HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-18 City Council~ pAg0
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:JUNE 18, 2001 CMR:286:01
SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS AND REVIEW PROCESS
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
In April 1999, staff began to address proactively the issue of single family residential
design to promote compatibility with neighborhood character. In an informational
memorandum to the City Council, staff proposed a work plan that would initially include
a Voluntary Design Assistance program (VDA)1, review of Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), and a longer term program focusing on other
methods and opportunities to achieve neighborhood compatibility.
As part of its longer term work program, staff proposed the establishment of an advisory
group. The purpose of the advisory group was to provide input to the Director of
Planning and Environment, Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and
Council to comprehensively address concerns related to the compatibility of new and
remodeled single family residences within existing neighborhoods. The advisory group
process would be open and inclusive and represent a cross-section of interests including
real estate, developers and builders, designers, and neighborhoods. The members later
named the group the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group (Advisory
Group).
The Advisory Group began its deliberations in January 2000. As part of the problem
identification process, the Advisory Group and City co-sponsored a community forum in
April 2000 to seek input from the community at large. Approximately 55 people
attended this evening workshop. Based on this input, the Advisory Group members
adopted a prioritized list of problems/issues. A second community forum was held in late
August 2000 to discuss potential solutions and introduced the central policy issue of
discretionary review. Over 70 community members attended this second forum.
Since its inception, the VDA program has assisted 143 applicants.
CMR:286:01 Page 1 of 5
After the second forum, and with direction from the Advisory Group, staff prepared a
more fully developed set of recommendations, including conceptual proposals for criteria
for the Individual Review process and amendments to the Single Family Zone Dist~ct
(R-I) regulations. During the early part of this year, the Advisory Group came to
consensus on the majority of the proposed code changes but not the discretionary review
standards/guidelines. Instead the Advisory Group proposed a sub-committee to work
with staff to complete a draft of the guidelines and proceed with Commission review and
Council direction on the major policy issue of discretionary review prior to finalizing the
guidelines.
The P&TC held two study sessions and a public hearing on the proposals on March 21,
May 23, and June 6, 2001, respectively. The major change recommended by the P&TC
is the threshold for review, discussed in greater detail in a separate section of this report.
The June 18, 2001 Committee of the Whole meeting is intended to provide the Council
with an opportunity to discuss the elements of the proposed program with staff and the
Advisory Group in anticipation of the Council public hearing on the proposed Ordinance,
scheduled for July 16, 2001. The primary focus of the Committee of the Whole meeting
will be the proposed Individual Review Process and the associated guidelines and
checklist, amendments to the Single Family Zone District (R-l) regulations, and the
Community and Staff Awareness Program. As well, staff will be providing a brief oral
presentation on the anticipated implementation of the program and staffing requirements.
Finally, the Counci! may choose to discuss what are characterized as "Other Issues".
These are issues deemed important by the Advisory Group, which should be addressed,
but are not directly relevant to the issue of single family neighborhood compatibility.
DISCUSSION
In developing the proposals, much of the initial work effort was guided by the following
questions: Is there a problem or issue with the compatibility of new and remodeled
houses that should be addressed? If so, what is the appropriate solution? During
discussions with the Advisory Group and based on community input at the citywide
Community Forum in April 2000, there was clear concern with the changes brought
about by new and remodeled houses in existing neighborhoods. The changes are seen as
causing a loss of privacy; and new houses that seem too large and out of scale, and do not
relate well to the neighborhood pattern. These core issues can be summarized as
problems related to privacy, mass and scale, and streetscape issues.
The problems identified can be further classified as generally functional or aesthetic
issues. Functional issues, such as the size of setbacks, lend themselves to a quantified
approach while aesthetic issues, such as scale, are more difficult to quantify. The
Advisory Group also closely reviewed the existing Single Family Zone District (R-l)
regulations to identify needed changes.
CMR:286:01 Page 2 of 5
The Advisory Group reviewed a continuum of options to address the identified problems,
ranging from no change to discretionary review for all new single-family construction.
The proposed program includes four elements:
1.Individual Review Process and associated Individual Review Guidelines
(Guidelines) and "Checklist".
2.Changes to the Single Family Zone District (R-l) Development Regulations.
3.Community and Staff Awareness Program
4.Regular program review and feedback.
The Individual Review Process is intended to address those issues that are more difficult
to quantify. The process is a discretionary review with a proposed threshold for review
"triggered" by a new two-story house, new second-story addition, or addition to an
existing second story greater than 150 square feet. The review will be based on the
Guidelines. The Guidelines are formatted to address the core problems (e.g., privacy,
mass and scale, and streetscape). Each guideline includes a discussion of the intent as
well as examples of design solutions that address the intent; the Guidelines allow the
applicant the flexibility to provide a different design solution to address the intent of the
guideline.
The changes to the R-1 development regulations are intended to address those issues that
can be more easily quantified.
The Advisory Group believed it was particularly important to create an educational
program to provide a forum for communication between staff and the community
regarding the single-family program. An Advisory Sub-Group will continue to meet to
develop the Community and Staff Awareness Program. Ideas include a joint City of Palo
Alto/Palo Alto Adult School class/workshop, videotape illustrating the guidelines, and
annual design award(s). The importance of an on-going discussion of issues is an
underlying theme of the Community and Staff Awareness Program and also the fourth
program element, an on-going program review and feedback. The intent is to provide a
formal review and feedback on the proposed Individual Review Process. It could include
a public hearing before the Planning and Transportation Commission and a survey
instrument or more informal feedback from the neighbors, property owners, and
designers regarding the process.
The binder prepared for the Committee of the Whole contains a letter regarding the
Community and Staff Awareness Program and extensive material on the proposed R-1
Development Regulation changes, the Individual Review Process, and a draft copy of the
Guidelines.
CMR:286:01 Page 3 of 5
Planning and Transportation Commission
The Planning and Transportation Commission’s review and recommendations will be
part of the staff report forwarding the Ordinance-to Council for approval. At its first
study session, the Commission was concerned about the lack of definitions and
associated unclear expectations by the community for the three core issues: privacy,
massing and scale, and streetscape. The Commission also believed they could not make a
recommendation regarding the Individual Review Process without increased knowledge
of the proposed guidelines (criteria) that would be used for review. In response, the
Advisory Sub-Group and staff prepared draft guidelines including an introductory section
on definitions, policies, and expectations. The Commission also requested a review of
alternate thresholds that would "trigger" review, a review of the geographical boundaries
within which a resident could request an optional hearing or appeal the Director’s
decision, and a brief presentation by the staff as to the extent contemporary architecture
would be found compatible under the proposed Guidelines.
At its June 1 meeting, the Commission recommended that the Individual Review Process
threshold should be 80 percent of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) rather than the proposed
threshold of a new two-story house, second-floor addition, or addition to the second floor
greater than 150 square feet. It also recommended approval of the conceptual Single
Family Zone District (R-l) Development Regulations, enthusiastically recommended the
development of a Community and Staff Awareness Program, and recommended that the
monitoring of the Individual Review Process and Guidelines include a public hearing.
before the Commission in one-year.
While generally supporting the Guidelines, the Commission has some remaining
concerns but deferred the discussion until the Council had reviewed the proposals. The
final draft of the Guidelines will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation
Commission prior to their adoption by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment. Staff is currently seeking outside assistance to format the Guidelines and
provide appropriate illustrations.
As noted in the March 11 Commission staff report, staff and the Advisory Group
recommended the proposed two-story threshold after discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of several alternatives, including a percentage of the FAR. However, the
80 percent FAR threshold option would still allow a second story to be built without a
review for privacy considerations such as windows or decks or massing, or the placement
of the second story. As well, there is a certainty for all parties in using the second story
threshold, as it is clear and unambiguous. The Advisory Group and staff
recommendations on thresholds for Individual Review remain unchanged.
CMR:286:01 Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
Binder which includes five sections:
1. Staff reports from the March 21 and May 23 Planning
Commission study sessions, and the June 6 public heating.
Overview of the Individual Review Process
and
3.Draft of the Individual Review Guidelines and associated Checklist
4.Analysis of the proposed Single Family Zone District (R-1) amendments.
5.Background Material.
Transportation
PREPARED BY:
re.AN TANffTZOR
’Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planniing and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRIS ON
Assistant City Manager
cc:Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group
CMR:286:01 Page 5 of 5
SECTION 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMIS SION
Joan Taylor, Planning Manager DEPARTMENT:Planning
AGENDA DATE: June 6, 200t
SUBJECT:Recommendations for Cl~anges to the Single Family (R-l) Zone
District Regulations and Adoption of an Individual ¯Review Process
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Plarming and Transportation Commission recommend
the following for approval by the City Council:
Adoption of an Individual Review process including:
a. ~ A threshold for review for any new two-story house, new second story addition, or
addition greater than 150 square feet to an existing second story.
b. Optional Hearing and Mediation
c. "Call-Up" Appeal procedure
o
Staff and the Advisory Sub-Group to prepare final Individual Review Guidelines and
associated Checklist to be approved and adopted by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment..
Changes to the Single Family (R-1 [FAR]) Zone District regulations including
changes tO the definition of the Floor Area Ratio, Daylight Plane, Lot .Coverage,
Parking Surfaces, HeigSt and Grade-Definitions, and new regulations related to a
Contextual Front Setback, Contextual Garage Placement, Restrictions on Bay Window
and Fireplage Projecti0n~ into Minimum Side Yards, Outdoor Lighting, and.
Permeable Sll~face Standard for the Front Yard Setback ..Area.
Page
City of Palo Alto
4.Development of a Community and Staff Awareness Program in conjunction with a
Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Program Planning COmmittee.
5.An annual review to assess the affect of the proposed ordinance revisions and monitor
the Individual Review Process and Guidelines for necessary changes.
BACKGROIJND
On March 21, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) held the
first of two study sessions with Planning staff and members of the Future of Single
Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group. (Advisory Group) to review the proposed
changes to the Single Family Zone District (R-I) regulations and proposal for an
Individual Review process for single family homes. Binders were prepared for
Commission review which contained five sections: Staff Report, R- ! Development
Regulations, Individual Review Process, Other Issues, and Background. Additional
copies of this material are available from the Department of Plannin.g and Community
Environment, Planning Division.
During the ftrst study session, the Commission identified five issues to addressed or
clarified further for a scheduled second study session. The five issues were, as follows:
1..A lack of definitions for the three major problems/issues, identified by the Advisory
Group and staff (privacy, massing and scale, and streetscape), particularly privacy,
and an associated concern with community expectations; again, particularly those
associated with privacy.
2.A need for increased knowledge of the proposed review criteria (guidelines)
3..A review of alternate thresholds that would "trigger" review.
4.The extent to which contemporary architecture could/would be found compatible
under the proposed review criteria.
5. The extent of the geographical boundaries within which a resident could request an
optional hearing or appeal the Director’s decision.
In response to these issues, staff and an Advisory Sub-Group prepared draft guidelines
including a section on definitions, policies, and expectations. Staff also prepared an
analysis of alternate thresholds and requested a legal review regarding the geographical
limits for optional hearing and appeal requests. At.the second public hearing on May 23,
2001, the Commission reviewed the draft guidelines and .heard oral presentations on the
legal issues associated with the proposed noticing and appeals procedure and a brief staff
presentation on a review of several contemporary homes based on the draft guidelines.
As well, the Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Single Family (R-I) Zone
District regulations (Zoning Ordinance Revisions). Copies of the Staff Report prepared
for. the.second Commission Study Session; dated May 23, 2001 and Draft. Individual
Review Guidelines are als0 available from the Planning Division.
City ofPalo Alto Page 2
MAJOR POLICY QUESTIONS " ’
In reviewing the proposed Individual Review process and changes to the Single Famil. " y
Zone District regulations, there are several significant policy questions to be addressed:.
1.IS there an identified problem(s) or concerns with new single family home ’
construction inthe City of Palo Alto that should be addressed?
If there are problems or concerns, what are they?.
¯ Changes to existing relationships and conditio~is when new homes are constructed,
including those affecting:
¯Privacy.
¯Mass and Scale " "
¯Streetscape
3. What is the best approach to addressing the identified problems, options include:
¯Ministerial approach - including more or different regulations
¯Discretionary approach (Individual Review)
¯Combination of Ministerial and Discretionary Approach
If the discretionary approach (Individual Review)is the.appropriate solution, then
what is the appropriate process?
¯Guidelines
¯Procedures
ANALYSIS
The major problems, and issues identified by the Advisory Group and staff can be
characterized as those affecting privacy, massing and scale (bulk), and
streetscape/neighborhood compatibility issues. With minor exceptions, each of the
priority items identified by the Advisory Group affect one of these areas either. ..
functionally or aesthetically. Changes t° address these issues can be either primarily
quantitative (ministerial) or more qualitative standards i_hat require an exercise of
discretion.
As part of its deliberation, the Advisory Group and staff discussed a range of options .
from no change to review of all new single family construction. While functional.issues
can be fairly readily, addressed through code Changes (e.g., outdoor lighting), it is much
more difficult, if not impossible, to address aesthetic issues with a quantitati~e.approach.
And, such a quantitative approach would significantly limit the flexibility available to
individual homeowners and designers. Based on this reasoning, staff and the Advisory
Group have proposed both a discretionary review through the adoption of an Individual
City of Palo Alto " Page 3
.Review Process and regulatory (ministerial) changes to address the issues identified by
membersof the community representinga broad .range of viewpoints. .
As noted, in previous" staff reports mid the introduction to the Individual Review
Guidelines, it is not the intent of the staff or the Advisory Group to define or require a
specific, architectural style or design, require specific colors, materials, or fi~sh. The
Individual Review Guidelines do however, in the case of new two-story houses or second
story additions, seek.to improve’the relationship between the surrounding neighborhood
¯ andeitherthe new or remodeled house. "
Several other significant issues have been iddntified as part of this process including a
process to address the unique character of certain-neighborhoods such as those comprised
prim .arily of Eichler builthomes and building requirements ("padding") for homeslocated
¯ in both flood zones and single story Combining Districts. Because the emphasis of this
initial effort has been citywide and has not included issues unique to specific
neighborho0,ds or the flood plain, staffwill be seeking City Council direction to include
an analysis of the above more focused issues in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
Update program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Minutes of March 21, Commission and Advisory Group Study Session
Attachment B: Draft Minutes of May 23 Commission and Advisory Group Study
Session
COURTESY COPIES
The Future of- Singl~ Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group.
Jeff Shore
Prepared by: Joan D. Taylor, Planning Manager
Reviewed By: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT/DIVSISION HEAD APPROVAL:
Chief Planning Official
City of Pale Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
March 21, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING- 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Cotnmissioners:
Annette BiaIson, Chairman
Patrick Burr, Vice-Chair
Owen Byrd.
Jon Schink
Kathy Schmidt
Phyllis Casse¢
Bonnie Packer
Staff."
Ed Gawf Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Acting, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney
Joan Taylor, Planning Manager
Chris Riordan, Planner
Steven Turner, Associate Planner
Phillip Woods, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chairman Bialson: I call this meeting of the Plaxming and Transportation Commission to order.
.Will the Secretary please take the roll.
22
23 Thank you. The next item is Oral Communications.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (35 minutes per.speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission
reserves the right t~ limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
Chairman Bialson: I have no cards and I see no speakers. So I close this item. Next is Agenda
Changes, Additions and Deletions. Kathy?
32
33
34
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up to 72 hours prior to meeting time.
35
City of Palo Alto 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
MOTION
Commissioner S~hmidt:I would like to move that we bring items two and three forward.
MOTION PASSES
Chairman Bialson: How does the rest of the Commission feel about that? Fine, thank you.
in favor? (ayes) All against? Hearing no Commissioners speak against that moves
unanimously.
All
So Item 2 is Selection of CIP Sub-Committee. We received a memorandum from Staffwith
regard to a timetable. I’ve requested from each of you by ~-mail volunteers.
2.SELECTION OF CIP SUB-COM1VIITTEE.
Commissioner Cassel: I can do that. I can do either one.
Chairman Bialson: Could you please do the CIP?
Commissioner Ca~sel: Yes.
City of Palo Alto 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. I need one more volunteer. As Commissioner Burr points out
Bonnie Packer has never done it while the rest of us have had that pleasure. So I think that
would round out the Committee right there.
So it is J0n Schink,Phyllis Cassel and Bonnie Packer. Thank you one and all.
The next item on the agenda is Selection of the Sub-Committee For Development of Goals and
Objective~ and Associated Work Program.
SELECTION OF SUB-COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GoALs AND
OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED WORK PROGRAM.
Chairman Bialson: I have heard from some of the members, those who read their e-mail. Some
have even called me. I understand that Mr. Butt would like to serve on that sub-committee. I
understand Bonnie would like to serve. I also would like to serve. Is there anyone else who
cares to serve? Bonnie do you mind serving on both sub-committees? I think this will be
wonderful. So I think de three of us would be the sub-committee. That is the end of agenda
item number three.
I understand that there is a wonderful food spread for us. Some members of the audience are
invited to join us if not all:
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: The Advisory Group members are invited to join you.
City of Palo Alto 3
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Chairman Bialsrn: That’s fine. I think we will break for a very quick dinner and we’ll be
coming back here to address item number one, the Study Session with regard to single family
home design and review. Thank you.
Chairman Bialson: Next on our agenda is Item 1, the Study Session on the single family review.
NEW BUSINESS "
Public Hearings: None.
Oth er Item s:
STUDY SESSION.
Single Family Review: Review and comment on the analysis of Single Family
Neighborhood Compatibility issues. The analysis includes a discussion of the problems
identified with new and remodeled single family homes in existing neighborhoods,
recommendations for the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Ad~sory.Group,
recommendations for changes to the Single Family R-1 Zone District ~AMC-Title 18),
the proposal for a Single Family Review process, and other associated issues.
21 Chairman Bialson: Do we have a p~esentation by Star.if?
22
23 Mr. Ed Gaw-f, Director of Planrfi_ug: .Thank you. This is an item we have been working on over
24 the last year. I’m.pleased to bring it forward tonight for a study session with the Planning
25 Commission. Our presentation tonight is going to reflect the process we’ve used over the last
26 year. That is a collaborative effort between the Staff and the P,.-1 Advisory Group. So tonight I
27 am going to make a few introductory comments and Joan Taylor, who has been the project
28 manager on this, insisted that I make them brief and few. So I will do that to introduce the topic.
29 Then we will have co-chairs of the Advisory Group make presentations. Then Lisa Grote will
30 make the Staffpresentation at the end.
City of Palo Alto 4
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
2 This is one that started several years ago actually. I think the Council first looked at the issue
3 and gave direction for the Staffto explore this issue about three or four.years ago. It got
4 entangled with the historic preservation issue. When I first came two and one-half years ago one.
5 of the first major recommendations Imade was on the Historic Preservation Ordinance and on
6 review of individual houses that were not historic. Council said, "good try but not good enough.
7 ’ Let’s separate the two issues and focus on the historic preservation first. Then work on the larger
8 issue of what about new single family houses being built in our community in existing
9 neighborhoods." So we have done that. We started with a couple of efforts. One is we did
10 something called a VDA, Voluntary Design Assistance program. We did this just about two
11 years ago this coming.April. This is one where we have worked with an outside architectural
12 firm called Origins out of Oakland: Their specialty is working with single family houses.
13 Developers or builders of single family homes could come in work with Origins with us and if
14 they heeded their direction and advice then they would get priority as faras a building permit
15’review was concerned. That’s worked reasonably well. We’ve had 123 applications over the
last two years and that is clearly much lowe~ than the number of new single family homes or
additions that have been built~ It involves both additions and new single family homes. It also
has tended to be the same people using it time and again. I think the people who have used it
-have good comments andthoughts about it but it does tend to be the same people time and time
again. So we’ve done that.
In addition, a year ago this last January we set up the R-1 Advisory Group. Our thought was that
from a technical standpoint, if this were a technical planning issue, we as Staff could address it
City of Palo Alto 5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
!2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
but out thought was that this was really not a technical issue. Those are sort of easy to define
what the alternatives are. It really is a community value issue. What do we want in Palo Alto?
What are our values in terms of the balance between property r~ghts and the role of government
in reyiewing new single family homes? Trying to answer that question we knew we as Staff
needed assistance. We asked three people to be co-chairs of this to-be-named R-I Advisory
Group. The co-chairs are here tonight and will be part of the presentation. Let me introduce
them, Carroll Harrington, Annette Ashton and John Northway. We worked togeth6r over the last
year first in setting up an advisory group that we think represented a good cross-section of
perspectives and viewpoints within our community. If it was going to be a community value
discussion as well as a technical discussion we wanted to make sure we heardall the voices as
part of the process and not as a part of a public hearing at the end of a process. I think we have
done that. The co-chairs will introduce the Other members of the Working Group that are here
tonight.
Let me just say, in conclusion, that for me this has been a very good process. It is a good process
not because I got exactly what I wanted or all my views were adhered to or endorsed by others.
-It is a good process because the Working Group members respected each other, they valued other
people’s opinions, theyhstened and I think we came up with a recommendation that really does
strike a balance within our community. So with that let me turn it over to John.
Mr. John Northway, Co-Chair, R-1 Advisory Group: Thanks, Ed. Before I get going there are a
whole bunch of thank you’s. The members of the group are here it they’d both stand up. I’m
going to go relatively quickly because Joan Taylor’s Staff report was extremely thorough and
City. of Palo Alto 6
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
basically said everything that I would probably say if it had not been so thorough. Before
launching into just going through the highlights of what our process was I want to personally
thank Ed very, very much for paying attention to this. All the Planning Staff that worked with
us, Lisa, Ainy Glazer early on, and our guardian angel Joan Taylor who has been absolutely
fantastic through this whole process. It has really been a team effort. You can’t draw any lines
between where the Staffinput is and where the committee input is.
I want to really underline the fact that what we did for the first six months was to look at this
whole issue and try very carefully to define what the problem is. This is unusual most people,
especially Americans, always know exactly what the problem is and Charge right into a solution
and then we have things like tax codes that are constantly being revised because we never really .
quite hit what the problem is. I think we’ve done a really good job of exploring all of the issues
in a very open process where everyone was invited to the table. Our meetings are all pubhc, they
are all open. Anyone who attended got to participate in the discussions and add to the definition
of what the problem is. So hopefully what we have come up with is something that really the
overall community that was interested in this problem has participated in. Let’s don’t go away
from that yet. The first thing we dicfwas to define a vocabulary. The media wanted to use
"monster homes" or "mansionization." That is all very romantic audit is good for yelling at
people but it is actually useless in terms of defining what the problem is. So we worked with the
local AIA and actually it was Architecture 101, the course we were given by the AIA and we got
definitions to words like "massing" and "scale" and "detail" and "streetscape." All of these
things were really well done. You can’t start to define a problem until you have a common
shared vocabulary. We put together a City-wide tour which I would absolutely urge you to
City of Palo Alto 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
drive. It drives by some of the best and some of the worst but it gives you a pretty good feeling
for the comprehensiveness of this problem and it is invasive of all of our neighborhoods. We
spent a lot of time with Lisa’s expertise leading us through what are the existing R-1 District
regulations fight now. So we had a very good base of both a vocabulary that we could all use to
speak distinctly and directly about the problem. So we can’t just say, "Oh, i hate that house."
You have to say why. We had a good base as to what the City already w.as doing because we are
dealing with an R-1 Zone that actually got an award back in 1990.
What we did is we looked at a variety of problems, I’m not going to read them to you because
you have them in your packet. We went through a process, t~e famous process of using blue, red
and green dots to establish whether we thought they were high, medium or low priorities. I’m
just going to go. through this quiqkly to let you kn~w that this problem statement that we ended
up with, which is reasonably simple, actually took a long time and a lot of work and a lot of
thought. These were the things that we listed as what we thought were the really high priorities
in terms of what the problem was which certainly deals with setbacks, massing, scale and effects
on the streetscape. We established what we wanted to call overriding principles that-we felt was
the l~tmus test for any problem solutions that we came forward to-you with. These are good to
underline but the solutions should address the defined problems because it is easy to drift, off
course: The extent of the problems and the solutions should be related. We absolutely do not
want to ~get into a situation where we think we are over-regulating. There is a trade-off between
flexibility and predictability. That you will hear more about as we go through our presentation.
The solution should be clearly written, practical, equitable and easily administeredl That last one
is very critical because you don’t want something that will drive the Planning Staff crazy trying
City of Pal0 Alto 8
1 to interpret and reinterpret. Solutions should encourage comphance and provide incentives for
2 cooperation. So there should be a safe harbor where you don’t have to deal with the government
3 very muchand still be able to execute reasonable projects. There is a cost for the new
4 regulations for both the City and the appheants. I think we can talk about that more because
5 certainly one of the key issues in individual review is it has to be done fight or we shouldn’t do it
6 at all. Minimize the creation of non-conforming situations. Wynn was all over us about those
7 things. We need to be rain. dfuI of the law of unintended consequences which is always the result
8 of not spending enough time defining what you are doing and getting off into having to do a lot
of corrections.9
11 So after all that work, for six months worth of work, we came up with three main statements of
12 the problem. Pfivacy, the real or perceived perception of the invasion of the privacy of the
13 surrounding neighbors, the bulk. and massing of the new structures and the effect ofthese new
14 structures on the streetscape. I think one of the issues that we wanted to concentrate on was
15 creating neighborhoods where people are feeling okay about each other. The traditional zoning
16 ordinance is very clear about the entitlements that an individual property owner has. Up until
17 now there hasn’t been that much concern about the effects of an individual property on the
18 surrounding properties. What we are starting to see and what we are starting to say is that we
19 think that that relationship is important and that is part of our problem solution. I’m going to
2O
21.
22
23
turn it over to Annette.
Ms..Annette Ashton, Co-Chair, R-1 Advisory Group: Thank you, John. I think, as the chart
says, very key to the process was openness and availability in ali of our meetings. We had a
City of Palo Alto
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
quite a few people from the general public, Council, and Planning Commission that came to our
meetings. Another very, very key thing that we did is every one of our minutes were online. So
anyone could always refer to them immediately and even have a dialogue~ a neighbor space, if
they wanted to ask any questions and use that. So that was something that we did that was very,
very unique. After we finished what John talked about, all the problems, We wanted to test this
out on a real bye audience and go to a community forum which we did in mid-April of 2000..
One thing I would like to mention is that we did have a problem statement that-we went into this
forum with. New and remodeled houses should respect their neighbors both functionally and
. aesthetically. We came out of the forum and had quite good attendance and most everyone
agreed with our conclusion that we had identified the problems. On May 18th in good American
fashion we were free to work on the solutions to all the problems that were identified. The one
thing that is Very important to point out again is that the solutions are out there. As Ed-
mentioned," this is not rocket science. This problem exists all over the county, north, east, south,
west and even all over the world. So the question is we should take the solutions that fit our
community.
Staff a~sisted us as we went through there to bring solutions that were the best and brightest of
what worked and what didn’t work. I thinkeven more importantly as we started to work on
solutions we realized that now we were really getting into an area that created tension. We
probably weren’t going to have 100% conformity with that, although, we actually came fairly
.close. So that.was a constant. We had the straggle between conservation and change. We as a
group decided that we would take the very best set of recommendations that we would
compromise on forward to Council and the Planning Commission and we would try to hit the
City of Palo Alto 10
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
high things. We weren’t going to solve everysingle problem in the entire world and I’ll get back
to that in that we do have some areas that we put on a parking list that will be touched on when
the fina~ ordinance is actually complete.
So what I’d like to touch on next is our recommendations are in four general areas some of
whichwe are going to go in depth with tonight and some we’ll talk about at a future time. The
first one is as you would expect, hard coded zo.ning regulations. You’ve got the details in your
packet and we’ll go through these things that we actually wanted to change. As an example
Floor Area Ratio, we actually didn’t change that at all but we redefined it. So things that are
actually in the zoning code. We took a vote on each item that we recommended. So we are
fairly much in uniformity but wanted to let you know that we agreed on most points.
The second one which is a very, very important part of the process and wanted to bring to you is
the concept of review, an individual review for all houses that meet a threshold. In our group
this was very, very provocative. ~We realized early on that when we looked at the Problem we
had some things that were functional in nature and would fit into the category of the zoning code
and we.had other things that were aesthetic in nature and we probably weren’t going to have a
hard coded zoning regulation to fit it. That is where the mindset of the group changed to the idea
of a review. We were definitely in high agreement that voluntary does notwork. It is very good
and it works for many people but we wanted to have something that was very specifiC. We used
the term, you might look at individual review of houses and you might say isn’t it architectural
review or design review. But the term was chosen specifically because it is in the Spirit of
bringing neighbors together and building communities. We didn’t want anyone to think, as they
City of Palo Alto 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
saw the words, that this would be a formal process with lots of paper. The concept is let’s bring
neighborhoods together, let’s bring people together and it is a simpler process. This is a very,
very key item to talk about tonight because it will depend on what the next activities of the
Advisory Group will be.
So we have a threshold for review and we have a process which we’ll go through tonight but
what are we reviewing when we look at house?. First of all, e~,erythJng that we are doing is
based on the three problem statements, privacy, mass and streetseape..So there will be a
checklist presented very much in the mode of Pacific Grove of items that the applicants will have
to fill out. To give you a feeling for this because this is not completed so you are not going to
11 see the detail tonight. For example, PacificGrove asks the applicant to describe the architectural
12 style of the neighborhood, the pattern of one or two story houses on the block, setback patterns,
13 trees that needed to be considered and how this house will affect the privacy of neighbors and
14 access to sunlight. Then on the other side when the applicant comes to be reviewed there will be
15 some guidelines, again under the category of privacy massing and streetscape. The specific
16 kinds of things that will be looked at are how is the daylight plane affected, what is the window
17 placement o-f the houses, what are the roof forms, what’s massing. The final element that is
18 probably to me the most critical element in the success of this entire program for Palo Alto that
19 Carroll Harrington led our efforts in is the community and Staff awareness plan. The ability to
20 communicate to anyone in Palo Alto the plans to remodel, buy or build a house in Palo Alto. I
21 think we have some really exciting new concepts in this portion of our recommendations. I’m
22 not going to steal any of Carroll’s thunder, she’ll be on the program later on. Again, the content
City of Palo Alto 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of what we are recommending but how we present it and get feedback from the neighbors is, I
think personally, one of the most critical elements.
Next.shale. Really looking back, we are not going to look through all of the areas, but this shows
our process where we had high priority problems, solutions, and then the fact that the only
problems and solutions we looked at were ones that dealt with privacy, massing and streetscape.
You’ve got that in your notes so I don’t think we needto dwell on that.
Next slide. As I said before, as we looked at this we felt that we wanted on the continuum of
review we felt as a group the voluntary or no change or no restrictions on a builder all the way to
the other end of the continuum, review everything that comes into the Planning Department. In
the middle, voluntary, we felt voluntary didn’t work and we’d really like to push it a little harder
and that’s where we came up with the idea of review.
Next slide. Finally, in closing, as we go through tonight you’ll probably see one of your most
favorite issues that is not on our set of recommendations. So we did put many things that we
couldn’t easily solve and we felt should be saved for the future zoning ordinance on a parking
list. Let me just tick through them so this won’t come up in our discussion. It will come up
later. Recycling of the materials from house_s that are being demolished and the reuse of
materials. Noise, that was a very hot item, both from neighboring equipment like commercial
cooking fans, air conditioning, pool equipment and also from construction itself. The Police.
Department is actually working on that. Preserving neighboring, trees and strengthening our Tree
Ordinance and adding trees. As you know, the Tree Ordinance has been enhanced. The whole
City of Palo Alto 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
area of fences. Modification of Eichlers, Eichler neighborhoods and specifics to Eichler
neighborhoods. There is the abihty currentlyfor any neighborhood that is in the agreement on
any specific zoning change .to ask the Council tO apply that zoning to their neighborhood such as
a single.family overlay. Flood plane houses and special privileges that might be considered for
height. And finally, although not up there, the underground garages we will recommend that
they be considered in the future for the final zoning.
So with that I’d like to turn the presentation back to Lisa.
Ms. Grote: Thank you Annette. What I would like to talk to you about first tonight is the
individual review process. After I finish my brief presentation then I think we would like to stop
and entertain questions and discussion from the Commission. Then we will move into the
actually R-1 recommendations for regulation changes if that feels comfortable for everyone.
The question or topic of an individual review is the primary policy issue that will be before you
and the City Council for consideration. That is whether or not to include individual review. We "
are strongly reco~maending that an individual review process be implemented, that it be triggered
by specific thresholds currently there are three such thresholds identified..Those would be for
new two story homes, second story additions to existing homes, .or second story additions to
existing two story homes when the additions art greater than 150 square feet. If someone
chooses not to go through and individual review there is. a safe harbor that John had mention. It
would allow someone to build a one story home without going through an.individual review if it
meets all of the modified zoning requirements as wi!l be approved. In addition to that as an
City of Palo Alto 14 .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
incentive to perhaps take advantage of the safe harbor the full floor area ratio that would be
allowed on a site would be permitted on that ground floor.. That means that the site coverage
regulation in the R-1 zone would become for single story homes consistent or the same equal to
the floor area allowed on that site. So that would be the safe harbor if someone chooses not to go
through individual review. If however, someone does want to do a two story house or a second.
story addition then the individual review process would be triggered and during that review
process the project would be evaluated against the R-1 standards, R-1 regulations and the design
standards of the design guidelines that Annette referenced. Those guidelines are intended to
¯ address the three primary areas of privacy, streetscape and building mass and bulk. They are not
intended to prevent or discourage second stories but they are intended to ensure that those two
story homes are compatible.with the surrounding properties and homes. The guidelines are not
yet completed, as Annette mentioned. The Advisory Group has selected a sub-committee of
three Advisory Group members, Annette, John and Steve Pierce as well as Philhp Woods of our
Planning. Staff to take the b~ginnings of those regulations and complete them, to fill them out.
Some oft.he topic areas that they will be talking about are window placement, mass, location,
. decks, balcony placements, daylight plane and sun and shadow issues.
Next slide. When someone does go through and individual review process we will encourage
strongly that the apphcant meet with surrounding and adjacent neighbors as well as neighbors
across the street prior to making their apphcation. When the application is made we will ask for
verification or documentation that the applicant has attempted to meet with.their neighbors prior
to making the application to discuss ideas and thoughts and concepts about the project prior to
-the application actually having been made. Once it is made, as Annette mentioned, there will be
City of Palo Alto 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a checklist that we will expect to have the applicant Submit that material as part of the complete
application. We ha~cen’t developed that checklist yet. It is still in progress. It will reflect the
design guidelines that are being developed so that an applicant will know to submit materials that
are consistent or that will show how those guidelines are being met. We do, as Annette
mentioned, incIude Pacific Grove’s checklist as an example of a pretty good checklist. It does
have a storyboard requirement attached to it which we have considered. A storyboard would be
something that shows the adjacent properties and the streetscape and how the proposalwould fit"
in with that streetscape. Once an application is made, within three days of it being made we will
mail notice to the adjacent property owners and the neighbors across the street as well as post the
site so that people in the area are aware that an application has been made. I think that was one
of the Advisory Group,s primary concerns that the immediate neighbors be informed that
someone is proposing to do a two story or a second storyhouse. Once the site is posted and the
neighbors have been notified we invite comments. There is a 10 day comment period during
which time neighbors can submit written comments, view the plans, the plans will be available at
the Development .Center as well as most likely at the Downtown Library. We are coordinating
with the library right now. It looks hopeful that we will be able to have plans available at the
library for people.to daeck out on a reference basis. You couldn’t take them out of the library
but you can be at the library and view the plans. At the same time a project planner will be
conducting the Single family plan check so that when the Staff consultation with the architects,
which I’ll talk about in a minute, occurs within about 12 to 15 days of the application being
made we can identify concerns with zoning regulations if there are any, with the design
guidelines and with.neighborhood comment. Once that 10 day period has elapsed within which
people can providd.comment we will have the Staff consultation. That will be with the Staff
City of Palo Alto 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
20
21
22
23
project manager who has done the R-1 plan check~ two architects which will be hired as
representatives of private firms that are hired specifically to review these homes and evaluate
them against the design guidelines, the applicant and their architect. At that meeting, it is
anticipated that it will be a fairly informal meeting held in the Council conference room or
perhaps the fifth floor conference room, where we will go over thos~ concerns as expressed by
the neighbors and the design guidelines as well as the R-1 regulations. At that meeting, if there
is consensus, the Director will issue a tentative decision shortly after that meeting within a
couple of days. That notice of a preliminary decision will be mailed again to adjacent neighbors
and neighbors across the street as well as the applicant. If everyone is satisfied with that decision
and any conditions then it becomes final. If there is dissatisfaction then there is the opportunity
to request a Director’s Hearing. Once that request for a Director’s Hearing is made there is also
the opportunity for a mediation session. We have talked with a mediator who has had experience
in this area and is very enthusiastic about what can be accomplished through mediation. That
would occur within the next 10 to 15 days should there be a request for the Director’s Hearing.
At the D~rector’s Hearing if problems or issues have been resolved through the mediation then
the Director will issue a determination and that will become final. If, however, there is still isn’t
agreement then there is the opportunity to appe~ the Director’s decision. That will then be
forwarded to Council on a call-up basis. This is a new concept for Palo Alto. It would take at
least four members ofth~ City Council agreeing that the a~peal should be heard for the appeal to
¯ move forward. If four or more Council members don’t agree that they should be heard then the
Director’s decision is final. If they do agree that it should be heard then it wo~ld be forwardedto
Council. All in all if there is no request for a Director’s Hearing the decision will be final after
the consultation and that will take about 23 to 25 days. If there is an appeal then that could take
City of Palo Alto 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
i0
II
12
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
up to about 60 days. We tried to summarize that in a timeline that was in your packet which is
up on the screen right now. It basically shows that the process can range in time anywhere from
23 to about 60 ,days. That concludes the process part of it and we will stop her~ for questions "
and discussion.
Commissioner Byrd: I applaud the group for the effort that went into defining the problem first.
Commissioner Butt has taught me the phrase, ’~Ready, Fire, Aim" and has used that to describe
how this community has approached other issues in the past. I think for once we are not doing
that and it is because of your leadership. Then I want to move on and ask some questions in the
spirit of getting the problem defined first.
I read in here and I heard in the reports that the three big issues are privacy, massing and
streetscape. But then I went searching for definitions of those problems and I l~oked in the Staff
report and I couldn’t find itl I looked in the principles in Attachment B and I couldn’t find it. I
looked in Carroll’s thing in Attachment C and it sheds a little light because it is about adjoining
neighbors’ privacy. I went to the Glossary in the last section of the handout and it defines
massing but it doesn’t de’me privacy or streetscape. So I’m very confused. What is privacy?
What is the expectation 0fprivacy to which I’m entitled? Where do we find it? I looked in the
charter and I couldn’t find any reference to privacy. Am I entitled to not have anyone see into
my yard? Am I entitled to have no.one see into my window? Am I entitled to not look out and
see the shape of someone else’s building or into their window or into their yard? I’m really
unclear about what the baseline is for privacy and massing and streetscape that are the
assumptions that underlie these statements of the problem. What is privacy in this community?
City of Palo Alto 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
!9
20
21
22
23
- Ms. Grote: I can begin with an explanation.. I think that issue really was raised as part of the
Advisory Group and also part of the community forums that we had. We held two community "
forums throughout the process and had community members, at our Advisory Group meetings,
That issue was identified throughout the process and pretty consistently throughout the process.
As far as what it is I think there is a general expectation that windows would not be located
directl~y across from each other in two separate structures, that a balcony would not be placed in
such a manner that it would easily look into the neighbor’s backyard, that porches and patios
would be designed when on second floors to face away from other people’s private living space.
That was an expectation that many people have because they are used to it and they feel that it
should be preserved. So that’s part of where that came from. You are right we didn’t define it:
Perhaps we should.do that but I think that’s where it came from.
Mr. Northway: I think that’s a very good question and it is good t° bring it out early because
privacy is abso.lutely relative. I facilitated a discussion in Los Altos about single story overlay
zones. In Los Altos the size of the lots are at least an acre. It came out in that discussion that
one of the expectation ofprivacywas that you.could nude shnbathe. That wodid not be a good
definition to use in Palo Alto because our lots are much smaller. What we found is that because
it is California and because the outdoor space, especially the back-yard space, is regarded in many
cases like an extension of the house, it is an outdoor room, so the expectation is that you have a
reasonable level of privacy in your outdoor room. To achieve absolute privacy which would
mean that I can’t look into your outdoor room is not possible when you are dealing with 6,000
square foot lots. What we are trying to do is to really look at what we would call I think.
City of Palo Alto 19
1
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
probably major abuses that new structures can do to existing structures as far as in real or
perceived invasion of privacy. I think Lisa actually outlined the major things that we found
which were insensitivity in termsof placement of windows so that they are actually looldng into
a bedroom or looking into a bathroom and also we saw major instances where balconies were put.
into the side yards which really felt veryintimidating to a neighbor. Privacy would probably be
a little elusive to get a very hard definition in this town because of the fact that our lots are so
small. Privacy does not mean that I cannot look into your backyard from a second story but it
does mean that you wouldn’t have any really gross violations of that privacy especially in the
side yards.
Commissioner Byrd: John, everything you just said shed more hght on the subject for me than
anything I read here. Again in the spirit of define it before you deal with it, it is probably worth
spending some time being clear on whether or not the definition you just gave is in fact the
definition that should underlie changes in the rules. Your definition of reasonable expectation of
privacy within my outdoor room, I believe is distilled from your experience through this whole
process but that may not in fact be the baseline that we waist to use to impose regulation. It may
be more restrictive or it may be’less restrictive. I’m not clear abut how we go forward until we
get that set.
Chairman Bialson: I have a concern that as we call for consultation withneighbors and have
them be such an important part of the process that we have got to be aware of the expectations
that we give those neighbors. I think having it clearly grated somewhere that and maybe using
words beyond reasonable and perhaps we approach the issue 0fprivacy not from the statement of
City of Palo Alto 20
1
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
i0
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21.
22
23
privacy but sensitivity or some other word may get us a httle further along so that the first few
people going through the process do not find that they have got to deal with neighbors who
perhaps have a definition in mind and would still have the definition in mind if we use the word
reasonable. They are not going to look into my backyard and I can nude sunbathe.
Mr. Gawf: I wonder ifI can add~something. I think you are right. There are actually four
components, the outreach component, but the other three deal with the regulations that we are
going to talk about tonight, the individual review process that we want to talk about tonight and
then the other element is the design guidelines. That is the part.that you hayen’t seen. I think
that’s the part that will deal with those kind of questions. That was a great discussion. We are
working on it right now. One of the reasons that we are bringing this to you tonight is because of
the individual review concept. If you can’t endorse that concept then that changes how we
approach these issues. We think that if we don’t have an individual review then we go to a more
prescriptive approach, that is no windows in the Side or something!ike that. We think the
concept of individual review is a new concept for us for single family homes and that is one of
the key questions we are asking you tonight is for feedback on that. The way we have it set up is
prior to the application of any processa set of guidelines wouldbe developed and reviewed and
commented on at a Public Hearing by the. Planning Commission. Annette may have some
additional information.
Ms. Ashton: I think the question is excellent. You could take it one step further, you could say
what are the neighbors going to complain about, what does privacy mean to them. For me, as I
am called a civilian, I think it will be a kirtle clearer when you see the check_fist that we described
City of Palo Alto 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
¯ 23
in that those are the things that we Want to comment on. Now I do think that your point is well
taken that we do have to’ define a little bit more carefu!ly but the parameters of what privacy
means will be reflected in the checklist. That is true for massing and streetscape as Well. For
example, one of the components we may look at is a question that says where do your windows
look as far as your neighborhood. The point that I want to make is that the expectations and
what we’ll look will be well defined in the checklist which you will see before we finish the
conclusion and this whole thing is approved.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate the comments. I would recommend that you use something
other than the term privacy. I think that is a very loaded term and I think that it is in this
community something that is going to just make people stop and develop in their own mind
expectations that make it difficult, perhaps sensitivity or some other phrase because people are
not going to bother going through the checklist. We. may understand it, you may understand it
after two years but we have to makethis a process.that works. I think I’ll let :Ion speak and then
we will take a step back and go into initially the question of individual review. :Ion.
Commissioner Sch~nk: I would leave to hear 7ohn Northway’s perspective having worked with
chents for many years on the other side of the coin on the privacy issue. That is of the
homeowner, for each set of neighbors there is a homeowner here who we are asldng to give up
quite a bit of their own privacy in the whole review process. By that I mean we heard that
someone is goingto be asked to put their very personal expression of what they want in their
home up for the community to review in-the library and comment on. I am suddenly being asked
or someone is being asked to give up my privacy to all my neighbors so they can decide if it’s
City of Palo Alto 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
appropriate that I’ve chosen to organize my life the way that I have in a way not to impact on
their privacy. You deal with people all the time, what is your sense about how people are going
to react to that? I’ve got a concern with it.
Mr. Northway: I would be concerned if all the floor plans were made public and as I understand
it from the Staffthat is not what they are thinking about doing. The things that should be made
. public would be the things that the public actually is going to see which would be say the floor
elevations. I wouldn’t go any farther than that because nobody has any fights to know if you’ve
go the giant Jacuzzi and eight mirrors in the bat~oom or not. It is nobody’s business. That
should not be part of the process. The way they actually are going to live inside the house should
not be subject to any form of public notification at all.
Chairman Bialson: Ed.
Mr. Gawf: There were two concepts that Were real important. One was this idea that we are
trying to create good neighborhoods and good neighbors. That this process is intended to be one
of working with the new n.eighbor or the new homeowner with the e~isting neighborhood and
existing neighbors. So that is one of the reasons why we emphasize the mediation process. I
think that became an important part of this consideration. The other key point was making sure
that we didn’t over-regulate, as Jon said earlier, was one 0f our guiding principles. That we fully
understood what we were trying to achieve and that was contained within the guidelines and
that’s what we focused on. Not the totality of the building design. So those were two sort of key
principles.
City of Palo Alto 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I’m going to express a different view on this term privacy than yours. In
all of the discussion, I attended most of these meetings, one of the principle concerns that people
have is privacy. I think if we take that term out rather than try to define it or express our
limitations on it we are going to miss what a lot of people are seriously concerned about. Over
and over and over that issue came up. In fact, one of the women that worked on the initial single
story overlay zone that we developed, and this woman was of retirement age at the time, she
wanted tO be able to swim nude in her backyard. She will admit that in pubhc or I wouldn’t say
it. She’ll tell you that. So privacy is different for different people and I think we do need to
express our limitations but I think we have to admit that that’s in fact what people are concerned
about, privacy and what is in California a private backyard. When something different goes in
then it is strange for us and that is what we are grappling with. My mother said, "You put two
story houses up and you put curtains in the windows." She comes from the east coast where it is
different perspective.
Chairman Bialson: Owen.
Commissioner Bw.d.: I’m reminded of Phyhis’ comments of that east coast experience in some
of our other conversations where she ~aid in the backyard back east you got these two and three
story homes right next to each other With the curtains and then you have little three foot chain
link fences o~ nothing at all separating the backyards.
¯ City of Palo Alto 24
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Cassel: Not chain link, something you can walk through.
Commissioner Byrd: Alright, something you can walk straight through. I don’t mean to beat
this to death but I think that coming to a community consensus about what is a reasonable
expectation of privacy, whether you use that word or not and I’m inclined to use it, is really
important because I don’t think we have a uniform view of what it should be. I suppose on one
end it is nude sunbathing and on the other end you can look not only into my yard but into my
¯ windows..Ed, I khow you’ve asked us to comment on a process but I’m not sure how we’re
supposed to comment on a process until We know what the process aims to achieve. I’m not at
all clear about what the definition of privacy is or again to broaden this what the definition of the
concern of massing is, heaviness or weight, is it that buildings look bigger than we want them to
and then thedefinition of streetscape or neighborhood compatibihty. I saw up there that we
don’t want to regulate aesthetics we want to leave room for individual expression and yet
neighborhood and streetscape compatibihty to me sounds an awful lot like my new house should
look like the ones on either side of it, So spending whatever time it takes to get a couple
sentences or a paragraph to define what these goals are before we move f~rward would sure help
me.
Mr. Gawf: Let me remind everyone that tonight is the study session. You are given the ideas
and thoughts and we are scheduled to come back on April 11, 2001 at a public hearing. So we
are listening to what you say and let’s see what we Can do to incorporate those comments.
City of Pale Alto 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: I think you are getting a lot of input from us. I would like to go on to the
next item which is the one you are loo.king to us giving you input on and that is the options that
you presentedboth in the Staff report and in the loose leaf binder of the options for the
approaches that could be taken and the choice that you’ve made of design review for projects
meeting a specific threshold. Do I have any comments from the Commission with regard to
that?
Commissioner Packer: I have a comment or question related to this issue abouf privacy. It
seems as if the group is discussing the problem as though there is nothing but single Story houses
right now in Palo Alto.- In fact there are a lot of second story houses. In these second story
houses people are probably staring right now into their neighbor’s back-yard and have been for
the past 50 years. So for those neighbors they don’t have that expectation of privacy because
they are all staring into each others backyards. We’ve been doing that for 100 years. In fact I
think the earliest houses in Palo Alto were all two and three story homes. Some of the older
homes are that tall. So when I see that the threshold for review is anything that is going to be
two stories, whether it is new. or a remodel or an addition, regardless of whether that’s the last
parcel on the block to build a second story it-seems it is a bit much. It is not taking into
consideration thelocation of that parcel in context of the other parcels. If there are akeady
second stones all around you what thepoint? If it is t~at definition of privacy that you don’t
want to look across at a window on the second story then that needs to be defined but if you
haven’t defined it that way then we have to.look at that threshold and see whether it is meeting
the issue.
City of Palo Alto 26
1
2
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Mr. Gawf: The issue when we say privacy was identified as the issue, the number one issue, I
think it was more the change ofrelatiouship between structures. You are right, there are a lot of
two story houses in Palo Alto but one is tom down and another one built there is still that two
story relationship. But if they put a balcony on the side of the house where there was not one
previously that changes .the privacy relationships between the new house and the existing house.
I think it is those kind of issues that you would look at that change. The other thing that we
struggled with is there are sort of two basic approaches that you can take. One is to look at the
individual house and have guidelines to help you review it. The other is to try to come up with
zoning changes that prescribe what can be done regardless. Some communities say no widows.
in the side of the house. That deals pretty objectively with privacy issues. But there are a lot of
reasons why that may not be appropriate. So we had that fundamental policy decision. Are we
going to try to write these down as specific rules or are we going to be more general and talk
about guidelines and go for an individual review. That’s the sort of threshold decision that we
made.
Chairman Bialson: That’s what I would like to have the Commissioners comment on, that
decision. Jon£ are you first? He defers to you Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I think the time has come for individual review in Palo Alto. It is not a
new thing to California communities or probably communities everywhere. Many of the
communities around here have a variety of ways of looking at design review. I think that the.
concepts I have read about in the Staffreport are much more wise ways of looking at design
review rather than the kinds of prescriptive things that Edjust described. Those frequently come
City of Palo Alto 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
¯ 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
up with unintended consequences or buildings that all look the same or ridiculous things like I
don’t want to say don’t put windows in the side of the house or the side of the. second story. That
just doesn’t make any sense. So I think theconcept is something that we really need to do in
Palo Alto. We’ve s~en many, many homes get rebuilt in the last few years especially but
certainly in the last decade or so and this process will continue. It may slow down for awhile
right now but it is certainly going to continue. I think establishing a reasonable process now is a
good thing to do. AlsoI appreciate very much Owen’s thoughts about defining these ideas of
privacy, bulk and mass, and streetscape more clearly. I understand that when we have the
guidelines and lists that those things will become more evident. I think including broad
definitions, I understand that things will not be one set that clear definition that defines privacy
for everyone, we all know thai. But I think that again defining some general expectations is a
quite reasonable way to go. I think the group can come up with those definitions and that it is
not something that needs to send the process back to square one. I think that we are well on the
way to getting the right solutions to what we need to do here. "
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Well before I give my specific comment on the advisability of design
review let me give you a little bit of my perspective. I spent over l0 years on Palo Alto’s
Architectural Review Board so I’m very used to. design review. More than 10 years ago I
advocated strongly that design review for single family homes was probably the best solution for
us because it would circumvent ultimately more draconian rules that no doubt will be upon us.
With all of that said, may I also share my personal experience as being in the building business
- City of Palo Alto 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
and going through design review on many single family homes and I will tell you from my
personal experience, on more than a dozen homes the neighbor’s privacy always trumps
everything else to do with the project.. First and foremost it trumps the architecture. What you
get out of this process is not better architectth:e but more privacy for the neighbors. It is
something you need tO keep in mind. The individual property rights of the applicant coming
forward are of very little consequence, in my personal experience, to the neighbors or to those
imposing the design review on the property. That’s my personal experience. Given that
experience I believe that the only type of design review that is fair to impose on the community
and on the property owners is one in which you have a trigger at 90% that allows a property
owner just tO say I’m going to express myself however I wantand I’m willing to give up
hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property rights to do my own thing. I think if you
hay6 that you will have a fair process that is willing to respect the fact that someone wants to
give up something to do what they want in exchange for not having the neighbors look in at what
they are doing.. In this whole process, I’m going to be very blunt in concluding, when I listened
to Lisa’s description I thought of it first from my developers background. I thought wow, this is
good, this is perfect for us developers because this is a tough process, people are going to bail out
on this all over the place and there is lots of opportunity here for me to have a big staff that can
just run applications through because that’s what we do for a living. At the same time I was
thinking, unfommately tl4is just doesn’t sound like.a community that I want to live in. That’s
kind of a blunt thing to say but I justdon’t want that much~regulation in my life. IfI was an
individual coming forward I would opt to do a house at 90% so.that I didn’t have to have anyone
telling me that your window can’t do that. I’ll go talk to my neighbors on my own but I just
don’t want a process like this. So that is where I’m coming from.
¯ City of Palo Alto 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: Ed.
Mr. Gawf: I’d like to clarify a point. I think Jon is talking about is we’recommended a safe
harbor if you didn’t go through the i~dividual review process you could always build a single
story house without review and just a building permit. I think Jon is suggesting that a second
¯ trigger would be if you build at less than 90% of the by rights FAR that would also then trigger
only a building permit. Let me say, that becomes sort of a policy decision on howwe want to do
it., I have two follow up comments. One is I think a very important part of this is an annual
review of what we are doing and what we’ve done. We know whatever we do, whatever we
adopt, will not be right. It will not be perfect. There will b4 changes that we will need to make.
So at the end of the year we need to talk to the developers, talk to the neighbors, and see what
went right and what didn’t go so well, and change that. So whatever we do I think we can
expand it or subtract it at the end of that year period. The other comment I’d make is for StaffI
think it is also important to have a safe harbor because if there is not then somehow we feel
compelled to make it Work, whatever it is, sort of make it happen in thesense of we know that
they have a right to build at the end and this is your only option. I think it is good that a person
has the ability to say .thank you very much, I decided not to go through this process, I want to do
this. There is a consequence to it but the~e is a choice that a person can make.
Mr. Northwa¥: I Was thinking about our earher discussion about privacy and massing and then
streetscape slipped into it about what is the definition. I’m sitting here saying what would I do if
I were trying to define this. The reality is you can’t define any of those three terms specifically
City of Palo Alto 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
because Palo Alto first of all from a building standpoint is extremely eclectic and each
neighborhood is very eclectic. So what might be an expectation of privacy in Professorville is a
very different expectation of privacy in Eichlerville and a different expectation on Byron Street.
The same thing with massing. I could show you what.the massing is and the detail and the way
buildings are articulated on any given street and it will be different. One of the reasons that the
zoning ordinance is not a. good vehicle for what we are talld.ug about and why we went to
individualreview is that .the zoning ordinance is ablanket kind of cover that has its little
definitions that sort of fit but don’t fit anywhere. What the zon~ug ordinance does is make
Professorville not work according to today’s standard~ and it doesn’t make the Eic.hlers work
¯ according to today’s standards. This is where we got into looking at where garages are located.
You locate a garage according to Professorville standards in Eichlerville and you are going to get
yelled at because yo~} have destroyedthe streetscape~ This is the reason we came to our
conclusion that you have to look at projects individually~ That’s why we came up with the
concept of individual review. We need to hone in on at least explaining what privacy is. I’m not
sure we can give you a lawyer definition of privacy because as Bonnie said if you live in a two
story neighborhood your expectation of privacy is different than if you live in an Eichler
neighborhood. That’s the base reason, what you’re struggling with with your very good
questions are exactly the same things we struggled with for a year and why we said there are
some things we can legislate but most of it we can’t. We need to look at individual projects
because if you look at it it really is "I know it when I see it." It literally is that. You know an
invasion of privacy when youlook at it and you know something that is perfectly all right. I
could probably design a balcony on a side yard that would be free and respectful of the neighbors
and yet there are lots of balconies that are absolutely disrespectful of the neighbors privacy. If
City of Palo Alto 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
you have this individual review process you can actually make that kind of individual decision.
Whatever the trigger is that can probably be argued throughout all of the elected and appointed
bodies. Keep in mind, the go.a1 is still to solve the problem real or perceived invasion ofprivac~r
the way the streetscape work~ and the way the massing on that indivi.’dual streetscape is working
in the context. We are not trying to say you have to design your house so it looks like your
neighbor’s house. We can take for example Bob Peterson’s house in Downtown Park North.
That doesn’t look like any 0fthe houses in the. neighborhood but if you look at the size of it and
the way it relates to the street that would be a very good example of a good piece of modern
architecture that relates to its neighborhood both in the way it relates to the street and in its size
and massing. That’s what we are trying to do here. We found that over legislation is much more
oppressive to the creative spirit than tb be able to go in and make your point and do your design
so that it works in the environment that you are dropping it into. So it’s a longwinded way of
saying I don’t know if we can define privacy for you because that’s the reason we have
individual review. I don’t know if we can define streetscape for you because all the streets in
Palo Alto are different. All the homes along the individual streets are massed in a different way.
That’s why weneed to look at them in an individual way rather than in some kind of blanket
legislation.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate what you are saying John and I personally agree with it. I think
that just having this process in place and having to address the issues in it, ill-defined as they
may be, are going to force designers and architects to at least think about these matters. My big
fear is I think partly what you were going to address with the annual review whichis an
evolutionary process in creating guidelines and not ending up having design by Staff. I think "
City of Pa!o Alto 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~aat’s everyone’s concern here.. I’ll hold back some of my comments while other Commissioners
speak~ I understand you want to speak Pat.
Commissioner Bust: Yes. Back to the privacy issue it occurred to me that we are not attempting
h~re to define a baseline of a fight to privacy because the amount of privacy that we have in our
homes v.aries greatly. The homes that I’ve had have had anywhere from very httle privacy to
quite a lot in Palo Alto homes. What I think you are trying to address is a diminishment of
privacy. So I think we need to be clear that that’s the scope of what this is trying to address not a
standardized amount of privacy. I would suggest a definition might be a significant decline in
privacy is what you are trying to prevent. Now what is an appropriate amount of decline and
whether there also should be a baseline concept. If someone has almost perfect privacy are they
entitled to retain greater privacy than someone else who has not so much privacy to begin with?
I don’t have the answer to that at this point in time but I think it is an issue that’s at the crux of
what we’re talking about here.
Chairman Bi~lson: I’d like to get the Commissioners comments with respect to the desirability
of individual review process. I’d like to keep focused on that term rather than individual design
review or any other phrasing of that concept. Are we going to speak to this issue? Owen?
Commissioner Bsrrd: In part. ~on spoke from his personal experience, I want to speak from
mine. I am a laud use attorney. I’ve represented project applicants proposing new single story
projects through the entitlement process in probably a dozen communities up and down the
Peninsuia and the South Bay. I have also, because I am equal opportunity lawyer, I have
City of Palo Alto 33
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
represented crabby project opponents who have fought tooth and nail to change the proposed
single family home next to them. So I have worked extensively on both sides of the fence. I
couldn’t agree more with Jon. These processes inevitably result in the privacy of the existing
adjacent homeowner being given priority over every other concern including aesthetics and
property rights and everything else. We may write into this all kinds Of expectations of balance
and reasonableness but without that baseline it always get spht that way.. Having represented
those crabby project opponents I can now say that it is over and down and I got them what they
wanted but what we got them next to them has probably given.them better privacy but much
worse architecture and much worse design. So I’m very suspicious of individual review
processes because I have worked with them so much. That’s why if we are going to have one
here, again it is impossible for me to make a recommendation around it one way or another until
I know what we are trying to address. What Pat said, the standard is diminishment of privacy, I
think that’s really interesting because I remember John Noi’thway back during the Historic
¯ conversation pointing out to this community that there is no one point in history where
architecture has reached its apex and we should never allow evolution. If you presume that the
baseline is diminishment it presumesthat whatever your standard of privacy is now on your
given lot in 2001 that’s how it should always be. What that doesn’{ account for is different
expectations around privacy. I’m in the minority. I think my privacy is my obligation and I
should use curtains and landscape to achieve it. i’ve got two story structures on either side of me
that look right down inand I’ve grown trees and I’ve hung shades and the burden is mine not the
people next to me but I bought into it they didn’t build next to me. So the question is if they
built next to me should I have more rights? I tend to think no. I admit I’m probably in a
minority on this in this community and th~at’swhy we’ve got to get straight the baseline whether
City of Palo Alto 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
8
9
lO-
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
it is diminishment or some standard including my extreme standard which is it is my burden not
anyone else’s before we decide such a tricky system that’s open to unintended consequences
makes sense or not.
Commissioner Butt: Owen are you.saying that people in glass houses should wear robes?
Commissioner Byrd: I’ll take that under review.
Chairman Bialson: You wanted some discussion on it and we’re getting that discussion. I
appreciate what you- are saying Owen and I think that this is something that the group has
wrested with and for some period of time. Assuming that we are going to have something even
through a zoning code change that addresses some of the issues that we have here FAR, etc., you
end up with regulation one way or another. So do you have a ¯suggestion? Are you saying some
of these other approaches or options with regard to regulation are better than individual review?
Commissioner Byrd: I really liked the continuum that Staff put up there from nothing to extreme
subjective design review. The Committee has ~learlycome down at sort of just right of center in
terms of the individual review. Where you come down on what the appropriate tool isis a
function again of what you are trying to. achieve. If we are trying to achieve no significant
diminishment in privacy as it exists in 2001 then individual review is probably an appropriate
way to do it. But if that goal turns out to be overly burdensome on individual property owners
then the tool is too blunt and we should move back toward just a voluntary scheme.
.City of Palo Alto 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: Thank you Owen. Ion.
Commissioner Schink: Wel! Owen, I would suggest to you that if you go back and use the 90%
trigger, aud the 90% trigger being ifI want to build less than 90% of what is sJlowed I can do
what I want, I think you will suddenly get a lot of Cooperation from both the neighbors and the
property owner because he wants to go 100%. Because you can’t define privacy or if you could
you could never achieve enough of it you’ve got to have some mechanism built in here that
creates a balanc~ or throws a fulcrum into the negotiations. That’s why from my personal
experience I think the only way to make this work is to have like a 90% two story trigger.. Then
the system will find the fight balance and they will be able to negotiate what is important to each
Chairman Bialson: I’m going to speak. I appreciate your perspective Yon, I have a problem with
the 90% aud I just throw it out as an issue thht comes to my mind that can perhaps be addressed
by the group. That is, we have no means of enforcement at this point in time where somebody
from the Plarming Department goes out and ensures.themselves that what you are building is
truly 90% of what you are allowed, actually goes out and measures it. With something that can
be defined as a percentage you submit plans and what gets built sometimes is not the same
exactly as the plans. I’ve seen homes built that were supposed to be 10 feet from a certain
boundary line that turned out to be close to eight feet rather than 10 feet. So if you don’t have
some bright line, some clearly perceived and easily perceived line of demarcation between what
is the safe harbor and what is notthe safe harbor I think you are going to lose that boundary of
the 90% FAR. If you go with a single story as being your safe harbor it is a hell of a lot easier
City of Palo Alto 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
than saying 90%. I just bring that point up as an issue. I like your idea of having a safe harbor
where peoplecan go to and i’m just saying I have a problem with the percent. Just a point. I
will now allow even you to speak.
Commissioner Schink: 90% FAR?.
Chairman Bialson: I belieye that is what yo.u were talldng about.
¯ Commissioner Schink: Yes, 90% FAR and it is clearly definable.
Chairman Bialson: It is clearly definable. Do we have any way of enforcing it?
Commissioner Schink: Oh yes. That is absolutely enforced.
Chairman Bialson:
inspectors.
Do we have people actually go out? I heard we only have.building
Commissioner Schink: There is not much of a lack of enforcement in this community. That is
serious. This community has very rigid enforcement.
Mr. Gawf: It does depend upon your perspective. I will say that.
Chairman Bialson: Do you go on the plans or do you go on what is built?
City of Palo Alto 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Mr. Gawf: Both, we actually have gone out and measured and where it is off required them to
cut it back. We also depend upon the 57,000 or 61,000 code enforcement inspectors that we
have in the community as well because we are a fairly good community about making sure that
what is built next door is consistent with the plans. Doesn’t mean that we don’t make mistakes
or coi~ldn’t be better but we have a pretty good code enforcement section ~0w and we do check
that.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate that perspective. Phyllis, you have not yet spoken on this.
Commissioner Cassel: I’ve been attending many of these meetings so I’ve been debating in my
own mind these issues back and forth. What I’m hoping is that if we have a review process, is
that we will actually gain more flexibility rather than less flexibility on these second stories.
There is a risk, as Jon said, both ways. I’m hoping that’s what will happen so I tend to go
towards having a design review with a trigger. In other words, the first floor doesn’t get
reviewed the second floor or someportiOn of the second floor can. My concern is that at this
point I don’t know what the standards are that you are putting up to review. Without that it is a
little hard. You are having a hard time coming up with those, you have been working on it for a
’long time, you’re still working on it and I suspect that reflects not indecision but rather the
difficulty of coming up with these standards. The tree difficulty of trying to debate this back and
City of Palo Alto 38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
12
18
19
20
21
There are a couple of other points .in this process that you mentioned. One is posting the plans.
That may help a little and this is the outline up there. The neighbors don’t know what is
happening, they don’t know what is going on, it is helpful to be able to go down and look at
something so that they get.some idea so that they can act as your inspector if things get out of
line. I know we’ve discussed at these meetings in .the past just malting sure that people post the
standard rules about noise and when you can build and when you can’t. It does help in keeping
people from showing up early because then the neighbors know when they can make a phone
call and when they can’t. That has helped in our neighborhood. So I think a.simple posting is
helpful.
I’m very concerned abdut the lengthof time of 25 days and What that costs. It seems to me that
is a long period of time for the review in asingle family home and is quite expensive for a
homeowner. Maybe it is not but it does seem to me thatwould be a difficult position.
Another way to look at the window to window issue when talking to the person under
construction is ifI can see into your window you can see into mine. Maybe people don’t realize
when they are building a building that if they can see into the neighbors window and they want
privacy they are going to have to do something in reverse. Maybe that in the language would
help so that you are looking at .the privacy from both directions not just from one or the other:
We don’t Often think about that I think when we are doing it.
City of Palo Alto 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22-
23
So basically, yes, I think we may want to experiment with this. Without knowing what the
guidelines are going to be and how extensive they .are I’m a little uncomfortable saying yes go
ahead and do this because I don’t what the true trigger mechanism and the true guidelines are.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I’d like to address some ot~the same things that Phyllis has brought up.
It may be wishful ~g but I think some things that would make a difference in the
experiences that Jon and Owen have had are the idea of inclusion. That the neighbors become
aware of what is going on before construction starts or before destruction starts if the house is
being tom down next door and education, helping the homeowner or developer understand better
the concerns of the community. I think both of those things inclusion and education really can
help make this concept work and that it would be different from the existing design reviews that
do happen in other communities.
I would just comment on something that Phyllis mention concerning the 25 days of review in a
design process. It would seem to me that this would occur at the schematic design’stage and at
that point you could make changes in a project, you’ve not gone the expensive route of
completing your construction drawings. At that time things are. rarely going fast anyway.
Having a few weeks of review in the City I don’t think would hamper the schedule of most
projects.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Packer: Since we are talking about the process itself as it is in this package I
wanted to raise one point which concerned me and that was that anybody could appeal the
Director’s Hearing decision. I don’t think that would be wise. Ithink it should be limited just to
the neighborsand the people who would be immediately affected. We don’t want some of these
gadflies. It also brings up the point that even though in these public meetings people talked .
~bout privacy as a concern and the concern about massing some of the concerns that the public
expressed I think just came from a concern about change, the changes that they were seeing in
Palo Alto. They use the phrase loss of privacy but I think it was just reaction to change.
Something to keep in mind is that the neighbors that we have now are not going to be the
neighbors that are going to be there five years or ten years from now. Perceptions will change.
The second story windows that are there now are not going to bethere five years from now. So
there is a fluidity that is just inherent in the way we live and trying to get everything perfect in
terms of the alignment of windows. Phyllis you are right, it is reciprocal. The person who is
building the window is going to be looked at just as much. But this is important in some other
aspects. Having the neighbors talk to each other I think is good about a project but approval of a
project dependent upon whether a window is five feet here or three feet there shouldn’t be a basis
for disallowing the project or making the homeowner do something that would be very costly.
My question is was this an oversight that anybody could appeal?
Mr. Gawf: No, it is not. The issue as I understand it involves looking atthe streetscape. Once
you start looking at the streetscape you broaden the people affected to beyond the immediate
City of Palo Alto 41
1 neighbors. Our advice was that if that were the case then we need to allow more than the
2 immediate neighbors to have the right to appeal. That was as I understand it the reason for that.
3 We will also address it when we come back on the 11th We’llget a httle bit more and give you "
4 some options on that. But that is what I understand is the basis for that.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1-9
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Burt: .I have a question for you and Jon. Were the design review processes that.
you two were talking about that you felt were deleterious to the project, were they pubhc
meetings or were they the type of meeting that is in this proposal?
Commissioner Byrd: Generally in a formal hearing process.
Commissioner Schink: Let me just quickly answer that. I try to do 95% of my negotiations in
the neighborhood setting and that is the experience where I know that if you don’t have any
place to run and hide or some safe harbor of your own the negotiations will always end up with
privacy being the only issue.
Commissioner B,c-rd: When I commented on the potential downsides of a review proces~ and I
said it tends to negatively impact the design of new projects I left out another important
consideration which is perhaps more important than just the aesthetics of getting the best houses
we can. That is that I know that single family design is a really politically salient issue in this
community and all around the region. But your h~me is also something to which there is deep
emotion almost non-rational allegiance. There is only so many bites Of the apple the government
gets and if we want to provide services for the homeless andpass parcel tax and pay teachers and
City of Palo Alto 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
fund shuttles and do a whole bunch of other things that we want to do as a community at some
point we run the risk of losing the consent of the governed when wetrample around on a subject
that is so deeply held and so emotional. So while I don’t like ugly houses any more than
anybody else the trade-offto me around instituting a system which may result in fewer ugly.
houses at the expense of further alienating people from their government and making them less
likely to pbrficipate in stuff that I think frankly is more important than whether houses are pretty
or ugly, I think is a real valid concern.
Mr. Gawf: Annette I wonder ifI could respond.
Chairman Bialson: Certainly.
Mr. Gawfi I think you are right in that regard but I think it also can be said that you lose support
of the community if you don’t address issues that they feel are strongly needed to be addressed.
I think that was the whole thrust ofu~ forming an advisory group was to try to find the right
balance between the government role and private rights. You may recall my original suggestion
a couple of years ago that received such response was a pretty traditional design review
approach. That is, you have a single family home we set up an Architectural.Review Board you
go in front ofit and get approval or not. So I think we’ve tried to find a process that has a safe
harbor, that has a balance between those two very important needs. I think the community is
asking us to address the issue in some way. I think we also feel very strongly that trying to only
address it through prescriptive approach, through zoning code changes, will not address the
issue. In fact, I think in some ways will make it more complicated, more complex, and more
City of Palo Alto 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
difficult to apply but certainly won’t address the issues that we’ve heard at the community
settings.
Chairman Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I’m generally inclined to support the concept of the individual review. As
I’ve been listening to some of the issues raised by fellow Commissioners there may be some
modifications to the concept that would make it more palatable to the segments of the
community who are less inclined to support the concept. One was talked about on this threshold
for who gets to appeal. Ed, wh~en you said immediate neighbors, you weren’t talking about just
to either side it i~ the street. Seems to me that if nobody on the whole street opposes that is a
pretty good threshold to have passed and that we shouldn’t necessarily feel obliged to allow
people across town to raise opposition to something that nobody on that block is opposed to. So
that might be something to reconsider. Second, Ithink that we are generally inclined to give
more latitude to our neighbors than to a spec builder. That if a neighbor wants to add something
to their home and they have this passion about their own private space and what they would like
to do with their home then we might be more inclined to give them some latitude than to -
someone who is coming in and either building a new house or taking a house and building an
entire new second story. So we might want to look at the threshold where I think we were saying
that even 150 square foot second story addition to a current second story would trigger the same
sort of review as an entirely new second story home or adding an entire, second story. So maybe
¯ that is another area to look at whether we should give more latitude.in that area. Thirdly, I’d be
interested even now what the co-chairs, recognizing that they can’t speak on behalf of the entire
City of Palo Alto 44
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
.8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
committee, think of this concept of an additional safe harbor where if someone was willing to
sacrifice whatever defined portion of the allowable FAR that they would be able to be removed
from either some or all of this process.
Mr. Northway: 1,11 take a shot at it and you can follow up. I get back to our problem definition,
privacy, bulk, massing and streetscape: What we found is that the maj6r architectural elements
that violate this problem are second stories. So a smaller second story would not make the
problem be less. The reason that we had the second .story be the trigger mechanism is because if
you simplify it down as best as you can, because people have to understand why these things are
happening, that the second story is the thing that is peering down, it is the thing that might be
disturbing an existing streetscape and the way the second story is massed and arranged on the
site has the most impact. So making it be 10% smaller doesn’t really address the problems as
we’ve defined them. So the advantage of having defined what the problem is is that we are t~airly
able to answer these .ldnds of questions. If you want to accept that the three basic items that we
have outlined in our problem definition then that is the reason that you look at second stories.
We are not doing it because we dislike second stories. We are saying second stories are the
major contributor to the.change in privacy, the change in streetscape and the change in the way
massing and bulk is perceived along the street. Anything else can be said by the committee.
Commissioner Burr: As you’ve defined those three main problems of privacy, mass and
..streetscape as I understand it, those problems as defined from the perspective of the neighbors as
opposed to from the perspective of the home builder. I think that in recent years we have paid
too little attention in our regulations to the perspective of the neighbors. And that that’s what
City of Palo Alto 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
this group was intend to attempt to address. But I’m not sure that in doing so we should define
the issue solely in terms of the perspective cffthe neighbors. There also should be some balance
to that home builder or remodeler. So my question is how.do we strike that balance? What is an
appropriate balance? I don’t think it is appropriate, as much as I’ve been in favor of this overall
concept and was pa~’t, of the first advisory group, I don’t think we should define the problem
solely in terms of the perspective 0fthe neighbors. That issue and that perspective has been
undervalued in recent years and I would be hesitant to swing the pendulum too far the other way
and define the problem solely in terms of that.perspective and those values. I know you’ve tried
to make some efforts to balance those things but I’m interested in this other safe harbor concept
at least in exploring it and if there is some way to strike some additional balance between what
are apparently going to be conflicting objectives.
Ms. Ashton: Just my perspective to add something different from John. I do think the envelope
is really what we are looking at and that is ,~ery important as far as what neighbors see. I do
think that when we took the tour it was so obvious that with good design you can hide almost
any of the problems. I just can’t repeat that enough. Unfortunately not every single builder and
architect is as fine as some of the people on our committee. Maybe we should just limit it to
these architects and developers. I think the concept of a safe harbor by reducing the envelope
and giving some percentage conceptually sounds very good but if you look at the actual numbers
as far as what happens on a 5,000 square foot lot, this 10% only giv.es about 100 square feet
which is not very much. If you look at an 8,000 square foot lot we are. only talking about 250
square feet which is a very small amount.. So I personally, because I think you can do a lot with
the design, would go more for the idea we have in place as opposed to putting an envelope
City of Palo Alto 46
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
aro .ur_ad the.house and give them a safe harbor which was a percentage unless the number was
dramatically less. About 70% I would say than90%. But it is a small number. It is Murphy’s
Rule that ~fyou have that what is probably going to happen is those 100 or 250 square feet are :
always going to be on the wrong side of the house and the mass is going to be in the wrong place
as far as the neighbor that is affected.
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I have two questions and thenI have another editorial Comment. My
first question is I believe during the presentation Lisa pointed out that if a project is appealed the
that the timeframe can be up to 60 days.
having a little trouble reading the chart.
Council.
Does that include the step to the City Council? I was
I thought the 60 days was up to an appeal to the City
¯ Ms. Grote: It is intended to include Council however sometimes that varies due to Council
agendas and date availabihty and things like that. It is intended to include the Council hearing as
well. It is predicated on the fact that four or more Council members agree to hear the appeal.
Commissioner Schink: Okay. The second question is there was some discussion about whether
there should be different s~andards for who could actually appeal a project. I’m wondering if
Staff could comment whether you can actually exclude certain members of the community or
just hmit the appeal to a specific neighborhood?
City of Palo Alto 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Woman: I’m not going to exactly answer the question.
Commissioner Schink: Maybe the City Attorney can answer it.for us.
Woman: Wyrme is out there and I’m sure she would be happy to speak to it. The comment that
I wanted to make is that we did discuss this issue and we discussed it with Wynne at the time.
.The problem has to do with either the adjacent or how would we define, as we mentioned we
discussed the fact that since we are going to include the streetscape issues that seemed to be
more reasonable that there should be additional houses or people who own those houses who
could do the appeal. The question becomes is it the block? How do we define the block? So
then you open up a whole hew problem and that iswhere I see th~ issue.
Commissioner Schink:
or the whole City.
I’d still like to know if you’re allowed to limit the universe to one block
Chairman Bialson: I think what you are asking is a question for.City Attorney. Wynne?
Ms. Wvrme Furth, Senior Assistant CiW Attorney: We spent a lot of time thinking about this and
asking those questions and we’ll I’m sure spend more time on it. There is one bright line and
that is a case called Horn vs. County of Ventura which says that when there are people who are
interested in and affected by in a proper~y sense a decision they definitely have standing, they
definitely need to know, they definitely have to be able to appeal. The question of who has to
have standing to appeal on a matter doesn’t have as many bright lines. I certainly have heard
City of Palo Alto 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
from this discussion andpreviously heard from the Working Group that there is a great condem
about mischievous appeals. I though{ that one way to avoid those would be to try to make a..
smAler circle of people who could appeal. I don’t see a problems with that when you are talking
about this privacy issue because I think that does involve a very small group. You could argue
that what we want is a well built City and well built City is one in which houses are built to
respecteach other’s privacy. So there is a communal interest just like you want hght and air.
When it comes to talking about massing and streetscape you are usually talking about how it is
viewed from ~he public right of way.and from folks going by. There I see it as more difficult.
We will work harder. That’s why we talked about call up appeals because I think that gives the
Council the power to limit their review to situations where they think there is serious evidence.
that Staffis not understanding Council direction as opposed to a situation in which somebody is
unhappy which is a much broader group of situations.
Chairman Bialson: Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: Pat raised one issue which I think we need to address before we go farther.
I think he was correctly identifying a sentiment in the community that a lot.of people sort of feel
that an individual homeowner builder who is remodeling or scraping and rebuilding is somehow
both more deserving of protection of their property rights and in turn more likely to be
responsive to the concerns of their neighbors as opposed to a "spec builder." I think that is a real
slippery.slope .for us to travel. When we start legislating in terms of people’s status we bri_ng up
a whole host of really ugly history in this community and in this country. It may in fact be true.
You may be able to prove it empirically but I would strongly urge us to steer well away from
City of Palo Alto 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
t9
20
21
22
23
trying to design rules that distinguish between someone who lives on .site and is rebuilding
versus someone who owns the property and is building it intending to sell it. If you own it, you
own it.
Commissioner Burt: Owen, I wasn’t proposing that we make that distinction. What I was
suggesting is th~tpeople who do small additions to a second story are generally within that
category ofhomeowners..who are doing modifications to their own home. I wouldn’t suggest
that we would legislate b~ed upon whether or not it is that homeowner. I was suggesting that
the smaller additions to a second story might deserve to have a lower standard than an entire
second story addition or a scraper. Indistinguishing based upon a square footage or some other
distinction of a minor addition to a second story you would indirectly be addressing the issue, not
directly.
Chairman Bialson: You have gotten a lot of input here. From my perspective I think the issue of
having the safe harbor be the second story is the problem. It is one I certainly understand and my
issue of enforceability with respect to a percentage may be something that Annette responded to
by saying that 90% difference is small enough that it might notbe spotted and maybe 70% is
more appropriate. Am I incorrect, Annette?
Ms. Ashton: I didn’t say spotted. It is a very tiny amount when you look at the mass of the
house. Actually the numbers were a httle wrong it was 200 to 350 square feet but still the mass
is usually placed in the wrong place as far as the perspective.
City of Palo Alto 50
1 Chairman Bialson: Right. I think we are pointing to the same issue which is you need a brighter
2 lineand the issue of all these other items such as the massing, privacy, etc., flow from having a
3 - second story. I think we are all talking about how we avoid the tyranny of "unreasonable
4 expectations" 0fneighbors and others. We are changing the dynamic somewhat from the
5 regulating body, the governmental entity and the homebuilding to interject the neighbors. That is
6 a problem and perhaps broader than just the neighbors or the gadflies .or activists in our
7 community and.we are looking at the harm they can d0 to the homeowner by having appeals
8 processes such as that. Even if you have a call up process; how often have we seen the City
9 Council bow.to what they perceived as the opinions of important individuals, outspoken
10 individuals and have heard matters that we sitting here have felt probably don’t need a de novo
11 sort of review process. So I’m not very comfortable saying that City Council will discipline
12 themselves. I think they will take up these things because it is always easier to say yes than it is
.13 to say no. I again go back to you would have to educate both the Staffthat is dealing with this
14 issue and the community as to the expectations that they could have, the hmitations on their
15 powers and I think with that I for one could see the individual review as being the best way to
16 go. But I think it is a very dangerous process that shps into design by Staff or worse yet by
17 neighbors. It could be terrible in its operation and that’s where the annual review would be
18 appropriate.. Imight also suggest perhaps a sunset clause. We may endup having something
19 that spins out of control to the point where we want it to die and not necessarily put it on
20 anyone’s agenda to actually kill it. There will always be those people who find it to be
21 something they like: So I think a su.fiset clause would make me feel more comfortaNe with it in
22 addition to the annual review. All this takes a very hght touch. I don’t know how we can have
23 the regulators and the neighbors have that hght touch, we have problems and we are all sitting
City of Palo Alto 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
here looking at the gross problems. Maybe the tour that you are recommending will take us to
the point where we don’t think all remodels or buildings that are new are terrible but those are
the ones we all react to. Do you have enough response with regard the approach at this point?
Would you like to hear from Jon or Owen again?
Commissioner Schink: I think this is the biggest issue we as the Planning Commission are going
to tackle for a long time and I don’t think an hour and one-half of discussion is sufficient.
Chairman Bialson: No, I don’t mean with regard to everything. I talking about with regard to
the issue of the individual review.
Commissioner Schink: Yes, I think the issue of individual.review is one of the biggest issues the
Planning Commission is going to tackle for many years andI thinkwe should spend more time.
Chairman Bialson: Fine, but let’s go on from where we were.
Commissioner Schink: There are a lot of other issues and let me come back to we focused on
¯ privacy. I think that’s one of the value decisions we were looking at that the committee brought
to us as a decision. I for one am again struck with creativity and freedom are not one of the
values that were up on the list. That’s free because that is whatdidn’t flush out in the community
but those are values that I have and now I am trying to impose those on what you have brought to
me and how do they Come out in the wash is the question. ¯Could you as a committee sort of give
City of Palo Alto 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
me your sense if the project on Emerson and Addison Street that recently got a lot of publicity as
an environmentally friendly house, what would happen?
Mr. Northway: It would certainly be.my hope in the system that is set up that that house would
not have been tampered with. I think the forms that house takes and the orientation that house
takes has very logical sane reasons behind it with orientation towards the sun and efficiency in
capturing solar energy. We wrestled With this. To give you some historical perspective we had
an ad hoe committee formed in 1997 that started looking at this problem, George Stern, who is
out in the audience, was on that committee. One of his very astute observation which I hope we
all never forget in the report from that committee which was working on defating the problem
we talked about conserving and change. The observation that George made is that throughout
the history of this country there has always been a tension between those who want to change
and those who want to conserve and there always will be that tension. We will never reach a
solution on this particular problem because this is dealing with that tension where the tension
disappears. The best we can do in looking at the solution is to try to minimize the tension, to try
to reduce it, but we can’t eliminate it. I think as an architect and the oth~er architects on the
committee we approach design review with trepidation but when you looked at }.he alternative to
solving some of the problems that were identified it was a very heavy duty set of regulations at
which point I would be in to the Zoning Administrator on a weekly basis ’asking for some kind of
relief under HIEs or Variances or something. A simple little example, a nice scenario that would
actually work and be aesthetically pleasing, windows on the side of the house. Let’s just say you
have to use clear story windows in the rooms on the side of the house on the second story. Clear
story windows start maybe around five feet and go to eight feet. They still provide light, they
City of Palo Alto 53
1 still provide ventilation and they actually look very nice. Now you have to get up on a stool if
2 you want to stare at your.neighbor. Conflict: uniform building code says if you have a bedroom
3 on a second story you have to have at least one window that is only three feet offthe ground thkt
4 you can get out of as a fire escape..That is just one example of many that we kept coming
5 across. The whole thing boiled down to trying to find something that would address the issues
6 that we had identified and would still give the creative freedom to the applicant. We all felt that
7 was enormously important. Oneofthe worst things about the whole failed Interim Historic
8 Ordinance is we had someone in City Hall trying to dictate style and design and that was awful
9 and everybody hated it and it died a very appropriate death. If anything that wasthere in front of
10 us the whole way through, that we did not in any way want to create a situation where a small
11 group of people were dictating to people what their design should be. That’s why we wanted to
12 keep it to design issues like massing, scale, articulation. So that a Bob Peterson can do a house
13 like he did or the house we just discussed can be done and can work within a neighborhood and
14 not have the strong arm of government censorship placed upon it. We wrested with this very
15 ~ hard. It really did come down between excessive regulation versus the chance that a more
16 benign way of reviewing the design on an individual basis so you go in and make your individual
17 design case would be a better way than constantly trying to get around regulations that didn’t
18 think about the circumstances that exist on your lot.
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Schink: Can I follow up on tha?
Chairman Bialson: Okay ]’on then Owen.
City of Palo Alto 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Commissioner Schink: My understanding that I heard from a number of the neighbors is that
they were very disp.leased with that house. I thought we were trying to protect the
neighborhood’s interest and the neighborhood’s interest as ! understood were contrary to what
happened on that site. So how in this process are we going to balance that?
Mr. Gawfi A couple of things. That house plus several other houses might be looked at as a
little different than the rest of the neighborhood were included on our tour. We wanted some
feedback on the very question that you are asking. We did the tours as individual groups,
UsuaLly we had a Staffperson, an architect and a civilian in the car and we had discussions as we
went around. I can’t remember if there was a conclusion when we had finished and got together
again but I know in my group I just know that the issue that you identified would come up. It is
interesting. Some people said I like some people said I don’t like it but almost everyone said it is
probably within the range of meeting our goals, the privacy, massing and streetscape and
therefore should be approved. That was one of the real reasons why we called it individual
review and not design review. It is not intended to be reflective of personal taste but of the
factors that have been identified whatever those factors are.
Commissioner Schink: I understand all that but what is there in the material that is in front of us
that would suggest that that would pass muster?
Mr. Gawf: One of the things that I think we’Ll don on April 11th is give you a little bit more
background on some of the design issues that we tackled. We spent a lot of time I think on all
the issues actually but one of the areas we did as Jon said to educate ourselves on what is
City of Palo Alto ..,55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
massing, what is privacy, what is appropriate streetscape, We shortcut that tonight and I think.
we will add that to our presentation on the 11th. That may give you a better sense of some of the
areas we are looking at.
Commissioner Schink:
so it is in the record.
Maybe you could include a picture of that house and say this would pass
Chairman Bialson: Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: I notice that the tour excluded Downtown North. I’m sure Michael Griffin
wanted people.to come to our neighborhood and look especially because we have had so much
discussion of Bob Peterson’s house tonight which is in Downtown North. At the risk of
violating Bob’s privacy here I was thinking about your comment that it would probably pass
because in my mind’s eye streetscape and massing issues are in fact addressed but that house
orients sideways on the second floor with a great deal of interior open space and glass that
directly violates, I use that term advisedly, but violates the privacy next door. You think Bob
Peterson’s house would pass this process?
Mr. Northwa¥: If I didn’t I wouldn’t support it.
Commissioner Byrd: In fact, I wouldencourage people to come visit my and Michael’s
neighborhood. We have a number of different expressions ofm0demism in that neighborhood
some of which I think workand some don’t.~ But again, that’s m~ subjective view. I’m
City of Palo Alto 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22
interested in Jon’s suggestion. Go around and take pictures really unorthodox houses that would
still pass to give some sort of assurance that the problem wouldn’t.wash out .reativity and
freedom.
Chairman Bialson: Would you want those pictures to be part of whatever process we come up
with so that Staff that maybe has not gone through the process we have hear of education and
hammering out what we wgnt and don’t want would be incorporated as part of the regulation?
Commissioner Byrd: I’d have to think carefully about that. I don’t want to compromise any of
those homeowners privacies by having pictures of their homes included in guidelines or code. I
like Jon’s idea. Bring us some examples of really unusual houses that would sti!l pass muster.
Chairman Bialson: That was very fast.
Mr. Northway:. I want to give you guys a homework assignment, I don’t know if you’ve done it
or not but I think it is vital that you drive that route that is in your packet. Quite frankly if you
need help I’m sure any of the architects on the committee including myself would be happy to
ride wi~ you. It is really important that you take that tour because clearly one of the problems
of having worked on a problem for over a year is that we know the problem backwards and
forwards. We g9t the benefit of having the Architecture 101. We will give you a little of that
benefit at the next meeting. We had the benefit before we started the discussion of actually
having defined all of these terms.s0 we all knew what we were talldng about. We will give you
City of Palo Alto 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
that at the next meeting. I would really ask that you drive this thing and if you want help from
any of the members of the committee we’d be happy to get a group of you and go with you.
Mr. Gawf: Jon,-we didn’t include Downtown North because Michael wasn’t assertive enough.
Chairman Bialson: I think your points are well taken. I think wh~t you are hearing here is
respect for all the work you’ve done and respect for the fact that yes, we agree with you that you
would find these homes to be acceptable, this group right here, this Staff right.here. What
are hearing is fear of what happens one year or two years down the road and how these things
migrate and get reinterpreted by individuals. Am I correct Jon?
Commissioner Schink: Yes, I think it is essential that we have in the record some wonderful
creative examples so someone can come back and say wait I thought I was supposed to be able to
do this.
Cha’trman Bialson: Some articulation I think that while you mentioned privacy which I think is a
very loaded word, and I think you’ve got to change that, massing and streetscape I think you’ve
got to have as priority number one thefreedom to design something different and say that all
these things are a balance. It is not an absolute given, the neighbors will accomplish these things.
Jon you can speak and then we will go back to the Commission.
Mr. Northwa¥: I don’t think anyone on our committee would disagr.ee with Jon’s statement that
this is probably one of the most important issues that the Planning Commission will address and
City Of Palo Alto 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
also the City Council. One of the reasons that we literally limited the number of issues that we
brought forward was because we have great respect for the fact that for 107 years this town put
itself together without an enormous amount of help from City Hall and it’s a pretty good town-
that a lot ofpeoplewould like to live in. This is a change. This is a change in how we are
looking at our neighborhoods and it is a change in how we are looking at how the structures that
are going in the neighborhood are going to interact with each other and it needs v.ery careful and
full community debate. It is a change and it’s a big change. It shouldn’t be taken lightly. I
really personally appreciate the feedback you’ve been giving. You’ve pointed out some fears
that I’ve had. I think certainly the discussion about privacy and the definition of what the
expectations is, obviously we have to be very clear to the community on that. We appreciate
your .feedback.
Commissioner Packer: I’m looking forward to when we see the guidelines and I can have a
feeling for how this process is going to work. What I hear on one hand is we have very sldlled
talented architects and people With a good sense of what makes a good fit in the streetscape and
the massing who would be looking at the applicant’s proposal. Then on the other hand you have
the neighbors who are not architects but have their own personal views about what the applicant
wants to do. I’m not sure how the neighbors’ concerns are going to be translated and
implementedin the context of the guidelines which are sort of architect driven as opposed to
neighbor driven. I see two things happening here. There is review with Staff and architects and
then the neighbors come in. The neighbors will not have had the benefit of this tour or
Architecture 101 or all these other things. So how would that work and what additional burden
are we imposing on the apphcant in dealing with this?
City of Pqlo Alto 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: Annette.
Ms. Ashton: Thank you. I feel really compelled to say something about changing
neighborhoods" and why we need to do something. We haven’t talked about the Comp Plan
which I think is very significant and the need to change something with zoning. When you look
at Jon’s comment about the town being able to run itself for 150 years I’m really struckby some
comments I heard recently by Ray Swarez, many of you went to the Leaders Forum, as he talked
about our changing neighborhoods. For many years we didn’t have these dialogues because
everyone had the same mindset. Now as our culture has changed and people’s values change we
do have this clash of what we should do in our City. I was additionally struck by a comment that
Commissioner Burt made the other night: He was talking about in Crete where he lived how
someone had put in this beautiful low-level low profile sort of houses and Eichler even a
gorgeous ranch style house how that would be so disrespectful of the neighborhood.- I think that
is the perfec.t analogy of what we are trying to achieve. We don’t want in our environment that
clash to be so dramatic. So I think it is time to do something and just wanted to share that
thought.
Chairman Bialson: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want to come back to something we talked about that Jon brought up
of wanting to make sure that we can still encourage the creativity of design and the homeowner
has rights here too. What has come to us is primarily looking at it from the rest of the
City of Palo Alto 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
community. I think we do really need to have in this, and as others have said too, the statements
about the big picture. That we want to encourage good design, creativity, individuality, whatever
needs to be said there but that it is not the-written guidelines go out and the community outreach
that occurs helps tO convey that idea too. That it is not just the neighbors saying we want you to
do it our way. I think that both sides have to be given weight in the documentation and
education they have.
Chairman Bialson: Owen.
Commissioner Bs, rd: I’ll make one last comment that is directly on point. In terms of the
threshold for review my concern with a threshold that places a great deal of emphasis on second
stories in turn because second stories are perceived as most impactful of privacy has an
underlying value judgment to it that runs counter to a lot of the other thinking that infuses our
Comp Plan and our region. We live in the fourth largest metropohtan region in the nation, we
need to grow up and not sprawl out and whether that is the region or whether it is by lot in order
to protect permeable surface and protect natural environment, in general it is better to go up and
not out. I understand that whe"n you go up and not out that can be at cross purposes from
protecting privacy. I know that this Commission has got its chops busted by the City Council for
our resistance to single story overlays which was in part premised on our behef that in general it
is better to go up than out. So as we look at threshold for review andas we consider this desire
to protect privacy, however it is defined, that needs to be balanced against values including sort
of the regional notion that we grow up not out and that we protect the environment. Every single
square inch that we pave over, whether it is on my lot or across this region, generally diminishes
City of Palo Alto 61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the quality of our natural environment.
process too.
So I think.that is a value that deserves expression in this
Chairman Bialson: .Phyllis.
¯ Commissioner Cassel: I was hoping that in doing a review process for second stories that we
would allow second ~tories with less resistance to what we have now. What we are.getting now
is people are very angry when someone puts up a second story. Yet, when we do our tours we
know that the second story is only uncomfortable in certain cases. We can’t identify the larger
home by looking at the second story. You look at the house and you look at two or three houses
down the street and you cannot tell which house is the largest house by looking at the front of the
house because some houses are very nicely done and it fit in such a way that it doesn’t appear as
big and other houses just feel massive by the design. Second stories should be Welcome and
wanted in the community. Houses that reflect different cultures should be welcome and wanted
in the community. I was hoping in allowing the review process we’d build it in such a way that
it feels comfortable in the community and We can stop being .angry at people for having second
stories. Maybe if we do this with that intent some of the anger might go out of it. Even though I
very much want the next st~p and that is to allow people to build on the first floor if they want to
build on the first floor, environmentally that is not the way to go. Second stories are the way to
go. It is much better to heat. It is much better to cool. It is much better for impervious surface.
But people are angry because of these other issues and somehow we’re trying to resolve these
two conflicts. I hope we can look at this in a more positive way to build second story units that
feel comfortable that allow flexibility, that allow different cultures to express themselves in a
City of Palo Alto 62
1
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
2O
21
22
23
environment. One size does not fit all and it’s not comfortable. It gets pretty boring to drive
through New England they are all the same looking house.
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink:. I’ll try to make these my final comments. I think first I would hope that
we make it very clear to the community in sort of simple terms that j~ou translate what is being
proposed in terms that the community can understand, that a 150 square foot second story is
going.to .trigger design review. That essentially means if someone wants to add a walk-in closet
on the second floor of their home they will come in for design ~eview. I think that the whole
community needs to grasp that issue.
Speaking to the point that Phyllis raised, I want to tell you from personal experience this process
is not going to reduce the tension in the neighborhood in any way whatsoever because when you
get people participating and negotiating over what’s happening it just raises the level of tension
un2ess you allow the parties a way to opt out. By that I’m advocating my trigger on the second
floor. If you give a trigger, maybe I’m reaching too much for 90% maybe it needs to be 80% but
you have to have that trigger, or you will not have a reasonable relationship between neighbors
let me assure you. I’ve been there.
Speaking to another point that was’raised. Another community I work in is Cannel. Carmel
essentially has design review through variousmanipulations for almost everything that happens
in single family homes. It is my observation that about 30% of all the projects get appealed and
City of Palo Alto 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
they generally get appealed by just one.or" two gadflies around the community who appeal
everything. So you need to be very careful about that aspedt of the ordinance. There is an
enormous amount of work that flows up to the Council..
The final point that I would hope speaks to an issue that Pat raised, is that, and again speaking in
favor of second story triggers, I think the wonderful thing is that there should in some way be a
shghfly different standard.developers than there are for neighbors. The interestingthing that you
will find is that a developer has to achieve 100% build out to make a project profitable because
he paid top dollar to get the land he has to achieve the 100% b .uild out. An end user who is going
to hve in the home has much more flexibility about what they do. So in this process, the
wonderful thing about it is it will require developers who want to stay in business in town to .go
through the design review process. Then they.will have to work out the issues with the
neighbors. If someone is going to hve there they can escape because they can generally work
with less. To give you an illustration as to what it means to a developer, a 10% cut on the
smallest lot in Palo Alto is 2,250 square feet, so it’s 225 square feet at $900.00 per square foot
that is essentially $200,000 on the smallest lot in Palo Alto and going up from there. To be
competitive in the market you are going to capture all the developer proposed homes. So again
I’d advocate you look at some kind of a trigger that ~ets your second stories go through and you
Will achieve a more reasonable balance in the whole process.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner-Packer: I’d like to go back to the issue I raised at the very beginning. The second
story new house or remodel that goes up between tw9 other existing second stories or in a
neighborhood that is predominantly second story. In that situation wouldn’t a less rigorous
review, a different set of guidelines, Something that doesn’t put such a burden on a homeowner
or a developer in that situation be better? The streetscape is already all second story. It is not the
same impact on the neighborhood as in other situations that you tried to address. So that could
be another variant, another safe harbor, or another aspect of this threshold you might want to
consider.
Chairman Bialson: I assume from all our discussions that we are agreed that we do not want the
alternative of prescriptive regulation that would be in heu of having the individual review. Is
that correct? Are we taking that as a given?
Commissioner Byrd: Not yet because I don’t know what the definitions of the three primary
concerns are and how they are going to be applied. So really the devil is in the details. I’ve got
to see the guidelines before we know what process is appropriate to implement them.
¯ Chairman Bialson: I hear what you are saying. So you would be still amenable to having
prescriptive regulations .assuming we are going to do any additional regulation of this area the
approaches that are given to us go down from doing nothing to prescriptive regulations. We are
now in the middle and you’re saying?
City of Palo Alto 65
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Byrd:
changes.
By prescriptive regulation I presume you mean just relying on zoning
Chairman Bialson: Yes.
Commissioner Byrd: And Ed is right that that is a pretty blunt instrument. Before we go there
we need to look at the other staff. But again, that Staff diagram of the continuum of levels of
oppression can be useful to us once we know exactly what is being imposed.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate that but it seem~ a lot of the comments made about individual
review guidelinesspeak to how you feel about them absolutely not in line with the alternative of
being prescriptive regulations. It seems to me that you’ve got-to keep in mind what the
altemative is.
Commissioner Byrd: I admire Staff’s attempt to distinguish individual review from design
review. I am even more opposed to design review. Before I’m on board for individual review as
opposed to simple code changes I’ve got to see the guidelines.
Chairman Bialson: Ion..
Commissioner Schink: I would say the same thing, I want to see the guidelines but I also want to
see a threshold trigger. IfI don’t have a trigger that allows me to put a second story I would say
that zoning code revisionsare definitely the way to go.
City of Palo Alto 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chairman Bialson: Okay. I hate the prescriptive regulations from a pers6nal perspective. It
seems that we have given you our view. I think the review all single families is clearly out. The
extensive code changes are what I was looking at at this point. I’m trying to narrow our
discussion.
.Mr. Gawf: Here is what I’m hearing, again let me try this, th~ Commission seems to be saying
that given the choices individual review is probably the appropriate direction if the guidelines are
appropriate in addressing the issues and there is a threshold or safe harbor that is realistic and
gives one a reasonable choice to opt out. Those are the twomajor considerations that we will
look at as we come back- on the 11th.
Chairman Bialson: I think what we are also saying is we don’t want to end up in a situation
where we have necessity to negotiate with the neighbors, w.e don’t want to end up having
design by neighbors or tyranny by the neighbors;
Mr. Ga~vf: We will add that as a third because we have talked a lot abdut that actually and that is
where the mediator comes into play. That’s where a checklist and we’ve outlined how this
¯ checklist might work. We will address that as a third issue as well.
Chairman Bialson: I think in that regard you have got to recognize that even if we.can come up
with regulations that while they address the neighborhood needto know what is happening, etc.,
City of Palo Alto 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
it does not empower them to delay the process whei:eby the weapon of delay can be used to
accomplish whatever theywish with regard to design. Is that correct, Jon?
Commissioner Schink:. Yes, I think you ~e basically getting the issue. Ed, unless you have a
hard number in there it won’t work.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question for Jon. When you were giving your example of the
builder losing the couple hundred thousand dollars on the smallest lot does that include the
building doing a full basement under the house as well?
Commissioner Schink: The value of the basement is significantly less. You lose square footage
upstairs you lose square footage. There is no way to compete. There are enough people around
and everyone is going to assume 100% so you have to get 100%. That means you have to get
neighborhood satisfaction.
Commissioner Schmidt: 100% above grade?
Commissioner Schink: You have to get 100% of your FAR or it won’t work out. So this system
is wonderful. You’ll capture every spec builder and.the ones that can’t work with the neighbors
will soon be gone..
City of Palo Alto 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: I do see some value in spec builders by the way but I also recognize that not
all spec builders are reasonable or smart. So while I hear you with regard to what a smart spec
builder would do I don’t think I expect that in all of them.
Commissioner Schink: There are no smart or reasonable spec builders. But the market forces
will take care of them more quickly.-
Chairman Bialson: Yes, but they will still have built their .......Moving on. I noticed in the
Staff report you wanted us to address this moving of the daylight plane from regulations to the
guidelines.
Ms. Grote: I think before we do that we would like to hear from our co-chair Carroll Harrington
who would like to talk about the educational and outreach program. Then if we have time we
can move into some of the specific regulation changes or we can handle that at the upcoming
meeting.
Ms. Carroll I2Iarrin~.ton,¯ Co-Chair, R-1 Advisory Group: I think several of you have mentioned
tonight the importance of outreach and education in the community. The Advisory Group
strongly advocated that we do have an education program after all this is adopted. Part of the
¯ problem that people in this community seem to have is because they don’t know who to ask a
question of, they don’t .know what the regulations are, they hardly know where City Hall is. So
what we would like to do is develop, a community and Staff awareness program and we
especially want to include the Staff in this because we realize that Staff will be changing through
City of Palo Alto 69
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
the years and we want to be sure that we are all operating from the same database, so to. speak.
In putting this plan together, first of all we were thinking of going out to the community and then
we realized no, our first target audience would be the Planning Commission and the City Council
and then to our neighborhood associations. So we are reaching out into the community that way
and we are developing dialogues much as we have tonight because while we’ve had some very
interesting discussions in our group we kind of need a reality Check. What we discussed tonight
has given us a reality check so that we can see there are some other issues we need to address.
After all of the zoning code is adopted and changed and we have the guidelines and we are ready
roll then the real work begins. That is to have this community at large education program.
Again, keeping in mind that it is very important for the Staff to be involved in this. I would like
to say that the Staff is very enthusiastic about it.
We’ve talked about a variety of ideas all the way from developing a joint Palo Alto Adult
School, City of Palo Alto class. The neat thing about doing it with the Adult School is their
catalog goes out to 55,000 people and it is the best way to reach out to the community. I would
like to add here that the remodeling class that they have been having at the Adult School has a
waiting list. So it is obvious that people are interested in hearing about this. This class would be
one that we would work out with the City Staff and with other people who would be interested.
We also talked about the importance of reaching out into the community by having
neighborhood meetings or public forums, working with Impact to develop a series on cane TV,
to have a bibliography of articles, magazinesand books. The two books that we found very
helpful in our group are by Suzanne Susanka. There was a verygood interview with her in the
Mercury News on Saturday where she is talking about how the philosophy of having a great big
City of Palo AIio 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
house is changing back to a smaller house is more beautiful. Then of course a web site.. We
could develop a very exciting web site where people.can get this information and talk to each
other. Then an annual design award so that we can point out good examples in the community
and people would see that there are some good examples. For me that was one of the most mind
opening experier~ces I had, going around town aud seeing the good examples of remodels. I just
have to go from 830 Melville over to Lucile Stern and I think there are eight rebuilt or remodeled
and I love all bfthem. They are all very different,, some are very contemporarY. I live in the
Eichler Which is at one end and then there is an historic house down the street that is being
remodeled. So to appreciate the good things that have been happening and to point it out; What
we would like from the Planning Commission is support to go ahead and develop this
community and Staff awareness program.
Chairman Bialson: Comments from Commissioners? Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, I think that is absolutely necessary. I’m always a proponent of
education and participation in this way. I think the program won’t work unless you have an
excellent way to communicate and educate.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I agree of course we need education but one comment I’d like to make is
that we live in a community that is very diverse culturally. I wish it were more diverse
economically. I don’t know that we have talked or had focus groups with people from different
City of Palo Alto 71
1
2
3.
5
6
7
8
9
10-
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
cultures in terms of what expectations people have in a house. What are they looking for? What
is beautiful to them? I know this is not design review it is individual review but there may be
aspects of massing and streetscape that translated into design or cultural expectations. I think "
that’s an area we may want to reach out into other groups because if you look around we .are all
pretty uniform here culturally and I don’t think we are representing the community.
Ms. Harrington.: This might be an area where we could explore some.thing with the Adult
School. I keep saying the Adult School because it is-one of the best ways to reach out into the
community.
associations.
further to come up with some n~w creative specific ideas.
This is also an area where we could use the local newspapers and the neighborhood
I think you have a very good point there and’it is something that we can explore
Chairman Bialson: 0wen.
Commissioner Byrd: I couldn’t agree more with Kathy that making a new program work
depends heavily on community outreach and awareness. So I have no criticism of any of the
substance of the proposed program. My only concern is that we allow the City’s decision-
making process to play itself out before we begin to conduct outreach or education because we
may not have a program or if we have a program it may look different than its current form. So
we wouldn’t want to start educating people about something that isn’t yet in final form.
Ms. Harrin~on: Something that I have said to my committee from the very beginning is we
can’t even go out to talk to the Planning Commissioners until we have something in writing
City of Palo Alto 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
about what we are presenting. We certainly don’t want to put together a public education
progr ~arn until we know what we are representing. I think we need to approve the concept of it
much like we were talking about individual review so that this is a component of what we do.- It
will have someStaff implicatidns and it will have some budget implications.
Commissioner Byrd: To follow up, I absolutely think that if we do anything on the subject of
single family design it should contain an awareness and education program but we don’t yet
know if we are going to do anything. That is my only concern.
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I would agree with Owen but then to give some specific advice about it, I
think the educational concept is wonderful but I would suggest that you start fight from the
mindset of trying to work with the entire community to understand that change is something that
is part of hfe. I will give you an example that I recently came across that I thought was
somewhat interesting. I was ready a Noel Coward play, Design for Living, written in 1932. In
there was a line in w~ch one of the characters reflects on Paris that they were in Paris last year
and how terrible it was because they were pulling buildings dow~ al! over the place. I thought
my gooduess, 70 years ago outrage in Paris about buildiu, gs being puI!ed down all over the place
and we go there now and it just looks abso.lutely incredible. So these feelings that we are having
in the community have been arouud for a long time. I think that we need to ~.y to make people
realize that what we are doing here as a group is manage the-change but the change is inevitable.
So that we try to.get over that initial reluctance to change.
City of Palo Alto 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11.
12
13.
14
15
!6
-17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chairman Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I think there are some things that have already been done that could be "
included in classes that akeady exist. I don’t think it is a black or white issue. The tour that you
have put people on and why, for instances. I think if we look at other issues that we’ve done
with just questions back and forth and issues back and forth, the awareness of what’s happening
when someone is doing a project. I don’t see that there is any right or wrong in that. I don’t see
why that couldn’t be included if you are working with some of the pubhc education materials
that you are talking about, the class that akeady exists. I think it would be very helpful as a
matter of fact.
Chairman Bialson: I also agree that the pubhc education and outreach is very important. I don’t
know how we change the predisposition in the community to take our opinions as facts. I really
have a problem with that and I have to admit that I am susceptible to the same tendency at times
but not that often. I also am somewhat concerned about the amount of Staff time and resources
that we dedicate to the educational process. I think we have to be aware of the scarcity of
resourc6s .that we can put to that education. I’m very concerned about the fact that you all put
such huge amounts of time into this and ended Up with a wonderful product and it will be
debated by people who do not have the education or the background or the qualifications to
really speak to some of the work you;ve done. It will be debated on the pages of the newspaper
as a result of angry letters back and forth. Whatever we can do, whatever the outreach is that can
be done to try to tone that down or perhaps reduce it as much as possible, it is the outreach that I
City of Palo Alto 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
am most concerned about fight now.
Have you?
I don’t know if you have addressed that at all, Carroll.
Ms. HarrfiaNon: Well all along I’ve felt that it is very important along the way because this has
been our main vehicle is to talk to the newspapers. We’ve met with the Weekly alud we’ve met
with the Daily News yesterday. We’ve talked to Dave Price before. I think the result today was
a very good article that told about where we are now. We can’t develop a public education
program about where we want to be a year from now but here is whire we are now. This is the
process we’ve gone through. We worked very hard to get a variety of people in the. community
to speak. We’ve had public meetings. There has been a whole public process and we are going
to go ahead and all along the way we want to be sure to have a dialogue mad an evaluation of
what we are doing which I think is very important. What I was thinking before I came here
tonight might be quite different after the two or three hour meeting that we’ve had here. I think
we need to keep our minds open. In my grandiose.way I would like to think about this education
program as we promote a feeling of community spirit in the kind of community we want to have.
Just having people talk to each other is a beginning point for that.
Chairman Bialson: Now, I’m hearing that some of the things that are set forth in the Staff report
are items you don’t necessarily want to discuss. Is that what you are saying, Lisa, at this point?
Ms. Grote: I think at this point there are a couple of things. One is that I would like to ask that
we be able to return on the 11th with some form of design guidelines but I need to ask you what
you would expect in that respect. We can have concepts and some ideas and thoughts put
City of Palo Alto 75
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
together. We wouldn’t have completed design guidelines by that point.-Would those concepts
and ideas be sufficient for you then to continue your discussion and make some recommendation
to the Council?.
The other thing is I believe there are many Working Group members here tonight that would like
to speak to some of the issues. So you might want to allot some time for the Working Group
members to talk to some of the issues and ideas you brought up tonight.
The third and final thing is that in the article that ~arroll reference, I believe there is an incorrect .
date mentioned that the next Planning Commission hearing on this item would be April 8th. It is
actually April 11t~. So I just wanted to make that clear.
Ms. Harrington: I’ve already sent an e,maii to Dave Price about it. I neglected to mention the
most important thing. I really want to thank the co-chairs, the advisory group and the Staff.
This has been an incredible process and very positive. Thank you for your input tonight.
Ms. Grote: So to get back to your original question, some of what we put in the Staff report we
would like to Cover on April 11th rather than tonight.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. John.
Mr. Northwa¥: I would just like to follow up on Lisa’s request as a member of the committee -
that is trying to grapple with these guidehnes and it is semi-catch-22 for us because if the
City of palo Alto 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
concept of individual review is not going to move forward we don’t want to spend the 1,000
hours it is going to take to a refined package of guidelines together. We are perfectly happy to
craft something for you if you can g~ve us some specifics of exactly like to see knowing full well
it is not going to be a finely tuned publication that you’ll be viewing on the 11th.
Chairman Bialson: Owen.
CommissionerBsrrd: I’m unclear.
recommend approval or disapproval to Council? What is the product?
Are you going to bring us an ordinance that we are going to
Ms, Grote: What we would be bringing to you in terms of the guidelines is a preliminary or a
first draft document that would include the concepts that would be covered at the topic areas that
wguld be covered and some of the ways that we are thinldng of approac .l~ng those areas.
Commissioner Byrd: So it would be another study session?
Ms. Grote: No, actually it would be for you to make a recommendation about or on. It wouldn’t
be in ordinance form it would be as a design document.
Commissioner Byrd: I tend to agree with Jon this is going to end up being one of the more
important things we’ve done..If you look at the number of hearings we’ve put into things over
the years from Sandhill to Comp Plan to other things we may as well put ~ the effort this one
takes. If you are looking to poll us on is there a possibihty that individual review is going to pass
City of Palo Alto 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
mtmter with this group, I can’t speak for everybody, I’ve heard reactions that range from yes to
maybe to maybe not. It all depends on what is in the content. So I would encourage you to give
us the oppolitunity to comment on whatever will go to the Council in fial form. I’m not going-to
be very comfortable given the seriousness of this making a recommendation to Council on
something that is not in fial form. But that is just me.
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I_f you do bring the guidelines forward what I think would be incredibly
insightful from my perspective is if we could see three or four or fivehouses of various types in
the community especially if you took some of the more innovative houses and applied the design
guidelines to those and told us it is going to pass here and it is not going to pass there. So we
could see how the end product appears. Or some of the bad examples, the things we are t~yi.ug:to
solve, why it solve the problem with this house and why it would allow this house to go through.
Chairman Bialson: Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would it be possible to have another type of working session instead of
saying we’ll .come to you with something and then we’ll go to Council. I would really prefer to
see concepts for guidelines rather say go away and come back with full blown guidelines that we
have no idea What you’re thinking. I think it would be asking too much to ask you to. come back
and we say yes or no and you go to City Council. So is it possible to do another working session
City of Palo Alto 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
answering ~on’s questions, come in with concepts, thinking about some of the things we brought
up tonight if we extend your timeline a bit?.
Mr. Gawf: It is but let us take your thoughts and discuss those and see how we can best address
them. One of the things that the Advisory Group has told me, because I pushed very hard to
move this along because I think the community has asked for us to address i~ in some way, what "
they have told me is it is an important issue.and we n~ed to do it right and if it means we take a
little bit more time then we take a little bit more time. So let us take your comments and discuss
it and move forward that way. I would also like to confer with the co-chairs about their thoughts.
Chairman Bialson: I think it would be appropriate to hear some comments from the rest of the "
group now. I don’t know how you want to choose among yourselves or who is to speak. I
would appreciate some comments and I will limit the time.
Mr. Gawf: Let’s do like w.e do at the Advisory Group. Everyone has five seconds.
Mr. Michael Griffith: Thank you for listening to our proposal tonight. We very much appreciate
your concern about passing on an incomplete process. We will go back to the drawing board and
tune.it up more for you. I think that’s a reasonable thing to request and I think you’ve got a lot
of empathy here in this group for just.the point that you have been making.
Ms. Judith Wasserman: I would like to thank you all for paying attention to us and respecting
the work that we’ve done over the past two or three years. This specific group has been meeting
City of Palo Alto 79
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
since a year ago January. I’d like just to remind you that we didn’t get together because there
was not a problem. We didn’t make this up. This is something the community has been talking
about literally for some time now. It is an issue that is not going to go away. If I had a nickel for
everybody who said how did that get by in reference to a single family house not realizing that
there was no design review or any kind of review for that matter on single family homes in. Palo
Alto. Most people expect it and are furious when they listen to me. I am an architect and I
design single family home additions and remodels. I have no problems with this process that has
been proposed. , - ¯
Mr. Richard Elmore: Thank you very muchfor hearing our concerns. We’ve worked really
hard. I’vebeen on hundreds of committees all over this country dealing with design. I’ve been
involved with all kinds of design from projects to what I do most every day is design
personal homes for.the constituencies of this town. It is very badly needed and you know that so.
we don’t need to tell you but I have to tell you how badly needed it is. I’m in the trenches every
day, a different trench maybe than the Staff is but yet we share that trench many times trying to
do the right thing for the community. Trying to get decent projects across that are appreciated by
mo~t ot~the people and that are gifts to the street. Jon Schink said something very important. He
said this isone of the most important issues that this Commission will debate for a long time. It
is very important because there is so much animosity about the system that is in place now. The
system that is in place now is giving us what stinks and that’s why there is the problem that we
have now. So we’ve got to change it. What we’ve come up with is a very good way of doing it.
I work in many different communities, I am very used to design review, it doesn’t bother me at
all. I think it brings out better design because I think each design is weighed on its Own merit. It
City of Palo Alto 80
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
IO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is weighed for what it is instead ofjust a bunch of numbers and calculations. So that’s why I
have been so into making this happen. I think that we should as a group hone in on some of the
things that you’ve said come back to you on the 11t~ with a good preliminary concept because-we
can’~ finalize it between now and the 11th. We need to do this right instead of in a hurry. So
again, .I Want to thank you for hearing us tonight and we’ll be back on the 11t~.
’-Mr. Olde David Olerich: I concur with the rest and I want to thank you for doing our initial test.
I think there isa consensusin the room that something has to be done and you’ve given us some
great things to work with so we look forward to coming back with additions and alterations that
you might find more palatable.
Mr. Mark Kniss: Again, thank you for your attention tonight. There are a couple of observations
that I’d like to make. One is that I think that we might have rushed the presentation a little bit
this evening and it might have gone a little better from my perspective if we had summarLzed and
spent some more time on the problem resolution and problem identification. But we spent
literally months working that through. I think if we had laid out more a summary of that and a
statement of the feedback we received, I’know that was in the slides but I don’t think we spent a
lot of time with that, the impact might have been perhaps more convincing from your
perspective. That is just an observation on my part. Another is that the notion of individual
review is not a radical idea. The~e are many communities that haveimplanted this successfully.
" -With all due respect to some ofJon Schink’s comments my personal belief and having
experienced this whole process is that individual review introduces more creativity into the
potential end result, not less. Maybe that is not a message we got across very well tonight
City of Palo Alto 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
judging from some of the comments we heard but I think that is a very important aspect of
individual review. It is really resulting in projects that we can all be more proud of and take
heart in in the community. Thank you.
Ms. Catherine Carroll: I’ll repeat thank you again. We are glad that you are listening to us but I
heard there was some concern about too much power to the neighbors. One of the things i would
just like to comment about that in the group we really-focused on the harmony that we feel that
can be brought in the neighborhoods fromindividual review and from the neighbors, having some
say. Right now they are virtually powerless except to a very eumbersomething of trying to get a
single story overlay. They really don’t have anything to say about what is happening around
them. I like to look at it as bringing a harmony rather than bestowing too much power. I hope
that can be carried through the whole thought of the process of the individual review. I think it
will really be a positive thing. Thank you.
Ms. Susie Thom: I too want to thank you for listening to us tonight. I think the who~e crux of
the issue is how can we protect an individual’s property rights and still respect the nei.ghbors.
That is what ~his is all about. I think that going through our thought processes we have come up
with some solutions. I think you have given us some insights tonight. I think.sometimes you
don’t see the forest for the trees. While we all know what privacy is we have to find a way to
communicate that a little bit better. Thanks again for all your insights and we’ll be back.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you very much for your hard work and we hope to end up with a
better result as a result of the push and pu21 that goes on between us coming in at this point in.
City of Palo Alto 82
1
2
3
.4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
time after you have spent a ye.ar plus working the issues and we take a look at them, our
comments are not in any way disrespectful of the time and effort you have put into this process
but perhaps indicative of the education that you have to go through of the people that. are going
to receive and work with whatever you come up with by way of a process.
What else do you want us to say at this point in time, Ed?
Mr. Gawf: I think we’ve got good comments tonight. Let us sit down, outline the issues as we
see them and where we go from here. I don’t know about the Commission but I think after a
couple of hours that we have hit the wall and we’ve gotten some things that we can take with us
and we’ll be back. Also let me say, I think that was just reflective as you heard the individual
Advisory Group members comment and the thoughtfulness and their ability to express the
different perspectives is just indicative of the process over the last year. I think that’s why it has
been a good process. The co-chairs and also the quahty of the meetings thatwe’ve had and the
people participating in it. We’ll see you in a few weeks.
Chairman Bialson: Fine. Kathy has a final comment.
Commissioner Schmidt: I want to make a commendation here too that I think this really
deserves lots of gold st~rs. This is a really, really hard problem and I think you have been really
creative in trying to come back with some non-standard solutions to how one might approach
this situation. As Ed just noted and I heard from many of you tonight that this process that you
have gone through has been a unifying process. Something that we want to come out of this that
City of Palo Alto 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
happens with design review if we have it. Bringing things together, bringing diverse opinions
together, coming up with things than one can agree on. I think that your process has exemphfied
what we want to see more of in the community rather than the processes Where people come
together and they just get disinterested and don’t like what is going on and go away unhappy.
You guys are just the good example of how things can Work. W~ made a lot of comments
tonight that might cause some rethinking but I think you b.re doing a great job. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Bialson: I’m sure the whole Commission feels the same way and we’ll close this item
offat this pointin time. I don’t think there is anything else on the agenda. We will adjo .urn the
meetin, g. Thank you very, very much.
City of Palo Alto 84
Attachment B
3
4
6
7
8
9
I0
ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,,,,,,MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16
May 23, 2001
STUD Y SESSION- 6.’30 PM
City Council Conference Room .
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:
Annette Bialson, Chairman
¯ Patrick Burr, Vice-Chair
Ow.en Byrd-absent
Jon Schink
Kathy Schmidt
Phyllis Cassel
Bonnie Packer
Staff."
Ed Gawf, Plarm_ing Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney
Joan Taylor, Planning Manager
Chris Riordan, Plam~er
¯Phillip Woods, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Robin Winkler, Office Specialist
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Chairman Bialson: Will the Secretary please take ro11.
Thank you. The first item on the agenda is 0£aI Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..Members of the public may speak’to any item not on the
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak
must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission.
The Planning Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to
15 minutes.
Chairman Bialson: I see no one wanting to speak in O~.al Communications.
We are here for a study session on Single Family Regulations and Review Process.
UNFINISHED B US1NESS
Other Items: ,.
City of Palo Alto Page
1
2 .
3
4
5 ’
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
~38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
SINGLE FAMILY REGULATIONS ANDREVr~W PROCESS
Single Family Review: Review and comment on theanalysis 0f Singl’e Family
neighborhood Compatibility issues. The analysis includes a discussion of the problems
identified with new and remodeled single family homes in existing neighborhoods,
recommendations of the Future of Single Family Neighborhobds Advisory Group,
recommendations for ehauges to the Single Family R-1 Zone District (PAMC -Title 18),
the proposal for a Single Family Individual Review process, and including other
associated issues.
Chairman Bialson: I have been given a suggested agenda by Staffwhich begh~ with an
overview to be given to us by Mr. Gawf.
Mr. Ed Gawf, Director of Plaxming and CbmmuniW Environment: Thank you. I just
want to take a couple of minutes and present what the policy questions are. Some of it
you’ve already discussed at the last study session. The purpose of tonight’s study session
is to finish that conversation that we started last time. We got through part of it. You
asked very good questions and we. spent some time analyzing the questions, go over it
with the group and we as Staffhave put together some additional material. Since then we
have had at least one more meeting of the Working Group. Several members of the "
Working Group are here tonight. Most of us will participate in some wayin the
discussion. This is very much as it has been for the last year, plus a team effort between
Staff and. the citizens of the Working Group.
The policy questions behind you are the ones I see as sort of a logical way of addressing
this issue. We don’t necessarily have to go through all of them tonight but I think that
when we come back to you in June at the Public Hearing I think it does frame the
question, at least for me it does. That is the first question is there an identified problem
with new single family home construction in the City of Pal0 Alto that should be
addressed. Let me go the second one and come back. I_f you ask them what is the
problem, we spent at least the first five month~ of our effort on just that question. It
irritated me to no dxtent because I knew I had a solution at ~e first meeting..In fact I Was
hoping that the Working Group would only meet once or twice and they would buy into
my solution and cut this thing out very quickly. John Northway may talk about this a
little bit later, I know that he will talk about it tomorrow night at our meeting at the local
chapte~ of the AIA. John, I think very wisely said, let’s step back and really analyze is
there a problem and if so, what is it. We spent five months and we got a lot of things
going through. We.had a class in Architecture 101 and you’ve received the notebook that
was the product of that..We had that with the Working Group and Staffand the
community as well. We had many community members there. -We did a tour of houses.
We took all our ideas and applied them in the field. We did that in groups of usually
three where there was a Staff person, architect and a citizen advisory member. We had
many meetings. We probably met every two weeks for that five months. We also had a
community forum where we had over 50 or 60 people in attendance all addressing the.
question of what is the problem. Lo and behold, this answer that we came up with was
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
7
1o
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
2O
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
2~
29
BO
31
32
36
37
39
40
42
43
4~
somewhat different that what I Nought it was in January. So I do appreciate the.
discipline which John made us undertake to really focus on what is the problem. We
came down to it and it was really clear on the first three issues but especially the first one
¯ ud that is privacy. Everyone in someway, different ways quite often, came to the point
of privacy. If we step back even from that, it really was about the change to existing
relationships and conditions. We ~re a built out commuuity, the houses have been next to
each other for years quite often, the landscaping has grown and it was usually planted in
the first place to ensure privacy. Then all of a sudden you bring a new house in tha~ all
too often would be designed just from the perspective of the owner of the house and their.
needs and not really understanding the context that they were going into and certainly
qui(e often changing the privacy relationship: That became a very important issue.
Mass and scale and tree-scape were also identified as issues: Those are the ones that we
came up with as the main issues that we need to address. This became very important,
about a year ago May, we had the sort of final meeting of the Working Group to discuss
the problem of how to address it. Lo and behold we had 16 or 17 representatives on the
Working Group from all different perspectives whether it was the construction industry,
the design industry, neighborhoods and there was a great deal of consensus on those
being the identified problems. And also agreed by consensus that any solution should
address those problems and not other issues. That became very important. If you
remember last time we talked about whether this was design review or individual review.
We are calling it individual review because we are trying to make a point that this is not a
question of whether we like a particular style or likethe color. Clearly all of these are
design issues in some way but we are trying to make a distinction that these are the
problems that we are trying address and the solutions should relateback to these
problems. So again, I just wanted to give a little context to this. We spent a great idea of
time and I think a good team effort between the Staffand the Working Group in coming
up with this definition of the problem.
At that time I thought we were done. Actually I think the Working Group thought we
were done too so we took a little break and the Staff worked on it. We came back in
September and had another community forum where we discussed some of the proposed
solutions and w.e just assumed everyone was going-to accept what we were originally
recommending. Then I realized I was in Palo Alto and it doesn’t work that way.
Eye, one had an idea. So we spent agreat deal of time last fall and again recently on
working through a solution that we thinkis a fair way to approach this issue, to address
the issues that haye been identified. With that, I will turn it over to John Northway.. The
major point I wan.ted to make was just going through thepolicy questions and I’.ll fiuish
but also give you a little background on this.
So the first question was is ther~ a problem. The second question, what is it and you have
our answer to that: The third question is what is the best approach to address the
problem. We did a continuum, the ministerial.approach which is what we.tried in .1989 to
truly a design review, a very discretionary kind of approach. We think we have sort of
gone down the road with that. Finally, if the discretionary approach, individual review,
then what is the appropriate process. We tried to identify a process that is fair for
City of P~lo Alto Page 3
I
2
?
I0
II
12
I?
20
21
22
2~
2~
2~
2?
2~
29
30
31
32
~0
developers and also communicates and allows the neighbors .to have an appropriate role
in the process. I underscore appropriate.
So tonight What are we trying to do? -What we want to do is address some of the
questions that you raised at the last Study session. All of the ones that we said were good.
question, which really means we. didn’t havean answer for it. Well, .we have thought
about it and I think we have some answers now. We wanted to talk about expectations, I
think that is vei’y important. What this is intended to do and what it is not. Two, the
criteria for review, the guidelines, and wehave those on the wail. Steve (Pierce) is going
to go through that list. Judith (Wasserman) and John are going t6 go through the
expectations. Also, as we told you community and education, Staff will run this program,
the outreach effort and making sure this is implemented well. Carroll Harrington is going
to discuss that. Then we will talk about some of the specific issues including the
threshold alternatives and the hearing process. We talked about that last time and I think
Wynne has some comments on that. So with that we expect this to be about two hours or
so. It really is to give you the background necessary for the public headug and
discussion in June. As last time, we appreciate the focused approach that you had last
time and that is whatwe are trying to do again tonight. Thank you.. John.
Mr. John Northway, Advisory Group: Our committee had an awfial lot of fun while we
were doing this. Our first go around with you guys reminded me of if you.are opening a
Broadway show and you spend a year and one-half on it and you think you’ve got a great
thing going and then you play to your first audience in Boston and it semi-enthusiastic
but you need to .work on your act. You asked very good questions and we have tried to
come back tonight to answer those questions because you are an educated audience and
eventually we have to get out there and really educate the entire community as to what
we are doing. So we really appreciate yourinput. We growled a little bit after the
meeting but basically we really appreciated your input.
What Iwant to do is head off into some of the things that we really talked around a lot.
which is what do you mean about privacy, massing, scale and streetscape. I’m going to
talk about the privacy definition.. This was one that we really spent a lot of time thinkiug
about what to put down’.- Great kudos to Lisa and George (Stem) for really putting these
words down and then I’m sur. e by the time it gets to the Council there will be lots of
wordsmithing done. The big picture in talking about what do you mean about privacy
and what we really wanted to focus on is that these definitions are going to set a level of
community expectation. So it is really different than a philosop.hical discussion about
what is privacy. What we are really trying to talk about is what can the City and the
design community actually expect to deliver in the way of privacy to adjacent neighbors
when you are dealing with a town that has an average of 6,000 square foot lots. That
really does cut down onwhat the definition of privacy can be. So when we look at what
is written down and even though this says, "definition and policy statements," the whole
statement works as what we would present to the community as what we think is a
reasonable definition and expectation of privacy.
Oty of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
17
18
"19
20
21
22
23
24
¯ 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42’
43
44
¯ 45
46
The definition is: a reasonable expectation that personal, activities conducted within ones
home will not be subject to casual or involuntary observation by others. Provide a
reasonable level of privacy on each single family lot by reducing the opportunities for
individuals to be casually observed by others when engaging in activities within or
immediately aroundones home. Acknowledge that complete or absolute privacy is not a
realistic expectation and new construction should ~ecognize thepre-existing privacy
situation. That really is our entire definition of what we think we would present to the
community in this guidelines document asa reasonable expectation to ask a projectgoing
on next door to you or across the street to meet. This would.be the criteria that the
individual review body would use in judging projects to see if they reach these standards.
You could tighten this thing up a whole lot and we had definitions that were far tighter.
We were just concerned that if you write something down in a document that is pubhshed
by the City of Palo Alto it will start to form the basis criteria for whatever appeals there
may or may not be. SO we thought it was enormously important in crafting these words
that they be criteria that actually is attainablein a town with very small lots. The
statement that absolute privacy is not a reasonable expectation we feel is very important.
to bein there. If you want to sunbathe in the nude you really should be in Woodside or
Los Altos Hills because it is probably’not going to happen unless you like to be
exhibiting. Annette, do want us to give you the full shot on privacy, mass, scale and
streetseape and then you can discuss them that way or did you want to discuss each one
" after our presentation?
Chairman Bialson: I think you can do it in total.
Mr. N0rthwa¥: I am going to turn it over to Judith Wasserman for mass, scale and
.streetscape.
Ms. Judith Wasserman, Advisory Group: Iam going to write something on the board
ftrst2 This is what I wanted to call this part of the definition and nobody would let me.
Thry told me it Wasn’t a word and it certainly wasn’t a planning word but it was what I
had learned when we were thinking about massing because it is really a question of
context. I described it as the sumo wrestler in the airplane seat problem. The sumo
wrestler on the mat is just fine but if he is sitting next to)ou on the airplane seat you feel
uncomfortable. That was kind of the issue that we were dealing with here. The
Comprehensive Plan as you may have seen in our written definition actually has a policy
that we should maintain the scale and character of the City and avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. That is exactly what we are
talking about. If you have a house that looks great in Atherton on a one or two acre lot, it
may be perfectly gorgeous out there but it is probably not appropriate on a 6,000 square
foot lot in Palo Alto. We are also talking about Style because this is arguably one of the
most beautiful buildings in the world (Parthenon) but it really doesn’t belong on your
street. It just feels very uncomfortable when it looms over your one-story house.
So this is really a question of context and perception. The question is not so much,
although this is also a question of style but we can ignore that for the moment, not a
question so much of how big the house is per se but what is it sitting next to. Another
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2 ¯
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
sports analogy that I like to use is about a basketball game. YOU go to a basketball game
and you sit in a seat and people around you are all comfortable together because you’re
all about the same size. The guys down in the court are all comfortable together and they
are all about’the same size. But if I stand next to Michael Jordan even though I know he
is areally nice guy I would feel very uncomfortable. It is the same thing when it comes
.to houses. If I have, and I don’t, a one-story Eichler it would very uncomfortable if some
large two-story Mediterranean or Tudor or anything that was out of scale and too close
was built next door. It is a very contextual issue: That moves kind of directly into the
discussion of streetscape which is also a contextual discussion. It is a three-dimensional
illustration of context. Before I get too wound up in that I would like to read you again
from the Comp Plan where they talk about preserving neighborhood character.
Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct character. ’~Preserve
the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to
be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Provide pedestrian
oriented features on residences that enliven the street". We are talking ab6ut preserving
the character of neighborhoods that wehave. We are not talking about massive changes
and we are not talking about some theoretical notion of what a street ought to be except.
in the encouragement of the pedestdanism, so to speak. The streetscape is a composition.
It has many, many elements. It is a composition of both positive and negative space of
the buildings and the spaces between them, the houses and the yards. It is also largely
made up of large landscape features commonly known as treesand the ability to see the
trees between the houses, over the tops of the houses, the setbacks of the houses from the
street, the locations of garages and even what garages look like. All of this is part of the
context and one of the wonderful things about Palo Alto is that the context varies. The
streetscape in Old Palo Alto and the streetscape in South Palo Alto Eichler neighborhood
are very different things. The streetscape in a ranch house tract is yet something else.
Then there are all kinds of eclectic mixes in between. Whatwe are proposing is not a one
size fits all plan: In fact, we are trying to solve what may have been a problem caused by
a one Size fits all zoning code. So we are looking for in this contextual approachto the
streetscape, which mass is part of, is a way of looking at individual cases on individual
streets. Even when you look at something as simple as where is the .garage there is a
difference between an Eichter garage, that is in the front and what in Portland is now
called a "snout house" where the garage which is not an Eichler garage is in the front and
really looks very different. I can’.t use another word except context.. So these two
definitions were kind of hand in glove and the privacy issue is related to the mass and
scale because if your house is too close by being too big then the privacy issue comes up
right away.
Chairman Bialson: Would you like to take questions now? Would you like to start Jon?
Commissioner Schink: Let me briefly share my perspective that leads to the question. I
think the streetseape is the most important issue for you to define here to the point that I
wonder if you spent any time thinking that the massing question is re.ally subservient to
the streetscape. Just as yoi~ describe issues in the Eichier part of town are different than
¯ issues in Old Palo Alto. I sense yo.ur massing definition is so broad that it will overpower
City of Palo Alto Page
I
2
3
4
6
7
9
IO
ii
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
3~
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
the streetscape issue as we are in the position to review projects. That massing is just the
first issue in the whole s~reetseape subject matter. That there will be projects that come
forward in this town where they are almost defined by their massing, that the houses will
be closer together.. If you go to Eichler neighborhoods they can certainly withstand a
different type-of mass than other parts of South Pato Alto. Unless you make the massing
subservient to the streetscape t think you will create a situation where the massing is
always the issue that people focus on and we won’t get the streetscape. Did you have
much discussion about that or the relationship on those issues? Or are you understanding
what I’m saying?
Mr. Northwa¥: Sort of. In some ways I think the massing is almost sort of the bridge
between privacy and streetscape because the massing, the way the individual design is
done, will definitely affect its relationship to its immediate neighbor and the privacy of
that neighbor. Then the way it is massed and articulated in its relationship to its whole
surroundings will have a great deal to do with its impact on the streetscape. I think the
important thing to remember is that these are not going to be handled individually.
Basically these are the criteria and the guidelines that this individual review will take
place on it and these guidelines are handed out as one document. So I would have a hard
time saying I think one part is more important than the others,- It is really a composition
of the.whole.
Ms. Wasserman: I don’t have a whole lot to say on that subject except to emphasize the
wholeness of the program. In fact, when we talked about how this wouldbe used Ed said
that our new guidelines when they are promulgated would be issued together with the old
guidelines as they will be revised to be compatible and the zoning handbook that
everybody gets. So that instead of getting the zoning handbook, which is what is
everybody gets and ignores the rest of it, this will all be out there as a piece. I think that
your point is that the massing is so obvious that the rest of it sometimes gets lost. But -
you can’t deal with the massing without dealing with the negative space which is part of
the streetscape. So it is all in there together.
Commissioner Schink: Let me give you an example. How do you put a second story on
an Eichler that is not massive and still respect the streetscape?
Mr. Northwa¥: There is a little street right off of Center where there has been one of the
most innovative second stories put on an Eichler type design. You know where Tevis is
and it is right this way toward Channing and it is on a cul-de-sac. One oftfe people in
my office said let’s go down and-look at this thing. I would take a picture of it and
publish it. If you want to put-a second story.on an Eichler it picks up the lines, it steps
back, it is extremely well done. I would suspect that most Eichler neighborhoods would
not be that upset to see this design. There are ptenty of ways of doing them but they are
just God awful. It can be done. You go to that little cul-de-sac right off of Center and
walk down from Tevis and there it is.
¯Ms. Wasserman: There is another one on Murray across the street from a project that I
hack I had an interio.r remodel and right across the street.there was a two-story Eichler
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
4
7
9
i0
11
i2
13
14
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
2~
29
BO
’31
32
34
36
B7
39
40
41
42
43
4~
46
that had been fairly recently done. It is possible. It takes some effort. I think all we are
asking for is when designers look at designing their project they don’t only look within
the four property lines but they also look outside because this is a built out community.
Every project is an infill project and it needs to respect the neighbors as well as its own
chent. "
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate your response John and that answered the question.
Commissioner Schink: That’s enough for now. I can move on.
Chairman Bialson: Thauk you. You have any questions, Phyllis? Kathy?. Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the privacy item.. Number three,new
construction should recognize the preexisting privacy situation. If I were appealing a
decision to build a house now and it met all the checklist and all that, and I.was next door
and I just didn’t agree with what they said even though all the windows were off and
doing the right thing: I could say well, this isn’t the same as what I had before. There is
still a privacy issue. What do you mean by "should recognize"? I think it could bring
everything in a circle back to where you started because they currently say~ it is different
from what was there before and it doesn’t recognize what was there before..
Mr. Northwa¥: It ’actually got added at the last minute. I didn’t write it so I don’t
remember how it got in there.
Mr. Gawf: I do.. As we were discussion privacy someone raised and I think
appropriately that it is the changeof existing relationships that people are concemed with.
So we should recognize that in some way in the privacy statement. That’s what we tried
to do with number three is to recognize that first privacy is not absolute and.secondly it is
that existing relationship that if you can protect in some way you are better. Itdoesn’t
mean that it Can’t be different it just means that you need to understand that as you design
your new building. So that is the thought process behind it.
Commissioner Packer: I would recommend looking at that sentence in the context of
some of the guidelines. It could come and haunt you. If you want to -talk about the
understanding that.there is a change maybe that could be in some discussion rather than
in this statement about privacy.
Mr. Gawf: I think-the operative word may be recognize and vehat that means. In my
mind it means you take that into consideration as you design the house. It doesn’t mean
that you do exactly what the previous house did: It just means that you understand that
there was a relationship.
Commissioner Packer: I have another question about streetscape and it goes back to a lot
of the frequent situations on almost any street. When we say new construction should be
compatible with the streetscape it almost means don’t make any changes at all to all these
streets that have thd Eichler garages and the entryway on the side. Whereas there have
City of Palo d Ito Page 8
been some very successful .changes especially in single-story remodels of Eichlers that
promote the front facing entryway, etc. You have a conflict if you want the front facing.
entryway andthen you say be compatible with the streetscape and there are no other front.
facing entryways on the streetscape. YoU have a tension there. Have you thought about
that?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
. 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Ms. Wasserman:-Yes. That is why we are doing this as a review proces~ and we are not
writing it in. This is not some theoretical version of what a streetscape ought to be
because maybe on some Eichler streets that front facing entry is not the best solution or
maybe it can be worked so. that it works just flue. But it takes somebody looking at it in
its individual situation to look at it one way or the other. Nowhere did we say we were
opposed to change. All we are talking about is how to do it. We are architects here, this
is what we do, if we didn’t change anything we would be out of business.
Commissioner Packer: The second item though encourages the pedestrian oriented
features and that doesn’t necessarily mean an front entryway.
Ms. Wasserman: No. This is what we would gke people to address when they design
things and not pretend that they are designing in a vacuum.
Chairman Bialson: I think what we are trying to accomplish by bringing out these points
that both Jon and Bonnie have brought out is not so much a lack of understanding on our
part but just’as you stood up saying you are not a Bible thumper but this is what you are -
referring to, I think what you are hearing from them and what you may hear from others
on the Commission is that if you use this language someone else is going to stand up
without the background or context that you have and cite this as a reasonto support their
upset or their arguments. You don’t necessarily have to defend yourselfwhenwe raise
an issue but hsten to it being perhaps a perspective that you need to appreciate is going to
come back at you at the Council level or the pubhc level. So what we are trying to do is
come together on all this. We respect all the work of the Working Group.
Mr. Northway: I don’t think there is any question about that. Everyone on the Working
Group is real sensitive to the fact that there is a balance. The balance and ydur feedback
is probably far more valid at this point in time than ours is because we’ve been working
with it too long. We had this discussion when we were talking about especially the
privacy but all the deftnitions. We want to have enough teeth in the definitions and
policy statements that people understand they are going to get reviewed with respect to
what your effect is on the surrounding properties. I think we are all very sensitive and I
know I really am that the words are going to have legal meaning. That I think is the
tremendous input that you can give because you are raising all points that many of us
raised when we were talking about the definitions. We kind of said, you know these are
going to get tinkered with. We expect them to be tinkered with because these are
legitimate concerns. What kind of expectations is the City setting? It is not our
committee. What kind of expectations is the City putting out there in their printed.
document that people who don’t have a year and one-half worth of study or even three.
study sessions worth of study are going to hang their hats on? Bonnie may be absolutely
City of Palo Alto Page 9
I
2
3
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2f
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
right. They are supposed.to look at my recognized preexisting privacy and my
preexisting privacy has just been uprooted and changed. It may nof be any worse than it
was but it definitely has been changed. I think these are perfectly valid discussions.
Mr. Gawf: If I could tag on, I ~ as we get into the discussion later there was a
fundamental choice of how detailed do we make the rules, if’you will. In i989 we made
them very prescriptive. You will have a 20 foot setback. You will have a daylight plane,
etc. What we found is that doesn’t address,-adequately enough, the issues that have been
raised. Certainly all houses need all that but that doesn’t necessarily prgduce privacy or
good streetseape arrangements. So we are lo0king at it with sort of directions. We
understand you could read them different ways. I think there are Several keys to success.
On~ is having the documents written in a way that is clear and that people can understand
and give a general direction of what we’d like to do. The second key to success is we
know they are not perfect, that we continue to look at them-as we go through the
implementation process and that we do annual reviews so that people will tell us. We are
open to comments during the year but we also have times where we stand back and look
and say this is not as clear as it should be because people are stating it differently and we
change it. So a very important part oft.his is what Carroll is going talk about, the
outreach, the education and the feedback loop at the end.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate that and I know what we don’t want to get into is
wordsmithing. I think just issue spotting and we’ve done that. Do you have any
questions?
Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: What Annette said is exactly what I
Wanted to say. That an enormous amount of conversation and thought has gone into
preparing these documents but we haven’t gone through them the way we go through
documents before we turn them into ordinances or regulations or policies. I know that as.
a theoretical legal matter this is a plenty precise standard when you can use something
" like general health and welfare. But youknow it is important tO be much more explicit-
about what you want to have happen, what Standards you want to have .apply. And your
field testing of this is very helpful and we will revise these things in light of your
comments. I tend to agree that after you say you are going.to recognize something then
what are you going to do? In some eases it is obvious. If you have a lot which already
has no privacy then it is going to be much less impact by yet another window if you
already have three looldn, g down as compared to a situation where you have a great deal
of privacy. So in some cases it is going to be obvious. However, this conversation is
very.helpful and we will do more work on this.
Chairman Bialson: Th~ you. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: On the privacy issue I can’t tell ~om readfug your definitions
whether I would be allowed to have a second story window looking down on my
neighbor or whether that second story .window will have to be a transom window or
whether I could have a second story window if my neighbor didn’t have any windows.
I’m Wondering if we could get to some very specific wording, even in this privacy
City of PaIo Alto Page 10
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1 statement, to make it clear that you could have windows if the views are mitigated. I
2 know we talked about it somewhere, else but to be sort of specific to-landscaping or
3 shutters or whatever before we adopt this. I think beeanse this statement is going to
4 define the community’s expectations I think we need to get it fight here. This is an
incredible opportunity that we will have waved in front of us in many, many appeals.
Mr. Northwa¥: I think the important thing that we thought, and better minds than ours
may change it, is that this is an entire document. It starts offwith definitions and policies
and then the whole document is arranged under privacy, massing, and streetscape and has
very specific guidelines as to how to do each one. So my answer to your question would
be you could turn to the section on privacy and see what has been written. It’s page 9,
there are diagrams there, there are written statements that definitely says you can do a
second story and here are some of the things you can do and here are some of the things
we’d like you to try not to do. So the document is a complete thing. It is not definitions
that are then separate from the guidelines. Essentially the privacy definition is both what
is up top and it is what is on page 9. Page 9 elaborates on it.
Commissioner Schink: Are we going to have a chance to go through this?
Mr. Gawf: Yes.
Mr. Northway: We are reviewing it in individual pieces but the fact is it will be one
complete document.
Commissioner Schink: Yes. I would just conclude by saying you still have to have the
language in there,, from my perspective, that mitigation is a tool that can be used to
achieve the privacy.
Mr. Gawf: So that was the expectations and we tried to do with the definitions. That
responds to the first question we received at the last study session, that is what is privacy.
So we worked hard on trying to define these terms. And as Jon said£ not only the
definitions but also then carrythat through the guidelines as well. ,_
The next section we are going to talk about is the R-1 Regulations.
Chairman Bialson: I think some of the Commissioners have some questions. Kathy.
Commissioner Schmidt: Ttie question is when we talk about preserving neighborhood
character and really paying attention to what is next to you, what about n.eighborhoods
that need to change or are in transition? I can’t think of any good examples but I think
there are some examples of neighborhoods that you don’t necessarily want to preserve.
How would those be addressed?
Mr. Northway: I think that is probably the tricldest thing that the individual review
committee is going to have to deal with. In some ways those neighborhoods go against
some of the things that are in here like paying attention to what is going on. There are
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
some ndghborhoods and I won’t elaborate on them that have very, very old very, very "
small structures. The laws of economics are going to have thosestructures come down
and they are going to be rebuilt to whatever the entitlements are in the zoning ordinance.
I don’t think that is a radical statement. That is going to happen. I think that is another
reason why we all said this is going to have to be reviewed because you could say this is
a whole street ofhttle tiny houses and the first one is going to be controversial. I think.
that’s why you need to have that particular unique circumstance looked at. Otherwise if
you did it by prescriptive standards a neighborhood eoulcha’t change and the fact is some
of our neighborhoods are going to change and they are going to change quite a bit over
the next 20 years as families retire and sell or die and inherited people sell Those
neighborhoods are going to ehange~ It is a fact and it is going on right now.
Chairman Bialson: I agree with Kathy. That was the point I was going to make. It is not
just in those neighborhoods that the process is necessary. I think every neighborhood
goes through an evolutionary process. Somewhere in here we have got to say we offer
evolution. We are not trying to freeze frame all these neighborhoods. I would like that
somehow conveyed. It is there but I would like that somewhere we do want to have. an
evolutionary process.
Mr. Northwa¥: I don’t think anyone on the committee would disagree.
Chairman Bialson: It is just getting that out there and conveying that to the people that
come before us. Pat.
Commissioner Burr: A couple of comments and questions. We were talking about the
relationship between the definitions and the policy statements and the guidelines. It is
obvious that the guidelines give meat to those other two aspects but I think it is going to
be real important that we smaggle to have that consistency between them. I think it is
probably easier to be clear in the guidelines and it is much more of a nuance and difficult
to do so’in the definitions and pohcy statements.
I was taken by the quality of some of the Comp Plan wording when Bonnie was
concerned with are we talking about cons{stency in repetition of what is there on a street.
The Comp Plan in L-12 talks about compatibility which seems to be a very carefully
chosen and I think correct word which allows for evolution and not repetition.
Ms. Wasserman: We quote the Comp Plan..
Commissioner Butt: That is what I was saying. Then on the privacy subject, at our last
meeting I was raising this question of what is the expectation of privacy. My observation
is most people’s concerns are negative changes in the amount of privacy they have, the
degradation of the privacy that they have. i think the guidelines reflect that more and the
definitions and the policy statements I think we might need to straggle with how to
integrate that point three, that new con~..tmefion should recognize the preexisting privacy
situation with policy one and the definition because the definition says that ones home
would not be subject to carom1 involuntary observation. Well, I’ve had homes in Palo
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
8
9
1o
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
3~
34
3~
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Alto where I bought a home with, what we in the neighborhood called, a Tahoe House
next door. It was a big house that had decks and sliding glass doors peering right over
our backyard and that was the way it was when we bought it andwe knew that was what
we were walking into. Sure we would have loved to have itnot peer over but that’s what
we accepted, we walked into that. We didn’t ,feel we had an expectation to ask them to
alter that. My sense is that that’s not what the intention is of this group. Under the
definition we may need to sculpt it in a way that makes it more clear. Because a literal
reading of the wording might allow someone to argue that they have this right to not be
subject to casual or involuntary Observation not only under a condition of a remodel or a
change. So we have to make sure that we have that addressed.
Then in pohcy statement one it talks about reducing the oppbrtunifies for individuals to
be casually observed. That seems to be more along what weare really looking for. So I
don’t have the recommended wording changes on how to reconcile these three policy
statements with the definition but it seems to be a real important subtle issue that because
these are subjected descriptions.the nuances are going to bereally important. Whereas
the guidelines would be more of an objective-way to judge those things.
Chairman Bialson:. I wantto tell you that we’d like to hear from other members of the
advisory group if some of you would like to speak. I will just open that up. Let’s move
on. If you do want to speak just hold your hand up and we will try to get you to have
some input here.
Ed, I understand that next We are going to have a re,)iew of the proposed R-1 Single
Family Zone District Regulations by our very own Lisa Grote.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Thanks. This goes into what will be written.
into the municipal code. So these regulations will be applicable to single story homes
and two story homes. So it- will be applicable to every remodel and every instance of new
construction.
¯Currently when you look at the Municipal Code there are 16 site development
regulations. Wtiat we are proposing is to modify eightofthose 16 regulations to add two
new regulations and then to clarify two definitions having to do with height and height
measurement and then also grade. So I will go over them in the order that they are in
your binder because that is where the graphics are for the concepts and the changes.
The first one is floor area ratio. We are not proposing to modify the percentages of the
floor area ratio. So it is will still remain at 45% for ~e first 5,000 square feet and 30%
for anything over 5,000 square feet. How we measure floor area ratio would be modified.
We would be measuring to the exterior of the stud wall which the industry standard.
Currently it is ambiguous ~ to where we measure to but as a practice we measure to the
exterior of finished material. Well, during building construction permanent review that
finish material isn’t shown on the.plans so there is no Way to really accurately do it. Plus,
the finish material.isn’t usable floor area. So in essence we are measuring something that
isn’t really floor area. So what we are saying is that we would change that to be the
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
exterior stud walls, the outside of the stud wa~ls, which are shown on the construction
drawings. This would not affect where we measure setback from. We would still
measure setback from the exterior finish material. So as you are looldng.at a house you
still have the full six feet or the full eight-foot Side setback or the full 20 feet in the rear
and the front. We would also simply go around the exterior of the building.
Currently ,there is some ambiguity as to whether covered recessed entryways should be
counted as-floor.area, They have two [rounds] and a doorway and then flaere is a covered
portion of it. We would currently count that as floor area and we are recommending not
to count that because it isn’t interior floor area. It doesn’t really add to the mass or the
bulk ofthe building and it makes the calculation a little more ambiguous. So we are
¯ saying do not count thOSe recessed entry points whether they are in the front, the side or
the rear.
we would count fireplaces into FAR. Currently we don’t. It is a recommendation to
include fireplaces because they do add to mass and bulk on the exterior especially,
We would count entry features that are over 12 feet in height. There is a lot of discussion
about oversized or double entry features that are bigger than the building or out of
proportion with the house. So i.fit is over 12 feet in height we would count it in essence
twice. You would count the 12 feet one time and then any increment that is over 12 feet
would be counted again. So if you have a 17 foot entry feature you would count the 12
feet Once andthen the five feet that is over 12 again. So that total would be counted into
your floor area calculation.
Currently we have second and third floor equivalencies. We are recommending keeping
those equivalencies however, you would currently have a 200 square foot exemption
automatically in your third equivalency not matter what your roof pitch is. We are
recommending that you only receive that 200 square foot exemption in third floor
equivalency if your roof pitch is grater than four in 12. Which means you get the
exemption if you have a steeply pitched roof. The reason for that is a steeply pitch roof
does visually reduce the mass and the bulk of the building. So it makes sense to have a
corresponding FAR exemption of about 200 square feet. ~o if you have a flatter roof you
would no longer get that 200 square foot exemption.
There is one more administrative change and that is currently the authority to determine
whether a basement area or attic area is usable rests with the building official and that
would transfer over to the Directorofthe Department rathei: than the building official. So
that is an administrative change. Those are the bulk of the changes for FAR.
-For lot coverage, currently it is 35% winan extra 5% for patios and roof overhangs that
are greater thau four feet. We are recommending that for a single story home your !ot
coverage would be equal to your floor area allowance. So you would actually be able to
put your entire floor area on the ground floor which would be an incentive to do a single
story house rather than a second story or a two-story house. If yoti i:lo have a two-story
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
¯ 43
44
45
46
house or a second story addition your lot coverage would remain the same as it is now,
35% plus that extra 5% for overhangs and patios. That would be lot coverage.
For frontsetbacks currently you have a straight 20 foot front setback measured from the
front property line. We are recommending a contextual fronf setback for any street that
has a greater than 20foot existing frontsetback along the majorityofthe street. So if you
calculate the average setback along the street and it is at 24 or 25 feet, it is already greater
than 20 feet, then your setback .wouldneed to be in line with that existing contextua! front
setback. So it wouldbe an average of whatever that existing setback is, as long as it is
greater than 20 feet. Once you establish what that contextual front setback is then you
can have minor encroachments into it. You can have a uncovered porch encroach into it
up to six feet which is the existing requirement: You can have bay windows up to three
feet into that front setback. Now that is one foot greater than you would get now, We
allow a two foot encroachment into a setback now. One ofthe questions that we haven’t
completely,resolved is if you are currently at 20 feet would we want to re~ert back.to
only a two foot encroachment for a bay window rather than going to an additional three
feet. The Advisory Group hasn’t fullyexplored that and we would appreciate some
discussion or opinions about that.
The combined width of any encroachments into the front setback could not exceed one-
third of that element of the building.that is closest to the setback. So if you have a 40-
foot building your encroachments can only equal one-third of that to keep it m~imal in
nature. So that is the contextual front setback.
A new standard would be contextual garage placement. This would only affect those
streets where there is already a pattern of garages in the rear. So if either 50% of the
existing garages on the subject side of the street or 50% of the total number of garages on
both sides of the street are already in the rear then a new house or a new garage would
need to be located at the rear of either the site or the building depending on if it is a
¯ detached or an attached garage. So if you are doing a detached garage and the pattern is
garages at the rear of the site then you would need to do a detached garage at the rear of
the property. If you are doing an attached garage it would need to be in the rear half of
the building. So if you have a 40-foot deep building you would have to be at.the 20-foot
point or further back. So you w6uld not have garages that extend forward of the main
part of the house. So that is if you have an already established pattern on the street of
rear garages. Also if you had an established pattern of access from alleyways you can
access from the alleyway. It would be encouraged to access your garage from the
alleyway. Again, that is whether it is attached or detached.
Commissioner Schink: Comer lots?
Ms. Grote:. Thank you. Currently if you have a detached garage or any kind of a
structure but a detached garage in particular it has to be 75 feet back from the front
property line and 75 feet back from the street-side property line. We are.recommending
that that street-side property setback or that.street-side setback be reduced to 20 feet
because most lots cannot meet the 75 feet in both directions. They .don’t have the depth
City of Palo Alto Page I5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
and the width to be able to do that. So at this point variances and home improvement
exceptions have been considered for that condition and approved for that condition. By
retaining the 20 foot minimum if the house next door has a 20 foot setback the garage
still is not in front of that it still maintains that 20 foot setback. So it wouldn’t disrupt
that street pattern.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: A defi.uition of a block. There are some streets in Palo Alto that
go forever without an intersection.- Do you have some way to deal with that?
Ms. Grote: We recommend that if the block is longer than 600 feet that it be defined by
10 houses on either side of the subject house..
Commissioner Packer: That would be in here?
Ms. Grote: Iris.
Commissioner Packer: Thanks.
Ms. Grote: If you have the comer condition that we were just talking about with 75 feet
in one direction and 20 in the other then the garage structure is still subject to daylight
plane requirements, height requirements and separation from other building requirements
as.they are today. So that doesn’t change.
Side yard encroachments. We are not recommending a change in the depth of the side
yard or the width of the side yard it would still be either six or eight feet depending on the
zoning district. We are recommending stricter limitations on encroachments at the side
.yards. Fireplaces can only extend into a side setback by two feet in depth and five feet in
width. Currently we don’t have restrictions on fireplace encroachments so that would be
a new restriction. Bay windows and greenhouse windows would be able to encroach into
front and rearsetbacks by two feet provided they are cantilevered without any kind of
floor joists and they don’t have auy usable area in them. So you can’t have kitchen
appliances, you can’t have bathtubs, you can’t have usable features inside that area. It
has to be truly window space.
Windows in a side yard setback can ohly be greenhouse windows or [oreo] windowsand
they can only be a maximum of six feet in width. So very small window encroachments
into side yard setbacks.
Working surfaces and driveway materials. Cm-rently you can’t use grasscrete or
Hollywood strips. The whole width of.an eight-foot driveway has to be paved. We are
recommending that be reduced so that there is no permeable surfaces. You can use
grasscrete, you can use interlocking pavers, you can use other kinds of material that allow
water to permeate. So it provides greater flexibility in design. Also loose grave!would
not be allowed. It is currently not allowed and it would remain not allowed. We do have "
City of Palo Alto Page 16
I
2
4
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
12,
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
2"/
28
29
3O
31
32
~3
34
3~
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
4~
46
a new standard proposed for a maximum amount of front setback area to be paved. We
proposed to allow only 40% of your front Setback to be paved with non-permeable
surfaces. So it would be 60% permeable surface and that is in order to provide more
green space and less hardscape in the front setback area.
Mr. Gawf: So if you have driveway that is grasscrete then that would be okay. That~
would be part of the 40%.
Ms. Grote: That would be. It is permeable so it is not.
Ms. Furth: I have a question. When you had the hearing on the very elegant house in the
hillsides they described paving material that looks like solid paved material, which.they
described as highly permeable. What would you do with that?
Ms. Grote: That would be considered permeable. That is part of the 60% that is
permeable. That does have a softer look and feel to it than asphalt or concrete.
Mr. Northwa¥: There is also a request by Public Works to cut down the amount oi’ off-
flow.
MS. Grote: There are a couple of exceptions too for very narrow lots, 30 foot lots and
less would have au exemption from thatrequirement because on a 30 foot lot you can’t
get a 16 foot driveway and a four foot walkway to your house mad meet the 60%
permeable surface requirement.. So we are recommending that those be exempt so that
you can always at least get a two car driveway with a decent size walk to your front door.
The same would hold true for a pie shaped lot that has 30 feet or less at the setback point.
So you could always get a two car driveway and a four foot walk.
Commissioner Schmidt: With those permeable paver situations you pave your whole
front yard if it is permeable paver like the stone that Wynne suggested.
M~. Grote: The way it is proposed now, yes. It would be considered permeable.
Mr. Gawf: Yes. We will look at that too when we come back. I want to think about that
a little bit more.
Ms. Grote: If you have comments on that that would be great.
There are lighting standards that talk about individual or freestanding pole lights in single
family residential districts being a maximum of 12 feet in height and.then not being able
to spill over.onto adjacent parcels or property. We are recommending keeping those but.
then also adding further restrictions so that each fixture would have to have a shield or
reflective-area so that.you can’t see the lamp itself, you can’t see the light source itself so
it has less impact on your neighbor. And that it can only light certain parts of your house.
being the walls, the eaves and the yard areas but you can’t put your whole Iot awash in
light. There are restrictions to that.
City of Pa!o Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
6
"7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
25
26
2’7
28
29
3O
31
32
34
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
43
Height.
Commissioner Burr: Those hghtspertain to which sort again?
Ms. Grote: Currently it doesn’t say What they apply to and we are assuming just by
reading it that if is probably intended for commercial or recreational uses that are in R-I
districts such as YMCAs, community centers, churches and other types of non-residential
use. I think that is the only time you would really have a freestanding pole light that
would even reach 12 feet. But in some of those situations they do want them. Now for
the new requirements we would be talking about all hghts, the ones that are mounted on
your garage for security purposes or your ornamental landscaping lights, things like that.
Commissioner Burt: SO if you have a low wattage hght out front you can have the bulb
visible?
Ms. Grote: That is what we.have recommended at this point, that they should be shielded
so that the lamp itself is not visible. Do you want to add something to that, Joan?
Ms. Joan Taylor, Planning Manager: I just wanted to point out that we say lens covers or
reflectors. So often what you will find is if you are going to have a reflector you are still
going to be able to see the bulb from some positions. What we are trying to do is avoid
that kind of reflection offonto your neighbor’s property. So really the intent here and I
think we have all seen that kind of security lighting where it is aiming straight at you. I
don’t think we are going to have much difficulty with landscape fighting, at all.
Commissioner Burt: As it is written though would there be difficulty with the landscape
ligh ng?
Ms. Taylor: I don’t think so because we are typically going to have reflectors. You are
still going, to have reflectors on the landscape fighting, most of the landscape lighting I
see or it is going to be diffused. Most of the landscal~e lighting, and we will double check
this for you already has a diffuse when I look at it in the stores or Home Depot or they
have a reflector. SO I don’t think we are going to have a problem. I should say as well,
and I think it is a very good point you raise, that what we have not done here yet and
you’ll recognize that is we haven’t written the actual code language. So what you are
reading here is our intent and what we are trying to do so it does help us as we come back
through. When we initiate the ordinance you will see the final code language.
Ms. Pria Graves, Advisor~ Group: I wanted to add that one of the things that we talked
about with respect to the low wattage lights in the front of yo.ur house was the fact that
there is nothing to pre,~ent a subsequent occupant from changing out the wattage of the
bulb. That was why we permitted saying that as long as it was a low wattageitem it was
okay. The sense that even if the current owner put in a 25 watt bulb or a 40 watt bulb and
it is no intrusion if somebody e!se puts in a 150 watt bulb it might be. So the decision ¯
City of Palo Alto Page 18
2
?
i0
12
20
21
22
2~
2~
26
2?
29
30
31
32
36
39
~0
~2
was that we would instead ask Staffto specify that it be something that couldn’t be
abused that way.
Chairman Bialson: Lisa, do you have some more.
Ms. Grote: I do. I just have a few more changes.
Ms. Wasserman: I have one little question on the lighting. The way ~t is written now,
does it prohibit up lighting trees?
Ms. Grote: I does not prohibit it. It says all outdoor hghting fixtures will.be required to
have lens cbvers that defuse the hght or reflectors that shield the lamp from view and
direct the light away from neighboring properties. So we have tried not to prohibit any
kind of lighting but to tnirfirnize its impact on neighbors.
Ms. Wasserman: Something you said later said that y0ujust wanted to have them on the
house.
Ms. Grote: That would apply to any kind of lighting, either security lighting or
ornamental lighting for landscaping areas, but that it is supposed to prevent.a site from
being awash in light.
Ms. Wassermam So this is not the Portola Valley ordinance where you can’t have
anything out there.
Ms. Grote: No, it isn’t. It is to minimize the impact.
The next one is height and the measurement of height. Currently it is 30 feet in height
and we measure at the lowest point five.feet away from the structure. What we are
recommending is that we still measure from the highest point of the structure but you go
straight down to, the existing grade right below the highest point. So we are not five feet
away from a building you are right there at the edge of the building. Currently it is 30
feet and we are recommending that when you have a roof pitch of four and 12 or steeper
than that that an additional three feet be allowed.because it is. difficult to get a four and 12
or steeper roof in 30 feet. So you could actually go up to 33 feet if you have a very steep
roof. Again, because a steep roof can bring down the apparent mass and the bulk as
viewed from the street or from a neighbor’s house. So that gives you a little bit of
flexibility in height in order to reduce the mass.
That goes along with the grade clarification. We are recommending that we measure
from existing grade..That is not clear in the code right now. It kind of says finished
grade, existing grade, it kind of changes back and forth. So we are saying just make it
clear that we are measuring to existing grade. Except in hillside areas where we do say it
is either existing or finished whichever is the lowest point..
Commissioner Schink: In the flood zone?
City of Palo Alto Page 19
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
Ms. Grote: In the flood zone we measure to existing grade and you would still have to
count in that area where you built up your foundation. We are not changing that at this
point. That is not a recommendation of the Advisory Group because it doesn’t have to do
with privacy, streetscape or mass and bulk. It has been recommended that we discuss
that as part of the zoning ordinance update. That is not proposed at this point.
Then the fial on is dayhght plane requirements. Not to change the dayhght plane
encroachments as far as the total length is concerned it would still be 15 feet inlength but
that you couldn’t have a single dayhght plane encroachment that exceeded seven and
one-halffeet in length. If you have more than one they have to be at least five feet apart.
So it is to ensure that you have actual dormers or architectural features rather than a solid
wall that could extend into the dayhght plane. Also chimneys that are five feet in width
can extend into the dayhght plane but anythiug wider than that could not extend into.the
daylight plane. Therefore you would have to pull the wall of your house back so that
your wider than five foot chimney wouldn’t be in the dayhght plane. So it is to
encourage smaller chimneys so they are not such big features on sides of houses.
Commissioner Packer: Question on enforceability on the existing grade. Somebody goes
to demolish the house. They get a demolition permit and before they even have plans for
another house how would be able to determine what was the existing grade?
Ms. Grote: Homeowners would need to provide surveys that show what existing grade
is, was and is.
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
Ms. Grote: That is part of the education and outreach and part of the application
materials would be surveys. From what I hear Building may require surveys mostof the
time now anyway, 90% of the cases, unless it is just a very small addition. So really
people are providing surveys most of the time now.
Chairman Bialson: I have a couple of comments I want to make.
Ms. Grote: Alsowe would be eliminating the daylight plane for front and street-side
setbacks.
Chairman Bialson: Please give the gentleman a .microphone.
Unknown Male Speaker: Does part of this process allow pubhc comments or .questions?
Chairman Bialson: Are you a member of the Advisory Group?
Unknown Male Speaker: No.
City of PaIo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Chairman Bialson: Afterwards we will invite comment. Commissioners, question or
comments? Jon.
Commissioner Sehink: I had a few comment/question kinds of things. I would
encourage you to look again at counting the chimneys twice when you go to the second
story height because I think we are going to end up with more unusual circumstances
with people wanting to narrow down their chimneys and actually then lowering chimneys
and roofs. We could end up with more unusual things happening, the unintended
consequences will exceed the benefit. We are only talking about I0 square feet where
you will get some weird things happening.
The contextual front setback, could you examine the possibility of providing exceptions
when the property has heritage trees involved on a site? We get into that real tension and
if you don’t .allow that-exception then you are going to increase the potential to just
demolish the house and starting all over. The only way you can make all the pieces fit is
by scraping it and coming up with something new. So you need an exception for heritage
trees.
Ms. Grote: So for heritage or protected trees. Yes, we have a general policy, in fact, it is
written into our tree preservation ordinance that we will consider variances and HIEs for
preservation of those protected trees.
Commissioner Schink: I think if you just put an exception so you don’t have to go.
through an HIE process, an exception to the setback calculation that would be good.
Mr. Gawf: I think that is Jon’s point.
Ms. Grote: You do or you don’t?
Commissioner Cassel: I think you need to look at each individual situation because there
could be a solution. These rules go with single story or two-st0ry and the review process
is only for two stories.
Ms. Wasserman: We won’t get a chance to review it if it is a one-story house. A two-
story situation gets reviewed. So in a one-story situation if you allow an exception across
the board you don’t get a chance to review it. So I think you lose the opportunity for a
better solution.if you automatically say,. "i’ve got a tree. I can do what I want." I think
you should have tO prove your case somehow.
Commissioner Schink: A heritage tree or a preserved tree? We are only talMug about
oaks and redwoods, right? "
Ms. Wasserman: I know, but what you are saying is every time you have a heritage tree
on your property you should be allowed an exception.
Commissioner Schink: An exception to the contextual setback.
City of Pal0 Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
Ms. Wasserman: Right.
Commissioner Schink: Not the 20-foot setback.
Ms. Wasserman: Right. But there might be a solution in which you didn’t need that
exception and it could be found. So that is the function of an HIE is to allow the
exception to prove itself.
Chairman Bialson: .Alright, I think we’ve got that:
Mr. Gawf: We can work on that a little bit too because in an individual review you do "
have that process but for single family you don’t. Maybe that is the distinction. So we
can maybe wrap it into the individual review process for second story structures. .Okay,
we will look at that.
Commissioner Schink: I would just add the point that if I’m sitting here as the person
-just learning how to build a house the matrix that I consider is, can I make this work or
can’t I make this work. I will not come.to you to.ask your permission whether you are
going to let me do this. I will make the decision that I can’t remodel this house, I can’t
adjust it because I can’t fit the setback. So we will just remove that house and start with a
clea~ slate. So I realize that you think it isn’t an opportunity for you toget that review.
But if you provide the exception that we will look at it and consider it when you are
making decisions.
Ms. Grote: So part of tonight we are getting questions.
Chairman Bialson: Right, considerations for you to ponder, Phyllis, any questions or
comments? Kathy? .Pat?
Commissioner Burt: Just a follow up one on the tree exception issue. I’d liketo see
whether we can look an whether an HIE may be allowed for trees that are not defined .as
heritage trees. We have a fairly narrow definition of Heritage trees and we may have
some very valuable full mature trees that we’d like to grant an HIE where appropriate.
Chairman Bialson: Good point. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the first regulation on FAR. You are
going to exclude the first floor recess porch. Remembering the issue about the three
sided garages that later got filled in, isn’t there a risk that that could be a loophole and
people could later come in and create a room out of that porch?
Ms. Grote: If they do they would probably then be violation of the FAR and it would be
a code enforcement issue. They need to come in and get abuilding 15ermit to enclose any
area at all so we would be doing a plan check. If they are over their FAR we wouldn’t
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
lO
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
approve it. So that is the first point of checking on it. If someone did it without a .
building permit then it is a code enforcement issue and we’d make them remove it.
Commissioner Packer: That begs the question of how able is the City to enforce all of its
codes and so wtiy set up a situation that is easily violated?
Ms. Grote: I don’t know that it would-be easily violated. I think it would be very
difficult to violate it actually because I don’t thJak most people do construction without a
building permit. If they do, I would imagine neighbors are going to complain and we are
going to fred it is pretty visible.
Mr. Northwa~. This iS one that we really studied extensively. I probably was leading the
charge on this one so I will give you a quick overview. Most of the Birge Clark houses in
town have recessed entryways and covered first floor patios. If you counted that as FAR
those elements would simply disappear because people are not going to have an
unenclosed space count as FAR. What we said repeatedly because the argument came
out that people will come back after the fact and enclose them. Well, as Lisa said, they
are in violation, they have broken the law and we didn’t want to set up an FAR situation
that basically punishes good design because someone.may take advantage of the
situation. The fact is if they are caught which can be done by complaint of neighbor or a
building inspector driving by and seeing fimny activity. What we are trying to do is
encourage really good design and to eliminate elements that are part of our most
dherished houses in town..
Chairman Bialson: Thanked. I have one comment. We were talking about garages and
we were looking at the already established pattern of garages and a figure of 50%. This
goes to the point raised by Bonnie earlier. We would go on the ten houses on either side
and across the street as the determination?
Ms. Grote: h is one of two thing. It’s 50% of the houses onthe same side of the street
have an existing pattern of garagesin the rear or 50% of the houses on both sides of the
street have a rear located garage. It doesn’( mean that you have to havea detached
garage. It means that if those garages are ~urrently in the rear you can ha~ie either an
attached or a detached garage but it needs to be to the rear of either the house itself or the
lot. It would be the rear of the house if it is an attached garage or of the lot if it is a
detached garage. So it means you have to continue whatever that existing pattern is.
Chairmma Bialson: So preference needs to be stated that we want garage in back of the
house or in the back of the lot.
Ms. Grote: If that is the prevailing pattern on either one or both sides of the street but
only then. We don’t want to enforce it if it is not a prevailing pattern already.
Chairman Bialson: That’s obviously where you got the 50%.
Ms. Grote: Correct.
Page 23City of Palo Alto
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
45
Commissioner Sckink:
a problem on control?
Will you consider an exception again for Heritage trees if there is
Ms. Grote: We have in the past. We have considered home improveme_nt or variances
for that.
Chairman Bialson: Pat has a question.
Commissioner Burt: I find it real encouraging that you have addressed the garage issue
because I think it is one of the.most important streetscape aspects. As much as I like the
concept of encouraging recessed garages in those neighborhoods where they are
predominant I want to make sure we are being fair to folks who have l~ts or home
designs that may not lend itself as much to a completely rear garage, attached or not, as
maybe another lot pattern.. First question is what triggers .thegarage mandate that it be
recessed? What activity, a complete remodel again?
Ms. Grote: A remodel of the garage itself ora relocation of the garage itself or a new
garage. So if you are moving your existing garage or if you are building a new garage
then we’d start looking at existing placement on the street.
Commissioner Bust: The other circumstances that I am thinldng about are ones where the
streetscape is improved by a recessed garage even if it is not fully at the rear of the home.
We might want to examine that issue.
Commissioner Burr: I’ve seen some real improvements in the impact of garages on the
streetscape by two mechanisms that some folks have been doing. One is where they
didn’t have an.opportunity or they didn’t choose to use up their land for a long driveway
rather than putting anattached garage fully in the rear of the house they recessed it from
the front face, They were able to make a considerable improvement on the street face as
a result of that. Second, I’ve been seeing some really innovative garage designs that I
never thought-I would think of a garage that was at the front of the house could be
integrated architecturally in a way that it wasn’t a detraction. In fact, I’ve seen a l~t of
those.. It may be something we want to evaluate on whether it is merely something we
encourage as opposed to require. But I think these two other ways of addressing garage
issues might be explored.
¯Mr. Gawf: Are you talking about where the garage is rotated so the side of the garage is
facing the street?
Commissioner Burr: Not necessarily. In the flxst aspect I was talldng about it can be
visible from the street but it doesn’t protrude. It doesn’t come close to the street. In the
second one is merely just design elements that make them much more attractive. On bike
rides Ihave gone by and seen some surprisingly well designed garages recently. I just
didn’t ever think you could do such a good job with a garage. It swayed my opinion
away from being as strongly advocating garages in the rear in some neighborhoods where
City of Palo Alto Page 24
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.44
45
46
it is not the true historic pattern. Certainly many neighborhoods it is the true historic
pattern and it is very important.
Ms. Grote: There are designs dividing the garage doors, putting elements in the garage
door itself.
Ms. Furth: There was another thing which came up When we were looking at this which
is that garages have two functions in establishing Street rhythms. One is where the garage
is and the other is that in a lot of districts the driveway is actually the setback not the
theoretical legal setback. So as you determine where garage can or should be you may
narrow the setback that exists in a neighborhood.
ChairmanBialson: Keeping in mind the comments about the time you expected this to
take are we finished with item three?.
Mr. Gawf: I tlsink we are ready for number four. Steve is going to lead us on that. Steve
Pierce was part of the group that worked with Jonon that.
Mr. Steve Pierce, Advisory Group: My goal here is to introduce you to .the guide’.line and
the logic behind some of them as well as the organization and the language that was used.
I had to sort of catalog this by saying we spend many months on the substance of it and
only lately gotteri to the organization, the language, the syntax of how this all needs to be
said which is very, very critical. So what .we have now is very preliminary in the sense
that as some of the comments so far indicate a lot ofwordsmithing needs to be done.
Unless you have problems with insomnia we don’t’ want to do it here.
The scope of all of the things we came up with basically we put them in two pots. One of
them was the quantitative pot and that went over to Lisa. You’ve heard many of the
thoughts that came up that ended up in our bailiwick because they didn’t lend themselves
to quantification. Certainly the direction that Palo Alto has taken in the past is to try to
keep the regulations quantitative. There is a recognition that certainly they are designed
to deal with the issues we have up on the board here in terms of privacy and so forth that
we need to have qualitative criteria. That is really what we are working to.
In terms of the language that was used, our intent was really to encourage what we. call
respectfal designs. That is pretty soft language but for qualitative types of criteria we felt
that was appropriate.. So within the guidelines themselves you’ll.see the language of such
and such is encouraged. Sometimes the word "expect" is used but usually it is in the
context of we expect you to be respectful or we expec.t sensitivity, that sort of thing. We
were trying to avoid this absolute conformance to some sort of standard such as you shall
minimize all the windows on the side yard. That gives us the argument of what is.
minimal. Could there be fewer than you actually put on there. So we had a lot of.
discussion about how strong a language should be. Again, we were trying to keep
ourselves out of court in terms of creating things an appellate could just go wild on. So
we used language like encourage, expect and that sort of thing. In terms of the
organization of the guidelines themselves everything is organized by three topics, the
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5 "
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
privacy, mass and streetscape. Then on each One of those we have an issues statementl
you know, why.are we concerned about this particular topic. Then under that are
guidelines thai address that particular is.sue. Under each of the guidelines we have a hst
of techniques and examples and those are not meant to be exhaustive in terms of the
techniques. The language in the b.eginning of the document does state, ’show us a better
way.’ The whole idea here is to say here is an issue you need to be. looking at but we
encourage you to come up with ways in which -you can solve that issue. We are not
saying that you need toconform to these items that we. encourage. These are suggestions.
We want to be very careful to say that we have suggested three thiugs but you don’t have
to do those three things. You just need to prove your case as to why your design is
respectful to this particular issue. We also tried to make the document fairly visual. You
see sample drawings in there and pretty clear language that those are just samples.
Again, we want tobe careful to have fairly geherie kinds of diagrams there. Otherwise
people will say this is the way to do it. So again the problem needs.to be more language
in the document to say that these are just examples and please come up with a way which
suitable to your project. That is sort of.an overview of how we structured these. I guess
it is up to you in terms in how much time we want to have on this. We can just run
through them quickly and we can provide some background as to why they are there.
You tell me what would be best.
Chairman Bialson: I think the Commissioners have had an opportunity to read these. I
think I’ll have the Commissioners ask questions and make observations. That would
probably be the best way to do it. I am not going to start with Jon this.time. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Would it be appropriate if we go through a program at a time and
ask som~ questions about the windows? Or should I ask all your questions.
Chairman Bialson: As long as you have a couple of them.
Mr. Pierce: There arethree .groups. The first two deal with privacy and that is a natural
group to look at. Then the next batch of them which is three through ten deal with the
mass and scale. Then the last four are really the streetscape issue.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate that.
Commissioner Packer: That works. My question is really goes to the windows up on the
second floor. It assumes that there are other second-story houses next door that the
windows would look directly into. If there are offset or staggered windows facing
neighbor’s windows it is assuming there is another second story next door.
Mr. Pierce: That is one condition.
Commissioner Packer: That’s one condition.
Chairman Bialson: I assume that you intended that the neighbor would have a second
story or a.first story.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
4
?
9
10
lI
12
14
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
BO
31
32
~3
39
40
41
42
4B
4~
Mr. Pierce: Yes, the invasion. 0fprivaey isn’t necessarily horizontal.
Chairman Bialson: Okay. -
Mr. Pierce: You could be lo0king down into someone’s patio or someone’s bathroom
window.
Commissioner Packer: So this is qualitative not quautitative. So the person who is trying
to recognize the privacy concerns, at what point what is the angle of privacy? Looking
down, looking up, looking this way?.
Mr. Pierce: We have this inexorable desire to put numbers on everything a few swings
are made at what is an opposing window and how far down does it become imposing.
After numerous man-hours we decided that qualitative is best and that you really can’t
define that. There are a number ofissueg that might be particular to a project that really
make it impossible to deal with that. There is always the landscape solution also. So it
depends on which intervening tree or maybe there is mature Vegetation there already. So
you get into real problems if you say the windows have to be ten feet off or whatever.
There are so many situations where it just may not work.
Ms. Grote: It also dependson the individual circ .umstances and the orientation of the
neighboring house, what is going on there, is it a driveway, is it a narrow side setback, is
it a largerside setback. What.is happening in the surrounding sites with the orientation
there? ..
Mr. Pierce: Right, and part of our discussion was if you get beyond a certain number of
feet that the windows are apart then all bets are off. Well, in certain situations maybe that
is the case but maybe not in all. So after exploring all of these, this is where we landed.
Commissioner Packer: h just said because it is qualitative itis very difficult. Somebody
could say, "I did my best. I offset it this much and I’m going to plant some big birch
trees and it is going to be fine." Then the appellant comes in and says, "no it is not
enough." It just is a discretionary.aspect.
Mr. Pierce: That is why Palo Alto has been historically very reticent at getting involved
in the designed review business for single family homes. A.Ithough for more than a
couple of decades we’ve been doing it for more than two residences and certainly all
Commercial structures. But yes, that is always the risk~ We have not gotten into it yet but
there is a board of people passing judgment on the project and they are making some sort
of judgment call that ye.s, you have satisfied this criteria or this issue. The neighbor may
have a different view and they get their chance to make their.case.
Mr. Gawf: The other thing that we haven’t talked about yet but we wiil in a few minutes
is the threshold issue. We felt it was very important that people had a reasonable optionnot to go through this process. We are recommending that it is the one-story that is the
City of Palo Alto Page 2 7
1 threshold but I assume that will be part of your discussion. I think that is a very
2 important component to this wh~,~e thing that it isnot mandatory for everyone. It is only
3 required if you do certain things.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17-
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.38
39
40
41
42
43
Chairman Bialson! Pat, do you want to comment?
Commissioner Burr: Just one on an aspect of the p.rivacy. Reeogni ".~g that the
landscaping can be one of the most effective ways to improve the privacy and all the
visual aspects including streetseape, I go back to the point Pria had made about the
hghfing. Somebody could put a 150-watt bulb in something that was originally designed
for a 15-watt bulb, somebody could chop down.the shrubs that provide the privacy, what
do you folks think about that issue andhow to address it? I don’t have a conclusion on
that. I’m asking what was your discussion and how did the group feel about how that
issue get addressed in the future.
Mr. Pierce: Essentially we are leaving that up to the reviewers. All vegetation dies. It is
transitory so yes that is certainly a gray area,
Chairman Bialson: I think Pria wants to speak.
Ms. Graves: Thanks: Annette. I was not alone in this feeling that landscaping should be
encourage as a means of buffering intrusions but that it should not be a sufficient
mitigation~ I think perhaps the. wording does need a little bit of tweaking to
accommodate that and indicate that the you should not be allowed to place a window in a
terribly obtrusive place simply because you say you are going to plant a tree there. I
personally have had experience with a 20-foot hedge being removed six feet from my
kitchen window.leaving me with a much different vista. I don’t mind the vista but I
could understand how that could be a real problem if that was the sole mitigation for an
intrusive feature..
Chairman Bialson: Kathy? Phyllis, anything?
Commissioner Cassel:. I know in your discussions you talked a little bit about backyards.
These guidelines are lool6.ug at either side. and they are not looking to the development
that is coming into thebackyards where there is a lot may have 20 feet and a house
behind is six feet or where there is 20 and 20 feet to a backyard. Can you explain why
.you decided not to include that in the dkscnssion or did you? How does that fit?
Mr. Pierce: Certainly back’yards were a very big part of this. In the privacy issue we
have language on window to window.
Commissioner Cassel: But in the design review I mean from.a house that is going up to
the house that is behind~ Is that part of this discussion?
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
5
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2"/
28
29
30
31
32
Mr. Pierce: Yes. We are talking about loss of privacy for neighboring properties. That’s
in.~ide mad outside. We expect the reviewers to be looking at privacy over the entire
prop~’ty.
Ms. Grote: .We do talk about sight lines to nelghbor’s main windows or patio areas
which are frequently at the back of the neighboring housel So we did try to address that
issue.
Mr. Pierce: I think balconies were swept in too because balconies are generally on the
back of the house and you looking down into not only your own backyard but the
adjacent back’yards.
Chairman Bialson: Ion.
Commissioner Sehink: I think you’ve done a great job defining the privacy issues and
making a lot of progress. I do believe though because this is such a subjective portion of
the review process that you are going to .have to go a little further as far as being specific
about what works and what doesn’t. For example, from my perspective I think you’ll
need to say that these are mitigations which will allow windows that offset whether they
are obscured. I just don’t see anyway you can allow it to be just up to the reviewer to
consider all the facts and make a decision. I think you need to tell everyone involved that
yes, you can have a second story window and it can be almost rightacross from the
neighbor’s window if you make it obscure. I_fit is a rear-facing window you can simply
mitigate it through landscaping because that is a different set of circumstances. You
couldn’t ask someone at the rear Of a property just to have obscuredwindows. Someone
has to sit down and say these are the roles we are willing to.live by because it is going to
be an ugly scene for people to have to make those decisions and wrestle that through with
the neighbors.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Pierce: I think what you are talking about is putting a httle more certainty into the
process.
Commissioner Schink: Absolutely. If you just change these to saythat second floor
windows can be employed through these mitigation techniques and then put that you can ¯
have offset windows or obscured windows or rear facing windows with landscaping. I
think if you set a description between each one you would get to the place you need to be.
Ms..Wasserman: The guideline says maybe byemploying one or more of the following
techniques, isn’t that equivalent of saying or?
Cbmmissioner Schink: I would like to strengthen it from my perspective.
Chairman Bialson: I appreciate the input.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11"
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4
45
46
Mr. Gawf: This is the part that we are going to continue to work on. The major thing we
are going-to Council for is thd pohcy direction of do you want us to do this. We are
going to continue to refine the guidelines.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie, do you have more or do you want us to go on?
Commissioner Packer: I’m finished with this guideline2
Chairman Bialson: We are now losing one Commissioner..Thank you, Kathy.
CommisSioner Packer: I do have a question. Guideline four that deals with the height
italks about the neighborhood height.pattern and the height of adjacent houses is
encouraged. The first second story house on a street of ranch houses where you don’t get
into some of these overlay areas but an eclectic South Pale Alto street with all kinds of
ranch houses, maybe the 1960’s second story box on the garage. Then this new second
story comes in. You are essentially saying you can’t build here because we have to be
consistent with the prey .ailing height of the neighborhood pattern.
Mr. Gawf: A fundamental point that we decided early on was that we are not saying you
cannot build a second story even if it is a one-story neighborhood you can build a second
.story. If we need to tweak the wording so that we make sure that it doesn’t imply that
you can’t we will. That was a fundamental point. Yes, there is certain sensitivity and
some things you need to be sensitive to in designing the second story but it one of saying
you caunot build a second story.
Mr. Pierce: I think we are trying to guide people. On page 11 on the top diagram is a
case in point. It is the icebreaker house. We are not saying doing it, it is how you do it.
That is what we are trying to convey.
Commissioner Packer: Maybe I was just thrown by that A.
Ms. Furth: Maybe some wordsmithing willhelp with that.
Chairman Bialson: You plan on doing that?
Mr. Pierce: Yes.
Ms. Furth: I think it is very important that when you mean that you can have the first
two-story house in a neighborhoodthat you say that explicitly. If you don’t do that and
you use words like respect, predominant, sensitive, you gut those words if you don’t
make explicit the extent to what you intend to allow. If you all know that of course we-
are going to allow a two-story but you don’t say any~liug in there then it appears to have
no meaning anymore: Then why are doing this whole exercise?
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any more., Bonnie?
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
Mr. Gawf: We also say that all of us are available for discussing anything outside this
meeting prior to the hearing. One of the things we’ve done for the last year is talk about
this a lot. So any of the Working Group members and any of the Staff are happy to meet
with you one on one.
Chairman Bialson: I think Ed’s point is well taken and it is something he has expressed ¯
to me that some of these points we do want to raise tonight but if there are any others that
come to mind, feel free to pass them on.
Commissione~ Cassel: i just want to emphasize how import.ant this particular issue is, the
heights of these buildings. Because part of the t~eelings of over~vhelming-ness that you
were talking about before comes when one walks down the street and realizes that when
the second story goes on it is taller than the height of the roof of the existing building
beside it. So that looming-ness that was talked about earlier comes on because that is so
tall in relationship. We don’t have very high-pitched roofs because we don’t need very
high-pitched roofs around here. Most of the houses have tended to have low pitched
roofs, which give the feel of a smaller building. I think this is an extremely important
areain terms of things that cause fear. There is a lot of fear in this issue.
Commissioner Schink: I am only go to add emphasis to the point that We need to say
whatis allowed.
Ms. Wasserman: Iactually agree with you on that. I think we should say what is
allowed. I would also like to point out that there is another part to this document that you
might not have gotten to which is the checklist in the back which every applicant will
have to fill out. So for each guideline there is a kind of aquestionnaire. For the one that
says if you are proposing a tw0-story house next to a one-story house how do you plan to
make the. transition. There are three suggestions and a place to write in your own ~
proposal. So in other words, as part of your application you have to fill this out. So
people have to address that question.
Chairman Bialson: Bonnie?
Commissioner Packe~: I want to just raise a question about the neighborhood patterns.
Chairman Bialson: We are talMng about guidelines at this point.
Commissioner Packer: I was just wondering about this one on.page 17 about.respecting
the setbacks in a neighborhood. Itis very similar to the contextual setbacks in the
regulations and the garage contexts. I was wondering why this one was a guideline as
opposed to a regulation.
Mr. Gawf." I don’t know.
Mr. Northwa¥: Because this applies to adding the second story.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
Commissioner Packer: Why wouldn’t it be an issue when you are putting in the context
of a single story?
Ms. Grote: This also focuses on side setbacks if you look under A, setbacks guideline 11 ’
and then you drop down to A it say, incorporate side setbacks for new construction and
second story additions. Because it is a second story addition it focuses on the side
setbacks and trying to orient those away from the neighbors..
Commissioner Packer: Okay, again, is that something that could lend itself to. something
quantifiable? In other words, if you are going to have a bunch of guidelines the fewer
that are discretionary, we will get to this pohcy thing but the blendof discretionary versus
ministerial review on someof these things, if we could.identify some of these that could "
work in more of a quantifiable way as you’ve done with the regulations.
Mr. Gawf: We certainly had a lot of discussion on that. That is sort of the ftmdamental
question. For the most part we felt that you couldn’t quantify sensitive design or
- contextual design. So the ones that we have identified as co-changes I think are the ones
that we feel comfortable that we can. We spent a lot of time actually going through every
one and seeing which category it should be in. We also felt that as part of the individual
review if you are going through that there should be some ability to have some flexibility
if you will. You are actually seeing what is being proposed. It is not theoretical, it is a
real building and the neighbors get a chance to see it as well and comment..They are
going to catch things like what we are talking about, privacy issues and setbacks, etc. We
probably could come up with some number but our feeling is that it doesn’t work in every
case.
Mr. Pierce: In reality it is tree and particularly with second story additions that there is
usually some very serious constraints with respect to the structure itself and what parts of
it will hold up that second story mad so forth. Again I argue in favor or giving some
flexibility to the applicant.
Commissioner Packer: So this is really talking about the setbacks of the second story
part of the house? You are referring to the prevailing neighborhood pattern mad that’s
what you did with the garages and streetscape setback. You have data you can look at.
Ms. Grote: We are actually referring to either new two-story houses or single story
additions. We are referencing as if there is an existing pattern of a 12-foot side setback.
But if you are dealing with second additions or a new two-story house that you would try
to respect as close as you.could to that existing 12-foot side setback pattern if it can’t be
12 feet.
Mr. Northway: That’s because these guidelines only apply to the houses that qualify for
individual review which are new second stories, second story additions and second story
expansions.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1-7
18
19
20
-21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3~
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Commissioner Packer: You could have a guideline thatapphes to both single and second
story.~ I think I see what you are saying. The single story one, if you are in an eight foot
side setback zone, you don’t want to penalize them by making them go to 12 feet even
though that is the prevailing pattern.
Ms. Gawf: Right.
Commissioner Packer: I do have a question on guideline 12. I don’t understand it. What
does it mean "in-scale with its site." I know what the words mean but how do. you give
direction the developer? What does it mean? All the other ones have some examples.
Mr. Gawf: Let us work on that one because I’m not seeing an.illustration or anything
underneath it to explain it.
Commissioner Packer: I’m sure what you are aiming for,
Mr. Gawf: I see it, I understand. That was a very goodcatch.
Chairman Bialson: Go ahead, Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I was struck by how truly a picture can be worth a thousand words.
Many of the things that we are struggling witth how to describe verbally the illustrations
do a really good job. The one .tl~t was cited before that Bonnie was questioning,
Guideline 4A, the wording actually says incorporating a height.that is consistent with the
neighborhood pattern and issensitive which is a step back from consistent, and then
we’ve had discussion where someone used the term of being transitional. The illustration
we had was one not of consistency and perhaps sensitivity but it is a very vague term but
what I see there at the top of page 11 is something that is transitional, anddoes a good job
of showing that transition. It is indicative of homes that I’ve seen in predominantly
single story neighborhoods that made successful transitions. So I can see the struggle is
going to be to have the verbiage reflect the illustrations. I think it needs to and I thinkit
is a lot more difficult.
Then I had a question on the front setbacks. IfI am remembering correctly at our. last
discussion there was a more explicit and restrictive guideline on, or actually rule as I
recall, mandathag that the setbacks are not more than the average of the block.
Something to that effect. Was there a change that occurred here?
MS. Grote: We still said conceptual front setbacks are applicable if you have a setback
pattern that is more than 20 feet. So have a rninlmnm of a 20 foot front setback and then
if the pattern on the street is at 25, 26, 28 or whatever it might be then contextual front
setbacks are applicable. Then we.have this averaging going on to figure out what the
contextual front setback would be.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Butt: IfI am remembering the prior language it was to the effect that ifa
new house could not have.a setback closer to the street than was the average of the
houses on the street. Does that apply here?
Ms. Grote: We had talked about that as a group and then our recommendation.is as
currently written that you have to have at least a minimum of a 20 foot front setback.
Commissioner Burr: Okay. So you have eliminated that other aspect?
Ms. Grotei Yes.
Commissioner Butt: I think that’ s a good move.
Mr. Pierce: What did we decide to do about that block of Ramona where the prevailing is
about 10 feet?
Mr. Gawf: We will have to go back. I thought we left it where there was some
flexibility, there was some way that for situations under 20 feet it was a little more
strenuous but there was ability i0 reflect a smaller setback.
Ms.Wasserman: One thing that we shouldn’t lose track of is that we haven’t given.up on
the HIE. There is still an HIE process. These interesting but unusual uncommon
situations are always addressable by HIE. I think it is maybe not unique to Palo Alto but
one of the best design variation processes that I’ve ever encountered. It is a simple
straightforward inexpensive way to get good variations in design. That is what it is
designed for and it works. So we are not giving up on thai one.
Chairman Bialson: Tha~ you. Pat, any others? Jon?
Commissioner Schink: Could we talk about Guideline 6? We have a lot of other good
guidelines in here and we have daylight plane requirements. When you add this one
additional guideline we are sort of over-burdening the process from my perspective. If I
could share a personal experience, over the years I’ve had occasion to do sunlight
analysis on a number of projects and what you will find in working in this community if
you happen to draw a certain lot that has a certain orientation and you are going to put a
second story on there, you are going to cast a shadow on you~ neighbor’s yard no matter
how minimal your second story is and it just so happens to be a day early in March that
the sun rises to a point where the neighbor’s house is out of the shade and it doesn’t make
any difference: So ifyou actually apply this in this community it will make it nearly
impossible to apply second stories on a great many of the lots. I just don’t think it meets
a practical test. We have other regulations that deal specifically with the daylight plane.
Mr. Gawf: Maybe we need to look at this a little more. I normally think of March and
September as more likely, not December 21.- Maybe we need to clarify expectations.
City of Palo Alto . .Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Schink: You might correlate that against what the dayhght plane is and I
think you are going to find that it is less of an angle than what you actually achieve. ..
Mr. Northwa¥: Jon is right. With small lots it can get very impossible very quickly.
We’ve got this grid. The trouble is with the size of most 10ts you don’t have a lot of
discretion as to how you locate things.
Mr. Gawf: So let us take a look because I think there is a value here that somehow we
need to reflect but we need to make sure that we don’t overstate.
Mr. Pierce: I think we are back to definitions and what does respects mean. That’s pretty
wide open.
Mr. Northway: You don’t want to let it be something that voids everything.
Commissioner Cassel: It wasn’t an issue of voiding it, it is just an issue of raising it. The
daylight plane may be met but in my neighborhood an addition may be placed on one
side because it was easier than placing it on th.e other. So I think that was intent of this
when you were discussing it and that intent I think we need to keep,
Chairman Bialson: I think that completes item number four unless someone else has
something to say we will go on to Carroll Harrington.
Mr. Northwa¥: A great amount of these guidelines were put together working with a
committee and Phil Woods. Phil did an amazing job of pulling this stuff. So Ijnst
wanted to give credit where credit is due.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. I think I’ll get credit ifI announce a break at this time.
Carroll will present.
Ms. Carroll Harfington, Advisory_ Group: I would like to prelude this by a definition that
I felt very keen about. That is that we avoid-the use of the .term design when we talk
about individual review. When.you design people’s expectations get up-and they think
we are coming in with this magic book which of course we don’t have or their hackles
are raised. So we avoided the use of the term design.
You have the memo in front of you and I don’t think I need to go over it again unless
anyone has any questions.
Chairman Bialson: We appreciate the brief presentation. Anyone needing for us to do
so? Comments or observations? Recommendations?
Commissioner Burt: I get the sense by avoiding the term design what you are wanting to
make sure people understand that you are not dictating style.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34.
35
36
37
38
39
40
4I
42
43
45
46
Ms. Hardugton: Correct. It is a subtle difference. I_f you’ll notice on the front of the
guidelines we took out the word design and we avoided the use of that. I hope that at the
pubhc hearing we get a strong recommendation from the Plauning Commission that We
look forward to developing this even more.
Chairman Bialson: To have it evolve and be developed as a result of the experience that
we gain.
Mr. Gawf: Right. And an important part of the program from the Working Group
standpoint was the education outreach. The implementation of it is going to be 50% of
the success it.
Ms. Harrington: As I said before, it does have-budget and staffing imphcations.
Mr. Gawf: So we will be discussing that with Council: Bonnie asked me at the break
about that. One of the thingg the Working Group has been very insistent on is that it not
just be added as another program with no consideration of Staff impact. That it has to be
staffed appropriately in order to do it. Again, implementation is going to be the key to
success of this. So we are estimating that it is between .5 to 1 FTE. That will be part of
our recommendation to Council.
Commissioner Schink: That’s great.
Commissioner Bust: Is it intended to be self-funded?
Mr. Gawf: We ~ so. Part of our issue is that we have a huge overhead assignment to
it. At least if we can get the salary paid for, the overhead can be as much as 40%, so at
least the salary. ’ "
Chairman Bialson: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: In the front of you:r description of the guidelines I think you used
the language that diverse styles are appropriate or something to that effect. It sort of
sounds all encompassing but I was wondering if we could go one step further and say that
a contemporary.structure in a traditional neighborhood is acceptable within the right
context of these guidelines. So we are really clear if somebody comes in saying you
.can’t put this in our neighborhood because it is contemporary.
Mr~ Gawf: Yes.
Ms. Harringt, on: I’d come down on that side.
Commissioner Schink: You don’t think it should be there?
Ms. Harrington: No, I think it should. I think we need to allow for as much diversity as
possible.
City of Palo Alto.Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Gawf: One of the things we’ve done from the last Planning Commission study
session is Phillip has gone and looked at applying tools to contemporary homes anddo
they work or not. So there will be a presentation-by Phil on that topic. I think it will be
an interesting discussion.
Chairman Bialson: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I don’t quite know where this fits in this discussion but in the
process of hstening to the committeeas it has been working through one day there was a
real eye-opener for me. That w.as when you were discussing that we need to stop looking
only at the internal part of the house and try to help people understand what happens to
them when they look at the external part of theix house. I think the best example I have is
a house in my neighborhood put a second story on but at the first floor which was high in
the backyard they put a balcony out to the back. They discovered.that it was hmited and
not only was there a problem looking into their neighbor’s yard and the neighbor looking
back at them but it turned out that behind them was a church parking lot who were also
looking at them. They took the balcony down. The important part there is that if you
can’t think about your neighbor just look at yourself in your own backyard in this
contextual aspect. I don’t know how that fits into your community program or how that
fits into this process.
:Ms. Harrinffton: If we dealt with that we would be dealing with it with the content.
Mrl Gawf: I think it is an important perspective because we are going to have to figure
out how to do it. I know when.I look at houses I look at the relationship of the kitchen to
dento the bedrooms or something. I seldom go out and look at does the outside of the
house work even for me much less my neighbors. I think that is the point you are
making. That is a good one.
Ms. Harrington: One of the goals of the awareness program is to create an appreciation
both for the way you live in your house and on your property but for the neighbors and
how fit in together.
Commissioner Cassel: Sometimes we forget our. own selfishness and we want to think
about our selfishness we need to think about do you want your neighbors looking at you
if you sitting up high perched out. If you can see them, they can see you.
Ms. Harr~gton: People tend to forget that.
.Chairman Bialson: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I was thinking about the issue that Jon raised about a contemporary
or modem style home in a more traditional neighborhood and that these guidelines are
not intended to preclude that and at the same time the various places in here that we talk
about sensiti-City and what does that mean in the context of a modem home in a more
City of Palo Alto Page 3 7
I
2
3
4
6
7
9-
IO
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
46
traditional neighborhood. I think that we have ex~nples in the City of where that works.
Som.~how even where we have modern homes ~lowed in traditional neighborhoods if we.
have some aspect ttmt ~ldresses this sensitivity issue. I c~n cite as an example the
neighborhood thai Cm~’oll and I hve in where some of the last Eichle.rs that were built
were built in a neighborhood that is a pretty,eclectic neighborhood having older homes.
These Eichlers responded to the neighborhood pattern in a very sensitive way, I thought
with the selection of materials. They are still clearly Eichlers, a modern Eichler, but an
Eichler that in some way complimented what was there. That is even more problematic
to describe but I think it is worth attempting to address that issue.
Commissioner Schink: That would be a good example to use.
Ms. Harrington: I must say that before those Eichlers were built the neighbors did not
want them to be built there. So I have been spending more than 25 years fitting into the
neighborhoock That’s why I am in sYmpathy with a lot of these people.
Commissioner Burt: The ~elecfion of materials really is different from a lot of Eichlers.
Other Eichlers wouldn’t fit in as well as those do.
Ms. Harrin~ton: They were very well built Eichlers. If you drive around now and you
are coming down. Harker it is hard to tell where the Eichlers start because of the
landscaping.
Chai~nm~_ Bi~ison: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: To go back to thediscussion you were having about internal,
external and the definition of privacy you may want to have that as pm’t of your outreach.
This goes back to the discussion we had earlier this evening. Privacy could also be
defined as a two-way street in that definition. It is not only the neighbors that are
affected by the new thing but how you are going to be affected by the neighbors looking
into your place. I think this is something that Owen raised at our last meeting. The
discussion of privacy in the materials for people to think about in ways that we began to
think about today when we asked last March to discuss privacy. It .m___jght be part of the
educational process to at some of these meetings to have breakout groups to discuss what
does privacy mean to you and this is what we are trying to achieve by having these
~fidelines. In other words~ they could learn about it.
Ms. Harrington: I think it is important to prelude anything we do related to privacy to .
start it out with what John said in our 6,000 square foot lots. That’s a reality. If you want
more privacy then you have to move somewhere where they have bigger lots.
Commissioner Packer: That is the kind of discussi6n you might want to have as a
¯ discussion of privacy and the definition that is eventually coming out.
Commissioner Burr: Deliberately address the expectations aspect as a part of the .
education:
City of Palo Alto Page 38
?
i0
i?
20
21
22
23
2~
2~
2~
2?
2~
29
30
32
33
3~
3?
39
~o
~2
Ms. Harrington: I would assume and we haven’t really talked about this is asthis
program is developing. At least the curriculum will be given to you as an FYI if not
brought to you for discussion and feedback. I think the way that this whole project is
communicated is going to make a big difference as to how it is accepted. "
Chairman Bialson: Keeping on that, how we communicate the project, I think this
external/internal privacy issue can be used to see how this sort of adds valueto
homeowners who are going to be remodeling or reb~iilding their homes. We are giving
them a perspective that they perhaps don’t otherwise have. It is not only the privacy of
their neighbors but also their own privacy to give them some perspective. I ~hink also
using the word sensitivity somehow is making it clearer that sensitivity does not mean
slavishly echoing what is going on inthe neighborhood. Maybe we actually go out there
and say that. I don’t know if that is appropriate. We are going to be very careful, I hope,
with the term sensitive because it can be read dePending on your proclivities to sound
like you are going to have to echo everything that is already there.
Ms. Harrington: I think the way that individual review is implemented will convey
sensitivity or not.
Chairman Bialsom I am speaking of the term sensitivity.
Mr. Gawf: Maybe the overuse 0f it.
Chairman Bialson: Absolutely.
Mr. Gawf: Sensitive to use of sensitivity.
Commissioner Burr: That is going to require a lot of struggle and wordsmith~g. The
concepts that kind of strike me are what things compliment versus what things clash.
Those might be concepts that we want to contend with.
Chairman Bialson: Okay, going on to item number 6, threshold altematives. Lisa?
Ms. Grote: Very quickly.. You asked last time for a couple of alternatives for triggering
the need for individual review and we did put those in your packet. We looked at
percentage of total FAR that could be allowed on a second.flgor and we looked at 75%
through 90% and maybe the differences in square footages and what that would mean and
what kind of square footage could be put on the second floor. Then we also gave you a
second alternative which would be limiting the percent of a total amount of square
footage but the.percentage that could be on a second floor. So you would still get 100%
of the FAR but bnly say 30% could be on the second floor. So if you have questions
about that we can certainly talk aboutthat. Staff is not recommending either of these
alternatives because both would allow Second floors as a matter of right and then the
issues that we’ve identified in the Advisory Group would not necessarily be dealt with
City of Palo Alto Page 39
i
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
and that is privacy and massing particularly and then also streetscape. So we are
recommending our original threshold.
Chairman Bialson: So this item and seven and eight are all in response.to
Commissioner’s questions from our last study session?
Ms. Grote: Yes. Correct.
Mr. Gawf: If you have questions on this- I think that’s appropriate. But this actually one
that I certainly Will give to the public hearing. We will have a discussion on it, make a
motion and get-direction.
Chairman Bialson: So this is information for us to consider.
Ms. Grote: And ask questions if you have any.
Chairman Bialson: Do we have any questions?
Commissioner Butt:- I was just interested in what thoughts the Working Group had on
these various options. Any comments?
Mr. Northwa¥: When it came at our last meeting basically we echo what Lisa said, that
the feeling of the committee was that this was a question that Was asked by the
Commission and the Staff is answering it. Certainly what Lisa said is also correct. If you
do this it is not actually addressing the problem as the committee found it or defined it.
There may be some very pragmatic reasons for doing it, which with greater exposure you
might want to bring forth.
Chairman Bialson: Unless we have some objection I’d like to move on to seven and have
Wynne come up here so she doesn’t have to hold onto a microphone. This is the optional
hearing.and appeal process, which again is a response to the Commissioners questions at
our last meeting.
Ms. Furth: One of the objects of the exercise is to have a review process that lets the
people who are most affected by new development comment on it in a constructive way
while rnlnirniT~ng the chance that unproductive conversations have to be held and delay
¯ the approval of a building. There is not a great opportu~ty to do mischief. There is a
basic constitutional issue here which is when we do a discretionary review which these
would be for the second story additions then people who .are affected by the outcome in a
significant way are entitled todue process. They are entitled to notice of the fact that the
City plans to make this decision. They are entitled to participate in that conversation
before the City makes the decision. Due process is judged by courts on a case by case
basis balancing various factors. There aren’t bright lines. There are customs and
practices. One that you are very familiar with is the custom and practice in California is
that you give notice within a 300 foot radius you are fine. Maybe you have to combine it
with a publication or posting or something like that but that is a well recognized safe
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
harbor for notice. We felt that’s an excessively large radius for this kind of pretty finely
gained small-scale review. The kinds of decisions that you are goin.g to make won’t
have an impact within a 300-foot radius. So we proposed a smaller radius and our
original proposal to you, and Joan will correct me if! go off track here, was basically
adjacent properties. We all know in Palo Alto that could be up to eight but typically is
not andthat is for the obvious reasons that those are the houses most likely to be affected
on privacy and light issues. Then also, across the street. Again, this notion relating to
massing and to streetscape.
We ~ this needs a little tweaking becausewe.know there will be cases given the
unusual lotting patterns in part of the City. For example you will have a littlenarrow
strip of a flag lot separating you from another house but you want to put in a two-story
house and the only thing in between is little cottages. We think the Staff needs to have
discretion to enlarge that notice in some cases where it needs to be done, We narrow it so
people wouldn’t say that Staff can run .amok and send notice to everybody in a quarter
mile. But there is also this issue of who should have the right to appeal a decision. In
other words, extend the timeline process. I_f there is to be an appeal at all some pe0ple
who are significantly affected by it have to be able to appeal. So the question is could we
just limit that to the people who immediately surround thehouse. It is not completely
without risk to do that but we think that if we improved our noticing to be sure that we
got everybody who we believe reasonably can be said to be substantially affected by
issues of massing, scale and privacy that that’s an approach we could take and that would
keep you from having todeal with people’s who’s concern was a more generic one. This
is not design review. This is not about overall quality of design in the City. This is about
the impact of houses on what is in their immediate context. So we think it is not
completely without risk but we think if we are careful to enlarge the scope of people who
get notice that we could do that if that is what you would prefer to do..
Chairman Bialson: Comments by Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a different kind of question and something I probably
should have asked a few months ago. Is this process going to mesh in with getting a
building permit so that the builder only has to go through a process once? In other words,
the checklist for a building permit you could add these other things to it and combine it
all?
Ms. Furth: In fact one of the things this is intended to do is to get people discussing these
issues.early before they go to the expense of doing detailed drawings for a building
permit.
Commissioner Packer: Okay, so after it gets approved they would have to then go get the
buildin, g permit.
Mr. Gawf: .There are several important reviews as part of the building permit process but
the two major ones are the building code review and the second is the planning review of
the zoning code. So we will make sure. as part of this review that we have done the
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
zoning check or the plam~g check, sO there should no.t be plarming issues when it goes
for a building permit. The buiIding code usually deals with the construction of the
building rather than the site p!an kind of issues.
Ms. Furth: So this wouldn’t catch the issues like you have more than 15 feet 0fintrusion
into the setback.
Mr. Oawf: Right.
Chairman Bialson:. But you wouldn’t have to go through planning again.
Mr. Gawf: That’s right.
Ms. Grote: You would but it would be a very-quick comparison.
Ms. Furthi You would still have the same drawings.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you. That was just a clarification.
Chairman Bialson: Any others? Jon?
Commissioner Schink: What sort of fee structure can you have for appeah?
Ms. Furth: It can’t be hirer than the actual cost of handling it.
Mr. Gawf: Right, but we were thiaking in the $50.00 to $100.00 range. It would at least
be something that I think would be in line with our tradition here and it does make you
think about appealing¯but it is not so high that it precludes people who may not have a
great deal of money from. appealing.
Ms. Furth: It is a matter of law that we have to have paupers exemptions. SO you can’t
set it to discourage but you can certainly set it somewhere that is reasonable.
commissioner Schink: Well your costs are certafialy thousands of dollars to handle an
appeal and it certainly costs the property owner thousands of dollars. Is it reasonable to
put the cost of an appeal in the $500-$1,000 range?
Ms. Furth: Not a question for your lawyer. It is a policy question.
Ms. Grote: At this point any appeal is $100.
Mr. Gawf: That is a question. Let us put that as one for the public hearing. I think that
could be policy direction.
Commissioner Sehink: There were periods years ago where we had numerous frivolous
appeals and it got to be a problem.
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Cawf: This would be a good discussion actually. In my experience having a fee of
some amount, $100 even, make pebple rea~l, y think twice about whether they appeal. It is
not a lot of money but people do think about it before they appeal. We will present that
as one of the questions. ’
Commissioner Schink: I would try and make it rather substantial.
Chairman Bialson: Any other questions by Commissioners? Thank you very much
Wynne, that was very well done. I would like to invite Phillip Woods to come up now
and take the Chair over and get the guideline review of contemporary houses.
Mr. Phillip Woods, Senior Planner: We went out last week to evaluate modem houses.
We had four evaluators, two Staffmembers and our design consultants from Design
Origins go out and do these evaluations. We chose five case studies, five new houses and
one addition. We chose examples from North Palo Alto and South Palo Alto. We can’t
reveal the addresses because we did not get the permission of the property owners. We-
did do some famous examples of modem houses in Palo Alto.
Based on our evaluations most examples did pass the guidelines. From our observations
we were able to basically do our evaluation from the street. We didn’t have plans and we
weren’t able to go on the property so we had to base it on looking from the street. Seems
like mostmodem lines werepretty sensitive to the neighborhood context. The examples
were in kind of eclectic neighborhoods. They did employ techniques to break down mass
and scale and different kind of forms were used, different materials, different roof forms
and some actually did rely on landscaping as well to integrate their building with the
context.
Chairman Bialson: Soyou went through five and the majority passed.
Mr. Woods: There wasn’t a real strong bias against any kind of architectural style. That
is an important thing to note.
Mr. Gawf: I think the question of the Planning Commission was would this preclude.
Commissioner Schink: I was hoping to achieve two things. That we would actuallybe
able to and it would then be part of the material that would be handed down to the way
that we can take this to the next step and get the permission to include them. So
hopefully a couple of yea~s from now somebody can stand in front of a reviewer and say
I was supposed to be able to do something like this.
Chairman Bialson: I think we can follow up on that.
Mr. Gawf: I was just going to say I think we can do it in more generic form and some of
the examples could be contemporary houses rather than traditional houses. So it does
show a variety of styles.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
10
Ii
I?
20
21
22
23
2~
2~
2~
2?
2g "
30
32
33
39
¯ ~0
~2
Chairman Bialson: Now I wouldlike to give an oppo.rtunity to.the group to make any
comments and then we will allow the public to give testimony. Judith, you haven’t had
an opportunity to speak.
Ms. Wasserman: We have what we cal! a parkinglot which is a hst of subjects that we
have not addressed but we think are important. It was. never clear to me what was going
to happvn to that hst of subjects. Is that going to be passed along to the Planning
Commission for them to address or to the Council or is Staff going to deal with it?
Mr. Gawf: What we are looking at is focusing on this issue. We have identified the
parking lot or otherissues so that the community and wecan be aware of some of the
things We are going to include in the work.program. Most of them are going to be
included as part ofthezoning code update. I feel it is very important that we focus on
this issue and get this one done and not try to be too encompassing or go too far a field of
all the work that we have done.
Ms. Wasserman: So it is going into the zoning update process?
Mr. Gawf: Yes, most of it not all of them will be in that process. I know there are a
couple that I promised to meet with people to discuss.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. We have members of the public still with us andthey
wish to speak to this item. Please. come forward and complete, a speaker request card
then you have five minutes to speak. We will have another opportunity to have the
public speak on June 6, 2001 at our meeting.
Mr. C.W. Spangler, 471 Carolina Lane, Palo Alto: Hi, I’m William Spangler. I live in a
single story Eichler as my immediate neighborsand I reside and the two across the street.
We are in a single story overlay combining zone so some of this doesn’t apply to us in
that respect. My other six neighbors in the back and the back side are not in that zone.
The single story overlay has provided some protection from the abusive use of scrapes
and new houses but there is one that still came out looking a lot like.the upper diagram on
page 11. It is single story but it is 10 foot high house with a 17 foot maxed out single
story next to it. You still get the same effect. It is too bad that we are not getting similar
protection proposed here. I think that one looks a lot like your bad example. In response
to that our. neighbor reactivated the original Eichler condition of having [unclear]. I think
your notification process and qualification for the appeal process should include any such
neighborhood design committee. They are very interested parties as well as the-adjacent
neighbors. I thought it would be a good idea and maybe that could apply to the S-Zone-
areas too in some way. The design committee could register that. certain addresses are
covered by D restriction enforce and that sort of thing.so the City could implement when
a plan comes in..
I’m concerned about some of the proposed definition changes. They seem in general to
be relaxing protections. They tend to be when you build more with the same FAR limit
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1!.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
you are axing the front yard. It tends to be fixing a problem that we don’t have big
enough houses. I think you might also want to look at doing something to offset some of.
this like reducing the rear daylight plane by a couple of feet or lower the angle or
something, maybe even the side one a foot or two lower. So you are providing some
protection on the sides that need to be protected. I’ve. seen houses where maybe the front-
doesn’t need as.much protection. Maybe you can offset that and make it anet relaxation;
Also, I don’t have the text in front of me but, I believe there was discussion about if there
is a single-story in the regular R-1 Zone about allowing a larger block coverage, the
discussion about the 35%. Instead of chauging the definitions or adding that
complication maybe all you really need to dois say if somebody wants to do single-story
and get that benefit make it easer for them apply the S-Override to it and change the zone
on that property. I think that might have the same effect. I think that’s it for now. I_fI
think of more things I’ll talk to you in two weeks. Thank you.
Commissioner Schink: You were saying what proposes design review through your
CC&Rs?
Mr. Spangler: Basically parties to the original owner are still in existence so after this
Taco Bell thing was built under the S-Zone we got umbrage to sign revised deed
restrictions and we had a problem with the County against the entire subdivision. So the
area that has this S-Combining District also has a process to allow people in the
neighborhood design review committee. Basically .we don’t have as many protections
there as we have in this process because basically it is notification that they ought to talk
to that committee but more than that it gives us the right to sue rather than have the City
process be enforced. So it is not as strong in that respect. It is something at least.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you.
Ms, Wasserman: On our parking lot list is a proposal to allow any neighborhood that
Wants to’to write its own design guidelines that woUld then be .enforced by the City. So if
you have a package and in their infinite wisdom the City Council passes that you might
take your package and put it through that process and get it adopted: Then you get real
enforcement.
Chairman BialSon: Thank you, Judith. t don’t see. anyihing further in our agenda. One
more speaker. Come up and you have five minutes.
Mr. Cedric de La Beaujardiere, 3135 Stelling DrivePalo Alto: When you were on item
number 3 you were talldng about the driveways in the back, if 50% are in the back then
new driveways shoUld be in the back. I guess some of you mentioned driv.eways in the
back being for streetscape beauty.consideration. My issue with a garage in the back is
that you then have a very long driveway which means that you have a lot of impermeable
surface Or a lot of lack of greenery which I think is kind of an issue in this day and age.
So’ I personally take exception with that rule. I think that you will have a tendency to go
towards more and more driveways in the back because I suppose that if there less than
50% of driveways in the back anyone can choose to put their driveway in the back. If
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
that is the ca~e then you’ll have the tendency, say there is 49% of driveways in the back.
and someone randomly puts a driveway in the baekand now you are at 50%. Now you
are going to go towards 100%because as each remodel domes along there is going to be
more and more driveways in the back and there is going to be more and more
impermeable surface. So I don’t know if those grasscretes or something could be
encouraged as the entire driveway instead of just 60% of the driveway. I just wanted to
mention that. Out of a 50% threshold you are going to have a tendency towards more and
more in the back. Thank you~
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to speak?
Mr. Ron Theis, 507 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: The previous speaker is right. Once you
put 50% you are going to go to zero on not having front facing garages. There may be
some other unintended consequences of that too. I’m not against it but you may get
situations where you have very few houses on a block where one homeowner knows that
two other homeowners are going to be redevelo"ping and that is going to push them up to
50%. So ifI want to change I better do it now because I won’t be able to in two years
once their redevelopment is done.
Something else I’ve also seen a couple of times is that there is a below ground garage.
Chairman Bialson: Yes, I believe that isn’t allowedany longer.
Mr. Theis: The last thing, looking on page 1i it hadsome really interesting examples of
good versus bad. There is arestriction put on lots where you take the width versus depth
of the lot and there are square footage restrictions based on that. You can’t build a
certain amount. I’m looking at these and there is a visual frontage where I go 30 feet
times the width of the lot and this house takes up too much visual frontage. ~t looks too
massive onthe street. It is almost like my eye implies a ratio of this takes up tlie most
space, it is like a big square, but the ones that take up less space visually are more
appealing. I’m not suggesting that more math be added to this process at all. Just a
comment. That’s all.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. Please do fill out the speaker request card. Since there
are no other members of the public I’ll close the publlc testimony. "I want to express the
Commissions appreciation of all the work put in the by the Advisory Group .and the fact
that you obviously had a lot Of issues that you had to contend with and then we come
along and take your perspectives and say, have you thought of. I think you have. Ours as
someone put is a field test. We hope we have given you input and in that regard, did you
want to say something Pat?
Commissioner Burr: I had one issue that didn’t come up that I wanted to ask about. In
looking at the desire to encourage single-story homes in single-story neighborhoods we
proposed changing the lot coverage to include the entire FAR. Historically we had
conflicting aims on what sort of commm~ity mad environmental values are promoted by
second story versus single-story homes. So my concern is in neighborhoods that are not
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3I
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
46
predominantly single-story do we want to create a circumstance where we actually create
¯ an incentive to cause people to have greater lot coverage than we otherwise might choose
to have? I flaink that’s an issue that we should explore more and look at wliether this
regulation sh6uld apply in all neighborhoods or should only applyin those that are
predominantly single-story. We have more open space and generally more permeable
land if we go second story. There are pros and cons to this and I think it is a policy issue
that we should explore more.
Mr. Gawf: I think that’s right.-Let me say that our goal was not to by incentive to single-
story. Our goal was to eliminate the disincentive of going single-story and to level the
playing field. I think that’s allwe were trying to do. Let the homeowner decide on a
level basis.
Mr. Northway: I thinkflaere are two issues. One, and Wynne introduced us to the phrase
safe haven because no one is excited about dealing with the City ofPalo Alto’s "
government, as amazing as that may sound, so we wantedto create a safe haven where
they still could exercise their full zoning entitlements which roughly translated mean full
FAR. Because of the way the zone is currently written the only way to do that is to build
a second story. So we wanted to create a safe haven where the homeowner wanted to
engage in a minimal way with the City of Palo Alto they could do that but still exercise
their full zoning property, entitlements. That was a major way of looking at this issue.
We were saying we want to create this safe haven so that people who don’t want to deal
with the City or it is basically a one-story house and they want to put on a master
bedroom or a family room and it doesn’t make any sense to put 300 square feet up on top
of the house. To create a situation where they could do that and you wouldn’t get the
editorials about the poor little families that just want to live here and they are all tied up
in this red tape. So that was a very, very important aspect of it.
The other aspect of it was that we really wanted to have the individual property owner
have some choices. They have a choice to build all on one floor and not be penalized in
terms of how much they can build. If they do decide to go to a second story addition or a
brand new second story house then we start to say, that’s fine you can do that. There are
. a-bsolutely no restrictions against you doing a second story but because as a community
you know that these have been causing us problems, massing, privacy, streetscape, we
want to have a look at that. But that is your choice. So you have a choice. You want to
do the second story, you want to have more ground area, you can do that and there is a
pathway you can go on. I.f you say I just don’t want to deal with you guys you have a
way of doing that. So that was really the thinking as to why we have these two very
distinct pathways. There was no talk at all about it is a single story neighborhood let’s
really keep it single-story. It was really to give the individual property owners clear
choices.
Commissioner Burr: The concern that I would have in neighborhoods that are
predominantly second Story is that we have gone from a circumstance where we had an
historic incentive to go second story not only in those neighborhoods that are.
predorninantly second story but in those neighborhoods that are predominantly single-
City of Palo Alto’. page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
1(5
story. Now we are making, prospectively, a decision to remove that incentive to.continue
to go second story in predominantly second story neighborhoods and as you pointed out
earlier ~ohn,that in going second story you essentiallygive up some hvable space of
about 300 square feet for the staircase and things, so that we have actually created an
incentive to single-story. I think that should be a policy discussion that we go through
and decide if that is what we want to do.
Mr. Gawf: In fact, i think that would be one of the important policy discussion because
this whole threshold, safe harbor or safe havenconcept is very-important. I am sure we
will spend a lot of time discussing.that.
Chairman Bialson: Thank you. I thank everyone for their participation. I’l! adjourn the
meeting at this time. The next meeting will be the Special Meeting of June 6, 2001 and.
we will continue this discussion.
MEETIN(7 ADJOURNED: 9:45 P.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 48
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
.TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Transportation Commission
Joan D. Taylor, Planning Manager Department: Planning
May 23, 2001
Second Study Session to Review Recommendations for Changes to the
single Family (R-I) Zone District Regulations and Adoption of an
Individual Review Process.
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) held a first
study session with Planning staffand members of the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods "
Advisory Group (Advisory Group) to review the proposed changes to the Single Family Zone
District (K-l) regulations and proposal for an Individual Review process for single family homes.
Each Commission member received a binder titled, "Planning and Transportation Commission
Single Family geview". The binder contained five sections label~d Staff Report, g-1
Development Regulations, Individual Review Process, Other Issues, and Background.
During the first study session, the Commission identified five issues that should be addressed or
clarified further, as follows:
1. A lack of definitions for the three major problems/issues identified by the Advisory
Group and staff, particularly privacy, and an. associated concern with community
expectations, again, particularly those associated with privacy.
2.A need for increased knowledge of the proposed review criteria (guidelines):
3.A review of alternate thresholds that Would ’.’trigger" review. :
4.The extent to which contemporary architecture could/would be found compatible under
the proposed guidelines.
City of Pale Alto Page 1
5..The extent of the geographical boundaries within which a resident could re.quest an
optional hearing or hppeal the Director’s decisionl
¯Inresponse to the above, staff and the Advisory sub-group prepared draft guidelines including a
section on definitions., policies, and expectations. Staffhas also prepared an analysis of alternate-
threshold~ and requesteda legal review regarding the geographical limits for optional hearing and
appeal requests. Staff will be prepped with an oral report on the review.of contemporary
structures. These topics are discussed below in the body of the staff report.
The Advisory Group has also requested that the original proposal to move the Daylight Plane
requirements from the regulations (PAMC 18.04;030 (44) and 18.12.0500)(2)) to proposed
guidelines be changed so that the daylight plane requirements remain in the regulations. This
change, as well, is discussed’below.
In preparation for this second study session, the Advisory Group Co’Chairs and staffhave
proposed a series of questions that we hope will enhance and provide a focus for Wednesday
night’s discussion (Attachment 1) and l~roposedagenda (Attachment 2). The proposed schedule
for the Commission public heating and City Council review follows:
Anticipated Commission and City Council Schedule
Planning and Transportation
Commission .
Committee of the Whole (City
Council)
City Council
’Public Hearing
City Council Chambers
Study Session
Arts Center
Public Hearing
City Council Chambers
June 6, 2001
June 18, 2001
July 9, 2001
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES
As mentioned in the first staff report, the Advisory Group agreed three 0ftheir members would
work with staff in preparing the draft Individual Review Guidelines (Guidelines). A copy of the
draft Guidelines is included in this Commission packet. Several other Advisory Group members
also contributed significantly to the development of the definitions and the checklist portion of
the document. The Advisory Group, at a meeting on May 19, 2001, reviewed the proposed
Guidelines.and their comments are incorporated in the drai~ document provided to the
Commission. To assist in your review, the fourteen guidelines are extracted as a separate
document (Attachment 3).
The draft Guidelines document is divided into four.main sections: Introduction, Good Neighbor
Considerations, Neighborhood Pattern, and the Appendix that includes a proposed "checklist"
Cily of Pa/o A/to Page 2
(will be reformatted) and glossary. The introduction includes definitions and policies for the
three major areas of concern: privacy, mass and scale, and streetscape. A section on
"expectations[’ is included.The document also includes an overview and flowchart of the
proposed Individual Review Process¯ As noted in the document, the illustrations included are a
"cut and paste" from the guidelines of several other cities. They are intended only to provide an-
idea ofthe proposed formatting and graphic layout¯ Staff is currently seeking a graphic designer
to provide illustrations for the Guidelines and will proceed with the contract based on ’
Commission and City Council direction. A completed checklist will be required for application
submittal and is intended to ensure the applicant addresses all guideline issues. As well, the
checklist is intended to help the adjacent neighbors articulate their concerns.
ALTERNATE THRESHOLDS
The recommendation for "triggering" individual review of a single family home, as proposed, is
the construction of a new two-story single family home, new second story addition, or an
addition to an existing second story greater than 150 Square feet. One hundred and fifty square
feet was chosen to allow for relatively small additions to existing space (e.g., new bath) without
triggering the review process.
At the request of the Commission, staffhas prepared an analysis of two other options (see
Attachment 4). The first option is a threshold based on a percentage of the total Floor Area Ratio
(FAR). That is, the "safe harbor" would be construction of a single family home less than an
identified percentage of allowable FAR. Staff. has provided a summary of the square footage
difference for a range from 70% to 90% of the FAR for a 6,000 square foot and a 8,000 square
foot lot.
The second option would define the ~hreshold as a~ percentage of the allowable FAR that could be
builtas a second story. The example given is a maximum of 30% of the FAR allowed to be built
on the second story. Any second story addition greater than 30% of the allowed FAR would
"trigger" Individual Review. More typically, this approach would be ministerial. That is, some
cities mandate a maxtmum percentage of the FAR for the second story without a discretionary
process to increase the second floor area. Other cities have adopted increased second story
setbacks(Cupertino, as an example) either in comblnation with a discretionary review or simply
as a regulatory requirement. This has the effect, of co~se, of limiting to some extent the size of
the second story.
’A comment section follows each Option that briefly summarizes the associated issues¯ As noted
in the initial staff report, staff and the Advisory Group recommended the proposed two-story
threshold after some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives,
including those discussed above¯ The Advisory Group and staff recommendation remains
unchanged.
City Of Palo Alto Page 3
REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY HOMES
In response to Commission direction, staff and Origins Design Network, the architectural?firm.
providing architectural assistance for the Voluntary Design Assistance (VDA) Program, reviewed
several contemporary homes based onthe proposed Guidelines. The review included site visits
to several homes in University North and South Palo Alto neighborhoodsl There will be an oral
presentation on the results at the Commission meeting.
OPTIONAL I:IF~ARING AND "CALL-UP" APPEAL
The Commission expressed some concern with the right to request an optional Director’s Hearing
and Appeal extending beyond the adjacent neighbors. The Advisory Group and staff concur that
the adjacent neighbors are those primarily affected and the ability to request an Optional
Director’s Heating or City Council "Call-up" Appeal Should be limited to adjacent neighbors.
Staff expects, as mentioned earlier, a written opinion from outside counsel on this issue. If the
opinion is not available when the packet is distributed, it will be sent under separate cover as
soon as possible or staffwill be prepared with an oral report.
DAYLIGHT PLANE REGULATIONS
The original recommendation to the Commission was to include the existing Daylight Plane
criteria in the guidelines to increase design flexibility under certain circumstances. At both the
Community Forums and the Advisory Group meetings, there was a significant level of concern
regarding the extent to which architectural protrusions are allowed-in the daylight plane. The
Advisory Group has now requested that the Daylight Plane requirements be retained as
regulations with several modifications outlined in the attached proposal (Attachment 5). The
most significant changes are a restriction on the maximum width of any element that projects in
to the daylight plane to 7 1/2 feet, with a minimum 5 foot separation between each element, a
restriction on chimney widtti.of 5 feet when extending into the daylight plane, and an elimination
of the front daylight plane and the side daylight plane for street facing side elev.ations. Staff ~
concurs with this proposal. It may be most efficient to review the daylight plane proposal as part
of the overall review of the proposed 1%-1 Regulation changes which have yet to be discussed by
the Commission.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
As mentioned earlier in this report, a proposed format for discussion and agenda for this second
study session are appended. We hope this outline will prove useful. Please call staff with any
changes or additions.- Finally,. the meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. Dinner will be provided for
Commission and Advisory Group members at 6:00 p.m. in the Human Relations Conference
Room.
COURTESY COPIES "
Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Ad~sory Group
Jeff Shore
ATTACHMENTS
1. Major.Policy Questions
2. Proposed Agenda
3. List of Guidelines
4. Analysis of Percentage Options for Individual Review Threshold
5. Revised Proposal for Daylight Plane Regulations.
Prepared by: Joan Taylor, Planning Manager
Reviewedby: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Department/Division Head Approval:~,"~
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
MAJOR POLICY QUESTIONS
1,.Is there an identified problem with new single family home construction in
CPA that should be addressed?
2. If yes, then what is the problem?
Change to existing relationships and conditions
¯privacy
¯Mass and Scale
¯Streetscape
What is the best approach to addressing the problems?
¯Ministerial approacti - more or different regulations
¯Discretionary approach (Individual Review)
¯Combination of ministerial and discretionary
o If Discretionary approach (Individual Review), then what is the appropriate
process?
¯Guidelines
¯Procedures
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED AGENDA
Planning and Transportation Commission
2nd Study Session - Single Family Review
1. Overview
2. Discussion of Expectations
Definitions ¯
Policy Statements
3.Review of proposed R-1 Single Family Zone District Regulations
4.Criteria for Review - Guidelines
5.Community and Staff Awareness Program
6.Discussion - Threshold Alternatives
7.Discussion - Optional Hearing and Appeal Process
8.Oral Presentation - Guideline Review of Contemporary Houses
Attachment 3
City of Palo Alto
Single-Family Individual Review
Guidelines
Guideline #1:
Second gory.window placement that respects privacy between properties is expected.
Guideline #2:
If there are second story balconies or decks, they are expected to be designed and located
to mitigate the loss of privacy for neighboring properties.
Guideline #3:
A new house or new second story addition that is sensitive to the predominate
neighborhood scale is expected.
Guideline #4:
A new house or second story addition that is sensitive to the prevailing neighborhood
height pattern and particularly the height of the adjacent house is encouraged.
Guideline #5:.
Front facades that provide visual interest, a sense of human scale, and visual focal points
that complement the overall design and enhance the residential scale are encouraged.
Guideline #6:
A new house or second story addition that respects the solar orientation of the adjacent
neighbor’s houses and yards is encouraged,
Guideline #7:
A new house that incorporates a roof form(s) that effectively manages the house’s scale
and proportions is expected.
Guideline #8:
A second story addition that balances the overall form, ma~s and composition of the
existing building is expected.
Guideline #9:
A second story addition with carefully comp0sed.window location, pattern, proportion
and shape is expected.
Guideline #10:
Roof form(s) that match or complement the existing are encouraged.
SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL RE~ GUIDELINES
Guideline #11:
A new two-story house or second story addition that respects the setback pattern of the
neighboring houses is expected.
Guideline #12:
A new house or second story addition that is in scale with its site is expected.
Guideline #13:
A new house that integrates the entry design into the overaB building design and is well
related to the surrounding properties in terms of scale and proportion is encouraged.
Guideline #14:
Garages and driveways .that are located to mitigate their visual impact on the street and to
be subordinate to the house, landscape and pedestri:an entrance are encouraged.
Analysis of Percentage Options
for Individual Review Threshold
Option 1: Percentage of FAR ¯
Exam de 1: 6,000.Square Foot (SF) Lot
FAR % Threshold (SF)
2,550 x .90 = 2,295.0
2,550 x .85 = 2,167.5
2,550 x .80 = 2,040.0
2,550 x ,75 = 1;912.5
Difference (SF)
255.0
382.5
510.0
637.5
Example 2:8,000 Square Foot (SF) Lot
FAR % Threshold (SF)
3,150 x .90 = 2,835.0 "
3,150 x .85 = 2,677.5
3,150 x .80 = 2,520.0
3,150 x .75 = 2,362.5
Difference (SF)
315.0
472.5
630.0
787.5
Comment:Cannot address privacy, solar issues., and massing and scale issues
Increased uncertainty for neighbors
Option 2: Percentage Maximum of First Story
Example 1" No more than 30% of house can be located on second story (6,000
Square Foot (SF) lot = 2,550 FAR)
First Story: 1,785 SF
Second Story: 765 SF (30%)
2,550 SF
Comments: Privacy, solar issues cannot be addressed; however, massing bulk is reduced
As an alternative some cities require an increased second story setback, the concern with
this approach (as was the case in Los Altos) is the "layer cake" effect.
ATTACHMENT 5 .
REVISED PROPOSAL FOR DAYLIGHT PLANE REGULATIONS
Proposal/Purpose:The Daylight Plane standards rather than being moved to the Individual Review
Guidelines would remain in the Site Development regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance. However, the regulations would be amended to eliminate the Front
Daylight Plane and the Side Daylight Plane for Street Facing Side Yards.
Accessory buildings would still be required to meet the R-1 Regulations for
¯Daylight Planes.
Projections allowed into
1.
the Daylight Plane:
Roof overhangs may extend into the side daylight plane by 2 feet and into th~
rear daylight plane by 4 feet around the perimeter of the structure (No change
from current code).
Chimneys not exceeding five feet in width may extend into the daylight plane,
but should be limited to the minimum height required to meet the building code
(New provision),
Dormers and Gable Roof Forms may project into each daylight plane. For each
daylight plane, (i.e., the daylight plane on any side of the building), the
maximum combined width of these projections above the daylight plane is 15
feet and the maximum width of any individual .element must be 7.5 feet and
¯ separated by a minimum of 5 feet (New Provision). The maximum height of
any projection into the daylight plane is 24 feet.
Proposed Def’mitions:
Dormer Det’med: A small roofed structure that’projects outward from a larger
sloping roof, often containing a vertical window.
Gable Defmed: A gable is the triangular part of an exterior wall enclosing the end
of a pitched roof. The gable roof form inqludes only the roof and triangular end
wall. No portion of any wall surface below the plate line at the eave side of the
gable roof form should be permitted above the daylight plane.
Cily of P~lo Alto P~ge 8
PLANNING DMSION 1
STAFF REPORT
From:
Agenda Date:
Subject: -
Planning and Transportation Commission
Joan D. Taylor, Planning Manager Department:Planning
March 21, 2001
Study Session to Review Recommendations for changes to the Single
Family-(R-1) Zone District Regulations and Adoption of an
Individual Review (Design ProceSs)
BACKGROUND
In April 1999, staff began to address, proactively the issue of single family residential
design to promote compatibility with existing neighborhood character. In an
informational memorandum to the city Council, staffproposed a Work Plan that would
initially include a Voluntary Design Assistance program (VDA), review of Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), and a longer term program focusing on
other methods and opportunities to achieve neighborhood compatibility.
The VDA program has, since April 1999, offered site and architectural design assistance
to any person proposing to substantially remodel or construct a new or replacement single
family house. The assistance is intended to promote new construction that is sensitive to
existing neighborhoods. Because Palo Alto is essentially, a built-out city, the majority of
new house construction occurs in established neighborhoods: As an incentive, projects
completing the .VDA program receive priority for building permit review and an
expedited Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process. Participation is voluntary and
there is no fee. The program has achieved some success. Since its inception, the VDA
program has assisted 123 applicants.I However, this is less .than half of the building
permits for new construction and major remodels.Z
1 Sixty-seven applications last year, and56 to-date.
2 See Single Family Permit’Activity 1995-2000 map and summary statistics - binder Background section. Note:
There may be some tmdercount due to database constraints.
City of Palo Alto Page I
.Single Family (’R-1) Zone District Code Review
The eompata’bility of new and remodeled single family residences within existing
neighborhoods is based on a number of elements that hadividually and collectively affect
neighborhood fit. The Single-Family (R-l) Zone District ordinances regulate specific
elements of single family design.
The last major changes to the single-family regulations occurred in 1990. In response to
concerns about the appearance of overly large houses, the zoning ordinance regulations
were modified to adopt a floor area ratio (FAR), a "tightening" of the daylight plane
provisions and allowance for limited daylight plane architectural intrusions, and adoption
of a Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process. These new regulations were honored
with an award from the California Planning Association Northern California Section.
Several cities have followed Palo Alto’s lead in adopting FAR’s mad daylight plane
requirements. The "Zoning Guidebook for the R-1 Property Owner" (Guidebook) is a
clearly written outline and explanation of the regulations. Copies are included in the
Commissions’ binders.
During the initial consideration of the Single Family Z6ne District ordinance changes,
there was a realization that many elements could not be easily addressed by regulations,
but were critical to preserving and improving Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoo .ds. In
response, the City prepared "Single Family Residential .Guidelines for Palo Alto"
(Guidelines). Copies are included in the Commissions’ binderS. The guidelines are
¯ voluntary, not regulations; but, as noted in the introduction, "[these] guidelines are
intended to preserve and enhance the desirable qualities of each individual
neighborhood. .. [This] booklet suggest how to.retain th~ veryqualifies which make Palo
Alto neighborhoods appealin, g while malting necessary changes in individual buildings.
If the Guidelines are followed, change can occur positively, and each home project will
contribute to the strengths of the neighborhood."
The Guidelines are used in the VDA program review but cannot be required for building
permits. Single-family residence permits are usually ministerial, rather than discretionary
in Palo Alto. Currently, discretionary review of single family residences is only required
for the following: 1) requestfor concurrent construction of two or more adjacent single
fami!y residences, 2) request for a Home Improvement Exception or Variance.
Future of Single Family NeiChborhoods Advisory Group
As part of its Work Plan, staffproposed the establishment of an Advisory Group. The
p.urpose of the Advisory Group is to provide input to the Director of Plarming and
Community Environment (Director) on final recommendations to the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council (Council) to
City of Palo Alto Page 2
comprehensively address conc~ns related to the compatibihty of new and remodeled
single family residences within neighborhoods. The Advisory Group process was
intended to be open and inclusive with no preconceived.solution and is currently
comprised of 16 individuals representing the major geographic.regi0ns of Palo Alto and a
cross-section of interests including-real estate, ~ developers and builders, designers, and
neighborhoods (Attachment A).? The members later named the.group the Future of
Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group. ¯
The Advisory Group began its deliberations in January 2000. To ensure ashared
understanding of the existing City regulations and dew.lop a shared vocabulary, the
Advisory Group spent some time re.viewing the R-1 zone district regulations and attended
a presentation on "Architecture l- An Architectural Vocabulary", developed under the
auspices of the Santa Clara Valley Chapter, American. Institute of Architects.4 Advisory
Group members also participated in a citywide tour to see and have the opportunity to
discuss examples of new and remodeled houses (see Background section of binder). The
City Attorney’s Office staff also made a presentation on legal aspects of zoning
administration.
The concern with the scale and compatibility of new housing is not limited to Palo Alto;
many communities are discussing thsse same issues as evidenced by numerous newspaper
and magazine articles. The Advisory Group was particularly concerned that the
community’s problem(s) be clearly defined, that they identify the major concerns of the
communityl what aspects of the new housing caused the greatest.concern, and how these
concerns could be addressed in an efficient and equitable manner.
As part of the problem identification process, the Advisory Group and City co-sponsored
a Community Forum in April 2000 to seek input from the community-at-large.
Approximately 55 people attended this evening workshop, characterized by small group
discussions with Advisory Group members acting as group facilitators, to discuss scale,
size and mass, architectural style, landscaping, views, sunlight, light, and air, relationship
to surroundings, building materials, and privacy: With this additional input fromthe
Community Forum, the Advisory Group members adopted a priorifized (identified as
either high or medium priority) list of problems/issues. Several issues were identified, as
not high or medium priority for this review as they would detract from the main goal of
the group, but the Advisory Group felt the City should address them. in another forum or
as follow-up items. These issues are briefly discussed in the "Other Issues" section of the
3 shirley Wilson has since relocated; James Witt has, with the exception of one meeting, assumed Peter-qilkins
position on the Advisory Group. "
4 A copy of this document, prepared by AIA member Jim Blake, has been provided for each Commission member, a
copy is available at the main library and available forreview at the Development Center.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Commission’s binder.
A second Community Forum, again co-sponsored by the City and Advisory Group with
small group discussions led by Advisory Group members, was held in late August 2000 to
discuss potential solutions and introduced the central policy issue of discretionary review.
Over 70 cbmmunity members attended this s~cond forum. To set the context of" the
discussion, each group was asked to focus on three topics and offer other suggestions.
These topics were: "’stand-alone" code changes, Individual P~eview Process (discretionary
review), and "chang~:~ addressed as either code changes or guidelines/standards (criteria
for discretionary review). Workshop participants identified several broad themes:
neighborhood context is a central issue; standards should be clear, simple,
understandable, and streamlined; respect for neighbors is essential; individual
(discretionary) review should function to promote architectural diversity; communication
is key; and informational seminars should be conducted on the fundamentals ofbuil.ding a
single-family house.
Based on the pfiofitized list of issues, a matrix was prepared identifying potential
methods to address the identified problem. The Advisory Group then developed a set of
over-riding principles (Attachment B) for developing and prioritizing recommendations
and solutions and discussed an initial hst of general recommendations.
After the second Community Forum, and with direction from the Advisory Group, staff
prepared a more fully developed set of recommendations including conceptual proposals
for discretionary review criteria/guidelines with the architectural firm Origins Design
Network. During its most recent two meetings (February 15 and 22, 200!) the Advisory
Group came to consensus on the majority of the proposed code changes and the
discretionary review process, discussed in detail later in this report, but not the
discretionary review standards/guideline.s. Instead, the Advisory Group proposed a sub-
committee to work with staff to complete a final dra, fl of the guidelines and proceed with
Commission review and City Council direction on the major policy issue of discretionary
review prior to fmalizing the guidel.ines: Staff anticipates the Advisory Group will
continue to meet to review the Commission’s comments and the final guidelines.
The Advisory Group believes strongly that a critical factor in the success of the proposed
program is a community and. staff awareness planto implement and complement the
single-family proposals. A smaller sub-committee of the Advisory Group has been
meeting to discuss such a program and a separate memorandum (Attachment C)
describing this effort is included in the Commission packet. As well, the Advisory Group
as awhole, and the sub-committee in particular, are very interested in ensuring and
perhaps some participatory role, in a semi-annual or annual review, as appropriate, for
any adopted program.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
DISCUSSION
The material.and presentation for the Commission Specie] .Session on Single Family revi.ew
is divided into four major parts: 1) staff’Report - Overview, 2) Individual (Discretionary)
Review Process, 3) Proposed Code Cfimges, and 4) Other Issues. As well, staffhas included
an additional section in the Commissions’. binder for back .ground material not.included in the~
body of the report. As an example, an analysis of lot size, lot coverage, and FAR for Varying
lot sizes would be referenced in the report by a background report number~ B-l, and found
in the background section of the binder).
The major problems and issues identified by. the Advisory Group and staff can be
characterized as those affecting privacy, massing and bulk, and streetseape/neighbbrhood
compatibility issues. With some exceptions, each of the priority items identified by the
Advisory Group affects one of these areas either functionally or aesthetically. Changes to
address these issues can be either primarily quantitative (ministerial) or more qualitative
standards that require an exercise of discretion. The quantitative regulations would be
included in a series of changes to the Zoning Ordinance. The discretionary review would be
implemented by adoption of an Individual(design) Review Process with a threshold for
review. The Individual Review Process proposal would require enabling legislation codified
in the Zoning Ordinance. As part of its discussion, the Advisory Group reviewed the
following range of options and discussed the advantages :and disadvantages of each
approach:
Option l:No Change
Does not .mitigate defined problems
Option 2: Minimum Code Changes
Mitigates specific ~tefined problems with current ordinance provisions per Advisory
Group discussion, but not comprehensive in scope and effect.
Option 3: Voluntary_ Design Assistance
Encourages comphanee and provides "safe harbor" incentives, a successful and positive
program for those participating, however, participation is not required and .identified
problems may not be mitigated.
Option 4: Extensive Code Chan~es
Objective, predictable, generally readily understood; however, over-regulation can be a.
result and there is a lack of flexibility in ordinance provisions, difficult to address all
¯ defined problems.
City of Palo Alto Page
Option 5: Design Review for Proiects Meeting a Specific Threshold
The use of guidelines provides more flexibility, can address the majority of de.fined
problems; however, there is increased uncertainty, associated costs and the potential for a
perception of over-regulation and inequity.
Option 6: Review of all New Single Family Homes and additions more than 150 Square
Feet ¯ ¯
The use of guidelines provides flexibility, addresses all defined.problems; however, such
a choice would substantially over-regulate beyond the scope of the identified problems.
As well, staff and the Advisory.Group discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a
ministerial or. discretion.ary approach. Staff and the Advisory Group are proposing a
combination of quantitative, ministerial regulations and discretionary review (Option 5).
The proposed changes would be applicable eitywide. ’
Individual Review Process.
The most significant policy issue is the proposed adoption of a single-family review process.
As noted in the baekground section of this report, the current Guidelines were adopted in
recognition of the difficulty of addressing the varied elements that contribute to the City’s
residential neighborhoods including the streetseape, neighborhood characteristics, and
sensitive remodels and additions. The Individual Review Process is intended to address the
three identified primary areas of Concern: privacy, bulk and massing, and streetscape. It is
not intended to preclude two-story homes, dictate a specific style, preference, or choice or
guarantee great design. The Individual Review Process. is composed of three primary
components~ 1) threshold or "trigger" for review, 2) the review process and procedures, and
3) .associated guidelines or standards.
Threshold for Review
Some cities have addressed specific problems with the adoption of regulations. As an
example, the City of Mountain View regulates the size and location of second story
windows to ensure the privacy of adjacent homes. Other cities require an increased
setback for second stories tO address privacy, massing and bulk issues. The most
significant disadvantage to the regulatory approach is .the inflexibility and potential for
unanticipated consequences. As an example, regulated setbacks can result in what has
been described as a "wedding cake" effect; a precisely regulated second story stacked
massing. Some flexibility can be incorporated through the use of exceptions or
exemptions (e.g., a daylight plane exemption adjacent to a non-residential use).
However, it is difficult to anticipate all such situations. As well, numerous exemptions
and exceptions create a difficult, overly complex Code. It is the opinion of the Advisory
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Grbup and staff that a.foeused design review is the preferable alternative.
The threshold for individual review would be construction of a new t~.o-story house, new
second-story addition, or addition to an existing second story greater than 150 square feet.
The threshold isbased on the premise that two-story houses have a greater effect on
privacy, bulk andmassing, and to a lesser extent streetseape, than do one, story housesl
The threshold is simple, clear, and understandable. The 150square foot trigger was
based on the potential for additional significant living area (e.g., bedroom) while allowing
small improvements to the existing living area without individual review.
Other options were discussed for thresholds or "triggers"; examples include a threshold
based on a percentage of FAR Or a.request for exemption from certain regulations or
standards. The percentage FAR option would trigger review if the house exceeded a
certain percentage of the allowable FAR (e.g., 85% or 90%). There is an intuitive logic
to requiring review when the project is "pushing the envelope" and.an assumption that
a smaller house would have fewer impacts. However, ~Jais option would still allow a
seeond story to be built without a reviewfor privacy issues (e.g., windows and decks).
The exemption option wou~d trigger review when an exemption is requested from a
regulation or standard (e.g., an entry feature greater than 12 feet), Neither option would
provide certainty for neighbors. That is, it would be difficult to know, in advance, when
a proposed new house would trigger review. It was felt both options would result in a
more complex and difficult to administer code. -..
Process and Procedures
The Individual Review Process ~mphasizes input from neighbors, early identification of
issues, and a problem-solving approach. The process includes several new ideas-
including posting on-site to inform neighbors of the proposed project, use of a cheeldist
as part of the apphcation, the availability of a mediator and a "call-up" City Council
appeal.process. An 0outline of the process, an example of draft posting notices and a
checklist example is included in the Individual Review Process section of the binder.
The Advisory Group was particularly concerned, as was the community, with notification
of neighbors. A sentiment expressed at the Community Forums and by the Advisory
Group was the sense of unexpected change with little or no opportunity for neighborhood
input. Many.developers and homeowners do contact their neighbors prior to beginning
a project, however, many donot. By the time the project has been submitted for plan
check, there is an inherent resistance to change due, in part, to cost considerations: At
this point, there has-been a significant investment in both-time and money ha the proposed
project. The Individual Review Process would require notice to the adjacent neighbors
and "posting" of the project. Posting would require the applicant to place a sign on the
City of Palo Alto Page 7
property notifyingthe neighbors a project is on file, directions on obtaining further
¯ information and where to direct comments. Elevations would not be posted. There was
a eoneem expressed at the second Community Forum about posting elevations or floor
plans. Elevations eau ehauge and lead to confusion and many believe posting floor plans
invades privacy. Planning and Library staffs are discussing the potential for, at a
minimum, the front elevation and site plan to be available at the main library for the
convenience of neighbors unable to come to the Development Center during regular
business hours.
There was strong sentiment that an appheant should be required to meet with neighbors
before filing an application. The City cannot deny appheants the right to file an
appheation if they have not met with the neighbors, however, the apphcation would
encourage the applieaut/property owner to meet with neighbors as early in the process as
possible and will request information as to what attempts have been made to do so. As
well, theappheation would include a checklist to be.filled out by the applieant/property
owner. An excellent example from the.City ofPacific Grove is included in the binder.
The anticipated checklist for Palo Alto will emphas’.~y~ how the project will address
privacy, mass and bulk, and the neighborhood streetseape. This approach ensures the
project is sensitive to these critical issues, provides directly relevant and understandable
information to the neighbors, and a framework for review. A checklist would be
completed in conjunction with the guidelines.
Staff and a.-consulting architectural firm(s) would conduct the initial review of the project
based on the Zoning Ordinance, adopted Guidelines, and input from the neighbors. A
tentative decision will be mailed to .the applicant, adjacent property owners, and any
reques.fing party. To ensure due process, an optional Director’s Hearing (similar to the
¯ HIE process) ma~, be requested. If the optional heating were requested, a voluntary
mediation would also be available. The intent of this innovative approach is to provide
an opportunity for issues to be discussed with a neutral party and reach a mutually
acceptable alternative or understanding that is consistent with City zoning and
Guidelines. Recently staff has begun discussions with a local mediator who is supportive
and interested in working with the City to implement the concept and develop a mediation
team. If both mediationand discussion at the heating is unsuccessful, the final Director’s
decision (following the heating) could be. appealed to the City Council, Staff is
proposing a "call-up" procedure. That is, there is not an au.tomatie hearing by the
Council. The Council must first choose to hear the appeal by a vote of a speei.fied number
of.Council members (four C0uneil members are suggested). If~our members agree, then
the.appeal would be heard by the Council, otherwise, the Director’s decision would be
final.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
The Planning and Community Environment Department will be requesting Council
approval for One additional Planner position to implement this program. A Senior
Planner would be assigned to the program, as well. The Planner or Senior Planner would
be available to.meet with applicants and neighbors, conduct site visits, and participate.in
mediation. The prodess is designed to be as informal and efficient as.possible while
¯ ensuring adequate time for review and due process. Staff recognizes the concern with any
additional time added tO the review process. A draft timeline (calendar) is included to
provid~ an example of processing time to the final Director’s decision, assuming
applieafious are submitted on a Monday. Holidays, application revisions, and Council
appeal would, of course, extend this timeline. A key element of an efficient review will
be clear, understandable guidelines.
o Individual Review Guidelines
As noted earlier, the Advisory Group is not yet satisfied with-the initial conceptual
proposals for the guidelines and concerned with a large group revi.’ewing such a
¯specialized document. The Advisory Group unanimously approved the formation of a
subcommittee composed of one architect (John Northway), one developer (Steve Pierce),
and one neighborhood representative (Annette Ashton) to work with planning staff and
designers on a final draft of the new Guidelines. Staff is requesting that implementation
oft he Single Family Review occur a maximum of 45 days after Council adoption of the
program so that commission can review and adopt the final Guidelines. To avoid
unnecessary delay, the Sub-Committee and. staff are proceeding with th~ intent o.f
reviewing the existing Guidelines and the initial concepts prepared by Origins Design
¯Network. Theeffort will focus on the major issues of privacy, bulk and massing, .and
street.scape. Finally, it should be noted that the application of the Guidelines would be
commensurate with the level of proposed development. That is, an addition to an existing
second-story would be subject only to those Guidelines dealing with privacy, such as the
.placement of windows and decks, while an entirely new two-story house would be subject
to all Guideline standards.
As part of the discussion, staff has proposed moving the dayhght plane as it effects second
stories Born the regulations to the guidelines. This is a significant proposal .that should be
addressed by the Commission, as the daylight plane architectural projection exemptions, in
particular, have been a major concern of several Advisory Group members. Currently, the
code provides that architectural features such as dormers and gables may extend into the
¯ daylight plane no more than 15 feet in length and can be no more than 24 feet in height. This
intrusion may extend into the front, rear, and side daylight planes (see Guidebook, pg. 15,
- Zoning Ordinance Section 18.12.050(j)(2)). There is a strong feeling that the architectural
projection exemptions have been abused and result in large building elements that add
substantially to the mass. of the building and violate the intent of the daylight plane
City of Palo Alto .. Page 9
architectural protrusions
The intent is allow flexibility by eliminating the currently mandatory front facing and comer
street facing daylight plane and allowing appropriate architectural intrusions in a daylight
plane when such intrusion is 1) appropriate for a specific architectural style, and 2) the
proposed architectural intrusion is adjacent to a non-single-family residential use, or does not
negatively affect an adjacent single-family home. The proposal would not change the existing
daylight plane requirements for single story homes. The Advisory Group had significant
concerns with this proposal for the reasons stated above.
An alternative would be to leave the current daylight plane regulations in. the Zoning
Ordinance without change, or to delet~ the front and/or comer street facing side daylight
plane requirement. The current architectural projections could be restricted (e.g., dormers
could be no more than a seven and one-half feet in width and must be separated by five feet)
and the size of gables could be restricted.
Changes.to the Single-Family (R-l) Zone District Regulations
The proposed changes to the Single-Family (R-l) Zone District regulations would be
mandatory for all new single-family construction (both one and two-story). If regulations are
not addressed in this report, then no change is proposed. The following briefly outlines the
proposed changes, the K-1 Zone District changes section of the binder provides a more
comprehensive review- including: a brief description of the existing regulations(s), a brief
discussion of the purpose of the regulation, an outline of the proposed regulatory change(s),
and, in some cases, a staff addendum. The staff addendum typically speaks to an alternate
approach or a clarification..
The proposed changes generally relate to a lack of clarity, particularly definitions, or
perceived "loopholes" in the existing regulations, streetseape issues, and concerns with
privacy and bulk and massing issues with the current side setbacks. The background material
is most germane, to this section of the report and this information is noted. As well, there
were several changes proposed that staff recommends either be referred to the Zoning
Ordinance Update program or follow implementation of the Single Family program.
Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage
The recommendations do not propose a change to the current Floor Area Ratio (FAR);
that is~ the proposed changes do not significantly affect the potential size of a single-
family house. -Intuitively, a decrease in the FAR would result in smaller houses and thus
reduce the effect of bulk and massing. However, the review of the architectural concepts
of context, massing, scale, and proportion and’the tour led staff and the Advisory Group
Oty of Palo A!to Page 10
to conclude size alone is not the only determinate of the "fit" of a.new house or new
second story within an existing neighborhood. Note: FA_K is indexed to the size of the
lot (See B-X). The proposed defiuitio~a change will clarify FAK is measured-to the stud
wall, standard industry practice. This change will not effect the calculation of setbacks,
which are measumA to the outside surface of the wall. The only proposed decrease in size
is the inclusion in the FAR of covered po~ehes, even if not 50% enclosed, in excess of 12
feet in height (will be counted twice). This change is in response to the overwhehningly
negative perception of oversealed entry features.
t
The FAK calculation would also be modified to take-out several disincentives. No "third
floor’" equivalency will be granted.if the roof slope is less.than 4:12. The existing 200
square foot exemption for third-floor equivalency results in.a flattening of roofs to obtain
the exemption at the expense of appropriate design. A second proposed change is for
recessed porches to be excluded from the calculation of FAR. Certain styles, such as
Spanish l~evival or Eclectic, often have recessed entries that meet .the FAR definition of
50% enclosed and covered as do classic ranches. Exclusion of recessed porches will
eliminate the .disincentive to for appropriate design of new houses and remodels
developed in these styles. However, it would permit the construction of buildings with
a larger bverall footprint and roof.
Another disincentive is the current 35% limitation on lot coverage. Full ~AR is not
possible for a one.-story house with the 35% maximum lot coverage.. The proposal is tO.
allow full FAR for one-story houses even if the lot coverage exceeds the current
maximum provided minimum setbacks can be met. If a property owner were to apply for
a second-story at a future date, the lot coverage must be reduced to 35%. This change
corresponds to the current provision of allowing .40% lot coverage in the single-story
combining district, although the percentage could exceed 40% for some sites under this
proposal.
Height and Grade
The discussion of maximum height (30 feet) and calculation of grade is both a streetscape
and definition issue. Currently, height is measured from either finished or existing grade.
This has the effect of increasing the actual height as viewed from the street and may be
an incentive to "pad up" a building site. Height will be measured from existing grade.
Very recently, an Advisory Group member brought to staff’s attention the height and
daylight plane constraints of single story homes located in a flood plain and a single-story
combining district (.typically an Eichler district). Staff has completed some initial
calculations and review with Public Works and while not included in this staff report,
staff will have an analysis prepared for the Commission Special Session.
City of Palo ~4lto Page 11
Street~cape Issues
There are several regulation changes intended to address streetscape issues. These
include a requirement for a contextual front setback and garage placement. The intent
of both regulations is to respect existing neighborhood patterns. Staff’s initial proposal
was for an average setback based on a bloel~ average that could be either closer (to a
minimum of 10 feet) or further back then the eurr~nt 20 foot required front setback. The
Advisory Group was concerned the provision could lead to front setback "creep", that is,
for houses to locate increasingly closer to the street over time. The Advisory Group
supports a regulation that retains the 20 feet front setback or an average whichever is
greater. " ¯
Two other proposed .regulations are related to the front setback. Although the Advisory
Group felt landscaping was an important element of streetseape, there was a general
opinion shared by staff that requirements for a landscape plan would be over-regulation,
suehrequirements are difficult to regulate and enforce, and would be an intrusion on
personal taste. However, the Advisory Group is concerned the ordinance support,
whenever.possible, sustainable community concepts. For this reason, 60% of the front
yard setback area forany new house must be comprised of permeable surfaces. As well,
the current requiremen~ for parking and driveway surfaces to be impervious surfaces is
proposed tO be amended to allow pervious, impervious, or a combination of surfaces.
A new regulation is-also proposed to direct light from outdoor fixtures away from
neighboring properties and the street through the use of lens covers that diffuse light or
reflectors. Members of the Advisory Group and a number of the Community Forum
participants commented on the proliferation .of lighting that shines directly into
neighboring properties or oncoming traffic.
Side Setback Issues
There was a good deal of discussion by the Advisory Group members about the current
side setback provisions. Proposals included an increase in the side setbacks and a
calculation of side setback based on lot width (see B-X). Current side setback regulations
are not considered a significant issue for one-story houses but unrelieved two-story wall
masses on the side setback can restrict light and air and significantly affect privacy. As
mentioned earlier, a simpleinerease in second story setbacks can address this situation
but can have unintended consequences. Because the proposed second-story review can
and will address these issues the recommendation is to eliminate intrusions in the side
yard setback by allowing only greenhouse and small oriel windows and restricting the
size of fireplace intrusions in the side Setback to a maximum of five feet in width and two
feet in depth (see the R-1 Development Regulations binder section for a definition and
graphic for an oriel window).
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Other Regulatory Issues
¯ There was an interest by some Advisory Group members in hfting the City’s current
restriction on underground garagesin the single-family residential district. Staffprep~. d
a proposed regulation that was considered too restrictive by the Advisory Group. The
Advisory Group was generally supportive of permitting underground garages and
allowing the basement area to extend beyond the building footprint, there was also an
agreement that underground garages should be included in the FAIL Staffhas significant
concerns with a change to the regulations particularly the expansion of basements beyond.
the building footprints. There should be significantly more study of issuds such as
potential additional run-off, the effect on potential planting of on-site ~ees, and a
continued discussion.of an appropriate setback for the drop-off and slope of driveway
access.
Two other proposals should be consideredeither in the context of the Zoning Ordinance
Update or as part of a follow-up to the Single Family Review. Currently, light Wells,
which also provide emergency access from basements, cannot be covered. The result is
an expensive and difficult drainage problem. Staff believes it is appropriate to review
this requirement keeping in mind the significant safety aspects. As well, there is a request
to review the current maximum two hundred square foot maximumfor below grade
patios. The result of the restricted size is generally either a dark or very hot,. difficult to
design area. Staff is supportive of increasing the size. However, the issue is not .directly
germane to the single-family issues under review and will require additional analysis of
appropriate size and slope.
As previously mentioned, the Advisory Group aud staffbelieve a regular review will be very
important following_adoption of the program. Staff will be reviewing the affect of the
proposed ordinance revisions and monitoring both the Individual Keview Process and the
Guidelines for necessary changes. The review could include a questionnaire to applicants
and neighbors requesting their input on the process, a review of completed projects, and
focus .groups with neighborhood associations and designers. As mentioned, the Advisory
Group is also interested in this pr6cess which might be combined in some way with the
Community and Staff Awareness Program. - .
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK PROGRAM
There has been community interest in two other related Zoning Ordinance changes not
reviewed by the Advisory Group. The first is an ordinance change to allow each
neighborhood applying for a Single-Story Combining Zone District to regulate the height up
City of Palo Alto"Page 13
to a maximum:of 17 feet (the current standard). That is, a neighborhood could choose to
have a lower height restriction. The second proposed change Would allow a neighborhood
to propose different regulations., or guidelines for their neighborhood or a specified
geographical area. Staffwill be seeking Councildirection ~:egardingthese proposals with
a recommendation that they be deferred to the Zoning Ordinance Update program.
TEVIELINE
The Planning and Transportation Commission Public Hearing on the Single Family
review program is scheduled for April 11, 2001. The City Council review has not yet
been scheduled..
COURTESY COPIES .’
The Future .of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group
ATTACHIVlENTS
Single Family Review Binder (Conu~ssion members only)
Prepared By:
Reviewed By:
Joan Taylor, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL:
EDWARD G. GAWF kD
Director
Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Attachment A
City of Palo Alt0
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
¯ "CITY.MANAGER
j~NUARY 18, 2000
" DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR:117.:,0. 0.
~ OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS ADVISORY
GROUP
This is an informational report and no Council action is required."
BACKGROUND "
On December 6, 1999, an informational report was sent to the City Council describing
the Planning Department’s intended approach to address single family neighborhood
compatibility issues. As part of its review, staff proposed the establishment of a Future
of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group (Advisory Group): The purpose of the
Advisory Group is to provide input to. the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director) on final recomme.ndations to the City Council to
comprehensively address concerns related to the compatibility .of new and remodeled
single family.residences within neighborhoods. Members of the Advisory .Group were to
be chosen by the Director and the Advisory Group co-chairpers0ns to represent a variety
of "stakeholders," including neighborhood representatives, members of the design and.
development communities, realtors and builders. Annette Glanckopf Ashton, Carroll
Harrington, and John Northway agreed to act as co-chairs of the Advisory Group. iThe
following briefly describes the process for selection and identifies the members of the
Advisory Group.
DISCUSSION
¯On December 3, 1999, the Department of Planning and Community Environment sent
informational packets to an extensive list of neighborhood associations, civic groups, and.
other interested parties, inviting applications for the Advisory Grgup. The informational
packet included a letter briefly describing the purpose of the Advisory Group, an
application and a. copy of the selection criteria (See Attachment A). Informational
packets were also sent to all individuals for whom addresses could be identified who
CMR:117:00 Pa~-t of 3
participated in the discussions leading to the development of the document tiffed, "The
Future OfResidential Structures in Palo Alto," submitted to the City Council in March
1998. An application deadline ofDecember 20, 1999 was identified. However, the
-Director and Co-Chairpers.ons .felt that because of.~.holiday rash and a desireto be as
incltisive as possible, applications should be aecep~ediii~’ .until ~.e "lastminute."
In add.i.tion to the letters soliciting applieati0ns from a range. of community grotips, the
Planning C0mmissioh C.hairperson ~vas. asked "to identify a:repre~eiatative.. The Director
also talked.with se~eral..b.uilders to ensure representation by :the.development industry On
the Advisory Group. Twenty-six applications were received by January 3, 2000~ The
following individuals have been selected to serve on the Advisory Group:
¯~4~- ~-. ~tto"
uruRE AlvnL¥,N£{ermO OODS -AgV SOrtY G tOU? M M RrtSm?
CO-CHAt]~: ..
Annette Glanckopf Ashton
Carroll Harrington
John C. Northway
COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES:
M. Catherine Carroll
Pria Graves
D. Michael Griffin
Mark Kriss
George H. Stem
Donald Stone
SusieThom
Shirley Wilson
West Palo Alto (~arron Park)
West Palo Alto (College Terrace)
North Palo Alto (Downtown North)
West Palo Alto (Barron Park Neighborhood Association)
South Palo Alto ~dtowri) ’
South Palo Alto (palo Verde)
South Palo Alto (Charleston Terrace)
North Palo Alto (Crescent Park Homeowners Association)
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS:
Richard Elmore
David Olerich
Steve Pierce
Judith Wasse .rman
Peter Vilkin
Designer
Silicon Valley AssociationofRealtors
Developer/Realtor
Architect
Developer ¯
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE: Jon Schink
CMR: 117:00 Page 2 of 3
There were a number of excgltent, candidates and it was dJf~cult to make the final
decisions. However, the co-chairs and staff feel the final composition of the Advisory
Group will ensure a geographical balhn~’~ an~i:~epresentatives of a variety of viewpoints
and ..backgrounds..The first meeting of the Advisory Group is scheduled for January 20,
2000 at Cubberley Community Center. "
ATTACHMENTS
A.Informational packet for applicants to the F.uture:bfSingle Family Neighborhoods
Advisory Group.
PREPARED.BY: Joan D. Taylor, Associate Planner.
G.EDWARD G~~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:.
Director of Planning and Community Environment
cc: Advisory Group Members
CMK:117:00 Page 3 of 3
City. oflaalp Alto
At ",.he direction ofthe Palo AI~ Okay Cotm~ the Depm-tmeat ofPl~unin~ md
~~~ ~o~ ~ be~ a ~dy of~ ~ea ofzesid~ c~e on
r~res~ ~ po~ ~. ~s ~ be op~ m~ m ~ ~e, we ~ pl~ s
20, 2000 ~om 5:00 p.~ ~ 7:00 p.~ ~~on ~e ~e~ lo~on~ be
l.am pleased tlmt Cazrotl ]~snington (graphio designer), Annstm Olm~kopf Ashton
(health care consultant), and Iohn Northway (arohitbot) haw.already sgr¢~ to serw as
Co-Chairs of the Advisory Group a~ my r~quest
Anyone interested in serving on the A~Ivisory Group retm’n the’ enolos~ application
describing their interest in saving on the Advisory Group, a brief description oft_heir
-background md knowledge ofth~ issues, whether a represeatative of. a group (e.g.,
Neighborhood Assodsfi6n, dvic group), how long they hav~ lived in Palo ARo, and my
information on specific time constraints. Tim latter should1 bs addressed or £ax~ to 7oan
Taylor, p1.~g Division, atthe address and f-ax mmbsr listed below and received no
~st~r tha~DecemB~r 20, 1999. - ¯ -
¯2.50 Hamilton Avanue
BO. Ben: I02S0
650~29~.441
Advisory (ho.up L~er
Dec.ember 2, 1999
Pag~.2 of 2~ ..
I e~courage you to r~ad the’Info .rmational M~orandum s~nt to th~ City Council
¯ - oi~I~E Plmuing’s initial work on th~ issu~ and proposal for the ~re~tion ofthe
Advisory Oroup. Them is also a v~ry thoughlful document available tiffed, "The FutUre
of Residemfial Smmtm~ in Palo "Alto - March 1998.". If you would like copies, they
.avm, ,le the into Dew o = 2ZS H=mton .=.’Division, 5m Floor,:City ~ orby calling 329-2441~ You may also call this numb= if
you would be intm~st~ in receiving information about fatum meetings or workshops.
If you hsve ~y ~ons or wouid ~ to discuss this proposal please fed fr~e to talk
with auy one of the Co-Clmirs; either Carroll Ha=ington, Annette Ashton, or John ¯
Northway. Please.fed fr~,:as we/l,.to.c, all Joan Taylor at 329-2170 or mysdf at 329-
.2354.
I look fomrard tohearing from you and to a pom’.’tive,, productive, lively, and interesting
discussion of this very important topic in the months ahead. . .
EDWARD GAWF :
Dim .ctor
Depamncnt ofPlamfn." g and Community Environm=t
Attachments: "
I. Critm’ia for selection of memlx,’rs for ~e Future of Residential Housing in Pelo
Alto Advisory Group
2. ¯Application for Advisory C--mup
o o o
variety o.f. comm .un, d, ’ty vi~w,wloo’.m’ts r~ga~ th.~ compafibilityofn~,v and ~xte~iwly
r~noddcd singl~ family hdm~ in gx~g ndghborhoods. TheAdvisory Group will
includ~ no morn than 16 to I 8 m~znbsrs; a
Advisory Group will be selected t~’~sgnt ndghborh~od conc~zns. T~ ~inaining
me, mb~rs will be chosen to r~prs~at stekehold~r groupsincluding real sstam,
dsvslop~rs/buildsrs, and d~ign profesdonals.
Critm-ia for Selection~.
i. Interest ahdenthusiasm in s~ring on the advisory group:
Knowledg~ and ~psrisnc~ ze/afing o ¢h~ issues 1o bs discusse, d. Pmviom
participa~on on commissiom/bo, ards/~socia~ions .rda~d ~ land-ms ism~s, d~si~
sx’!o~ri~nc~o ~md/or 10srson~1 ~xpezi~nc~ wo~d l:~ d~irabls..
3. ~pr~s~ntativ~ Of a group, or association.
4.Availabl~ to participate actively in ~ advisory group. Willingness to pursue some
sclf-dircctcd activities.
Ability to objectively consider others’ ol~inions, open to other ideas md creative
solutions. Willingn~ss ~to pm’tidpat~ in small group discussions.
Knowl~gs of Palo Alto and le~.h.of residency.
Ability o umd~t,~d ~-I Zoning Cod~ ~gulafions.
8. Gso~aphical r~rsssntafion. ’
i Ths criteria ars not weighted mdthe numbsrk~ does not imply z hiez~chy.
Application - Advisory. Group
Future Of Residential Housing in Pale Alto
E~ckgrourut ir~rmation for this advisory grou~ is available at the ~aIo.4lto
Dcvdo.~ment Cente~ 285 Hamilton.4venue (9 am~ to 4 p.r~) or the ~lanning Division,..
City Hall, 250 Hamilton.4venue, 5th Floor.
Address:
Phone Number:FAX Numbc~:
Why d6 you want to participate in this advisory g~oup?
Previous Community Involv~nont, particularly., ft. rslatexl to land uso issuss or resi.dsntial.
deign:
L~gth of time Pale Alto resident: ’
Representative of a group or,assodafion:
The time commitment for this advisory group is am~ of s~v.en advisory meetings
and two public workshops (~v~g or Saturday), Th~ m~stings wiR bs hdd the I~ and 3~
Thursday evenings of ~ach month b~gimdng January 20, 2000 and continuing for
approximately fly m0nths..Pleass list any planned constraints on your availability during ’
this p~u-iod.
Think you for submit~ an apphcafion.
This application may be returned to :loan Taylor no later than December 20,1999 by FAX st
650-329-2154 or mailed to City of Pale Alto, Department of Plann~g and Community Environment,
Planning Division, City Hall, P.O. Box 10250, Pale Alto, CA 94303. If you would h~ to submit onion,
please E-Mail to dian~_lz~ale@dty.palo-aho.ca.us,
Attachment B
Over-Riding Principles
Solutions should address a defined problem(s).
The extent of the problem(s) and solution(s) should be related
(Don’t over-regulate).
There is a ’Bade-off" between flexibility and predictability.
Proposed solutions should be clearly written, p~actical, equitable and
easi!y administered.
Solutions should encourage compliance and provide incemives for
cooperation ("safe harbor").
There is a "cost" to new regulation(s) for both the City and applicants.
Minimize the creation of nonconforming situations.
Need to be mindful of the "law of unintended consequences".
March 14~.2001
The Fu~r~ of ShOe F~I~ NeighbOrhoods Adviso~ Group
Communi~ and SmffAwareness Prog~m
Back~’oun& After a s~ong indication of’support from the Advisory Group, a smaller group has been meeting to
develop the Community and St~dTAv~reness Proem for the f.orthcoming new R-1 Guidelines and Ordinance. The
Advisory Group strongly believes that this Awareness Program is critical to the implementation and success of" the
Guidelines and Ordinance. We also agreed that we want the city to ensure that there is adequate staff to carry out
the program.
Description,
Goal.. To create and implement an educational program focusing on the three primary issues that surfaced as a
result of.our work: adjoining neighbor’s privacy, massing or bulk of the building structure and the neighbor-
hood streetscape/context.
Phase I:
Target audiences: Planning and Transportation Commission, City Council and neighborhood associations
Strategy: After release of the staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission, Advisory Group
members will meet with individual commissioners and councilmembers and make presentations to neighbor-
hood associations and professional association meetings such as the realtors and architects. The Advisory
Group will develop a fact sheet and collateral materials based on the stafF report to facilitate the clear under-
standing of the single-family proposals.
Phase !!:
Target audience(s): Community at large
Strategy:
1. Develop a joint City ofPalo Alto/Palo Alto Adult School class/workshop providing information on P,-1
regulations; an overview of the planning and building permit process; suggestions for ways to build,
rebuild or remodel; the Voluntary Design Assistance Program; and other relevant topics.
2.Hold community meetings/forums.
3.Work with MidPeninsula Access Corporation to prepare a videotape illustrating the guidelines.
4.Bibliography of articles, books and websites.
5.Website.
6.Annual design award(s).
830 melville ~venue
p~lo ~Ito. c~ 94301
650 321 9594
f~x 650 323 9866
c~rroll@ h~rrin~tondesi~n-com
vv~v~v, h ~rx-in~tondesi~n .corn
6. Annual design award(s).
Deliverables:
1.Fact sheet
:~.Presentation(s) for public meetings.
3.Updated residential guidelines handout
4.Palo Alto Adult Education class outline
5.Comic book
Recommendation: We recommend that the Planning and Transportation Commission support the concept of the
Community and Staff Awareness Program and direct the committee to continue to develop the plan including
implementation, timeline and budget.
Respectfully submitted,
The Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group
Community and Staff Awareness Program Planning Committee
Carroll Flarrington, Chair; Annette GlanckopfAshton, Richard Elmore,
Michael Griffin, George Stem, Joan Taylor and Susie Thorn
SECTION 2
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
PROCESS
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
Comments on the Individual Review Process
Individual Review would be required only for new two-story houses, new second story
additions or an addition to existing second story greater than 150 square feet. Prior to
application, the applicant is strongly encouraged to meet with neighbors and schedule a
preliminary review with staff. The process is outlined in the following pages and incorporates
three relatively new ideas, posting on-site, an optional mediation service, and a "call-up" appeal.
A notice inviting neighbors to view the plans and comment is mailed to all adjacent
neighbors and posted on the property. The staff consultation with an architectural firm(s)
includes a review of the neighbors’ comments, compliance with R- 1 zone district standards, and
the Individual Review Guidelines. Following such review, an initial determination would be
made and sent to the applicant and adjacent property owners. There would be no automatic
hearing unless there is a request for a Director’s Hearing. As part of this process, the applicant or
neighbors could also request an optional mediation. Staff has discussed the possibility with a
professional mediator who is very interested in developing a model program with the City.
Following the Director’s Heating, the applicant or adjacent property owners would have
the option to file an appeal. The appeal is based on a "call-up". The Council does not
automatically hear an appeal; rather, a specified number of City Council members, as set by
ordinance, may choose to hear the appeal and, if so, an appeal hearing is scheduled. Staff has
proposed a four-member "call-up". The City Attorney’s office will be able to provide
background and clarification on due process issues and the proposed appeal procedure.
As part of the application process, the applicant would be expected to complete a
"checklist". The checklist is based on the Individual Review Guidelines (see following section).
Staff and the Advisory Group are also interested in how the checklist might be of assistance to
the neighbors in their comments on the project.
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
Individual Review Process Overview
Prior to Application:
¯Applicant is encouraged to meet with neighbors.
¯Optional preliminary review with staff- similar to current VDA process.
Application for Individual Review Process:
¯ Application will include checklist (see example) and "storyboard" with
pictures of adjacent properties.
¯Notice to "invite comments" mailed to adjacent property owners1 and site
"posted’’2 within 3 days.
¯Plans available at Development Center for review3.
¯Comment period is 10 days.
Staff Consukation with Architect(s):
¯ Staff will have conducted R-1 "plan check", staff and architect(s) will have
reviewed neighbors’ comments.
¯Tentative Decision (approval, approval with conditions, or denial) sent to
applicant, adjacent neighbors and those requesting notification.
¯If no optional request for Director’s Hearing and optional mediation (see 4
and 4a below), the recommendation is fmal on the 11 th day after mailing.
Optional Director’s Hearing:
¯Notice of Director’s Hearing mailed and site "posted’’4.
¯Hearing can be requested by applicant or adjacent property owners.
¯Hearings in City Council Conference Room.
¯The hearing focuses on compliance with Zoning Code, adopted Guidelines
and associated checklist.
Adjacent defined as sharing a property line, house directly across the street and on either side.
See conceptual example of initial posting notice.
Planning and Library staff are discussing the potential for plan sets (facade and site plan) to be avadable at
the Main Library.
See conceptual example - Director’s Hearing posting notice.
Page I of 2
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/!8/01
¯Director’s decision, sent to adjacent neighbors and applicant, and those
requesting notification.
4a. Optional Mediation:
If a Director Hearing is requested, the applicant or neighbor has the option
of requesting mediation.
Director’s Hearing is continued for a specified period of time (e.g., three
weeks) to allow for mediation.
If mediation does not resolve issues, then Director’s Hearing is scheduled.
5. "Call-Up" Appeal:
An appeal must be filed within 10 days of mailing of Director’s decision.
An appeal will only be heard if four members of the City Council "call-up"
(i.e., Council agrees to hear appeal, then appeal is agendized for Public
Hearing).
Page 2 of 2
NOTICE
DATE:Day/Month/Year
FROM:Department of Planning and Community Environment
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PLANS FOR XXX SOUTH COURT DRIVE
This notice is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto has received an application for
Individual Review from (Name of Applicant) for a new (type of project such as new two-
story or 2na story addition) on this property.
You are invited to comment on this project. We strongly encourage persons who are
interested to review the plans on file at either the Development Center located at 285
Hamilton Avenue or the Main Library. The Development Center Hours are Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM and Wednesday’s 9:00 AM to 4:00
PM.
Any questions or written comments about the project should be addressed to (name of
planner) at 329-XXXX, first iast@cit..v.palo-alto.ca.us, faxed or mailed to the attention
of (name of planner) at 329-2154 (fax number), Department of Planning and Community
Environment, Planning Division, 5t~ Floor, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
Note: This notice shall remain posted for the duration of the design review application as
determined by the Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is unlawful
to remove or deface this notice.
H:\R-l\Community of the Whole - Study Session\Notice.doc
REVISED
NOTICE
DATE:Day/Month/Year
FROM:Department of Planning and Community Environment
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR DIRECTORS HEARING FOR A PROJECT
LOCATED AT XXX SOUTH COURT DRIVE
This notice is to inform you that the City of Palo Alto has received a request for a Public
Hearing for a (type of project) proposed for this property. A Director’s Hearing wilt be
held to review this project on (date) in the Council Conference Room at City Hall (1st
floor), 250 Hamilton Avenue.
We strongly encourage persons who are interested in this project to review the plans,
associated application and file at the Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue. The
Development Center Hours are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00
PM and Wednesday’,s 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Any questions Or written comments about the project should be addressed to (name of
planner) at 329-XXXX, first last@citv.palo-alto.ca.us, faxed or mailed to the attention
of (name of planner) at 329-2154 (fax number), Department of Planning and Community
Environment, Planning Division, 5t~ Floor, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303.
Note: This notice shall remain posted for the duration of the design review application as
determined by the Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is unlawful
to remove or deface this notice.
DRAFT
SINGLE. FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
This checklist is meant to help homeowners, builders, architects, design professionals and neighborhood residents
to apply the-Single Family Individual Review Guidelines to the particular project and neighborhood. Individual
Review is required only for new two-story houses, new second stories and expansion of existing second stories
that exceeds 150 square feet. For the applicant, working through the checklist items will help you to explbre
iimportant design considerations as you prepare your project for submittal for Individual Review.
It is very important that you also review the Palo Alto Zoning Guidebook for the R-1 Property Owner and
Builder, also available at the Development Center.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Applicanfs name:
Project address:
Scope of Project:
Is your house on a comer lot?
Is your house in the flood plain?
Which way is North? [3Left
[] New house[:] 2nd Story Addition [] 2nd Story Addition over 150 SF
[] Yes [] No
[] Yes [] No
[3Right [3Front [3Rear lqLeft-rear [3Right-rear
tSLefl-front [3Right-front ~
. Vfap based on Comprehensive Plan)
Project Neighborhood (Please refer to the map)
[] Barron Park [] Fair Meadow [] Midtown [] Scale Addition
[] Boyce Addition [] Garland [] Miranda Green [] So. Green Gables
[] Charleston Terrace [] Green Acres I [] Monroe Park [] Southgate
[] College Terrace [] Green Acres II [] North Green Gables .[] University Park
[] Community Center [] GreenMeadow [] Oak Creek [] Ventura
[] Crescent Park [] Greer Park [] Old South Palo Alto [] Walnut Grove
[] DeAnza [] Hoover Park [] Ortega .[] West Bayshore
[] Downtown North [] Industrial Park [] Palo Alto Hills.[] West Charleston
[] El Carmello [] Leland Manor [] PaloVerde. -[] Other:
[] Evergreen Park [] Los ArboleS ~ Professorville
Palo Alto Individual Review Checklist Revised fi’om checklist included it~ Drafl Guideiines 6/18/01 .1
SECTION 1:
A. Privacy
1.
DRAFT
GOOD NEIGHBOR CONSIDERATIONS
Will your proposed(window and balcony structures adversely affect your neighbors’ privacy?
How will you mitigate the effect of your windows?
[] Offsetting or staggering the. windows facing your neighbors windows
[] Locating the windows high enough to lessen the impact
[] Using obscure glass
[] Landscaping
[] Other (please explain)
How will you mitigate the effect of your balconies?
[] Design a balcony that will eliminate any impact
[] Locate the balcony So that it will have no impact
[] Landscaping
[] Other (please explain).
B. Mass and Scale
If you are proposing a two-story house next to a one-story house, how do
you plan to make this transition?
[]One story wing on adjacent side
[]Second floor contained in roof (livable attic with dormers)
[]Expanded side yard setback with landscaping
[]Other (please explain).
o
How is the massing of your proposed home related to the streetscape?
[]Primary volume is the same scale as neighborhood
[]Second.floor is contained within the roof volume
[]Primary volume is divided/articulated with secondary volumes
[]Large Volumes are screened by smaller volumes, walls, fences, etc.
[]Large volumes are set further back from the street
[]Other (please explain)-
How will you mitigate the massing of your second story?
[] Articulation ¯
[] Use of required "greenspaee" area
[] Increased setback
[] Change of materials
[] Landscaping
[] Other (please explain).
C. Sunlight Orientation
Single Family Individual Review Checklist 2
DRAFT
Will your proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors’ access to
adjacent rooms, yards, patios or gardens?
sunlight for
So How will you mitigate any negative impact?
[] Locating the structure on the lot to minimize impact
[] Locating miler portions of the structure to minimize impact
[3 Minimizing intrusions into the daylight plane
Other (please explain)
D. Neighborhood Patterns
9.What is the prevailing height pattern for your neighborhood?
Single story
House on right []
House on left []
House on rear []
House across the street []
Prevailing on blockface (>50%)[]
Prevailing on opposite block face (>50%)[]
Proposed new house or addition.[]
Two story
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
10.Is there a prevailing front porch pattern in your neighborhood?
Front porch No porch
House on the right [][]
House on the left [][]
House to the rear [][]
House across the street [][]
Prevailing on block face (>50%)[][]
Prevailing on opposite block face (>50%)[][]
Proposed new house or addition [][]
il.Is there a prevailing garage pattern in your neighborhood?
Front garage Rear garage
House on the right
House on the left
House to the rear
House across the street
Prevailing on block face (>50%)
Prevailing on opposite block face (>50%)
Proposed new house or addition
Side.garage
[][][]
[][][]
[][][]
[][][]
[][][]
[][][]
[][][]
SECTION 2: SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADDITIONS
1.Additions should harmonize with the existing structure by matching the existing
Single Family Individual Rei’iew Checklist 3
DRAFT
materials, roof slope, window type.
Existing
R~of material
Roof pitch
Roof style (gable, hip, flat)
Window material (wood, metal)
Proposed
Single Family Individual Review Checklist 4
SECTION 3
INDIVIDUAL REVIEW
GUIDELINES
0000000~0
SECTION 4
R 1 REGULATIONS
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
Comments on the R-1 Development Regulation Proposals
The following pages include those proposals identified as changes to the Zoning
Ordinance (Development Regulations). As such, they would be mandatory for all new
single family residential construction (both one-story and two-story houses). The
proposals, prior to adoption, must be rewritten to comply with standard Municipal Code
conventions including chapter and section numbering, headings, and references.
Each proposal includes four sections: a brief description of the existing
regulation(s), a brief discussion of the purpose of the regulation, an outline of the
proposed regulation(s), and, in some cases, a staff addendum. Of these twelve proposals,
one, the underground garage proposal is recommended for deferral to the Zoning
Ordinance Update program.
Revised for Committee of the .Whole 6/18/01
1.FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
Existing Regulation(s):The total gross floor area on a single family lot shall not exceed 45% of
the first 5,000 square feet of lot area plus 30% of lot area over 5,000.
square feet. The total gross floor area for the principal structure on an R-
1 lot cannot exceed 6,000 square feet. Included in the FAR calculation
are all floors of the main residence, stairs at all levels, covered parking,
accessory buildings of more than 120 square feet, and attached or
detached exterior spaces more than 50% enclosed and covered (e.g.,
enclosed porches). Floor area is not counted for basements where the
first finished floor is no more than 3 feet above grade. Additional floor
area is also counted for tall building volumes, as follows:
A second floor equivalent area is added to the total floor area where
the distance from the first floor level to the top of the roof directly
above is 17’ or greater.
A third floor equivalent area (third floor equivalency) is added to the
total floor area where the distance from the first floor level to the top
of the roof directly above is 26’ or greater; however, up to 200 SF of
third floor equivalent area is exempt.
"Gross floor area" (18.04.030) (65) (A) means the total area of all floors
of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls..."
Purpose:To clarify and encourage architectural elements that provide visual relief.
The proposal considers issues cited by the Advisory Group related to
perceived building bulk, including limiting "additional bulk" created by
tall buildings with low slope roofs and deleting any disincentives for
recessed porches.
Proposed Regulation:Same as existing regulations, except as noted below:
¯ No "third floor" equivalency exemption if any portion of the third
floor equivalent area has a roof slope of less than 4:12.
¯The floor areaof an exterior entry structure/entry tower would be
counted toward the FAR, if the height of the structure is 12 feet or
more from first finished floor level (Note: The Advisory Group
proposed any volume above 12’ would be counted twice).
¯First floor "recessed" porches are not included in the FAR.
¯The authority to deem basement, cellar, or attic areas as useable will
be transferred from the Chief Building Official to the Director of
Planning and Community Environment.
¯Gross floor area will be calculated to the stud wall, standard industry
practice. This change does not affect setbacks, which are measured to
the exterior wall material.
Staff Addendum:The Director of Planning and Community Environment has the final
authority to determine Zoning Ordinance interpretations; the authority to
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
deem areas usable is a change to bring the section into conformance with
other sections of the code.
Graphics: Follow
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REVISION
_200 ~;F Third Floor Eouivalent Exemvtion
1
NO 200 Square Foot EXEMPTION
¯Roof Slope ~ 1 2:12, but
Dormer Slope< 4:12
200 Square Foot EXEMPTION
¯ Roof Slope ~ 12:12
1
NO 200 Square Foot EXEMPTION
¯Roof Slope ~ 4:12
200 Square Foot EXEMPTION
¯ Roof Slope > 4:12
NO 200 Square Foot EXEMPTION
¯ Roof Slope > 4:12, but
Flat Roof above 3rd Floor Equivalent
,~LOOR ARE£ RATIO (t~AR) REVISION.
Rules f0r.Entry_,, To~ers.,, ’
ENTR¥,TOWEB,,,ILE, USTRATION,,
ENTRY TOWER,F.A.R RULE
¯ Add floor area (a x b),,If_
Tower height (c) Is > to 12~
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
2.LOT COVERAGE (SINGLE STORY WITH FULL FAR)
Existing Regulation(s):The maximum lot coverage for one or two story structures on
standard lots, substandard lots, and flag lots, including accessory.
buildings, is presently 35%. Up to an additional 5% lot coverage is
allowed for covered patios, canopies, and roof overhangs beyond 4
feet. (Note: lot coverage for a single story overlay district is 40%,
and an additional 5% lot coverage for covered patios, canopies, and
roof overhangs beyond 4feet; i.e., roof overhangs (rafters) less than
4’ are not counted as part of the building footprinO
Lot Coverage Def’mition: Lot coverage is the percentage of the
property covered by structures including the primary dwelling
"footprint" and accessory buildings such as garages, carports, tool
sheds, covered pool equipment units, etc. Projecting balconies,
stairways, porches, patio covers, decks, pools, and spas more than 30
inches above grade are also considered structures, as are roof
overhangs exceeding 4 feet.
Purpose:Revise the lot coverage standard for single-story residences to allow
lot coverage equal to the permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
Full "build-out" (i.e., maximum FAR) cannot be built within a one-
story residence due to the existing 35% lot coverage regulation, thus
discouraging single-story residences. The proposed change would
eliminate this disincentive.
Proposed Regulation:Lot coverage for single-story residences only will be equal to the
maximum Floor Area Ration (FAR). An analysis of the potential
maximum lot coverage for various sized lots follows. For both single
story and two story residences, there is an additional 5 percent
coverage for the horizontal area of covered patios, canopies and roof
overhangs beyond 4 feet.
The lot coverage definition is not modified by this proposal.
Analysis:Follows
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
3.DAYLIGHT PLANE
Existing Regulations:
Daylight Plane Defined:
Purpose:
Proposed Regulation:
No structures except the following:
a) Television and radio antennas; chimneys and flues:
b) DOrmers, roof decks, gables or similar architectural features;
provided that the horizontal length of all such features shall not
exceed a combined total of fifteen feet on each side, nor shall the
height of such features exceed twenty-four feet;
c) Cornices, eaves, and similar architectural features, excluding fiat
or continuous walls or enclosures of usable interior space, may
extend into a required daylight plane a distance not exceeding
two feet. Chimneys may extend into the required daylight plane a
distance not exceeding two feet;
shall extend beyond a daylight plane having a height of ten feet at
each side lot line and an angle of forty-five degrees, nor beyond a
daylight plane having a height of sixteen feet at the front or rear
setback line and an angle of sixty degrees.
A daylight plane is a tilted plane(s) over the site. Except for specific
"allowed projections into the daylight plane", no portion of the house
should project in a daylight plane.
Eliminate the front daylight plane which can restrict, certain
architectural forms and do not significantly affect adjacent properties
and clarify and restrict those features allowed to project into the
daylight plane
Eliminate the front daylight. Allow the following projections into the
Daylight Plane:
1.Roof overhangs may extend into the side daylight plane by 2 feet
and into the rear daylight plane by 4 feet around the perimeter of
the structure (No change from current code).
2.Chimney not exceeding five feet in width may extend into the
daylight plane, but should be limited to the minimum height
required to meet building code (New Provision).
3. Dormers and Gable Roof Forms may project into each daylight
plane. For each daylight plane, (i.e., the daylight plane on any
side of the building), the maximum combined width of these
projections above the daylight plane is 15 feet and the maximum
width of any individual element must be 7.5 feet and separated
by a minimum of 5 feet (New Provision). The maximum height
of any projection into the daylight plane is 24 feet.
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
Proposed Defmitions:
Dormer DeFmed: A small roofed structure that projects outward
from a larger sloping roof, often containing a vertical window.
Gable Defmed: A gable is the triangular part of an exterior wall
enclosing the end of a pitched roof. The gable roof form includes
only the roof and triangular end wall. No portion of any wall surface
below the plate line at the eave side of the gable roof form should be
permitted above the daylight plane.
4.CONTEXTUAL FRONT SETBACK
Existing Regulation(s): The city requires a 20’ front setback for most R-1 lots with "special
setbacks" along certain identified streets. The regulations allow
eaves, cornices, and fireplaces to project 4 feet and bay windows to
project 2 feet into the setback. Covered porches (i.e., meeting the
definition of "enclosed") are not permitted to project into the front
yard setback.
Purpose:Define the minimum front yard setback (Contextual Front Setback)
based on neighborhood front setback patterns. To enhance the
streetscape, the proposal also permits porches, bay wh’adows, and
balconies to project into the front setback.
Proposed Regulation:A Contextual Front Yard Setback standard based on the average front
setback for houses on the same side of the block. The Advisory
Group consensus was the contextual front setback would only be
applicable for houses when the average front setback is greater than
the current 20’ minimum. This standard would not apply on lots
located in Special Setback areas. Planning Staff, using the following,
would determine the average setback:
Contextual Front Yard Setback Formula: The average distance from the front
property line to the first main building wall of houses on the same side of the entire
block (Note: porches and bay windows would not be considered a main building wall).
Vacant lots, lots with extreme setback variation from the block, and lots with street
facing comer side yards would not be included in the calculation. (Note: for blocks
longer than 600’, the contextual front setback would be based on the adjacent 10 houses)
Allowed Projections into Contextual Front Yard Setback: The following building
elements would be permitted to project into the Front Yard Setback:
¯One story uncovered porch - up to a maximum of 6 feet into the front setback
(same as existing regulations).
¯Proiecting bay window(s) - up to a maximum of 3 feet into the front setback.
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
The combined width of all elements cannot exceed 1/3 of the building’s front elevation
closest to the front setback line.
Graphics: Follow
CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK
_ContexOjal Front Yard,Setback Eormula and AllowedProiections
Contextual
Front Yard
Setback
Contextual
Front Yard
Setback Line
I I I I T
.CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK
¯ Setback to first main building wall is based on
~e average front yard setback of existing
houses on block.
¯Note: Vacant lots, minor buildint~pro]ections,
and houses with extreme setbacks are not
part of the calculation:
¯x = Average Front Yard Setback
y = Existing House Front Yard Setback
b
ALLOWED PROJECTIONS INTO CONTEXTUAL FRONT YARD SETBACK
a = Maximum Building .Wid~
b = 1/3 c (total for all pro]ectt, ons)
¢ = 6’ for porch (shown)
¯3’ for bay window (not shown)
3’ for balcony (not shown)
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
5.CONTEXTUAL GARAGE PLACEMENT
Existing Regulation(s):There is currently no standard that regulates garage or carport
placement relative .to a neighborhood pattern, however, the City’s.
voluntary Single Family Residential Design Guidelines suggest a
similar approach. Accessory buildings must be located a minimum
of 75’ from both frontages on a comer lot.
Purpose:To recognize the impact of garage placement on the streetscape. The
regulations would only affect those neighborhoods with a pattern of
garage placement in the rear portion of the lot.
Proposed Regulation:Similar to that suggested in Palo Alto’s existing Single Family Design
Guidelines, the regulation would require an attached or detached
garage or carport be located in the rear portion of a property, as
follows:
If, on the subject property’s block, either 50% of existing garages on subject
property’s side of street, or 50% of existing garages on both sides of the street are
located within the rear portion of the lots, a new garage (either detached or attached)
would be required to be located in the rear portion of the subject property. In
addition, if the existing pattern includes alley access for garages, and the subject
property has alley access to the rear portion of the site: the garage access shall be off
the alley.
For properties requiring rear garage placement:
¯
Graphics:
Detached garages shall be located a minimum of 75’ from a front property line
and 20’ from a street "side" property line on comer lots. (Note: lfthe detached
garage is located within a side or rear yard setback, it must meet the R-1
Residence Zone’s Accessory Building regulations for daylight plane, maximum
height, separation from the main dwelling, rear yard area coverage, and use
restrictions. ~ote: For many corner lots, the lot width is not deep enough to
meet the 75’ minimum. Staff has approved numerous variance in this
circumstance. The proposed 20’ requirement ensures the accessory building
(garage) does not intrude beyond an adjacent homes’ minimum front setback).
Attached garages shall be located in the rear 50% of the house footprint depth.
Follow
CONTEXTUAL GARAGE PLACEMENT
~ora~es in Rear Portions of Lots: Standards for N~ighb~rhQQd Pattern an~I Garage Pla¢~ment
tLot 1
Front Haft
of Site
Rear Hatf
of Site
ALTERNATIVE
GARAGE
PLACEMENT:
Locata gazaga withln
back 50%of
house- footprint
50% Line
Lot 4
Block
AIIev
F
NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGE LOCATION PATTERN
50% or more of garages on your side ~ ar~ in the rea~ half of the lot, or
50% or mem ef ~ en beth-sides ofthestre~ are in th~ rea{ half ef lot.
Access ga~2e-f~m-atleyif SO~/~o~ mo~e.ef houses along at/e~, use4he~afley for access.
ATTACHED GARAGE PLACEMENT DETACHED GARAGE PLACEMENT
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
6.RESTRICTIONS
MINIMUM SIDE
Existing Regulation(s):
Purpose:
Proposed Regulation:
ON BAY WINDOW AND FIREPLACE PROJECTIONS INTO
YARDS
Bay windows and green house windows located on the ground
floor are permitted to extend into a-required front, rear, or side
yard two feet if they are cantilevered with no floor joists
projecting into the setback. (Note: The latter provision is an
interpretation and assumes the bay window does not include
"habitable area".)
To eliminate fireplace and overly large bay window projections into
interior side yards, thereby, mitigating privacy and building mass
impacts on adjoining properties.
Only greenhouse windows and oriel windows a maximum 6’ in
width, framed into the wall can project into the side setback.
Fireplace may extend a maximum of 2’ in depth and 5’ in width into
the side setback. (Note: Staff is preparing a definition of oriel
windows and standard for greenhouse window depth.)
7.PARKING SURFACES (DRIVEWAY MATERLALS)
Existing Regulation(s):The parking/driveway surface must be an impervious surface, such as
concrete, asphalt, or interlocking pavers 8’ in width. Gravel or
grasscrete is not permitted.
Purpose:Allow "Hollywood Strips" and other non-permeable surfaces to be
used for driveways in order to increase the landscaping and
permeable surface of yards.
Proposed Regulation.~The parking/driveway surface may be composed of permeable,
unpermeable, or a combination of materials, however, gravel or
similar loose materials are not permitted for driveways.
8.60% PERMEABLE SURFACES STANDARD IN FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA
Existing Regulation(s): None
Purpose:To increase water absorption of the yard surface, reduce run-off, and
limit the amount of hardscape surfaces facing the street.
Proposed Regulation: Sixty percent of the required front yard setback area shall be
permeable surface that allows water absorption directly to the soil
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
(i.e., without run-off). An exemption is allowed to ensure each lot an
impermeable 16’ driveway and 4’ walkway.
Analysis:Follows
60% Permeable Surface
Rectangular Lot; assume 20’ setback.
160 sqft. for a single lane, 8.5’ wide driveway in the front setback
320 sqfL for a double lane, 16’ wide driveway in the front setback
Lot Front Setback 60% Leftover,
Width Area, assuming Permeable for
~eet)20’ setback (sqf) area (sqf)driveway
~qff)
30 600 360 I 240
35 700 420 I 280
40 800 480 320
45 900 540 360
50 1000 600 400
55 ~100 660 44O
60 1200 720 480
65 1300 780 520
70 1400 840 560
Pie-shaped Lot; r = 40’; assume 20’ setback
Approx. 160 sqft. for a single lane, 8.5’ wide driveway in the front setback
Approx. 320 sqft. for a double lane, 1.6’ wide driveway in the frontsetback
Lot Width Front Setback 60% Leftover, for
(feet) Area, Permeable driveway
assuming 20’ area (sqft)(sqft)
setback (sqft)
26 650 390 |26O
28 700 420
t
280
30 750 450 300
32 800 480 320
34 850 510 340
36 900 540 360
37.5 937 562 375
38 950 57O 38O
40 -999 600 400
42 1049 630 420
44 1099 660 440
46 1149 690 460
48 1199 720 480
50 1249 750 500
-Number of Properties That C~uld Exceed.Lot Coverage if Full
allowed on the Ground Floor.
FAR is
JR1 i 7283 343 3614
[R1(650) i 280 2 185
~1(6~0)s !119 1
i
71
1FR1(743)I 361
i
7
I
643
[Rl(743~S i 122 0 138
[R1(929)1 92 42 869
IR1c1858/~o I o i 33
¯
ITotals ~8405 I .395 ~5587
1124O
467
191
1011
258
1003
33
184
14387
Based upon the existing floor ~rea ratio formula, 40% Lot Coverage equals the Maximum FAR on lots
that are 7,50~) square feet in size. Thus, if full FAR is allowed to be used on the ground floor
there would be 5,587 properties that potentially could exceed maximum lot coverage.
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
9.OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Existing Regulation(s):
Purpose:
Proposed Regulation:
None, however, a similar standard was suggested in the voluntary.
Single Family Residential Design Guidelines for Palo Alto.
To improve privacy between neighbors by limiting the location and
light beam direction of outdoor lighting. The standard would limit
the spread of outdoor lightonto neighboring properties and require
outdoor light sources to be shielded from direct view.
Direct light from outdoor fixtures will only be permitted to fall onto
the subject property’s walls, eaves, or yard areas. All outdoor
lighting fixtures will be required to have lens covers that diffuse the
light or reflectors that shield the lamp from view and direct the light
away from neighboring properties.
10.HEIGHT MEASUREMENT CLARIFICATION
Existing Regulation(s):Height in the R-1 zone district is defmed as the vertical distance
above grade for the highest point of a roof ridge or peak. The height
of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any
segment of the building. (Note: Maximum height in the R-1 zone
district is 30’).
Purpose:
Proposed Regulation:
Clarify how maximum building height is measured, especially in
consideration of modifications to natural grade. The intent is to define
building height on the natural topography of the site rather than
artificial topography created by earthwork and/or retaining walls.
Height in the R-1 zone district would be defined as the vertical
distance at any point on the site from the roof of the structure,
including wall parapets, to the grade directly below. Note: Eliminates
the current practice of measuring height at a point five feet from the
building. (See grade definition clarification)
11.GRADE DEFINITION CLARIFICATION
Current Regulation(s):"Grade" means the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation of the
finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk, excluding areas
where grade has been raised by means of a berm, planter box, or
similar landscape feature, unless required for drainage within the area
between the building and the property line, or when the property line
Revised for Committee of the. Whole 6/18/01
is more than five feet from the building, between the building and a
line five feet from the building. In building areas with natural slopes
in excess of ten percent (based on the difference between the lowest
and highest elevation on the subject site), "grade" shall mean the
adjacent ground elevation of the finished or existing grade, whichever
is lower.
Purpose:To Clarify the definition "grade" for the zoning ordinance,
particularly with consideration of how grade is used in height
measurement. The proposal is intended to emphasize natural grade
for zoning purposes.
Proposed Regulation:"Grade" means the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation, prior to
any earth moving, fill, or padding. In building areas with natural
slopes in excess of ten percent (based on the difference between the
lowest and highest elevation on the subject site), "grade" shall mean
the adjacent ground elevation of the finished or existing grade,
whichever is lower.
12. REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGES
Existing Regulation(s):Underground garages are not permitted in the R-1 zone district.
Purpose:The purpose of the proposal is to permit underground garages where
the driveway ramp, underground parking court, and underground
garage will not be visible from the street or neighboring property.
Proposed Regulation:Underground garages would be permitted in the R-1 zone district,
provided that:
a) The garage is located under the main dwelling in a manner that
meets the zoning standards applicable to a "basement".
b) No portion ofthe driveway ramp or any subterranean parking
court is located within a required front, rear, or side yard.
) The driveway ramp, subterranean parking court, and the garage
structure, including garage doors, are screened from view from
adjoining public and private property by garden walls, fences, and
landscaping. Screening landscaping between these facilities and
adjacent properties must be predominantly evergreen plants that
are fast growing and reach a minimum of 15 feet in height.
Staff Addendum:These development regulations are intended to mitigate adverse
impacts on adjacent neighbors and the streetscape. Staff is proposing
that a review of underground garages be deferred to the Zoning
Ordinance Update program.
SECTION 5
OTHER ISSUES
Revised for Committee of the Whole 6/18/01
Other Issues - Comments and Update
Recycling of Building Materials
The Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning and Community
Environment are working together to create a Construction and Demolition Debris
Diversion Plan. The purpose of the plan is to divert demolitionand construction (C&D)
debris from landfills. The C&D Diversion Plan proposes a requirement to allow a ten day
period, prior to demolition, to allow a licensed salvager the opportunity to salvage prior to
landfilling.
Noise Generators
The Police Department has taken the lead on amendments to the noise ordinance
including a reduction in hours and prohibition on construction activity on Sundays and
holidays in residential neighborhoods. Noise generators, such as pool equipment and air
conditioners~ were also an area of particular concern for the Advisory Group and staff is
continuing to work on this issue.
Tree Preservation Ordinance
There has been interest expressed by the Advisory Group and from residents at the
Community Forums in the City’s tree protection program. On January 22, 2001, the City
Council adopted a revised Tree Preservation Ordinance. The city has a new Website that
includes information on this ordinance. The Website address is www.ci _ty.palo-
alto.ca.us/tree ordinance, or you can simply log on to the City’s web page, the Tree
Protection Ordinance is listed as a special site as is the Comprehensive Zoning Code
Update program.
Single Story Combining District
Two issues have been raised regarding the single story overlay district. One proposal is
to allow a single story combing district to determine the maximum height as part of the
rezoning (e.g., twelve rather than seventeen feet). As well, concern has been expressed
about height restrictions for those homes located in both a flood zone and a single story
combining district. At Council’s direction, both issues could be reviewed as part of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update.
Special Design Standards
Interest has been expressed in special design standards for neighborhoods that could
amend or exceed the proposed Citywide Guidelines. As well, at Counci! direction, this
issue could be reviewed as part of the Com 9rehensive Zoning Ordinance Update.
SECTION 6
BACKGROUND
Glossary
Future of Single Family Neighborhoods
2"d Community Forum - August 29.. 2000
Building Envelope: Defined by side y~d, front and rearyard daylight planes and
located within the buildable area asdefined by the setbacks.
¯Daylight Plane: A height limitation that when combined with the maximum height limit,
defines.the building envelope.
Discretionary Action (Devdopment Review): An action taken by a board or
commission which does not require approval based on meeting a set of regulations, but
rather the exercise of judgement and discretion.
Envelope: The three-dimensional spatial configuration of a buildimg’s volume and mass.
Floor Area Ratio (’FAR): A measurement expressed as a ratio of thehouse size to the lot
size which regulates the maximdm size of a house and is intended to limit the bulk and
mass of the structure.
Grade, Finished: The revised topography that results from proposed construction, cut or
fill
Grad~, Natural: The existing grade prior to construction, cut or fill on a property.
Lot Coverage: Limits the amount of lot area that can be covered by structures, excluding
such features as paving or landscaping (35% of lot area unless located in a single story
combining district).
Massing: The appearance of heaviness or weight or lack thereof.
Ministerial Action (Development Review): In response to a specified set of rules ratiier
than an exercise of judgement or discretion.
Perraeable Surface: A surface allows water (liquid) to pass through.
Pitch (roof): The slope of a roof, c0mmonIy expressed in inches of vertical rise per foot
of horizontal run.
Setback: An area adjacentto each property hue that restricts the location of structures
on a property. When combined, they define the buildable area.
Single Story Height Combining District: A zone district that allows modification to the
site development regulations of the R-1 zone district to permit a maximum height of
seventeen feet and a maximum building site coverage of forty percent.
Streetseape: A "streetscape" may be composed of a number of elements in the ~on~ of
our homes, the more.public domain, including front yard, sidewalk, street trees, fences,
street, curb, street lights, planting st6ps, and driveways which all contribute to our
experience as we walk or drive down the street. ¯ -
Zoning Ordinance: Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Directions for the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group
Tour - February, 2000
The tour begins at City Hall and should take approximately one and one-half hours,
excluding additional time for discussion or stops along the way.
Exit City Hall at Ramona Street
Left on Ramona Street
Right on Addition Avenue
Left on Emerson Street
Left on Lincoln Avenue (Professorville Historic District - see Zoning Map for boundaries)
Right on Waverley Street (continue across Embarcadero Road)
Left on Tennyson Avenue
Right on Webster Street .
Left on Seale Avenue
Right on Waverley Street
Left on Tennyson Avenue
Right on Alma Street
Left on Churchill Avenue (Although not part of the tour, you may wish to take a brief
side trip through the Southgate neighborhood, there are several interesting new homes
and remodels) .
¯Left on E1 Camino Real (proceed to College Terr~ace Neighborhood)
¯Right on Stanford Avenue
¯Left on Oberlin Street
¯Left on College Avenue
¯Right on Yale Street
¯Left on California Avenue
¯Right on E1 Camino Real (proceed to Barron Park Neighborhood)
¯Right on Matadero Avenue
¯Left on Josina Avenue (before bridge)
¯Right on Ban’on Avenue ¯
¯Left on E1 Centro Street
¯Left on Paul Avenue (request for Single Story Overlay District has been submitted)
¯Right on La Donna Street
¯Right on Los Robles
¯Left on Amaranta Avenue
¯Right on Maybell Avenue
¯Left on Donald Drive (Green Acres II neighborhood)
¯Left on A_rastadero and continue across E!Camino Real
¯Left on Alma Street
¯Right on Loma Verde Avenue
¯Right on South Court (continue across East Meadow, Left on Redwood Circle, Left
on Carlson, Left on Charleston Road), or (Left on East Meadow, Right on
Middlefield Road, Left on Charleston Road)
¯Left on Grove Avenue (2nd Left past Middlefleld Road)
¯Right on Gailen Avenue (Single StOry Overlay District)
¯Left on Louis Road
¯Left on East Meadow
¯Left on Ortega Court (and out) (Note: former school site)
¯Right on Ross Road ".
¯Left on Stone Lane (and out)
¯Right on Ames Avenue
¯Left on Louis Road (Note: padding required for flood plain)
¯ " Right on Colorado Avenue
¯ Left on Greer (and continue across Embarcadero Road) (Note: you may wish to mm
Right on Moreno Avenue and out)
¯Right on Ivy Lane, Left on Wildwood and back to Greer (request. for Single Story
Overlay District has been submitted)
¯Right on Greer
¯Left on Edgewood Drive, continue to Southwood
¯Left on Southwood
¯Left on Center Drive
¯Right on Channing Avenue
¯Left on Melville .
¯Right on Guinda Street
¯Left on Hamilton Avenue and back to City Hall, or continue on Guinda, Left on
Lytton Avenue, Right on Middlefield Road,Left on Everett Avenue, Right on
Cowper, Left on Palo Alto Avenue, Left on Waverley Street and back to City Hall
2
The City of
Palo A1 to
Future of Single-Family
Neighborhoods
Working Group Tour
(February 2000)
This map is a product
of the
City of Palo Alto
o’ lsoo’ 3ooo’
M E MORANDUM
7
DA~’E:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 18, 1998
Council Colleagues.
Councilmembers Sandy Eakins, Dena Mossar, Lanie
Wheeler
The Future of Residential Structures in Palo Alto
As we have listened to the last 18 months of public input, it is clear that Paio Altans care
deeply and passionately about the neighborhoods in which they live and/or make their
livings.
During the fail of 1997 a group of some.three dozen citizens, most of whom have played
active roles in the communitydebate, met both as a group and in subcommittees to
attempt - not to resolve the issue - but to lay the most necessary of foundations for a
vigorous and intelligent public discourse: the identification and definition of =the
problem" in regard to the evolution of our residential neighborhoods. The group was
facilitated by John Northway and Annette Glanckopf Ashton. Members of the City’s
Planning staff, including Ken Schreiber, Lisa Grote and Barbara Judy, rendered
assistance to the group by acting as resource specialists.. The attached report lists all
the participants and represents the group’s work product.
It is.appropriatethat the report is presented to the Council at this timeas we begin to
make policy decisions regarding permanent histodc preservation regulations. It is
evident that part of the ~ommunity’s and Council’s difficulties with the interim historic
regulations stem from the mixing of the concepts of historic preservation and retention of
neighborhood character. Regardiess of the divergent personal views expressed by
¯ group members, there was clear agreement on ~wo things:
1. the need to separate the discussion of the historic ordinance from R-1 design-._.
issues tempered with
2. the recognition ~hat both issues must be explored and addressed within a
reasonable time frame in Order to achieve equity among Various homeowners and to
avoid both unintended and negative consequences for some neighborhoods.
The new histodc ordinance should be in p!ace by the end of this fiscal year. We would,
therefore, i’ecommend and ask.our colleagues to support a motion to direct staff to
incorporate in the Planning Department Work Plan for 1998-1999 potential changes to
our regulations to address the design and quality of our residential neighborhoods.
Attachments
2
¯ -Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo.Alto, February 19, 1998
Introduction: Change or Conserve?
As the juggernaut of change rolls through P.alo Alto’s stable neighborhoods, newer,
larger and costlier homes seem to spring up across the street, down the ~block and
next door at a rate not seen here since the 1950’s. Older, smaller and more modest
dwellings that for years have been part of our town’s character are yielding one a_~r
another to the forces of good economic times, escalating family preferences and the
growing lure of Palo Alto itself.
Although an interim ordinance meant to protect historic houses is on the books, it is
under attack by some membersof the co.mmlmity for diverse reasons and is being
revised. In addition, its rules appear to have had the unintended, but not unforeseen
consequence of making redevelopment in post-1940 neighborhoods even more
tempting. Complaints about 10st privacy, structures that don~t belong and wrecked
neighborhoods have intensified.
A number of new and established residents view this trend with great alarm. They
think we are losing the essence of What makes Palo Alto a desirable place to live.
But objections must be well defined before they can be evaluated rationally and
transformed into policy. To this end, neighborhood groups from College Terrace,
Barton Park, Crescent Park, Charleston Meadows, University South, Midtown and
elsewhere have met informally Over the past few years to pu~e over the issues and
propose actions to address their concerns. ..
After a hvely, well-attended meeting of the Midtown Residents’ Association on the
subject in March 1997, a small group of concerned homeowners set up a private
discussion forum to share some grievances about swift residential growth and change
in their relatively young neighborhood. From this seed grew the idea for a process to
develop a new, citywide single-family residential policy that might guide and shape.
the inexorable transformation of Palo Alto and soften its impact on bystanders.
The first step in the expanded process was to .identify the .underlying problems of
residential change so they canbe addressed. Five structured two-hour roundtable
1
Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998
discussions were planned and pulled together by Annette Glauckopf Ashton, John
NorthwaY and Susan Frank. Thirty-six invited "stakeholders" attended, including
homeowners, architects, renters, builders, planners, housing advocates, historical
preservationists, attorneys and members of the City Council, Planning Commission,
Architecttual Review Board, I-iiStorical Resources Board, and city staff. Although
the stakeholders came fi’oma variety of groups,.we spoke for ourselves, not for any
organization..We needed¯ to know what each individual really thinks.
.2
Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998
The Problem: It’s All.the ~Way You Look atlt
We called the sessions "The Future of Residential Structures in PaloAlto." After
each participant had an. opp0rtutfity.to State the major problems from her or ~
personal viewpoint, we made an effort to organize the initial crmments into some
reasonable order. It became obvious that one meaning~ way to analyze the issues is
as a clash between two perspectives, conservation and change.
The group decided to exclude those issues surrounding the current dialogue on
historic preservation in Palo Alto. Within the two umbrella concepts CONSERVE
and CHANGE, the stakeholders identified five broad groupings of other issues about
residential s~uctures: Economic Forces, Social and Emotional Factors, Architecture
and Design~ Property Rights and Neighborhood Chamcter~ Over several sessions, we
organized and refined our concerns and opinions into these five categories. Lists of
problem statements took form. In the final version .we incorporated points about
Neighborhood Character into the other categories because the pervasive theme of
~’neighborhood" ran through nearly every issue.
On the le~ side of each list is the viewpoint of those who, for many valid reasons,
want or need to CONSERVE their existing environment; they tend to use vocabulary
like "rescue," "care for," "strengthen," "retain," "protect," "save~" "remodel." On
the right side is the viewpoint of those who, for different but equally valid reasons,
want or need to CHANGE residential structures or even entire neighborhoods; they
tend to use terms-like "expand," "rebuild,,’ "tear down," ’,develop," "improve,"
"redesign." Although this approach of posing two dueling ideologies was somewhat
arbitrary, it did help us to dissect a complicated situation.
The problem stat .ements that follow represent our initial efforts to take a closer look
at residential development in Palo Alto. Plenty of overlap, contradictions, omissions,
paradoxes and inconsistencies remain to be sorted out. Many observations appear
moderate; but some are deh’berately stated in the extreme, because such extreme
positions are actually taken or heard daily by citizens of Palo Alto and reflect
perceptions about the quality of life here. Most of us stand somewhere on the
3
Final Draft:The Future of Residential structures
in Paio Alto .- February 19, 1998
continuum between extremes; but we believe that understanding the entire range.of
perspectives will help Palo Altans and our policy makers to reconcile some. of our
differences and learn to accept the rest.
We hav~ to make e!ear that many of us at the sessions di~. agi’eed with some of the
problem statements proposed by others. That was jugt the point: consensus may be
difficult to achieve. However,. our problem-definition process showed that a frank
exchange of divergent viewpoints often leads to mutual understan .din.g and respect. If
we can agree on the questions and share fundamental goals, we can. resolve even the
most contentious issues. Palo Altans do value the goal of continuing to live in
neighborhood harmony and will shape a workable plan to reduce casualties in the
¯ expan, ding battle between Conservation and change.
4
Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998
Problem Statements About ECONOMIC FORCES
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer.
Or Need to CONSERVE:
Fierce demand is transforming
modest and livable Palo .Alto neigh-
borhoods into battlegrounds for
development and quick profits at
the expense of existing residents.
Smaller, less costly homes are
being replaced by larger, more
costly ones, insidiously changing
the economic profile of the city and
raising concerns that Palo Altans
and their children may be priced
out of their home town.
Because of huge financial incentivesl
even some long-time residents feel
pressure to rebuild comfortable
smaller residences, trade up or move
out of Palo Alto:
Stunning, speedy appreciation of
property has raised the stakesfor
developers, who adversely impact
neighborhoods with structures of
inappropriate scale and design.
The rush for gains is leading to con-
struction of poorly designed houses,
¯ using cheap materials and shoddy.
workmanship..
The overused tear-down Or "scrape"
practice creates landfill, uses up
resources and energy, wipes out
affordable housing and erases long-
standing neighborhood contexts.
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer
Or Need to CHANGE:
Recently,. builders and developers
have been criticized unjustly for
providing the kind of housing Paio
Altans want to .live in now.
Groundless worries about uncon-
trollable personal matters tend to
threaten the housing market’s
free evolution and our Palo Alto
economy’s continued growth and
prosperity.
Avery large percentage of Palo
Altans° net worth is tied up in
their homes, so they need to
remain free to preserve or even
increase their assets.
some Paio Alto neighborhoods
haven’t achieved their economic
potential because they haven’t
kept up with Current cod~, safety
and design standards.
Responsible, careful developers
and builders have been blamed
for the excesses of a few bad
actors.
Several inefficient, unwieldy
city requirements promote tear-
downs, increase costs and
housing pdces and frustrate
even modest reconstruction.
Final-Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Pale Alto - February .19, 1998
Problem Statements About
SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FACTORS ..
From the Viewpoint
Of Those.Who Prefer.
Or Need to CONSERVE:
Many new structures fill the entire
building envelope and seem to be
built without concern for others’ ¯
pdvacy, getting new occupants off
to a poorstart .with their neighbors.
The abrupt and constant pace of
new construction gives neighbors
little 0pportunityto evaluate and
digest the changes and makes
them insecure about the future of
their, surroundings.
Bulky and over-designed new
residences shake the crucial ~
elements of "home," such as
human scale, neighborly connec-
tions, personal privacy, aesthetic
harmony and social stability.
Prevailing neighborhood character
and atmosphere are. being sacri-
ficed to the financial¯ interests of.
absentee developers and owners.
Because new or replacement homes
are often large and expensive, renters,
non-professionals, students,, young
couples, seniors and people of modest
means are being pushed or left out,
skewing the social mix.
Major changes in familiar.designs,
architecture, lot coverage, house size
or mass, public space design or land-
scaping cause the neighbors personal
and potentially financial distress.
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer
Or Need to CHANGE:
A form of closed-mindedness
is making neighbors less toler-
ant of new structures and new
residents, undermining the core
¯ sense of community
Rebuilding and redevelopment are
causing unwarranted anxiety; they
are necessary and desirable to
prevent obsolescence, eliminate
eyesores¯ and expand Pale Alto’s
housing inventory.
Many existing homes lackspace
or design for non-traditional 21 st
Century alternatives, like media
areas, home offices and the capa-
city for novel-families or multiple
careers, vehicles and age levels.
Some residents don’t realize that
much of the new construction is
ordered by their own neighbors,
who respect their surroundings..
The maxim that Palo Alto needs a
vadety of housing options has
been misinterpreted by some
to mean that new or large homes
have no justifiable place in our
neighborhoods. -
Most Pal0Alto neighborhoods
have always varied wi. "thin their
boundaries, but it now appears
that uniformity and consistency.
have become more fashionable.
6
¯ Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998
Problem Statements About ¯
ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer
Or Need to CONSERVE:
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer
Or Need to CHANGE:
7
Although there is no universally
accepted standard of good design
in Palo Alto, never before have so
many houses been thought by so
many neighbors to be ug!y, bloated,
glitzy or simply intrusive.
Many Palo Altans believe that most
new houses, especially those built
for specUlation, lack reasonable size,
contextual scale, appropriate appear-
ance, durable craftsmanship or con-
cem for neighbors’ light and privacy.
Even some otherwise well~esigned
and executed houses have become
eyesores because they are out of
proportion to or inconsistent with the
style of existing nearby structures.
Facades designed for internal privacy,
¯ combined with excessive height, mass
and lot coverage, shut out the rest of
the neighborhood like fortresses.
New landscaping is being exaggerated
and overdone or uses far too many
exotic trees, shrubs and ground covers
incompatible with the neighborhood.
In the scramble to maximize returns
via square feet, eccentric rooflines,
setback exemptions, high floor area
ratios, tall entries and odd window size,
shape andlocation have spawned a
new breed of architectural monstrosity.
Neighbors tend tocompare new
or redesigned houses to existing
structures, as if there were some
fixed point in time when buildings
were architecturally perfect and
should never evolve further.
Because of a few bad houses,
the entire work product of builders
- most of it carefully.designed, .
using excellent, very durable
craftsmanship and good quality
rnatedals - has.been scorned.
Well-educated, affluent clients
often ask architects to create
distinctive, unconventional or
"statement" houses for their lots
in established neighborhoods.
Some residents don’t accept their
new neighbors’ social, cultural_, or
personal preferences for privacy
and fully enclosed living spaces.
.New landscape design is personal
and taste-driven,, but given time it
matures, endches the environment
and mitigates construction shock.
Sometimesexisting residents.
characterize houses that don’t
suit their personal tastes as "bad,"
choosing to ignore the fact that
"every ugly house has a proud
owner."
Final:Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February. 19, 1998
Problem Statements About
PROPERTY RIGHTS
From the Viewpoint
Of Those Who Prefer
Or Need to CONSERVE:
Many residential lots are being.
developed tothe technical.maxi-
mum, infringing on highly valu-
" able dghts of adjoining properties
to light, .privacy, beauty and good
neighborhood ambiance.
Palo Aito’s lenient zoning, building
and design standards make it too
easy to build anyhouse people can
afford, over time transforming our
city into one more affluent enclave.
Property owners Who build outland-
ish, excessively costly houses tempt
Stable neighbors to expand or move
away, either to realize property values
or to rejoin a balanced community.
Current and prospective regulations
condone violating most Palo Aitans’
norms of aesthetics and taste.
Residential builders and developers
haven’t taken community preferences
and interests, into account voluntarily
when planning property use and
improvements.
Palo ~Alto’s building ordinances.
¯ are dddled with loopholes and
exceptions, allowing some older
neighborhoods to deteriorate by
becoming overbuilt, unfriendly,
characterless and unaffordable.
Fr.om the Viewpoint
Of those Who Prefer
Or Need to CHANGE:
Some property owners are being
discouraged from buildingto the
extent allowed by existing laws,
thus losing the expected use of
their lots and part of t.he value of
their properties.
Palo Aito’s restrictive zoning and
building laws, combined with
neighborhood design pressures,
thwart diversity, creativity and
personal freedom.
Property owners hindered from
improving their homes feel cor-
nered and move away to either
more expensive or less desirable
areas, sacrificing value.
Current and prospective regula-
tions discourage Palo Altans from
experimenting with designs.
Unlike some .other cities, Paio
Alto doesn’t use its own funds to
compensate property owners for
community mandated r.estdctions
on their classical property rights.
Palo Alto’s building, ordinances
are overly restrictive and complex,
making even modest improve-
ments economically infeasible
and causing some property to
deteriorate by stagnation.
8
Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo. Alto - February 19, 1998
Participants and .....Affiliation
-.--
"~tKen Alsman Professorvilte Resident; Ret. Dir. of Econ. Dev., , View
Annette G. Ashton
Ann Barbee.
John Barton
Pat Burr
Tony Carrasco
Phyllis. Cassel
Lynn Chiapella
Dick Clark
Howard Chureher
Susan 17rank
Sylvia Gartner
Pria Graves
Barbara Gross
K~ren Holman
Leannah Hunt
Bob Moss
Dena Mossar
Carol Murden
John Northway.
Bonnie Packer
Bob Peterson
Marlene Prendergast
Emily Renzel
Dave Ross
Kathy Sehmidt
Micki Schneider
Linda Scott
¯ George stem
Judith Wasserman AIA
Lanie Wheeler
Shirley Wilson
Midtown Resident
Professorvflle Resident: Former Member, HRB
P.A_ School Board Member; Architect
University Sotah Neighborhood Group
Fmr. Member, Planning Commission and ARB.; Architect
Planning Commissioner
Midtown Resident
Midtown Resident
Developer
CEO, P.A. Chamber of commerce
Mi&own Resident
College Terrace Resident
Board Member, P.A_ Chamber of Commerce
Crescent Park Resident; Attorney ¯
Crescent ParkResident; PAST
President, Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Barron Park Resident
Professorville Resident; Member, P.A. City Council
Crescent Park Resident; t-IRB
Scale; Fmr.Mbr. Plauning Commission and ARB; Architect
Palo Verde Resident
Architect; Member ARB
Crescent Park Resident; Ex. Dir.,P_A. Housing Corp.
CrescentPark Resident; Fmr. Member,.P.A. City Council.
Midtown Resident; Former Member, ARB
Planning Commissioner; Architect
¯ Crescent Park Resident; Member, P.A. City Council
Professorville Resident; Former HRB
Midtown Resident; Attorney
Midtown Resident; Public Arts Commission; Architect
Greenmeadow Resident;.Member, P.A. City Council
Crescent Park Resident; Former Member, ARB; Architect
9
Final Draft:The Future of Residential Structures
in Palo Alto - February 19, 1998.
City. Staff Resource Group
Lisa Grote
Barbara Judy
Ken Schrieber
Zoning Administrator, City of Palo Alto
Preservation Architect;~ Consultant, City of Palo Alto
Planning Director, City of Palo Alto
10
Comparison of Potential Side Setbacks Based on
Percentage (20% and 25%) of Lot Width
Assumes Standard R-1 Zoning
Width
of Lot
(feet)
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Number of
R-1 Lots~ at this
width
2,806
1,133
2,854.
1,734
1 659
1,094
734
480
Greater than 85’ =
1,252
Setbacks
(feet)z
@20%
10’
11’
12’
13’
14’
15’
16’
17’
18’
19’
20’
Setbacks
(feet)3
@25%
12.5
13.75
15
"16.25
17.5
18.75
20
21.25
22.5
23.75
25
House
Width4
(feet)
38
41
45
49
53.
56
60
64
68
71
75
Current R-1 Zone District Setbacks
Zone District
R-1 (650)
R-1 (743)
R-1 (929)
R-1 (1858)
Sq. Ft.
6,000
7,000
8,000
10,000
20,000
Front Rear Interior Side
20’20’6’
20’20’8’
20’20’8’
20’20’8’
20’20’8’
Street Side
16’
16’
16’
16’
16’
t Note: Data basedon MetroScan using Access; although the comparativ.e values are useful, the absolute
numbers should be viewed with discretion. Note: 477 lots <25’, 345 lots ,<45’2 Decreases minimum side setback for all lots less than 60’ in width and increases the side setback for all
lots greater than 60’.3 Increases side setbacks incrementally by 1.25’ above the existing R-1 standard setback of 6’ for all lot
widths. ..4 House width is "rounded up", and represents buildable width with 25% setback
S:\PLANWLADIV’~-I RcviewW,-I Draft R¢commendations~Binder Graphics~Side Setbacks Comparing Percentage of Lot Width at
20.doe