HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-17 City Council (18)TO:
City of Palo Alto
C’ty Maria, ger’s RepoI
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:APRIL 17, 2000 CMR:210:00
SUBJECT:3655 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
MANAGER’S APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
SECOND RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.ZONE DISTRICT:
R-1(743). FILE NUMBER 99-UP-39.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council grant the appeal and deny the
Planning Manager’s original use permit approval.
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Manager’s
original use permit approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to construct a new 832-square-foot, second residential unit on a
12,95,8-square-foot, comer lot located in an established residential district, which is zoned
Single Family Residential R-1 (743). The proposed second residential unit meets the site
development requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). A use permit is
required to establish a second residential dwelling unit in the R-1(743) zone.
BOARD/COMMIssION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission reviewed the project on February 23, 2000 (See attachments A
and B for the Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes, respectively). The
applicant was not represented at the Planning Commission hearing. The Commissioners
received public testimony from several neighbors of the project site. The neighbors
stated concerns relating to high volumes of traffic on Middlefield Road and East Meadow
Drive, bicycle and pedestrian safety issues, and privacy issues. The neighbors were also
concerned that the proposed cottage will not be compatible with the surrounding single
family neighborhood.
In addition, the neighbors stated that the proposed secondary dwelling unit would
exacerbate longstanding problems between the neighbors and the project applicants and
CMR:210:00 Page 1 of 6
members of their family who are reported to be subject to certain disabilities. They
requested that any use permit require twenty-four hour supervision of residents of the
cottage. After consulting with the City Attorney’s office, staff determined that these
issues were not a lawful basis for denying a use permit application, and that the use
permit could not be conditioned on any sort of supervision of prospective residents. The
use permit decision must be made based upon the attributes of the property involved, not
of the individuals who own it or may live there.
After deliberating, the Planning Commission recommended granting the appeal and
denial of the use permit application. The Planning Commission found that the required
Use Permit findings for approval of the project could not be made. Draft findings
reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation for denial of the project are
attached to this report (Attachment D).
The Planning Commission’s findings and staff’s response to each finding follow:
Use Permit Finding # 1: "The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience."
The Planning Commission found that the proposed second unit would be detrimental to
area parking and traffic circulation and have an adverse impact on the neighboring
home’s privacy. The Planning Commission stated that the proposed parking plan, which
uses a single driveway with parking spaces on either side of the existing garage, was
awkward and potentially dangerous. It was concerned that residents of the main house
and cottage would be required to back out onto East Meadow Drive. The Planning
Commission ,found that the awkwardness of the layout might lead the residents and
guests at .3655 Middlefield Road to park on the street in the front of the property, leading
to a reduction in visibility and interference with the safe flow of traffic. The Commission
also concluded that the cottage would adversely impact the appellant’s privacy because
the bedroom windows are. full sized and face the appellants’ side property line. A second
story was added by the appellants in 1986, but a principal privacy concern was for their
first floor, where their bedrooms are located.
Staff Response: The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires that all parking for a
secondary dwelling use a driveway shared with the primary residence. Therefore, the
location of the existing garage on Middlefield Road determined the location of the
parking for the area and its design characteristics. This plan, including the driveway
configuration, was reviewed in detail by the Transportation Division of the Department
of Planning and Community Environment prior to the Zoning Administrator’s hearing
and was found to be safe and adequate for the intended use.
On-street parking adjacent to the site is restricted by no parking zones on Middlefield
Road and by red zones on East Meadow. These restricted parking zones result in
CMR:210:00 Page 2 of 6
increased, and adequate, visibility for cars exiting or entering the subject property. They
also prevent the applicants and their guests, as well as other members of the public, from
parking in a way that will interfere with visibility and safe traffic flow. Driveways
requiring residents to back out onto the public street are common in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the location of the proposed second unit and the conditions of approval
provide adequate distance between the cottage and neighboring properties. The proposed
cottage is a single-story structure with no habitable space and no windows above the
ground floor. There is no significant difference in grade between the lots. The proposed
cottage is located 8 feet from the interior side property line and approximately 16 feet
from the closest residence, the appellant’s home on East Meadow Drive. The nearest
residence on Middlefield Road is approximately 30 feet away.
As a condition of approval, the use permit required the project applicant to install a 7-foot
high, solid wood fence and significant landscaping between the cottage and the houses at
714 East Meadow and 3669 Middefield Road. The dominant development pattern in the
area is single-story. -The appellants added a second story to their home at 714 East
Meadow, which is stepped back from the side property line. Staff believes that the
required fencing and landscaping will adequately mitigate any privacy impacts the
cottage may have on the directly adjacent neighbors. While altering the fenestration by
requiring smaller or higher windows in the cottage might increase the privacy of the
cottage’s occupants, it would not; in the opinion of staff, provide the neighbors additional
privacy. The Planning Commission suggested reversing the cottage floor plan.
However, reversing the floor plan would result in the noisiest rooms, kitchen and living
room, being closest to the neighbor’s property line.
Use Permit Finding #2: "The proposed use will be located in a manner in accord with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code."
The Planning Commission believed that the proposed secondary dwelling unit did not
meet Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12, which states that the City should "Preserve the
character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be
compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures." The Planning Commission
believed that the proposed secondary dwelling unit would not fit with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood and lacked the architectural character to be compatible with
the "farmhouse" style of the primary dwelling. The Planning Commission believed that
the second unit’s design and parking configuration as proposed did not preserve the
character of the surrounding neighborhood because of the awkward parking configuration
and the lack of design compatibility between the structures on the site.
Staff Response: Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal H-1 and the related policies
encourage creation ofsecond dwelling units on suitable sites in single-family districts.
The City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan do not mandate design
review for secondary dwelling units. Secondary dwelling units are limited to larger lots.
CMR:210:00 Page 3 of 6
They are reviewed for general compatibility with the main residence and the
neighborhood. Staff has consistently interpreted this to mean compatibility with the paint
colors, building materials and roof mass of the primary dwelling unit and surrounding
structures.
The existing garage and main house at 3655 Middlefield Road are simple, single story,
wood frame structures in a neighborhood of similar single family homes. The new second
unit would maintain this one story character. The conditions of approval require the
cottage roof to be hipped rather than gabled to be consistent with the main house. As
proposed, the second unit would be constructed of wood and would be painted and roofed
to match the existing residence. The proposed secondary dwelling unit will also be
screened from the street by the existing garage, the main residence, the required fencing
and additional landscaping.
The proposed driveway and parking are not inconsistent with the neighborhood. The
majority of the homes in the immediate area also have two :car garages with large paved
driveway areas for access and many homes have extended paved areas to provide
additional uncovered parking. Virtually all of these parking areas require vehicles to back
out of the designated driveway across the sidewalk and into the travel lane of the public
street. The proposal incorporates a similar parking design to access the required parking,
and therefore, will be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. While removal and
relocation of the existing garage would permit a better parking plan, it would also
substantially increase the costs of the project. Having concluded thatthe proposed plan
had no detrimental impact and was consistent with existing development, staff has no
basis for imposing such a requirement.
Lastly, the secondary dwelling unit meets all of the applicable requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance with regard to height, floor area, required parking and setbacks. The subject
lot, at 12,958 square feet in size, would permit as a matter of right a 4,637-square-foot,
two-story house with a minimum of one covered and one uncovered parking space. If the
current application is approved, the lot would still have less than 3,000 square feet ~f
floor area, including the existing 1,167-square-foot house, the existing 421-square-foot
garage and the proposed 832-square-foot cottage.
Additional information pertaining to staff’s original decision can be found in the Planning
Commission staff report dated February 23, 2000 (See Attachment A).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Since the 1998 amendments to the federal Fair Housing Laws, cities have a duty to make
reasonable accommodations in the application of their zoning rules for housing for
individuals with disabilities. If reasonable accommodations are not made, the City may
be in violation of the law even if there is no discriminatory intent or impact. In this case,
applicants have stated that the intended use of the second unit is for family members with
disabilities. In their petition urging denial of the use permit, local residents included an
CMR:210:00 Page 4 of 6
objection to the proposed use of the property as a dwelling for "special needs adults."
They stated that ,~;his would be unsafefor the residents and damaging to the neighborhood
because of a history of past disruptive incidents. Appellants’ counsel, when addrbssing
the Planning and Transportation Commission, stated that it was appropriate for the City,
when deciding whether a use permit should be issued for a cottage, to consider:
"the disruptive circumstances that have existed for some fifteeri years by
my clients’ experience of the special needs children and in some cases
special needs adults who are ... the adoptive children of the Ngs .... (We)
believe the door is wide open to consider these problems and not approve a
use permit which by its own terms will permit apparently the unsupervised
living in this residence of these special needs adults. We are not
complaining about special needs adults in any way but we do feel there is a
long history of problems with the neighbors, that it would be inappropriate
to turn a blind eye to that and simply permit this condition to spread to
additional residences .... "
Planning and Transportation Commission
minutes, page 3-4.
In correspondence with the City and in testimony before the commission, the appellants
and neighbors described the disruptions in more detail. The applicants, in their
correspondence, confirm that their intended use of the property is to house their adult
children, some of whom have special needs. (The correspondence is in Attachment C.)
The Planning and Transportation Commission was advised that the use permit may not be
denied, or conditioned, on the basis of the behavior of an applicant’s family, or the
disabilities of individuals who may live in a home in the future. The use permit is not
issued to a particular applicant, but for a particular piece of property. It does not
determine who may lawfully live there, and in granting or denying the permit, the City
may.not consider the personal characteristics of the applicant or the proposed residents.
The Planning Commission clearly stated that its recommendation for denial of the use
permit was made without regard to testimony about conflicts between the applicants and
the neighborhood or special needs of members of the applicants’ family.
However, the fact that this application is explicitly for housing that will accommodate
individuals with disabilities limits the City’s discretion to deny the use permit. Numerous
provisions of state and federal law prohibit exclusion of housing for individuals with
disabilities from a single-family neighborhood. Under both the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act and the federal Fair Housing Act, cities are forbidden from
discriminating against individuals with physical or mental handicaps. In addition, cities
have an affirmative duty to make "reasonable accommodations" for housing for people
with disabilities. This project cannot be held to higher standards than other applications
for second units in the City. If problems with the proposal can be alleviated by
imposition of conditions instead of denial, this should be done.
CMR:210:00 Page 5 of 6
Neighbors commenting on the application stressed that they bore no ill will towards
disabled individuals. However, many of the objections to this use permit were phrased as
objections to the manner in which disabled individuals now live in the neighborhood.
These statements will be treated by a court as evidence of bias in the community. When
reviewing denial of a .use permit after such testimony, courts may infer illegal
discriminatory intent on the part of the City.. Therefore, if the Council wishes to deny the
use permit for non-discriminatory reasons, it is important (1) to have a detailed and
explicit statement of the particular facts and circumstances leading to the denial; (2) to
demonstrate that this application has not been held to a higher standard than other
applications for second units that did not propose to house disabled individuals; and (3)
to conclude that denial of the permit will not have an adverse impact on the provision of
housing for individuals with disabilities in Palo Alto.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project was determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 23, 2000 (with Attachments)
B. Planning Commission minutes for meeting of February 23, 2000
C. Letters received at the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission meetings
D. Draft Findings for denial based on the Planning Commission recommendation
E. Plans (Council Members only)
PREPARED BY: Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:210:00 Page 6 of 6
Attachment A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:.
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
February23,2000
3655 Middlefield Road (File No. 99-UP-39): Appeal by Rick and
Karen Jew et.al, of the Planning Manager’s approval of a Use Permit
to construct a second residential dwelling trait. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of, the California
Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: R- 1 (743).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the
appeal and upholding of the original Use Permit approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant desires to construct a new 832 square foot, second residential unit on a corner
lot located in an established residential district which is zoned Single Family Residential R-
1 (743). The proposed second residential unit meets the site development requirements of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). A Use Permit is required to establish a second
residential dwelling unit in the R-1(743) zone.
The Planning Manager conducted a public hearing to consider this application on November
4, 1999. Several neighbors immediately adjacent to the site and across the street spoke
against the proposal citing concerns about the establishment of the proposed second
residential unit, privacy issues, noise issues, and a disruption of the single family character
of the neighborhood. On November 22, 1999 the Planning Manager approved the Use
Permit and made the required findings for that approval (See Attachment B).
S:/Plan/Pladiv [ PCSR/3655Mdfld.sr Page 1
7
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes
of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Mtmieipal .Code. The use is consistent with Land Use and
Community Design Elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Policies L-12 and L-13
state "Preserve the character, of residential n. eighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled
structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures ", and "Evaluate
alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse housing
opportunities". The proposed cottage is compatible in style, architecture and material, with
the main house on the lot. The proposed cottage will increase the diversity of housing units
for the neighborhood in that the proposed second dwelling provides a desired type of
affordable, alternative housing.
The proposed cottage is also consistentwith Policy H-2 of the Housing Element of The City
of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Policy H-2 states that the City should "Consider a variety
of strategies, to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations ". A cottage
is an appropriate means of increasing the amount and the diversity of housing within the city.
The location, in a single family neighborhood, is appropriate.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
There are two required findings that must be made in the affitTnative to approve a Use Permit
(PAMC Sec, 18.90.060). The appellant has submitted a letter challenging the f’mdings made
by the Planning Manager to approve the Use Permit (See Attachment C). The analysis below
states each of the required findings for a Use.Permit and the Planning Manager’s rationale
in making the findings for approval. A discussion of the appellant’s objections and staff’s
response to these objections is also provided.
Required Findings and Zoning Administrator’s Rationale
Use Permit Finding # 1: "The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, general welfare or convenience."
The proposed second residential unit is not a detriment to the adjacent properties or to the
surrounding neighborhood. The proposal complies with all applicable zoning standards,
including floor area ratio, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. The cottage will be accessed
from the same driveway as the main residence. The proposed cottage will be adequately
screened from view of neighbors by required fencing and landscaping around the cottage.
The proposal was reviewed by the City of Palo Alto Transportation Division and the
circulation and site plan were found to be acceptable for the purposes of the secondary
dwelling unit.
Use Permit finding #2: "The proposed use will be located in a manner in accord with the Palo
S :/Plan/Pladiv I PCSR/3655Mdfld.sr Page 2
8
Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto MunfcipalC’ocf~."
The proposed secondary dwelling uni. "t meets all of the site development requirements of the
Municipal Code. A goal of the comprehensive plan is to add a variety of housing units to the
City to help with the acute housing shortage in the area..The proposed secondary dwelli.ng
unit will help in accomplishing the goal of adding housing to the area.(See discussion under
Policy Implications)
Discussion of the Appellant’s Objections and Staff’s Response
Appellant Objection #1 : The appellant argues the secondary dwelling unit is not compatible
with the surrounding singlefamily (R-l) uses predominant in the area. The appellant argues
that the secondary dwelling unit creates a multifamily feel in a single family neighborhood
which is not in the best interest of the general welfare of the public.
StatTResponse: Secondary dwelling units (cottages) are a conditionally permitted use in the
(R-1) zoning dislricts. The secondary dwelling units are limited to 900 square feet in size,
are required to be architecturally compatible with the main residence, and are limited to 17
feet in height. In addition, secondary dwelling units must be architecturally compatible with
the main residence. The Zoning Ordinance requirements for secondary dwelling units help
to ensure that single family neighborhoods maintain their look and feel.
AppellantObjection #2,3~4: The appellant states that the secondary dwelling unit will
increase the usage of the property and that the surrounding roads and bike paths will be
negatively impacted, and that the flow of cars in and out.of the driveway will present safety
issues. The appellant asserts that the driveways close proximity to the comer presents a
visibility problem and could contribute to potential injury to pedestrians, cyclists, or
automobile drivers.
Staff Response: The Transportation and Planning Division staffhave reviewed the proposed
plans. The site flow and parking plan were determined to be safe by the City traffic
engineers. The secondary dwelling unit will not result in a significant impact to the bicycle
lanes or roads. The Use Permit concerns development of the property and not the identity
or alleged conduct of those living at the site.
Appellant Objection #5 and 6: The last two appellant statements argue that the addition of
the secondary dwelling unit is not in the best interest of the public and that public safety will
be compromised by granting the Conditional Use Permit for the secondary dwelling unit.
StaiTResponse: This statement relates to public and private nuisance issues that were raised
by neighborhood residents at the public hearing regarding the behavior, of the inhabitants of
the existing house and concern about who will occupy the cottage. After consultation with
S :/Plan/Pladiv [ PCSR/3655Mdfld.sr Page 3
9
the City Attorney’s office, staff concluded that these issues werenot directly relevant to the
proposed use and the required findings to support such a use.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Draft findhgs for approval of the Conditional Use Permit and conditibns of approval are
attached (Attachment.B). : ""
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of this Planning Commission appeal hearing was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and
.utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The original proposal was determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).~
ACTION TIME LIMIT
Date of Appeal: November" 26, 1999
Planning Commission review time limit (90 days from receipt of appeal): February 25, 1999
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the appeal is scheduled to be considered
by the City Council on March 20, 1999.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Decision letter from the Planning Manager dated 11/22/99
Attachment C: Letter from appellant dated 11/26/99
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES: .
Rick & Karen Jew, 714 E. Meadow Dr., Palo Alto, CA 94303
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Division Head Approval:
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
George White, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official
S :/Plan/Pladiv [PCSR/3655Mdfid.sr Page 4
10
The Cily of
Palo Alto
File No(s): 99-AP-7
Proposed Action: Appeal of
11/29/99 ZA decision that granted a
Conditional-Use Permit to allow
construction of a second dwelling unit.
Da~: 112412000
Attachment A
11
12
Attachment B
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Planning Division
Application No. 99-UP-38:3655 Middlefield Road (Amended)
Use Permit 99-UP-38 is approved to allow the construction of a new 900
square-foot secondary dwelling unit at 3655 Middlefield Road, per the plans
dated August 12, 1999 and on file in the’Palo Alto Planning Division, (R-l)
Zone District, Palo Alto, California. Project approval is based on the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law and is subject to conditions listed
below.
FINDINGS
1) The proposed secondary dwelling unit will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience
because:
The proposal complies with all applicable zoning standards,
including floor area ratio, height, setbacks and lot coverage.
The proposed second dwelling unit will be located in compliance
with the required setbacks of the zone district which provides for an
appropriate separation between buildings to minimize potential impacts
to the adjacent neighbor’s privacy.
The proposed cottage will be screened from view by new
landscaping and fencing, as required by the conditions of approval.
The parking plan and site circulation were reviewed by the City of
Palo Alto Transportation Division and were found to be acceptable for
the purposes of the secondary dwelling unit.
The proposed secondary dwelling unit will provide a desirable
housing unit within the City.
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code because:
This use is consistent with Policies L-12, L-13, and policy H-4
Program H-2 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed
cottage has been designed in a manner that is architecturally compatible
with the existing residence and surr6unding dwellings.
250 Hamilton Avenue
EO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.3291441
650.329.2154 fax a:/3655mdfid.wpd
13
The proposed second dwelling provides a desired type of affordable,
alternative housing in that the proposal provides additional housing units in
this single family residential area.
CONDITIONS
o
The second residential unit shall be constructed in substantial
conformance with the project plans dated August 12, 1999 that are
contained in Application 99-UP- 38 and are on file in the Pal0 Alto
Planning Department. All required permits from the City shall be
obtained prior to the commencement of construction.
The two covered andtwo uncovered pa~king spaces shall be
maintained and remain dear of obstructions. Prior to finalization of
building permit, the garage shall be inspected t6 ensure the parking
spaces are accessible.
Landscaping shall be planted, irrigated, and maintained between the
cottage and the residence at 714 East Meadow and 3669
Middlefield Road to ensure that the cottage will be adequately
screened. The landscaping shall include three or more trees, or large
shrubs planted on the subject property near the property lines of both
714 East Meadow and 3669 lVl.iddlefield Road (for a total of at
least six new trees or large sehrubs). The proposed trees or shrubs
shall be at minimum 15 gallons in size. Plant species shall be
chosen that will grow to a height of 8-10 feet in one year.
Installation of the. approved landscaping and. irrigation shall be.
completed prior to the finalization of the building permit and
occupancy of the new second dwelling unit and the installation shall.
be reviewed by the City Planning Arbodst.
A seven (7) foot high wood fence, in compliance with the City’s
fence ordinance (Section 16.24.020) shall be constructed on the
property lines surrounding the subject property at 3655Middlefield
Road. The fence shall adequately screen the secondary dwelling unit
from the neighbors at714 East Meadow Drive and 3669
Middlefield Road..The fence shdll be constructed prior to issuance
of a building permit for the secondary dwelling unit.
The secondary dwelling unit shall have one tiabitable floor. Attic
space is limited to five (5) feet in height as measured from attic floor
to ceiling.
a:/3655mdfld.wpd
14
The roof on the secondary dwelling unit shall be altered to be similar
in design and pitch to the roof on the main house. Specifically, the
gabled roof shall be redesigned to be a hipped roof.
The curb cut facing Middlefield Road shall be removed and the curb
replaced compliant with Public Works curb construction
requirements.
Geol White
Planning Manager
November.22, 1999
Norman Starratt,3669 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Rick & Karen Jew, 714 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alt0, CA 94303
C.C. Kettendorf, 3719 Grove Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Ramona Williams, 3727 Grove Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Wyune Furth, City of Palo Alto Attorney’s Office
Ariel Caloune, City of Palo Alto Attorney’s Office
NOTE
This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will
become effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal
is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A
copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits
relating to this approval.
In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be
mailed witla information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the
Plannin." g Commission and the City Council.
In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Use Permit have not
been complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the
permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a
hearing thereon. Following such heating and if good cause exists therefore,
the Zoning Administrator may revoke the Use Permit.
a:/3 655rndfld.wpd
A Use Permit which has not been used within one (I) year after the date of
granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a
hearing, extend the’ time for an additional year if an application to this
effect is filed before the expiration of the furst year.
a:/3655mdfld.wpd
~6
Attachment C
Dear. Planning Manager.Nov. 26, 1999
In response to the letter granting the Conditional Use Permit for 3655 Middtefield
Road to build a second dwet}.ing on tke property rids is art al~eat to the approval s[ghtirrg
the zoning code 18.90.060 and we Would like to take it to the Planning Commission and
City Council for reconsideration for the following reasons.
1.The proposed second dwelIing on the property will not fit in with the neighborhood,
which consists of single family homes.
0
The second dwelling will create and additional burden of traffic and dangerous on
street parking problems, dangerous bike lane problems, dangerous pedestrian, and
potentially dangerous traffic flow problems.
The location of this property expbses the general public to safet~ issues because of its
proposed use. Bemuse of the increase usage of the property and the inereas’e of autos
eorning and going on the property we feel there will be a dangerous flow of traffic
from the property. Pedestrians and bicyclists use this area quite .heavily especially.
children going to and from school. Cars backing off this property will not have a
clear view of pedestrians, bicyclists using the sidewalk in the vicinity of the current
plan for the driveway.
There have not been any studies done by the City regarding traffic problems at this
intersection and therefore they can not make a viable decision regarding the safety of
the public. The flow of ears coming from the driveway of this property which is in
close proximity of the comer will create safety issues. The bike lane at this
intersection as shown in the photographs presented at the Zoning meeting we feel
deafly show the potential for dangerous issues regarding the public.
The addition of a second dwelling is not in ’the best interest of the general welfare of
the public.
There are also issues of the use of the second dwelling, which we feel, are safety
issues for the public and the safety of the occupants.
Sine .erely,
Rick and Kare~ Jew
17
Attachment B
2
:MEETINGS AR~ CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL
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
February 23, 2000
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
PaIo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL
Meeting called to order at 7:10 P.M.
’Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chair
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Jon Schink
Patrick Burr
Owen Byrd
Phyllis Cassel
Staff."
Lisa Grote, Acting Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney
George White, _Planning Manager
Amie Glaser, Associate Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
Chairman Schmidt: I’d to call the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting to
order. Would the secretary please call the roll. The first item on our agenda is Oral
Communications.
ORAL. COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the
agenda with a limitation ofthre~ (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak
must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary o~the Commission.
The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral
communications period to 15 minutes.
Chairman Schmidt: I do not have any cards for items that are not on the agenda so we
will move on to the next item. The next item is Agenda Chauges, Additions and
Deletions. We have none of those this evening.
A GENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have
additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to the meeting time.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
19
I
2
3
4
7
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
Chairman Schmidt: The next item is Unfinished Business and there is no unfinished
business.
UIV’F1WISITED BUSINESS..
:’°Pu~’lic’Hearings: None.
Chairman Schmidt: The next item.is New Business.. The first item under New Business
is a Public Hearing for 2825 El Camino Real. That item has been deferred to a date
certain, March 29, 2000.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public hearings:
2825 E1 Camino Real [File Nos.: 99-ARB-97, 99-D-4, 99-EIA-13~ 99-V-1]*:
2825 E1 Camino Real (99-D-4, 99-ARB-97, 99-EIA-4, 99-V-15): Review of an
application by Jim Baer on behalf of Morris Associates for Site and Design
Review of demolition of existing 1,426 square foot building on a parcel in C-S
zoning district and construction of a new 35-foot high, three story mixed-use
building including fo, ur residential units in approximately 5,650 square foot area
on the third floor, approximately 4,500 square feet of office space on the second
floor, a 15-vehicle parking area on the ftrst floor,and related site improvements
including a rear parking area for six vehicles. Since it includes residential units,
the project is subject to the RM-30 District (Multiple Family Residential)
development regulations, therefore: A Design Enhancement Exception is
requested to allow deferred.parking are to be located within the required front
setback; and a Variance is requested for 91) construction within required side
setbacks, (2) encroachment into side daylight plane, (3) increased site coverage
beyond the maximum permitted coverage area, and (4) reduction in common open
space area requirements. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated N6gative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA guidelines. This project
has been tentatively scheduled to return to the Architectural Review Board for a
public hearing on March 2, 2000 and tentatively scheduled for a public hearing
with the City Council on April 3, 2000. Please note that this item has been
defe.rred.
Chairman Schmidt: Item number two under Public Hearings is 3655 Middlefield Road.
Is there Staff presentation Qn this item?
3655 Middlefield Road [99-UP-38]*: Appeal by Rick and Karen Jew et al, of
the Planning Manager’s decision to approve a Condit2onal Use Permit application
’at 3655 .Middlefield Road, to allow a second detached single family unit.
Envizonmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act. This item has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City
Council on Monday, March 20, 2000.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
2O
1 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you. I just wanted, by way of
2 background, to explain that the Planning Manager is a relatively new position to the
3 Dep .artment. About a year and one-haLf ago as a result of a reorganization the position
4.w,a~ a..dded. It was given the..respon.s.i.bili.ty of he .ar~gi~se Permits,. Variances a~ud Home
5 Improvement Excsptions related to’~ingle family applicatioh~’. ’.That is why it is not ~" .
6 Zoning Administrator’s determination but rather a Planning Manager’s determination.
7 With that I’d like to introduce our Planning Manager, George White. He is here tonight
8 as well as the project planner who he will introduce. Thanks.."
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
.36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. George White, Planning Manager: Thank you. I’d like to turn the microphone over
to Amie Glaser who is the project planner for this particular item.
Ms. Amie Glaser, Associate Platter: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council denial of the appeal and uphold the original Use Permit
approval. The appheant desires to construct a new second residential trait on a corner lot.
The Planning Manager did conduct a public heatingto consider this application on
November 4, 1999. Several neighbors immediately adjacent to the si~e and across the
street spoke against the proposal citing privacy issues, noise issues, and disruption of the
single-family character of the neighborhood mad the personal issues between the
applicant and the neighbors in the area. The Planning Manager and Staff felt that the use
permit findings could be made and that issues raised at the pubtie hearing, after
consultation with the City Attorney, were deemed impertinent .to the land use issue at
hand. You’ve received a copy of a letter from the property owner who did choose no~ to
be here tonight. I was under the impression that his architect, Joyce Ford, was going to
be here. I’m happy to answer any questions you might have.
Chairman Schmidt: Does the Commission have any questions for the Staff at this time?
Seeing none, we’ll move on to the public part of the punic hearing. Ibelieve the
applicant’s.representative will speak first. Is it the apphcant or appellant first?
Ms. Grote: It would be the appellant first and then th.e applicant or the applicant’s
representative.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, then the appellant or appellant’s representative will be the first
speaker. You have up to 15 minutes for a presentation.
Mr. Kent Mitchell, Attorne?r, 550 Hamilton Avenue, #230, Palo Alto: I represent Mr. and.
Mrs. Rick Jew, the appellants in this matter. You have my letter that was submitted last
week. The reason I submitted that letter relates to the fact that it seemed that the City
Attorney’s Office through the Planning Director’s communication with my client has
indicated that it is "impertinent" or in "inappropriate" for this body or for the Staffto
consider the disruptive circumstances that have existed now for some 15 years by my
clients’ experience of the special needs children and in some cases special needs adults
who are apparently the adoptive children of the Ng’s who live next door. You’ve
received letters from my clients describing their experiences. I believe you’ve also
City of Palo Alto Page 3
21
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
received other letters from other members of the community who live nearby. I’ve not
seen those letters but I’m told they are pr.etty much to the same effect indicating their
experiences. My letter was submitted merely to demonstrate to you that you do have a
yery broad discretion in this matter. ~ ¯ "- -’
This is a Use Permit for a second residence. You have an ordinance that contains a
general welfare standard in whether you do or don’t grant the.conditional use permit.
The law is quite clear that where there is a general.welfare standard you can look at the
circumstances and you are required even by the language of your own ordinances to
protect the welfare of the community and particularly those living nearby. So we believe
the door is wide open to consider these problems and not to approve a use permit which
by its own terms in the appli.cation will permit apparently the unsupervised livingin this
residents of these special needs adults. We are not here complaining about special needs
adults in any way but we do feel that where, there is a long history, well document and
long history, of problems with the neighbors that it would be inappropriate to turn a blind
eye to that and simply permit this condition to spread to additional residences and
particularly in an unsupervised residence. It would be more appropriate to refer this back
to Staff to have them consider what conditions could be impo.sed and would be
appropriate to either mitigate or eliminate these problems to keep the nuisance from
spreading. If it turns out there are such conditions then to impose such reasonn’ble
conditions as you believe will work and if it .t3arns out there are no reasonable e0nditions
or no conditions at all that will, in your judgment, work here and prevent this problem ,
from spreading then simply to deny the use permit altogether because that is what your
general welfare standard is. That is really all I have to say. There are some other people
here who have submitted letters and also wish to speak to this. Thank you very much.
Chairman Schmidt: We have some questions for you.
Commissioner Schink: Do you have some suggestions on the conditions?
Mr. Mitchell: At a minimum, since the application indicates there will be special needs
adults living in this residence, at a minimum there should be 24-hour supervision by a
competent adult. That would be the primary condition that I would think would be an
absolute minimum. With that I think that would be a very good start. But to impose no
condition like that, that there be no independent competent adult who would be there to
supervise people who really need supervision for their own welfare as well as the welfare
of the community I think would be the biggest problem.
Commissioner Schink: Any other conditions?
Mr. Mitchell: None that come to mind immediately. As I say, I’ve really not given it any
further thought but I know that it is a significant condition that should be imposed.
City of Palo Alto Page 4-
22
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
3t
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42,
43
44
45
Commissioner Schink: Without going back and looking at the application, I believe.it is
an application for a second unit. Does it actually say a se.cond unit for or how do you
make that connection?
Mr. Mitcti~lll I~ the applicatior~ i~ eloes desdribe the fact ~5~} iahls ,s g~’~i"~;’Be ti’s~l’~ "’:" "’" ’ ’"
an independent living environment for special need adults. It says so right in the.
Commissioner Schink: I realize that. I’m just trying to make sure we make the
connection clearly.
Mr, Mitchell: It is in there specifically stated as one of the uses .they intend to make of
this. ’
Commissioner Byrd: Let me follow up on that point and check with Staff. I would be
shocked if an application for a condition use permit for a second unit contained a
reference to its use by special needs adults. Mr, Herzog says that’s so. Does the
application in fact say that?
Mr. White: I’ll turn it over to the City Attorney in a second. The,application is for a
secondary residential unit period. In this City we do not control or desire to control the
occupancy of secondary dwelling units.
¯Commissioner Byrd: I would be surprised if it said that. We wouldn’t even require the
applican.t to disclose whether it was going to be for family, members.
Mr. White: That’s correct.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Byrd, I have a copy of the document that came with the application.
I’d like to read one paragraph from it. It says, "Another proposed use of the new cottage
is to provide the homeowners with a complete and detached home environment separate
from their main residence to support the development and learning of independent living
skills for family members with special needs." That’s in the application that was filed.
Commissioner Byrd: Thanks. On a couple of other issues I’m confused. You’re letter
exphcitly states that your clients are not asking the City to deny the requested permit but
rather to impose reasonable conditions and yet a letter from your client says we ask you
to deny the permit for all the reasons contained in this letter. What do they Want?
Mr. Mitchell: There is an apparent discrepancy there. BasicaIly the clarification is they
are not opposing the use permit provided that reasonable conditions can be crafted which
will eliminate or mitigate this problem. On the other hand, if it cannot be done with
conditions, if the conditions are going to exist and the conditions aren’t going to work or
you don’t think they are going to work then they do want the permit denied. But we’d
like to try ftrst to fashion reasonable conditions and not just deny it out of hand.
C~Page 5
23
1
2
3
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
3~
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
Commissioner Bgrd: Staff has said that the conditional use permit findings speak to the
physical characteristics of the property. You’ve said that the general welfare provision in
the findings allows the City to reach beyond the physical conditions of the property and
ai:ldress issues related to the specifiq peopl~ ,,~h.O rn~iy,.live.in the .sec.gn~unit.. I would ..’
appre~i~ite i~ K" ~’ou wou~d spell tha~’~{~t just a lftt"le l~it moie "be~a~’s~’~"~’r~’~ fo’ll0~:y6u o~{ ": ’
that one.
Mr. Mitchell: I’m going to refer to my letter which perhaps is a little bit cryptic but the
case law in California and the treatise that cites it, the case of Snow v The City of Garden
Grove, was a city where the ordinance for conditional use permit had a general welfare
standard as part of its findings which our does too. In that case it said that where there is
a general welfare standard it is appropriate in issuing the use permit to consider the
environment, the noise, dust, odors, and other undesirable characteristics that will come
about as a result of that use permit. In other words, it is not just the structural physical
things which we understand are not at issue here. You can look at if there is going to be a
nuisance or if you belie.ve there is going to be a nuisance created by this then you can go
into those and impose conditions which will prevent that nuisance.
Commissioner BFrd: But aren’t noise, dust, and odors and other undesirable
characteristics still characteristics of the physical environment and not of the people .who
may inhabit the dwelling?
Mr. Mitchell: Well, there is nothing, no noise involved i~. the structure itself. There is no
undesirable characteristics involved in the structure itself.
Commissioner B~rd: The use to which the structure will be put.
Mr. Mitchell: It is the use to which the structure is going to be put as disclosed by the
application. We are not making this up.
Commissioner Byrd: My final question is, have your clients ever brought a private action
for nuisance against the owners to abate these conditions?
Mr. Mitchell: Ng, not to my knowledge. I don’t that that’s pertinent or relevant whether
they have or have not. That is a very expensive process and they have actually not done
that but I don’t think that’s pertinent to this hearing. The matter before you is whether
there’is a nuisance standard that you should consider in imposing conditions to prevent
the nuisance from being a problem in this location.
Commissioner Byrd: Thanks.
Chairman schmidt: Phyllis do you have questions?
City of Palo Alto Page 6
24
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Cassel: Yes..Many learning disabled people live indep.endently without
direct supervision. Do you have any evidence that indicates that this requires direct
supervision? ..
’Mr. Mitchell: I think the evidence in the iettdr ~o;umerits’that my clients have submitted
and I’m told the circumstances have been described in the other letters. It is obviously’an
out of control neighborhood situation.
Commissioner Cassel: Well in my experience when clients that I work with need to be
conserved which is what happens when someone has to have direct supervision and is
required to, the laws are quite stiff and it’s public information or a public hearing. So
that information is public and could be obtained if a person had to have direct supervision
at all times. Is that not true?
Mr. Mitchell: I’m not su)e I follow you.
Commissioner Casseh In other words, you’re making a judgment that someone needs to
be supervised all the time. I wanted to know if there was any legal background that said
people had to be supervised all the time. People who are learning disabled regularly live
independently. They get certificates from the housing authority to have independent
living units. They are not supervised directly. Their parents may be miles away in the
next town in one case that I know of. So whatevidence do you have that people would
need that direct supervision?
Mr. Mitchell: In this case there is evidence, I doubt that with a record such as this case
these kinds of certificates for independent living would 6e issued. These are situations
where there have been violence, there have been threats, there have been invasions Of
homes, there have been things thrown across the fence, there has been damage. These are
not situations that are ideal for independent.living or without supervision. These are
situations where there is a demonstrated need for supervision that apparently isn’t being
provided. Otherwise these things wouldn’t be happening.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there other questions for Mr. Mitchell? I don’t se~ any others.
Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a representative, from the original applicant here? I do not
see one so I’ll proceed with the other members of the public who wish to speak. The first
one I have is Ce Ci Kettendorfto be followed by Mang Dinh.
Ms. Ce Ci Kettendorf, 3719 Grove Avenue, Palo Alto: I want to thank all of you for
having read the letter that I submitted to you so I won’t go into it in great detail. I object
to the granting of the permit for the reasons that I address in the letter. Number one is the
traffic safety issue at that comer, at that intersection. I think George White was hasty in
City of Palo Alto Page 7
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12’
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29,
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
clearing the traffic safety issue. I’ve spoken with Gail Liken who is on the Palo Alto City
Traffic and Safety Commission. She told me that that intersection has never been
studied, Our end of town has never been studied in any recent time. It is due to be
studied i.q. fiscal year 2000. ,So how c .a~.. the..Ci~ have cleared the traffic safety i,ss, u.e.there
if’ithas not been studied?’ I:m on the JLfl E’x~cutive Bd’ard’of thd P~A’ arid ~ the.~TA’
we have addressed our concerns about the. safety of school children going to school and
entering all the feeder streets into the super site lot there in front of JLS and in front of
Fair Meadow. We have identified that intersection as a very busy intersecfio~a, a very
dangerous intersection for school children. We sent ou{ a parent’s survey and many
parents indicated in the survey that they do not allow their children to either ride their
bikes or cross there because it is such a.dangerous intersection. These parents have
indicated to the PTA that they drive their children to school every single day adding to
the congestion of cars and the bottleneck of cars on East Meadow in front of JLS and in
from of Fair Meadow. The PTA has been working with the City in trying to address this
problem because it has really come to crisis mode. There are 2200 children attending
¯ school in the super block there either going to the public schools or to daycare centers or
to the private school at Challenger. So the traffic safety issue at that intersection is very.
real and a very big one. I live fight around the comer and I have stopped walking my
children to school and I do not allow my children to ride the’.tr bikes at that intersection .
either. The property’s driveway is very close. I should have measured it before I came.
It is very close to the edge of the intersection there. If you double the number of cars
going in and out of that intersection, it will cross the bike lane, it will cross the sidewalk
and cause more and more problems. There are’a lot of cars that go right on red there and
they come right around the comer and they come right up against that driveway.
Frankly, the Ng family fight now park their cars in the street and block the .driveway. It
’is going to be very inconvenient for them to get out of their car, open the chain-link gate
and then drive their car in, and then shut it again. Multiple cars in that lot are unlikely to
go through that effort. They are more likely to park in the street thereby parking on the
sidewalk as they do now orblocking the bike lane, which they do now. It is a great
danger not only to the school children coming down the street there but also to the Ng
dhildren themselves who are often times in wheelchairs, on crotches and have other
handicaps. I would ask that at least you wait in granting the permit until the City has
studied that. intersection there. ~
My second issue is that it is not conforming with the neighborhood. If you go down there
and look at it anal you look at the plan in front of you, it looks like a compound. Our
neighborhood has gone through great effort in the last ten years to upgrade. Really it will
be an eyesore even at best. The present house on the property is not maintained. I feel
that a second house on the property is just going to drag it down that much furttier.
My third issue is that this is commensurate with setting up an unsupervised halfway
house in the neighborhood. I would like to speak to the concerns that you addressed
about disabled adults living alone. These are not merely physically handicapped adults.
These are emotionally, how do I say it, some of these adults are intellectually challenged
City of Palo Alto Page 8
26
I
2
4
7
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
~0
32
33
34
36
37
~0
42
43
and they are emotional to the point of being a danger which is reflected in much of the
information that yoti’ve been handed, especially by the next door neighbors.
My neighbor came.back., from Washington. State. He.w~.-going to tome here tonight to
address you and he came back specifi6ally to be here to addre~ ’you. Fie was going to
address you as an architect. Fie wanted to point out what he saw as the architectural
flaws. He could not bring himself to come here tonight because one member of the Ng
family ten years ago made an accusation against him and his ’wife that his family never
recovered from. They still feel the pain of. This is because Bunchi Ng was unsupervised
in the neighborhood. He was sleeping in the garage in the property in question at age 17.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Before we have the next speaker I did want to mention
that Comm~ssior~er Schink suggested that we note that the Planning Department received
a letter from the applicant saying essentially that they were not going to respond. So we
are not going to see them here tonight.
The next speaker is Mang DLn_h to be followed by Herb Borock.
¯ Mr. Mang Dinh, 3732 Grove Avenue, Palo Alto: 1 live close to the property that we are
discussing tonight. I object to granting the permit for the following reasons. First, the
property if we build another house it would be totally incompatible with the
neighborhood. I’m r~latively new to .the neighborhood, I just moved in two years ago. I
remember that at the time I live in Milpitas which normally people call lowly Milpitas.
My neighbor tried to expand the house and in Milpitas you have to have the approval of
the neighbor within so many yards in order to build it. Otherwise you have to change the
plan. My neighbor made sure that everybody around was happy and put up a lot of nice
work, plant more trees, etc. I’m kind of appalled that in the City of Palo Alto, looking at
the current property right now. and you give the permit for the second house with the plan
of the driveway and all of that it is totally incompatible. That is one of the reasons that I
object.
The Other reason is the current house is a low-income rental, which many people are.
currently occupying. If they put another house in there I don’t’know how.many people
will occupy it but clearly the traffic that that will produce would be a little bit dangerous
for the kids, When I moved to the neighborhood my neighbor warned me to not park in
the street because in Palo Alto many kids ride their bike to school and you block their
sight it ~an cause danger. If you visit that comer, East Meadow and Middlefield, you can.
see every morning the JLS traffic, If you park many more cars along the street that block
bike lanes and block the visual from kids that are on bikes it will create more problems.
We know that occasionally there is an accident at that comer. So I think that put~ng a
second house there, there is no way they have enough places to park and they wil! have to
park more on the street. I don’t know who will occupy the house but definitely there will
be more cars on it.
City of Palo Alto Pag~"
27
I’m a little concerned about the people who will occupy the unit. I just heard from my
neighbors about a death and all of that. I’m a little concerned about that because of all
the horror stories that my neighbor told me that have been happening over the last ten ¯
years or mgre. Now we are trying to put eve.~ more units for these p.e.o..ple.. That seems
unreasonal~f~ to me. That’s all I have’~o say.
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.. The next speaker is Herb Borock. That’s the last card’
that I have. If anyone else wishes to speak please fill out a card and b .ring it to the
Secretary please.
Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening Chairman Schmidt and
members of the Commission. l’ve appeared before the City on a number of use permit
hearings. You may have some information that I don’t that I didn’t pick up in the Staff
report. That is, I’m used to seeing verbatim minutes from the Zoning Adminislrator’s
hearing. Since this is the second meeting in the space of a week where minutes in the
past have appeared and they haven’t, I’m concerned. The last week at the Architecture
Review Board had a hearing, which is six months after a preliminary hearing with
different members of the Architecture Review Board, and they didn’t get the minutes of
the preliminary ARB hearing..So I’m wondering if you also don’t have the minutes of the
Zoning Administrator’s heating and if there is a change in the processing of the paper
now in the Planning Department. If nobody speaks up from the review bodies that that’s
the way it is going to be, or whether that information thaf in the past you have received as
part of hearings of this type, is supposed to be received by you and is going to be
received by you in the future. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Rick Jew and We are going to be
doing two things. The appellant has a chance to summarize at the end of this and since
you are the appellant, and if you want to speak or have your attorney speak again, it is the
order of things. So this .is the appellant, Rick Jew.
Mr. Rick Jew, 714 E. Meadow Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening and thanks for the
opportunity to speak to you on behalf of this issue that is before the neighborhood. I
want to make it clear that it is a neighborhood situation. I went around with my wife and
talked to most of the neighbors about how they feIt about this particular issue. I’d like to
address a few things that have been said tonight. Mr. Byrd, you asked about the proposed
use and how it relates to the public safety and welfare. This is a copy of a law that
George White was so gracious to fax me. One of the things that it says in there is the
proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to the property
or improvements in the ’vicinity and will not be detrimental to the punic health, safety,
general welfare or convenience. So that I think that this particular part of the law needs
to be addressed and not just glossed over as if in fact it has nothing to do with anything
because it really does. I’ve lived in Palo Alto my entire life, 47 years. I grew up in South
Palo Alto. When you think aboutspecia! needs children, my vision before living next to
the Ng’s was Special Olympics and some of the things that you said about some issues
with respect to independent living. Certainly none of the neighbors or myself hold the
City of Palo Alto Page 10
28
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4!
42
43
44
45
Ng children responsible for the things that they do but what we do take issue vdth and I
think is apparent by the fact that the Ngs are not here tonight, is they will not negotiate,
will not take responsibility, will not meet with us, will not go to mitigation or mediation
a!..though. I’ve asked sever .al times over the. years. Ig .the .first .12 years that we lived next ...~ ,. ¯
"to thd Ng’s we did not dall th~ ~61{c’e’on~e. W~’cif~t’~6’t ~ce i~su~ ~0r ~11 t~’~ th~’thai " "" ":’" ":’
happened to us feeling that they have more problems than the issues that we could add to
make life worse for them. What we found Out by not saying .anything and turning the
other cheek, even though there are eight-foot florescent light bulbs launched over the
fence, goffballs driven through our walls, dog feces thrown over the’ fence, Christopher
Ng coming into our house while the police were there and saying, "are you going to
arrest me now?" He walked straight into our house. Christopher Ng just this year
standing up on the roof threatening to commit suicide with Bunch2 standing on East
Meadow. The father came out looked at the situation and walked back in. These are not
people who can live independently safely for themselves or for us. Some of our.last
conversations with Christopher when we were walking out to view the heavens was,
"Why don’t you call the police right now? They can’t do anything to me. I’ll just wait
right here." The father telling us, "Why don’t you guys go back in the house?" Every
~ime we try to address these with the Ng’s in the earlier years they declined. If you take a
look at ail the letters I’ve written and ail the responses they’ve written back, it is an
indication where these people need supervision not only for our safety but for theirs. It is
not an issue of people against special needs children.
Some of the other people i~ the neighborhood in terms of being a danger to the
neighborhood. Bunchi would go into the Adlers’ van, a neighbor around the comer, and
defecate in the car. There is a single woman, Jan Whitmore, where Bunchi entered the
house twice. Just walks into the house. We’ve had Christopher Ng sitting on our back
fence watching TV with us and watching my wife get dressed. The police do absolutely
nothing. Not because they don’t want to but I don’t think they have the ability to take
care of this particular situation. We’ve been living this for 16 years. I can honestly say
that living next to these p~ople has d~minished my life. Again, it is not because of the
children. All I care about and all I want is to have the same equal rights that everybody
else has. Where do I get back my children’s childhood. They are afraid to go out into the
yard. When we go out into the yard they tell us to go back inside. Who do I see about
that? If we can’t apply the law with compassion and understanding of the facts and
circumstances then the law doesn’t mean anything to anybody. It is not a matter of
special interest kids versus the rest of us. If it was my problem then my neighbors
wouldn’t be here as well. I think a lot of the people in the neighborhood have had a
problem with this. By having this particular structure built they would surround us on all
sides ~md would just exacerbate an already bad situation. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidi: Rick, there is a question for you.
Commissioner Cassel: You said you would be surrounded on all sides. I was walking
the neighborhood this weekend and a lot of these lots of these homes are flag lots. Can
you tell me which homes the Ngs own?
City of Palo Alto Page 11
29
1
2 Mr. Jew: The Ngs own the .flag lot behind our house. They come down one side of.our
3 house and then come across our backyard. Then on the other side of our house is where
4 ’" the.~re going ,to put the.s.epar.ate s.tru, c.t~. ~.i So.es~.entially .they,surr6ua.d Outhouse .~,~h ..
’7
8
9
10
11
1:2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
¯ 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3!
32
33
34
.35
36
’37
38
39
40
41
42
43
45
Commissioner CasseI: Are they on 718, behind you?
Mr. Jew: Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: Then on the ioton Middlefield Road on the comer. They are not
on the third side.
Mr. Jew: That is correct.
Commissioner Cassel: So they are on two sides.
Mr. Jew: It is like a U-shape. Our house sits here. Their driveway is here.
Commissioner Cassel: I have a map, I can’t see what is in front 0fyou.
Mr. Jew: Sure.
Commissioner Cassel: The map has the lot in question as 3665. Your lot is at 714 East,
Meadow.
Mr. Jew: That is correct.
Commissibner Cassel: Their lot then is at 718 East Meadow, which ha~.the driveway out
beside you on the other side..
Mr. Jew: And part of our backyard.
Commissioner Cassel: Mostly your backyard.
Mr. Jew: That is correct.
Commissioner Cassel:. They don’t own 730 the house beyond that. They own the
driveway between 730~and 714 and 718 behind you.
Mr. Jew: Yes, I think that’s correct.
Commissioner Cassel: That’s what I’m trying to get clear,
Chairman Schmidt: Are there any other questions? Jon.
City of Yalo Alto .Page 12
3O
2 Commissioner Schink: Maybe you could expand ori why the building of this structure
3 ,will create more problems.
¯ " ’" ~"~’ " " " ’ ¯" ". "~ " ’"’".’.’;i::’were to p’~’t"~h~i~ ~pecial r~e’ed~ children or adults m the’~e the~"d be
facing our daughter’s window. We already have problems of Bunchi using a flashlight
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
’34
35
,36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
looking at our daughters. We have to tell everyone to pull the shades down and to ignore
the flashlights that are there, not on a constant basis, but are there. If the Ng’children or
adults are there we’ve had numerous incidents where we’ve been out on the holidays’
entertaining, they come to the side of the yard where we happen to be bar-b-queuing and
scream and yell at us incessantly. To the point where we and our guests have to go back
inside the house. So if they put those kids back there and this is where they would be
doing that particular activity we’d have no peace whatsoever. There is no place forus to
go in our yard without scrutiny by the Ng’s.
I say living next to them for 16 years. I don’t make this accusation, it’s not an
accusation, it i.s basically just a statement because I live it every single day.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis, you have a question.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes. You’re saying people’are looking at your children and your
wife when they are dressing. You have a two-story house so they’re looking up from the
first floor to the second story?
Mr. Jew: No, our bedrooms are all on the first floor.
Commissioner Cassel: Your house is a two-story house?
Mr. Jew: It is but our bedrooms are on the bottom floor.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. There’s a fence between you?
Mr. Jew: Right, but the’fence has slats with places to look in between. We sit there, we
know that they’re there. We can hear them rustling in the vegetation that surrounds the
fences. You can see them looking at us. You can see it. It is obvious.
Commissioner Cassel: Th .ank you.
Mr. Jew: I’d like to make one other point too. With respect to independent living, the
Ng’s probably call the police more on their own children, you can check this with the
police, than the neighbors ever do. They get out of control and the police are out there all
the time. I have witnessed first hand Christopher Ng being held down by three large
policemen while they try to put drugs in him to control his behavior. Agffm, nobody
holds Christopher responsible but I think we all have a right to live in quiet and enjoy our
property. That’s all that anybody asks. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
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
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Since there are no more speakers I will close the public
hearing and bring this item back to the Commission, .Are there additional questions for
Staff at this time? Annette .... :...’. :-..’ :. .:.
Commissioner Bialson: I have several but I’ll start with the setback for the proposed
structure is from what I can tell eight feet from the fence line. Is that correct?
Mr. White: That’s correct.
Commissioner Bialson: That is the required setback in that area?
Mr. White: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson: You have as a condition that a seven-foot high wood fence be’
constructed. Was it your intention to have that fence be a solid wood fence?
Mr. White: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson:So that would be should I say clarified on the conditions?
Mr. White: It probably could be clarified to be a solid wood fence, yes.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chairman Schrnidt: Wymae would you like to make a statement9
Ms. Wyrme Furth, Senior Assist. city Attorney: I would like to make a statement. The
applicant and the’ applicant’s counsel described to you the general welfare findings that
we have in our zoning standards and talked about the presence of nuisance and suggested
that this would give you a legal basis on which to use the evid.ence of behavior disturbing
to the neighbors including the number of violations of law as a basis for making your
decision on the land use. We do not share that opinion. There are two issues here. First
there is a general principle of zoning law and particularly with respect to single family
uses which this is in the City. What you are permitted to regulate is the construction and
placement and design and so forth of the buildings. The City is not permitted to and does
not regulate the conduct of the inhabitants of dwellings through the zoning code. There is
another issue which arises here, that is that much of the conduct that is des.cribed is also
described as being that of people with severe disabilities of various types. The neighbors
have explained that they understand that they are not seeking to hold people accountable
for things they cannot control but that the consequences to them are serious. However
the law is very clear that, particularly recently in the Bay Area where.we have some
recent case law, that the City has to be particularly clear that it is not applying its zoning
laws in ways that exclude or move away or have a negative impact people with
disabilities and particular people covere.d by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
City of Palo Alto Page 14
32
1
2
3
,. 4
10
11
12
13
14
16
20
21
22
23
24
2~
26
27
2~
2~
3O
31
32
33
34
’36
37
38
3~
40
41
42
43
~4
4~
rehabilitation laws. The individuals described in this testimony .are people who are
protected by that law. Therefore, our conclusion is that in analyzing this project you need
to look at characteristics of the buildings proposed and how they relate to other buildings
.... .in th.e area and not.the conduct of the individual~ .who.may be hying there. ¯
Chainman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Wynne, this is difficult because we clearly have.neighbors who
have really serious safety issues. Who are really concerned both for their own safety and
the safety of others. How else can. the neighbors proceed in that case? When we started
using medications to help control behavior that was inappropriate then we started moving
people out of institutions and back into the community. I know this is an issue not just
here in Palo Alto but all over the state of California and other states as well. i know its
an issue at my work when can we conserve someone and when can we restrict their
behavior and how. What other avenues are open to seek redress in a situation like this?
Ms. Furth: I suspect that we are not the people who can give the best response to that
question. Perhaps somebody else can at a later date. It is also ’clear that the neighbors
have sought out a number of the avenues that one would normally turn to dealing with the
police as a last resort when people are engaged in illegal or violent behavior~ trying to do
neighborhood mediation. When you are dealing with individuals who are placed in
situations where it is not actually a family then there are state regulatory bodies to whom
on’e can appeal but that does not.appear to be the case here. That doesn’t appear to be the
situation involved in this case. There are private legal actions for nuisance but again
these Iiresent similar kinds of challenges and all private litigation is expensive and time
consuming. So we don’t have a ready response. Staff can speak to other branches of the
City and see if there is anybody who has something to offer in the Way of assistance.
But it is not generally possible for a third party to bring a conservatorship action. The
state may bring it. A family member may bring it but it is usually not appropriate for a
neighbor to bring it. They have no standing to do so.
Commissioner Cassel: But can they not provide some pressure to the state?
Ms. Furth: I don’t know,the mechanism for doing that. Perhaps somebody can report on
that to you.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I have a question for Staffin regard to the design. Did Staff give
much consideration to the arrangement of the parking? I say that bedause I’m not
particularly comfortable with it and wondered if you examined it and developed a level of
co..mfort yourself. If so, maybe you can explain how you got there, it looks like it would
be difficult to park the cars.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
33
’I
2
3
6
7
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
2~
24
2~
2d
2"/
28
29
, 30
31
32
33
3~
39
40
41
~2
43
Mr. White: We did examine the parking because as you know as part of the use permit
process the second unit would be required to provide another covered and uncovered
space on this site. The total requirement on this site would be two covered spaces and
two uncovered spa.ees. The existing c.o..adi~o.n is ~efe.ia o ,ne,~..tyg. o-..c.~ g..ara.ge on. ..this gite,:. ’
The original prdi~0saI had’i~ ~and~-uncove~ed parkin~ at:rku~eriaeht td the right of the’" ’
garage as you see it today. We were not comfortable with that situation because it was an
impeded parking arrangement. In other words, you couldn’t have complete access all the
time. We suggested some alternative to that that would have unimpeded access. This is
the arrangement that the applicant came up with. We had it reviewed by our traffic
engineer, Carl Stoffel, in the Transportation Division who is comfortable that this is a
workable, adequate and safe parking arrangement.
Commissioner Schink: Do you have any comments on the design characteristics? Can
we comment on the design? It doesn’t look particularly attractive.
Mr. WN’te: There is another factorin designing the parking on second units which is the
code requires that the parking all be accessed from the same driveway. So that is another
limitation that is put on developments of this type. If you notice on the site plan this is
actually a comer lot that has two driveway entrances, one off of Middlefield and one off
of East Meadow. However, the driveway on Mid.dlefield could not be used to provide
additional parking bec.ause that would be in eonfhet with the requirements of the code. In
fact, the Middlefield curb cut is proposed to eliminated as part of this project.
Commissioner Schink: But this is just, ifI can be blunt, this is just an’ugly situation.
We’ve got paving 35 to 40 feet wide, parking on both sides of a two-car garage. If we
were trying to develop some design standards we would never accept this. So I’m
wondering why we’re allowing it to happen at this stage.
Mr. White: We thought our ~ask was to review the parking arrangement for safety and
traffic circulation and that’s what we did in this case.
Commissioner Schink: Okay. So then the question becomes are we allowed to review it
for aesthetics also.
Mr. White: That’s the question I suppose, ires.
Commissioner Schink: Then if we are, I think it’s only fair if we go back and probe the
question why can’t they do tandem. We’vepushed this issue in the past. Why can’t we
have tandem parking here?
Mr. White: Well, tandem parking is allowed for individual residential units. The
problem here is each unit on thig site has a requirement for one Covered and one
uncovered space. Our view, at least my view, was that these spaces needed to be
unimpeded or.have unimpeded access at all times so that there would not be a problem
City of Palo Alto Page 16
34
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
with people resorting to parking on the street because they couldn’t get in their parking
space.
Commissioner Schink: Then I don’t q.uite, mide.r.st .and,.. we actuall.y h.ave an.~rdinance.
which says you can’t haV~ m~r~ thku one curb cut for a property?
Mr. White: No, it doesn’t say that. It says in the case of a second unit the required
parking must use a single driveway for both units.
Commissioner Schink: So if I’m to understand this, any time from now on that we are
going to put two units on one parcel we’re going to end up with’a situation where we
have 40 feet of paving essentially because we can’t have tandem parking,.
Mr. WNte: Not necessarily. On different lots with different configurations there are
other designs. In this particular case that is the result that the.y came up with.
Commissioner Schink: Well, it’s resulting in an ugly situation.
Ms. Grote: On some lots wherethere is more depth you can have your parking in tandem
as it goes further back on the site. This particular lot doesn’t have that kind of depth to be
able to have the parking further’away from the street. The other thing is that we don’t
have a maximum paving allowance in the front setback. Some jurisdictions do. They say
you can’t pave more than 50% of your front yard or more than 30% of the front yard. We
do not have that kind of a restriction currently. So there isn’t an ability to say th~it there is
.too much paving in the front yard.
Commissioner Cassel: This isn’t the front yard. The front yard is on Middlefield.
Ms. Grote: Or in any ~rard, actually.
Commissioner Schink: Can I ask one follow up?
Ms. Grote: Actually, this is the front yard. It’s the shorter of the two street frontages and
that qualifies it as the front yard. In any case, wherever the access is there isn’t a paving
limitation.
Commissioner Cassel: We’ve had that item before but this is on Middlefield. In all
essence the. front yard faces Middlefield.
Commissioner Schink: Can I follow up with one other question on the parking
configuration you talked to Carl about? I assume he said mechanically this works. Did
render an opinion on the safety of entering? I’m a little concerned about the west parking
space where you become oriented at an angle opposite or away from ttie way the traffic is
running on the street so you’ve got to make an unusual turnaround to get out? Did he
cover that?
City of Palo Alto Page 17
35
1
2
3
5
6
7
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
Mr. White: He did cover that. We asked him specifically to comment on the safety
aspect of these parking spaces inclu.ding whether they are practical spaces that could be
acce.ssed. He felt that they could be. .. ..
Commissioner Schink: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette has been waiting to ask a question.
Commissioner Bialson: Yes, and I came up with another one. I notice that you have a
condition that’the ga(.age presently on the property be inspected to make sure the}e are
two spaces for vehicles. Is that a continuing condition? If that garage.is at some point in
the future used as a place of habitation what could the City do if a neighbor called and
said that is no longer a garage?
Mr, White: There are two avenues here. The City has continuing jurisdiction over use
permits of this type, So in other words, we could always ensure that the conditions of
this approval are maintained. In other words, the one covered and one uncovered space
for the secondary dwelling unit. In addition to that there is ~ general parking requirement
in the City. If there is parking that has been eliminated by some means other than legal,
we could also enforce the code through the code enforcement process.
Commissioner Bialson: So what you’re saying is the neighbors could c’all upon the City
then to enforce this requirement whether it be 18 months from now or five years from
now. That garage would not be used as another place of habitation. Is that correct?
Mr. White: Yes.
Ms. Furth: If we have evidence justifying a search warrant that’s what we get.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay.
Mr. White: I’d like to clarify. The reason for the condition beyond the question that you
stated is that currently it appears the garage is not accessible. It appears to be some sort
¯ of storage unit. So we wanted to make sure that the garage was a usable garage prior to
the unit being completed.
Commissioner Bialson: So the neighbors could contact the City at any time it seems like
it is unusable arid ask the City to investigate. Is that correg.t7
Mr. White: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson: Fine. What I heard you say Wyrme, is that since these are family
members that are going to be’ inhabiting the secondary residence we cannot impose the
sort of condition that Mr. Mitchell suggested.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
36
2
3
4
"5
7
8
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
3f
36
38
39
40
41
42
44
Ms. Furth: That’s correct. That’s now within the City’s jurisdiction.
Commissioner Bialson: So if it wa.s. say a halfw5y. . house like the neighbors’ claim.
Ms. Furth: We would be very limited. Halfway houses and other care facilities are
regulated by the state as to the care of their residents. As I think, some of you mentioned"
with the institutionalization of people in need of care there has been a great deal of
controversy. Some situations have worked out very well and some have not. The
governor appointed a commission to look into this I think starting two years ago. There
is a statewide panel that the League of California Cities encouraged to address these
issues throughout the state. I don’t believe they’ve issued a report yet but this is clearly a
major concern.
Commissioner Bialson: I just wanted to clarify that we could not impose the condition
that was suggested. Is there the ability to impose a condition that the cars be parked on
the property rather than on the street? Is there any condition we can .impose there?
Ms. Furth: As long as it is a legal parking space everybody has a right to use it.
Commissioner Bialson: That’s what I was afraid I’d hear. Thank.you:
Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions? Pat?
Commissioner Burr: In the fimst finding there is a condition that the second dwelling unit
won’t be detrimental o~ injurious to property or improvements in ,the vicinity. Doesthat
include the impacts’of the parking? It says the second dwelling unit but attached
associated with the second dwelling unit are the new parking spaces. Would that aspect
apply to whether the design of the parking spaces is in some way injurious to propert$.
and secondly what constitutes injury to property in this regard?
Mr. White: IfI understand the question I think you are talking about the parking
arrangement.
Commissioner Burr: Yes, it says that the second dwelling unit would not be injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity. Does that condition also apply to the parking
necessitated by the second dwelling unit?
’Mr. White: I would imagine it would by extension.
Commissioner Burr: Then what constitutes injury to property in a sense like this When
.the findings referring to injury to property or improvements in the vicinity? What is
meant by injury to that property?
City of Palo Alto Page 19
37
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
11:
12’
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
2~
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
3~
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
4~
Mr. White: I think it can mean a wide variety of things but I think they would have to be
something that you could relate specifically to the request which is the building of this
structure and the parking, perhaps in the case that you mentioned that would somehow
detrimentally effect the neighboring properties or.p.ropem.’es in the neighborhood. In thls
particular case the issues’ that we saw as pertinent to the request was whether ~e parking
arrangement was safe and adequate and whether there were any undue impacts to
privacy, light and air, that sort of thing which we felt could be mitigated by the conditions
that we applied to the project. So those are the issues that we identified that are
potentially detrimental. I imagine generally speaking there are a wide variety of things
that could be considered.
Commissioner Butt: Are the aesthetic impacts potentially injurious?
Mr. White: Potentially. The code r’equires that the secondary dwelling unit be
compatible architecturally to the main dwelling. We believe that that covers that
aesthetic concern.
Commissioner Butt: How did you determine that the second dwelling unit was
compatible? We haven’t seen designs that give us that reassurance. There are some
accessory buildings on the property that don’t seem to be compatible with the
neighborhood. What led you to conclude that this secondary dwell.ing unit would be
compatible?
Mr. White: We actually didn’t think it was completely compatible. We actually have
some conditions in the approval that required further review on our part. We had some
concerns about the massing of the roof and the shape of the roof, the overall height of the
building, obviously we’d be concerned about colors and materials and that would be
subject to further review by Staff.
Commissioner Bust: Finally, regarding the on street parking when I visited the residence
the chain-link gate was closed. It looked like it was not an easy task to open and close
that as far as gates go. There was at that time one car parked outside on the street rather
than on the property and no cars parked on the property. I don’t know if that’s a typical
circumstance but it seemed to suggest that the method ofi~arking there is not on the
property but instead on the street. My concern is with that being at a busy intersection
not only this residence but other place.s in the City. I have a concern with parking being
too adjacent to a comer where we have bike lanes as well as the heavy use of school
children attempting to cross a busy intersection there. What concerns do you or the
Traffic Department have about overuse of parking or the extensive parking that may
occur at that location on the street adjacent to a bike lane? And are there conditions that
we might in the future want to restrict on street parldng at a busy comer like is done at a
lot of places with red curbing a comer?
Mr. White: That’s a big question. I thinkthe way we viewed this was related to the
request at hand which was the secondary dwelling unit and the adequacy and safety of the
C~ty of Palo Alto Page 20
38
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
parking that is being provided on the site. Obviously the code has certain requirements
that are stated that are adequate which is two covered and two uncovered spaces for this
particular case. As Wyrme pointed out if there are parking spaces on the s~xeet that are
legal par.king spaces anyone can access them. In fact, it would be ve.ry diffi.eult for us to
mandate or enforce the people who live on thai site to park’{n that site. We might be able
to apply conditions that would make it easier for them to park on their site. As you
indicated there is a chain-link fence that perhaps some condition relating to the fence or a
more open kind of arrangement to access those p .arking spaces, an automatic gate or
something along those lines. However, I should point out that the gate and fence that
they have there is a legal fence in its location and in its height. But certainly those sorts
of conditions could be applied.
’Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: It sounds like we should consider a condition tha~ the fence that -
we have, the solid seven foot high wooden fence, not go acros.s the driveway but rather
work such that it not incorporate the driveway and the garage so that it would certainly be
a benefit to the neighborhood to encourage the use of the driveway and garage by having
the fence follow the lines of the driveway up to the garage. I also want to ask is there, as
one of the speakers indicated, an intention to study this intersection in the year 2000?
Are you aware of that?
Mr. White: I believe that the reference was to an area-wide kind of study. I should ¯
clarify Ga~l Likens is amember of the Transportation Division. She deals primarily With
bicycle issues, does not usually review these sorts of development applications. In fact
the Traffic Engineer does that. So she may have been speaking perhaps out of context to
some degree or was referring to a wider study. I’m not sure, I wasn’t privy to the
conversation.
Commissioner Bialson: How close to. the intersection is parking allowed on the street?.
Mr. White: I’m not sure of that.
Commissioner Bialson: So we could recommend to the City that they look at perhaps
restricting parking close to the intersection. Certainly then I feel the Ng’s would then be
encouraged to use their driveway mad garage if they wish to park their car and perhaps
alleviate some¯ of the neighbors’ concerns With regard to ,the business of this intersection
which I can attest to. I lived near that intersection for approximately six mbnths a few
years ago and it is an extremely busy intersection.
Chairman Schmidt:
Commissioner SchJnk: If we wish to modify the conditions are we able to do that tonight
without the applicant being here or without the applicant’s consent?
City of Palo Alto Page 21
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
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
Ms. Furth: Yes, the applicant elected not to be here.
Chairman Schrnidt: Any one have any other questions? I have one parking question.
We talked about elimi~, ating the curb cut on Middle field, is that deemed an unsafe curb
cut? Is it in use now?
Mr. White: No, that was more of a commonsense observation that if we el’.tminated that
curb cut which wasn’t necessary it would free up parking potentially on Middlefield
Road. So in other words, eliminating curb cuts is probably a good thing.
Chairman Sctmaidt: I’m sorry, that it would free up parking space?.
Mr. White: It certainly would eliminate the ~urb cut and that access onto Middlefield
Road at the very least which is a good thing. That was our rationale.
Ms. Furttu The City also tries to eliminate unnecessary driveways and sidewalks. They
are a problem.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Who would like to begin the discussion.
Commissioner Bgrd: i don’t doubt for a splitsecond that the concerns raised by these
neighbors are real. The neighbors have no reason to come in here and tell anything but
the math. It sounds like a really intolerable situation. I also believe strongly, as the City
Attorney advised, that this isn’t the right venue for addressing those issues..Whether it’s
code enforcement or a civil nuisance action or contacting the state department of health
services or pursuing criminal complaints through the police, there are other ways that we
regulate behavior. A use permit for a second-dwelling unit is not the appropriate vehicle
for regulating behavior. I think we would do well to listen to our City Attorney and
restrict ourselves to making the findings or’not around the physical structure. So I then
turn to the findings and I find myself able to make the Krst finding for this permit but I
have trouble with the second.
I’m not sure that the use Will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Comp Plan and the Zoning Code for two reasons. Number ong I have concerns about the
design of the parking program. I agree with Jon that in its current design I’m not sure it
is architecturally compatible’with the existing pattern of development’ on the lot and on
surrounding lots. I think that in its current design the parking program that would be
required to support the proposed use may not be sufficient. Secondly, I have concerns
with the design of the structure itself. On the second sheet of the drawings you’ll see that
there is a floor plan. On that floor plan the bedrooms and the bathroom are on the north
end of the building which is the side that is closest to the adjacent lot. You’.ll see on the
elevations that there are more windows proposed for the north side elevation than .for the
south side, which, is the interior of the lot. I think it would be a more compatible design
to have the doublewide windows, which I presume are required by ftre code removed for
bedrooms one and two. In the case of bedroom one moved to the west side and in the
City of Palo Alto Page 22
4O
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
4O
41
42
43
44
45
case of bedroom two to the east side so that ~ach bedroom had a doublewide window,
one on the east and one on the west. And that it was a solid wall for bedrooms one and
two facing north in order to better protect the adjoining lot. I also don’t know if it is
within our authority.to condition the. .wir~.dow .for the bathro6m to be either number .o.n.e.
opaque or number t’~’o either unable to open or open in a way that simpiy vents to the top.
I’ve seen’these windows that go this way for a couple of inches so that steam can escape
and light and air can get in.
As currently designed I don’t think I’m able to make the required findings for condition
two. If my fellow Commissioners agree with me on this the question would then become
do we want to try to correct these defects through conditions or do we simply want to
uphold the appeal and if the applicant wishes then the applicant could make
modifications based on this discussion and reapply. So I wanted to throw out those two
substantive concerns, one around parking and one around building design, to see if they
gain traction. I.f they do we can figkre out procedurally where we might want to go with
them.
Chairman Schmidt: Who else would lille to comment? Phyllis it looks like you’re ready
to say something.
Commissioner Cassel: Owen, in terms of your response I’d rather conditio~ it here rather
than wait and expect them to reapply all over again. These processes are long and
difficult for people. I’m very concerned about what’s going on in this neighborhood, i
agree with you that people aren’t coming in and making up stories. I’m also concerned
that we are expected by the state ’to have an ordinance for small cottages on lots that are
of some size in town. That this lot is well over that size, that this lot could not be divided
because of the area it is in but certainly the house could have been demolished and a very
1 .urge two story’house be put up there that would make visual and traffic problems more
difficult. So I think that we can make the findings if we make those assessments in terms
of the unit itself. The owner of the property who isn’t here to consent to that could
decide not to do it if they wish to or appeal it I presume. I would make the adjustments at
this time.
Chairman Schmidt: Jon,
Commissioner Schink: I agree with Owen and I think my feelings are even a little
stronger about the design. Before I talk about that let me talk about the issue of the
cottage. If this was a wonderfully designed cottage and the parking issues were well
conceived I would feel compe!led to support this application. i can appreciate the
neighbors’ concerns. I’m sympathetic. But I Would support the application. Where I
fred myself is being very disturbed by the actual design of the application and what we
have in front of us. I sort of feel like what’s probably happened is there have been so
many other emotional issues flying around that not enough attention got paid to the real
design issues here.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
41
Owen, many of us have been real advocates for .~econd units and we sincerely believe in
second units but I think that if we were to allow a second unit like this to be built it would
be forever brought back to us as an example of what a terrible, ugly-looking mess this
.was. So I would say that it just needs to go back. The unit needs to be re.d.e.signed, it
needs to have architectural character, it needs to relate to the existing houg’e - it doesn’t.
It shouldn’t have an awkward relationship to the existing garage. And it shouldn’t have
40 feet or 36 feet or so much concrete across the front. There needs to be a solution to
that problem. There may be a problem with our ordinance and I hope we can get on that
issue right away. We may be part of the problem here in creating that 36 feet 0fpaving
and if so we need to get to work on it. You total it all up and’we’ve got a pretty ugly-
looking cottage being proposed in the back. I think that is a problem I can’t go along .
with. The applicant has chosen not to be here. I don’t know how to provide conditions
which say you havet0 completely redesign it and make it look good. So I.think it was
their choice. I think the right action is to uphold the appeal and suggest theystart o:ver.
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
Chairman Schmidt: Aniaette.
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with both Owen and Jon. I think that without the
applicant here, although I too would like some finality to this issue and I think it is going
to be difficult for both the appellant and the original applicaut,, we do need to send this
back. It does have to be rethought out. I think having Staff look at this again is
appropriate. So I would uphold the appeal.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I concur with Owen and Jon on their points and I’m additionally
concerned with the parking pattern. Annette had recommended earlier a condition that
the driveway perhaps be left open. I think I would share that as a possible correction as a
way that the parking spaces on the property are not in name only. Second, I have a
problem with the two dwelling units having.vehicles that Would back out onto East
Meadow and back out through the bike lane. The public safety concern of that lack of
visibility there as a number of vehicles would be backing out. There are other driveways
on that street that do back out there but where you’have two dwelling units there on one
driveway I would hope that there could be a design that might allow the vehicles to back
up and then exit from the property as the front of the vehicle exiting first’as opposed to
bac ..k~ug out onto the bike lane. So those would be my concerns on the driveway. Then
finally at the corner congestion there and whether there should be additional parking
restrictions right at that key pedestrian corner,
Chairman Schraidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I would just like to follow up with what Pat just indicated. I
think especially in light of people backing out of the driveway it would be appropriate to
restrict parking. Thatwill increase visibility for anyone whether they back out or come
out front forward to see bicyclists. Again, that inv01ves the City reviewing that situation
City of Palo Alto Page 24-
42
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’
4O
41
42
43
44
but I think it is some.thing that we have a right to take a look at given the great public
harm that could flow from not adequate!y addressing this problem.
Commissioner Cassel: I~11 cpmment on this traffic issue. I think we’re puttin.g a.
tremendous burden on the Ng famiiy concerning traffic as an’excuse to cover the fact that
we want to do something to slowthis process or change this process down. No other
single .family residence in town, living on a corner, is obliged t,o get its parking so that it
can’t back out no matter how busy that corner is. They are all over the place. This site
could very easily put up a very large house on this corner. There are many in this
neighborhood. Which could have many, many cars on that site, which could rent to any
number of people it wishes to rent to and they would not be required to turn around and
come out front-ways. It can be done so that can happen and you’ll have a lot more.
asphalt. You have to have one driveway. It doesn’t say you can’t have a driveway that
enters and exits so that you could have that driveway.run all the way through the property
from Middlefield Road a!l the way through to the other side. Now you wouldn’t have to ¯
back out, you could go through but I think it @ould be a lot more ugly. I think we are
putting the burden of the traffic that is intense on that corner on the family. Across the
street from this project is a church with a daycare-program and on the other side of the
street is a fire station with its traffic. The single family house which has a right to put up
a cottage on it and this is 12,000 square feet not 8,000 squ~.re feet is going to bear the
burden of not baeldng out on the corner because it is going to have too much traffic.
There are a lot.of arguments we can use but for me that just isn’t it.
Chairman Schmidt: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I’d like to put a motion on the floor if that’s acceptable. I would
like to move that we uphold the appeal of the Jew family basedon the fact that the
proposed conditional use permit is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan
condition L- 12.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second?
commissioner Byrd: Second.
Chairman Schmidt: It has been moved by Jon and seconded by Owen to uphold the
appeal. I think that the City Attorney would like to speak. .
Ms. Furth: Yes. There are two things I want to say. One of them is general which is of
course you need to make this decision as if you had not heard testimony on the conduct
of the people who live here. That is irrelevant to what you are doing here. Secondly, ’
having done that and treating this the way you would treat other applications, you
conclude that this appeal should be upheld you need to make specific findings. Not
simply the conclusion that it is incompatible with. Condition L-12 but a description of,
why it is not. Finally, if you decide to uphold this appeal for the reasons that you set
City of Palo Alto Page 25
43
1
2
3
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
3I
32
33
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
45
forth, it is not a matter of sending it back. You will be sending it up. This will be going
to City Council is the applicant elects to carry it further but it will not go back.
Commissioner Byrd: I have a follo .w.up ques.fion. LIf...we..u.p.h,old..t..h.e appeal~ the project is..
i:lenied and if the Ng’s choose to appeal they can take it tO Cohncil otherwise it stops here
and it is over.and they could reapply?
Mr. White: lXlo, that’s incorrect. It goes to the Council automatically.
Commissioner Byrd: It is an automatic?
Mr. White: That’s correct,
Commissioner Byrd: This is one of those City’~ where nothing ends with the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Furth: There is a third alternative which is that we are still within the time under.the
permit streamlining act which permits you ,to continue this. We are beyond it because it
is an appeal. Because the applicant is not here, because your concerns are architectural, if
you wish to continue this and ask Staff to contact the applicant and advise them you have
architectural concerns and have them come back and address those, we can do that too.
That’s the other alternative.
Commissioner Byrd:’ Do YOU want to Speak to your motion?
Chairman Schmidt: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Let me first ask a question. My statements on the record
previously outlining my problems with the architecture are not sufficient to bundle those
together, as the findings to point out why it is not compatible with the neighborhood
character? Do you want me to go through it again?
Ms, Furth: I’m afraid so because the question is what aspect of the neighborhood is it not
compatible with?
Commissioner Schink: Alright. Why don’tI staff and I’ll look forward to some help
from the Seconder. The proposed cot/age has a design that is incompatible with the
farmhouse character of the comer building. The relationship of the garage to the two
dwelling units I would describe as awkward at best. The relationship of a parking’space
sandwiching the garage can be considered poor design and out of character with the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Byrd: I want to return to my concern about whether or not the proposed
cottage is compatible with surrounding dwellings. I think as designed it is overly
impactful on the adjacent lot, While I am pleased that the proposed floor plan cites the
Cgty of Palo Alto Page 26
i
2
3
10
11
12
13
17
19
2O
21
22
2~
24
2~
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
3~
3~
39
40
41
42
44
more passive uses on the north side adjacent to the Jew’s lot I believe that the window
placements and window designs on the north elevation are incompatible and overly
impactful. I must say as an aside, I am so glad that Wyrme makes us struggle to make
thes.~ findings. There are jus.t .to.o..many..¢ities which iet commissions.roll.over .this stuff.
If our professional S~aff intl:Mr be’st judgment think the appeal shbuld be denied ah?t we
think it should be upheld by gosh we should straggle. This is a good thing.
Ms. Furth: That inappropriate fenestration 0n the wall. The Windows are designed in a
way that it is too much of a view of the adjacent property as they are presently tocated.
Commissioner Byrd: Yes as presently located or designed. As I said I’d like to see the
bathroom window be opaque and have limited opening and I’d like not to see any
bedroom windows there at all.
Commissioner Schink: But you can include inappropriate fenestration also because the
relationship and the sizes and forms of the windows is inappropriate to the main .
structure.
Ms. Furth: It is a common issueto be addressed when you ar~ constructing residential
buildings next to each other, how you locate windows, balconies; doors and so on so that
each side has as much privacy as you can manage. That’s a common kind of design issue
that can be addressed with design responses.
Commissioner Byrd: I also want to be clear that the findings speak only to the design of
the parking program on the lot and not the ingress and egress program. I completely
agree with Phyllis we don’t want to load up this apphcation with the responsibility to
make traffic and parking work at this impacted neighborhood.
Commissioner Schink: I do too.
Commissioner Byrd: That’s not fair. We are talking about on-site conditions only.
Ms. Furth: If you could articulate for us even more clearly what you have in mind on the
on-site circulation or parking.
Commissioner Byrd: if this retur~ !’d like to see a tandem program explored that could
perhaps reduce the amount ofhardscape dedicated to parking. Or simply reorganize this
existing pattern to make more efficient use of parking spaces both covered and uncovered
to reduce the total amount of coverage on the lot dedicated to covered and uncovered
parking.
Commissioner Schink: I would agree with what Owen is saying there. I think the major
point here is that they tried to maintain the existing garage structure and then fit the’
parking pieces in around it and it just doesn’t work. They needed to rethink the parki.ug-
City of Palo Alto Page 27
45
I
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
from scratch. If they had done that I think they could have easily come up with an
acceptable solution.
..Ms. Furth: So the site could accommodate the parking without ~ffen~ding .against these:
principles of not ha’,;i.ug too much pavemeht, having the parking screened from the street
and only using one driveway but it might require relocation of the garage.
Commissioner Byrd: I’m guessing you’ve got to rebuild that garage..You might want to
attach it to the new proposed structure and design the uncovered parking .around it. I
don’t want to design from the podium here. I think it is our role to say what doesn’t work
here and not to sit here and design what would work.
Commissioner Schink: I agree.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Are these everyone’s concerns?
Commissioner Cassel: I want to speak against this.
Commissioner Schink: I just want to make one last comment. I’m a little tom here, I’d .
like to see us give the appl.icant an opportunity to go back and redesign the project but
there’s a dozen neighbors, there’s half a dozen of us and Staff, we’re all here and ready to
hear the issue and we’re ready to deal with it. If they don’t want to come down and
address them here that’s not our problem. I think we need to deal with it and move the
issue, along. If they want to start over, so be it.
Chairman Selamidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I want to speak against supporting the appeal. I think there are
two issues we are dealing with here. We’ve have neighbors come forward feeling that
they have safety issues. Let me go back to that at th~ end. In terms of the unit if you’re
going to approve the units I think that the conditions that are being proposed couid be
imposed on this unit. It is unfortunate that the Ng’s are not here. That would have been
very helpful. We could have done it that way rather than the reverse. We could have
upheld the Zoning Administrator and placed the conditions and still had a better unit. I
think that there is a tendency to turn down these units carte blanch and I think there’s
tendency for us to make it extremely difficult to build these second units that we say we
want.
I think we need to talk in terms of compatibility with the neighborhood with putting in a
second unit. It is an expectation of the law of the state of California that we will allow
some of those units in town and we wil! have rules for them. They are to be single story.
They are to be very small and they are to be on lots that are over 8,000 square feet. This
lot is over 12,000 square feet. In many parts of town that would be divided into two units
and two large homes would be placed on them. The issue of design is a very major
concern that all of us have. There is a committee meeting now really as the result of the
City of Palo Alto Page 28
46
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
reverse of this problem. That is that many people are very concerned about very large
homes being built in neighborhoods and overpowering the neighbors and staring down at
the neighbors and looking in at their yards and Watching the people in s.ingle family units
.getting dressed. This h~.res.ulted in a committee which.is now ;.m~etiug to discuss these
kinds of design i;sues. H~w shruld hduses worl~ wi}.h ~eighboring houses. To maintaiit
two single-family units instead of putting up one large two-story unit would be an
absolute delight in most single family neighborhoods. So I think We should have
Woceeded and supported the decision of the Planning Manager.
I am very concerned about what’s going on in the neighborhood. I think that problem
would exist whether or not you have this unit. Therefore, some way it needs to be
addressed. It is an extremely difficult issue and it is not an issue that you bear alone.
This is a concern not only in this neighborhood but around town as to how we deal with
some of our homeless members of our communi.’ty, some of those who are i11. It is a
concern with~many other communities in marginal situations where you’d like to keep
people in the neighborhood.but should you or can you and is it safe to do so. So I think
that issue needs to be pursued more ha and try to help the neighbors in general as well as
being concerned for the safety of the family members ~at you’re concerned about. You
explained situations to us in which the family that you are concerned about living next
door to yQu not only are a danger to you but you’re expressing situations in wfileh they
are a danger to themselves. This is not an easy issue to deal with and I am very
concerned and very sympathetic about the problem.
Chairman Schrrfdt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to speak to the motion. I?m going to support the motion.
I do have a slightly different perspective on the issue of tandem parking. I’m not in favor
of it. I don’t particularly like the width of this driveway but I do think that it makes the
entrance and exit into the driveway a littie safer. I tNnk that people as they back out into
the street have an ability given a wider driveway to come into the street a little more
shallow rather than backing straight into the street. So I cannot support the comments
with regard to tandem parking. I still do feel that the initial applicant should be
encouraged to park by.use of the fencing that we described earlier. I just wanted to make
clear that I do not necessarily Want tandem parking at this location. That goes to public
safety. I do want there to be some consideration given to the parking situation and the
allowance of cars if they are continued to allow to park near that drivrway the obscuring
of the visibility of oncoming bicycle and vehicle traffic to someone coming back out of
that driveway. Do you need further clarification on that Mr. White?
Mr. White: Nd, I’m just a little confused about the motion. As I heard it it was to
approve the appeal.
Commissioner Bialson: Yes, but there were comments made and some of the comments
were in favor of tandem parking and I’m merely stating my preference.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. White: Right. Again what we are trying to do from a Staffperspective is trying to
put down in writing what the motion is so that we can relay this’ to the City Council.
Commissioner Bialson: Oh, the motion.
Mr. WNte: So we can relay this to the City Council as the next step. Obviously if you
are suggesting and this motion carries that the appeal is approved it would be because of
the stated reasons which the ~ndings cannot be made for the reasons ’that we stated. Then
recommended conditions wouldn’t be added to that. That’s where my confusion comes
from.
Commissioner Bialson: I see. So you have indicated there ~at one of the conditions is
the necessity of tandem parking?
Ms. Fm’th: What we are trying to have is an articulated finding of facts and donclusions
as law. Leading you to the conclusion that you should recommend denial of this
application, not that it be approved with conditions to City Council. We hive that the
basis for the denial is that it’s not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
specifically this project does not preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by
encouraging new or remodeled structures that are compatible with the neighborhood and
adjacent structures. That’s the big category. Then below that ftrst one is that the pattern
of windows on the north side of the cottage is incompatible with the residential structure.
across the property line and it is overly intrusive in terms of both noise and privacy. Is
that correct?
I confess my notes get pretty bad. The second one is that the parking arrangement as
proposed requires too much paving and is not adequately screened essentially. The
requirement for a second u~it is that it be adequately screened. Then I got lost.
Msl Grote: IfI could interject as well. I had notes to the effect that the relationship of
the garage to the two units is awkward and t.hat sandwiching the garage in between two
parking spaces is inefficient and awkward.
Chairman Schmidt: I think Jon also mentioned the design of the character of the second
unit is not compatible with the design of the main unit.
Commissioner SckinK The window fenestration is not appropriate to the site.
Ms. Furth: And the condition that was imposed requiring redesign of the second unit,
you felt, was not adequate to insure compatibility.
Ms. Grote: I thLuk the main house was characterized as ha~ring a farmhouse quality and
the second unit dicl~’t maintain that same quality.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Schink: Mainly at the window fenestration they’ll see thedesign
breakdown. The other point that I want to emphasize is that the width of.the driveway is
in appropriate for the character of the neighborhood.
Ms. Furth: The neighborhood doesn’t use that kind of extra wide dri~,eway.
Commissioner Schink: In general.
Ms. Furth: It’s incompatible.
Commissioner Schink: That’s what Annette was having a little disagreement with.
Commissioner Bialson: That’s correct. I’m more concerned with the public safety issue.
Do you want me to state that? It would be hostile to the motion so I’ll hold on that.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
CommissionerBurt: Just one point of clarification in the Staff’s ~econd finding there is a’
reference to Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs. It references Policy H-4. I
believe it would be Program H-4 that would be referenced in this case just for purposes of
clarify that to Council if that is correct.
Chairman Schmidt: Owen.
Ms. Furth: Pr6gram H-4 is about second traits, yes.
Commissioner Byrd: Because this does go Up to Council I just want to clarify in
response to Phyllis’ comments that I don’t think that this motion is in any way ariti
second unit. In fact, Jon’s point that if we do it right we set the stage for approval of
more second units is appropriate. There are a number of us up here who have been
aggressive proponents of second units. Let me clear, I hope that the Council upholds ohr
approval of the appeal and I hope the applicant reapplies and comes up with a design
consistent with these comments so that we can approve a second unit on this lot. It is big
enough and appropriately located within the City to take a second unit. So I hope it can
work here.
Commissioner Cassel: And my response back to you i.s I don’t disagree with those
changes." I disagree with the technique you are using. There i~ a tendency for the City to
price things out of the range of what people can afford. I’ve seen,this in other things and
I think that’s what making the whole process longer does that.
Commissioner Byrd: You mean the process of upholding the appeal and forcing them to
reapply?
Commissioner Cassel: Versus making the changes as a condition of use.
City of Palo Alto Page 31
49
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
,8
9
10
11,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36’
37
38
39
40
41
43
45
Commissioner Byrd: I agree with Jon. This was their shot and if choose not to come
down that’s their loss.
Chairman Schrnidt:’ Are there other comments on the motion or the issue? I ~rant tb
make a few comments myself. We’ve had a good discussion about this. I go back to
where Owen started saying that obviously there are real concerns and this is an
intolerable situation but it’s not the right venue to deal with th~it. I hope there are other
venues, other avenues, where the neighbors can really take this up.
I will also agree with the recommendation to grant the appeal because this does not meet
the second finding to be concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan requirements. I also
would second what Owen just said regarding second units. We have tried in many, many
instances to have more second units. In fact, two weeks ago we did everything we could
to require second units’as part of the South of Forest project on small 16ts in order to
bring into Palo Alto potentially some more affordable housing units. So I think we’d like
to see them wherever we can because there is such a housing shortage especially a
smaller potentially more affordable type. But I agree with the.comments and findings
¯ that we have made about the design of this unit. That we need’to do second units in a
compatible manner with good design features. This one doesn’t work so I will support
what most of my colleagues have said. Annette. ~
Commissioner Bialson: Just one hopefully final comment. I appreciate the attendance
and communication of the neighbors. I think they raised some points which we ’could not
address but they also raised the points of the impact on the intersection and the danger of
the use to the number of bicyclists, etc. at that intersection. So I appreciate that and that
has played a larg.e part in my decision making. Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Are we ready to take a vote? All those in favor of the motion by Jon
seconded by Own to uphold the appeal and that would be to deny the applicant the
conditional use permit to build the second unit. All those in favor please say aye (ayes).
All those opposed say no (no). That passes 5-1 with Commissioner Cassel voting against
it.
This will go to City Council in March.
Ms. Grote: It is Currently on the agenda for March 20t~ because there is a 30 day time
requirement between Commission recommendation and Council action. However, it may
be continued on March 20t~ to an Aprit 17t~ date at this point.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next item on our agenda is Item 3,655 Arastradero
Road and this also is an appeal. The appellant has requested thit this item be deferred to
a date uncertain. We need to vote on this. Is there a motion to defer this item to a date
uncertain?
C~t2 of Palo Alto Page 3 2
5O
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
Commissioner Schink: So moved.
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Chairman Schmidt: Moved by Jon and seconded by Annette to defer this i~em to a date
uncertain. All those in favor please say aye (ayes). All those opposed say no. That
passes unanimously.
The nex~ item 3220 and 3230 Alexis Drive, in this. case this application has already been
deferred and will be heard on March 8ta.
That is the end of public hearings.
The next item is Reports From Committees. Axe there any reports?
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES.
None.
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS.
None.
COMMISSIONMEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR
AN-NO UNCEMENTS.
Chairman Schmidt: I will say that I have been requested in this section to volunteer for
Commission representation at Council meetings for the next three months after March.
Volunteers?
Commissioner Cassel: Do you want me to do April? I didn’t have to do. anything in
February.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, Phyllis’is volunteering for April.
Commissioner Byrd: April would be more convenient for me than May. Do you care?
Commissioner Cassel: Fll try May. June won’t work.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, Owen ~for April. Phyllis for May. Do I have a volunteer fo)
June?
We have Jon for June.
Axe there any other questions, comments or announcement? Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I just want to comment that and this might sound a little strange
after we just overturned Staffs opinion on the last item but I reall?i appreciate a situation
where Staff is willing to take a position contrary to what a whole neighborhood has stated
City of Palo Alto Page 33-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
mad to sortof stand up and have the backbone. I work in a lot of different cities and it is
rare to find Staff that is willing to believe in and individual’s property rights, make a
decision, and stick with it. I have a great deal 0frespect for George for being willing t9
do that, We came.at this from a comp!etely different place but. it really, is a rar.e public.
servant that has the courage t6 do that and I think we should ~’cdgnize that.
Commissioner Cassel: One other comment on a comment from the public hearing.
concerning the minutes to the meeting. My understanding is the tape for those minutes
didn’t work and that’s why we didn’t get them. I had already addressed that question
with Staff.
Ms. Grote: That’s correct. The tape was not operable and we could not transcribe the
minutes from that meeting.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. Let’s move on to approval of minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
We have minutes for January 26, 2000.
Commissioner Bialson: I move that we accept the minutes of January26, 2000.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second.
Commissioner Burr: Second..
Chairman Schmidt: Moved by Annette andseconded by Pat. All those in favor please
say aye (ayes). All those opposed please say no.
Commissioner Schink: I was out of town.
Chairman Schmidt:. Jon was absent so he is abstaining from the vote. The minutes are
approved on a vote of 5-0-1.
Commissioner Byrd: Kathy, I haye a quick question. On the tentative agenda of future
Commission meetings it says that Wednesday, March 14tu might be a special meetin£ on
the South of Forest plan.. There i~ no Wednesday, March 14 . Is it Wednesday the 15t~
or Tuesday the 14t~.
Ms. Grote:. It would be Tuesday, March 14th.
Commissioner Byrd: Is that still likely .to happen?
Ms. Grote: I~ is.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
52
1 Commissioner Byrd:, That’,~ on. Okay.
2
3 Chairman Schmidt: Anything else? Then the meeting i.s adjourned. Thank you.
4
~ " ADJOURNED AT: 9:30 PM
City of Palo Alto Page 3 5
53
54
Michael Ng
Harv-axd Law School
39 Kirldand Street, Apartment 404
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(61D 441-628s
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
November 4, 1999
Attachment C
To the Planning Department:
In light of the fact that recent weeks have seen a petition circulating the neighborhood where
I grew up, it is tempting t.o xvrite to you with an appeal to your consciences, a detailing of the
difficulties my adopted siblings have confronted before coming to my family and struggled to
overcome since. Since the petition, to the best of my knowledge, has been accompanied by
unflattering descriptions of my family and mischaracterization of us as a group home, it is tempting
to write to you of the genuine heroism my p~xents, have exhibited in h, elping each of us, of the
circumstances they have rescued us groin, of how they have literally saved many of our lives. It is
tempting, in short, to counter ill will with illustrations of good will, to counter pettiness with
examples of fortitude.
Even thsugh this m~ght assuage my anger and disappointment, it would miss the point. My
family, like any other, should not have to justify its very existence. Because some of us happened to
be born to other parents does not diminish the fact that we are, both legally and in every essentia!
xvay, a nuclear family. It would seem ludicrous to almost anyone to have any parents’ derisions to
give birth to cl~ildren raised in a public forum such as this; we should not be forced to justify by
moral righteousness or any other way the family which for us is the basic, immutable fact of our
lives,
This said, the difficulties we have faced living in Palo Alto.axe not krelevant. Too often the
tolerance we were taught in school as children was not practiced there. We have all confronted
racism, both from classmates and teachers. It is not irrelevant that some of us were taunted on the
playground, or that some of us were not allowed to play with the neighbors’ children. It is not
irrelevant that my youngest brother, partly of African-American heritage, has heard "nigger" escape
the lips of his classmates, nor that some of our siblings were taunted for then disabilities. These facts -
axe relevant because the form the backckop for what otherwise might seem wholly unrelated, an
application for a permit to build a cottage which would be accessible and useful to all of our family.
It is relevant because against this backdrop, what might other~vise seem a typical neighborhood
opposition to a nexv building can be seen for the effect it has on all of our family--additional
hardship, and yet another reminder tlaat xve axe not wdcome in the neighborhood we have lived in
’for nearly three decades.
For ali of what has transpired since, this is not the Palo Alto I remember from my early
childhood. I remember when the neighborhood kids were natuxally my best friends. No one called
the police then when we yelled and screamed as ~ve rode our bikes around the block. I remember
birthday picnics on long summer days with pifiatas and music in Spanish and friends of all shades
and colors. I remember genuine smiles and charitably large orders when we’d go door to door selling
candy to raise money for one activity or another.
55
I hope that those days are not over, and that my hometown has ’come so far as to have lost
those roots. I lament the apparent hostility of those who now own property near us but do not act
like neighbors. I hope, too, that you will not dignify this hostility with recognition, ,and that you will
not force my parents and siblings to justify even our e,,dstence as a family.
Thank you for your thne and understanding.
Sincerely,
1Viichad Ng
Statement to the Planning Commission
I am confident that today the Planning commission will render a decision based
on the facts and on our compliance with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
It has come to our attention, however, that some of our neighbors intend to lodge
an objection based on the nature, composition and size of our family. Although these are
irrelevant to the hearing it seems necessary to make clear who we are.
My husband and I have lived in Palo Alto for thirty years, at our present home for
almost 27 years. During those years we have formed a very real if atypical family. It has
been our privilege to be enriched not with sports cars or boats, but with the unfolding
struggles and triumphs of children far less fortunate than most Palo Altans. Many of our
children came home to us challenged in varying ways, cognitively, developmentally,
physically and/or emotionally. Many of them suffered at the hands of others who
claimed to be parents and by the neglect of an uncaring world.
Our children are more noticeable than some. They are racialty and ethnically
diverse. Their music.and language are colorful. Some are more noisy by virtue of their
d~sability. Parenting such children is demanding and infinitely complex. These children
teach us that the of the often overquoted proverb: "It takes a village to raise a child" is
true. By the same token the "village" can damage a child - by relentless scrutiny, by rude
stares, by unfounded accusations, by persistent exclusion, by an expectation of sameness.
57
Our children are our treasure. We are often awed by their courage. They have
lived lives filled with challenges far greater than overweight backpacks or traffic
congestion at school. They have suffered too many fools. Like us, they are imperfect.
But ~he imperfect, the ill, the disabled, as well as the enormously privileged are entitled to
live as full members of this community.
For rite most part, we have been blessed with good neighbors. One, in fact, left us
her house and property when she died. She did so, she said, because she too, wanted to
do something for children. We have tried to honor the spirit of her bequest. The house
was used first as a rent-free foster home for medically fragile babies, then as a final home
for the grandmother of many, then for one year as a totally rent and utility free home for a
family who had been long homeless. It is currently used as a below-market rental for a
wonderful young family headed by a young man who has triumphed over the trauma
imposed on him by a Palo Alto family. The village has rallied and now is being
replenished by this lovely family.
Our intention, as clearly stated in the Conditional Use Permit application is to add
a small cottage to the spacious property we were bequeathed. The intended uses are
clearly defined. We do not expect that anyone’s acceptance or lack of same. of our family
will be a factor in the decision made today. Thank you.
Nancy Sheehan Ng
November 4,1999
58
NG RESIDENCE
3655 N[iddlefield Road
Palo Alto
Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing - November 4, 1999
(Use in additio~t to Planning Commission’s recommendations.)
The second single family dwelling unit (or cottage) is designed and located on the
property lot to correctly meet all applicable requirements of the Palo Alto City Zoning
Ordinance.
The two proposed uses of the cottage have been planned in accordance with the City of
Pato Alto Comprekensive Plan. Firstly, to offer community improvement by providing
affordabIe housing as a rental opportunity. The location, size and style of the unit
maintains the distinct sense of the single family neighborhood where the property is
located, This is not detrimert~al to neighboring homes because the cottage wilt be
contained inside the setbacks &the large lot and the required uncovered parking spaces
will clear the 24-foot front yard setback and have landscape screening from street views.
The proposed second use is to provide the homeowners with a completely functioning
home environment separate from their main residence to support the development of
their immediate family members who have special needs, so that these people can learn
independent living skills. This will not be detrimental to the public but wig provide
additional housing for a household that comprises of and supports those people with
special requirements.
Dear Planning Department
We are writing this letter to encourage you to decline the second dwelling
Conditional Use Permit for 3655 Middlefield Road.
We have lived next door to this property for 16 years on the ~east side of the
property on East Meadow Dr. We are a racially mixed family and we have two teenage
daughters.
Current Usage of the Midd[efield Property
The property today is used by the Ng family for social gatherings, a wedding the
summer of 1998, Easter parties, and weekend barbecues. They also use it for their
vegetable garden, a memorial garden for Mrs. Ng mother, and .to house chickens. They
also recently added two large sheds on the property for storage. Originally the sheds
were placed so close to the fence (within inches) it would have been difficult to make any
repairs to the fence. We had to call the Palo Alto Code Enforcement Division regarding
the location of the sheds. A code enforcement officer came out to notify the Ng’s that the
shed were place incorrectly. Not long before this they had removed from the property an
old building on the property that was also storage. The Ng children eventually broke all
the windows on this old building and it was becoming rat infested. We are currently
having rat and fly problems which we feel is due to the food put out for the chickens and
the manure from the animals because we never had them before the chickens arrived.
They have 3 structures for storage, all of their garden equipment is stored on this
property, their chickens (use to be rabbits and guinea pigs), deliveri~.s of compost is
delivered here, garage sales, and old furniture is left out on the property with free signs
on them. The prop.erty is used for large social gatherings and there is daily foot traffic
back and forth between the properties. The Ng’s also will park their cars along the
property rather than on their own driveway at various times. On Oct. 1, 1999 we
observed for the first time in 16 years an auto placed on the driveway facing East
Meadow Dr. We know the only reason they have done this is because the Ng’s are
requesting this conditional use permit and the :concerns of the city for off street parking.
Safety Issues With Special Need Adults and Children
Because of the nature of their family being a large number of special needs adults
we have had problems coming from both properties that they own. Prom the Middlefield
60
property Christopher has climbed over the fence to enter our hot tub and destroy the
controls on the tub. We’ve heard them rotalilling at 6:30 A.M. Mother’s Day two years
ago from the Middlefield property, playing loud radios that can be heard all over the
house, fights a~d screaming occurring in the garage they housed the kids in. 1 have seen
Mr. Ng and Christopher punching each other on the sidewalk, figl.~ts involving tools
between the special needs adults, and one son throwing rocks at the chickens yellin.g
"Lets kill them". I’ve come out to my kitchen in the morning and two of the Ng kids
were hanging over the fence looking right at me. The Ng adult children sometimes
wander around at night sometimes with flashlights that they shine over the homes.
We’ve been woken up at night with Mr. and Mrs. Ng yelling at each other before Mr. Ng
moved out. We’ve had our recycling stolen by a couple of the Ng children, which we
observed while we were up on the second floor of our home. We’ve had our recycling
material kicked over, our garbage cans kicked over, the emblem on our car removed and
thrown in the dirt next to the Ng property, nuts and bolts taken off our boat which sits on
our drive way. This past summer Bunchai was out in the middle of East Meadow
standing in traffic having an emotional screaming period and then standing on the
opposite side Of the street yelling and crying. Not once did Mrs. Ng come out to help or
console him. We’ve observed Christopher running out of his house many times and
sometimes in his underwear being chased by his siblings trying to catch him. We’ve seen
him carried back by his siblings wrestling to get himself free. Christopher has stood
behind our car taldng little steps preventing us from backing out of out of our driveway.
My husband has been cursed at while he stood in our garage by Christopher as he walked
over to the Middlefield property. Power tools have been aimed at me as if he were
holding a gun making shooting sounds, we’ve both had water shot as t~s from Christopher
even while Mrs. Ng stood near by and did nothing. I was up on a ladder painting my
home on the side facing the Middlefield property. While I was painting Christopher was
watering the garden on the other side of the fence., He started to sho.ot the water at my
legs. The first time I ignored him then he proceeded to cover my whole body with water.
Mrs. Ng and the renter were standing in the yard talking and watched ~he incident. I
heard Mrs. Ng tell the neighbor "Don’t pay it any attention". I yelled for the renter
neighbor to turn off the water and he did. My husband and I called the police and that is
when Officer Tealer advised us to get a restraining order against Christopher.
It is the most frightening feeling that someone actually will physically try to
cause harm to you. I will never forget the fear I felt and how I started to shake and then
cry. I truly was so scared I didn’t know if this was a new level of harassment that my
family or I was about to start experiencing. I get knots in my stomach each time I’m ou[
in my yard and Mrs. Ng or her children walk by. I feel I have to be very aware of their
presence at all times whether I’m in my home, in my yard or see them anywhere in
public. We always worry about leaving our home for vacation trips and what possible
things might happen.
One weekend our daughter observed Christopher out in front of our home
cranking the handle of our boat sitting on the driveway. Movement of the boat up and
down could possibly be a dangerous situation since it’s a large boat. My husband went
over to tell them about the incident. Mr. Ng was on the driveway so he asked him to not
let Christopher touch the boat. When Mr. Ng told Christopher, Christopher; came
running at Rick screaming profanities, his hands were clenched aggressively and
appeared moments away from sticking Rick. Mrs. Ng walked over and grabbed
Christopher by his pants and said, "Do not talk to my retarded son".
Another summer when the parents were away on vacation Rick and I were in the
house when we heard a loud crash outside. I ran out and saw that one of their special
needs adult’s had driven their car through the garage door and tore it off the building on
the flag lot behind us. Of Course he was stunned when he got out of the car and he said
he wanted to drive the car. There were no adults in the house at this time so the
Grandmother who was in poor health in a wheelchair and two houses away on the
Middlefleld property came over to deal with the police that came.
Another time I was out in my yard with my husband and mo~er in-law when the
Ng’s came home from church in their large van. I was working on my landscaping near
their driveway. When they pulled up on the driveway their oldest son came leaping our
of their car running at a neighbor who was walking home with his family from their
church. He proceeded to scream and curse at this family in a horrifying way. We stood
their shocked at what was unraveling in front of us. They had accused a neighbor of
sexual contact with one of their boys when in fact their were a number of people that
testified to the police that the neighbor was not even in town at the time of the supposed
incident.
During the summer of 1998 the Ng’s adopted daughter Mary got married and had
her wedding reception on .the lawn on the Middlefield property. On the day of the
wedding they had a DJ and large speakers set on the flag lot aimed a, cross our property to
the Middlefield property. The volume was So.loud we had to leave our hrme for the day.
Not once did the Ng’s come over and talk to us about how they were going to disturb the
neighbors. For the wedding the Mr. Mrs. Ng pressured our back fence neighbor to give
them an egress on his property so they could connect their two properties. They also
proposed to him that they would like to purchase part of his yard for this walkway that
would permanently connect the two properties. Our back yard neighbor felt pressured
because they said they wouldnot allow him to repair their common fence unless he gave
them the egress they wanted for the wedding. During this time the Ng’s also started
making other changes to our common fence which we did not want done because our
fences were leaning and the supports were eaten away. We were prepared to replace the
62
fences with new ones and wanted them built up to the level the city would allow. The
fences are only 5ft. 6inches which were built originally by Mr. Ng before we moved in.
Because of the short fences and the raised up level of our home, people on the decks on
the Middlefield property are very visible and there is very little privacy from our yard.
When Mr. Ng approached us on straightening the old fences we told.him we wanted to
get some bids on replacing the fences. He told us that he could not afford to pay for the
fences because of all the money he was putting into fixing up the home on East Meadow.
We have been having a problem over past few years regarding a tree that was on
the Middlefield property. It was a very large tree called the Tree of Heaven. It was a
weed tree that was a volunteer. This treesends roots up in our property and our
neighbor’s property to the other side of them. These roots according to the Palo Alto
City arborist can undem’line a foundation and ruin patios. I also contacted Bob Chapman
with the San Jose Mercury NewsPaper about the tree and he concurred that the tree is a
weed tree and is a real pest. He was trying to give me advise on how to deal with the
shoots coming up all over my landscaped yard. My neighbor Norm contacted Mrs. Ng
about the tree and she said the arborist with he city said she could not cut it down. I
contacted the arborist myself, and he said the tree is not protected in anyway and he would
be happy to talk with her about it. They have since cut the tree down, since it was
necessary for the wedding but now the roots have become more prevalent then before, l
have now had damage to nay landscaping and patio because these roots are coming up
next to my house and both sides of walkways.
Over the years we’ve lived next to the Ng’s we have suffered a barrage of
harassment. During this time we had rocks thrown at us in our back yard and we had to
run with our two girls into house for safety. When we went over to talk to Mr. Ng and
show him the rocks he said, "Those aren’t my rocks". Those very rocks were at his feet
lining the driveway, which were subsequently moved the following weekend by the Ng’s.
We’ve observed Christopher ripping the fence slats off our fence and yelling and
heckling us refusing to stop when we askedhim. His mother was in the kitchen during
this incident. When we had a policeofficer in the house talking to us about another
incident with Christopher, Christopher entered our home challenging us to have him
arrested.
We have seen the special needs children from the Ng family run out into traffic
without any thought of cars or their own safety. This in itself would be very dangerous if
this kind of behavior happened on the Middlefield property.
As you will see from our letters that there have been many incidents of harm that
has come upon our family and property. Our children have spent their childhood in fear
of the Ng childre’n because of what has happened to our family over the years. They have
always known that if the Ng children are in their yard that they are to come in the house.
Even today our 13-year-old will not stay on the house alone. We have been told by the
63
police that have come to our home and talked with us that they would advise us not to
ever leave our daughters alone for their own safety. Officer Tealer advised us to.get a
restraining order against Christopher so it would make it easier for them to arrest him.
We were just a couple of days from leaving on vacation so the timing was difficult to
start the procedure. When we got back the Ng’s had left on vacation for the rest of the
summer. We have been told by the police that Christopher ha~ held his mother at
knifepoint and the police were called to deal with the situation. We see even today that
Christropher gets out of control and has to be controlled by a larger special needs adult.
Many times his parents have had to walk him by our property both holding his arms to
control him. It’s obvious that he gets into an agitated state and they have to physically
control him at times. He will sometimes make comments towards us as he is escorted by
ourhome with his parents. We have heard Christopher in the house yelling, "Don’t hurt
me" many times. I have seen Christopher wrestled to the ground by his brother and held
there with his mother watching while they pour medicine into him. He has sung the
words to the tune of "We shall over come" "When the Jews are. dead. the Ng’s shall over
come". We’ve also seen the police come out and several police officers hold him down
while they pour his medicine in him. I have seen Christopher punch and push his brother
Bunchai into our bushes in front of our home. We have found the head of pick axe
thrown over the fence, garbage, dog feces, dirty diapers, large bloody bandages, broken
florescent light bulbs, half eaten food, bottles, empty cigarette packages, cigarette butts to
name some of items we’ve found over 16 years. We have seen Christopher up on the roof.
of our neighbors RV jumping up and down and then climbing up onto their second story
balcony and throw rocks at their window. This past summer Christopher was
threatening to jump from the second story roof, and the police and fi~e department had to
come over neighbors fences to handle the situation. Just two wdeks ago as I stepped out
of my dining room onto my patio, Christopher was on the Middlefield property working
in the yard. When he heard me he started beating the fence with a garden tool and started
yelling profanities. I quickly stepped back into my home for fear because the fence is
low and very old and his father was present and he clearly could not control him. The
next day at lunch time our family decided to go out and when I opened the garage
. Christopher walked over to look in our garage. As we backed out of our driveway
Christopher began yelling at us using all "kind of profanitieS. There were no adults with
him at the time and we were concerned that he may come over and do damage to our car.
Two days later Rick and I stepped out of our front door about 10P.M. and Christopher
was walking by. He said to us "What f... are you looking at". We responded with "We
are not looking at you". He then came back and stood right in front of us. His father
came out just at that time and tried to get Chirstopher to walk on by. Christopher began to
slap his father’s hand off of him and would not move. Mr. Ng instru.cted us to go back
into our home. We chose not to because we are tired of feeling like a captive in our home
64
when Christopher is around. Mr. Ng also made a comment to Christopher tlaat it is
beneath him to talk to us.
Health Concerns For Neighbors
We are concerned about the health of our family regarding the additional cars
surrounding our lot. Since we live with a flag lot behind us, car parking is on the
driveway running along the side of our property. When the Ng’s sit in their cars with
them idling the exhaust fumes come into our home. With the additional cars from a
rental unit on MiddlefieId we could potentiatly have exhaust coming into our home from
both sides. Three members of our family have asthma and one person has to take daily
medication and can not be without inhalers at all times and Epi Pens (adrenaline shots).
Loss of Property Value for Neighbors
We have talked to a Realtor about our property and were told that our
property will be hard to sell because of the problems we’ve had with the neighbors that,
have to be disclosed on the sale of this house. We tried for awhile to ignore the problems
coming our way in the hopes of being able to say on our home sale papers that it has been
awhile since we’ve had a problem with the Ng’s. After awhile some incident happens arid
we just can not take it any longer and it’s necessary for the police to be called. We feel
we will take a big loss in value of our property because of the Ng’s. If the Middlefield
property is allowed to build another dwelling it will for sure make our property more
undesirable. The density of people in this area is high because Of the heavy usage of the
Church across the street from this property. ’It is also located at a maior intersection for
those !rave!.ing to school’s, day cares, and the East Meadow Industrial Park. We also have
a ball park, a fire station and a senior health day program that uses b ~uses for bringing in
the seniors plus a parking lot full of employees and visiting guests coming and going all
day.
Lacking Proper Adult Supervision for Special Needs Adults and Children
Mr. Ng has moved out of the house which we observed and is no longer a
supervising adult over these children. Mrs. Ng is the only parent left with these children
and adult children and we know that she will not be able to control problems as they
arise. When we have problems with the Ng children other adult children and not Mrs. Ng
65
usually deals them with. How can she possibly handle these adult children two homes
away. These adult children clearly need adult supervision at all times and they are not
getting it now so how could they possibly ever be expected to learn independent living
skills when they will never be able to live without supervision. We know she can not
handle her children and the police have told us they think she has more than she can
handle. We also feel that she also treats this as a business taking in these cl~ildren. Her
children do get checks from agencies and we know this because they sometimes arrive at
our home by the mailman.
The Right for the Safe Enjoyment of Ones Property
We have kept our enjoyment of our yard to the side farthest from the Ng
residence on East Meadow Dr. We have created a small patio area and feel it is relatively
private. With this new dwelling on the Middlefield property we wel! have lost our last
remaining private section of the yard. We do not enjoy most of our backyard at all
because of the episodes of being yelled at in the past and having things thrown at us. We
tried for many years to ignore many of the problems that we have had with the Ng’s. We
feel everyone has the right to live their life as they choose and we just wanted to enjoy
our property like everyone else. We are very proud of our home and feel it is an asset to
this neighborhood. We get compliments all the time about our home and have had people
come to our door to ask about our trees or house color and many peo,ple know this home
because of where it is located. We would have liked to live in this house until we were
old since this is the home our children were born in. The placement of a second dwelling
on 3655 Middtefield would destroy any sense of security our daughters have in our home
because their bedroom windows would be visible to their back bedrogm windows where
the special need adults would live. These are the very adults that sat on our fence
watching me undress and would talk to us from the fence regarding what was on our
television. Again, none .of the Ng adults came out of the home to try to get their son off
the fence. It was other siblings asking him to get down.
Architectural Problems
This single story home they want to build is 16 feet high and has stairs that are
accessible to an attic with skylights. Skylights and stairs are not the norm for an attic and
we feel there is a chance that children will placed up there to sleep: Once the home was
built there would be no way for the city to control what they did with the attic and how
many children or special need adults were placed in the home. This is a great possibility
66
since she has placed her own children in a garage to live in the p~.st on the same property
and that was completely against the city codes. The plans also show that one of the
structures is infringing on set backs that are necessary for the neighbor’s privacy.
They’ve also placed sheds in the setbacks. Setbacks are important for the privacy of
neighbors.
Parking Problems
Par’king is a significant problem for this property because as of right now they do
not have a driveway that is used. Also on the plans they have placed parking in areas that
will never be used and an auto may not fit in the designated areas. There is no par’king on
Midd[efield in front of this property since the street narrows and it’would block a lane.
Therefore off street parking would he on East Meadow. The parking area on East
Meadow has a bike lane which is heavily used by children going to and from school and
bicyclists computing to work and by people turning onto East Meadow from Middlefield
(see photos). Having a second home as a rental wouldcreate a parking lot appearance to
the neighborhood and because of the difficulty of accessibility to off street parking they
would undoubtedly park on East Meadow where the current renter parks now. The off
street parking by the renter which is only once in awhile, started this past month when the
Ng’s started the proceeding for this conditional permit. The Ng’s are creating a false
impression of cooperation with the city since we’ve been observing lhe activities
regarding the parking.
Conclusion
In talking to our neighbors about the application for the Conditional Use Permit
for 3655 Midfield Road we have discovered that some neighbors are truly afraid of the
Ng’s and possible retaliation from them if they write a letter with their names on it. This
in itself says a lot about the situation in our neighborhood. Another heighbor is very
much against the permit but he has plans to build in the future and does not want the Ng’s
to block his efforts.
We realize that the issue of how a family uses their property is not what the city is
concerned about and so it should be. However, as you have read above there are special
circumstance regarding the safety of the Ng children, the neighbors, and punic regarding
the usage of this property. All these issues are important in determining the change in the
property.
To allow them to build will only exacerbate an on going neighborhood problem
and could lead to difficulties with the police, code enforcement problems, safety issues
and health issues. The Ng adult children will never be independent adults because of their
67
special needs and the need for them to be supervised at all times. We are very concerned
because as Mr. and Mrs. Ng wrote in a letter to us that it is their belief that their children
should be responsible for their own actions. This comment clearly states their attitude in
dealing with incidents that have happened and may happen in the future.
If the permit does get approved it will then become a police issue to take care of
the neighbors safety and will then become an on going expense for the city. The Palo
Alto Planning Department will also knowingly permit the need of one family over the
greater needs of the community. Because there have been a number of letters and calls
regarding this property that in itself makes a statement about the neighbors and the issues
regarding this property. Our community is already very supportive of special needs
children with the CAR just down the street and those that can attend public School are in
the classes with other children. Palo Alto is a very accepting commu.nity ~f special needs
children and many people move here because of the services our community offers.
In accordance with code 18.90.060 the zoning administrator may grant a
Conditional Use Permit if the proposed location will not be detrimen!al or injurious to
property or improvement in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and general welfare, or convenience. As we have shown yoti in the above letter
the proposed addition of a second dwelling will in fact be the following.
l. Detrimental to the value of our property as our research has shown us.
2. Will create a health issue for us regarding the extra cars and exhaust and
aggravate an existing asthmatic problem for our family.
3. Will create additional safety and injurious issues for our family and neighbors
as past examples have been shown in the above letter.
4, Will exacerbate on going problems with neighbors.
5. Wilt deprive us of our safe enjoyment of our property on that side of the
house.
6. Will create On street parking that will create probletns for traffic and bicyclists
as our pictures have shown.
7. Wilt cause more problems and expense for the city in placing special needs
adults in a home on the Middlefield property as shown in the above letter.
8. As shown in the past, abiding by city code is ne.glected and therefore future
enforcement will be impossible.
9. That the building of a second dwelling on this lot will not be compatible with
the single structure neighborhood that surrounds this property.
We are hoping with the information we have given you that it will give you the
grounds for declining the Conditional Use Permit for 3655 Middlefield Road.
68
allow them to build a seco,,~ dwelling on the property.
The undersigned urge the city to decline the Conditional Use Permit because of the public,
safety issues and because such use would be a detriment to the neighborhood by exasperating
on going issues as listed below:
Increase in traffic and street parking. This property does not have any offsite
parking in front of the property because Middlefield narrows in this area and it is
illegal. This would force them to park around the comer on East Meadow in the bike
lane. During heavy commute times this lane is used by commuters for driving through
the intersection to get past drivers that are turning left on Middlefield. It is also used
by north bound drivers turning right on East Meadow as they turn the comer.
.Because the property is on such a busy comer it will be difficult for the any autos to
pull out onto Middlefield safely. The bike lane in this area fades into traffic and autos
have to wait behind bicyclists to cross East Meadow before the bike lane comes back
before passing them.
School children and pedestrian safety. This comer area of Middlefield and East
Meadow is extremely busy at all times of the day. It is used by school age children
twice a day that bike to the two schools on East Meadow, Because it is only a four
way stop at this insection there are always children and cars moving through the
intersection at the same time. Many drivers are speeding to get through the lights to
get to the Industrial Park at the end of East Meadow, Auto accidents and near misses
at this intersection are very common. ¯
One of the proposed uses of the property, is independent living for special needs
adults. It would increase their danger being bound on two very busy streets with a
firehouse across the street and the senior health day center on the other side.
Sometimes these adults run out into the street without looking and have stood in the
middle of traffic on East Meadow or run through it. Their episodes of disturbing
behavior have happened many times in the past and can not be controlled by adult
supervision. Sometimes the adult supervision isn’t even aware that it has happened.
Moving special needs adults to this property will exasperate an existing and on going
problem that the neighbors have been forced to deal with over the years.
The addition of another structure on the property will not be in fitting with the
neighborhood which is singlefamily dwellings.
69
7i’/
7O
November 4, 1999
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
Dear Plarming Department
I am writing this letter to encourage you to decline the second dwelling
Conditional Use Permit for 3655 Middlefield Road,
Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal code 18.90.060(a) this conditional permit
~ be granted only i..f the following findings and conditions are met:
(1)The proposed use, at the proposed location, Will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or
convenience.
(2)The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in
accord with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan and the purposes of
this title.
The applicants’ use of the property in question and the property located at
718 E. Meadow Dr. (which is less than 100 feet from the 3655 Middlefield
property) does not satisfy the conditions set forth under subsection (a).
Both of these properties have been uti~iTed in such a way to present
serious health, safety, general welfare, and convenience issues.
It is for these reasons that the conditional use permit must be denied.
Safety:
The proposed use of the property fails the issue of safety from the
following perspectives:
1.Safety of the general public
2.Safety of the adjacent neighbors
3.Safety of the proposed occupants
4,Safety of school children
5.Safety of commuting public
One of the proposed uses of the property is to provide an independent
living environment for some of the Ng’s children.
This would be present a serious threat to the public safety.
71
Currently, these children live with the.parent’s at their residence at 718 E.
Meadow. In this supervised environment, the children are a danger to
others in the neighborhood and to themselves. There have been many
incidents where the police had to be called out. Please see letter submitted
by Karen Jew for additional details.
It is nonsensical to place these individuals in an environment with less
supervision.
We have personally seen them bok at full speed from their house across E.
Meadow N anger or frustration without any regard for their personal
safety or the safety of vehicles, bicycles or pedestrians. Just a month or so
ago, one of their son’s stood in the middle of E. Meadow sobbing
uncontrollably. The father came out looked and went back down his
driveway. Fortunately, no one was hurt.
It could have been a different story with a tragic ending if one of these
children ran out across Middlefield or stood in the road from the proposed
living space on 3655 Middlefield.
In another incident, one of their sons drove a car full speed into their
garage. The garage door was destroyed. They filed a police report on
their own son. Ask them why. The neighbors tell us he has a fixation on
cars and gets into them around the neighbbrhood.
If this individual drove a car onto Middlefield the public’s safety would be
compromised. Less supervision under these circumstances makes little
sense.
The issue of safety for themselves is obvious.
Just this summer, one of the children climbed up on the roof and
threatened to jump off. The police and the fire department where both
called to the scene. How can less supervision make sense?
With increased vehicles on the property at 3655 Middlefield, the
opportunity for a tragedy increases.
The comer of Middlefield and E. Meadow is dangerous. There is a fire
station across the street, two schools on E. Meadow, an industrial park at
the east end, and major commute traffic by car, bicycle and foot traffic on
both streets.
72
Increasing the traffic flow due to vehicles entering or leaving this property
would further compromise the public safety. Since the house is on the
comer, there is no solution that would not increase the hazard to children’
trying to get to school.
In the time that we have lived on E. Meadow, we have witnessed accidents
and near misses at this comer and have treated victims of bike accidents.
It is very unsafe for children and is currently being studied for traffic
solutions. See article submitted in Karen Jew’s letter.
With regards to the safety of neighbors, we and Norm and his wife are
ones must affected by this project. Both of us share property lines with
both properties.
In my conversations with Norm and his wife it is obvious that we have
suffered under the actions or lack of actions by the Ngs. Again please see
Karen Jew’s letter for details.
The parent’s do not believe in talking responsibility for their children’s
actions.
They will not recognize the safety threat that they and their children pose
to other children in the neighborhood. My children have grown up in fear.
They are uncomfortable being left in the house alone...I do not blame
them. They have had rocks thrown at them. They have been told to go
back into the house and to shut up by the Ng children from their yard.
It saddens me to know that this is one of the strongest memories my
daughter’s will have of their childhood.
WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE POLICE TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR DAUGHTERS KNOW HOW TO USE 911 AND TO
CALL IMMEDIATELY.
Christopher has personally threatened me several times. His behavior is
aggressive, belligerent, and threatening. When his own parent’s can’t
take him anymore they CALL THE POLICE TO TAKE HIM
AWAY. Ask the police.
Christopher has been caught peeping into my house watching my wife get
dressed.
Bonchai shines flashlights in my daughter’s windows.
Just two weekends ago, Christopher was in the yard on Middlefield Rd.
When my wife stepped out into our side yard, Christopher started
throwing his shovel into the fence and cussing my wife out.
She retreated into the house in tears totally intimidated.
Within days more intimidation...
Christopher cussed us out as we left our house in our car. His family in
the van on the street could not stop him from cussing and moving toward
our Car.
On another evening, my wife and I stepped outside to look for a lost pet of
ours...again a confrontation. After passing us onhis way to the house on
Middlefield, he turned back to challenge.us. His father came Out after he
heard what was going on and could not get Christopher to leave. Shoving
and pushing ensued between Christopher and Harven. Harven had no
control.
I have no reason to believe that they will operate the facility on
Middlefield any different then how they operate their house on E.
Meadow.
If you approve this project, my safety, the. safety of my wife and children
will be further compromised. It will absolutely make the situation worst.
The Ngs do not care about the neighbors, building codes, or city codes.
For most of the 16 years of torment by them, I have followed a policy of
understanding and tolerance.
It was totally ineffective.
My welfare, my family’s welfare, and the neighbor’s welfare are in your
hands. Our safety and what little enjoyment of our properties we have is
in jeopardy.
Please, please deny the permit.
74
City of Palo Alto
Planning Commission
Re: 3655 Middlefield Road [99-UP-38]
My apologies for not appearing in person, but I have a previous commitment and will not be available
on Novemoer 4.
I protest the application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate an 832 square foot detached, second
dwelling unit on the referenced lot.
There is already too much congestion in that immediate area. Middlefield Road is a heavily
traveled major thoroughfare for cross-town or through town traffic. Speeds of over 40 MPH on
Middlefield Road are common and virtually unenforced. The nearby school situation is
notorious for traffic congestion, and was even.selected by the San Jose Mercury News as one of
the worst, to highlight traffic problems on the peninsula. Events at Mitchell Park, the Little
League ballpark, the First Baptist Church Senior Day Care Center, the Covenant Presbyterian
Church and it’s Day Care/Nursery School, the Fire Station, all in the immediate vicinity, are
sources of, or contribute to heavy or unusual traffic.
The intersection of Middlefield Road and East Meadow is, at best, difficult. It is under-
engineered for the various traffic situations that take place and drivers become frustrated. Daily,
I observe poor driving practices by individual drivers, attempting to avoid delays or get through a
left turn:. Although I have not researched the number of reported accidents per year, I do know
that this is a dangerous intersection and believe the situation could only become worse if the
proposed use of this property is approved. Moreover, there is heavy foot and bicycle traffic from
school children, who are prone to being inattentive when crossing the intersection on foot or
bike.
Traffic at this intersection would further be adversely impacted if the permit were issued. The
proposed plan does not appear to allow for adequate off-street parking for the potential number
of residents. Thus residents would park on the street, worsening the situation described above.
As it is; I frequently see cars parked three deep in-the existing single lane driveway.
The owners of the property akeady shelter multiple persons in multiple locations. With any
further increase in population, what would be the difference between this scenario and an
unlicensed, unsupervised and unc0ntrolled halfway house?
For all of the reasons stated above, further increasing the population at this address would most
certainly degrade the neighbo’rhood and the area. It is my opinion that property values would
significantly decrease in the immediate area.
Please don’t approve this project at the expense of the neighbors.
Norman Sutherland
3731 Grove Avenue
November 3, 1999
75
3727 d-r eve
Palc ;,ito, ~a~.!orni~
.4e~.te ~,ber 30,
¯~eor.de "Zaite
~i_~ ...... ~ ~:aa’aser, City of Pale Alto
.-~,0 Hamll~on Avenue
6th Floor
Pale Alto, 3allfcrnia 94’301
"~v~nu in December ofv,r husband ann i bought our home on ~rcve ~ -’ e
±n ~ ~--was roo~ mother--1951--ralsed our children here--I worked ~’ ~T
my sons.plaZed Little League, Babe Ruth a~d American Le~ion
Baseball--~7 husband died here ~ years a~o i ~ave wor~ed very
hard to g==~ ’uy house up. I feel I have established a stake here.
I have never wriften a letter to the Planning Division or attended
a .seetln~ at City Hall until now and I feel I must.
:.faen we ,:ov.~ r, ere there were 5 ho’ues on the street. Since then
many changes, but now I feel pushed and squeezed. Jenny of us
subdivided our 1/2 acre lots to 1/4 acre lots. The houses around
~,e are getting larger. ~I can’t do anything, about that, but we
always played by the rules--sin;:£1e family, gow i a:n frustrated
by one more sc~ueeze.
I respectfully r~quest that the voice cf the aei:ihborhood be
seriousl.7 ~eard -,-" deny the conditional use oermit et =<~=
".<iddlefleld~o,--a" ~ fcr t~e fcllo.,~n~’ " - reesons’.__~~n~--tn~s is a singlenot ~:s.~nst affordable hous .....
famil~ neighborhood
--proposal is not compatible or coasiSte~]t with the re,at
of the neighbdrhood--ciuttered and definitely detrimental
~’"’!y is considered--!.~ to ii vehicle tri:)s pe~ sinsle ~ ..... a
normal and would i~cresse traffic st an already bosy~library endintersection. Ghildren walk to school,
..~tcne"~ ’ i! Park that way. ,
--one approved ....wo~a~; set g ";recede~lt--.ore v~oula ~o~io~
i re-ueet that ~"-==~~e City Sta~ include this in their staff report.
Thank you for .your careful consideration.
~es~:e ctful!y ,.
~amona :,’~i i liam.s on
76
The following pages are copies of some of the business cards from police officers
that have come to our home to help us when we had problems with the Ng family. Many
officers do not carry business cards so we were not able to collect from all of them.
The letters are copies sent by us to the Ng family and the police department for
your review so that you can read about some of the incidents that have occurre~t in the
past. We feel that there have many times when our safety was,at risk and we have had to
rely on the services of the Police Department to help control the situation. We have tried
,for many years not to get involved and had taken a conciliatory approach to living next
door to them. In all the years we have lived here we have never had a conversation with
Mrs, Ng and she does not allow her children to speak to us and Mr. Ng is always on the
defense when he is approached. Therefore all communication has been through letters.
77’
L.I~_ Yalo Alto
Police Department
Mark E Wyrmem,’- o/T~-~
Reid $ert~s Division
275 Forest Av~., Palo Alto, C.A 94301
Bt.~ine~s Houm 415.329.240~
Night~ & Weekends 415229.2413
Voice Mail 415.617.3100 x 1422
Ci__ty. of Palo Alto
Police Department
Bob Wilkie
Z~5 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
Business Hour~ 415.329.2406
Night~ & Weekends 415,329.2413
Voice Mail 415.61Z3100 x 1354
Ci~ty of Palo Alto
Police Department
27~ Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
P.O. Box I0250, Palo Alto, CA 94303
415,329,2406
The Trafflc Team uses Kawasaki motorcycles, cars and a truck
to enforce the traffic laws. The team includes (L-R}: Sgt. Doug
Keith and Officers Jennifer Jones, ~cha, Dave
Flohr, Jason Peardon, Ken Gibson,~ and RichBullerjahn.
78
City of Palo Alto
Police Department
Agent Dennis W. Tea|er
C_.arnmunity Polidng Diuision
275 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
415.329.2637 Fax: 415.329.2565
tntemet: dennis_re alet@city.p:,lo -alto.ca.us
CI4/~PS 7,4 ~ ,v~T~
City of Palo Alto
Police Department
Lisa M. Baker
o~
C~mmunity Policing Division
275 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301
415.329,.,7.4~"" FAX 415.329.2565
Voicemall 415.617.3100 x 1.340
E-mail lisa._baker@¢ity.palo-alto.ca.us
lO ;00
79
Rick and Ka.ren Jew
714 E. Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303-4444
June 8, 1999
Harven and Nancy Ng
718 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303-4444
Re: Your letter dated May 8, 1999
Once again, your analysis of the situation is egocentric, off-point, and without any merit.
The facts are these.
1.Your sprinkler was placed next to our common fence.
2.Its spray pattern discharged the majority of its water over the fence.
3.Our plants along this fence are still bent over because of the water coming over the
fence for an extended period of time.
4. I am sure the police told you that I went next door to ask the neighbors if they could
re-direct the spray, I knocked on the door and rang the bell several times.
5. No one was at home or in the yard at that time.
6, We waited for at least another thirty minutes.
7. No change.
8. We called the police to remedy the situation.
9. TI:I’IS IS WHAT THE POLICE, ON MORE THAN ONE OCCATION, I-IAVE
INSTRUCTED US TO DO.
You state in your letter that it was Bunchai who placed the sprinkler next to the fence.
We have alw__l_l_l_l_l_l_l~ understood that Bunchai is limited in many capacities and do not hold
him responsible for many of the things he does. I am sure you also realize that Bunchai’s
capabilities have limits. The only question is, if you are aware of his limits, where was
your s.upervision of this situation?
It is just fine to let Bunchai do whatever he is capable of achieving. No one would argue
with that.
It is clearly your lack of supervision in this situation that allowed this situation to
develop.
You also imply in your letter that you do not understand why a neighbor would not ask to
have the water turned down?
8O
If you recall, the last time I came to the edge of your driveway to ask that Christopher not
touch the crank on our boat for his safety, he cussed at me using four letter words I can
not repeat in this letter. He charged up the driveway with fists clenched.
But I am sure you know what I am talking about...you were there. I asked Christopher
not to use those words with me.
Nancy your response, "Do not talk to my son."
Harven you were there too. You did absolutely nothing.
¯ Is this what you mean about being treated the way you want others to treat you?
Let’s talk about being neighborly...
Last summer when you were working on the fence, your workers hit the fence
causing it to lean precariously to our side. They stopped concerned as to what had
happen. Harven told them to continue. When I went to whereyou were working to
talk to you about this issue, you hid in the bushes. I know you heard me because I
had to talk very loud over the noise of the construction equipment to get the
construction workers attention, ,They stopped and asked if I wanted to talk t~ the
owner, BECAUSE he was standing right there hiding in the bushes. Harven, you did
not come out. I had to discuss it with your workers ....
Perhaps this is the neighborliness you are referring to.
Here is one for you Nancy. Two summers ago when my wife was painting the side of
the house, your son Christopher was watering the garden and intentionally Sprayed
my wife with water. It was clearly intentionally because of the distance he would
have to direct the water to go from across your yard, across ours to hit Karen standing
on her ladder painting the house. My wife complained and you told Rodney to not
pay any attention to my wife. She had to ask Rodney to turn off the water and you
just stood there. Ask Rodney... he was there at the time.
Perhaps THXS is the neighborliness that befuddles you?
Christopher did the same thing to me later in the day when I was in the yard planting
tomatoes. I asked him to stop and he just laughed. I asked him how we could be friends
if he did that, and he stopped. He understood.
In your letter you talk about the joy of honoring their grandmother was diminished...
Here is what your son, the one in the wheel chair yelled at Karen’s mother in front of
our house, "Bitch, bitch, bitch." when she was pulling up in her car. What a nice way
to treat an elderly person. Karen’s morn is over seventy-five years old and was
emotionally and physically shaken.
We did not call the police or take any action.
Christmas three years ago. We were hosting Christmas on that day. Late in the day
on Christmas, I went our to check on the Turkey that was cooking on the BBQ. I said
nothing as my brother-in-law and I went to see how the turkey was doing.
Christopher was on the other side of the fence with one of his siblings. He siarted
throwing rocks and cussing at us. His sibling told him to stop and went to find you.
He continued to cuss and throw rocks. We said nothing and retreated intg the house.
We did not call the police or take any action.
But it did greatly diminish the day for us all. My guests were on edge the rest of the
evening and the kids were AFRAID to play. in the yard. Since Christopher was called
inside, I am sure you were aware of the situation.
Tolerance
You assure us in your letter that you will continue to treat us with tolerance in the
face of these actions. Yourpremise is that we have initiated some action that requires
tolerance on your part.
This statement is without merit and insulting.
Our actions have only been in RESPONSE to harm that you have visited upon our
family.
For the first fourteen years of living next to you, we have had clamps, garbage, dog
feces thrown on our roof and patio, dirty used diapers thrown over the fence, power
.tools used late at night, broken fence slats, teen parties with drinking late at night on
work nights while you were away, rotatiling at 7:30 a.m. on Mothers Day two years
ago, garbage cans knocked over, recycling stolen, Chris entering our home while the
police were present, Chris using our hot tub and destroying the controls which we had
to have replaced at a cost of $200 which you will remember when we walked Chris
back home and he admitted it, cigarette boxes and butts thrown into the yard, loud
music, Chris swearing at Rick while he was standing in our garage, Chris banging
pots out in the yard early in the morning, and horrible foul language, fighting out
front, Chris jumping into our hedges and breaking plants, and the list goes on. Rocks
have been thrown at our daughters and myself. Consistent and regular howling and
screaming in your backyard...and not just by Christopher, but by others in your care.
During these.years we tried a policy of nob-confrontation. We did not call the police,
and chose to remove ourselves from the situation.
Mary’s Wedding. Putting the speaker in your yard and playing it so loud that we
had to leave our house. Like many things you do, you did not ask us if this was ok, or
82
enlist our approval in a neighborly way. You just did it. You did not consult the
noise ordinances or chose to ignore them.
We did nothing. We understood that this was Mary’s day. We chose instead to leave
our house for the day.
So when you talk about you’re a typical family and tolerance, let me say we HAVE
been tolerant. We could have taken action right from the beginning but chose not to.
We continue to be tolerant of the yelling...yours Nancy andyour children. We are
and will continue to betolerant of situations you cannot be reasonably expected to
control because of your situation.
Case in point, a few weeks ago,
We did not call the police when Bunchai was venting in the backyard.
We did not call the police when Harven left him in the middle of the street in light
traffic and walked away.
So in your letters when you talk about your atypical family, its real people and ask for
tolerance... We have been.
BUt consider this, You chose this life.
Your situation does not grant you immunity from your responsibility to allow your
neighbors to live in peace and quiet,’Over the years, many of our common neighbors
have approached us to discuss you and your family, This was not solicited on our
a~. The "Rage Therapy" that you believe in and practice diminishes and punishes
those that live around you. We ask that you show us, all your neighbors, some.
neighborliness and compassion.
We ask only that you be respectful to your neighbors.
And Nancy, it is not an issue of understanding. We all understand your situation.
What you do not comprehend is that your life choices do not justify your actions, or
lack of action, or your lack of supervision which causes situations to spin out of
control. Because you won’t do anything you leave us little choice but to call the
police.
It had never been an issue of understanding.
And it’s not about apologizing. The simple act of apologizing loses its meaning when
the same transgressions keep occurring.
83
Christopher
In your letter you mention that YOU did not take any action when you allege that we
talked to Gunn High School about Christopher.
Let’s talk about Christopher...briefly.
1.Rocks thrown at my daughters and dog. When I show Harven the rocks, he says
these are not your rocks even though you are the only ones that had those
distinctive orange colored rocks.
2.Christopher sitting on the back fence watching my wife gets dressed. How do we
know it was he?. He was good enough to say hello. This happens not once, not
twice, but many times. Nancy you respond by yelling from the house for him to
get down. It does n~t work. You send his sibling out to get him down. That does
not work. You finally do nothing, allowing him to sit on the fence. Do you
discuss this situation with us? Do you tell us what your strategy is? No. Do you
communicate in any fashion with us? No. Do you take any responsibility for
this? No. We have no choice but to call the police. You tell the police that
Christopher has been diagnosed as not capable of understanding the legal concept
of intent. Ergo he cannot be charged with a crime. This is what the police relay
to us. This is not what you subsequently tell Officer Tealer. Officer Tealer states
.that Christopher does understand intent. You tell him this. Nancy how do you
explain this apparent miracle?
3. Christopher walking in front of my wife singing to the tune of We Shall Over
Come, We will kill the Jews, and when we do the Ngs shall over come..,
4. The incident mentioned above on your driveway.
My kids are afraid of Christopher to this day. I do not understand why you think this
is ok.
I would do what any father would do under the circumstances. I will continue to
protect my daughters by alerting the authorities of the present situation. Your lack of
action, explanation, and tolerance for my family, will not allow me to leave their well
being in your hands.
You assume that we don’t have an understanding of special need children. Since you
.doh’t know anything about us let us inform you of our situation. We have children
born into our extended family that were born with severe special needs. Your
children are in a far better situation as they are able to freely be active citizens in their
world but ours can not. Lauren has worked for 4 years with physically and mentally
handicapped children that are completely dependent on others to sustain them. She
finds great joy in being with these children and we encourage her to do so.
When your elderly Mother lived next door we were respectful of her age and poo’r
health and always considered her when we wanted to run the mower or were in the
84
yard. When you had your funeral luncheon again we respected your need for a quiet
period of time and tried not to disturb the peace in anyway by being in our yard.,
I am very tired of the situation as it is. I only want to live in peace and quiet. I.do not
ask for anything more than what any other citizen of this community wants. I want to
live in peace and enjoy my home. It is our wish that we never have to call the police
again. But that will req.uire supervision, understanding, and respect for your neighbors
on your part.
You mention in your letter that you want to be treated as we would want to be treated.
I am assuming of course that your treatment of us, is how you want to be.treated.
My family and I cannot and will not treat you that way. It i’s offensive and morally
wrong in our view. If you don’t mind I will continue to treat you with tolerance and
understanding.
I do not like writing letters such as this. As you have probably sensed from the first
sentence, this letter is written differently from all the other letters I have written
before. I felt it was necessary to change the tone of the letter because all my other
letters have been ineffectual.
I invite you to speak with Officer Tealer and myself directly on these matters in hopes
of affecting a change. However, if you are not willing to do this, then I will. continue
to do as the police have instructed us to do.
Sincerely,
Rick and Karen Jew’
Cc Officer Tealer
Rick and Karen Jew
714 E. Meadow Dr.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303
June9, 1999
Officer Dermis Teater, Palo Alto Police Department
Re: Our letter sent to Harven and Nancy Ng
Dear OfficerTealer;
We wanted to send you a letter to keep you updated on our
situation with the Ng family.
We had an incident, in which one of the Ng children turned on the
sprinklers in .their yard on the Middlefield property, which was aimed at
our yard. It had been on for a couple of hours and we were not able to
contact anyone living, in the home on Middlefield to get the water turned
off. Our hedges were soaked and bent down to the ground.
Because of the near attack on Rick by Christopher the last time he
went over to the Ng’s house to ask them to tell Christopher not to crank
our boat up and down we are now very fearful of going any where near
their property.
We felt the safest way for us to take care of the matter was to call
an officer to go over and ask them to turn offthe water. The officer came
into our home and observed the water and we explained to him why we
are not on speaking terms with the neighbors and he seemed very familiar
with Christopher and the Ng family.
The situation was taken care of and following this incident the
Ng’s sent us a letter telling us that they didn’t understand why a neighbor
wouldn’t call to get the water turned off and that we had ruined their
Mother’s Day. We have sent them the attached letter to let them know
how we felt about their letter.
We can not believe at~er all the abuses, attacks and damage to our
property and us over sixteen years that they would feel that there would be
normal communication between us. The Ng family are the kind of people
that push the boundaries of normal behavior and the law and we are very
aware that living next door to them is a challenge beyond most peoples
86
tolerandes. We have tried for a very long time to ignore the situation but
as you know we feel that the police are the only .means for us to feel safe
in dealing with them. Numerous officers have also told us that it is better
for the police to go over under the circumstances.
In the last few months we have found out that other neighbors have
also suffered abuses from the Ng’s over a period of time so in some sense
we now do not feel alone in this situation.
If you would like to call, please feel to do so.
Thank You
Broderick L. Jew and Karen L. Jew
Hello Agent’Tealer
Thank you for your note regarding our neighbo’r situation. We got back from our
vacation last Wed, so we have not been around much. We did have our home and dog ’
watched by a family member that slept over while we were gone. She told us that Mrs.
Ng has been giving her some very nasty glances and also that th’ey have had a few parties
into the late hours of the night outside in the backyard.
Mr. and Mrs. Ng are currently not at home now and neither is Christophei’. They
have been away since we returned. Other than another late night party last Sat. out in
their back yard it has been very quiet.
The last time we talked you mentioned that arbitration was a possibility and that
you’d be getting back to us on that. My guess is that the Ng’s have elected not to take
that route. Since a period of time has gone by from our last occurrence with Christopher I
would guess it would not be a appropriate to issue a restraining order against him now,
However, as soon as the first incident occurs we will call the police and have charges filed
against him, We will take whatever legal action is necessary to keep him from harming us,
This is the first time that the Ng’s have really kept Christopher away from us, I believe it
is all due to the fact that you are now involved in the situation.
Rick and I would like to know from you if possible what has set the Ng’s against
us. It is clearly a family revenge that they have started and we can not figure out what
started it other than us building our home. Mrs. Ng is clearly the matriarch of the family
and she controls the action of the group and she has moved them in the direction over the
years to be cold, unfriendly and even rude,
We are not going to bend any longer to her disregard for us and the law. We are
going to keep on top 0fthings at all times, I hope you can see that we have tried over the
years to communicate with her but she has refused to speak to us or to rectify the
problems.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding this letter,
Rick and Karen Jew
6-12-97
I spoke to Loraine at Social Services at the situation with Christopher Ng. She has fiIed,a
Community Report for me. She said I will get a call back in a couple of weeks regarding
this case. She suggested that we contact neighbors and go to city council to get support
for our cause. She is also aware of the death threats against us. I should be getting a call
back with an Inquirey Report that will provide me with some information.
Social Services
Lorraine
Moffet Blvd.
415 988-6160
89
Rick and Karen Jew
714 East Meadow Drive
Pale Alto, Ca. 94303-4444
Phone 415-85g-1156
Fax 415-8~8-1147
E-mall Kalak~i~neteom,eom
June 17, 1997
Summary of Christopher N~ A~tacks and Harassment
This is the beginning of the documentation of incidents with Christopher Ng. We started
this at the advice of the police officer that came to our home. We feel this documentation
will help us if we need to provide evidence in court about the harassment we are getting
from our neighbors. We also want it shown that child protective services would not help
us. Before I stared this documentation I have seen Chris punch his father, and brother
Bunchai. He has thrown rocks at us, damaged our fences, thrown rocks at the dog,
broken our hot tub controls, been caught trying to get in our hot tub wearing a swim suit,
he spies on us while we sit in our tub, he runs radios excessively loud, we can not go in
our back yard without him coming out and creating some kind of disturbance. We have
felt very restricted from enjoying our own backyard. We really would have like to put a
pool in our yard but we feel that our privacy and safety would be a risk because of Chris.
We also know that Chris would be in our pool when We were away from our home and
that we could be at risk of being sued by.his parents if something happened to him. We
also know that the Ng’s have entered our yard to do fence repair without our permission.
Fence slats that were broken by Chris and have mysteriously been repaired behind large
hedges that run along my fence. I never repaired them because they were behind the
hedge and my dog usually does not go back there. However I’m sure the appearance of
the broken slats did not look very nice from the Ng’s point of view.
11/3/96 We had to cill the Police about a confrontation with Christopher. Rick told Mr.
Ng, that Lauren watched Christopher crank our boat up and down. Chris
charged down the driveway at Rick calling him a fucking liar. He appeared to
want to hit Rick. The parents did not say anything. Then Nancy stepped
forwai"d and said "Do not speak to a retarded child". The police officer advised
us to call Social Services and the mediation services. We felt it would not do
any good since the parents will not talk to us any way. The police officer also
told them about the banging pans at 6"30 in the morning.
11/4/96 Woke up at am with Chris howling in the backyard and on the driveway.
9O
11/2/96
11/4/96
Chris prevented us from backing out of our driveway. He stood behind out car
taking tiny steps.
Called Carmen Torrico of child protective services and let~ messages.
11/4/96 Called Mediation Ser’i, ices. Liza called and we spoke about our problem. She
said they from the sounds of it the Ng’s are not going to cooperate.
11/6/96 Spoke to Carmen Torrico of child protective services and she would not help us
in anyway.
11/6/96 Access of Santa Clara Health Dept. called to hear our situation. She suggests
that we call Community Care Licensing. Spoke to Laura Eaikin at Access, she suggested
that we call Community Care licensing.
11/16/96 Called Police because of a broken fluorescent bulb broken over the fence.
Shattered glass was in the lawn and on top of the fence, Officer Dana DeLaRocha came
out and went over to the neighbors to tell them about the glass. He also mentioned that
he has been out yelling with the dogs this past whole week. Mrs. Ng told the officer that
they are having a problem handling Chris right now,
11/17/96 Woke up to Christopher in back yard yelling at mother pounding on window.
12/13/96 Karen watched Chris use a neck hold on Bunchai with a garden tool as they
walked by the house. Bunchai was very distressed.
12/25/96 Chris smashed into fence yelling at Rick "Fuck you are you going to call the
police" Rick had been looking at the turkey on the barbecue and was unprepared for the
attack. Was very upsetting because our house was full of guests for the day, It really
ruined the atmosphere, Parents did nothing. It really spoiled our day with our family.
12/30/96 Chris yelling you bastard at Rick while he was in the garage, Rick was working
on a project in the garage with his back facing outwards. Chris kept repeating these
words at Rick. Rick said nothing to him.
12/9/96 Karen observed Chris howling in front of our house trying to get our dog to bark.
12/4/96 Chris had a very bad screaming fit toward his brother. Swearing and loosing
control. He was using power tools at the time. It was very scary.
1/21/97 6:43am Chris was out in the yard yelling trying to excite the dogs.
91
2/23/97 8:51pm Chris was watching us over the fence in our bedroom. May have seen
me dressing. He made comments about our show we were watching, We called the
police and they were very disinterested in our problem.
2/24/97 Chris remo’~ed nut and bolt and washer from front of our boat and left it on the
ground. I saw him do this.
2/12/97 Chris walked by our house with a drill. He aimed the drill at me as if. it were a
gun, Using two hands on the drill he made gun sounds as if he Nero shooting me,
3/11/97 Chris through dogfeces all over our patio and garden. His father was in the yard
yelling at him and he knew what he did and did not send anyone over to clean it up.
4/5/97 12:30pro. Karen was out in the front yard pulling weeds when Chris walked by
singing to the tune of We shall over come "Lets kill the Jews and when they are dead we
shall over come". We wrote the parents a letter about this’incident and there was no
response. My daughter Kelly is becoming frightened of Chris. She asked me if he was
going to bum down our house, I have to say he does scare me.. He is out of control.
5/21/97 Chris was sitting on the fence outside the bedroom window. He called Rick a
mother fucker. When I looked out to see what was going on he said "What are you
looking at" I called their house to tell them. but they didn’t answer the phone. We knew
they were home, He sat there for 40 min. The parents never came out to get him. His
siblings were sent out to .try to deal with him. He was very angry at the family for making
him do something. We were force to sit in a hot bedroom while they dealt with him.
5/11/97 Mothers Day Chris was running a rototiller at 7:30am woke up whole family on
a Sunday morning. Felt kind of sick all day because of the disturbance in the morning.
Not a very nice day for me.
5/12/97 Chris got dogs to start barking at 6:30 in the morning
6/10/97 Chris threw dog feces over the fence. Also found pick ax thrown over the fence.
Chris jumped into our jasmine plants out front, We believe he kicked and threw our
garbage cans while they were out front.
During the end of May and early June we have been having Chris sitting on our fence
about once a week outside our bedroom windows. He swears and cusses at his family
memb ors.
His parents do not come out to deal with him only his siblings talk to him.
June 10, 1997 Chris threw dog feces over the fence, He yelled at our daughter to get off
her trampoline in our back yard. Today we a family celebration for my 71 year old
mothers birthday, Again we have another family event spoiled by his irate temper, After
dinner we ran through our landscaping when he was being escorted by his brother past our
92
Home. I told Kevin the biological Ngteenage son that we needed someone to come and
pick up the dog feces. He just turned and walked away. This afternoon someone was out
front kicking our garbage cans and when I ran out front the only person I saw was the
Mexican boy in the wheel chair. I asked him later not to push the cans out of the way.
As I passed the driveway Chis was standing there laughing at me. I now realized that he
was the one that had knocked the cans over,
June 15, i997 Rick was out’in the backyard working on his vegetable garden when Chris
started sending water over the fence onto Rick. Immediately his family rushed indoors
and started slamming doors and shutting windows, Iwas vary obvious that they were
trying not to be present when Chris was out of control. He had been swearing a lot Out in
the yard and having fights with his family.
June 18, 1997 I was out painting this evening when Chris started shooting me with water
while his mother stood near by with the neighbor that rents the comer house. The first
time I ignored it and the second time he just kept soaking me. I got very upset. I did yell
at him to stop. His mother did not say anything to him and I heard her tell the neighbor
to not pay it any attention. I asked the neighbor Rodney to turn off the water and he did.
I feel very fearful now. I know it is only water but I never thought being in my own yard
could risk a physical attack. Officer Tealer came out to talk to us. He suggested a
restraining order against Chris. We were only 2 days froni our vacation and did not have
the time to start the proceedings. We would have if we were not leaving.
Aug. 16 1997 11:40P.M. Had to call the police because the Ng children Were having a
loud alcoho! drinking party in the backyard.. Parents were away on vacation.
Summer of 1998. The Mr. and Mrs. Ng forced our backyard neighbor to let them build
an easement on his property so that they could walk back and forth between the two
properties. The process took several weeks and we had to endure the loud noise of the
’whole family using the walkway. The day of the wedding the loud speakers were placed
on the flag [or with the DJ to entertain the guests on the comer Middlefield lot where the
reception.and mea! was served outside. The neighbor was told that they would not allow
him to repair the ,fence if he did not give them this easement. The walkway was.to come
down the day after the wedding and it took many calls from Norm Starrett tO get them to
remove it. We were forced to leave our home for the day because the music was so loud.
We were never given any consideration regarding the noise, parking for the day, garbage
thrown into yard from the wedding and in the inconveince it created for us.
July 98 12:10A.M. Power tools being used outside. Had to call the Police to get Mr. Ng
to stop.
July 98 Chris yelling in yard out of control. Mother threatens him jail or lock up in the
house,
Aug. 6 I998 Oswaldo yelling at my mother as she pulIed up/in her car to park. He called
her "Bitch" over and over. Chris was out in traffic riding the electric wheel chair.
May 5 1999 Sprinklers on Middlefield property were aimed over the fence into our yard,
Rick went next door to try to see if anyone was home to turn them off. We called the
police to get them to turn off the water, We are fearful of stepping on the Ng property,
Bunchai had turned the water on by mistake. Ng’s sent us a letter about how we had
ruined their Mother’s Day.
Sept. 16 I999 6:47 A.M. Mrs. Ng was in the yard yelling at Bunchai. Woke up the
whole family.
This past summer there was an evening in which Chris was on the top second roof of his
home threatening to jump. The police and fire department came across neighbor’s fences
To deal with the situation. Observing the situation from our house we saw that the
parents never came out to help with the situation. Chris was eventually brought down
and handcuffed and taken away.
This summer Bunchai was out in the street screaming on East Meadow. He stood in the
middle of traffic yelling and moaning. His father stood on the sidewalk for awhiIe left
and then came back, Bunchai was there for about 20 minutes screaming on the opposite
side on the street and then the neighbor on the corner came and got him and took him to
the corner lot.
Many times a week there is a loud radio played in the backyard. Howling by one their
adult children,
Keeping an on going record of neighbor disturbances is exhausting because it’s like
living it over and over. Many weeks I prefer not to sit down and keep documenting. It
has help knowing that other neighbors are also going through many of the problems that
We ~’e.
Early Sept. 1999 Mr Ng has moved out of the home.
95
April 6, 1997
Dear Police Department:
We would like it to go on record that our neighbor Christopher Ng
made a threat towards our family.
The incident occurred while I was out front gardening. Christopher
walked by my property and singing to the tune of"We Shall Over Come" he sang, "We
shall kill the Jews and when they are dead we shall over come some day". This may not
seem very harmful to those who do not l),now the situation however for us this clearly
shows us that his hatred for us has taken another step closer towards dangerous violence.
We have had many other incidents occur and many we have over
looked because we are trying to understand the situation because of his mental handicap.
However, it is quite clear that his hatred for us has escalated to an even more dangerous
.level.
Just in the past few months Christopher has thrown dog feces into
our yard, hampered with our boat on our driveway, kicked over our recycling material, sat
on the fence and watched us at night in our bedroom, cursed at us, taking little baby steps
along our driveway to prevent us from backing out, thrown rocks at our home. These are
to name a few of the things that Christopher has done to is and we have lived with this for
13 1/2 yearsl These incidents have occurred when he is not supervised by an adult. Since
he is a ward of the state and is labeled mentally retarded it is the parents duty to supervise
him at all times. This clearly is not taking place.
We have called the police for some of these incidents however the
parents response to them is that Christopher is having a bad day with his medication.
Therefore nothing has changed and nobody has asked the parents to change their tactics
on how they handle and supervise Christopher. It is just the same line they give the police
each time they have been over to their home.
We have also contacted Child Protective Services through the
police department and Carmen would not even speak to us about the situation with
Christopher.
Our children are fearful of Christopher and its difficult trying to
reassure them that they are safe when they see and hear whats happening around them.
If Christopher was not a ward o~’the state he would clearly have
been charged by now with many crimes as you can clearly ’see in his file. Our family is the
96
victim of an injustice system that treats criminals and people like Christopher as the ones
that need help and telling the victims after the fact how sorry everyone is,
We want this to go on record so that in case some terrible incidence
does occur we want to make sure that everyone that could have helped us was notified.
Sincerely,
Rick and Karen Jew
97
DEar Harven and Nancy
April 6, 1997
An incideni with Christopher yesterday was so upsetting that I have to let you know that
it appears as if is anger towards us has taken another step.
As I was working in my front yard, Chris walked by singing very clearly the words, "You
are so stupid.., over and over again. I kn~w that these words were directed at me. I
completely ignored him as I worked.
However, the next time he walked By, which was less than 3 minutes later, he was
singing to the tune of "We Shall Over Come," the words,
"We shall kill the Jews and when they are dead we shall over come some day".
I felt this was too much and I told him that was enough. He then continued, singing this
song, obviously delighted, that he had gotten a reaction from me.
This is not acceptable.
Listed below are some of the other incidents we have had with Chris since the major
incident last fall:
o
Last Christmas day when Rick went out in the side yard to check on the turkey, Chris
verbally attacked Rick with several obscenities. Rick had said nothing and was not
looking in his direction. This upset our kids, the kids of the other families present,
and the adults too. Chris was with another one of your children at the time. He was-
unable to get Chris to stop.
He has gone by me and aimed power tools at me pretending he was firing a gun. He
added sound effects.
o
o
We had dog feces thrown over the fence a few weeks ago. We know it was Chris
because Harven was telling him to stop. This was not pleasant to clean up.
He removed the nuts and bolts from the front of our boat.
Rick was in the garage with his back to the street. Christopher called him a bastard
several times with out provocation. Rick did not respond.
He was caught by Rick and peeking over the fence into ou~ bedroom. He was
watching what was on our television and making comments. I had just been changing
moments before. Our bedroom window coverings had only been lifted about 6 inches
for ventilation. Finally, his siblings came over and tried to stop him. He just ignored
them and continued his laughing.
7. Kicking over our garbage cans and recycling baskets is very tiresome.
Because of his mental condition, we try to ignore him as much as possible.
This kind of behavior is totally offensive and disturbing. Our’chitdren are fearful of him
because he is so out of control and they are concerned that he may physically hurt one of
them. Rick and I share this same concern.’ ~
Your statements that Chris is not dangerous do not appear to fit the facts. Here are just a
few occurrences.
i.We have witnessed 3 policeman holding him down on the sidewalk in the middle of
the night.
2.We have seen him on othe~ occasions being taken’away in a police car.
3.We have seen him de~y and strike his father in front of our house while he was being
escorted to your house.
4.We have seen him run from all of your family across the street without regard for the
traffic on E. Meadow in an attempt to get away from you and your family.
Sometimes without clothing.
5. We have seen him push Boonchi into our front yard plants so hard that Boonchi came
up almost in tears. On this particular incident, we came out of our house and asked
Boonchi if he was all right. We told him he should tell you or Harven what had
happened.
6. He has even come into our house, when the front door was closed and we were
talking to the police. He stated, "Are you going to take me away now?" Even the
Officer could not believe it.
Since Chris has been deemed by the state of California to not be able to tell "right from
wrong", what assurances can you give us that he will not act on his thoughts, especially
his latest song, "lets kill the Jews..."
Whatever supervision and help he is receiving, does not appear to be working where we
are concerned. We have watched his anger and hatred for us increase as he has gotten
older.
We do understand that Christopher is absolved from responsibility because of his mental
state, but that does not absolve the individuals who are his guardians from their
responsibility for him, his actions, and the consequences that are born from his actions.
There is no question that your task is one of the most difficult. And through all of this,
we still admire what you are attempting to accomplish.
99
But as they say, " Don’t mistake effort for results."
We therefore ask you to review how the State of California would consider your care of
Christopher.
1.Is he a danger to himself?.
2.Is he a danger to others?
3.Is he receiving the proper supervision for his condition?
In light of the most recent event, we would ask you to keep Christopher under adult
supervision at all times.
Just as your children should feel safe and comfortable in their own home, ours should too.
Just last night, Kelly our ten year old daughter asked us if Christopher would burn down
our house. We told her that he would not do such a thing...
But how do we really know this for sure...
I am asking you to supervise Christopher so that no further incidents happen and our
children can feel safe in their own home.
Rick and Karen Jew
100
November 26, 1996
Broderick L. Jew and Karen L. ~ew
714 E. Meadow Dr.
Palo A!to, Ca. 94303
Dear Police Department:
At the request of Officer Kim Collet we are writing
this letter as a formal notification that we have requested the Palo Alto Dept.
to contact our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Ng to let them know that we do not
want their son Christopher Ng to trespass on our property. W@ feel
Christopher is a danger and do fear for our safety. From the advice of the
police department and legal advice we have received we will be calling the
police department for help in any matters concerning problems with
Christopher Ng. Many attempts have been made to discuss past problems
with the parents and by their actions have made it dear that they do not take
responsibility for their children’s actions.
We would like this letter to go into Christopher
Ng’s file in case it is needed for future reference by the police, social services,
or ourselves.
Sincerely,
Broderick L. Jew
Karen L, Jew
101
Rick and Karen Jew
714 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303-4444
March 25, 1996
Harven and Nancy Ng
718 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303-4444
Dear Harven and Nancy:
I am writing this letter in the interest of neighbor harmony and goodwill.
discuss 3 issues with you in writing so there can be no confusion.
Fence repair:
I would like to
The fence between our house and your house that is to the west of our property, line is in
serious need of replacement or repair. At present we are supporting the fence on our side
with a pole, It is apparent that several of the posts will have to be replaced.
With your approva! I will seek the bids of a few fence repair craftsmen. I would like to
split this cost with you and of course will not order any repair without your consent. If
this is not satisfactory or you wish to propose an alternative solution please let me know.
The City of Palo Alto laws as they relate to the keeping and breeding of animals:
The City has very specific rules with respect to the keeping and breeding of the type of
animals that you presently have on your property.
I have enclosed a copy 0fthese rules for your edification. It is my hope that you will be
able to comply with the rules at your earliest convenience.
My reading of the rules indicates that your bird aviaries that exist on the property lines
both to the south and west would be subject to these .rules.
The attempted removal of our aluminum cans by Christopher and t~oonchi last week:
I am sad to report to you that my wife and daughter Lauren caught Christopher and
Boonchi trying to steai the aluminum cans that we hadplaced out for recycling. This has
happened before but until last week
(week ending February 10~’) we did not know who was responsible.
102
She observed Christoph. er and Boonchi walk by our house to see if we were watching.
Then after hiding behind our boat they tried to steal the cans.
Their behavior would suggest that they knew what they i,vere doing was wrong, but made
a decision to proceed anyway.
While the cans are of nominal value, it was the act of sheer belligerence and defiance on
Christopher’s part that is most disturbing. When my wife asked Christopher not to steal
the cans, he was argumentative, try. ing to defend his actions, and aggressive in body
posture.
We have tried to discourage this activity by putting out the cans just before pick-up by
the re-cycling personnel. However, this got us in trouble with the re-cycling people.
When we explained our problem of the theft to them they explained the following City
policy:
Once recycling materials are put out on the street for that purpose, title to that
material passes to the City.
The City will aggressively pursue those who re-direct these materials for personal
gain.
3. We should call the police.
We are unwilling to call the police for such a minor offense.
And let me.just say for the record, we have only called the police once and only
when your baby sitter told us to call for her. In that particular instance.
Cl[ristopher had locked himself in the orange car and was honking the horn over
an extended period of time. Your sitter was at a loss as to what to dO. She asked us
to call the police.
Your cooperation in resolving these issues is most appreciated.
Rick and Karen Jew
103
I’
City of PaSo A~to PlannLng Commission ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ V E D
250 Ham~on Avenu~t Fifth F£oor
PaSo A~to~ CA 94301 OCT 0 ~ 1339
RE° 99 ~o, 38 CondiLionat Use Per~ for a secondD~~?~~ Midd~efi~ RD.
Dear City of Palo Atto Planner :
As a n~ighbor to the a~ove referenced appli~ztion, I would like ~o offer so~
input about this project for your con~id~on:
I) The proposed parking is unrealistic. The e~t~ng garage isn’t usedas a garage. ~ steep there. 7he two uncover~ spaces can’t function
as shown. Overflow on str~ parking wou~A affect neighbors because of the
noparking zones on Middtefi~ and Meadow. Two car~ usua~y park on t~
str~ now before this proposed addition is even b~. A~ vehictes mu~
~ack out onto a busy fa~t moui~g East M~adow Dr£w.
2) This siLe, in conjunction with 718 East Meadow Drive (same. owners, sam~
natural I adopted I foster fa~) generates 2ots of whicular traffic for
apprximat~y twelve ch~ with specia~ m~dical and extracu~cufar n~_ds.
7he site. as used by this fam£1y would not funcLion as wou~ a typica~ residence
with cottage, you n~ to know how it w~ ~ used. The applicant may say
the cottage wi~ offer ~ow cost rer~ housing. It~ use by paid ch~ care
workers~ or as a halfway house~ or by ch~ with. out on~it~ aduAt s-p~r-vision may not be appropriate to RI cottage use in~ons.
3) The density of people per site is a~ready many t~mes higher that thaL
of the R1 neighbors. The proposed cottage would a~ow even higher density.
4) The proposed cottage Ls very plain. It reminds me of an army barracks
with its rectangufar plan and tacked on e~Ary roof. The ~vcLsting garage
and house have a hip roof; the proposed cottage a ga~ roof. I’m conce~
about the attic access, and the space b~Lng used as a kids play room.
The calor sc~ is now white with ~ t~, but also, with a fluorescent
y~ow garage door and window inner trim. The ye~ow seems gaud~ to me.
Su~, coord~ earth tones .would be much nicer, in my opinion. Four
acces~sory structures tota~g 978 square fe~ are shown. One on the SE
sid~ of the ~ot (375 squar~ f~e£) has been rece~v~ torn down and replaced
wLth a fenced ar~ yard. Is this use in compliance? I am happy to se~
the recent scrag of the we~ pump ~ ext~or tank.
Expansibn of of th~ Ngs faci~ in the past (wLth the gift of the 3655
Mid~fi~ property to t~)~ has ~ to l~ss supervision of the many ~
under th~Ar car~ (resuAt~ng in ste~ping in the garages of both houses.~
sexual a~se~ ch~ w~g the str~ at night and e~g priva~
property and veAictes ). This inadequat~ supervision allows ~owd anA a~usive
language and d~rgerous objects (such as a piLchfork) being thrown over th~
f~nce. I am concerned that this cottage wil~ be used as a Half way house
and wi~ a~ow eve~ greater ch~ / ad~ ratios with ~ess supervision
ye£o Th~ wou~d compound the cur~ inconsid~ tr~at~ of the neigh~or-
hood.
From a concer~ neighbor. P!ease. read at t~ public hearing,
105
October 1, 1999
Ci, ot l)aloAlto
Department of Planning and
Cornmunity Environment
Joyce Ford Design and Planning
P.O. Box 228
Menlo Park, CA 94026
SUBJECT: 3655 Middlefield Road, 99-UP-38
Plarming Division
Dear Ms. Ford:
Please consider this official notice that Conditional Use Permit 99-UP-38,
application for a secondary dwelling unit at 3655 Middlefield Road, will be
continued to a date uncertain at the public hearing on October 7, 1999. New
information pe,rtaining to the property has been made available to the City of
Palo Alto Planning Department and additional timeis required to research the
application. This new information pertains to the following two issues: 1)
Police records related to the care and shelter of children on the project site
and at the home of the owner located at 817 East Meadow, 2) Transportation
issues related to on site parking and vehicle flow on to and off of the site.
As a result of these issues, staffhas deemed the application incomplete.
Additional information from the Police Department, Transportation
Department, and the applicant is required to process the information. Please
submit a letter detailing how the property is used, including the details of the
care and shelter of children on the project site and at 817 East Meadow,
which is occupied and used by the owner. The application will be scheduled
for a hearing as soon as staffhas received the information from the Police
and Transportation Departments as well as the letter from the owners
detailing the use of the site and any adjoining sites.
Please feel free to call me should you have any questions about the
application at (650)61.7-3119.
¯ Sincerely,
Amie Olaser
Associate Planner
Cc: Harven and Nancy Ng
250 Hamilton Avenue
EO. Box 10250
Pa!o Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax 106
718 E. MeadowDrive
Palo Alto, Califomia 94303
Phone 650-494-3057
Fax 650-565-9922
September 18, 1999
Dear Neighbor,
’Itus is to advise you that we have applied Ibr a Conditional Use Permit for our property
at 3655 Middlefield Road.
We are proposing a second detached single-family dweIling unit to be located in accord
with the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed cottage maintains all property setback regulations and
will be twelve (12). feet separated from the existing dwelling, two car garage and all accessory
buildings. It will be a single story structure with street access from the existing driveway and
will acc0modate additional parking spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance and within the
proper setbacks.
The cottage will have exterior siding, painted white with blde trim around the windows
to match the existing residence. For both the proposed cottage and original residence, the usable
open spaces will be directly accessible from both dweIlings and be within the rear yard setback
and adjacent-areas, not including the street-side setbacks, also required by the Zoning Ordinance.
One of the proposed uses of the new single-family dwelling is to offer moderately priced
rental housing. This will add to the use of the large property lot. The second single-family
dwelling offers community improvement in providing another rental opportunity of affordable
housing and because of location, size and style of the proposed cottage, will maintain the distinct
sense of the single fata!!3’ neighborhcod where the propcrt-,.,’ ia located. This uar, ";,411 not bc
detrimental to neighboring homes because the proposed cottage will be contained inside the
setbacks of a large property lot.
Another proposed use of the new cottage is to provide us with a comPlete and detached
home environment, separate from our main residence, to support the development and learning
of independent living skills for family members with special needs. This proposed use will not
be detrimental to the punic thereof, but wiI1 provide extra housing for the social service needs of
a household supporting people with special requirements.
A site plan, floor plan for the proposed cottage and drawing showing elevated
perspectives is enclosed for your perusal.
107
A hearing to review our Conditional Use Permit application has been set for October 7 at
the City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. Please do not
hesitate to call us ~,t 550-494-3057 if you have a,,-,y questions prior to or after the hearing.
Si
Nancy and Harven Ng
108
3719 Grove Ave
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303
October 5, 1999
Dear Sirs:
I object to the granting of the conditional permit to build a second house on
the property on the corner of Middlefield and East Meadow, b~longing to the Ng
family. I object for two reasons:
i.. The intended use of the property, which was revealed to me in a letter that
the Ng’s sent to the neighbors and in the course of a phone conversation I
had with Nancy Ng, is to house adult members of the Ng family who have
special needs. This will be tantamount to the establishment of an
unlicensed, unsupervised half-way house for the emotionally disturbed,
intellectually challenged adult children of the Ng family. The Ng minor and
adult children have endangered and harmed the neighbors in the past and the
danger will be exacerbated by allowing those members to live unsupervised
several properties away from their parents in a second household on the said
property.
2.The increase in car movement resulting from additional cars on the property
will increase the already hazardous traffic condition which exists at that
corner. The Fairmeadow and JLS PTA, as well as a committee of concerned
parents, as well the PAUSD in conjunction with the City, is looking at ways
to make that corner safer for the school children. Doubling or tripling the
number of cars garaged there will increase the hazard at tha~ corner.
The neighborhood applauds the Ng’s for the ~umanitarian service they
provide in taking in the many, many children they have cared for under
foster care services ’over the past twenty-five years.
However the Ng’s have never adequately supervised their male children. The
biggest single problem is that Nancy Ng refuses to acknowl~dge that her
children have been a problem in the neighborhood, and therefore she has not
acted to address the problems and change the behavior ~f the children. If
she won’t admit there are problems, how can she act to address those very
real problems?
I had a lengthy conversation with Nancy Ng last Wednesday, the 29~h of
September, 1999. Nancy not only denies that her children’s actions are
serious, she denies that most of the incidents I related to her ever
happened. Nancy denies that her children have ever thrown dangerous
projectiles over the’fence into neighbors’ yards endangering neighborhood
children. She denies that she stood by while her biological son, Michael
~creamed obscenely at a young family passing by, damning the fanlily to hell
and wishing they would burn for eternity. (The memory of that is still
painful for the young boys who endured that verbal assault.) Nancy denies
that her children have ever barraged the neighborhood with litanies of
profanity and obscenity. She denies that Chris Ng has ever threatened to
kill neighbors. She denies that Bunchai Ng was expelled from Palo Alto High
School for aberrant behavior on campus. Nancy claimed that the latter
incidents are concocted by a bigoted, racist, intolerant neighborhood. I
pointed out to her that the neighborhood is composed of 40% ethnic and
minority families with a large number of inter-racial families. I pointed
out to Nancy that, on my block of Grove, white families a£e in the minority,
109
and the racial make-up of the neighborhood predominantly reflects that of
her own family. The neighbors ha~e actually been amazingly tolerant of the
Ng children, and have only acted to report the most extreme delinquent
behavior, which has been our mistake.
The incidents I refer to are documented in the Palo Alto Police
records, in the PAUSD records,
or are corroborated by several neighbor witnesses. I will relay to you a
tale of which I have first hand knowledge.
In the early 90’s the Ng’s converted the garage on the prdperty in
question into a bedroom for their teenage sons, being that they needed the
sleeping space in their home for their younger children and their many
foster children. This garage is several properties away from the Ng house,
so the teenagers who slept there were unsupervised at night. Seventeen year
old Bunchai Ngr e/notionally and intellectually challenged, would wander the
neighborhood late at night, sometimes in his pajamas. We quickly learned to
lock our cars because he likes to sit in cars~ play radios, flash the
lights. The Ng’s were unaware of this because none of us told them. We felt
sorry for Bunchai who has severe physical deformities. Besides, we believed
he was harmless; again, that was our mistake.
During that period of time, Bunchai entered the home of Jan Whitman, a
single mother of three on Grove Ave. On one occasion, she returned home to
find Bunchai watching TV; on a second occasion, he startled her as she came
out of her bathroom, standing in the hallway. Jan did not call the police
because it was ~harmless" Bunchai.
In my conversation with Nancy Ng, she made iight of the fact that
Bunchai had entered a neighborhood home. She may not see it as a threat,
but I and the other women in the neighborhood were quite concerned that .a
male with the body of a man and the mind of a child entered a home he
believed to be unoccupied. There were a number of widows and young mothers
in the neighborhood alone during the day and/or night at that time. It makes
us shudder that we let that one go, considering what ensued several months
later.
Subsequently, Bunchai was caught by his surprised parents coming in one
Friday morning after he had been out all night, the fact of which Harven Ng
confirmed to a neighbor, Brian Kember. I believe Bunchai had fallen
asleep in my neighbors’ camper van, as the neighbor’s were away at a
Peninsula Bible Church retreat. Bunchai accused that couple of having
sexually molested him. I followed step by step the hell that young family
ehdured for the next four months during the investigatory process. It
appeared to me that if you are accused of sexual assault of a child, it is
the one crime in this country of which you are guilty until you prove
yourself innocent. That investigation of my neighbors was predominantly
conducted by Detective Carole Baldwin of the PAPD, and i have letters sent
to me from the PAPD concerning that case. The couple was. cleared of the
charges; the record reflects that they are no longer the accused, but rather
witnesses in the case. Never-the-less, Nancy referred to them as sexual
predators in the neighborhood in last Wednesday’s conversation with me.
Nancy sai4 south Palo Alto could use a good half-way house to impact the
intolerance of Palo Altans toward special need persons. I actually would not
object to a SUPER\~SED half-way house in the neighborhood. I love Palo Alto
for trying to accomodate allpeople. However, Nancy’s intended use is as an
unsupervised shelter for adult males who will always need supervision; my
guess is that she wants to’free up space in her present household for more
foster children. Again, I applaud her for the latter, but her adult male
children still act aberrantly, still need stronger supervision, and should
not be set adrift in the neighborhood. The fact that Chr.is NG in his 20’s
still threatens to kill his next door neighbors, Mr. And Mrs. Jew, is proof
110
enough of the danger. The double entendre of Chris Ng chanting, "The Ngs
shall kill the Jews someday!" is chilling.
I also object to the traffic safety issue of allowing a second household
on the lot. Even if the second house becomes rental property, the number of
cars associated with the property wil! double or triple. That route is a
major corridor for children rnaking their way to Fairmeadow Elementary, to
JLS Middle School, to Hoover Elementary, and to Covenant Children’s Center.
The unobstructed use of the bike lane will be hampered by cars exiting and
entering so close to the corner. Children will be hit as cars turn right-
on-red off Middlefield, because the bicyclists will have to swing into
traffic to dodge cars exiting the driveway. The off-street parking planned
is so unworkable that the tenants will end up parking in the street in front
of the neighbors’ homes, since the curb is red next to the property in
question.
I realize it is part of the Comprehensive Plan to provide for more
housing, but Nancy told me she will rent the property at low market value
which eliminates low-income families. This is an R-I neighborhood which
should contain a single family home per lot. The’plan the Ng’s presented
reflects two houses positioned askew on the property, ~ismatched roof
designs, a garage which has been used as living space, several sheds, a
chicken coop and an unbelievably unworkable off-street parking arrangement.
The roof line of the new house, coupled with the fact that there are three
skylights in the attic and a stair pulldown in the middle of the living room
hint to me that the Ng’s intend to use the attic as living space, probably
dormitory style sleeping. The design of the property az submitted reflects
a haphazard piece-meal compound which one would expect to see arising from a
community with no zoning or building regulations, not Palo Alto. The plan
is WAY out of harmony with the rest of the neighborhood and would never,
E%~R be allowed in north Palo Alto!
The Ng’s should enlarge the present house to create an attractive home to
be used as rental income, if they so desire. The latter would reflect the
design and use of the other R1 properties in the neighborhood; it would
display a pride of ownership consistent with the rest of the neighborhood;
it would reflect a good-faith effort on the part of the Ng’s to live in
harmo~v wi~h ~the neighbors. /3
Cornelia C. Nettendorf [ ]
111
112
ATTACHMENT D
Planning Commission Recommended
Draft Findings to Grant the Appeal and Deny the Use Permit
99-UP-39
3655 Middlefield Road
Use Permit Finding #1:
The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience in that the proposed secondary dwelling unit and the associated
parking plan is awkward and potentially hazardous because the residents of the main
house and cottage will be required to back out of the driveway on to East Meadow Drive.
In addition, the fenestration is inappropriate and would constitute a privacy impact to the
adjacent neighbor on East Meadow Drive because the proposed bedroom windows of the
second dwelling are full sized and face the neighbor’s property line.
Use Permit finding #2:
The proposed use will not be located in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto
comprehensive plan and the purposes of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the
proposed secondary dwelling unit does not meet Comprehensive Plan Policy L-12, which
states that the City should "Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods be
encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and
adjacent structures." The proposed secondary dwelling unit does not fit with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and lacks the architectural character to be
compatible with the "farmhouse" style of the primary dwelling. The second unit’s design
and parking configuration as proposed do not preserve the character of the surrounding
neighborhood because of the awkward parking configuration and the lack of design
compatibility between the structures on the site.
113