oh yes, let's just fill up all breathable space with little ticky tacky houses. And don't ever worry about parking. We have such abundant street parking everywhere that it will never be a problem.

Oh come on - who actually thinks these units will be "affordable?" They'll be airbnb rentals at market rate for high-paid tech workers, like everywhere else in Palo Alto. These people just don't like R1 zoning.

This is a consequence of [portion removed] the lame duck outgoing city council, who fired incumbent members of the Planning Commission and instead appointed anti-residentialist pie-in-the sky ideologues who, among other things, believe that cars are evil and high density is good.

I agree, this will do nothing positive. It will clog up our streets, clog up our schools, turn neighbor against neighbor, and do nothing to help traffic in town as the occupiers of these units will still need a car to shop and to find recreation outside town since we have little or nothing that passes for entertainment in the evenings unless you want a bar or a restaurant!

SO many people already have "granny" units already - just not legal ones! My neighbor recently redid a home, got inspected, then changed out the garage to accomodate AirBNB rentals. If we allowed people to EASILY make their units legale (allowing for safety such as smoke detectors, etc.) we would increase our on-paper housing stock for ABAG requirements. If we allowed people to build new units more easily, that would increase our real housing! I love the idea of being able to add units and having it be part of the BMR housing. Or teacher housing!

So ridiculous! Why don't we put some more controls on landlords who take advantage of renters, charge sky-high rents, and kick people in and out and wreck our neighborhoods!!! How about demand that ghost house owners actually join the neighborhoods!

although sounds good, you will have homeowners renting these "granny" units to several people at the sametime [portion removed]....then you have cars taking up all available street parking for your neighbors too....I live in San Jose and that is what happens

And I quote: "the city's past discussions of the topic (in 2004) were marked by a tension between residents calling for more housing and those seeking to protect neighborhoods from the noise, privacy and parking impacts (perceived and real) that a second-dwelling unit would have on surrounding properties."

You've got that part right. I'm feeling tense already. My neighborhood has already experienced an insane amount of increased traffic, noise and parking issues in recent years and my street has become a cut through street which I hate. Remember Measure D? We voted down more noise, loss of privacy, more traffic and more parking problems, by a wide margin. It's naive to expect that the granny units would be either inexpensive to rent or be rented to tenants without vehicles. We don't want any more density! Stop trying to force it on us. Besides that, if granny units are built in residential neighborhoods they won't be close to public transit. Isn't new housing supposed to be built close to public transit? NO MORE DENSITY without the infrastructure to support it, thought out and built IN ADVANCE of any increase in population density.

Sure. Let's propose a very limited solution instead of allowing high density multi-story apartment buildings in downtown. Makes sense to me - doesn't really solve the problem, but allows homeowners to make $40k a year by renting out an in-law unit or two.

[Post removed.]

The low hanging fruit Is making sure existing housing is being used as HOUSING. Not startups, hacker houses, Airbnb, sitting empty, etc. Let's start there! Far more than 32 units could be recovered more quickly.

Some people actually use their additional space for family members. As area housing becomes even more expensive perhaps more folks will appreciate multi-generational living arrangements. Will neighbors to object to Granny who wants to build and move into backyard cottage and let her kids and grandkids move into Granny's house?

I appreciate that there's a continuing effort to solve the City's problems and that there's a focus on housing and transportation. What flummoxes me is the apparent aversion to acknowledging the painfully obvious fact that Palo Alto and neighboring communities are fully saturated. Stuffed. Dense. Done. We went on a development jag and, arguably, overdid it. On what basis is it reasonable to assume that continuing at the past rate of development is a good thing to do? I am not coming at this from an anti-development perspective - just being practical. What good comes from cramming a size 12 foot(so to speak)into a size 8 shoe? Not only does that not work, it's painful. I'd like to see the leaders of this community be brave enough to take a breather and let market forces and nature take their course for a while.

Norman Beamer......Your post is spot on.

And exactly how does Ms. Slater suggest that we enforce the no car rule for the new renter? If you add no parking when you add a second unit, will you be allowed to rent to someone with a car? And just how would this be enforced - by expecting neighbors to become the local police informers? How about adding a restriction that any renters not be allowed to buy a parking permit if the property is in the residential parking permit zone?

Given current zoning is not being enforced, the possibility of additional parking problems is almost guaranteed. Down the block from me, someone put in a 6 foot fence within a foot of the sidewalk, against code on a lot with multiple units. I reported it more than two years ago. Now they have put in a large "storage" shed next to the fence, surely against code as the fence itself should be five feet away. And what are the chances someone is living in that shed? Pretty high I think.

Any regulation to encourage more secondary units, which I would support if there was anyway to restrict them to family members or below market rents, should make sure to include permanent restrictions, including required off-street parking. Alternatively, If no additional parking is required, then renters should not be allowed to have cars or to purchase parking permits in areas that are in the residential parking permit areas. That would certainly lead to lower rents.

Get real, not everyone can afford to live in Palo Alto - that's life! We can't save the country! Keep this a family suburb, not a mini-S.F! We have children walking and riding their bikes to school and someday, one of them is going to get killed by a speeding car. Stop the traffic, stop the building! Someone must be getting paid off for these crazy decisions.

We have an in-law cottage on our property. It was built in 1947 to be the garage, but the owners lived in it while they built the actual house. This was when when south Palo Alto was unincorporated County, and our street was a dirt road, and Middlefield really did run down the middle of the carrot and lettuce fields. But, it was never turned back into a garage, and was always either a rental unit, or family members actually lived there.

Now it is "senior housing" as we have a retired woman who's been in it for about 8 years. She's paying about 1/2 what we could get on the current market, and 1/3 to 1/4 of what we'd get from Air BnB. But that's OK. Everyone needs housing! Two of our adult children have lived their for a year after college. I'll move there when my husband dies and I don't need a big house anymore.

In 1983 when we wanted to add on and make our 1200 sq ft home go up to 2,000 sq ft -- not exactly huge -- the planning department told us we'd have to tear down the cottage as non-conforming. We spent a lot of money and appealed to the City Council, who let it stand. About the same time they passed an ordinance allowing second units. Then someone built a 2600 sq ft 'cottage' on their big lot. So the City Council changed and limited the cottages to 900 sq ft. Then someone tried to build a 900 sq ft cottage with a 1,000 sq ft garage that included a bathroom and a 900 sq ft attic with 8 ft ceilings. Guess what was going to happen as soon as the building inspectors went away?? That one was denied, mostly because the driveway to get to it was only 7 ft wide.

So, cottages will never make a dent in our housing needs. Let's take Palo Alto Square and turn all those high rises into apartments -- near transit and Stanford and Industrial Park. That would help -- but not solve -- the housing problem.

If the "granny units" are actually used to accommodate relatives or as reasonably priced rental units, this is indeed a step forward. However, we need controls like SF enacted to deter short-term rentals (i.e. Airbnb) for this ruling to have any positive impact.

Count me on the side of "those seeking to protect neighborhoods from the noise, privacy and parking impacts [INEVITABLE] that a second-dwelling unit would have on surrounding properties." The new construction and redevelopment process is the place to discuss adding density, not ruining existing neighborhoods. In the meantime people think illegal second units are OK because the City does nothing to enforce existing rules. We all suffer from the resulting breakdown in people's respect for our rules, values, and common civility.

They Don't Get It - what has happened on your street? It sounds awful.

The city should take a look at the R1-929 overlay (or combining) zoning designation. Under that overlay you need a larger lot size to build a secondary unit than you need with just plain R1 zoning. That's silly if you want to encourage granny units under the existing R1 rules. Some R1-929 lots have the lot size to support granny units if they were zoned R1 but can't under the R1-929 rules.

To me, granny units pass the Golden Rule test, so should be pursued and promoted.

The article reports 'During a Monday night discussion of the topic, Wolbach made a case that restrictive housing policies and cumbersome approval processes around housing "cause racial and economical segregation.'

1) Here is the census data for Palo Alto:

1950 Caucasian: 96%, non-Caucasian 4%
1960 Caucasian: 95%, non-Caucasian 5%
1970 Caucasian: 93%, non-Caucasian 7%
1980 Caucasian: 90%, non-Caucasian 10%
1990 Caucasian: 85%, non-Caucasian 15%
2000 Caucasian: 76%, non-Caucasian 24%
2010 Caucasain: 64%, non-Caucasian 36%

Does Council Member Wolbach see a trend in the "racial" demographics? Would Council Member Wolbach support changing the election process so that the City Council reflects the population & economic diversity (the city Council is 100% Caucasian)?

I think it is divisive of Council Member Wolbach to play the race card to try and get his pro-development agenda passed. This is not civil discourse, which Council Member Wolbach campaigned on.

Everyone knows that 99% of granny units that are rented out will be at market rates, or be AirBnb'd.

Councilman Wolbach's two-faced posture fooled a lot of people at the last election.
He is very skillful combining pious statements with pro-development votes. [Portion removed.] Let's hope he doesn't fool too many voters again.

A lot of these posts are railing against changes to the ADU rules without even understanding what they are.

First of all, ever lot has a maximum square footage to which you can build a house - often called FAR. You can only build an ADU on a lot where you haven't exceeded your FAR. Essentially you can only build an ADU if your home is on the small side. So what's all the rattling about? If I have a 1600 sq ft house that I'm allowed to rebuild to a much larger square footage, then why I can't a build out that square footage as either an attached ADU that has its own door or a little cottage in the back?

The reality is that all of the giant houses in PA are now renting for like 7k and up. Who lives in those houses? Groups of roommates because two parents with two kids are not raking in that kind of money. So, you can encourage people to max out their house size and then it'll certainky be a home for roommates or you can encourage people to build small main homes and give the other people who are going to live on that same site anyway some privacy in an ADU, which would allow not just roommates but families to live in PA, too.

As for parking- we already have a solution to this. We have an RPP program in several areas of town that gives out street permits to residents and those without permits get towed. So if someone builds an ADU, just don't give them any additional permits. You're done. LOTS of people who rent in PA do so precisely so they don't have to have a car - they want to live here to commute by train or take a bike to work. Lots and lots of people here don't have cars and we have one of the lowest drive alone rates in the country with only 55% of our trips being done by car. We just need the policies and mechanisms in place to prioritize those people when it comes to housing. If your part of town doesn't have an RPP program, you should either get one or it means you don't have a parking problem and your streets can handle an extra car or two.

Relax, everyone. ADUs are great studios, workshops, and full-service cabanas, as well as superb kiddie playhouses. It will doubtless be much easier to get a permit to build a studio, workshop, cabana, or playhouse if it's called an ADU. The city will never bother to enforce its usage.

What a terrible idea! This is exactly what I mean when I use the sardine can metaphor. The urban ideologies and density aficionados will not stop pushing their agenda until the small town and suburban core and qualities of Palo Alto disappear and we become a mini San francisco, where people need to constantly avoid bumping into each other, space is an unknown metaphor and parking is nearly mission impossible.

this is what an ADU actually looks like: Web Link

Here's another: Web Link

One more: Web Link

It is not a "sardine can", or "filling up all the breathable air" or the end of the world or the death of suburbia or death star for that matter. You probably walk by houses with ADUs all the time and you never even notice that they're there.

@ we were fooled.......Wolbach portrayed himself differently when he was campaigning and once elected, the progressive liberal that he is came out in full bloom. I corresponded with him prior to the vote and he skirted around the issue that I inquired about while leading me to to believe that he favored residential priorities. I fell for it hook, line and sinker. Sorry I voted for him. i'll know better the next time around.

If people feel strongly against "granny units", then put some sort of ordinance on the next ballot that restricts/forbids them.

Midtown resident,

There is a facts-based argument that Palo Alto is quite segregated. Specifically anti-Latino and anti-African American. There could be a "finding" in the Housing Element that PA has an historic pattern of racial discrimination that requires a remedy.

This map, Web Link shows whites and Asians in PA, and nothing else, with diversity abutting the city borders.

Note that discrimination is in the eye of the oppressed (not something for the oppressors to opine on). If you chat with a group of Latinos about whether they want to live in PA, you get some surprising responses, "No way, PA is hostile to Latinos. I wouldn't feel comfortable." Try being African American in Palo Alto with kids and going to a school function - guaranteed to be greeted with micro-aggression.

[Post removed.]

> There could be a "finding" in the Housing Element
> that PA has an historic pattern of racial discrimination
> that requires a remedy

It’s unlikely that any such finding would stand a legal challenge—based on there not really being much truth to such a claim.

Before 1950, Palo Alto was a small town that grew from zero people in the late 1890s to about 24,000 around 1950. If there were to be any legitimate claims of racial discrimination in the historical Palo Alto—those claims would be more anti-Asian than against any other racial minority.

Palo Alto grew very quickly from 1950 until 1970, with Barron Park being added in/around 1976 to complete the picture. Most of the people who bought into South Palo Alto (south of Oregon to the Mountain View line) were returning GIs. The houses sold fairly quickly, and most of those who moved in stayed for a long time—reducing the yearly availability of existing housing for new residents.

It would be very difficult to prove that Latinos and Blacks were not allowed to buy homes in this town—because of discrimination.

One of the dumbest ideas ever proposed for actually solving the so called housing problem. Stop talking about it. The historical facts are there. It will have infinitisimal impact. Stop building more offices for startups, build enough housing to accomodate the current employees commuting long distances that are clogging our streets. Please stop ruining our town that was once a fun and great place to live. I used to take pride, and maybe I was gloating also, when I told people I knew from other places in the country how great life was here in PA. Sadly, I can't do that anymore.

Steve [email protected] Park - how many legal cases have been prosecuted in Palo Alto, based on the Fair Housing act of 1968? None that I know of. That would be the only data that I know of that is relevant.

And how do you explain the US census data showing the Caucasian population dropping decade after decade?

And how does a granny unit have anything to do with racial discrimination? As far as I can see, whoever has the money can rent or buy in Palo Alto.

Not everyone can live in Palo Alto, Those that do have a car. This granny unit issue is s fraud.

Not true. Many Stanford grad students and post-docs live in Palo Alto and do not own cars. They bike to campus and rent cars when going out-of-town. In-law units make great housing for grad student/post-doc couples or small groups.

Such a fraud.... this next election is absolutely critical to get right or say good by to Palo Alto as a nice place to live and raise a family.... which to be honest, might have already reached the tipping point.

@Joe: agreed it would be difficult to prove malicious intent to deny housing to Latinos. What I’m talking about is different: Compare the percent of Latinos for Palo Alto versus Santa Clara County as a whole. The difference is striking and statistically significant. The City should make a finding that there is an historical discriminatory pattern – no proof of wrongdoing by any individuals, just a finding. Then undertake actions to remedy the pattern.

I have some old Census 2000 numbers:
Palo Alto: (72.8% white, 17.2% Asian, 4.6% Hispanic, 2.0% African American). Santa Clara County: (44.2% white, 25.4% Asian, 24.0% Hispanic, 2.6% African American).

@Common Sense: agreed that the percent of PA whites has gone down over the decades while the percent of Asian-Americans has gone up. My test for a discriminatory anti-Latino pattern above is different.

Common Sense - you state there surely could not be illegal housing discrimination in Palo Alto. That is far from true. For 10 yrs I worked with Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing here in town. Among other things, I supervised investigations of all manner of illegal housing discrimination here - race, ethnicity, families with children, sexual orientation, disability, etc. - the whole list of horribles. We saw civil rights lawsuits succeed against individuals, corporations and banks that engaged in and profited from illegal discrimination. This wasn't in the distant past - I retired in 2000. It continues today no doubt. Boom times is when it is worse, for various reasons. Palo Alto has plenty of room for improvement.

More granny units are a drop in the bucket if you think it willl affect the need for housing. There is no way and can be no way to enforce its type of use. It is not worth the time and effort of staff and council and will likely be a cash cow for owners who rent to people passing thru and use airbnb. Forget granny units.

A number of illegal in-law units are converted garages. If they are legalized, would that mean that the property would no longer be required to have a garage or car-port?

Palo Alto's future hinges on the next council elections. We must vote out as many pro development council members as possible and replace them with genuine residentialists. The new council would then have to appoint a TPC that is not inundated with PAF members.

I am reading about the granny unit study session and the on-line comments from a road trip of about 3,000 miles before returning to Palo Alto. Many cities and towns on this trip have issues similar to Palo Alto, albeit from different factors. Affordable housing is in short supply most everywhere that is desirable as a place to live, work or visit. In that sense, Palo Alto isn't really all that special. There is an inevitable circle: attractive communities beget higher demand and lower supply because of the qualities that make them attractive. And this threatens the sustainability of those qualities. From a planning perspective, any town or city tends to have neighboring communities, which lessens the degree of control that can be exerted in isolation. ABAG rage takes similar forms almost everywhere we travel. "Leave us alone." "Don't ruin whatever wonderful qualities that brought us here ... [e.g., by letting in excess numbers of newcomers]."

It is encouraging for the Council to direct the PTC to hold a study session on planning questions. And the on-line debate is quite vigorous and insightful. However, Palo Alto should avoid "policy drift." An initiative that, at best, might contribute 30 additional housing units won't solve any of the long-term challenges. It does stir up anxiety and tension. Nowhere in the article or commentary is there a rigorous attempt to analyze the business case or economics of such a policy. What is the average value of land and residential square footage? If one had a large enough lot for a conforming unit, what would be the ROI of the construction cost and dedicated lot area? In other words, does this make any rational sense so that the potential for creating "affordable" or multi-generational housing might actually occur, much less on any aggregate scale that would make a difference?

Why not update the Comprehensive Plan at long last? If the long-term policy on growth should be to curtail further creation of office space, then so be it. If any new housing should be supported by infrastructure (including transit, parks, school capacity, services, etc.), then take this into account. If Palo Altans by a convincing majority prefer a suburban lifestyle with low-rise, R-1, expensive housing stock ... OK. But if the future may differ from the past, how should that challenge be met? New housing near transit? Changing demographics? Driverless cars? How would Palo Alto goals align with other communities in the Bay Area and leverage any resources or funding?

The people and cars are here now. The problem is now. Stanford has there own issues and it is not granny units.
Housing, granny and otherwise comes with cars. Let's fix that today.
The urgency is today.

A step in the right direction.

BTW, How many aging grandmas do you know who drive?

California is still in drought, and will suffer more in the future.
When people talk about increasing density through granny units, unregulating AirBNB's, additional hotel rooms, and more housing on Stanford, hospital expansion, office expansion, etc.
I feel that we are forgetting the limiting factor - water supply.

@Mark Michael

I distributed an economic analysis memo before the ADU hearing. To cover construction costs in the Bay Area, a new detached ADU will need to rent for over $3000/month, well above the HUD affordable housing cost guideline for a household earning 120% of the Santa Clara County median income. Smaller units are nearly as expensive to build as larger ones. If multi generation is the issue it's still not clear why only 2% have taken advantage of the current rules.

I’d love to hear from anyone who’s considered building an ADU to understand why you did or didn’t move forward.

Asher Waldfogel, Planning & Transportation Commissioner

The garage turned granny unit on our small lot block resulted in no usable driveway and five new cars parked on the street every day/night. Result: children walking in the streets because they can't navigate the sidewalk in front of the house on their way to school, the street sweeper can't get at the leaves so they blow all over everyone's yard, and only one car can thread their way past the house at a time.

Enforce the existing zoning laws and stop all this infill. Better idea: restrict overnight parking.

@been there:

We have the same problem as you -- not only was the garage converted but the owner has about 18 to 20 people living at his house. Code enforcement says you can have as many people as you want in your R-1 home. Doesn't make sense - motels and such have to meet safety and fire regulations and codes. So even if Palo Alto does not allow granny units, your neighbor is free to do what he/she wants in regards to tenants and their many cars.

We looked into adding a granny unit, and desire it either for ourselves or to rent out to at most two people. We learned we would have to add two off-site parking spaces and we can't do that. Meanwhile, said neighbor's tenants take up parking spaces in front of our house.

City council needs to fix this. I am for granny units is they are limited to two people (maybe at most 4 depending on size). But something should be done to restrict large boarding houses in R-1 zones.

I hope everyone with complaints will realize that complaining online will do little. Someone invoked Measure D. As one of the people who brought us Measure D, it was first and foremost about safety. Sadly, still safety is almost not in the conversation, when it should be front and center. Secondly, Measure D was about restoring power balance, which is the most essential ingredient of a well-functioning democracy - we knew that if we lost Measure D, citizens would have completely lost any say whatsoever when it came to development or any other actions of city council. (It was never about affordable housing and the cynical attempts to make it so were manipulative and devisive. Many efforts were made to seek working together to retain it, such as the working group that saved Terman Middle School from being developed while still creating a 92-unit affordable apartment complex, involving many of the same citizens. From my perspective, the loss of what might have been through collaboration was one of the tragedies and most important reasons to restore balance - city council would never have ignored the citizens like that through that whole development season or in planning if they thpught residents could win a land-use referendum, especially with the city attorney writing the ballot question and "impartial" analysis.)

But now the development faction in the council is showing their true colors. Testing the waters to see if the residents are still organized and paying attention. When Menlo Park had Brown Act problems not long ago with their election for Mayor, they had to scrap it and hold another, and wasn't there a resignation? Sorry, but the actions speak more to long-term collusion than even a simple one-time violation. What have Palo Alto citizens done about this? Nothing, justifying to themselves that they can't prove it. Things like that are never easy to prove, but even the prepared soeeches are concerning enough for residents to take a very good look at the rules and demand whatever oversight or investigation is due. Everyone complaining has to take it on themselves to do something, not assume someone else will do it for them, or nothing gets done.

If you do not act, then you have nothing to complain about, because Measure D gave residents far more leverage than before. There is clearly an attempt by the development faction to dominate again, and if residents don't do something now, there will be more ugly large opportunistic developments as usual and residents will have less power to do something. The residents of BV will be severely disadvantaged again in their negotiations if the owner is able to buy up density transfers, because that's how to bring in another large developer. So the BV residents and south palo alto residents lose again.

(I didn't look carefully, but wasn't there a notice of some 50-ft building to go up on El Camino for pumping sludge??? Can someone please clarify that? Maybe it was something normal, but if not, it would alarm me if I cared about having a council that didn't have to be bird dogged to avoid selling off the town.) The putting up density transfer rights for sale should have brought people out. Whether you thought it was worth fighting over in that instance or not, the lack of any citizen response will embolden those who are already doing an end-run around normal democratic process. If you care, be vigilant NOW, and don't wait for someone else to do it for you (I know this time I can't.) The mayoral election still reeks of collusion, perhaps even going back to last year. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right, regardless, citizens face a much tougher row if they do nothing but post on TS now.

There is a house on my block that was purchased last by a foreign buyer who is an absentee owner. Although it has only 3 bedrooms, I have counted 8 people who now live in that house and 8 cars. 4 are parked on the driveway and 4 on the curb. The city is obviously unwilling and/or unable to do anything about it. Palo Alto's population density is much higher than what we assume it to be because more and more homes are now used as unofficial motels for mostly short term residents. The last thing we need is granny units that would just increase the density and make traffic and parking much worse.

"...fired incumbent members of the Planning Commission and instead appointed anti-residentialist pie-in-the sky ideologues who, among other things, believe that cars are evil and high density is good."

Don't be misdirected. Their ideology, like the development interests they front for, is money to the max. The cars are bad stuff is a cynical sop to the actual salon-urbanist ideologues whose support they exploit for the real goal of making a lot of money through overdevelopment.

Although we wish we could add a granny unit (but can't because we can't meet the two off-street parking spaces), I do agree with most of the commenters here who are against adding granny units, since they are very right to be wary.

That's because you can stuff as many people as you want in your R-1 home and have as many cars too, so ditto for your cottage.

R-1 is supposed to be low density and you shouldn't have to live next to a boarding/motel business. City Council needs to cap the number of boarders/tenants in a R-1 house before allowing more granny units.

"R-1 is supposed to be low density"

I'm not sure how you expect it to stay that way when you have a growing population and new construction is all but prohibited in your town. I suppose the next step would be to regulate rented rooms and multi generational households?

Mark Michael is a member of the Planning Commission and should have identified himself as such, above.
To read his rambling comments and endless questions, you would think he is really undecided, but you would be wrong.
He us a business attorney and votes for increased development all the time. Without fail.

Nothing against granny units, but you can't force the owners to rent the units below market or to people seeking long term housing in the area. I don't think this would have a large impact on the affordable housing crisis.

If I could get help to afford an addition at this moment, so that we could use it for a teen room for a few years, I would be more than happy to rent out at BMR rates to a schoolteacher for a long time. We are walking distance to numerous schools.

The trouble is that they would have to slightly lower the sq ft lot size for us to even be allowed. Maybe they could do that only for people willing to go BMR for awhile. The time period should expire just like it does for all BMR units, and have a provision of repayment or continued contract if the house sells.

I believe the Car problem needs to be solved first. That is very real.

Next, The unit should be for a Open Studio (1 Room+bath) for a single/couple only if it is separated from the main house by more than a Bathroom 'Privacy' type locked door.
Granny (R1) Units should be prohibited from listing on any short term rental site (the fine to exceed any gain expected). IMHO Granny units should be for 'Family', Aunts, cousins....

Thank you, Asher W, for the cost info you provided. I hope your request results in some useful information that you will share.

I recall the CC mtg at which council heard from various people wanting housing that would allow them to walk or bike to work. A few sounded willing to take the train. One even said something quasi-threatening along the lines of "we are your future and you'd better make this happen". Since when is that how good fortune comes about? I'd kind of like to live in Atherton but I had NO IDEA that all I had to do was go to City Council and place my order. Or suggest that they revamp their community to make room for me and others like me. Housing is a problem but the systematic destruction of a community is not a good way to solve it. If the erosion of this city continues, those wanting to live here will not have to wait long b/c the exodus of current homeowners will create their opportunity. Surely Council is not deliberately trying to accomplish this - or is it?

The neighborhoods need to step up and say a loud no to this scheme.

Expansion of granny units will only burden city streets, parking, and the schools.
City government is too lazy to enforce its own laws (gas powered leaf blowers anyone?). Thus regardless of the restrictions you put on granny units, there will be little or no enforcement of the rules. Faster than you can wink an eye, granny makes way for the loveable college student, to the loveable college roommates, to the loveable school teachers and then to the loveable tourists on AirBnB with fair market rent. Who bears the costs? Street parking, neighborhood safety and our schools that are already struggling to keep up with the population. (who hasn't heard about the loveable retired homeowner who takes in students from overseas as their lawful temporary guardian so they can go to PA schools for a few cash bucks?)

But if it passes, I look forward to creating my multi-unit grannys for my retirement while I sip Mai-Tais in Hawaii.

Before I moved to Palo Alto i actually much preferred to live in Woodside (still do), but realized that I couldn't afford to, so I settled on Palo Alto. How silly of me! I should have created an organization and named it perhaps WFW (woodside Forward), and kept appearing before the Woodside town council every few weeks to lobby for affordable housing. If I had only promised them I wouldn't own a car and use only public transportation, they would have allowed the construction of several high rise buildings and granny units I would have been able to afford.

mauricio, I thought your recent serious, one-paragraph appraisal of the housing situation posted yesterday afternoon on a blog here was eloquent. Unfortunately the blogger deleted it. (I'd saved a copy.) Perhaps you could re-post it here?

The feeling here seems to be that you're somehow asking the community for a favor, or putting them out by allowing granny units. Granny units have the exact same impact as renting out a spare bedroom, having an adult child move back into your house... even having guests over for an extended stay. Are these things you feel should require special permission from the city council or neighbors? Or is this somehow "different" because you yourself may end up in this position?

@Robert:

You are right that "Granny units have the exact same impact as renting out a spare bedroom, having an adult child move back into your house" for those homeowners who do not intend to cram more and more tenants into their houses/cottages.

The problem is that Palo Alto has no limit on how many you can rent to in a house never designed to be a big boarding house. If someone rents out a bedroom or two or three, I have no problem with that. It's when a neighbor keeps adding and adding on more tenants with many, many cars. Code enforcement says that's ok although motels/boarding houses have to meet many fire, safety, and health codes, and provide parking.

How this is safe is beyond me. And a big boarding business with many cars does impact the neighborhood!

@pares

Seeing as the city and residents have prohibited the construction of "big boarding houses" with proper parking and so on, I'm not quite sure what sort of other outcome would be expected...

[email protected] community - adding a granny unit is not the same as renting out a room; it's changing the zoning so that more square footage of living space can be built on a property, and then renting out that square footage.

The Palo Alto Forward people mantra use to be "higher density near mass transit"; but based on the quotes in the article, the Palo Alto Forward mantra is "higher density anywhere, including neighbors zoned for R-1, single family zoning", fundamentally changing the character of many of the neighborhoods.

@suburb

I was unaware that square footage contributed to traffic and put pressure on schools, which most of the complaints on this thread seem to be about, silly me.

What would be the "cause celebre" capable of stirring residentialist passions across the city in 2016 in the way that PAHC's affordable housing project on Maybell did three years ago? A chastened, rebalanced city council whose members have all assumed the mantle of some form or other of residentialist isn't likely to offer that soft a target again.

PAF seems to be playing a significant role in framing issues of current city development in a manner reminiscent of PASZ and its predecessors' role during the last election cycle. It'll be interesting to see how the politics play out this time. Last cycle, residentialists gained a majority, but not a supermajority. They would seem well-positioned to get that super majority this fall, unless their narrative that all density increases, housing and office alike, must be resisted loses its appeal in the face of PAF's counter-narrative.

[email protected] community,

Yes, more square footage built specifically to be able to house more people causes more traffic, and more enrollment at schools. And even if the additional occupants use Uber/Lyft/etc or ZIpcar, it's still more traffic.

@suburb

...so now you're saying that in order to be housed people require a certain amount of square footage? Your original complaint, which is still very accurate, was that people were packing existing houses, the exact opposite.

"It'll be interesting to see how the politics play out this time."

It is my experience that the good guys approach elections with polite timidity--speak no evil of the opposition. The bad guys go for the win.

Old Palo Alto Resident: thank you for bringing up a critical issue: WATER. It is concerning that Palo Alto hasn't yet completed the required update to the Urban Water Management Plan. That document, and supply, are what govern water management. Given that the governing document is out of date it is hard to fathom how proposed developments can be approved. Why not require that all new developments meet a Zero Water Footprint - meaning they must offset whatever water they propose to use - prior to gaining approval?

Love this, I should be able build whatever the heck I want on my property.

... I'll move up-wind and build a hog farm.

Makes me laugh that the uber-liberal Palo Altans want everything to stay the same, conserving the past, nothing should change. Whoa, does that mean that they are closet 'Conservatives'?

... you mean "Conservationists".

It seems to me that henever anyone says "everyone knows"... that is a signal that the argument is divisive and not based on data but on argument, i.e. personal advocacy.

I am a landowner, have rented at times, would like to have an ADU for my own purposes and not to "rent out at exorbitant prices) (but don't), have been in Palo Alto for decades. The argument over ADU's is a simple "low fruit" solution to expanding some housing for those who need it in Palo Alto. Adding ADU's will not add a parking dilemma as most of the cars in Palo Alto are here either because there are multiple people in a family (such as kids who don't necessarily need cars--this is a phenomenon of the last 30 years I suggest) or because of workers who bring in cars because they can't afford to live here. What I see is fear (not logic) in those who oppose a loosening of the requirements. Fear is understandable but not a reason to block others from doing what they need or wish to do on their own property.

Not addressing the housing issue means ignoring the existence of illegal rental units which are everywhere and increase in number. .Adding ADU's should be a non-issue: Low hanging fruit. Not a threat. But in Palo Alto, it is seen as a threat. And it becomes a platform to attack well meaning council members. Look elsewhere for real issues and don't be afraid to slightly increase legal rental units in Palo Alto

Thank you Mark Michael and Asher Waldfogel for your posts. I hope the studies take into account all aspects that you point out.
Writing a Colleague's memo is the easy part, and based on much idealism. In depth comprehensive studies is the tough job.