Neighborhood wins support for banning two-story homes

What about neighborhoods that have two-story homes and just don't want to be confronted with having to referend against three-story and four-story exceptions??? Can we please have the option of a two-story overlay??

[Post removed.]

Since the Single-Family Individual Guidelines are ignored by the staff in terms of limiting two-story construction and massing even when surrounded
by single-story houses, along with inadequate setback requirements in the zoning code,the rest of us are subject to the same loss of privacy, light,aesthetics,change of neighborhood character that the Eichler neighborhood is reacting to. I have as much glass exposure as the typical Eichler in my house. Across the board here we are always fighting from behind in terms of trying to maintain quality of life and neighborhood and city character and we are losing as the City as a whole spirals down, and down. It is a constant fight with a city which is on a different page from its own residents and its own heritage and values. That is the fundamental problem here.

Can we ban basements in residential neighborhoods too. I am concerned about what these basements that have to be continually drained are doing to the water table and to the trees as well as whether subsidence or sink holes will be a result of these.

Congrats Palo Alto, you continue to find new and innovative ways to be selfish, and prevent more people from living in Palo Alto.

This idea that preventing the urbanization and densification of Palo Alto is equivalent to selfishness is just self-serving hogwash.

Remembering that we live in an arid region, that we live on a Peninsula and more densification means less sustainability and more need to bring resources in from further and further away, and that more people has already caused care of the natural environment to fall by the wayside in civic discourse -- that false correlation is what is selfish. New people come in and don't want to pay the dues the people who are here paid, don't want to make the hard tradeoffs, in order to live in a desirable place, so they attack them. That's selfish.

It might make some sense if we were an island like Hong Kong, but we are not, we live in a vast and beautiful country in need almost across the board of renewal and investment, and where diversification and more even distribution of assets across the nation would be more environmentally sound and make use economically and strategically stronger. If things are too expensive here, it is absolutely selfish to insist on taking away from people and environment here in order to destroy the place for the profit of a few people who will move on to the next place, instead of letting the conditions her spur investment in places that could truly benefit from it, including other parts of California.

Nice try, though.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

I do not wish to dismiss your concern about basements and the water table. However, if you do a little research, including our own city website, you will find that your concern is not an issue. Most tree roots in PA don't grow deep enough (avg of 5ft) to reach the water table that basement excavation reaches.

Good News and congratulations to all who got this done.
I have lived in an Eichler for over 25 years and enjoyed the one story nature of my neighborhood in spite of the train noise.
I would suggest that the zoning regulations should address these one story zones as they are presently written for the normal two story house.
Basements and setbacks should be reconsidered and relaxed in my opinion.

The current regulation is already pretty straight to build new houses on height, windows, setback, and etc. Of course we don't want to see monster houses around us. I don't live in an Eichler neighborhood, but I believe new rules and regulations need to be reasonable. This city need progress over time.

If most of the neighborhood in that area has the same opinion, I will respect that. But I would like to see an expiration day (such as 10 years) of the new regulation so the next generation of that neighborhood will have an option to decide what they want after 10 years. Probably high percentage of the "new neighbors" will want to build a 2nd story so they have more rooms for their younger kids.

It appears that the "stucco box" fans who like lots of gables on their roofs aren't happy with this decision. As far as "preservation" of Eichlers, Mr. Alcheck has no clue. Individual homeowners can apply for historic status thru the county or the federal gov't. Historical Overlay Preservation designees receive property tax reductions. That's certainly motivation for Eichler owners/neighborhoods. What do the McMansions contribute to the city landscape?

Congratulations to everyone involved on their effective community activism. I have never been a particular fan of Eichler homes, but I support any neighborhood's effort to protect its originating character and particular charm. Sorry Evan, but home owning tax payers have every right to protect their neighborhood and community from an onslaught of insensitive development and "want-to-live-here-too" sourpusses.

Geez, traffic is absolutely outrageous now. I support less people moving to Palo Alto! The selfishness is those who want to tear down houses to build houses that are out of character for the neighborhood - I don't want those kind of neighbors.

"Resident" is absolutely correct
The root system for a redwood may go down ten feet to the water table
and the root system extends out long distances 50 feet or more so an excavation on an adjacent property can do direct damage to the root system.
The redwood is a protected tree under city ordinance as are oak trees.
Even temporary drawdown of the water table during dewatering can cause subsidence damage to structures on adjacent properties.

As the stock of smaller and more (relatively) affordable homes is reduced as one after another are torn down to be replaced by 4,000+ square feet luxury houses that only the really wealthy can afford, this overlay also means the homes in these Eichler neighborhoods will remain for those who don't have quite such deep pockets.

Palo Alto Native: "The selfishness is those who want to tear down houses to build houses that are out of character for the neighborhood - I don't want those kind of neighbors."

Not sure if you get the irony of your statement, but you pretty much have summed up everything about what's wrong with this kind of regulation.

Jane: "his overlay also means the homes in these Eichler neighborhoods will remain for those who don't have quite such deep pockets."

[Portion removed.]

One more thing:

Connect the dots: "Sorry Evan, but home owning tax payers have every right to protect their neighborhood and community from an onslaught of insensitive development and "want-to-live-here-too" sourpusses."

I seriously doubt these owners of Eichlers are paying their fair share of taxes, thanks to Prop 13. In fact the so-called McMansions are disproportionally paying taxes on behalf of these selfish individuals who stay in their houses over 20 years.

I second the idea that these overlays should be subject to a new vote every decade. My neighborhood in Menlo Park is full of small single-story homes (1200-1400 sq ft). But every young couple here is either tearing down and rebuilding to have space for their family, or has already done so. (Most would prefer to move, but bigger houses either cost several million dollars or come with very long commutes nowadays.) I know people used to raise large families in 1200 sq ft homes, but I don't know how they managed it!

Obviously, Palo Alto prices are much higher than in Menlo Park, so there probably aren't many young families in Los Arboles. But, as older residents age out and the neighborhood turns over, fewer of the new residents are likely to be attached to the architecture of the 1950s and 1960s, and may want the option to make a change.

PAmoderate: Take a look at the capital gains rate these days. It's payback big time and it's why many long-time residents of Palo Alto have no choice but to remain in their homes. And, by the way, why is it selfish to want to maintain what you've worked hard and cared for over the year (with respect to both home and community)? Where in the world does this sense of entitlement come from in those that would change things to suit their own self-serving purposes without any regard or sensitivity to those around them? I'm not one for name calling, but that's the very definition of "selfishness."

Congratulations to my neighbors in Los Arboles. Well done!

I can't believe for the price you pay for the land in Palo Alto they can now tell you you can't build a two story home. Change the daylight plane would be acceptable and understandable. The restrictions in Palo Alto are getting rediculous. Sorry but Eichlers are ugly

@connect the dots: "It's payback big time and it's why many long-time residents of Palo Alto have no choice but to remain in their homes. "

Yes, and you know why? It's *because* of Prop 13.

"And, by the way, why is it selfish to want to maintain what you've worked hard and cared for over the year (with respect to both home and community)?"

It is. Just because you have your property should not give you special rights to keep others out. Sounds just like the people who promoted the idea of poll taxes and only property owners can vote. Is Palo Alto becoming more conservative than the "conservative" South?

"Where in the world does this sense of entitlement come from in those that would change things to suit their own self-serving purposes without any regard or sensitivity to those around them?"

Sense of entitlement? Which group that feels the sense of entitlement? Certainly not the ones who are being kept out.

I'm glad I don't live there.