Wow! Since "the individual units can't be sold separately, city staff said." I wonder how the developer was originally able to sell each to a different buyer. Anyway, hope the donkeys end up OK!

As someone who loves our city and believes fiercely in protecting the rights of its residents, I understand the complexities involved in the recent decision by the City Council to reject the request to subdivide a single-family residential lot into two separate substandard lots in the College Terrace neighborhood.

While I empathize with the homeowners and the challenges they face due to the tenancy-in-common designation of their property, we must also consider the broader implications of granting exceptions to zoning standards. The city staff and planning commission have expressed concerns that making such exceptions may set a precedent for other property owners to seek similar alterations in zoning regulations.

It is encouraging to see that the City Council is open to considering a zoning designation change, such as R-1, single-family residential, to make it possible for the parcel to be split. Such a change would be in line with state Senate Bill 9 and would potentially allow for a more equitable resolution for the homeowners.

Sue the County of Santa Clara since it gave incorrect information. Seems as though they are the responsible party. This is not an owner beware state; all disclosures have to be made.

College Terrace has many substandard lots. What is perplexing in this case is the city allowed two houses on one parcel and then ‘lost’ the records. Hopefully the city will make amends and change the zoning to R1.

"The developer built the two homes over the lot line, however. The city’s approval of the two homes' construction in 2007 was based on an error; moving the lot line would remedy the issue, he said."

Another error that just so happens to favor a developer??? Was this one made by the County of Santa Clara or the City of Palo Alto? Regardless, can someone w/official capacity explain why homeowners are the ones stuck w/the resulting problem and the legal costs associated with arriving at a solution? In situations where buyers rely, understandably, on wrong information from what should be a reliable County or City source it seems reasonable to me that an exception should be made so that the lot line can be moved. Write up the paperwork in such a way as to make it clear that the action cannot ever be construed as a precedent and that the action was taken to remedy a situation that should never have existed in the first place. And if anyone at P.A. City Hall prepares the paperwork, have it reviewed by Mr. Hanna or other outside counsel. Maybe Lanferman. When all is said and done, legal fees should be reimbursed by either the City or County - whichever is responsible for the error.

I can’t help but think this is about one neighbor disliking the other. yet like a family blood line they two are not tethered by biology yet yoked by a property line. In this case, it’s a cat walk or whatever connection the soil owners devised — which physically connects the two. keeping it a condo, duplex .and plentiful at that

This reality. Our California housing emergency i.e the Poor are screwed, Affluent in between has a bearing on our every day movements, transactions, interactions, and perspectives.

Whether going to a job, picking up our children, going to and fro to get groceries, after school activities, a Pilates class, a bike ride, a basic retail interaction. Know this. For very poor person, there is limited, if zero choices to move within PA. Meaning.. it’s a challenge now, nearly impossible to get anywhere else compatible in price, elsewhere. Because we are already going invested here.

Yet there is no let up. no no no to a housing choice voucher. How? These properties raise rents $300 above the minimum standard. And the base her in PA is already above the market.

God forbid! We might protect our private property condo owners. yet not our SFH neighbors. The sad thing. this smells of a College Terrace Association decision — all supporting exclusionary zoning.

You’d almost think black lives do not matter, or any other lives. I suggest “A Small Light” to watch.

It’s currently not religion or faith in our country. it’s private property. Instead of designated work camps of the German Rike, We have “voluntary” tent camps. Instead of rounding up humans bodies, we demolish identification thru our personal belongings, deeming it “trash@ ir “pollution” . While the owner of that trash stand by heartbroken that their only tether is that which is being shoveled away. Their tether to existence is severed. And we the powerful move on to the next unsanctioned encampment.

Ms Breed of SF brings in National Guard & CHP. Sad beyond.

"In situations where buyers rely, understandably, on wrong information from what should be a reliable County or City source it seems reasonable to me that an exception should be made so that the lot line can be moved. Write up the paperwork in such a way as to make it clear that the action cannot ever be construed as a precedent and that the action was taken to remedy a situation that should never have existed in the first place. And if anyone at P.A. City Hall prepares the paperwork, have it reviewed by Mr. Hanna or other outside counsel. Maybe Lanferman. When all is said and done, legal fees should be reimbursed by either the City or County - whichever is responsible for the error. "

@Annette, is WAY too sensible. Think of all the angst and money in legal fees that could have been / could be saved if one of our "leaders" adopted this no-brainer solution.

Don't we have any lawyers on City Council who've ever written or negotiated contracts?
Did they bother to consult our well-paid in-house City Attorney, her staff and outside counsel?

I appreciate those that took the time to read our story. The implication that a zoning change application may be a remedy for us is not a likely conclusion. Let me explain why. We first approached the Planning Department over eleven years ago to discuss the best application that would allow us to split our parcel lot. The Planning Official recommended a zoning change application. We were then told a few days later that the Director of Planning would not support this application and hence it would be futile to apply. We re-engaged with the Planning Department in 2021. Various application recommendations were initially suggested – none of which included a “zoning change”. With legal counsel, we finally received a written recommendation by the Assistant City Attorney and the Chief Planning Official that the Planning Department Staff believe a Preliminary Map with Exceptions is the correct application type for this situation. Review of that application was not successful, as you know. Why would the Planning Department recommend a particular application that they could not support? Why would the Planning Department not suggest a different application that they COULD support before we spent countless hours working on this submission and over $52,000 in professional and application fees? Why was the Planning Department staff who attended the May 1st City Council meeting seen celebrating their victory? I want to know what really happened to this property when the developer could not sell to one owner and foreclosed on the property which was then acquired by twelve new investors who DID succeed in selling each home independently and separately. If using a Tenant In Commons (TIC) to get around the “one owner” zoning regulation for our district is something the Planning Department feels is in the spirit of the law, why are we the only property in this situation? We may have been naïve back in 2011 when we started this process, but we "won't be fooled again".