Seeking to quell a simmering debate over privacy and property rights in Eichler neighborhoods, Palo Alto is preparing to adopt on Monday new guidelines for constructing, renovating or expanding homes in the 32 tracts where the glassy, modern style reigns supreme.
The City Council is scheduled to consider and potentially approve the Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines, a 126-page document that has been crafted over the past two years by planning staff and the consultants from Page & Turnbull. The document was drafted in response to a series of applications from Eichler neighborhoods for "single-story overlay" (SSO) districts, which would ban construction of two-story homes or second-story additions.
In two cases, Los Arboles and Greer Park North, the council approved the applications. In two others, Royal Manor and Faircourt, the council denied the petition after a clash between residents who felt that a ban on two-story homes is needed to protect their privacy and neighborhood character and those who characterized the new overlay as a blow to their property right and plans for multi-generational households.
The guidelines try to appease both sides. Those passionate about preserving the Joseph Eichler aesthetic -- which places a premium on the interplay of indoors and outdoors -- can take heart in the fact that the new guidelines offer guidance on everything from garage placement and landscape patterns to roof and window designs. Those seeking to expand, can find some relief in the document's acceptance of second-story additions, provided they are constructed in the type of flat-roof, post-and-beam style that defines the Eichler style.
The new guidelines have already received the unanimous endorsement of the city's Historic Resources Board. The council is likely to follow suit Monday night, when it considers a resolution adopting them as a voluntary tool for community's use.
In addition to reviewing the actual guidelines, the council will consider a broader and potentially more controversial issue: How will these guidelines be used? Initially, they will be purely voluntary, according to the resolution. But down the road, the council may pass an ordinance that gives them more legal force.
One alternative identified in a new report from the Department of Planning and Community Environment would integrate new Eichler guidelines into the city's development standards for single-family residential (R-1) neighborhoods. Under this plan, the rules for building homes in residential neighborhoods would be revised to create additional restrictions for or give additional allowances to Eichler homes. The city's development standards would also be tailored to consider "single-story overlay" districts and homes in tracts that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Another approach would allow residents to create, through a petition supported by a supermajority of property owners, new "Eichler overlay" zones. Unlike the "single-story overlays," the new Eichler zones would allow two-story buildings, provided they are compatible with surrounding homes. The Eichler Zone ordinance "could ensure use of the Guidelines to achieve compatible development of one- and two-story homes within the district," the planning report states.
The option favored by planning staff and the Historic Resources Board would give staff discretion to use the Eichler guidelines in conjunction with existing "Individual Review" guidelines, which the city uses in evaluating two-story homes and second-floor additions. The existing guidelines, the planning report notes, "would be enhanced to include techniques for designing second floor additions to one-story Eichler homes and compatible new two-story homes in Eichler tracts."
The question of how the guidelines will be used in the future was featured prominently in the Feb. 22 meeting of the Historic Resources Board, with several residents from Eichler neighborhoods urging the board not to make the new rules too restrictive. Michael Nirenberg, who lives in an Eichler home, disputed the idea that the guidelines are "voluntary" and pointed to the three options identified by staff. The guidelines, he said, can actually become something that the city can mandate, which he said is a problem.
A few other residents urged the city to do more outreach and talk to more Eichler owners before moving ahead with the new guidelines. Margaret Murphy, who lives in an Eichler on Louis Road, was among them.
"There are so many Eichlers, so many different experiences in this city," Murphy told the board. "I think that you have a unique opportunity to do more in this area."
The board members approved the guidelines unanimously, even as they acknowledged residents' anxieties about how the document will be used. Board member Michael Maknin cited concerns from residents who have wondered if it really is voluntary.
"I think there is a real feeling of -- I won't call it a threat -- but some feeling that they may be more than what we advertised as voluntary," Makinen said.
Councilwoman Karen Holman, the council's liaison to the Historic Resources Board, didn't venture any guesses about whether the council will opt to keep the guidelines strictly voluntary. But she said at the February meeting that she hopes the new document will help preclude neighborhood conflicts over new homes and proposed overlay district. She noted the current situation in which neighbors are fighting neighbors over new construction additions.
"I see these as a resource to help abate those appeals and those battles within neighborhoods," Holman said.
Comments
Registered user
Professorville
on Mar 28, 2018 at 8:18 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2018 at 8:18 pm
The writing's on the wall -- these "voluntary" guidelines soon will become mandatory in an ever-increasing number of situations. More importantly, subjective interpretations of the guidelines by City Staff and consultants will determine whether projects are approved or rejected. If you're at all concerned about this, now is your last chance to convince Council to solve the problems another way.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 28, 2018 at 8:57 pm
on Mar 28, 2018 at 8:57 pm
Posted by Allen Akin, a resident of Professorville
>> The writing's on the wall -- these "voluntary" guidelines soon will become mandatory in an ever-increasing number of situations. More importantly, subjective interpretations of the guidelines by City Staff and consultants will determine whether projects are approved or rejected. If you're at all concerned about this, now is your last chance to convince Council to solve the problems another way.
What is your suggestion? This is a classic property rights conflict; the city is trying to set de-facto guidelines that most people can use and respect to avoid a lot of nasty litigation. That is a good thing, unless you are a lawyer. ;-)
Many people feel that backyard privacy is a right inherent in the design of the classic Eichler communities, and, is generally respected by old-timers. Newcomers often don't understand that, and, would prefer a two-story upgrade for a more efficient use of land area. Two-story houses may impact the daylight plane of the neighboring houses. And so on. Each property owner wants to protect their own property rights, which may be in conflict with their neighbor's property rights.
What do you propose instead of the city guidelines?
Registered user
Professorville
on Mar 28, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Registered user
on Mar 28, 2018 at 10:50 pm
What's being proposed here are not guidelines to preserve privacy, but guidelines to enforce a particular school of thought about conformity to one interpretation of an architectural style. A big problem with this approach is that it's inherently subjective; different reviewers have different opinions about what's important for any particular project. That leads to conflict between residents and residents, residents and reviewers, and even between different reviewers.
I think a better approach is to use strictly objective requirements. Some of these already exist for zoning (e.g. setbacks, floor area ratio) and some for Individual Review (e.g. daylight planes). These are sufficient for most purposes, but where they're not, add objective requirements that aren't subject to whims of interpretation. For example, "There must be no unobstructed line of sight from the new structure that reaches a point on the adjacent neighbor's lot that was not previously visible from the old structure."
And of course, proposed guidelines shouldn't be misrepresented as "voluntary" when the intent is to make them mandatory.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm
on Mar 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm
"What do you propose instead of the city guidelines?"
If you want to "preserve your daylight plane" or "ensure your backyard privacy," you're free to buy your neighbor's house. No one is stopping you from doing that now.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 29, 2018 at 12:39 pm
on Mar 29, 2018 at 12:39 pm
These must stay as guidelines, not mandated design rules by the city. Families who have purchased an Eichler and didn't have the money immediately at hand for an expansion/remodel are going to be penalized. It seems that those who have already purchased an Eichler need consideration.
Registered user
Midtown
on Mar 29, 2018 at 12:56 pm
Registered user
on Mar 29, 2018 at 12:56 pm
[Post removed.]
Gunn High School
on Mar 30, 2018 at 2:45 am
on Mar 30, 2018 at 2:45 am
As a housing crisis sweeps the region with median prices in Palo Alto making it impossible for many of the next generation to live here, it’s stunning anyone would be suggesting limiting homes to one-story at all. If anything, we need homes upgraded to maximize land use and end ANY height limit.
Old Palo Alto
on Mar 30, 2018 at 8:32 am
on Mar 30, 2018 at 8:32 am
[Post removed due to deletion of referenced comment.]
Atherton
on Mar 31, 2018 at 2:08 pm
on Mar 31, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Due to violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are only visible to registered users who are logged in. Use the links at the top of the page to Register or Login.
Registered user
Atherton
on Mar 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm
Registered user
on Mar 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm
The people who purchased the existing Eichlers did so knowing full well that they were not protected from improvements on adjacent parcels.
Why should they now be granted very valuable protections for nothing?
Why not permit them to purchase the development rights from adjacent parcels if they do not want those parcels improved?
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2018 at 3:29 pm
on Mar 31, 2018 at 3:29 pm
Posted by Me 2, a resident of Old Palo Alto
>> If you want to "preserve your daylight plane" or "ensure your backyard privacy," you're free to buy your neighbor's house. No one is stopping you from doing that now.
Are you basing this on some particular philosophy, like, "might makes right"? Do you acknowledge the right of voters to set zoning, or, not? If not, on what basis? I don't see a coherent view of property rights. In a republic, we elect representatives who write laws, ordinances, do zoning, etc., to define the rights regarding neighboring properties. I take it you don't accept that?
--
Posted by Brian, a resident of Gunn High School
>> As a housing crisis sweeps the region
Honestly, you can still find some OK deals in Redwood City and San Carlos; you don't even have to go across the bay to Fremont. It isn't a "crisis" if not everyone in the world can afford to live in a particular spot.
>> with median prices in Palo Alto making it impossible for many of the next generation to live here,
Not everyone can live in a particular spot. I might want to live in a penthouse in midtown Manhattan. Do I get to? Does everyone get to? It just isn't -logical-.
>> it’s stunning anyone would be suggesting limiting homes to one-story at all. If anything, we need homes upgraded to maximize land use and end ANY height limit.
Either this is a non-sequitur, or, you are proposing turning every separate lot into an apartment tower. Who pays for the transportation, the utility infrastructure, and so on-- all the external costs? Why should a property developer get to build anything they want anywhere and make someone else (us) pay for all the externalities? BTW, do you understand how Prop 13 works? Fixing that will go a long way towards making property markets more rational.
--
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
>> The people who purchased the existing Eichlers did so knowing full well that they were not protected from improvements on adjacent parcels.
Depends on the parcel and what zoning overlays there might be. An area could be zoned for one story, in which case they have an expectation that it stay one story.
>> Why should they now be granted very valuable protections for nothing?
If we, as voters, have a common understanding that an area is one story, we could pass a zoning ordinance to make it official.
>> Why not permit them to purchase the development rights from adjacent parcels if they do not want those parcels improved?
Not all of us have as much money as Mark Zuckerberg.
Registered user
Atherton
on Mar 31, 2018 at 3:55 pm
Registered user
on Mar 31, 2018 at 3:55 pm
>> The people who purchased the existing Eichlers did so knowing full well that they were not protected from improvements on adjacent parcels.
"Depends on the parcel and what zoning overlays there might be. An area could be zoned for one story, in which case they have an expectation that it stay one story."
Overlays did not exist for any of these properties before 11 Oct 2007 so nobody who purchased before an overlay was adopted for their particular neighborhood had any expectation that adjacent properties could not be improved or expanded.
And the imposition of an overlay now is simply a "taking" from some current property owners to benefit other property owners.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:34 pm
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of Atherton
>> Overlays did not exist for any of these properties before 11 Oct 2007 so nobody who purchased before an overlay was adopted for their particular neighborhood had any expectation that adjacent properties could not be improved or expanded.
>> And the imposition of an overlay now is simply a "taking" from some current property owners to benefit other property owners.
When somebody buys a property in a city with zoning, many restrictions are explicit and implied, including noise, odor (maybe you want an animal feedlot? No.), air pollution, toxics, traffic, number of unrelated residents, height, whatever. You bought a lot in a city with zoning -- you don't have an absolute right to do anything and everything with it. If you don't accept that, then, there is no basis for a discussion, or, for neighborliness for that matter. We are all in this together. We define through legal processes what is allowed on the property. It is actually pretty simple.
As for "taking", it is the high-rise property developers who are planning on "taking" from all of us, apparently.
Registered user
Atherton
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:41 pm
Registered user
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:41 pm
"We define through legal processes what is allowed on the property. "
Correct and before 11 Oct 2007 there were NO zoning restrictions on adding a second floor to an Eichler and only a few neighborhoods have since had such overlays applied. Such overlays require 70% of the impacted owners to agree to such a proposed restriction.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:48 pm
on Mar 31, 2018 at 4:48 pm
I have nothing against a neighbor putting in a second story if it was done right without making intrusion on my privacy and light.
These are the things I should think would make for a sensible compromise.
The square footage of the second story should not be more than 50% (or some similar figure) of the existing first story.
The windows in the second story should only be front and back (viewed from the street) and not at the side of the second story.
The windows of all bathrooms on both stories should be frosted.
The windows on upper story should be waist high to 6' 6" and not floor to ceiling, and should be only a certain width, not covering the whole wall.
There should be no verandahs or balconies on second story.
Simple restrictions such as these are much more likely to be a win/win for the homeowners and for the neighbors. It is nothing to do with eichlers since there are many single story homes around town that are not eichler.
Fairmeadow
on Apr 2, 2018 at 12:08 pm
on Apr 2, 2018 at 12:08 pm
I am against this statement in the proposed Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines: "The Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are advisory (voluntary), unless regulatory (zoning) changes are adopted by the Palo Alto City Council to impose them as a requirement." I propose that it be revised to: "The Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines are strictly advisory and voluntary."
More than 240 years ago, our Founding Fathers created this nation on a set of core principles, one of which is the protection of private property and the owners' rights. Restrictions or infringements on property owner's legal rights, in any way or form, are in direct contradiction to this nation's founding principles.
The proposed change above is for the consideration and protection of the property owners' rights.
On a related note, as of August 2017, the average price per square foot for Palo Alto was $1,519, while the national average for 2017 was $141. In comparison, for 2017, the average price per square foot for San Francisco was $997.
These numbers tell us that, people paid almost 11 times the national average, or 52% more than the average San Francisco price, for home ownership in Palo Alto. These homeowners should enjoy the same basic property rights as everywhere else in this country. These basic property rights include their right to renovate their homes within the legal limits, without having to go through unnecessary regulations to add a second story to their home, for example.
In recent years, some residents of this City have expressed their opinions in favor of more restrictions and more regulations, particularly with respect to second-story homes. I'd like to remind the City Council that these residents are simply more vocal about their opinions and preferences. They do not necessarily represent the majority of our community.
P.S., here are the sources of the real estate prices mentioned above:
The median sales price for homes in Palo Alto for May 24 to Aug 23 of 2017 was $2,550,000:
Web Link">Web Link
Average price per square foot for Palo Alto was $1,519 (as of August 2017):
Web Link">Web Link
In California, average price per square foot ranges from $224 in Riverside, to $997 in San Francisco (both as of year 2017):
Web Link
"The median list price per square foot in the United States is $141."
Web Link
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 2, 2018 at 3:21 pm
on Apr 2, 2018 at 3:21 pm
"Are you basing this on some particular philosophy, like, "might makes right"? "
No. More like "that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole"
Basically you're taking away a right from a fellow property owner for a "public good." So, you Eichler fans ready to compensate other folks that would otherwise would have been able to build something bigger?
I still think this should be out of the City's hands. If you guys want to do this kind of crap, then create your own Homeowners Association to create guidelines and pay your dues. Frankly, this is just as useful of government attention (and tax money) as renaming middle schools.
Fairmeadow
on Apr 17, 2018 at 8:06 pm
on Apr 17, 2018 at 8:06 pm
Me 2 must be from So Cal and would like to live in a stucco box with a tile roof. Also no architect would have to be involved since a monster house can be designed on a computer.