Palo Alto planning commission rejects housing limits near Foothills Park

How did that huge eyesore just downhill from Foothills Park ever get built? I think John Chambers (Cisco CEO) lives there now.

"unnecessary and ill-defined measures"
Boy, that sounds like our city council. That should be their motto--"we propose unnecessary and ill-defined measures".
Remember last years business tax proposal? The historic home ordinance?
The list goes on and on.

I agree with John.

That house below the lookout is so huge it simply doesn't belong. It looks like an observatory.

Since this large house is obviously being looked down upon no doubt they will soon put up landscaping and quick growing shrubery to give themselves privacy. As much as others do not want to look at it, I am sure that they do not want to be looked at when they are outside or even inside their home.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

HOW ABOUT LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT?

Finally .. a good decision from this planning commission.

It's a shame that there hasn't been more written about how this came to be an issue .. who was pushing the idea, and what planning people were involved ... rather than just saying "NO!" .. this is the USA and people should be free to build a home they way they want.

Limiting the size of someone's home .. seems that its only a short walk to limiting their family size and their income size.

"Many others [are] declaring a "boycott" on Wednesday's meeting."

Now that'll definitely get the point through: I just won't show up to tell you how I really feel!

>Limiting the size of someone's home .. seems that its only a short walk to limiting their family size and their income size.

We regularly limit the size of peoples homes - and most of us like it that way. How would you feel if your neighbor constructed a 5 story building next door to your house? Many folks want to limit the size of the rail road that comes through our town - never mind that it was there first. We limit these things (or try to) for a good reason, to preserve the quality of out town.

I have mixed feelings on this - the proposed limits were HUGE and without any limits I do believe people will build the most gargantuan palaces conceivable.

To Anon (Crescent Park). The people already DO vote on it -- by electing representatives who do the research, talk with all of the stakeholders, and thoroughly explore the issues in order to make an informed decision. That's why I elect representatives. If I wanted to vote on things like this, then I'd run for office. And if I think the representatives are NOT doing a good job, then I vote for someone else next time. Of course the Planning Commission is appointed by the City Council, but you can either complain to your city council members or apply for membership on the PC next time there's an opening.

The structure that is viewable from Foothills Park, Vista Hill, has a sorted history AND went through a lengthy review process where public imput was requested. The review process has happened three times with each owner. You missed your opportunity to voice your opinion on the latest review a year and a half ago. Yes, landscaping has gone in with more coming as required by the planning commission and approved by council.

I agree with John- the house is an eyesore

A problem with limiting house size is that in most cities such buildings eventually become small offices, apartment buildings, B&B's, and so on. Then they are replaced by 4-5 story denser buildings. It's kind of a process like the forest progression. You see it in every city but it does not happen over night, we're talking long term here.

Trying to block the process just brings the bulldozers sooner. A bad idea is to lay out the streets with lots of cul de sacs and so on rather than some grid system. The bad layout prevents the delivery of services like police, fire, and delivery. So the areas would be more likely to evolve into a slum area however grand the present inhabitants. You can see that in every city too.

A problem with limiting house size is that in most cities such buildings eventually become small offices, apartment buildings, B&B's, and so on. Then they are replaced by 4-5 story denser buildings. It's kind of a process like the forest progression. You see it in every city but it does not happen over night, we're talking long term here.

Trying to block the process just brings the bulldozers sooner. A bad idea is to lay out the streets with lots of cul de sacs and so on rather than some grid system. The bad layout prevents the delivery of services like police, fire, and delivery. So the areas would be more likely to evolve into a slum area however grand the present inhabitants. You can see that in every city too.

Is this whole discussion a joke? This was a planning effort to preserve open space and other resources by preventing more mega-mansions in the scenic hills.

Palo Alto vigorously limits "house size relative to lot size" all over town...and the community wants that. It is outraged if a property owner wants an extra square inch in his/her remodeling job.

They certainly don't say PA "has enough rules in place" in those cases. But these residents don't want any limits on building size in the hills.

This is why we need to limit the size of houses and developments - our infrastructure is over-extended. We limit business use of homes etc, we can restrict size.

Today, a significant water line bursts on average every two minutes somewhere in the country, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.

In Washington alone there is a pipe break every day, on average, and this weekend’s intense rains overwhelmed the city’s system, causing untreated sewage to flow into the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.

State and federal studies indicate that thousands of water and sewer systems may be too old to function properly.

For decades, these systems — some built around the time of the Civil War — have been ignored by politicians and residents accustomed to paying almost nothing for water delivery and sewage removal. And so each year, hundreds of thousands of ruptures damage streets and homes and cause dangerous pollutants to seep into drinking water supplies.

Mr. Hawkins’s answer to such problems will not please a lot of citizens. Like many of his counterparts in cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, Atlanta and elsewhere, his job is partly to persuade the public to accept higher water rates, so that the utility can replace more antiquated pipes.

“People pay more for their cellphones and cable television than for water,” said Mr. Hawkins, who before taking over Washington’s water system ran environmental groups and attended Princeton and Harvard, where he never thought he would end up running a sewer system.

“You can go a day without a phone or TV,” he added. “You can’t go a day without water.”

But in many cities, residents have protested loudly when asked to pay more for water and sewer services. In Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Sacramento — and before Mr. Hawkins arrived, Washington — proposed rate increases have been scaled back or canceled after virulent ratepayer dissent.