HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170501plCC701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 5/1/2017
Document dates: 4/12/2017 – 4/19/2017
Set 1 of 4
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:10 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org
has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's
supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Gwen Whittier
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 12, 2017
Castilla has acted in bad faith; it's proposal is grossly out of scale for the
site.
Jesse Kim
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 12, 2017
I believe if they want to expand they should do so elsewhere.
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:10 AM
2
Barbara Davidson
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 09, 2017
This expansion would be detrimental to the neighborhood and it does not
comply with the conditional use permit. Additionally, the school has not
been in compliance with the existing permit. Why was this allowed by the
city?
Devon Cohn
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 04, 2017
If Castilleja wants to grow, they have the option of moving. If they prefer
to honor their long history in this location, they should honor the smaller
size that works in that location.
Cathie Foster
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 03, 2017
I think that the city should hold Castilleja to the CUP enrollment of 415
and by even considering to let them increase to 540 is outrageous. Too
much traffic and disruption for the neighborhood.
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people
around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning
you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,
or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a
response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/19/2017 8:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:mail@changemail.org
Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 8:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:10 more people signed “Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415”
New signatures
Palo Alto City Council – This petition addressed to you on Change.org
has new activity. See progress and respond to the campaign's
supporters.
Enforce the CUP: Keep Castilleja Enrollment at 415
Petition by PNQLnow.org · 10 supporters
10 more people signed
in the last 6 days
RECENT SUPPORTERS
Wenjun Shen
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 19, 2017
They affect the traffic on our street
Jainy Rockwell
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 16, 2017
We have enough traffic as it is now! Why does this school get away with
breaking laws time after time?
View petition activity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/19/2017 8:14 AM
2
Rekha Das
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
Abuse of permit
Roberto Peon
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
For 16 years Castilleja has been violating the terms of their CUP, thus
treating the city and its residents unfairly. The CUP must be enforced if
anyone is to believe that CUPs actually have any force.
Dennis Peery
Palo Alto, CA · Apr 14, 2017
Simply want the city to enforce the CUP
View all 10 supporters
CHANGE.ORG FOR DECISION MAKERS
On Change.org, decision makers like you connect directly with people
around the world to resolve issues. Respond to let the people petitioning
you know you're listening, say whether you agree with their call to action,
or ask them for more information. Learn more.
This notification was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, the address listed as the
decision maker contact by the petition starter. If this is incorrect, please post a
response to let the petition starter know.
Change.org · 548 Market St #29993, San Francisco, CA 94104-5401, USA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dena Seki <denaseki@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:100 Addison Avenue
I saw the Denial of a Request for Waiver of the City's Moratorium on Conversion of Ground Floor Retail for the Property at
100 Addison Avenue. I understand that the expiration of the current interim ordinance in April 30, 2017 will allow a re-evaluation of the appropriateness of ground floor retail at this location.
I think the best use of that location would be to build an apartment building to help address the lack of housing issue in Palo Alto. This would be a great location to zone for apartments. As a neighbor to this location, I am fine with an
apartment building at 100 Addison.
Thank you, Dena and Kent Seki
1028 High Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/13/2017 3:28 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:28 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Council Question: April 17, 2017 council meeting agenda Item 4: ADU Ordinance
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made
by Council Member Fine in regard to the April 17 Consent Calendar: Item 4: ADU Ordinance.
Question #1. Is daylight plane used in all residential zones? Also, are principal‐building
daylight plane requirements appropriate for small backyard units?
Response: Daylight plane is a development standard that exists for all residential zones and
the OS district, as well as some commercial districts. The language in the draft ordinance
uses a modified daylight plane requirement that borrows from the language used for
accessory structures (in the rear yard) and the principle building daylight plane
requirement. The staff believes this hybrid approach best meets the objectives to provide
ADUs within six feet of a side and rear property lines while balancing neighbor expectations
for privacy.
Question #2. on f) remove lot coverage requirement for properties that are no more than
10% below standard lot size. I just want to be sure that this captures every parcel 10% below
standard AND higher. IE we only want lot coverage requirements for the really sub‐standard
lots trying to build an ADU.
Response: As drafted, the ordinance removes the lot coverage requirement for properties
that are substandard by no more than 10% of the standard lot size. ADUs on standard sized
lots and larger, as well as lots substandard by more than the 10% threshold, would count
toward the lot coverage requirement. To implement the standard suggested in the
question requires a modification to the ordinance.
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: ADU Ordinance
Honorable Council Members,
We strongly urge you to pull the ADU ordnance from the consent calendar. A staff analysis of the impacts is essential before rushing into this ordinance. As presently written the ordinance does not seem to require design
review, impacts of lot crowding on neighbors, and increased traffic ,and street parking issues.
Ample time for staff analysis of the impacts and time for publicized public discussion is essential before
embarking on this plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
543 Jackson Drive Palo Alto, CA
Sue Dinwiddie
sued@daise.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove ADU Ordinance from April 17 Consent calendar
Council members:
The proposed ADU Ordinance goes far beyond that the State of California mandates and residents have not had the opportunity for adequate review.
This may be a well-intentioned effort to address the housing shortage but it is deeply flawed and would have
severe negative impacts on our residential neighborhoods for the foreseeable future.
Please remove it from the consent calendar. Establish adequate time and a forum for public review and input.
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:bhusan gupta <bhusan.gupta@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Dear City Council members,
Please remove the staff-written ADU ordinance on the consent calendar for the upcoming city council
meeting. As you do so, you will give we the residents the opportunity to examine how the Palo Alto
ordinance differs (some would say extends) the rules *beyond* what the new state law(s) require.
We are all in agreement that additional housing is a useful goal, but we want to make sure that Palo
Alto implements it correctly with all stakeholders being heard although in a process like this it would
be hard to satisfy everyone.
Regards,
-Bhusan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Rodocker <mmr355@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 1:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council Members:
I respectfully request that the ADU Ordinance be pulled from the 4/17 Consent Calendar and discussed at a future
meeting, scheduled in advance, so that more citizens can attend.
Thank you.
Mary M. Rodocker
355 Iris Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Janet Dafoe <janet.dafoe@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Dear Council,
Perhaps you are not aware of the potential huge impact on our neighborhoods from your ill‐conceived ADU ordinance as
written! If you were I can't believe that you would pass it, not to mention put it on the consent calendar!
This ordinance has the potential for unreviewed second units to be put over‐looking backyards and bathrooms of almost
any house in the city, and to add housing with no provision for extra parking or design review. And the mayor said in his
speech this year that our neighborhoods would be the same in ten years as they are now. That will absolutely certainly
not be the case if you pass this ordinance. Frankly, I am extremely tired of hearing politicians promise things and do
something else. In the current political climate, I would think that Palo Alto might be a haven from such shenanigans.
I strongly request that you remove this ADU ordinance from the consent calendar, allow public comment, and require an
assessment of the impacts by the city staff.
This ordinance has the potential for really serious negative consequences on the neighborhoods of our city. I promise
you, I will actively campaign against anyone who votes for it and this present form when they are up for reelection.
I regret I am unlikely to be able to attend the council meeting to protest this being on the consent calendar, as I must be
home caring for my invalid son. Just know that I will have my TV on and watch what you do and say on this topic if I can't
be there.
My husband, Ronald W Davis, PhD, also supports this message.
Sincerely,
________________
Janet L. Dafoe, PhD
Ronald W. Davis, PhD
Kingsley Ave., Palo Alto
Please especially note my tagline:
"Let us put our minds together and see what world we can make for our children."‐‐‐Sitting Bull.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hooray For ADUs!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and Honorable Council Members,
As a 10-year downtown resident, I want to urge your support of the ADU ordinance on Monday. I
have voiced my support before and wanted to reiterate again! Allowing ADUs is an economic, environmental, social justice, and humanitarian issue. It will decrease
our ridiculous jobs/housing imbalance, strengthen our retail areas and tax base, and decrease GHG
and pollutant emissions from cars through more efficient use of existing residential areas. Residents
win, not the developers. Above all it enables us to continue nurturing the vibrant and diverse community already here in the city we call home.
Thank you,
Amie Ashton
236 Middlefield Road
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:15 PM
To:Council, City; dsfna@yahoogroups.com; Crescent Park PA
Subject:ADU
Dear City Council Members -
Who and why did someone come up with almost NO rules and regulations for ADU’s - and not even have public discussion. Does the right and left hand have any connection. Last night I went to a meeting where the
City is paying for an extensive study to come up with workable guidelines for rehab/remodel/rebuild Eichler
homes and properties.
There will so much flack for this, you might as well put this motion aside and save your self time and wasted money to continue with this concept. What the Eichler study will show (and you can check with the
architectural firm you hired) as to what was important…… consensus from the many people present: Privacy,
MCM or modern look that fit into Eichler neighborhoods, no second story and direction for changing an
existing Eichler. There will be plenty of community effort put into these guidelines and no one wants to waste
their time. I don’t think the feedback will be less for those on standard lots (non-Eichlers) where neighbors will react to the possibility of a small two story separate unit, when their house is one story.
In Palo Alto, even if one doesn’t like Eichlers - there are over 1000 such homes and you can’t just run us over
without a backlash. Hopefully you will rethink your entire ADU process. How can there be setbacks, site lines,
rules and reg for building a house and almost none for putting an addition unit on the same property and most of the Eichlers are on standard size lots.
At the risk of being very NON-PC, what are you thinking?
Thank you Lenore Cymes
Eichler Owner
Green Gables
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Michael Griffin <jazzbuff@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pull from Consent Calendar: Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance...
Council Members: please pull from 4/17 Consent Calendar, the Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance. This controversial
item deserves additional public input/discussion. As written, the ordinance has strong potential to cause unintended
consequences of negative impacts to R‐1 districts, as well as city‐wide ramifications. Thank you for allowing more citizen
participation in this important issue.
D. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Helen Walter <helenwalter@msn.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request
Request - ADU ordinance be pulled from 4-17 consent calendar and discussed at a
future scheduled in advance City Council meeting.
IMPORTANT
Helen Walter
2581 Park Blvd. Y105
Palo Alto CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Ronald Chun <Ron_Chun@msn.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Second Dwelling Units for Consent Calendar - Objection
Objection to the Consent Calendar for 2nd Dwelling Units Option
Members of the City Council and President of the Council;
I am writing to advise you of my objection to the approval of the ordinance to allow second dwelling units on any lot on single
family residential neighborhoods including undersized lots.
At the State of City Address on February 8, Mayor Scharff said, "Twenty years from now, your single‐family neighborhood will
look like it does right now.” https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/02/08/2017‐state‐of‐the‐city‐address
With these changes, our single family residential neighborhoods could become neighborhoods of duplexes or mixed
housing.
In San Francisco, the city turned a blind eye to in‐law units and second dwelling units. This blind eye devastated
neighborhoods throughout the city. It created dramatic parking problems (where garages were turned into living units putting
all cars onto the neighborhood streets). It created safety issues ‐ living spaces that did not comply with city standards for
safety including ADA accessibility. It created a host of landlord/tenant issues.
This approval winds up creating dangerous housing conditions for the property owner, the adjacent properties, the
neighborhoods and traffic. This item must be pulled and the potential effects of these proposals analyzed for public
discussion in the future.
As I understand, the legislation does not provide protections for Eichler homes. A 14‐foot tall second dwelling unit can be
placed 6 feet from the rear lot line overlooking your backyard and looking into adjacent homes.
There is no design review allowed, not even for accessory dwelling units on the second floor. This means no Individual
Review for these additions looking into adjacent bedrooms and bathrooms.
No covered parking is required for any lot with an accessory dwelling unit anywhere in Palo Alto.
Garages can be replaced by a dwelling unit, with the driveway counting as the replacement parking.
Second dwelling units would be allowed on undersized lots that are common in College Terrace and Ventura Neighborhoods,
including single family residential (R‐1) and R2 and RMD lots that are now too small for a second dwelling unit.
Although rental of an accessory dwelling unit for periods of less than 30 days is not allowed, Palo Alto does not have a way to
enforce that rule. There is no general AirBNB ordinance. This requires additional governmental regulation and enforcement
and there is no budget nor comprehensive plan to do so.
Furthermore, the implementation of such a plan may be in violation of the EIR requirements because of its drastic impact
throughout the neighborhoods.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
11
I respectfully request that the ADU ordinance must be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled for public
discussion with a staff analysis of the impacts.
Ronald Chun, Esq. & CPA
Palo Alto Orchards
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn mayo <marilynmayo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:42 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
It is important to remove the ADU Ordinance from the 4/17 City Council Consent
Calendar & reschedule such a vital issue to a later date.
Public discussion is essential as we go forward to provide much-needed housing. The
range of concerns range from parking, size, proximity to neighbor property lines, &
potential airbnb rentals.
Thank you, Marilyn Mayo 404 Oxford Ave Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Andrea Smith <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Second Dwelling Units
The ADU ordinance must be pulled from the consent calendar n April 17 and rescheduled for public
discussion with a staff analysis of the impacts.
Andrea Smith
Walter Hays Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:33 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Dear Council members,
I'm writing to request that you remove the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar and schedule it for a vote only after public input and full discussion. This well-meaning-sounding ordinance has serious implications for
the quality of life in Palo Alto. Unless we have an opportunity for an open discussion, we will be left with the
results of free for all building with very little oversight.
--Joanne Koltnow
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Ellin Klor <ellinklor@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Concern about Second Dwelling Ordinance
We would like to express our concern about the current wording of the ADU ordinance that allows these units to be built
on properties of any size in residential areas without design review from the City of Palo Alto and no regulation of their occupancy. While we recognize the critical need for more housing in Palo Alto, this lack of oversight will lead to
neighborhood conflict, overcrowding, and further strains on parking availability for residents.
We ask that the ADU ordinance be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled for public discussion with a staff analysis of its impact. While you may be our elected officials, that does not give you the license to move on a measure
that has such great potential for disruption of our neighborhoods without adequate consideration and input from the public.
Our home is on a substandard size lot with PA Housing Corp apartments looming over our backyard, so we speak from experience vis-a-vis lack of privacy and parking issues.
Ellin Klor & John (Hal) Jerman
3056 Ramona St
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 7:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pull ADU item from Consent & reschedule
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the Council:
The Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance on your Consent Calendar will have major impacts in every neighborhood in Palo
Alto. Please pull it from the Consent Calendar and reschedule it at a meeting when the public can have sufficient
advance notice. Sincerely, Emily Renzel
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Pnr21 <pnr21@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Pull ADU Ordinance from April 17 consent calendar
Dear Council members,
While I support the relaxation of rules regarding construction of ADU's, I don't believe there has been adequate
discussion and consideration given to the details of the current ordinance. It is not well thought out and is too broad.
It is definitely in need of further refinement and discussion. I strongly urge you to remove it from the consent calendar
and schedule it for a future meeting with public comment and input from the community.
Sincerely,
Peter Rosenthal
Crescent Park
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:38 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Beth Gmail <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ordinance on ADU's
Dear Mayor Scharf and City Council members,
I am writing you from Kyoto, Japan because I have just learned that the Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling units is on the
consent calendar for the City Council meeting which is scheduled for April 17. I was shocked that an ordinance of this
significance was put on the consent calendar leaving no opportunity for informing the public and for discussion. Please
pull it from the consent calendar. The proposed changes the Ordinance authorizes, if implemented, can significantly
change the quality of life in Palo Alto. People need at least to be informed about what is proposed and have an
opportunity to respond.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:bhusan gupta <bhusan.gupta@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 6:16 PM
To:Norman Beamer; Council, City; crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com
Subject:Re: [CPNA] ADUs
I completely agree with you. The Wolbach/Fine changes have not been properly vetted even if Fine says that
they have been. It would be doing this city a disservice if those late night "modifications" don't see the light of
the day with a healthy, respectful and vigorous debate.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:03 PM 'Norman Beamer' via Crescent Park PA <crescent-park-
pa@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Here is what the high density advocates are sending around in response to my prior email regarding ADUs:
“ADUs in Palo Alto are 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.
There is a concerted effort to block the ADU ordinance coming before council despite popularity among the
community.”
What is not mentioned is that all this comes at the expense of the type of R1 residential neighborhoods that
many people do not want turned into something in the nature of R2 zoning. And don’t forget that many ADUs
will be used for AirBnB. There are those who argue that anyone who opposes higher density is selfish, and
should move out of the way to allow progress. If you peer beyond that rhetoric, you will see the developers
pulling the strings.
There are obviously pluses and minuses to relaxing the ADU requirements – but at least shouldn’t all this be
discussed in the open rather than rammed through without discussion? (I’m referring to the additional
provisions that were added at the last minute by councilmembers Wolbach and Fine that go beyond the State
Law requirements, as discussed previously.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-
pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
2
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent-park-pa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- Regards, -Bhusan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:55 PM
To:maria cristina urruela
Cc:Council, City; dsfna@yahoogroups.com dsfna@yahoogroups.com; Crescent Park PA
Subject:Re: [CPNA] ADU
Maria
These questions need to be resolved prior to approving the regulations, not after a vote. Then it is to late. I
wouldn’t be 100% against it, but what I understand stands as the “regulations” rushed through - I would love to get my idea of a good ADU, but that won’t happen…... only it doesn’t make what is being rushed through at all acceptable.
Txs for writing.
Lenore
On Apr 13, 2017, at 2:11 PM, maria cristina urruela <murruela_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear neighbors,
Please review the City of Palo Alto's page with the regulations update before panicking:
Accessory Dwelling Units Regulations Update - City of Palo Alto
Accessory Dwelling Units Regulations
Update - City of Palo Alto
I personally am very much in favor of granny units and think we can brainstorm work together to solve potential problems (parking, absentee tenants, etc.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:43 PM
To:maria cristina urruela; Lenore Cymes; Council, City; dsfna@yahoogroups.com; Crescent
Park PA
Subject:Re: [CPNA] ADU
This web page does not show the extra last minute changes that were added to the ordinance without meaningful discussion and which are of concern because they have aggressive additional densification consequences.
From: 'maria cristina urruela' via Crescent Park PA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>
To: Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>; "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; "dsfna@yahoogroups.com" <dsfna@yahoogroups.com>; Crescent Park PA <crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CPNA] ADU
Dear neighbors,
Please review the City of Palo Alto's page with the regulations update before panicking:
Accessory Dwelling Units Regulations Update - City of Palo Alto
Accessory Dwelling Units Regulations
Update - City of Palo Alto
I personally am very much in favor of granny units and think we can brainstorm work together to solve potential problems (parking, absentee tenants, etc.)
Best,
Maria Cristina
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
6
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA"
group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent-park-pa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:57 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com
Subject:RE: [CPNA] New Ordinance re Second Dwelling Units
ooops - of course that should have been “no way to OVERESTIMATE real estate greed”!
Ellen
From: Ellen Smith [mailto:ef44smith@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:40 AM
To: 'Palo Alto City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: 'crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com' <crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CPNA] New Ordinance re Second Dwelling Units
Although I generally favor the expansion of housing in Palo Alto, I must concur with Tom Rindfleisch’s concerns. There is no way to underestimate real estate greed in this area. How can neighborhoods be protected
from the scenario Tom describes: a single family residence is bought to be used as a rental property and can be
expanded into two units? We have already read about properties being rented to groups of adults, all of whom
are likely to have cars, and who are less likely than families to be invested in the neighborhood.
We must not compound the refusal to deal with parking that has created so many problems for workers and
residents alike in many parts of Palo Alto. Other questions about sight lines and access also deserve more
attention.
Ellen Smith
1469 Dana Ave.
From: crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com [mailto:crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of TC Rindfleisch
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:58 AM
To: Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: crescent‐park‐pa@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [CPNA] New Ordinance re Second Dwelling Units
On 4/13/2017 9:54 AM, 'Norman Beamer' via Crescent Park PA wrote:
There is a new ordinance coming before City Council that has the potential to make a significant impact on Crescent Park... On Monday, April 17, the City Council has on the consent calendar
the approval of an ordinance to allow second dwelling units (formally called Accessory Dwelling
Units or Junior Dwelling Units and informally called “Granny Units”) on any lot on single
family residential neighborhoods...
No covered parking is required for any lot with an accessory dwelling unit anywhere in Palo Alto. State law does not require Palo Alto to eliminate parking requirements for second dwelling
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:40 AM
8
units in most of Crescent Park. (One might ask if those who are behind this idea are aware of the
parking problems in much of Crescent Park)...
Dear City Council Members, Norm et al., Parking effects from these units is (and will be) a HUGE problem! I live on a cul-de-sac across from Eleanor Pardee park and the house at the end of our street has had a “Granny
Unit” for years. We had no problems until recently because the owner had one car and the renter used a bicycle
most of the time. This house sold recently and is now owned by a realtor who doesn't live there and who has
rented out the house AND the Granny Unit. Now we have four large vehicles that need to park.
The property has a short, narrow driveway that can fit only one vehicle. The others are on the street. Initially the new renters tried to park around the circle at the terminus of the cul-de-sac, which, besides being unsightly,
blocked the street for any trash pick-up vehicles. GreenWaste left notes on the cars to keep the street clear, so
now they are parking all over the rest of the short street.
Our neighborhood has been very quiet and congenial, with everyone either parking their vehicles in their
garages or driveways, and NEVER in front of other people's houses. I realize that control of street parking in front of one's house is not a right under the law, but the principles of neighborliness and ethics make for
reasonable rules of behavior that serve the benefit of the neighborhood. I think the character of our
neighborhoods will change DRAMATICALLY if everyone has a Granny Unit built.
I vote for a much more careful consideration of this well-intentioned but flawed idea.
Tom R.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crescent Park PA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crescent-park-
pa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crescent-park-pa@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crescent-park-pa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:bhusan gupta <bhusan.gupta@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:52 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: ADU ordinance
Adrian,
It's exactly those council-guided changes that I want to understand in better detail. I was ok with the
suggestions that came out of the PTC process but did not understand that the council made what
some might call significant changes to the recommendations. Those changes have not been
adequately vetted in contradiction to your earlier claims about the public process on the new
regulations on ADUs.
Regards,
-Bhusan
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Thanks Bhusan,
The ordinance we passed includes the state requirements, and makes a few more on top of that. The major
changes council added include:
‐enable ADUs in all standard‐size residential lots (instead of only the largest lots)
‐remove parking requirements for ADUs
‐prohibit short‐term rentals in ADUs (we need to figure out how to enforce this)
‐design changes allowing homeowners to have more flexibility
The PTC flagged many of these as policies that currently prohibit Palo Altans from building ADUs. The staff
report lists other changes. My guiding principle was to give a broader number of Palo Altans the ability to
create an ADU on their property, and to do in a way that fits our community. I think this ordinance does it,
and we'll be looking at it again in a year.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:41 AM
2
Regards,
Adrian
From: bhusan gupta <bhusan.gupta@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:15:19 PM
To: Fine, Adrian
Subject: Re: ADU ordinance
Adrian,
Thanks for replying. The issue that I want to understand is where the PA ordinance differs in form
and substance from the requirements of the new-ish state law regarding ADU's. I have been
following the discussion on ADUs for a while (unable to attend the council meetings unfortunately)
but was somewhat caught off-guard by the reports of significant differences in what PA will pass and
what the state law requires. All I am looking for is a factual summary of the differences between the
two.
Regards,
-Bhusan
Regards, -Bhusan
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hi Bhusan,
Thanks for writing. While I respect your desire to attend and keep working on this item (and to make that a
possibility for others), the ADU issue went through the wringer and has been informed by extensive
community input. I am not going to support pulling this item.
The ADU item began in October of 2015 with a colleagues memo at City Council, had at least two lengthy
discussions at the Planning and Transportation Commission, and came to Council on March 6 of this year
with a 3‐hour+ discussion finishing in a vote of 6‐2‐1 approving the changes. The public attended and
commented at all of these sessions.
Is there something specific about the changes that are of concern to you?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:41 AM
3
Regards
Adrian
From: bhusan gupta <bhusan.gupta@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:46:11 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: ADU ordinance
Dear City Council members,
Please remove the staff-written ADU ordinance on the consent calendar for the upcoming city
council meeting. As you do so, you will give we the residents the opportunity to examine how the
Palo Alto ordinance differs (some would say extends) the rules *beyond* what the new state law(s)
require. We are all in agreement that additional housing is a useful goal, but we want to make sure
that Palo Alto implements it correctly with all stakeholders being heard although in a process like
this it would be hard to satisfy everyone.
Regards,
-Bhusan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeffrey Salzman <jsalzman3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 8:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: ADU Ordinance Suggestions
March 6, 2017 Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Re: Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members,
I urge the council to reaffirm its action of March 7, 2017 to liberalize the city’s ADU ordinance. I believe that
the March 7 vote will be a small, but excellent first step in fulfilling the city’s housing needs, especially for less
expensive, smaller units that will help public workers and other moderate income people live in our
city. Council member Filseth expressed this succinctly when he said on March 7 that this is a logical way to
add housing.
Please ignore the exaggerated and deceptive arguments of opponents. They are, at best, shortsighted.
Please be a part of the solution.
Jeffrey Salzman 4082 Orme St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
jsalzman3@gmail.com 650-856-6260;p cell 650-776-1152
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 6:49 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Stump, Molly
Subject:4-17-17 City Council Item # 4: ADUs
April 17, 2017
Dear Council Members,
My husband and I are parents of a son with severe disabilities who lives at home with us. We want
to build an ADU to be near him when we can no longer personally care for him. We appreciate the
direction the State and the City have taken in making it easier to build ADUs.
We are concerned, however, about our City’s current proposed ordinances regarding ADUs. Not
whether they are good or bad but that neighbors feel they had no input in the version that has its
first reading today.
From programs and events to parks and other amenities to Know Your Neighbors grants, one of our
City’s values is to build community. We are grateful that we have the opportunity to build an ADU
but not at the expense of anger, resentment or hostility from our neighbors. We know we will get to
build an ADU because the State mandates it. It is up to the City to see that its implementation
does not break those neighborly bonds that we all cherish.
I propose adaptive policy-making be considered for this issue. As you probably know, adaptive
policy-making takes into account response to multiple scenarios. “By setting predefined thresholds
[e.g., once a street has reached a certain level of parking], including an appropriate response policy,
the necessary policy will only be activated once these thresholds are passed. Depending on the
circumstances, different policies will be needed. Several policies are kept in stock to cater to all
realistically conceivable cases.” [1]
Whether adaptive policy-making is used or not, I believe we need buy-in from the neighbors for the
successful implementation of this program. Success will not only be measured by the number of
units built but by the strengthening of our community ties. I therefore request that this item be
pulled from the consent calendar and that all proposals regarding ADUs be fully vetted by staff and
residents before being approved by City Council.
Thank you for considering my suggestion,
Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.
[1] Transportation Resilience - Adaptation to Climate Change, 2016, page 62.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 8:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Upcoming Agenda Item re ADU
I am writing to urge you to take the ADU Ordinance matter off the consent calendar. As is, this is on the path to
becoming a good idea done badly. Any issue that has the potential to significantly impact density, quality of
life, safety, and property values warrants public input and robust and open Council discussion.
I also urge you to not take the Staff suggestion that you hear the ADU matter tonight; better to hear this when it
is properly agendized. The public is more likely to be with you if this matter is presented in a fair and open
manner.
I would also point out that one lesson learned from January 30 is that, regardless of the issue, late night/early
morning decisions are not advisable b/c they are made with weary minds. No point in inviting trouble.
Annette Portello Ross
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:David <dkwoh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:The ADU ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
Per the ADU Ordinance, it is my understanding that the Council has gone quite beyond the compliance with the state
law requirements, as recommended by the city staff. I am particularly concerned that the Council is planning to wrap
this up on Monday night instead of rescheduling the event to give more time to allow input from the public. On
something as momentous as ADU which can seriously change the quality of our lives in this town, I am getting the
distinct feeling that this flawed ADU ordinance is being rammed down our throat.
In the city of Palo Alto, the lots are small and the houses are already densely packed. Relaxing rules to allow ADU the
way it has been proposed will undoubtedly aggravate the already dense housing problem, adversely affect the look‐and‐
feel of our neighborhood, and deprecate our quality of life. The parking problem will further deteriorate on top of the
ever encroaching RPP mess. The sprouting of uncontrolled Airbnb is particularly worrisome.
I urge the Council to please reschedule the ADU matter in order to allow this matter to be vetted thoroughly with the
public.
David Kwoh
1140 Lincoln Ave, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:John and Mary Schaefer <jmschaefer8@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and the Palo Alto City Council,
I am deeply concerned about your rapid resolve to adopt the Accessory Dwelling Units Proposal. In my review of notes
and comments about the ADU recommendations by the City Council included in the e‐mails from the city of Palo Alto
and within our Crescent Park Neighborhood Association membership has caused me to be concerned about the casual
way it will be implemented. I feel there is no singular answer for all the special neighborhoods. We have homes on
large lots, We have modest homes on modest lots and we have Eiichler Neighborhoods with home on limited size lots.
We also have parking problems in parts of our community. There is no singular way to approach a general solution with
these demographics.
I can speak informatively of the unique Eichler Developments in this city. A majority of the lots are small, about 8000
sq.ft, though the inside corner lots can be quite large. The homes are oriented to the back yard. Some of these
neighborhoods are restricted with a Single Story Overlay. Also, some of these neighborhoods are in the flood plane and
any new additions will have to be put on foundations that will add 1 to 4 feet in height. That will add to the elevation of
a 14’ high building to raise up to 18’ at the 6’ setback from the property line. Quite a different from the 9’ silhouette.
Eichler's are designed with love of light which is enhanced by the large windows. The joy of privacy is paramount. This
seems to be the current reason why the Palo Alto City Council is presently discussing the adaption of zoning limitations
for remodeling or rebuilding homes in the multiple Eichler neighborhoods within the City.
A thoughtful study would be paramount to implementing an Accessory Dwelling Unit Proposal.
Respectively,
Mary Carey Schaefer
742 De Soto Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 327‐3207
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Carla Carvalho <ccarvalho98@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:42 PM
To:Council, City; John Ratliff
Subject:ADUs
Dear Council Members,
I write you as a neighbor who does support ADUs, implemented correctly. Our lot is situated as such that we
are among the few that meet the current guidelines for building a small ADU for my Mom.
However, Council's current proposals for ADUs, and the way in which it is being handled is nothing short of
egregious. Duplicity and deceit are words that come to mind. Council should be advised that attempts to pull
the wool over the neighbors' eyes has not resulted in fruitful outcomes in recent events. In fact, I suggest that
moving forward in such an opaque fashion with regard to ADUs will only lead to further scrutiny of those
Council Members themselves rather than success in moving along the ADU agenda.
The conflicting priorities of finding additional (affordable) housing and "growth at all costs" for Palo Alto needs
to be moderated. There is an appropriate way to implement these new rules, taking into consideration
affordability and practicality for neighbors ‐ not lining the pockets of absentee homeowners or corporations.
Please pull the ADU issue from the consent calendar immediately! Let's have a mature discussion about this
topic in the appropriate setting.
Sincerely,
Carla M. Carvalho
1924 Edgewood Drive
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:42 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Dear Council Members,
I'm in favor of pulling the ADU item from the consent calendar on Monday April 17th and rescheduling it for a later date.
The proposed changes by Wolbach/Fine need to be thoroughly analyzed by staff and/or PTC prior to finalizing the
ordinance.
As well, the motion was made long after public comment was terminated thereby cutting off any comments from the
public. The PTC hadn't even seen the motion ‐ one that is so very different from that which is agendized, that your city
attorney stated that you must have a new first reading on it! And it appears that you even want to have this matter
decided tonight ‐ something that isn't even in the agenda notice for your meeting which would seem to be a Brown Act
issue.
ADU's are a serious subject requiring serious due diligence.
Thank you
Mary G.
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sam and Ida Holmes <isholmes@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Proposed Zoning Change on April 17.
Dear City Council,
Please do not approve or vote on the proposed change to city zoning that will allow additional housing units to be build
on all R‐1 lots and also change some of the current zoning restrictions such as set backs, etc. This drastic change to
current zoning needs public discussion because it could drastically change the character of Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Sam and Ida Holmes
4144 Maybell Way
Palo Alto, Ca 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Irene Blumenkranz <irene@blumenkranzlaw.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:accessory dwelling
As a resident of Palo alto I am very much in favor of accessory dwelling units but believe they need to be
controlled. I understand that there have been new additions and exceptions made to these regulations
since community discussion was had. Rather than enumerate the issues here I would request pulling the
item from the Consent Calendar and the vote be delayed to allow community input on the new
added aspects of the regulation.
Thank you.
Irene Blumenkranz
2441 Greer Road Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.493.5518
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Ingrid Totic <ingridtotic@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 8:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:give ADU ordinance more time and review
As a homeowner I'm concerned about changes to the ADU ordinance that happened without proper review and public
comment. Although I am in favor of granny units especially in an are with such high housing costs, and I do support higher density housing in general for Palo Alto, I am concerned about significant changes being made to any guidelines of this
type without proper oversight, review and input from the public.
Please delay the council's vote on the ADU ordinance until that can happen.
Ingrid Totic 743 Holly Oak Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Kathryn Mouton <kate@moutons.org>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 8:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADA units Please do a better job
1) Nothing should ever be put into rules without public comment. It makes you look really sleazy.
2) Rules should not be made without taking the time and effort to say how they will be enforced. Short term
rentals are not a good idea for a neighborhood. You don’t know who your neighbors are, and the renters have
no reason to follow even the most basic neighborhood expectations of sound, parking or trash.
3) Adding living units without addressing the parking problems is lazy. My street has too much parking without
ADA units. People are using their garages for storage, extra bedroom/living areas, and more houses have more
cars than can fit in their driveways.
4) Why make a height limit rule, and then another rule which ignores the height?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:DuBois, Tom
Subject:ADU/JADU discussion on monday 04/17/2017
Dear City Council,
tomorrow council wants to change the definition of what an R1 lot means in Palo Alto.
I have several concerns to push this through without properly addressing the following issues: - allowing a 2nd dwelling on an R1 lot within six feet of any rear and side fence line completely alters the
definition of an R1 lot; many people like the quietness and privacy of R1 neighborhoods, others prefer multiple
unit neighborhoods; changing drastically the meaning (in this case) of the R1 designation has a severe impact
on the quality of life of every resident in town wherever he or she bought an R1 lot; - no design review required for a 2nd dwelling?
- no parking requirement for a 2nd dwelling?
- what about the total sqft lot coverage? with that 2nd dwelling, will that also increase or if you have a 2nd dwelling, will the 1st dwelling coverage be reduced?
- currently we have 20 ft setback for the first dwelling, and now we allow 6 feet setback for a potentially 2 story
building? - as of today (without any legalized 2nd dwelling), many property owners of an R1 lot rent already
the basement or one of 2 floors for rental income. all of this is illegal. the city does not have any credible
enforcement on that. how does the city plan to enforce the 2nd dwelling units? or are they meant to be "rental"
units? what is the exact purpose of the 2nd dwelling unit? originally they were meant to be "granny units", but what is it in your plan?
- with no more parking requirements on the property, neighborhoods will be flooded with even more cars - this
time from residents and their tenants - in addition to the business permits that are sold in the neighborhoods; we
are struggling with parking in quiet residential neighborhoods, and this will definitely be completely counter productive to get the parking mess under control;
- traffic will increase even more
- there were some amendments made to the ADUs by Fine/Wolbach on March 7, which were not followed by public discussion. before proceeding, these have to be properly studied and analyzed first.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
6
I request that city council does NOT proceed tomorrow night approving these ADUs in a rush. I request the
ADU ordinance to be pulled from the April 17 consent calendar and be discussed with the required public input
and opportunity is given for public input at a future city council meeting.
there are way too many unanswered questions and many implications that are not yet properly understood.
Wolfgang Dueregger
Evergreen Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Vered Karti Shemtov <veredshemtov@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
I am writing to voice my concerns regarding the Second Dwelling Units in Palo Alto and to
request that the ADU ordinance be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled for
public discussion with a staff analysis of the impacts.
The impacts on our community may be significant: from loss of privacy, to parking issues,
increase in population without sufficient planning and a major change in the very nature of
our community. Our single family residential neighborhoods could become neighborhoods of
duplexes. This item must be pulled and the potential effects of these proposals analyzed for
public discussion in the future. It is a major shift that requires much more thinking, more
discussions and the approval and support of the majority of the people that own houses
and/or leave in our neighborhood.
Vered Shemtov
Jackson Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Second unit housing on exisitn residential property
Council Members:
In 55 years as a resident and homeowner In Palo Alto, I cannot recall a single instant when individual council members deliberately bypassed the established method of creating major new regulations regarding housing or any other community item of interest. Yet without proper public notice,
Council Members Wolbach and Fine have done just that, by setting up a proposal to allow second
housing units to be built on existing RI lots, even on lots as small at 5,000 sqft. and placing this on the
consent calendar. If such an ordinance is approved by the entire Council, chaos will ensue. While there may some situations where a second unit may be an acceptable option, to allow this without ANY OVERSIGHT AT ALL, is to set up dangerous precedence for all governance matters that will
face our city , or which are now facing our city. Wolbach and Fine have just demonstrated they utterly
lack fitness and integrity to serve on our council. If a movement materializes to remove them from
the council, I will strongly support that effort. Jeanne and I strongly urge the remaining council members with common sense and integrity, to pull
this outrageous proposal from the consent calendar, and set up a proper procedure for adequate and
strong review by the full council in open public meetings, and other means typically used to involve
the voters in such an important decision. Sincerely
Richard C. and Jeanne M. Placone
601 Chimalus Drive Palo Alto, 94306
PS. I checked my calendar to be sure this was not some sort of bizzare April Fool's joke. Trust me,
Palo Alto residents are not fools.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Apolak Borthakur <apolak_borthakur@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
City council ‐ writing to let you know that I strongly oppose Fine and Wolbach's changes allowing ADUs to be built on
small lots. For that matter, I oppose ADUs in general. It will lead to further deterioration of the already bad traffic and
congestion issues in Palo Alto. I implore the council to think more about preserving the quality of life in Palo Alto and
care less about developer interests.
Thanks for your consideration,
Apolak.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Manjun Martin <paul.manjun@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Hello City Council:
I read only through “Nextdoor” that a new ADU guidance was passed that does not require review or additional
parking.
I live on Addison Avenue and I’m constantly struggling to keep people from parking overnight in the street in front of
our house. I recently had someone in a VW van living in their van and when I called police was told; “City of Palo Alto
does not prohibit people parking overnight or living in vehicles in residential areas.” This is CRAZY and dangerous. We
make a very concerted effort to keep our garage clean, with absolute minimum of clutter and part our cars inside the
garage so the streets can be left free for guests, bicycles, traffic,…
Adding ADU without review and without parking is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Instead I’d like to see ALL of Palo
Alto City adopt parking ordinance to prohibit parking between 1AM and 3AM on any residential street without resident
permit and resident permits need to be capped. Today only some streets in Crescent park and few other neighborhoods
have restrictions on overnight parking.
Sincerely,
Paul S. Martin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Angelica Volterra <avolterra@batnet.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 6:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request to Have the ADU Ordinance Pulled from the Consent Calendar and
Rescheduled
Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I reside in an Eichler home in the Duveneck / St. Francis / Green Gables neighborhood of Palo Alto.
I request that the ADU Ordinance be pulled from the Monday, April 17, 2017 Consent Calendar and rescheduled after Staff
and the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission have properly and thoroughly analyzed the Ordinance.
Sincerely,
Angelica Volterra
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Robin Wright <waywright@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rescheduled ADU Ordinance Review
I am writing to request that you pull the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance from the Consent Calendar and reschedule it
after staff or PTC review of the effects of the Wolbach‐Fine changes.
Thank you.
‐ Robin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:Lester D Ezrati <lezrati@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 5:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:accessory dwelling units
Dear City Council,
I am writing to ask you to pull the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance from the Consent
Calendar and reschedule it after staff or PTC review of the effects of the Wolbach-Fine
changes. Continue with this at your peril. The recall election will be very costly.
Lester Ezrati
351 Stanford Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:n.stein@juno.com
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance
City Council:
Please pull the Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance from the Agenda as it has not been publicly discussed. I do not believe there is support for this Ordinance as it now stands. It is a drastic change from what is now
allowed in R-1 zones. This Ordinance would effectively change all our R-1 zones to R-2 zones. There needs to
be more discussion and public input.
I am not opposed to these units per se, but I believe restrictions are needed. I am concerned about them being used as Airb&b short term rentals or as large boarding houses. In addition, Palo Alto Code Enforcement
currently maintains that there are no restrictions on how many tenants can occupy a R-1 house. A neighbor can
rent out many bunk beds, cots, sofas, mats on the floor, to as many people as they want. Furthermore, there are
no restrictions on how many cars a neighbor can have. This creates problems for other neighbors and large
boarding houses are not compatible with R-1 zoning, but currently Code Enforcement says they have no codes to deal with these problems. Until the city creates codes to deal with these current problems, the city should not
approve of new units in the backyards.
Regards, Nancy Steinbach
4267 Pomona Avenue
____________________________________________________________
The Easiest Way To Shed Deep Fat?
3 Harmful Foods
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/58f4053c23f1a53c1a5ast01vuc
Right-click download help protecOutlook prautomatic dthi s pi ctu reIn ternet.Sponsored
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:danrmahoney@gmail.com on behalf of Dan Mahoney <dan@mahoney.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ordinance on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in Palo Alto
Dear Mayor Scharff ,
I'm writing to ask you to pull this Ordinance off the Consent Calendar for Monday and reschedule discussion to a future date at a reasonable time so as to engage ALL residents who wish to attend. I will not be able to attend on Monday and would like to be able to express my concerns.
Thank you
Dan Mahoney
2267 Tasso St
-- Dan Mahoney
dan@mahoney.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:43 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rita Vrhel; Keller, Arthur; Glanckopf, Annette
Subject:Need public discussion of ADU ordinance
I applaud the goal of the current ADU ordinance to increase housing. However, it is being rushed
through without full consideration for mitigating the negative impacts on existing residents. Pulling the
current proposed ordinance from the consent calendar and conducting public discussion of it and
tuning some of the changes to mitigate the negative impacts on residents will be appreciated by the
residents and reflect positively on the council providing thoughtful governance.
My specific concerns are:
* On item a (6' setback), adopt the recommendations from city staff (rear setback and daylight plane)
* Do not allow ADUs on substandard lots or below some minimum lot size (e.g. 5000 square feet)
* Allowing 2 stories for an ADU and 17' tall definitely makes this a provision that converts all R-1 to R-2. I think that only single story ADUs should be allowed and windows should not be allowed that can
look over 6' fences into neighbors houses.
* I think design review should be allowed, especially if any privacy, noise or light plane issues are
involved.
* item J. Removing the parking requirement for ADUs is a strong negative impact and instead at least one uncovered parking spot should always be required where allowed by state law.
I hope you will take the time for public discussion and to incorporate changes to reduce the significant
negative impacts on existing residents that the current version of the ordinance includes. Thank you.
Hamilton Hitchings
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Rob Lenicheck <rlenicheck@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
I respectfully request that the ADU (accessory dwelling unit) Ordinance be pulled from the April
17thConsent Calendar and discussed with required public notice and opportunity for public input at a future
City Council meeting.
Rob Lenicheck
342 Oxford Ave, Palo Alto
C: 650-996-6543
Sent from myyyiiiPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Edie <miller1505@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Limit Accessory Dwelling Units
To the Council
I understand the need for more housing but the current proposal is unreasonable. Constrction must be limited to
standard size lots or larger. New units must abide by current setback laws. Parking impact must be studied. Most
importantly, there must be public discussion .
Thank you
Edith Miller
4226 Mckellar Lane
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone so please excuse spelling errors
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Jay Jeffries <jay@jeffries.org>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU - Granny unit ordinance changes
Hello,
I urge you to reconsider the proposed new ADU ordinance. If the set back requirements are mitigated, there should be some design review to allow next door (and back
fence) neighbors to know what is being built near the property line.
In addition, I am concerned that the new ordinance allows every lot in Palo Alto to add an AirB&B short term
rental unit.
Jay Jeffries
=============
Jay@Jeffries.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Rohini Chakravarthy <rohini.chakravarthy@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear City Council:
I was alarmed to discover that a New Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance that saw several late amendments by 2 council
members has been added to the consent calendar tomorrow. I am concerned that this is being picked up for approval
without public comment on several neighborhood killing features sneakily introduced by the two members ‐ changes in
size, massing, location and design requirements for the ADUs and especially, transportation/ parking requirements.
The last one is particularly urgent for those of us living In Crescent Park where a daily incursion of downtown employees'
cars have been an ongoing pain point and the sight, smell and sound of University Ave and Hamilton being clogged with
commuter cars is a daily frustration.
In the least, please allow us to understand and comment on
‐ any assumptions you are making in your models on ADUs being occupied by local employees vs. commuters.
‐ the pros and cons of ADUs being allowed on our own lots vs. having ADUs in surrounding backyards
‐ the rationale for going beyond what is required by the state
‐ whether it is fair to loosen up lot footprint ratios for ADUs, which to me seems the most damaging aspect to our
neighborhood.
‐ pros and cons of AirBnb landlords as neighbors
I request you to allow for further public discussion by NOT picking up this ordinance for approval tomorrow. Please
confirm acceptance.
Thanks
Rohini
1370 Pitman Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanne Moulton <jeanne.moulton@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Please pull the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar. It merits public discussion.
Jeanne Moulton
319 Addison Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:09 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:#4 ADU 1st Reading: Next Steps
Council Members,
Kindly employ appropriate good government, transparency, and public engagement mechanisms on this very impactful
item via the following suggested next steps:
1. Remove the item from the consent calendar.
2. Hear the item immediately following the consent calendar, for the benefit of all interested attendees, cable and
streaming viewers, and radio listeners, and for the following council actions: a) to direct staff to evaluate the changes to
the ordinance presented on March 6, and b) to refer the item to the Planning & Transportation Commission with specific
direction on what should be evaluated and discussed.
3.) Have the 1st reading return to the council as the 1st item on the action‐items calendar and with the normal two‐
weekend interval for study of the staff report.
Thank you,
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Diane <dianeef@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU discussion
I am strongly against pushing through the proposed ordinance either on or off the consent calendar. This ordinance goes
far beyond the state law requirements and should be more carefully analyzed and presented to the public for an
informed discussion and decision.
This will have far reaching effects on our neighborhoods and deserves a more thoughtful approach.
Diane Finkelstein
2049 Dartmouth Street
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:steven rosenberg <str94306@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 3:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regulation of Second Dwelling Units
Dear City Council.
We support allowing second dwelling units (also called Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units or JADUs) in single-family residential neighborhoods according to California State
Law (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB 2406).
However, we know that Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine made a motion on March 7, 2017 to greatly expand
where and how second dwelling units can go. This motion was made after public comment period in the
meeting was over, so the public had no opportunity to hear the motion before giving comment at that meeting. The revised ordinance is on the Consent Calendar for April 17, 2017 for a vote without any discussion. The
Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any analysis of the effects of the changes to
the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
This is another example of some members of the council going beyond their remit and trying to impose their
own vision for high density Palo Alto on the city through underhanded methods. This is an offensive and covert move to undermine the will of Palo Alto voters, who were assured by Mayor Scharff that in 20 years Palo Alto neighborhoods would look and feel just as they do now.
We demand that the item be pulled from the Consent Calendar and be rescheduled to be heard at a Council
meeting only after staff or Planning and Transportation Commission has had an opportunity to analyze these
changes.
Sincerely,
Steven Rosenberg
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Baruch Boxer <brchboxer594@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units" to be built on ALL single family R1 lots,
This tacked on to ordinance without public discussion before 4/16 is an insult and affront to sensible, caring,
and rational Palo Altans who crave fairness and detest opacity.
Thanks.
Baruch Boxer
Professor Emeritus, Rutgers University Geography, Human Ecology, Environmental Science
Visiting Scholar, Stanford University (2005-13)
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
(H)650-424-8072; (C)650-2502105
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
26
Carnahan, David
From:Thomas A. Vician <tvician@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Unit Revised Ordinance
Dear Council Members,
On the Consent Calendar for April 17, 2017 is the Accessory Dwelling Unit
revised ordinance. I ask that you pull this item and reschedule it to be
heard at a later Council meeting only after staff and Planning and
Transportation Commission has had an opportunity to analyze these changes.
Currently, the Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not
include any analysis of the effects of the changes to the Accessory
Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
The lack of analysis and review of unique neighborhood issues raises
significant concerns about the Council’s governing process to date. I live
in Palo Alto Fairmeadow neighborhood, which is comprised of early 300
Eichlers. Due to the unique nature of Eichler design and building/lot
placement, privacy and the inherent natural aesthetic experienced from the
indoor/outdoor harmony is at risk in the revised ordinance.
Foremost, there is an immediate existing conflict with the Eichler
guidelines development that was kicked-off last week. The potential
Eichler standards initiative is not schedule for conclusion until the end
of the year. Secondly, a primary concern of many Eichler owners is
privacy, or more specifically, loss of privacy. My understanding is two
story ADUs will not undergo Individual Review and there is not an appeal
process. Further, a single story ADU could have a window at as close as 6
feet from the property line.
If the City Council does not have the item rescheduled after staff or PTC
analysis, I will sign a referendum petition on the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas A. Vician, Ph.D.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Venky Karnam <venkateshkr@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Opposed to ADU changes
Dear City Council Members,
It seems useful to have extra dwelling units in Palo Alto to increase the number of housing units available. But I would like to request a discussion of the latest changes that are being proposed. I feel that some of the proposed
changes will face a long term burden on the neighborhoods.
-Venkatesh
2771 Waverley St Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
28
Carnahan, David
From:TC Rindfleisch <tcr@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Pull the Amended ADU Ordinance from the Consent Calendar on 4/17 Until
Proper Analysis Can be Made
Dear Council Members, I wrote to you last week about some very problematic effects a realtor‐owned nearby Accessory
Dwelling Unit has had on neighborhood parking in my area. Whereas there are positive aspects of allowing controlled
ADUs in our community, Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine made a motion late in the evening on March 7, 2017 to
greatly expand where and how second dwelling units can go without adequate public notice and discussion. The revised
ordinance is on the Consent Calendar for April 17, 2017 for a vote without any discussion.
The Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any analysis of the effects of the changes to the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
The lack of transparency in this process troubles me very much and I ask that the item be pulled from the Consent
Calendar and rescheduled to be heard at a Council meeting only after City Staff and the Planning and Transportation
Commission have had an opportunity to analyze these changes.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thomas Rindfleisch
31 Tevis Place
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:44 AM
29
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Kirsch <docbkirsch@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:withdraw ordinance concerning second units from calendar
I am requesting that the ordinance concerning second dwelling units be pulled from the city council calendar until there
can be further input and discussion of this issue.
i do support the general concept of allowing second dwellings, but this needs more fine tuning.
barbara Kirsch
4174 Alta Mesa Ave.
Palo Alto, 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alex Chen <alex_ander_chen@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request for a thoughtful review of ADU ordinance
Dear sir or madam
I am a long time Palo Alto resident.
I am asking that the upcoming ADU Ordinance be pulled and rescheduled after we have all had a chance to review the
Wolbach-Fine changes to the ordinance.
I have already seen how airbnb has changed the character of my street adversely with increased traffic, less parking, and more discarded litter. Please don't let unchecked growth happen too rapidly and ruin the treasure
that Palo Alto has been and should remain.
Thank you
Alex Chen
Sent from my portable device. Please excuse any typos or auto-correct errors.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kerry <kerry.spear@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO! Don't proceed without public discussion!!
I do NOT want granny units all over my neighborhood. Cal Ave, College and Oxford are too crowded already. Parking is
already a hot button. This idea only fuels the currently blazing fire.
Please respect the process and do not make decisions like this late at night on Monday.
Kerry Spear
Oxford Ave
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Günter Steinbach <gsteinbach@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Accessory Dwelling Units on consent calendar
City Council:
The proposed ordinance about accessory dwelling units is a dramatic change from existing regulations. I ask that this
ordinance be pulled from the consent calendar and be scheduled for a future public discussion at a city council meeting.
‐‐
Günter Steinbach
4267 Pomona Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn C Messer <marilyncmesser@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove ordinance re Accessory Ordinance Dwellings
From the Vincent calendar and schedule it for a future date.
More Palo Alto residents want to be involved in this discussion.
Residents of the city need to be present at the meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marilyn Messer
1050 Guinda Street
Palo Alto 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:mwg1378@gmail.com on behalf of Mike Greenfield <mike@mikegreenfield.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:say yes to housing in Palo Alto
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
On November 9, 2016 I woke up feeling mostly nervous, scared, and disturbed -- but I also felt a little bit proud.
You can probably guess why I was nervous, scared and disturbed -- but I also felt proud to be a Palo Altan. On
November 8, our neighbors gave a decisive win to the candidates who said "yes" to dealing with our housing
shortage. The three candidates with the most votes won after advocating for a proactive, positive Palo Alto.
Candidates Kniss, Tanaka, and Fine spoke about the importance of aggressively dealing with our housing shortage, supporting affordability, and supporting our families -- and voters overwhelmingly voted for that
message.
Last month, I was proud again when you affirmed these values by voting for a strong policy that said "yes" to
ADUs and "yes" to our families. You set a great direction and you showed that in Palo Alto, we deal intelligently and decisively with the major challenge our city faces: our severe housing shortage. This is a great
way to steadily increase our housing stock, and I commend you for your vision in making it happen.
I've been saddened to hear that you're now getting pressure from a few "no"-sayers of Palo Alto -- those who
will oppose literally any new housing that is proposed.
I write to encourage you to finalize the wise approach that you took on March 6. You made the right decision
that night, and I hope to see you affirm that tomorrow night!
Best
Mike Greenfield
Kipling Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jatin Parekh <jatin1@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pull out Wolbach-Fine change from Consent Calendar to get public input
Council members,
I live in Palo Alto @ 918 Clara Dr neighborhood and I want the ADU Ordinance pulled from the Consent Calendar and
rescheduled after staff or the PTC have analyzed the ordinance and obtained input from public.
The proposed changes have far reaching implications to slide thru w/o any public review.
Jatin Parekh
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Forster <mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 2:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Susan C'; mlf2
Subject:ADUs) - Schedule public discussion before final vote
The City Council should postpone the vote scheduled for April 17 regarding allowing additional dwelling units
(ADUs) on all city lots and setting parameters regarding their size, height, and placement.
In general, I favor this ADU approach. However, even though I try to keep up on City Council activities, I was surprised that this change and vote were coming so quickly.
The citizens and residents of Palo Alto should have sufficient time for consideration and comment.
Mike Forster, Palo Alto 420 Stanford Avenue 650-464-9425
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Forman <bforman@formanlitho.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance must be reviewed and put to a city wide vote
City Council Members,
I urge you to bring a halt to the ADU Ordinance momentum until a fair and open discussion and measured consideration
of residents’ concerns occurs. Many Palo Alto residents, including myself, a resident of Palo Alto for more than 30 years, I feel City Council members have little concern for residents quality of life. Instead, developers and realtors are the primary
forces driving City Council decisions. Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine's maneuver to add substantive amendments after public comment on the matter in order to ram through changes for big development interests is unethical and is the
type of behavior that has completely undermined trust in City Council.
There has been no vetting of the impact this ordinance would have on our quality of life, population density, parking and other problems that are associated with essentially what could be deemed a free for all of adding to an already
dangerously overloaded city infrastructure.
I urge each council member to consider what he or she can do to rebuild trust and confidence within the community that residents concerns and quality of life matters and is a priority. The most immediate way to accomplish this is for Council to
reschedule the ADU Ordinance discussion and vote for a later date after there has been ample opportunity for public comment as well as review by staff and Planning and Transportation Commission.
City Council members have a duty and a responsibility to allow citizens to have a voice in decisions such as the ADU
Ordinance that, if it goes forward with the Wolbach-Fine behind the scenes amendments, will significantly erode quality of life for residents in Palo Alto.
We need to trust that it is not only the developers and realtors that have City Council members ear. City Council can
accomplish this by hitting the pause button on the ADU Ordinance vote, provide citizens with multiple opportunities to voice opinions and offer input, and to proceed only once all concerns have been addressed.
Regards,
George Robert Forman
1130 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Bennett <kbennett@luxsci.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 1:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Polciy - Pull from Consent Calendar, review by PTC and get community input
To the Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I'll be brief. The Consent Calendar item on the Auxilliary Dwelling Units (ADU) needs to be pulled from the consent
calendar, reviewed by PTC, including community input, then properly heard by the entire Council.
The last‐minute amendments of Council members Wohlbach and Fine are material, have not been reviewed by either
Staff or the PTC, and the public has not had time (or notice) to proviide relevant input. This action, after midnight, is
reminiscent of the Council's action on January 30 regarding the Comprehensive Plan.
Of course, Council can test the community will and see if "efficient and fast" decision making will trigger another
referendum, or even a petition drive to recall certain Council Members.
Respectively yours,
Keith & Atsuko Bennett
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Ulfar Erlingsson <ulfar.erlingsson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Please have the ADU Ordinance pulled and rescheduled after staff or the PTC has had a chance to analyze
the Wolbach-Fine changes to the ordinance.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs require a LOT more discussion
Hello. Please pull the ADUs from the consent calendar.
Before you go and destroy the quality of Palo Alto and the value of what may be our largest asset, this requires a LOT more discussion.
Stop rushing on such an important issue.
Some questions/caveats arise, including but not limited to:
1) I've heard rumblings about tax benefits for those of us who add ADUs and provide for low-income and
government workers but have
heard nothing about what they are. Please spell out the details. What TAX BREAKS do we get??
2) Are there any tax-payer benefits for building high fences and plantings to protect our privacy?
3) Will you cancel your solar energy programs now that our lots will be shaded or will you continue to
preach about green energy?
4) Given the tendency of homeowners to construct "hacker hotels" housing, what's to prevent various neighbors from constructing them
and having 30 hackers peering into our back yards, bedrooms and bathrooms?
5) What's to prevent me from being sued under the "attractive nuisance law" when one of them hurts
himself peering at my guests in my swimming pool as would now be the case if any present neighbor did the risk is multiplied by the number of people surrounding us?
5a) What will happen to homewoners insurance and liability?
5b) Are there any tax-payer benefits for ripping our pools and destroying our beautiful back yards
and/or for plantings to protect our privacy.
Please stop rushing to destroy Palo Alto and my property values. What's the rush?
Most sincerely,
Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto CA 94301
Jo Ann Mandinach
Need To Know Info Solutions http:.// www.needtoknow.com
650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Tim Perkins <tim.perkins@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regulation of Second Dwelling Units (ADU and JDU)
Dear Council Members,
On the Consent Calendar for April 17, 2017 is the Accessory Dwelling Unit
revised ordinance. I request the item be pulled and be rescheduled to be
heard at a Council meeting only after staff or Planning and Transportation
Commission has had an opportunity to analyze these changes. Currently, the
Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any
analysis of the effects of the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance.
The lack of analysis and addressment of unique neighborhood issues raises
significant concerns about the process to date. I live in Palo Alto
Fairmeadow neighborhood, which is comprised of early 300 Eichlers. Due to
the unique nature of Eichler design and building/lot placement, privacy
and the inherent natural aesthetic experienced from the indoor/outdoor
harmony is at risk in the revised ordinance.
Foremost, there is an immediate existing conflict is the Eichler
guidelines development that was kicked-off last week. The potential
Eichler standards initiative is not schedule for conclusion until the end
of the year. Secondly, a primary concern of many Eichler owners is
privacy, or more specifically, loss of privacy. My understanding is two
story ADUs will not undergo Individual Review and there is not an appeal
process. Further, a single story ADU could have a window at as close as 6
feet from the property line.
If the City Council does not have the item rescheduled after staff or PTC
analysis, I will sign a referendum petition on the Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tim Perkins
3712 Carlson Circle
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Eugene Zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessary Dwelling Units
Dear Council Members:
We STRONGLY urge you to remove the vote on Accessary Dwelling Units from the consent calendar at the April 17th City Council Meeting. This ordinance DRASTICALLY CHANGES THE VERY NATURE of
our city. It is an issue that deserves input from the citizens of Palo Alto and should be scheduled for a future
city council meeting. Public discussion by the citizens of Palo Alto is a must for this extreme change to
the livability of our city.
Your truly,
Zita and Eugene Zukowsky
4153 Maybell Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Residents of Palo Alto since 1962
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
13
Carnahan, David
From:babamarilyn@gmail.com
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members,
I strongly disagree with having the Accessory Dwelling Units proposed ordinance go through on the Consent Calendar.
Please, Council, remove it from the CC and schedule the matter for full discussion by the public and Council at another
Council meeting. The lack of any opportunity for public discussion of this radical change of policy is very undemocratic.
The idea of accessory units is a good one. The proposal needs more thoughtful consideration and modifications to
maintain reasonable setbacks, some reasonable rental constraints, reasonable design review so that you don't moot any
future Eichler design guidelines, and reasonable privacy and parking standards. As is, I fear the results will be a horribly
ugly, crowded set of neighborhoods with neighbors challenging and warring with neighbors for years to come. Please
promote harmony. Pull this, request a thoughtful staff report, and put a staff vetted version back on calendar for full
discussion.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Marilyn Bauriedel, South Court
(In the Fairmeadow Eichler neighborhood)
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
14
Carnahan, David
From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:56 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
Dear Council members, I'm writing to request that you postpone a vote on the ADU ordinance until public input, staff comments, and full council discussion have taken place. Although previous versions of the ordinance have been discussed, the most recent modifications have not.
This well-meaning-sounding ordinance has serious implications for the quality of life in Palo Alto. Unless we have an opportunity for an
open discussion, we will be left with the results of free for all building with very little oversight.
Joanne Koltnow
317 Leland Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
15
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please move the ADU ordinance off of the Consent Calender tomorrow evening
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:
Please please please pull the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance from tomorrow
evening's City Council Consent Calendar and reschedule it after staff or PTC review of the
effects of the Wolbach-Fine changes.
Thank you for considering my request!
Sincerely yours,
Anne Gregory
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
16
Carnahan, David
From:Christy Telch <gforman806@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please hit pause on the ADU Ordinance momentum
City Council Members,
I urge you to bring a halt to the ADU Ordinance momentum until a fair and open discussion and measured consideration
of residents concerns occurs. Many Palo Alto residents, including myself, a resident of Palo Alto for more than 30 years, feel City Council members have little concern for residents quality of life. Instead, developers and realtors are the primary
forces driving City Council decisions. Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine's maneuver to add substantive amendments after public comment on the matter in order to ram through changes for big development interests is unethical and is the
type of behavior that has completely undermined trust in City Council.
I urge each council member to consider what he or she can do to rebuild trust and confidence within the community that residents concerns and quality of life matters and is a priority. The most immediate way to accomplish this is for Council to
reschedule the ADU Ordinance discussion and vote for a later date after there has been ample opportunity for public comment as well as review by staff and Planning and Transportation Commission.
City Council members have a duty and a responsibility to allow citizens to have a voice in decisions such as the ADU
Ordinance that, if it goes forward with the Wolbach-Fine behind the scenes amendments, will significantly erode quality of life for residents in Palo Alto.
We need to trust that it is not only the developers and realtors that have City Council members ear. City Council can
accomplish this by hitting the pause button on the ADU Ordinance vote, provide citizens with multiple opportunities to voice opinions and offer input, and to proceed only once all concerns have been addressed.
Respectfully,
Christy F. Telch, Ph.D. 467 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 4
Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-323-1637
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THIS MESSAGE: Please note that the confidentiality of e-mail communications
cannot be guaranteed. This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
destroy all copies of the original message.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
17
Carnahan, David
From:Susan C <teachinator@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:17 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pull item #4 (re ADUs) and schedule public discussion before vote
I request that the city council postpone the vote scheduled for April 17 regarding allowing additional dwelling
units (ADUs) on all city lots and setting parameters regarding their size, height, and placement. The proposed
ordinance will have an enormous effect on noise, privacy, infrastructure demand, and parking throughout the city and has the potential to profoundly affect the lives of residents in every neighborhood. It is not appropriate
that such a sweeping change be adopted without first laying it clearly before the residents of Palo Alto and
allowing ample time for public consideration and comment.
Respectfully,
Susan Cole, Palo Alto homeowner since 1982 420 Stanford Avenue
650-464-9430
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
18
Carnahan, David
From:Roger P <roger.petersen@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance -- please pull and re-schedule for after analysis
Dear Council,
From what I understand, ADUs can be 2-story, and as close as 6 feet to any property line. They can be on any sized lot, and there is no city review process. Is this correct?!?
This could greatly change the character of Palo Alto, making it feel much more like San Francisco. I assure
you, none of my neighbors want that feel.
In his State of the City Address on February 8, 2017, Mayor Scharff promised, "Twenty years from now, your single-family neighborhood will look like it does right now.” - Greg
Scharff
With the Wolbach-Fine amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, that certainly won’t
be the case.
Why not start with the minimum required for AB-2299, and give it a year, and see how it works? Let's not "move fast and break things" when it comes to homeowners and their neighborhoods.
Please pull the ADU Ordinance from the Consent Calendar, and re-schedule discussion until after the impact can be analyzed and communicated to our neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Roger Petersen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
19
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Patton <rebeccap1234@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 10:07 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pull the ADU ordinance off the consent calendar
Mayor Scharff,
We have been following the discussion among Palo Alto residents in the last few days about the ADU ordinance that was passed in the wee hours of March 8, dramatically altering the original ordinance without an
opportunity for resident input. I am not opposed to an ADU ordinance and recognize the benefits to residents
and the community, but this can't occur without thoughtful guidelines, so that the character of our residential
neighborhoods is considered.
My understanding is that the new proposed ordinance takes away design reviews, reduces setbacks, and does
not deal with parking concerns. There no doubt are compromises that will work in these areas, but this requires
a DEMOCRATIC process that allows for input. The process that occurred to pass the ordinance is deeply
concerning.
Please pull this item off the Consent agenda and schedule it at a time when when there can be a reasonable
public debate. We live in too special a place to not be thoughtful about major changes to zoning regulations.
Better to spend the time now to be thoughtful than to deal with the lawsuits that will follow.
Rebecca Patton Tom Goodrich
1001 Forest Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
20
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Lerner <balerner@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 10:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance: REMOVE from Consent Calendar, RESCHEDULE Vote after Full Study
Dear PA City Council –
I am writing to strongly urge you to REMOVE the ADU Ordinance from the Consent Calendar on April 17, and
RESCHEDULE it for a vote AFTER it has been studied by city staff and the PTC, and the public has had a chance to
consider and comment on this ordinance. This ordinance differs considerably from the one originally studied by staff,
and goes far beyond the ADU requirements mandated by the State. As currently written, it will effectively up‐zone R‐1
neighborhoods to R‐2, and remove all legal recourse from neighbors who are adversely affected. That is unacceptable,
and must be subjected to a complete study and public comment period.
We were promised that in 20 years our single‐family neighborhoods will look the same as they do today. The current
version of this ADU ordinance breaks that promise. I look forward to our Mayor and City Council keeping their promise
by pulling this ordinance and rescheduling it after a complete study.
Thank you,
Ben Lerner
3482 Janice Way
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
21
Carnahan, David
From:Carolyn Godfrey <carolyngodfrey3@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pull and reschedule the ADU ordinance!
Dear City Council, The proposed ADU ordinance has the potential to profoundly impact the quality of life in Palo Alto. I beg you to pull this ordinance from Monday's meeting and to reschedule to allow staff and others to properly analyze the proposal and its impacts.
Best regards,
Carolyn Godfrey
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
22
Carnahan, David
From:Dorothy Bender <dbender@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance 4/17/2017, Item 4
Dear Honorable City Council,
Please vote to pull the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance from the 4/17/2017 Consent Calendar. It should be rescheduled after staff and PTC review the effects of the recent changes.
I hope you agree that this is the only reasonable approach.
Thank you for your consideration.
------------- Dorothy Bender
Barron Park
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
23
Carnahan, David
From:Elise Singer <elise.singer@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 11:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Against ADUs and JADUs
I'm a Palo Alto landowner (558 Jackson Dr) and I am not in favor of the changes to the ADU ordinances. I
would like this Ordinance pulled from the Consent Calendar and to have it rescheduled ONLY after staff or the
PTC have had a chance to analyze the ordinance.
Palo Alto has maintained it's special place in the Bay area because we are much more careful about monitoring
growth and development. Now is not the time to let commercial interests push changes through our leg process
without timely consideration. DO NOT RUSH INTO THIS DECISION.
Thank you,
Elise
-- Elise Singer MD, MBA
(510)735-7725
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
24
Carnahan, David
From:Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 10:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Allowing ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units in single-family residential
neighborhoods
Dear Mayor Scharff and Council Members,
I support allowing second dwelling units (also called Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units or JADUs) in single-family residential neighborhoods according to California State Law (SB 1069, AB 2299, and AB
2406).
I know that Councilmembers Wolbach and Fine made a motion on March 7, 2017 to greatly expand where and how
second dwelling units can go. This motion was made after public comment, so the public had no opportunity to comment on this motion at that meeting. The revised ordinance is on the Consent Calendar for April 17, 2017 for a vote without any
discussion!
The Staff Report accompanying the revised ordinance does not include any analysis of the effects of the changes to the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. This item should be pulled from the Consent Calendar and be heard at a Council meeting only after staff or Planning and Transportation Commission has had an opportunity to analyze these changes.
The City cannot afford to make such important decisions without more thoughtful review and much more time for residents to weigh in. You must be more prudent.
Sincerely,
Shannon Rose McEntee
410 Sheridan Ave., #216
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
25
Carnahan, David
From:Azadeh Malek <amalek@cheastylaw.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU- April 17, 2017 hearing
Dear City Council Members,
I live in Palo Alto in the Crescent Park neighborhood, and I am writing to request that the ADU ordinance be pulled from
the Consent Calendar. The changes offered by Wolback‐Fine seem to be quite significant and I am concerned about the
consequences if the changes are approved without adequate time to review.
Sincerely,
Azadeh Malek
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e‐mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). The
information may be protected by privilege, work product immunity or other applicable law and any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
for the recipient), please notify us immediately In California, USA at tel.: (510) 525‐1000, fax: (510) 526‐3672 or email:
amalek@cheastylaw.com. Thank you for your cooperation.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
26
Carnahan, David
From:Jon Stoumen <jon@stoumen.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 6:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU recommendation
Hi:
I am a resident of Southgate.
I just read the staff recommendations on ADU's for review at Monday's meeting. I am visiting my son's family in
Portland and cannot attend.
The proposed regulations, as I read them, do not allow legally constructed garages, garage/office structures, and
upgraded existing detached garages to be converted to ADU's. These detached garage structures, are nearly always
built just inside property lines. They represent the majority of existing detached garages in Palo Alto. Planning and
design review recommendations have always placed driveways to detached garages along the property line on any
normal sized lot. Those with six foot setbacks are only found on very large lots.
Thus, having to provide a six foot setback in a side and/or rear yard, to allow an ADU will exclude the majority (many
thousands) of existing detached garages. Detached structures rarely are setback from property lines, as for good
reason, they have always been exempt (as long as they meet daylight plane and fire codes). Since detached structures
with six foot setbacks rarely exist, this requirement would severely restrict the move to facilitate ADU's create a barrier
that perpetuates the freeze.
Our current codes allow for firewalls to solve any risks posed by building along (within inches) of a property line. So if
current daylight plane rules are conformed with, this is a non issue. Having a six foot space beside an ADU on a property
line is only useful if one wishes to have windows on that elevation and would rather loose valuable outdoor living space.
This makes no sense.
Allowing this requirement will rule out the conversion of nearly all existing detached garages in Palo Alto. It will also
destroy large sections of well established landscaping and hard‐scaped areas in rear yards. These setbacks will require
that garages suitable for conversion be demolished (not adapted and reused) to accommodate them. This includes
recently built and permitted structures which were planned for easy conversion to ADU's. It will spark illegal ADU's
created merely to get around this setback rule in pursuit of being grandfathered in with clemency policies.
Please revise this provision or add another to allow structures that meet current fire and daylight plane regulations to be
converted to ADU's.
Best regards,
Jon
Jon Stoumen, Architect LEED AP
C‐650.996.0101
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
27
Carnahan, David
From:Carl Thomsen <carl@thomsenhome.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 5:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ordinance proposed for ADUs
Dear Council Members,
I will make this short and to the point. The current proposal for ADUs is totally unacceptable to me as a long‐term
resident of Palo Alto.
We already are embroiled in parking issues, traffic issues and McMansions in Palo Alto infringing on neighbor’s peace
and privacy.
The potential major, major impact of this proposal is immense. It’s amazing to me that the Council would even consider
this proposal.
I strongly request that you remove this ADU ordinance from the consent calendar and as an agenda item on Monday to
allow public comment, and that you require an assessment of the impacts (intended and unintended) by the city staff on
the Palo Alto neighborhoods, traffic, parking and current building regulations.
Carl Thomsen
1701 Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
28
Carnahan, David
From:Tia Millman <tia4john@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:59 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Chris & Marcia Croft
Subject:STOP THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
CHRIS, MARCIA & ALYSSA CROFT
Tia, thanks for keeping us all informed on this. Although Marcia and I moved home to Honolulu last year, and
are neither Palo Alto nor California residents, our daughter, Alyssa, will continue living in our house at 513 Jackson Drive - so we still have a vested interest in this issue. Based solely on what I read below, the Wolbach-Fine proposal would change the character of Palo Alto for the worse - virtually every component of their
proposal defies common sense. If passed, traffic will worsen, the increased density would likely lead to more
conflict between neighbors (as noise will get worse, parking will become more scarce). The only reason I can
imagine for this short-sighted proposal is simply greed. What justification does the Wolbach-Fine duo offer for this destructive proposal? I wonder how they personally will profit from this measure - which can only degrade the quality of life in Palo Alto. Based just on procedural grounds, this proposal smells very bad, submitting this
measure in such a way and manner that it's possible no public discussion will be allowed. What are these two
trying to hide? Will greed triumph over reason? I hope not.
Aloha, Chris
513 JACKSON DRIVE
PALO ALTO