PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 =============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL ====================== ROLL CALL: :0 PM Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair Karen Holman Patrick Burt Bonnie Packer - absent Phyllis Cassel Joseph Bellomo AGENDIZED ITEMS: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES. Capital Improvement Program. Colorado Avenue*. Wilkie Way*. 0 Los Trancos Road* Wednesday, May, 00 REGULAR MEETING :00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, st Floor 0 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 0 Staff: Steve Emslie, Planning Director Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney Amy French, Current Planning Manager Chris Riordan, Planner Clare Campbell, Associate Planner Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 0, 00. Chair Bialson: I would like to call this meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission to order. Would the Secretary please call roll. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three () minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to minutes. City of Palo Alto Page

2 Chair Bialson: I have one speaker request card on that and that is Roger Kohler. You have three minutes to speak on not your item but general oral communications. Mr. Roger Kohler, Wilkie Way, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live at Wilkie Way and I am also an architect here in town. I am kind of coming to you for an odd thing. As an architect here in town I work with a lot of homeowners. One of the things that have come up and more so on and on is the ongoing Staff interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance. I have kind of kept quiet about this for many, many years and I finally have decided that someone has to say something. So I have written letters and I am trying to assemble them right now to leave them. Basically what I am trying to say is in the past three or four years there have been numerous Staff interpretations of how the Zoning Ordinance is to be handled. These things are made upstairs on the fifth floor without public comment and without review of the Planning Commission. Your charge according to the Palo Alto Municipal Code is that you are to review, consider and make recommendations to the City Council Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance changes. So it is my understanding that in fact any change to the Zoning Ordinance should go through Planning Commission and have public input and public comment. This is not happening. What I have here is a list of at least seven different things that I know of that have had major impact on the Palo Alto homeowner. In fact recently I was told by a Staff member that they are not sure what to say at the counter any more because by the time you get your plans in for a permit after having gone through design review or zoning check they could be changed. I will just run down through a few examples. A few years ago the daylight plane was changed and it is my understanding that a resident came in and complained that this ordinance says that the daylight plane is measured from top of roof. So for over years since the current ordinance went into effect it had always been measured at the top of the double plate of the wall. So you went over ten feet at degrees and you measured from the grade up to the top of this plate. This was a very definitive defined point to measure this daylight plane. Well Staff decided that roof meant roof so now it is taken from top of roofing material. This is a much more difficult measurement to check as I have written in my letter. Just quickly it is very difficult to measure a tile roof with a four-foot overhang to make sure it has the daylight plane. So what I am asking in this letter, and I will hand them out to everyone, is that basically you ask Staff not to be making these interpretations without you, the Planning Commission, our representatives. They are changing the ordinance, which has an impact on every single homeowner who wants to do something in Palo Alto without benefit of public input and review. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Mr. Kohler: I will put these together and hand them out. Chair Bialson: That would be appreciated. Anyone else for Oral Communications? I have no other speaker request cards. I assume those that are being put are on agenda items. We have nothing on the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. City of Palo Alto Page

3 Chair Bialson: There will be no Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until hours prior to meeting time. Chair Bialson: We have the Unfinished Business of the Capital Improvement Program. Would Staff care to make a presentation? UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings:. Capital Improvement Program: Review of FY0-0 and FY0-0 Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Good evening Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. You should all have in your packet or have brought, if you have not I have a couple of extra copies, the proposed Capital Improvement Program for the City of Palo Alto. Does anyone need a copy? Every year the Commission reviews the proposed CIP with regard to its consistency with Palo Alto s Comprehensive Plan and other value adding comments. The Capital Improvement Program has two parts. The first has to do with the actual two year budget for infrastructure improvements for the City of Palo Alto across functions and citywide. The second part is a whole five-year picture. The first two years are actually presented to Council for action on budget and the next three are for planning purposes. Hopefully in year three those projects will become funded in a Council budget. A subcommittee of the Commission met on April to discuss the CIP, Commission members Commissioners Burt, Holman and Bellomo. Those Commissioners prepared a meeting report, which should be in your packet. The meeting report notes the comments and observations of the subcommittee with respect to the proposed CIP. I would say in general the subcommittee was supportive of the CIP. If any of the members of the subcommittee wish to add any comments or additional suggestions I really don t have much else to say about it other than it is a fine documents and I certainly recommend it to you. Chair Bialson: I agree it is a fine document. Does any member of the subcommittee wish to speak to this? Pat. Commissioner Burt: In a general sense I would just like to say that the subcommittee was very appreciative of the degree to which Staff has taken the input of the Planning Commission earlier in the process, given it more opportunity to be integrated in their planning. Also that for several of us who have been through this a number of times over the years I think we have observed greater and greater integration of the Comprehensive Plan in the CIP that I think to a good extent is a result of the Planning Department causing the other departments in the City to be even more sensitive to Comp Plan issues as they look at the projects and to look at things comprehensively. I think that has been evident in the CIP report in recent years and I just want to express my City of Palo Alto Page

4 appreciation for that. Other than that the subcommittee is open to any questions that other Commissioners might have on our committee report. Chair Bialson: Any questions by Commission members? I do not have any. I don t see anyone who has questions. I think the document speaks for itself and I want to express appreciation to you Pat, Karen and Joe for the effort that was put into this. I think that we have given sufficient direction to Staff as far as I understand. Is that correct, Joe? Mr. Kott: I believe it is customary Chair Bialson for Commission to formally recommend the CIP to Council. Chair Bialson: So you would like a motion at this time that we formally recommend the CIP with the addition of the comments made by the Commission members that were in the subcommittee and validated by us I assume to be forwarded on to the Council. Mr. Kott: At the Commission s pleasure we would be glad to pass these comments along and I am sure they will be incorporated into a Staff Report to Council presenting Council with a CIP proposal. Chair Bialson: Okay. Would we be able to have that Staff Report delivered to the subcommittee members so that they can review it or do you feel that that is something that you would not be able to do? Mr. Kott: I think that is perfectly doable. Chair Bialson: Okay, I would like to see that done so the members of the subcommittee could review that Staff Report. Fine. I think Pat wants to make a motion. Commissioner Burt: I just want to ask whether we need to open this to the public for comment. I don t see any card. Chair Bialson: Wynne. Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If you did not take any comment previously then yes, you should open it for public comment since it is an agenda item. Chair Bialson: We did not open it for public comment previously. Has anyone turned in a speaker request card or does anyone wish to turn in a speaker request card and go through this entire document with us? If not then I will close the public comment period and come back us and maybe Pat why don t you make that motion to forward this on with your comments. MOTION Commissioner Burt: I would like to make a motion that the Planning and Transportation Commission forward the Staff proposed CIP for 00 to 00 forward it on to the Council along with the comments of the subcommittee as an attachment. SECOND City of Palo Alto Page

5 Commissioner Holman: Second. MOTION PASSED. Chair Bialson: That is seconded by Karen. Do we need any discussion or do we want to vote? I suggest that we vote. All those in favor say aye. (ayes) All those opposed? That was carried unanimously by all Commissioners present, Bonnie Packer not in attendance. That s fine. Thank you very much, Joe. Now we are on to Item number two with regard to Colorado Avenue. Why don t we have the Staff Report? NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings:. Colorado Avenue*: [0-HIE-] Appeal by Omer Gokcek of the Director of Planning and Community Environment s approval of a request by Dean and Cindy Samos for a Home Improvement Exception application to allow a rear daylight plane encroachment and rear setback encroachment to accommodate a second floor addition to existing single-story residence. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 0. Staff Report Weblink: Ms. Amy French, Current Planning Manager: Thank you Chairman Bialson, Commissioners. The project before you is an appeal of an approval that was granted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a encroachment into the rear setback. It is a continuation of an existing first floor encroachment up to the second floor. The existing one story home is on a corner lot. It was built in with legal permits with this nonconforming rear setback. The individual review process included discussion about the placement of the second floor and about reducing the massing as seen from the two streets. We looked at the revision, which extended the existing nonconforming rear wall but used clerestory windows to minimize privacy issues. We thought that it was a better architectural solution that was achieved by reducing the massing as seen from these two streets. You have the pictures in your packet showing the before and after that came through the process of individual review. However, this change did require a request for an HIE, which then was processed. The total area of the encroachment at the second floor is square feet and this is represented by a bathroom, master bath area and a bedroom area, which is appropriately at the rear of the home. The zoning code allows horizontal extensions of nonconforming walls but we require an HIE or variance request for vertical extensions of existing nonconforming walls. As noted in the Staff Report, the HIE process was created for situations where relief from the zoning regulations is desirable for sustaining the integrity of an existing design concept or neighborhood character. We have several letters of support from the neighborhood and Staff was able to make all three findings for the HIE. The appellant, I believe, is here tonight and did not attend the Director s City of Palo Alto Page

6 Hearing. He lives in the adjacent two-story home to the rear of the site. That concludes my presentation. Chair Bialson: Thank you. We can have questions now or we can hear from the appellant. Yes? Commissioner Cassel: I have a question and I believe it is for Wynne. In the ordinance it indicates that legal nonconforming uses for business cannot add any square feet to their building. It was a little less clear about residences. Could you please explain? Ms. Furth: I can offer a partial explanation and then the Chief Planning Official who is much more conversant with the code than I am can amplify that. First I think it should be clear from the Staff Report that the code section referred to by the appellant about nonconformities refers to subdivision processes and is not relevant here. The general rule here is that we do allow these horizontal continuations of intrusions into the setback. What they are proposing to do here is build a structure that doesn t comply with the zoning if the zoning is literally applied. That is what the Home Improvement Exception is for so if you can make the findings that are necessary to grant a Home Improvement Exception you can do that with respect to any of the lot development standards that would otherwise be applicable. So even though there is an existing legal nonconforming structure on the lot that doesn t limit your ability to grant a Home Improvement Exception. In fact, I think it is fair to say that the Home Improvement Exception was instituted because many of the homes in Palo Alto were built under different zoning codes so they were perfectly legal adequately permitted at the time they were designed. Subsequently the City adopted building standards that may have created different height limits, different setbacks or other requirements. The City values its existing structures, it wants to encourage their retention and it acknowledges that it is a quite eclectic collection of both lot configurations and building styles. So the HIE was designed to let you modify our zoning standards for a particular lot when you can make the findings for the HIE so you are free to do so here. HIEs only apply to residential uses. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Why don t we have the appellant speak now? That would be minutes. And you are? Mr. A.J. Gokcek, 0 South Court, Palo Alto: My name is A.J. Gokcek and I am the son of Omer Gokcek. I used to live in fact on South Court on the neighboring lot but I moved out about four months ago. I am A.J. Gokcek and I am here to represent my father, Omer Gokcek. I am a graduate of Palo Alto High School and I lived in Palo Alto for most of my life. My father came into the Palo Alto area in to study at Stanford. He received his Masters at Stanford and then came back later on in the 0s to work on and complete his Ph.D. So he has lived in Palo Alto permanently for at least to 0 years. So we know the Palo Alto area really well and we like it here a lot. I want to make it clear that we are not against our neighbors developing their property from adding a second story. We are not here to do that at all. We are here to protect our interests, to protect our rights and to uphold the law and the Municipal Code of Palo Alto. Commissioners, earlier you alluded to the section that deals with noncompliance permit issuance prohibited. Without doubt right now the home is a non-complying residence. Section.0.00 Noncompliance Permit Issuance Prohibited states that no permit or approval of any type City of Palo Alto Page

7 necessary for the development of such property shall be issued by the City whether the applicant was the owner of record at the time of such violation until such time as a final or parcel map or certificate of compliance for the property is approved and recorded. The enforcement of this provision of this section shall be in addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law for violation of this title. Even in Title, Section.0.0 which deals with conflicts says that if a conflict occurs between this title and the provisions of any other title, law, regulation including Title the more restrictive provision shall govern, shall apply. So when I heard that Section deals with subdivisions and we are here now dealing with Title well, HIEs, Home Improvement Exceptions involve subdivisions and subdivisions involve restrictions on use. To say that one is exclusive and one section cannot apply that is not true at all. You will notice that in Title there are many references to other sections and other titles including Title. You will see the same in Title. Title references many other sections. So these are all very relevant. In fact, in Title where the HIE exception is excluded it says so right there. If you talk about multi family uses for example it will say that in certain districts or in certain R- type homes there will not be multi family uses except where an HIE applicant is granted or a variance. So I think that if the City really wanted to make an exception under Title under the provision that I cited it could have very well done so but it did not. Even Section.0.0 does say quite clearly that the more restrictive provision shall apply and that is not limited to Section. So even assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the section on subdivisions does not apply, that Section.0.0 does apply here, we still believe that on the merits of the three factors for the HIE that our neighbors should not receive an HIE exception. First of all there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. There really is no evidence other than the argument that well this is a corner lot. I don t know how the rules of evidence apply here but we do have a rough sketch of what our lot looks like which is a zigzag lot which we complied with, we complied with all the provisions, we went through the process, we are not in violation versus their property. If you like I can bring this up if you would like to take a look. Chair Bialson: Do you have multiple copies of that? Okay, we will look at these as we go down but why don t you continue speaking at the microphone. Mr. Gokcek: As you will notice on the picture even though it is a corner lot it looks like a perfect lot to build. There doesn t seem to be any hardships, any egregious design to the property. They have plenty of space. The argument that it is a corner lot and they should be entitled to an HIE exception well there are hundreds and hundreds of corner lots in Palo Alto. Even the former Mayor Ojakian said that the HIE is supposed to be used very, very sparingly, it is supposed to be a rare exception. So if we are going to say that is a corner lot and that is a perfect corner lot if you look at it. It is much better, much nicer than our lot and we complied with all the regulations of Palo Alto. Second, the granting of the application we believe is not desirable for the preservation of an existing architectural style or neighborhood. The argument here in this case is that somehow or another the new second story would preserve the aesthetics and it would make it more resemble the other homes in the area. Well, it is not sensitive to our property and it violates the code and there are plenty single story and two-story homes in the area. So this argument that it is going to preserve the existing architectural style again there is no evidence of that. City of Palo Alto Page

8 Fourth the granting of the application will be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity. The proposed two-story addition would amount to a continuing violation because right now the home is in noncompliance in the rear yard setback. Now they are going to add a second story so that is going to be even a greater rear yard setback. And third the daylight plane protrusions, the law right now is that you have to have. and. well they are going to have theirs at feet. That is the old law so you are really talking about three violations. So again on all three factors we believe we win on the argument of whether they should have this HIE excepted. What it comes down to is we are not against our neighbors redeveloping or redesigning their property but we want them to comply with the code like we did. And we want to protect our privacy. We did the same. Our lot is a zigzag lot. They have a perfect corner lot. We believe that it is not difficult for them to comply. We are only talking about. feet. If all they did was move their first story on the rear back just about. or. feet, they move that in a little bit that would give us more privacy and we wouldn t have a problem. Once they did that they would be in compliance. They would be in compliance with Section that I cited earlier and then they can come back and apply for an HIE exception if they so choose. We believe that the better rule is that we should encourage people to abide by the provisions of the Municipal Code. Will I have a chance for a rebuttal? Chair Bialson: You will have an opportunity and have some more time. Why don t you stay up there because we will probably have questions? You have time left from this initial presentation. I think any questions by Commissioners? I see Michael does. Go ahead Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I am interested if you would share with us a little bit an elaboration on your comment that you felt that the new remodeled structure was not sensitive to your father s property. Maybe you could tell us a little bit more about that. Mr. Gokcek: Yes, well the Director or the Planning Staff noted that the rear yard faces our front yard and I believe they said the front yard and the side somehow but they did not mention that the rear yard actually faces two bedrooms, it will face two upstairs bedrooms, a living and a dining room including the entrance into the house. All they said was that the rear yard faces the front yard and it faces part of the front yard but actually it faces more closely to the bedrooms and the living room and the dining room. So I hope that answers your question. We don t believe it would be hard to do. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Yes, I have a couple of questions. Did you go through the individual review process? I take it your family built the house on lot on South Court? Mr. Gokcek: Yes. Commissioner Holman: Did you go through the individual review process for that? Mr. Gokcek: I would have to defer that. Mr. Omer Gokcek: It was not required. City of Palo Alto Page

9 Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then what is the distance between the fence and the side of your house? Mr. Gokcek: My father can comment. Chair Bialson: We need to have you at the microphone. Mr. Omer Gokcek: We meet all the requirements. Minimum six feet from fence to the house and we have also a daylight requirement which is we put the second floor at that time the exception was feet. After feet you have to put the second floor in so that you can meet this daylight requirement and the height requirement was feet, we meet that one. The FAR is much smaller than the requirement and we meet all the requirements. We went through the review. Otherwise they would not allow you even a single inch if you go build a new one. They would not allow a single inch to violate this zoning requirement. Chair Bialson: I appreciate that. Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Pat? We have no further questions at this time. Thank you. Mr. A.J. Gokcek: Maybe we can reserve the balance of our time? Chair Bialson: Yes, that would be fine. Are there questions of Staff at this time before we go on to public comments? Do we have any questions of Staff? No, okay. We will reserve that for later. Now I need speaker request cards. Why don t we have the applicant speak and you will have minutes as well. Ms. Cindy Samos, Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I just wanted to mention that this is not actually correct. The lot size is about,000 square feet it is, by 0. Chair Bialson: Could you introduce yourself, please? Ms. Samos: I am Cindy Samos. My husband Dean and I live at Colorado. We are asking for the HIE. As you know we are here tonight because our neighbor, Omer Gokcek, has appealed City Planner s acceptance of our Home Improvement Exception or HIE. An HIE that allows us to add a second story to our home that protrudes into the daylight plane and rear setback two feet, ten inches for a length of feet. We moved into our home, built in, and situated on the corner of Colorado and South Court in. We now have an eight-year-old son plus twin boys who are nearly five. We have completely outgrown our,0 square foot two bedroom one bath home and finally four years after their birth we started our remodeling project one year ago. In keeping with individual review guidelines Kirsten Harrison designed a second story addition setback from the front of the house consistent with our two adjacent neighbors on Colorado Avenue. This design added approximately square feet to our house and left its footprint exactly the same. Even though this resulted in a house approximately 00 square feet less than our allowable FAR it will be an unbelievably huge improvement for our family and for our quality of life. City of Palo Alto Page

10 In November 00 we submitted plans for individual review that conformed to all IR guidelines and legally allowed setback and daylight plane requirements. None of our neighbors commented on our plan during that ten-day comment period. However, when we attended a final meeting with the Planning Department for approval a suggestion that was made that with an HIE we could significantly improve our design to simplify and minimize the massing of the second story. We then submitted new plans containing these modifications and applied for an HIE for the two exceptions that we have already mentioned. We then wrote a letter explaining the changes to of our immediate neighbors and also spoke directly with nearly all of them. Every single neighbor we spoke with preferred our new design. A Director s Hearing for the HIE took place February 0 th, only our designer and Dean and I were there but Mr. Gokcek, who lives behind us at 0 South Court, submitted a letter to City Planners days later on March stating that he didn t want the City to accept our HIE. City Planners reviewed Mr. Gokcek s letter and addressed his concerns in their approval letter for our HIE on March stating that there are exceptional circumstances about our property that warrant the HIE and that there would be no privacy impact to Mr. Gokcek s property. After receiving the approval letter from the City Mr. Gokcek appealed our HIE without responding in any way to the City s acceptance letter for HIE. I will now address the concerns of Mr. Gokcek in his pre-appeal letter. He states that HIE applications cannot be granted for structures with existing building code violations. Our home built in before the 0-foot rear setback rule existed has a two-foot, ten-inch protrusion into the currently zoned 0-foot rear setback. Even so there is no reason an HIE could not be used in our case. An HIE by definition is an exception to the zoning rules that exist. We are asking for an encroachment that Mr. Gokcek s own newly constructed home has. The southeast sidewall of his home encroaches the daylight plane for a -foot span, an encroachment that was allowed until the last year when the individual review ordinance was enacted. However, we are asking for a -foot daylight plane encroachment for the specific purpose of simplifying and minimizing the second story massing, not for the purpose of building the maximum allowable sized home. Mr. Gokcek states, Applicants have not provided any evidence to show why their property is, in any way, unique compared to other property in the district. No special circumstances exist to grant the HIE. We have several unusual circumstances on our property. Colorado Avenue has an especially large -foot yard setback. Because we are on a corner we have a single six-foot side setback, the street side setback is feet. The rear wall of our L-shaped house is clearly visible from South Court so we have to design a second story with a streetscape for three exposed sides. Finally, we have an existing two-foot, ten-inch protrusion into the rear setback, which most homes do not have. Mr. Gokcek states, Applicants have not shown how an addition of a second story when a majority of neighborhood homes are single story would enhance the existing residential design or neighborhood characteristics. We have made an effort to design a second story, which enhances the neighborhood character. We maintain the current front streetscape to make it consistent with the other two-story homes next to us and we designed a home, which minimizes the effect of second story massing. We wonder why Mr. Gokcek is even bringing up the issue of a second story. His own newly built home is maximum FAR, two stories and at feet tall is six City of Palo Alto Page 0

11 feet higher than our proposed addition. Twelve homes on our block are two-story and the two adjacent houses on either side of us are two-story. Moreover, he had no issue with the individual review process for our home and thus had no comment about us building a second story addition so it is quite confusing to us that he would even bring up an objection to a second story in general during the HIE process and why this would even be considered a justifiable complaint in the appeal process. Mr. Gokcek states, Applicants vague references to aesthetic features should not be permitted to overrule invasions of privacy and interference with views. Both of our pre-hie and HIE plans were designed to be respectful of Mr. Gokcek s privacy. In both plans the windows facing Mr. Gokcek s property are all located six feet above floor height and overlook his garage and driveway. He had no issue with privacy in our pre-hie plan and made no comments or appeal during the IR process, therefore, with all due respect to Mr. Gokcek we don t understand why he even brought this up in his complaint letter for our HIE. Additionally, when Mr. Gokcek built his two-story home two years ago we asked him if he could possibly place two of his front bedroom windows higher so that we could maintain our backyard privacy. He stated that this was not possible. When we asked him if he might be able to plant some screening vegetation he told us there was no room. So we planted four trees on our property and our own expense instead. This will have the mutual benefit of both helping us with our privacy and blocking Mr. Gokcek s view of our second story, a view that he also would have had with our original unappealed plan. If anything the six by seven foot notch that we removed on the southeast corner, the corner facing South Court, will be beneficial to his views over the original plan because this notch adds an additional four feet of viewing in this direction. I also want to add here in response to what I heard about the upstairs windows there is a very large octagonal front window in Mr. Gokcek s house facing South Court. This is non-see-through glass. You can t see in and I am assuming that you can t out. Finally, we have made an effort to make our proposed design not only sensitive to Mr. Gokcek in terms of privacy but also sensitive to all of our other neighbors in terms of massing and views as well. In conclusion in the years that we have lived in this neighborhood we have established strong ties to the families that live here. We plan on staying in this home for many years to come and raising our children here. I have lived in this area my entire life, my husband has lived in Palo Alto for nearly 0 years and our family is very embedded in this particular community. We also have strong ties to our neighborhood elementary school and our involvement there will continue for years to come. We want to have a positive impact on our neighborhood. We are convinced that with the out pouring of support by our neighbors for our project including letters written to the City on our behalf, our current design is the best one for us and the entire neighborhood. We sincerely hope that you uphold your decision to allow us to build our currently proposed design as it stands. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Could you wait a second? We may have some questions of you. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: You mentioned that the FAR that you are proposing is 00 square feet under the allowed. What about the lot coverage? City of Palo Alto Page

12 Ms. Samos: We are not changing the footprint at all. So we are way under except that we are limited because of setbacks. We can t really expand on the first floor. We have a couple of feet on the street side and a couple of feet on the front. I know that we can go another three feet back on the first floor because you can go six feet into the setback but that is pretty much it without obliterating our little yard. Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you. Ms. Samos: We are 00 feet under our FAR. Chair Bialson: Phyllis do you have a question? No, okay. Thank you very much. Why don t we go on now to comments by the public. Mr. Omer Gokcek: I have a question. Chair Bialson: Do you want to speak now or wait until you have an opportunity later? Mr. Omer Gokcek: The diagram that I submitted is correct but now I see that from this diagram there is another ten feet. I saw 0 by,, which is not actually 0 by. That means their lot is much bigger. They could build any kind of house without violating any of this. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Mr. Dean Samos: I will just point out the issue is we are not building a new house. Chair Bialson: I realize that. The first speaker is Ronni Kerrins to be followed by Annette Ashton and you will have three minutes per speaker. Ms. Ronni Kerrins, 0 Clifton Court, Palo Alto: I just want to say that Cindy and Dean are friends of ours and we have been involved in their plans and we know the frustration and the anguish that they have gone through trying to get these plans submitted. To tell you the truth I had a million things that I wanted to say tonight well over three minutes but actually everything has been said. The points that need to be made are that an HIE is an exception by definition and that is what we are here for. There are extenuating circumstances not only are they on a corner lot with greater setbacks than the normal lot but they are on Colorado which is listed as one of I think it is ten or streets within Palo Alto that have greater than normal setbacks on the front. I just want to say that I have seen the plans, I have seen both the original plans and the new plans and the new plans are just beautiful and I think they add to the neighborhood, that the massing and the streetscape are better and as was pointed out the new plans actually increase the views from the South Court house, the appellant s house. I believe that the new plans actually benefit the appellant over the old plans. I have been in the backyard there are trees that are 0 feet tall and other trees that were planted a couple of years ago that are over the fence line that within another year or two the houses are not even going to be able to see each other. That is all for now. I just want to say that I am in support of the house. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Annette Ashton to be followed by Steve Joynes. City of Palo Alto Page

13 Ms. Annette Ashton, Bryant, Palo Alto: I live a block away from the Samos and I am Speaking for myself as a neighbor. I am in support of this modest 0 approximately square foot addition and ask you to ignore what I consider a frivolous and inappropriate appeal and grant the HIE. The facts are clear; the original application that went through the individual review process was appropriate for current zoning. During the individual review the architect suggested an HIE. The Samos s complied with the HIE and produced an improved design. All surrounding neighbors but one support this new plan. Ironically, as stated before, the appellant has a new home which was a teardown that occurred right before the individual review process. This home would not pass any of the three guidelines for an individual review, mass, streetscape is totally inappropriate and the privacy element with three large windows overlooking the Samos s backyard certainly would not have gone through appropriately. The Samos s revised plans are a better plans architecturally. They are very sensitive. I was especially impressed to their attention to detail for the windows on the south side of the house. I feel the Staff Report was very, very good and all three findings to grant the HIE were met. The HIE is discretionary. It is valid and permitted by law. I ask you to approve this HIE as well as the Staff recommendations. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Steve Joynes to be followed by Bret Kerrins. Mr. Steve Joynes, South Court, Palo Alto: Hello. I am Dean and Cindy s neighbor. I think they, among anybody, should be allowed this. They are a vital part of the neighborhood. They have been there a long time. They have raised a family as I have and they should be granted this consideration. HIEs happen all the time. I am a general contractor, I know, I deal with them. They are not as rare as you are lead to believe. It is only square feet. You ought to give it to them. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Bret Kerrins to be followed by Lucy Tompkin. Mr. Bret Kerrins, 0 Clifton Court, Palo Alto: Hi I am a long time Palo Alto resident. I just wanted to say that I am here in support of Cindy and Dean. One of the things that was brought up by the appellants is that Section is in place so that no automatic permitted issue and that is exactly why we are here. We are here for an HIE which is the whole purpose of that. We are looking for some exception and that is exactly what this supposed to do and we are following those guidelines precisely. I have looked at the new designs and I have looked at the old designs and I can t understand why anybody is appealing this. This new plan is more beneficial to the appellant and I just don t understand his reasoning. Again, I am here in support of the Samos s and hope you will grant the exception. Thanks. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Lucy Tompkin to be followed by Carol Harryman. Ms. Lucy Tompkin, Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am neighbor of the Samos family and also the Gokcek family. My house at Colorado is on the other corner of Colorado and South Court. So the side of my house and my lot faces the side of Cindy and Dean s house and the front of the Gokcek property. I am speaking in support of the Samos family application for the exception. Obviously I would hope Palo Alto wants to allow residents City of Palo Alto Page

14 who maybe don t have the huge amount of funds required to completely raise a property and reconstruct one thus complying with all ordinances but to allow the modest remodelings that allow families to live a comfortable life with their children here. I would hope Palo Alto doesn t want every single structure to look like something that should be in Bakersfield or Cupertino. The remodeling proposed by the Samos s is certainly sensitive to neighborhood design and to the Midtown architectural ambiance. I am sorry actually that this has even come to a meeting and review process like this. I think it is disappointing that the appeal was made. Two feet, that is about that much and it is a significant distance from the fence. It doesn t seem like an insurmountable or unpleasant obstacle to me. It is unfortunate perhaps when the Gokcek family designed their design they chose to put the front of the lot up against the side yard. It is what I have read is called a snout house where the garage and driveway is what protrudes out the front. If you want to even see the front door you have to go into the side yard up against the fence. It is perhaps not the design which could have best utilized that unusual sort of wedge shaped lot. It is, as Ms. Ashton said, it is certainly not a plan that would have passed muster today with all of its front windows overlooking the Samos front yard but what is done is done. The trees are providing excellent privacy. This design with its very highly set windows provides privacy. I hope the Gokcek s will be happy with your decision, as the rest of our neighborhood will too. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Carol Harryman to be followed by Don Harryman. Ms. Carol Harryman, Elena Road, Los Altos Hills: My name is Carol Harryman and we live in Los Altos Hills. Although we live there we have a lot of connections to Palo Alto. Cindy went from kindergarten at Fremont Hills School through Gunn High School and graduated from there. So she has had a long time connection to Palo Alto. I will let my husband speak for himself but he was also in business for many years in Palo Alto. I am also the grandmother of she and her husband s three boys, as you heard, ages eight and twins four years old. When Cindy and Dean first purchased their home they had no children and the space was sufficient, it wasn t excessive, but it was sufficient. Twelve years later, I thought it was ten but it is twelve, and with three fast-growing boys more space is needed. Cindy and Dean conscientiously hired an architect and made plans to expand their home in keeping with the neighborhood surroundings. The Planning Department recommended a revision to their plans, which they have willingly done. The revised plans do not envision a monster home with more bedrooms, bathrooms and other amenities than they need but the plan will accommodate their growing boys and lead to a more comfortable standard of living. It is a plan I also believe that will not infringe upon the rights of any other property owners. The Samos family likes the neighborhood. The children have made good friends, they are happy with the school. They are involved in sports programs and are contributing members of the community. I believe for the above stated reasons that they should be allowed to proceed with the addition to their home as soon as possible as the planning has already taken up very much precious time. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Don Harryman to be followed by Kamran and I am sorry I cannot read the last name. Mr. Don Harryman, Elena Road, Los Altos Hills: I am the husband of Carol and the father of Cindy. My wife took a lot of my thunder but our pedigree for Palo Alto goes clear back to when my family operated a business for years on California Avenue. So we are quite City of Palo Alto Page

15 familiar with Palo Alto. This evening before I came down here I took a walk down Colorado Avenue and South Court just to see how those three bedroom windows were impacted. You can t see them, even without the trees. It bewilders me why Mr. Gokcek has any objections whatsoever. You talk about daylight plane, all the minutia, all the regulations and etcetera and it doesn t mean anything. This addition is not going to affect him from what I could see. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I know who the next speaker is if he could again announce his name to be followed by Faith Brigel and that would be the last speaker request card I have. Mr. Kamran Najmabadi, Elbridge Way, Palo Alto: Hi. I am friend of Cindy and Dean. The only thing I want to say here is I haven t seen so many cases that have so much support for this plan. This is really wonderful. Also I would like to thank the Planning Department for producing such a comprehensive document explaining what the situation is. One thing I would like to mention is as has been noted Palo Alto lots are not really huge. We don t have one acre lots her no matter what you have some intrusion to other lots with the privacy and all that. We just need to really minimize it. Based on what they have done going through the IR process it is a very difficult process, it is not that easy. They have really cut the mustard. They have passed this process. I think they have a great plan and I am totally in support of this. In fact, I appeal to the Gokcek s to drop this appeal because this is really costly. In this budget crisis I think this is really costly for us. So again, let s all be neighbors and look at the majority of the neighbors and see what is good for the neighborhood. So hopefully you all will accept the plan by the Planning Department. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Faith Brigel and that would be the last speaker I have. Ms. Faith Brigel : I live approximately one block away from Cindy and Dean and I am here to speak in favor of the project. It is actually difficult for me to come because I have my two little kids here and I want to apologize if they have been a little bit rowdy but I thought it was important to be here. I have known Cindy and Dean for approximately three and one-half years. I am a parent at El Carmello School so I know them from a little bit of a different slant in that they are also parents there and they really helped orient me and I sure other parents into the El Carmello School which was really helpful. A couple of years ago or I guess a year ago they started to tell me how excited they were about this project and they seemed incredibly conscientious about all the regulations that you have already heard about. There are a few points that I want to make. One is that I, no insult, but their house is very modest and they want to make it a little bit larger, not a lot larger just a little bit larger to house their family. I think what they are going through actually is the worst nightmare that I can think of which is a neighbor builds a two-story home and then tells you that you can t. I don t know if they will be upset at me for saying this but at one point, please forgive me but no one has mentioned it, I believe that the neighbors are doing this just for a little bit of revenge. I hope you are okay with me saying that. I am not sure that I understand the reasons but I do know that the way they built their house in the first place faces the Samos s backyard. So whether they build up or they stay where they are there still is their front yard facing the backyard of the Samos s house. They had a choice. They could have changed that to have the front in the front, which I think would have made it easier. City of Palo Alto Page

16 The final point that I want to make is that I live on Bryant and on Bryant, on South Court, on Colorado many, many of those houses are going from one story to two story. So I am hoping very much that you will allow them to build their house just a little bit bigger. And to move it whether it was one foot is not realistic at all because it is a remodel. They are not tearing it down and building a new house. So to just move it a foot is not realistic. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. At this time we can hear for final wrap up any comments by appellant and the applicant. Why don t we have the appellant first speak? Mr. A.J. Gokcek: Thank you for this forum this evening and for giving us the opportunity to appeal. I see a lot of their friends and neighbors here tonight supporting them and that s great but I think the time really could have been better spent if all these neighbors had gotten together and helped them redesign their property rather than start this letter writing campaign. Sort of like the Habitat for Humanity they could have brought their property into compliance and helped them redesign it than all these letters but this is democracy and they do have that right. It seems like this has turned into a little bit of a personal dispute and about our property but the fact of the matter is our property is in compliance and we did go by the rules and the regulations of Palo Alto and we are the only neighbors who are uniquely affected. We are not telling them or trying to impose our values on them. We are not trying to tell them that they cannot redesign their property. All we are asking for is that they bring their property into compliance by bringing the rear setback three feet or I believe it was. or.0 that is all we are saying and then they can apply if they want for the HIE. So we are willing to compromise. We are not against them developing their land we just want to uphold the law. That is the only reason we are here this evening. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Would the applicant care to speak again? Fine. Why don t you have a few minutes here? Ms. Kirsten Harrison, Harrison Design, Homer Lane, Menlo Park: I designed both versions of this plan for Cindy and Dean s house. I think it is interesting. Tonight we are seeing two City processes working. One is the individual review and the other is the HIE process. Our original design would have made the HIE unnecessary it met all current ordinances of the City, daylight plane, seven and one-half foot penetration, five foot separations but it did create a rather contorted rear elevation in order to stay under the daylight plane. Now the IR process, individual review process, brings in outside architects to help people with their designs. In this process the outside architect suggested that we could have a better rear elevation, which was also visible from South Court because it is a corner lot if we asked for relief from the daylight plane. It would allow us to merge our two penetrations into one and greatly simplify the rear elevation. He also asked that we push the rear wall of the second floor so it sits directly on top of the rear wall of the first floor, which eliminated that little rough of roof that you see if you have an offset second floor wall. I think we have come up with a plan that is aesthetically far superior to our original one which was in compliance and didn t require an HIE. So I am in favor of the HIE. I think it is a better plan and I think we owe a lot to the advice of Arnold and Alexander from Origin s, Palo Alto s outside architectural consultants. So I think the process really works. The other thing I wanted to mention, there has been a lot of discussion about the rear wall of their house being illegal or non-complying or something. I just want to remind people Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Page