Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Weekly Home Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Reining in the giants

By Geoff S. Fein

The Palo Alto City Council took its first look at an ordinance Monday to discourage two-story homes in single-family home neighborhoods. The proposal is seen as a way to maintain privacy for existing homeowners as well as dealing with mass, bulk and neighborhood compatibility issues.

The proposal calls for adopting a threshold for review of any new two-story house, new second story addition, or addition greater than 150-square feet to an existing second story. Applicants and neighbors could get a hearing and mediation to settle any disputes. However, the council would have the final say in what is referred to as a "call-up appeal."

Builders seeking permits would be given a checklist. The idea is to get the builder to think about issues that could affect neighbors.

The real issue, however, was one of privacy. Homeowners adjacent to second-story additions or new two-story homes were concerned they would lose their privacy, said George Stern, a member of the single-family regulation review working group that studied the matter and issued recommendations.

Although Stern said there is no way to guarantee absolute or complete privacy, builders should be aware of what they are building.

"A person designing a house ought to think they are building a house next to an existing house, not in a desert," he said.

Annette Ashton, another working group member, said the group wasn't rushing into solving the problem.

"It is necessary neighbors understand the impact they will have on the neighborhood," she said. "New and remodeled homes should respect their neighbors."

The hope is that by following the process builders will be able to make better neighbors and better neighborhoods, Ashton said.

Although the working group did not solve every concern about residential housing, the group felt something must be done because Palo Alto is not on the leading edge of residential review, Ashton said.

The group decided upon individual review because the process would be site specific, Ashton said.

"This is not a design review. It is not a neighborhood Architectural Review Board," she said. "Approval will not be delegated to neighbors."

Judith Wasserman, a local architect and a working group member, compared large homes -- what some often refer to as "monster homes" -- to sitting on an airplane next to a Sumo wrestler.

"That's what we are talking about here," she said.

The group's three-hour presentation at Monday's council meeting was meant to give council members and the public an opportunity to question and comment on the proposal before it goes back to the council July 16 for its first step toward adoption as a citywide ordinance.

For 15 months a group of planning staff and community representatives have been working on the single-family regulations and review process.

Planning Director Ed Gawf said two years ago the department began looking at replacement of single-story homes.

"We have 80 permits for single-family homes in the building department now," he said.

In fact, there have been about 143 applications for the Voluntary Design Assistance program in the past two years. Contractors who take advantage of this program can speed up their permit process, Gawf added.

The advisory group and planning staff eventually came up with the idea of having both discretionary review, through the adoption of an Individual Review Process, and regulatory (ministerial) changes to address issues identified by members of the community representing a broad range of viewpoints. However, to prevent just anyone from filing an appeal, only adjacent property owners or the applicant will be allowed to appeal.

The Individual Review Process would be for those structures that meet the threshold, Stern said. The review process would kick in when a homeowner would create a new second story, add to an existing second story or build a second story greater than 150-square feet.

Neighbors adjacent to the home under construction would be notified of the work next door to them, Stern said.

"Neighbors (would) feel a lot better if they knew what was going to happen," he said. "Now we will have to put signs and send notices to adjacent property owners."

Hearings would be limited to discussing those things on the checklist and in the zoning regulations.

If either the homeowner or adjacent neighbors appeal, it would be heard by four of the nine council members.

Gawf said his department is looking at a cost recovery program with an application fee around of around $500. That could help pay for the additional planner needed to run the program. However, he added there wouldn't be any final figures until the proposal comes back to the council next month.

Councilwoman Nancy Lytle questioned how one person would be able to handle the workload associated with administering the program.

Gawf said he doesn't see one person doing all the work.

Lytle also questioned whether appeals could be delegated to the Planning Commission.

"The thought is not to turn this into a mini public hearing," Gawf said. "We tried to set it up so it wasn't a confrontational situation."

Councilwoman Judy Kleinberg asked whether mediation could become a city-run negotiating process and if there are any safeguards to ensure such a measure would be .truly collaborative.

"If people can sit down and talk, (there is) a better opportunity to resolve it," Gawf said.

E-mail Geoff S. Fein at gfein@paweekly.com