single car garage door. And again, though it’s not required, we are being sensitive to Planning preferences, and it’s a craftsman style garage door matching the style of the house. 35 So in conclusion, we have been excessively accommodating to the IR guidelines and 36 process from day one on this project, meeting with the Planning staff four times before 37 even submitting our application, meeting with the Planning staff four times before even 38 submitting our application, meeting with the Planning staff at least four more times after. 39 ! seem to recall two times after each letter we received from 3288 Clifton Court. We 40 have met the guidelines according to the Planning staff and the City’s consulting 41 architects and have exceeded the guidelines on recommendations from Planning to banish 42 all doubt. I’ve covered the guidelines for the project, and the homeowners would like to City of Palo Alto Page 9 Director’s Hearing - July 17, 2003 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 cover the nine guideline consideration of our project and address specifically the comments from 3288 Clifton Court. Brett Kerrins, Applicant: I’m just dealing with non-IR issues because we wanted to recognize that we were sensitive not only to this but looked at anything we heard about or that were brought up in the [incoherent]. And one of them was noise. Even though noise is not an issue for the single-family individual review process, we’ve taken extra steps in order to appease our neighbors. In Mr. Gomez’ letters he indicated that the noisiest room in the house is next to his bedroom. How he made this determination is something I don’t quite understand since there is no bedroom next to his bedroom, only a patio, and the closest room we have to him is our guest bedroom. Nevertheless, we took his concerns into consideration when doing our revisions. We considered moving all of the rooms in the house, considered reversing the design, and all of these seem to have no improvement or worsening the effect on his home. We made the kitchen window glass block walls, so it’s thicker than normal glass window and you can’t see out of it. Also, it’s non-functioning, you cannot open it. We’ve already mentioned, or we will mention, that the walls will now be six-inch insulated instead of four-inch non-insulated which the current home has. We also feel this will reduce any noise to our neighbors. Another adjustment that we made to accommodate our neighbors is that we had originally planned to have our laundry room where the pantry is. We sacrificed this floor space and added the laundry room upstairs. We felt that this would be most accommodating to most of our neighbors so that it would eliminate noise on either side. First floor window privacy - The first floor windows are not part of the RI guidelines, but we again made an accommodation for this. As we already mentioned, the kitchen windows are glass block wall and not really window. There were originally five downstairs windows. The new house will have two. Our guest bedroom will rarely be used and in that case, it is designed to increase the privacy for the Gomez family. As a box window, one would have to sit in the window facing the interior of the home so that sunlight is behind them. It’s ideally suited for reading books. Sitting also lowers a person’s sight line because the viewing of the neighbors over the fence will be impossible. If one was to stand in front of the window and look out towards the neighbors, they can never be closer than two feet from the window which would reduce the angle of observation compared to the normal window. It’s also in line with the trees that are anything. Construction noise and privacy during construction - We’ve been planning this home and designing it for over five years now. We’ve considered just about every option and change possible. We chose an architect who’s very detail oriented so that our plans will be very detailed and specific with no room for change in the building. We have even begun to purchase materials for the construction of the home to facilitate the ease of construction and limit any possible delays. Some of the homes in this neighborhood took up to 18 months to remodel. We’ve been told by contractors that without change, ours City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 10 2 can be completed within 8 to 10 months. We also plan to build during the warmer months when the trees are in full bloom. That would be assuming any privacy issues. 3 Another consideration, the front-facing balcony. Only balconies that are on the side and 4 the back of the home are part of the IR guidelines according to conversations we’ve had 5 with co-chairs regarding the guidelines. Again, we’ve taken extra steps to mitigate any 6 issues with this. We added the latticework, and we’ve made the doors out-swing so that 7 it would just make it impossible to view. 8 Lastly, and this is not so much an IR issue, but the current house conditions. This house 9 was built in 1950. It’s an original home and there’s no remodeling done on it. This 10 house was a rental property for over 30 years and has significant maintenance issues. 11 Even before we moved in we had notified the neighbors that we had full intentions of 12 razing the existing property and building a two-story. This house has severe water 13 damage from roof leaks. If you - I’ll submit some pictures. There are - paint will peel in 14 most of the bedrooms because the walls have been damaged due to the roof leaks. 2x4s 15 under the cave of the house can literally be crushed by hands. I know I work out, but I 16 shouldn’t be able to crush a 2x4. I have nearly been hit by drain gutters that have fallen 17 offthis house as I’ve walked underneath them on the lawn. Recently the pipes under the 18 sink began to leak while we were on vacation and the fire department had to come and 19 break in the house to shut it off. Thanks to our other neighbors, they were able to 20 respond quickly. The kitchen was 6" deep in water and the flooding affected every room 21 in the house including the garage. The water damage is approximately 12-18" deep and 22 on every wall. The floor in the bathroom has leaked for years and because we have a slab 23 foundation it cannot be easily repaired. Years ago, before the housing crunch in the Bay 24 Area an assessment was made on the property and an assessor informed the owners at the 25 time that the property was worth more with the house removed than the existing 26 structure. That was more than ten years ago. That house has not improved since. 27 And lastly, any buyer that - if anybody were to buy this property instead of us, this lot is 28 small and irregularly shaped, and they would have to rebuild the house in order for them 29 to make it livable, and they would most certainly put in a two-story because a one-story 30 would not allow you to use your available FAR. That’s all I have. 31 Ms. Ronni Kerrins: I have a presentation as well. Before I start my presentation I 32 wanted to kind of address some of the things that Mr. Gomez brought up in his speech. 33 There was a little bit of controversy as to whether we are south or west. I have learned 34 from the solar expert that we discussed that solar north is 15 degrees off of true north. 35 And so Mr. Gomez is using a compass to determine the sun and that’s not accurate. The 36 sun is 15 degrees offofthe compass. 37 We know the people who lived in the house in 1994, and I doubt that Mr. Gomez asked 38 them, that’s the owners of the house at that time, to have input into his house. One of his 39 suggestions for improvement was to move the highest part of the south- highest part of 40 the house more south so that it would have less shadow. The highest part of our house is 41 more south. It’s equal in relation to side-to-side it’s in the middle, but the bulk of the 42 house is pushed to the back which is the more southern part because we have larger City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 11 yards, larger setback in the back than our neighbors behind us, and so it casts less shadow to the south. And there’s not really any way to move it any more south. It’s already overhanging part of the first floor, the second floor is. An asymmetrical design would put the bulk of the house towards our neighbors on the other side who receive morning light across our lot and would decrease their mbming light, and that’s not fair. There’s a two-story house. Mr. Gomez at 3288 is two story. The people on the other side are one story, and we have purposely designed the house so it flows between the two of them, at least the look of it. In actuality it’s equal between the two of them. But by using some architectural tricks the look is actually more of a flow between the two-story and the one- story. Mr. Gomez says that in between our houses, what he is calling the north side of the house, he says that we don’t receive any light at all onthat side. I actually have pictures that show that that’s where we get all of our morning light. That’s the only place where we get light in the morning, is on that side of the house. So that is the east side of our house because that’s where we get light. 16 Nobody is glaring down on his back yard. I’ll be showing you pictures so that you can 17 see what we can see of his back yard. He suggests as a solution planting high, fast- 18 growing trees in between the two houses, it’s going to increase his privacy. Well that 19 would in fact block his sun that he’s talking about. He’s also complaining about the sun, 20 and that’s just the nature of most of the complaints that we’re getting from 3288. They’re 21 continually conflicting. One minute there’s one thing, and the next day there’s something 22 else. So at this point I think it’s nearly impossible for us to satisfy this neighbor. 23 So now I’ll go on with my - I’m going to be speaking specifically to mass and scale, 24 privacy, solar orientation, and communications. 25 So mass and scale - short and sweet, our house is going to be the smallest of the two- 26 story houses on the block. This is all the square footage listed for the two-story houses 27 on Clifton Court for public record. And our proposed house is smaller than all of them. 28 These are pictures of the two-story houses on our street, the one next door, the one across 29 the street, the one behind us. And these are the other two-story houses on the street as 30 well. 31 I’d also like to point out that of the three courts, you guys have these pictures of courts 32 that show that on Stockton Place, the one main street that crosses, there’s three courts that 33 come off of Stockton Place. Clifton Court is the first one, Batista is the second one, and 34 Moraga is the third one. Batista and Moraga are 100% two story. Of the courts that 35 come off of Stockton Place, we’re the only street that even has any one-stories left on the 36 street. 37 Privacy- here’s just some more pictures. I go crazy with my camera. These are some 38 two-story houses on Stockton. These are some two-story houses on Batista, and I didn’t 39 go into Moraga and take pictures. But it’s just to show the eclectic design. There’s many 40 different houses, two-story houses... City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 12 Staff: And I have been out to the site. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ms. Kerrins: Privacy issues. The intent of the IR committee as explained to us by the IR co-chairs was to limit direct views of sensitive areas, not casual views of normal living areas. An example that was given to us during a meeting that we recently had is a big picture window that would overlook a hot tub where you might be able to see a bathing suit or God forbid, naked people going into the hot tub. But the bedroom windows overlooking bedroom windows, as long as they were offset and tried to diminish direct views was good enough. And actually, the measures that we’ve taken in increasing the window sills and decreasing the surface area and all the measures that we’ve taken exceed what the original IR co-chairs intended for this particular guideline. In addition, I would like to show you what our views would be. This is the view of Mr. Gomez’ daughter’s window from our roof that he so adamantly doesn’t like for us to take a picture. This is what we can see of her window. You can’t even see the window. Those trees are in the... Mr. Kerrins: I just want to address that. Mr. Gomez says that because there’s no secondstory we don’t have any way of knowing where the room would be. We do know, because we know that our window is directly between the two windows in their house. So all you do is stand in between them. 19 Ms. Kerrins: You get up on the roof and you stand in between the two windows and you 20 take a picture. But these windows can’t even be seen when the trees are in bloom. They 21 actually drop their leaves late December. I have some pictures that were taken on 22 Christmas that shows that they still have half of their leaves, and then they bloom again 23 in April. And the reason we know that is because when we were up on the roof on April 24 9 taking a picture to show what we could see when the trees had no leaves, and they were 25 just starting to bloom, we had the police called on us, and so I have a police report that 26 says April 9. 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Mr. Kerrins: Actually what he indicated, is that how would you feel about taking a picture of your daughter’s window. In the picture, it will indicate that you can’t even see that anybody is in there. So I had no idea of knowing that someone was in that room. Ms. Kerrins: This is a picture of their master bedroom, again, when the leaves are on. This is the picture of their back yard. This is us looking directly into their back yard. There’s like two square feet that we might be able to see. This is a picture directly in front of their second story window, and looking directly into it and what we’re going to see inside their house. Staff: There is no view from the new house directly in front of the house. Ms. Kerrins: Right. There is no view. Even the balcony is more forward of this. You would have to look back into this window, but this is just to show you what a direct view would look like. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 13 This is - he says that on our site plans we refused - we didn’t write - we didn’t document where his patios were and his recreational areas are. That’s because they’re on the other side of the house, totally not visible from our house. This is looking over the top of his house. You could maybe see the just very top of a sunshade thing that he has over in his patio to show what we could see of his patio and why they were not included in the plans. 6 7 This is the view of his daughter’s house when the trees fully are unleaved. This is the one where he said that we could see his daughter playing in her room. 8 This is his master bedroom when the trees are unleaved. This is his back yard when the 9 trees are unleaved. 10 11 So those are going to be our views for maybe three months during the year, from the end of December to mid-April, those views that I just showed you right there. 12 In addition to all of the steps that we’ve made to make sure that you could not see out of 13 our windows, making them bed wails, increasing the window sills, making them offset 14 from all of his windows, we have figured out what our window surface area is. Currently 15 in our current house we have 46.7 square feet of window on that side. In the new house 16 we will have 30.75 square feet, or 65.8% of our current house. So we are diminishing the 17 actual viewing area through the windows. We are actually increasing Mr. Gomez’ ] 8 privacy from our current house with the new design. 19 In addition, I would just like to point out that it would be impossible for us to build a one- 20 story house. If we were to build a one-story house, maxed out to all of the setback lines, 2 ]even building into the rear setback six feet which you’re allowed to do, we would still be 22 under our FAR. We cannot build our FAR on one floor, as a one-story house. And this 23 is also - a one-story house would be, would have very, very poor performance. There 24 would be no yard for children to play, there would be poor room configurations. Some of 25 the rooms would not receive sunlight, they would be more in the middle. There would be 26 a greater hallway requirement to get to the rooms and thereby having less livable space. 27 There would be no porches to mitigate the three-foot entries that we have to do to get in. 28 Our entryways would just be up in the air. 29 We’ve tried to move single rooms downstairs from the second floor to the first floor and 30 again, we haven’t been able to do it because any time we tried to move a room from the 3]first floor downstairs, we had to add a hallway which then required part of our FAR 32 which then made the room so small that it wasn’t worth having it on the first floor at all. 33 So that is privacy issues. 34 Solar issues - I have a lot to discuss with solar issues and I’ll try to go very fast. 35 Basically, the intent of the IR committee was to foster sensitivity but legally this 36 ordinance cannot deny our project based on shadows cast. California Civil code 659 to 37 662 defmes what property is. It does not list sunlight as light. It does not list sunlight or 38 light as real, immovable, or personal property. Code 662 specifically states that "light 39 and air and heat are incidental or appurtenant," which means that they’re only achievable 40 through easements. Public Resource Code that lists what a property owner has rights to, CiO, of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 it’s defming what the environmental property is, says "land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical and aesthetic significance." Light is not listed, and the last two things, historical and aesthetic significance have definitions elsewhere as well. But light is not listed. On a Nolo Web page site discussing legal rights to sunlight, they say that in California property owners have no iegal rights to sunlight. They go on to discuss views, and they say even in areas that have specific ordinances towards view such as a beach community or something, those views are only protected from growing trees. They do not cover buildings or structures that block view. As far as I know there are no laws in California that govern a building blocking anything. 10 There’s been case precedent that’s been set in California that says the law is clear that a 11 neighbor has no legal right to protect their light or sunlight through his property and 12 cannot complain of construction on his neighbor’s property that eliminates light and air 13 but otherwise satisfies the other laws and local zoning ordinances. Sunlight can only be a 14 fight that is achieved through easement. It’s California Civil Code 801.5 that discusses 15 easements for sunlight. It says that "a solar easement means the right of receiving light 16 across real property of another for any solar energy system. Solar energy system is 17 defmed as an apparatus that collects, stores, and distributes electricity. So an easement is 18 only for the purpose of harvesting light. You can’t get an easement for aesthetics, mood, 19 human performance, or to generally heat your house. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 So again, I want to state, there’s nothing in the IR guidelines that supercedes California and/or specifically gives neighbors the right to sunlight. There is nothing about granting easements, and there is nothing quantifiably measurable with regards to sunlight. Therefore, I feel an R1 project cannot be denied based on shadows. Any and all shadows cast are legal. Then, to go on further, even if you do think that neighbors have a right, Staff: Let’s let her read it. We’ll... Ms. Kerrins: Okay. Staff: I think your summaries, your neighbors are going to have to [incoherent]. Ms. Kerrins: Okay. Basically, I just want to say that we’re exempt from solar impact laws, solar impact studies, and hat in order to require a solar study of us there has to be a significant effect on the environment which is clearly defined. It says that a neighbor’s comments and/or requests for solar studies are not sufficient evidence to warrant the solar study, and there’s public resource codes that tell you that "the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a projects shall not require preparation of impact study, argument, speculation..." Okay. Staff: You got it. Ms. Kerrins: And there’s nothing in our plans that suggest that we would have substantial effects. We’re under the height limit, we’re within the daylight plane, we City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 have greater than required setbacks, and as Janet pointed out, we have a letter from an expert saying that our shadows are insignificant. Staff: So you had somebody look at- you didn’t have them actually compare a solar analysis. You just had them look at it and confirm that there wasn’t an [incoherent]. Mr.Kerrins: Based on the guidelines of this six times a year. Ms.Kerrins: These are all that were [incoherent] that I discussed that you can read later. Ms.Capor~ao: These aren’t for me, right? Ms.Kerrins: Yeah, they’re yours, they’re yours. Ms.Caporgno: We’re going to have a huge administrative file. Ms. Kerrins: I also just want to real quick point out, these are pictures that Mr. Reich took when he came to - with my camera- when he came to the site visit showing Mr. Gomez’ house in full shadow. The garage, the part that we would potentially shadow is already in shadow in the afternoons. Ms.Caporgno: Are these the ones that I have [incoherent]. Mk:No - well, you might already have these. Ms.Caporgno: Yes, I have three or four. Ms. Kerrins: And this is one that shows his cherry trees casting shadow as well. In addition, just very quickly, I want to say that the only time that we could potentially cast shadow is after 3:00 pm in the wintertime. And I just wanted to point out that there’s not a whole lot of sun in the wintertime. Actually that’s the most shady time of the year. And on a Yahoo! page, the number of shady days in Palo Alto is 203, the majority of those being in the wintertime. And also, historical climate data shows December, January, February, and March as being overcast. Mr. Kerrins: So our house isn’t shading, it’s already shaded. Ms. Ken’ins: It’s already shaded. Mr. Gomez complained when we cut down a 40-foot pine tree in our front yard. He came out swearing obscenities and saying that we significantly shaded his house and that we removed the shade from his house and now we overheated his house because we removed this tree. So again, conflicting information. As far as communication goes, we’ve communicated all of our plans prior. At every opportunity we’ve displayed our plans in the middle of the street. If our neighbors had questions we brought the plans out. There was at least two other oppommities where we had our plans spread out across the tnmk of a car with neighbors open to discuss them. Ms. Thompkins early on, actually I was talking to Mr. Beltrain about the house and how we’re going to try to build it quickly, and she actually pointed her finger at me and said, City of Palo Alto Page 16 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 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 "You will have problems, I promise you that." And this actually decreased my enthusiasm to approach her openly with the plans. On October 31, after some of our other neighbors had approached the Gomez’ on our behalf, they told us they’re out to get you, they don’t want the noise of construction or for construction workers to be able to peer over the fence. They’ll do everything the~ can to try to stop construction. Many professionals involved in the case have also, after having discussions with the Gomez’, recommended that we limit communication and have used words such as "high maintenance and obstructive nature." This includes the City planning office. The intent of the IR Committee was never to ask permission, allow neighbors the power to insist on changes or to veto the project. You’ve had these before, the articles. The intent of the IR Committee was to allow for open communication in case the applicants were unaware of particular issues. We have been acutely aware and sensitive to all of the issue, legitimate or otherwise. Planning has continued to identify and acknowledge that all of the Gomez issues have been invalid and without merit, insignificant, or outright fabrications and exaggerations, and it’s obvious to all that have been involved, that the Gomez’ have no desire to actually add to this project in a constructive manner. So privacy - we’re actually increasing the privacy. Solar - they have no rights to sunlight, but even if you believe they do, we don’t cast any significant shadows. Communication - we tried and they shut down communication by finger-pointing and fabrications. Ms. Caporgno: With that I’m going to open the hearing for public testimony. You’ll have an opportunity to respond. We should have public testimony. I’d like to take the public testimony and then I’ll give both of you an opportunity to take a spot. Mr. Gomez: I have a procedural question. On this statement it says speakers should be limited to five minutes. And who does that apply to? Ms. Caporg, no: The speakers we’re talking about, you are considered - they’re the applicants, you are the person who requested the hearing. We will limit the public testimony now to five minutes each. Staff: Julie, one of the [incoherent] speak of the advisory group? 30 Ms. Capor .~o: You’ll be - I know; that’s why I was going to call you first. Annette 31 Ashton followed by Don Mullen, followed by Alice Reeves I believe. So if you could 32 just get prepared and go ahead. 33 Annette Ashton, 2447 Bryant Street: Well it’s hard to really put more detail or content 34 after these two presentations, but let me try. Annette Ashton, Bryant Street. And I’m 35 speaking today as one of the co-chairs. Since so much of this has been addressed for the 36 R1 future single-family housing. All three of the co-chairs has some very major concerns 37 about the individual review process. And I’m not going to repeat any of the comments I 38 made Monday night in support of the appeal there, but I did include them in the packet 39 that I gave you for the record. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Director’s Hearing - July 17, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Just a couple - four points I want to address. The appeal process - We the advisory group never meant to have this appeal process be so punitive. We did, as stated before, wanted neighbors to meet each other in a community building way and have a say, but never to hijack the process. We never thought we would create the Hatfields and McCoys. In the three appeals I have seen personally from mid-town residents, the appellants would not be mollified with any modification short of not building a two-story house. And I must say, and not speaking just to this one, but several of the appeals that I have seen are at best, uneducated about the current zoning and the IR process: And again, not speaking about this case, and at worst, mean-spirited and vindictive. Again, we’ve created Hatfields and McCoys. I believe all building applications should be treated in the same way as far as individual review and architectural quality, and now we see applicants jumping through hoops if there is a threat of an appeal. We can do better. 13 Looking at the education and zoning on topic, this is the part of the individual review 14 that’s never been implemented, and Carol Harrington is going to address this. I remain 15 concerned for in every case the applicant neighbor’s counsel, their education and staff as 16 well. Training on the process and zoning, hard-coded zoning, is necessary. Every staff 17 member must provide the same answers to zoning questions and in this case, I’m 18 personally concerned that it took months for staff to tell the Karrins that they could not 19 build their garage in an easement and then months again to tell them that their carport 20 would not in the floor area [incoherent] show. We do need an individual review 21 cookbook with graphics, especially in the area of what is counted in floor area ratio and 22 what is not. And we are going to work on that together. 23 Just a comment about solar. There is no way in our built-out and heavily forested 24 community that a two-story house that obeys the daylight plane and setback rules will 25 cast a shadow. The individual review guideline is just that - it’s a guideline. It’s not a 26 mandate. With the comment to move the mass of the center of the house if possible 27 which was done in this case. Carol, John, and I now feel because of the controversy on 28 this item, that we will lobby counsel strongly that this guideline should be omitted. 29 Where do we need to go from here? The three co-chairs have been working with staff to 30 free-tune the process. We now all need to work together to reduce the length of time of 3 ]the process as well as the severe and emotional financial toll on both the applicant as well 32 as any appellant or neighbors. We’ve got an agreement from the Director of Planning, 33 Steve Emslie as well as Lisa Grote, in the future to hold a focus session after we come to 34 the closure of all three appeals, to examine this process step by step, hear concerns, and 35 then fme-tune the process. 36 In closing, I believe that the Kerrins have proved their case and I ask you to support their 37 application. Thank you. 38 Ms. Caporgno: Mr. Mullen, followed by Alice Reeves, followed by Carol Harrington. 39 40 41 Mr. Mullen, 618 Tennyson: Good afternoon. My name is Don Mullen, and I reside at 618 Tennyson and I’ve been a resident in Palo Also for quite a while now. And I hope that the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t fmd out about that Yahoo! site because 220 City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- ~luly 17, 2003 Page 18 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 shady days is a lot. What I’m here for is to talk about a zoning ordinance that amended the residential code in November of 2001, about a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, those changes are not reflected in this handout, and for a number of reasons, I believe that this project should be re-reviewed for design errors according to the code. And I’m not here to discuss the design itself or whether the code is a good one, but I do believe that everybody should have to follow the same rules. To begin with, the home is maxed out. I don’t have the plans here, they’re not posted. But the number I remember is 2556 allowed in the 2556 proposed. I’m not sure ifI got the number correct. But if their plans - please, is that - am I right on that? Unfortunately, those numbers have been arrived at by exempting certain spaces that according to this zoning code, the amendments to the zoning code, should not have been exempted. The R1 single-family residence - I don’t think I need to read you all the different sections of this - but in the R1 single-family residence district, gross floor area means the total covered area of all floors of a main structure and accessory structures, etc. And then it tells how it’s measured to stud walls. The only exemption to that is for recessed porches located on the first floor are excluded from the gross floor area. A recessed porch is one which is enclosed on three sides with habitable space. There are no recessed porches in this project. And it also states very clearly that carports shall be included in gross floor area. This is a partially covered carport, and it should have been included. If it was exempted, it is in violation of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, there is also a large front porch treated as an entrance structure. And Section 6 of the R1 zoning section states specifically that entrance structures or towers, whether enclosed or unenclosed, shall be included in gross floor area. Any porch on the exterior entrance or structure with a tower greater than 12 feet in height shall be counted twice. Unfortunately, in the summary, there’s an error about that, too. 26 In short, if the porches and the entrance structure and the carport, as well as a couple of 27 pop-outs on the second floor are included in the floor area, the overall floor area of the 28 building will have to be reduced. And I’m here to ask that these applicants be required to 29 follow the zoning guidelines just the way everybody else is required to follow the zoning 30 guidelines. I’d be happy to submit this, but I assume you’ve got all this. And I would be 31 very much interested in receiving a written response to those items, if that’s possible. 32 Any questions? 33 Ms. Capor~o: Russ, do you have - is there anything you would like to respond to? 34 Russ: I’d like to respond to that. The carport is not a covered carport. It’s not even a 35 carport, it is an area in the driveway at the front of the house that has a trellis over the top 36 of it. There is no solid roof material. In fact, there was a condition of approval that 37 requires that there be no solid roof material over that feature. It is not counted, it is not a 38 carport, it will not count as FAR. The other item that you mentioned about the entrance 39 structure over 12 feet, this is no~ an entrance structure, this is a porch, and it is also not 40 counted as FAR. 41 Mr. Mullen: Why is a front porch not an entrance structure? City of Palo Alto Page 19 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 1 2 3 4 5 Russ Reich: Actually, that’s probably a better question for the co-chairs who are the people who drafted the ordinance. But there’s a difference between a porch and an entry structure. An entry structure is one of those very large two-stor3’, tall features... Mr. Mullen: No, no. Over 12 feet, you’re talking about double. It doesn’t say that. What it says is an entry structure should be counted. Russ: In fact, entry structure is not defined in the ordinance, so it’s left to interpretation. -The Kerrins’ porch is not interpreted to be an entry structure, it is a porch. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. French: I would like to jump in and say Mr. Mullen, we’ve heard your comments and we can certainly do as you wish to respond with a written comment to your assertions. And I don’t know, Julie, if you need us to go fitrther with this. Ms. Caporgno: I just wanted to know if you had anything, if there was anything that you wanted to respond to. Mr. Mullen: The last thing on that is the reason I mentioned the carport is that of the drawings that are on file, it is identified as a trellised carport. Ms. Caporgno: The next speaker is Alice Reeves, followed by Carol Harrington, followed by Parissa Najmabadi. 17 Alice Reeves: I am Alice Reeves. I am a neighbor. I have no interest in this 18 immediately, I do not live right next door, but I do hate to see our Clifton Court at odds, 19 one with another. I’ve lived there for - I don’t know, a hundred years now - and it is a 20 shame. We have block parties and everybody has such a good time together. I hope that 21 this can be settled amiably and we can all continue to be friends. I have enjoyed knowing 22 Julian and Sheryl and Bret and Ronni. I do hate to see things go from bad to worse here. 23 I want you all to come swimming and enjoy, please. I’m sorry, I don’t know anything 24 about architecture. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Ms. Caporgno: Carol Harrington, Parissa Najmabadi, and Cindy Carol Harrington, 830 Melville: My name is Carol Harrington. I live at 830 Melville Avenue. I am here as a co-chair of the Future Single Family Neighborhood’s Advisory Group that Annette mentioned. And I’m concerned what’s happening by the individual review process. We have built in a set of evaluation and we’ll be doing that again soon. When Ed Gawf was Planning Director at the time and Joan Taylor who was with the Planning Department initially met with John and Annette and me about the advisory group, we were careful to choose members who represented diverse points of view and lived in a variety of neighborhoods. We met for 17 months to develop the guidelines and all these meetings were public. As Annette mentioned, we wanted applicants to respect neighbors, and these neighbors to be able to comment, not hijack the process. Our goal was to have a process that was clear, predictable, and economical. I shutter to think about the dollars these appeals are costing both to the homeowner and to the City. A critical component for the success of this program is the public awareness or education City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 20 1 program for council members, planning department staff, applicants, possible appellants, 2 and the general public. This has not happened. I call it - you hear about vaporware? 3 This is a vapor education program. This has not happened. Even though there have been 4 150+ successful applications, we now have what I call a battlefield going on between 5 neighbors. A successful public awareness program should include the following: A program description, goals and objectives, a SWOT, or strength/weaknesses/opportunities/and threats or challenges analysis, audience identification - for example, the Council, the Planning Department, the public. Then we would determine what to say to them, what we want them to do, and how we would reach them, and after that, develop strategy and tactics, followed by a timeline budget and evaluation. Examples of how we could organize such a public awareness program includes presenting architecture 101 which was an excellent presentation by an architect at the very beginning of our process so we were all talking about the same things and using the same words. Producing a video that applicants and neighbors could check out from the Development Department, creating a Web site and preparing clear, concise, written materials. ! have talked to several applicants who would be willing to serve as mentors or teachers. And I want to extend this same invitation to appellants. I think that we need to really critique this process and see where we can do better. 20 John and Ed, some advisory members are willing to work with the staff on a continuing 21 basis to get the process back on track. I urge you to support the Kerrins’ application 22 because I believe it meets all of the guidelines. 23 Ms. Caporgno: I’m Parissa Najmabadi. Cindy Samos and Sahara Lavane - Lorane? 24 Parissa Najmabadi, 875 Elbridge Way: Good aftemoon. My name is Parissa Najmabadi. 25 I live in midtown at 875 Elbridge way, very close to Clifton court. I’m here to support 26 the proposed plans of Ronni and Brett Karrins. My husband and I met Ronniand Brett 27 through the IR process. Having been through this process myself and having encountered 28 objections, neighbor objections, all the way to the City Council, I must admit that the 29 Planning Department holds projects with neighbor opposition to very high and stringent 30 standards. Plans that are accompanied with neighbor disapprovals are scrutinized to a 31 much greater extent. As a result, the approval granted is not only very well deserved for 32 the applicant but is also the direct result of the sensitivity of the Planning Department and 33 the applicant towards neighbors’ concerns. 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 To appeal such a well thought out decision could mean two things: The appellant is either not cognizant of the fact that the IR process is not meant to give neighbors veto power over a project but rather to give them a voice to mitigate the impact of a two-story house. Or the appellant has a hidden agenda, irrelevant to the IR guidelines that said - it doesn’t matter to him that the project is bulletproof. In either case, no matter how many revisions the plan goes through, the appellant is still not appeased. I am astounded that the valuable time and budget of the City will be taken to further review the Kerrins’ case. I am disheartened that the Kerrins have to endure further agony and pain in order to reach the finish line. After all, they have played the rules of the game and they have followed City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the R1 zoning guidelines, they have met the IR review guidelines and yet, they did not stop there. They made revisions to their plan and they made many, many concessions to their neighbors. It seems to me that there is a tug of war between property rights and private interests. Instead of fostering strong neighborhoods the Clifton Court community is divided for no good reason. Ronni and Brett are here today after ten months of designing and redesigning their plans after making many, many concessions. This has taken a toll in their lifestyle in their whole family, including their very, very young children. It is no wonder that you see in front of you a family that has been drained, both fmancially and emotionally as a result of this process during the past ten months. In the Kerrins’ case, the IR guidelines have been met, the IR process has worked. No one can rebut that, no one can question that. They have to move forward. But the appellant demands cannot be met through the IR guidelines. Dear Ms. Caporgno, in reviewing this case further and in making your fmal decision, please demonstrate fairness, please protect the Ken-ins’ property rights, and please reward them for playing the rules of the game all along. Thank you. Ms. Capor~nao: Cindy Samos, Sahara Lirone, and Carol Mullen. 17 Cindy Samos: This certainly will be a tad repetitive. I don’t know what more I can say, 18 but it will be quick also. I’m here today to support Ronni and Brett. It’s been a long road 19 already for them to get here today, and I think if Ronni or Brett were to do a thesis on the 20 new IR guidelines, they would be finished. They know everything. But I’m sure they 21 didn’t set out to be so knowledgeable about this subject. They didn’t set out to spend 22 countless hours reading up on zoning ordinances and learning about the process. After 23 all, from the very beginning Ronni and Brett were very cognizant of the new guidelines 24 and very carefully followed them when designing their new home. Their plans will result 25 in a beautiful home that will be an asset to the neighborhood. But in spite of this, they 26 have had unreasonable challenges from their appealing neighbor at every turn. Ronni and 27 Brett have continually worked very closely with the Planning Department to make sure 28 that their plans comply with the IR guidelines in every way. In fact, they have very 29 clearly been held to a higher standard than someone who hasn’t been appealed. I think it 30 is unfortunate that this process can pit neighbor against neighbor. But in order for this 31 process to work, there must be some give and take. Neighbors must realize that they can 32 have a say in a project but they cannot expect to have ultimate control over a project. 33 Neighbors can’t expect that their views will never change. They cannot expect that a 34 home built next to them that complies completely with the IR guidelines will have 35 absolutely no solar shading on their property for some hours at certain times of the year. 36 It’s also so unfortunate that Ronni and Brett have already had to expend such a 37 significant portion of their energy and assets just trying to get past the planning stage of 38 their project, and they’re not done yet. I urge Planning to support Ronni and Brett, and I 39 also would like to appeal to their neighbor to think about letting this process end here 40 today and letting everyone move on with their lives. This would be such a great gesture 41 and could make all the difference in helping to bring the neighborhood together again. 42 Thank you very much. 43 44 Ms. Capor~no: I’m not even going to attempt to pronounce it. Followed by Carol Mullen, followed by Laura Cobbett. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Laura Cobbett: We’re not part of this. The next one. 2 Ms. Caporgno: Oh, I’m sorry. Louis Road. Mixed up, sorry. Elizabeth Wong, she’ll be 3 the last sptlaker. 4 Sahara Lerone: Hi. I’m Sahara Lerone, and I live at 3256 Clifton Court. I just wanted to 5 say a couple of things. I’ve been very impressed in reviewing the plans and what’s the 6 revisions with the aesthetics of the project as well as the concessions and considerations 7 to privacy and shade and just neighborhood. It seems very considerate of the 8 neighborhqod. I am in one of the remaining one-story homes. It’s updated but fairly 9 original. It’s not - the square footage has not been increased a great deal. I am 10 concerned, I’m a single mom and I’m basically being priced out of Palo Alto. So I’m 11 afraid I’m probably going to have to sell my home in the next three years, and I’m really 12 concerned that if this drags on too much further, how that could negatively affect my 13 property value, and I have to disclose that any - I also by the way have the largest lot on "i 4 the cul-de-sac, so it’s certainly going to be appealing for somebody to want to come in 15 and build when I sell, and I’m concerned that if I have - obviously I’d have to disclose if 16 this drags on forever that there’s a problem building. So I have some concerns. 17 Ms. Caporgno: Carol Mullen. 18 Carol Mullen: I’m Carol Mullen. I live at 618 Tennyson. It is in fact a very badly 19 designed ordinance, and I don’t think the co-chairs are going to be able to fix it. We won 20 our appeal, we were the appellants who won, but we had to retain an attorney from Shute, 21 Mahalian, Weinberger because in the process of intensive staff involvement in design 22 issues which I think is a really bad idea- if you listen to the time spent it was all spent 23 working with staffon design issues. And the ordinance has all this subjective 24 information. Basic issues of zoning are being ignored. After many, many hours the cit 25 attorney was absolutely unable to justify the planning staff’s determination in the case we 26 appealed, that first-floor porches were exempt. The zoning ordinance is very clear: First- 27 floor porches must count as FAR unless they are recessed. Carports, whether trellised or 28 not, must count. And the porches must count. So if this process were to go properly, 29 either the appellants should have asked for a variance for all their extra square footage, or 30 you should approve the Karrins’ plans, limited to the areas that their architect has 31 included in the FAR. Those don’t include the entrance structure which is very 32 specifically spelled out: entrance structures count. If they are over 12 feet, they count 33 twice. The only porches that are exempt are recessed porches. They don’t have a 34 recessed porch. All carports - not covered carports, all carports - all carports count. If 35 you look at the sheet where the FAR is determined and the architect has added them up, 36 none of these structures are there. So approve their plans but without the carport, without 37 the porch, and without those extra second story. At that point the house will look too 38 massive because it is too massive. It exceeds the legal FAR. The best the City attorney 39 could do with our attorney, Fran Leighton, was to say, "Well, back in 1988 it would have 40 been legal to exempt porches that were less than 50% enclosed." So if you approve these 41 plans without these structures, these people will not be involved in the litigation which 42 we are pursuing against the City to make it enforce, not the individual review which I 43 think should be just discarded, but to enforce the underlying ordinance. You are taking City of Palo Aho Director’s Hearing - July 17, 2003 Page 23 1 staff time to design houses. As a matter of fact, the architect made it clear that where the 2 neighbors want one thing and staff wants another, staff gets what it wants. I think staff 3 time would be much better spent on the underlying ordinance. I really don’t think it is 4 fair to staff, applicants, or appellants, to have this subjective language, subjective 5 decisions where people without design background, without design training, are spending 6 all their time designing a house - push the garage back, push the mass here - that’s not 7 their training, and they’re not doing it well. Palo Alto is full of houses that are larger than 8 the zoning code allows because pocket variances are sneaking into Palo Alto through the 9 individual review process. 10 Staff: I was [incoherent] 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ms. Caporgno: We have one more speaker that... [incoherent] In addition. Staff: I don’t know where to [incoherent] Ms. Caporgno: You want to fill out another card. I may have misplaced it, or I did misplace it; I’m aware of it. Oh, I found it. Marsha? Okay. Elizabeth, followed by Marsha. And that concludes all the cards I have, so if anyone else wants to speak on this item, if you could fill out a card. Otherwise, those will be the last two speakers. 17 Elizabeth Wong: This hearing is about the IR guidelines, it’s not about FAR. I have the 18 unfortunate person to have Mr. Mullen and Mrs. Carol and Don Mullen as adjacent 19 neighbors. They have opposed my house unreasonably and for a very long time. So I do 20 also want to point out that their house has maxed out the FAR, every little bit of their 21 house. Their house was put on stilts for many months, and my neighbor says 22 [incoherent] same years when they enlarged their house and they built the first floor 23 under the original house. I think that this issue, their problem is that they don’t want 24 change and that they’re using the IR guidelines to prevent people from changing their 25 own private homes. I value preservation, but I think that there’s a distinctionbetween 26 value in buildings and value in values. We have - I come from a very rich culture, I 27 preserve my culture, but there’s no reason for me to preserve something that is - needs 28 updating such as my personal home. So I also want to tell you that this meeting is 29 costing us $308 an hour. And the reason I - the way I calculated that was taking $77 an 30 hour, that is the published rate for City employees, times four, there are four members 31 here. So that is $308 an hour. So we will have about a $500 bill to the City as a result of 32 this unnecessary, contentious hearing. Thanks. 33 Ms. Caporgno: Marsha. And I can’t read your last name, so [incoherent]. 34 Marsha Desloreas: I’m Marsha Desloreas. I am the Karrins’ neighbor on the other side 35 at 3272 Clifton Court. I just wanted to underscore a couple of things. First of all, this is 36 quite illuminating for us constituents in the community. At $500 an hour it is amazing to 37 me, but I applaud those of you who painstakingly do this work. I’m also pleased to hear 38 that a part of the original intent of this process was not to hijack the process and to 39 belabor it, but to support communication within a community and communication with 40 neighbors. And I think, I hope we don’t lose sight of some of that, because that was - City of Palo Alto Page 24 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 and a sense of reasonablness I guess about the process. So a few things I just wanted to - from what I can add to it. Their architect, the Karrins’ architect in fact did make great efforts and accomplish it in speaking to us early in the process. She took photographs, met with us, and communicated with the neighbors. We saw early design plans, and again, they were at a block party now that I recall it, and on a number of other occasions. So there is a very open dialogue as Alice has spoken about in our cul-de-sac, lots of opportunity to have input and to voice opinion about the house. Right now, in addition to the concern about the aesthetics is the safety issue for our neighbors and for their kids in living in a house that really needs to be addressed. And their children are growing and as well, it’s wonderful for everyone to use this as a platform and a forum for their own particular dialogues about the issues in our community. We have children growing up in a home that needs to be replaced and move forward with it. So I am here to say that one, we wholeheartedly support the building of this house from an aesthetic standpoint and all the reasons. I think they have done their due diligence to communicate with the neighbors and get our feedback. I think when you live in a community like Palo Alto I think there is a tenet of reasonableness that has to be expected when we live in the proximity that we do with one another. We are not living on one-acre properties where our neighbors are in a distant place. And I think they have made every effort to be reasonable in the placement of windows, structures, and what-not, and I would, as the adjacent neighbor, strongly support that we approve the project and move forward with it and get going. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Ms. Capor~no: Thank you. Since I have no other cards, I am going to ask Mr. Gomez if he wants to respond, and I would urge you to limit your response, Mr. Gomez. I know you had an opportunity previously to comment. So if you could just address the issues that were raised if you wish. Mr. Gomez: I’ll try to organize this on the fly. The first issue is the one of hijacking the process. What I’d like to point out here is more than one of the speakers has mentioned that this process is involved to give the neighbors not a veto but a voice. I want to stress here that we have had no voice whatsoever in this process. We can’t even claim to have a voice. Brett stopped speaking to me years ago. I tried a few times to talk to him and gave up after awhile. Ronni stopped speaking to me after the initial appeal was filed last October. There has been no opportunity for us to contribute. Every time I asked Ronni - since I couldn’t talk to Brett, every time I asked Ronni what was going on with the house, the question was ignored. The only thing she would discuss with me was the plans to have the fire department burn down the existing house. The plans were brought out to the Clifton Court barbeques. We heard about those. We noticed that they were only brought out when we weren’t present. As far as having input, there hasn’t been any. We were forced to go to the City to provide some input. If everybody else has input, why shouldn’t we? I hear about all these discussions with the other neighbors and I hear about the architect discussing the house with the other neighbors, how come we were excluded from that process? The only discussion we ever had with the architect was when she was taking pictures of the house and when she was measuring the windows. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 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 NEW BUSINESS 1985 Louis Road [02-CUP-23, 02-ARB-106]: Request by Ruth and Going Inc. on behalf of Cingular Wireless and the first Congregational Church for a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review to allow the installation of three stealth pre-mounted antennas and screened equipment cabinets. Zoning: R-1. Environmental Assessment: Exempt for the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15301. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: ...the final 02-ARB-106. The request by Ruth and Going Inc. on behalf of Cingular Wireless and First Congregational Church for a conditional use permit and architectural review to allow the installation... [tape ends here after only a minute] Zachary Carter: I’m Zachary Carter. Ms. French: Zachary Carter. Zachary Carter: Yes. Thank you. As Chris mentioned, we did have a community meeting. Everybody- it’s actually good to have a community meeting because they don’t know about the wireless facilities. There was only one neighbor, two-story Eichler right across the street that had some concerns. We addressed those concerns by raising the fence around the BTS. It’s a little bit higher so when he’s up in his second story he can’t see the actual BTS units, which are the electronic equipment cabinets. We’ve gone through several different designs before finally coming up with that one. We’re working with the church, continuously working with the church because we haven’t finished the - I want to say contract - with them until after we get an approval. So everyone seems to agree upon the basic idea of those plans. But if there’s some minor changes, I’m here to ask you if there’s some minor changes if we have to come back here or if there’ll be a staff level to look at it at building permit time. Ms. French: What kind of minor changes would you envision? 28 Mr. Carter: The only minor changes that I could possibly envision were to - the fence 29 would stay the same, the location, the BTSs would be the same. The only possible 30 change is that we - that plan shows us cutting some columns that are about this big and 31 putting a header over the top of them. We might be able to push back the BTS closer to 32 the tree. We have to - we can’t be any closer than four feet by the City arborist. Right 33 now we’re at the original location of the wall. So we have at least 2-2-1/2 feet to move it 34 back. We’re looking at moving it maybe six inches, a foot so then we don’t have to do 35 anything to those colunms at all. But it’s basically, when you drive by, it’s identical. 36 You’re not going to notice any difference. So basically, those plans are what we’re going 37 to try to build, but they may have a slight change in which we would not - we would not 38 have to cut those columns. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 26 1 Ms. French: 2 come up and 3 the drawings Can I ask you, in your presentation, about this potential change. Can you sit here. We do have microphones working at the table, and to point out in what you’re referring to. 4 Mr. Carter: These are columns right here. See these little black dots? 5 Ms. French: Got it. Mr. Carter: See these columns? We were going to cut those columns, beef this colunm up. And that fight there is a steel beam that we’re going to box in. The whole idea is to make it look identical to this so when you drive by this all looks - you can’t - your eye can’t pick the difference that this fence sticks out. So this fence is actually - there’s - I dropped off another plan that raised this fence up to this beam so you can’t even see. Even if we’re going to box in the beam, we still didn’t want to see a box. The whole idea is just trying to make it absolutely stealth. 13 14 15 16 1"7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Ms. French: So basically, the altemate plan which we are considering and we could consider today, although you don’t have it represented in the drawing, is that this fence would come up higher to here and that these columns here... Mr. Carter: Would not be cut. Ms. French: ...would not be cut, am I correct? Mr. Carter: Yes. Ms. French: Well, I will invite any of the speakers that we have here today, which there are two. Mr. Carter: From the church. Ms. French: Yes; to enter in dialogue. completed your... Mr. Carter: Yeah. If you want to have a seat. Then you’ve Ms. French: ...speaking angle. Mr. Carter: I’m working still with the church and the City and basically we’re willing, if there’s any - I’ve addressed all the concerns of the neighbors, and there isn’t any. So we’re ready to just go forward with this. Ms. French: Okay. Why don’t you stay up here and I’m going to ask the folks that are here to speak on this. Go ahead and come up, and there’s only two speakers. So if you want to come sit here at the table, that would be comfortable for you. And the first speaker I’ll have, I suppose that it’s you, Pat. Pat Keller: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 27 2 Ms. French: Pat Keller, 327 Tennyson. Mr. Keller: Yeah. 3 Ms. French: So why don’t you go ahead and tell me your comments and concerns. Mr. Keller: All right. As I said, I’m Pat Keller, I’m on the board of trustees. I’m also an architect, so that’s where we’ve been involved, and that’s say we’re greater critics in giving Zach and his company more trouble than the neighbors, because we have a lot of standards that we want to maintain to keep the integrity of the church design and also accommodate what they want to propose. As Zach says, the plans will maintain - the plan will maintain what’s there, it just moves it forward because we did not like cutting th~olumns and essentially defacing the design. So it stays within the guidelines of the City which was not to come closer than four feet of the tree, and that’s what it would do. So in all intents and purposes, it’s the same design. It just moves them forward and it saves... Mr. Carter: Actually, it moves them to the side, not towards the street. Mr. Keller: Yes. It moves them - yes, not towards the street, it moves them horizontally there, out to fit these boxes in the space in front of the columns without cutting them. So there’s really no change in the design or the appearance or anything else. You’d never know the difference, you couldn’t tell if the fence was here as opposed to here when you look at it. So that’s basically [incoherent] and... 20 Ms. French: So you are in support, I’m hearing you say. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Mr. Keller: We are supporting, yes, yes. Ms. French: Either way [incoherent]. Mr. Keller: In fact, we were the one that encouraged, insisted that we not cut the columns because there was a structural problem. It probably would even be an architectural design problem involved, and I think this solves everybody’s - it solves the church’s concern, it solves this, and we meet the City criteria of protecting that tree. Staff: So you’re in support of the project. Mr. Keller: Yes. Ms. French: Great. Okay, so I am heating your support of the pr~)ject. You also support the potential minor change which is really not related to the use permit, but it’s related to the architectural review component of the application. Mr. Keller: Yes. Ms. French: So do you have anything else to add? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 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 Mr. Keller: That’s [incoherent]. Ms. French: Okay. And the second speaker, I have Laura Cobbett, is that correct? Laura Cobbett: Yes. Ms. French: 627 Fulton. Ms. Cobbett: Right, and I am the chairman of the board of trustees, First Congregational Church, and we spent a lot of time throughout the church community considering this request from Cingular, and all I want to add for the record was that our board and the church are in support of the proposal from Cingular. Ms. French: Great. Okay, anybody else here in the audience to speak on this item? Okay. Staff: We’ll never renovate our house. Ms. French: Keep it to the first floor, you won’t have these problems. Staff: No, they’re right, that architect was right. Ms. French: Don’t go there! Thank you. I will now close the public hearing for this item. I don’t have any particular questions except that is this the church that’s on Embarcadero and Louis? Mr. Keller: Yes, Embarcadero and Louis. Ms. French: Interesting. Okay. I don’t have any further questions. Staff, do you have anything else to add? Staff: Nothing else. Ms. French: Okay. I think this is been in the process for awhile and am glad that you fmally were able to come to a hearing, and here we are. I will issue a decision within ten days of this heating. Mr. Carter: Does this go forward to - if someone were to appeal it, it would go to the Planning Commission, or is this... Ms. French: It would if it were appealed. Mr. Carter: But once we get an approval here, that’s it; we can file for a building permit? Ms. French: Correct. And there are ten appeal days. Now as I said, my decision will be issued within ten days of this decision. It doesn’t mean I will wait ten days to issue the decision. I’m prepared to make a decision, so as soon as we can get it together and get it out in the mail, I will make that decision in writing. And then that’s when the appeal period starts ticking. City of Palo Alto Director’s Hearing- July 17, 2003 Page 29 1 2 3 Mr. Carter: Okay. Thank you. Ms. French: Thank you very much. Staff: Thank you very much. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Director’s Hearing - July 17, 2003 Attachment E September 4, 2003 Members of the City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 ~"R ECEIVED SEP ~ 2003 Cornrnun~ty Environment Dear Council Member, This letter is written jointly by the three co-chairs of the R1 Future of Residential Housing Advisory Committee - Annette Ashton, Carroll Harrington and John Northway - to address the appeal by Mr Gomez of the Clifton Court Home of Ronni and Bret Kerrins. We fully support the Kerrins application and feel it complies with the Individual Review Guidelines. The main objections in the appeal are the issues of privacy and sunlight. The goal of our advisory group was to be respectful of neighbors. In a city with small lots (6000 square feet) that allows two story houses, privacy and sunlight can never be an absolute. The advisory committee recognized this, and we concluded the daylight planes were adequate as city wide standards to provide access to sun and light. Again with a built out city and small lots, we never intended to eliminate any and all shadows cast on neighbor’s property. We did want the builder to be sensitive to the design and recognize that it could cause shadows; thus Guideline # 6 suggests that mass be moved to the center of the house if possible. Likewise, total and complete privacy is unrealistic. Our goal was to minimize direct views of sensitive areas (i.e., bathrooms, bedrooms, main living areas), not all views of the neighboring property. In conclusion, the co-chairs are committed to work with staff to evaluate the appeals, hold focus sessions and recommend changes to fine tune the Individual Review Process. We recommend that Council NOT CALL UP this application and accept staff recommendations as indicated on the consent calendar. Sincerely, Annette Ashton Carroll Harrington ohn 3280 CLIFTON COURT APPE~ ~M!NiSTP~hTiVE RECORD CHRONOLOG!C~ INDEX ~!ndex Number Document Title Page No. o Development Review Application for individual Review by Applicant Janet S. Chuang, Architect re: 3280 Clifton Court dated September 27, 2002 ............! Guideline Checklist Single Family individua! Review Process .........................................2 Photos of adjacent Property ............................7 Story Board ...........................................!! Letter from Bret & Ronni Kerrins regarding pre- design considerations for their Individua! review submission ............................................!3 o E-mail to Russ Reich from Julian Gomez dated October !, 2002 regarding 3280 Clifton Court ..........17 Letter from Bret and Ronni Kerrins regarding their rebuttal to October 2, 2002 comment letter from Julian Gomez .....................................18 8.E-mail to Russ Reich from Julian Gomez and Cheryl Tompkins dated October 21, 2002 regarding 3280 C!’=~!~O__~ Court .........................................23 9.Letter from Bret and Ronni Kerrins regarding their rebuttal to October 21, 2002 comment letter from Julian Gomez (with attachments) .......................3! !0. Approval ].etter for 3280 Clifton Court dated May 12, 2003 ..............................................66 I!. Letter to Russ Reich from Julian Gomez and Cher!y Tompkins regarding request for a Director’s Hearing for 3280 Clifton Court ........................68 030304 syn 0091218 i Index Number Document Title Page No 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Letter from Marlene Kerrins regarding 3280 Clifton CT .............................69 Letter from Mary B Johnson regarding 3280 Clifton CT .............................70 E-mail to Russ Reich from Barbara Kerckhoff regarding 3280 Clifton CT ........71 E-mail to Russ Reich from Dipti Joshi regarding 3280 Clifton CT .................72 E-mail to Russ Reich from Freya Prowe regarding 3280 Clifton CT ...............73 Director’s Hearing statement submitted by Brett and Ronni Kerrins ..............74 Sunny day research findings ............................................................105 Solar access regulations .................................................................119 Comparison of house sizes on Clifton CT .............................................139 Window area calculation ...............................................................140 News article clippings ....................................................................141 Statement to the director by Julian Gomez ...........................................143 Statement to Amy French by Don and Carol Mullen ...............................154 Statement by Annette Ashton ..........................................................155 Statement by Carroll Herrington .......................................................157 Applicant Request Architecturat Review Design Enhancement Exception Environmental Impact Assessment Oomprehensive Plan Amendment Protected "Tree Removal Home improvement Exception [~j ~empo[ary Use Permit ~individual Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Site and Design zone Change Subdivision Parcel Map Propert7 ~ocadon ~,ddress of Subject Property:,~ .~.~ ~_~’~4..’~ ~’T’~. t~, ~__~.-T’, Zone District: ,~- [Assessor’s Parcel Number:Historic Category(if auplicabte) Reques~ea Acnon Description of requested action: Applicant NOTE: qame: -.._j~,~’V, ~. f""~ ""~ / Address: .~ ~.~/~%~, City: ~’~----~-~ .’.~O._-.’-O-~ O,W~State: NOTRE: APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed onthe submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. E-maih "~.~.~,’--~h @__. rq~n~.,,~-~,.~-~ r,_.q Phone: G"-~O-~ ~ APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. E-mall. k.,..., i ,~ ~ .~_ut~ ~ ,. c.-~r’rh ~. Zip: ~@~F~: ~C,-~; -~ 2~& , I hereby cer%, that 1 am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that t approve of the requested action herein. If i th s application(s)-is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this apptication(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing pq.Lid@ stated. Signature of Owner:Date: _- b%nrc~- - Old South Guideline #2. How wii! second-stoW balconies or decks be located to mini~dze the loss of privacy fbr neighboring properti~ ? Guideline ~"~"",=&~. ~¥hat me~od wit! be used in the design of a two-story house or secon~ story addbtion sensi~ve to *&e predomin .~t neighborhood scale? Guideline ’-’’ ’" ’ ....._. s~onu-~or~ addition balance the ~.-~ -q form, composition of ~h~ ~4~ting bmtmno, 2 ,L-Dividing up ~he m~s by inco~o_.-aUng smz::ie: buiid:ns eiemen:s. _ S~[back the. se.cond-slor,’!ro~.." [n~_ >:ont n~. ..... tn~ nou.~e. <Sm~ae[ine....#4. VVhat method is used 1o make the new two-story, home or second story m~amon: a ,--- : sensiEive 1o fine ex~s~n£ ne[ffhborhood h=~* pattern, Dartica~ar[%; the heizhi of _.-~o~. [s the front facade desizned that will Drovid£ a visu~-~ interest., a sense of human scaIe, and a x.Is~ tu~m point that comnlement< [ne overall desisn and enhmnces the %Vhat method is used to compose second-story whndo-w locations, patterns, ~ro~ortiOnSo and....snape~ ..... ’"" Ho ....~ho soJar of the. ad iacent neighbors’ houses and varos respec~ea; ?°4 mediate, the house’s scale and proportion? with ~>e buiidin~ stria. Guidei~.e 4.-..,~h} ~.a,r-ha~ method ~s used to compiemene fine new roof v+-i6~, e>istfn~ - "- Lnco.,m, omte a consis[en[ roof slope Iba-oughout. the. roof into Dnm~-" and s~cond~w_ iu~,~~-~-" ~-,u~m~.- Mak~,’use~roof s!o~es and materials consistent wkh dqe buildin~ sb’!e. 7~:-} ~o’+-- x.y~>--"’ the setback of *h~ .......new ~ou<.~- respect the setback pattern o[" the" nei=hborin~ gY Lqco~.~ or.ate side setbacks fo.r new cons~usdor: and second-sto<~ additions :hac ’are consistent with neighborhood pamems.. --~Main[aiD the e=is~ng patre.~., c,~.., the lot. Q Ouide!i~e does not apply (please expl~n). v;u.’.viePme ~.-,,,.. ,_,q. What method wi!t be usea m balance the s----i~.~.. of the new two-story house or s~cend story addiqon with i~ site? and what method is used t~ make it subordinate to the house: landscap~ and Guideline aoes not ~o~iy Pre-design Considerations 3280 Clifton Ct., Pato Alto page I Bret and Ronni Kerrlns 3280 Cii~on Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-251-9232 September, 2003 Re:Pre-design considerations individual review submission, new two-story residence at 3280 Clifton Ct. To Whom It May Concern: The following is a list of "pre-design neighbor considerations" we have made to our new two-story residence plans prior to the initial submission to the Planning department. We designed our home using the IR guideline handbook as our prime reference. We used the exact examples given in the handbook and our architect had many (at least three) pre-submission meetings with the Planning department. " Guideline #1: Second-story Window Placement ¯Our windows are maximally offset with those of our neighbors. ¯We have made some of the windows ’box seats’ to avoid casual viewing. Box seats force people to stand at least two feet away from the window decreasing trajectories. Anyone close to the glass would have to be seated in the box seat and therefore would be shorter (i.e., below the fence line). ¯On the second floor we have heightened the lower windowsills to deter downward vision. ¯We plan to use stained glass in four of our second-floor windows. ,, We have made all second floor windows on the Gomez side of the house "bed walls" so that standing in front of the windows is impossible (a suggestion from the Planning Department). Guideline #2: Second-story Balconies and Decks We have only ’-,~= ~’~"".’o’ ----~ ......".--~ the -’~’.~.÷~,,~v o,,~, .....~ecu~u floor balcony "~" " " deterring us from actually walking out onto the balcony. The front of thehouse is the side with the least privacy concerns. The purpose of this balcony is to be able to open the doors while relaxing in bed on a hot day/evening and to keep an eye on our children playing in the cu!-de-sac (opposite direction as the Gomez property). Pre-design Considerations .............. -3280-Clifton-Ct~ P-~il6-Alt5 ................................................ page-2 ........... Our house is twisted on the lot to make the angle of vision from our balcony to Mr. Gomez’s second-floor window a baclcward view. Guideline #3: The Scale of New Homes and Additions The second floor is moved back from the street to reduce the apparent size/mass of the house and the bulk of the second floor is in the rear half of the property to reduce the apparent mass at the street. We used smaller building units to break up the building mass. The second floor mass is centered on the lot so as to not impose on either neighbor. We have broken up the entrance stairs leading to our front door to minimize the apparent height of the house. A difficult task since we have to build 3 feet above grade to satisfy flood zone requirements. Guideline ...24: The Height of New Homes and Additions ,~By incorporating a front porch, being willing to have steps right in front of the front door down to the porch, and by lowering the roof at the porch we have aligned our eaves with the eaves of our neighbors on both sides. This has been a very difficult concession for us. We have requested several times that our architect lift the eave on the porch so that we would not have a beam in our line of vision from the living room window, however she has refused precisely so that there would not be an issue with the height or scale of our design despite the flood zone requirements. ¯We have kept the height of our house 3 feet below the maximum even though we have to build 3 feet above grade. We have minimized the perception of the second floor on the front streetscape by emphasizing the horizontality of the first floor roof (as suggested by the Planning Department) ¯ ,, See comments in Guideline #3 section for how we reduced the mass of the second story. Guideline #5: Front Facades of New Homes and Additions We have created a front fa~cade with visual interest and human scale with the porch, stonework, and custom windows, balcony and trellis. We have linked the balcony and trellis to the ground floor visually by using the same stonework and guardrail as the porch, in fact, the City’s Architectural consultant was so taken by the image of the balcony-trellis-windows-gable that he commented that he would have liked to see more gables with windows on the house. Though the Planning Staff said that comment was unnecessa~, we have utilized this image again on the box ~,:~naows of the bedrooms Taclng the rear, (we avo(]ed adding more or enlarging windows to the front or sides of the house). P. 14 Pre-design Considerations 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 3 Guideline #6: Sunlight Orientation of New Homes and Additions Our second-story is centered on the lot to ensure shading has little effect to either side. The tallest part of the house is in the center. We have used hipped or shed roofs facing the sides to minimize sunlight obstruction. We have greater than required set backs on both sides to minimize Shadows to our neighbors. Guideline #7: Roof profiles of New Homes and Additions We have incorporated a constant roof slope throughout. We have deliberately broken up the roof into primary and secondao, roof forms. We have massed the rooms on the second floor so as to be able to have secondary roof dormer-like wings coming off the higher central-peaked roof- ve5: much like the middle "preferred" drawing in the Guideline booklet. The Planning Staff was satisfied with our roof lines however, when one of the City’s Architectural consultants commented that the roof form would be improved (not required, but an improvement) by yet another roof articulation over the study, we incorporated this articulation over the study bay window. Craftsman style houses tend to have roof slopes between 5:12 to 7:12. We are using a 6:!2 roof pitch, very similar to the majorib’ of the houses on our street. Guideline #8: Setbacks and Overall Composition Our front setback is greater than the street average. We have greater than required set backs on both sides. Most houses on this street have only the required setback of six feet, with some having even less due to past laws. Three of the two-story houses on our court have sheer two-story walls that go straight up to the second ftoo[ roof. We have indented all of our second floor rooms to add interest, decrease shadows, and balance the scale with the houses on either side. Guideline #9: Entry. Features ~We have incorporated a low roofline porch to minimize our ento, way and keep it in scale with our neighbors. ~We have broken up the stairs leading to our front door to minimize height of the entryway. We must build 3 feet above grade. Pre-design Considerations 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 4 ~utdellne ~t0: Garages and Driveways The neighborhood has an eclectic array of attached garages set toward the front of the property and garages set back. We have chosen to be sensitive to Planning Staff and Architectural preferences and have pushed our garage back on our property, to minimize its appearance on the street. Our garage door has an eight foot door. This way, the garage does not gain prominence in the design, which is so often the objection by Pianners and Architects. We plan to have £ Craftsman style garage door, the same styfe as the house. We would like to have anyone concerned and/or passing judgment on our project to realize that we took great care in designing this house; respecting our neighbors and the environment. We are extremely proud of what our architect was able to accomplish; balancing our needs and desires within our home with the needs and concerns of our neighbors and the preferences of City Planning. We feel this new house will be a great asset to our street and the community. Thank you, Bret and Ronni Kerrins Homeowners P. 16 Reich,-Russ From: Sent: To: Subject: Julian Gomez Ueg@polished-pixeis.com] Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:36 AM russ_reich@ city.palo-alto.ca, us initial comments for an individual review RUSS, The staff in the planning office suggested that I write to you about an application received from 3280 Clifton Ct. We live next door, at 3288, and haven’t received a letter yet, but I wanted to write anyway because there is such a short time before comments are due. These are some concerns from the first look at the plans for 3280: The plans show our house as two story. It isn’t; it’s a one story house with a workroom over the garage. The graphics don~t show this, instead trying to misrepresent our house as two story. Eight of the twelve houses on Clifton Ct are one story. The plans don’t seem to show the new house conforming to FEMA regulations. From the heights indicated, the floor level is shown as being the same as our house. However, our house js three or four feet below the flood plane. The new houses across the street seem to have floors that are much higher than what’s shown on the plans for 3280. Our impression is that the new house will have to be higher than what’s shown. The house height will cut off our last access to daylight. Because of neighbors’ trees (949 Loma Verde, 941 Loma Verde) the oniy suniight we get is across the lot at 3280 Clifton Ct. With the new house, the south side of our house will nolonger receive sunlight, at least during the winter. The noisemaking areas of the new house are approximately ten feet away from the bedrooms in our house. The windows downstairs look directly into our bedrooms. The window upstairs looks almost directly into our room upstairs. Also, the window upstairs will look almost directiy onto their upstairs porch approximately ten feet away. Windows upstairs took straight down into our back yard. How do I make sure our comments are incorporated into the approval process? Thank you, Julian and Cheryl Gomez 3288 Clifton Ct 856-9839 P.!7 Rebuttal to October 2, 2002 Appeal 3280 .~li~on Ct.. Palo Alto page 1 Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Ch:~on Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-251-9232 October 8,2002 Rebutta~ to October 2, 2002 appeal lndividua! review submission, new two=sto~0 residence at 3280 Clifton Ct, To Whom It May Concern: On October 2. 2002, our neighbor, Mr. L~omez, at ,,_~88 Clifton Ct. submitted the following letter of appeal regarding our purposed plans to rebuild at 3280 Clifton Ct. (copied word-for-word from the original): The staff in "’ -"-~,[n-~ planning omce sugaested that ~ write to you about an appiication received from ozSu C,l=~on Cf VVe live ne~ door, a~ 3?85 ~=ce!veo a letter yet, but f wanted to write an~.~.,’ay because there is such a shoR time before comments are due. These are some concerns from the first look at the plans for,~,_~,,,. The plans show ~-, ruu. house workroom over the garage our house as two stories. The ~ ~ ’ -’~top~=n~ ao~i t seem the heights " "~=~~nQ~, the f However, ou~ house is thre the street seem to have ~8~. a one-story house :*~ this, instead tB4ng to misrepresent on Clifton Ct. are one story. ~n~ ~o FEMA " "regulauons. ~-r ~ the same as our house. ~d plane. The new houses ~n whirs shown on the pians for Our impression is th ......,~ ~ ~,Juse wili have io be higher ih~n whafs shown. , ne house h=~gh~ wil[ ", ÷ ""~,u; OTT our last ~c~’-~s ~o day aht ~-~ ....,~ v~Fss,, ~ Loma v=ru=). ~he oniv~ sunlight we. get is across the lot at ~,~sa~’ Clifton Ct. ’ "~ ....nou~=, the south side of o~ ~ house will no ionge~ sunlight. ~f ie*=~ ~ ,H~ +h~ winter. P. 18 Rebuttal to October 2, 2002 Appeal ~80 Clifton Ct.: Pato _Alto page 2 The noisemakin~ areas of the new house are approximate!y teT~ feet away from the bedrooms in our house. The windows downstairs look directly into our bedrooms. The window upstairs looks almost directly into our room upstairs. Also, the window upstairs wiil iook almost directiy onto their upstairs porch approximateiy ten feet away. Windows upstairs look straight down into our back yard. How do [ make sure our comments are incorporated into the approvai process? Thank you, ;288 Clifton Ct. P. 19 Rebuttal to October 2, 2002 Appeal 3280 Ci~on Ct.: Palo Alto page 3 Although the Planning department never asked us to rebut the above letter, our rebuttai would be: Paragraph three: "The pians show out house as a two stor.V’ Mr. Gomez’s house is over 20 feet in height. He can call it whatever he likes, but our eaves are equal to his eaves. See "Story board" in original file. There are eleven houses on Clifton Ct., of which five are two-story. Ours-will be the sigh. In addition the house directly behind us on Loma Verde is two-story. We have a two-story house in front of us (across the street), a two-story behind us, and even if Mr. Gomez fails to acknowledge it, a two-story beside us. Even if there were no two-story houses on our couR, someone l]as to be first. Recently on Sycamore Ct. the first two-stoB~ house was erected on a court of about 20 single story, houses. Paragraph four: "... conforming to FEMA .regulations" This paragraph discussing FEMA regulations is one of the best compliments Mr. Gomez could have given. The Planning Staff was elated that a house that has to be built 3 feet above grade (because of flood zone regulations) tooks like a normal house. Paragraph five: "last access to daylight.., in the winte¢’ Mr. Gomez claims we are on his south side when in fact we are on the Gomez’s west side. Therefore we cannot affect their southern sunlight. This paragraph is plain and simple, a lie. We are not responsible for the trees to the south of the Gomez property. Most of the trees to the south of the Gomez property are deciduous and therefore do not block their winter.sun. See picture - Attachment "I" The effects of someone else’s trees on our neighbors should not preclude us from building a second floor. Mr. Gomez has 15-foot cherry trees planted along his west setback between our two houses. These trees block more sun to their house than a two-story house ever could. Mr. Gomez’ house is already in shade by late afternoon. A second floor to the west would not change what is already a fact. See pictures -.A~achments "2a-g" ,&bout tw.o years ago we removed a diseased 40-foot tree from our front yard. The Gomez’s complained that we took away their shade and made their house too hot. Paragraph six: "... noisemaking areas.., i0 feet away" ~- Noise is not grounds for appeal via the iR Guideiines. P. 20 Rebuttal to October 2, 2002 Appeal 3280 C1Lfi:on Ct., PaJo _4Jto page 4 All of our rooms on that side of the house are bedrooms or closets except for the kitchen, which is parallel to Mr. Gomez’ garage. The kitchen (like al! of the rooms on the first floor) has 6" insulated walls. It also has no functioning windows or doors. How can our bedrooms be noisier than their bedrooms? All houses in Palo Alto are required to have 6-foot setbacks making the distance between these two houses 12 feet at a minimum. Because we have a triangular lot,. our setbacks are greater. The distance at the rear of the house (the bedroom area) is over 20 feet, not 10 feet. w~noov;,, downstairs look Oh ~,Lly into our u=d~ o~msParagraph seven: "The : ’ -"-~"’-""~" ....... Down-stair windows are not grounds for appeal via the !R Guidelines. Guideline #1 specifically states, "Second-story Window Placement". The new windows are less ’in-line’ than the current windows. We currently have five windows on that side of our existing one-story house. The new house will have seven windows on that side with one of them being a non- functioning glass block wall and another being stained glass. Essentially we are not adding any more viewing area than is already present. But as stated above, the new windows will be tess in-line and harder to see out of than the current windows. Downstairs there are only two windows, the glass block wall and a "box" seat. The glass block wall is not see-through and is non-functioning. "Box" seat windows deter casual viewing as people are required to stand at least two feet back from the glass (decreasing trajectories) and anyone sitting in the window box will be shorter and/or below the fence line. Our guest bedroom window (the "box" window) is located midway between their two windows. It will be a 45-degree angle view to see their windows at all. This maximizes the reflective properties of glass. The Gomez’ 15-foot cherry trees block any view of the side of their house. Even during the 2-3 months when the trees are leaf-less, the branches are dense enough to break up views of inside. We purposely designed all of our windows (first floor and second floor) to be as unobtrusive as possible. Paragraph eight: " .window upstairs looks... "" " ’".’...o~ e~i,,, into room upstairs" an~ ~,Gome,_) window uo~aim took directly onto (Kerrins balcony1 ...~en Teet =way The window upstairs that looks atmost directly into their upstairs room has a heightened lower windowsill. A six-foot person standing right at the glass might be able to look across, but standing just one foot back affords no view at all See diagram - Attachment "3". Our master bedroom was designed so that this wall is the only ’bed wa!l’ in the room. The bed will block anyone from standing within six feet of the window. The only view from this window wiii be of the s~. P. 21 Rebuttal to October 2, 2002 A.ppea! 3280 Clifton Ct.,. Palo _,"-’~ito page Mr. Gomez says their upstairs window will look directly onto our upstairs balcony. We have twisted the house on the lot to minimize this. They may be able to see us, but we wouid have to turn and look backwards to see them. There is nothing in the guidelines that says your neighbor is not supposed to see you on a balcony. The doors leading to this balcony are out swing, so in order to walk out the doors must be opened outward, blocking the view to either side. Because of this appeal letter, we have added latticework sidewalls to the balcony (at the suggestion of the Planning Depa,-tment) to minimize views they may have of us, and us of them. Again, setbacks are a least i2 feet. The outer edge of our balcony is 13 feet from OUR property line, which means it is 19 feet from their window. Paragraph nine: "Windows upstairs took straight down into our backyard" The rear potion of their house is at least 16 feet further back on their lot than our house wilt be. This blocks all views except for about 2 square feet of one corrier of their backyard. When the cherD, trees are fully leafed, there is no view at all. See photo taken from our rooftop looking down into Mr. Gomez’ backyard - A~achment "1" Mr. Gomez has !5-foot trees along the side of his setback that block all views of their bedrooms and rear yard. As many of Mr. Gomez’ comments are outright lies and non-IR issues, it is obvious that he is not concerned with contributing effectively to our project at all. He is using the Individual Review process as a means to exer~ control and postpone our construction. We are grateful the City Planning Department was able to see through the fabrications and deceptions and approve the IR Guideline portions of our project. Thank you, Bret and Ronni Kerrins P. 22 Date: To: From: Subject: October 21:2002 Russ Reich duiian G6mez and Cheryl Tompkins Comments on proposed new residence at 3280 Clifton Ct. P. 23 Comments by individual guidelines Second-story Window Placement There are seven windows on the north side of the house. All of these windows have direct views into either our master bedroom or our little girl’s bedroom. In addition, some of these windows overview large parts of our back yard. None of these windows are needed: That is the north side of the house. The sun will never shine there. Each of the rooms with windows also has windows on another wall. They can rely on those other windows for light; they don’t need to be peering into our house. What is the bay window in the "siEing room" for? It is an extremely large window and is next to a fence. Because of its height, the window will be viewing directly into our master bedroom and back yard. Second-story Balconies and Decks The second stor~ deck in the front of the house looks right into our upstairs window. Scale of New Homes and Additions Our house is not a two sto..ry, as the architect claims. It is one story with a room over the garage. I asked the planner in the office what the definition of a two story house is, and his response indicated that our house may not qualify, because the room over the garage may not be "habitable". Regardless, our house does not have the mass of a full-scale two story house such as the proposed new house. In the submitted picture the architect deliberately chose a viewpoint to make our house appear two story; this viewpoint is approximately shown by figure 1. By moving a few feet in any direction, the true nature of the house becomes clear, demonstrating how carefully the submitted image was chosen. See figures 2, 3, 4. Figure 5 is the southeast part of our house, from the back yard. The architect constructed a storyboard that deliberately misrepresented the character of the neighborhood. Only five of the twelve houses on Clifton Ct. are multi-level. Three of those are not full-scale two story houses; those were owner renovated. The only full-scale two story houses were built by developers on spec, not by the families who live there. So in fact the proposed residence has nothing in common with any of the houses already on Clifton Ct. 4. Height of New Homes and Additions The height of the proposed house is out of scale with every other house on that side of the street. 5. Front Facades of New Homes and Additions The design is out of character with all the other houses in the neighborhood. 6. Sunlight Orientation of New Homes and Additions Because of the trees in the houses behind us (949 and 941 Loma Verde) the only sunlight we receive from September to lv~arch is over the Kerrins lot. The proposed house will cut off all of this sunlight. I here are cherry trees between our two houses which have been there, over twenty years. The architect did not indicate these trees in the proposal. The loss of suniight will damage these trees and quite possibly kill them. 8. 9. 10. My daughter’s room has one window and wil! not receive sunlight from approximately September to March. Because the proposed house wile cut off our sunlight during the winter months, our house wil! be colder and require constant heating. This will significantly increase our energy consumption and utility bills. Roof Profiles of New Homes and Additions Setbacks and Overall Composition Entry Features Garages and Driveways B.Other comments 1.Discussion with neighbors In many places the city suggests that the family discuss plans with their neighbors, for example. "Staff strongly recommends discussing preliminary development plans with your neighbors prior to submi~ing an application." In fact, it’s even written into the ordinance: Ordinance No. 4717 - 18.14.040 "... and to discuss the proposed plans with their neighbors" The Kerrins have not discussed their plans with the people who live in back of them, and they have refused to discuss their plans with us. 2. Ordinances After reviewing the information in the packet from the city, it appears that the proposed house doesn’t comply with Ordinance no. 4716, Section 1, B: "...respect for privacy, massing and streetscape and preserving the character of established neighborhoods..." And it appears to conflict with Ordinance no. 4717 in several places: 18.14.020 (b) How can it be compatible when it causes us so many problems? 18.14.020 (c) How can it be considered respectful when it is totally different from every, house around it? 18.14.020 (c) By no means has it taken into account our privacy, nor the scale of massing of the adjacent properties. 18.14.020 (e) Given that they’ve refused to communicate about this pr,~pOo~,, it is indisputable that they have no awareness of its effect on the neighboring properties. October 21, 2002 G6mez P. 25 F. 26 P. 27 P. 28 P. 29 P. 30 Rebuttal to October 21,2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page I Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton or. Palo Alto, CA 94303 650L251-9232 October 28, 2002 Rebuttal to October 2!, 2002 appeal Individual review submission, new two-story residence at 3280 Clifton Ct. To Whom It May Concern: We resubmitted our plans to the Planning Department with minor changes to the garage as requested (a zoning issue). We received our second appeal letter from Mr. Gomez on October 21, 2002 (copied word-for-word): S=con6-=,.o, v Window There are seven w~ndov,,’s on the north side of ~ne house. All oT these have .4. ~..~ vi-., v~"’,,,~v~ into-" ~-~i~n=: our mas~.er bedroom oF our little oirl’s bedroom, inu i r~ [here windows are,,~’-’-.4~,..~.~,.. "-’ ". ", ,,.w, shines there.~na,. is the north side of :he house. The sun ~*" ~ Each -’"~’" ’o~ ,.~ rooms with windows also has w~naows,~.~,’~ =n~,.n.~’-’ ~’ ~- ~,=!t.~’~ " They can rely on u ~.~= othe[ windows for t!9,q:, ~’ ~v ~ .....m=~ to be peering into our house. What is ~,ne bay. window in the s~mn~j room ~.,,.., it is an.. =x~’~=m"L’~ ,~, ..,, ,~,,, large wm~aow and is --’~ to -~. .... ~.., ~:~, ~.,g, ~, the window wii! be ,~ .’ * "- ..... into ou[ master bedroom and back yard. 2. Second-story’ Balconies and Decks The ~n ~ ~ ~’~ = house ~uOK= r ghf iRfo our UD~-falFS WIROOW. P. 31 Rebuttal to October 21,2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Pato Alto page 2 Our house is not a two story, ss the architect claims, it is one stoo~ with a room ¢~W~r ’-~- ~~ the pianner in the~,~,~ what ~ne definition of ~ two- stoB~ house is. and his response indicated that our house m~y not qualify, because ~Re room over ~r]e garage R’ta~/ ~Ot be R=~I~t= . -,~=i ~,=~-~. our house does not now the m=~ of ~ ful!-scaie fwo stoR~ house such as the purposed new house. ~’~ ~h~ submitted picture ="~ deiibe~ateiv, chose ~ viewpoint to make our house ~ ...... ~"’~..w~ ~opT" this ~ ~ ~" ~ ~"~’.I~viewpoint is ~p~r~,,)m=.~iy shown by ~gure I By moving a few ~==+ in any ~,, =~1~, ~,~:~"~ "~u,)~ true nature of the house ,~,e~-,m=<~,,,,~. clear, demonstratin~ how carefulf~: ~’ ~ " , ~ o=~ fi,~um< 2.3,4. Figure = is the. ~n= submitted image was cno~=:,, o~= ~ ~. , southeast ~ "~,’=~.D=,u. o? our h,.~. from the ~h~c’:K ......~,=~ ~. New nu,, ~.. and Additions The height of the purposed house is out of scale’ "~-¯w~,.... ~ every other house on that side of "~’~, ~ street. -’t ....’ L.~.di÷io~<5. Front bacaoes of t..~w. Homes ano,,,~, ...... The design is out of character with "".,=~ the other houses in the neighborhood. ¯~"~ and 941 Lom-c ....~’~,~..=~..~=^~’~’ ,~-" of the. trees in the houses behind us t~. ,~ve~a~ only suniiaht we r~ceiv~ from September to ~’~-,~.,~,~ ~ is over the ~¢~ 1~. purposed house wili cut off all of this sunlight. the The T ".r--’trees ~, ~,,..~...~ ~ere overo~. ~¢~,,~ houses ,’ ’~-, ~’~ have beer, h~, ~. are cherry between ’ ".~’ twenty years. The, architect did not indicate ’~’~=~, ,~.~o frees, in ~~n~ ’p,~,-,~- ~-,~ ~’~;,.~,. -i he ’foss nf .~ mt~-,Re wi!! ,-:~ ...... fh~_~ tress ~.r,d ~uite possibly k i fh-,m P. 32 Rebuttal to October 21, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 3 ou~ house wii! be colder *, ": .....~n~: reouire cons~an~ n=~,n~ This vvili significantly ~ ~, ~ consumptbn and utiiitv 7. Ku~, oroT~ies of New Homes 8rid.~k,o,’~;~ ~=,~. 8. o=~,~.~’< and Ove~at[ Composition c~ Entn/~ ..... in ~a~o~ and D. Iv~vvaT~ ~D~scussion, ~~.wl~ neighbors in many otmc~s the ciiy suggests ~, _ ~~,,~ the family a~scuss. ~ -.o,~ns with their neig~- = =~ ~=w!o~m~ ,~ plansb~ strongly ~ ..... wifh. .~ your ~,~, ,~,~,.~hh~,~., ~ prior to submittina~, an in fact. ifs even ’written inio the ordinance: Ordinance No. 47! 7 - i8.14.040 and io "~ ~a~u~ the proposed ~ ......F,=,~ with ~nem neighbors’ The Kerrinsn~w ~ ~ not ,4i~,~,~u~s=. ~ .... their p~ans .... with ~ne people who live ~n back of them, and they have refused to discuss ~h~,, plans with us. ~’~~,4~,~ ~=L the~.~, reviewino the information in the ~’.~ =- ~~=.~,,~ ,,o~ the ~e-, it appears p~oposed’~. ~= ...... ~-~v "" ~-~’ .... -’~~uo,, I, B: "... respect for privacy, massing ~n~’ .....sJt’=~=’~- .....p~ andv r~=,n .....~,"~, ~ ~,~h~r°~f~’r,~ ~.~, Of estabi sReo D~I~DDDI noou~... .......An~ it appears., _ _ to ~.~ ,,~.~~ withW~ ~!;I~C=~"~" ~ * no e~’~T~ ira... ~_<~v=~i.,~, D~.=~.., ~ .... ~ 1/, nor: (’ ’,,~...~.~.~ D~ 2.33 Rebuttal to October 2!, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 4 How can it be considered respecdul when it is totally different from every h~ aFOUFiG IL ~ By no means has it taken into account our privacy, no~- the scale of massing of the ~ff, GOMEZ 2.34 Rebuttal to October 21, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 5 Ln,s ietter (again, the Ptanning Department didAlthough we were not required to rebut " ~ not see the need), this would be our rebuttal to the second letter dated i0/21/02: To Whom it May Concern: None of the comments made by N~r. Gomez are wo~hy of rebuttal. We have taken the time to write up comments in an attempt to highlight the absurdity of Mr, Gomez’ comments should anyone not see their irrationality at face value. " < ’~ ... bew~ w~nc, ows oT~ the noR~ side have Hi ....,p~, ..~ oT=,. ~,. .....~.~ ~= views ... oveF~aew iarge ~ff~ ... ba~k},~ ~ ... none are neeoeo ... sun never shines there ...windows on another wal! We are adding a second floor, yet only adding two more windows than we have in our current house; one of which is a non-functioning glass block wal! and one of which is stained glass. The new windows are maximally offset. We are essentially not changing the viewing area, but we are in fact improving the distance of offset which increases the Gomez’ privacy. The windows are bess in-line than the current configuration. Our windows that they say are on the north side are actually on our east side and therefore do receive morning sun. See pictures -Attachment "4" Windows are needed, as the Planning Department would not approve a house with "uninteresting" blank wal}s. Blank walls have been an objection in appeais of other projects within Paio Alto. Windows are not just for light; it is common knowledge that 1) windows are required on two sides of a room for adequate ventilation, 2) visions of the outdoors enhance mood, and 3) windows add aesthetics and character to the house. It has a!so been documented that the three dimensional light from having windows o.,q two different walls adds depth to objects and views within a room. "The whole space seems to come alive. People took healthier and more alert, and objects within the room take on a richer texture and character". ("Light on two sides of every room" a concept described in the book A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander et al. - Oxford University Press, 1977). None of our purposed windows have DIRECT views into their master or girl’s ...,e=,,...~-,,,. i h~ .,--L~,~:.~÷ ,~,~,4.’~,., JS ~ ~-_- ~ee~. nO~ ,_,,.,~..., ~,.,W~. iO ~u~.e~ ~u~ ~,~r,~,iWvision from one window to the ne~ a 45-degree angle. We have heightened the lower windowsills to decrease downward vision. And all walls that face the Gomez’s house are bed wal!s making casua! viewing from our windows impossibie. Rebu~a! to October 21, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct,, Palo Alto page 6 Upon extrapolating true vision fields in both a drawing and a 3D model, we have found that we can not even see their windows, much less see insect. See diagram - A~achrnent "3" tn pictures we have taken, it is apparent that we would only be able to see an approximately 2 ft X 2 ft. corner o, the,, back yard, if one’s nose was right up to the window. Standing at less than one foot back from the window affords NO VIEW AT ALL of the back yard. See picture - Attachment "I" Mr. Gomez states that our purposed "bay" window is ne~ to the fence, ’why do we need it’. We purposely made this window a "box" window to minimize views and protect their privacy. If Mr. Gomez were not so eager to complain, he would see that we have increased hi__k privacy with many features in our new home design. The "box" configuration of the "sitting room" increases privacy because it prevents standing within 2 feet of the window glass, which minimizes ou~ard trajectories. If someone were to sit in the box window, his or her line of sight would be lower than the fence. Views of the Gomez’ windows would be nearby impossible from this window. Down-stair windows are not grounds for appeal via the IR Guidelines. There are 15-foot tall cher~ trees along The Gomez’ setback that block all views of their windows, much less what is inside. During the 2-3 winter months when the trees have dropped their leaves, the branches break up any views. See pictures - A~achment "5a-c". Second stor~ baiconie__As and ueoKS- Our one shallow balcony is angled so that the view from this balcony is fo,w~ard. The oniy way to look into the Gomez’ window is to turn and look backwards. if that second story room is un-inhabitabte and therefore they do not have a two- story house, as Mr. Gomez claims later in his letter, what is the problem? There is nothing to see. We have made the doors to the balcony ’out swing’ to decrease side views. We have added a lattice sidewall to decrease views. The balcony is on the front c~f the house, which deters walking out and standing . for pleasure. ,~; b-..~!=.~"* of new homes ane additions - We fail to understand the significance o~, wh--th~-r.,,,. ,,. M,~ ....... Gom~,-"__ hm;,,~,,e~ lS a ~wu- sto~’" or one-stuBs. There have been two-sto~ houses built ne~ to one-story houses recently (Sycamore Ct.) so the precedence has been set. Whether their house is two stories or not does not preclude us from building a two-story house. in addition, Mr. Gomez’ house is over 20 feet high. That is all that matters. Our eaves are in alignment with the eaves of the houses on either side. Prior to Mr. Gomez’ ownership of 3288 Clifton Ct., the Hassen’s son Alvin lived in the second floor room fo.r years. And anyone driving by the prope~y can see the P. 36 Rebuttal to October 21, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Polo Alto page 7 interior walls of this room are finished there are recessed lights in the ceiling, and the windows open and ciose. This room is habitable, although Mr. Gomez’ reasoning for claiming it is not escapes us. The viewpoint of the picture of Mr. Gomez’ house in the storyboard that was required by the City in our application was s perspective from the front of ou.__zr house. It is what is appropriate for the purpose of a storyboard, which is to show what ou__[r house will look like ne~ totheirs, not what their house looks like from different angles. The paragraph discussing ’owner renovated verses full-scale homes’ does not warrant a comment. What is the purpose of differentiating "full scale" and "owner renovated" vs. "spec house"? And where did Mr. Gomez come up with these definitions? Who cares who built the homes? Per city records, the percentage of FAR currently built in the 5 two-story homes on Clifton ©t. are: 32!4 = 108%, 3224 = 96%, 3232 = 87%, 3248 = 87%, and 3288 (the Gomez house) = 97%. All 5 two-story homes on Clifton Ct. are larger than our purposed home: 3214 = 2654 sq.ft., 3224 = 3100 sq.~., 3232 = 3465 sq.ff., 3248 = 2911 sq.ft., and 3288 (the Gomez house) = 2864. Our purposed house is 2556 sq.ff. There is a two-story, house behind us, a two-story house directly across the street, and even if Mr. Gomez refuses to acknowledge it, a two-story house beside us. We have only one single-story house on one side of us. Four of the 5 two-story houses on this street are taller than our purposed house. The height of this house was purposely designed to be in exact proportions with the houses on either side. ts Mr. Gomez stating there is a problem because our purposed house is out of proportion with (i.e., not as big as) the larger two-story houses across the street? Another backhanded compliment. 5) Front facades - Our design is a classic Craftsman shtte home and in complete agreement with what Palo Alto is seeking in new homes - character. We have designed a home that is respec~fful of outside environments leaving as much land space available for landscaping as possible. Most of the houses in this area are b..~n~ renovated from the slab-foundation ~,,u, ~a~ ~ z,=,~,: houses of the 50% to ~no vlaual homes with charm and character. Ours is the next. to last house on the court to be renovated. This purposed house is in complete agreement with the new developments within " ~" " +~h~nnlng b~ree0 havePaio Alto as many of the newer a,.v.~lopm~.n,su..~., ;~ " "" " " " ’- Craftsman styte homes. P. 37 Rebu~a! to October 2!, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto page 8 Sunlight- lViany of the trees in the houses behind Mr. Gomez (949 and 941 Loma Verde)- are deciduous and therefore do not effect Mr. Gomez’ sunlight from September to March as he claims. This issue has already been " ~ ~" "÷ ~’inv,~st~g~,eu and discussed by Mr. Reich. The 15- foot tall trees on the west side of Mr. Gomez’ house block more sunlight than our two-sto~, house ever could. See pictures - Attachment "2a-g" Our house is on their west side and more north on the lot. During the.winter, the sun travels east to west in the southern sky. Therefore we do not block the Gomez’ "ontv sunlight". There is less late afi:.ernoon sun available during the winter months due to clouds and overcast (documented by Palo Alto airpoR visibiii~ records), lessening the impact of any house that blocks sun during the winter months. The IR Guidelines never intended for there to be NO shadows cast. It is obvious that with 12-foot setbacks, ali two-story homes would cast some shadows. See letters and articles from the originai Single Family Individual Review Oommi~ee - California law is clear that one neighbor has no legal right to protect light or sunlight to his property, and cannot complain of construction on his neighbor’s prope,~/that eliminates iight and air. [Sher v. Leiderman (1986) 18I Caf.App.3d 867,226 Cat.Rptr. 698] The cherry trees receive full sun from !0 am to 3pm even in the winter. See pictures - .Attachment "7a-f" Cherry trees do not need sun during their dormant leaf-less period in the winter. As a matter of fact, chef@ trees require a long "chill" period during the winter to produce fruit. It is sometimes difficult to have a sufficient "chil!" period in this climate zone (zone 9). A cherry orchard farmer in California has recommended that cherry, trees in t_his zone be planted where they wou~d experience greater coldness during the winter. Symptoms of insufficient winter. "chilling" is delayed foliation with leaves appearing first in the tree’s lower half (where it’s coolertshadier in winter), then siowfy proceeding into the upper part of the tree. o See copy of emails discussing cherry winter chill - Attachment "8" (3 pgs.) o See picture - Attachment "9" which shows Mr. Gomez’ cherry tree exhibiting "insufficient winter chill" (being next to our one-story house). Shade would not kill the cherry trees, but rather improve their production. , h~ Gomez’ daughter’s room is in shadow because of their cherr,’ trees. 2 years ago, when we cut down a tree in our front yard, Mr. Gomez complained we "took away their shade" and "caused their house to overheat". Now they complain we will cause their house to be too ^"~ As ’ .c~,~.,., we do not b~ock their sun. this statement is fatse. P. 38 Rebuttal to October 21, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Pato Alto page 9 We have discussed our plans with all of the neighbors for years. None of the other neighbors have a problem with our design. Many have stated they really like it and feel it will be an asset to the street. We have heard from other neighbors that there have been dinner parties where the Gomez’ try to recruit other neighbors to join in their appeal. But none have!! We have openly asserted our desire to rebuild on this land from the day we moved in. We have discussed our progress with the entire population of the cou~ at each of our traditional Memorial Day: July 4tb and Labor Day court BBQ’s. We brought our plans out into the street bt,,ice while many in the neighborhood were out playing and discussed various aspects. We have been proud of our plans and shared them openly with anyone interested, sometimes to the point of boredom. The Gomezs have harassed us on any issue possible from the moment we moved in and have otherwise avoided us. They have stepped up their avoidance in last few months, as IR review became a reality. I assume because they did not wish to discuss our plans with US personally in a rational manner, but would rather complain in a passivelaggressive irrational manner through the .City and have the City do their dirty work for them. We have NEVER REFUSED to discuss the plans with them. These neighbors have told the neighbors at 3272 Clifton Ct. that they will do everything possible to stop construction because they do not want "construction workers to look in their windows" and they "do not want the noise of construction". We plan to build over the summer when the trees will be in full bloom and views into their windows would be impossible even if one were to peer over the fence. And there are very specific ordinances regarding construction noise. Mr. Gomez will never be happy with any construction plan we submit. We believe he is appealing our plans for sport, in an attempt to exert power over his neighbors. At a recent court BBQ, Mr. Gomez proclaimed himself the "Leader of the Court" regarding political issues, at which everyone turned away and giggled. He has illusions of grandeur, which we feel he is now trying to rationalize and defend with this appeal. ConTiiC,,S with oromance No. A71,. T: in m=~"~’;L,.. ~ .... How can it be compatible when it causes so many problems? - Mr. Gomez’s problems are irrational and unfounded. How can it be considered respectfiJ! when it is totally different from houses around it? - Our purposed home was designed specifically with respect for the houses in the neighborhood and to either side.. P. 39 Rebuttal to October 2l, 2002 Appeal 3280 Clifton Ct., Pato Alto page 10 The pitch of the roof is compatible with the neighbors. We could have built to 31 ½ feet but limited our height to only 28 feet out of respect for our neighbors. We considered each and eve,~z window size and placement to be compatible and non-intrusive. We chose an overall design (Craftsman style) that is compatible with the environment, homey, inviting, and understated yet has character instead of something brash and bo~z like the monster homes this ordinance was meant to curb. Mr. Gomez goes so far as to imply we are disrespectful because our design is different and not as big as the two houses across the street. Ivir. Gomez’s house was the FIRST two-story house on the block and was of a completely different style (Spanish) than any house on the court at the time. Mr. Gomez has done more to change the character of this street than anyone else. These items have been addressed ad nauseum in prior sections. Refuse to communicate, it is indisputabie that ~he’,,.. ~. have no ~,,~’.~’~=n-~, ~ of its =ff=~’t-~-~. ~.~ ~ Does Mr. Gomez understand the definition of"indisputable"? This oomment, like the entire letter is not worth rebutting. Again, we thank the Planning Department for seeing through Mr. Gomez’ artificially exaggerated claims and outright lies. Our project meets and exceeds all of the Individual Review Guidelines. This house will be an asset to the communi~~ and we hope for an approval from the Planning Department soon. Thank you, Brat and Ronni Kerrins P. 40 P.63 P. 47 P. 49 P. 52 P. 56 P.59 cherry .trees and minimum direot ~ ¯ f ~o Page 1 of 3 Remm to tSe Fruit & OrchaNs Fo,_-am I Post a .~o!low-Uw cherry trees and minimum direct sudight? Posted by cha~do,,~r z9CA U-’& Pa~e) on Tue, Apt 15, 03 at 0:53 I am planning on plating some cherry trees in my" backy, ard. The spot ! have chosen gets ful! sun for most of the year, but my neighbor’s ~o-stor3, house casts a shadow in late afternoon during the winter months. ~rnat is the minimum amount of direct sunligkt needed for a cherry tree during i~’s dorman, (leaf-less) period (i.e., 3-4 months of winter)? Follow-Up Postings: gN; RE.: cherry ~ees and minin~um direct sunlight? ¯ Posted by: Je!k~ma_n 6/7VA (~,ir_v Pad_e)on Tue, Apt 15, 03 m !:13 Chen-ylover: Dormant trees requh-e hardly any li~t at all. Dormant nurser3, stock is stored :in warehouses with virtually no Iight, and wakes up fine in the spring whenit is exposed to sun and warmth, gthe sun is over your neighbor’s house by the time your trees start to bud out, which ! would estimate mi~at be early Mmrch in your zone, your cherry trees should be fine and right on schedule. IfNe light does not hit them at that date, they could be slightly delayed in blooming, but that should not be a serious problem. Don Ydima& Csreat 7Falls, YA I a~ee with .Idlvmar~_ (a~_ain). morea,i ’= " it may be advantageous ~o have your che~" tree smndin~ N the shade du~mg the winter monNs. ~ CNk~a, m~y ~crodimates, ~ctudNg. ~o~ N Zone 9, som~" ~ ~m ....mI~ m sa,s~ m~ rants, c~! ........+ "c~ not muster ~noa~ ~ *~ -" ; ~~ .... ’Bin_~’ .........-’~-~--, for example, .....require about 850 h~,,,,-~ ~,v_.. *’~,,,’~-’~’..~. ......... ......at ~_. a~.-~,..lo ~.--" ~; de~ee w "*,, is http :/!forum s. g m-d enweb, comb%rum s/i o ad/frui*dm sg04005:2. 6 2~ 554. html ? 4 ! ! Di ~UUo .cnerry.n-ee.s ana mlmmum direct sunlight?Page o of ~ "~ "~~ ....ea 68 d~_o-r,.,~s, an?, hours above 68 dem-eesbelieved that lz daynme temperatures dufin~ }he winter ~---~ ’% ~ .~should be substracted from the accummulated torN. During mild winters in California, warm iemperamres in a sunny exposure can disrupt the chilling of cherry buds. Without enough chili, the che_nT bloom wii1 be sparse, erratic, prolonged with a ve~, poor fruit set. Studies have shown that the shading of dormant fruit buds in the winter wili h-nprove the chances of the buds blooming normally and setting fnfit. RE,: cherry trees and minimum direct stmlight? Posted by: Calisto_~a USDA 9 Ca !5 @.._~,. ~ a~) on Tue, Apr 15, 03 at 9:54 It looks like a cherry good year for us. A very good bloom was had in very" good weather conditions so the Blue Jays and I both have something to look forward to..M RE: cherry trees and minimum direct sunlight? Posted by: mndrew_mad~ani (M_v Pa2e) onWed, Apt !6, 03 a~ 20:18 In our area it’s touch and go, A!. We received only abom 550 hours at or below- 45 de~ees, althoug_h Hollister, 20 miles to the southeast, received over !00 more hours. I suspect that many of our nightime iows were around 46-47 degees and therefore were not "reNstered;" We are setting a light to medium crop of Bings; however, there are some symptoms of insufficient winter chilling like delayed foliation with leaves appearing nrst m the tree’s lower hal,: (wh~re it’s cooler/shadier in winter), then slowly proceeding.into the upper part of the tree. An@ Post a Follow-Up User Name:[If you aren’t cherrylover. ~iease click here.] Zone (optional): !.z_~ .... Subject of Posting: iRE: cherry trees and minimum direct sunlig nt-tp.//~orums.garaenweb.com/~orums!~ oad!fruiffmsg0400~, ~p. 6 3~554.htm!?4 4/16/2003 Page 3 of 3 Optional Link URL: i Name of the Link: Acopy of your foliow-up will automatically be emailed to the ori#nal poster. .Preview M~ssage ::i Kemm to fi~e Fruit & Orchards Foram http :!/fomms.gardenweb. com/foramsiload!~Jiffmsg040052p. 6 4!554.hmfi? 4 4/16/2003 P. 65 oz ! s:lo May 12, 2003 Janet S. Chuang 2853 Brewster Avenue Redwood City, CA 94062 Subject:3280 Clifton couP, Single Family Individual Review, 02-~-82 On May 12; 2003 the Director of Planning and Communi~ En-~ironment conditional!y approved Single Family Individual Re,dew appiicadon 02-I2,-82 for a new two s~o~ residence located at 3280 C1Lffon Com-1. This approval was ~anted pursuan~ to the Palo _A!to Municipal Code (PA!vIC) Chapter ! 8.14 and the Paio Alto Single Family ]ndividua! 2~eview Guidelines. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions ofthe..Caliz%mia Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303. Zone district R-1. CONDITIONS OF APPRONT_4_L: The approval is sub.iect to the following conditions: The project shall be constructed in subZantial compliance with plans dated ApriI 17, .,0@~: except as moaified by these conditions of approvM. A copy of this approva! shall be printed on dae plans submitted for building permit. Final plans submitted for building permit must conform to building and zoning regulations. ~ ~ hous~ mus: remain permanent!yThe proposed open trellis at the front oz th,. " ~ " uncovered. This approval is based on plans dated April 17, 2003. Interested parties may wish, ~o revie’~: ~,~ fmai ~lans on file at the Ci~, o~ l~mo Alto ~ianning Depa~ment to the end of the 10 day hearing request period. The fma! day- te submit a request This appt the P~2~I~ i-~@,.r~a days following the date of this !citer -at Jess ~rs ~ear~_~ as provided b~~ Cnap~er ~ s ~ x P. 66 250 Ha_n-diton Avenue P.O. 5ox i0~0 Paio.Atto, C_< 9-L303 650.329.~i 3280 CLifton Court Page 2 A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits reta~qmg to this approval. In the event that there is a request for a Director’s Hearing, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before the Director of Planning and Community Emdronment. Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call Russ ReicE, Associate Plamaer, at (650) 617-3 ! 19 Sincerely, ~amay French, Manager of Current.Planxing Rormi and Bret Kerrins, 3280 Clifton Court, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Juiian Gomez & Cher?4 Tompkins, 3288 CLifton Court. Paio _~2tto, CA 94303 Adjacent neighbor mailfflg Iist P. 67 Date: May 21, 2003 To:Russ Reich City of Palo _.Hto Department of Planning and Communi~: Environ_ment Prom: Julian Gomez and Cheryl Tomp’ldns 3288 Cli~ion Ct. Palo Alto Hand delivered to Department of Planning and Community Enviromnent Also sent via fax ±o 329-2154 Dear _Mm Reich: V\Te have received a copy of a letter from A_my French to Janet Chuang advising that the project at 3280 Clifton Ct. is conditionally approved. The revised plans do not bring the project into compliance with the g-uidelines in respect to privacy and shadow lines. The contextual site plan is incomplete (it doesn’t show any patios or other recreational areas, and in addition has an incorrect plan for our house), and consequently adversely affects our privacy and the solar orientation of our house. Every house around 3280 has been remodeled somewhat recently without creating similar problems, so we request a solar study as provided for by citT reg-ulations. We have never been opposed to a new house at 3280, but a more respectful design can be accomplished. We are open to mediation, and are requesting a Director’s Hearing as provided by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.t4. P. 68 Marlene Kerrins 3232 Clifton Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 July 3, 2003 City. of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Attention: Russ Reich 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Reference: 02-IR-82 3280 Clifton Court Palo Alto, CA 94303-4016 Several days ago I drove into the court where I have rived for the last forty years and got a feeling of sadness and disappointment. I had been so happy to see all the "kids grow up in the court almost as if they were one big family and the kids were like brothers and sisters. The homes, which could have become run down and real eyesores, were remodeled or rebuilt througJa the years without incident and with the neighbors remaining friends. The court was renewed to a place people could be pleased to come home to and rive in. All this happened before Palo Alto instituted the architectural review process. Now the kids are, in some cases, not even allowed to play at the homes of other kids in the court - this never happened before in all our forty years in the court. There is only one house on the court that is an eyesore. The owners have submitted plans to the city to replace the eyesore with a beautiful new home which would enhance the looks of the court and increase tax revenues to the county - two very good reasons to approve the plans. In the past these plans would have been approved because they comply with the city’s building codes. The building would have been completed in much less time, at much less expense to the homeowners and to the city and probably most importantly of all, with neighbors still happy to be here and still friendly. This whole process has turned neighbors against neighbors and forced them to "choose sides", which never, never should have happened. The review process has made it possible for one dis~mamtled neighbor to prevent one family from living in an attractive new home and from keeping the rest of the families in the coui’t from having an attractive neighborhood. The count5,, as I mentioned earlier, would benefit by an increase in taxes, which seem to be sorely needed. It seems that all of the objections to the plan raised by the neighbor have been treated several times by the city and he has been informed that all of his objections are without merit. And yet the city still won’t allow the homeowners to go fonvard with the rebuilding process. If the plans meet Palo Alto’s building requirements, the objections of one neighbor should not be allowed to deny the homeowner his/her rights. The neighbor objects to the noise of cohstmction and he’s worried about his privacy. The privacy issue has been covered more than once during this appeal process. As for the construction noise, it is a problem to be sure, but it is temporary and the end result - a beautiful home next door to his place - wo.uld certainly be worth the temporary inconvenience. I’m sure that when the architectural review process was first initiated it was meant to avoid all such hassles and to make for a more friendly neighborhood, but this obviously has not been the result. It has pitted neighbor against neigJabor in many instances throughout the city - not jnst in our court. I’m sure the "old way" worked much better and it certainly had to be less expensive for the homeowner and for the city! One miserable neighbor should not have this much control over the city and his neighbors! Please allow the homeowners to go forward with their plans so that all of us in the court can t~, to get back to normal and hopefully be friends again. Althou~ I fear that this whole fiasco may have caused ~emeable damage. Sincerely, MARY B. JOHNSON 3240 CLIFTON COURT PALO ALTO CA 94303 JULY 7, 2003 Planning & Community Environment Attention: Russ Reich 250 Hamilton Avenue Paio Alto CA 94301 Reference: 01-1R-82 3280 Clifton Court Palo Alto CA 94303 I am writing this letter on behalf of Bret and Ronni Kerrins. They are attempting to tear down a home built around 1952 and build a new two-story home on their lot. My husband and ! have lived on Clifton Court since 1963 and daffy watch new two-story homes being built in the Midtown area. I am quite perplexed as to why the Kerrins’ are having such a difficult time building their new home and attaining their dream. In reviewing their plans, I see no more infringement on privacy of neighbors than any of the other two-story homes that have already been built in this area. Should we ask that all those homes be lowered to one-story homes? Most of us have had to use some creative thinking as to how to retain our privacy after having large homes built next to us. I’m sure the Gomez- Tompkins family can also. In closing, I do hope the Review Board will bring this hearing to a positive conclusion, allowing the I(errins’ family to build their house, and let the families involved get back to their normai, everday lives. Sincerely, Mary B. Johnson Reich, Russ From:BTKerckhoff@netscape.net Sent:Thursday, July 17, 2003 8:16 AM To:russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:3280 Clifton Ct. Director’s Hearing Dear Mr. Reich,Depar[mem o~ ~ann=n9 and Community Environment I live at 3259 Stockton Place, immediately across from Clifton Ct. and about 3 houses away from the Kerrins’s property. I would like to state my full support for their individual design review proposal. As a building designer myself (employed by Joe Gutierrez, AIA), it seems to me that the Kerrins have bent over backwards to take the design guidelines into consideration and to be sensitive to the impact of their new home on the neighborhood. I have read all the complaints and rebuttals in their file, looked at their plans, and have been impressed by the thoroughness of their research and design efforts in meeting the concerns, particularly, of the Gomez family next door. I would like to go on record here as being in full support of their petition, and I hope that you will-be able to approve it tomorrow (July 17) at the Director’s Hearing, which unfortunately. 1 cannot attend since it falls during working hours. Sincerely yours, Barbara Kerckhoff Project Designer Architectural Alliance 2248 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http :llchannels.netscape.comlnslcomputinglmcafeelindex.jsp ?promo= 39339 7 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http:llaim.aol.comlaimnewlAimlregister.adp?promo=380455 Page 1 of 1 Reich, Russ From:Dipti G. Joshi [dipti@joshifamilyweb.com] Sent:Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:48 AM To:russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:02-1R-82 / 3280 Clifton Court Mr. Reich, RECEIVED JUL 1 ? 2003 Oepa~mem o~ ~lannm9 and Community Environment Our property - 933 Loma Verde Avenue - is directly behind Bret & Ronni’s house at 3280 Clifton Court, Palo Alto. We have reviewed the plans for the new construction at 3280 Clifton Ct and we are completely in favor of this project. The Kerrin’s and their architect seem to have put in a lot of thought into the architectural design of this property. The end result - the architectural design of the new construction has been very well done. It will definitely add to the property values in the neighborhood. If you have any farther questions, please feel free to contact us at 650-858-1370 or dipti_ti_@j oshifamilyweb.com Thanks. Girish 8: Dipti Joshi 933 Loma Verde Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Page 1 of 1 Reich, Russ From:Freya Prowe [freyaprowe@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:31 PM To:russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Clifton Court project Dear Mr. Reich, My husband and I live at 3292 Clifton Ct. with our 2 year old daughter. Since we have lived here we have gotten toknow the Kerrins family quite well. They have kept us well informed of their plans for their new home, and apprised of the process as it has developed. Having studied the plans for the proposed building we have found that it looks to be a very well conceived and carefully planned project. It is obvious that Bret and Ronni have responded thoroughly to the various concerns of their neighbors as they have presented themselves. We feel as though we’ve been involved as much as is our concern and that the proposed house will be a beautiful asset to our neighborhood. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Freya Prowe & Jeffrey Bedrick (650) 857-1042 "/11 Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto 7/17/03 Director’s Hearing - 02-IR-82 IR Director’s Hearinq Presentation Non-IR issues we have been sensitive to: a. Noise b. First floor window privacy c. Construction time and noise d. Front facing balcony o Current living a. NEED conditions/tear down status: not a WANT i. Pictures of current living conditions b.House was nearly condemnable when we bought it and we’ve been in it for over 4 years i. 30 years of rental ii. Poorly maintained iii. 10 years ago a realtor stated property was worth more with house removed iv. Broken pipeslfiood X 2 in the last 2 years c. Inevitable to have a 2-story on this lot i. No one would buy this house to live in or fix up ii. Size of lot insufficient for adequate 1-story iii. So us or someone else, but result is inevitable Mass, Scale and Height a. Our house will be the smallest of the existing 2-stories on the street including smaller than Gomez house i. STAT page on existing 2-stories on our street ii. Our street is 50% two-stories, we will make it > 50% iii. Pictures of 2-story houses on our street b. The highest ridge is towards the back making it out of vision for anyone in the front of the house. i. The highest peak visible from the front will be the peak of the master bedroom gable, which is only 25.5 ft. c. Of the 3 courts that branch off of Stockton Place, ours is the last with any one-story homes. The other two courts are 100% 2-story houses of an eclectic array of styles. i. Pictures of 2-story homes in the neighborhood Privacy issues a. Intent of IR committee as explained to us by the IR co-chairs was to limit direct views of sensitive areas, not casual views normal living areas i. An example given to us by the co-chairs was of a large picture window over-viewing hot tub (i.e., viewing bathing suit clad or naked people) Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto 7/17/03 Director’s Hearing- 02-IR-82 ii.Bedroom window overlooking bedroom window; off set should be enough, decreasing the size of the windows window and increasing window sill height should not be necessary b.View (unobstructed by walls or reflection) of Gomez windows for 9 months of the year i. This is from mid April to the end of December ii. Pictures of Gomez windows with trees fully leafed c. View (unobstructed) for 3 months of the year i. Pictures of Gomez windows with trees bare ii. Still cannot see anything even with trees bare d. Current and purposed window surface area i. if you don’t believe that maximally offsetting our windows, increasing heightened of the window sills and making all windows on that side of the house either bed walls or stained glass is enough to say that we have been sensitive to our neighbors then I’d like to point out that we have also made these windows smaller than the current configuration; so much so that the total window viewing surface area is only 65.8% of the current surface area or 34.8% less. 1. Window surface area calculations e. One-story: allowable FAR i. If we were to build a one-story: we would not be able to build to our allowable FAR. The largest home we.could build would be 2225. sq ft, which is 330 sq ft less than our allowable FAR. 1. Example of one-story, max’d out and calcs for FAR a. Can not build to FAR with one-story b. One story yields very poor performance: no yard for children to play, poor room configuration, .greater hallway requirements and therefore less livable space, no porches to mitigate 3 foot height of entries (flood plain). f. Move a single room downstairs i. We tried to move a room downstairs but were unable to do it and still maintain the number of rooms because it required the addition of a hallway that used up valuable FAR and consequently made it impossible to have the room in the first place. Solar issues a. Intent of IR committee was to foster sensitivity, but legally this ordinance cannot deny a project based on shadows cast. b. Property owners have no legal rights to sunlight in California i. (CA Civil codes 659-662) Definitions of what.property is. !.Does not list sunlight or light as real, immovable or personal property. ii.Code 662 specifically states that ’light, air and heat are incidental or appurtenant’ which means achievable through an easement. Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto 7/17/03 Director’s Hearing- 02-IR-82 iii.(CA Public Resource code 21060.5): Listing what a property owner has rights to (i.e., the definition of "environment"): land, air, water; minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historical or aesthetio significance. (these last to have specific definitions) a. light is again not listed iv. NOLO web page discussing no legal rights to sunlight 1. Even ordinances designed to protect "views" only protect views from growing trees. They do not cover buildings or other structures that block views. v. Case precedent vi. Sunlight can only become a right of the neighbor through an easement. 1. (CA Civil code 801.5) Discusses easements for sunlight and states "’solar easement’ means the right of receiving sunlight across real property of another for any solar energy system’: a. "Solar energy system" is further defined as an apparatus that collects, stores, and distributes electricity. b. So an easement is only for the purpose of harvesting sunlight and not designed for aesthetics, mood, human performance, or to generally heat a house. Again, I want to state: there is nothing in the IR guidelines that supersedes California law and/or specifically gives neighbors a right to sunlight. There is nothing about granting easements and there is nothing quantifiably measurable with regards to sunlight. Therefore, an R-1 project CANNOT be denied based on shadows.., any or all shadows cast are legal. Co Exempt from solar studies i. Per California law, all R-1 zoned single-family homes are categorically exempt from having to prepare environmental impact reports such as solar studies. 1. Santa Clara County list of exemptions ii. Planning can only make a project non-exempt if there is "substantial impact on the environment". 1. (CA Public Resource code 21068) "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. a. (CA Public Resource code 21100.d) For the purposes of this section, any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in Section 21060.5. i. NOTE: Sunlight is not even included as an element of the environment in section 21060.5, Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto 7/17/03 Director’s Hearing - 02-IR-82 therefore there is no legal right to sunlight, much less a substantial change. iii. A neighbor’s comments and/or request for solar study are not sufficient evidence to warrant a solar study. 1. (CA Public Resource code 21082.2b&c) The existence of public controversy over the environment effects of a project shall not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have significant effects on the environment. Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. iv.There is nothing in our plans that suggests substantial or potentially substantial effects to the environment (of which sunlight is not a part) 1. Under height limit 2. Well within daylight plane with not even any legal protrusions 3.Greater than required setbacks with second floor set back even farther a. The upper left bedroom is 18-20 feet from the Gomez’ house. 4.Letter from a solar expert stating our projected shadow is insignificant. Read letter. 5.Pictures showing Gomez house in full shadow in the afternoon 6.Potentially shade at times in the day when rooms are deemed non-living areas of the house: garage and bedrooms in the afternoon when most people would be in the kitchen, living, dining or family rooms Cloud cover over Palo Alto in the winter decreases the amount of sunlight available and therefore our potential effect. i. Yahoo page stating the number of sunny days/not sunny days ii. Lycos historical climate data sheets for Palo Alto (monthly weather averages) Gomez complained when we cut down a 40-foot pine tree in our front yard that significantly shaded his house. He stated we took away his shade and caused his house to over heat. Communication a. We communicated to all prior to buying the property b. We disp!ayed our plans in the middle of the street c. Other neighbors responded and asked questions which we answered eagerly Bret and Ronni Kerrins 3280 Clifton Ct., Palo Alto 7/17/03 Director’s Hearing- 02-IR-82 Ms. Tompkins said, "You will have problems, I promise you that." Thereby decreasing my enthusiasm at approaching her openly. October 31st after having approached the Gomez’ on our behalf, our ¯ neighbors told us, "They’re out to get you. They do not want the noise of construction or for construction workers to be able to peer over the fence. They will everything to try to stop ANY construction you purpose." Many professionals involved in the case, after having had discussions with the Gomez’ recommended that we limit communications with them due to ’high maintenance’ and ’obstructive’ nature, (e.g., architect and city planner) Intent of IR committee was never to "ask permission" or allow neighbors the power to insist on changes and/or veto a project i. Newspaper articles and conversations with IR co-chairs The intent of the IR committee was to allow for open communication in case the applicants (us) were unaware of a particular issue. i. We were and continue to be acutely aware and sensitive to all of the issues, legitimate or otherwise. Planning has continued to identify and acknowledge that all of the Gomez issues have been invalid and/or without merit, insignificant, or outright fabrications and exaggerations. i. Mr: Reich of the planning department.has personally discussed our plans; how they meet the IR guidelines, reasons for his denial of the Gomez’ objections and subsequent reasons for his approval of our project on multiple occasions with the Gomez’. It is obvious to all that.the Gomez’ have no desire to actually add to this project in a constructive manner. o Conclusion: Our proposed home conforms and exceeds not only the IR guidelines, but also the intent of the original IR co-chairs. We have been extremely sensitive to ALL of our neighbors and the ei~tire neighborhood as a whole as well as open and adaptable to the design preferences ofthe City Planning department. And although we have made quite a few sacrifices in how our home will perform for us, we have come out of this process with a home that meets our general needs and will be comfortable for us to live in. A home that is beautiful to look at and a true asset to the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, local property values and county tax base. Yahoo! Real Estate- City Comparison Page 1 of 21 : Yahoo! Real Estate To~" City Comparison : Sunny Days Sunny Days average number of sunny days per year Yuma. AZ 246 Kennewicl, a WA 225 Las Vegas. NW 216 Lake Havasu City AZ 216 ~n~an. A~216 Henderson. ~W 216 Cedar Cia~. UT 216 St George. UT 216 ~ ~a_s~a~. ~214 Chandier. _~214 Siena Vista. ~214 Prescor~214 Gilbe~. ~214 Tempe. ~Z 214 PhoeNx. ~214 ~!ev..~214 Sedona. ~214 Mesa. _~214 Sco~sdale. ~214 m~ersx~eta. CA 202 Madera. CA 200 Fresno. CA 200 Visatia. CA 200 Clovis. CA 200 Tucson. ~198 El Paso. TX 194 Sacramento, CA ! 93 Folsom. CA 193 Back to Rea! Estate http ://verticals.y ahoo. corn/cities/categories/sunnyday s.html 7/14/2003 Yahoo[ Real Estate - City Comparison Page 2 of 21 Rosevitle. CA 193 2u--royo Grande. CA 177 Santa Barbara. CA 177 San Luis Obispo. CA I77 Las Cruces. NM 172 Roswel!. NM 172 Albuquerque. I’,FM 172 Alamo_~ordo. NM 172 Santa Fe. N2~172 Ivlidland, TX 167 Odessa. TX 167 tiparks. NV 165 Carson City. >;Fv"165 Reno. _NW 165 Lubbock. TX 164 Amarillo. TX 163 San Ramon. CA 162 El Cerrito. CA 162 Foster City. CA 162 Napa. CA 162 E! Sobrante. CA 162 Novato. CA 162 Va!l~o. CA 162 Albany. CA 162 Pieasant .-qSll. CA 162 P!easanton. CA 162 Brentwood. CA !62 San Pab!o. CA 162 Pa!o Alto. CA 162 Benicia. CA 162 Pdchmond. CA 162 Athe~or,_ CA 162 Berkeley. C&162 Walnut Creek. CA 162 Mountain View. CA 162 Vacaville. CA 162 Satinas. CA 162 Fremont. CA ! 62 Peta!uma. CA 162 Danville. CA 162 Livermore. CA i62 http ://verticals.yahoo. com/cities/categories/sunnydays.html 71!412003 ;Lycos Weather I Pale Alto, CA ! Historical Climate Data Page ! of 2 ~ Lycos Home Site Nap My Lycos Lycos Nail Enter City or Zip Code: Weather Home > PMo A~to. CA > Historical C~imate D~ta > Historical Climate I Palo Alto, CA Weather qome Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: ¯ Pale Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano. TX~ What’s this? Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field Average High Average Low Average Mean Tamp Average Dew Point Average Wind Speed Average Wind Direction 57° F Average Morning Relative 27.8% Humidty 42° F Average Afternoon Relative 16.7% Humidty 50° F Typical Sky Cover Overcast 40° F Average Precipitation (US only)2.7 in g mph Average Snowfall (US only)n/a SE Units: °C I °F De~¥ Counts Days With Precipitation Days With Thunderstorms Days With Fog 9 days n/a 14 days Days With Snow n/a Days With Lows Below Freezing 2 days Days above 90° F (32.2° C)0 days Records Record High Record Low 76° F Record Monthly Snowfall 2.0 in 21° F Record 24-Hour Snowfall 2,0 in 64 Record Monthly Rainfall 6.8 in rnph Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td> C L ’..3LL e Record Wind Speed Record Ninimum Nonthly Precipitation 0.2 in 2.7 in February 28, 2003 Help IPOWERED BY 1 Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Mv Lvcos, >> L,~cos Worldwide @ Copyright =0~o, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University. About Terra Lyces I Help I Jobs I Advertise i Business Deveiopmem Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos P-~’~vec’or Policy [~p~2ed] and Terms & Conditions http ://weather.lycos. corn/weather/historical_climate, asp? q=P al o+Alto%2C+CA&station=K_NUQ&month... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather ! Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 2003 Weather Home Severe Weather :Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: o Polo Alto, CA Current Location: ° Piano -iX What’s this! Units: °C_ { °F ~ Lycos Home Site Nap .~,’ly Lycos Lycos Nail Weather Home > Polo Alto, CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate { Palo Alto, CA Held, Reporting Station: Mountain View - Noffett Field Februar}" Data Average High Average Low Average Mean Tamp Average Dew Point Average Wind Speed Average Wind Direction 6:1.° F Average Morning Relative 27.8% Humidty 45° F Average Afternoon Relative 15.0% Humidty 53° F Typical Sky Cover Overcast 43° F Average Precipitation (US only) 2.3 in 8 mph Average Snowfall (US only)n/a NNW Days With Precipitation 9 days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 10 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 1 day Days above 90° F (32.2° C)0 days Records Record High 82° F Record Low 26° F Record Wind Speed 64 mph Record Minimum Monthly 0.1 in Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall n/a Record 24-Hour Snowfall n/a Record Monthly Rainfall 7.3 in Record 24-Hour Rainfalk/td>2.7 in Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Nv Lvcos. >-~ LVcoe ’~’:~vo~ -~,,~’’’F~=’ -© Copyright 2003, Lvcos,. Inc. All Riahts_ Reserved. Lvcos¢~. is a reaistered., trademark of Carneaie~ Mellon Universitv.. About Terra Lycos i Help Jobs I Advertise i Business Development You~ use of this website constku[es accep~nce of the Lvcos P~:~,ac’..z ~’o~c;~ [L~p~a;:e~] and Terms & Conditions http ://weather.lycos. corrdweatherihistofical_climate, asp? q=Palo+Alto%2C+CA&stafi on=K2q-UQ&m onth... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather I Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 .~Historica! Ciimate Data Weather Home Severe Weather Eerthouakes Browse Locations ~ec~n~ly V~ew~: ¯ Palo Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano TX What’s this? Units: °C I °F ~ Lycos Home Site Map My Lycos Lycos Mail ~:.’;.:.=-;.-’:-T;~,:.;.-,;t ;,Fn~er C~" or Z~p Code~ 1 Weather Home > Palo Alto, CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate I Palo Alto, CA Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field March Data Average High 63° F Average Low 46° F Average Mean Temp 55° F Average Dew Point 43~ F Average Wind Speed 9 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Days With Precipitation Average Morning Relative 26.7% HumidLy Average Afternoon Relative $3.3% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Overcast Average Precipitation (US only)2.2 in Average Snowfall (US only)n/a Days With Thunderstorms Days With Fog 5 days 10 Days With Snow 0 days days n/a Days With Lows Below Freezing n/a Days above 90o F (32.2° C)0 days Record High 83° F Record Low 30° F Record Wind Speed 51 mph Record Minimum Monthly 0.1 in Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall n/a Record 24-Hou[ Snowfall n/a Record Monthly Rainfall 6.4 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>1.5 in Help Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Mv Lvcos. ~; Lycos Wor~d~"..q~e @ Copyright 2003. Lycos, Inc. All Rights Resep4ed. Lycos® is a r=g~s~.r~d ~,=u.m=r~ o~ ~=rn=gl~ Mellon University. ~ou= Terra Lycos Help i dous AdveAise ~ Business Develoument "" ~._~j =rid Terms & ConditionsYour use of this weosite constitutes accepzance of the Lycos ~riv~cv Pohc,:~ r~.. "~+~-~ - http ://weatherJy cos. com/weatber/historicaI_climate, asp? q=Palo+Alto%2C+CA&station=KN-LTQ&month... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather I Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~ Lycos Home .Site Map Ny Lycos Lycos Fiail ~..<..T:.<.7~<<<..,2..Enter C~ty or Zip Code: Weather Home > Pale Alto, CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate I Pale Alto, CA Weather Home Mope Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: Current Location: ¯ Piano TX What’s this? Units: °C [ OF Reporting Station: Mountain View - Noffett Field Aprii Date Avera#es Average High 67° F Average Low 48° F Average Mean Tamp 58° F Average Dew Point 45° F Average Wind Speed 10 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Average Morning Relative Humidty Average Afternoon Relative Humidty Typical Sky Cover Average Precipitation (US only) Average Snowfall (US only) 24.4% 11.1% Scattered clouds 0.9 in 0.0 in Days With Precip|tation 5 days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 4 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below n/a Freezing Days above 90° F (32.2° C)n/a Record High 95° F Record Low 32° F Record Wind Speed 48 mph Record Minimum Monthly n/a Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in P.ecord Monthly Rainfall 4.0 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>1.2 ~n Help Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Mv Lvcos. =_,,,~.,~= Wor!dwi~e © Copyright 2003. Lycos, nc. All Riohts Reserved. Lycos~, is a reeistered trademark of Carn~ei~ L%tio, University. ,About Terra Lycos i Help i Jobs i Advertise i Business Deveioemen~ Your use of tn s website constitutes acceptance of the Lvcos Pr~.vac~,’ P~i:~.~ [~.#~a’-::ed] and Terms & Conditions http :iiweather.lycos. com/weathe~/ki stodcal_climate, asp? q=p aj o+AJto%2C+CA&station=KN-L~Q&month... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather I Palo Alto, CA t Historical Climate Data Page ! of 2 Weather Home IViaps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations L~ca~i~ Trackez Recently Viewed: ¯ Polo Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano -IX What’s this? Units: °~C I OF ~ Lycos Home Site Hap i’4y Lycos Lycos Mail Weather Home > Polo Alto. CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate ! Palo Alto, CA Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field Hay Dat~ Avera#ee Average High 70° F Average Low 51o F Average Mean Tamp 61° F Average Dew Point 48° F Average Wind Speed 11 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Dai~y Counts Days With Precipitation 3 days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Average Morning Relative Humidty Average Afternoon Relative Humidty Typical Sky Cover Average Precipitation (US only) Average Snowfall (US only) 23.3% 11.7% Scattered clouds 0.3 in 0.0 in Days With Fog 3 days Record High Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below 0 days Freezing Days above 90° F (32.2° C)1 day Record Low Record Wind Speed Record Minimum Monthly Precipitation 103° F 38° F 44 mph 0.0 in Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in Record Monthly Rainfall 1.7 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td> 1.0 in Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at My Lvcos. >; i v~o= WorJdwide @ Copyright 2003, Lycos, inc. All Rights Reserved, Lycos® is a reaistered trademark of Carnegie Melion University. About Terra Lycos i He p ! Jobs i Advertise i Business Development Your use of this websita constitutes acceptance of the Lvcos Privacy PoiicV [~p~a~e-~] and Terms 8: Conditions http:/iweather.ly cos. corn/weather/hi storical_climate, asp? q=Pato+Alto%2C+CA&stafi on=KNUQ&month ..../28/200~ Lycos Weather ! Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~Historica{ CBmate ~ Lycos Home Site Piap My Lycos Lycos Nail Weather Home > Palo Alto, CA > Historica! Climate Data > Historical Climate IPalo Alto, CA February 28; 200:3 ’~ Help Weather Home Maps Severe Weather EarthouakeS .... Browse Ls~atiOns Recently Viewed: ¯ Palo Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano -IX What s this? Units: °C_ I °F Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffet~ Field Average High 74° F Average Low 55° F Average Mean Temp 65° F Average Dew Point 52° F Average Wind Speed 11 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Average Morning Relative Humidty 22.8% Average Afternoon Relative 12.2% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Clear Average Precipitation (US only)0.1 in Average Snowfall (US only)0.0 in Dai~y CouRts Days With Precipitation ! day Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 3 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 0 days Days above 90o F (32.2° C)i day Record High Record Low Record Wind Speed Record Minimum Monthly Precipitation 104° F Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in 43° F Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in 46 Record Monthly Rainfall 0.5 in mph 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall<!td>0.4 in Men have have ,,--, revolutionary new produc[ trOT V,,~OFFI ~ FL Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Mv Lycos. :~ Lycos Wor;,dw.~de @ Copyright 2003, Lycos, Inc. AI! Rights Resep/ed. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mel on Un versit’v. .About Terra Lycos i Help { Jobs I Advertise I Business Development Your use o~ this website constitutes accepLance of the Lycos Privacy’ PoH.-=~: [U~d~t~c~] and Terms & Conditions http ://weather.iy cos. cor!!weather/historical_climate, asp? q=Pal o+Alto%2C+CA&station=KNUQ&month... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather I Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~Pa!o A:~or CA ~Nistor~cai Climate ~--~ Lycos Home Sits Nap My Lvcos 1 vcos Mail " -’~ ....En~:er Cii.~, o~ Zip Co~e: ii L ~ ;/...:.,~.7~ ~ ,., ::T:~ ,3. >i Weather Hom~ > Palo Alto, C~ > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate I Palo Alto, CA February 28, 2003 Help Weather Home Maps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: ¯ Pato Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano. TX What’s this? Units: °C I °F Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field Average High 75° F Average Low 57° F Average Mean Tamp 66° F Average Dew Point 55° F Average Wind Speed mph Average Wind Direction NNW Average Morning Relative Humidty 25.0% Average Afternoon Relative 14.4% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Clear Average Precipitation (US only)n/a Average Snowfall (US only)0,0 in Days With Precipitation n/a Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 6 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 0 days Days above 90° ,F (32.2° C)1 day Record High 105° F Record Low 45° F Record Wind Speed 38 mph Record Minimum Monthly 0,0 in Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall Record 24-Hour Snowfall Record Monthly Rainfall 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.5 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>0.4 in Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at My Lycos. >> LVco-= Woridwide © Copyr ght 2003, Lycos, Inc. Al! Rights Resewed. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon Universi~. About Terra Lycos i Heip i Jobs i Adverse I Business Development Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privac’~.." Po~c.v [#p~ate~] and Terms & Conditions ...._ ,_ o ~_" =,2/28/~003c m/weamer/histoncal_chmate as ? Palo, .~to~/o~C, CA&stauon KNUQ&monthhttp://weather.lycos, o "¯P. q-- ..... Lycos Weather t Palo Alto, CA t Historical Climate Data Page 1 Of 2 Weather Home [’-taps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: * Palo Alto, CA Current Location-" o Piano TX "#~/hat’s this? Units: °._~C I °F ,~ Lycos Home Site Map My Lycos Lycos Maii Enter Weather Home > Palo Alto. CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate I Paio Alto, CA Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field Aag,Jst Data Averages Average High 75° F Average Low 58° F Average Mean Temp 67° F Average Dew Point 55° F Average Wind Speed 10 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Average Morning Relative Humidty 26.1% Average Afternoon Relative 14.4% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Clear Average Precipitation (US only)n/a Average Snowfall (US only)0.0 in Da:;~y Counts Days With Precipitation n/a Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 8 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 0 days Days above 90° F (32.2° C)i day Record High Record Low Record Wind Speed Record Minimum Monthly Precipitation 101° F Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in 47° F Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in 39 Record Monthly Rainfall 0.6 in mph. 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>0.5 in February2S 2003 Help ] POkI~R~D BY ’ :~’Cu~[om% eatherl Get personalized weatheG news, sports scores and more at My I,. _vcos. >~ L~cos Woridwide © Copyr ght 2003; Lycos, In~. All Rights Rese,wed. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University. .’-’,~out_ -terra "Lvcos ’, HeLp i ~o~-’-’ ...... I ,~uv=n ~e’:- i Business Development Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos P~ivac;, Policy [U£da’~e-~-] and Terms & Conditions http://weat~er~yc~s.c~m/weather/htst~nca~-chmate.asp.~=Pal~+Alt~%2C~-CA&statt~n=KNUQ&m°mh... 2/28/200o Lycos Weather t Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~Weather Home ---Paic Alto~ CA ~Historic~ Ctimake Da~a ~ Lycos Home Site Map My Lycos Lycos Mai! Weather Home > Pelo Al~o, CA ~ Historical Climate Data Historical. Climate ! Palo Alto, CA February 28, 2003 Weather Home Maps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: , Pato Alto, CA Current Location:. ¯ Piano TX What’s this? Units: °__C I OF Reporting Station: Mountain View - Noffe~ Field September Da~a Averages Average High 76° F Average Low 57° F Average Mean Temp 66° F Average Dew Point 54° F Average Wind Speed 10 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Da~y Count~ Days With Precipitation Days With Thunderstorms Days With Fog Record-= Record High Record Low Record Wind Speed Record Minimum Monthly Precipitation Average Morning Relative Humidty 26.1% Average Afternoon Relative 12.8% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Clear Average Precipitation (US only)0.2 in Average Snowfall (US only)0.0 in 1 day Days With Snow 0 days n/a Days With Lows Below Freezing 0 days 8 days Days above 90o F (32.2o C)2 days 105° F Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in 41o F Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in 38 Record Monthly Rainfall 2.0 in mph 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>2.0 in Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at MY Lvcos. >> LVco~ Worldwide ~ Copy[ight 200.3, Lycos, Inc. All Rights ReseF/ed. Lycos® is a regi~ered trademark of Carnegie Me Ion University. About Terra Lycos i Help i Jobs i Acivertise I Business Development J r ~I~-= ~ an~ Terms & ConditionsYour use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos P~’b~’~cv P~cV ,°li. °~,-,=~] H http//weather 1 cos tom/weather/historical climate asp?q=Palo+.~to%~)C+CA&station=FdNUQ&month 2/28/2003¯. y ._..__... Lycos Weather 1Palo Alto, CA 1 Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~ Lycos Home Site Map My Lycos Lycos Fiai! Weather Hom~ > Pato Alto, Cg > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate I Paio Alto, CA Help :3N~’~’CustomWea~h er ! Weather Home Naps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: o PaioAltc, CA Current Location: o Piano. T~ What’s this~ ~ Units: °C °F Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field Oc~ob~ Data Average High 72° F Average Low 53° F Choose another .~4on~:~ lOctober ~ ~ Average Mean Temp 63° F Average Dew Point 50° F Average Wind Speed 8 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Average Morning Relative Humidty 26.1% Average Afternoon Relative 12.2% Humidty Typical Sky Cover Clear Average Precipitation (US only)0.7 in Average Snowfall (US only)0.0 in Da~’ Counts Days With Precipitation 3 days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 10 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 0 days Days above 900 F (32.2° C)1 day Record High 3.00° F Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in Record Low 33~ F Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in Record Wind Speed 55 mph Record Monthly Rainfall 3.5 in Record Minimum Monthly 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>2.5 in Precipitation have A revolutionary new prod u ct lqor V;;O|llefl o Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at My Lycos. ~> b,cos, &~;-".vo~.~ o~,=~-~-:~’" "~ @) Copyright "~_0,,,~,n~ ’~.~vco.,¢ Inc. All Rights Resewed. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carneme_ Mellon University.. ~2oout Terra Lycos i Help i Jobs i AdveRise i Business Development Your use of this website constkutes acceptance of the Lyces Priva~’,~ ~o~:~-’ [~p~a~-~] and Terms & Conditions http://weather~yc~s.c~m/weatherf~ist~rica~-c~imate.asp?q=Pa~+A~t~%2C+CA&stati~n=KNUQ&m~nth... 2/28/2003 Lycos Weather t Palo Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 ~ Lycos Home Site Map My Lycos Lycos Nail Weather Home > Palo Alto, CA > Historical Climate Data > Historical Climate IPalo Alto, CA F~bruarV 281 2003 "-’~ Held~. 1" POI~R~D BY ] :~ustom~Si ~abher Weather Home Maps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: Palo Alto, CA Current Location: ¯ Piano TX What’s this?. Units: °__q_C I °F Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffett Field November Data Averages Average High 65° F Average Low 47° F Average Mean Tamp 56° F Average Dew Point 45° F Average Wind Speed 7 mph Average Wind Direction NNW Daihi Cou~te Days With Precipitation 7 days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog :£2 days Choose another Month [~-~-~ber Average Morning Relative HumidLy Average Afternoon Relative HumidLy Typical Sky Cover Average Precipitation (US only) Average Snowfall (US only) 27.2% !5,0% Scattered clouds 1.7 in 0.0 in Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below n!a Freezing Days above 90° F (32.2° C)0 days Records Record High 87° F Record Low 29° F Record Wind Speed 53 mph Record Minimum Monthly n/a Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall 0.0 in Record 24-Hour Snowfall 0.0 in Record Monthly Rainfall 5.6 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td> 2.8 in The colors a~pca[ to us p~o,,:ide insight into h~w wc Ta k~, the Fz.rsona[ity Lest an# see wh~t you’re ~.[r eedy TEST! Get personalized weather, news, spor~s scores and more at Mv Lvcos. >> Lgcos Worldwide @ Copyright 2003, Lycos, Inc. A!l Rights Reserved. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie MelLon University. About Terra Lycos !Heip i Jobs i Adve~,se i Business Deveiopment Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos Privac’-~ Po~ic’..,’. [&3p~a~ed] and Terms & Conditions hrcp://weather~yc~s.c~m/weather/h~st~rica~-c~imate.asp?q=~+Alt~%2C+CA&sta~n=KNUQ&m~nth... 2/_8/200~ Lycos Weather l Pale Alto, CA I Historical Climate Data Page 1 of 2 Weather Home Maps Severe Weather Earthquakes Browse Locations Recently Viewed: , Pale Alto, CA Current Location: o Plane TX ~What’s this? Units: °_~C I OF ~-ycos Home Site Nap My Lycos Lycos [viai! i:.~L;-’:..::.-.,~,,~L:q~d’.’-.=~÷=" C~V or Zip Co~e: Weather Home > Pale Alto. CA > Historical Climate Data > I Historical Climate I Pale Alto, CA Reporting Station: Mountain View - Moffet~ Field December Deta Average High 58° F Average Low 42° F Average Mean Tamp 50° F Average Dew Point 41° F Average Wind Speed 9 mph Average Wind Direction SE =no~e, ~4ont~ i December ~ ~ Average Morning Relative 27.8% Humidty Average Afternoon Relative !7.2% Hurnidty Typical Sky Cover Overcast Average Precipitation (US only)2.3 in Average Snowfall (US only)n/a Days With Precipitation g days Days With Thunderstorms n/a Days With Fog 15 days Days With Snow 0 days Days With Lows Below Freezing 1 day Days above 900 F (32.2° C)0 days Record High 76° F Record Low 23° F Record Wind Speed 62 rnph Record Minimum Monthly n/a Precipitation Record Monthly Snowfall n/a Record 24-Hour Snowfall n/a Record Monthly Rainfall 9.5 in Record 24-Hour Rainfall</td>2.2 in February 28; 2003 Help Get personalized weather, news, sports scores and more at Ny Lycos. ;-" Lvcos lP.dori~wide © Copyright 2003, Lycos. Inc. All Rights Resewed. Lycos® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University. About Terra Lvcos ’, H~,~. I ,~o~ I ,~.dverttse i Business Deve opment Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Lycos P~ve~.’-.t Po~ct~ [~e~] and Terms & Conditions ~ttp://weather.~y~s~c~m/weather/~tst~rica~-c~imate.asp?q=Pa~+A~t~%2C+CA&stati~n=KNUQ&m~nth ..../28/200a To:Whom it May Concern Regarding:3280 Clifton Ct, Palo Alto, CA IR case # 02-1R-82 Issue:California Codes Presented Regarding Rights to Sunlight CA Public resource Code 21060.5 CA Civil Code 662 CA Civil Code 801.5 CA Public Resource Code 21068 CA Public Resource Code 21100.d CA Public Resource Code 21082.2.b&c Issue:California Case Precedent Regarding Rights to Sunlight California law is clear that one neighbor has no legal right to protect light or sunlight to his property, and cannot complain of construction on his neighbor’s property that eliminates light and air, but otherwise satisfies other laws and local zoning ordinances. [Sher v. Leiderman (1986) 181 CaI.App.3d 867, 226 Cal.Rptr. 698] CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 654-663 Page 2 of 3 659. Land is the material of the earth, whatever may be the ingredients of which it is composed, whether soil, rock, or other substance, and includes free or occupied space for an indefinite distance upwards as well as downwards, subject to limitations upon the use of airspace imposed, and rights in the use of airspace granted, by law. Sign In ! Forgot Your Password ? click here! New User ? Chick Here! 660. A thing is deemed to be affixed to land when it is attached to it by roots, as in the case of trees, vines, or shrubs; or imbedded in it, as in the case of walls; or permanently resting upon it, as in the case of buildings; or permanently attached to what is thus permanent, as by means of cement, plaster, nails, bolts, or screws; except that for the purposes of sale, emblements, industria! growing crops and things attached to or forming part of the land, which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale, shall be treated as goods and be governed by the provisions of the title of this code regulating the sales of goods. 662. A thing is deemed to be incidental or appurtenant to land when it is by right used with the land for its benefit, as in the case of a way, or watercourse, or of a passage for light, air, or heat from or across the land of another. 663.Every kind of property that is not real is personal. Previous Return to Top Next HP: Save up to 10% on HP products. A discount that saves you time and money. So you can focus your energy on practicing law not bargain hunting for technology. Abacus Law: Losing billable hours? Want to increase your productivity? Look no further than Abacus Law! Over 100,001 attorneys can’t be wrong. Time Matters®: It’s here...the extraordinary new version 5 of Time Matters, the most award-winning practice management software’s first new version in over two years. Amicus Attorney: The world’s most widely used practice management software. Download or order your Free Trial today! Software Technology. Inc.: TABSIII (award winning billing system) and PracticeMaster (leading practice manager) are solutions for solos to 50+ attorney firms. Princeton Review: LSAT test prep and more from The Princeton Review-click here! _U.S. Legal Forms. Inc.: ** Over 25000 Legal Forms! ** A unique legal forms site on the Internet providing legal forms to lawyers, businesses and the public. Coml~uLaw: Still Using the Old "Fingers and Toes" Method of Calendaring? There’s a Better Way. CLICK HERE. Online Legal Document Services: Form a corporation, make a living trust, file for a trademark, all online. Fast and affordable. LEGAL NI=-3NS: Tol~ Headlines - Supreme Court - Commentary, - Crime - Cvberspace - fntemational US FEDERAL LAW: Constitution - Codes - Supreme Court Opinions - Circuit ONnions US STATE LAW: State Constitutions - State Codes - Case Law RESF_.AROH: Dictienar~i ¯ Forms. Law-Crawler - Library - Summaries of Law LEGAL SUBJECTS: Constitutional - Intellectual Prol~erb., - Criminal - Labor - more. GOVERNMIENT RESOURCES: US Federal - US State - Directories - more... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com!cacodes/civ/654-663.html 7/14/2003 CAL~OR_NIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21060-21072 Page 1 of 5 FindLaw ! Lega! Professionals I Students Business I Public I News FindLo:w ~., Legal Professionals Cases & Codes [ Forms I LegM Subjects Lawyer Search lCity or ziP Search! 1 iFindLaw Federal I State I Library I Boards State ~ iSelect Practice Alea FindLaw : FindLaw California : Codes and Statutes : California Code : Public Resources Code E-mail@Justice.corn I I’~IY FindLaw Law Firm FirmSites I Legal Jobs I CLE California Codes o California Public Resources Code ¯PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21060-21072 21060. Unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions in this chapter govern the construction of this division. 21060.i. (a) ".Agricultural land" means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California. (b) In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specified in subdivision (a), "agricultural land" means land that meets the requirements of "prime agricultural land" as defined in paragraph (i), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code. 21060.3. "Emergency" means a sudden, unexpected occurrence,. involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services. "Emergency" includes such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, or other soil or geologic movements, as well as such occurrences as riot, accident, or sabotage. 21060.5. "Environment" means the physical conditions which exist within the area which wi!l be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, f!ora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance. lFind a.JOb ~ FindLaw Newsletters [’o" Top Legal News Headlines F Legal Grounds ~ Labor & Employment Law [You[ email b~ . Subscd~ More Newsie~ers 21061. "Environmental impact report" means a detailed statement setting forth the matters specified in Sections 21100 and 21100.1; provided that information or data which is relevant to such a statement and is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public need not be repeated in its entirety in such statement, but may be specifically cited as the source for conclusions stated therein; and provided further that such information or data shall be MY FindLaw Email:] Password:[ ~’- Keep me logged in ~ until I sign out. http ://caselaw.lp .findlaw. com!cacodes/prc/21060-21072.html 7114/2003 Views FAQ - Nolo Page 1 of 5 HONK Law Centers Encyclopedia ~"?V:EW CART - HELP DicionaP~Ask Auntie Nolo GalGulators Statutes & Cases Search the Site Browse the Encyclopedia o Wills & Estate Plannine o Retirement & Elder Care e Small Business e EmBlovment Law e independent Contractors Patent &Trade Secrets e Trademarks & Copyriahts e internet Law e Landlords &Tenants e Real Estate e Consumer &Travel e Neighbors & Pets Neighbor Law e ~ Law Marriaae & Livinq Toaether Carina for Children Divorce & Child Custody Debt & Bankruptcy Taxes & Audits Immigration & Green Cards Lawsuits & Mediation Personal !niury Criminal Law Cars & Tickets Become a Noioid! Sign up for NoioBriefs Every month, you’ll receive: e free leoal tools * reliable legal updates e No!oid-only discounts Enter your email address to sign up: Need to know more? Law Centers > Encyclopedia > Neiqhbo~ & Pets > Neiqhbor Law > Views FAQ Yo~ may ~ot be able to- protect ye~r view. These frequently asked q~estio~s expiain the !aw. What’s Below: K a nei_~hbor’s addition or _~rowin_~ tree blocks my view. what ri_qhts do i have? How can a view ordinance heiD? I iive m a submv~s~on w~:~ a homeowners’ association. Wi!1 that hetw me in a view dispute? I warn to buy a house with a ~eat view. :s there anvthin_~ i can do to make sure i won’t ever lose the view -- and much of my investment? If a neighbor’s addition or growing tree blocks my view, what rights do I have? Unfortunately, you have no fight to light, air or view-, unless it has been granted in writing by a law or subdivision rule. The exception to this general rule is that someone may not deliberately and maliciously block, anothefs view with a structure that has no reasonable use to the owner. This rule encourages building and expansion, but the consequences can be harsh. If a view becomes blocked, the law will help only if: a local law protects views. the obstruction violates private subdivision rules, or the obstruction violates some other specific law. Back to top How can a view ordinance help? keeping you from protecting your Books Neighbor Law F~-INei’ List P~ce: La~ Your Price: $.22.90 Expla ns al! key legal issues involving neighbors -- including fences, trees, noise, water runoff and blocked views -- with an eye towards working them out. "A dispute buster."--Sunset Magazine Mediate Your Dispute ~ Me~ L’~" ~ .... u~sl Shows you how to succeed using this quick, fair and inexpensive alternative to cou~room battles. ~plains each of mediation’s seven steps in detail. Guide to Small Claims Cou~ ~1~ ~Evaluate whether you have a good case, prepare for cou~ and make a killer presentation. This book has helped tens of thousands Americans asse~ their legal rights. http://www~n~~~~c~~2~awcenter/ency/artic~e~cfm/~bject~d/B57ABFB2-289B-499C-BA77A39AB8~8~174... 7/14/2003 Views FAQ - Nolo Page 2 of 5 A few cities that overlook the ocean or other desirable vistas have adopted view ordinances. See How to Find Local Ordinances to locate your city’s laws and policies on trees. These laws protect a property owner from having his view (usually, the view that he had when he bought the property) obstructed by growing trees. They don’t cover buildings or other structures that block views. The ordinances allow someone who has lost a view to sue the tree owner for a court order requiring him to restore the view. A neighbor who wants to sue must first approach the tree owner and request that the tree be cut back. The complaining person usually bears the cost of trimming or topping, unless the tree was planted after the law became effective, or the owner refuses to cooperate. Some view ordinances contain extensive limitations that take most of the teeth out of them. Some examples: ¯Certain species of trees may be exempt, especially if they grew naturally. °A neighbor may be allowed to complain only if the tree is within a certain distance from his or her property. ° Trees on city property may be exempt. Cities Without View Ordinances If, like most cities, your city doesn’t have a view ordinance, you might find help from other local laws. Here are some laws that may help restore your view: Fence Height Limits. If a fence is blocking your view., it may be in violation of a local law. Commonly, local laws limit artificial (constructed) fences in back yards to six feet high and in from yards to three or four feet. Height restrictions may also apply to natural fences, such as hedges. For more, see the Fences FAQ. Tree Laws. Certain species of trees may be prohibited -- for example, trees that cause allerNes or tend to harm other plants. Laws may also forbid trees that are too close to a street (especially an intersection), to power lines or even to an airport. For more, see the Trees FAQ. Zoning Laws. Local zoning regulations control the size, location and uses of buildings. In a single- http ://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfmiobj ectid/B57ABFB2-289B-499C-BA77A3 9AB 8080174... 7/14/2003 Views FAQ - Nolo Page 3 of 5 family area, buildings are usually limited to 30 or 35 feet. Zoning laws also usually require a certain setback, or distance between a structure and the boundary lines. They also limit how much of a lot can be occupied by a structure. For instance, many suburban cities limit a dwelling to 40% to 60% of the property. Back to top I live in a subdivision with a homeowners’ association. Will that help me in a view .dispute? Often, residents of subdivisions and planned unit developments are subject to a detailed set of rules called Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). They regulate most matters that could concern a neighbor, including views. For example, a rule may state that trees can’t obstruct the view from another lot, or simply limit tree height to 15 feet. If someone violates the restrictions, the homeowners’ association may apply pressure (for example, removing the privilege of using a swimming pool) or even sue. A lawsuit is costly and time-consuming, however, and the association may not want to sue except for serious violations of the rules. If the association won’t help, you can take the neighbor to court yourself, but be prepared for a lengthy and expensive experience. Back to toD I want to buy a house with a great view. Is there anything I can do to make sure I won’t ever lose the view - and much of my investment? First, ask the proPerty owner or the city planning and zoning office if the property is protected by a view ordinance. (See How to Find Local Ordinances if you want to do your own research.) Then check with the real estate agent to see if nei~mlabors are subject to restrictions t_hat would protect your view. Also, if the property is in a planned unit development, find out whether a homeowners’ association actively enforces the restrictions. Check local zoning laws for any property that might affect you. Could the neighbor down the hill add a second-story addition? Finally, look very closely from the property to see which trees http ://www.nol0. com/lawcenter/ency/articl e. cfm/obj ectid/B 57ABFB2-289B-499C-BA77A39AB 8080174...7/14/2003 Views FAQ - Nolo Page 4 of 5 might later obstruct your view. Then go introduce yourself to their owners and explain your concerns. A neighbor who also has a view will probably understand your concern. If someone is unfriendly and uncooperative, you stand warned. How to Approach a View Problem Before you approach the owner of a tree that has gown to block your view, answer these questions: ¯Does the tree affect the view of Other neighbors? If it does, get them to approach the tree owner with you. Trimming costs may be divided among you. ¯Which part of the tree is causing view problems for you - one limb, the top, one side of it? ¯What is the least destructive action that could be taken to restore your view? Maybe the owner will agree to a limited and careful pruning. ¯How much will the trimming cost? Be ready to pay for it. Remember that every day you wait and grumble is a day for the trees to grow and for the job to become more expensive. The loss of your personal enjoyment is probably worth more than the trimming cost, not to mention the devaluation of your property (which can be thousands of dollars). Back to top Copyright (~ 2003 No!o Email this article to a friend Noise FAQ Answers to your questions about noisT neighbors. Boundaries FAO Answers to your frequently asked questions about property, lines. Fences FAQ Do good fences really make good neighbors? These frequently asked questions may help you decide. Trees FAO Frequently asked questions to help you deal with troublesome trees. Books Neighbor Law: Fences. Trees, Boundaries & Noise Explains all key legal issues involving neighbors - including fences, trees, noise, water runoff and blocked views - with an eye towards working them out. "A dispute buster."-Sunset Magazine Sale Price: $22.90 (15% off) How to Mediate Your Disnute: Find a Soiufion Ouicidv & CheaDlv Outside the Courtroom Shows you how to succeed using this quick, fair and inexpensive alternative to courtroom battles. Explains each of mediation’s seven steps in detail. http://www.nolo.corn/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/obj ectid!B57ABFB2-289B-499C-BA77A3 9AB 8080174... 7/14/2003 views £AQ - Nolo Page 5 of 5 Water L~amag_e Feeling a tittle wet behind the ears? Here’s what you should know about water damage: your neighbors and ~e law. Rural Neighbors and the Right to Farm Before you build your dream house in the country, thorough13, investigate the surroundings. Sale Price: $13.27 (30% off) Everybody’s Guide t~ Smal~ Claims Cour~ Evaluate whether you have a good case, prepare for court and make a killer presentation. This book has helped tens of thousands of Americans assert their lega! fights. Sale Price: $21.20 (21% off) other related articles _~,~ ether related products Homepagg [ Site Guide [ Site Search Law Store I Legal Research ] Ask Auntie Nolo Law Dictionary t Legal Encvciopedia Legal Updates I Press Information I No!oBriefs Email Newsletter Trade I .Academic I Libraries I Bookstores I Partners I Business Development Customer Service I Tech Support I Book and Software Submissions [ Jobs Retail Outlet I La~’er Jokes I SharkTalk Game Questions or suggestions? Send us feedback. Copyright ~> 2t)03 Nolo 30 years of pro~dding quality legal information. Disclaimer -- Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice About Nolo I Privacv~Statement http://www.n~~~.c~m~~awcenter/ency/art~c~e.cfm/~bje~t~d/B57ABFB2-289B-499C-BA77A39AB8~8~174... 7/14/2003 CALI2ORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 801-813 Page 1 of 4 FindLaw I Legal Professionais ! Students I Business I Public I News FindLo:w Legal Professionals Oases & Codes t Forms [ Legal Subjects I Federal I State I Library I Boards Lawyer Search iCity or zip. IState ~ lSelect a practice Area Sefi~ch-’l::-! 1 Find Law ~ E-mail@Justice.corn I i~Y FindLaw lSee Featured Articles ~~ Law Firm FirmSites I Legal Jobs I CLE ~ :FinalL~ersi j FindLaw : FindLaw Calh~ornia : Codes and Statutes : California Code : Civil Code ¯California Codes o California Civil Code ¯CIVIL CODE SECTION 801-813 801. The following land burdens, or servitudes upon land, may be attached to other land as incidents or appurtenances, and are then called easements: i. The right of pasture; 2. The right of fishing; 3. The right of taking game; 4. The right-of-way; 5. The right of taking water, wood, minerals, and other things; 6. The right of transacting business upon land; 7. The right of conducting lawful sports upon land; 8. The right of receiving air, light, or heat from or over, or discharging the same upon or over land; 9. The right of receiving water from or discharging the same upon land; i0. The right of flooding land; !I. The right of having water flow without diminution or disturbance of any kind; 12. The right of using a wall as a party wall; 13. The right of receiving more than natura! support from adjacent land or things affixed thereto; 14. The right of having the whole of a division fence maintained by a coterminous owner; 15. The right of having public conveyances stopped, or of stopping the same on land; 16. The right of a seat in church; 17. The right of burial; 18. The right of receiving sunlight upon or over land as specified in Section 801.5. FindLaw Newsletters !’~ Top Legal News Headlines [- Legal Grounds [- Labor & Employment Law Your email .h~ Subscd~ More Newsletters 801.5. (a) The right of receiving sunlight as specified in subdivision 18 of Section 801 shal! be referred to as a solar easement. "Solar easement" means the right of receiving sunlight across tea! property of another for any solar energy system. As used in this section, "solar energy system" means either of the following: (i) Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary MY FindLaw Email:1 Password:! ,’--" Keep me logged in ~ until I sign out. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com!cacodes/civ/801-813.html 7/!4/2003 CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 801-813 Page 2 of 4 purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. (2) Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. (b) Any instrument creating a solar easement shall include, at a minimum, all of the following: (I) A description of the dimensions of the easement expressed in measurable terms, such as vertica! or horizontal angles measured in degrees, or the hours of the day on specified dates during which direct sunlight to a specified surface of a solar collector, device, or structural design feature may not be obstructed, or a combination of these descriptions. (2) The restrictions placed upon vegetation, structures, and other objects that would impair or obstruct the passage of sunlight through the easement. (3) The terms or conditions, if any, under which the easement may be revised or terminated. Forgot Your Password ? click here! New User ? Click [[ere[ 801.7. (a) When a right-of-way is granted pursuant to Section 801 or 802 to a railroad corporation whose primary business is the transportation of passengers, the grant shal! include, but not be limited to, a right-of-way for the location, construction, and maintenance of the railroad corporation’s necessary works and for every necessary adjunct thereto. (b) A "railroad corporation" shal! have the same definition as provided in Section 230 of the Public Utilities Code. (802.) Section Eight Hundred and Two. The following land burdens, or servitudes upon land, may be granted and held, though not attached to land: One--The right to pasture, and of fishing and taking game. Two--The right of a seat in church. Third--The right of burial. Four--The right of taking rents and tolls. Five--The right of way. Six--The right of taking water, wood, minerals, or other things. 803. The land to which an easement is attached is called the dominant tenement; the land upon which a burden or servitude is laid is called the servient tenement. 804. A servitude can be created only by one who has a vested estate in the servient tenement. 805. A servitude thereon cannot be held by the owner of the servient tenement. http ://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/cacodes/civ/801 - 813 .html 7/14/2003 CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 801-813 Page 3 of 4 806. The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired. 807. In case of partition of the dominant tenement the burden must be apportioned according to the division of the dominant tenement, but not in such a way as to increase the burden upon the servient tenement. 808. The owner of a future estate in a dominant tenement may use easements attached thereto for the purpose of viewing waste, demanding rent, or removing an obstruction to the enjoyment of such easements, although such tenement is occupied by a tenant. 809. The owner of any estate in a dominant tenement, or the occupant of such tenement, may maintain an action for the enforcement of an easement attached thereto. 810. The owner in fee of a servient tenement may maintain an action for the possession of the land, against any one unlawfully possessed thereof, though a servitude exists thereon in favor of the public. 811. A servitude is extinguished: i. By the vesting of the right to the servitude and the right to the servient tenement in the same person; 2. By the destruction of the servient tenement; 3. By the performance of any act upon either tenement, by the owner of the servitude, or with his assent, which is incompatible with its nature or exercise; or, 4. When the servitude was acquired by enjoyment, by disuse thereof by the owner of the servitude for the period prescribed for acquiring title by enjoyment. 813. The holder of record title to land may record in the office of the recorder of any county in which any part of the land is situated, a description of said land and a notice reading substantially as follows: "The right of the public or any person to make any use whatsoever of the above described land or any portion thereof (other than any use expressly allowed by a written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication) is by permission, and subject to control, of owner: Section 813, Civil Code." The recorded notice is conclusive evidence that subsequent use of the land during the time such notice is in effect by the public or any user for any purpose (other than any use expressly allowed by a written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication) is permissive http ://caselaw.lp.findlaw. com/cacodes/civ/801-813, html 7/14/2003 CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 801-813 Page 4 of 4 and with consent in any judicial proceeding involving the issue as to whether al! or any portion of such land has been dedicated to public use or whether any user has a prescriptive right in such land or any portion thereof. The notice may be revoked by the holder of record title by recording a notice of revocation in the office of the recorder wherein the notice is recorded. After recording a notice pursuant to this section, and prior to any revocation thereof, the owner shall not prevent any public use appropriate thereto by physica! obstruction, notice or otherwise. In the event of use by other than the general public, any such notices, to be effective, shal! also be served by registered mail on the user. The recording of a notice pursuant to this section shal! not be deemed to affect rights vested at the time of recording. The permission for public use of real property provided for in such a recorded notice may be conditioned upon reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of such public use, and no use in violation of such restrictions shall be considered public use for purposes of a finding of implied dedication. Previous Return to Top Next H__p_P: Save up to 10% on HP products. A discount that saves you time and money. So you can focus your energy on practicing law--not bargain hunting for technology. Abacus Law: Losing billable hours? Want to increase your productivity? Look no further than Abacus Law! Over 100,001 attorneys can~ be wrong. Time Matters®: It’s here...the extraordinary new version 5 of Time Matters, the most award-winning praclJce management software’s first new version in over two years. Amicus A~ornev: The world’s most widely used practice management soltware. Download or order your Free Trial today! Software Technolo~: TABSIII (award winning billing system) and PracticeMaster (leading practice manager) are solutions for solos to 50+ attorney firms. Princeton Review: LSAT test prep and more from The Princeton Review-click here! U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.: ** Over 25000 Legal Forms! ** A unique legal forms site on the Internet providing legal forms to lawyers, businesses and the public. CompuLaw: Still Using the Old "Fingers and Toes" Method of Calendaring? There’s a Better Way. CLICK HERE. Online Le.qal Document Services: Form a corporation, make a living trust, file for a trademark, all online. Fast and affordable. LI~GAL NE~WS: To!~ Headlines - Supreme Court,. Commentary ¯ Crime ¯ Cyberspace ¯ International US FBDBRAL LAW: Constitution ¯ Codes - Supreme Court Opinions ¯ Circuit ONnions US STATI~ LAW: State Constitutions ¯ State Codes - Case Law RESF.ARGH: ~" Forms ¯ Lav~Crawler - Library - Summaries of Law LEG,~L SUBJECTS: Constitutional - intellectual Property - Criminal - Labor - more... GOVERNI~IBNT RE~SOUROIES: US Federal - US State - Directories - more... INTERNATIONAL RE~SOURGES: Country Guides ¯ Trade. World Constitutions - more... OOI~IMUNITY: Nessa.qe Boards - Newsletters - Greedy Associates Boards TOOLS: Office - Calendar- CLE ¯ Email. West WorkS~ace - FirmSite - Toolbar Advertising fnfo ¯ Add URL - Help ¯ Comments Com_£__~p_A£~ I Privacy Policy J Disclaimer Jebs@FindLaw. Site [Viap Copyright © 1994-2003 FindLaw http ://casel aw.lp.findlaw, com/cacodes/civ/801-813 .hmal 7/I 4/2003 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning an~ Commu~_ify Enviom¢ment May "! Janet S. Chuang 2853 Brewster Avenue Redwood City, CA 94062 Division Subject:3280 Clifton court, Single Family Individual Review, 02-IR-82 On May 12, 2003 the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved Single Family Individual Review app!ication 02-IR-82 for a new two story residence !ocated at 3280 Clifton Court, This approval was granted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 1 g. !4 and the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the Califonfia Environmental Quali~ Act per Section !5303. Zone district R-!. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The approva! is subject to the foliowgng conditions: The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with plans dated April 17, 21103, except as modified by these conditions of approval. A copy of this approval shai] be printed on the p!ans submitted for building permit. Fina! plans submitted for building permit must conform to building and zoning regulatiom. The pro!rased open rre!lis at the front of the house must rern~d.n permanently uncovered. This approval is based on plans dated April 17, 2003. Interested parties may wish to review the final plans on file at the City of Palo_:.Alto Planning Department prior to the end of the 10 day hearing request period. The fina~ day to submit ~ request for Director’s Hearing is May 22, 2003. This approval will become effective ten days following the date of this letter unless there is a written request for a Directors Hearing as provided by Chapter 18oi4 of the PALMC. with soy-based Z~ H~’ni!tort AvenueRO. Box lf~P_q0 Palo A!to, CA 943036.7~.329.21,141 62~.329.21~ Environmental Review Page 1 of 4 ~Ske Map 1 Search I FAQ;s Property ~nfo & Development Zoninp Ordinance Development Info. Environmental Protection Environmental Documents Environmental Review Geologic Hazard Review Endangered Species Act Tree Removal Regulations PAM (Post-A~proval Monitoring) Development Activity Review Download the Environmental information Form in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Download the Application for Environmental Clearance Form in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Download the Petition for Exemption from Environmental Review Form in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Petition for Use of Prior CEQA Document in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Download the Procedures for Consultants to Prepare Environmental Documents for Private Proiects in Santa Clara Count,/Document in Adobe Acrobat PDF format Environmental Review involves the evaluation of the potential impact of a proposed development project upon the environment. Environmental Review is a legal requirement for many land development projects. The requirement for such an evaluation was established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the review is to: Inform the governmental decision maker and the public of the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Prevent environmental degradation resulting from proposed land developments by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the County finds that the changes are feasible. Disclose to the public the reasons why the County approved the project in the manner chosen if significant environmental effects remain. CEQA has set aside certain types of projects which are exempt from environmental review. These categories include such projects as.~_ns~u~tion.~e~:sing~family~h.om, es, minor alterations of existing structures, and minor grading projects. A complete listing of the "categorical exemptions" is available at the Planning Office Counter. The applicant may need to complete a "Petition for Exemption" which will be reviewed by http ://ww~v. sccpl anning, or~plannin~contentJPropInfoDev/ProplnfoDev_Environm ental_Revi ew.j sp?p=2 7/13/2003 Environmental Review Page 2 of 4 Planning staff before the proposed project is found eligible for the categorical exemption. When examining the list of exemptions, you should be aware that the County is required to assess certain projects that might otherwise be exempt. Such situations might involve particular circumstances where the project could impact a particularly sensitive resource or degrade the environment in some manner. Environmental Assessment An Environmental Assessment is the evaluation of the potential impact of a proposed development project on the environment. The planner working on the environmental assessment will use a checklist, called an initial study, to evaluate the potential for your particular project to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Among other things, this checklist evaluates conformance with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and any other pertinent policies; looks at health and safety issues such as groundwater contamination and geological stability; evaluates any poten~al traffic impacts; and considers the potential impacts on environmental resources such as plants and animals, parks and open space, and historical or archaeological resources. Negative Declaration Once staff has completed the environmental assessment, they will make a determination based on their evaluation. The planner may find that either 1) the project will not have an impact on the environment or that, 2) although the project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case since mitigation measures have been added to the project [These mifigation measures could be certain changes in the project (agreed to by the applicant) or standard County requirements to eliminate the potential impacts that have been idenfified.]. Based on this determination, the planner will recommend that the appropriate decision-making body adopt a Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is simply a legal statement that either the project will not have an impact on the environment, or that certain mitigation measures have been required as part of the project to ensure that no significant impacts will occur. Environmental Impact Report [EIR] envhu,,m=,,~lAn ,_1,, is more rigorous than a typical ¯ " .....’- assessment in its evaluation of the potential impacts of a proposed development project on the environment. It also involves specific legal requirements respecting review periods, findings and public hearings. If the planner finds that the project may have a significant impact on the environment and that there are no obvious actions the applicant can take to mitigate potential problems, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be required. An EIR http://www, sccplanning.or~plannin~content/PropInfoDev/PropInfoDev_Environmental_Review.j sp?p=2 7/13/2003 Environmental Review Page 3 of 4 may also be required if further study is needed to provide information necessary to determining whether the project could have an impact. EIRs are most likely associated with major projects or projects that are likely to generate considerable public controversy regarding their impact upon the environment. If an EIR is required, it will generally focus on those subject areas where potential impacts might occur, based on the information gathered in the initial study or a scope of work. For example, if there are no known archaeological resources in the area, the EIR would not require an archaeological evaluation. Procedures for Consultants Initial studies for more complex projects or EIRs are prepared by private consultants contracted by and under the direction of the County and paid for by funds provided by the applicant. The process under which such documents are prepared is described in "Procedures for Consultants to Prepare Environmental Documents for Pdvate Projects in Santa Clara Coun~ Monitoring Program The State of California requires that a monitoring program be adopted for all projects which might result in potentially significant environmental impacts. This monitoring is required even where measures have been proposed to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The monitoring program is designed to insure that applicants follow through on the mitigation measures required by the decision-making body. The complexity of the monitoring program depends on the type of project that is being undertaken. Monitoring may be as simple as a one time check to make sure an abandoned septic tank has been properly backfilled or as complex as annual visits or reports ensuring that an endangered animal has been protected, that traffic goals have been met, or that landscaping has been planted and maintained. How Does the Environmental Assessment Fit into the Permit Process? At the time you file an application for your project, the appropriate fees will be collected for an environmental assessment or to review for possible use of a prior CEQA document or a categorical exemp~on. If it is clear that your project will require an EIR, those fees and monitoring fees must also be paid. Once the fees are paid, the application will be referred to various County agencies to determine if the plans clearly describe the project and if all required information has been submitted. These agencies examine the application and determine whether or not it is complete for them to carry out their responsibilities. A]ffer we have received the referral responses, notification is sent to you by the Planning Office either declaring your application complete or indicating what additional information is needed. http ://www. sccplanning, or~plannin#content/PropInfoDev/PropInfoDev_Environmental_Review.j sp?p=2 7/13/2003 Environmental Review When your application is complete, one of two things will happen. [1] If your project does not require environmental assessment, it is directed, together with a staff recommendation, to the appropriate hearing body for standard processing. [2] If an environmental assessment is required, your file will be sent to the Development Review Section. A planner will be assigned to complete an environmental assessment for your project unless the document will be prepared by a consultant under County direction. The completed assessment and a staff recommendation on the project will be sent to the appropriate hearing body for their decision. Appeals Any person dissatisfied with the environmental determination may appeal to the Board of Supervisors within the 15 calendar days that follow the public hearing. Each separate appeal shall be filed at the Planning Office, and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee listed in the current fee schedule. For additional information, please contact: County of Santa Clara Planning Office 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 299-5770 Page 4 of 4 About Us [ Plans & Policy Overview I Property & Development Information ] Planning Studies & Major Projects Facts & Figures I Maps I Meetings & Agenda County of Santa Clara Homepage http :/iwww. sccplanning.org/planning/contentfPropInfoDev/PropInfoDev_Environmental_Review.j sp?p=2 7/13/2003 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21060-21072 Page 4 of 5 least one-half mile from geothermal development wells which are capable of producing geothermal resources in commercia! quantities. 21066. "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, limited liability company, company, district, county, city and county, city, town, the state, and any of the agencies and political subdivisions of those entities, and, to the extent permitted by federal law, the United States, or any of its agencies or political subdivisions. 21067. "Lead agency" means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. 21068. "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentially substantia!, adverse change in the environment. 21068.5. "Tiering" or "tier" means the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy, plan, program or ordinance followed by narrower or site-specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmenta! effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects on the environment in the prior environmental impact report. 21069. "Responsible agency" means a public agency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. 21071. "Urbanized area" means either of the following: (a) An incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (I) Has a population of at least I00,000 persons. (2) Has a population of less than i00,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least !00,000 persons. (b) An unincorporated area that satisfies the criteria in both paragraph (!) and (2) of the following criteria: (!)Is either of the following: (A)Completely surrounded by one or more incorporated cities, and both of the following criteria are met: (i) The population of the unincorporated area and the population of the surrounding incorporated city or cities equals not less than I00,000 persons. (ii) The population density of the unincorporated area at least equals the population density of the surrounding city or cities. (B) Located within an urban growth boundary and has an existing http ://caselaw. lp.findlaw.corn!cacodes/prc/21060-21072 .html 7/14/2003 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21100-21108 Page 1 of 5 FindLaw I Legai Professionals I Students I Business ! Public ] News ~, LegN Professionals Cases & Codes I Forms I Lega~ Subjects { Federa! I State I Library I Boards Lawyer Search [City or ZIP .... ISt~te ~ ISelect a Practice Area Law Firm FirmSites I Legal Jobs CLE FindLaw : FindLaw California : Codes and Statutes : California Code : Public Resources Code ¯California Codes o California Public Resources Code [] PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21100-21108 21100. (a) _All lead agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on any project which they propose to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment. Whenever feasible, a standard format shall be used for environmental impact reports. (b) The environmenta! impact report shall include a detailed statement setting forth all of the following: (i) Al! significant effects on the environment of the proposed project. (2)In a separate section: (A)Any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. (B) Any significant effect on the environment that would be irreversible if the project is implemented. (3) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. (4) Alternatives to the proposed project. (5) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed project. (c) The report shall also contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for deterntining that various effects on the environment of a project are not significant and consequently have not been discussed in detai! in the environmental impact report. (d) For purposes of this section, any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in physical conditions which exist within the area as defined in Section 21060.5. (e) Previously approved land use documents, including, but not limited to, general plans, specific plans, and local coasta! plans, may be used in cumulative impact analysis. 21100.1. The information described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 21100 shall be required only in environmenta! impact reports prepared in connection with the following: FindLaw Newsletters [~ Top Legal News Headlines F" Legal Grounds [" Labor & Employment Law iyour ~m_ ail h~ Subscribe I More Newsietters MY FindLaw Email: t Password:I Keep me logged in until I sign out. http :/icasel aw. lp .findlaw. com/cacodes/prc/21100-21108 .html 7/14/2003 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080-21098 Page 16 of 36 (c)The lead agency shal! do al! of the fol!owing: (I)Independently review and analyze any report or declaration required by this division. (2) Circulate draft documents that reflect its independent judoc~nent. (3) As part of the adoption of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration, or certification of an environmenta! impact report, find that the report or declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. (4) Submit a sufficient number of copies of the draft envirorrmental impact report, proposed negative declaration, or proposed mitigated negative declaration, and a copy of the report or declaration in an electronic form as required by the guidelines adopted pursuant to Section 21083, to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, if any of the following apply: (A) A state agency is any of the following: (i) The lead agency. (ii) A responsible agency. (iii) A trustee agency. (B) A state agency otherwise has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project. (C) The proposed project is of sufficient statewide, regional, or areawide envirorumental significance as determined pursuant to the guidelines certified and adopted pursuant to Section 21083. 21082.2. (a) The lead agency shall determine whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (b) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an ¯ environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the !ead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (c) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physica! impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence. Substantia! evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. (d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmenta! impact report shal! be prepared. (e) Statements in an environmental impact report and comments with respect to an environmenta! impact report shall not be deemed determinative of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 21083. (a) The Office of Planning and Research shall prepare and deve!op proposed guidelines for the implementation of this division by public agencies. The guidelines shal! include objectives and criteria for the orderly evaluation of projects and the preparation oZ environmenta! impact reports and negative declarations in a manner http ://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/prc/21080-21098 .html 7/14/2003 Size of Two-Story Homes Located on Clifton Court Per City Records: Address 3214 Clifton 3224 Clifton 3232 Clifton 3248 Clifton 3288 Clifton Current Square Footage of Home 2654 sq. ft. 3100 sq. ft. 3465 sq. ft. 2911 sq. ft. 2864 sq. ft.GOMEZ 3232 Clifton 2556 sq. ft KERRINS Purposed NOTE: Kerrins purposed home is smaller than every other two-story house on the street Regarding:3280 Clifton Ct, Palo Alto, CA IR case # 02-1R-82 To:Whom it May Concern Issue:Calculations of Window Surface Area Existing House 5 windows along Gomez side that are 32 in X 42 in = 6720 sq in total 6720 sq in divided by 144 in/sq ft =:~i6:f~|~idow viewinq area Purpose House 2 windows that are 2 ft X 4 ft = 16 sq ft 2 windows that are 2 ft X 2 ft = 8 sq ft 3 windows that are 1.5 ft X 1.5 ft = 6.75 sq ft Total =f~indow viewing area %= Notes: 1. o We left off the 1.5 ft X 1.5 ft stained glass window in the master bedroom walk-in closet, as that will be non-visual as well. If you were to include this window, the purposed house would have 33 sq ft of glass, which is equal to 70.7% of the current house. We purposely left off the glass block wall in the kitchen as that is a non- functioning, non-visual area (not a window) Planners Grote to ~’evisit,the individual review guidelines, which Were adopted atthe end’ of 200I to .- address two-story develop- ments. -- As with- .any new program, it’ may need fine-tinting, said.~Northway, an architect. who served as ar~ advise~ to city officials when the guid.elines were being crafted. -Ashton and Harrington also served as ~dvisory residents. Skip Justman, p~sident of the Univer- sity South Neighborhoods Group and a candidate for City Council, said appeais against residentiN projects should be heard at the Planning and Transportation Commission level. Decisions about twO- story plans don’t be!ong at the City Coun- cil level,-which is too political for a sin- gle-f.~.naily home proposal. eoupl~’s complaint Within the city’s-residential review pro- gram, neighbors, successfully appealed against a two-story project at 1849 Web- ster St., where Elizabeth and Jalme Wong own a one-story 1940s home. Neighbors said Lhe Wongs’ new house would :be oversized, cast shadows and impact their. privacy. The ~T0ngs disputed ...neighbors’ clai~ns about the impacts and said the guideiines were misused against them. how ~e ~reiidentia! review program was applied’in tNs case, whifih w~s a first for co~bil :mem~rS. Coune~; voted 5-4 last mon~: to upgold neighbors’.-~peals .agNnst- ~e Wonts~proj~t.. .... -.: Theguidelines were never intenged to say ~at residentiN project~ had to be "!~ percent -~ee tkom. sh~ows.," No~waY said. ’~We live in a town of smNl, average- size lots ... and we Nlow tw~sto~ build- ings." The language in ~e guidelines ma~ need to ~ reworded so people ~en t interfering daem literally, No~way sNd. "Fnis is not a p~ic situation,. No~way said, about reconsidefing’.~e review pr~ess. The proNmm h~ worked well for ~e order 1~ residentiM pr~ects khat have sUemned in since ~e guidelines were adoptS. A di~refion~ ~ew process is tNg- gered when a residenfiN deve!opment ca~s for ~e new cons~cfon of a two- sto~ home, new second-levels ~d addi- tions to an e~sfing s~ond-sto~ ~at ~e more ~an 150 squ~e f~t. Tuesday, ~,pril 8, 2003 Daily News identlal facts: tory: their eyeg-frOni::tearing down houses:in-the tO demoliShin build~ Gawf, who .was direct0r.of plan-. ning and communityenviron- : ment at the time. Annette . : Glanckopf Ashton, Carroll. Hart ° rington and John Northway we[e the co-chairs;-the re~t of us teWresented varioU~ constituencies.~ architects, bm3der~, neighbor- hood associations, etc. Problem defined The ~oup held several public meetings and 18 months of com- mittee meetings. Our first assign- ment was to define the problem. Only after the problem was defined as privacy, massing and streetscape did we be~.~n to. address the solutions, which achieved their final form in the ordinance that is now in place. Let’s look at the facts of the ordinance: Soundslike it’s working " Tiffs ordinance.was written as an applicam-preferred pr6cessl -Theai .~= prop.erty in th6 Because we all live cheei~ by jowl in a community, not in the ¯¯ wide open expanses of the wild west, the citizens groupthat’. neighbors should hav~ a ~oice, " : not a?veto;d~ what went 6n in " :- - " :).: : / DA~E PRICE and )iM ~VI~Ci-i; Pubr~he~s -tha!:it.i~!:~fo~used ~oice ~d the ~L~; aO~HU, J~U~C~ ....WmS~ ~U~EC. ~D0 MS~WZa V0UM~ c~r~ Circul~on figures vefffied by ~CAC Published by Pffce~ss LLC. :Cergfi~’J Aud;’[ of Circula’dons ~@ 2003 Priceless’LLC., all dglus resenr’~.¯ donslt(J. Constructio.n noise, his- toricai.:eotte violations, personal taste ang.interpersonal or inter- cultural h0sfiliry are not covered~ Statement to the director w.r.t. 3280 Clifton Ct 7117103 Introduction 1.1. We are not opposed in principle to having a new house next door and have never said anything different. We have objections to this design, because it impacts our house’s value and livability. The ordinance requires that these objections be addressed. Since the Kerrins refuse to talk to us we have to go through the city. 1.2. We specifically object to this desi~ on the basis of guidelines #XXX privacy and #XXX solar orientation and #XXX mass and scaling. 1.3. I want to emphasize that despite what is explicitly stated in the ordinance and recommended by Planning Department staff, we were frozen out of the design process. All questions about the house desio~ were ioonored. It’s not that they neglected speaking to us, they actively refused, and the representations in their letters to the contrary are urttruthful. ~4rhen they showed the working plans to the neighborhood they did so only when we weren’t present, in one case not bringing the plans out to the block party tu~til we had departed for another function. 1.4.The Kerrins claim repeatedly in the different letters that I said I would do anything to block construction. This statement is completely their fabrication. I never said anything like that, this statement has nothing to do with me, and is totally incorrect as to my position on the project. ’ 1.5. For the record, I’m going to note that I requested mediation as provided for in the ordinance, and the Planning Department denied it. Design problems 2.1. To start with, there are problems with these plans. The site plan does not show lot lines, and it doesn’t show outside recreation areas as required. As for the drawings - my house has never had that profile in its history. I don’t know what else is missing, but from the outset it appears the desig-n is improper. 3. Impact on value 3.1.According to the appraiser who appraised our house a few years ago, our house’s value would be negatively impacted by the loss of privacy and sunlight. 4. Solar orientation 4.1. Their house is not west of us. 4.1.1. The sun sets across the street, which means that west is across the street. 4.1.2. A GPS gave me a rough bearing of 213 from my house to their house. 4.1.3.The compass bearing is 202, which is 217 True. SW is 225, so their house is S of SW. Fine, we’ll call it SW. 4.2.V~at it means is that their house is between us and the afternoon sun no matter what thn~e of year it is. Because of the house geometries, my daughter’s bedroom can see the stm only during the afternoons. There’s no problem now, at the 4.3. Statement to the director w.r.t. 3280 Clifton Ct 7/17]03 height of summer. The problem will be during winter, when the sun is lower and the trees have no leaves for six months. This picture [picture] from inside the bedroom shows the approximate track of the sun during winter time. Nc~te that it will be completely blocked by a two story house. Russ told me that he recontmended a solar study. This seems to be the only way to settle how much light we will lose from the proposed design. I think this has to be done before we sentence my daughter to having no sunlight for half a year at a time. Loss of Privacy 5.1. There is definitely a privacy problem. In the file are a btmch of carefully staged photos which are alleged to represent view angles from their second story. Since they don’t currently have a second story the photos don’t show the actual view angles. What they do show is that they have no comptmctions about ta "king pictures of our living areas when they feel like it. This includes the set he took of my little girl playing in her bedroom, while standing on his roof, with no warning and no explanation. I ask anyone here how they would like to find their family in that situation. 5.2. The Planning Department answer to the privacy issue was to pull the shade. Since she has to have the light on during the day during winter, that means she would have to have the shade pulled around the clock for those six months. That doesn’t strike me as fair, or healthy. Why have a privacy policy if the answer is to pull down the shade? 5.3. One question here is why we have the bedroom on the first floor. When we renovated, we didn’t build the 2nd floor all the way back at the request of the people living in 3280, who didn’t want 2nd story windows looking down into their back yard. Which is exactly the situation we’re in now, except going the other direction. 6. At this point, I’d like to turn to what can be done about it. 7. Alternative design 7.1. Since we were frozen out, I don’t "know if any alternative designs were considered. An obvious one is an asymmetric design, so the highest part of the house is further south, thereby casting a lower shadow and removing any chance of intruding sight lines. 7.2. There are plenty of very local examples: [pictures] 7.2.1. Our house 3288 Clifton Ct, designed specifically so it wouldn’t put the Abbotls’ house in shadow 7.2.2. 3248 Clifton Ct 7.2.3. 3232 Clifton Ct, which is Kerrins’ parents’ house 7.2.4. 3224 Clifton Ct Statement to the director w.r.t. 3280 Clifton Ct 7/17/03 7.2.5. Clifton Ct & Stockton 7.2.6. 933 Loma Verde, which is one of the houses directly behind them 7.3. These examples are not intended to show a neighborhood prevalence, but just to show- that there are plenty of examples of more accommodating desi~s. They are all very close - within 150 yards. Mitigation 8.1. Barring a redesig-n, they can elLrninate the windows on our side. Being on the side opposite the sun, they won’t lose much. 8.2. In the letter they talk about the aesthetiis of having light present in the room. Com~terbalancing that are the aesthetics from our side, the negative aesthetic of having 2nd floor windows glowering down on you when you try to play in your own back yard. 8.3. The house directly across the street has no 2rid floor windows on that side [picture]. The builder took them out of the design at the request of the people next door. 8.4.Barring the elimination of the windows, a good mitigation would be for them to provide high, fast growing trees that block the sight lines into our back yard. In summary 9.1. I find it sad they are investing so much time in writing poison pen letters and testifying at various city hearings, but refuse to take ten minutes to talk to us. If they’d talked to us in the beginning the whole process could have been avoided. 9.2. Regardless, we have property rights too, as the ordinance recognizes. As noted, this desig-n has errors and does not address the serious sunlight and privacy issues. It needs to have the proper engineering done to see what changes or mitigations need to be made. 3 3280 Ciiffton Court appears too massive for its smaiier lot. because it is too The builder has failed to include the souare footac]e of the carport, the .............. ~floor bays. Condition of approval should be the removal of aii these structures from the Don and Carol iviui~et~ ,¢;1 R T~nnvCnn A\~#n~ I~ Pnln Altn The zonino ordinance is very specific: aii COrDOFLS must be included whether roofed or trellised, aii entrance s~ruc~ures, and aii Botches which are not refer you to the exchanoe between Fran Lavton of Shute. iviihaiv. Weinberoer. anti VWnne Fur~h of the City of Paio Alto. ~ ~n~ Ke~ian.sMy comments today are in support of the application tot As one of the 3 co-chairs of the R1- Future of Single Family Housing, I have some major concerns about the IR process. My comments dovetail into my support for the Na]rnabadi Family on Monday night. I place these comments into the records. For this review, I will address The Appeal Process Zoning/Education Solar Where to go from here APPEAL PROCESS We (the Advisory Group) never meant the appeal process to be so punitive. ¯ We wanted neighbors to have a say and not to be able to hijack the process. ¯ In the 3 appeals I have seen for Midtown residents, appellants would not be mollified with any modifications short of not building a 2-story home. Several of these appeals are at best u_n-educated and at worst mean-spirited and vindictive. ¯ All building applications should be treated in the same way as far as IR and architecture quality. Now I see applicants jumping through hoops if there is a threat of an appeal. We can do better. ZONING EDUCATION This is the part of IR that has never been implemented. I remain concerned for the applicant, the neighbors, council and staff as well. Training on the IR and zoning is needed; every staff member must provide the same answer to zoning questions. In this case, I am concerned that it took months for staff to tell the Kerrins that they" could not build their garage in an easement and then months again, to tell them that their carport would not count in FAR. (In the Wong’s case, I still think the issue of building a 6000 square foot house should include the FAR for the garage. This was always the case, until the appeal.) Carroll will also address the need for education, but at a minimum we do need an IR cookbook with graphics especially to describe what is counted in FAR and what is not. SOLAR There is no way in our built out and heavily forested community that a two story house that obeys the daylight plane and setback rules will not cast a shadow. The advisory group felt comfortable with this current zoning parameter. The IR guideline just is that- a guideline with a comment to move the mass to the center of house (if possible). It was not a mandate. Carroll, John, and I now feel that this guideline should be omitted. WHERE TO GO FROM KERE John, Carroll and I have been working with staffto free tune the process. I have gotten agreement from Steve Emslie, Director of Planning & Community Environment as well as Lisa Grote, to hold a focus session (after the next 3 appeals are complete) to examine the IR process step by step, hear the concerns, and fine tune the process. In closing, I ask you to support the application by the Ken’ins. Thanks for your consideration, Annette Ashton ¯ 2747 Bryant ¯ Palo Alto ¯ 321-1280 I am here tonight as a co-chair of the R1 Future of Single Family Advisory Group to address 3114 David. I ask the following: 1)Dsny the ca~io~. Support the applicant (Najmabadi Family) as recommended in the staff report 2)Hold a study session for council, members of the public, and media on the intent & details of IR. Implement a public education program (Carroll will address this further). 3) Fine tune the process. We three co-chairs of the Advisory Group are committed to work with you, and staff to refine the process, so that future applicants will not suffer extended lengths of time for project approval with potential resulting financial hardships. Staff needs to be key in setting the stage as well as expectations. 3114 David: This young family wanted a larger home for their growing family. At the many IR reviews 7 major suggestions were made, which they willingly incorporated into the design. The documentation is impressive in how it addresses each of the guidelines. Note: THIS HOUSE OBEYS ALL CURRENT ZONING and then some. The roof height is 27 & 1/2’ which is less than the 33’ allowed in the flood zone and their setback is 8’ which is greater than the required 6’. I am concerned at the excessive attention paid to neighbor complaints. IR was never meant te prevent two- story, homes from being built, this seere.~ to be t~h~ real objection, we created guidelines and a process to enable residents/builders to have the new home/addition fit in sensitively with the neighborhood. We wanted neighbors to have some input but we never intended them to be able to hijack the process. To the best of my knowledge there are 3 objections: Objection #1: Proposed plan would shadow our home In this case, the applicant’s house is shaded by their neighbors not vice versa, since their house is to the north of the appellant. The staff report shows how they carefully designed their house to lessen impacts. The advisory group did discuss solar access/sunlight and decided not to include requirement for solar studies. We felt that a .cluideline to "respect neighbors "was adequate. A concern that we co-chairs have NOW is the mandate for solar studies We are prepared to lobby for removal of this guideline, if it continues to be used to veto any 2-story home. We never intended to say that residential projects had to be 100% free from shadows Objection #2: The proposed plan would block our sky view In our built out and heavily forested Palo Alto residential community, there is no zoning code nor should there be to protect "sky views." This is frivolous and not warranted. Objection #3: The 2-story is not in character with neighborhood Is CPA going to allow two-story houses in one-story neighborhoods? The Municipal Code allows certain zoning, if a family/builder meets all the hard coded zoning and all the guidelines, and if a neighbor(s) appeals ...... Whose right will prevail? And Why? Currently the process extracts a severe emotional & financial toll for families to defend their right for their new home/remodel even when they have submitted plans that totally conform to city zoning. A toll is extracted on neighbors as well; as they have been led to believe that they can appeal/litigate to prevent any 2 story home or addition. Thanks for your consideration, Annette ,"-’.shton ,--" 2747 Bry£nt ~. Paio A!to ~ 32!-i 280 My name Carroll Harrington and I live at 830 Melville Avenue. I am also here ~ a~’a co-chair of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group, and I too am concerned by what is happening with the Individual Review Guidelines process. When Ed Gawf and 3oan Ta~’lor from the planning department staff initially met with John Northway, Annette Ashton and me about the Advisory Group, we were careful to choose members who represented diverse points of view and lived in a variety of neigh- borhoods. We met for 17 months to develop the guidelines. As Annette mentioned, we wanted applicants to "respect neighbors," and these neighbors to be able to comment, not hijack the process. Our goal was to have a process that was clear, predictable and economical. I shudder to think about the dollars these appeals are costing--both to the homeowner and the city. A critical component for the success of this program is the public awareness or education program for council members, planning department staff, applicants, possible appellants and the general public. This has not happened. Even though there have been 15o± success- ful applications, we now have what I might call a battlefield going on between neighbors. A successful public awareness program would include the following: Program description, goals and objectives, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats or chal- lenges) analysis and audience identification (e.g., council, planning department, etc.). Then we would determine what we need to say to them, what do we want them to do and how we would reach them. Next we would develop the strategy and tactics, followed by a timeline, budget and evaluation. Examples of how we could organize such a public awareness program include presenting Architecture 1ol, producing a video that applicants and neighbors could check out from the development department, creating a website and preparing clear, concise written materials. Plus I have talked to several applicants who would be willing to serve as men- tors or teachers. John Northway, Annette, some Advisory Group members and I are willing to work with staff on a continuing basis to get the process back on track. I urge you support the ~’~;--’ applications because I believe it meets all of the guidelines.