Palo Alto's plan to encourage more accessory-dwelling units will meet its first test tonight, when the City Council's ordinance relaxing rules for the structures is set for a formal approval.
The council plans to vote on series of code revisions that members voted on last month, in some cases after a 5-4 split. The changes, which were spearheaded by Councilmen Adrian Fine and Cory Wolbach, include removing all parking requirements for accessory housing, eliminating the lot-size requirements that have traditionally kept residents from constructing these units and increasing the allowed density for these dwellings.
Many of the revisions that the council approved on March 7 went far beyond what the city had previously considered, prompting some neighborhood leaders and land-use watchdogs to criticize the council for insufficient public outreach and transparency. Housing advocates, meanwhile, are praising the proposed changes as exactly what the city needs to address its housing shortage.
Over the past week, both camps have tried to rally their troops for the next battle. Councilman Greg Tanaka, who supported the rule changes, announced last week that he would hold a discussion on accessory-dwelling units during his office hours on Sunday. (Some accessory-housing opponents then complained that the timing of the meeting on Easter Sunday would limit residents' participation. Tanaka did not respond to a request for comment.)
Meanwhile, Palo Alto Forward, a nonprofit that advocates for more housing, emailed a newsletter to its members and supporters calling the units "important for many reasons."
"First among them, though, is who they benefit most: ADUs can provide a steady source of income to our growing senior population so they can enjoy retirement and spoil their grandchildren; the young couple that wants to live near work and will continue to revitalize our wonderful community; and our police officers, firefighters, teachers, and other public service employees who can live in the community they serve."
The email also claims that there is now a "concerted effort to block the ADU ordinance coming before council despite popularity among the community."
Others see it differently and say the new rules are an overreach that would significantly alter the character of the city's single-family neighborhoods (which are zoned R-1). John Guislin, a resident of Crescent Park, said he was "offended" by the pro-housing group alleging to speak for the city's seniors. The ordinance that was approved on March 7, he noted, has no provisions that prioritize the rental of accessory housing by police officers, teachers or other public servants, he said. By implying that it does, Palo Alto Forward's statement "misrepresents what the current ordinance provides."
"In fact, the current ordinance has so few controls that it could result in R-1 neighborhoods becoming de facto R-2 neighborhoods, or worse, by proliferating short-term rentals (Airbnb) increasing traffic and degrading the livability of our city," Guislin wrote to the council. (The city's zoning, however, already does prohibit rental of residential space for fewer than 30 days.)
Guislin was one of several residents who questioned the council's process for adopting the changes. Neilson Buchanan, a Downtown North resident, said he thinks many residents "are just starting to understand the implications of the ADU ordinance as currently drafted."
And Arthur Keller, a former planning commissioner, argued in an email over the weekend that it would have been sufficient for the council to simply direct staff and the commission to study these changes -- rather than adopt them outright.
"If we don’t change the Council's mind, our single-family residential neighborhoods will be plagued with second dwelling units overlooking our bedrooms, without added parking, and possibly removing existing parking," Keller wrote.
While both camps will have a chance to make their case tonight, it's not clear yet to what extent the council will reopen the discussion. The item is listed on the council's "consent calendar," which means the ordinance would be approved by a single vote along with other items unless at least three council members opt to pull it off the calendar.
Given the council's split on the topic, this will likely happen tonight. Last month, several council members argued that the proposals to allow more density and to remove parking requirements are an overreach. Councilwoman Karen Holman said the council is "really changing the character of neighborhoods."
But Wolbach argued that allowing more units will enable more residents to remain in Palo Alto and more families to stay together.
"It's a chance to downsize and age in place while keeping your own property," Wolbach said.
Comments
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:06 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:06 am
I am wondering what are the most contentious rules people are debating over?
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:09 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:09 am
The article fails to mention that there was about two hours of public comment on this item when it came before Council on March 6th and two hours of Council discussion. In the end only Council Members Holman and Dubois voted no. There was also substantial discussion at the PTC and this started years ago with a Council memo asking the PTC to look at ADUs. It seems there has been a lot of last minute fear mongering that have made people afraid.
University South
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:10 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:10 am
This is a good plan, and the Council should stick to it. This is an opportunity for residents to create and benefit from housing on their own lots. There are few opportunities to create housing to help seniors and renters - let's not foreclose yet another one.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:20 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:20 am
I agree about the privacy issues raised by others.
However, the parking issue as well as some others still have not been addressed.
Many areas have parking problems already. The obvious ones are near downtown and Cal Ave, but there are issues around parks, community centers, churches, schools, all of which may not happen during the work day but at evenings and weekends when these venues are busy and overflow parking spills into the streets. Add this to the problems of street sweeping and trash cans on curbs and the issue will exacerbate neighborhood tensions about parking issues.
That then leads to the other issues. Utilities, bills, trash cans, drought charges (or similar future charges), does a house with an ADU get two bills, double the number of trash cans, double surcharges on utility bills and property taxes, how will the property taxes alter if at all? Separate addresses and mail delivery? Noise abatement issues? Fire and other safety issues? Will a tenant be liable or will the home owner be liable?
These latter issues have never been addressed.
If a home is basically doubling the capacity of the lot will they have to pay more for wear and tear on schools, parks, and other amenities? Our schools and parks as well as other recreational sports leagues, etc. are valid concerns also.
Of course present residents may not do anything to their homes except perhaps build something for Granny. But what happens after Granny moves on? What happens when a property is being sold? What happens if a potential buyer sees great opportunity in having not only one home in Palo Alto for rental income but two? These sorts of issues may not occur for 5 or even 10 years, but in 20 years this could be happening in abundance.
It is unfair to all homeowners to not address these issues before any vote and changes are made.
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:49 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:49 am
These proposed amendments stuffed in after the public council debate are simply unacceptable and are begging to go to challenge on this whole ADU package.
* allow ADUs on any size lot... No! Many lots are already too small for a single home much less a duplex.
* allow as little as 6ft rear setback... No! Rear yards are the only privacy buffer we have, and many homes have floor to ceiling transparent glass windows opening onto an already small back patio.
* no parking requirements ... and existing ADUs that already have provided parking space can re-purpose that parking space to other uses? Perhaps the council members pushing this haven't heard that there are already resident permit parking fights going on across the city due to previous enablement of under-parked development. I guess their motto is when you find yourself in a deep hole, dig faster.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:52 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 9:52 am
The substance of what is proposed (not yet law) is not the main point. The point is that, just as it highjacked the CAC Comp Plan process, the majority on the city council has again rammed through late at night with no public input, changes that will greatly impact residents. Here in our neibgorhoods.
Making matters worse, it now comes out that the pro-development interest group, Palo Alto Forward, wrote the proposed ordinance that Wolbach used as his motion that was voted on without staff or Planning Commision study.
This is a travesty of good governance. This majority on council is awful and has no respect for residents or transparent democratic process.
I support some more ADUs, but this ordinance is flawed in several ways. One is leaving it vulnerable to profiteering by airbnb, guesthouse, yoga studio, office and other non-housing uses. There is no thought to any actual enforcement for housing use - which even if code enforcement were not completely dysfunctional, and if it had the money for many more staff to ensure ADUs were used for long term rental housing, may still not be sufficient to prevent wide spread abuse and profiteering.
This should be pulled tonight, to go through the normal city process with staff, commission and public input so it can be improved rather let Palo Alto Forward's flawed plan be imposed on all of us tonight.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:00 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:00 am
Palo Alto Forward's petition/ "ujoin" boilerplate for a letter to City Council. This is what they, Fine, Wolbach, support. And, tell me again why they are a 501 (3) (c)
Support Mar 6 Direction for ADUs!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I would like to write in support of the ADU Ordinance motion as voted on and approved on Mar 6, 2017. Please do not pull this from the consent calendar on Monday April 17, 2017. Housing is a basic need. Finding ways to expand housing options (like ADUs and JADUs) for our community members is an economic, environmental, social justice and humanitarian issue. ADU's/granny units/secondary dwellings are something that can help our entire community. Through this ordinance, we can help homeowners, our aging community, young millenials starting out, and even families who rent, to find a feasible and timely housing solution that can make a meaningful difference in our community, all with one small policy/ordinance change. Above all, it enables us to continue nurturing the vibrant and diverse community already here in the city we call home, Palo Alto.
In particular, I support the following motions made on March 6, 2017:
Require no more than 6-ft side and rear setback for ADUs;
Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes;
Allow an additional 175 sq-ft of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU;
Allow an additional 50 sq-ft of FAR for a JADU;
Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 sq-ft;
Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10% smaller than standard lot sizes;
Limit ADUs to 17-ft high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the main house is a grandfathered 2-story house;
Remove design review and requirements;
Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs;
ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs; and
Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU; and
Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback
- See more at: Web Link
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:07 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:07 am
Besides the obvious problems with parking, loss of privacy, lack of any design review, I'm wondering what tax benefits there are that the City Council originally heralded for people housing government workers and low-income people.
What are the tax benefits? I've seen no coverage of those.
Why no design review when we now have them for neighbor's additions? Most neighbors are considerate enough to not have windows peering directly into our homes but who knows what will happen with these ADUs.
What about utilities surcharges for extra usage? Will Utilities stop promoting solar energy because the new ADUs will create more shade?
Will this mean all parking permit-free zones will have to go to permits to accommodate the ADU tenants?
Will we be compensated for building high fences and new plantings to try to protect our privacy?
What recourse do we have if the neighbors build hacker hotels for 10+ techie guys who love to peer in our windows?
How will evictions work? How long will they take? Some eviction processes last as long as a year and could become contentious with the landlord living next door.
How will rental income be taxed? Will we be taxed for REAL relatives?
What about the "attractive nuisance" laws and homeowner liability I'm currently liable if the neighbor's son falls out of a tree spying on our pool or their kids wander into our yard and drown in OUR pool. What happens when you've 10 young guys next door or in your own yard.
These questions are just off the top of my head. What's the rush for this? 2 hours are hardly sufficient.
And the outreach on these discussions was sorely lacking.
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:21 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:21 am
We all know that housing in Palo Alto has become more and more expensive relative to surrounding areas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to have multi-generational families stay in Palo Alto, as grandparents have nowhere to go and kids cannot afford to come back to the community in which they were raised.
After hours of debate at Council, and multiple PTC hearings, the Council rightly adopted a series of measures to make it easier to build an ADU. Council now needs to follow their own process and approve the ordinance.
As a Palo Alto resident who is worried about where I will go when I retire, and whether my kids wil be able to stay in the community, I strongly support this action!
Barron Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:42 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:42 am
When "residentialists" raise concerns about a policy like ADUs, ask yourself: do they want an ADU program at all? Or are they trying to tie the program down with so many regulatory restrictions that it becomes functionally impossible to build ADU units?
Green Acres
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:43 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:43 am
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:48 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:48 am
This is a great direction for the city, residents win - not developers.
Let's be real - if we want less air pollution, noise, and GHG emissions; healthy retail uses and downtown; and a vibrant community; we need to address our jobs/housing imbalance. All of the city's long-range/sustainability plans call for additional housing in the city. Allowing small ADUs in developed areas are a great way to get us there.
Be bold, not fearful Palo Alto! I know we can make a success of this idea.
Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:56 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:56 am
Some of the rules that seem to bother people the most are required by the new California state law. According to the California Dept of Housing memo linked below, for example: no parking requirements for ADUs are allowed in certain areas; no lot size restrictions for ADUs in existing structures; etc.
Web Link
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:59 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:59 am
The ADU proposals distill common sense. They provide win-win outcomes for our housing shortage, in an incremental non-disruptive fashion. Hopefully there will be more ADUs near transit centers because of this!
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:04 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:04 am
Thank you to the City Council for passing a strong measure in support of ADUs last month.
There are a small number of anti-housing advocates who will find an excuse to oppose any new housing. They are well-organized and have a well-funded Political Action Committee, but they represent a small fringe of our city.
To the City Council: please follow through on your vote from last month. You were right then and you are right now!
Crescent Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:26 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:26 am
Why are Kniss, Tanaka and Fine even allowed to vote?? This is what happens when not enough concerned citizens bother to vote on Council seats. Real estate and development groups are running our formerly fair city now.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
First, let me state that I am undecided about the proposed changes since there are good arguments to be made both ways.
But....having watched the video of the council meeting that "Well Vetted" refers to, I would not describe this in any sense as having been much of a discussion since almost exclusively what was heard was the pro-ADU view, easily identified by the YIMB stickers most of the speakers were wearing. I think this issue is substantial enough that rather than the council come to a decision based on a what appeared to be a well-organized campaign to present one side of the story, I would think a referendum would be an appropriate way to sound out the residents of Palo Alto as to how a majority truly feels about this issue.
South of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:30 am
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:30 am
The well-oiled PAForward machine is working overtime.
PAF is led by people who profit from development - architects, developers (aka "designers") and several Palantir employees.
Looks as though they are getting PR advice from some experts.
Cory Wolbach is a long time supporter of PAF. He fooled people with his polished non-responses.
Now the truth of his loyalty to developers, not to low-income housing, is undeniable.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:44 am
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:44 am
"First among them, though, is who they benefit most: ADUs can provide a steady source of income to our growing senior population so they can enjoy retirement and spoil their grandchildren . . . " Aw, c'mon! Surely spoiling one's grandchildren is not a valid rationale for land use decisions.
ADUs can be a good thing, but the proposed ordinance needs work. There are too many unanswered questions and ambiguities. And there are provisions that are arguably just plain wrong, such as NO design review or requirements, NO door orientation, NO lot coverage requirements, and setbacks of NO more than 6-ft.
And what is the City's role, if any, going to be with regard to who can live in these units? Must they be rented? How exactly will these units be used to address the housing shortage or assure that they are used for people with community-serving jobs? Is there an occupancy limit? Is there a limit as to how many parking permits can be issued to an address in neighborhoods where there is a RPPP? What about parking in neighborhoods that do not have a parking program? Did the fire marshal vet the ordinance?
As is, this feels like partially-baked theory-based planning rather than realty-based planning. And there's a "stuff it" aspect of this that has an "eminent domain" feel to it. Our neighborhoods matter. Privacy matters. Not living in forced density matters.
This is an important community issue, not a Staff theory, or PAF dream, or a Council desire. So why rush it through as is being done? Why not appoint a small committee of stake holders and task that group to thoroughly review the ordinance and come up with a proposed set of revisions that address the numerous shortcomings and ambiguities?
Let's not let this be a good idea done badly; there's too much at stake.
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm
The Bay Area has a housing crisis. Palo Alto has the most expensive housing/rental costs in the US. ADUs are one small way to provide much-needed housing, for seniors, for stanford people, for live-at-home children, for the disabled, and yes, even for young techies who want to live near their work. City Council: please pass this ordinance and don't listen to the anti-housing people!
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:11 pm
I'm all for affordable housing but not like this - The amount of debate is not even close to what is required for an ordinance that could have such far-reaching consequences. Where are the Parking/traffic studies? shame on the city council members who voted for this. This is just continuation of residents getting repeatedly shafted by council members beholden to developer money.
If you want a small example of what developers do to us - just drive on Ramona street past the Alma Plaza development - residents cannot find parking on the street. A friend of mine keeps one car on the street in order to reserve parking for any visitors.
Shame on the council members who voted for this without adequate consideration of all factors
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:13 pm
As one who is involved in this issue, let me be clear. This is NOT a matter of "residentialists" being anti-ADU, nor does it have anything to do with the Maybell matter. Most of us understand and support the state-mandated ADU regulations. The issue is that the amendments to the staff presented ordinance where made AFTER public comment and have not been evaluated by either staff or the Planning Commission (the Council's advisory body on such issues). What we are asking is that those additions that go beyond the state mandates be subjected to public hearing and an evaluation of their impacts.
This is not and us versus them issue, but a request for an analysis of changes that impact all residential properties. We can pass an ordinance that incorporates state mandates and then properly study the proposed amendments.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:25 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:25 pm
ADUs don't seem suitable for families, but for transient type conditions.
And in the past there were various non-residents attending schools and this could be an option to declare residency.
Would cause parking mess.
I also worry about local architects penchant for ugly structures. No regulating taste.
It could bring some property values way down, and is that the purpose?
Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:29 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:29 pm
It is very clear that Sheri furman is against ADUs. This is just an attempt to stop this from going forward. In fact, Sheri sent an email to the PAN mailing listing telling people they need to speak out against this if it isn't tabled
"Note that if Council decides to discuss the ordinance on Monday night instead of at a future time, be be prepared to speak both to pulling the item off the consent calendar and your objections to the ordinance. You will probably only have 2 minutes."
So if you favor the ordinance you are to keep silent!!!!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:46 pm
It seems like individual pro or con depends on your individual tastes about the type of neighbors you want. But it's also a matter of what you thought you bought here.
Who buys a potential transient housing "surprise" next door? Or 2-4?
The problem is that with the overwhelming amount of offices here , these are basically dorms.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:48 pm
4 hours is NOT "well vetted," especially when most of us were never notified about the meetings. This rush to push this through is highly suspicious.
I may want to add an ADU but I doubt anyone is seriously going to offer less than market rates for their ADUs so let's stop pretending it's going to reduce rents.
Sheri Furman is absolutely right that this needs more SUBSTANTIVE discussion and should be pulled until we really understand the implications and then can make intelligent informed decisions.
We have EIR's for everything else. Why not for this which may be the most serious issue confronting our city???
I'd really like answers to the specific questions I posed way back up topic.
South of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm
" it now comes out that the pro-development interest group, Palo Alto Forward, wrote the proposed ordinance that Wolbach used as his motion"
Can you tell us more about this?
He is a protege of Liz Kniss as well.
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm
PS: The ADU rents will have to cover our increased property taxes at the very minimum plus the income taxes (state and federal) we pay on rental income.
We need some hard numbers. Can anyone provide them?
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:55 pm
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:55 pm
This conversation leaves out one important feature motivating Palo Alto's revision of ADU regulations - NEW STATE LAW requiring that it is easy to legally build an ADU.
The proposed Palo Alto ordinance already cut way back on the size of ADU's from the defaults in the state legislation. The opponents of ADU's put Palo Alto at risk of being sued for not complying with state law. Current regulations on lot size prohibit almost every home south of Oregon Expressway from having a second unit. Unfair! And certainly not in compliance with state law.
People are already responding to housing costs by renting rooms in single family homes all over Palo Alto. An ADU does not increase FAR, but allows greater privacy compared to shared housing.
To those who wish Palo Alto would never change, sorry, but the prior councils who permitted so much office development, and the tech world that can fit many employees into a few square feet of office space, have changed the balance of our community. This is change that none of us can undo. These changes are raising your SFH property values, and are causing many to seek to live close to where they work. Whatever ADU's get built, those who live in them will feel lucky.
another community
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:56 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:56 pm
Other than "windows peeking into someone's yard" I haven't heard a single complaint that is specific to ADUs; parking issues, multiple tenants, exactly how would ADUs create issues that wouldn't haved already occured simply with more people living in existing houses?
Greenmeadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm
I support ADUs, but I would like these last minute changes to get more analysis and careful scrutiny by staff and the public, so we can understand what they mean for homeowners' privacy.
I live in an Eichler with floor-to-ceiling glass walls on one side of my house. I want to make sure that the rules are designed to protect my privacy.
Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:01 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:01 pm
[Post removed.]
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:12 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:12 pm
I'm curious whether city council members who stand to directly benefit from this should participate in the discussion and vote.
Both Fine and Wolbach have parents here and would benefit. Fine publicly expressed a desire for loose ADU rules so he and his fiancé can take over his parents house in College Terrace (Fine said this while campaigning).
If DuBois must recuse himself on Stanford issues because his wife is employed there, and Wolbach and Schmid had to step out on issues affecting their Eichler homes, should Fine and Wolbach be the guys to lead this if the above is true? I and several other people (including Tanaka) were present when Fine made his comments. Was the home of Fine's parents not included in the initial ordinance?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:13 pm
I am not at all against ADUs. I simply oppose expansion of state mandates without sufficient analysis of impacts.
The email I sent was to clarify the process of speaking to the item—requesting it be pulled from consent versus speaking to the item itself IF that’s what someone wants to do.
Monroe Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm
I support the ordinance the City Council passed March 6th. Over the several years that this has been in discussion in various forums, I have advocated for substantially liberalizing Palo Alto's highly restrictive ordinance. I want to build an ADU for myself at some stage of life, for my disabled son, or for a caregiver.
There are no developers pulling my strings. It's not about rentals. Everyone I have come in contact with who is advocating for ADUs has a similar and personal reason.
I am dismayed by the fears engendered even by a distributed, private, small-scale approach to one part of the City's housing problem.
I hope the City Council will re-affirm their vote of March 6th.
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:20 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:20 pm
Thanks to Resident, Dan, Anon, HMM, Online name, Ramrodding Through ADU's, Stephen, and Annette, for your comments. If I wrote my own they would just repeat many of your concerns. I've written on this subject numerous times before and voiced my concerns.
In particular tho, I like Stephen's comment about the previous CC meeting. I watched that too, and felt it was obviously a rigged, pre-planned stacked deck of speakers, all lined up in advance, in support of ADU's. Many of us older folks who are opposed to the idea because of the negative affect on our neighborhoods, don't show up to speak because we are too tired to stay up that long, deal with the parking, etc. I blame my farm boy background for my early to bed, early to rise, habits. I'm 80 years old and today I have knee gout so I won't be at the meeting tonight. I'll watch it on TV for a little while.
And @ Support ADU's and Thank You. My kids couldn't afford to live here 30 years ago, after they graduated for PA high schools, and then when they graduated with BS degrees from UC institutions. It's not a new phenomenon brought on by us 'NIMBYs'. And at Thank You..."There are a small number of anti-housing advocates who will find an excuse to oppose any new housing. They are well-organized and have a well-funded Political Action Committee, but they represent a small fringe of our city". In your wildest dreams. Small number, a small fringe? I'd like that to be tested in a vote by PA residents on this issue. If it takes a referendum then let it happen.
If this stays on the consent calendar, it just proves the point of one of the contributors, that it is bad governance. And please CC members, don't just say, 'Well none of the opposition showed up to speak'. A very sad time in my town to pit neighbor against neighbor on this issue.
And I repeat my comment on an earlier article post...I will not support any candidate for election or re-election who lets this go through tonight without further review and a vote by our homeowners. [Portion removed.]
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm
[Post removed.]
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm
From my message to the City Council:
Agenda Item 4—the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance—must be pulled and rescheduled for a public hearing after PTC and/or staff analysis. The public comment period on this item was closed on March 7, 2017 before Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine made their far reaching changes to the draft ordinance. The public could not comment on the motion once it was made. The staff report for the April 17, 2017 meeting codifies the ordinance, but makes no analysis of its implications. Without an analysis of the implications and impacts of this ordinance, the public cannot effectively comment on the Wolbach-Fine changes. So the process by which this occurred disenfranchises the public.
I appreciate that Councilmember Tanaka held office hours on Easter Sunday to meet with his constituents to talk about the ADU ordinance. There were about a half dozen members of the public there. Each of us expressed concerns about the ordinance with the Wolbach-Fine changes. Councilmember Tanaka indicated he wasn’t aware that the Wolbach-Fine motion meant that no covered parking was required on properties with an ADU or JADU until I pointed out that item K says just that. Since Councilmember Tanaka wasn’t aware of the implications of the motion when he voted, such as that a garage can be converted to an ADU, this clearly means that additional analysis by staff and/or the PTC is required for understanding the impacts of the motion.
While ADUs are touted as being for low or moderate income tenants, there is no limit on the rents that can be charged. A two-bedroom one bath 900 sq ft ADU could rent for $3000 or more, considering the rents of comparable apartments and duplexes. And although the ordinance does not allow ADUs to be rented for fewer than 30 days, there is no enforcement mechanism for this rule.
There is no analysis of the impact of the Wolbach-Fine changes on Palo Alto Schools, as required by the current Comprehensive Plan Program C-7.
Finally, there is a problem in the agenda notice. The title of the item reads,
"FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 (Zoning) to Implement New State Law Related to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Dwelling Units and to Reorganize and Update the City’s Existing Regulations. The Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Public Resource Code Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15061(b), 15301, 15303 and 15305 and was Recommended for Approval by the Planning & Transportation Commission on November 30, 2016. (FIRST READING: March 6, 2017 PASSED: : 6-2-1 (DuBois, Holman no, Kou abstain)"
No such reading took place on March 6, 2017.
A reasonable alternative if you absolutely have to pass an ordinance tonight is to pass the Staff Recommendation from the March 7, 2017 staff report, with 1/2 mile walking distance from transit stops with service at least every 15 minutes during rush hours, which is what state law requires, and to have items A through L referred to the PTC for further analysis and public comment.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:12 pm
I wrote "and setbacks of NO more than 6-ft. " This is a little unclear - sorry. As written now, the ordinance allows for an ADU to be built with ONLY a 6 foot side and rear setback. There's no prohibition against a bigger setback.
I, like Sherri Furman, am not against ADUs per se. I am very concerned about the approach CC is taking on this. And it is pretty tiresome for people who are apparently gung-ho on this ordinance to vilify those who are not similarly enthused and label us as "anti-ADU" or some such thing. How about this: we are for transparent government and thoughtful, smart planning. This ordinance needs refinement. I should think even its most ardent supporters would acknowledge that. And welcome the refinement. A well-written ordinance that addresses issues of concern serves the entire community best. If CC pushes this through tonight w/o benefit of further analysis, one has to ask both why and what are they afraid of? Where's the harm in making something better?
Professorville
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm
According to the Staff Report, there are about 15000 residentially-zoned lots. About 8700 of these are not substandard and have enough floor-area available to support an ADU. The Wolbach/Fine changes allow ADUs even on substandard lots, but since there was no Staff analysis of that case, we don't know how many more lots would be included. But using the smaller number, at least 60% of residential lots have the potential to be multi-residential.
The original PTC report was thoughtful, and requested more analysis of parking along with other issues. I'd like to see the same for the new proposal.
I'd really love to see a map of the City with every eligible lot marked with a small red dot. That would give us a sense of where the most changes would take place.
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm
Nice try YIMBY, but PA isn't in your backyard since you live in Mt. View. Sounds like you have your own set of issues to deal with, so just deal with those first, before telling your neighbors to the north how to deal with ours. You don't need ADU's because you keep building higher and higher, to add more housing units. Are they affordable to very low income/low income/median income people? Of course not. Will PA's ADU's be affordable except for the very well paid tech workers, or those bunched up to code away late into the night in their ADU's? Of course not, even tho it's advertised as a way to help our housing 'crisis' and keep our old residents...grannies, their kids, and their kids...in town Let's wait for the next bubble to burst to see how big this 'crisis' really is. My gauge is always to look on Alma for 'for rent' signs.
Gotta go take my nap so I can watch the CC meeting tonight.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:21 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Palo Alto doesn't live in a bubble separate from the rest of the Bay Area. The actions of both Palo Alto and Mountain View have impacts on the Bay Area at large. You can't just have this self-centered view and tell every other surrounding city to sod off as if nothing you do impacts anyone else.
Nothing around here is going to be affordable so long as barely anything gets built. It's just another NIMBY excuse to not build anything which just further exacerbates the housing crisis.
another community
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm
I wonder how many of the commenters know what the CA law says. If you don't, read this: Web Link
A 6-foot setback is not much and I sure wouldn't want a dwelling that close to the property line.
Thirty days as a minimal rental is not going to keep anyone from renting out an ADU through Airbnb.
There's no requirement that ADUs be affordable. They can be rented at market rate to anyone, not just Granny. So please let's stop the rhetoric that these units will all be built for the benefit of the greater good.
Wait until you have an additional family living 6 feet from your fence line and one or two more cars on the street. Or a new set of Airbnb "guests" take up residence every month.
There's nothing wrong with being a NIMBY. Just how much should we allow in our back yards before we protest? We moved here for a reason. Now we've got ABAG, the state and our own city councils dictating how we should live.
Councils got us into this mess by approving millions of square feet of offices because they like the money. Now they suddenly realize they've dreated a housing shortage, so they're pushing for changes in our zoning codes so they can build, baby, build.
R-1 zoning will soon be meaningless.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:22 pm
@Gale Johnson
To be fair, over 99% of the backyards in Palo Alto aren't yours either...
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:29 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:29 pm
Map is a good idea.
Among the reports I'd like to see is what the impact could be on property values.
Is it a gain or loss overall?
Forget that this is Palo Alto, but one thing is to buy into a relatively stable type neighborhood (anywhere), and another is to buy a Duplex/Office housing dorms shacks in the making to circle your perimeter. With parking issues, with impact on all services, and people who may not provide any support to the system, like to the schools.
Some insdependent property value impacts review should be reported based on the suggested map.
Barron Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:35 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Another problem with the ordinance as it stands, is there are no restrictions on how many tenants and cars you may have in your home in R-1 zones. Effectively, you can run a hotel (30 day stay or more) or a big boarding house business and Code Enforcement will tell you that is allowed. It makes no sense as these houses were not designed for multiple beds and bunk beds stuffed into one room all over the house. Hotels/motels/inns must have licenses but your neighbor is free to pack as many tenants in his/her house and what do you think will be the case with ADU's?
This is already changing our neighborhood and with the new ordinance it can only make it worse. The city needs to create codes about boarding house businesses and how many tenants and cars are feasible before it allows new ADU units to be added.
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:40 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:40 pm
Dang, I wish I knew what the portion that was removed said that caused that. Please tell me privately, PAO.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm
@Boarding Houses
How many restrictions are you guys going to pass on how someone in Palo Alto can use their property until you pass a law where only legally-related members of a family of a certain size may reside in a house for more than 30 days?
Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
This is from the California Dept of Housing memo that has been linked in at least two prior posts. This is what the state is requiring: seems that ADUs must be permitted in existing structures in every R-1 lot.
Are ADUs Permitted in Existing Residence or Accessory Space?
Yes, ADUs located in single family residential zones and existing space of a single family residence or accessory structure must be approved regardless of zoning standards (Section 65852.2(a)(1)(B)) for ADUs, including locational requirements (Section 65852.2(a)(1)(A)), subject to usual non-appealable ministerial building permit requirements. For example, ADUs in existing space does not necessitate a zoning clearance and must not be limited to certain zones or areas or subject to height, lot size, lot coverage, unit size, architectural review, landscape or parking requirements. Simply, where a single family residence or accessory structure exists in any single family residential zone, so can an ADU. The purpose is to streamline and expand potential for ADUs where impact is minimal and the existing footprint is not being increased. Zoning requirements are not a basis for denying a ministerial building permit for an ADU, including non-conforming
lots or structures. The phrase, “..within the existing space” includes areas within a primary home or within an attached or detached accessory structure such as a garage, a carriage house, a pool house, a rear yard studio and similar enclosed structures.
Charleston Gardens
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:48 pm
@Yimby, you really should change your name to YIYBY -- Yes in YOUR Back Yard -- since you're so determined to tell us how to live. Of course Palo Alto and MV don't live in a vacuum but other nearby communities were smart enough to opt out of ABAG (Association of Bay Area Government) housing/jobs targets so they don't have our 3:1 commuter to residents ratio.
Most of the surrounding communities explicitly rejected ABAG with NO consequences. Los Altos gleefully kicked out one of PA's Planning Commissioners when he tried to force his vision on them a few years ago. Palo Alto has since named him HEAD of the Planning & Transportation Commission. Not surprisingly, he's a developer who's very pro-development.
Re whether it's a gain or a loss, it's certainly a gain for the City coffers in terms of higher property taxes, permits, inspections, travel fees to get to the sites and whatever else they dream up. Of course they'll still spend a fortune telling us to conserve energy but fail to mention the drain on energy resources caused by all the new residents, offices, hotels, ADUs etc etc.
Re the ADUs being a state requirement, I'm no expert but I doubt the rest of the state has the density and congestion that Palo ALto and much of SV has. It's one thing to put an ADU or 5 on your 1 or 5 or 50 acre lot in Oakdale and quite another to stick them on 1/4 acre lots (or less) here.
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:58 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 3:58 pm
@Todd, that's good news, if it were true. I would hate to think my 7000 sq ft lot represented 1% of PA's property tho. If it was that size I would have an estate down here in SPA, with a butler, maids, gardeners, servants, etc. I'm a home alone widower, just wanting peace and quiet in my neighborhood...nothing else.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:01 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Developers make their big money from office space, however the jobs/housing imbalance is threatening their cash cow. ADUs are a way of cramming more housing into current residential neighborhoods, thereby reducing the limitations on their office-space profits.
Big Money is running the City.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:03 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:03 pm
Yeah, and those communities are not going to get to ride the property-value wave with no consequences like they're currently doing for much longer either. The pressure is mounting and the gravy train that Los Altos, Palo Alto, and other communities are riding where you guys impede housing while watching your property values rise from the restricted supply is going to come with a penalty, and rightfully so. This abuse of Prop 13 has resulted in California becoming a majority renters state because of how expensive property has become. Not everything can be a single-family detached home, and you can't maintain a quiet tranquil suburbia in the middle of one of the hottest economic regions on Earth.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:07 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:07 pm
@Gale
You should have bought the rest of the neighborhood, then. Things change, and Palo Alto is not and will never be a quiet little suburb anymore. Everywhere else, if someone doesn't like their city anymore, they move. [Portion removed.]
Community Center
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:08 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:08 pm
In October 2015, the Council unanimously supported having our staff and the PTC make recommendations to expand our ADU program. Unfortunately, due largely to a very high absence rate by PTC certain members last year, the recommendations did not come back to the Council until this last month. In the meantime, the state passed its own new requirements for how cities must accommodate ADU's.
On March 7, the staff brought to the Council well thought proposals that they, the PTC and the public had vetted which addressed the Council directive and the new state requirements. Without any prior notice and after public comment was ended, Fine and Wolbach made a large set of very significant changes to the ordinance and the Council majority voted to support those changes without any meaningful analysis of their implications.
This action was a repeat of a disturbing pattern by this council majority to take far reaching actions at late hours and without thoughtful review by the staff, appointed citizen advisers or the general public. The same majority recently voted to gut all Programs from the new Comprehensive Plan, also without any forewarning to the public. In each case, it has been clear that these actions and their timing were deliberately orchestrated to occur abruptly and outside of our tradition of open and thoughtful public discourse. The Council needs to remove the item from tonight's Consent Calendar and schedule it for a future date after the staff and PTC have had the opportunity to weigh its ramifications.
Despite my concerns about the process and these specific changes to the PTC recommendations, I continue to believe that ADU's should be allowed greater use in our city. My Community Center neighborhood, for example, has wide use of ADU's which are often abutting our alleys. They generally enrich the neighborhood with diversity among residents and they have few negative impacts. However, not every neighborhood has the same design and circumstances. Consequently, these changes need to be considered in ways that are appropriate to neighborhoods and which address impacts.
Registered user
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm
Registered user
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm
"ADUs must be permitted in existing structures in every R-1 lot" is not the same as building a new attached or detached ADU. A JADU or conversion of a garage meets "the purpose is to streamline and expand potential for ADUs where impact is minimal and the existing footprint is not being increased." It's the additions beyond these rules that potentially cause problems.
Palo Alto High School
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:14 pm
People who are posting their opinions pro or con on this issue seem to think that the City of Palo Alto has more choices about complying with the new state law than is actually the case. Actually, the new law is very clear, and it will neither bring the "end of the world as we know it in Palo Alto" nor the cure-all for our housing shortage.
Big picture quote from page 8 of the document previously cited (found here: Web Link ), on the top of page 8:
". . . any local ordinance adopted prior to January 1, 2017 that is not in compliance with the changes to ADU law will be null and void. Until an ordinance is adopted, local governments must apply “state standards” (See Attachment 4 for State Standards checklist). In the absence of a local ordinance complying with ADU law, local review must be limited to “state standards” and cannot include additional requirements such as those in an existing ordinance."
Read the rest of the document! State law will permit options that were not available in the City's ordinance that is now "null and void". It will not open the floodgates to stack and pack designs or take away all the empty parking spaces on residential streets, but it will lead to more options for people who looking for units 1200 sq feet or less, (assuming setbacks can be met). Hopefully the City Council is now aware of what is and is not optional, and hopefully City staff will be able to clarify these issues whenever discussion occurs.
another community
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:16 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:16 pm
YIMBY writes: "Things change, and Palo Alto is not and will never be a quiet little suburb anymore. Everywhere else, if someone doesn't like their city anymore, they move."
If people don't like a city, why do people move to it in the first place? Why move to Palo Alto or any other "quiet little suburb" and then do your best to turn it into an urban area?
Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:22 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:22 pm
The state law does not provide an exception for areas where single family housing properties that are generally smaller than other parts of the state. Here's some of the language.
(4) Any existing ordinance governing the creation of accessory dwelling units by a local agency or any such ordinance adopted by a local agency subsequent to the effective date of the act adding this paragraph shall provide an approval process that includes only ministerial provisions for the approval of accessory dwelling units and shall not include any discretionary processes, provisions, or requirements for those units except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. In the event that a local agency has an existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance that fails to meet the requirements of this subdivision, that ordinance shall be null and void upon the effective date of the act adding this paragraph and that agency shall thereafter apply the standards established in this subdivision for the approval of accessory dwelling units, unless and until the agency adopts an ordinance that complies with this section.
(5) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this subdivision.
(6) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate proposed accessory dwelling units on lots zoned for residential use that contain an existing single-family dwelling. No additional standards, other than those provided in this subdivision, shall be utilized or imposed, except that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner-occupant.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:24 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:24 pm
Because it's in one of the hottest economic regions in the world! It's adjacent to multiple large tech HQs and other start-ups. It's right next to Stanford. It's part of Silicon Valley. That's why.
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:31 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:31 pm
[Post removed.]
Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
The approaches suggested by Sheri Furman and Arthur Keller sound reasonable to me. As I don't live in Palo Alto I will wish you all the best of luck.
Our neighborhood has a fair number of ADUs, including some on our street. The ones I know of are and have been occupied by family members, Stanford/school visitors, and other neighbors looking to rent while work was being done on their homes. So perhaps it will not be so bad as some fear.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:33 pm
@Curmudgeon
And what bad things might those be?
Menlo Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Some posters seemed concerned about houses effectively being turned into hotels?
Downtown North
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
"This action was a repeat of a disturbing pattern by this council majority to take far reaching actions at late hours and without thoughtful review by the staff, appointed citizen advisers or the general public."
Come off it, Burt. You and all seasoned councilwatchers know that is SOP.
Referendum time?
another community
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:38 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Note that the comment posted by “California Law” refers to “existing space,” not new attached or detached ADUs.
The phrase, "..within the existing space" includes areas within a primary home or within an attached or detached accessory structure such as a garage, a carriage house, a pool house, a rear yard studio and similar enclosed structures.
another community
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:51 pm
YIMBY writes: “Because it's in one of the hottest economic regions in the world! It's adjacent to multiple large tech HQs and other start-ups. It's right next to Stanford. It's part of Silicon Valley. That's why.”
Tell us something new. This has been one of the hottest regions since the Varian boys developed the klystron. Since Bill & Dave worked out of their garage. Since Steve & Steve worked out of their garage. While we old-timers liked to think we could change the world of technology, we didn’t have a sense of entitlement that led us to believe we had the right disrupt the quality of life which we – and others – enjoy.
South of Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:53 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 4:53 pm
Gale Johnson describes it well:
the previous CC meeting. I watched that too, and felt it was obviously a rigged, pre-planned stacked deck of speakers, all lined up in advance, in support of ADU's.
I wonder whether they have violated the Brown Act. Assuming they know what it is.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:05 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Do not make decisions about drastically changing the characteristics and quality of our neighborhoods with such a huge large brush stroke impacting our home value and our quality of life. How can this decision be passed without any rules, regulations or protections for neighboring homes. Most of our yards are so small that any additional housing units will hoover over the yards and houses behind and to the sides of the land with the new granny unit. Our yards will no longer have the little privacy we have. The noise of extra neighbors and airbnb's will loft into our windows. STOP!! You must include some protection of the neighbors in this decision.
Please do not change the zoning rules in residential neighborhoods and be creative about building new housing along major streets and transportation hubs.
We should consider all impacted in the community by these far reaching changes.
Barron Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm
Naturally the weekly does not delete another nasty comment about wolbach ( from go easy on wolbach), while deleting comments that go against the weekly current agenda
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm
@History Buff
You guys seem to feel very entitled to freeze the city in place despite only owning a very small piece of it. [Portion removed.] Prop 13 has likely gifted you an unfathomable value on your property, allowing you to sell your place for over a million and move to a less busy residential area with a kings ransom left over. [Portion removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:25 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:25 pm
@Gale Johnson
Well if you missed the point, it's that you seem perfectly comfortable voicing your opinion regarding what others can put in their backyards, so be careful When implying that others dont have the proper "standing" to do the same.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:50 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 5:50 pm
'Infill', one of ABAG's favorite buzz words. ADU's are a strategic way to 'infill' supposed R-1 zoning, making it not so much R-1 like zoning anymore...by design.
You can fight this battle - the gross urbanization of the area - but unfortunately I believe that ship has long since sailed, and is being backed by powerful political forces.
We decided a few years ago to hedge our bets and purchased some property in a nearby tax friendly state. We are currently working with our architect and finalizing our relocation timeline and strategy. I was born and raised in the Bay Area, so this move isn't being undertaken lightly, but in the end it comes down to where we are going to have a better quality of life...and that's no longer here, or anywhere in the Bay Area.
I could write a long list of all the great things about the region. I have loved it here, but I don't love what it's becoming. Some people on these forums vilify people like me, often using pejoratives describe us...which I find telling, really.
Anyway, I hope you all can find a modicum of peace and happiness with the changes that are coming, because they ARE coming, and they aren't working for me.
Peace Out
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:01 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:01 pm
Here it is again, the tragic tale of having to sell your house for millions and move into a custom architected home elsewhere because the big bad Everyone Else Trying To Exist Here were mean by moving here and crowding you. Kudos to you for actually deciding to live somewhere that fits what you're looking for, but self-reflect on the good fortune you seem to be completely ignoring.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:30 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:30 pm
@YIMBY,
You flatter yourself. If I was going to "blame" anyone, it certainly wouldn't be individuals who are moving here or trying to make ends meet here. Any "blame" I might lay would be at a much higher, policy level, probably beginning with Senate Bill 375 and then trickling down from there.
Don't project my statement of fact, to be telling a "tragic tale". I'm not looking for sympathy, quite the opposite, in fact. I am suggesting that those who are unhappy with the changes taking place might want to consider relocating, if that might be an option for them. I found that once the decision to relocate was made, and the property purchased, I spent less time stressing about the changes, and more time looking forward to when I can turn the page and move forward. Purchasing the property was a way to take control of a situation that we felt powerless in...specifically, the rapid changes taking place in the community and region.
Peace Out
Midtown
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:33 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:33 pm
I don't want any more density. It's too crowded here already. Looking forward to a good recession.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:39 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:39 pm
[Post removed.]
East Palo Alto
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:56 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 6:56 pm
If you want to know how Palo Alto will look after building an extra unit on the backyard or getting a converted garage, just come driving around East Palo Alto after 5 pm and you will see cars parked on double lane because there are not parking spots, loud music on weekends and brave people parked in front of your driveway after 9 or 10 pm because they didn't find a spot before going to the party. Around here there are people renting all rooms and garages allowing more than three or four families in one home. If the City does something, it looks like everybody starts a protest! A house should allow just one family, and I think that should be about two to eight people and one or two cars, and each family should live in one unit or parcel, more than that is disorganized!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 17, 2017 at 8:08 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 8:08 pm
If YIMBY is successful at transforming Palo Alto (and Mountain View) into a stack-n-pack ghetto of $300K micro-units he won't want to live here anymore either. It was established in another thread that YIMBY doesn't actually own a "BY" or any other real-estate. YIMBY has no skin in the game so if he doesn't like hell he has yearned for, he will just pick up and leave to pursue the next played-out gold rush.
That being said, YIMBY is not driving the transformation of our built environment. YIMBY is what Lenin called a useful "innocent". The drive to transform R1 neighborhoods is a desperate strategy formulated by California's establishment corporate Democrats to keep the teetering California economy from imploding by allowing their friends in the real-estate industry to liquidate the value stored in R1 neighborhoods.
Mountain View
on Apr 17, 2017 at 8:29 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 8:29 pm
You can't drive up the cost of real-estate to the point that it's practically infeasible for all but a select few high-earners to buy in and then complain that the everyone else complaining about the situation have no skin in the game. You made the game this way!
If you're insinuating that I'm only here to pursue a gold-rush, then I have news for you: I was born and raised in the Bay Area, and I plan to stay here for as long as I can unless, like many other friends and family, price increases finally force me out. Calling me a useful innocent is a distraction from the selfishness of thinking your desire for low-density is more important than the thousands of people being priced out of the area from the unending rise of housing costs and continual under-building of new units.
Palo Verde
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:55 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 10:55 pm
I attended the council meeting tonight, and what I found so ironic was that item 6 on the consent calendar was approved, which reduced the amount per square foot that developers would have been required to contribute to the affordable housing fund. If people are truly concerned about providing low cost housing in Palo Alto, it seems that government subsidized housing is the way to go. A multi-story apartment building on El Camino creates housing at a higher density than ADUs do, and the rent can be controlled. Contrast that with what could potentially happen with ADUs. While some will provide granny units suitable for extended families, human nature is such that many of the units will be rented for whatever the market will bear, and will only be affordable for tech engineers making upwards of $100K a year, or will be rented as AIrB&B units which do nothing to solve the housing problem for local workers.
I find the underlying logic very odd, and wonder who is really driving the agenda behind the scenes.
Barron Park
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:38 pm
on Apr 17, 2017 at 11:38 pm
What was the decision RE: ADUs @ tonight's CC meeting??
Green Acres
on Apr 18, 2017 at 12:50 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 12:50 am
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54 am
@Maryann, I attended also and also found that ironic. I loved how the people claiming ADUs would suddenly and magically make PA affordable were the same ones who were pushing to enact the Fine-Wollbach motion ASAP totally ignored rent control, totally ignored how many people could be shoved into an ADU, etc.
Interesting how the mayor IMMEDIATELY shut down people applauding speakers asking substantive questions and/or criticizing the gamesmanship of the Fine-Wollbach motion but let the ADU-NOW! contingent conduct a stand-up cheering rally!
We deserve better. At least there was a huge turnout.
Green Acres
on Apr 18, 2017 at 1:05 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 1:05 am
[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 1:19 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 1:19 am
First off, what are these issues with parking that you're having in relation to your house? Do you not have a garage or a driveway? I totally get the issues with there being no parking downtown, but I don't at all get what's going on with your residential parking where you'd have to park on the street instead of in what I assume would be the 2-4 spots you'd have with a normal single-family detached house.
Second, it's not about landlords voluntarily giving lower rent. It's about spreading demand across units. One more ADU being rented by someone is one less person competing for a unit on the market and driving up costs. Of course an apartment complex or 10 would be far preferable, but since the Character Of The Neighborhood is far more important than adequate housing in the Bay Area any new units on the market is better than nothing.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 18, 2017 at 3:13 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 3:13 am
Palo Alto Backwards,
Thank you for your report. I understand there is more than one YIMBY.
It is not surprising that they have adopted the Orwellian moniker YIMBY, a disingenuous moniker for people who don't actually have back yards. The Millennial generation has the lowest social trust of any American generation. Why... projection. They know they are intellectually dishonest. They know their friends are intellectually dishonest and manipulative, and they project this dishonesty onto everyone else.
Pew Research Center
% saying most people can be trusted:
Silent Gen-37%
Boomer Gen-40%
Gen X-31%
Millennials-19%
Palo Verde
on Apr 18, 2017 at 8:35 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 8:35 am
Palo Alto Backwoods: I think the people who are touting the fact that ADUs would make rent drop are being disingenuous or don't understand the market forces underlying the higher cost of housing, which is occurring not just in Palo Alto but all over the Bay Area. A similar phenomenon is happening in Seattle, where one of my daughters moved because of high costs here. The solution to low cost housing is to build VERY DENSELY (think 5-10 story apartment buildings which can house many hundreds of persons per acre, not just tens) AND have some governmental control or subsidy so that the rent will not be subject to the open market. This is how cities are able to house so many and it what makes public transportation so efficient, by clustering a large number of people in one area.
Parking will also become a huge issue in certain areas. Where I live, most people have two cars already parked in the driveway because the only extra storage for an Eichler is in the garage (yes, perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to have so much stuff, but that is a different type of social engineering). Because of the frontage there is only space for one car to park on the street in front of one's house. I, too, found the suggestion that we begin parking on our lawns very, ahem, interesting, and something that is usually not characteristic of R-1 zoning.
I support low cost housing, but think that populating smaller lots with ADUs is not the way to go about it.
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 9:39 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 9:39 am
@Ahem
I'm convinced that there's a certain amount of Poe's Law in your posts. If you truly think Millennials are inherently untrustworthy rather than distrusting of institutions then I hope your misperception is corrected at some point.
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 9:45 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 9:45 am
[Post removed.]
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 18, 2017 at 10:02 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 10:02 am
[Post removed.]
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 10:25 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 10:25 am
[Post removed.]
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
[Portion removed.]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the character and ambiance of the community you invest in and contribute to thru ownership, volunteerism and participation. Hold your ground residents! Don't let this social engineering guilt you in to feeling you need to change!
Mountain View
on Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
on Apr 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
[Post removed.]