HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-27 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 27, 2003 CMR: 472:03
1849 WEBSTER STREET [03-IR-65]: RECOMMENDATION OF
STAFF TO DENY REQUEST FOR HEARING OF APPEAL BY DON
AND CAROL MULLEN, 618 TENNYSON AVENUE, OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL
OF AN EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,
OWNED BY ELIZABETH AND JAIME WONG, 1849 WEBSTER
STREET, UNDER THE SINGLE FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
PROGRAM.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council decline to hear the appeal by Don and Carol Mullen,
618 Tennyson Avenue, thereby upholding the Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s approval of the application for a second story addition.and a substantial
remodel of an existing one story single family residence, owned by Elizabeth and Jaime
Wong, 1849 Webster Street.
BACKGROUND
Previous Application (02-IR-55)
The project was originally submitted on June 19, 2002 and conditionally approved by
staff on July 29, 2003. Adjacent neighbors, including Don and Carol Mullen, requested a
Director’s hearing. Prior to the hearing, two mediation sessions between the applicant
and the neighbors were held. Mediation did not result in an ageement and a Director’s
hearing was held on November 21, 2003, continued to December 19, 2003. The Director
approved the project on December 26, 2003. On January 9, 2003, the adjacent neighbors
9submitted an appeal to the Director’s decision. On February 19, _00:, the Council voted
to hear the appeal in accordance with Single-Family Individual review procedures. On
March 17, 2003, the Council considered the appeal of the Director’s approval. The
Council did not uphold the Director’s approval of the application, citing inconsistency
CIvIR: 472:03 Page 1 of 6
with the Individual Review Guidelines, particularly Guideline #6, regarding solar
orientation. The Council determined that a portion of the second story would cause
excessive shadows on the garden and rear yard of the property at 627 Seale Avenue and
remanded the application to the Director for further proceedings, consistent with its
decision.
On March 17, 2003, the Director denied the application with a finding that the project did
not respect the solar orientation (Guideline #6) of the adjacent neighbor’s houses and
yards. It was determined that a portion of the second story would cause excessive
shadows on the garden and rear yard of the property at 627 Seale Avenue. The Director’s
decision letter of denial noted the project applicant or any adjacent property owners had
ten days to appeal the decision.
On April 28, 2003, Don and Carol Mullen submitted an appeal to the Director’s decision
to deny the project. On May 21, 2003, the project applicant submitted a request to
~vithdraw the application preserving the right to submit a new application.
Current Application (03-IR-65)
On June 18, 2003, the applicant submitted a new application for Single Family Individual
Review.
The project is a second story addition and a substantial remodel of an existing 3,212
square foot, one-story single-family residence on a 20,000 square foot lot in the R-1 zone
district. This lot is larger then neighboring lots so a larger home is proposed, but the
expanded house would not exceed the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 6,000 square
feet, pursuant to section 18.12.050(I) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The
proposed house would contain 5,924 square feet of floor area, comprised of 3,527 square
feet at the first floor and 2,397 square feet at the second floor. The existing 480 square
foot detached garage would be demolished and replaced with a detached 482 square foot
detached garage. The residence would be 24 feet, 7 inches tall, which is less than the 30-
foot maximum allowed in the R-1 zone district.
The project has been modified from the previous application. The rear second story
element that had been the cause of the shadowing on the property at 627 Seale Avenue
has been relocated to the front of the building footprint and more to the center of the
property. The second story would be located approximately 51 feet away from the rear
property line and approximately 25 feet from the right side property line. The shadow
study performed by Origins on July 14, 2003 indicated the revised project design would
not cause shadows during the winter in the afternoon in excess of those already cast by
the existing fence (Attachment C, page 11). The second story covered balconies have
been removed and .the proposed height of the residence has been decreased from 25 feet,
2 inches to 24 feet, 7 inches.
CMR: 472:03 Page 2 of 6
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. During the ten-day public comment period, adjacent
neighbors submitted letters raising concerns about the potential reduction in privacy for
the rear yard of 1875 Webster Street (Levy Residence) from the southwest facing second
story windows (Bedrooms #’s l&2 and Bath #2).
Individual Review Guideline #1 states, ~place second-story windows to respect privacy
between properties." This guideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows.
During the initial project review, staff discussed potential privacy loss resulting from the
proposed windows and recommended solutions to increase privacy. Staff and Origins
determined that recessing the windows and limiting their width would increase privacy
by decreasing the opportunity for side facing views into the rear yard of 1875 Webster
Street. Based on detailed plan review, evaluation of an aerial photograph, and site visits,
it was staff’ s conclusion that the applicant had appropriately addressed concerns raised by
the neighbors. On August 5, 2003, the Manager of Current Planning (as designated by
the Director of Planning and Community Environment) tentatively approved the IR
application, with a condition to redesign the windows using 2"x8" walls so that the
windows are recessed from the wall face, and limiting the width of the window glazing to
no wider than 24 inches.
The adjacent neighbors, concerned about the privacy for 1875 Webster Street, submitted
letters between August 12 through 15 requesting a Director’s hearing in accordance with
IR procedures. A Director’s hearing was held on September 4, 2003. On September 18,
2003 the Director conditionally approved the application. The approval was based on the
application and all other materials submitted by the applicant; the comments received
during the public comment period; the comments, testimony and other evidence received .
during the Director’s hearing; the City’s aerial photographs; site visits; the City Council’s
decision on the prior appeal of the project; and all other material that are part of the
administrative record (Attachment A).
On September 29, 2003, Don and Carol Mullen of 618 Tennyson submitted an appeal to
the Director’s decision (Attachment B). Also expressing disagreement with the
Director’s decision but not part of the formal appeal are Walter and Amanda Mok, 639
Seale Avenue, and Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue.
DISCUSSION
The appeal is not related specifically to any of the 10 Single-Family Individual Review
guidelines. The appellant claims the project exceeds the applicable FAR restrictions
because the partly enclosed first story porches’ should have been included in the gross
floor area. The appellants also state that the inclusion of the first story porches floor area
would cause the residence to exceed the maximum 6,000 square foot house size.
CMR: 472:03 Page 3 of 6
Exclusion of Porches from FAR Calculations
The porches have not been counted as floor area because they are located on the ground
floor, are not significantly enclosed, and are not considered an "entrance structure or
tower."
PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(D) requires that covered areas of all floors shall be
counted as measured to the exterior of the stud wall. The Code is written this way to
count the interior volume and mass of a structure. A ground floor porch that is not
significantly enclosed does not create interior volume within the structure. Ground floor
porches are not included in the measurement of the volume of the structure unless they
are significantly enclosed and covered.
The ordinance does not specify at what degree of enclosure a portion of the residence
should count as floor area. The City has an established policy, which has been applied in
practice to determine when a feature or area of the residence shall be considered to count
as floor area. This policy considers areas that are more than 50% enclosed and covered
to be floor area. In this case, the porches in the project have been determined not to be
more than 50% enclosed.
The exclusion of these porches from the FAR calculations is consistent with other
provisions of the Code. PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A)(viii) states that covered
porches, when located above the ground floor, are included as gross floor area. The
porches at issue in the current project are on the ground floor. The zoning ordinance was
also amended in November 2001 to provide a specific FAR exemption for recessed
porches located on the first floor. The purpose of this amendment was to encourage rather
than discourage porches, and recessed porches had counted as floor area under the 50%
enclosure policy. There was no specific exemption included in the ordinance amendment _
for regular porches on the first floor because they never counted as floor area, under
PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A)(viii).
Code section 18.04.030(65)(D)(vi) states "Entrance structures or towers, whether
enclosed or unenclosed, shall be included in gross floor area." This code language
specifically uses the words "entrance structure or towers" to differentiate between a
traditional porch and a monumentally scaled entry feature, viewed as undesirable and
incompatible with a typical single family neighborhood. The intent is to encourage
primarily open architectural features such as porches and to discourage large, out-of-scale
entry structures that are typically tall with large columns. A porch and an entrance
structure are not considered the same for the purpose of floor area calculation. The
porches in the current project cannot be considered "entrance structures or towers."
CMR: 472:03 Page 4 of 6
Property Line Verification
The Building Division will require setback verification and a boundary survey before
¯ issuance of a building permit. Staff included a condition in the Director’s approval
requiring that a full boundary survey be submitted to the Department of Planning and
Community Environment prior to the issuance of a building permit. There is
disagreement between neighbors about the location of a fence. Disputes concerning the
location of fences are a civil matter and not a subject of the Single Family Individual
Review process.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The IR application fee of $1,100 does not cover the cost of staff time to review this IR
project. Approximately 54 hours of additional staff time is required for a project going to
Director’s Hearing and the Council consent calendar. The previous application (02-IR-
55) incurred approximately $10,000 of staff and consultant time including related
expenses involving mediation and printing costs. The current application has cost the city
approximately $6,500 in staff time to process. If City Council decides to hear the appeal,
approximately $2,000 (20 hours of additional staff time) is likely to be expended.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
It is important to note that this application of the .ordinance is consistent with the way the
ordinance has been applied to all projects since November 19, 2001, the effective date of
the amended Code. This applicant has followed the same rules as every other applicant.
Counting the porches toward floor area would be inconsistent with the City’s application
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
This recommendation does not represent changes to any existing City policies. The
Director’s decision to approve the application is consistent with staff’s implementation of
the IR Guidelines. The proposal is to remodel and add to an existing house on an
exceptionally large lot to create a larger house, which is still in scale with the
neighborhood. It is a substantial change in the development on the lot, but it results in
development that is proportionate to the size of the lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
per Section 15303(a).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Director’s decision for approval, dated September 18, 2003.
Attachment B:Appeal From the Decision of the Director, received September 29,
2003.
Attachment C: Administrative Record, 1849 Webster Street.
Attachment D: Email to City Council from Elizabeth and Jaime Wong, sent August 19,
2003.
CMR: 472:03 Page 5 of 6
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
PREPARED BY:
Signatures of individuals in support of the project, submitted
Elizabeth Wong, October 2 t, 2003.
Project Plans, dated June 18, 2003 (Council Members only).
CHRISTO/PHER ALAN RIORDAN, AICP
Planner
by
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Jaime and Elizabeth Wong
Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth
Don and Carol Mullen
Walter and Amanda Mok
Peter Danner
Michael Braun
Annette Ashton
Stephen Pogue, AIA
Cindy Samos
Bret & Ronni Kerrins
John Benza
Charles Bradley
George Browning
Biddy Gerotwol
Carroll Harrington
R. Mansell
Les Denend
Harold Justman
Jennifer Mutz
Herb Borock
Matt Ingco
Kent Mitchell
CMR: 472:03 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
September 18, 2003
Stephen Pogue, AIA
175 Avila Street
San Francisco, CA 94123
Subject:1849 Webster Street, Single Family Individual Revie~v, 03-IR-65
On September 18, 2003 the Director ("Director") of Planning and Community
Environment conditionally approved Single-Family Individual Review application 03-IR-
65. This approyal was ~anted pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") Chapter
18.14, and was based upon the R-1 district regulations and the _Palo Alto Single _Family
Individual Review Guidelines. The approved project is a. second story addition and
substantial remodel to an existing one-story single family residence.
This letter constitutes the written decision of the Director and notice thereof pursuant to
PAMC § 18.14.090. This decision was made after the Director’s Hearing on September 4,
2003, which was requested by certain adjacent property owners. In reaching this decision,
the Director has considered the application and the project plans and all other materials
submitted by the applicant; the comments received during the public comment period; the
comments, testimony and other evidence received during the Director’s Hearing; the
city’s aerial photo~aphs; site visits; the City Council’s decision on the prior appeal of the
project: mad a!l other materials that are part of the administrative record in this matter.
Based thereon, the Director has determined that the project, as conditioned herein,
conforms to the R- 1 district regulations and meets the standards set forth in the Individual
Review Guidelines.
The project site is 20,000 square feet. Existing on the site is a 3,212 square foot one story
single family residence and a 480 square foot detached garage. The maximum allowable
Floor Area for the site is 6,750 square feet. However, section 18. ! 2.050(i) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code limits the maximum allowable house size to 6,000 square feet. The
house as proposed is 5,924 square feet, 76 square feet less then the a!lowed maximum.
The detached garage is 482 square feet. The total proposed square footage for the site is
6,406 square feet. The basement or covered porches not significantly enclosed are not
included in the calculation of allowable floor area.
The subject property is larger then adjacent properties. The lot is’ 100 feet wide and 200
feet deep. Seven properties share boundaries with the subject parcel. The existing house
is located predominantly in the rear half of the lot with a street setback of approximately
70 feet and a rear setback of approximately 23 feet. The left side setback is 15’-8" and the
right side setback is 14’-6". The project will increase the rear setback to approximately
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 2
28’-9". The left and right side setback are 15’-3" and 11 ’-9", respectively. The front
setback will remain unchanged at approximately 70 feet. All proposed setbacks exceed
those required in the R-1 zone district.
The adjacent property owners are concerned this project will impact their properties.
Their concerns are specifically related to Guideline #1 (Second-story window placement)
and Guideline #3 (The scale of new homes and additions). These concerns are addressed
below in this decision. They have also raised concerns that the project exceeds the Floor
Area Ratio ("FAR") requirements for the R-1 zone district, but the Director has
determined that the project does not exceed the FAR requirements, as explained below.
Objections have also been raised by adjacent property owners concerning the accuracy of
the topo~aphic map submitted by the applicant, disagreement on the location of the
property boundaries between the subject property and adjoining neighbors, and contention
concerning potential impacts on protected redwood trees located on adjacent properties.
Issues relating to property boundaries are more appropriately addressed during the normal
review of a building permit than in the Individual Review process. In an?, event, the
applicant has represented that a boundary survey will be prepared, and conditions have
been added to this approval to ensure that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
boundary of the subject property-will be adequately established. Other conditions have
been imposed to ensure that the impacts w-ill be prevented or minimized.
The Exclusion of Porches f!’on~ FAR Calculations
The adjacent property owners claim that the project exceeds the applicable Floor Area
Ratio restrictions because thepartly enclosed porches should have been included in the
gross floor area. The porches have not been counted as floor area because they are located
on the ~ound floor, are not si~maificantly enc!osed, and are not considered an "entrance
structure or tower."
PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(D) requires that covered areas of all floors shalt be
counted as measured to the exterior of the stud wall. This is wa-itten this way to count the
interior volume and mass of a structure. A ~ound floor porch that is not sigrAficantly
enclosed does not create interior volume within the structure. The porches are not
included in the measurement of the volume of the structure unless they are significantly
enclosed and covered.
The ordinance does not specify at what point of enclosure a portion of the residence
should count as floor area. The City has an established policy which has been applied in
practice to determine when a feature or area of the residence shall be considered to count
as floor area. This policy considers areas that are more than 50% enclosed and covered to
be floor area. In this case, the porches in the project have been determined not to be more
than 50% enclosed.
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Pa~e ~
The exclusion of these porches from the FAR calculations is consistent with other
provisions oft he municipal code. PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A)(viii) states that
covered porches, when located above the gound floor, are included as goss floor area.
The porches at issue in the current project are on the D’ound floor. The zoning ordinance
was also amended in November 2001 to provide a specific FAR exemption for recessed
porches located on the first floor. The purpose of this amendment was to encourage rather
than discourage porches, and recessed porches had counted as floor area under the 50%
enclosure policy. There was no specific exemption included in the ordinance amendment
for regular porches on the first floor because they never counted as floor area, under
PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A)(viii).
Code section ! 8.04.030(65)(D)(vi) states "Entrance structures or towers, whether
enclosed or unenclosed, shall be included in ~oss floor area." This code language
specifically uses the words "entrance structure or towers" to differentiate between a
traditional porch and a monumentally scaled entry feature, viewed as undesirable and
incompatible with a typical single family neighborhood. The City intended to encourage
open architectural features such as porches and wanted to discourage large, out-of-scale
entry structures that are typically tall with large colunms. A porch and an entrance
structure are not considered the same for the purpose of floor area calculation. The
porches in the current project cannot be considered "entrance structures or towers."
It is important to note that this application of the ordinance is consistent with the way the
ordinance has been applied to all projects since November 19, 2001, the effective date of
the amended code. This applicant has followed the same rules as every other applicant.
Counting the porches toward floor area would be inconsistent with the City’s application
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. It would be unfair to apply a new standard to this
applicant or any other applicant.
Second-stoTy Window Placement
Individual Review- Guideline #1 states, "place second-story windows to respect privacy
between properties". This ~,m.tideline was not intended to eliminate second floor windows,
but rather to mitigate the loss of privacy on adjacent sites. The Guidelines define privacy
as a "reasonable expectation that personal activities conducted witt~-i and around one’s
home will not be subject to casual or involuntary observation by others". It should be
acknowledged and understood that absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation in an
urban setting. It is only expected that privacy intrusions attributed to new development
are to be mitigated and that applicants make a good faith effort to do so when desi~maing a
project.
Privacy impacts from second story windows may be exacerbated on smaller lots with
minimum setbacks. It has been an accepted practice and interpretation of Guideline #1
that increased setbacks can minimize and mitigate privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors.
The neighbor at 1875 Webster Street expressed a concern that views from the new second
story windows located in Bedrooms #’s.,. 1 and 2 (two windows in each room) and
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 4
Bathroom #2 (one window) of 1849 Webster Street could affect existing backo, ard
privacy. The second story windows are located approximately 18-39 feet from the right
side property line shared with the neighbor at 1875 Webster Street. The originally
submitted project plans received on June 18, 2003 featured the above mentioned windows
mounted flush with the exterior stucco of the second story-. During the public comment
period, neighbors expressed concern that the project could have a negative impact on the
rear yard privacy of 1875 Webster Street (Levy Residence). The applicant met with staff
and Origins Desig-n Network (~’Origins"), the City’s consulting architect, to discuss the
neighbors concerns and mitigation measures to decrease their loss of privacy. It was
a~eed upon during the meeting that the subject windows would be constructed with
2"x8" walls. The result of such construction would be that the windows would be
recessed from the wall face thereby reducing the views from side to side further limiting
the available casual views of the neighbors rear yard. The applicant further a~eed to
reduce the glazing width of each window to 24".
The existing trees and hedges existing on both sides of the property line also increase
privacy between 1849 Webster Street and 1875 Webster Street
Based on these factors, the Director finds that privacy concerns have been adequately
addressed by the project plans, as conditioned herein, and that the guideline standards
have been satisfied in this respect.
Mass and Scale
Individual Review Guideline #3 states, "be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood
scale when planning a new two-story house or addition." Every application submitted as
part of the Individual Review Process has required staff to make an individual assessment
of a project’s relationship to the predominant neighborhood mass and scale. Each
application has a tmique, existing situation that can be attributed to varying lot sizes,
setbacks, building heights, and lot configuration. As noted, the subject property is 20,000
square feet. A large house on a large lot with generous setbacks in and of itself is less of
a mass and scale issue from a visual standpoint than that which occurs when a relatively
large house is constructed on a small lot with minimum setbacks.
The visual impact of a project’s relative mass and scale can be mitigated and minimized
in a number of ways. The Individual Review guidelines offer some techniques to reduce
impacts of a project’s mass and scale on the neighboring properties, such as reduced
building heights and increased setbacks. The existing front setback of approximately 70
feet (where only 20 feet is required) will minimize the visual mass and scale impacts as
they relate to the streetscape. The side and rear setbacks are also geater then the
minimums. The minimum side setback in the R-1 zone district is six feet. The proposed
second story addition on the right side is stepped back behind the f~rst story
approximately 25 feet. The left side yard setback for the second story is approximately 15
feet, nine feet ~eater the minimum. The wall of the second story is located approximately
51’ away from the rear property line where 20’ is the allowed minimum.
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 5
Based on these factors, the Director finds that concerns relating to the mass and scale of
the project have been adequately addressed by the project plans, as conditioned herein,
and that the guideline standards have been satisfied in this respect.
Consistency of this Decision with the City Council’s Decision on the Prior Appeal
The previous Director’s decision to approve Single Family Individual Review application
(02-IR-65) for 1849 Webster was appealed to the Palo Alto City Council ("Council"). On
March 17, 2003, the Council reversed the Director’s approval and remanded the
application to the Director. On April 15, 2003 the Director denied the application with a
finding that the project does not respect the solar orientation of the adjacent neighbor. It
was determined the project cast excessive shadows during the summer months after 3:00
P.M. on the rear yard of 627 Scale Avenue (Aufmuth Residence) and was, therefor, not in
compliance with Guideline 6 which was intended to minimize shadowing on adjacent
properties.
In the denial letter, the Director suggested two architectural options to reduce the
shadowing on the rear yard of the neighbor. The first would be to shift the rear potion of
the second story five feet toward the center of the property. This would cause the
shadows cast by the proposed second story" to be no ~eater than the shadow already cast
by the fence separating 627 Seale Avenue and 1849 Webster Street. The second option
would be to relocate the rear second floor area elsewhere within the building envelope.
Thereafter, the applicants chose to file a new application. The current application (03-IR-
65) has relocated the second story element formerly located adjacent to 627 Scale Avenue
toward the front of the front of the building footprint and above the existing dining and
family rooms. As a result, the side setback of the second story increased from 20’ to 25’
and the rear setback increased from 31’ to 51’.
The recent shadow study of the revised design prepared by Origins shows that the
shadows cast after 3:00 P.M. on 627 Seale Avenue during the summer and winter months
would be no ~eater than the shadows already cast by the existing fence. It is the
determination of the Director that the revised project design has adequately addressed the
adjacent neighbors’ concerns about the current application in this respect and that the
revised design is in conformance with Guideline #6. This change, together with the other
design changes and the conditions imposed herein respond to the concerns expressed by
the City Council in upholding the prior appeal.
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
Apply for a building permit and meet an5’ and all conditions of the Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and Building Departments.
The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with development plans
received June 18, 2003, and as modified by these conditions of approval, on file
at the development center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
The windows facing southwest in Bedrooms #’s l&2 and Bath #2 on the second
floor shall be constructed with 2" x 8" walls so that windows are recessed from
the wall face. The glazing of these windows shall be no wider than 24".
A boundary survey shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The desig-n or location of the detached garage shall be modified to conform to any
changes in the location of the daylight plane as a result of the boundary survey.
The garage may not move closer to the trees at 639 Seale Avenue than indicated
on the plans without determination by the project arborist and confirmation by the
Planning Arborist.
A copy of this approval shall be printed on the blueprints submitted for building
permit.
Arborist
A revised Arborist condition report and Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) shall be
submitted for review" and approval by the Planning Department and shall address the
following issues:
¯Revise the report to reference by number all regulated trees (street trees and
protected trees, which may be impacted by the project).
¯Revise the report to reflect accurate tree diameter and extent of canopy drip line of
all Regazlated Trees.
¯For the new driveway extension foundation and garage floor, provide
recommendations to minimize negative effects from ~ading, base material and
wearing surface.
The report shall include protection of regulated trees during the course of
demolition, construction and cleanup phase.
The site plan shall include the following infonr~ation:
All information from Condition # 6 from the TTP (tree reference number,
accurate diameter, canopy spread, etc.).
¯Tree protection zone (TPZ) for each tree as referenced in the City of Palo Alto
Tree Technical Manual shall be shown as a bold dashed line.
¯Include the following notes specifying:
For regulated trees: "Protected trees-contact with the project arborist is
required before wor ~king in the area. See sheet "
¯1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 7
-As deemed necessary by the Planning Arborist to ensure protection of
major roots ~eater then two inches, the garage foundation shall speci$T
pier and ~ade beam cdnstruction. The beam shall not require ~ade cuts
more than 4-inches below existing gade. Any soils report submitted shall
be reviewed and approved by the Building Inspections Division.
-Grading for garage floor material shall not exceed 4-inches cut below
existing ~ade without prior approval by the Planning A,rborist.
Plan set shall provide a Tree Preservation Sheet containing the following:
The revised arborist’s Condition Report and TPP including language
requiring monthly monitoring inspection summaries faxed to the Planning
Arborist at 650-329-2154.
Applicant shall maintain to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist existing trees
twelve feet (12’) or taller that ori~ate from 1849 Webster Street on the north (left
side) of the property line that screen views of neighboring properties located at 604
and 618 Tennyson Avenue.
9. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual shall be on the job site at all times.
The Director’s decision shall be final ten calendar days from the postmark date of this letter.
Prior to the expiration of said ten-day period, the project applicant or an owner or occupant
of any of the adjacent properties may request rev-iew by the City Council as provided in
Chapter 18.14.100 of the PAtNIC.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this
approval. In the event that there is an appeal to City Council, an additional letter will be
mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing date before the City Council.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call
Christopher A. Riordan, Planner, at (650) 329-2149.
Advance .get
cc:Jaime & Elizabeth Wong
George Brow~ing
Herb Borock
Kent Mitchel!
Timur Bilir
1849 Webster Street
September 18, 2003
Page 8
Cindy Samos
Chuck Bradley
Jennifer Mutz
Harold Justman
Les Denend
R. Mansell
Carrol Harrin~on
Peter Danner
Walter Mok
Lawrence Levy
Don and Carol Mullen
Alice Mansell
Larry Aufmuth
Attachment B
CI~’TY OF PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
To be filed in duplicate within ten days from date of decision of Zoning Administrator
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No.- Zone District ~ /
Street Address /’~:4"Lp< ",,S ’
Name of Prope~y Owner (if other than appellant) ~.l,#~ z ~/, z4~?// /~Szo.
Stree[ -~Ci~Zip
The decision of the Zoning Administrator dated
whereby the application of
,/,
)’ (variance~use permil
1 ~riginal applicant)
was ~ ¢..~.i@i.’!i , i~ hereby appealed for the
reasons stated in the aEached le~er (induphca~)."
Date ..Q/~ "~ ~2D~ "~Signature of Appellant/
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CI’Pr" COUNCIL:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
Date Approved Denied
Remarks and!or Conditions:
SUBMIWAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Plans By:
2.Labels By:
3.Appeal Application Forms ,-~By:~
4.Letter ~By:~5.Fee @~t ~-,.O /By:~
12/89
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Caro~ Mullen and Don B. Mullen
Appeal of Planning Director’s Decision
1849 Webster Street
Single Family Individual Review
03-1R-65
Date: September 24, 2003
Respec.ffully submitted by Carol Mullen and Don B. Mullen, asking for your review of the
Director’s Decision of Thursday afternoon, September 18, approving SFR 03:1R:65.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
We appeal this decision to the City Council, because:
1) this approval exceeds the authority of the Planning Department to grant exemptions
from the zoning code,
2) this project exceeds the limits of the underlying zoning ordinance, and it therefore
fails to respect one of the identified Fundamental Principles of the SFIR
Guidelines, which calls for "reducing massing and perceived sense of bulk, ~’ and
3) the DirectoFs Heating was tainted, and its product should not be allowed to stand.
ARGUMENTS
We appeal this decision because the Director of Planning and the Hearing Officer have
based their right approval of this project upon their mistaken assumption that the
Planning Department has the authority to establish policy where it believes that the
ordinances are silent or even where they are contrary. The Planning Department does
not have legal authority to grant exemptions not permitted by ordinance, and the
Council cannot delegate such authority to the Planning Department.
Specifically, the Hearing Officer’s 9-! 8-2003 approval letter admits that the zoning
ordinances do not exempt first floor porches from inclusion in the FAR. Furthermore,
the right to exempt the large porticos of 1849 Webster is described as practice and
policy. This policy is unwritten and verbally transmitted. When these areas are properly
included, this project exceeds the permitted FAR for this 20,000 square foot lot, and it
exceeds the 6000 sq. ft.. cap for the home.
The Council’s policy has been: 1) preserve the scale of existing neighborhoods, 2)
impose a maximum 6000 -sq.ft. cap on the size of the main residence in the R-1 district,
and to make reducing perceived mass and scale a Fundamental Principle of the Single
Family Review.
The Council might, in the future, consider the various explanations and justifications
offered for increasing the mass and scale of houses in the R-1 zone. However, even
if the Council should decided to modify the current zoning ordinance to permit more
massive houses, those modifications would not apply to this submission.
Hearing our appeal would also enable the Council to see what this policy, if
subsequently made lawful, would allow large second stories supported by "exempt"
first floor areas, and porches on single-story houses running from setback to setback.
Since this policy is unwritten, its only limits are setbacks and lot coverage, in the case
of 1849 Webster, approximately 330 square feet of second story is supported only by
"exempt" first floor areas. It could get worse.
If Council votes to hear our appeal, we will show Council that this Planning Department
policy is unwise, contradictory, and that the justifications presented are identical to the
flawed excuses, not abandoned until this year, for exempting second story porches.
The Planning Department thanked us for calling that error to their attention in February
of this year.
In addition, this Director’s Hearing was tainted : 1) by the admission of materials from
the applicant a~er the close of the headng, 2) by the admission of irrelevant and
prejudicial material during the hearing, 3) by refusing appellants access to the
Interpretive Log, and 4) by the exchange of undisclosed materials during the hearing
between an attorney present and the headng officer.
CONCLUSION
Council should reverse approval 03-1R-65.
The Council, by hearing our appeal, can end the practice of "gaming" the zoning
controls which have been established to protect single-family neighborhoods.
Declining to hear our appeal would have the opposite effect.
Thank you,
Carol Mullen
Don Mullen
Attachment C
1849 Webster Street
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
Index
Number Document Title Page No.
o
Deve!opment Review Application for Individual
Review by Applicant Stephen Pogue, Architect re:
1849 Webster St. dated June 18, 2003 ...................!
Guideline Checklist Single Family Individua!
Review Process (with attachments) ......................2
Shadow Study prepared by Origins Design ................9
Notice of proposed plans ..............................14
Comments Received during initia! Comment Period
a. E-Mail to Chris Riordan from Caro! Mul!en dated
July 18, 2003 re: 1849 Webster .....................15
b. E-Mai! to Chris Riordan from Les Denend dated
July !7, 2003 re: 1849 Webster Street ..............17
c. E-Mail to Chris Riordan from Elizabeth Wong
dated July 21, 2003 re: response to Carol
Mullen’s email .....................................18
d E-Mai! to Chris Riordan from Larry Aufmuth
dated July 23, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ......!9
e Letter to Chris Riordan from Lawrence Aufmuth
dated July 24, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ......20
f E-Mail to Chris Riordan from Lawrence levy
dated July 24, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ......27
g E-Mai! to Chris Riordan from Peter Danner dated
July 24, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ............28
h E-Mai! to Chris Riordan from Elizabeth Wong
dated July 25, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ......29
i E-Mai! to Chris Riordan from Elizabeth Wong
dated July 25, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ......30
030304 syn 0091218 i
Index
Numb e r Document Title Page No.
j. Letter to Chris Riordan from Carol and Don
Mul!en dated July 25, 2003, re: 1849 Webster
Street ............................................31
Letter to Chris Riordan from Walter Mok dated
July 28, 2003, re: 1849 Webster Street ................33
Letter to Stephen Pogue dated August 5, 2003 re:
1849 Webster Street approva! ..........................34
8.Letter to Amy French Lawrence Aufmuth dated August
13, 2003 re: 1849 Webster Street ......................37
9.Letter to Amy French from Lawrence and Hillary
Levy re: Request for a Director’s Hearing ............38
!0. Letter to Amy French from Don and Carol Mullen
dated August 13, 2003 re: Request for a Director’s
Hearing ...............................................40
!i. Letter to Amy French from Amanda and Walter Mok
dated August 15, 2003 re: Request for a Director’s
Hearing ...............................................42
12. E-Mai! Chris Riordan from Elizabeth and Jaime Wong
dated August 19, 2003 re: E-Mail sent to City
Counci! ...............................................43
13. E-Mail to Amy French from John Benza dated August
29, 2003 re: IR process ...............................45
14. E-Mail to Julie Caporgno from Bret and Ronni
Kerrins dated September 3, 2003 re: Support for
1849 Webster Street application .......................46
15. Letter to Steve Emslie, Amy French, Julie Caporgno
and the Planning Department from Annette Ashton dated
September 3, 2003 re: Support for 1849 Webster Street
application .........................................48
16. Set of plans approved August 5, 2003 ..................49
030304 syn 0091218 ii
Develop_ .me t ,eviewApp cauon
Ci~ of Pdo Aho
Depazunenz o£ Pl~-mi~g & Co,:=mnmi~ Zn~_~onment
250 Hand, on Avenue, Palo ~_Ito, CA_ 94301
(650) 329-2441 p1~ndiv.info@cityofpaloaho.org
.hpplicant Request
Architectural Review
Design Enhancement Exception
Environmental Impact Assessment
Comprehensive PIan Amendment
Protected Tree Removal
Home improvement =.Exception
l emporary Use Permit
individual Review
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Site and Design
Zone Change
[~}Subdivision
[-’---]Parcel Map
F~e#): $ ’,..- . ,.
Receipt #"
Job Ledger # ¯
@ Pro~zt7 Locadon
Address of Subject ~operb,:
Zone District:’ ,"-- I
Requested Action
Description of requested action;.
Assessor’s Parcel Number:Histodc Category(if applicable):
NOTE:APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submitted
mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken.
.. d--,--F~-~, t/~ ¢’~-~/! ;~-~_.~’-~t~ ~/~t~ ~
*,,-- ~.,. 9~7
NOTE: APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed.on the submitted
Pto~gett70~Z}.et ~ A I hd~-- -.~.V~’~!’f~ mailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken. -
Phone:r~:>~ ~Z/ ’~ ~
hereby ce~i~ Nat I am the owner of ~card of the pmpe~ described in Bo~ #2 abov~ and that I approve of the requested au~un herdn. If
this applica~on(s) is subject to 100% recovea/of planning costa, I unders~nd that charges for staff time spent processing this
application(s) wilt be based on the Policy and, m~dures document provided to~.,d understand that my initial d~osit is an ~st~mat~ of
these cham~ and not a fee, and 1 agree to abide bv ~e billing policy stated.. / , /
Siona~re of Ownez /’". ...... ~’- Date:
Action Taken (om~ ~se o~y)
Architectural Review Board
~Planning Commission
City, Council
Director of Planning
Your Next Step
~Apply to the Building inspection Division (or other originating Department) for your Permit.
~Findings and Conditions are a~ached
~’Fne ozoiec~ must comolv with the reauirement:~" 1ALL aooiicable Ciw Codes and Ordinances
C!TY OF PALe ALTO
OF PLANN_-LNG AND COMM~dLNTIY
GU[DELLN]~ CF~CKLiST
SINGLE FAMILY IN.iV][DUAL
This wofmsh~t is meam to help homeowner~, builders, archimcu~, desi~ professionMs ~d ns~hborhood
m~i~nts ~pply the Single F~i!y ~ividu~ R~view O~deliOes to ~ pm~cul~ proj~t mud neighborhood,
~ividua[ ~eview i~ required only for new two-~to~ houses, new second sto~e~ ~nd second stoo, exp~sions
~xcee~ng 150 squm~ fe~t. For the applicant, completing t~s chutist .will he!p you to e~plore important d~si~
considem~ons ~ you prep~e ~our project for ~di~dual Rsview. Th~ chec~is~ c~ also provi~ an oppo~ty
for adja==nt pro~ o~rs to record ~neir comments resin-cling the proposed pr~ct
It is important the you also review the Pale AIto Zoning Guidebook for the R-I ~ .~ropeny Owner ~nd Build, r,
available at the Development Center.
P-~-ECT LNFORMATION:
Applicant’s name: o~_,L.I ~ A~ ~T~
houseon a comer lot~
~ich direction is No~?
New house
Yes
Yss
_L~ft
{~teft-rear
~ ~-T
.damon ~ory Aodmon ov~ !50 SF
SFront ~Rem-
~Right-m~ D~ft-front ~Ri~t-~ont -
Ma~ bas~ on
Compr~he’nsiv~ P!~[
-~$eale Addition
D So. Grin Gables
Uniw-rsky Park
Venaa-a
Walnut Grove
W e. ~-t Chari~ton
O~uer:
Single ~=~J~.. "~ "--’ ’- ".~. ,-..... ~ .’,-to.,. v ~auai Review Gm~emue Checklist
Nove_~ ~’ber, 2001
P.2
Guideline ~.~. How wiI! second-s~ory balc~ni~ or de~ be located to mtni.mize, the los ofprh’acy for
ne~.ghborkug properfie~?
S/The deck !ocadon is ~ul]~ away from sid~ property line~..
i~Locafing ~e balcony’to e!’~minz~ direct site Iine~ to ueighbor’s windows or patios.
D The, use of scr~e, ning d~vices such ~ ~eilise~ or a’~g~.
~ .Other (please ~xpi~n) .......
[] Ouideline do~s no~- appiy (pl=-~e explain) ...................
IVL SS A.,ND SCALE:
Guideline #3(a). What met.hod wi!! be ,us~ in t~he design of a two-story houseor second story addition
sensitive to the predomi.’nant neighborhood-scale?
By the use of dormer windows.
Lowering the b.~ight of the s~.eond-story roof,
i~DividLu~ up flue m~s b~ ~e use o. s~r b~Id~g elector.
Set back ~e se=ond-sto~ from the ~ont of ff~e housa. "
-~,~T~, 6~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~~ ov~ 7,o~.
O~d~line do~s not apply (pl~s~ expl~n),_
Guideline #3(b). ~qow will ~e new second-stor~ addition balanc~ the overall form, mas~ and
composition of the axis ~th~.g building?
[] By ~e use of donner windows,.
-Exi Ln~wefing th~ height of the,s~ond-sto~ root
~W. Divi~ng up the ~s by inco~omfing s~ier buil~ng etemcnm,
~ S~back fine s~cond-sto~ from the ~ont of ~ house.
" 00~n~r ~!~as~ expl~n).
Guideline d~s not appiy (plaas~ explain).
Single F~y Lndividu’/Review Cheddist
November, 2001
3~hat method is used to make the new two-story home or second story addition
send, five to the existing neighborhoGd height pattern, particularly the height of
adjacent houses?
building height that is consismnt with the neighborhood~du~ plato heights of s~con~ sto~, wa!ls.
P,~ductian of s~cond s[o~, ~sS..
Guideline#S(a). How is the front fa§ade designed that :~’ ’..w~,, provide a v~suai mterest~ a sere of hu~
s~le, and a v~l focal po~t that comp!ements ~e over~ design and er~anc~ ~s
r~identiat scMe?
Bay windows.
Ouid~l~ do~s no~ apply (plaas~ ex~!aL~) ......
Guidei~n~5(b).What mehhod is used to compose second-story wfndow locations,
proportions, and shapes?
EnVy far~.
Bay w~dows.
G~den Wails.
Oth~r(pl~aseexplain) .....~.~ W~ ~N~N ,~)~D
Guideline #6, How is the solar orfentation of the adjacent neighbors’ ho~es and yards respected?
g/ T~11er s~ctlons of building located to minimize sunhgn~ obstructions
D Ouldai[ns do~s not &pp!y (pt~s~
Single Family md~.w.aua! Rewew t:hec~d~,s~
November, 2001 P.4
Guideline #7(a). ~ow doe.s the roof prof’He effectively media-re ~he. house’s scale and proportion?
~ Inco~o~a~ a consistent roof slope throughout
~.A.rt.icuiate ~h= z~f ~n[o p~ ~nd secon~ roof
M~e #oof slo~ ~d ~e~als consismn~ with the build~g style.
Guideline #70s). W’kat me!hod is used to complemen~ the new roof wi~ e)dsdng roof? -
~ inco~orate a cons~s~n[ roof SlOD~ t~OU~OUt.
~ .~cula~ ee :~f m~o pfi~, ~d s~ond~ roof fo~.
~ M~use roof slopes ~d ~t=ials consistent wi~
# Ouidel~ do~s no~ ~ply (pls&s~ explain). , ...... -. "
GuideI[ne #8(a). ~ow w~II the setback of the new house respect rhe setback pattern o~ ~e nei~hbovln~
houses?
Incorporate sid= setbacks for.new consr.ruction and second-story additions rY~a~
neighborhood pa~rsrns. ~"
Maiatz.h~ the existing pattern on the lo.~.
Oth= (please explain), ,~:.~,1’-:::~~1~. 7"tq~ :.r?.~zL6,~ o.~-~ ~Z~.~&’~.~,~ ~=-rS.~K<:~. ~.~.-i . " ~. , I
Guideline do~ not apply (p!e~ sxpl~n).
I
Guideline #8@). What method wil! be used to b~ance the scale ~. ~.~.,.= new tWO-Smr’y house or second
s~ry addition wiah its
~!nco~ora~.e side setbacks for new construction and second-story additions tha~ are :consistent wkh
ns~borh~ ~att~ms.
~M~nm~ ~ e~sting ~attem on the iot. "’
Other(ple~e~xplain~. :.T~ ~~ ~ .~.-.£T~ ~(d~~_~g~-W!~.~ ~,, :-~
$ing!e Family ~dividuai Review Che~st
Noven-ber, 2001 P. 5
4
Guideline #9.V~at met.hod k~ used to integrate the entry features into ~he overall b~I~g d~i~
that r~late to ~he surrounding properties in ~r~ of s~le mud propo~oa?
En~.cou~y~d~ or r~c~ssM ~n~s. , . .~.
STI~ETSC_4_PE: ¯
Guideline -"~.i0. ~i~ere is the ga.-a~e and driveway located to
and what method is used to m~e it subor~are ~ the ho~e~ l~dscape, and
ped~tri~ e~tr~ces
[]The new g~rage fol!ows the setback and location of naighbofing houses.:
I~The gara~o doors ar~ compatible w~ ~ archit~a] style of th~ hous~ on,or con~ibu~ m the ~h~fiC "
and offset a~ two d~finc~m-ag~s (a tw~ g~g~ on md a on~ g~ag.)."-
Please use the following space for other comments regarding the ap. pEcat~on of the G~idelin¢~ to t]~ preject. A~a~h
ad, ditiancd ~keet as necessaG’. ¯ " ~
Single Family individu~ Review Che~st
November, 2003.
5
SINGLE FAMILY INDIVLDUAL REVIEV~7 GUIDELINE CHECKLIST
1849 ~BSTER STREET, PALO ALTO
PRIVACY
Guideline #1. Guideline #1 does not prohibit second story windows; instead, it asks that the
plans respect the privacy between properties by placing second-stooT windows staggered from
neighbors’ windows or interrupting direct sight lines to neighbors’ ~adndows and patios with
landscaping and translucent glass.
The plans do all this and go beyond Guideline #1 by placing second story windows at great
distances to abutters. At the northern property line, second story windows are 85’ from each
abutting house and privacy is further enhanced by 25’ tall hedges and taller trees. At the
southern proper0., line, the second story windows are 49’, 35’, and 85’ from abutting houses.
These are enormous distances considering that the average property can allocate only 12’
between neighboring houses and can still satis~, Guideline #1.
Privacy is ~larther enhanced by 7’ fences and existing trees of various sizes. Further, the use of
sma!ler Mndows, positioning the windows at an angle from the property line and having the
windows face applicant’s own side yard, inner courtyard and rear yards further enhances the
privac.y between adjoining properties.
Guideline #2. This Guideline does not require that balconies and dec~ e!iminate, but rather,
minimize the loss of privacy for neighboring properties and direct sight lines to neighbors’ main
windows and patio areas. Subject property does this and goes beyond this Guideline by pulling
the second story- balconies large distances (90’) from abutting houses, positions the balconies
facing applicant’s own front and rear yards and uses existing ta!! trees and hedges to screen the
views.
_V~SS AI,,rD SCALE
Guideline #3(a). This Guideline asks that plans be sensitive to the predominant neighborhood
scale. The subject proper5~ at 20,000 square feet is one of many large lots in the Scale Addition.
Most of these iarge tots contain large houses similar in size and design to the house planned for
subject property. The design is additionally sensitive to the predominant neighborhood scale by
lowering its roof line to 25’9" when 30’ is permi~ed. Further, the second storyis much smaller
than the first, and it is at least 2’ away from any permitted daylight plane to further mitigate its
mass and to bring it to scale with that of the neighborhood.
Guideline #3(b). Conforming with this Gnideline, the second stoo~ was designed to balance the
overa!! form. mass and composition o_r the ~ " ".~ ~rdstm~ house. The plan uses most of the erdsting
,ootpr, n~ ann ~he second stor~ is pulled back from the front and also the rear o_r the first story so
it sits towards the center of the property-. Further the second sto~, incorporates generous
setbacks of 14’ 5" and i4’3" at the sides when 6’ is the permitted setback. The second story
front setback is 88’ and the back setback is >50’ when 20’ is permitted.
P.7
.f
EQUINOX 1/[6"= [’-0"
S~,ADOW
P. 12
/
L
~OL~Tk.E 5 P.N.
P. 13
NOTICE
DATE:July 15, 2003
FROM:Department of Planning and Community Environment
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PLANS FOR 1849 WEBSTER STREET
This notice is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto has received an application for Single
Family Individual Review from Stephen Pogue for a second story addition and a substantial
remodel of an existing one story single family residence at 1849 Webster Street.
You are invited to comment on this project. We strongly encourage persons v)ho are
interested, to review the plans on file at the Development Center located at 285 HalNlton
Avenue. The Development Center Hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday from
8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and Wednesday from 9:00 .AM to 4:00 PM. Comments shall be
limited to the 10 Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. You may pick up a cop3’ of
the Guidelines at the Development Center.
Any questions or v~Titten comments about this project should be addressed to Christopher
Riord~.
Christopher Riordan
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 9-~0~
Phone Number
FAX, Number
E-Mail Address
(650) 329-2149
(650) 329-2154
chris.riordan@cityof paloalto.org
Note: Comments on this application will be accepted for 10 days following the mailing of
this notice. July 25, 2003 will be the final day to submit written comments for this
application. Thep~,~-’~-- may be ~.’~m~ered,uurmg ~ .... the review process. .... tl you woum ~-;e to
Christopher PJordam
P. 14
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Les Denend [Idenend@earthlink.net]
Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:50 PM
chris, riordan@cityofpatoalto.org
Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street
Who am I?
My name is Les Denend. My wife, Judy, and I have lived at 1800 Webster
Street for the past 13+ years. We concurred in the plans for 1849 Webster
Street proposed earlier this year. We were pleased to learn through your
notice that the the owners of 1849 Webster have decided to submit plans once
again, for independent of one’s feeling about the plans proposed earlier, we
are concerned that the owners might have been treated unfairly then.
The Current Reality.
If you walk through our Old Palo Alto neighborhood, you will see a number of
homes under construction or recently completed which stretch the city’s
guidelines. For example, I offer a major home in early construction on the
south side of Seale between Cowper and Waverly, an even larger home on :~he
east side of Waverly between Seale and Tennyson, a home in the final stages
of remodeling at the south east corner of Webster and Coleridge and finally
a home recently completed on the west side of Cowper between Tennyson and
Lowell. The owners of 1849 Webster should not be held to a different
interpretation of the guidelines.
The New Situation.
As a citizen of Palo Alto, I think our city has the most competent city
staff in the Bay Area. We must rely on its judgment in these approval
processes. The staff has the knowledge and importantly the context to make
intelligent calls in these situations. Consequently 1 thought the City
Council by the narrowest majbrity made a mistake in reversing approval of
the earlier plans for 1849 Webster. I do not have a hypothesis as to how the
advice to the council lead to this error; however, If I thought it was the
result of undue and inappropriate influence, ! would be very upset.
Thanks for reading this email. If these words can help you as you approach
this new situation, please feel free to use them. Les Denend
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
carolmullen [carolmullen@earthlink.net]
Friday, July 18, 2003 10:29 AM
Riordan, Chris; Walter Y. Mok; Peter Danner; larry@aufmuth.com; Jeanne Aufmuth; Don
Mullen
Comments on 1849 Webster
On a cursory review of the new plans for 1849 Webster, the following
conditions need comment, correction or restriction by the Planning
Department:
1) the assertion that Webster’s property, line is on our side of the fence
line continues. As you probably don’t know, Mrs. Wong acted on her
assertion, not by obtaining a survey from a licensed land surveyor, but by
cutting down part of her neighbor’s fence and installing a new fence in the
disputed location.
She has used the Planning Department’s stamp on her site plan as
justification for moving the fence. She has also continued to have our
screening thinned by her employees. Protection of our screening and our
properb, rights will be threatened if the Planning Department does not
insist that Mrs. Wong submit a site plan with boundaries as existing. One
of our conditions for agreeing to these plans will be the correction of the
site plan.
2) I have not seen the accompanying documents. Mrs. Wong continues the
iocation of the garage, and she has enlarged the garage. Do the documents
contain the Planning arborist’s requirement that the garage be hand-dug, and
that a grade beam, not a slab be used in the vicinity of the Mok’s redwoods?
It will be necessary to include those instructions. See above with respect
to the new Wong fence. Which is also over the legal height of 7’.
3)City Attorney Wynne Furth admitted to our attorney, Fran Layton of Shute,
Mihaly & Weinberger, that the current zoning code does not have any language
which permits the Planning Department to exempt first floor porches from the
F.A.R. She was unable to find any provisions later than the moratorium of
1988, which has expired. Therefore I must object to the inclusion of those
porches, to the extent that they exceed the F.A.R.
We have not calculated the cap, nor checked Stephen Pogue’s assertion that
the total F.A.R. is now 6675 sq. ft. However, Pogue states clearly that he
has not included the first floor covered porches. Removing these porches
ought to bring the plans within the required F.A.R.
Errors in the F.A.R. are not appealable to the City Council. However, we
are entering a formal protest with the City Council, using Wynne Furth’s
letter, if the Planning Department allows entry to Single Family Review in
spite of Furth’s written admission that Planning cannot do so unless all
underlying ordinance requirements have been met. Wynne Furth has
acknowledged that we have grounds for a lawsuit if the underlying F.A.R. has
been incorrectly calculated and exceeds what is permitted.
It is in all our interests, 1 believe, that this application remedy its
faults and proceed to construction without the delay occasioned by a
lawsuit.
One further concern: the new basement is extremely large. Will the Planning
Department make restriction as to the disposal of those wastes, and the size
of construction equipment permitted on the site? I am concerned about the
pollution and damage to neighbor’s property should the contractor elect to
use equipment that should be restricted to City Streets.
Thank you.
Carol Mullen
Riordan; Chris
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ELIZABETH WONG [eandjwong@comcast.net]
[vlonday, Juiy 21,2003 8:49 .AM
Amy French; Chris Riordan; Steve Emsiie
Email from Carol Mullen of Juiy i 8 2003
Please consider the following in response to Carol Mullen’s email of
July i8, 2003. None of the issues raised in her e-mail have to do with
IR compliance.
1. Fence accusations are entirely without merit. Further, fence
disputes are civil disputes and not in the purview of the IR process.
1.! The site plan is based on survey by professional surveyor Alan
Huntzinger and his survey is in the record. He will prepare a boundary
survey and the stakes required for construction wili be placed before
construction begins as required by the Building department. A boundary
survey is not a requirement for IR compliance.
2. Trimming of vegetation is necessary because it overhangs my active
driveway. There is nothing improper or illegal about that. Further,
the City’s arborist, Dave Dokter, has mentioned that my trimming of the
hedges invigorates the hedge and promotes stronger growth and I welcome
dense and tall screening from the Mullen’s property. Again, the upkeep
of the landscape of our property is not in the purview of the IR
Guidelines.
3. The FAR for our plans have been calcuiated ad infinitum for the
last year and then some, and meet al! requirements. Our plans should
be treated as any other plan that does not come to the attention of
Carol and Don Mullen. We have followed the requirements of the
Planning Department meticulously and are within all zoning and ptanning
codes. Again, FAR is outside the domain of the IR. The IR does not
deal v~ith FAR.
4. Basement size is within zoning and planning codes. The
construction and disposal of materials during construction will be
carefully monitored by the Building Department as they do with all
other constructions sites. Basements and disposal of debris, again, is
outside the purview of the IR Guidelines.
Again, none of the issues raised have to do with IR compliance. Please
keep focus on the IR process and administer it as it was intended.
Thank you for your consideration. Elizabeth Wong
Page I of !
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Larry Aufmuth [larry@aufmuth.com]
Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:48 AM
’Riordan, Chris’
Jeanne@aufmuth.corn
Subject: 1849 Webster
We have taken a preliminary look at the new plans, i am told there is a new shadow study. Is there anything t
need to do to be able to see this? I was only given the plans when f visited the once.
Perhaps you can also answer a question we have which wouid help us get comfortable with the new plans.
Simplistically, I see the issue re shadows as follows: the first application/original plan cast a shadow on our
properb,. Planning "denied" the application because of this shadow. Planning suggested that applicant shift the
second story five feet toward center of property. All shadow studies have shown that the shadow on our property
is created by the roof line of the entrance turret and the angled portion of the second story--the portion of the
design retained in the new plan--isn’t this correct? If so, can you confirm that the applicant has shifted the
second story five feet towards the center of the property.? Should you and try and meet to review this so we can
not make this an issue if it has been accomplished?
Please understand that despite our differences of interpretation, we are trying to deal objectively with this new
application.
7/24/03 P. 1 9
LAWRE. NCE A. AUFMUTH
Christopher Riordan
Chris.riordan@citTofpaloalto.org
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
~a emaii
Re: Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street
:9 "~Yaiy 24 _00_’.
Dear Mr. Riordan:
As you now know., the undersig-ned own and reside at 627 Scale Avenue. We have
reviewed fiae proposed plans for 1849 Webster Street, file # 03-]X-65. Having been
through a prior application with respect to this same address, we are familiar with Chapter
18.14 (the "Applicable Ordinance") of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ("PAMC") and the
Pato Alto Single ~Family individual Review Guideiines promulgated under the Applicable
Ordinance ("Guidelines"). Several of our comments set forth below are based on the
¯ Applicable Ordinance, the Ouiddines and the Applicable Ordinance as it has already been
applied to i849 Webster.
Comment i. To refresh our collective recoilections, the derision of the Director of
Planning approving the previous application with respect to 1849 Webster was reversed by
the City Council on the basis of the Appiicabie Ordinance. By icier dated Aprii 15, 2003,
the Director of Planning subsequently "denied" the application. In that denial, the
Director advised the applicant that moving the roof line 5 feet further away from the 627
Scale property or relocating the second stou dsewhere would be required so that "the
shadow cast by the second story after 3 PM during the summer would then be no greater
that fne shadow already cast by the six-foot fence separating 627 Scale Avenue and the
subject site."
We objected to the limited basis relied on by the Director in his denial (and many other
matters). I have included a copy of our position on this subject and highlighted the
additional basis relied upon by the City Council in relating the Applicable Ordinance to the
prexdous application. Please include this with this comment letter in the file
That said, everyone~City Council, Director of Planning and us~all a~ee that the
Applicable Ordinance, when applied to 1849 Webster, requires that p!ans avoid shadows
as described above. We are unable to tell from the proposed plans whether the roof line
627 SE_&LE _&’VENUE o P2~LO _<O, C2~ ¯ 94301
PHONE: 650-799-6784 , FXX: 650-321-2260
E M_&IL L_A_RRY@AUFMUTH.COM
P. 20
2 Julv 9z, 2003
has indeed been moved five feet from our propemy line. We are aware that all of the
shadow studies done by the applicant and by the neighbors agree that the shadows during
the summer are caused by the roof line starting from the turret entrance and running down
the angled second story_ portion of the property. Please confirm that this entire roof line
has been moved the requisite distance from our property line. ix~ it has not. then the law of
this project now as applied by the City Council and confwmed by the Dh-ector of Pianning
so requires. _An?, plans not complying with this requirement must be rexdsed before
approval.
Comment 2. The series of identical windows on the angled portion of the second story_"
violate the Guidelines fi-om the perspective of the Le~,’s. "We trust some ameliorative
actions will be suggested to soften this impact on them. From our perspective, some
effort should be made to vary., the window size and orientation., including use of one or
more clerestory windows placed on a hofi_zontaI plane at a six foot from floor height. We
also believe some effort should be made to vaB, or soften the blanlcness, of that wail.
Comment 3o Though we are not dkectly impacted by the applicant’s efforts to change
the property iines,o fences and _~lanting~-~ along the north and east boundaries, we wish to.
support our neighbors position that no changes be assumed ha or approved by the plans
until the actual boundaries of the property are determined. The applicant has engaged
counsel and sent at least one threatening letter regarding the boundary_ issue, suggesting
that this issue now will only be resotved by iitigation. We wish to be assured that no
approval decision is based on property., lines other than as determined by the current fence
Mes.
Comment 4. Spea-king of fences, the applicant has just installed a fence along our
proper~Ty line and part of the east propert3, line, at a height slightly ~eater than 7 feet.
Though we have not ~%rmally requested enforcement of the Palo Alto Fence Code, we
trust that you will investigate this matter before approving new plans. This fence also
raises questions as to the efforts of the applicant to thwart the Director’s admonition that
the six-foot fence shadow be the determinant of an?, new Nans. Finally, tNs non-
compliant fence raises a basic compliance issue. As you are aware, the applicant installed
a front yard fence in violation of the Palo "Alto Fence Code and was forced to remove and
correct it. The applicmnt has demonstrated a willingness to act unLIaterally in complete
disregard for the applicable codes and ordinancesl~ We request that as a condition to an?,
approval, the Planning Department require the applicant employ a private on site inspector
to insure compliance wi~h all codes. This will. also go a long way to reducing the probable
complaints from the vi~ant neighbors, thus saving the City sigqRficant enforcement time
when the project proceeds. We are aware that this option is regularly used by the Civy and
this ce~ainiy is a situation where it is needed.
Comment 5. We remain concerned as to the accuracy of the FAR calculations, though
we prefer to trust this issue to our neighbor with a~ arcNtectura! back~ound. We do
believe that the conce~s expressed over both the calculation and the dete__rm.i_n.ation of
P. 21
-3 -July 24, 2003
what is to be included further suggest that the use of a private on-site inspector would
help put all at ease on this issue as well.
Comment 6. We wish to echo a rotten comment made by our neighbor Michael Braun
with regard to the previous application, as it is equally applicable to this application and
describes our response well. How couid anyone say this proposed plan is in compliance
with the massing and streetscape Guidethnes?
Cordially,
Jemmne and Larry
Carol and Don MulleE 618 Termyson Avenue
Peter Danner, 604 Tennyson Avenue
Hilary and Lawrence Le~% 1875 Webster Street
Waiter and Amanda Mol% 639 Seaie Avenue
M_ichael A. Braun, 1828 Webster Street
P. 22
SEE P.axG~ ~ FOR ORDIN.~NCE/GU][DEL~_ ,E ITEMS
Objections
¯By
Lawrence and Yeanne Aufinuth
(627 Seaie Avenue)
To
The Director of Planning and Community
Environment’s April 15, 2003 Letter regarding
the 1849 Webster Street Project ("Project").
Apri! 25, 2003
P.23
SEE PAGL 4 FOR OPd)INANCE/GUIDELII4E ITEMS
Introduction
1.Psychoiogy, The iliusion of having already experienced something actually being
experienced for the first time.
We are Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmutb. "~ ’~ ",~ .m( _:~u,m~ms ~. We have captioned this
communication "Dgji~ vu’~ as we tmly beiieve we have just experienced something we
aiready experienced but are actualiy ex_periencing it again for the first time. This makes
about as much sense as the illusory "Director’s decision"’ just published. On Aprit 15,
2003, the Director of Planning and Community Environment proclaimed a new decision
with respect to the 1849 Webster Street Project ("Project"). This newest proclamation
reminds us of the Queen of Hearts’ oR-quoted proclamation: "Offwith her head!!!" It is
even more illusory in that the Director has further proclaimed that "the project applicant
or an owner or occupant of an5, of the a~acent properties may appeal this decision to the
City Council as provided in Chapter i8.i4.!00 of the PAlvIC."
We believe there is no basis in law for a new- "Director’s decision", that the April 15
letter is contrary to the decision of the City Council upholding our appeal of the original
approval of the Project, that the April !5 letter is contrary to the express language of
Chapter ! 8. !4. !00, and that no appeai of the Director’ s April 15 letter is available to the
City Council, by us, or by "the project applicant or an O-Whet or occupant of any of the
adjacent properties...". We are thus ie~ iv_ the peculiar position of being forced to
"appeal" an illegal and void decision in the hopes that the City Council will conclude that
we cannot appeal, will xollo~ the !aw. and wili stop this .foolishness. However, in the
~ac,~ of the obvious efforts of the Director and the City Attorney to thwart the substance,
intent, and spirit of the law and the decision of the City Council, and fearing that our
failure to respond will be used against us, we feel compelled to file these "Objections".
~2o label our "Objections" an "appeal" would oNy add credibility to an incr, edulous act.
Prior Proceedings; Effect of City. Council’s Decision
On March !7, 2003, the City Council heard our appeal of the Director’s decision
approving the Project. Our appeal followed the letter of the law--Chapter 18.14.100 of
the ~ AIvi~. Chapter 18. !4.100 provides in relevant pa~ as follows:
(e) The city council review shall be based on the evidentiary record before the
director.
(f) The city council shall affirm or reverse the director’s decision by a
majority vote ox tnos~ participating.
(g) Nnt’~e.a ..........n~’the ciWo cormcqt’~- ~,, ~ ~’~’, ~,-~..~..~. sha!! be ~’o;~,,~,,,~ ~ &~ project
applicant, ....
(h) The ciU’ counciFs decision shall be final. (Emphasis added.)
SEE PAGL 4 FOR ORDINANCEiGUIDEL.~rE ]~TEMS
Our appeai was upheld. To use the City Attorney’ s words--"a denial of decision."
Therefore, the City Council reversed (denied) the Director’s decision approving the
Project. The use of the irnperative ’shall" in 18.!4. i00(f) gave the City Council only two
choices. There is no discretion in the starute for the City Council to do anyttling bu:
"shall affirm or reverse." You didn"c affirm--that motion was defeated by a vote of 5 to
4. You then reversed the Director’s decision by a vote of 8 to !--a clear majority vote.
That reversal of the Director’s decision is final. There is no appea! by anyone of that
decision. There is no appeal capable of being iegally created by anyone--the City
Attorney, the Director, the appiicant--by maJdng a new decision or by any other means.
The use of the imperative "shall be final" in 18.14.100(h) can only mean finished, no
more recourse, go away, start over. To quote the Director’s own words from page 20 of
Palo Alto Single Family individual Review Guidelines: "City Council Hearing--
Decision Final". Yet, the Director has just rewritten the ordinance and has ~anted the
applicant the right to .appeal.
We respectfully request the City Counci! reject the Director’s April 15 letter, decree
that no appeal can be made with respect to the Director’s April 15, 2003 letter, and
deny all appeals that might be made based or~ that letter.
I~.The Director has ignored the Cit3~ Council’s Instructious
Prior to the vote denying the decisiolL, the City Attorney instructed the Council that it
needed "a denial of decision" and then would need to approve "written findings roughiy
similar to the document at page 151 of the record"--a 6 page single spaced document
prepared by the Director supporting the Director’s decision approving ft~e Project. The
City Attorney gave the Council two choices--the City Council could prepare these
findings or the Director could do so. Again, in the City Attorney’ s words, the findings
were to be a "fairly detailed written decision". The motion reversing the Director’s
decision included a request that the Director prepare findings consistent with the majority
view of the City Council. It is clear fhe Council wanted the Director to prepare fne
"findings" but expected them to come back to the Council for review. After all, they are
your findings!
The Director’s Apri! 15 letter hardly Nlfills the assigned task. The only "finding" in the
Director’s April 15 letter was "that the project does not respect solar orientation ....
Guideline #6.". The Director was at the March 17 Special meeting and a tape of the
meeting is readily available for $15, probably flee to the Director. If he was unable to
remember what the majority view was, he should view the tape. Why were his findings
lirnited to a two ~ne nnmng .,’ Was this his best effort at a iamy detailed written
decisioff’? Though the Director’s "finding" is understandable--askdng Nm to prepare a
fully detailed report is like as’king the fox to make findings as to the quality of the
chicken coop. Standing alone, the Director’s one line, one Guideline finding is not
justified, supportable, or appropriate and is contra_ry to the admonition of eight members
of the City Councii.
P.25
SEE PAGL 4 FOR ORDINANCE/GUIDELINE ITEMS
The majori~ s4ew of the Ci~T Council was that the Project as approved
violated Guidelines L. 2~ 3~ 4.~ 5A~ 6 and 8--not bad as there are only ten
Guidelines. The record on. appea~ is replete with m6dence that the
Project violated these Guidelines and they were specifically addressed
by the Appellants in their presentafions~written and oraI~to the CiuT
Council. Each of the maj or1U, expressed detailed views as to various
Guideline violations and offered numerous suggestions~"reduce the
mass and scale of the second story", "move the second story forward",
move the second story toward where the poo~ ~s", etCo The record is full
of adequate evidence and there were more than adequate majoriu~
views to prepare a 6 page single spaced findings, "written findings
roughly similar to the document at page 151 of t-he record".
Not one of the City Council majoriU, limited his or her opposition solely
to shadows. For the Director to so "find;’ denigrates the intelligence,
expertise, analysis, thoughtfulness and detailed review of the record
each of the majority applied to the Project to arrive at a denial. Solar
orientation/shadows can only be understood in the context of the object
causing the shadow. In this case it is the mass and scale of the huge
second story placed on the rear south easterly corner of the property
t~wering over our home, yard~, patio and outdoor living space--the
essence of our objection from ~luly i fo.r~vard and repeated, in eve~,
ffling~ at every hearing, during mediafion~ and on appeal. The maj
all felt something had to be done---move it for~’ard, make it smaller,
move it to the center of the lot. The Ciu~ Attorney and the Director
have become true transparent advocates for the Project, the Guidelines
be damned! However, for the City Attorney and the Director to be!ieve
that a sleight-of-hand shadow fix would change the vote is an insult to
the ~nteIligence and integrit)~ of the entire City Council.
We respectfully request the Cit3~ Council direct the Director to rescind the April i5
letter and direct him to prepare detailed findings consistent with the majoritj~ view
that the Project violated Guidelines i; 2,3: 4, 5A, 6, and 8.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence and Jeanne Aufmuth.
P. 26
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lawrence Levy [lawrencebl@sbcglobal.net]
Thursday, July 24, 2003 11:34 AM
chris, riordan@cityofpaloalto, org
1849 Webster
Dear Chris,
As you know, we live at 1875 Webster Street, next door to 1849 Webster.
We are writing with comments regarding the proposed development by Mr.
and Mrs. Wong of 1849 Webster. After reviewing the plans, we request
that the City consider the following in its review of the proposal:
1. The proposal is not in compliance with Individual Review Guideline
#1. An extensive line of windows has been placed in the second floor
bedrooms that overlook the side of our house, swimming pool, and back
yard. The angle of the wall and the size of the windows is placed so
that virtually al! of our property will be easily viewed. Our request
is for a substantial reduction in the number of windows, and the use of
window styles and materials to minimize the views of our property.
2. The proposal may not be in compliance with Individual Review
Guideline #6. There appears to be some confusion of which shadow study
is correct, and we have not had the chance to investigate this in
detail. We request that the City ensure the proper shadow studies are
conducted for the protection of all affected neighbors.
Would you mind sending a return e-mail confirming receipt of this
letter.
Thank you very much,
Lawrence Levy and Hillary Brook Levy
1875 Webster Street
329-1110
P. 27
,Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
PKDanner@aol.com
Thursday, July 24, 2003 5:12 PM
chris.riordan @cityofpaloalto.org
Comments on 1849
Observations concerning 1849 Webster St.
by Peter Danner
July 24, 2003
As you will know, the undersigned was one of those objecting to the project
that was rejected by the City Council on March 17th. The new plan has reduced
the second story to the right rear so that the neighbors on Seale Ave.
(Aufmuths and Moks) are less negatively impacted. This is a decided improvement to the
original design and demonstrates that some of the problems have been
acknowledged and rectified. However, the new design generally retains the same
footprint as the rejected one, meaning that the majority of the project is still
massed in the back half of the lot as the Guidelines encourage.
I have three major concerns regarding the new plan.
1) The location of the garage still presents a threat to the Mok’s mature
redwood. It is, furthermore, located in a most impractical location. The logical
place for the garage would be at the rear of the drive or at the front to the
right. This would also allow the Wongs the opportunity to develop a back
garden.
2) Property boundaries. The current boundaries have been established and
recognized for over three decades. They were tacitly redrawn by a civil engineer
rather than a recognized surveyor.
3) The row of second-story windows in front would be more aesthetically
interesting if it was not so uniform in appearance. More seriously, these windows
are at a diagonal to the street, so that they directly overlook the backyard
and swimming pool of 1875 Webster in violation of Guideline #1.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Danner
604 Tennyson Ave.
P. 28
_R_iordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
ELIZABETH WONG [eandjwong@comcast.net]
Friday, July 25, 2003 10:18 AM
Riordan, Chris; Amy French; Lisa Grote; Steve Emslie
Steve Pogue
Re: FW: 1849 Webster
The following is a response to the e-mailed comments sent to the city
by Mr. Lawrence Levy and Mrs. Hillary Brook Levy on July 24, 2003:
1. Privacy. The five second-story windows in the wall facing the
Lews are each only 24" wide and serve two bedrooms and a bathroom.
Because this is a south-facing wall, they are the principal source of
daylight for these rooms. They minimize the views to his property;
they are by no means picture windows and have no direct sight lines to
his pool or windows. Recent pictures taken from the roof top of our
house show no view of his poo!; existing trees and bushes and a seven
foot wall effectively screen views between our properties. The
distance between the nearest of our second-story windows and their
nearest window is over 50 feet!
Further, this is far from a blank, un-adorned wall. The windows have
arched tops and masonry surrounds, and intervening columns complement
the architectural appearance of the wall. We believe the wall, windows
and window placements respect the aesthetics as welt as the privacy of
the Lews. Bedrooms need windows for ventilation and egress in case
of emergency. Guideline #1 specifically states: "...complete or
absolute privacy is not a realistic expectation." (p:5) To expect
complete privacy would be unrealistic and unreasonable. Our proposal
meets privacy standards not required of any other project in Palo Alto.
The following is a quote from Annette Ashton’s e-mail of July 15, 2003
to Council member Judy Kleinberg and others regarding the IR
Guidelines: "Also we must admit that in our heavily forested Palo
Alto, trees cast more shade than houses. The recommended mitigation
(Privacy) for these houses that are close to the minimum setback is to
plant trees!"
The Levys could further protect their privacy by planting a row of
trees similar to the 25 ft. tall hedge they already have against the
back fence of their property.
2. Shadows. Following recommendations from city council and the
planning department, the bulk of the second story has now been moved to
the center of our property. Distances to our neighbors’ houses are
unimaginably large. The latest solar studies by Origins show
essentially no solar impact; with existing fences casting most
shadows. Our proposal meets solar shading standards not required of
any other project in Pa!o Alto.
Please consider this ema~t ~n me IH process for i849 Webster St.
Thank you. Elizabeth Wong
..... Original Message .....
From: "Riordan, Chris" <chris.riordan @cityofpaloalto.org>
P. 29
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ELIZABETH WONG [eandjwong @comcast.net]
Friday, July 25, 2003 11:29 AM
Lisa Grote; Steve Emstie; Chris Riordan; amy.french @cityofpaloalto.org
Fwd: FW: Comments on 1849 Webster proposed plans
FW: Comments on
1849 Webster p...
Re-sending with original attachments.
The following responds to e-mailed comments from Jeanne and Larry
Aufmuth of July 24, 2003.
At the time of our first submission of a second-story addition / two-
story construction proposal over a year ago, ours was one of the first
such proposals to be debated by City Council under the IR Guidelines.
By now, the City has faced a few other such proposals and should be
much more cognizant of the process and factual issues created by the
Guidelines and their application that have made the process unbearably
lengthy, costly, and contentious. This is more government than our
City.wants or can afford. The Aufmuth comments are aimed at raising
the Guidelines to the next unreasonable level.
Understanding the animosity raised by our contentious neighbors leading
up to the denial of our original submission, we chose to start over and
submit new plans - to start the process anew. Addressing the only
issue that affects the Aufmuths, this new submission has the bulk of
the second story near the center of our property. Distances to our
neighbors’ houses are unimaginably large. The latest solar studies by
Origins show essentially no solar impact; with existing fences casting
most shadows. Our proposal meets solar shading standards not required
of any other project in Palo Alto.
Further, the Aufmuths comments are without merit and aimed at imposing.
on our project privacy, boundary, fence, FAR, massing and streetscape
standards far beyond what is required by the IR Guidelines. Our
remodel should not be treated differently than any other project in
Palo Alto.
The treatise attached to their comments is laden with attacks, false
accusations and name calling. They attack Planning, the City Attorney
as well as us, the applicants. It is time to stop wasting our private
money as well as the limited public funds in entertaining the Aufmuths
insidious attacks. Their approach has gone beyond the boundaries of a
reasonable process. Their relentless attacks have taken an excessive
and unreasonable toll on the collective emotions, pursuit of happiness,
property rights, and finances of applicants, the neighborhood and
governance of the City of Pato Alto.
Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Wong
P. 30
To: Christopher Riordan,
July 25, 2003
Project Planner
Comments on the new proposal for 1849 Webster:
1. The new plans incorporate al! previous plans by reference to date, including
all submissions rejected by the City Council of Palo Alto. All conditions and
restrictions previously imposed by the Planning Department have been stripped
from the document file, as well as all those suggested by the City Council. All of
these should be included with the plans.
2. The Planning Department should reject the topo map resubmitted by the
Wongs as it is known to be inaccurate. Acceptance of this topo map by the
Planning Department would constitute interference by an agency of the City of
Palo Alto in a boundary dispute between residents. Mrs. Wong continues-to
claim that all neighboring fences are on her property. A minimal condition of
Single Family Review should be undisputed boundaries. It is time, and past time,
for the Planning Department to require of the Wongs a boundary line survey as
a condition of accepting the topo survey.
Mrs. Wong has already used the Planning Department’s stamp on this old site
plan as justification for moving one fence. She has also continued to have our
screening thinned by her employees. One of our conditions for agreeing to a
remodeling plans will be the protection of our fence, our screening, our trees.
The document file does not contain the Tree Protection Plan required for
single-family review. It does not contain the Planning arborist’s requirements:
that the garage be hand-dug, that no root larger than 2 inches in diameter may
be cut, and that a grade beam, rather than a slab, be used in the vicinity of the
Mok’s redwoods. The Single-Family Review process requires that the Tree
Protection Ordinance be observed.
3. City Attorney Wynne Furth admitted to our attorney, Fran Layton of Shute,
Mihaly & Weinberger, that the current zoning code does not have any language
wn!ch n~rmit~ the Planning_ Department to exempt first T!oo. porches from the
,F.A.Ro ~ur~n~ produce any prov,s~ons other than an interpretation of a
portion of a moratorium in 1988, which has obviously long since expired.
Therefore we object to the claim of exemption by the architect for those very..
large porches. All of those porches must be stricken from the plans, to the
extent that they exceed the 75 square feet remaining in allowable footage.
IP. 31
We have not yet calculated the cap, nor checked Stephen Pogue’s assertion
that the total proposed non-exempt square footage is 6675 sq. &.
Errors in the F.A.R. are not appealable to the City Council. However, exempting
square footage which is not exempt under the current zoning ordinance can be
appealed to the court by a simple procedure called a Writ of Mandamus.
If the Planning Department approves these plans, we will also make a formal
protest with the City Council, using Wynne Furth’s letter, which states that the
Planning Department may not allow entry to the Single Family Review Process,
unless all underlying ordinance requirements have been met. Wynne Furth has
acknowledged to our attorney, Fran Layton, that we would have grounds for a
lawsuit if the underlying F.A.R. exceeds what is permitted by current codes.
Previous codes are not applicable.
¯ It is in all our interests, we believe, that this application remedy its faults and
proceed to construction without the delay occasioned by a lawsuit. That does
not mean that we will waive our rights, cede our property, or allow the Wongs
to build a house larger than their very large lot allows. It does mean that we do
not object their wish to enlarge their house to the absolute limit, and we will not
object to those features which make the house appear even larger than it is, so
long as the total square footage is less than or equal to 6750.
One further concern: the new basement is extremely large. Will the Planning
Department make restriction as to the disposal of those wastes, and the size of
construction equipment permitted on the site? We am concerned about the
pollution and damage to neighbor’s property should the contractor elect to use
massive equipment .in the rear yard that should be restricted to City streets or
highways.
Caro! .Mu!!en
Don Mullen
618 Tennyson Avenue
Pa!o Alto, CA 94301
650 325-43t 2
P. 32
Christopher Riordan
Chris.ri ordan @ city. ofp alo alto. org
250 Hamilton Avenue.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
~i7a email
Re: Proposed Plans for 1849 Webster Street
July 28, 2003
Dear h,f~. Riordan:
As you now tmow, the undersi~ned own and reside at 639 Seale Avenue. We have reviewed the
proposed plans for 1849 Webster Street, file # 03-IR-65. The following are our comments on the
plan.
1.The drawings are invalid, because they are referenced to fault~, Propern; lines
The measurements of the drawing are based on faulty and illegal property lines
engineered by a civil engineering fj_rm kh’ed by the Wongs, disregarding the fact that the
valid property lines are defme by tlie existing fence lines. By eng-ineering this new
properb, lines: the Wongs increases their current site area by about 250 square feet. From
the drawings submitted by the Wongs, they intend to take properties from five neighbors.
2.Shadow from the rid_~e of the roof dominates Aufmuth’s residence.
The second story is moved to the front by 23 feet. This will give back a partial view of
the sk?, to Aufmutl~’ s residence. The shadow improvement however is minimal because
of the cosine law of projection. The shadow cast by the ridge of the roof after the turret
dominates the Aufmuth’s residence.
3. No privacy for Lawrence’ s pool area. Violation of ~uide line #,2
There is a row of five windows ovefloo -king Lawrence’s swimming pool.
4. Garage is too close to the protected red wood trees, susceptible to damage
The distance between the garage and the red wood trees in Mok’s propera2 is about 2
feet. The root system of the two redwood trees will very likely be damaged during and
after the construction of the garage without proper protective measure.
5. The over-all desig-n does not meet guidelines #3 for Mass and scale, Guideline #8 for
balancing the scale of new two-story house with its site.
6. FAR calculation.
I have serious doubt about the FAR calculation and the inclusion criteria.
Cordially,
Walter and Amanda Mok,
639 Seale Avenue, Palo Alto. 94301
P.33
August 5:2003
Stephen Pogue:
175 Avila Street
San Francisco... CA 94123
Planning Di~%don
Subject:1849 Webster Street, Single Family Individual Review, ~3-IR-65
On Auzust 5, 2003, the Director of Planning and Communib, Environment conditionally
approved Single Fan~ily Lndividual Review application 03-IR-6fi for a second story
addition and substantial remodel to an e.~isting Single family residence at 1849 Webster
Street. Tiffs approval was ~anted pursuant to the Pale Alto Municipal Code (PbH~ffC)
Chapter 1 g. t 4 and ~dae Pale .4he Single Familj; Individua! Review Guidelines.
CONDITIONS OF ,a_PPROV_~d~:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
Apply for a building pem~it and lneet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire.
PuNic Works, and Building Depar~nents.
The project shal! be consmacted in substantial compliance with development plans
received June 1K 2003~ and as modified by these conditions of approval, on file
at the developmem center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Pale ,Qto, California.
The windows facing southwest in Bedrooms #’s 1 &2 and Bath #2 on the second
floor shall be constructed with 2" x 8" walls so that wqmdows are recessed from
the wall face. The glazing of these windows shall be no wider than 24".
A bounda_D~ survey shall be submitted prior io the issuance of a building pemait.
The desig-n or location of the detached garage shall be modified to confon~ to any
changes ha the location of the dayIighi plane as a result of the boundary survey.
The garage may not move closer to the trees at 639 Seale Avenue than indicated
on the plans without detenaination by the project arbofist and confirmation by the
Planning Arborist.
A copy of this approval shall be printed on the blueprints submitted _for building
permit.
A revised A_rborist condition report, and Tree Preservation Plan (TPP) shal! be
submitted for review aria approval by the Plamnin~ Department and shall aaar,,s_
the x%llowing issues:
Revise the repo~ to re~%rence by number al! regulated ~ees .(street trees and
P. 34
250 Hamilton Avenue
RO. Box 10250
Pale Alto, CA 9’-1303
650.329.2~_~!1
Revise the report to reflect accurate tree diameter m~d extent of canopy drip
line. of all Regulated Trees.
For the n~w driveway extension ~ ’ ’ ~d ~ara~e .~ounaanon _ _ floon provide
r~co~endations to ~ze negative effects ~om ~ading~ b~se maierial
~d we~ng s~face.
The repo~ shall ~clude protection ofre~lated trees dur~g the course of
demoiition~ cons~cfion ~d cle~up phase.
The site plan shall include the r%l!o~ing im’ormation:
.All information from Condition # 7 from the TTP (tree reference number,
accurate diameter.., canopy spread, etc.).
Tree protection zone (TPZ) for each tree as re,%rented in the Cib~ of Palo _Alto
Free Fechnica! Manual shall be shown as a bold dashed line.
Include ~d~e following notes speci~dng:
For regulated trees: "Protected trees-contact with the project arborist is
required before wortdng in the area. See sheet "
As deemed necessa_Dy by the Planning Arborist to ensure protection of
major roots ~eat~r then two inches; the garage foundation shall specify
pier and ~ade beam construction. The beam shall not require ~ade cuts
more than 4-inches below existing ~ac~...amy soils report submitted shall
be reviewed and approved by the Buildin~ Inspections Division.
Grading for garage floor material shall not exceed 4-inches cut below
existing ~ade without prior ~pproval by the Planning Arborist.
° Plan set shall provide a Tree Preservation Sheet containing the folim~dng:
The revised arborist:s Condition Report and TPP inctudin~ tangnage
requirin~ monthly monitoring inspection summaries ~axed to the Planning
A_rborist at 650-329-2154.
Applicant shall maintaJ_n to the satisfaction ox th~ Planning Arborist existing trees
nvelve feet (!2’) or taller that originate from 1849 Webster Sweet on the north
(left side) of the property line that screen views of neighboring properties located
at 604 and 618 Tennyson Avenue.
9.The CiO, of Nalo Alto D’ee Technical Manual shall be. on the job site at all times.
DIRECTOR’S DECISION
Approval of this project will become efx%ctive ten (10) calendar days follow-tug the
postmark date of this letter. , ~~ 2~ _, um~ss there is a ~Mtten request for a D~ectors Hem--Ln~ nle~
before 5:30 p.m.-on August 15.2003 (P.AlviC i8.14) at Cib~ Hail, 5~-~ Floor. Project
approval is based on ptans received on June 18, 2003. Interested parties may wish to
review the final plans on file at the City of Pa!o .Alto Pl~_ning Division, prior to the ead
of the 10-day hearing request period.
P.35
,Should you have any questions conce~inZ this approval., please contact the Project Planner.
Ch~ristopher Pdorda~n... at (650) 329-2i ’49.
Sincsre!y:
Am_y French, _,~CP
Mana_~er o~ Current Pianninz
.~eizhbor notification !ist
File
P. 36
LAWRENCE A. AUFMUTH
August 1~, _00~
Am?, French, AICP
Cky of Palo Alto, Department of Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Re: 1849 Webster Street, Sm=L Family Individual Review, 03-IR-65
Request for Director’s Hearing
Dear Ms. French:
We appreciate the efforts you and your staff have expended to improve
the design of the above referenced Project. Nevertheless, we remain
concerned that the window configuration of the side of the project facing
ours and our neighbors home are not in compliance with the Guidelines and
respectfully request a Hearing in which we would present the case for fewer
windows, greater restrictions as to height, as well as width, and different
glass and window coverings.
In addition, we remain concerned that the Project will require an
inordinate amount of daily City supervision given the neighbors heightened
awareness of the size and scope of the project and the predilections of the
owners to move proceed as close to and in our opinion beyond the zoning
rules and regulations. Thus, we wish to raise again our request that the
Project be required to employ an independent on-site inspector to insure
compliance with all applicable zoning and building codes.
Finally, we remain concerned that the City has not properly addressed
the significant boundm3, iine disputes surrounding the Project.
We respectfully request a Director’s Hearing.
Cordially,
Lawrence A. Aufmuth
627 SEALE AVENUE ¯ PALO ALTO, CA ¯ 9430!
PHONE: 650-799-6784 " FAX: 650-321-2260
E MAIL LARRY@AUFMUTH.COM
P. 37
-awrence Levy and Hillary Brook Levy
1875 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
August 12, 2003
.~X2rny French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: 1849 Webster Street, Single Family Individual Review, 03-IR-65
Request for Directors Hearing
Dear Ms. French:
We are writing to request a Directors Hearing for the above referenced project. In our
previous letter dated July 24, 2003, we asserted that the proposal is not in compliance
with Individual Review Guideline #1 since a line of windows has been placed in the
second floor bedrooms that overlook the side of our house, swimming poo!, and back
yard. The angle of the wall and the size of the windows is placed so that virtually all of
our property will be easily viewed. Our request was for a reduction in the number of
windows and the use of window styles and materials to minimize the views of our
properb,.
We are ~atefuI that the Department of Planning addressed this issue in Condition #3
of the Conditions of Approval in your letter of August 5, 2003. Based on our
understanding, however, the condition proposed by the Planning Department makes
minima! changes to the problem, According to the drawings on file, the windows in this
part of the house are approximately 2’ 5" wide. The City required that they be no more
than 2’ wide and be recessed from the wal! face. in terms of overlooldng our house, pool,
and back yard, the difference with these changes would be very small. As of today
(August 12), no revised plans are on file at the Department of Planning so it is possible
that Mr. and Mrs. Wong will address this in other ways. Since we will be out of town for
the rest of the week, however, in order to make the deadline we need to prepare this
request before any revised plans are available.
Accordingly, we request a Directors Hearing on the issue of Individual Review
Guideline #1 as it relates to the upstairs windows overlooldng our property. We would
like to consider other ways to protect the privacy of our property. These might include:
1. Fewer windows (for example, one window in each bedraam instead of tw. o);
2. A height restriction to the window sizes in addition to the width restriction
proposed by the City;
P. 3S
3. The use of translucent glass for one or more of the windows (in the bathroom, for
example);
4. The use of fixed screens.
We would be happy to explore the possibilities in any appropriate manner prior to the
Directors Hearing.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence Le~7 Hillar3, B’riook Le~y " :v
2
P.39
August 13, 2003
Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
RE: 1849 Webster Street, Single Family Individual Review, 03-1R-65
Request for Director’s Hearing
Dear Ms. French:
We are writing to request a Director’s Hearing for the above referenced
project. We appreciate the changes which have addressed many of the
negative impacts in the original proposal. We hope that the remaining
conditions can be addressed prior to the Director’s Hearing, so that this project
can proceed without further appeal.
Condition 1. Privacy: We believe that the protection proposed for the
plantings which screen our house from this proposed project is well-meant,
but the condition assumed is incorrect: "the applicant shall maintain existing
trees ..... that originate from 1849 Webster...that screen views of neighboring
properties located at 604 and 618 Tennyson Avenue." There are no trees
originating from 1849 Webster that screenour properties.. The screening we
need to preserve originates entirely on the Danner and Mullen side of the fence.
That screening is especially important, since the applicants have added three
large new windows directly overlooking our property.
As presently worded, the approval appears to support the applicants’
assertion that this area belongs to them. The Director of Planning should not
take a position, on any encroachment claim by any applicant. In the year since
this claim was first made, the applicants have taken no step to prove that their
claim has any basis in fact.
The Department put the applicants on notice in the Fall of 2002 that there
would be daylight plane questions if the property boundary lines were where
they appeared to be.
T~,-- ~,r~o-.~,÷ ,-,,~,~{; .....~al legat.... ~,,~..,~. .....,,,~,~,~,,,.~ ,_,, approv de e +~’~ ;.~.....~4~:;....,;^.. ~.~
potential zoning issue to the Building Department. Both the Building
Department and Code Enforcement have refused to act on Zoning Issues.
They have so informed us, and so informed the Moks. The applicants should
either provide proof that their claim about the boundary line is correct, or
change their plans and drawings so that no change in property, lines would be
~ eq u l r~u.
P.40
We request the Planning Department to speculate no further about the
vaiidity or lack of it of the applicants’ unsubstantiated claim. Applicants have
provided a topo survey, not a boundary line survey. That topo survey was so
unreliable that the protected redwood trees were initially assigned to the wrong
lot.
Accordingly, we request a Directors Hearing on the issue of individual
Review Guideline #1 :privacy.
Condition 2. Excessive Mass: The present approval grants an exemption
the Director of Planning has no authority to give.
Palo Alto adopted a new zoning ordinance in 1989, which it has since
revised more than once. All changes have been in the direction of restricting
mass. In 1989, the F.A.R. was reduced from 70% to 45%. It has since been
further reduced. The expressed intent of the Single Family Review ordinance of
2001 was to encourage single-story houses.
The 50 % interpretation of 1988 encouraged balconies on two-story
houses. The ordinance which it interpreted, has been superseded. Although
the Director of Planning is free to adopt policies to implement any existing
Zoning Ordinance, he does not have the authority to adopt policies contrary to
those ordinances, nor to their expressed intent.
In this case, the Director is not free to reverse the restrictions on F.A.R., nor
to lift the cap of 6000 sq. ft. Nor is he free to grant an H.f.E. when none has
been requested, and none would be allowed. (Such an exemption would be
contrary to the expressed intent of all zoning ordinances since 1988.)
At the Director’s Hearing, we will present an acknowledgment by Wynne
Furth that the Director may not admit to Single Family Review a project which
does not meet the City of Palo Alto’s quantitative standards. The project at I849
Webster must be reduced in size so it meets these standards.
At the hearing we will provide additional documentation with respect to the
Director’s lack of authority to grant such an exemption.
Sincerely yours,
L, aroi iwitllel i
Amy French, AICP
City of Paio Alto, Departmem of Plalming
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
August 15, 2003
Re: 1849 Webster Street, Sh~gle Family h~dividual Review, 03-IR-65 Request for
Director’ s Hearing
Dear Ms. French:
We appreciate the protections for our prized redwood trees that have been incorporated
into the approval. We particularly appreciate the Planning Arborist’s intent to build these
protections into the building documents. We also appreciate the inaprovements to our
privacy with the elimination of the windows and balcony overlooldng our rear yard.
If it were not for the continued incorporation of an adverse claim to our property, we
would not have a personal reason to ask for a Director’s Hearing. \Ve do support our
neighbors, Lawrence Lex~ and Hillary Brook, in their request x%r privacy protection.
h~ benveen the first application and this one, M_rs. E. Wong pulled dov~,~ part of ore fence
and put in a post for her new fence. We were showered with hostile comrnents from, M_rs.
E. Wong, as we watched the fence work quietly fl’om our back3fard. I would never
imagine someone would yell at me over the fence when I stayed quietly in my ow~
bacluard. We appealed to the Building Depm-anent and to Code Enforcement for
protection, and were told that they would not invoIve themselves in a dispute over a
boundary line. m~d they would not require Mrs. Wong to produce a boundm3~ line survey.
Out of nowhere, we received letters fl’om the attorney of the title company, full of
probing questions and stating their intent to investigate.
Therefore, we request a Director’s Hearing on this new proj ect, since the Director has
neither received evidence supporting the Wong’s claim of property based on their
topogaphic drafting, nor required them to withdraw" it.
Recounting the past experiences of our neighbors on Tem~yson, Webster and Scale with
_Mrs. E. Wong, and considering the scale of the project with a total floor space close to
10,000 sq ft.. we strongly support the request that the PROJECT be required to employ an
independent on-site inspector to insure compliance with all applicable zoning and
building codes.
Sincerely,
Amanda and Walter Mok,
639 Scale A~enue, Palo Alto.
P. 42
Amy French, AICP
Manager of Current Planning
City of Palo Alto, Department of Plarming
250 Ha.milton Avenue
P. aio Alto, CA 94303
RE: 1849 Webster Street, Single Family Indi~adual Review, 03-IR-65
Request for Directors Hearing
Dear Ms. French:
The revised plans for the cited project are a clear improvement over the plan earlier
rejected by the City Council. Enough questions remain, however, to wm-rant a Directors
Hearing.
Specifically. Condition 3 fails to adequately address the row of second-story windows
overlooking 1875 Webster St. These ~ndows are a clear violation of Guideline 1.
Although Condition 3 places width lin3_itations to these ~odows, nothing is said
regarding height. Nor is it clear whether the 24" limitation refers to individual panes or
to casements.
Condition 4 fails to identify who is qualified to make such a survey. Actually, the
boundaries should be easy to determine. Since the boundary on the south side of the
property is not in contention, it is largely a matter of determining whether it is parallel
to the property line on the north. S~ilarly, because block 33 of the Seale Addition is
basically laid out on 50’ parcels, the back property line should run straight through
from Seale Ave. to Tennyson.
Condition 8 speaks of protecting "existing trees t~veL~e feet or tall that originate from
1859 Webster Street on the north (left side) of the property, line." There is no such
vegetation on the north side of 1849 Webster.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter K. Darmer
604 Tennyson Ave.
RECEIVED
P. 43
Riordan, Chris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
eandjwong@comcast.net
Tuesday, August 19, 2003 4:15 PM
Chris_Riordan@city.palo-alto.ca.us; lisa. g rote@cityofpaloalto.org;
amy.french@cityofpaioalto.org; steve.emslie@cityofpaloalto.org
-1849 Webster - Director’s Hearing (fwd)
................... Forwarded Message: ..................
From: eandjwong@comcast.net
To: jack_morton@cit3,.palo-alto.ca.us (Jack Morton), nancy_lytle@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Nancy Lytle),
judy_kleinberg@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Judy Kleinberg), yoriko_kishimoto@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Yodko Kishimoto),
hitlary_freeman@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Hillary Freeman), jim_burch@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Jim Butch),
bern_beecham@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Bern Beecham), dena_mossar@city.palo-alto.ca, us (Dena Mossar),
victor_ojakian@city, palo-alto.ca, us (Victor Ojakian)
Cc: annetteglanckopf@wor}dnet.att.net (Annette Ashton), john@stbeckerandnorthway.com (John Northway),
Carroll@HarringtonDesign.com (Carroll Harrington), roger@mansell.com (Roger Mansell), ra@ale×anderlaw.com (Dick
Alexander), relawcal@pacbell.net (Skip Justman), rcplacone@juno.com (Richard Placone), timur@ybarchitects.com
(Timur Bilir), CraigWoods@hotmaii.com (Craig Woods), chsamos@yahoo.com (Cindy Samos), rkerrins@sbcgtobal.net
(Ronni Kerrins), parissa.mohamadi@hp.com (Parissa Mohamadi), kamran_najmabadi@yahoo.com (Kamran Najmabadi),
pksource@yahoo.com (Kamran Mohamadi)
Subject: 1849 Webster - Director’s Hearing
Date:Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:54:06 +0000
Dear City Council Members,
The last 15 months have been extremely frustrating and exacting. We have known
adversity and struggle in our lives, and we are appalled at the senseless
attacks directed at not only our proposed plans, but on our personal character
and integrity.
Jaime and I have professional careers and have two children. We pay our taxes,
and try to build character and value in all we do. Amy is a senior at Yale
Universi~ and Andrew is a second year student at NYU Law. Just because we
haven’t lived in Palo Alto for decades doesn.’t make us any less deserving of
being part of this community.
We are writing to seek your help, to inform you of our progress and to avail
ourselves for any questions you may have.
On August 5, 2003, Amy French, Manager of Current Planning, approved our
revised house plans. These plans eliminated the rear second story and
relocated it to the center of the lot and house footprint. As you will recall,
this was at the recommendation of City Council in March 2003. After detailed
scrutiny by Planning, the City’s arborist and the City’s independent consultant
(Origins), and consultation with the City Attorney’s office, Planning concluded
that our revised plans meet Zoning and Planning Codes and the IR Guidelines and
approved our plans.
Predictably, the decision by Planning was appealed and we are now scheduled for
a Director’s Hearing on September 4, 2003.
One would think that Larry Aufmuth, one of the appellants, would be elated that
our second story has been moved away from his property and relocated to the
~, ~u, lot and house footprint. Instead, he has ~
titled "D~j~ vu Objections" in which he appsais our revised plans on ALL THE
SAME issues, despite the fact that our house was redesigned to accommodate his
unfounded objections. It just goes to show that his problem is not the IR
Guidelines; his problem is that he does not want change, not in his back yard,
period.
P. 44
He is aided in the appeal by Carol and Don Mullen who have made it their
pastime to speak against IR compliance of our house as well as those of other
two-story houses. We, as well as the co-chairs of the IR Guidelines, affirm
that the Mullens are wrong and seriously misinterpreted ~the Guidelines when
they wrote: "The expressed intent of the Single Family Review ordinance of 2001
was to encourage single-story houses." (Carol and Don Mullen email to Amy
French, Palo Alto Planning Department, dated August 13, 2003). Let me also
remind you that the Mullens’ house has 2 stories, has maximum allowed FAR, and
is built at the minimum setbacks.
In the appeal of our plans, they have recruited other neighbors who paraphrase
Aufmuth’s and Mullens’ objections. Again, most of these neighbors have maxed
out the lot coverage and FAR allowed for their lots, live in 2 story houses and
their houses are far away from ours. The Mullens’ house is over 80 feet away
from ours!
We have been processed to death. This is our second submission of the IR
application. We are in our 15th month of seeking IR approval. There is zero
accountability and no consequence for neighbors’ frivolous objections to any IR
application. And yet we and other applicants are burdened with additional
architectural, engineering, consulting and legal costs. The process has been
punitive, laborious and dilatory - this is democracy run amok. The Mullens
have spoken against these other homeowners:
885 Northampton- Two Director’s Hearings. Lawyers involved
3114 David - Two Director’s Hearings plus City Council Hearing. Lawyers
involved
346 Colorado - DirectoCs Hearing plus City Council Hearing
2350 Byron - Director’s Hearing. Lawyers involved
3280 Clifton - DirectoCs Hearing plus City Council Hearing (scheduled)
1849 Webster - Two Director’s Hearings (a third one is scheduled) plus two City
Council Hearings
Palo Alto cannot afford the Nimbys’ appeals. The City’s record budget and out-
of-control processes are major issues to its citizens. The City spent over
$100,000 on our application even before our initial application went to City
Council Hearings. This is an endless waste of public funds that the City
cannot afford; funds that could have been better used to hire a Library
Director or police officers or firefighters.
The IR Guidelines give neighbors a voice, but the voice has become a de-facto
veto. We ask you to improve the process so that we and other homeowners are
not forced through needless cycles of endless process, groundless and
chimerical objections, and time and economic penalties.
Respectfully, Jaime and Elizabeth Wong, ph 327-0528
P. 45
French, Amy
From:
Sent:
Subject:
eandjwong @ comcast.net
Friday, August 29, 2003 10:02 PM
amy.french @cityofpaloalto.org; Chris_Riordan @city.palo-alto.ca.us;
dave.dockter @ cityofpaloatto.org; Ariet.Calonne @ cityofpaloalto.org;
steve.emslie @cityofpaloalto.org; wynne.furth @cityofpaloalto.org;
lisa.grote @ cityofpaloalto.org; jack_morton @cit%palo-alto.ca.us; nancy_lytle @city.palo-
alto.ca.us; judy_kleinberg @city.palo-alto.ca.us; yoriko_kishimoto@city.paio-alto.ca.us;
hillary_freeman @ city.palo-alto.ca.us; jim_burch @city.palo-alto.ca.us;
bern_beecham @ city.palo-alto.ca.us; dena_mossar@ city.palo-alto.ca.us;
victor_ojakian @ city.palo-alto.ca.us
Re: 1849 Webster Street (fwd)
ATT824514,htm
...................... Forwarded Message: .....................
From: JJBENZA @aol.com
To: eandjwong@comcast.net, BN021 @aol.com, Karlette@aol.com, joyce_yamagiwa@yahoo.com,
christy@ highstgroup.com, alice @ mansell.com, lieberman7 @ attbi.com, SKIP @Thoits-lnsurance.com,
Beaubois @ rdcinteractive.com, theo692 @ mac.corn, rodt32 @ attbi.com, ca_craftsman @ hotmail.com, bomar23
@ pacbell.net, markk @ waynemascia.com, edahlen @ exponent.corn, alechsu @ sbcglobal.net,
jen.mutz @stanfordalumni.org
Oc: rcplacone@juno.com
Subject: Re: 1849 Webster Street (fwd)
Date:Fri, 29 Aug 2003 23:24:53 EDT
For the public record,l concur with the comments forwarded from Richard
Piacone. Though I do not know him nor do I know the Wongs, I have been following
this situation for quite some time..
It seems more and more the leadership of the city is losing touch with the
realities of the community that we live in.
i too urge you to uphold the laws passed - to date and to adhere to
enforcing only those planning ordinances that currently exist on the books. I do
not
agree with the notion that an application under review should be the basis for
setting legal precedents. If the city leadership wants new zoning, planning
ordinances, then they should draft them and implement them apart from a specific
application.
While I am concerned about the costs of city involvement in this process, I
do not have the city’s facts on the actual amounts. However, I would not be
surprised to find them to be excessive for a single application. Here again, it
seems the leadership is killing us with analysis paralysis when it appears that
the Wongs are in compliance with city code.
I too would urge you to approve this application and move on to something
more important.
Sincerely,
John Benza
3745 La Selva Drive
Palo Alto
Message Page 1 of 2
Riordan, Chris
From:Ronni Kerrins [rkerrins@sbcglobal.net]
Sent:Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:42 PM
To:chris_riordan@city.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:FW: 1849 Webster, 03-1R-65, DirectoCs Hearing
Sorry Chris... original bounced back.., here’s another try.
Ronni
..... Original Nessage .....
From; Ronni Kerrins [mailto:rkerrins@sbcglobai.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:35 PM
To: 3ulie Caporgno; Chris Riordan
Cc: ELIZABETH WONG
Subject: 1849 Webster, 03-IR-65, Director’s Hearing
Bret & Ronni Kerrins
3280 Clifton Ct.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
September 4, 2003
Julie Caporgno
Palo Alto Planning Department
Re:1849 Webster, 03-1R-65
Director’s Hearing dated 09104103
Dear Ms. Caporgno,
We are writing in support of Elizabeth and Jaime Wong and their proposal for a remodel of
their existing home at 1849 Webster. We became involved with this project at the original City
Council site visit around spring of this year. We were extremely surprised by the City Council’s
decision in their case.
The Wongs have now resubmitted their plans with amendments and improvements to all of the
issues raised by the City Council. The new design adds greatly to the existing structure and
fits in incredibly well with the surrounding environment. Their proposed home is absolutely
minimally invasive to all of their neighbors. We believe the original design more than
addressed the concerns of the neighbors and now the Wongs have submitted a design that is
"" ....."Palo ,-,l~u "~’"--’--even-better. T~=, .....+ ~p~,owl by*~’~^ ’^,-,,~-,.~,,~.~L,,~,.,,ty Planning ~,A_~~=p~,u,,=,,~ should u~,y be
overturned if there are very significant and compelling errors and/or egregious
misinterpretations of the applicant’s case, which there are not. These appellants have been
heard, multiple times and their complaints have been addressed in full, multiple times. There
is nothing new here to justify overturning the already approved plans.
Elizabeth and Jaime have endured over I5 months of agony defending their perfectly legal
P.~7
Message Page 2 of 2
home against non-cooperative neighbors. The intent of the IR Guidelines was to foster
communication, cooperation, negotiation and compromise among neighbors. The appellants
have not exhibited constructive communication nor have they cooperated, negotiated or
compromised in a constructive manner. Elizabeth and Jaime have made multiple major
changes to their design in an attempt to appease these neighbors, who seem unsatisfied with
anything.. The only conclusion that can be reached is that these neighbors have no desire to
actually add to this project positively. They will never be satisfied as long as the owners plan
to make a two-story addition to their home, which is a right that cannot be denied in this case.
As homeowners engaged in defending an appeal of our home in this same process, we have
to strongly proclaim that this process exacts an extreme hardship on the applicants. There is
NO accountability and NO consequences for neighbors’ frivolous, nonsense objections.
Applicants are burdened with huge additional architecture, engineering, consulting and legal
costs as well as the emotional toll of defending one’s home. We do not believe the originators
of the IR Guidelines ever conceived of the lengths to which some appellants would go
otherwise safeguards would have been put in place. It is up to the City to interpret these
Guidelines in a manner that is fair, equitable and with minimal hardship to all citizens.
Let’s get real! Let’s get on with our lives! Please uphold the Planning Department’s approval!
Sincerely,
Bret & Ronni Kerrins
P.48
September 3, 2003
Annette Ashton
2747 Bryar~t StPeet
Palo Alto, Ca 94305
Steve Emslie
Amy French
Julie Caporgno
City of Palo Alto Planning Department.
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
Dear Steve, Amy and Julie,
I will be out of town and cannot attend the Individual Review Director’s Hearing on September
4th from Elizabeth and Jaime Wong on their current plans for their home at 1849 Webster
Street. Here are my comments.
I fully support this application. It more than complies with the Individual Review Guidelines
and meets the city council recommendations from March of 2003.
On the issue of privacy, their second story windows are 35 feet away from their nearest
neighbor house, and landscaping could mitigate any serious concerns about viewing
neighbors backyards. The second story is 14 feet from the property line to the south. The
Wongs followed council direction and moved the second story from the south side into the
center of the building. Massing seems appropriate and respectful. On the issue of
streetscape, the Wongs have done much to preserve the park like atmosphere protecting
their heritage oak as well as preserving the main room at the front
of their house.
I regret that this process has caused so much community pain and has been a considerable
financial burden to all those involved - the applicant, the appellants, as well as the City of
Palo Alto. After this application is resolved, I recommend a focus session for all stakeholders
to step through the Individual Review Process, discuss flaws in the current system, and then
implement changes to fine tune the system (including process issues and zoning
clarifications.)
In summary, I recommend that staff move forward and support this application.
Sincerely,
PHONE/FAX 650-32!-i280
P. 49
Attachment D
Forwarded Message:
To:
Subject:
Date:
iack morton@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Jack Morton), nancy lytle@city.palo-alto.ca.us
(Nancy Lytle), judy kleinberq@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Judy Kleinberg),
yoriko kishimoto@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Yoriko Kishimoto), hillary freeman@city.palo-
alto.ca.us (Hillary Freeman), jim burch@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Jim Burch),
bern beecham@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Bern Beecham), dena mossar@city.palo-
alto.ca, us (Dena Mossar), victor oiakian@city.palo-alto.ca.us (Victor Ojakian)
annetteqlanckopf@worldnet.att.net (Annette Ashton),
iohn@stoeckerandnorthway.com (John Northway), Carroll@Harrin.qtonDesi.qn.com
(Carroll Harrington), ro.qer@mansell.com (Roger Mansell), ra@alexanderlaw.com
(Dick Alexander), relawcal@pacbell.net (Skip Justman), rcplacone@juno.com
(Richard Placone), timur@ybarchitects.com (Timur Bilir), Crai.qWoods@hotmail.com
(Craig Woods), chsamos@yahoo.com (Cindy Samos), rkerrins@sbc.qlobal.net
(Ronni Kerrins), parissa.mohamadi@hp.com (Parissa Mohamadi),
kamran naimabadi@yahoo.com (Kamran Najmabadi), pksource@yahoo.com
(Kamran Mohamadi)
1849 Webster - Director’s Hearing
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:54:06 +0000
Dear City Council Members,
The last 15 months have been extremely frustrating and exacting. We have known
adversity and struggle in our lives, and we are appalled at the senseless
attacks directed at not only our proposed plans, but on our personal character
and integrity.
Jaime and I have professional careers and have two children. We pay our taxes,
and try to build character and value in all we do. Amy is a senior at Yale
University and Andrew is a second year student at NYU Law. Just because we
haven’t lived in Palo Alto for decades doesn’t make us any less deserving of
being part of this community.
We are writing to seek your help, to inform you of our progress and to avail
ourselves for any questions you may have.
On August 5, 2003, Amy French, Manager of Current Planning, approved our
revised house plans. These plans eliminated the rear second story and
relocated it to the center of the lot and house footprint. As you will recall,
this was at the recommendation of City Council in March 2003. After detailed
scrutiny by Planning, the City’s arborist and the City’s independent consultant
(Origins), and consultation with the City Attorney’s office, Planning concluded
that our revised plans meet Zoning and Planning Codes and the IR Guidelines and approved our
plans.
Predictably, the decision by Planning was appealed and we are now scheduled for a Director’s
Hearing on September 4, 2003.
One would think that Larry Aufmuth, one of the appellants, would be elated that
our second story has been moved away from his property and relocated to the
center of our lot and house footprint. Instead, he has submitted a treatise
titled "D6j& vu Objections" in which he appeals our revised plans on ALL THE
SAME issues, despite the fact that our house was redesigned to accommodate his
unfounded objections. It just goes to show that his problem is not the IR
Guidelines; his problem is that he does not want change, not in his back yard,
period.
He is aided in the appeal by Carol and Don Mullen who have made it their
pastime to speak against IR compliance of our house as well as those of other
two-story houses. We, as well as the co-chairs of the IR Guidelines, affirm
that the Mullens are wrong and seriously misinterpreted the Guidelines when
they wrote: "The expressed intent of the Single Family Review ordinance of 2001
was to encourage single-story houses." (Carol and Don Mullen email to Amy
French, Palo Alto Planning Department, dated August 13, 2003). Let me also
remind you that the Mullens’ house has 2 stories, has maximum allowed FAR, and is built at the
minimum setbacks.
In the appeal of our plans, they have recruited other neighbors who paraphrase
Aufmuth’s and Mullens’ objections. Again, most of these neighbors have maxed
out the lot coverage and FAR allowed for their lots, live in 2 story houses and
their houses are far away from ours. The Mullens’ house is over 80 feet away
from ours!
We have been processed to death. This is our second submission of the IR
application. We are in our 15th month of seeking I R approval. There is zero
accountability and no consequence for neighbors’ frivolous objections to any IR
application. And yet we and other applicants are burdened with additional
architectural, engineering, consulting and legal costs. The process has been
punitive, laborious and dilatory - this is democracy run amok. The Mullens
have spoken against these other homeowners:
885 Northampton - Two Director’s Hearings. Lawyers involved
3114 David - Two Director’s Hearings plus City Council Hearing. Lawyers
involved
346 Colorado - Director’s Hearing pius City Council Hearing
2350 Byron - Director’s Hearing. Lawyers involved
3280 Clifton - Director’s Hearing plus City Council Hearing (scheduled)
1849 Webster- Two Director’s Hearings (a third one is scheduled) plus two City
Council Hearings
Palo Alto cannot afford the Nimbys’ appeals. The City’s record budget and out-
of-control processes are major issues to its citizens. The City spent over
$100,000 on our application even before our initial application went to City
Council Hearings. This is an endless waste of public funds that the City
cannot afford; funds that could have been better used to hire a Library
Director or police officers or firefighters.
The IR Guidelines give neighbors a voice, but the voice has become a de-facto
veto. We ask you to improve the process so that we and other homeowners are
not forced through needless cycles of endless process, groundless and
chimerical objections, and time and economic penalties.
Respectfully, Jaime and Elizabeth Wong, ph 327-0528
Attachment E
1849 Webster Street
Palo Alto, Ca 94301
October 20, 2003
Honorable City Council Members
Attached are signatures from NINETY fellow Palo Altans requesting that you NOT
PULL from the consent calendar the appeal of the Planning Department’s approval of our
house plans, and if it is pulled, vote to NOT HEAR it. The appellants’ concerns have
each and all been addressed and extensively evaluated by unbiased public and private
professionals at great taxpayer expense and have been found without merit.
We ask that you restore civilky to our city and respect the decision by the Planning staff,
professional Consultants and legal counsel. We ask that you deny this appeal.
Sincerely,
Cc: Mr. Steve Emslie
Jaime Wong
Elizabeth Wong
Attached: 17 pages of signatures
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO IIIIAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Revimv Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in tiffs manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO !~All the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the PaIo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and worldoad to the Gity. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO I!EAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
PIarming staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Revlmv Guiddines.
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
This
Signature Print Name Address
~I1~--!~.
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO ItEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the PaIo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines.
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
This
Signature Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-12,.-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Revimv Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signal/
/-0 Print Name Address
Oclober, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Famil3~ Individual Review Guidelb~es. TbJs
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this mariner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
,.Sigpature Print Name Address
October, _00~
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO ItEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for tl~e Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staffand again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Revie)~ Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourtl~ appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at ~eat cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name Address
V
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65- 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you.vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don. Mullen for the JaJme and Elizabeth Wong residence at 18,19 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03dR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Plarming staffand again by the Direct0r~ of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Singl¢ Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the:City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources ~ this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs toproceed with their house and their.lives.
Signature Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-1R-65 - ! 849 Webster St.
De~ City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby requesl: that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised pIans were approved by
Planning staffand again by the Director of Plarming. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Polo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
momhs at great cost and workload to the City. it is incomprehensible th~ Polo Alto
should squander our scarce resottrees in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO ttlgAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staffand again by the Director of Plannlng. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Polo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in thls manner when we already face a budget
crisi’s. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
October, 2003
gFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-I district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please a!low the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Address
Oct 03 03 11:5~a
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name Address
FRDI’I :
rod/Jq- ~
October: 2003
SFR 03-I.R~65 -...! 849 Webster SL
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you "vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 11~49 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Plannittg statt’and agaha by the Director of Plarming. They meet all R-I district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Fttm~ l~th,idual R~vie~, Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fom~th appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budgct
crisis. Please allow t.he Woags to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature PAnt Name..Address
October, 2003
SF.R 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 18,19 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staffand again by the Director of Plartning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cosl and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR tile appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and EIizabeth Wong residence at 18,19 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual ge~iew Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Council Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO ItEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application number 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Rm,iew Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and workload to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this manner when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Signature Print Name
l " "
Address
October, 2003
SFR 03-IR-65 - 1849 Webster St.
Dear City Councit Members:
We the undersigned hereby request that you vote NOT TO HEAR the appeal by Carol
and Don Mullen for the Jaime and Elizabeth Wong residence at 1849 Webster Street,
Palo Alto, CA, application nunaber 03-IR-65. The revised plans were approved by
Planning staff and again by the Director of Planning. They meet all R-1 district
regulations and exceed the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Revie~v Guidelines. This
is the appellants’ fourth appeal and they have stymied this project for the last sixteen
months at great cost and worldoad to the City. It is incomprehensible that Palo Alto
should squander our scarce resources in this maimer when we already face a budget
crisis. Please allow the Wongs to proceed with their house and their lives.
Print Name Address