HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170501plCC2701-32
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 2 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 8:49 AM
29
Carnahan, David
From:Jane Huang <jane.x.huang@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 4:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU approval
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice‐Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I am writing to support the approval of the ADU ordinance. It seems to me that a great deal of thought has already gone
into the current ordinance. They are a good compromise between salving the housing crisis and preserving the character
of Palo Alto's neighborhoods. I live in Barron Park in a nice single‐family home, with an ADU on our lot. It's really quite
unobtrusive. Nobody lives there right now, but even if they did, it would add very little in terms of any kind of traffic or
noise burden to our street. Please, do not delay any more in approving the ordinance.
Jane Huang
Gunn '05
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
30
Carnahan, David
From:Paul S Seaver <seaver@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance
I urge our City Council to pull this legislation from the consent calendar on Monday. A blanket permission to build
Accessory Units on single family house lots would among other things complete the destruction of Eichler communities
already threatened by new second story houses. What privacy for the rear of Eichler houses would be lost, if neighbors
were permitted to add what would be in effect a second house overlooking the side or rear fence. At the very least this
ordinance should be debated at public hearings. There may be parts of Palo Alto where two story houses on large lots
are the norm where such housing could be built without compromising the neighborhood, but it is not the case in the
Fairmeadow neighborhood. Please do not rush this through.
Paul Seaver
3638 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
31
Carnahan, David
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:47 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Christian Pease
Subject:Pull the current ADU / JADU Motion from the 4/17 meeting + do a proper analysis +
public comment on it
Dear City Council Members,
The ADU / JADU Motion voted on by the City Council on March 7, 2017 goes far beyond state law
requirements as well as city staff recommendations - so much so it represents a material change that has not had
benefit of staff or PTC analysis or public comment. Therefore I request you please pull the current Motion from
pending April 17 City Council Consent Calendar and immediately refer it to staff or the PTC for analysis and recommendations and then followed by public comment before you proceed to a final vote.
Thank you,
Christian Pease
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
32
Carnahan, David
From:Malcolm Roy Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Malcolm Roy Beasley
Subject:Pull the ADU Item on the 4/17 Consent Calendar
Dear Council Members:
I am sorry that I will be out of town on Monday and cannot attend the Council Meeting. In lieu of being there in
person, I write to urge you in the strongest terms to pull the ADU item from the Consent Calendar and reschedule it for a
later time. I watched the video of the March 7 Council meeting and was disturbed by the extent of the changes
introduced by Council Person Wolbach, which led to an amended ordnance that greatly differs from that presented by
staff and exceeds what is mandated by the State. The revised ordnance surely warrants a comprehensive review and
public comment. ADU’s are coming and are in principle a good idea, but we must get them right.
Thank you, and I look forward to participating in the public comments when the item is rescheduled,
M.R. Beasley
125 Bryant Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
33
Carnahan, David
From:Tia Millman <tia4john@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Tia & John Millman-Madsen
Subject:ADUs and JADUs
Council,
Please do not let this pass. Our town is dense already. There will be very little regulation on these
properties. They will be able to invade our space and privacy. They may be used for short term rentals. This is being pushed by people who want to make money, i.e. builders & companies wishing to house
employees in our town.
These properties will not contribute to the well-being of our town. Sincerely,
Tia Millman
John Madsen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
34
Carnahan, David
From:Hal Prince <hal@aya.yale.edu>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 3:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Council,
Please pull the pending ASU Ordinance from the Consent Calendar and allow for PTC review and public comment before
we make such a big change.
Thanks,
Hal Prince
211 Middlefield Rd
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
35
Carnahan, David
From:Douglas Moran <dbmoran@gmail.com> on behalf of Douglas Moran
<dmoran@dougmoran.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 2:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU ordinance; pull from consent and have a proper hearing
City Council members,
Please pull the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar and schedule a future hearing that allows Staff to
produce a study of the impacts of the proposal and give residents a chance to make considered, informed
comments on the proposal -- there are a large variety of circumstances in Palo Alto and some of them can be missed by even the most diligent assessment by Staff.
-- Doug Moran, 790 Matadero
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
36
Carnahan, David
From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Rules
I am more and more concerned about the current Council's apparent emphasis on crowding more and more people into
this city. At risk is the pleasant, bedroom community environment I invested in when I purchased my home. I am now,
it appears, at risk of my neighbors deciding to maximize the FAR on their valuable lots by building something that will
seem to be almost in MY back yard.
What's the hurry? Such a drastic change to the building codes in a city I've loved being a part of, including serving 23
years of volunteer work with the Midtown Residents Association, surely merits more consideration.
Sylvia Gartner
824 Moreno Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
37
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Crocker <Bruce.c@pitango-us.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:crocker1@pacbell.net
Subject:ADU consent item
To the council: Please take the item scheduled for the consent calendar on April
17th off the agenda to allow for review by the planning commission and public
comment. This is an issue with many potential unintended consequences—
notably in neighborhood parking and congestion in our residential neighborhoods,
the impact of additional Airbnb rentals, and other issues I am sure I have not
thought of.
The process of cramming this thru with no public comment only shakes ones faith
in city government and the willingness of our elected officials to listen to the
voters.
I understand some level of change is required by revised state law—but the last
minute additions are truly disappointing and over the top.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cheers, Bruce
Bruce E Crocker
Bruce E Crocker
1250 Hamilto Ave
Bruce.c@pitango‐us.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
38
Carnahan, David
From:maria cristina urruela <murruela_99@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of ADU's
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am writing to strongly support ADU's and to tell you how happy I am that we are finally getting around to them. It's an
excellent idea which will be of great value to those of use w/ aging parents (mine are 87 and 92) and/or in need of additional income, and it really helps with the severe lack of affordable housing in the area. I certainly hope you will not
table the idea for a future hearing, it has been long enough.
Some of my neighbors worry about potential problems with parking or second floor additions. I believe issues like these are easy to solve by coming up w/ rules, such as allowing x number or cars and charging monthly fees for additional ones,
or by the use of parking permits. It's a question of working together to come up with solutions.
Thank you very much for all your hard work.
Best wishes, Maria Cristina Urruela
2074 Sandalwood Ct. Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
39
Carnahan, David
From:Bob Phillips <robert.phillips@uber.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear Mayor and City Council:
I am a resident of Palo Alto who is deeply concerned about the way that the ADU ordinance was placed upon the consent
calendar contrary to the recommendations of staff and without an opportunity for public comment. While I do not question that
additional ADUs and JDUs may be beneficial, the sweeping and radical nature of this ordinance has the potential to radically change the character of our neighborhoods for the worse. Please pull this from the consent calendar to allow for staff review and public comment.
Best regards,
--
Robert Phillips, Ph.D.
Director Marketplace Optimization Data Science 1455 Market St. | Suite 400 | San Francisco, CA 94103
300+ cities and counting...
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
40
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Nadim <marknadim@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance needs more analysis
Honorable Mayor, Honorable City Council Members,
I enjoin you to pull the ADU Ordinance off the consent calendar, and have it rescheduled for more analysis of the
changes made to it at the March 7, 2017 meeting. The changes were not analyzed by staff and did not have any public
feedback or discussion. These changes that were added on the March 7, 2017 meeting are detrimental to the state of
the residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto.
Please have the ADU Ordinance rescheduled for more public discussion.
Thank you.
Mark Nadim
Alexis Dr.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
41
Carnahan, David
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 7:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gennady Sheyner
Subject:AUD's: not thought through, highly probable negative impacts
This is the rhetoric used by PAF to try to convince us that ADU's are great as outlined in the
current ordinance.
“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."
I am a senior and I do not support the ADU Ordinance as it currently exists. And I am offended by
PAF alleging they speak for seniors when they have no basis for this claim.
There is also no provision that these units will be priotitized for "our police officers, firefighters,
teachers, and other public service employees who can live in the community they serve." This
statement misrepresents what the current ordinance provides.
In fact, the current ordinance has so few controls that it could result in R1 neighborhoods becoming
de facto R2 neighborhoods, or worse, by proliferating short-term rentals (Airbnb) increasing traffic
and degrading the livability of our city.
This ordinance needs a much more robust and inclusive hearing and City Council must think
through the impacts of adding unconstrained and virtually unregulated development to our
neighborhoods.
John Guislin
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
42
Carnahan, David
From:Sharon <sharonchin@msn.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 5:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:NO support for changes to ADU ordinance
Dear City Council,
I request the ADU issue be removed from the consent calendar until it can be properly and publicly vetted. Staff and the Public Trans Commission need to analyze the changes suggested and provide their
comments. The public needs to have the opportunity to comment on these changes.
I don't understand how you could consider such a motion without feedback from stakeholders and experts. Palo
Alto is losing its small town feel and traffic and infrastructure cannot keep up with development. We are becoming dangerously overcrowded. And this is not a viable answer for affordable housing.
I do NOT support changes made to the ADU ordinance by the Wolbach-Fine motion.
thank you, sharon
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
43
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 4:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Brand, Richard
Subject:Palo Alto Forward form letter -ADU Issue-
The SIG Palo Alto Forward has circulated an email with a link to a form letter to send to you Council members on the ADU issue. I'm proud to say that we live in a well educated city and having to lift a form letter to Council from a website seems rather Palo Alto Backwoods. I urge you to disregard letters of this type and also to support the pulling of the item from the April 17 Consent Calendar. The contents of the draft ordinance have been hastily prepared and need more public review. Richard Brand 281 Addison Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
44
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 3:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CHanges regarding ADU's
Dear Members of City Council,
Please remove the vote on ADU changes from this week's consent calendar so that the community has a chance to
reflect on the overall impacts of these changes.
I am very concerned that changes are too drastic and will create R1 neighborhood degradation due to streets lined with
cars, additional noise, visual blight and possibly proliferation of substandard housing in our community. Minimal
setbacks will diminish buffers between neighbors and cause more problems.
Renters or family members with cars will not park tandem in driveways unless street parking is banned‐‐tandem parking
is inconvenient. Cars will crowd narrow streets and make biking unsafe.
Palo Alto is desirable because it is NOT an urban environment. If you turn R1 streets into multi‐unit zones, the uniquely
quiet, safe, neighborhoods will be forever changed.
It is folly to think you can build enough housing in PA to let all those who would like to live here do so. Don't diminish
the lives and property values of those who have chosen R1 zoning. Instead look into why we have so many empty ghost
houses!
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
Midtown
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
45
Carnahan, David
From:Judith Wasserman <jwarqiteq@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 2:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I am proud that my City Council has taken such a positive stance on the ADU ordinance, going
beyond the state mandate. Please do not pull this from the consent calendar! Your added motions are very
helpful in enabling these units to actually be built in more than theory.
Finding ways to expand housing options (like ADUs and JADUs) for our community members is an economic,
environmental, social justice and humanitarian issue. ADU's are something that can help our entire community.
Through this ordinance, we can help homeowners, aging citizens, young people starting out, and even families who rent, to find feasible and affordable housing solutions that can make a meaningful difference in our community, all with one ordinance change.
I strongly support ALL the motions made on March 6, 2017:
a. Require no more than 6-ft side and rear setback for ADUs; b. Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes;
c. Allow an additional 175 sq-ft of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU;
d. Allow an additional 50 sq-ft of FAR for a JADU;
e. Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 sq-ft;
f. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10% smaller than standard lot sizes;
g. Limit ADUs to 17-ft high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the
main house is a grandfathered 2-story house;
h. Remove design review and requirements;
i. Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs; j. ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs;
k. Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU;
l. Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback
You rock! Judith Wasserman, AIA
Bressack & Wasserman Architects
751 Southampton Drive
Palo Alto CA 94303
ph: 650 321-2871
fx: 650 321-1987
www.bressackandwasserman.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
46
Carnahan, David
From:RICH <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 2:51 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Remove ADU Ordinance from April 17 Consent calendar
The ADU ordinance which received public input was changed at the council meeting by the Wolbach-
Fine motion. These changes have not been analyzed by staff nor by the Planning and Transportation Commission. Nor has the public had a chance to comment on these changes.
Therefore, please remove the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar and schedule well
publicized public comment sessions on the changed ordinance as well as having PTC and staff
review this changed ordinance. Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
Email: W6APZ@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
47
Carnahan, David
From:Lina Crane <lina.crane@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 1:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:accessory units
This needs to be re-considered.
--
LFC from lina
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
48
Carnahan, David
From:Joan Marx <joan_marx@arczip.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:postpone ADU vote
Honorable City Council Members:
I ask that the ADU proposal be pulled from the consent calendar to allow time for a community meeting to discuss the
proposal.
Joan Marx
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
49
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Ramsbottom <pramsbottom@me.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 11:37 AM
To:Gerhardt, Jodie; Mei, Lee; Lait, Jonathan; Netto, Margaret; Schmid, Greg; Pirnejad, Peter
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Plans to approve new ADU rules on Monday Night (4/17)
Dear friends,
I would like to voice my objection to the new ADU rules tabled for discussion on Monday night.
As a Palo Alto resident, I am acutely aware of the challenges that are posed by our city’s limited and high‐cost housing
stock. Clearly creative solutions are required but I was astounded by what I recently read about this topic. I say
‘astounded' because in the nearly 15 years since moving here, I have often bumped‐up against our stringent (but
laudable) planning guidelines. For example:
‐ In 2012 a straightforward application to install a standalone 110v condensing washer dryer in my previous home
required an inch‐thick packet of documents, 2 hours of waiting and discussion at the Development Center, and finally an
interview by the Fire Marshall (all for an appliance bought on Amazon.com that plugs into an normal outlet, and drained
into a sink waste pipe).
‐ In 2013 inquiries about building a small garden storage and exercise ’shed' revealed insufficient rear set‐backs to allow
this.
‐ In 2014 inquiries about installing a small hot tub or lap pool revealed insufficient clearance between the water‐level
and a neighbors overhead power line.
‐ In 2015 inquiries about parking a small and tastefully designed aluminum Aistream caravan (the tiny 16’x8’x6' long
‘Basecamp’ model) in my driveway or behind a fence in my side set‐back, revealed prohibitions against this (and yet
unattractive ‘truck trailers’ of any size are permitted and can be found in many driveways).
‐ In 2016 a desire to install a new gas range revealed that adherence with current regulations would have probably have
required me to replumb and rewire my entire kitchen.
Don’t misunderstand me, I want to stay safe and preserve the unique character and quality of life available in Palo Alto,
and so I gladly adhere to these policies. However it is galling when I hear of the apparent flexibility of the proposed new
ADU rules, such as:
‐ There is no design review allowed, not even for accessory dwelling units on the second floor. Does this mean no
Individual Review for these additions looking into bedrooms and bathrooms?
‐ There are no protections for architecturally significant Eichler homes. A 14‐foot tall second dwelling unit can be placed
6 feet from the rear lot line (rising to 17 feet) overlooking my backyard and looking into my home.
‐ Apparently, no covered parking is required for any lot with an accessory dwelling unit anywhere in Palo Alto and
garages can be replaced by a dwelling unit, with the driveway counting as the replacement parking.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
50
‐ 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, how will you enforce this
and why is there no general ‘AirBNB’ ordinance?
For all these reasons and others too numerous to list here, I respectfully ask that the ADU rules be removed from the
consent calendar, and rescheduled for public discussion with a staff analysis of the impacts.
Sincerely,
Paul Ramsbottom
3796 Redwood Circle
Palo Alto
CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
51
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Jacobs <suzgjacobs@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 9:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:We deserve a say in ADUs
Pls pull this from the consent calendar.
Outrageous.
Suzanne Jacobs
South Court
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
52
Carnahan, David
From:AnneKnight <knightwrite@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 9:12 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Roger P; Len Filppu
Subject:secondary dwelling
Dear Council Members:
From what I understand, allowing such dwellings in PA would have a devastatingly adverse effect on Palo Altans who
choose to live in their PA homes. It could prevent privacy, make parking even more difficult, and make population
density too great.
Only for people who purchase PA homes for rental incomes might this be a benefit because they could have two renters
per property instead of a single renter.
PLEASE! remove this from your calendar, publicize, and allow abundant public discussion, which, I am sure, will convince
you that this idea has generated fear and fierce opposition. PA should be liveable for those who choose to live in it and
who already live in it.
Anne Knight
6 Roosevelt Circle (Fairmeadow)
PA 94306
650 852‐0810
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
53
Carnahan, David
From:Charlene Liao <xcliao@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Charlene Liao
Subject:Demand that the ADU ordinance be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled
for public discussion with a staff analysis of the impacts
Dear Council Members,
I learned that 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, including undersized
lots. See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56870 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. This item must be pulled and
the potential effects of these proposals analyzed for public discussion in the future.
There are no 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 your home.
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 your 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.
Already my neighbor has allowed so many people to live in their house (rented or not,
who knows) that you can see 4-5 cars parked alongside the private easement driveway
all the way to our front door, which faces the easement driveway of the flag lot. The
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
54
ADU will make the situation worse and negatively affect our quality of life even more
than the current situation has already.
The ADU ordinance must be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled for public discussion with a
staff analysis of the impacts.
Sincerely,
Charlene Liao
Middlefield Road, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
55
Carnahan, David
From:david <lischins@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please remove Item 4 from the consent calendar
Please remove Item 4 from the consent calendar. This is a complicated issue and should be properly and publicly vetted
before you vote on it.
I will not be able to attend Monday's meeting because I am out of town on business. Many of us need more time to
participate in what is supposed to be a democratic process to shape the future of our city.
Thank you.
Dedra Hauser
32 year resident of 410 Stanford Avenue in Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
56
Carnahan, David
From:ANNE HARRISON <anneharrison@me.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 8:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New Ordinance re Second Dwelling Units - PLEASE TABLE THIS ORDINANCE UNTIL
YOU CAN DO A PROPER REVIEW.
Dear Council members,
I am a home owner that lives in Crescent Park. I am concerned with this new ordinance and feel that it should be tabled until you can undergo a proper review of the implications of such a ordinance. I understand that you may want to create new rental opportunities in Palo Alto but you need to understand what that actually means and how you think it will effect
our community It’s easy to think that by letting more people build/rent there Granny units it might solve one problem but then
it creates many more problems. It is also harder to remove or restrict after you have passed an ordinance than to stop and
perform a thorough review.
I live on Crescent Drive just off of University Ave, we are already experiencing traffic issues causing over 40 minute wait times
just to go from Lincoln Ave to Crescent Drive which is just one block. We are also having trouble finding parking both
downtown and in our neighborhoods. The city has already had to deal with parking issues and this new rule would almost
guarantee every street that has Granny units less parking and more cars. I think the main issue is that it starts to change the feel
of our city. It makes our home prices decrease, our streets crowed with cars, it makes our streets unsafe for our children riding
their bikes around town.
To not have a review process or limit to these buildings is short term thinking with long term consequences. What about all the
empty homes that are allowed to stay unoccupied? Why not create an ordinance that requires a new owner to either live in their
home or rent it out. We already have to many ghost homes in Palo Alto and now you want to allow ghost homes and allow every home in Palo Alto to be a duplex situation
Please think before passing this ordinance. It will only hurt the home owners that pay taxes and want to provide a
safe community for their families.
Thank you for listening.
Anne Harrison
80 Crescent Drive
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
57
Carnahan, David
From:Stepanie Grossman <demsteph@icloud.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:granny units
To the City Council,
I implore you to NOT hastily enact legislation that would impact the city of Palo Alto for years to come — certainly within
my lifetime and probably yours.
I know we have a housing shortage. But this is not the way to solve it. Add granny units and suddenly there will be
more people moving into this housing from other areas and additional jobs will bring additional people and suddenly we
will need two granny units in every backyard — and on and on and on.
I was not allowed to extend my kitchen window one foot to allow for a larger kitchen table but now I can add ten feet or
more to add an entire housing unit? It makes no sense.
What about the rents on these units? Will they be rent‐controlled? Or can we all start building small apartment units in
our backyards and really start making lots of money? Can my neighbor put in a two‐bedroom unit close to my house
and far from his? Can I put in an apartment and rent it out on a monthly basis to Airbnb? You are going down a slippery
slope.
I am in NYC right now and here, too, there is a shortage of affordable housing. So they are building and building and
building. Have rents gone down? No. Has traffic increased? Yes. I know the problem is throughout Santa Clara County.
But Palo Alto alone cannot solve the problem. Acting in haste to make a few council members seem like they are
accomplishing something is not smart legislating.
I cannot attend the April 17 council meeting. Thank you for accepting my email. I hope the council does what I tell my
children: think carefully before you do something you will be sorry for later.
Thank you very much.
Stephanie Grossman
1121 Harriet Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
58
Carnahan, David
From:Randy Popp <randy@rp-arch.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU/JADU on Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I would like to write in support of the ADU Ordinance motion as voted on and approved on Mar 6, 2017. Please do not pull this from the consent calendar on Monday, April 17, 2017. Housing is a basic need.
Finding ways to expand housing options (like ADUs and JADUs) for our community members is an economic,
environmental, social justice and humanitarian issue. ADU's/granny units/secondary dwellings are something
that can help our entire community. Through this ordinance, we can help homeowners, our aging community,
young millennials starting out, and even families who rent, to find a feasible and timely housing solution that can make a meaningful difference in our community, all with one small policy/ordinance change. Above all, it
enables us to continue nurturing the vibrant and diverse community already here in the city we call home, Palo
Alto.
In order to align the Palo Alto Ordinance with State requirements, I support the following motions made on March 6, 2017:
Require no more than 6-ft side and rear setback for ADUs;
Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes;
Allow an additional 175 sq-ft of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU;
Allow an additional 50 sq-ft of FAR for a JADU;
Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 sq-ft;
Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10% smaller than
standard lot sizes;
Limit ADUs to 17-ft high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the
main house is a grandfathered 2-story house;
Ensure all approval process is ministerial;
Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs;
ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs; and
Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU; and
Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback
Sincerley,
Randolph Popp
A R C H I T E C T
210 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.427.0026
www.rp-arch.com
Please note my address
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
60
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Lynne Booth <carol.l.booth@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Supporting ADUs and that the ADU ordinance be on the April 17 consent calendar
Dear City Council,
I am a resident of Barron Park and strongly in favor of the ADU Ordinance. More ADUs will provide needed housing in Palo Alto and also an avenue of income for Palo Alto residents wishing to remain in Barron Park.
I understand that currently the ADU Ordinance is on the April 17 consent calendar but that it might be pulled to
be re-discussed as an action item. I am strongly in favor of it staying on the April 17 consent calendar, but if it
becomes open for discussion that evening, I am strongly in favor of the ordinance as drafted.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Carol Booth 768 Paul Ave.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
61
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pull the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar
Please pull the ADU ordinance from the consent calendar and reschedule consideration of this
ordinance in order to get more public discussion and to have time for the staff to analyze the impacts
of the more than a dozen amendments added late in a meeting with no public discussion. This is not the first time this city council has tried to push through a complicated ordinance late at
night with no public discussion. I hope this does not become a pattern. I guarantee that if this
continues, I will never vote for a council member who supports such ordinances for any public office.
I have written before about my support for ADU's. Done right, this can be a win-win for Palo Alto. I own and live in a duplex. I think they are very successful housing units. But the proposed ordinance
would be a nightmare. If my unit had not been built with two covered parking spots, and room for two
uncovered spots, my potential for renting my units would be severely reduced. Although I am within
in bicycle distance of Stanford, and CALtrain, I have never had a tenant apply for a rental without one car per adult. And my rents are far below average because I am on a busy street (Alma) near the train. ADU's should not be paid for by burdening neighbors. And the amendment to this ordinance,
which apparently requires no additional offstreet parking no matter where it is located, is only one of
many objectionable amendments.
Let's go back to a more collaborative form of government and listen to the input of current residents, many of whom have far more experience with Palo Alto and real estate than the current council. The
best processes and projects arrive out of consulting all the stakeholders and working out
compromises that work for most people, not a few people pushing their ill-formed opinions on
everyone else. Remember the decision to put red maples on CA Avenue after tearing down (with no warning)
evergreen trees native to a similar climate to Palo Alto. That was one of the stupidest decisions I
ever saw (red maples = deciduous - requires lots of summer water etc). It produced one of the
largest backlashes I've seen since I moved to Palo Alto in 1989. That will be nothing compared to the backlash if you pass this ill-conceived ordinance on a consent calendar.
Kathleen Goldfein
Longtime resident, owner and landlord
Alma Street Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
62
Carnahan, David
From:RICH <w6apz@comcast.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:50 PM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Second Dwelling Unit on Residential Lot
Allowing a second dwelling unit (AKA: Accessory Dwelling Units, Junior Dwelling Units, or a Granny Unit) on
residential lots is a VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE especially for Eichler dwellers, of which there are many in the city. Eichler homes have a lot of glass to allow a view of nature. We do NOT want another building built anywhere that could interfere with our view or our privacy.
Please remove this item from the Consent Calendar and schedule this item for community input with
sufficient time to get input from ALL Palo Alto citizens. Rich Stiebel
840 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435
Email: W6APZ@comcast.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:49 AM
63
Carnahan, David
From:Sarah Kummerfeld <sarah.kummerfeld@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for ADU ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to voice my support for the ADU ordinance planned to be discussed this coming Monday April 17.
This is a simple, commonsense measure that will help ease our housing crisis without making major changes to
the character of the city. This has the potential to allow young families like mine to better use our large yard
spaces for modest ADUs that will have a massive impact on our quality of life.
At the present time in our lives an ADU will be a place for far-flung family to stay instead of renting free-
standing apartments (which is not only expensive, but also uses up supply). In the future, I expect this would be
a place we could make available to visiting scholars or others looking for a place to stay close to Stanford.
Thank you for taking decisive steps to make ADUs a reality.
Sarah Kummerfeld
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LaDoris Cordell <ladoris@judgecordell.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 1:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Arthur Keller; Dorothy Bender; Joan Holtzman
Subject:request to pull Accessory Dwelling Unit from consent calendar item
Attachments:ladoris.vcf
i am a long‐time resident of Palo Alto and a former City Council member.
I am aware that at the City Council meeting on Monday, April 17, 2017, on the agenda is as consent item re an Accessory
Dwelling Unit Ordinance. I request that the item be pulled from the consent calendar and that the Wolback‐Fine
changes to the ordinance be reviewed by staff and by the City's Planning Commission to determine the impact of this
ordinance on Palo Alto residents. This matter is not appropriate as a consent calendar item in light of the many issues
that the proposed ordinance raises. ‐‐‐ LaDoris H. Cordell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:51 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ray Dempsey <rademps@aol.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:We need Paul Revere to awken the citizens!
Additional housing on all R1 lots!
Paul Revere’s Ride
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1807 - 1882
Listen, my children, and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-Five:
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.
He said to his friend, “If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry-arch
Of the North-Church-tower, as a signal-light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country-folk to be up and to arm.”
Then he said “Good night!” and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war:
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon, like a prison-bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.
Meanwhile, his friend, through alley and street
Wanders and watches with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers
Marching down to their boats on the shore.
Then he climbed to the tower of the church,
Up the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry-chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:51 AM
2
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town,
And the moonlight flowing over all.
Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night-encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel’s tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, “All is well!”
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay, --
A line of black, that bends and floats
On the rising tide, like a bridge of boats.
Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride,
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse’s side,
Now gazed on the landscape far and near,
Then impetuous stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle-girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry-tower of the old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry’s height,
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns!
A hurry of hoofs in a village-street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed that flies fearless and fleet:
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders, that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.
It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer’s dog,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:51 AM
3
And felt the damp of the river-fog,
That rises when the sun goes down.
It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, blank and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.
It was two by the village clock,
When be came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadows brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket-ball.
You know the rest. In the books you have read,
How the British Regulars fired and fled,--
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard-wall,
Chasing the red-coats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,--
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Haeger <jwhaeger@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:julianne
Subject:Fwd: adu's
Honorable Members of the City Council,
Recent discussions on community lists and listserves have made clear that the pending proposals for ADUs in
Palo Alto, as amended, are very likely to have undesirable elbow effects and unintended consequences that need
all of (a) additional public comment, (b) additional council discussion, (c) further staff analysis, and (d)
additional consideration by the PTC.
It is not appropriate that these proposals be on the Consent Calendar. I urge they they be removed therefrom,
and that further consideration by the Council be postponed until the above conditions can be met.
John Winthrop Haeger
1175 Channing Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel. 650-325-9496
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: Undeliverable: Please move the ADU ordinance off of the Consent Calender
tomorrow evening
Looks like Greg Scharff's email address has problems.
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:47 AM, "postmaster@cityofpaloalto.org" <postmaster@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
mtaiw-aad03.mx.aol.com rejected your message to the following email addresses: gregscharff@aol.com
There's a problem with the recipient's mailbox. Please try resending your message. If the problem
continues, please contact your email admin.
mtaiw-aad03.mx.aol.com gave this error:
: (DMARC:F2) This message failed DMARC Evaluation because neither DKIM or SPF aligned
with the policy provided by the From domain.
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: BL2PR09MB0962.namprd09.prod.outlook.com
gregscharff@aol.com mtaiw-aad03.mx.aol.com
Remote Server returned '521 5.2.1 : (DMARC:F2) This message failed DMARC Evaluation because
neither DKIM or SPF aligned with the policy provided by the From domain.'
Original message headers:
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=paloalto365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-paloalto365-onmicrosoft-com;
h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
bh=7av+HsaV1L0wCEMdsC8nRHomkoidLL77jRw5SwOHDdU=;
b=dQNLl0Fb1gi2yN4wH4Hax0Frzp5vglV8Hnp6wIAHjrWZKDD+/CFDKUAy7r3cdKFm8a5u8kjTrhrBGFZE+ayCN2R
/jjJKQfCGi62f3/oy6hJGzLYF0LyKzInZjjmXozogXUeGxPkXtvbosQt8AOh/1i39Z7bq1LZqm08Uqtbemu0=
Resent-From: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Received: from CY4PR09CA0014.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.172.65.24) by
BL2PR09MB0962.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.167.101.154) with Microsoft SMTP
Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
15.1.1034.10; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:47:37 +0000
Received: from BN1BFFO11FD014.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::1:107) by
CY4PR09CA0014.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:910:2::24) with Microsoft SMTP
Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id
15.1.1034.10 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:47:37 +0000
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:54 AM
5
PXQEh8cuc397INUGSDT/DVXNXX/56OWRUfpODlmK8=;24:pYu4UfU/Kav5USbYD0x9utCBNcrFTRHyziMkh/JM6nr
9pS5dyz/nBBT0hrwO6BmewYOJcpDrldEKYZo1+LG+t2dL0XWicWbcscJ7Wx9RPm4=
X-ExternalRecipientOutboundConnectors: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfdd
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;BL2PR09MB0962;7:c6BSWeQM0J4r/xAC9mGW9VsE4fatTfo3VpcZdxbmjmlWs9jMKIQM2rgxPycz2uiejB87ZVo
Bd71h/R6Q3GpWiPTPzm5Xbj9o/8Js4Pxh4/YMY4OLqCdg86xxLYCC30Pyz3U83X1JWhUVedOw8seEyoz0YjCznJdm
uffypQVQTh4vUDMQtR5lYFCp3QtSYNV1rYEMBjRCqKR38ovJ86/Zae+wSDORPwwDUfKr4OoD4vBVa0ZqyfvpUcKhU
iXel2GOQ874jKvNHA15w3V30e1pVjq84w1zNU3aRlOp2F1Nvx5MbR1eN2gbypVcc5Zk6Wk7+g0ySzum/KBir8+yOw
2vlg==
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply
X-OriginatorOrg: cityofpaloalto.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Apr 2017 18:47:37.1562
(UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 68949a6d-ce6e-4230-8536-f3e1f8d5dfdd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2PR09MB0962
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 8:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Kaplan <sue.kaplan@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:15 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Susan Kaplan
Subject:ADUs
Dear Council Members,
Please pull the vote on ADUs until there can be further discussion. It appears there has not been an adequate
opportunity for opinions to be expressed on this important issue. Thank you.
Susan Kaplan
4015 Orme St. Palo Alto, Ca. 94306.
Susan L. Kaplan, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist, Inc.
550 Hamilton Ave. #201
Palo Alto, Ca. 94301
(650) 325-9564
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:56 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Wexler <drkwexler@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Please reschedule the ADU discussion for another date so that the community can understand and participate in the
discussion fully. Remember, we are the people who voted you in; we can vote you out. Please show us the respect we
deserve.
Deborah Wexler
Forest Ave
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:56 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 10:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear City Council,
Please pull item 4 from the consent calendar and schedule it for a future public discussion at a city council meeting.
Isn't the city is required to notify residents BY MAIL if there is a zoning change within a 500 foot radius?
Isn’t the city required to notify the ENTIRE CITY about this ordinance which would greatly violate the property and
privacy rights of homeowners, and by in essence changing R1 neighborhoods into R2 ?
While surely Wohlbach/Fine will argue that this ordinance language is not a zoning change, I’m guessing the law would
see it differently…especially as it surpasses state regulations.
I urge you to avoid this fight.
Thank you,
Cheryl Lilienstein
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:37 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:ADUs on Consent
Attachments:Comments to council APril 2017 ADUs.docx
Please find my comments and concerns on this item attached.
I suggest that it be pulled and rescheduled with adequate notice to the public.
Annette Glanckopf
ANNETTE GLANCKOPF
2747 BRYANT
Annette_G@att.net
April 15, 2017
MEMO: City Council Action on ADUs
Dear Council Members,
I cannot be at Monday’s Council meeting, but I did want to weigh in on this topic. I am speaking for myself and not as a representative of any group.
I am very concerned about the proposed ordinance for ADUs, since many modifications were made
late at night and without any review by the PTC or public discussion, and without analysis provided by staff on the 11 additions.
I implore you to pull the item, and reschedule it after the PTC has time to consider these massive changes from the original staff proposal (state mandates) and weigh in on them with public comment.
I am supportive of ADUs and am in the category that would strongly consider one. However, I think
the city should adopt the state mandates for a period before making any further changes, so the city can determine what works and what doesn’t. CRAWL, WALK, RUN.
I am dismayed by the lack of fair process regarding the last-minute 11 additional items that go beyond
the state mandate. They were made late at night and again without public input.
Specifically, I recommend:
1. Require a minimum lot size. Substandard lots and lots of 6000 SF are, IMHO, too small for a
detached ADU. I suggest 7200 SF as the minimum size for anything other than a JADU.
2. Restore the current zoning re FAR, lot coverage and setbacks.
3. Require off-street parking.
4. Prohibit second story ADUs and basements.
5. Require owner occupancy in primary residency or ADU.
6. Consider limiting height for ADUs to 10’ maximum.
7. As a parallel effort with approval of the ADU ordinance, implement policy with enforcement and a policy to fine offenders for short term ADU rentals, such as Airbnb. Even though
ADU/JADU rentals for less than 30 days are not permitted, we currently do not have any way to enforce this.
Furthermore, there has been no consideration of ADUs in a flood plain, nor in a single story overlay or
a neighborhood dominated by Eichlers (non single story overlay).
The citizen survey results have been gradually declining regarding quality of life issues. With the
potential loss of privacy, increased noise, more on street parking, and the effective conversion of R1
into R2, I predict the survey results will continue to drop dramatically.
Finally, I would like to see other nomenclature for an “accessory structure,” since this could/will lead to
confusion with Accessory Dwelling Units.
Alas, the devil is in the details. Thank you for considering these comments.
Annette Glanckopf
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 7:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear City Council Members,
I am concerned enough about the lack of public input in the ADU proposal modified by Council Members Fine and
Tanaka that I am writing this e‐mail from China. In China the government makes most of the significant decisions
without public input. During my trip I have often thought about how fortunate we are as citizens to have a say in majors
decisions that affect us. So let's not throw out that right when it comes to decisions on ADUs! You cannot claim that the
public input box has been checked just because there was some public input before the final proposal, now significantly
modified, is voted upon.
Remember you are not to make decisions based only on your own personal priorities. You are supposed to make
decisions on what a majority of the citizens want. To do so obviously requires public input whenever significant changes
in a proposal are proposed.
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:zbrcp1@comcast.net
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Members,
PLEASE take a deep breath.
Respectfully URGE you to remove ADU's from Consent Calendar. There's been no time for public reaction to a host of
significant amendments to the well-vetted
staff recommendation recently approved.
This is Palo Alto Power Process at its worst. Please. Joseph Baldwin
850 Webster Street Apt. 524
Palo Alto CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:59 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Melanie Mahtani <mmahtani@companiondx.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 2:53 PM
To:Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Accessory Dwelling Units
Hi Liz -
Thanks for the quick response. Yes - I was aware of the general state law around ADUs, effective Jan 1st of this
year.
We felt that the setbacks, heights and size of property requirements and other specifics to the implementation of this ADU rule in Palo Alto should be reviewed and discussed.
We hope this matter will be more fully discussed before implementation of the council's initial scope and
recommendations. See you Monday and happy holiday weekend.
Regards, M
On Apr 15, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thank you for writing, Melanie--and I'm not sure that it's well known but ADUs are actually
allowed by state law as of the fall 2016. The council included some guidelines that we felt
would be advantageous in Palo Alto, before passing it two weeks ago.
Thanks for writing, Liz Kniss
On Apr 15, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Melanie Mahtani <mmahtani@companiondx.com> wrote:
Dear City Council,
I thank you for working on behalf of the City and our community. I'd like to register that we are opposed to the current ADU proposal to amend the
constraints on location and requirements of properties to place second dwelling units. We feel that this important item deserves much more deliberation and perhaps even a
resident vote. We feel this issue will transform our neighborhoods in a dramatic way, and feel it has the potential, if not done thoughtfully, to negatively impact so much of what we hold as dear
to Palo Alto, and of course to the privacy of our homes, the living environment, property values, and parking and transportation.
I look forward to seeing you at the meeting on Monday and hope that you can represent our views as well.
Regards, Melanie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 8:59 AM
3
1416 Tasso Street,
Professorville East
--- Melanie Mahtani, Ph.D.
mmahtani@stanfordalumni.org
mmahtani@companiondx.com
650.799.9910 cell
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:02 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Brand, Richard
Subject:Contents of 4/13 email cut out. Re: ADU's
My message to Council had the last paragraph reduced. The section in blue should be the correct content of the second paragraph. "I urge you to disregard letters of this type and also to support the pulling of the item from the April 17 Consent Calendar. The contents of the draft ordinance have been hastily prepared and need more public review.
Richard Brand
281 Addison Ave. "
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Katherine Jarvis <kjarvis@mac.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Councilmembers ‐
Providing more housing in Palo Alto is a worthy goal, but do not sacrifice the neighborliness of Palo Alto’s residential
areas, already challenged by AirBnB excesses, “ghost” houses, Waze‐guided traffic, etc. ADUs can make a dent but will
not solve the housing deficit. You may share my frustration when yet another office building is proposed for a site that
could be used for higher density housing.
For the record, I am interested in modifying my house to accommodate an ADU but expect that I (and my neighbors) will
need to follow some pretty strict guidelines about density, height and parking.
Please proceed cautiously in this matter. Just because residents have been slow to tune in to this issue doesn’t mean
they should be ignored.
Katherine Jarvis
1275 Martin Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 5:14 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Minor, Beth
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Attachments:ADU letter to Council.3.docx
Honorable Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I am writing to request that you pull the ADU ordinance off of the consent calendar, request a staff
analysis of likely community impacts, and calendar the proposed ordinance for a future date in order to
allow City Council to consider relevant and informed community feedback before enacting un-vetted and
controversial final hour revisions.
1. The ADU ordinance passed on March 7 reflects a complex and lengthy motion that exceeds State requirements and diverges significantly from the staff recommendation and its supporting
analysis. Indeed, major elements of the motion were not even contemplated in the staff report, let
alone fully analyzed.
2. As a result, the potential implications of the new ordinance, including community impacts, were not
publicly conveyed, discussed or evaluated, leaving the public uninformed about what the new rules will mean to us.
3. Compounding that uncertainty, the wording of the adopted motion was misleading to the average citizen. For example, the provision that “ADUs have the same parking requirement as JADUs” implies
that there is some parking requirement. When in fact, JADUs (which are a brand new, and not well
understood, allowance in Palo Alto) carry no parking requirement at all.
Much like Councilmembers’ assertion that removing the Comp Plan programs to an appendix was a mere
formatting change, this seems an attempt to provide false comfort to citizens with legitimate concerns, thereby discouraging further engagement. Additionally, in both cases, few Councilmembers in the approving majority raised any questions, concerns or clarifications. This lack of curiosity or apparent
deliberation regarding new, multifaceted, and controversial policy motions breeds suspicion of prior
closed-doors agreement.
It is unsettling and disappointing that this Council has, for the second time this year, approached an issue
of great interest to the community with complex motions introducing new approaches (unaddressed throughout prior public process) that lack the imprimatur of staff analysis and expertise and that by their wording conceal their impact from lay observers.
This community expects you to work in partnership with staff to communicate the implications of
significant policy options. We deserve to know what you mean and what it will mean to us, and to have
the opportunity to be heard on that substance. We hope you will pursue balanced strategies, but
whatever your ultimate decisions, we expect you to respect our input, not employ bait and switch
practices that preclude it.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Honorable Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I am writing to request that you pull the ADU ordinance off of the consent calendar, request a staff analysis of likely community impacts, and calendar the proposed ordinance for a future date in order to allow City Council to consider relevant and informed community feedback before
enacting un-vetted and controversial final hour revisions.
1. The ADU ordinance passed on March 7 reflects a complex and lengthy motion that exceeds State requirements and diverges significantly from the staff recommendation and its supporting analysis. Indeed, major elements of the motion were not even contemplated in the
staff report, let alone fully analyzed.
2. As a result, the potential implications of the new ordinance, including community impacts,
were not publicly conveyed, discussed or evaluated, leaving the public uninformed about what the new rules will mean to us.
3. Compounding that uncertainty, the wording of the adopted motion was misleading to the
average citizen. For example, the provision that “ADUs have the same parking requirement
as JADUs” implies that there is some parking requirement. When in fact, JADUs (which are
a brand new, and not well understood, allowance in Palo Alto) carry no parking requirement at all.
Much like Councilmembers’ assertion that removing the Comp Plan programs to an appendix
was a mere formatting change, this seems an attempt to provide false comfort to citizens with
legitimate concerns, thereby discouraging further engagement. Additionally, in both cases, few Councilmembers in the approving majority raised any questions, concerns or clarifications. This lack of curiosity or apparent deliberation regarding new, multifaceted, and controversial policy
motions breeds suspicion of prior closed-doors agreement.
It is unsettling and disappointing that this Council has, for the second time this year, approached an issue of great interest to the community with complex motions introducing new approaches (unaddressed throughout prior public process) that lack the imprimatur of staff analysis and
expertise and that by their wording conceal their impact from lay observers.
This community expects you to work in partnership with staff to communicate the implications of significant policy options. We deserve to know what you mean and what it will mean to us, and to have the opportunity to be heard on that substance. We hope you will pursue balanced
strategies, but whatever your ultimate decisions, we expect you to respect our input, not employ
bait and switch practices that preclude it.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rachele Trigueros <rtrigueros@bayareacouncil.org>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 4:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Matt Regan
Subject:Support for Accessory Dwelling Units
Attachments:BACSupport_PaloAltoADUs.pdf
Good afternoon City Councilmembers,
The Bay Area Council is proud to support the City of Palo Alto’s effort to ease barriers to accessory dwelling units, a
critical component of the region’s much needed housing supply. Please see our attached letter of support. We look
forward to working with your city to raise awareness around this great opportunity.
Best,
Rachele
Pronounced: “Ruh-shell”
Rachele Trigueros | Policy Manager | BAYAREA COUNCIL
353 Sacramento Street, 10th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111 Direct: 415-946-8782 | Cell: 925-586-6729 | rtrigueros@bayareacouncil.org
SENT VIA EMAIL
April 14, 2016
Palo Alto City Council City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Support for Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear City Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I am writing to express our support for the proposed amendments to
the Palo Alto Zoning Code, which would better enable the production of accessory dwelling units.
The Bay Area is experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis that threatens our economy, environment, and diverse communities. We need creative solutions to shrink the supply-demand mismatch responsible
for driving up housing costs. The Bay Area Council sees accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a critical part of the solution to our housing shortage.
This year, the Bay Area Council led a broad coalition of business leaders, environmentalists, housing
advocates, social justice groups, teachers associations, and others from around California to support the statewide enabling legislation SB 1069 (Wieckowski), which eases barriers for homeowners to adopt
ADUs. Reaching a consensus on housing policy can be extremely hard to come by, but recent reports out of the McKinsey Global Institute, Bay Area Council Economic Institute, and the White House all uphold
that accessory dwelling units are a necessary component of our housing supply. ADUs offer a unique opportunity to bring the community together behind a commonsense solution.
ADUs are affordable by design, environmentally sustainable, require no public subsidy, and provide
supplemental income to homeowners. They also have huge potential to add a substantial amount of units to the market. A recent Bay Area Council poll found that 40% of homeowners would consider adopting an
ADU. With 1.5 million single family homes in the Bay Area, if just 10% adopt an ADU, we would add 150,000 new units to our housing stock.
We commend the City of Palo Alto for its proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to align with
state law and further ease barriers to accessory dwelling units. The Bay Area Council looks forward to working with you to raise awareness about this innovative strategy to solving our housing crisis.
Sincerely,
Matt Regan
Senior Vice President, Public Policy
Bay Area Council
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Catharine Garber <catharine@fgy-arch.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 4:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and City Council Members, I support the ADU Ordinance motion as approved on Mar 6, 2017.
Expanding our housing options will help homeowners, our aging community, and young millenials These units enables us to continue
nurturing the diverse community in that makes Palo Alto such a vibrant place to live.
I had hoped that you would have relaxed the parking requirements even more. I strongly believe that Mobility as a Service will change our parking needs radically within the next 10 years. Please be forward thinking on this topic.
Thank you, Catharine Garber 2201 Byron St.
Catharine Garber
Fergus Garber Young Architects 81 Encina Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301
(650) 473-0400 www.fgy-arch.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 2:29 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: ADU
Dear Mr. Fine,
Regarding your question as to specifics that bother me:
On March 7, Council member Wolbach made a motion, seconded by you, with eleven lettered changes and two numbered requests for staff. (Now to be called the Wolbach-Fine motion.) The public record of the meeting
shows that the public had no opportunity to comment on that motion. Staff had not analyzed those
changes. The Planning and Transportation Commission had not analyzed those changes.
At Monday’s Council meeting, the ADU ordinance is, as you know, on the Consent Calendar. Because so many changes were made to the staff recommendation by the Wolbach-
Fine motion, it is a "first reading" of the ordinance. The Staff Report does not analyze these
changes. It merely codifies the ordinance and specifies the Zoning Ordinance changes made.
The changes to the ADU ordinance made by the Wolbach-Fine motion have not been analyzed by staff nor by the Planning and Transportation Commission. There has not been a hearing
where the public has had a chance to comment on these changes. Therefore, the ADU ordinance
must be pulled and come back to Council only after the proposed changes by Wolbach-Fine
motion have been analyzed by Staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee.
These items need to be thoroughly vetted by the public before being voted on. Specifically, one issue I have
with your sneak attack is why was there "no parking area needed" mandated? People who use “Granny” units
have cars. There should be adequate off street parking for these vehicles.
I’m not adverse to more “granny” units, but I don’t think there should be a blanket ordinance that allows them anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I live on a very large lot and can see a unit under these circumstances, but not on
sub-standard sized and small lots. This will only degrade our quality of life further.
If you’d like to do something that will benefit the city, why don’t you tackle the transportation problem? There are too many cars, not enough parking, and gridlock during rush hour. My husband and I feel locked into our
home before 9:00 and after 2:30 because there is so much traffic. Someone needs clear thinking and a good
strategy for fixing this problem before we try to add any more construction, either commercial or
residential. Are you and the council up to the task? Or are you going to just keep adding more and more traffic
to the problem?
Thank you for listening, I hope…...
Mrs. Lin
On Apr 13, 2017, at 2:47 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:04 AM
2
Hi Lois,
Thanks for writing. This process has been informed by extensive community input, council
oversight, and public meetings. It has gone through the wringer of city process.
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. More often than not,
they were asking for the PTC and Council to "go big" on ADUs and housing.
Is there something specific about the changes that are of concern to you?
Regards,
Adrian
From: Lois Lin <mloislin@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 2:43:52 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: ADU
Dear council,
Please pull item 4, ADU, from your agenda on Monday April 17. It is too important an item not to be
thoroughly vetted by the community before going to the council. There need to be clear and strict ordinances in place before any votes on changing the current laws regarding the addition of a second unit
to a property is discussed.
I would like to know who put this on the calendar. That person WILL NOT get my future vote.
Lois Lin 4049 Orme Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:04 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 2:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU's
Hello..please pull this item from the 4/17 Consent Calendar and schedule for a future hearing several weeks
away when the Public can be properly notified and time allowed for careful discussion.
This Ordinance has the potential to ruin our neighborhoods and diminish our property values.
No design reviews, any sized lot, minimal set backs, no required parking. Honestly, what were you thinking?
Palo Alto will turn in to an Airbnb capital;. cars will litter the streets and neighbors will fight for parking
spots. Parking will go to the highest bidder and Palo Alto's streets will look like the recently described Tesla office parking lot.
The majority of you ran as "friendly to Palo Alto values and neighborhoods". I feel deceived by the maker and voters for this Ordinance. Actions always speak louder than words.
Please allow the Public their say on this important matter: housing.
Thank you
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:05 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ronald Chun <Ron_Chun@msn.com>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 10:14 AM
To:Council, City; City Attorney
Subject:Supplemental Letter to Adrian Fine's Response to Withdraw - ADU Consent Calendar;
DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
Dear City Council:
Council member Fine responded to individual city letters requesting withdrawal of the ADU from the Consent Calendar in response to letters asking that this matter be withdrawn from the Consent
calendars.
He posits that this matter was fully vetted with lengthy dispute and asks what is the specific problem
with the proposed legislation.
The objection to the ADU ordinance is procedural. It is clear denial of due process when the City
Council, by motion, materially alters the ordinance without public input.
Public input occurs at the Planning Transportation Commission. By materially changing the
ordinance at the City Council level, there is a denial of due process by the absence of public participation. The changes made at Council to the ordinance have a material affect upon the quality of life, traffic, education, health and safety of the city of Palo Alto. The material changes were to
remove the setback provisions, removal of replacement of parking requirements and allowance of
ADU on all lot sizes.
These changes were made clearly rejected by the Planning Transportation Commission. Council
member Fine and Wolbach made material changes without input or analysis by the Staff or the
public. The Planning Transportation Commission nor the public was given their legal opportunity to
review those change and comment upon them at Council.
The ADU ordinance must be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar; it should be analyzed by
Staff, the Planning and Transportation Committee and allow for public comment and input before
being brought for consideration by the City Council.
Ronald Chun, Esq. & CPA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andrea Smith <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Friday, April 14, 2017 6:42 AM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Second Dwelling Units
The changes to the ADU ordinance have not been analyzed by staff nor by the Planning and
Transportation Commission. There has not been a hearing where the public has had a chance to
comment on these changes. Therefore, the ADU ordinance must be pulled and come back to
Council only after the proposed changes by Wolbach-Fine motion have been analyzed by Staff or
the Planning and Transportation Committee.
On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:57 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for writing. While I respect your desire table the ADU updates, this process has been
informed by extensive community input and has gone through the wringer of city process. It's
been evaluated by staff and has had public input at multiple meetings.
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. More often than not,
they were asking for the PTC and Council to "go big" on ADUs and housing.
Is there something specific about the changes that are of concern to you?
Regards,
Adrian
From: Andrea Smith <andreabsmith@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 9:47:33 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 9:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Humphries <mhumphries@mindspring.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:11 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Connie Linton; nhbeamer@yahoo.com
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Council
As a long term resident of Palo Alto I am concerned about several aspects of the ordinance recently placed on
the consent calendar concerning accessory dwelling units. My wife and I request that the ADU ordinance be pulled from the consent calendar and rescheduled for
public discussion accompanied by a staff analysis of the impacts.
This ordinance as drafted appears to be capable of enabling problematic housing units that may well cause a number of issues to Palo Alto's neighborhoods including Crescent Park where my wife and I have lived for 30 years.
Thank you...Mike Humphries and Connie Linton- 1300 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto 94301
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:08 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:4/17/17 CONSENT ITEM
Please pull item #4 off of the Monday consent calendar until it can be
properly and publicly vetted. It is an issue that affects the entire
community.
Thank you
Paul Machado
Evergreen Park
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:08 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Calendar April 17 2017
Dear City Council,
I respectfully request that you remove the ADU issue (I believe it's listed as item 4) from the upcoming meeting calendar until this very important issue can be publicly discussed.
Most sincerely,
James Cornett
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:08 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Nixon <bnixon25@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 10:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU
I am incensed at the way the many ordinances regarding this important issue were proposed to council members very
late in the evening at the end of a long meeting after nearly all public members had left. Very sneaky. If you put these
motions in front of voters, I guarantee they would lose. Keep in mind this same public will be voting at the next election
for city council members. This is classic backroom politics. You should be ashamed.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 13, 2017 3:28 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; Crescent Park PA; dsfna@yahoogroups.com; danRausch123
@gmail.com
Subject:Re: ADU
Adrian
Txs for your reply, however if all this was made “really” clear with input from Palo Altans, it seems surprising
that so many many people are upset. There are many specifics that are of concern….here is one - two stories in my neighbors back yard - there goes
my privacy I have 4 neighbors that back/side up to my property - which one or two or three or four will take
away the sky and sun and privacy because of the lax regulations for a ADU. Many people take advantage of a
free for all - and without absolute guidelines, there will be no consistent size/height/setbacks/etc. This is a bit like realtors encouraging people to build basements but the council didn’t see fit to have all the restrictions for ground water set in place immediately (except for those who already have their permit). It seems the CC is
rushing through another blank slate to anyone wanting to build a ADU. We know that realtors and developers
will pounce with speed. Residents with an above standard size property do not have as much to lose as those of
us on a standard size lot. Even if a majority of the council sways towards more and more, not everyone who voted this council did so solely for the “development issue”.
ADU's take a LOT MORE study before voting on the present wording. And, I ask again - WHY did the
council approve spending a chunk of tax payer’s money for an expensive evaluation creating guidelines for
Eichlers when it really won’t matter if one can build another structure almost anywhere on their property. Especially one that is taller than the main structure on the same property. This is a contradiction to
the purpose of spending tax money. The public attended and commented at all of these sessions. More often
than not, they were asking for the PTC and Council to "go big" on ADUs and housing. I question this as I
don’t think there was a person in a crowded room, with many standing, several sitting on the floor, in
attendance to get involved with the guidelines for Eichlers. Before the ADU can come to a vote there
is a lot more work. It behoves the CC to speak to the representative you hired ---about the consensus of
the people who took the time to attend the meeting. When the ADU came up at the end of the meeting
- there was definitely no consensus to go big or ADUs without guidelines
To you and the Council for hopefully, recognizing this is not a done deal.
Sincerely Lenore
On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:53 PM, Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:
Hi Lenore,
Thanks for writing. While I respect your desire table the ADU updates, this process has been
informed by extensive community input and has gone through the wringer of city process.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:09 AM
2
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. More often than not,
they were asking for the PTC and Council to "go big" on ADUs and housing.
Is there something specific about the changes that are of concern to you?
Regards,
Adrian
From: Lenore Cymes <lenraven1@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 12:14:30 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 9:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Billy Riggs <billy.riggs@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:06 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support of ADU Policy
Council Members,
As a professor of city planning and a resident of the the circles (Ramona Circle, in South Palo Alto), I would like to fully support the proposed ADU policy changes being considered by the council. The policy does not
loosen R-1 zoning, but clarifies what is allowed and responds to what is already happening in the marketplace.
Moreover, it is consistent with best practice in city planning and public policy statewide, particularly in light of
how we increase local housing supply, and operationalize greenhouse gas reduction goals (AB-32, SB 375, SB,
743, AB-2299, etc.)
I am aware that some members of the community have expressed concern about neighborhood character, and
how people may try to take advantage of the system in an ADU environment (e.g. single family neighborhoods
becoming more multifamily). While I do not discount those sentiments, I believe they are mitigable through
good planning practice at the staff level and proper noticing of projects--something I believe that your staff is already doing a great job at.
Furthermore I believe it might be appropriate to look at parallel policies that could limit these corner cases and
increase neighborhood stability. These include:
Stricter community design guidelines (For example Eichler neighborhoods design guidelines underway);
Short-term-rental ordinance that limits gig-style units that undermine neighborhood stability and take
long-term units off the market (For example, the City of San Luis Obispo limits short-term rentals to
only owner-occupied home where the landlord is present onsite).
I hope you find these ideas useful and urge you to pass the proposed ADU policy as-is. The policy is good Palo Alto and the Bay Region. Thank you for service and please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
William (Billy) Riggs
--
William Riggs
PhD, AICP, LEED AP
http://www.williamriggs.com 510.205.5944 phone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:15 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:S. K. ("KG") Ganapathi <kg.ganapathi@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance discussion April 17: Please pull it from consent calendar tonight!
Please 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.
Best Regards,
KG Ganapathi
(650) 704‐7714
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 9:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Please hold off on the ADU provisions that go beyond what state law requires. The State Law provisions already
potentially significantly change the nature of R1 zones. Let's see what impact they have before going further.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Ingle <frankwingle@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:39 AM
To:Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Council, City
Cc:Richard Willits
Subject:I request that you vote to remove the ADU issue from the consent calendar
Importance:High
To: Tom DuBois, Karen Holman, Eric Filseth, and Lydia Kou
I ask you as members of the City Council who support the interests of the “residentialists” to vote tonight to
remove the ADU issue from the consent calendar so that it can be fully discussed and debated at a later
date. This may be the most important vote you cast, since using the ADUs will penalize the mostly single story
outer suburbs by increasing overcrowding and increased traffic congestion, which will serve the non-
residentialists in justifying more office construction.
Please give this extremely important issue a chance for discussion among the Council and among the citizenry
before allowing it to pass without additional comment.
thank you,
Your constituent, Frank Ingle, 814 Richardson Ct, PA
Below is the essence of the issue for the residents of R1 properties:
In the wee hours of a city council meeting March 7, Fine and Wohlbach
submitted ordinance language that would allow "Accessory Dwelling
Units" to be built on ALL single family R1 lots, even substandard sized
lots. There has been NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION of the ordinance
language.
The ordinance eliminates all design reviews, changes the 20 foot rear
setback to 6 foot setbacks, offers no privacy protection for adjacent
homeowners, and has NO parking requirements. There has been NO
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. It
essentially changes all R1 lots to R2. There will be no enforceable
regulations for short or longterm renting.
Nonetheless: TODAY, MONDAY APRIL 17, and WITHOUT PUBLIC
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
2
DISCUSSION of the language, the ordinance is scheduled to be voted on
in the consent calendar, which means it was intentionally bundled with
other "business as usual" items as if it is just "business as usual". 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.
Yet, This ordinance drastically changes our city.
Logistically: Even if three City Council members request pulling the item
from the Consent Calendar, the Mayor may choose to have the item heard
and voted on the same night, Monday, April 17. That hearing may occur
either before other scheduled agenda items or late at night after the
scheduled items.
THIS ORDINANCE IS A HUGE CHANGE and deserves a public
discussion. Please ask that the ordinance be pulled from the consent
calendar and be scheduled for a FUTURE public discussion a city council
meeting.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance :Monday, April 17--- SUPPORT
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and Palo Alto City Council members,
I strongly support the ADU Ordinance. You can make a difference for many by voting the ordinance into effect.
This will help address both current and future housing needs of the community.
The critical housing shortage in Palo Alto is clear and growing. Repeatedly community members have spoke to you about
the need for a variety of housing
choices: types, supply, size and location. Palo Alto is the costliest place to secure housing in the country. The regional
shortage of housing. of which Palo Alto is a part of the problem, directly leads to increased traffic from other areas, air
pollution, and increased carbon.
I appreciate your deliberation and review of the ADU Ordinance; it has taken time and reflection and provides a sensible,
defensible and workable solution.
Being more flexible will result in a more inclusive and diverse community. Other communities in the area have done
similar work to help their communities and reduce the housing deficit. Once again, this is your opportunity for a legacy
vote that is thoughtful and pro‐active.
In closing, I have been very disheartened by the fear‐mongering, distortions, and alternative facts used by many of the
ADU Ordiance opponents. This mirrors tactics used in the recent Presidential election and does not reflective values of
the Palo Alto community.
Thank you,
Gail A. Price
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Karen Machado <karen.machado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Let's Do ADU's Right
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to ask that you remove the proposed ordinance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units from the
consent calendar and take the following actions:
--Direct staff or the Planning and Transportation Committee to do a comprehensive review of the Wobach-Fine
motion to the ADU ordinance and evaluate issues including: privacy, parking, traffic, density, and effect on
neighborhood character that their changes would create.
--After this analysis has been completed and publicized, then calendar the ADU discussion for a full public
council session to allow real input from residents.
I know that you consider it important to build trust with the community and allowing the PTC to pass major
changes at 2 am means that we need to worry about what the PTC are doing at their meetings after midnight
when all the residents had to go home to bed. Sad that we have to worry more about the city government
stealing our neighborhoods than thieves in the night. I am very concerned that this proposal will in effect
change the zoning of our neighborhood residences from R1 to R2 and that over the next few years we will be living amid big condo complexes. I do not want my street to look like San Antonio road. We can add housing
to Palo Alto without destroying our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards,
Karen Machado
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:55 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Council,
As neighbors and citizens of Palo Alto, we want input into any changes of this nature.
There needs to be a public forum about this before moving ahead. DELAY!
Margo Davis
Margo Davis
margoadavis@gmail.com
650 714 2146
www.margodavisphoto.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Entriken, Robert <rentrike@epri.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 9:58 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding Palo Alto Accessory Dwelling Units
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to you today as a private citizen and resident of Palo Alto, and this is my personal opinion, which has no
reflection on my employer.
My understanding is that language has been added to a long‐debated and proposed ordinance on Accessory Dwelling
Units that has yet to be subject to public debate, and that this ordinance is now on the consent calendar for today's
Council meeting. When I think of the long‐term vision behind this language and this process, it tells me that some
portion of the Palo Alto City Council envision the following future:
1) Subjecting issues to public debate and then quickly appending and approving desired language will become an
accepted way for our leaders to lead Palo Alto.
2) Thousands of dwellings in Palo Alto will be built with little to no consideration of their impact on neighbors and the
sense of community we work so hard to construct for ourselves and our children.
I oppose this vision.
Sincerely,
Robert Entriken
Technical Executive
Electric Power Research Institute
3420 Hillview Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel: 650/855‐2198 | Cell: 650/353‐8956 | Fax: 650/855‐2002
Email: rentrike@epri.com
www.epri.com
Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
*** This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unless otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or
except as may be allowed by separate written agreement between EPRI and recipient or recipient’s employer, any
review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an
electronic signature, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement with EPRI. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of this message. Please
be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's email system
administrator and/or provider. ***
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 10:03 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady Sheyner; Jen Nowell; Jacqueline Lee; Jason Green;
Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Subject:City Council! Let's Do ADUs Right
Here are a wide range of examples describing how ADUs can be
built quickly and efficiently. Based on my limited research Palo Alto
ADUs will tend to be turnkey installations of prefab ADUs. I am not
an ADU expert but economics will dictate how ADUs will be
built. Turnkey choice of styles, construction and financing makes
sense.
Homes | Greenfab
Homes | Greenfab
Residents and council members have not had sufficient time or
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
8
networks to communicate how these units will present themselves
in very complex neighborhood backyard settings.
Palo Alto's immediate issue is simple compliance with state
mandates. Just adopt it without fanfare.
The second issue is Palo Alto Council's rushed effort to exceed
state mandates. Exceeding state mandates must not be rushed
without solid political foundation and full public awareness. Neither
condition exists today.
City staff could have [should have] presented more complete
information so that all citizens would be informed and engaged with
objective, visual information. It is not the role of citizens to produce
technical, visual renderings of such a complex restructuring of
residential neighborhoods. Profound impact on neighborhood
housing has been understated by staff. It is the role of staff and
Council now to listen, slow down and assure evolution of sound
housing policy.
The new ADU ordinance is not orderly, rational or informative. Staff
has not presented professional-grade renderings or elevations to
describe the impact of ADUs. Furthermore, based on home
locations relative to transportation services, many residents have
not been specifically informed about impact of exceeding the state
mandates.
Bottom line: The Council and general public are not well
informed. A picture of state mandated changes vs local
enhancements would be worth thousands of words to all
stakeholders.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
9
PS For the record, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with pre-fab
units...many have proven designs, materials and appliances..often
lifted from European experience and success.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
10
Carnahan, David
From:Shaila Iyer <shaila.iyer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 10:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Concerned about high granny unit ordinance
Hello.
I live in an Eichler and am opposed to the proposed high granny unit ordinance. We would like to maintain our
single story homes as originally intended.
Thank you for hearing my voice.
Shaila
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 10:26 AM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 10:23 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please pull the ADU bit from the Consent Calendar
Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers Wolbach, Fine, Filseth, Tanaka, Holman, Kou, Holman & DuBois:
I am concerned that there has been no opportunity for public consideration and comment about the proposed changes to the zoning code governing ADUs.
I am all for relaxing the rules, but believe that the present proposal has not been adequately discussed in the
public forum. Please pull this item from consent and schedule it for a date in the future, but not tonight,
because I and lots of us Palo Altans haven't had a chance to understand all the changes. We would all like a chance to review and discuss.
I hope this request will be met with the same generosity and desire for effective governance in which it was
made.
Kind regards, and thank you for your service.
Becky Sanders
369 Margarita
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Flees <djflees@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Show restraint in promoting ADUs for residential neighborhoods
Dear H. Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong disapproval of recent late proposed changes to the
Accessory Dwelling Unit ("ADU") ordinance. As in the case where the council summarily
tried to remove program content from the comprehensive plan, adding changes to the
ADU ordinance after the initial public hearing and insisting that they get a vote without
proper further consideration is going to backfire. This is not a proper governance
process.
The recent proposed changes are not what we want in Palo Alto:
* allow ADUs on any lot, independent of size. Many lots are simply too small for
allowing two independent houses. SFH/R1 is intended to be predominantly lower density
single families, not multi-family rental housing. This is what provides the cohesiveness
of the community in these neighborhoods.
* permit as little a 6ft rear setback for ADUs. No way! Many houses already have no side
yards and very small back yards. Floor to ceiling glass windows opening to the back
patio mean sufficient spacing and obscured sight lines are the only way to preserve
some semblance of privacy.
* no parking requirements and worse still, existing ADUs can re-purpose parking space
that they had already been required to provide under the prior zoning requirements? We
are already suffering in many parts of town from the effects of previous under-parked
development. This proposal will only make it worse.
* allowing additional lot coverage when including ADU ... easy to game the system to
just build ever bigger houses on ever smaller lots.
I believe the effort to end-around R1 zoning to make it into R2 with ADU's will ultimately prove fruitless and in the small number of cases where it does bear fruit will set
neighbor against neighbor. Most who purchase homes in the city's long established R1
neighborhoods do so in part to avoid the stresses of high density living including lack of
available parking, lack of greenery and open space, and observing/being observed in
every action we take daily due to lack of privacy. Anyone availing themselves of the
extreme ADU relaxations now being proposed to build 6ft from a back yard on a sub-
standard lot risks finding themselves a pariah in the neighborhood. Only absentee
landlords or those not interested in being part of a cohesive neighborhood are likely to
take that risk. Please exercise restraint in the ADU proposals to avoid opening up the
city's neighborhoods to these kinds of divisive fights.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
2
Regards,
Daniel Flees
Elbridge Way, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Mickelson <m.d.mickelson@att.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs need more discussion
Your recent actions and topic on this evening's (Monday the 17th) agenda are inadequate for the
citizenry to agree. I request you open a formal input process from the homeowners of the city before
proceeding. Thank you. Mark Mickelson
Hamilton Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jonathan Brown <jbrownie2218@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADU Ordinance
Dear City Council,
I write to oppose the Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) ordinance on for tonight’s consent calendar. The proposed
ordinance would gut much of the protections that make Palo Alto’s R‐1 neighborhoods desirable places for families and
other citizens to live. I strongly disagree with the entirely unsupported hypothesis in Section 1.E. of the proposed
ordinance that the existing restrictions on ADUs "perhaps unintentionally, prevent homeowners from building ADUs” by
forcing them to comply with "standards like lot coverage, large set‐backs, off‐street parking, or costly construction
requirements.” These protections were put in deliberately to improve the character of our neighborhoods. Even if that
were not the case, residents like me who have moved to Palo Alto because it was a nice place to raise kids and live out
our time on this planet have relied on protection like these. Losing these protections would be a travesty.
Neighborhoods and quality of life would suffer from increased parking, increased transience of our neighbors, loss of
community feeling, noise, trash, and so many more negative impacts.
It is a fallacy to think that this ordinance will do anything to solve the perceived problem with housing affordability.
Nothing in this ordinance requires ADUs to be made affordable to people who deserve affordable housing. Vacant and
underused lots in the Ventura neighborhood along El Camino where I live and elsewhere around Palo Alto would be
much better suited to build affordable housing in the kind of density that would make a difference to the City’s housing
stock (if that were identified as a priority).
Comply with state law if you must. But these changes go well beyond what is minimally required by state law and would
do great damage to the fabric of our city. And our already overwhelmed code enforcement officers will be even more
unable to keep up with complaints. Please say no to this ordinance and protect the constituents that put you in office.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Brown
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Consent Calendar: Ordinance on Rules for Structures
The shenanigans to bypass or deny adequate public input (as evinced by the recent sorry attempt to hijack the Comp Plan process) just aren't going to stop, are they? Is there something in the air that is causing odious, unilateral development initiatives to bloom without surcease?
That the state is intent on unilaterally forcing communities like Palo Alto to add housing without consideration or provision for supportive infrastructure, traffic impacts, school capacity, etc., is no secret. That some of our own elected representatives seem intent on slavishly cooperating in this effort and unilaterally represent the interests of those they might like to live here rather than the expressed interests of those who elected them and already do live here is increasingly apparent. "Here's the story: In the wee hours of a city council meeting March 7, Fine and Wohlbach submitted ordinance language that would allow "Accessory Dwelling Units" to be built on ALL single family R1 lots, even substandard sized lots. There has been NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION of their ordinance language.
The ordinance eliminates all design reviews, changes the 20-foot rear setback to 6-foot setbacks, offers no privacy protection for adjacent homeowners, and has NO parking requirements. There has been NO PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THIS ORDINANCE LANGUAGE. It essentially changes all R1 lots to R2. There will be no enforceable regulations for short or long-term renting." The proposed ordinance should be pulled from the consent calendar immediately. If it is ever reintroduced, it should go through the normal city process with staff, commission and public input rather let Palo Alto Forward's flawed plan to increase
density and further urbanize Palo Alto be imposed on all of us. Michael Maurier Fairmede Ave. Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Graig <graigm@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:41 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Pull the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance from the Consent Calendar
Reschedule it after staff or PTC review of the effects of the Wolbach-Fine changes and after there is
opportunity for public comment.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Andrea Brand <tydhvbxofcmhhfh@ujoin.co>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 11:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support Mar 6 Direction for ADUs!
From: andreabrand1@mac.com <Andrea Brand>
Message:
I fully support ADUs since this is a viable option for the elderly or extended family, especially the elderly so they might not have to enter a senior home and could stay with family instead. My neighbor is currently making
an ADU in their yard for their autistic son. He can be independent, but yet still dependent. Thank you!
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,
I would like to write in support of the ADU Ordinance motion as voted on and approved on Mar 6, 2017. Please do not pull this from the consent calendar on Monday April 17, 2017. Housing is a basic need. Finding ways to expand housing options (like
ADUs and JADUs) for our community members is an economic, environmental, social justice and humanitarian
issue. ADU's/granny units/secondary dwellings are something that can help our entire community. Through this ordinance, we
can help homeowners, our aging community, young millenials starting out, and even families who rent, to find a feasible and
timely housing solution that can make a meaningful difference in our community, all with one small policy/ordinance
change. Above all, it enables us to continue nurturing the vibrant and diverse community already here in the city we call home,
Palo Alto.
In particular, I support the following motions made on March 6, 2017: a. Require no more than 6-ft side and rear setback for ADUs; b. Allow ADUs on all residential lot sizes; c. Allow an additional 175 sq-ft of FAR for an ADU, but not for a two-story ADU; d. Allow an additional 50 sq-ft of FAR for a JADU; e. Increase the maximum size of attached ADUs to 600 sq-ft;
f. Remove Lot Coverage requirements for ADUs on properties that are no smaller than 10% smaller than standard lot
sizes;
g. Limit ADUs to 17-ft high and single-story in Single Story Overlay (SSO) neighborhoods, even if the main house is a
grandfathered 2-story house;
h. Remove design review and requirements;
i. Remove door orientation requirements for ADUs; j. ADUs to have the same parking requirements as JADUs; and k. Remove requirements for covered parking on properties with an ADU or JADU; and l. Allow required replacement parking on an existing driveway within the front setback Sincerley
Andrea Brand
Palo Alto
California
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Iannucci <susan@rail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 10:32 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units or JADUs) in
single-family residential neighborhoods
Dear City Council,
I am so disappointed that you all, as elected officials have chosen to change Palo Alto neighborhoods with this vote.
You will jeapordize all that is good about Palo Alto.
I fervently hope that you will vote against this and allow the public to express our concerns. It is hard to believe that you have been listening to those who voted for you.
Sincerely, Susan Iannucci 3540 South Court
"On Monday, April 17, the City Council has on its Consent Calendar relaxed rules for allowing Second Dwelling Units (called
Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units or JADUs) in single-family residential
neighborhoods. "
-- Susan Iannucci – Voiceovers
(650) 391-7041
susan@voicetoremember.com
http://www.voicetoremember.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 11:58 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Jeanie Tooker <jeanie.tooker@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Arthur Keller; preserve.zoning@pasz.emailnb.com
Subject:Remove ADU rules from Consent Calendar
Hello City Council members,
I am so surprised to see that the City Council still does not understand Palo Alto. I realize some of you are new, but
when has it ever worked to bypass public opinions, hoping people won't react? I understand there has been an
extensive review, but if you add additional rules or provisions, you have to start over and allow the process to have
integrity. The credibility of the City Council continues to be at risk as long as you appear to covertly ignore or avoid the
many diverse sensitivities of Palo Alto. At least the review process represents a rational and respectful approach to
change. Therefore, please remove this issue from the Consent Calendar and return it to the Planning and Transportation
Committee for further review and public reaction.
I think that many residents will appreciate the ability to have an ADU/JADU and it could help the housing crisis. But Palo
Altans still want privacy and a reasonable approach to development within the city. I also recommend, based on my
experience, that you consider building better communication and problem solving skills within our planning department.
These changes should be closely monitored so that process problems, disagreements and concerns can be managed and
mitigated. Otherwise, we will end up with another divisive issue for (endless) discussion on various public and online
venues.
Respectfully,
Jeanie Tooker Stephens
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette <annette_g@att.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Annette
Subject:second letter on ADUs
Dear Council Members,
There has been a lot of rhetoric and misinformation over the weekend about the public's position on ADUs and
the "residentialists" trying.to block the implementation of ADUs.
Make no mistake, there is general support for ADUs with the state mandate as a template and for many of the reasons stated by Palo Alto Forward especially for family members and caregivers.
From the emails I have been receiving, the silent majority is not for the last minute, late at night massive
changes that will significantly affect neighborhood character - more noise, loss of privacy, potential safety
issues and more on-street parking. The community does support ADUs and the relaxation of rules as proposed
by state mandates. There is, howver, concern about these units turning into Airbnb rentals.
The issue is not ADUs per se, but rather the Council's action being similar to the Comp Plan removal of
programs.
Please do not confuse the community acceptance and support of the state's mandates with the excessive position
espoused by the social media savvy group of individuals.
Annette
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:35 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Kirsten Flynn <kir@declan.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADA units
Honorable City Council‐members,
Thank you for trying to work to improve the jobs housing inbalance by relaxing the rules for ADU units.
I do not care if the vote on this proposal takes place at tonight's meeting, or at a later meeting, I definitely want my
fellow citizens to be heard. I wish I could be there tonight but I am visiting family out of state.
I did want to make the point, that much of the traffic problems that we are experiencing in Palo Alto are due to there
being limited housing and many jobs, so many are commuting into the city. Additionally I am very concerned that much
of the large unit housing growth is taking place in South Palo Alto near where I live. It is understandable, because it is a
less built‐up neighborhood, with less political enfranchisement. I feel that the accessory dwelling units would be good
for my neighborhood because it might distribute the additional housing units more evenly throughout the city.
Therefore I think it is fair to the south Palo Alto neighborhoods.
I believe this growth is not going to go away, and we must step up to the plate and create housing.
Thank you for your attention,
Kirsten
94306
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:35 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Frankie Farhat <farhat_101@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PULL OUT today's agenda ITEM #4 (re HOUSING)
Please pull out item #4 off of your agenda until a real discussion on this issue takes
place.
Shame on whoever is responsible for tricking us into putting this item on the agenda and
giving us barely a 24 hr notice to respond and react, not to mention to mention that those
24 hrs were on a Holiday for many Palo Alto residents!
SHAME SHAME SHAME!
Frankie Farhat
650-857-0532
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:35 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Ousterhout <ritaousterhout@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs - needs more discussion and review
The changes to ADUs needs more discussion and review. The city council needs to better educate the public on
what is being proposed (i.e. articles in the Palo Alto Weekly, email to neighborhood mailing lists, etc.) and
allow for feedback from the public.
I've seen a variety of conflicting information, so I'm not even sure what is and is not being proposed.
I definitely believe there need to be parking restrictions. We already have a parking problem, and we don't need
to make it worse!
Rita Ousterhout
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:35 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:kemp650@aol.com
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:kemp650@aol.com
Subject:ADU vote - please delay to allow public input and more review
Dear Mayor Scharff and Councilmembers Wolbach, Fine, Filseth, Tanaka, Holman, Kou, Holman and DuBois: I am concerned that there has been no opportunity for public consideration and comment about the proposed changes to the zoning code governing ADUs.
Although I do not oppose relaxing the rules per se, I believe that the present proposal has not been adequately discussed in the public forum. Please pull this item from consent and schedule it for a date in the future, but not tonight, because I and
lots of us Palo Altans haven't had a chance to understand all the changes. We would all like a chance to review and discuss.
I hope this request will be met with the same generosity and desire for effective governance in which it was made.
Thank you,
Susan Kemp Matadero Avenue
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:36 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brian Kilgore <bkilgore05@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance
I am writing opposed to the ADU ordinance being debated in Palo Alto. It is a blatant attempt to convert R1
neighborhoods into unregulated R2 housing developments by the vote of 5 people in Palo Alto. Why is the city
council determined to quickly pass this ordinance without city staff investigation and a commission to explore the ramifications of a truly significant change in neighborhood zoning? The idea that ADU will be used for low
income housing or ‘grannies’ is absurd. Perhaps some will, but it is more likely that most new ADU’s will be
rented to the highest bidder either directly or via Airbnb (or similar) for personal profit, period. Neighbors are
left with no recourse in dealing with the problems of privacy, parking, traffic and livability in this city.
I vote no.
regards,
- Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:54 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clayton Nall <clayton.nall@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:ADUs
Dear Council Members:
I encourage the Council to continue its pursuit of a robust ADU ordinance that facilitates construction of accessory dwelling units in Palo Alto. Recent proposals by Fine and Wolbach (at the 3/7 meeting) are a great
step in the right direction.
An effective ADU-enabling ordinance should feature many of the following:
1) The process should be relatively unburdened by micro-management of the development process.
2) People who own typical lots should be able to build on those lots. Minimum lot size requirements are
regressive and will only leave the ADU tool only in the hands of those who are land-rich. Similarly, excessive
setback requirements are just another way to keep average Palo Altans from taking advantage of the ADU
ordinance.
3) Regulations should be written in a way that allows regulatory scrutiny of proposals, but prevents neighbors
from using planning and design commission meetings as a way to veto (or kill with red tape) their neighbors'
otherwise legal ADU proposals.
4) Any ADU ordinance should be based on the idea that we need to prioritizing housing for people, not
cars. Many of the local anti-housing activists have complained that these provisions don't provide for enough
parking. I find it amazing that in the Age of Trump, this is the salient concern for a vocal group of Palo
Altans. We have a choice in Palo Alto between providing subsidized parking for cars (at $50,000 a spot) or
providing more housing for people. This legislation seems like an ideal setting to begin testing the idea of delinking the costs of car storage (housing for cars) and housing for people. People who want to keep multiple
cars in Palo Alto should be encouraged to pay market cost for storing them, and parking on streets should be
priced accordingly. Note that many Palo Altans opt to use their garages as storage units while parking their cars
in their driveway or street. We already have too much room for cars. In fact, we mandate and subsidize
excessive car storage (through cheap RPP permits) even as we're suffering a housing crisis. Let's stop.
I've been watching with alarm as a handful of loud anti-housing activists have spread misinformation about
recent efforts to amend the ADU ordinances. (The leader of PASZ even suggested, without evidence, that the
Fine/Wolbach proposals would result in a "doubling" of housing units.) I believe the changes proposed by Fine
and Wolbach are excellent, and they will actually satisfy the intent of the state law on ADUs.
We all know what people usually mean when they say there hasn't been enough "study"--they want to kill a
proposal with dilatory tactics and a death of a thousand cuts. If the core elements of the Fine/Wolbach proposals
are retained, the city will have a great new tool to facilitate a needed increase in our housing supply while
maintaining our city's community feel and quality of life.
Sincerely,
--
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:54 PM
2
Clayton Nall
http://www.nallresearch.com
Work: (650) 725-4076 Cell: (617) 850-2062
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/17/2017 12:54 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Mike Alexander <malemike@earthlink.net>
Sent:Monday, April 17, 2017 12:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Remove ADU ordinance from Consent Calendar
Dear City Council Members,
I'm writing to request that "Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (First Reading)" be removed from the April 17, 2017 Consent Calendar.
The potential negative impact of this ordinance on the nature and quality of life in Palo Alto is extreme. I understand that this ordinance is driven by new, emergency state law, and that it is categorically exempt California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review. Nevertheless, changes of the magnitude of those proposed in this ordinance should not be codified without a good-faith attempt to meaningfully engage the public in the process.
I acknowledge that the issue was discussed at Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) hearings in 2016, and that a website was created to solicit public input. However, since those activities took place, and most recently at a late-
night City Council hearing in March, significant changes have been made to the originally-proposed ordinance. These changes, which include relaxations of Floor Area Ratio (FAR), setback, residency, and parking requirements have not
been presented to the general public in a way that makes clear exactly what is at stake. Today, I have reviewed hundreds of pages of agendas and minutes, staff memos, and ordinance proposals and
amendments. In all of that I saw NO maps, NO diagrams, and NO examples that would clarify the meaning and impact of the ordinance. I submit to you that it is not possible for a typical resident to have a clear idea of how this ordinance might
affect his neighborhood or the city as a whole. Without that clear idea, how can anyone responsibly support or contest the complex proposal?
For these reasons, I believe Council should reach out to people in a much more careful and informative way before acting on the ordinance. Failure to do so will surely lead to a strong negative response as people slowly realize what has
been done. Respectfully, and with sincere thanks for your service,
Mike Alexander, 3391 Saint Michael Dr.