October 25, 2005

Mayor Pro Tem Jellins and Council Members

Menlo Park City Council

701 Laurel Avenue

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Re: Use Permit for 1981 Menalto Avenue/Request for Council to Further
Consider Project

Dear Mayor Pro Tem Jellins and Council Members:

I would like to expand upon my letter to you of September 12, 2005. I
have set forth below additional details including the Fire District’s
reevaluation of my project because this is one of the most significant
pieces of new information that has arisen since my project was
originally considered in January.

The Fire District Has Reevaluated My Project and Concluded a Secondary
Means of Emergency Access via the Alley is Unnecessary Since Emergency
Access May Be Established Via Menalto.

On February 17, 2005, the Menlo Park Fire District reevaluated my
project and concluded that provided that Fire District access (emergency
access) is established via Menalto, a secondary means of emergency
access via the alley is unnecessary. See letter to A. Heineck from G.
Aus, Fire Marshal/Division Chief of 2/17/05. Emergency access from
Menalto Avenue may be satisfied by a 3’ wide paved path from Menalto.
This is confirmed by the Fire District’s letter. The Fire District also
imposed other conditions that I fully intend to meet.

The letter from the Fire District is significant because at my appeal
hearing, then Chief Wilson erroneously testified that the Fire District
had not approved my project (with alley access) and stated that the only
way for my project to move forward was for access to be from Menalto.
Such testimony was material and undoubtedly had a significant impact.
In fact, The Almanac reported that Chief Wilson advised Council “that he
was concerned about the alley having adequate access for emergency
vehicles.” The Almanac, January 19, 2005, p. 18. In fact, the Fire
District had expressly approved my project via a letter dated 6/14/04.
I met with Chief Wilson and Fire Marshal Aus shortly after my hearing
and the Fire District agreed to reevaluate my project and subsequently
issued a letter indicating that the emergency access along the alley was
unnecessary. I note that Chief Wilson is no longer with the Fire
District.

Contrary to Assertions Made By Council Member Fergusson, Unless I return
to the Planning Commission to Request Multiple Variances, I Am Left With
a Permit for a Structure of About 600 Sq Ft of Living Space, Smaller
Than The Garage Recently Approved for 510 Central

At the Council meeting of January 24th, Council was informed that its
decision left me with limited building options. Ms. Fergusson stated on
the record that while I was limited to building to the rear of the
property, I “was not limited in square footage.” (See Minutes of
Council Meeting of 1/24/05). Ms. Fergusson is simply wrong. As is now
evident, unless I return to the Planning Commission with an application
for multiple variances and am able to establish the requisite hardship,
I am severely limited in square footage.

I have been advised that a single story structure of comparable square
footage would require multiple variances including but not limited to, a
variance of the rear set back (from 20 feet to 10 feet), a parking
variance (eliminating the second covered parking space requirement), a
variance of building coverage, a variance of FAL (floor area limit), a
variance of the requirement that there be 10 feet between buildings, and
possibly a variance of the landscaping requirements. Such a structure
would pose a hazard for inhabitants of the existing home as the front
door would open directly onto the driveway for the rear unit and require
the removal of an old heritage Maple tree, 50’ in height with a 40’
span. Moreover, such a structure allows for very little useable outdoor
living space. In contrast, a two-story structure with alley access
complies with the requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and no
variances are required. Moreover, such a structure allows for adequate
outdoor living space for both units and allows the Maple tree to remain
in tact.

Whether I Return To The Planning Commission Seeking Variances for A One
Story Structure Or A Modification Of My Use Permit For A Two Story
Structure, Another Appeal Funded By The City Is A Virtual Likelihood
Since My Neighbors Fail To Agree About The Specifications of a New Home
Or Alley Access

As set forth in the attachment, my neighbors and I made a good faith
effort to reach a resolution on my project. However, even amongst the
neighbors, there was no agreement about the specifications of the home,
for example, regarding the placement of the house (10 feet from the
alley as opposed to 20 feet) or whether the alley should be used for
access. In hindsight, while I appreciate the consideration and courtesy
extended by my neighbors in meeting with me, the task of reaching a
consensus amongst 5 property owners with competing interests was
daunting. Query whether the specifications of a new home should be
dictated by neighbors rather than the Zoning Ordinance?

Given this lack of consensus, it is very likely that one or more of my
neighbors will continue to object to any future Planning Commission
decision. If I return to the Planning Commission, I will no doubt be
before you again on an appeal – funded by the City of Menlo Park. Query
whether it is in the bests interests of the City to continue to fund
appeals by my neighbors? It is far more fair and efficient for all
concerned to reach a conclusion about my project once and for all.

The City has probably incurred costs amounting to several thousands of
dollars funding my neighbors’ appeal last January while the appeal cost
each of my neighbors a few dollars. I have also incurred significant
costs amounting to several thousands of dollars on my “odyssey” of
almost two years trying to obtain a permit, including funding 3 hearings
before the Planning Commission and defending an appeal by my neighbors
not to mention that construction costs have risen considerably and
continue to rise. I note for example that mortgage interest rates have
risen from 4% to 6.75% and the cost of lumber and other materials has
risen.

I respectfully request that Council consider the interests of the
community as a whole, not just the interests or opinions of a few
neighbors, in determining the appropriate course of action. I believe
that the above factors, individually and cumulatively, compel Council to
revisit its decision of January 11th and place my matter on a future
agenda. Contrary to some of my neighbors, I believe that building a
modest single family home with useable outdoor living space and funding
a significant and attractive improvement to the alley will benefit the
City of Menlo Park and the Willows neighborhood. Given that new
families have recently purchased the homes along the alley at 128 Elm
and 144 Elm, I suspect that others in Menlo Park would agree. I do
recognize that Council may ultimately decide that a single story home is
in the best interests of the community. If so, I would hope that at a
minimum, such a decision would be structured to allow for the several
variances I have outlined above.

However, the narrow issue before Council this evening is whether to hear
my matter at a future date. Doing so will allow ample opportunity for
my neighbors to express their opinions and allow Council to render an
informed decision based upon complete and accurate information.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle Harbottle

Attachment

(Attachment)

EFFORTS TO MEDIATE WITH NEIGHBORS

Following the appeal of my project, I met with my neighbors on March 21,
2005, at the office of Mayor Pro Tem Nicholas Jellins, who, without
commenting on the merits of any particular proposal, encouraged me to
try to achieve a negotiated resolution and offered to act as a
mediator-facilitator. All neighbors who appealed were invited to attend.
In attendance: Jennifer Dhamus (neighbor to the rear at 526 Central);
Diane Mavica (side neighbor at 1989 Menalto); Jim Quilliam (side
neighbor at 1975 Menalto) and Sara Michie (owner of 522 Central). I
presented various alternatives, including a one story option with access
from Menalto and without variances, a one story option with access from
the alley, a one story option with access from the alley and multiple
variances, a two story option with the main structure moved closer to
the center of the property, and a two story option with the overall
height reduced by 1 to 2 feet.

My neighbors were given an opportunity to comment on all alternatives
presented and a candid discussion ensued. My neighbors shared their
continued concerns regarding impacts on their privacy, even with a one
story alternative. One neighbor shared her concern about having to look
at a light from the proposed home. As for the one story alternative,
concerns were expressed about the placement on the lot. One neighbor
expressed an objection to a variance of the rear setback (from 20 feet
to 10 feet). With respect to alley access, one of the adjacent
neighbors supported alley access; the other adjacent neighbors did not.
Another neighbor offered his support for alley access from Walnut
Street.

After hearing my neighbors concerns, I set out to alleviate such
concerns and hired a landscape architect to design a plan with the
specific purpose of addressing my neighbor’s privacy concerns by careful
screening of my home. I also commissioned an improved alley, from my
lot through to Walnut, with the specific goal of discouraging through
traffic by incorporating “chicanes” formed out of natural rock.
Essentially, chicanes are serpentine “carve-outs” forming a curved
border that may be planted with a selection of shrubs and other plants
to create a visual “barrier.” The chicanes literally trick the eye into
believing that cars cannot pass through, thereby reducing the potential
for through traffic along the improved section of the alley. Not only
will chicanes discourage casual traffic and encourage slow driving, but
they create an attractive, natural-looking “alleyscape.”

I met with my neighbors again on June 23, to review the landscape
screening plan and “alleyscape,” designed by my landscape architect. All
three adjacent neighbors attended this meeting. At this meeting, I
explained that while I had seriously considered all options, due to
their continuing concerns about privacy impacts and the alley, I felt
the best option was to make an effort to mitigate such impacts through
landscape screening and an improved alleyscape. I explained my reasons
for pursuing the two story option with alley access, namely, that I
believed it to be the best use of my R-2 lot, as it fit the living needs
of my family and allowed for useable outdoor living space while the
other options I considered provided inadequate living space and very
little, if any, useable outdoor living space. Moreover, requiring a
driveway from Menalto would force me to cut down a large Maple heritage
tree that is enjoyed by passersby along Menalto Avenue.

I indicated that I would be willing to lower the structure by 1 to 2
feet (from 25 feet, four inches) in order to further address privacy
concerns. I also reiterated my offer to purchase screening trees for
each of my neighbors in an effort to mitigate any remaining privacy
impacts. Moreover, I explained that the landscape screening plan was
designed by my landscape architect to address privacy concerns through a
thoughtful selection of trees and careful placement of the trees on the
lot. Lastly, I explained the chicane feature and how, in combination
with the unimproved patch in the middle of the alley (100 feet wide) it
was unlikely that drivers would choose to cut through the alley.

While my neighbors and I made a good faith effort to reach a consensus
about the direction of my project, we were unable to do so.
Nonetheless, I believe it was a worthwhile exercise and I appreciate the
time, consideration, and courtesy extended by my neighbors.

 
Received on Tue Oct 25 14:54:29 2005