I read once the following: Happiness is living in a home small enough, so you live in each area.

We (my husband, our Katie Woof, and I) live in a little hobbit house of 1325 square feet, and we love living in each space.

Is someone actually proposing legal second units without water or sewer connections? What next- legalize providing electricity with an extension cord? They aren't required to have wired smoke detectors (now required of all new construction and major remodeling)? This is legalizing living in a shed.

I am all for loosening some of the requirements for accessory dwellings - but let sanity prevail. We should not enable people to provide substandard dwellings at premium prices. That is what we all condemned farmers for doing with migrant labor. Small is one thing. I live in a house that is only 885 sq. ft. No problem. I have water sewer electrical and gas, not to mention two parking places.

AD's should meet minimum building standards and setbacks with access to a driveway and at least two parking places. If you don't require parking, then there must be a law forbidding the residents from having a car - and what is the possibility of that? The AD ordinance should not worsen Palo Alto's parking deficit.

This ordinance is beginning to look like an underhanded attempt to turn all of Palo Alto's R1 zoning to R2.

Oops - I misread the article. They aren't proposing eliminating water and sewer connections - just eliminating the fees,

Let's be real. Many homeowners will be building these AD's to take advantage of the rental market and make money. I support this. However, there is no reason to subsidize income-generating additions by eliminating connection or permit fees, which are minor compared to the cost of construction. One could indeed argue that they should have to pay school impact fees.

Even small houses attract single parents with children who prioritize good schools. I first moved to Palo Alto with my two children. I lived my first four years in a tiny 800 sq. ft. house behind a house so they could attend Paly. I am surely not the only person who will make that decision.

Ginnis is specifically talking about someone taking an existing bedroom in a home, and simply allowing people to secure it from entry from the rest of the house, putting in a wet bar, and then creating an external entrance.

So you're using a space that has already been permitted for water and sewage, etc. It already has all the connections it needs. Schools have already been accounted for. If a house has 4 bedrooms, the city has already taken all the fees necessary to cover use of all 4 bedrooms - they've already assumed at least 3 kids. Your parking requirements shouldn't change as the number of people who can live there hasn't changed. So walling off a bedroom and creating more privacy shouldn't trigger more fees. You can already have anyone you want live there - either for free, or getting roommates. So why are we making it so hard and so expensive just to give people some extra privacy?

And by the way, the fees aren't cheap. Ginnis said it would cost you make 10-25k to convert an existing bedroom into a junior accessory dwelling unit, but that in many places paying connection fees (for services you already have!) and permitting fees can cost nearly 35k.

Respectfully "Let's be real":. Changing a unit from a spot that one family member uses (the remaining resident after other members of the family have left the house, say, either due to divorce, or death or going to college, or... the list goes on) to a unit for a vetted renter or the homeowner, changes little or nothing. Why all the angst over this small request for a change? This is an easy way to say "yes" as opposed to "no" for those of us homeowners who simply want to change the configuration of our houses in a legal, pleasing way. Just say yes and let's move on to more pressing issues--that's the "real" I see.

As for the person who posted about moving into an 800 sq. foot house many years ago: for women with children this has become impossible in this city. That was something families could do 20 years ago. Let's be real. We are looking for housing solutions that address the market today that are realistic and not too much of a burden on the city, i.e. that don't require more construction of new housing. More housing, thoughtfully built. should also be considered eventually but allowing the legal construction of JDU's is an immediate solution that should be supported NOW. JDU's: Reconfiguring space in houses (now increasingly empty due to residents (college kids, spouses, aged folks moving out of Palo Alto homes) to allow for a rental unit to a friendly renter whom the owner chooses. No big change. Legal support to assist residents. What's unreal about that?

I think that CC should pair approval of ADUs with legislation limiting short-term rentals (i.e. Airbnb)to have a real impact on rental housing stock in Palo Alto

Junior units: Actually, it is not impossible. There is still some limited housing affordable for single parents. I know this because I own two small houses on one lot. I now live in one, at 885 sq. ft.,and rent the second small house. My tenant is a single parent with a child working a middle class jobwho can afford the rent. If my block were torn down, and new ultra-dense housing built to replace our single story multifamily homes, he would not be able to afford it as that housing would cost double or triple the rent I charge.

Yes, there is not enough housing at my price point. The only way to have more is for the city to subsidize it, possibly by buying land and then renting it to developers of moderate priced housing, the way Stanford does. There will never be enough. But reducing what we've got (which has happened over and over in the past 25 years), in order to add more luxury housing, helps no one but the 1%.

By the way, I think connection fees would apply to people building a separate property on their lot, not someone renting out a bedroom in their existing house with no additional bathrooms or kitchens. Most descriptions of AD's seem to be referring to a second house, not turning your own house into a dormitory.

Nor do I think Palo Alto should do anything to encourage more renters without making sure there is additional parking to meet their needs. Why should the residents of Palo Alto provide free parking for landlords at the expense of our neighborhoods? If you want to rent out part of your house, you should be responsible for providing parking. If you want to rent to someone without a car, fine. But what kind of law could we create that would allow for an AD that could be rented only to someone without a car? How could that be enforced?

I think something like half of all households living in PA are either one person or two people and yet many of them inhabit 3 or 4 bedroom homes and have a two car garage. By 2030 the over 55 population in PA will double and then the vast majority of households in PA will be one or two people for sure. They also likely have two driveway spaces. If you divide off a bedroom in that situation, I just don't see why you have to go gravel over half your backyard - you are one or two people who effectively already have 4 parking spaces. I don't see why we should create insanely expensive and also very environmentally destructive policies just because someone puts a lock on a bedroom.

That couple can ALREADY rent out that room to someone who has a car and not put in any parking spaces. So why does putting a lock on a door now require more concrete? I just don't understand.

There's also no guarantee that building out more parking spaces means they'll actually be used. Most everyone in PA has a garage and almost no one actually uses it to park their cars. I see people using it to store junk, as a work space, as a studio, as anything but a place to put a car. Most people already park in their driveways or on the street despite the fact that the city forced them to build garages.

So again I ask, why do people who put a lock on a bedroom get punished but the people who don't actually use their garages (the vast majority of PA) get off scott free?

If you were really worried about parking, you'd be advocating that people be fined for not parking in their garages. Instead you're trying to punish junior units and ADUs of which PA builds like 4 per year. Meanwhile PA has 14,000 single family homes most of which don't use their garages.

The article above is sweet and totally sensible but is still not addressing long term, economically and environmentally sustainable living for hard working families. We live among the Giants: Apple shares and the googlezillionaires. Why not offset the high cost and they subsidize housing? We do this with Big Tabacco, highways, and roads. And it's nice to know that the more lucky and privileged homeowners may soon be able to rent out their garages, sheds, and a third and fourth bedroom to single people or older adult couples with no children or pets. Did I see yards being rented out in the above article? Maybe these are for those even less fortunate and abundant homeless individuals? But what about finacially struggling families trying to find their way through the out-of-this-world affluence - what I refer to as the Bay Area astroeconomy (astronomically high economy)

My family of four - myself, two young boys of 10 and 11 and my husband are renting a 650 sq.ft., 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment with a small side patio area which is not usable. The tremendously loud and constant automobile traffic noise coming from Alma street (More "Your Speed" electronic signs are needed along Palo Alto's Alma) reduces our livable space even more so. Note: The sound of the train is actually a pleasantry compared to the tremendously high volume noise of the car traffic. We make do however and live simply. However, my boys now are the size of Hobbits and are very active, energetic. They will soon dwarf me and our space.

Indeed, our minimal footage is not ideal. We utilize every square inch of the place we call it home. If I am not sounding grateful I am made so by an incredible school district, little worry about outdoor safety, a bikeable and walkable community. Since arriving almost two years ago we now use less gasoline and the boys are very near their paternal grandparents where they can run freely with an abundance of fresh air.

But again It's a constant readjustment of priorities. What we need vs. what we want lifestyle. On the other hand, I've traded rent up for stronger job opportunities, to live near aging grandparents, the use of great city parks, and a forward thinking community.

This said. I am a strong proponent of dense, multi-use Cal-Train corridor infill in the form affordable housing apartments for those that work here and support the local economy in Palo Alto. High-speed rail is good too but not commute 2/3 hours to work and back. It is Palo Alto that needs to take responsibility for the economy that Silicon Valley has created over the last 35 years. When my son's stress about the size of our home, I remind all of us why we are here. Every day we take advantage of the wonderful thriving school environment. But as a family, we also make sacrifices. I will never be able to buy in PA or the Bay Area for that matter. It however also, means I can walk to work, volunteer more in the classroom at my kids school near our rental. I am happy to spend more quality time with my family instead of behind the wheel of a car dumping vast quantities of time and energy on a freeway driving to a job to afford to buy more things.

The sad fact is. There will always remain a schism between California renters and home-owners. On the tip of everyone's tongue when I share that we live here. Do you own or rent. It's almost a precursor to personal name introductions.

"I am a strong proponent of dense, multi-use Cal-Train corridor infill in the form affordable housing apartments for those that work here and support the local economy in Palo Alto."

Has anyone else noticed that those oft-proposed "affordable housing apartment" ghettos down by the tracks are always to be inhabited by somebody else, and are invariably located out of sight from the proposer's own low-density neighborhood?

Just curious.