News

Feeling Sacramento pressure, Palo Alto eases rules for new 'granny units'

City Council makes local building standards consistent with state laws

Prodded by new state laws, the Palo Alto City Council voted Monday to further relax local rules pertaining to accessory dwelling units, which are starting to proliferate around the city.

By a unanimous vote, the council continued the trend it had launched in spring 2017, when it first made a series of law revisions to encourage accessory dwelling units, also known as "granny units." Since then, the city has received about 150 applications for ADUs and has issued 112 permits, according to Planning Director Jonathan Lait.

While the numbers represent a significant ramp-up in production from prior years, when the city typically approved about four accessory dwellings units annually, the trend has also sowed some confusion. Both the council and the state Legislature have made numerous revisions to accessory dwelling unit rules since 2017, forcing would-be builders to navigate a constantly shifting permitting process.

And with Sacramento lawmakers passing last year a series of laws pertaining to building standards for accessory dwelling units — including Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881 and Senate Bill 13 — the city's planning staff has been scrambling to make local laws consistent with the new state requirements.

The latest revisions, which the council adopted Monday, aim to do just that. One of the changes that the council approved was the elimination of the city's requirement that the homeowner occupy the main residence near which the unit is being constructed — a rule that Palo Alto adopted in a bid to discourage the new dwellings from becoming Airbnb rentals.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The new standards also remove a requirement that a homeowner replace the parking space that would be lost by converting a garage into an accessory dwelling unit and ensure that the city's setback requirement for the new dwellings (the buffer zone between them and the neighboring property) does not exceed the 4-foot limit authorized by state law. They also allow homeowners to get over-the-counter approval for certain types of accessory dwelling units, including detached dwellings on multifamily lots and "junior accessory dwelling units," small units that are created by repurposing an existing bedroom into an independent living space.

The new rules would allow owners of single-family homes to receive density bonuses to accommodate an 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit. (To date, the unit sizes in Palo Alto have ranged from 220 to 900 square feet, with an average size of 520 square feet, according to a quarterly update from Planning and Development Services.) They also specify that a detached accessory dwelling unit would be permitted near a single-family dwelling, provided its height does not exceed 16 feet and its floor area does not exceed 800 square feet. This unit can be established in addition to a junior accessory dwelling unit.

In adopting the new rules, council members recognized that their recent efforts to encourage the small dwellings are lagging behind those of the state. Mayor Adrian Fine, who has championed relaxing zoning rules to encourage more housing, said the new state mandates offer the council a lesson about keeping local regulations simple.

"We debated these all with good intent and long diligence," Fine said, referring to the local standards. "It may be a lesson that the state is moving in a bit of a different direction."

Councilwoman Liz Kniss, also a housing advocate, wondered why the city isn't seeing more applications. Even with the uptick in requests, Kniss said the city is "not steaming ahead with our ADUs" and suggested that the city's complex permitting process may be to blame.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

"Is the issue that the people are thinking about it and deciding not to do it? Are they coming to us and deciding it's such a complicated process and they're not going to do it?" Kniss asked. "It seems as though this is really few for something that we really did a big, concerted effort to present to the public."

Lait said that are several cases in which the process took longer than expected, either because of the complexity of the regulations or because of "unique" situations pertaining to the proposals. Some residents have complained about the high impact fees that the city charges for new developments. The new state law tackles that by eliminating these fees for accessory dwelling units that are 750 square feet or smaller.

The latest revisions are unlikely to be the last. Even with the Monday adoption of an "urgency" measure to update the law accessory dwelling units, the city is still exploring possible inconsistencies between local and state standards. To ensure that the local law isn't deemed illegal because of possible inconsistencies with state law, City Attorney Molly Stump said the city is including a "catch-all" provision specifying that the state law would trump any local provision that does not comply with the new standards established by Sacramento lawmakers.

"To the extent any provision is inconsistent with mandatory requirement of the state law such that our ordinance would be found to be invalid — the state law provision should prevail," Stump said.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Feeling Sacramento pressure, Palo Alto eases rules for new 'granny units'

City Council makes local building standards consistent with state laws

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 2:09 pm

Prodded by new state laws, the Palo Alto City Council voted Monday to further relax local rules pertaining to accessory dwelling units, which are starting to proliferate around the city.

By a unanimous vote, the council continued the trend it had launched in spring 2017, when it first made a series of law revisions to encourage accessory dwelling units, also known as "granny units." Since then, the city has received about 150 applications for ADUs and has issued 112 permits, according to Planning Director Jonathan Lait.

While the numbers represent a significant ramp-up in production from prior years, when the city typically approved about four accessory dwellings units annually, the trend has also sowed some confusion. Both the council and the state Legislature have made numerous revisions to accessory dwelling unit rules since 2017, forcing would-be builders to navigate a constantly shifting permitting process.

And with Sacramento lawmakers passing last year a series of laws pertaining to building standards for accessory dwelling units — including Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881 and Senate Bill 13 — the city's planning staff has been scrambling to make local laws consistent with the new state requirements.

The latest revisions, which the council adopted Monday, aim to do just that. One of the changes that the council approved was the elimination of the city's requirement that the homeowner occupy the main residence near which the unit is being constructed — a rule that Palo Alto adopted in a bid to discourage the new dwellings from becoming Airbnb rentals.

The new standards also remove a requirement that a homeowner replace the parking space that would be lost by converting a garage into an accessory dwelling unit and ensure that the city's setback requirement for the new dwellings (the buffer zone between them and the neighboring property) does not exceed the 4-foot limit authorized by state law. They also allow homeowners to get over-the-counter approval for certain types of accessory dwelling units, including detached dwellings on multifamily lots and "junior accessory dwelling units," small units that are created by repurposing an existing bedroom into an independent living space.

The new rules would allow owners of single-family homes to receive density bonuses to accommodate an 800-square-foot accessory dwelling unit. (To date, the unit sizes in Palo Alto have ranged from 220 to 900 square feet, with an average size of 520 square feet, according to a quarterly update from Planning and Development Services.) They also specify that a detached accessory dwelling unit would be permitted near a single-family dwelling, provided its height does not exceed 16 feet and its floor area does not exceed 800 square feet. This unit can be established in addition to a junior accessory dwelling unit.

In adopting the new rules, council members recognized that their recent efforts to encourage the small dwellings are lagging behind those of the state. Mayor Adrian Fine, who has championed relaxing zoning rules to encourage more housing, said the new state mandates offer the council a lesson about keeping local regulations simple.

"We debated these all with good intent and long diligence," Fine said, referring to the local standards. "It may be a lesson that the state is moving in a bit of a different direction."

Councilwoman Liz Kniss, also a housing advocate, wondered why the city isn't seeing more applications. Even with the uptick in requests, Kniss said the city is "not steaming ahead with our ADUs" and suggested that the city's complex permitting process may be to blame.

"Is the issue that the people are thinking about it and deciding not to do it? Are they coming to us and deciding it's such a complicated process and they're not going to do it?" Kniss asked. "It seems as though this is really few for something that we really did a big, concerted effort to present to the public."

Lait said that are several cases in which the process took longer than expected, either because of the complexity of the regulations or because of "unique" situations pertaining to the proposals. Some residents have complained about the high impact fees that the city charges for new developments. The new state law tackles that by eliminating these fees for accessory dwelling units that are 750 square feet or smaller.

The latest revisions are unlikely to be the last. Even with the Monday adoption of an "urgency" measure to update the law accessory dwelling units, the city is still exploring possible inconsistencies between local and state standards. To ensure that the local law isn't deemed illegal because of possible inconsistencies with state law, City Attorney Molly Stump said the city is including a "catch-all" provision specifying that the state law would trump any local provision that does not comply with the new standards established by Sacramento lawmakers.

"To the extent any provision is inconsistent with mandatory requirement of the state law such that our ordinance would be found to be invalid — the state law provision should prevail," Stump said.

Comments

Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 14, 2020 at 3:29 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 14, 2020 at 3:29 pm
34 people like this

<<Councilwoman Liz Kniss, also a housing advocate, wondered why the city isn't seeing more applications. >> Perhaps the answer is that plenty of us do not want to build a granny flat in our backyard!

I can't believe the arrogance of this statement. Apart from all the obvious secondary problems of becoming landlords, having reduced recreational back yard space, possible light plane problems, parking problems, upsetting neighbors, potential noise problems, uncertainty about what to do with tenants when selling a problem, etc. etc. etc. The real problem of the statement is just because the Council suggests it as a solution to the supposed housing problem, residents will act like sheep and do it just because they say so.

A granny flat is most likely going to be used by a granny who is living elsewhere and is unable to live on her own and wants to be near family. Her moving into her children's backyard for her final years, is unlikely to help any shortfall in homes for low income families.


Crime & Punishment
Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 3:36 pm
Crime & Punishment, Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 3:36 pm
16 people like this

>> A granny flat is most likely going to be used by a granny who is living elsewhere and is unable to live on her own and wants to be near family. Her moving into her children's backyard for her final years, is unlikely to help any shortfall in homes for low income families.

^^^The harsh reality is that the 'granny unit' is actually rental property.

More than likely, 'granny' has been tossed into an RCFE (retirement Community for the Elderly) aka rest/old people's home by her children who are now controlling her trust assets or may even have sought a conservatorship of person & estate to really 'seal the deal'.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:02 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:02 pm
32 people like this

"In adopting the new rules, council members recognized that their recent efforts to encourage the small dwellings are lagging behind those of the state. Mayor Adrian Fine, who has championed relaxing zoning rules to encourage more housing, said the new state mandates offer the council a lesson about keeping local regulations simple."

Maybe because Palo Alto's already much more dense than the rest of the state where they have bigger lots and more space?

"Councilwoman Liz Kniss, also a housing advocate, wondered why the city isn't seeing more applications. Even with the uptick in requests, Kniss said the city is "not steaming ahead with our ADUs" and suggested that the city's complex permitting process may be to blame.

"Is the issue that the people are thinking about it and deciding not to do it? Are they coming to us and deciding it's such a complicated process and they're not going to do it?" Kniss asked. "It seems as though this is really few for something that we really did a big, concerted effort to present to the public."

Maybe because existing homeowners don't want to see their tax bills skyrocket when they're reassessed, maybe because they don't like the way the city assumes the sane rental income for poor granny as from a high-paying tenant and maybe because the ADU rents would have to be absurdly high to ever break even on the increased taxes and PA's record-breaking per sq ft construction costs?

And maybe because residents are smart enough to follow the real estate market and see 2 years worth of price declines due to various factors including the $10,000 cap of SALT, foreign currency controls and falling resident satisfaction due to over-crowding, gridlock etc. that have made Palo Alto LESS desirable.


George
Midtown
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:18 pm
George, Midtown
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:18 pm
13 people like this

@Online Name

> Maybe because Palo Alto's already much more dense than the rest of the state where they have bigger lots and more space?

This is a weird interpretation of population density. Of course the central valley is less dense. No one wants to live there compared to the Bay Area.

For a better apples to apples comparison:

- Mountain View has 2.5x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.
- Sunnyvale has 2.5x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.
- San Jose has 2x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.
- Cupertino has 1.9x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.
- Menlo Park has 1.25x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.
- Atherton has 0.5x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto.

Palo Alto is lagging behind other Bay Area cities. We shouldn't be trending towards Atherton. We should be heading towards Mountain View.


Allen Akin
Professorville
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:38 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:38 pm
23 people like this

@George: "Mountain View has 2.5x as many people per square mile as Palo Alto."

When you computed this, did you remember to eliminate Foothills Park and the Baylands from the inhabitable area of Palo Alto?


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:50 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 4:50 pm
24 people like this

George, do those numbers also account for Foothill Park and Stanford?

"Of course the central valley is less dense. No one wants to live there compared to the Bay Area."

There's no shortage of great places outside the Bay Area that are less dense, more affordable, more pleasant areas and that are now housing FORMER Palo Alto residents -- Carmel Highlands, San Luis Obispo, Felton, Aptos, Healdsburg, Sea Ranch, Grass Valley, Mendocino -- to name just a few of the places where personal friends have recently moved.

As per ABAG and state mandates, the Bay Area is due to absorb another 3,000,000 more people in the next few years, I doubt this will make Pslo Alto more attractive.


George
Midtown
on Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 pm
George, Midtown
on Jan 14, 2020 at 5:53 pm
6 people like this

@Allen Akin: I did not explicitly exclude them, but I did use water-free land area figures. (Palo Alto = 23.86 sq mi land, 1.91 sq mi of water excluded, 25.77 sq mi total). I also did not exclude any other parks or areas from other towns. If you'd like to go through each of those towns and list land areas to exclude, I'd happily re-calculate to provide another reference.

@George: Stanford is not part of Palo Alto, so of course it's not included. See above for Foothills Park. Using the same source for Stanford numbers, Stanford has about 1.8x density as Palo Alto (but unfortunately, the latest population number for Stanford is 2010, whereas all of the other towns I used above were 2018 estimates).

I'm also glad to hear that there are a number of attractive areas outside of Palo Alto to consider living. Unfortunately, I prefer to stay in Palo Alto, and I'd also prefer affordable housing, so I will continue to lobby the city council for more density to help bring down market prices. The city can certainly afford to have a few more duplexes in most neighborhoods, and some higher buildings in the downtown Cal Ave areas.


Online Name
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 6:15 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 14, 2020 at 6:15 pm
18 people like this

George, hearing about attractive areas outside of Palo Alto is one of the common topics of discussion as people become less satisfied. Of course affordable housing would be special; I hate seeing friends being priced out or forced out due to unemployment and other factors,

Much has been written about how increased density increases prices. NYC, Vancouver and Shanghai cost more than Widespot, Arkansas and most of the US where the national average is $250,000.

SB50 won't bring down price; only 20% of the units have to be "affordable" and we're seeing new ways developers are getting around that. Throw in the 3,000,000 new people competing for those units and you've got a real estate bonanza.


Anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:09 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:09 pm
29 people like this

I consistently oppose local, regional, and state measures that eliminate parking requirements. It is clever to degrade neighborhoods by placing the burden of one property’s vehicles upon the neighbors. If you’re going to build an ADU - for whatever usage - it needs to come with a parking slot.
Already some rentals cause us homeowners great difficulty as, typically, tenants without investment here or any care flagrantly overpark multiple vehicles on the street. They take advantage of our goodwill and neighborliness. Our patience has run thin, based on past experiences. Without expanding taxpayer paid bureaucracy, IF it can be confirmed ADUs are for elderly non driving family members, then I’m ok with it! IF these are AirBNBs or high cost rentals, why should the nearby neighborhood be turned into a stressful parking lot.


Meh
Palo Alto Orchards
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:24 pm
Meh, Palo Alto Orchards
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:24 pm
4 people like this

> As per ABAG and state mandates, the Bay Area is due to absorb another 3,000,000 more people in the next few years, I doubt this will make Pslo Alto more attractive.

I don't know what you mean by "attractive", but if you mean price/house, then 3M more people will definitely make Palo Alto houses worth more.


Stormy
Meadow Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:29 pm
Stormy, Meadow Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 7:29 pm
12 people like this

Having recently been through the process of getting building permits, it's a nightmare and there's simply no feedback mechanism to add balance to the time and hassle -- we talked with city council members who wouldn't touch this. I don't even want to get into what crazy things they did/got wrong because it would identify me and they can so easily get revenge.

Can we at least switch our pension system to 401Ks? So, at least we'll know what we are really paying for this mess.


Allen Akin
Professorville
on Jan 14, 2020 at 8:04 pm
Allen Akin, Professorville
on Jan 14, 2020 at 8:04 pm
24 people like this

@George: From measuring a map, the portion of Palo Alto where development of any kind is permitted is about 8.6 sq mi. That's where all the residents are required to live, so it determines the relevant population density. The Census says the 2018 population is 66666 (!), so the density is roughly 7800 residents/sq mi.

In Mountain View, the corresponding area is about 9.3 sq mi and the 2018 population is 83377, so the density is roughly 9000 residents/sq mi.

So, Mountain View is about 15% more dense than Palo Alto. Neither of the density measures take commercial space or parks into account, so this is a very rough estimate, but I think it's sufficient to show that the difference between the two cities is already small.

If you'd like to do the other cities, feel free, but since the original Palo Alto density estimate was off by a factor of more than 2, I believe it's safe to predict that they'll all come down substantially. By intuition I would expect to learn that Palo Alto is more dense than Menlo Park or Cupertino, and maybe comparable to San José.


Link Please
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2020 at 8:11 pm
Link Please, Old Palo Alto
on Jan 14, 2020 at 8:11 pm
2 people like this

Is there a link in the article to what the City actually decided and what the new regulations are? Or does anyone have it, thank you!


Amy
Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 10:15 pm
Amy, Crescent Park
on Jan 14, 2020 at 10:15 pm
12 people like this

Even if someone wants to build an ADU it is hard to find a good contractor who will take on a “small” job, and it is really expensive to build a nice quality ADU! It’s definitely an investment.


musical
Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:19 am
musical, Palo Verde
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:19 am
11 people like this

> Bay Area is due to absorb another 3,000,000 more people in the next few years

That scales to planet Earth absorbing another 3,000,000,000 people. Good luck.


Evan
Gunn High School
on Jan 15, 2020 at 8:46 am
Evan, Gunn High School
on Jan 15, 2020 at 8:46 am
20 people like this


I don’t see why Palo Alto has to increase its density to what Mountain View or any other city’s density.

Palo Alto is Palo Alto, one day the other cities will envy that Palo Alto has fought to keep its density lower and embrace ground level open spaces for kids and pets to play at their homes.

It’s so stupid to say everything should be alike or even stupider to say Palo Alto should do its share when State and MTC/ABAG is pushing Plan Bay Area 2050 based on an aggressive growth projection using “national” data. That’s wrong baseline and the plan is flawed from the start.






Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2020 at 9:15 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 15, 2020 at 9:15 am
14 people like this

Posted by Online Name, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland

>> As per ABAG and state mandates, the Bay Area is due to absorb another 3,000,000 more people in the next few years, I doubt this will make Pslo Alto more attractive.

There is plenty of room for 3M more people. There isn't room for another car, let alone the 2.2M cars that 3M people will bring with them. That is, at California car ownership rates. If they move here from Montana, then, make that 4.7M cars. We don't have room for the cars we have now, let alone another 2.2M. So, the question is, how to get these 3M people to not drive. The SB50 sponsors think that if we just put them in apartments along ECR, they will just ride the 22 bus everywhere.


Tired of the absurdity
Charleston Meadows
on Jan 15, 2020 at 12:00 pm
Tired of the absurdity, Charleston Meadows
on Jan 15, 2020 at 12:00 pm
20 people like this

"We shouldn't be trending towards Atherton. We should be heading towards Mountain View."

No George ... We should be trending towards Atherton, Portola Valley, and Los Altos Hills. There.


Anneke
Professorville
on Jan 15, 2020 at 1:55 pm
Anneke, Professorville
on Jan 15, 2020 at 1:55 pm
31 people like this

Had we known several years ago that one of our neighbors, a developer, who requested our signatures for two large garages in the back of his property, planned to use them as rentals, we would not have approved.

The home has become extremely large (15+ years of development, divided apparently over three approval processes in order to make it easier to get the City Planning approval), and, yes, the garages are rented, plus there are three more rentals on the property.

Since the family has three cars of their own, and the five renters have five, we are talking about eight cars designated to one house in an R1 district and on a small block.

They make a tremendous amount of money from these rentals at the disadvantage of homeowners on this block who do not have renters. For me, it does not pass the smell test.


Mike
Professorville
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:07 pm
Mike , Professorville
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:07 pm
6 people like this

@ Online Name and Musical

"> Bay Area is due to absorb another 3,000,000 more people in the next few years

That scales to planet Earth absorbing another 3,000,000,000 people. Good luck."


Does anyone reasonably expect the Bay Area population to add 3 million people, and grow over 40% in the next few years?

For perspective, the Bay area has added about 1 million people (a growth rate of 14%) in the last 2 *decades*

(As for the world going from 7 billion to 10 billion, demographers expect that to happen by about 2050 (plus or minus a decade) -- reaching peak population, and then dropping.)


Link
Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:08 pm
Link, Crescent Park
on Jan 15, 2020 at 2:08 pm
4 people like this

@Link Please: Web Link


No more growth
Downtown North
on Jan 15, 2020 at 11:24 pm
No more growth, Downtown North
on Jan 15, 2020 at 11:24 pm
21 people like this

Elections for city council seats are coming up this November. Remember who the "growthers" are: Fine, Tanaka, Cormack and Kniss (who will thankfully be termed out). Try to vote in people who understand that this ridiculously unbalance growth spree is destroying the environment and ruining any quality of life in this area. We need to fight the growth on all fronts by electing representatives who will carry this message and implement it and take the state and growthers to court.


Anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 16, 2020 at 10:41 am
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 16, 2020 at 10:41 am
14 people like this

Thank you, No More Growth.
In addition, please discuss with a busy neighbor the illogical, unfair, damaging proposals at the state level. Voters should contact their state level representatives to state they see through pretend “pro-housing” proposals, like SB50, which are giveaways to powerful interests and unfairly damaging to local municipalities like Palo Alto. Tell our state representatives NO on Senate Bill 50. Understand the state level power grab takes away local zoning controls - this is a very big deal.


Confusing permit process
Professorville
on Jan 16, 2020 at 11:33 am
Confusing permit process, Professorville
on Jan 16, 2020 at 11:33 am
18 people like this

ADUs are expensive to build. The city permit process is a nightmare. The city is unreasonable in their building requirements which makes building an ADU not worth the money and hassle. I was quoted $200,000 to convert my existing 2 car detached garage into an ADU. If I charged a renter $2500 per month, it would take about 7 years to recoup my investment. That doesn’t factor in increased taxes, either. The city only caters to commercial developers.


Jane
Midtown
on Jan 16, 2020 at 3:29 pm
Jane, Midtown
on Jan 16, 2020 at 3:29 pm
13 people like this

I am currently building a modest ADU (2 BR/1B, less than 900 sf). Current costs: Construction is $400/sf, architect is $15,000, City costs are $15-40k, depending on water, electrical, environmental issues. Bottom line is at least $400k for a less than 900 sf unit...then increased taxes. I will need to charge at least $3,000/month to make it pencil. There is no such thing as low cost housing in PA.


eileen
College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2020 at 9:56 pm
eileen , College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2020 at 9:56 pm
8 people like this

Jane, you are 100% right.

My husband and I just finished a 775 sq ft ADU and it cost almost $500,000.00.
We built it for my husband and me. Our daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren live in the main house.

So, yes, building an ADU is an investment and very expensive!


george drysdale
Professorville
on Jan 17, 2020 at 12:10 pm
george drysdale, Professorville
on Jan 17, 2020 at 12:10 pm
5 people like this

There is no escaping the high cost of housing on the peninsula. Demand is too high. Price controlling is so easy for some (most) politicians in California with universal rent (price) controls. Price control and first you bankrupt your suppliers: on and on in basic economics. College prep econ in high school and 101 in college. Economics 101: government is stupid. Lenders won't lend, investors won't invest: the California state march. Here comes rent control in Mountain View, the Super Tuesday election. Palo Alto has a ring side seat.

George Drysdale social studies teacher


Voices heard!
Mountain View
on Jan 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm
Voices heard!, Mountain View
on Jan 17, 2020 at 1:11 pm
5 people like this

Make your voices heard. If you don’t take action then you are to blame for the over-development. GET INVOLVED. Get your neighbors involved!

Web Link


Voices heard!
Mountain View
on Jan 17, 2020 at 1:13 pm
Voices heard!, Mountain View
on Jan 17, 2020 at 1:13 pm
6 people like this

If you’re not comfortable clicking on a web link then just search up Livable California, they are an organization that is doing a great job pushing back on SB50 (and other housing bills)


musical
Palo Verde
on Jan 17, 2020 at 3:09 pm
musical, Palo Verde
on Jan 17, 2020 at 3:09 pm
Like this comment

^ Off-topic, my browser shows me where a link points before I click on it. But realize it might be a good idea to explicitly add this info in your text if you post a link. I also warn of big files like (65MB) as when I link to any big report on the City of Palo Alto website.


NatureLover
Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:31 pm
NatureLover, Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:31 pm
1 person likes this

The congestion is becoming unbearable. City must require minimum two car garage plus 2 parking spaces (i.e. double driveway) like all neighboring cities instead of taking away the garge in lieu of yet another two-3 cars the tenants are going to through up on the already narrow streets. This is so supid! They want our cities to look like third world country slums AND they want us to pay higher taxes for that? Really?. Thinking to moving where lots are bigger and people don't live 5-6 cars to a house.
And by the way, if you are not a citizen you should not be able to own property here and putting both the main house and the adu on airb&b.
Next time you go to vote, vote for quality of life not greed!


NatureLover
Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:33 pm
NatureLover, Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:33 pm
Like this comment

The congestion is becoming unbearable. City must require minimum two car garage plus 2 parking spaces (i.e. double driveway) like all neighboring cities instead of taking away the garge in lieu of yet another two-3 cars the tenants are going to through up on the already narrow streets. This is so supid! They want our cities to look like third world country slums AND they want us to pay higher taxes for that? Really?. Thinking to moving where lots are bigger and people don't live 5-6 cars to a house.
And by the way, if you are not a citizen you should not be able to own property here and putting both the main house and the adu on airb&b.


NatureLover
Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:35 pm
NatureLover, Ventura
on Jan 20, 2020 at 8:35 pm
Like this comment

The congestion on the already narrow streets is becoming unbearable. These streets are not designed for every lot having 5-6 drivers. City must require minimum two car garage plus 2 parking spaces (i.e. double driveway) like all neighboring cities instead of taking away the garge in lieu of yet another 2 cars the tenants are going to through up on the already narrow streets. They want our cities to look like third world country slums AND they want us to pay higher taxes for that? Really?.
Thinking to moving where lots are bigger and people don't live 5-6 cars to a house.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.