Residential Compatability; Regional issues and co-operation

By Bob Moss

5. Residential Compatibility and Preservation.

The economic boom and generally perceived desirability of Palo Alto created intense pressure to increase the size and intensity of use of residential properties. Smaller, older homes, particularly ones on larger lots, are bought, demolished, and replaced with much larger homes which often are very different in appearance and setbacks than most existing homes. In some cases the demolished home has significant or possible historic value, making the replacement even more jarring. The actions of some builders and developers caused a reaction against inappropriate development by historians and those who value neighborhood qualities and consistency. The result was the historic compatibility ordinance and three years of controversy and disputes. The City Council, Planning Commission, and staff agreed to separate historic preservation from single-family compatibility, and to develop separate methods for dealing with each. The Council passed an ordinance in June which included significant incentives for properties listed as historic. Some disgruntled homeowners obtained enough signatures to suspend the ordinance pending a vote in March. Until then there are no incentives, and the stricter interim ordinance remains in effect. Residential compatibility still is under study.

Single family design review has been required in California cities for many years. Some reviews are limited and very general, others are very strict and specific. For example, Palos Verdes Estates and part of Rancho Palos Verdes require review and approval of features such as windows, roof lines, and skylights. Two story homes are prohibited in areas where they would hinder views of the ocean. Setbacks and exterior colors are controlled. If a property owner ignores the requirements and restrictions, the City can and does take the property owner to court to have the design restrictions obeyed. If the order is disobeyed the City can get a court order and require compliance, with a lien on the property if needed to encourage cooperation. I have been advocating some type of single family design review for more than 25 years, but only lately have there been supportive comments from the community, from staff and from council members.

E.1 Adopt the existing design guidelines for single family home developments as requirements for homes built by developers. Have the new or remodeled home design reviewed by staff for acceptability and compatibility based upon the existing guidelines. If staff approves the plans and design, then post a notice to all neighbors within 300 feet asking for comments, suggestions, and whether there are any objections to the approved plans. If staff disapproves the plans, the disapproval can be appealed to the ARB, and eventually the Council.

E.2 Review and modernize the existing design guidelines to be certain that current conditions are included and properly addressed. Establish a community task force to participate in the revisions of the design guidelines. E.3 Some types of residential development have the potential for adverse neighborhood impacts. These should be sent to the ARB for action. Examples are 2-story homes in single story neighborhoods; homes with significantly different styles than the prevailing styles in the neighborhood; homes with front or side yard setbacks which are not in conformance with the neighborhood. As an example, a single story neighborhood might be defined as one where at least 65% of the existing homes within 500 feet are single story .

E.4 Make every effort to keep new development compatible with existing homes, in overall style, setbacks, height, lot coverage, protection of neighbors privacy, and colors. Designs or plans which clearly meet the design guidelines will be reviewed and approved by staff, but in case of appeals or any questions on overall design compatibility the plans would be sent to the ARB for formal review and action.

E.5 Provide adequate inspection and verification both that the as-built structure meets as-planned and approved designs, and that all codes and requirements are followed faithfully. Any uncertainties or ambiguities in codes and regulations should be identified and clarified promptly. Examples of practices that must be disallowed are violations of the Uniform Building Code or Zoning Ordinance requirements such as setbacks, height, lot coverage, etc.

Other issues which need attention are support and retention of local businesses, preservation of street trees and significant trees in parks and possibly on private property, and utility deregulation.

Regional and Statewide Issues

In addition to these mainly local issues, there are some problems which require action at the regional or State levels. For example, the dependence of local governments on sales taxes biases developments and approvals of projects towards sales tax-generating uses and away from other uses which may be more desirable socially but which do not produce adequate taxes. The distortions from Prop. 13, Prop 4 and now Prop. 218 are examples. School districts are severely restricted in revenue sources, and often find themselves at the mercy of last minute budget deals at the State level. Developers attempt to play off cities against each other by trading concessions on development against future sales tax income. An example is Mountain View forgiving some taxes from Costco in exchange for location of the warehouse store in Mountain View. Governor Davis' proposals on reviewing local tax structures are a good beginning, and must be supported and encouraged. The tax structure can only be rationalized by State actions, but local governments can join together to suggest how best to modify tax laws to allow greater local controls of tax revenues and civic expenses.

Regional issues also need consideration. Actions taken by nearby cities or counties can have significant impacts on Palo Alto. The new commercial, office and hotel developments in East Palo Alto will bring more traffic and congestion to Crescent Park and downtown. Developments on Stanford land both inside and outside of Palo Alto will create more traffic, more congestion, and higher demands for services such as utilities, schools, and police and fire protection. Jobs in Palo Alto cause more traffic and congestion on University Ave. in East Palo Alto as workers and visitors drive from the east bay to Palo Alto and Stanford Research Park. Flood control along San Francisquito Creek involves two counties, at least three and as many as five cities, plus Stanford. Extension of light rail to Mountain View will not serve Palo Alto and other cities directly. It may be necessary to provide buses or other transit operations to bring riders from the Palo Alto area to the light rail terminal in Mountain View.

These are just some examples of the issues and problems that need discussion and resolution on a regional or Statewide basis.