Although residents unanimously support a more efficient and flexible process, not all agree with the proposed changes, such as reducing building heights and requiring new homes to be compatible with other homes in the neighborhood.

Whether residents agreed with the proposed changes or not pretty much depended on who was taking the microphone at the Jan. 13 planning commission meeting called to discuss possible amendments.

Malka Nagel argued that restrictions such as the proposed one on building heights stifle creativity.

She said, "My home was built between 2001 and 2002. And we went through a struggle in getting a building permit. I am against reducing height. The restrictions lead to ugly houses."

Donna Prosser disagreed with Nagel.

She said, "I strongly support reducing wall heights. My next door neighbor's house, which has a 12-foot wall, has a big impact on my family. I am concerned with people peering into my backyard, invading my privacy. I believe the recommendations by the planning department staff are appropriate and reasonable."

According to Peter Gilli, associate planner, the city made some major changes to the R1 Ordinance in 1999.

While those changes were successful in reducing the mass and bulk of two-story developments and creating a process that involved neighborhood participation, the amendments added in 1999 didn't really improve the compatibility of new construction with existing neighborhoods, Gilli said.

The reason there is such a problem with new housing fitting into the look

and style of neighborhoods is that council-adopted guidelines are different from the city ordinance.

According to Gilli, while the current ordinance allows new developments to have wall, entry and maximum building heights of 12, 14 and 28 feet, respectively, the design guidelines require building heights to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, which in many cases are lower.

"This conflict generates frustration on the applicants' part as they pay more attention to the ordinance instead of the guidelines. It also adds time and cost to the process," Gilli said.

To resolve this inconsistency, city staff recommended lowering the ordinance-allowed building heights by two feet, bringing the maximum wall height at the setback line to 10 feet. In addition to improving compatibility, city staff said this decrease would also better protect neighbors' privacy.

Nagel questioned the method that planning staff is using to achieve neighborhood compatibility.

She said, "I have real trouble with terms such as 'sensibility' and 'compatibility' with the neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to me that new homes are required to be compatible with houses that are 50 years old. We should be forward-looking, not regressive."

Like the residents, commissioners also had different takes on this matter.

Mark Auerbach said, "I support restricting wall heights next to the fence and protecting the privacy of residents. As we go through this process, we have to think about long-term compatibility. The fact is that the 1950-standard homes are going to be here for a long time."

Auerbach's colleague Taghi Saadati disagreed. He said, "I don't think height is a big issue if the house was well-designed. There are better ways to address privacy issues than lowering building heights."

Commissioner Gilbert Wong added, "By not lowering heights, applicants and architects have more flexibility in designing their homes."

The planning commissioners will continue their discussion of proposed amendments during the Feb. 10 planning commission meeting.