BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto City Council tonight (April 13) rejected a proposal to rein in compounds like Mark Zuckerberg’s in the Crescent Park neighborhood.
The proposal by Councilman Keith Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Greer Stone would’ve imposed time limits on construction, licensing for security guards and occupancy requirements on property owners with more than three properties on a block.
Neighbors could’ve sued compound owners for violations, Reckdahl and Stone’s proposal said.
But the rest of council said the city has higher priorities, and neighbors shouldn’t be suing each other.
“We’re asking regular citizens to have the money and gumption to go up against the billionaires,” Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims said.
Councilman Ed Lauing said he’s worried the proposal would infringe on private property rights.
Councilman Pat Burt said targeting certain property owners is “really inappropriate and legally questionable.”
Mayor Vicki Veenker said construction has impacts throughout the city, not just by a few compounds.
So instead, council agreed to look at rules for construction and vacant homes throughout the city.
“These homes are not meant to be just investments that you can do what you want with and sell one day. You’re supposed to live here,” Lythcott-Haims said.
Stone and Reckdahl’s proposal came after Zuckerberg reportedly spent $110 million buying 11 homes in Crescent Park.
Zuckerberg offered to buy out neighboring properties, hired private security, started a private school and spent years on remodels, according to the New York Times.
“Neighbors are telling us clearly: This is changing the character and social fabric on their blocks,” Stone said tonight.
Residents on the 1400 block of Hamilton Avenue spoke tonight in favor of the compound crackdown, except for one resident who said the proposal sounded like “Big Brother.”
“Copycat compounds are almost certainly going to happen,” Zuckerberg’s neighbor Michael Kieschnick said.
This issue is about restricting maximum lot size. The city already has laws that restrict maximum lot size in R-1 and the three low density residential zones, R-2, RE and RMD in title 18 of our Municipal Code. But there is a giant loophole that you can aggregate abutting or adjacent lots not combine them into one parcel and then use them as if they are one giant parcel.
All the colleagues memo was trying to do was restrict that loophole.
Seems reasonable to me! Any related activities that violate our laws such as illegal schools, overreach of private security firms in the public right of way etc… should be enforced by the city as complaints arise
FWI – we do allow giant lots in our foothills where the development pattern and zoning are quite different than the main part of Palo Alto.
The colleagues memo was providing a solution to the giant loophole to get around maximum lot size limits that already exist in title 18 of our municipal code for R-1 and the three low density residential zones: R-2, RMD and RE.
The maximum lot size applies to parcel size, you get around it by aggregating abutting or adjacent or nearby lots but keeping them as distinct parcels and developing them as distinct parcels one at a time.
The memo aimed to fix that loophole and address related activities such as illegal private schools and overreach by private security firms into the public right of way etc…
The latter should be enforced by the city when complaints arise.
We do allow much bigger parcels in the hills where we have very different development patterns and zoning than the main part of the city.
The colleagues memo seems not only reasonable but consistent with policies we already have embraced and codified into law.
Sorry about the double comments. My error.
They both say the same thing.
As a Palo Alto taxpayer/homeowner (living wherever), I conquer this nonsense with humor. When I tell my friends/family members what’s going on in Palo Alto, they think I’m trying to be “funny or entertaining.” Sadly, everything I tell them is the truth. At times, I really wish I was making it up. If only there was a solution. Grow up?
Thank you to the above commenters! Doria Summa is right of course. Re Cassabdra’s comment, several of us were wondering just last night if PA is the only affluent city that spends more time on nonsense, unproductive value-signalling etc. and nobody’s friends and family living elsewhere had comparable stories.
What I don’t get is how smaller properties have to jump through hoops on minor changes but not these conjoined properties.
“The proposal by Councilman Keith Reckdahl and Vice Mayor Greer Stone would’ve imposed time limits on construction, licensing for security guards and occupancy requirements on property owners with more than three properties on a block.”
What’s the problem about licensing security guards? They should be licensed just like the guards at the Churchill RR SHOULD have been licensed years ago instead of off robbing neighboring houses.
Re time limits on construction, what’s the problem? There are set hours for construction so workers aren’t disrupting the neighborhoods at 2AM. When construction has dragged on for decades like the house near Peers Park, the City FINALLY got involved.
“But the rest of council said the city has higher priorities, and neighbors shouldn’t be suing each other….”
Like revising the city’s values statements and mission statements? Like ignoring the weekly reports on Oversized Vehicles submitted to Council and 90 concerned residents compiled by an unpaid volunteer rather than our highly paid staffers?
Like forgetting there are traffic issues and other issues with their hysterical push to close Churchill?
Cassandra’s right that we need a sense of humor to watch what a friend’s called Cirque de Palo Alto.