Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Privacy concerns overshadow second-story debate

by Marv Snow

With the increasing number of two-story homes overlooking smaller houses in Palo Alto neighborhoods, the issue of retaining privacy in the bedroom and backyard has become a primary concern for residents and city officials alike.

The Palo Alto Planning Commission and the Future of Single Family Neighborhoods Advisory Group struggled with the issue Wednesday night, as they attempted to define privacy, and individuals' right to privacy, in the context of neighborhood development.

After two-and-a-half hours of debate between Planning Commission members on the concept of privacy and how to best protect it, they kicked the ball into the court of the advisory group and requested a definition everyone can live with.

Three major areas of concern were originally presented to planning commissioners by the committee: privacy, size and bulk, and compatibility. The commission, however, felt the last two issues were directly related to the first - privacy.

The committee has worked establish a review process to address all three issues and, hopefully, avoid the "wedding cake" effect (second-story stacked construction) in neighborhoods. Under the program, any second-story home - new, remodel or addition - over 150 square feet would trigger the review process to address any concerns regarding the structure's impact on the affected neighborhood. Another trigger would be the floor area ratio (FAR) or a request for an exemption.

A design review could take up to 42 days before final approval and up to 60 days if there is an appeal by a neighbor.

The process includes several new ideas, including: posting on-site to inform neighbors of the proposed project, use of a checklist as part of the application, the availability of a mediator, and a "call-up" City Council appeal process.

"New and remodeled homes should respect its neighbors," Annette Ashton, a member of the advisory group, said. "This problem exists all over the nation."

After six months of work the committee found a number of areas they felt needed corrective action, the major ones being:

Inadequate minimum setbacks;

Two-story new construction or addition;

Large entry features;

Neighbor notification.

In all four areas the group recommended there be code revisions and/or individual review.

The committee felt it especially important to create a threshold for new two-story homes, new second-story additions and additions to existing second-story structures greater than 150 square feet.

"The intent is that the new two-story home fits in with the neighborhood," Ashton said.

The committee said it is necessary for the builder or owner to meet with their neighbors before filing a building application, and recommended that the applicant submit a checklist (still being developed) to the Planning Department. The neighbors can review the plans at the library.

If the neighbors wish to appeal the decision, it will take four City Council members to agree the appeal should be heard. Otherwise, all decisions are final.

Although pleased with the committee's goals, at least one planning commissioner raised the thorny issue of privacy.

"Ready, fire, aim. For once we're not doing that," Planning Commissioner Owen Byrd said. "But I'm very confused. What is privacy? Am I entitled to have no one not look through my window? I'm not clear on what privacy is."

Ashton said the issue had been raised at both the community forum and by advisory group members. "Windows should not be located across from each other," she said. "Balconies would not look into the neighbor's backyard. That would be an expectation by many people and should be preserved. It (privacy) should be defined."

"The expectation is reasonable privacy in their outdoor room (back yard)," committee member John Northway said, "which is impossible with 6,000-square-foot lots. Privacy, it's hard to get a good definition because of the small lots."

Planning Director Ed Gawf said the process was designed to work with the new homeowners to "make sure that we don't over-regulate. That's what we concentrated on."

"The expectation of privacy in Professorville is different than in Eichlerville," Northway added. "The zoning ordinance is blanket coverage. You have to look at the property individually.

"We have to hone in on what privacy is. Some things we can regulate, some things we can't," Northway said. "The goal is still to solve real and perceived privacy. I don't know if we can define privacy." <@$p>

E-mail Marv Snow at msnow@paweekly.com